◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

Paris

The psychological effects of the militant Islamist terrorist attack in Paris continues to reverberate around the world. Here at home, proponents of civilian disarmament have been strangely silent on French gun laws failure to prevent the carnage. Judging from the pro-gun control, anti-NRA comments at the most recent Democratic debate, their silence doesn’t indicate even the slightest shift in their stance . . .

that any law that degrades Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms increases public safety. The killing in Paris highlights the fact that the antis’ “philosophy” leads here, to a horrific killing zone. Anyone with common sense gets it. In fact, you can expect another gun sales surge this month, both here and abroad.

Saying that, European sales were already spiking – to the point of eliminating supply – before the terrorist attack, as Syrian refugees flood the Eurozone. Although the French carnage should make America rethink its decision to fast track its “share” of Middle Eastern refugees, to make sure the influx doesn’t contain Islamic extremists, I’m not hearing anything on that subject. I guess that makes me racist.

If not that, cynical. True story. Which is why I’m not surprised that firearms freedom fence straddlers need to see people who look like them gunned down en masse – as opposed to, say, the Beirut bomb that killed more than 40 people just hours before the Paris attacks – before they understand the need for armed personal defense. But there it is. Human nature. Which never changes. As illustrated above.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

  1. “Here at home, proponents of civilian disarmament have been strangely silent on French gun laws failure to prevent the carnage.”

    I noticed that too.

        • “Transferred to the UAE” is not the same as being released. Think instead “rendition.” They are more than likely being housed in a secure facility there.

        • like in Yemen?, send the pukes to prison, but have the whole rest of the country be released on the recognizance of a patch of terrorist POS’. Like the terrorist death-bed cancer victim with 3 months to live get’s returned to his “homeland” without so much as a wet flip-flop beating, and now he’s miraculously cured and will live longer than you. Like Fidel Castro and his turd sandwich brother, possessor of a stuffed and mounted U.S. G.I., on the outs health-wise on bed-rest til the next millenia, and with a freshened economy to rape? Like Qaddafi, Arafat, not gonna make it to the new year and too much not worth the trouble? Like the last five that were released that are now. . .. where?

          1977 Russia had 28 of its people taken in the ‘student riots’. Ours sat in the desert for 444 days. Russia got their peeps back in 28 (the POS Iranian a-holes were a little disorganized and chain of custody was ~ weak) with clean clothes, shaved, and well fed, because they were on the side of Russia (the military supply side) and Russia was believed to be somewhat heavy handed in obtaining its national interests.

    • Nothing strange about it. This is the result the anti’s expect when they take our guns. But what real harm was done? The victims are expendable. Centrists control is priceless.

      • same at my lgs. glad more guns are being sold, but not sure how long guns are going to be useful in crowded venues. the threat seems to be relatively short range. is it practical to think it possible to carry and deploy a long gun everywhere? the paris killings were not done by squads of killers engaging in open ground assault of residential neighborhoods, or street-to-street fighting in an urban environment. tried, but cannot get a stable picture of hundreds of movie or concert goers with long guns slung over shoulders, or stood-up on their stocks, between knees. and walking into a mall (where legal) with slung rifles will empty the place quickly. still…..

        gun sales of whatever type are good, and shove it in the face of grabbers.

  3. With everything on the anti-gunners wish list already being law in France and seeing how that select fire weapons have never been legal, yes the gun control argument should be over among all thinking people. So……..no it’ll be politics as usual.

    • I imagine injured victims trying to escape, or the victims who did not die immediately may have crawled around. The video I saw of the people running out of the concert hall showed some crawling on the floor, some dragging victims..That would probably explain the drag marks. Also first responders may move some to get at survivors, or check victims for life and injuries, and equipment moving and dragging..so many things could be the cause and possibly the terrorist may have for some reason. Hard to say until witnesses start to share what they saw and the reports come out.

    • It looks more like someone ran a mop through there to soak up the blood pools so they would not be tracked everywhere. I suspect there was a lot of blood.

    • This passage from this article:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11997120/Brother-dived-to-the-ground-to-avoid-gunfire-in-a-resaurant-and-got-up-to-discover-his-family-were-dead-around-him.html

      speaks to the tremendous blood:

      The gunmen who stormed the Eagles of Death Metal concert “tortured and stabbed” some of their victims, according to a Scottish survivor of the attack.

