Trump: Paris attack would have been different with more guns

[chuckd]

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.

"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."

BINGO!

Therein lies the entire discussion in a nutshell.

[h90]

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.

30 firearms per 100 can mean that out of 100 people 1 has 30 guns or that 30 have 1 gun each.

I doubt that with more guns we would all get Americans and all the American problems. In central Europe and in Thailand the police have guns and still they aren't murdering folks. So more guns in Europe would not make us American cops.

From my male staff in the office in Thailand almost everyone has an (illegal) gun (well most are southerns). But we don't have shootings in the office and non got shot by the toddlers. Yes in the village at celebrations some idiots shoot in the air with gun and on the close by rice field (it is Bangkok, but still here is a rice field) they shoot birds (with the lead sometimes falling on my roof ), diotic.....injured or dead people in the last 10 years: Zero

[MrTee]

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.

30 firearms per 100 can mean that out of 100 people 1 has 30 guns or that 30 have 1 gun each.

I doubt that with more guns we would all get Americans and all the American problems. In central Europe and in Thailand the police have guns and still they aren't murdering folks. So more guns in Europe would not make us American cops.

From my male staff in the office in Thailand almost everyone has an (illegal) gun (well most are southerns). But we don't have shootings in the office and non got shot by the toddlers. Yes in the village at celebrations some idiots shoot in the air with gun and on the close by rice field (it is Bangkok, but still here is a rice field) they shoot birds (with the lead sometimes falling on my roof ), diotic.....injured or dead people in the last 10 years: Zero

I'm glad no one in Thailand gets shot.

lets hope it stays like that ..

[seedy]

One Troll / Flaming post removed

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Yeah, in USA they have guns so they send planes...

Trump shut up and get lost

[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.

Oh jeesh....

here is another dumb post about how usa caused all the religious zealots in the middle east to get riled up. Give us a break.

Thats in history 101.....muslims have been trying to get their hands on spain and france (priorily Gaul) for ages. Most of Spain was invaded by the Saracens more than 1100 years ago.

USA had nothing to do with it. Sharia law is ages older than the USA

get a grip. read some history. El Qaeda group had their affiliations...but this religious war against the infidel is old hat. I would say the Crusaders are the ones that really kicked the hornets nest....and that is when the "Holy Land" dilemma really got out of hand. If you got to point fingers...point it at the Holy Roman Empire...whose Emperor came from..???

You re blind or don't understand sh.t about ACTUAL geo-strategy, do you?

You should just go read a bit more about what is happening actually in middle east.

I am quite sure there was not any recent bombing or invasion in Europe, USA or South America by any middle east government with the goal to bring "freedom", exploit ressources,...

But your blindness make you sleep tight, so keep dreaming little boy

[GeorgesAbitbol]

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.

30 firearms per 100 can mean that out of 100 people 1 has 30 guns or that 30 have 1 gun each.

I doubt that with more guns we would all get Americans and all the American problems. In central Europe and in Thailand the police have guns and still they aren't murdering folks. So more guns in Europe would not make us American cops.

From my male staff in the office in Thailand almost everyone has an (illegal) gun (well most are southerns). But we don't have shootings in the office and non got shot by the toddlers. Yes in the village at celebrations some idiots shoot in the air with gun and on the close by rice field (it is Bangkok, but still here is a rice field) they shoot birds (with the lead sometimes falling on my roof ), diotic.....injured or dead people in the last 10 years: Zero

Each one of your staff is then holding holster with a gun everyday at your office, right?

[GeorgesAbitbol]

I just want to know if the pro guns living in Thailand have their guns and are constantly ready here?

How many are carrying gun in their daily life in bangkok?

I am pretty sure none of your, so you must be really scared all the time...

[impulse]

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.

