Trump: Paris attack would have been different with more guns

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

The best thing that can happen to the democrats is for trump to become the republican presidential nominee.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere

[SoiBiker]

I was curious about who the US band was playing in Paris. Was death metal or is that a guess?

They're called "The Eagles of Death Metal", but the name is more of a joke. They're more in a kind of 'Garage Rock' vein - a spin off from the more well-known Queens of the Stone Age.

[williamgeorgeallen]

I am a big fan of trump but I am disappointed with this statement. flooding the European tinderbox with firearms can only be a bad idea. maybe he was just saying it to appeal to his American voters.

[Seastallion]

I am a big fan of trump but I am disappointed with this statement. flooding the European tinderbox with firearms can only be a bad idea. maybe he was just saying it to appeal to his American voters.

Ya thunk?

[slipperylobster]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

Good thinking...If this were to happen ina bar in Plainville Kansas, Those IS fellas wouldn't have made it through the door.

If every country would just get over their pathetic "lamb like" acceptance of being victims and grow a pair.

Grab a gun...because it is obvious that the police (and military) are unable to protect your family. What makes you think that a righteous citizen has any less intelligence/gun savvy...than a newly trained police officer or military recruit. There are plenty of us that know how to handle firearms. You are referring to "criminals" I suppose.

This is getting quite serious now...and I would definitely stock weapons to protect my family, providing the law allows for it.

Time for some of these "peaceful, liberal, tolerant" countries to start defending themselves. It might really come down to this.

Edited November 15, 2015 by slipperylobster

[sjaak327]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

Good thinking...If this were to happen ina bar in Plainville Kansas, Those IS fellas wouldn't have made it through the door.

If every country would just get over their pathetic "lamb like" acceptance of being victims and grow a pair.

Grab a gun...because it is obvious that the police (and military) are unable to protect your family. What makes you think that a righteous citizen has any less intelligence/gun savvy...than a newly trained police officer or military recruit. There are plenty of us that know how to handle firearms. You are referring to "criminals" I suppose.

This is getting quite serious now...and I would definitely stock weapons to protect my family, providing the law allows for it.

Time for some of these "peaceful, liberal, tolerant" countries to start defending themselves. It might really come down to this.

His point went right over your head of course.

[slipperylobster]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

Good thinking...If this were to happen ina bar in Plainville Kansas, Those IS fellas wouldn't have made it through the door.

If every country would just get over their pathetic "lamb like" acceptance of being victims and grow a pair.

Grab a gun...because it is obvious that the police (and military) are unable to protect your family. What makes you think that a righteous citizen has any less intelligence/gun savvy...than a newly trained police officer or military recruit. There are plenty of us that know how to handle firearms. You are referring to "criminals" I suppose.

This is getting quite serious now...and I would definitely stock weapons to protect my family, providing the law allows for it.

Time for some of these "peaceful, liberal, tolerant" countries to start defending themselves. It might really come down to this.

His point went right over your head of course.

Nope. I just disagree with his point. He would disarm good citizens, who would then have to rely on the police or military to prevent an attack like this. I would do the opposite. Trump is correct. There will be a day when neighborhoods will need armed civilians to protect themselves and their neighbors. Mass murderers get their guns....IS gets theirs......why would I be the one to be denied an opportunity to protect my family?

I once was a peace advocate..and thought guns should be outlawed.....but then I figured outlaws get guns...terrorists get guns.....and then we just get our <deleted> shot off. Quite insane. I am now swinging this way...especially after Paris.

nuff said

Edited November 15, 2015 by slipperylobster

[Adeeos]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

And how many mass shootings take place in a police station?... or ANYwhere, the victims are armed themselves?..... NONE... they take place in places the shooter knows there will be NO ONE with a gun to stop them,,, until the police arrive,,, How many shooters would think twice about doing a mass shooting if they KNEW there would be several, "victims" that are legally armed, and they have NO idea who is armed and who's not,,, and the shooter is the only one that is OBVIOUSLY armed?,,,,,,, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away",,,,

Edited November 15, 2015 by Adeeos

[VIPinthailand]

I have the solution : send troops and nuke these sobs...

any other alternative will be a failure.

