So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks.

So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 4:44:04 PM)
Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust.

kdsub -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 4:51:47 PM)
Will one dead is better than none...what do you think? It would be one more than was killed in the initial attack in France.... But Politesub you need to think about what would happen after the attack was reported... I can see all the real men with guns on the street...shooting at other real men with guns... hell who would know who was the terrorists and who was a yahoo. Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 4:59:15 PM)
Butch, my post was a clear rebuttal to those who made odious aspersions about "if Europeans had been armed" The irony that a bunch of Texas pro gun enthusiasts tried to prove a point and dismally failed, has been a delight. [;)]

MercTech -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 5:03:37 PM)
If'n I'm gonna get shot at; I'm takin' summa y'all with me. .... going for a Texas drawl. Yup, I can see that attitude in some places.

slvemike4u -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 5:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Will one dead is better than none...what do you think? It would be one more than was killed in the initial attack in France.... But Politesub you need to think about what would happen after the attack was reported... I can see all the real men with guns on the street...shooting at other real men with guns... hell who would know who was the terrorists and who was a yahoo. Butch Hint: They would all be yahoo's

Kirata -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 5:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: 7 Out of 9 Armed Defenders Got Hits on One Terrorist If you define success as two dead terrorists, the scenario we devised – one armed defender with a semi-automatic pistol facing two terrorists armed with rifles in an office environment – it didn’t happen. If you define success as making the terrorists pay for their attack, it was a partial success in two out of nine simulations. In one case, the armed defender’s actions enabled a successful retreat for the defensive shooter and some of the intended victims. What the simulation shows is that even a single defender can save lives. K.

CreativeDominant -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 5:51:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: 7 Out of 9 Armed Defenders Got Hits on One Terrorist If you define success as two dead terrorists, the scenario we devised – one armed defender with a semi-automatic pistol facing two terrorists armed with rifles in an office environment – it didn’t happen. If you define success as making the terrorists pay for their attack, it was a partial success in two out of nine simulations. In one case, the armed defender’s actions enabled a successful retreat for the defensive shooter and some of the intended victims. What the simulation shows is that even a single defender can save lives. K. BUT...but...but... not ALL lives (including the terrorists) were saved. Pure failure.

Kirata -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 6:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant BUT...but...but... not ALL lives (including the terrorists) were saved. Pure failure. I'll tell you what I think is a failure. Polite was just going by the CBS story. The "failure" here (failure being not the only word that comes to mind) is CBS's reporting. K.

Sanity -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 6:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: 7 Out of 9 Armed Defenders Got Hits on One Terrorist If you define success as two dead terrorists, the scenario we devised – one armed defender with a semi-automatic pistol facing two terrorists armed with rifles in an office environment – it didn’t happen. If you define success as making the terrorists pay for their attack, it was a partial success in two out of nine simulations. In one case, the armed defender’s actions enabled a successful retreat for the defensive shooter and some of the intended victims. What the simulation shows is that even a single defender can save lives. K. Success in this case to me means, a chance vs. no chance

jlf1961 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 6:57:08 PM)
<sneaks in from under his rock> I did notice that CBS left out a significant chunk of the scenario description. And I might add that little addendum that instructors tell grunts when training to clear buildings with multiple rooms, "You will be damn lucky if none of your team gets stepped on." Hence the practice "Kick open door, lob two or more grenades, spray the room on rock and roll, enter room." Of course if there is the slightest chance that there might be civvies (aka noncombatants aka in the wrong fucking place at the worst fucking time,) yell at the top of your lungs and lob as many flash bangs as you can... I will go one better, it shows a lack of planning on the terrorists part. It would have been easier to use pipe bombs to toss in the offices then go shoot survivors. Hell go back to terrorism/urban guerrilla warfare 101, the VC method, ride by on a motorcycle and lob a satchel charge in the front door. My plan: Two heavily armed bad guys, one good guy with an automatic pistol. Considering that situation, lock the office door and if on the ground floor go out a damn window.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 7:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Will one dead is better than none...what do you think? It would be one more than was killed in the initial attack in France.... But Politesub you need to think about what would happen after the attack was reported... I can see all the real men with guns on the street...shooting at other real men with guns... hell who would know who was the terrorists and who was a yahoo. Butch Hint: They would all be yahoo's No google's or bing's?!?

bounty44 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 7:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. except for that in some instances, gun owners actually do stop terrorist attacks. and in many instances, stop other murders from occurring. but you ignore those because they don't fit your narrative. what's more---so the people in the simulation learned how challenging it was---and they will continue to learn until they get better at it. last thing, apparently you call it a failure because in neither simulation did both terrorists die. I say, and I imagine most other conservative libertarian types here would say the same thing im about to say here, "so what?" better to die trying to save your life and others around you, than to die with a whimper. one is courageous, the other is cowardly.

