French Attacks Megathread

[The Alexanderians]

People will tend to do that when there is any identifiable threat, even if they are armed. So the guy standing up and shooting is ether the terrorist or an idiot, while the people seeking cover THEN shooting back are not like to be the terrorist.

well the two basic principles of people sometimes do dumb things in situations like that and maybe the terrorist might take cover too if he expects return fire make this pretty useless

Terrorists are more likely to shoot at the cops that show up. The armed civvies would probably wave them over.

[Gauthier]

Assuming that more people were shot than blown up. Not to mention assuming that the entire terror cell would squander opportunities to detonate in packed crowds to shoot people and thus isolate themselves as targets. Look at the footage of the Boston Marathon, when bombs go off people don't have a shooter to focus on so they scatter everywhere they can reasonably move.

Also how will another armed citizen or the police differentiate between the good guy with the gun and the terrorist with the gun in such a chaotic situation?

Good Guys With Guns have built-in IFF targeting, like Robocop does.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't comment on those threads. Why bother when the same people with their heads in the sand repeat the same bullshit arguments?

Then why comment on this one? Seems inconsistent.

I commented on this one earlier to do two things. One, to express my frustration and anger that such a thing could take place. Two, to post new information or some rather poignant stories, comments, articles basically expressing that hatred against Muslims is exactly what ISIS wants us to do.

A couple of snarky comments is really nothing out of step. I'm not even going to try and do it seriously, because there's no fucking point. Those who think everyone in Paris should have been packing heat aren't going to be convinced that gun laws actually work, especially after instances like this, and therefore there's no point in even debating with them.

[Big Jim P]

People will tend to do that when there is any identifiable threat, even if they are armed. So the guy standing up and shooting is ether the terrorist or an idiot, while the people seeking cover THEN shooting back are not like to be the terrorist.

well the two basic principles of people sometimes do dumb things in situations like that and maybe the terrorist might take cover too if he expects return fire make this pretty useless

Would he take cover before someone returned fire? If that were the plan, then he would be sniping the targets for long range, and if going for the max body count, would shoot a few, the change position. The body count is not really the goal. The terror is, thus the term "terrorist".

[Grave_n_idle]

People with better fire power tend to get what they seek.

And, as evidenced in Paris, gun control only disarms the innocent.

Guns are remarkably ineffective against bombs.

[The Alexanderians]

Then why comment on this one? Seems inconsistent.

I commented on this one earlier to do two things. One, to express my frustration and anger that such a thing could take place. Two, to post new information or some rather poignant stories, comments, articles basically expressing that hatred against Muslims is exactly what ISIS wants us to do.

A couple of snarky comments is really nothing out of step. I'm not even going to try and do it seriously, because there's no fucking point. Those who think everyone in Paris should have been packing heat aren't going to be convinced that gun laws actually work, especially after instances like this, and therefore there's no point in even debating with them.

No one suggested everyone have guns that'd be insane. Can you imagine the friendly fire and misunderstandings in a crowded urban fire fight?

[Kraylandia]

And, as evidenced in Paris, gun control only disarms the innocent.

Guns are remarkably ineffective against bombs.

The attackers also used guns, but yes you're correct and the same thing has been said a few posts ago.

[The Alexanderians]

And, as evidenced in Paris, gun control only disarms the innocent.

Guns are remarkably ineffective against bombs.

AS we already pointed out, both myself and Jim.

[Costa Fierro]

No one suggested everyone have guns that'd be insane. Can you imagine the friendly fire and misunderstandings in a crowded urban fire fight?

As I said, there's no point.

[Big Jim P]

well the two basic principles of people sometimes do dumb things in situations like that and maybe the terrorist might take cover too if he expects return fire make this pretty useless

Terrorists are more likely to shoot at the cops that show up. The armed civvies would probably wave them over.

Or cease fire as the professionals take over.

[Socialist Czechia]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

[Big Jim P]

And, as evidenced in Paris, gun control only disarms the innocent.

Guns are remarkably ineffective against bombs.

Indeed. Already noted.

[Grave_n_idle]

Guns are remarkably ineffective against bombs.

The attackers also used guns, but yes you're correct and the same thing has been said a few posts ago.

It's going to get repeated a lot, I imagine. One of the reasons bombs are so commonly used in 'terror' attacks is that they can't be reasoned with or killed.

[The Conez Imperium]

And, as evidenced in Paris, gun control only disarms the innocent.

Guns are remarkably ineffective against bombs.

Americans needs stinger missiles because of 9/11...sorry I found that thought quite humorous.

[Gauthier]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

Lots of people said that Daesh is trying to YOLO the whole world. Pissed off the West, said "Come at me Bro" to Putin, and now poking the Chinese the wrong way.

[Alyakia]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

it's hard to explain without getting an argument but basically no way nah

[West Aurelia]

People with better fire power tend to get what they seek.

And, as evidenced in Paris, gun control only disarms the innocent.

Pretty sure the French are happy that their gun violence rate is still far lower than the US' despite this attack.

[Kraylandia]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

Looks like they're going to get involved, regardless of what anyone on NSG thinks.

[Gauthier]

The attackers also used guns, but yes you're correct and the same thing has been said a few posts ago.

It's going to get repeated a lot, I imagine. One of the reasons bombs are so commonly used in 'terror' attacks is that they can't be reasoned with or killed.

And the bombers only scream "Allahu Akbar" in movies if they're smart.

[West Aurelia]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

China won't get involved. They've been censoring talk of it on social media because they don't want citizens pressuring them to get involved in the Middle East.

[Big Jim P]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

Lots of people said that Daesh is trying to YOLO the whole world. Pissed off the West, said "Come at me Bro" to Putin, and now poking the Chinese the wrong way.

Which does give them the "whole world is after Muslims" angle to play. Good strategy I would say.

[Gauthier]

And now, ISIL murdered another foreigner, this time PRC's citizen.

Does they need People's Liberation Army to involve too?

China won't get involved. They've been censoring talk of it on social media because they don't want citizens pressuring them to get involved in the Middle East.

Daesh is like the Jackass of jihadis. Guaranteed if that isn't enough they'll start targeting Chinese Communist Party members.

[Big Jim P]

The attackers also used guns, but yes you're correct and the same thing has been said a few posts ago.

It's going to get repeated a lot, I imagine. One of the reasons bombs are so commonly used in 'terror' attacks is that they can't be reasoned with or killed.

The only way a gun is useful in this situation is if by some miracle you detect the bomber before he reaches a crowd. I do believe that at least one was prevented from reaching a crowded area in Paris.

[The Alexanderians]

Terrorists are more likely to shoot at the cops that show up. The armed civvies would probably wave them over.

Or cease fire as the professionals take over.

There will always be the "hero" type that refuses to stand down though and try to aid the cops...
Which may not be a bad thing but full coordination would be necessary.
Perhaps gun safety courses should cover the importance of backing off when the fully armed and trained professionals show up.
It would certainly drop the confusion of who to aim at.

[Big Jim P]

It's going to get repeated a lot, I imagine. One of the reasons bombs are so commonly used in 'terror' attacks is that they can't be reasoned with or killed.

And the bombers only scream "Allahu Akbar" in movies if they're smart.

If they are REALLY smart, they don't strap them to themselves and set of several. Unabomber anyone?