On seeing the carnage in Paris, I thought – per usual – “good thing all of the civilians victims were unarmed and utterly helpless, or Mon Dieu knows how bad it could have been!”
France has, by continental standards, a fairly high rate of civilian gun ownership. But civilian gun laws are as byzantine as California and Washington DC, and for exactly the same reasons. And the issuance civilian handgun carry permits to carry the kinds of firearms that might have been useful in Paris follows pretty much exactly the same rules as in DC, San Francisco and New York; available only to judges and prosecutors in high-profile cases, or people with enough political clout to sway the bureaucracy; politicians, plutocrats and celebrities with friends in high places. That’s about it.
The laws, byzantine though they are, didn’t prevent the attackers in Paris from getting fully-automatic Yugoslav-surplus AK47s, the kind that have been illegal in the US for eight decades now, of course. Laws don’t stop law-breakers.
So – yet again, thugs, criminals and terrorists launch attack on the disarmed.
There’s a reason they don’t do these sorts of attacks in Dallas.
When dealing with global terrorism, or even organized crime – the real thing, not the feral opportunists who lurk on corners and shoot up playgrounds – I think even the lawful carrier would be out gunned and offer little positive impact. Gun control laws, too. Even if they could be shown to be effective, I doubt if they’d have had much impact on situations like the Paris terrorism event.
Add-in the potential for an unarmed law enforcement response (if that was true in Paris yesterday) and the killers may as well been armed with baseball bats.
However, the fact that these things do seem to often occur in gun free zones (and countries), the potential for an unexpected encounter with an armed passerby must offer some deterrent effect.
“I think even the lawful carrier would be out gunned and offer little positive impact.”
I beg to differ. If the lawful carrier is reasonably well trained and rises to the challenge, it will, at worst, disrupt the plans and timing of the shooter(s), and, at best, attrit them and their ability to achieve their objectives. Put one down, and perhaps a bystanding good guy can make use of their weapon…
The civilian militias that were combating the cartels in Mexico and winning were mostly armed with bolt action rifles and ancient shotguns. If you have enough dogs mixed in with the sheep even the wolves will think twice about attacking.
That said, I wouldn’t relish the idea of trying to take on someone with a full auto Kalashnikov. But if that someone were coming after me after gunning down others, I’d certainly draw and take my chances rather than just put myself at their mercy.
MBerg: Are there any constructive suggestions that stem from that cogent nugget of analysis?
Emery, I think you can sum it up as: better a pack than a herd.
Emery; well, France should obviously have shall issue concealed carry. Duh. It would be a wonderful pleasure to wake up to a headline
“Terrorists attack Boulangerie; shot to pieces by angry bakers.”
I was a member at a church where dozens were permit holders, and it was an interesting thought that if someone tried something, they could well end up like the chap who decided to walk past two black & whites and hold up a gun shop.
Put gently, there is not an assault rifle powerful enough to stop the 9mm round from the guy the terrorist did not see until it was too late.
Another thing the French need to do; they need to have the police, and the military if need be, go into majority Muslim neighborhoods and re-establish control.
“On seeing the carnage in Paris, I thought – per usual – “good thing all of the civilians victims were unarmed and utterly helpless, or Mon Dieu knows how bad it could have been!”
Factually wrong again Mitch. The editor has been routinely heavily guarded, and on the day of the attack, there were both an armed policeman (a Muslim) and an armed guard inside the building. Armed good guys with guns, well trained in their use, did not stop bad guys with guns (again).
http://www.examiner.com/article/editor-of-charlie-hebdo-is-protected-by-armed-guards-after-publishing-cartoon
and per Wed.:
“I have come here to tell you that the newspaper will continue because they have not won and Charb, Cabu, Wolinski, Bernard Maris, Honore, Elsa, Tignous, Mustapha and the guard who was killed and was tasked with protecting us have not died in vain,” said Pelloux, according to The Associated Press,
https://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-vows-publish-million-copies-next-week-203009647–abc-news-topstories.html?.tsrc=yahoo?_devicefull
Likewise, a female armed french cop, a woman, was also killed in simila violence in Paris, in a separate incident.
Plenty of gun carriers in the shooting of two cops by Cliven Bundy supporters did not stop that violence either, nor did all the armed Walmart customers when those two shooters eventually killed themselves.
