No, I don't wan to be in a theater with a crowd full of people packing guns. There are too many variables being ignored in these scenarios. I don't think possessing a gun makes everyone into Dirty Harry.

Pretending that allowing good citizens to have guns means you will be surrounded by a crowd of Dirty Harry wannabes is generally a false premise. You just described walking into a police station, not a theater. If you want some hard numbers, try these. Police kill ten times as many people as the entire rest of the population kills police officers. The score for 2014 is:

Police: 1108
Everybody else: 110

http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html

http://www.odmp.org/search/year

And while I'm at it, the fact that a gun won't fix what a bomb already finished doing doesn't make it useless. As long as the French Police are waiting outside the building for 2 hours while the terrorists reload repeatedly in order to execute the last of the survivors and the wounded, the pistols of the citizens work much better and more quickly than the pistols of the police.

"Yebbut...citizen pistols won't prevent all crimes ever and they won't reverse crimes that already happened. Specifically, they won't un-bomb the place." Get a new argument. That one isn't working.

 

In fact, @Brownout, if I saw you in the process of being victimized, and I had my gun...

...I'd be dialing 911.

I have no responsibility/desire to protect you. Just my my own life, and the lives of my family.

 

........................ As long as the French Police are waiting outside the building for 2 hours while the terrorists reload repeatedly.........................

In general, the police force is considered to be untrained and ill equipped to handle para-military events and will not be used to prosecute (attack) the enemy. They will be used to assist the clean up after the event is resolved. This is institutionalized police protection. There are units within the police force that have limited training and equipment to act against these kinds of forces but are used sparingly. Do not confuse a police officer with a marine corporal. One is trained to keep the peace and the other is trained to make the enemy die for his cause.

 

In fact, @Brownout, if I saw you in the process of being victimized, and I had my gun...

...I'd be dialing 911.

I have no responsibility/desire to protect you. Just my my own life, and the lives of my family.

I have thought about that scenario, and I certainly wouldn't react as quickly to intervene in someone else's predicament as I would my own. Partly because I could assess who was the "bad guy" more quickly in my own situation than in that of a stranger.

 

In general, the police force is considered to be untrained and ill equipped to handle para-military events and will not be used to prosecute (attack) the enemy. They will be used to assist the clean up after the event is resolved.

Unfortunately, they let the terrorists resolve it.

Oh, by the way, if the police aren't going to engage terrorists, what do they need these for?

“Today, 17,000 local police forces are equipped with such military equipment as Blackhawk helicopters, machine guns, grenade launchers, battering rams, explosives, chemical sprays, body armor, night vision, rappelling gear and armored vehicles,” reports Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. “Some have tanks.”

https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...ouse_the_new_boss_will_be_the_same_as_the_old

 

Lets assume people in France were armed to the teeth.

Does anyone honestly believes that the terrorist attack would have not have been successful?

I believe the first attack would have been mitigated - and any subsequent attacks significantly so - if not thwarted altogether! -- Granted, it would almost certainly require one or two attacks to disabuse "John and Jane Civilian" of their personal "comfort zone" to which you aptly allude, howbeit self preservation is a mighty effective 'antidote' for squeamishness as regards use of deadly force! IOW "thrice armed is he who's in the right" works both ways

With genuine respect

Best regards
HP

 

I have thought about that scenario, and I certainly wouldn't react as quickly to intervene in someone else's predicament as I would my own. Partly because I could assess who was the "bad guy" more quickly in my own situation than in that of a stranger.

On the money. I once walked into a bar and found one guy beating on another guy on the floor. It was a back and forth, but the beater generally had the upper hand and was able kick at the guy on the floor. For that alone, I considered intervening. But I had no idea what was going on, and I could hear the sirens coming.

So I asked the waitress for a beer. She told me how much she wished she was a guy. Why?, I asked. "So I could help my manager, the guy on the floor". I guess my choice to stay out of it didn't impress her very much!

Point is, you don't always know what's going on, who's the good guy and who's the bad guy.

 

I believe the first attack would have been mitigated -...

Agreed. And more importantly, it might have directed the attacks to a softer target in the first place. There's no question that the crazed-shooter events in the U.S. have occurred at venues carefully chosen to be gun-free.

 

wayneh and HP - I think I should have made it a bit more clear. I am pretty sure the attacks would have been completely different as the attackers would have been aware that they would face resistance and their goal is to inflict maximum damage.

at this point, i get the following - arm everyone and remove all government enforced security. I think we should then also abolish police and army and remove all borders.

 

at this point, i get the following - arm everyone and remove all government enforced security. I think we should then also abolish police and army and remove all borders.