[slipperylobster]

When there's a bombing we blame the bomber. When there's a drunk-driving accident we blame the driver. But when there's a shooting we blame the gun. Nice logic. The next time an armed thug enters your house with the intent on robbing and killing your family, protect your family by telling him you feel his pain and singing Kumbaya to him. That should work.

Firstly you're comparing apples and oranges since the first 2 things in your failed analogy are intrisicly illegal acts whereas gun ownership is legal. Secondly, when is the last time an armed thug entered your house with the intent of robbing you and killing your family?

Secondly, when is the last time an armed thug entered your house with the intent of robbing you and killing your family?

December 23, 1965.

Thats the whole point...you just don't know..do you? Tonight, somebody may just decide to knock on your door...and rape your wife and kids...or just shoot up the place (as in Paris). When you finally decide that your luck has run out...you will not have time to acquire protection. You buy insurance for your car don't you? So why not buy insurance for your loved ones? get armed !!!

If we could only talk to the victims...who did not survive....or saw their friends and family slaughtered in front of them.. I think they would all say that they wish they could of prevented deaths.

Edited November 15, 2015 by slipperylobster

[sjaak327]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

Good thinking...If this were to happen ina bar in Plainville Kansas, Those IS fellas wouldn't have made it through the door.

If every country would just get over their pathetic "lamb like" acceptance of being victims and grow a pair.

Grab a gun...because it is obvious that the police (and military) are unable to protect your family. What makes you think that a righteous citizen has any less intelligence/gun savvy...than a newly trained police officer or military recruit. There are plenty of us that know how to handle firearms. You are referring to "criminals" I suppose.

This is getting quite serious now...and I would definitely stock weapons to protect my family, providing the law allows for it.

Time for some of these "peaceful, liberal, tolerant" countries to start defending themselves. It might really come down to this.

His point went right over your head of course.

Nope. I just disagree with his point. He would disarm good citizens, who would then have to rely on the police or military to prevent an attack like this. I would do the opposite. Trump is correct. There will be a day when neighborhoods will need armed civilians to protect themselves and their neighbors. Mass murderers get their guns....IS gets theirs......why would I be the one to be denied an opportunity to protect my family?

I once was a peace advocate..and thought guns should be outlawed.....but then I figured outlaws get guns...terrorists get guns.....and then we just get our <deleted> shot off. Quite insane. I am now swinging this way...especially after Paris.

nuff said

So in order to prevent mass killings by terrorists you want to give everybody a gun and than totally ignore the huge amounts of deaths that occur in the US ?

I cannot get my head around such illogical thinking. No European country would want to follow the example of the US.

But I do see the terrorist have you scared as well. They are succeeding and the cowards among us are the main reason...

Trump isn't right and should not use these attacks to push his own agenda. Where I come from that is considered very inappropriate and inconsiderate.

Or to use the words of another poster, he should know when to speak and when to shut up. The fact that he doesn't speaks volumes.

Edited November 15, 2015 by sjaak327

[KNJ]

Trump....... all that money and he can still not afford a decent haircut

[apetley]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

And how many mass shootings take place in a police station?... or ANYwhere, the victims are armed themselves?..... NONE... they take place in places the shooter knows there will be NO ONE with a gun to stop them,,, until the police arrive,,, How many shooters would think twice about doing a mass shooting if they KNEW there would be several, "victims" that are legally armed, and they have NO idea who is armed and who's not,,, and the shooter is the only one that is OBVIOUSLY armed?,,,,,,, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away",,,,

Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood spring to mind.

[Chicog]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

And how many mass shootings take place in a police station?... or ANYwhere, the victims are armed themselves?..... NONE... they take place in places the shooter knows there will be NO ONE with a gun to stop them,,, until the police arrive,,, How many shooters would think twice about doing a mass shooting if they KNEW there would be several, "victims" that are legally armed, and they have NO idea who is armed and who's not,,, and the shooter is the only one that is OBVIOUSLY armed?,,,,,,, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away",,,,

When someone is willing to die for Allah, I don't really think they give much of a toss.

(cf. Garland, Texas, or Chatanooga, Tenn.).

