Is France anti Conceal and Carry?

[Farley1324]

tell me how you worked that out?
what you basing it on?

just because i say the public dont need guns?
so you make a sweeping statement that the whole poplulation of europe are ****s because of what happened in paris?

you need to get out a bit more and mix with non narrow minded people,you will learn a lot

You didn't say the public doesn't need guns, you said the public having guns brings nothing but death.

i have used guns and dont see the need for the public to own them,they bring nothing but death and a circle of fear and suspicion.

Since the opposite is true in the US, well...I guess it sucks to be your country?

Or maybe you need to re-think your position.

[RThoe]

in the french incident,armed members of public would have panicked and started shooting,innocent people would have been injured or killed.

so you make a sweeping statement that the whole poplulation of europe are ****s because of what happened in paris?

you need to get out a bit more and mix with non narrow minded people,you will learn a lot

Oh the ironing

[Neeck299]

What does this comment have to do with OP's question?

I think he thinks that if France allows open carry and pro guns like in the US there would be lots of school shootings in France like the US.

[Farley1324]

Oh the ironing

Don't you know that being able to shoot back is baaaad?

[markUK1]

Oh the ironing

oh hello we have another expert in dealing with terrorists throwing in his words of wisdom.

sitting down with a brew,this will be fun.

[markUK1]

Don't you know that being able to shoot back is baaaad?

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.

arguing with an american gun nut is a lost cause,its like trying to tell a christian his god and bible is a load of fairy tales.they will not listen

outside of your **** hole of a country,shootings are so rare its not worth worrying about
your beloved faux news has turned you into pussies who think every stranger or muslim is out for blood 24/7

[Farley1324]

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.

Most people can't run >1,600 mph (2,600 kph)

[markUK1]

Most people can't run >1,600 mph (2,600 kph)

im done you are a complete tit.
i dont mind a debate,but you neither have the ability or brains

[Farley1324]

im done you are a complete tit.
i dont mind a debate,but you neither have the ability or brains

Is that why cops don't carry guns? Because the best solution is to run away and everybody is capable of running away?

Or do cops carry guns because private citizens are fit and capable of running away, but cops are not-fit and incapable of running away?

[Ruban90]

im done you are a complete tit.
i dont mind a debate,but you neither have the ability or brains

negged for being a moron

[Kiknskreem]

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.

Kinda depends on the circumstances, actually.

[RThoe]

oh hello we have another expert in dealing with terrorists throwing in his words of wisdom.

sitting down with a brew,this will be fun.

I'm no expert but I do have some experience with them. Although are you calling yourself an expert on them? What makes you more knowledgeable than myself?

[Darkseeker]

im done you are a complete tit.
i dont mind a debate,but you neither have the ability or brains

Name calling is always a great argument.

[Ruban90]

here lefties will love this

[M0rtalk0mbat]

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.

arguing with an american gun nut is a lost cause,its like trying to tell a christian his god and bible is a load of fairy tales.they will not listen

outside of your **** hole of a country,shootings are so rare its not worth worrying about
your beloved faux news has turned you into pussies who think every stranger or muslim is out for blood 24/7

I doubt any pro-gun people will listen to you. I really get what you're saying though.

The pro-gun side has better points from an individuals point of view. Because lets face it, it would suck horribly to get shot at while you're unarmed.

But the anti-gun side is more about safety for everyone. Sadly most people can't think outside of their own individuality and thereby don't see the forest for the trees.

The fact is that disarming everyone would reduce the number of gun deaths/conflicts making you statistically and realistically safer from harm.

It's like saying, would you be safer with a gun in a urban shythole like Detroit... or safer unarmed in a rich superb. The answer is obvious.

[flairon]

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.

Agreed...this is called suppressing or covering fire.

arguing with an american gun nut is a lost cause,its like trying to tell a christian his god and bible is a load of fairy tales.they will not listen

why is it everyone that carries a weapon in world full of idiots trying to find new ways to cause death on a daily basis is a 'gun nut'

outside of your **** hole of a country,shootings are so rare its not worth worrying about

not really. We barely crack the top 20 for gun homicides in the world though we do seem to excel at gun suicides, we're 4th in gun suicides. Overall we're 13th in gun deaths. thats per 100,000 people.
your beloved faux news has turned you into pussies who think every stranger or muslim is out for blood 24/7[/QUOTE]

No, muslims have turned us into people that think muslims are out for blood.

[nutsy54]

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.

How do you "get out of the way" of a bullet?
Meanwhile... The best way to be safe in that situation is for someone to STOP the shooter from shooting.

[RThoe]

I doubt any pro-gun people will listen to you. I really get what you're saying though.

The pro-gun side has better points from an individuals point of view. Because lets face it, it would suck horribly to get shot at while you're unarmed.

But the anti-gun side is more about safety for everyone. Sadly most people can't think outside of their own individuality and thereby don't see the forest for the trees.

The fact is that disarming everyone would reduce the number of gun deaths/conflicts making you statistically and realistically safer from harm.

It's like saying, would you be safer with a gun in a urban shythole like Detroit... or safer unarmed in a rich superb. The answer is obvious.

Why is there less violence and crime in states and regions with looser gun laws? Why has gun ownership increased while crime has decreased?

Disarming everyone would work? Is that why Sydney and France weren't the scene of terrorist attacks?

[Farley1324]

I doubt any pro-gun people will listen to you. I really get what you're saying though.

The pro-gun side has better points from an individuals point of view. Because lets face it, it would suck horribly to get shot at while you're unarmed.

But the anti-gun side is more about safety for everyone. Sadly most people can't think outside of their own individuality and thereby don't see the forest for the trees.

