In light of the French terrorist attack......
- Thread starter BudMan5
- Start date
fredj338
Member
We'll disagree a bit. It takes little skill to shoot unarmed people, especially in a large room. They were not fanatics, they planned to escape, faces covered, etc. They would likely have folded in the face of well trained, aggressive resistance. Reports of the "training" coming out of Syria or other such camps are highly over rated. Ever watch these "trained soldiers" on film shooting their weapons? Nothing like trained soldiers IMO. Yes, most bullies fold in the face of a skilled non victim.
Last edited:
I reckon that I'm going to start carrying a grounding rod. ;-)
I agree.On the whole,we'd be better off with more folks carrying,but with that,probably comes more folks that might be considered "loose cannons".
I'm also inclined to think that most law enforcement agencies would prefer citizens to be less armed,as they consider protection to be their franchise.
I will note,however,that I live in a state where a carry permit is virtually impossible to get,so my viewpoint is perhaps different.
Plus this country has too many snooty people who look down their noses at gun ownership. If we mandated that they carry, the amount of their vomit the rest of us would have to walk through would be staggering.
MH8675309
Member
Until we're put in a spot like that it is hard to say how we would perform. But I saw the video (all they could do to help was video it on their cell phone - they certainly didn't have a gun) of the guy shooting the officer laying on his back already hit. If the person filming that murder had a gun instead of a phone I believe they could have at least caused the terrorist some grief and taken his focus off of the guy on the ground. I'd like to believe that if it comes here we wont film anything - I'd like to believe we would shoot them dead in their tracks.
Harkrader
Member
"What does anything that happened in France have to do with what we do here?" - Rastoff
I hear ya, Rastoff. What I think matters is that the Islamist murderers have called for attacks by individuals in Europe and here. I think Australia is beginning to take it seriously after a couple attacks that were obviously Islamist. In one, the killer was labeled a nut case, but he was still adamantly an Islamist nut case.
I think we all have to be more vigilant. In addition to obvious targets such as the media and airports, they have called for attacks on public gathering such as theaters. Considering that they have no respect for their own mosques, I would not be surprised to see them targeting Christian churches and Jewish Temples.
I have friends who attend a church with prominent anti-self-defense signs posted. Knowing full well that murderers ignore such - and have demonstrated it here in Wisconsin - they carry anyway.
I would too.
I hear ya, Rastoff. What I think matters is that the Islamist murderers have called for attacks by individuals in Europe and here. I think Australia is beginning to take it seriously after a couple attacks that were obviously Islamist. In one, the killer was labeled a nut case, but he was still adamantly an Islamist nut case.
I think we all have to be more vigilant. In addition to obvious targets such as the media and airports, they have called for attacks on public gathering such as theaters. Considering that they have no respect for their own mosques, I would not be surprised to see them targeting Christian churches and Jewish Temples.
I have friends who attend a church with prominent anti-self-defense signs posted. Knowing full well that murderers ignore such - and have demonstrated it here in Wisconsin - they carry anyway.
I would too.
Last edited:
Offensive to whom? Once you answer that, you may be able to figure out whether that is a good thing or not.Your statement is every bit as offensive as telling people (not otherwise dq'd, of course) they cannot carry a gun.
Automatic Weapons
I've fired fully automatic weapons in the military and in LEO training. Except for the bipod-equipped M-60 Machine gun, fully automatic weapons, while glamorized in Hollywood and TV fiction, tend to shoot too many holes in the air.
If faced with a terror attack, I'd prefer a semi-auto and make every round count. If indeed the French terrorists were firing semi-auto only, it tells me that they were disciplined and have received a considerable degree of training from someone in the know.
I've fired fully automatic weapons in the military and in LEO training. Except for the bipod-equipped M-60 Machine gun, fully automatic weapons, while glamorized in Hollywood and TV fiction, tend to shoot too many holes in the air.
If faced with a terror attack, I'd prefer a semi-auto and make every round count. If indeed the French terrorists were firing semi-auto only, it tells me that they were disciplined and have received a considerable degree of training from someone in the know.
Harkrader
Member
federali:
The report I saw showed the bullet groups. According to witnesses, the guns were full auto but I think we don't know for sure, yet. The groups shown were good for full-auto. The reporter stated that analysts who have seen the tapes and the crime scene believe the killers were military, or trained in military maneuvers.