Nor did armed police stop right wing nut and Christian right wing racist domestic terrorist Anders Breivik when he went off his nut in Norway, killing 77 people with a mix of bombs and firearms.
What WOULD have been effective is keeping these weapons OUT OF THE HANDDS OF TERRORISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, whether right wing, racist, garden variety anti-government nut, or religiously motivated terrorists.
Instead, you and yours like about what is in the UN treaty, attempting to block efforts to keep the guns and RPGs out of the hands of the bad guys. When the right is lying, you know they are losing, that their position is a failed and false one.
Here is the link to that UN treaty:
https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf
It is not a threat to U.S. sovereignty or the Constitution, or the 2A.
But the right wing has to lie, and fear monger. The truth is not on your side, and the facts are not your friends.
“There’s a reason they don’t do these sorts of attacks in Dallas.”
There are more attacks of all varieties of violence in cities and states with lax gun laws.
You wish that weren’t true, but the reality is that Paris is safer from gun violence than Dallas. This was a unique kind of violence, but the lack of this specific kind of domestic terrorism in Dallas has more to do with the relatively smaller size and less importance of Dallas compared to Paris, than it does guns.
I notice you didn’t pick a comparable city to Dallas, like say Oklahoma City and the Murrah bombing for a comparison. What’s the matter — don’t you think OK is sufficiently pro-gun? Or is it because it proves your analogy is a failure?
The reality is that there is no credible argument that more guns and more lax or lenient carry makes anyone safer anywhere.
Doggone, yes there were two armed officers there. In Texas, after such threats, all of the victims would have been armed. And, I dare say, would have been less likely to become victims. The incentive of a police officer to stop an attack is his job; the incentive of the victims is their lives. It makes a difference–plus, the victims are not as easily identifiable as are police officers.
Do you really not see categorical differences like this? There is no guarantee that armed victims will prevent every attack, but it sure helps the odds.
And disarm the terrorists? Good luck. You can get a full auto AK in just about any arms market in the developing world for something like $300, and it’s not exactly rocket science to make some pretty potent explosives.
To clarify, btw — I mentioned the Muirrah bombing because Charlie Hebdo has also been bombed by terrorists in the past, and was guarding against that possible terroristic recurrence; if you want a more direct comparison to shootings, look at Austin and the Clocktower shooting instead of Dallas.
A ‘good guy with a gun’, Charlie Whitman, former marine, engineering student, killed 16 and injured another 32. He was stopped by a cop, not by civilian carry.
Your fantasies have no basis or justification in reality.
Charlie Whitman committed his crimes in 1966, decades before Texas passed its shall issue concealed carry law, Doggone. So really, it demonstrates what our gracious host asserts; disarmed people are sitting ducks for armed thugs.
Honestly, you seem to be taking extra stupid pills today.
Herbert says: /“I think you can sum it up as: better a pack than a herd.”
Bikebubba says: /“France should obviously have shall issue concealed carry.”/
The fact of the matter is when you walk around every day with a gun, it’s tempting to try to solve problems by shooting at them. Like an aging gunfighter, America finds it hard to adapt its tactics, at home and abroad.
Emery, you’re sharing pills with Doggone today, I see. Fact of the matter is that if concealed carry was a temptation to solve problems with a gun, crime rates among permit holders would be far higher than they are, instead of close to negligible.
You might as well say that when everyone has a car, and drives around with it every day, i’ts tempting to try to solve problems by crashing into them. Thankfully that is rare, too.
Emery on some serious drugs actually said:
The fact of the matter is when you walk around every day with a gun, it’s tempting to try to solve problems by shooting at them.
Ah, that’s why there are rivers of blood in the streets with all these freshly minted concealed carry folks, right? We can blame our rising homicide rate on the fact that more folks are walking around armed?
Idiot.
Emery and Dog Gone posting together. Wow.
When our favorite canine foamed her random list, she neglected the Annexation of Schleswig-Holstein and the Rape of Nanking, both horrific examples of something bad that happened one time, and thus proves . . . well, nothing, really, but that’s never the point with her, is it? They were BAD. So THERE. Because KOCH BROTHERS. And NRA.
Honestly, I didn’t know NRA had a French branch, but apparently they do: NRA-France-AFPAC. I wonder if I my Life Member status is reciprocal?
Joe D
Good thought.
I passed the entirety of DGs post on to the NRA along with my request for a listing of their worldwide facilities with an emphasis on those countries where fully automatic weapons are available.