That's a whole different topic than Trump and guns, but I agree completely. Since the USA gets a small percentage of their oil from the Middle East, and a small percentage of the oil from the Middle East ends up in the USA, we should quit spending American blood and treasure cleaning up the mess left behind when European colonies collapsed (as a result of yet another Euro squabble) and borders were drawn by Europeans with no thought of ethnicity or history. And while we're at it, we should stop protecting the sea lanes headed to all the countries that enjoy US military spending so they can spend their treasure on chocolate, cheese, wine and all the other niceties.

We'll get our oil from our hemisphere.

But be careful what you hope for. Europe can't afford their own security.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

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.

That's a whole different topic than Trump and guns, but I agree completely. Since the USA gets a small percentage of their oil from the Middle East, and a small percentage of the oil from the Middle East ends up in the USA, we should quit spending American blood and treasure cleaning up the mess left behind when European colonies collapsed (as a result of yet another Euro squabble) and borders were drawn by Europeans with no thought of ethnicity or history. And while we're at it, we should stop protecting the sea lanes headed to all the countries that enjoy US military spending so they can spend their treasure on chocolate, cheese, wine and all the other niceties.

We'll get our oil from our hemisphere.

But be careful what you hope for. Europe can't afford their own security.

We'll get our oil from our hemisphere.

You mean by changing the governments in south America because they don't want to follow your rules?

Europe can't afford their own security.

While USA clearly can, as we can see ...oh the irony!

Yeah stop your hegemony which is not done because of your willing to help but to steal or manipulate

[tartempion]

Outcome would have been different with more guns?

Yes, more deaths.

[impulse]

We'll get our oil from our hemisphere.

You mean by changing the governments in south America because they don't want to follow your rules?

You're confusing oil and bananas. We buy the oil. We have (ashamed to admit) stolen the bananas on occasion.

[Morch]

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.

Oh jeesh....

here is another dumb post about how usa caused all the religious zealots in the middle east to get riled up. Give us a break.

Thats in history 101.....muslims have been trying to get their hands on spain and france (priorily Gaul) for ages. Most of Spain was invaded by the Saracens more than 1100 years ago.

USA had nothing to do with it. Sharia law is ages older than the USA

get a grip. read some history. El Qaeda group had their affiliations...but this religious war against the infidel is old hat. I would say the Crusaders are the ones that really kicked the hornets nest....and that is when the "Holy Land" dilemma really got out of hand. If you got to point fingers...point it at the Holy Roman Empire...whose Emperor came from..???

What does Germany have to do with this? After all the Holy Roman Empire was Central European.

But that is all old history. I cant see how anyone can deny that the present day's hornet's nest was caused by the destabilisation of the ME, mainly under responsibility of Bush jr.

That's just another arbitrary starting point.

[arjunadawn]

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 envision. May there be mercy on all the innocents 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..

I am not remotely suggesting people should be "allowed" to go... I am suggesting that in a normal relationship with State, the government should not have much to say about it irrespective of emotions or whining or the infliction the left wishes upon the whole. When a background check is passed, a person otherwise law abiding, with some/few restrictions for order, people should always be empowered to self defense. My worldview is actually far more universal and applicable then the foolish nonsense that guns kill people, not people.

I think Trump pivots wildly enough to extremes that he causes me concern, and I think it is true that his comment about Paris were just stupid, albeit correct. He should have kept his mouth shut and other posts take him to task on this.

(I will concede this past week I had a long and hard thought about whether my position on guns is actually valid or a relic from my growing up. Do we really need weapons like we have, in the US for example? Is the gun lobby position valid, today- that guns were not intended for hunting rather to preserve the people from a government if out of control. Well, no amount of guns could ever resist a government turned on its people anymore. That wont fly any longer, and that is the chief defense. However, the inherent natural right of a human being to self defense always exists irrespective of social compacts. State, no state... a person should always retain any means to prolong life. Its self evident. But I did genuinely take it apart and consider this).

[metisdead]

A profane and inflammatory post has been removed as well as the quoted replies.

[stevenl]

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.

