Trump: Paris attack would have been different with more guns

[MrTee]

You may think it's foolish, but that is because you live in fear and have backwards thinking.

Just look at the murder rates & death by guns in Europe and compare to those the good ol' US..

And we do not have to lock up most of our young men or have the highest incarceration rates in the 'civilised' world.

Empirical evidence trumps your fear every day of the week..

While it may appear to be foolish it actually works very well, please stop trying to imagine that you have the answers you clearly do not.

War on Terror? hows is that working out?

Capitol punishment? how's that working out for you guys?

Jog on trying to impose your madness in Europe.. it's not happening fella.

You have not one iota of knowledge as to whether I am a fearful man or not.

I suggest you backtrack...as I consider that insulting..personally.

By the way...unarmed policemen facing guns.....yes, my dear lord.... foolish indeed.

oh yes..

Open the gates for ISIS?

Attacks by foreigners against your civilians?

Unarmed...incapable...police unable to respond?

how is that working out over there? for you? fella

Since you find guns necessary to defend yourself, you obviously are a fearful man.

Yeah, and has the audacity to call a British policeman an idiot for doing his job..

No wonder these people are killing each other on a DAILY basis - not one iota of respect for each other.

[fekman]

These creeps didn't have any legal weapons, proving once again that strict firearm laws only inhibit legal firearm owners (victims).

The Columbine shooters violated 21 state and federal laws before even firing the first shot. Would the 22nd law have stopped it? YOU decide.

[MrTee]

Trump is showing again what a stupid moron he is.

Ask yourself if one of them were pointing an ak47 at your wife and daughter and were ready to shoot, do you wish you had a firearm at that moment. If not, you're a jerk.

Don't just love when there is no alternative in the simple mind other than to reduce the conversation to argumentum ad absurdum; coupled with the veiled insult.

Oh my days.

[MrTee]

These creeps didn't have any legal weapons, proving once again that strict firearm laws only inhibit legal firearm owners (victims).

The Columbine shooters violated 21 state and federal laws before even firing the first shot. Would the 22nd law have stopped it? YOU decide.

So if these Columbine boys were not able to get their hands on guns then they wouldn't have even violated law 1..

there ya go.. simples.

[stevenl]

These creeps didn't have any legal weapons, proving once again that strict firearm laws only inhibit legal firearm owners (victims).

The Columbine shooters violated 21 state and federal laws before even firing the first shot. Would the 22nd law have stopped it? YOU decide.

Your understanding of what constitutes proof is obviously non existent.

[dutchisaan]

Trump is showing again what a stupid moron he is.

Ask yourself if one of them were pointing an ak47 at your wife and daughter and were ready to shoot, do you wish you had a firearm at that moment. If not, you're a jerk.

First of al, you don't know me, thank god!

Second, I will take care of my family!

Third, untrained a*holes with a gun cteate more problems that it solves.

Stay on your barstool and have a other beer!

[DeaconJohn]

Trump is showing again what a stupid moron he is.

Ask yourself if one of them were pointing an ak47 at your wife and daughter and were ready to shoot, do you wish you had a firearm at that moment. If not, you're a jerk.

Don't just love when there is no alternative in the simple mind other than to reduce the conversation to argumentum ad absurdum; coupled with the veiled insult.

Oh my days.

This is a clearly stated hypothetical question, and in no way reduces the conversation to argumentum ad absurdum.

It seems to me that "...you're a jerk." is a categorical and forthright insult. What's veiled about it?

[Doc46]

I am with Trump ,He's got a voice that can be heard Maybe he can Stir Obama and talk some sense into the rest of the world to.

[Howitzer]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Donald Trump has been on a special course.

Nobody could be so stupid naturally!

I don't know why but to americans especially those republican/ red neck types their solution to gun problems is to bring in more guns to shoot back at the shooter.

[Howitzer]

Trump is showing again what a stupid moron he is.

Ask yourself if one of them were pointing an ak47 at your wife and daughter and were ready to shoot, do you wish you had a firearm at that moment. If not, you're a jerk.

American spotted.

No wait. Red neck, conservative american spotted.

[MrTee]

Trump is showing again what a stupid moron he is.

Ask yourself if one of them were pointing an ak47 at your wife and daughter and were ready to shoot, do you wish you had a firearm at that moment. If not, you're a jerk.