      Mariesha Payne and Christine Tudhope hid in a cellar for three hours to escape the killers at the Bataclan theatre.

      Mrs Payne, 33, said she was afraid she would never see her two children again.

      “I cannot believe we got out alive,” she said. “While we were hiding there was a pause in the shots for about 20 minutes but there was a lot of screaming – a witness we spoke to later said people were being tortured and stabbed at that point,” she said.

  6. Many will just continue to plug their ears or keep their heads in the sand. They deny the truth because it contradicts their agenda.

      • Well French can be stubborn, yes. But regarding Gun rights, it’s probably not accurate. First of all, current French president has something like 10% of popularity amongst French people (he was under 10% few months ago… ok, he might be a little higher now because of that even, but still less than 15% anyway).

        So everything that happened lately in France is definitely NOT with the support of French people. A LOT of French were against all migrants/invaders, against the French Patriot-Act, and against Gun-Control.

        France is a country with a long history of passion for guns. Unfortunately, there was no Second Amendment there… which means, politics could pass any gun control laws they wanted, and remove guns from the hands of a lot of gun owners and passionate, and from the hands of people that wanted to defend themselves with guns. There’s few association to regain the right to carry, to use guns for home defense and such, but now French already lost their rights and it’s not gonna change anytime soon.

        The big difference with the US… is that there’s absolutely no real “Pro-Gun” political party. Most of the politics in France (from left to right) are anti-guns because they only want one thing: Population soumission.

        Marinne Le Pen (Nationalist Party) is a gun owner (.45ACP if I’m correct) and could perhaps be in favor of gun rights. And she might now have a lot of chance to win some of the December election (local elections) which might lead to the 2017 President elections.

        But still, with media mainly controlled by anti-guns… after decades and decades to demonize guns, a lot of French are brainwashed… until they will be confronted to reality.

        However, with everything that already happened this year (between Charlie Hebdo, the Train, now Paris Attacks, etc…), gun clubs see a very very large increase in numbers of people and gun owners (Note: the only way to legally own a gun in France is either be a licensed hunter or be part of a sport shooting gun club).

        Even before the last attacks, gun sales were already high. So, somewhere, it shows like people are changing their mind and are not that stubborn. However, there’s a lot of “education” to do about guns (mainly after so many decades of anti-gun brainwash).

        However, regardless what people could think about guns, it won’t be possible to stop politics to pass more and more restrictive gun laws. It’s not being stubborn, it’s being powerless because there’s no constitution to protect the people.

        That’s the reason why Americans should always remember to protect the US Constitution… Otherwise, a lot of Americans might also be disarmed.

        • For decades,, there has been an unspoken agreement between France and Muslim terrorists. If they don’t attack France, France will not go after them. That agreement has been broken. What happens next will depend on the mood of the French people. If they are sufficiently angry, the government will have no choice but to take drastic action. Otherwise, it will be replaced at the next election by one that will.

        • Whatever the French president does, I don’t see how on earth he could get a second term. He doesn’t even get the majority vote from his own party. Only 10% of the population have confident in him. I would be more than shocked that he would win the next election… It would be like betting than Obama would do a third term.

        • Thank you and very well stated comment. Living in France we have a better deal than many of the other European countries. I’m not saying that is great of course.
          Please remember that it is very difficult unless you have a written law that allows you to keep your weapons.
          I support the NRA and wish oh wish that we could have the right to carry to defend etc.
          Please don’t be critical but try to support your overseas fellow shooters.

  8. This should be the new gun free zone sign cos need to post in their windows instead of the beretta 92fs with the red circle and line across it.

    • Better yet, make photo copies and post them where ever you see the gun ban sign and in every gun free zone. Like UT wants to be.

    • Stop believing what you can read here and there… There’s no “no-go” zones in France. This is absurd and already proven to be completely false statement. And if you claim otherwise, please, give me the address and I will check it myself. I’m French and I know all of those supposed “no-go” zones that are not even close to a “no-go” zone.

      And from the early police report, most of terrorists were from France and not fresh from the boat.

      Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot more terrorists that came in the migrants (/invaders) waves we saw last months.