Oh jeesh....

here is another dumb post about how usa caused all the religious zealots in the middle east to get riled up. Give us a break.

Thats in history 101.....muslims have been trying to get their hands on spain and france (priorily Gaul) for ages. Most of Spain was invaded by the Saracens more than 1100 years ago.

USA had nothing to do with it. Sharia law is ages older than the USA

get a grip. read some history. El Qaeda group had their affiliations...but this religious war against the infidel is old hat. I would say the Crusaders are the ones that really kicked the hornets nest....and that is when the "Holy Land" dilemma really got out of hand. If you got to point fingers...point it at the Holy Roman Empire...whose Emperor came from..???

What does Germany have to do with this? After all the Holy Roman Empire was Central European.

But that is all old history. I cant see how anyone can deny that the present day's hornet's nest was caused by the destabilisation of the ME, mainly under responsibility of Bush jr.

That's just another arbitrary starting point.

Since there was no threat to Europe or US for many years before Bush's invasion I don't think that starting point is so arbitrary.

[DM07]

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)

You do understand, though, that friendly fire has no obligation to hit you in the leg, right?!

That is not, what the "friendly" is about!

[Morch]

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.

In Hollywood, maybe. In real life, We're not talking about target shooting on a range here. And actually, there's quite a bit of science and training if done properly.

The targets in real life tend to move, can shoot back at you from greater distances (depending on their weapons of choice), and are not to bothered about hitting them people between our hero shooter and themselves.

[Morch]

Oh jeesh....

here is another dumb post about how usa caused all the religious zealots in the middle east to get riled up. Give us a break.

Thats in history 101.....muslims have been trying to get their hands on spain and france (priorily Gaul) for ages. Most of Spain was invaded by the Saracens more than 1100 years ago.

USA had nothing to do with it. Sharia law is ages older than the USA

get a grip. read some history. El Qaeda group had their affiliations...but this religious war against the infidel is old hat. I would say the Crusaders are the ones that really kicked the hornets nest....and that is when the "Holy Land" dilemma really got out of hand. If you got to point fingers...point it at the Holy Roman Empire...whose Emperor came from..???

What does Germany have to do with this? After all the Holy Roman Empire was Central European.

But that is all old history. I cant see how anyone can deny that the present day's hornet's nest was caused by the destabilisation of the ME, mainly under responsibility of Bush jr.

That's just another arbitrary starting point.

Since there was no threat to Europe or US for many years before Bush's invasion I don't think that starting point is so arbitrary.

There was no Middle East related terrorist attacks in Europe prior to the Iraq invasion? No attacks on USA and European targets in the Middle East prior to the Invasion?

[Morch]

What does Germany have to do with this? After all the Holy Roman Empire was Central European.

But that is all old history. I cant see how anyone can deny that the present day's hornet's nest was caused by the destabilisation of the ME, mainly under responsibility of Bush jr.

Lets just say that was the beginning of the trouble....in the Holy Land.

It never ended....but I am sure a good scholar would want to know how it began.

Blaming the USA just does not always work for me.

I would say the Roman Empire, not the Holy Roman Empire, started the problems there.

But it was very, very quiet for many years, until the US decided to unsettle things there.

We're talking about the Middle East, right? Quiet for many many years....when, exactly?

Or is this an alternate reality Middle East?

[Morch]

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.

Not getting if you're trying to imply that an armed society acts as a deterrent or that it is effective as an alternative to professional counter-terrorism units.

There is no way to compare the situation in the USA with that of the EU when it comes to such terrorist attacks. The EU is simply much more accessible, which is the foremost determinant of terrorist attacks. Choosing civilian soft targets is what makes these attack terrorist acts, go for max casualties, shatter normality, and make people doubt authorities. More terror value per casualty when they are civilians, nothing mysterious about it.

The assumption that there would have been less casualties had weapon regulations been different, assumes that people would have the knowledge, skill and opportunity to use them. Not sure it is something to be tested in the middle of a rock concert or a football match.

