Trump: Paris attack would have been different with more guns

[vogie]

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.

Here is what happens to unarmed policman when they are arresting a packing villain...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-14171415\

any questions?

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?

Yeah here is a question..

How many people died in the incident you reported?

spoiler : none

as I said jog on...

These responses are exactly why Europeans are so irksome.

This idiot cop (no weapon) racing at armed criminals (weapons)

Only luck had it that he was not killed.

So now what. Every european / british cop is just a bullet receptacle? No pity for your police? You truly believe bad guys don't carry weapons???

amazing...euros....lol

Your remarks are insulting, idiotic and not surprising arrogant!

[simple1]

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

That's going to have to change real fast. The world is changing fast.

Just to clarify in Europe currently only UK, Norway & Iceland general duties patrol officers don't carry firearms. However, in Northern Ireland they do.

[stevenl]

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.

Original post deleted due to too many posts. Obviously from your remarks you are not a fearful man. Please tell us how you would defend or have defended yourself against an armed predator.

I come from a country with strict gun control, even the criminals hardly ever have guns. So I am not afraid at all of encountering an armed predator.

Now here in Thailand the situation is different, I think there are way too many guns here, and stricter control would be much better, and for sure preferable over arming everybody.

[MrTee]

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.

That is simple enough to answer they are cowards. not a real man amongst them

Did the fact that many in the US have guns stop 9/11, or Boston, or Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or.....?

More guns is not the answer..

Let's examine this particularly brilliant bit of prose.

1. The 9/11 hijackers were on scheduled airlines. No guns are permitted on board scheduled airlines.

2. I presume you are talking about the Boston marathon bombing? There were no guns involved by anybody in the bombing incident. Bad guys or good guys. Why would somebody shoot a backpack seemingly innocently resting on the ground?

3. Columbine was a gun free zone.m Legal gun owners tend to follow the laws. There would have been no guns available at the school.

4. Sandy Hook? See number 3 above.

Try again.

so the upshot is these things still happened..

[MrTee]

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.

Why on earth would is Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen Nigeria, etc., "obviously the model to follow?"

It is irrefutable that gun control only takes weapons from the law abiding citizens. There is overwhelming evidence that the absence of guns does not necessarily reduce violent death, just look at stabbings as an epidemic. Since people dont kill people, knives do, why is there not knife control?

Trump speaks often about distasteful things, yet they are self evident, and refreshing. The "Paris attack would have been different with more guns," for sure.

You talk about irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, but fail to understand empirical evidence.

In the UK you, me, the policemen and every one else are 100 times less less to be murdered by a firearm than in the USA..

What stabbing epidemic?

Europe does not have a stabbing epidemic despite what memes you may have seen on the internet.. THats not to say there are far too many youngsters roaming the streets and stabbing each other but its not an epidemic as portrayed in some hysterical newspapers -- there is not a stabbing every four minutes in the UK as portrayed in hysterical rags that just a love a sensational headline to sell papers.. if you actually read the statistics they are 'reporting' you'll see they say nothing like the papers reported. nonsense..

yes knife crime is far too high, but to say its an epidemic is pure hysteria..

are you really saying that thousands of people at a rock concert should be armed?

or thousands at a football game should be armed?

You can keep your rights to carry\own firearms, knock selves out. enjoy your news headlines every time some monster decides to go an shoot your kids.

But you\trump can't sell your madness to us.. as someone else pointed out it's the dark ages.

Europe has moved on..

Edited November 16, 2015 by MrTee

[DisparateDan]

Does it matter who is elected POTUS, since they are all just placeholders for Wall Street and The MIC.

Donald Trump makes it clear that he is not in anyone's pocket, (except the religious).

Could the candidates be asked to list the source of their funds?

I liked the suggestion that they might wear jackets emblazoned with the names of their major backers, like the F1 drivers.

[impulse]

do we want be back like in years 1750 with Cowboys and Indians Or in 1850 with Billie the kid ? Europe is ahead of the USA in term of comfort, safety, and progress. USA are just too much still living in history.

Dallas, Texas- May, 2015 convention center attack: Good Guys 2, Terrorists 0

Paris, France- November, 2015 Theater attack: Good Guys 1, Terrorists >89 (2 other terrorists died by their own hand- can’t give the score to the good guys)

Maybe Trump was onto something. (Still not a Trump fan, BTW)

In the 1930’s x 1940’s, Hitler figured he could run a few tanks into western Europe and they’d give up.