      • At least one of the attackers was from Syria and was in possession of a passport that claimed he was registered in Greece as a refugee.

        • Reliable sources?

          Because so far, from what I read, most of them were French, some were living in Belgium and did apparently went in Syria (probably for ISIS training/brainwashing). But so far, I haven’t read or heard anything about a guy coming _from_ Syria (nor even being refugee/invader).

          Again, having said that, it doesn’t mean there’s no terrorist from all thousands and thousands of perfectly healthy young males that came with all migrants/invaders (and yes, I call them “invaders” because that’s the correct (and not politically-correct) word).

  11. I wouldn’t even say that one or several armed citizens would have been able to impact such an attack. Attempts to test this after Hebdo seem to bear this out. Just too big a firepower disparity.

    But.

    The point is that mass murderers historically don’t attack where the likelihood of immediate armed resistance exists. They’ll just pick a known soft target in preference.

    • A armed citizen might not have been able to kill the terrorists, but at least it might have made them seek cover allowing a few innocents to escape and not end up dead.

    • “I wouldn’t even say that one or several armed citizens would have been able to impact such an attack.”

      Maybe not, but if it came to it, I’d at least like the opportunity to die returning fire.

    • Not to be “that guy” but…

      SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMENT, SHOT PLACEMENT.

      I know it sounds awfully easy to say that from behind a keyboard, but its true. If you train, you will be more effective. These guys aren’t crack black-ops operators, they’re just loser punks who are fanatically committed to violence.

      I doubt very seriously you would survive the encounter VS 3 guys with AKs, but you if you have trained for the event, and act with enormous violence, you WILL make a difference.

      I think that’s what they call “a good death”. Be ready to meet yours well if you have to. Never assume you can’t make a difference.

      • In a scenario with full liberty to exercise your natural right to self defense by carrying a pistol either open or concealed, why would you presume that you would be the lone person in the venue doing so?

        The reason terrorists and mass murderers avoid such places is exactly because they cannot predict the number or locations of potential opponents.

        In a perfect world (where such atrocities would not occur at all) the presentation of the threat would be immediately met with the overwhelming presence of return fire from the intended victims or their protectors. These terrorists want to be martyrs for Islam, but they do not want to die without a body count which is why they use bombs and/or attack soft targets.

    • I would have to agree, simply having a gun there would not fend off the attack, even if there were more people carrying than attackers. This is something my wife and I have talked about at length. There are just some situations where you are screwed. Where this can be beneficial is if you could somehow get into a small room or hallway, such as a bathroom, and guard the door. Even then it’s going to be nerve-wracking if anyone comes in seeking shelter. Exposed in the middle of a concert hall there isn’t anything to do.

      Also, I wouldn’t run toward the sound of gunshots either, so I think the idea of concealed carriers rushing to the rescue (ala Trump) is misguided as well. This isn’t a single-shooter mass shooting type situation, this is a full on assault by an organized force with military hardware. While hindsight is 20/20 and we can all analyze the situation forever in the situation I would feel less compelled to act beyond my own space at the time. Mass shooters may consider a target that grants the least risk but terrorists may not. They both want the most effect but there are other considerations for terrorists. In Paris they targeted cultural centers, not necessarily the the easiest targets.

    • Has anyone watched a video of Hickok45 ringing the gong at the far end of his range with a subcompact pistol? Hitting an terrorist from across a room while he is fixated on his victims isn’t any more difficult. It just takes practice. Lots of it.

      • Have not watched the video, but I suspect he was not surrounded by hysterical, screaming, jostling or wounded people, nor was he suffering from an adrenaline dump.

        Best case in such situations is that all good guys who are able will have removed themselves from the vicinity of the bad guy shooters, leaving you with a safe target area. Pumping rounds to the best of your ability into that area will at the very least cause them to seek cover or perhaps focus their efforts on the source of the return fire and allow more people to clear through the exits. It would certainly suck to be taking all of the fire from a full-auto AK, but I think it would also suck to escape the building with rounds left in my pistol while people were still being killed inside. That’s just me – YMMV.