Just saying.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Trump please, just shut the <deleted> up..

Things would have been different if USA and Europe didn t stick their nose in middle east for 30 years.

Things would have been different if USA and Europe didn t deal with Saudi and Qatar who promote wahabism and praise the same idealogy than ISIL.

So buzz off and shove your NRA ideology deep where the sun never shines.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

When there's a bombing we blame the bomber. When there's a drunk-driving accident we blame the driver. But when there's a shooting we blame the gun. Nice logic. The next time an armed thug enters your house with the intent on robbing and killing your family, protect your family by telling him you feel his pain and singing Kumbaya to him. That should work.

Firstly you're comparing apples and oranges since the first 2 things in your failed analogy are intrisicly illegal acts whereas gun ownership is legal. Secondly, when is the last time an armed thug entered your house with the intent of robbing you and killing your family?

Secondly, when is the last time an armed thug entered your house with the intent of robbing you and killing your family?

December 23, 1965.

Thats the whole point...you just don't know..do you? Tonight, somebody may just decide to knock on your door...and rape your wife and kids...or just shoot up the place (as in Paris). When you finally decide that your luck has run out...you will not have time to acquire protection. You buy insurance for your car don't you? So why not buy insurance for your loved ones? get armed !!!

If we could only talk to the victims...who did not survive....or saw their friends and family slaughtered in front of them.. I think they would all say that they wish they could of prevented deaths.

So at home you carry your holster all the time with your gun ready, right?

Always ready?

Or are you a responsible gun owner and have it locked in a safe, where it will stay if someone storm your house...

[Adeeos]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

And how many mass shootings take place in a police station?... or ANYwhere, the victims are armed themselves?..... NONE... they take place in places the shooter knows there will be NO ONE with a gun to stop them,,, until the police arrive,,, How many shooters would think twice about doing a mass shooting if they KNEW there would be several, "victims" that are legally armed, and they have NO idea who is armed and who's not,,, and the shooter is the only one that is OBVIOUSLY armed?,,,,,,, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away",,,,

Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood spring to mind.

Washington Navy yard....

"The attack, which took place in the Navy Yard's Building 197, began around 8:20 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis WAS KILLED BY POLICE around 9:20 a.m. EDT." (notice he had a FULL HOUR to kill before the POLICE actually stopped him)

Fort Hood....

"Hasan was SHOT BY SWAT and as a result is paralyzed from the waist down"

See a common thread?... obviously NONE of the victims were armed were they?,,, NO they all had to WAIT, and rely on being saved by the POLICE!,,,

Edited November 15, 2015 by Adeeos

[weegee]

Trump has no intention of becoming President of the USA....and never has. He is just the entertainment prior to the real games....and that's the way it was planned from the beginning....

[blazes]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

Yup, far more innocent civilians in the USA have been murdered at the hands of gunmen than all that ISIS and Al Quaeda have been able to throw at Western infidels, the difference being that we don't call them "terrorists".

Not a terrorist? Oh, that's ok then.

[timber]

Most civilians are lousy shots so probably should give them hand grenades to make sure they hit the target.

[nidieunimaitre]

I have the solution : send troops and nuke these sobs...

any other alternative will be a failure.

I agree with your dislike of the pro gun key board warriors.

Yes. Send troops and nuke them.

However, it may be against forum rules to call them sobs.

[Seastallion]

Firstly you're comparing apples and oranges since the first 2 things in your failed analogy are intrisicly illegal acts whereas gun ownership is legal. Secondly, when is the last time an armed thug entered your house with the intent of robbing you and killing your family?

Secondly, when is the last time an armed thug entered your house with the intent of robbing you and killing your family?

December 23, 1965.

Thats the whole point...you just don't know..do you? Tonight, somebody may just decide to knock on your door...and rape your wife and kids...or just shoot up the place (as in Paris). When you finally decide that your luck has run out...you will not have time to acquire protection. You buy insurance for your car don't you? So why not buy insurance for your loved ones? get armed !!!

If we could only talk to the victims...who did not survive....or saw their friends and family slaughtered in front of them.. I think they would all say that they wish they could of prevented deaths.

So at home you carry your holster all the time with your gun ready, right?