The report I saw showed the bullet groups. According to witnesses, the guns were full auto but I think we don't know for sure, yet. The groups shown were good for full-auto. The reporter stated that analysts who have seen the tapes and the crime scene believe the killers were military, or trained in military maneuvers.
ChiefStealth
US Veteran
The thing that puzzles me the most is the three "Police Officers" who were killed in this incident. Two of the officers were on the street, and reportedly had two different confrontations with the armed killers. The third officer was "protecting" people on the third floor of the building. So far, I've not heard, or read, anything that indicates that any of the three officers got off a shot. Nor have I read any report that said that any of the officers were even armed.
Frizzman
US Veteran
It seems to me that the people in that office were a prime target for such an attack and they knew it. Better provisions for such a scenario would have been prudent. Mandatory carry is unenforceable and would create more problems. How would "mandatory carry" be defined? If one has a NAA mini revolver in their pocket, would that meet the legal requirement? Would one have to have a more capable gun?...I would suggest giving an area controlled by ISIS or whatever it's called these days a demonstration of the kind of weapons that can wipe them all out...ANY attacks on our country would result in immediate and complete destruction of their entire area. That would include any further urging of such attacks...So far as Europe goes, they will have to live with the consequences of their poor immigration policies...I don't remember the Soviets having much of a problem with this sort of thing...I wonder why?
Brother, If all you manage to do is fire off one round in the direction of an evil doer, you will have fulfilled the call of duty. Every soul on the wall counts as does every oz of lead that leaves your muzzle. If, (God forbid) you go down in a SHTF scenario, squeeze off another one and let the "One True God" find the target.
fredj338
Member
Watch the videos, tell me if you see training, I see very little there. Pretty easy to put rds together at point blank range. Easy to kill unarmed victims at point blank range. This training BS is a lot of media hype IMO. Thugs with guns, not disciplined soldiers as some would have you believe.
A recent interview of an American mercenary, that went to Syria to fight ISIS, reported little training but here is an Ak & here is how to load & fire it. No small unit or CQB tactics. Again, watch the videos. I just don't see it, never have. Maybe a US soldier here, who has been there can comment better, but just knowing guns & tactics as I do, not seeing it.
A recent interview of an American mercenary, that went to Syria to fight ISIS, reported little training but here is an Ak & here is how to load & fire it. No small unit or CQB tactics. Again, watch the videos. I just don't see it, never have. Maybe a US soldier here, who has been there can comment better, but just knowing guns & tactics as I do, not seeing it.
Last edited:
EugeneNine
Member
The odds of having a fire are quite low yet we have detectors and fire extinguishers in our homes and schools and places of work.
The odds of being in a car accident are quite low yes we have seat belts and air bags.
The odds of being shot, rapes, mugged, robber, stabbed, etc are all quite low but we can carry one single tool that helps prevent all those those as well as terrorist attacks.
What really needs to happen is not mandatory carry but the elimination of mandatory no carry zones.
Sadly the politicians and rich billionaires who would prefer us dead will fight to keep the no defense zone laws.
85V65Sabre
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2014
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 649
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
There is good reason to believe that at least one of the brothers received training with al Qaeda, according to French authorities, who reported this to U.S. officials. I believe the allegations that they appeared to have been trained came from witnesses and French police.
I wasn't there.
I wasn't there.
Really?
Then all those Americans who were drafted into the military and forced to carry a gun really weren't 'forced"?
Again, the OP was to spur conversation. All of the people of France are disarmed.
That doesn't seem to be working to well.
So, if being disarmed isn't working, why don't we try arming everyone so they can at least defend themselves?
To me!
It's offensive to me...how's that? Telling people what they MUST do is every bit as offensive as telling them what they CANNOT do.
If I somehow missed your point, please explain!!!!!!
It's offensive to me...how's that?
Telling people what they MUST do is every bit as offensive as telling them what they CANNOT do.If I somehow missed your point, please explain!!!!!!
I believe air travel statistics should be given in accidents per plane mile, not per passenger mile. I want to know how likely MY plane will crash. Having 300 more folks on it doesn't affect my safety.
(You all know the bomb-carrying joke so I won't burden you with it again.)