I think that the presumption is that once laws which restrict the public carry of firearms are loosened or abolished, every able-bodied, goodhearted, woman/ man of sound mind and ability will immediately arm her/ himself and work diligently to develop the physical and mental skills necessary to use their weapon to the optimum effect in a variety of combat situations.
Of course I wish that were the case. However, I am personally aware of many people, more than I thought when the law permitted the carry of firearms, who took a class and bought a gun.
Unfortunately, like the train your kid received a couple weeks ago, the permit’s novelty faded for some and their frequency of practice, familiarization, and even carry – especially in warm weather – diminished. For others, the frequency of carry hasn’t slowed too much, but the learning and practice did. Others still carry daily, keep up with related issues, and participate in shooting sports. A few even seemed to lose interest once they told all their friends about it and milked all the “cool” out of the practice.
However, of all the above, from to the lax to the astute, most started carrying for the protection of themselves and family. I’m sure that are some who study and practice advanced techniques, would know how to keep it together when in the middle of a massacre like the Paris incident, and exact a toll on the terrorists.
I hope that they’re around if/when the next terrorist event occurs. The rest of us will do what we can. Unless we are able to get ourselves and family out of the way of danger.
I am by no means disparaging lawful gun carriers and would like to see laws that permit firearms carry adopted nationwide; my assessment above may only be specific to my experiences (but I doubt it). I just think that there is an unrealistic, very high expectation placed upon these laws and upon those who make use of them. When life situations don’t live up to these expectations, they are used by some to refute the need for such laws, and demoralize some who expect them to be more effective.
Joe, most folks who carry don’t carry all the time. It’s too much of a hassle to carry all the time when you might run into instances where you can’t (schools anyone? regressive workplaces?) and have to leave your gun in your car (which seems to me to be more dangerous in terms of theft and the gun falling into criminal hands, but whatever).
Plus, I’m not all that into fashion and figuring out which clothes go with a Baretta or a Glock is hard.
As for lack of practice, I think you put too big a premium on that. Yes, you do lose some accuracy if you don’t practice frequently, but in nearly all practical cases when concealed carry matters you’re at such a short range that it hardly matters. And if you think that’s crazy, look at the stats on the accuracy of cops at 10′ in a stressful situation. They’re really no better.
“What WOULD have been effective is keeping these weapons OUT OF THE HANDDS OF TERRORISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE,”
Newsflash, the guns used were illegal. That means no one is allowed to use them. Considering that, I’m very confused. Doesn’t making something illegal make it not happen?
When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.
As we’ve tried to explain, repeatedly, Criminals don’t follow the law. Did I type that slow enough for DG to follow?
Nerdbert, I agree completely that leaving the gun in the car is far more hazardous than keeping it on the person. However, I do have to disagree somewhat with your view on regular practice.
How and how much practice can depend on the reason a person carries. A person planning to address a threat like the Paris situation, on more than just a casual/ defensive level should do as much as possible to duplicate the potential threats’ level of skill. Those who hope for situational resolution by escape without firing a shot may want to prepare for the just situations they feel most likely to encounter; mugger, robber, mentally ill assailant, etc., However, a regimen of regular training is still the best practice for any likely threat level.
If for nothing else, a carrier needs to maintain muscle memory – the dexterity to operate the gun correctly under stress. “Click” instead of “bang”, and “What’s this little lever for again?” could be pretty demoralizing in a serious defensive encounter. Regular practice and handling will help with this.
Also, practice can involve many things other than ranges and bullets. Perhaps the easiest exercise is dry-fire. After first following all gun safety rules, it can be done at home while watching TV. Study can consist of as little as a couple subscriptions to respected firearms periodicals and other media. Nothing beats live fire and lessons, but something beats nothing.
It was clear that the killers in Paris knew this and were more than just a couple Wahhabi wanna-be’s; did you notice the (bullet) group-size on the windshield of the Paris squad car? It looked to be about a dozen rounds and could be covered by an open hand. The ability to produce such a small group with a fully-auto AK-47 shows that the terrorist really knew what he was doing. Certainly was not just a “spray and pray (where would you put the rug, anyway?)” useful idiot. Lots of training and practice are needed to maintain full-auto fire control like that.
Again, I’m not trying to disparage those who lawfully carry guns. I just think it’s very important to maintain a level of skill based on how high up the threat level ladder you want to be effective at, and not just reactive.