Kid, its not fucking spetznaz. Its a religious nut who got ahold of a gun. Someone who goes to a range and practices daily, takes classes and learns proper shot placement know how to deal with the situation. And guess what else classes teach you? How to stay calm in situations like that :o

but the right wing argument has never been made to train americans how to use guns, it's just to let them own whatever guns they want and carry them around in public. i think if someone is carrying around a gun in a public place, then they need to have the same amount of training and certification as a police officer. i certainly don't want some bozo escalating a situation by waving his fallic symbol around pretending to be a superhero.

maybe possibly a TRAINED shooter could have prevented some of the death in Paris, but it's really impossible to say. there are still mass shootings in america, tragedy will happen everywhere regardless of whether or not a populace is armed.

it's better to think of ways to address the root of the problem and not just shoot at it when it gets close to you.

While there guns give them a heavy advantage (compared to no gun countries) if they ever had to fight an oppression government I doubt they'd have the spirt to fight for long anyway. And it's not really worth the cost still it's swings and rounderbouts.

What you don't take into account, my dear Luna, is that if a certain government of a pro-gun nation were to become so shitty that it would warrant a rebellion, the civilians would have a certain percentage of the military fighting alongside them, as can be seen in the American Civil War. I'm not saying which side would win, just that people wouldn't give up straight away.

(Yes, this figure includes suicides, accidental deaths n stuff, the important part is the gun, not the cause)

Yes, this figure includes suicides...

...the important part is the gun...

Might I ask why using a gun for suicide would matter?

^Because suicide amounts to the vast majority of France's gun deaths, at over 1400. Would they not find another way?

@Lawlz

Mmkay den. Refute only one point that I make. Refute the one point that I say is a different argument for a different time.

Also...

They practiced for years, and still fire from the hip half the time :^)

They fire from the hip because who needs the accuracy when you're simply spraying bullets into crowds of dozens of unarmed people?
And yep. They practiced for years... and? You've only strengthened my argument.

My only note on this:

If I knew the entire country had guns, I wouldn't hold hostages like they have done/do. I'd just shoot everyone around to make sure no one could shoot back.

I also wouldn't trust most civilians with weapons. People panic, that's a fact. The last thing you want is someone shooting a guy because he "Might have been a terrorist"....

leave it to the professionals.

Might I ask why using a gun for suicide would matter?

Because we're looking at gun deaths in general, not just gun violence.
Technically, "gun violence" would disclude things like accidental deaths, which should not be discluded since we're talking about a France that would have plenty of guns.
And although you'd think suicidal people would find a different way out, the majority would most likely not do so since suicide is so easy to commit when you have a gun in front of you. All you need to do is point the gun and pull the trigger. All it takes is one brief negative thought. On the other hand, alternative methods of suicide take a lot more commitment to overcome your body's instinct to stay alive.

the enemy is a group of trained killers wielding Kalashnikov assault rifles, and you're just a panicked civilian with a handgun.

And that's somehow worse than being a panicked civilian with no defense at all?

Roughly 33,000 people die in America annually due to guns. (Yes, this figure includes suicides, accidental deaths n stuff, the important part is the gun, not the cause)

Would the death toll really be lowered by banning/restricted guns? All the things you mentioned can easily be carried out by other means. Knives can be involved with suicide and mass killings. One can rig up an explosive using legal chemicals.

I really don't understand why so many people would rather be totally helpless than have guns. Armed citizens won't always prevent tragedies, but they can give the common folk a CHANCE, and that's better than nothing.

but the right wing argument has never been made to train americans how to use guns, it's just to let them own whatever guns they want and carry them around in public.

You're right, because gun owners generally are knowledgable about the weapon they're buying and take classes, because we care about safety. Gun owners are not nuts, we dont buy guns because "hurr hurr im so cool", we buy them to protect ourselves and hunt. To have to argue gun safety along with ownership is dumb, it should be common sense.

They fire from the hip because who needs the accuracy when you're simply spraying bullets into crowds of dozens of unarmed people?

Unarmed, gee I wonder why so many died. If only someone had been there to take action, such as a citizen with a .22 who took classes on Keeping calm and shot placement :o


Relevant pic

Knives can be involved with suicide and mass killings

It's a bit hard to go on a killing spree in a crowded area with a knife. One you've stabbed 1 person, everyone knows what you're doing. The stronger people who are around can fight you to take it off and everyone else can run. That makes the death total a lot lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

For those too lazy to read: A group of guys with knives killed nearly 30 civilians in China.