Don't just love when there is no alternative in the simple mind other than to reduce the conversation to argumentum ad absurdum; coupled with the veiled insult.

Oh my days.

This is a clearly stated hypothetical question, and in no way reduces the conversation to argumentum ad absurdum.

It seems to me that "...you're a jerk." is a categorical and forthright insult. What's veiled about it?

oh dear.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

asking a question "If not, you're a ****" is exactly a veiled insult ..

Edited November 15, 2015 by MrTee

[gregk0543]

So if I was carrying a handgun I could have easily killed these guys with military rifles.

I see it in movies all the time. The good guy has a handgun and no one can shoot him with a machine gun.

Sounds logical. Thats why armies use rifles and not hand guns right?

So we should all be packing rifles like umbrellas just ready for the one time in my life it may be needed.

I picture a cartoon with all people in the concert room with their rifles pointed back at the attackers. Hmmm.

Ok next level down would be teams of armed police with weapons and how long do they take to respond.

Thats what happened. Not lessoning the deep respect for those who have lost loved ones I think this is actually the most effective system.

The element of surprise is always going to win. But I dont get Trumps idea.

In the end we outnumber the terrorists by huge factors and they will not defeat us. They can find holes in the armour but they cannot defeat us.

The maths is against them. They can never win but they can continue to cause terror. I think we should teach people more maths and that would be very helpful in these debates. Study the numbers they show the less guns the less problems. Not no problems but less. There is no maths that supports Trumps views. None whatsoever.

And maths has no fear or emotion and is not illogical. Lets follow the maths. We will be better off.

[chuckd]

USA 2013, firearms were used in:

84,258 nonfatal injuries

11,208 deaths by homicide

21,175 by suicide with a firearm,

505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm

for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms.

Another unattributed fact, that isn't.

"11,208 deaths by homicide"

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there were a total of 8,454 firearm related homicide deaths in 2013.

Your "fact" is overstated by 2,754 deaths. You missed it by nearly one third.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

[JHolmesJr]

Ben Carson said some shit like that recently too, after a shooting in the US.

[chuckd]

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 and Fort Hood are gun free zones, as are nearly all military bases, and they have been since 1992.

The applicable DOD directed policy follows:

D. POLICY

It is DoD Policy:

1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed apainst the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

In other words, the military personnel were just as defenseless as the theater goers in Aurora, the children of Sandy Hook and the victims in Paris.

[edwinchester]

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 and Fort Hood are gun free zones, as are nearly all military bases, and they have been since 1992.

The applicable DOD directed policy follows:

D. POLICY

It is DoD Policy:

1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed apainst the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

In other words, the military personnel were just as defenseless as the theater goers in Aurora, the children of Sandy Hook and the victims in Paris.

All the military personnel? How about base security? Are they unarmed too?

I'd guess there must have been a failure by security somewhere if there was supposed to be no personal arms yet there was a mass shooting.

[chuckd]

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

Very foolish indeed...

had to laugh.

What do they use when the baddies draw their weapons and say..."Badges"? "We don't like your stinking badges"? bam bam.

do they throw billie clubs back?

You may think it's foolish, but that is because you live in fear and have backwards thinking.

Just look at the murder rates & death by guns in Europe and compare to those the good ol' US..

And we do not have to lock up most of our young men or have the highest incarceration rates in the 'civilised' world.

Empirical evidence trumps your fear every day of the week..

While it may appear to be foolish it actually works very well, please stop trying to imagine that you have the answers you clearly do not.

War on Terror? hows is that working out?

Capitol punishment? how's that working out for you guys?

Jog on trying to impose your madness in Europe.. it's not happening fella.

You may be leaping beyond the realm of reality with this statement...

"Jog on trying to impose your madness in Europe.. it's not happening fella."

I don't see any Americans trying to tell the Europeans what to do about their own safety as it relates to gun ownership.

What I see on these endless threads are quite a few Europeans trying to tell the US what we should do about our own self protection.

In short, the huge majority of Americans pay no attention to the liberals of Europe and, to be frank about it, couldn't care less what you folks do about your own security.

Count me in on that last group.

[farangmick]

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...

Two weeks of fire is all it takes to get you on target...

It's not really science....(ok, some wind measurements are required for distant targets).

We are talking about close range....20 to 25 meters. A good pistol and a few lessons can get almost anyone...in the black.