The fact is that disarming everyone would reduce the number of gun deaths/conflicts making you statistically and realistically safer from harm.

It's like saying, would you be safer with a gun in a urban shythole like Detroit... or safer unarmed in a rich superb. The answer is obvious.

But they are wrong, disarming people, even as a whole population, does not make them safer. In the US more guns in private citizen's hands, and more free carry laws, has coincided with reduced violent crime, reduced gun crime, and reduced murders. In other countries gun bans have not reduced violent crime and have not even reduced murders.

Really? That'st he best you can do? Compare Detroit to a "rich suberb"? lol. We all [ought to] know that the local demographics are the most significant indicator of violent crime. You get Detroit's demographics and "socioeconomic status" and you are going to have a lot of crime. You get a "rich suburb" and you are going to have less crime.

[ClownToucher]

I don't understand how anyone can argue so vociferously against the most fundamental right to protect your very existence by any means possible... Just lol. Weaponry gives the peaceful a fighting chance to live in peace.

[Decadus]

why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.

arguing with an american gun nut is a lost cause,its like trying to tell a christian his god and bible is a load of fairy tales.they will not listen

outside of your **** hole of a country,shootings are so rare its not worth worrying about
your beloved faux news has turned you into pussies who think every stranger or muslim is out for blood 24/7

Enjoy being red.

[smokeater]

Just curious with everything happening over there right now; are the citizens allowed to carry a gun on them? Or is that strictly illegal?


Nasty sh-t over there with them killing those people. Makes me pro conceal and carry.

Concealed carry likely wouldn't have stopped anything in this case. Remember the North Hollywood shootout? 2 guys, who seemed to be not as well trained as the France killers, with nearly identical weaponry, took on dozens of armed LAPD officers and had them at bay for nearly 45 minutes. A pistol is no match for an AK-47 under the most ideal circumstances.

I am a huge advocate of concealed carry but in this case it likely would have resulted in one more innocent dead if they would have done anything except try to get away.

[RThoe]

Concealed carry likely wouldn't have stopped anything in this case. Remember the North Hollywood shootout? 2 guys, who seemed to be not as well trained as the France killers, with nearly identical weaponry, took on dozens of armed LAPD officers and had them at bay for nearly 45 minutes. A pistol is no match for an AK-47 under the most ideal circumstances.

I am a huge advocate of concealed carry but in this case it likely would have resulted in one more innocent dead if they would have done anything except try to get away.

Not true at all. The police in the North Hollywood shootout weren't simply outgunned, they lacked proficiency and were horribly trained. Weaponry is part of it, but training and experience > all. Generally, cops are not well trained. I'd put money on your average citizen who goes to the range on his own is more proficient than your average cop.

The great thing about carrying a concealed firearm is that only you know you have it. The Oregon mall shooting from a year or two back was ended by a man with a concealed weapon. He didn't fire because there were people behind the shooter, but the sight of resistance caused the shooter to kill himself right then and there. Would the terrorists have done the same? Probably not, but their attention would have shifted to the threat and away from those who were unarmed.

It boggles my mind that anyone can think being unarmed is ever a better alternative. If a citizen had been present with a concealed weapon, it would have given them a fighting chance. Instead, they were rounded up in that office and executed.

You can rely on the mercy of a murderer if you want, I'll rely on myself to protect my life.

[45plateweights]

Ya we should allow weapons to these 2 shooters buddies

That way they would not have bothered to fly out to the Middle East for training. They could do it at a shooting range around the corner from the attack.

Brilliant idea Americans. We'll be sure to call you back

[ClownToucher]

Ya we should allow weapons to these 2 shooters buddies

That way they would not have bothered to fly out to the Middle East for training. They could do it at a shooting range around the corner from the attack.

Brilliant idea Americans. We'll be sure to call you back

You're so scared of the freedom to defend yourself that you piddle yourself at the mere thought of the bad guys' buddies taking up arms, yet you refuse to take up arms to defend yourself. What a brilliant display of cowardice.

[45plateweights]

You're so scared of the freedom to defend yourself that you piddle yourself at the mere thought of the bad guys' buddies taking up arms, yet you refuse to take up arms to defend yourself. What a brilliant display of cowardice.

I'm afraid of the majority in the middle, not good guys or bad guys: poorly trained and dumb having a gun in their hands. "But I thought he was reaching for my purse. So I opened fire and riddled the Subway train with bullets and decapitated bystanders"

I have a left and right hand. I can protect myself. I don't need a tool to do it for me.

[markUK1]

I'm afraid of the majority in the middle, not good guys or bad guys: poorly trained and dumb having a gun in their hands. "But I thought he was reaching for my purse. So I opened fire and riddled the Subway train with bullets and decapitated bystanders"

I have a left and right hand. I can protect myself. I don't need a tool to do it for me.

would positive rep you for that but have done before.

speaking sense amongst fear mongering

[Weightaholic]

So when you saw him rolling like that, one leg in the air and not even able to lift both his hands he struck you as being in fighting shape?

Most of the idiots mouthing off here have this absurd fantasy that in a situation like this, they're going to go Dirty Harry, shoot all the bad guys, maybe get shot in the leg a little and limp off being awesome.

[Weightaholic]

Whether he was mentally still in the fight is another story.

Yeah, he should have just been more awesome I guess.

[Weightaholic]

How long does it take you to draw and fire a pistol?

What firearms experience do you have?

How long do you think a typical LEO takes to draw and fire a pistol?

Tell us... I've just shot you. You've dropped to the ground, feeling pain and still in shock. I have a semi-automatic rifle pointed at you. Just how quick do you think you can draw...?