        • Not necessarily. Tom Givens (Rangemaster, Memphis) teaches his students to do something that criminal assailants don’t expect. That puts them inside the bad guy’s OODA loop so that they are driving the action and he is trying to catch up. An example of that was an armed robbery of a convenience store. The robber was unprepared for anything other than submission and compliance because, when the clerk, a Rangemaster graduate, took a quick side step out of his line of fire, he simply stood there dumbfounded. That gave the clerk time to pull her gun from beneath the counter and shoot him down.

        • Not to mention, he’s shot that same gong from that same firing position thousands of times, in good light, with no distractions. Not even remotely the same as dropping rounds on a (likely) moving attacker in an unfamiliar place with a stampeding crowd around you.

      • Didn’t that cop in Austin shoot a suspect at 104 yards with a handgun while holding some horses? So yeah, it’s possible.

        • If I remember correctly, a few months ago, a senior citizen in Texas used his Colt Python to put down a guy lying in wait to ambush a police officer. The range was 75 yards. I’m sure the last thing the would be cop killer expected was to be shot without warning by a neighbor. I believe there was a post about the incident on TTAG.

          In 1994, a disgruntled former airman used an AK47 clone to shoot up the hospital at Fairchild Air Force Base. He was killed by a security police officer who hit him in the shoulder and head with two of four shots from a Beretta 92 at a distance of 70 yards.

    • “Attempts to test this after Hebdo seem to bear this out. Just too big a firepower disparity. “

      Wrong.

      The tests after the Hebdo attack showed that an armed presence does indeed disrupt the attack.

      One armed defender = one dead terrorist almost every time.

      Now, imagine if, in a larger crowd, there were more than one armed defender.

      Also, there was one run of the simulation where the armed defender did not use her weapon to engage the attacker, but rather she used it to cover the retreat/escape of innocents. If that’s not an intriguing positive possibility in your mind, I don’t know what to tell you.

      The simulations did not show that one armed defender could outright defeat attackers with superior weapons, so a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon you are repeating.

      But, that’s offering an answer to the wrong question. The question is not “Who will win going “force on force” with the attacker in a shoot-out,” the question is “Can an armed defender change the equation, get inside their OODA Loop, just enough to alter the outcome to a more favorable result?”

      And, the simulation results showed the answer to that is a resounding “yes,” even if it did result in the “death” of the armed defender.

      Taking out one attacker changed the equation. Even offering covering fire changes the equation. Even returning fire when they expected (or hoped for) none, changes the equation.

      Sometimes, that’s the best you can do. “Winning” is just stacking up enough of those changes.

      First rule…have a gun. Even if one accepts the premise that you can’t alter the outcome of an attack like this as a point of debate, you sure as crap can’t alter the outcome unarmed. There’s no debate about that.

      So, which would you rather? Be helpless with zero odds, or armed with long odds?

      • I agree. The point being that 1: this won’t stop dedicated terrorists, though it works a treat on spree killers. You’ll have just put a point on the board early and more importantly 2: They don’t attack places where people might be able to fight back.

        • “The point being that 1: this won’t stop dedicated terrorists, though it works a treat on spree killers. “

          I think you are still missing the fundamental take-home from the Hedbo sims. It won’t “stop” dedicated terrorists, but that’s the wrong goalpost.

          The goal in having even as few as one person able to fight back and doing so is not to “stop” the terrorists. It’s the reduce their impact. To disrupt their total control of the situation.

          Taking out even one terrorist changes the balance when LE and other good guy assets show up. But, it’s much deeper than that, too.

          Terrorism is as much a psychological warfare tactic as it is about actually causing casualties. The one armed defender taking out one terrorist is just as psychological against them. Take one out, and the others are thinking as much about THAT as about returning fire when the cops get there. And, they WILL be wondering who else in the crowd could open fire also.

          They walk in expecting to annihilate people begging for mercy. ANY change of that is putting multiple points on the scoreboard, not just one point early.

          I submit that you should consider changing the way you think about this type of confrontation. Defining the goal as being one armed defender “beating” the bad guys and standing in glorious victory after the fact is the wrong goal.

          Dropping their body count by even one “innocent” is the goal. Showing them they really do NOT have “control” of such attacks is the ultimate goal in a tactical sense.

          Showing them if they want a war, they will get one…that’s the goal in the more strategic sense. And, it will be a war they could not have imagined. Not everyone will go meekly to their deaths. Some humans have real teeth. THAT’S the lesson fighting back teaches them.

