Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

This is not such a bad idea. Unfortunately, it won't help in controlled places like a concert hall (as tonight) where patrons will be scanned at the door. If not today, undoubtedly they'll start doing a lot more of this.

On the street and in restaurants, that's another story.

Or carrying concealed could be allowed there too. Scanners didn't stop this.

Depends if the French are as disposed to shooting each other as Americans are. Over 10,000 Americans are killed by gun violence every year. This is excluding ~19,000 firearm suicides. Since 9/11, the number of U.S. citizens killed in terrorist attacks each year has never surpassed 75.

HN is indeed increasingly pro-helplessness. My personal hypothesis is that it's actually merely a second-order effect. The community tends toward pro-specialization which leads to the tenet that personal security ought to be conducted by specialists.

I fail to see how arming citizens would prevent bombs from blowing them up.

What the hell is wrong with people, suggesting guns as a solution to unpredictable violent situations where guns wouldn't make any difference.

You arm citizens, now what? Shoot anyone that looks mildly suspicious? Hear a bomb go off, you take out your gun then scare the shit out of people surrounding you, then get shot by somebody else that thinks you're part of the bombing?

According to bjs.gov (Bureau of Justice Statistics), it's been around 11-12,000 gun homicides in recent years, down from around 16,000 a few years ago. Over half of those are black-on-black shootings, mainly gang related.

If you control for these gangland shootings, the per capita rate in the U.S. is about the same as Western Europe and Canada.

The U.S. has a socio-economic problem in the ghetto areas, not a gun problem per se, unless you want to argue that it's too easy for gangbangers to obtain guns.

Law abiding citizens with guns aren't doing most of the shootings. Suicides, that's a different story.

I suspect law abiding black citizens in gangland ghettos aren't doing most of the shootings either. What you've done here is to subdivide the whole American population into a group of "not many shooters" and "Higher proportion of shooters". Of course you can always do that, and always find a more specific group that dominates the statistics for any type of crime. But there's a worrying implication that we should somehow allow non-gang members to have guns but ban them from gang members. Or allow people in rich neighborhoods to have guns but ban them from ghettos. Or even, dare I say it, ban them from black people.

Really we need to ban guns from shooters. But there's no way to identify them without catching a lot of harmless people up in the same net. Even poor black gang members can be harmless.

There were active shooters in this instance.

Not much you can do about bombs, see Timothy McVeigh.

Please give an example of a US terrorist attack on a theater/school/whatever when the citizens stopped the attack.

>> Please give an example of a US terrorist attack on a theater/school/whatever when the citizens stopped the attack.

-----

Here are 12.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/1...

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Adding armed citizens into the mix will just shift the method of killing.

I've seriously considered the "arm your citizens" argument, and honestly can't think of it helping, at all.

These guys aren't your run-of-the-mill muggers; they're actively thinking about inflicting the highest casualties in the most efficient manner.

Today it's shootings since most people wouldn't be armed, tomorrow it's something else that guns won't prevent.

At the very least you have some form of self defense. Do you assume all gun owners to be incompetent oafs? I probably shoot more than most police.

If those gang bangers are felons, it's already banned.

It's also illegal to murder someone, yet that doesn't seem to stop those that commit said crime.

So citizens carrying guns doesn't stop, or even reduce, the level of crime. The only impact on society is gang warfare and more effective suicides. That sounds like good evidence to ban guns to me - the benefit (fewer deaths) would far outweigh the cost (freedom to own a gun that evidently doesn't protect you from crime).

Won't help you at all against a bomb.

As 'NotHereNotThere said, terrorists attack in a way adequate to the conditions. They have time to prepare, so whatever means of defense you have, they'll strike in a way in which those means won't help you.

"Or allow people in rich neighborhoods to have guns but ban them from ghettos."

You have articulated the opposite of what self defense proponents want. Here in AZ proponents of humans being able to defend themselves got a recent (partial) win with United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Talking large groups of people hostage is logistically extremely difficult when even a few % are armed.

And to those who say "they will use bombs instead of attacking armed people"... Should bombs be banned too?

Note that in the Pearl High School shooting (item #1), Assistant Principal Joel Myrick had to retrieve his gun from his truck parked off campus because it had to stay outside the "gun-free school zone". It's unclear how many of the 9 victims could have been avoided but for the "gun free school zone."

Ok, so there are some cases where it helped stop the attack. Going a step further, how many of those had AKs and maybe bullet proof vests? Should everyone have armor piercing bullets too?

How many of the attacks happened because it was easy to get guns in the first place?

A terrorist will always be able to procure guns. But what about an unhappy employee, an angry teenager ?

Arming people is no solution to terrorism.

Apparently, armed citizens can help in some cases. Three armed people stopped a nuthead shooting in train in France:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris...

These three persons were not armed.

My feeling (being a European) is that I would feel much more threatened by the fact than people I can see in the street can have a gun than I would feel safer because some random strangers could protect me with their guns.

From time to time there are some news that someone get stabbed because for having allegedly had a bad look on someone else. With guns, you don't even have the option to run.

Admittedly, I didn't know all the details of this story. It seems that they indeed stopped the attacker with bare hands when his gun jammed. Just shows how much luck they had.

There are civilians lawfully carrying guns in Europe, just not many of them, so be free to already feel threatened. I'm not saying we should give guns to every kid out there, but if 1% of citizens were armed, shooting up 100 people wouldn't be such an easy endeavor.

I think I misread your previous statement. I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives.

I think, however, that it's a bit of an absolute statement, as even skirmishes in the combat theaters still heavily rely on small arms from both sides. Perhaps it is possible for that to become the world we live in, however I don't see that being the case given past history.

Keep in mind the idea of an armed populace isn't a one dimensional outcome to only defend against terrorists, but as an equalizer against any assailant in a life or death situation, be they foreign or domestic.

I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose. In this case, the French people did not and do not have that option. Gun laws in France makes NYC look like a paradise for gun owners.

> I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives.

I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot before they strike. So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they're not walking out of that one alive.

> I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose.

The core question here is - defend from what? Guns won't help you defend from a terrorist attack anymore than they can help you defend from an asteroid strike. Since we don't use extinction of dinosaurs as a pro-gun argument, we shouldn't use terrorist attacks either. Note that I'm not supporting pro- or anti-gun stance here, I only refuse to accept invalid arguments - from either side.

> defend from what?

From any assailant, be it a mugger, rapist, breaking and entering, "terrorism" (whatever that actually means), an oppressive state, etc.

Would you rather just do nothing and accept whatever comes your way as fate?

I'm not going into the other potential enemies because I recognize there are valid arguments for guns there, but we know that guns won't help you against a) terrorists, because they have the initiative, so they'll attack in a way that is effective, taking into account whatever defense measures targeted population may have, and b) oppressive state, because a state actor has trained troops (as opposed to untrained civilians) with weapons and motorized equipment.