On a range, no stress, pistol already in hand, static target, perhaps, if you have a natural aptitude for shooting. In real life, stress, maybe bad light, moving target, consider back stop, maybe just woken up and wearing boxers, or less, little, if any practice. <deleted>. And 20-25 meters is extreme range for a pistol.

[farangmick]

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...

Two weeks of fire is all it takes to get you on target...

It's not really science....(ok, some wind measurements are required for distant targets).

We are talking about close range....20 to 25 meters. A good pistol and a few lessons can get almost anyone...in the black.

On a range, no stress, pistol already in hand, static target, perhaps, if you have a natural aptitude for shooting. In real life, stress, maybe bad light, moving target, consider back stop, maybe just woken up and wearing boxers, or less, little, if any practice. <deleted>. And 20-25 meters is extreme range for a pistol.

[chuckd]

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 and Fort Hood are gun free zones, as are nearly all military bases, and they have been since 1992.

The applicable DOD directed policy follows:

D. POLICY

It is DoD Policy:

1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed apainst the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

In other words, the military personnel were just as defenseless as the theater goers in Aurora, the children of Sandy Hook and the victims in Paris.

All the military personnel? How about base security? Are they unarmed too?

I'd guess there must have been a failure by security somewhere if there was supposed to be no personal arms yet there was a mass shooting.

I provided a link to the actual DOD directive so either you can't read or you simply didn't bother to look anything up on your own.

From the link previously provided:

B. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE

This Directive:

1. <snip>

2. Authorizes DoD personnel to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

The link, yet again: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

Edit in: I just realized you obviously can't read.

My post which you quoted reads in part",

" DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. "

Edited November 15, 2015 by chuckd

[Chicog]

USA 2013, firearms were used in:

84,258 nonfatal injuries

11,208 deaths by homicide

21,175 by suicide with a firearm,

505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm

for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms.

Another unattributed fact, that isn't.

"11,208 deaths by homicide"

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there were a total of 8,454 firearm related homicide deaths in 2013.

Your "fact" is overstated by 2,754 deaths. You missed it by nearly one third.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Looks like that figure is total homicides, not just by firearm.

[edwinchester]

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 and Fort Hood are gun free zones, as are nearly all military bases, and they have been since 1992.

The applicable DOD directed policy follows:

D. POLICY

It is DoD Policy:

1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed apainst the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

In other words, the military personnel were just as defenseless as the theater goers in Aurora, the children of Sandy Hook and the victims in Paris.

All the military personnel? How about base security? Are they unarmed too?

I'd guess there must have been a failure by security somewhere if there was supposed to be no personal arms yet there was a mass shooting.

I provided a link to the actual DOD directive so either you can't read or you simply didn't bother to look anything up on your own.

From the link previously provided:

B. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE

This Directive:

1. <snip>

2. Authorizes DoD personnel to carry firearms while engaged in law enforcement or security duties, protecting personnel, vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

The link, yet again: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

Yes I read it. I admit by asking if security staff were armed didn't get my point across which was that if the security followed the rules then maybe there wouldn't have been casualties.

I'd also argue that these are weapons trained personnel who may have erred in their duties. I could see untrained civilians causing even greater carnage if involved in a terrorist attack simply by panicking and firing erratically, something a terrorist has no need to consider.

[cumgranosalum]

"Paris attack would have been different with more guns" - certainly right there..... but I'm not sure he quite understands what he's said.

[chrisinth]

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.

"Send troops and nuke them"?

You really don't think much about the guys (your own) on the ground do you?

Better delivery methods are available........................

[sirineou]

I just see this Thread, I cant believe this.

Incredible and very scary that a lunatic like him could become president of the most powerful country in the world

if everyone had guns, would it not also mean that every radical extremist , would have guns?

[chuckd]

<snip messed up quotes>

Yes I read it. I admit by asking if security staff were armed didn't get my point across which was that if the security followed the rules then maybe there wouldn't have been casualties.

I'd also argue that these are weapons trained personnel who may have erred in their duties. I could see untrained civilians causing even greater carnage if involved in a terrorist attack simply by panicking and firing erratically, something a terrorist has no need to consider.

In Fort Hood, Major Hassan walked in to a National Guard unit being processed for deployment to Iraq, he sat down for a moment then stood up, shouted "Allahu Akbar" and began firing. Three unarmed soldiers charged him and he murdered two of them wounding the third. I daresay if one of those three had been armed, Major Hassan would not have completed his murderous mission.