And there goes the (fully expected and perfectly useless) emotional response.

 

justtrying
In a case like the Paris attack, the police will not try to save you. You can only save yourself. If you have a firearm, you might be able to save more than just yourself.

 

Must be winter. This thread is drifting.
So I'll try to stir it up.
I don't think any of you have a good idea what to do with ISIS.
I think back to Collin Powell when he said Iraq is like Pottery Barn. You break it you buy it.
It started as the old Iraqi army that we in our infinite wisdom disbanded. So now they have experience and billions of our equipment and a reason to fight (survival) and plenty of oil money.
Now if your a young guy with no job and no future - no girls (no money) and somebody offers you a job and a wife and a big gun, - why not, nothing to loose.
My personal opinion is if we just leave it alone it will drift back to something similar to what it was before the we "fixed" it after WWII. The Turks and the Israelis may not like that to much.
They want to see us try to come in again so when you get around to nuking them, don't forget to start with Pakistan so they don't sprinkle theirs around.

 

Pretending that allowing good citizens to have guns means you will be surrounded by a crowd of Dirty Harry wannabes is generally a false premise.

Who is pretending? Owning and possessing a gun doesn't mean someone is going to be able to protect me (and for the record, I'm not asking anyone to protect me) As I previously said, there are to many variables that get ignored when describing the scenario. I don't want to be a theater with people carrying guns. Pretending anyone carrying a gun is a competent protector is a false premise.

You just described walking into a police station, not a theater. If you want some hard numbers, try these. Police kill ten times as many people as the entire rest of the population kills police officers. The score for 2014 is:

Police: 1108
Everybody else: 110

That's the way it should be. Police shoot suspect while enforcing the law, and suspects shoot police while breaking the law. I expect these kinds of numbers, and they prove nothing other than police are called upon to act with force far too often. This is certainly not an endorsement of citizen protectors by any measure.

And while I'm at it, the fact that a gun won't fix what a bomb already finished doing doesn't make it useless.

But it does illustrate how useless guns are in certain kinds of terrorist attacks, in fact, the most common kinds.

As long as the French Police are waiting outside the building for 2 hours while the terrorists reload repeatedly in order to execute the last of the survivors and the wounded, the pistols of the citizens work much better and more quickly than the pistols of the police.

The last of the survivors were not executed. This is just the kind of hyperbolic, opportunistic exploitation of tragic events to push an agenda that the gun people are always accusing others of committing. In fact, this is a good time to point out that, despite all the blather over how those outside the pro gun thinking use tragedies to promote their agendas, and at least as far as this discussion is concerned, it's the pro-gun front who went there first and more often.

"Yebbut...citizen pistols won't prevent all crimes ever and they won't reverse crimes that already happened. Specifically, they won't un-bomb the place." Get a new argument. That one isn't working.

Well, that isn't my argument. Your argument that guns protect from terror attacks fails when considering the facts on the ground.

 

In fact, @Brownout, if I saw you in the process of being victimized, and I had my gun...

...I'd be dialing 911.

I have no responsibility/desire to protect you. Just my my own life, and the lives of my family.

Good. I never asked for your protection, and I don't want you and your guns anywhere near me.

 

Good. I never asked for your protection, and I don't want you and your guns anywhere near me.

I wonder if you had been in the concert hall in Paris if your above opinion would be different.

 

I wonder if you had been in the concert hall in Paris if your above opinion would be different.

118 people killed in the concert hall in Paris. 11,000 killed in the US each year.

But good thing you're against using tragic events to sell your agenda.

- #2 - I can manipulate you with emotions and public opinion. If I can get you angry, fearful or feeling inadequate, your rational processes will be suppressed and you will do things that you would not normally do. I have the perfect way you keep you spun up until I can get you in the voting booth, the television. I can hit you every half hour with pictures of carnage and a narrative that says," If you don't think this is awful then you are a bad person".

 

You do an equally good job of avoiding the question.

 

Was there a question? Looked to me you were wondering out loud. If you have a question, then just ask. If you want to know how I would feel if I was at the theater, well since I wasn't there, I can't offer you any answer.

 

I wonder if you had been in the concert hall in Paris if your above opinion would be different.

Have you seen the pictures of that place? 1000 people standing out on a floor in the dark shoulder to shoulder. Joey might have been able to hit Brownout with his glock, but I doubt it.
Edit:
But I digress. Anybody got an ISIS fix?

 

....... I wasn't there, I can't offer you any answer.

So, you are saying that if you were in that concert hall and someone near you produced a firearm and shot one of the attackers, that you would not feel gratitude??