And he did and they did.

Yamamoto figured (paraphrasing), “We can land in California, and march all the way across the country to the White House, and we still won’t have conquered America”. Because he knew the entire populace was armed, in spite of the fact that the American military had been gutted after WW1.

How did that work out for Europe and the Americans?

Nobody knows what the world will look like in 10-20 years. But history has shown that once a government has forced their people to give up a freedom in return for the illusion of security, they never get it back (unless heads roll- literally- and France should know that only too well)

In 10 years, Europeans may be begging for their guns back because they snap to the fact that the government doesn’t have the will or the resources to protect them from attacks in the streets. But even if they get them back, they won’t know how to use them.

In the meantime, Americans keep refusing to let the government take ours away in favor of an illusion of security under the protection of that government- who we all know cannot be counted on to protect us in all places, all the time.

You like it in Europe? Stay there. Enjoy. Eat the cheese, drink the wine… And I hear the chocolate is superb.

We like it fine the way it is in the USA.

Edited November 16, 2015 by impulse

[DM07]

do we want be back like in years 1750 with Cowboys and Indians Or in 1850 with Billie the kid ? Europe is ahead of the USA in term of comfort, safety, and progress. USA are just too much still living in history.

Dallas, Texas- May, 2015 convention center attack: Good Guys 2, Terrorists 0

Paris, France- November, 2015 Theater attack: Good Guys 1, Terrorists >89 (2 other terrorists died by their own hand- can’t give the score to the good guys)

Maybe Trump was onto something. (Still not a Trump fan, BTW)

In the 1930’s x 1940’s, Hitler figured he could run a few tanks into western Europe and they’d give up.

And he did and they did.

Yamamoto figured (paraphrasing), “We can land in California, and march all the way across the country to the White House, and we still won’t have conquered America”, because he knew the entire populace was armed.

How did that work out for Europe and the Americans?

Nobody knows what the world will look like in 10-20 years. But history has shown that once a government has forced their people to give up a freedom in return for the illusion of security, they never get it back (unless heads roll- literally- and France should know that only too well)

In 10 years, Europeans may be begging for their guns back because they snap to the fact that the government doesn’t have the will or the resources to protect them from attacks in the streets. But even if they get them back, they won’t know how to use them.

In the meantime, Americans keep refusing to let the government take ours away in favor of an illusion of security under the protection of that government- who we all know cannot be counted on to protect us in all places, all the time.

You like it in Europe? Stay there. Enjoy. Eat the cheese, drink the wine… And I hear the chocolate is superb.

We like it fine the way it is in the USA.

...and if you were to take your own advice and stay there, we might not have some of the problems we are facing now!

But you choose to destabilize Iraq, because GW had to finish what his daddy started and you let hellfire rain from drones onto unarmed and most likely innocent civilians on the off- chance, that you might eventually hit a terrorist...

US politics has created more terrorists, that ISIS or the taliban ever could have achieved on their own.

[MrTee]

do we want be back like in years 1750 with Cowboys and Indians Or in 1850 with Billie the kid ? Europe is ahead of the USA in term of comfort, safety, and progress. USA are just too much still living in history.

Dallas, Texas- May, 2015 convention center attack: Good Guys 2, Terrorists 0

Paris, France- November, 2015 Theater attack: Good Guys 1, Terrorists >89 (2 other terrorists died by their own hand- can’t give the score to the good guys)

Maybe Trump was onto something. (Still not a Trump fan, BTW)

In the 1930’s x 1940’s, Hitler figured he could run a few tanks into western Europe and they’d give up.

And he did and they did.

Yamamoto figured (paraphrasing), “We can land in California, and march all the way across the country to the White House, and we still won’t have conquered America”, because he knew the entire populace was armed.

How did that work out for Europe and the Americans?

Nobody knows what the world will look like in 10-20 years. But history has shown that once a government has forced their people to give up a freedom in return for the illusion of security, they never get it back (unless heads roll- literally- and France should know that only too well)

In 10 years, Europeans may be begging for their guns back because they snap to the fact that the government doesn’t have the will or the resources to protect them from attacks in the streets. But even if they get them back, they won’t know how to use them.