The incident lasted about 10 minutes before local police arrived to take him down.

The NAVSEA shootings took a longer period of time to conclude as the shooter hid in a maze of buildings until found and killed by local police, NCIS and base security people. Aaron Alexis eventually murdered 11 people, three of them women.

I daresay that had any of the 11 victims been armed, there might not have been the same number of casualties. Just speculating.

[MrTee]

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

Very foolish indeed...

had to laugh.

What do they use when the baddies draw their weapons and say..."Badges"? "We don't like your stinking badges"? bam bam.

do they throw billie clubs back?

You may think it's foolish, but that is because you live in fear and have backwards thinking.

Just look at the murder rates & death by guns in Europe and compare to those the good ol' US..

And we do not have to lock up most of our young men or have the highest incarceration rates in the 'civilised' world.

Empirical evidence trumps your fear every day of the week..

While it may appear to be foolish it actually works very well, please stop trying to imagine that you have the answers you clearly do not.

War on Terror? hows is that working out?

Capitol punishment? how's that working out for you guys?

Jog on trying to impose your madness in Europe.. it's not happening fella.

You may be leaping beyond the realm of reality with this statement...

"Jog on trying to impose your madness in Europe.. it's not happening fella."

I don't see any Americans trying to tell the Europeans what to do about their own safety as it relates to gun ownership.

What I see on these endless threads are quite a few Europeans trying to tell the US what we should do about our own self protection.

In short, the huge majority of Americans pay no attention to the liberals of Europe and, to be frank about it, couldn't care less what you folks do about your own security.

Count me in on that last group.

OK Chuck, the thread is called Trump shuts his stupid mouth and doesn't think he knows better than Europeans.. oh wait..

The post I was responding to telling us we're foolish, yet more of your children die by the gun.

If you couldn't care less why bother responding.

[edwinchester]

<snip messed up quotes>

Yes I read it. I admit by asking if security staff were armed didn't get my point across which was that if the security followed the rules then maybe there wouldn't have been casualties.

I'd also argue that these are weapons trained personnel who may have erred in their duties. I could see untrained civilians causing even greater carnage if involved in a terrorist attack simply by panicking and firing erratically, something a terrorist has no need to consider.

In Fort Hood, Major Hassan walked in to a National Guard unit being processed for deployment to Iraq, he sat down for a moment then stood up, shouted "Allahu Akbar" and began firing. Three unarmed soldiers charged him and he murdered two of them wounding the third. I daresay if one of those three had been armed, Major Hassan would not have completed his murderous mission.

The incident lasted about 10 minutes before local police arrived to take him down.

The NAVSEA shootings took a longer period of time to conclude as the shooter hid in a maze of buildings until found and killed by local police, NCIS and base security people. Aaron Alexis eventually murdered 11 people, three of them women.

I daresay that had any of the 11 victims been armed, there might not have been the same number of casualties. Just speculating.

If he'd been armed with an assault rifle, as we're the Paris terrorists, my guess would be he'd have killed all three if he had the element of surprise, as did the Paris attackers.

Anyway, to get back to the OP, I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't believe in civilians being armed, simple as that.

[MrTee]

USA 2013, firearms were used in:

84,258 nonfatal injuries

11,208 deaths by homicide

21,175 by suicide with a firearm,

505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm

for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms.

Another unattributed fact, that isn't.

"11,208 deaths by homicide"

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there were a total of 8,454 firearm related homicide deaths in 2013.

Your "fact" is overstated by 2,754 deaths. You missed it by nearly one third.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Looks like that figure is total homicides, not just by firearm.

11, 208 is US government figures

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

ETA

this may explain the difference in the numbers

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/01/how-many-homicides-were-there-in-2010.html

Edited November 15, 2015 by MrTee

[chuckd]

I just see this Thread, I cant believe this.

Incredible and very scary that a lunatic like him could become president of the most powerful country in the world

if everyone had guns, would it not also mean that every radical extremist , would have guns?

The eight radical Islamic extremists did have guns.

The nearly 500 innocent civilians that were either killed or wounded were the unarmed parties in this fire fight.

Worthy of note is the fact the eight Islamic extremists chose not to attack the French gendarmerie S.W.A.T headquarters.or the Legion barracks.

Wonder why.