Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your excuses are nothing but pipe dreams.
People being shot at duck and take cover period.
That is a natural reaction, and nothing you can spout here is going to change that fact.
Years ago, I was in a store that was being held up at gunpoint.
There were at least sixty of us within firing range of the shooter.
We all bolted for the rear of the store.
Not one person that I can recall pulled a gun on the suspect.
He took the money, shot once in the ceiling and took off.
So dude, don't go preaching ***** that doesn't happen in the real world, to back up your crazed love affair with your gun.
Bob.
Sorry "Bob" but I can think what I want.
Of course you ran for the "Back" Door. That's what you said you would do.
Did anyone else have a Gun? Of course its hard to see what went on, when running for the back Door.
Your episode is cute, (if its true) but has no connection with an Armed Terrorist attack, that has a goal of Killing as many as they can, and not just robbing a store.
Its a well known fact almost every Robber is not there to kill anyone. He is there to take the money and get away without a Murder charge. The Terrorist, however, is there to Kill you, and as many more as he can, and not worried about getting away or what they will do with him. Like I said, Bob, not everyone runs.
In our fantasies every one of us is John Wayne, heroically taking out the bad guys with just one or two very well placed shots in the middle of chaos. Reality is more like what you describe above. The sad part is that there are so many who can't separate the two.
Has nothing to do with Fantasies or John Wayne. Its about reality, which some can not seem to grasp.
The reality is that being armed, increases your chances of survival against an armed Terrorist, that will likely shoot you if he sees you, or blow you up, if he gets close enough to you. If your a "Runner" then just go ahead and run, and roll the dice. I couldn't care less.
I am not saying you would not perhaps be successful at killing one of the intruders, but it is highly doubtful you would even get the opportunity to use your weapon,.
Perhaps, but would you deny yourself of the opportunity? You are facing certain death. What do you have to lose? Besides, how about you go unarmed and I go armed. We’ve had many would be mass shootings here that were stopped by someone carrying a weapon. BTW, there was police stationed at the door but, as you seem to like, he was unarmed. What good is he to himself or anybody else?
The Republican candidate for the presidency stated if the people of Paris had been armed, the devastation would not have occurred.
Now let's take a realistic look at what happened in Paris, and see if armed citizens could have made things turn out differently.
You are sitting in a restaurant in Paris, with friends, enjoying some fine French wine with dinner.
Suddenly shots are fired through the window.
Your first thought would be to duck and take cover, not reach for a gun that you may be carrying.
In the time it would take to duck, and then retrieve your weapon, many could be shot dead.
I am not saying you would not perhaps be successful at killing one of the intruders, but it is highly doubtful you would even get the opportunity to use your weapon, because you would be hell bent on searching for adequate cover.
So arming the citizens in this particular situation would not have been successful.
Bob.
It would have been successful in the concert hall. Very few bad guy shooters, too many people for the bad guys to keep an eye on all of the good guys (with guns). Plus, if the terrorists were just shot and not shot dead maybe the concertgoers could all beat the snot out of them before they died to get info on the others.
Here we go again.... Depends on where the guy is, where he is intending to go, how many people are around at the moment, how big the Bomb is, and "If" he has a "dead man switch," which would be highly unlikely, since you can't fire weapons, target people, and hold a switch at the same time.
Your observation has no merit or facts to back it up. A gun would likely stop an explosion, if the first shot was fatal right away, and it may not, but why would it matter? Your talking like the original purpose of the Bomb was to only set it off if the Terrorist was shot at. He would detonate the Bomb at some point anyway, so what's your argument prove? Nothing. Shooting the Terrorist could stop them from picking the place they want to blow up.
Anything else I can inform you on?
There was a man that was just awarded a CMH that ran into just the case I described, so.... there is not much you can "inform" me on. I have been there and done that, obviously that is not the case for you.
The Republican candidate for the presidency stated if the people of Paris had been armed, the devastation would not have occurred.
Now let's take a realistic look at what happened in Paris, and see if armed citizens could have made things turn out differently.
You are sitting in a restaurant in Paris, with friends, enjoying some fine French wine with dinner.
Suddenly shots are fired through the window.
Your first thought would be to duck and take cover, not reach for a gun that you may be carrying.
In the time it would take to duck, and then retrieve your weapon, many could be shot dead.
I am not saying you would not perhaps be successful at killing one of the intruders, but it is highly doubtful you would even get the opportunity to use your weapon, because you would be hell bent on searching for adequate cover.
So arming the citizens in this particular situation would not have been successful.
Bob.
You are incorrect regarding a number of points. Obviously you have never had any training.
Reaction process is:
cover and concealment
assess situation
engage targets
displace as needed
How long? 2-3 seconds maybe. You deploy your firearm as you seek CC. Could be as simple as ducking under a table and dropping out of line of sight. You assess the situation with your weapon deployed towards the threats. Then you engage.
It is proven over again in real life situations that return fire distracts an attacker.
In our fantasies every one of us is John Wayne, heroically taking out the bad guys with just one or two very well placed shots in the middle of chaos. Reality is more like what you describe above. The sad part is that there are so many who can't separate the two.
Interesting how common folk in our country do the same every day when using a firearm to defend themselves from criminals.
Consider this: A while back another band had an active shooter who fired at a very crowded concert. In that case the band itself was shot and at least one member killed. I recall that someone there was armed. It may have been a security guard. Nonetheless the shooter was shot and taken down quickly, with many less casualties than would have been otherwise.
Could the same be said of the Paris attack? No one knows. Over here, someone with a gun wouldn't have been far away and at least could have attempted to kill one of the shooters. In fact, if I was someone who carried a weapon, I would consider some training for a situation just for an active shooter. They teach home invasion gun courses, so why not this scenario.
I guess it's always going to be a bit of a trade off isn't it?
Suffer the innumerable casualties in the millions the U.S. has for generations of being armed and killing each other, or suffer the incidents that occur infrequently that result in a mere .0001% ratio of aggregate deaths by firearm by comparison.
Seems like a no brainer to me. France should trade off the 120 deaths for something in the order of ten times that per year (considering the scale of population) just to embrace an idiotic American concept.
Just in: Southbound lanes of I-95 north of Miami shut down during rush hour due to road rage shootings between occupants of two vehicles. Two people hospitalized.
[QUOTE=BruSan;41965902]I guess it's always going to be a bit of a trade off isn't it?
Suffer the innumerable casualties in the millions the U.S. has for generations of being armed and killing each other, or suffer the incidents that occur infrequently that result in a mere .0001% ratio of aggregate deaths by firearm by comparison.
Seems like a no brainer to me. France should trade off the 120 deaths for something in the order of ten times that per year (considering the scale of population) just to embrace an idiotic American concept.
Just in: Southbound lanes of I-95 north of Miami shut down during rush hour due to road rage shootings between occupants of two vehicles. Two people hospitalized. [/quote]
I agree no brain. Especially at the poor logic used to rationalize the above. Oh well. Dog's breakfast and all that.
NO, I don't think armed Frenchmen would have stopped Friday's attack but at the same time, Gun Control didn't keep the attackers from having guns so you can look at it from both sides of the argument!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