In the meantime, Americans keep refusing to let the government take ours away in favor of an illusion of security under the protection of that government- who we all know cannot be counted on to protect us in all places, all the time.

You like it in Europe? Stay there. Enjoy. Eat the cheese, drink the wine… And I hear the chocolate is superb.

We like it fine the way it is in the USA.

...and if you were to take your own advice and stay there, we might not have some of the problems we are facing now!

But you choose to destabilize Iraq, because GW had to finish what his daddy started and you let hellfire rain from drones onto unarmed and most likely innocent civilians on the off- chance, that you might eventually hit a terrorist...

US politics has created more terrorists, that ISIS or the taliban ever could have achieved on their own.

When you read the statistics of how many folk die in the US by firearms you have to be concerned when they start telling Europe we need more guns.

Empirical evidence shows these backward people for what they are.

[chrisinth]

<snip>

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.

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

This thread is about an American telling the Europeans what to do about their safety as it relates to gun ownership

Read the title and OP

From the OP:

BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says the terror attacks in Paris would have been "a much, much different situation" had the victims been armed with guns.

I didn't hear him tell the French or Europeans what to do about their gun ownership.

He simply pointed out the outcome might have been different if some of the unarmed citizens gunned down (paraphrased) had been armed with their own self protective device (guns).

I find that a perfectly reasonable assumption.

I don't know the answers to these, hence the reason for asking:

1. How easy is it in America to get a permit to carry, how many are issued?

2. Are firearms allowed into concerts in America?

3. Are firearms allowed into football games in America?

4. Are firearms allowed in bars in America?

I would imagine the answers to the above would vastly reduce the number of people carrying anyway, even in America.

[h90]

if the state gives up.....letting immigrants in without even trying to check their identity .....the citizen must protect themself.

It is complete wrong, but what other choice do I have if there is danger and the police/army is not protecting me, I need to shoot the bad guy myself.

[arjunadawn]

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.

Why on earth would is Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen Nigeria, etc., "obviously the model to follow?"

It is irrefutable that gun control only takes weapons from the law abiding citizens. There is overwhelming evidence that the absence of guns does not necessarily reduce violent death, just look at stabbings as an epidemic. Since people dont kill people, knives do, why is there not knife control?

Trump speaks often about distasteful things, yet they are self evident, and refreshing. The "Paris attack would have been different with more guns," for sure.

You talk about irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, but fail to understand empirical evidence.

In the UK you, me, the policemen and every one else are 100 times less less to be murdered by a firearm than in the USA..

What stabbing epidemic?

Europe does not have a stabbing epidemic despite what memes you may have seen on the internet.. THats not to say there are far too many youngsters roaming the streets and stabbing each other but its not an epidemic as portrayed in some hysterical newspapers -- there is not a stabbing every four minutes in the UK as portrayed in hysterical rags that just a love a sensational headline to sell papers.. if you actually read the statistics they are 'reporting' you'll see they say nothing like the papers reported. nonsense..

yes knife crime is far too high, but to say its an epidemic is pure hysteria..

are you really saying that thousands of people at a rock concert should be armed?

or thousands at a football game should be armed?

You can keep your rights to carry\own firearms, knock selves out. enjoy your news headlines every time some monster decides to go an shoot your kids.

But you\trump can't sell your madness to us.. as someone else pointed out it's the dark ages.

Europe has moved on..

I analogies to the US can be made then certainly middle east stabbing analogy also reflect the state of things. No one said thousands should be armed, only that were people vvariously armed these types of events always go differently, It is a bedrock of terrorist target profiling, to look for soft not hard targets. The data is pretty empirical on the target selection mechanisms for terrorists. They change little by ideology because practically speaking, its the same analysis.

Yes, Europe has moved on. That is, after all, the point of much of the OPs lately. Welcome to the fantasy EU your politics envison. May there be mercy on all the innoncents so afflicted by the liberal chains.

[h90]

I wonder how many more deaths there would have been from 'friendly fire' had there been panicked untrained civilians firing at anything that moved?

Not many I guess.....And I would prefer to get a friendly fire bullet into my leg than get executed by an Islamist....And the Islamists would even start that if they know that 1-2% of the population has a gun. They would choose an easier target.

