4 ms·

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

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?

fein 11y ago
There were active shooters in this instance. Not much you can do about bombs, see Timothy McVeigh.
- sirrocco 11y ago
  Please give an example of a US terrorist attack on a theater/school/whatever when the citizens stopped the attack.
  - hyperliner 11y ago
    >> 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/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/1...
    - DrScump 11y ago
      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."
    - sirrocco 11y ago
      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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- NotHereNotThere 11y ago
  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.
  - fein 11y ago
    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.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      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.
      - fein 11y ago
        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.
qb45 11y ago
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-train-gunman-france http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris...
- Kankuro 11y ago
  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.
  - qb45 11y ago
    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.

fein 11y ago

There were active shooters in this instance. Not much you can do about bombs, see Timothy McVeigh.

sirrocco 11y ago
Please give an example of a US terrorist attack on a theater/school/whatever when the citizens stopped the attack.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  >> 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/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/1...
  - DrScump 11y ago
    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."
  - sirrocco 11y ago
    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.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
NotHereNotThere 11y ago
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.
- fein 11y ago
  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.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    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.
    - fein 11y ago
      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.

qb45 11y ago

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

Kankuro 11y ago
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.
- qb45 11y ago
  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.