Always ready?

Or are you a responsible gun owner and have it locked in a safe, where it will stay if someone storm your house...

This is what they never think through or are able to see. To arm everyone so as to be ready for any attack, means everybody should be carrying all the time, otherwise the argument is pointless. No weapon that was properly locked up would have saved anybody in Paris....or any of the other mass shootings..

If everybody was constantly strapped, there would be carnage every day. Back to the wild west days where a pub brawl means a mass shooting, where a Walmart customer gets disgruntled that her triple-size slurpy spilled and shoots someone, whereas if she wasn't carrying, she would have mouthed off and gone home to change her lycra body suit two sizes too small for her.

Absolute carnage every day in every city.

[Adeeos]

Most civilians are lousy shots so probably should give them hand grenades to make sure they hit the target.

Not at all,,, Most states that allow concealed carry, REQUIRE the person to attend, and PASS a firearms training course... If you only want a firearm for home use, and NOT carry on a daily basis, only a background check is required...

[apetley]

Everyone being armed is quite obviously the way to go, a country where there is a mass-shooing almost everyday of the year is obviously the model to follow.

And how many mass shootings take place in a police station?... or ANYwhere, the victims are armed themselves?..... NONE... they take place in places the shooter knows there will be NO ONE with a gun to stop them,,, until the police arrive,,, How many shooters would think twice about doing a mass shooting if they KNEW there would be several, "victims" that are legally armed, and they have NO idea who is armed and who's not,,, and the shooter is the only one that is OBVIOUSLY armed?,,,,,,, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away",,,,

Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood spring to mind.

Washington Navy yard....

"The attack, which took place in the Navy Yard's Building 197, began around 8:20 a.m. EDT and ended when Alexis WAS KILLED BY POLICE around 9:20 a.m. EDT." (notice he had a FULL HOUR to kill before the POLICE actually stopped him)

Fort Hood....

"Hasan was SHOT BY SWAT and as a result is paralyzed from the waist down"

See a common thread?... obviously NONE of the victims were armed were they?,,, NO they all had to WAIT, and rely on being saved by the POLICE!,,,

So there were no armed military/security personnel at either base?

[chrisinth]

When there's a bombing we blame the bomber. When there's a drunk-driving accident we blame the driver. But when there's a shooting we blame the gun. Nice logic. The next time an armed thug enters your house with the intent on robbing and killing your family, protect your family by telling him you feel his pain and singing Kumbaya to him. That should work.

Or, in the countries we come from, prepare to face prison time for defending what is yours.

It would need to be a lot more than just changing gun control laws......................

[blazes]

One thing's for absolute sure: at no time in history have weapons, of any kind, been able to defeat an ideology.

The Spanish Inquisition did nothing to stop free thinking.

Some tosser who shouts "God be praised" just before blowing himself and hundreds up cannot be (could not have been ) stopped by ammunition. (And if someone were lunatic enough to succeed in "nuking" the sobs, then of course we would all, infidels and holy warriors alike, be floating towards those virgins waiting for us above.

[mpa]

You do realize that not even policemen carry guns in some European countries (UK for example). The mentality is totally different.

[Adeeos]

"So there were no armed military/security personnel at either base?"

Obviously NOT,, BOTH cases required the victims to be, "saved" by the police.... as in the recent shooting at a military recruitment office....

"

[Linky]

Most civilians are lousy shots so probably should give them hand grenades to make sure they hit the target.

Not at all,,, Most states that allow concealed carry, REQUIRE the person to attend, and PASS a firearms training course... If you only want a firearm for home use, and NOT carry on a daily basis, only a background check is required...

How would the public know who to shoot. I see someone shooting and another shooting back, which one do I shoot?

While I am deciding that maybe someone spots me and pumps a few rounds into me thinking I'm the terrorist.

Police turn up and bullets flying everywhere, who are the good guys and the bad guys.

If I was carrying I'd be a lot more likely to get hit by friendly fire.

Crazy of Trump to be saying that. And very poor form to use the tragedy for political gain. Very low of him.

[ronwparker]

Trump is a rich bigot-what the hell would more guns do-the French Police are already armed?!