(hundreds come into my mind.....but don't want to give someone ideas)

[h90]

do we want be back like in years 1750 with Cowboys and Indians Or in 1850 with Billie the kid ? Europe is ahead of the USA in term of comfort, safety, and progress. USA are just too much still living in history.

1750 or 1850 or 1984 (Orwell) with total surveillance and still having terrorists?

[chuckd]

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.

That is simple enough to answer they are cowards. not a real man amongst them

Did the fact that many in the US have guns stop 9/11, or Boston, or Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or.....?

More guns is not the answer..

Let's examine this particularly brilliant bit of prose.

1. The 9/11 hijackers were on scheduled airlines. No guns are permitted on board scheduled airlines.

2. I presume you are talking about the Boston marathon bombing? There were no guns involved by anybody in the bombing incident. Bad guys or good guys. Why would somebody shoot a backpack seemingly innocently resting on the ground?

3. Columbine was a gun free zone.m Legal gun owners tend to follow the laws. There would have been no guns available at the school.

4. Sandy Hook? See number 3 above.

Try again.

so the upshot is these things still happened..

Yep.

And every one of them in "gun free" zones.

[MrTee]

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.

Why on earth would is Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen Nigeria, etc., "obviously the model to follow?"

It is irrefutable that gun control only takes weapons from the law abiding citizens. There is overwhelming evidence that the absence of guns does not necessarily reduce violent death, just look at stabbings as an epidemic. Since people dont kill people, knives do, why is there not knife control?

Trump speaks often about distasteful things, yet they are self evident, and refreshing. The "Paris attack would have been different with more guns," for sure.

You talk about irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, but fail to understand empirical evidence.

In the UK you, me, the policemen and every one else are 100 times less less to be murdered by a firearm than in the USA..

What stabbing epidemic?

Europe does not have a stabbing epidemic despite what memes you may have seen on the internet.. THats not to say there are far too many youngsters roaming the streets and stabbing each other but its not an epidemic as portrayed in some hysterical newspapers -- there is not a stabbing every four minutes in the UK as portrayed in hysterical rags that just a love a sensational headline to sell papers.. if you actually read the statistics they are 'reporting' you'll see they say nothing like the papers reported. nonsense..

yes knife crime is far too high, but to say its an epidemic is pure hysteria..

are you really saying that thousands of people at a rock concert should be armed?

or thousands at a football game should be armed?

You can keep your rights to carry\own firearms, knock selves out. enjoy your news headlines every time some monster decides to go an shoot your kids.

But you\trump can't sell your madness to us.. as someone else pointed out it's the dark ages.

Europe has moved on..

I analogies to the US can be made then certainly middle east stabbing analogy also reflect the state of things. No one said thousands should be armed, only that were people vvariously armed these types of events always go differently, It is a bedrock of terrorist target profiling, to look for soft not hard targets. The data is pretty empirical on the target selection mechanisms for terrorists. They change little by ideology because practically speaking, its the same analysis.

Yes, Europe has moved on. That is, after all, the point of much of the OPs lately. Welcome to the fantasy EU your politics envison. May there be mercy on all the innoncents so afflicted by the liberal chains.

Your point isn't clear to me, but if you are suggesting that 'some' people should be allowed to go to bars, restaurants, football stadiums and rock concerts carrying lethal weapons then clearly you are deranged and need to re-evaluate your weltanschauung.

Good luck..

[MrTee]

Yep.

And every one of them in "gun free" zones.

and so are bars, restaurants, rock concerts, football stadiums..

And thankfully so is most of Europe.

Trump is a moron. his mediaeval ideas are not for us - it may work for more primitive cultures, though the evidence suggests that you just end up with more and more innocent people dying.

Up to you.. you want it you have it..

ok - thanks bye.

[h90]

That is simple enough to answer they are cowards. not a real man amongst them

Did the fact that many in the US have guns stop 9/11, or Boston, or Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or.....?

More guns is not the answer..

Let's examine this particularly brilliant bit of prose.

1. The 9/11 hijackers were on scheduled airlines. No guns are permitted on board scheduled airlines.

2. I presume you are talking about the Boston marathon bombing? There were no guns involved by anybody in the bombing incident. Bad guys or good guys. Why would somebody shoot a backpack seemingly innocently resting on the ground?

3. Columbine was a gun free zone.m Legal gun owners tend to follow the laws. There would have been no guns available at the school.