          And, beyond that, showing them they will ultimately be completely and utterly destroyed is the goal. Show them that they will not win. They can try to attack men, women and children just living their day-to-day lives, and even at that, picking “soft targets,” they will fail. Their will to fight has to be broken.

      • Agreed. I wish people on both sides of the gun debate would realize that bad guys, whether street criminals or terrorists, are far less than superhuman. Go read Grant Cunningham’s home page. It starts out with the statement, “I don’t believe you need to become a Navy SEAL just to keep yourself safe!” That ordinary people with little firearms training are able to drive off or subdue muggers, armed robbers and home invaders is proof that he is right.

        Although I expect that terrorist organizations have people trained up to the level of elite special forces, they have too much invested in them to waste them on suicide missions against soft targets. That means the Paris attackers were expendable cannon fodder. The last thing they would be prepared to handle is return fire from supposedly helpless victims.

      • Yes, no greater disparity than being unarmed. We’re not talking about Hollywood endings where everyone gets out unscathed and the bad guy is dead. We’re talking about making a bad situation less bad. 100+ dead is nothing less than a massacre.

  12. “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

    Author R. Heinlein speaking through the fictional Lieutenant Colonel Jean Dubois, of the Mobile Infantry of the Terran Federation

    • The late Jeff Cooper made two statements I have always liked. He was once asked if violence didn’t prompt more violence in return. Cooper replied that he hoped it did. If someone offered him violence he planned to respond with more violence than his assailant could handle. Cooper also said that you are ready to defend yourself when the person who attacks you is in more danger from you than you are from him.

    • Robert A. Heinlein. He’s the man. Other than the Christ, he has had one of the greatest influences in my development my philosophy of what it means to be personally responsible for ones life.

  13. Be careful with the bloody shirt waving lest WE be labled hypocrites for accusing the hoplaphobes of doing the same.

      • And everyone else is sick of whiners.

        There’s a slight difference to the post here. This could be considered a PSA.

        Anti-gunners ‘waiving a bloody shirt” are doing it for their own self gratification in pleasing satan, communism, liberal (D)bags, leftist blue state dictatorial F-heads, THAT ARE THE REASON THAT THERE’S SCENES TO TAKE THESE PICTURES OF.

      • NO.

        This needs to be seen. People need the visual shock to make sure this never happens again.

        This is no different than US troops forcing German citizens to walk through Nazi death camps. Sometimes visual shock is the only way to get the message across.

        • I am with Mark Steyn on this, he stated that he is sick of the flowers and the candle lit ceremonies. Time for action. People need to see this sickening pictures to realize what these crazy SOBS are capable of. http://www.steynonline.com/

  14. I’m surprised I haven’t heard a release from Rebecca Peters (currently ensconced in the UN on a NGO junket), Simon Chapman, Lea Gorman, or David Shoebridge (all rabid anti gunners) about how tougher Australian gun laws would have prevented the incidents in Paris.

    Don’t try to apply logic and ask how. Their only reply will be “It must help”.

  15. this is what the Democratic Party and anti American Anti-gunners want along with all the so called 65,000 Muslim Immigrants they want to make a better world with you dead and the rest slaves.

  16. You don’t have to hit a terrorist between the eyes for there to be a benefit from armed resistance.

    I guarantee, that if these assailants saw flashes of light pointed at them from many pistols sending lead their way, it would have slowed them down. It’s human nature, no matter their training or mental state.

    Instead, the whole incident was shooting fish in a barrel.

  17. I was unfriended by 3 lib Facebook friends today for posting this picture. I was told:
    It was “unchristian” of me. And “who do think you are? John McClain?”
    That I had been “increasingly political in my posts lately.” (From a person to whom I’ve only contradicted twice about her weekly leftist posts.) and,
    “That I am no longer a man thoughtful, nuanced, statements.”

    • So, in other words, they resorted to childish nonsense instead of thoughtful, nuanced statements.

      You must be doing something right.

    • “I was unfriended by 3 lib Facebook friends today for posting this picture. ”

      “The Truth will set you free. But first, it’s *painful*!”

