My Answer

[kilimanjaro]

"Even if there were armed people in the attacks in Paris, it is more likely they will do more harm than good."

There were nearly 100 killed in the theater shown above. I doubt very, very much if a citizen's armed response would have killed anything like 100, or 10, or perhaps even 1 other innocents. Anyone close enough to the killers to be struck by return fire is already a target of the killers. To say that armed response by a civilian to such an attack does more harm than good is patently ridiculous.

Just carry the logic forward a little bit to a scenario we already endure : crime against citizens. If your opinion has any factual basis at all, then turn in your CCW permit, it is doing more harm than good. Show me the hundreds of innocent bystanders shot by CCW response to crime, will you? You can't.

It just doesn't hold water.

[buck460XVR]

New coastal forts were actually built during WWII.

Iffin my memory serves me correctly, there was a pillbox/machine gun bunker built overlooking the Hoover Dam back in WWII and manned 24/7 because of the fear of an attack on the Penstocks there.

....I think we should change the title of this thread.

[BlueTrain]

No offense, Mr. Skans, but I think you're defining a problem out of existence. If you're inside a building that is blown up on purpose, what's the difference if it's a coordinated terrorist attack, a hate crime or a deranged individual upset with the existing social order?

[rickyrick]

Kilimanjaro,
I do agree with you that a ccw wouldn't probably do any more harm. I am waffling about the net effectiveness of a ccw holder entered into the fray; there's too many variables to predict anything. There's one exception: no armed citizens present absolutely means no armed response from a civilian.

But I'm more convinced than anything that a licensed CCWer being present at such a venue during and attack is highly unlikely, probably improbable.

[Skans]

If you're inside a building that is blown up on purpose, what's the difference if it's a coordinated terrorist attack, a hate crime or a deranged individual upset with the existing social order?

While the results (death and carnage) appear to be the same, a coordinated terrorist attack like the one in Paris is really an out-right act of war conducted by foreign nationals. Burning churches or home-grown nutters blowing up buildings is an internal problem where the perpetrators (and anyone involved) need to be rounded up, tried and executed or imprisoned. Anyone who thinks this isn't a war where the attackers fully intend on achieving mass annihilation of all western civilization has their head buried in the sand.

This kind of act of war within the largest city in a sovereign nation is deserving of an all out war of annihilation against the countries in which these warlords operate from. We used to understand what that meant in the 1940's. Destruction on a scale where no man, woman or child is spared - that's how world wars are stopped then. That's the only way this one will eventually be stopped in the future.

[Eazyeach]

I liked the premise of the OP. It's a shame his thread got jacked. Started off really good.

[barnbwt]

"While the results (death and carnage) appear to be the same, a coordinated terrorist attack like the one in Paris is really an out-right act of war conducted by foreign nationals"
But many of them weren't foreign nationals...they were from EU states.

"Burning churches or home-grown nutters blowing up buildings is an internal problem where the perpetrators (and anyone involved) need to be rounded up, tried and executed or imprisoned."
And the proper response toward a foreign foe is no different, other than the protections afforded citizens being absent (and the practical consequences of the attendant human abuse lesser). Authorities love to blur them some lines, though.

"This kind of act of war within the largest city in a sovereign nation is deserving of an all out war of annihilation against the countries in which these warlords operate from."
So, France should kick off WWIII by invading Germany or Belgium, first? Or go for the gusto by attacking Russian soldiers protecting Assad in Syria and nuking Moscow to prevent reprisal? It's a bit late for them to fight the 'war' on foreign soil at this point; we all need to accept that fact. If you aren't only counting light-skinned people who think they still run the place, 'France' isn't even certain if it wants to remain a democracy anymore.

"That's the only way this one will eventually be stopped in the future."
Or, they could simply shut their doors, deal with the enemy within, and keep the doors shut for good this time. The process probably wouldn't take nearly as long as everyone expects, either.

"I liked the premise of the OP. It's a shame his thread got jacked. Started off really good."
Really? 'This here's my terrorist head-blastin' gun?' We have like a million show and tell threads already (I think one's a sticky, even), more than a few of this exact flavor. Besides, the G3 (with a CETME mag?) was specifically found wanting against Islamist terrorists during the 1972 Summer Olympics

[barnbwt]

"there's too many variables to predict anything. There's one exception: no armed citizens present absolutely means no armed response from a civilian"

This needs to be tattooed on some people's foreheads, to my way of thinking. Any cursory analysis shows there are too many variables. Heck, one shooting site got lucky and the guy's gun jammed; no outside interference required. But the data points we do have for the situation have one thing in common; there was no one present with an armed response when the attack began, and they only ended after one arrived (I'm not aware of any of the bombers blowing himself up after wiping his feet on the way out).

So you can't say a CCW would have no effect. There is literally no evidence to support that, here, where it matters. You also can't say one would have made the difference, or even made things worse. All pure supposition. But an armed response can't happen where there are no defenders with guns, and as such, violent force cannot be countered. Yet countering violent force is exactly what is clearly necessary in these cases (somehow, few who decry CCW'ers tend to see measures like bullet proof doors, desks, or backpacks as equally insane, even though the same attempt to counter force drives their promotion)

Expecting a crowd of panicked animals to go against every instinct and bum-rush the guy with an automatic rifle is more far-fetched than a Texas policeman shooting a gunman down at 100yds one-handed with two scared horses' reigns in the other. And yet the latter happened (and to a guy shooting an AK into a police station who could have turned to shoot him at any moment, no less).

There have also been times when a mob has taken down a gunman when his weapon jams or runs empty, but many, many, many more where this never happens, and the carnage only ends once he is shot dead by responders or his own hand. Particularly when there are multiple gunman to cover each other. When there is no alternative but to fight back or die, there is no better tool than a firearm.

TCB

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This has morphed into the debate in the French gun control thread.

No reason to replay the I'm a gun owner but I'm useless in an emergency vs. I think I might be able to help thread. Not that I'm biased towards one side.

Closed.