4. Sandy Hook? See number 3 above.

Try again.

so the upshot is these things still happened..

Yep.

And every one of them in "gun free" zones.

but wouldn't the terrorist brake the law if they bring guns into the "gun free" zones?

Banning guns only ban guns from the honest people. The bad guys don't care that their gun is illegal.

[chrisinth]

There are few things scarier than seeing a drunk in a crowded bar playing with the safety catch of his weapon, when someone accidentally spills his beer on him.

One of a hundred reasons why permit to carry needs to be strictly controlled.

Let everyone have their own weapon, no problem, but leave them at home, no need to become paranoid to give yourselves excuses to carry in public..............................

[balo]

Guns will not change anything, an evil person can show up with a kalashnikov and kill 100 people anywhere in the world. There is just no defense against it. Instead try to stop the illegal trade of machine guns , that would be a good start.

[Pimay1]

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.

Original post deleted due to too many posts. Obviously from your remarks you are not a fearful man. Please tell us how you would defend or have defended yourself against an armed predator.

I come from a country with strict gun control, even the criminals hardly ever have guns. So I am not afraid at all of encountering an armed predator.

Now here in Thailand the situation is different, I think there are way too many guns here, and stricter control would be much better, and for sure preferable over arming everybody.

Hardly ever means some do have guns. I ask you again as you didn't answer my question, please tell us how you would defend or have defended yourself against an armed predator.

[Morch]

Of course European liberals go into mocking mode at any suggestion of how to combat the mess their own immigration policies have caused. The reality is that European citizens are rapidly arming themselves. Look at spiraling gun sales in Denmark and Sweden. If the authorities can't protect the public vigilantes and private militias will quickly do so.

Incidentally to get a Swedish gun license means you have to join a shooting club and be trained how to use it, so the notion that people just buy guns over the counter does not reflect reality.

People buying more firearms is not exactly an indication that this is a good development. It may indicate that they feel authorities fail to provide adequate protection. More an argument for better policing and security policies, perhaps.

I don't know how tough are gun ownership laws all over Europe, and what requirements they involve. To take the above example, allow me to doubt that having to join a shooting club and be trained how to use a gun equate with having a clue as to what to do under stressful circumstances. Target practice in a range is all very fine, but it is not even remotely close to the level of proficiency required for addressing such situations. The level of practice and training involved is not something most ordinary people are able to invest. There was a very detailed post on this topic, a while back (I think by arjunadawn), hard to track down what with the amount of gun control related topics.

Having a weapon for sport and target practice is one thing, having a weapon for home protection is another. Carrying in public with the notion of using it to stop a crime is a different category altogether. Not many people would have actual experience using firearms in real life situations, and actually shooting someone is not as easy as it sounds.

[MrTee]

I wonder how many more deaths there would have been from 'friendly fire' had there been panicked untrained civilians firing at anything that moved?

Not many I guess.....And I would prefer to get a friendly fire bullet into my leg than get executed by an Islamist....And the Islamists would even start that if they know that 1-2% of the population has a gun. They would choose an easier target.

(hundreds come into my mind.....but don't want to give someone ideas)

nonsense..

Gun ownership in France = 31.2%..

French Police carry weapons..

The French have several different police forces, many carry assault rifles.

People inside club, bars, restaurants, rock concerts, football stadiums do not carry weapons.

[Morch]

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.

This argument is related to how prevalent are armed burglaries/attacks/whatever in respective countries. If the EU, as a whole, faces less cases of crime involving firearms, Europeans may see things differently. Home protection is not the same thing as counter-terrorism at a public place involving crowds of people.

[stevenl]

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

Original post deleted due to too many posts. Obviously from your remarks you are not a fearful man. Please tell us how you would defend or have defended yourself against an armed predator.

I come from a country with strict gun control, even the criminals hardly ever have guns. So I am not afraid at all of encountering an armed predator.

Now here in Thailand the situation is different, I think there are way too many guns here, and stricter control would be much better, and for sure preferable over arming everybody.

Hardly ever means some do have guns. I ask you again as you didn't answer my question, please tell us how you would defend or have defended yourself against an armed predator.

Your question has been answered, you just need to be able to read.

[h90]

I wonder how many more deaths there would have been from 'friendly fire' had there been panicked untrained civilians firing at anything that moved?