      Bernadette Peters in ‘Scrooged’

      Shortly followed by Bill Murry saying:

      “The bitch hit me with a toaster!”

      • EDIT-

        Wrong quote. should read:

        “Sometimes the truth is painful. But it’s made your cheeks rosy, and your eyes as *bright* as stars!”

    • “No longer”? So you radically changed during the short time you two were “friends”?

      Isn’t that one of the warning signs of you becoming a terrorist? Or is it a serial killer? I forget.

      Looks like she made a good decision for once. ?

  18. Obviously, the gun laws in France must be tightened so nobody can have a gun. Close whatever loophole lets illegal guns enter the country. More border security, more police, more money, more training, more surveillance, more patrolling, stop and frisk, random searches of high crime areas (except for Muslim neighborhoods because they are a peaceful people, and France and other Western nations are responsible for terror attacks because global warming.

  21. Sad-very sad. Yep-I’m already tired of the flowers and bleeding hearts. THIS and images of the Twin Towers need to be seen often. No French flags on my FB page. And there’s still lots of gun-free zones here…

  22. It will be unrealistically hard for people with concealed hand guns to stop a well coordinated slaughter by men armed with high power rifles. Hand guns are not long enough range to be very helpful. They are better than nothing, but its disingenuous to suggest that concealed carry could thwart such an attack.

    • It is a conceit we wear. It seems most POTG believe that in an active shooter, only one POTG will be present, armed, and returning fire….in daylight, Spring/Summer conditions.
      Have not seen discussions or articles dealing with multiple POTG attempting to respond to a single or multiple person threat in a crowd.

      Let’s imagine…dark auditorium, crashingly loud music, pyrotechnics accompanying the band, people screaming and jumping to the music. Bass beat thumping the walls, floor and interrupting heartbeats of the audience. Then……

      Loud pops/snaps/thuds…what is happening? Why are all these people suddenly running in all directions at once. Who is that in front of me? Why is that person over there holding a gun/bag/opening an overcoat and reaching inside? Who just ran in between me and that person who was just there a moment ago? Where did that person in the overcoat go? What, are those shots? From where? Toward where? Why is there so much smoke in here? Shooter !! Shooters !! Get yourself up off the floor !! Ooohhh, feels like something broke inside. Hand stomped-on by someone who shoved me down. What is happening? Standing up. What is going on? Shooters !! How many? Are they good guys or bad guys? Why are they shooting in my direciton? Oh, that is definitely a bad guy; draw, stance, aim…why don’t those people stay on the floor so I can get a clear picture…oh, there he goes. No, wait, wrong coat. Shot goes off next to my ear; then another and another, rapid fire. Where are the bullets going? How many people have guns? The noise is beyond horrible; can’t think. Smoke is in my nose, lungs and eyes; can’t see, can’t catch my breath. Where are the bad guys now? Who are all those people falling down? Did I shoot them? Did someone else shoot them? So much blood and crying. How did I get pointed in this direction? Ooofff. Off balance, stumbling; recover. Who is shooting? Which direction? Can’t get a clean shot at that guy over there who looks evil. Wow, didn’t mean to fire that one off. Who got hit? Right guy, wrong guy? Hands don’t work, knees won’t hold; falling. No strength in arms/legs. Sounds seem farther away? Where did everyone go? Can’t they see me? I need help. Ooohhh, hurts, hurts. Nothing moves. Can’t focus, can’t see…..

      Without a coordinated response plan, can anyone truly believe the good guy with the gun will be of any use at all? More likely, the only defense use of a gun would be if someone were directly in front of you (arms length?), pointing a gun at you. Every other scenario ends in more death of who knows who, and for what result?

      • Oh give it a break, your overwrought scene reads like it was written by a Bloomberg disciple. How did good people act in every bad instance in history? By just crying for the bad guys to leave? You underestimate the resourcefulness of good people while overestimating anything that can go wrong. Maybe you should stay away from the public domain if you are so certain of your hysterical reactions. For everyone else there is a virtue, it’s called courage, and you don’t need to be an operator of seal team 6 to use it. It may not be easy but good people can handle stress just as easily as any scumbag terrorist. They just might take a couple of the sickos with them. All I hear from you is wah wah wah.