MrRodgers -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 8:28:00 PM)
The guy at the Walmart if you recall...would disagree. He's dead and it took several police to take out the perp(s). The idea that an armed citizenry would stop most of this shit let alone any govt. is unmitigated bullshit. The greatest chance for any armed citizen, is of being killed themselves...not stopping people out to kill.

BamaD -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/10/2015 8:35:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The guy at the Walmart if you recall...would disagree. He's dead and it took several police to take out the perp(s). The idea that an armed citizenry would stop most of this shit let alone any govt. is unmitigated bullshit. The greatest chance for any armed citizen, is of being killed themselves...not stopping people out to kill. Unmitigated bullshit......supported by the facts.

slvemike4u -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 12:35:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The guy at the Walmart if you recall...would disagree. He's dead and it took several police to take out the perp(s). The idea that an armed citizenry would stop most of this shit let alone any govt. is unmitigated bullshit. The greatest chance for any armed citizen, is of being killed themselves...not stopping people out to kill. Unmitigated bullshit......supported by the facts. Yep,what he said is supported by the facts. Though it surprises me to see you admit this. Why you refer to it as "unmitigated bullshit" though is beyond me. Is that some local backwoods idiom thing or something [8\|]

DaddySatyr -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 12:38:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 last thing, apparently you call it a failure because in neither simulation did both terrorists die. I say, and I imagine most other conservative libertarian types here would say the same thing im about to say here, "so what?" better to die trying to save your life and others around you, than to die with a whimper. one is courageous, the other is cowardly. QFT Michael

Politesub53 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 3:05:11 AM)
It seems to me that I have touched a few nerves. Most of you seem to need reminders as to what was said on previous threads. As I said earlier, this just goes to show armed civillians wouldnt have been able to stop the attacks. Any of you who still have issues best get to Texas and compare notes with the gun nuts there. Finally, the only whimpering being done here seems to eminate from your side of the pond chaps. QFT indeed.

slvemike4u -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 3:43:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. except for that in some instances, gun owners actually do stop terrorist attacks. and in many instances, stop other murders from occurring. but you ignore those because they don't fit your narrative. what's more---so the people in the simulation learned how challenging it was---and they will continue to learn until they get better at it. last thing, apparently you call it a failure because in neither simulation did both terrorists die. I say, and I imagine most other conservative libertarian types here would say the same thing im about to say here, "so what?" better to die trying to save your life and others around you, than to die with a whimper. one is courageous, the other is cowardly. Liar

BamaD -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:02:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The guy at the Walmart if you recall...would disagree. He's dead and it took several police to take out the perp(s). The idea that an armed citizenry would stop most of this shit let alone any govt. is unmitigated bullshit. The greatest chance for any armed citizen, is of being killed themselves...not stopping people out to kill. Unmitigated bullshit......supported by the facts. Yep,what he said is supported by the facts. Though it surprises me to see you admit this. Why you refer to it as "unmitigated bullshit" though is beyond me. Is that some local backwoods idiom thing or something [8\|] No the "unmitigated bullshit" is what is supported by the facts not his claim, which anyone should be able to tell. The reason that you find so few mass killings stopped by armed citizens is that they stop them before they qualify as a mass killing. Common knowledge, I am somewhat surprised that even you would know this.

BamaD -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:03:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. except for that in some instances, gun owners actually do stop terrorist attacks. and in many instances, stop other murders from occurring. but you ignore those because they don't fit your narrative. what's more---so the people in the simulation learned how challenging it was---and they will continue to learn until they get better at it. last thing, apparently you call it a failure because in neither simulation did both terrorists die. I say, and I imagine most other conservative libertarian types here would say the same thing im about to say here, "so what?" better to die trying to save your life and others around you, than to die with a whimper. one is courageous, the other is cowardly. Liar The fact that you disagree does not make him a liar.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875