Trump: Paris attack would have been different with more guns

[piewarmer]

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

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

Thanks, their cool, not so metal at all. cheers.

[piewarmer]

I heard theres a T-shirt saying

"if your religion tells

you to kill people...

start with yourself"

spot on.

[Pinot]

This nonsense about more guns on the street to stop terrorism plays right into the delusional paranoid brains of the Republicans.

Every week 650 people are killed or injured by guns in America. Think about that for a moment. More guns just means more deaths. You are far more likely to die from a wingnut shooting spree than from a terrorist act.

The last thing America needs is more guns but to hear the crazy, crazy, crazy, Republicans tell it, we need more guns.

Oh my Buddha

[Morch]

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.

Terrorists attack whatever targets are at hand. If the choice would have been between an armed to the teeth army base or a public venue with the chance of armed civilians, they would still go for the latter.

The USA tops the world in terms of firearms per capita, but outside of the USA, France is not actually that far down the list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The USA military is large in absolute terms, not so when compared to the overall population - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel#The_list

Not all military personnel are combatants, and not all combatants are fully trained with all firearms and not all are properly trained for urban warfare. That's without factoring erosion of training and skills over time.

The personal experience you described seems to be more in line with getting proper security personnel, with the right training and gear to do take of things. Not quite the same as arming all the residents of the compound.

[Morch]

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

Not the most unbiased of sources there, to put it mildly - a column on http://10news.dk/ written by Nicolai Sennels.

The linked column is not dealing with to the recent attack.

Think I'll wait for another, more credible source, to judge if the headline reflects Interpol's official stance or the views of it's Secretary General - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Noble

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

[chuckd]

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.

Terrorists attack whatever targets are at hand. If the choice would have been between an armed to the teeth army base or a public venue with the chance of armed civilians, they would still go for the latter.

The USA tops the world in terms of firearms per capita, but outside of the USA, France is not actually that far down the list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The USA military is large in absolute terms, not so when compared to the overall population - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel#The_list

Not all military personnel are combatants, and not all combatants are fully trained with all firearms and not all are properly trained for urban warfare. That's without factoring erosion of training and skills over time.

The personal experience you described seems to be more in line with getting proper security personnel, with the right training and gear to do take of things. Not quite the same as arming all the residents of the compound.

Interesting that you would use this analogy:

"Terrorists attack whatever targets are at hand. If the choice would have been between an armed to the teeth army base or a public venue with the chance of armed civilians, they would still go for the latter."

​During my time there, I did lose one employee murdered by an Al Qaeda operative. He shot four of them, only one fatally, in the most secure area of the local military base because he could not get at them on the compound.

We were like the citizens of France. Local laws prohibited us from being armed.

All the residents were either retired or recently deactivated US military personnel.

Hopefully my meager clerical efforts at least made the compound a hard target, which was my message in passing on the personal experiences to begin with.

[Morch]

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.

Terrorists attack whatever targets are at hand. If the choice would have been between an armed to the teeth army base or a public venue with the chance of armed civilians, they would still go for the latter.

The USA tops the world in terms of firearms per capita, but outside of the USA, France is not actually that far down the list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The USA military is large in absolute terms, not so when compared to the overall population - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel#The_list

Not all military personnel are combatants, and not all combatants are fully trained with all firearms and not all are properly trained for urban warfare. That's without factoring erosion of training and skills over time.

The personal experience you described seems to be more in line with getting proper security personnel, with the right training and gear to do take of things. Not quite the same as arming all the residents of the compound.

Interesting that you would use this analogy:

"Terrorists attack whatever targets are at hand. If the choice would have been between an armed to the teeth army base or a public venue with the chance of armed civilians, they would still go for the latter."

​During my time there, I did lose one employee murdered by an Al Qaeda operative. He shot four of them, only one fatally, in the most secure area of the local military base because he could not get at them on the compound.

We were like the citizens of France. Local laws prohibited us from being armed.

All the residents were either retired or recently deactivated US military personnel.

Hopefully my meager clerical efforts at least made the compound a hard target, which was my message in passing on the personal experiences to begin with.

Not sure how this applies to the general population, then. What you describe is a well secured compound, with military background residents. Not a common setup in most Western countries. The deciding factor seems to be the level of security of the compound and not arming the residents. I have no issues with taking up better security measures, as long as those are carried out by professionals. The same goes for citizens who posses relevant background, underwent a proper training and maintain the required skills. Guess one thing we differ about is the proficiency assessment of gun owners.

[Berkshire]

This nonsense about more guns on the street to stop terrorism plays right into the delusional paranoid brains of the Republicans.

Every week 650 people are killed or injured by guns in America. Think about that for a moment. More guns just means more deaths. You are far more likely to die from a wingnut shooting spree than from a terrorist act.

The last thing America needs is more guns but to hear the crazy, crazy, crazy, Republicans tell it, we need more guns.

Oh my Buddha

Yeap, the right-wing crazies do eat that stuff up. Trump may be right in this one instance, more guns that one day would have made the outcome different. Unfortunately, the other 99.9999% of the time, more guns would make Paris a much more dangerous place.