[Morch]

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.

Are there actually more criminal cases resulting in violent death (by firearms, or otherwise) in the EU compared to the USA?

The two approaches often presented here are (I think), something like this:

1. Violent crime is a fact of life, therefore gun ownership contributes to citizen's security.

2. Gun ownership means more weapons all around, thereby contributing to a more violent society.

Not sure that there's a way to make an objective judgement on that, considering gun ownership is just part of the issue.

[Morch]

Not surprised at this mindless comment. Bush v IIII coming from hell

One of the best graffiti pieces I have seen said "Fight fire with fire and the world will burn"

Its a nice cliche, but meaningless. Many people prefer not to surrender their wives, their property, their wealth, their countries, their lives, into the hand of mobs, killers, criminals, insurgents, invaders, or other such parasites on humanity. There are plenty of examples in contemporary history where not fighting fire with fire has resulted in ethnic cleansing, murder, destruction, rape, etc. It is a liberal fiction that defending one's self or property can be a restricted act.

Governments were constituted to ensure the public peace. In the absence of government being able to effectively manage this prime directive the natural rights of man are always the reserve, and each man and woman alive always retain the rights/means to continue living. Period!

If there were no AKs in this assault it would have been ANFO and knives, but it would have happened regardless. Guns keep people alive!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-clarke-urges-residents-to-arm-themselves-with-guns-o38h47h-188375091.html

Nice post. For all the anti gun nutters posting here saying no civilian should be allowed to own a weapon you might consider what the Afghans did when the Soviet Union invaded them. Every Afghan family is armed and had they not been armed they would have been speaking Russian today.

I don't think Europe aims to emulate Afghanistan, in pretty much ANY regard.

Europe is not in a similar state to Afghanistan vs. USSR, and hard to see how having an family assault rifle would improve things. Considering the aftermath of the Soviet invasion, them weapons currently play a role in enhancing the general lawlessness. Wonder how many weapons were around prior to the Soviet invasion, and how many related deaths occurred, in comparison to the same in later years. Easy enough to arm people, less so to regulate weapons and their use.

If and when there will be a total collapse of governments in Europe, I doubt that the citizens would have great difficulties in arming themselves. These two effects go hand in hand.

[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.

Not getting if you're trying to imply that an armed society acts as a deterrent or that it is effective as an alternative to professional counter-terrorism units.

There is no way to compare the situation in the USA with that of the EU when it comes to such terrorist attacks. The EU is simply much more accessible, which is the foremost determinant of terrorist attacks. Choosing civilian soft targets is what makes these attack terrorist acts, go for max casualties, shatter normality, and make people doubt authorities. More terror value per casualty when they are civilians, nothing mysterious about it.

The assumption that there would have been less casualties had weapon regulations been different, assumes that people would have the knowledge, skill and opportunity to use them. Not sure it is something to be tested in the middle of a rock concert or a football match.

My opinion on the armed civilian theory is precisely the fact that the possibility of armed intervention to a terrorist attack moves a soft target into a possible hard target. Just the possibility of armed civilians can cause doubt.

Terrorists and the Adam Lanzas of the world want to do their killing uninterrupted and at their own leisure. People shooting back at them causes discomfort, as is evidenced by the fact that when the authorities arrive they often kill themselves or pull the pin on the suicide vest.

Look at history on mass shootings in the US. Virtually every mass shooting in recent years has been done in gun free zones. France, and the entire European Union have very strict gun laws. These Islamic terrorists know full well they can kill at their own pace since they won't meet any resistance from their intended victims.

One thing that has been discussed here is the ability of the civilians to take any required action to defend themselves should the need arise. The US has a rather large military, which means there are a large number of retired or ex-military individuals active in the communities. Many of them are advocates of personal firearms and are certainly well trained to defend themselves. In short, they are everywhere, they are armed and they are intent on defending themselves and their loved ones.