Not many I guess.....And I would prefer to get a friendly fire bullet into my leg than get executed by an Islamist....And the Islamists would even start that if they know that 1-2% of the population has a gun. They would choose an easier target.

(hundreds come into my mind.....but don't want to give someone ideas)

nonsense..

Gun ownership in France = 31.2%..

French Police carry weapons..

The French have several different police forces, many carry assault rifles.

People inside club, bars, restaurants, rock concerts, football stadiums do not carry weapons.

I don't know myself, but I read in the newspaper that France has one of the strictest anti-private gun laws. Wrong or right, I don't know.

[Morch]

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

any other alternative will be a failure.

[Morch]

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.

Not entirely correct.

While attacks based on ideological/religious motivation can not be completely stopped by force, they can certainly be curbed. This comes with the unsavory (for some) price of lesser freedoms, higher levels of suspicion, animosity and divisions between groups of people. It does not automatically mean a fascist, military dictatorship style of government, but does imply taking another look at the real life implementation of certain ideals.

Not saying this is a good thing. Sometimes choices aren't that great, though.

[MrTee]

I wonder how many more deaths there would have been from 'friendly fire' had there been panicked untrained civilians firing at anything that moved?

Not many I guess.....And I would prefer to get a friendly fire bullet into my leg than get executed by an Islamist....And the Islamists would even start that if they know that 1-2% of the population has a gun. They would choose an easier target.

(hundreds come into my mind.....but don't want to give someone ideas)

nonsense..

Gun ownership in France = 31.2%..

French Police carry weapons..

The French have several different police forces, many carry assault rifles.

People inside club, bars, restaurants, rock concerts, football stadiums do not carry weapons.

I don't know myself, but I read in the newspaper that France has one of the strictest anti-private gun laws. Wrong or right, I don't know.

Europe, well all of the EU do have strict gun laws that is common law in the EU, that doesn't mean you cannot own or use a firearm.

Many of these guns have been around for years.

It's a misconception that Europeans do not have firearms.

Much central Europe there is around 30 firearms per 100 people..

In the UK its around 6 firearms per 100.

But, we are not a gun culture.

As I posted before the last time a British police was killed by a firearm was in 2012. If the UK police draw their weapons it makes national news. it is a very rare event. I hope it stays like that..

I'm not so bold as to think my ideas on gun ownership should be imposed on any else, but I take umbrage at those, from a culture where 10s of thousands die each year from firearms, where toddlers are shooting other toddlers, trigger happy policemen murdering folk, start telling me that we need more guns. its madness.. pure and simple madness. you guys do what you want, but please don't assume to tell me your way is better

I've been trained to use high powered weapons, and it'd scare me to death if I thought that these sort of firearms were readily available.

I've fired off 1000s upon 1000s of rounds, both in a military environment and sporting environments.

I've also been confronted with weapons many times more than I'd like. not least of all here in Thailand.

[chuckd]

<snip>

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.

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

This thread is about an American telling the Europeans what to do about their safety as it relates to gun ownership

Read the title and OP

From the OP:

BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says the terror attacks in Paris would have been "a much, much different situation" had the victims been armed with guns.

I didn't hear him tell the French or Europeans what to do about their gun ownership.

He simply pointed out the outcome might have been different if some of the unarmed citizens gunned down (paraphrased) had been armed with their own self protective device (guns).

I find that a perfectly reasonable assumption.

I don't know the answers to these, hence the reason for asking:

1. How easy is it in America to get a permit to carry, how many are issued?

2. Are firearms allowed into concerts in America?

3. Are firearms allowed into football games in America?

4. Are firearms allowed in bars in America?

I would imagine the answers to the above would vastly reduce the number of people carrying anyway, even in America.

It depends on each state and the local jurisdictions. There are literally thousands of laws on the books regulating the ownership and use of personal weapons.

Open carry is legal in nearly all 50 states and concealed carry is legal in some. It depends on the particular state.

As a matter of interest, those states with the most restrictive carry laws are the same ones that are high on the list of murders by gun.

As far as football games or concerts are concerned, i wouldn't recommend a terrorist show up at a Friday night high school football game or a Garth Brooks concert in Texas and not be greeted by anything but a hostile and armed crowd.

Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what is to be considered a gun free zone.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, check out Wikipedia for both categories (open and concealed carry) and you will find tons of information.