Trump: If The French People ‘Had Guns’....

[minnesotatv]

"Donald Trump commented on the Paris terror attacks by saying things would have ended
"very differently if the French people had guns and were allowed to carry."


http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... fferently/

[xd ED]

I think some Parisians may need a bit more 'fortification' than small arms.
Gathering with your cell phone around someone playing an upbeat version of the 'socialist's national anthem' doesn't really seem like rising to the occasion of an attack on the nation.

Then again, maybe it was a media-staged event; of which I suspect there have been many.

[Hmac]

I think some Parisians may need a bit more 'fortification' than small arms.
Gathering with your cell phone around someone playing an upbeat version of the 'socialist's national anthem' doesn't really seem like rising to the occasion of an attack on the nation.

Well, they did drop 20 bombs on Raqqah.

Pretty much a classic European cultural mentality led to the problem and is showing itself more clearly in the aftermath of this attack. Not that theres' anything wrong with it in an absolute sense, but the cultural mentality of your average Eurpean is to surrender yourself to the care of the state. The general tendency in the US is (or at least was) quite a bit more toward self-reliance.

[yuppiejr]

Better to have a pistol than throw beer bottles I suppose, but your odds of survival or making a difference as an average P2C holder with typical basic training are pretty low against multiple experienced assailants with the advantage of surprise firing from cover/elevated positions with body armor, fully automatic weapons and explosive belts. The minute you draw a weapon, you and anyone around you is simply going to become a priority target for a burst of automatic gunfire.

I'd expect this weekend's attack is just the beginning, you've had a few hundred thousand Syrian refugees enter western Europe recently and it sounds like a few of these radical ******** hitched a ride on that train of humanity... they are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last cell to carry out attacks like this wherever they can find an opportunity. The inevitable reprisals against innocent refugees will only fan the flames and drive more to radicalize or support the IS cause... etc, etc, etc...

[striped1]

I would prefer to never be in that situation and more than likely never will be, but if I were, I would prefer to take my chances armed rather than not. If it were to allow me to egress successfully from the incident, perfect. I know I won't go down begging for anything but more ammo.

I don't carry to save the day for anyone but me and mine. It is like home insurance. I don't buy insurance to cover any one but me and my family and I don't buy it hoping that my house burns down.

[CROSBYK2]

[quote="yuppiejr"]Better to have a pistol than throw beer bottles I suppose, but your odds of survival or making a difference as an average P2C holder with typical basic training are pretty low against multiple experienced assailants with the advantage of surprise firing from cover/elevated positions with body armor, fully automatic weapons and explosive belts. The minute you draw a weapon, you and anyone around you is simply going to become a priority target for a burst of automatic gunfire.

Couldn't disagree more. If there was several P2C holders in different locations in the building all returning fire at the same time, I would bet these cowards would simply light up their explosive vests. Just my opinion. And yes, better than throwing beer bottles.

[Rodentman]

They should have a trade in program. Exchange your smell phone for a handgun. Solve 2 problems.

[jshuberg]

Whether it's a mugger with a knife, or a choreographed terrorist attack with trained and well armed jihadis, I would always prefer to have a gun. Perhaps in the latter scenario it wouldn't matter and I'd be killed regardless, but I would prefer the option of defending myself.

A gun gives you the possibility to fight to survive. Without it, you're defenseless and at the mercy of your attacker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yuppiejr]

Whether it's a mugger with a knife, or a choreographed terrorist attack with trained and well armed jihadis, I would always prefer to have a gun. Perhaps in the latter scenario it wouldn't matter and I'd be killed regardless, but I would prefer the option of defending myself.

A gun gives you the possibility to fight to survive. Without it, you're defenseless and at the mercy of your attacker.

Don't get me wrong, I agree - just suggesting that Trump's assertion that in this situation it would have made a significant difference is pretty far fetched.

[MJY65]

Whether it's a mugger with a knife, or a choreographed terrorist attack with trained and well armed jihadis, I would always prefer to have a gun. Perhaps in the latter scenario it wouldn't matter and I'd be killed regardless, but I would prefer the option of defending myself.

A gun gives you the possibility to fight to survive. Without it, you're defenseless and at the mercy of your attacker.

Don't get me wrong, I agree - just suggesting that Trump's assertion that in this situation it would have made a significant difference is pretty far fetched.

I actually think it would have. While the terrorists certainly would have shot or blown up some of the armed citizens that opposed them, they can't get them all. In 10-15 minutes of shooting, multiple reloads must have been needed. I think the difference between 40 and 80 dead and many times that number wounded is, indeed, significant.

[jshuberg]

Why do you say that? The moment that a potential victim decides to fight back, the scenario changes. How the course of events unfolds will be different than if everyone was a defenseless victim. Let's say 5% of those in that theater were armed and decided to fight back. It would undoubtedly give those trying to escape more time. It might not work out where the only fatalities were the terrorists, I agree that would be pretty far fetched, but there's almost no scenario where having armed people on scene wouldn't help the situation, and minimize loss of life.

[Lumpy]

there's almost no scenario where having armed people on scene wouldn't help the situation, and minimize loss of life.

Not according to the antis on this one forum I participate in. Their claim is that the gun carriers- presumably having the collective intelligence of a flock of domestic turkeys- would end up friendly-firing on each other.

[Ghost]

there's almost no scenario where having armed people on scene wouldn't help the situation, and minimize loss of life.

Not according to the antis on this one forum I participate in. Their claim is that the gun carriers- presumably having the collective intelligence of a flock of domestic turkeys- would end up friendly-firing on each other.

If my alternatives are to be in a room with terrorists who's only goal is to kill me and all the other unarmed people with me or to be in a room with terrorists who's only goal is to kill me and people whom are armed and willing to kill the attacker. I think I'd prefer the later. It may not work out in my favor but I feel the odds are better in my choice.

[yuppiejr]

I don't think there's a person in this forum that wouldn't prefer to go down fighting than end up a powerless victim, but I also think this attack was planned knowing the French people were not going to be armed. If France had a law allowing individuals to carry I expect the tactics used by the psychos with automatic rifles would have changed as well to deal with that threat to their plans. That's the issue I have with Trump's assertion, it's single dimensional and assumes the enemy is not savvy enough to adapt their tactics accordingly when other variables change.

These ******** are evil, but not stupid.

[xd ED]

I think you may give them too much credit.

If I'm not mistaken, the two suicide bombers attacking the soccer game were detected and confronted by 'ticket takers' as they tried to enter the stadium, thus detonating themselves before they got inside.

2 of 3? or 3 of 4? of the concert hall attackers wearing suicide vests destroyed themselves as the police counter-attacked.

Wasn't there something like 500 originally people in the concert hall, and somewhere around 150 casualties(fatalities and serious injuries).The majority, I believe, escaped unharmed.

I put these terrorists on the same plane with the school shooter/ related ******** who do themselves in when met with resistance.

Using the Minn statistic of approximately 5% of the population having carry permits, potentially puts up to 25 armed individuals in the concert hall when the shooting started. Things would have been different; how- no one can say for certain, but different.