I feel certain there will be some Islamic terrorist inspired incidents in the US soon. I also feel those incidents will be where there are no guns present to shoot back at them.

I was charged with turning two housing compounds in Saudi from soft to hard targets shortly after the Khobar Towers bombing. Went from having two Sri Lankan guards to having Saudi Special Forces guards with humvees and 20 mm cannons to greet any unwelcome visitors. Our compounds had no problems.

[arjunadawn]

Not surprised at this mindless comment. Bush v IIII coming from hell

One of the best graffiti pieces I have seen said "Fight fire with fire and the world will burn"

Its a nice cliche, but meaningless. Many people prefer not to surrender their wives, their property, their wealth, their countries, their lives, into the hand of mobs, killers, criminals, insurgents, invaders, or other such parasites on humanity. There are plenty of examples in contemporary history where not fighting fire with fire has resulted in ethnic cleansing, murder, destruction, rape, etc. It is a liberal fiction that defending one's self or property can be a restricted act.

Governments were constituted to ensure the public peace. In the absence of government being able to effectively manage this prime directive the natural rights of man are always the reserve, and each man and woman alive always retain the rights/means to continue living. Period!

If there were no AKs in this assault it would have been ANFO and knives, but it would have happened regardless. Guns keep people alive!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-clarke-urges-residents-to-arm-themselves-with-guns-o38h47h-188375091.html

Nice post. For all the anti gun nutters posting here saying no civilian should be allowed to own a weapon you might consider what the Afghans did when the Soviet Union invaded them. Every Afghan family is armed and had they not been armed they would have been speaking Russian today.

I don't think Europe aims to emulate Afghanistan, in pretty much ANY regard.

Europe is not in a similar state to Afghanistan vs. USSR, and hard to see how having an family assault rifle would improve things. Considering the aftermath of the Soviet invasion, them weapons currently play a role in enhancing the general lawlessness. Wonder how many weapons were around prior to the Soviet invasion, and how many related deaths occurred, in comparison to the same in later years. Easy enough to arm people, less so to regulate weapons and their use.

If and when there will be a total collapse of governments in Europe, I doubt that the citizens would have great difficulties in arming themselves. These two effects go hand in hand.

You know, your post is actually the correct point. I fell easily into this rabbit hole and started spouting off. The fact is, upon further reflection, Trump's comments were inappropriate. Europe/France is not the US. Therefore, in essence, you was politicizing the issue for a very US concern. France needs to do whatever is best for them. Trump is correct, IMO. It was just wrong to say this and not useful. This is my renewed take.

[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.

Are there actually more criminal cases resulting in violent death (by firearms, or otherwise) in the EU compared to the USA?

The two approaches often presented here are (I think), something like this:

1. Violent crime is a fact of life, therefore gun ownership contributes to citizen's security.

2. Gun ownership means more weapons all around, thereby contributing to a more violent society.

Not sure that there's a way to make an objective judgement on that, considering gun ownership is just part of the issue.

As usual, you make good points. If I could I would change my post to have said nothing at all. I think my position is right (for me) its just I am not sure this should remotely be part of the conversation just now. France will decide whats right for the French in their own time.

[Adeeos]

Well,, Here you have it,, like it or not.. Seems the, "pro-carry" folks on here may just be correct,,,

http://10news.dk/?p=760

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK TO FOLLOW US

Interpol: allowing citizens to carry guns in public is most effective way to prevent terror attacks

[SilverBeast]

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

I'm going to go with less then the 100 hostages that got executed one by one...

[RidgeRunner]

An armed public may knock off a terrorist or criminal occasionally but there would be a much higher number of accidental and random killings.

[MrTee]

It's now Tuesday 17th Nov..

In the US more people have died by firearm since Friday (13 Nov 2015) than the Daesh killed in Paris..
In the US more people have died by firearm since Friday (13 Nov 2015) than the Daesh killed in Paris..

Read that again and again until it sinks in..

Tell me again Europe need more guns right..
The very idea is risible.