Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

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.

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.

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.

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.