        • I agree Joseph. We are the end result of hundreds of millions of years of people, with basic training, in making correct life and death decisions in the middle death, chaos and destruction.

          So Sam I Am, get a grip!

        • Uncoordinated shooting, from all and unexpected directions is not effective, efficient, or prone to being successful. Too many people believe that somehow, random chance will give us victory over evil, even though everyone is facing “decisions of life and death” for the first time, unsure who is friend or foe, inexperienced with sorting order from chaos, struggling to overcome a crowd of panicked people and still bring effective fire on and only on bad guy shooters, in the dark, in the smoke, in the noise. Singly, it just might work. In an uncoordinated group, not so much.

          I admit to being prejudiced, as I have “been there, done that” combat thing.

        • Then you are someone I would be glad not to be in a crowded mall or theater with. You have no idea of fields of fire, no concept of what non-combat experienced people do when faced with utter and complete chaos, will fire blindly into whatever moving body crosses your pate, have no regard for what happens if you miss your shot, and too many areas of inexperience to count. Why do you imagine combat troops spend so much time training and planning, and even then make mistakes, have failures, experience unintended collateral damage. Do you truly expect that if, say, 20 of the people in the concert hall had been armed there wouldn’t have been an equal or greater death toll, much of it due to armed citizens facing their first firefight? Virtue? Means nothing when the shooting starts. What counts is whether you can remain calm, assess, and hit the right targets consistently. People galloping to glory and honor get alot of good guys killed.

        • First, you don’t know anything about me. There are many of us that have kept our head in very stressful situations, so yea I trust the citizens to vote, drive, and operate a gun with reasonable proficiency, you don’t need your local swat to actually engage a bad guy. How long did it take for the police to stop the Paris murderers???
          2nd, would you rather be armed or not in that situation? The buck stops right there.

    • Again, this is the wrong goal post. You are setting up a mighty big straw man, there.

      The point of returning fire, of have the ‘ability’ to return fire, is not to magically have one armed citizen kill five terrorists armed with full auto AK’s.

      The point of returning fire, any fire at all is … RETURNING FIRE. It is “disruptive,” and it takes total operational control away from the terrorists.

      There are many ways this could be beneficial.

      ** You could hit one the terrorists and wound/kill him. That changes the good guy : bad guy ratio.

      ** You could provide sufficient diversion for at least some of innocents to escape.

      ** You could provide sufficient diversion for some innocents to fight back somehow, even without firearms.

      ** At the very least, you provide a psychological thorn in the minds of people expecting total operational control. You get inside their OODA Loop and wreak a little havoc. It may be temporary, but it is something.

      “Hand guns are not long enough range to be very helpful.”

      Be very wary of blanket statements. I’ve quite enjoyed shooting my 6″ revolver at 250 yards. I’d hunt big game with it out to 50 yd+

      Yes, I don’t carry it as a EDC firearm. But, I have shot my EDC 9mm at 100 yd. I can hit what I need to, especially if even a “miss” can be possibly ‘covering fire.’

      The problem is how you are defining “very helpful.” Don’t think you have to hit the bad guy with one between the eyes at to be “helpful.”

      Are you outgunned? Ab-so-freaking-lute-ly. No argument there. A sole handgun against one or more rifles, especially full auto rifles, means the handgunner is likely not going to leave alive.

      But, that is not the definition of “helpful” in my book.

      • Yes, see: 2013 Kenyan mall massacre. The private citizens and plainclothes police kept the terrorists contained, thus limiting their ability to murder more innocent people.

  23. When I heard one guy afterward report how calm the terrorists reloaded then fired away it made me ill. These people were the example of shooting fish in a rain-barrel. And this for a Country to allow is about as irresponsible to protect its People as can be.

  24. That picture makes me sick… It also hardens my resolve to not be one of the defenseless herd, patiently waiting for a bloody end.

  26. As long as there are criminals and their are gun manufacturers it does not matter what “gun control” laws are in place. Criminals get guns. Don’t you gun control advocates get it? Criminals don’t give a flying F&ck about laws. Do heroin dealers care heroin is illegal? They still get it and sell it, right? Can we make the “anti-heroin” laws as you would call them any harsher to keep heroin off the streets?

    The ignorance of liberals is deafening. You people really live in a fantasy world.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here