They fire from the hip because who needs the accuracy when you're simply spraying bullets into crowds of dozens of unarmed people?

Unarmed, gee I wonder why so many died. If only someone had been there to take action, such as a citizen with a .22 who took classes on Keeping calm and shot placement :o

Somehow, I think a person consumed with hatred, will be far more likely to pull a trigger, than a normal civilian, who has likely never been in such a situation before. Unless said civilian is a former police officer or soldier, who has done more than attend a few classes. The average person is not wired to kill, frankly. If they go down, you just gave the terrorists another gun. If they saw a citizen with a gun, who do you think they will target? Also, at least in the city (where this stuff seems to be primarily happening), most people don't really need a gun to hunt, just as they don't need their big trucks to go off roading. Not really. Sure, a few people probably shoot deer or rabbits or something. But most people? I doubt it.

I know people who bought guns just so that they would feel safer walking into racially tense neighborhoods, for the sake of an app that shall go unmentioned. *cough*

Btw, this is probably why some people think gun restrictions should be more of a priority over the NRA version of the second amendment. restrictions =/= control. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/on-terrorist-watch-list-but-allowed-to-buy-guns/8927/

Edited 11/18/2015 03:31:24

Bwahahahahah! Eklipse you crack me up! KNIVES can be used to carry out terrorist attacks of the same scale? What kind of bullshit is that?! Yes, 8 terrorists killed 29 people once with knives. Then a terrorist attack of the same number of attackers killed over four times that many people with guns!

that's somehow worse than being a panicked civilian with no defense at all?

Unarmed, gee I wonder why so many died. If only someone had been there to take action, such as a citizen with a .22 who took classes on Keeping calm and shot placement :o

Maybe you could, oh I don't know, read the fucking topic I wrote telling you exactly why arming the population is a shitty idea :o

Relevant pic

Are you really one of those people who think that a handful of armed citizens alone can overthrow a modern government.
If so please refer to that Spain guy's post:

if a certain government of a pro-gun nation were to become so shitty that it would warrant a rebellion, the civilians would have a certain percentage of the military fighting alongside them, as can be seen in the American Civil War.

Giving less people guns equals less deaths.

You try to knife someone to death, its a hell of a lot harder than shooting.

You try to knife someone to death, its a hell of a lot harder than shooting.

You just need to know how to do so properly. It's really not hard in theory. The only thing that could possibly botch a good knifing murder is being able to feel the puncture of your blade stabbing into human flesh, while your brain goes crazy because you're too p*ssy and cop out at the last second, leaving the victim only injured.

Trust me, its easier to kill with a gun. For one thing, you have to get close enough to them to let them have a chance to block you.

KNIVES can be used to carry out terrorist attacks of the same scale? What kind of bullshit is that?! Yes, 8 terrorists killed 29 people once with knives.

Yes, which proves that when deprived of guns people will find other means to kill. It's pretty darn easy to carry out attacks against UNARMED civilians. Whenever your target is defenseless you could commit murder with a CLUB. Of course, you're going to dismiss this point as "bullshit" because it runs counter to your agenda. I understand, don't worry.

Maybe you could, oh I don't know, read the fucking topic I wrote telling you exactly why arming the population is a shitty idea :o

Maybe you could, oh I don't know, read the fucking counterpoints people wrote in response to your topic.

Are you really one of those people who think that a handful of armed citizens alone can overthrow a modern government.

I'm pretty sure the situation Lawlz is referring to would involve far more than a handful of citizens. Plus, you entirely missed the point of his picture. This "Oh, we'd just fail anyways so why even bother?" is a stupid attitude.

Edited 11/18/2015 04:14:07

For one thing, you have to get close enough to them to let them have a chance to block you.

Not if you do it properly, albeit you're screwed completely once the cops arrive.

Are you really one of those people who think that a handful of armed citizens alone can overthrow a modern government.

Well more then a handful, but yes, armed citizens can overthrow a modern government. (Modern as 1900 onward) Cuba(1953), Iran(1979), Libya(2011), Russian Empire(1917(twice)), China(1912). There are more but , yes, I do believe armed citizens can overthrow a government.