Paris shooting and casualties ?

[majordad]

They call these Territorials.

[egor110]

woowahwoo said:

Well, what will go wrong is that no one is armed and therefore cannot shoot back, and if none can get to exits, the terrorists will just keep firing until almost everyone is dead. And, considering that these people have bomb vests, you are unlikely to be able to 'rush' them. About the best you can do is a lucky headshot with a heavy object, or have someone trained in knives or choking, who happens to be stood behind them (and brave enough to tackle them). Otherwise, it's open slaughter.

In the real world not this fantasy film world your referring to people would either freeze or blindly fire .

Bear in mind these terrorists will always have the upper hand as they've been out fighting in Syria and here you are talking about using a knife or choking them.

[rich85uk]

Hostages taken in Roubaix, several injured in the shooting and the situation is ongoing

st

[Butter Face]

Oh FFS

[s2art]

woowahwoo said:

egor110 said:

In the real world not this fantasy film world your referring to people would either freeze or blindly fire .

Bear in mind these terrorists will always have the upper hand as they've been out fighting in Syria and here you are talking about using a knife or choking them.

I think you missed my point. I am not necessarily saying that widespread gun ownership is a viable alternative, but that without a credible return of fire, the civilians have no chance whatsoever. The point about someone stopping it because they happen to be capable (e.g. ex-forces), and precisely located to avoid being shot themselves, is the fantasy, or the one-in-a-million occurrence.

Isnt it the case in Switzerland that after national service they get to keep their rifles, and are expected to intervene in this sort of situation?

[hornetrider]

rich85uk said:

Hostages taken in Roubaix, several injured in the shooting and the situation is ongoing

st

Result of a robbery not snackbars apparently.

[PoleDriver]

Perhaps 'responsible' citizens could be trained and certified to carry weapons in times of trouble? Weapons could even be issued to them in times of emergency!

[Troubleatmill]

PoleDriver said:

Perhaps 'responsible' citizens could be trained and certified to carry weapons in times of trouble? Weapons could even be issued to them in times of emergency!

I would rather lose a testicle than that happen.
A thread earlier today discussed this already.


Anyone what wants a firearm should automatically be disqualified.


If however... you are talking about trained policemen...... ( not all policemen )... just the ones that get full on training.....

[rb26]

Troubleatmill said:

I would rather lose a testicle than that happen.
A thread earlier today discussed this already.


Anyone what wants a firearm should automatically be disqualified.


If however... you are talking about trained policemen...... ( not all policemen )... just the ones that get full on training.....

So just the state and criminals can have guns, great.

[anonymous-user]

rb26 said:

So just the state and criminals can have guns, great.

Just like Dodge City

[Troubleatmill]

rb26 said:

So just the state and criminals can have guns, great.

Would you like to carry a gun?

[Stickyfinger]

Troubleatmill said:

rb26 said:

So just the state and criminals can have guns, great.

Would you like to carry a gun?

I would if he could

[PoleDriver]

Troubleatmill said:

I would rather lose a testicle than that happen.
A thread earlier today discussed this already.


Anyone what wants a firearm should automatically be disqualified.


If however... you are talking about trained policemen...... ( not all policemen )... just the ones that get full on training.....

I was thinking of trained police, TAVR and other trained and trusted persons of responsibility!

[bigkeeko]

Where's this thread going?

[irocfan]

bigkeeko said:

Where's this thread going?

as usual buddy nowhere except 2 circle jerks

[mygoldfishbowl]

Troubleatmill said:

PoleDriver said:

Perhaps 'responsible' citizens could be trained and certified to carry weapons in times of trouble? Weapons could even be issued to them in times of emergency!

I would rather lose a testicle than that happen.
A thread earlier today discussed this already.


Anyone what wants a firearm should automatically be disqualified.


If however... you are talking about trained policemen...... ( not all policemen )... just the ones that get full on training.....

BS. Everyone should have the choice, but with that choice there would be psychological assessment & firearms training. I think you would lose more than a testicle lf you were in the unfortunate position to be a victim of this type of attack without any means of defence.

[Halb]

Studies show that one needs regular high level training to be of use when carrying a firearm.

[rb26]

Troubleatmill said:

Would you like to carry a gun?

I wouldn't want to carry one, I'd like the freedom to own one. Similar to a fast car, do you need a car that can go 0-60 in 3.2 seconds on the roads? No. Do I want one regardless?Yes.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Halb said:

Studies show that one needs regular high level training to be of use when carrying a firearm.

Maybe the people who carried out these studies could explain why the vast majority of mass shootings in America happen in gun free zones, and why city's that are gun free have the worst gun crime statistics.

[Troubleatmill]

rb26 said:

Troubleatmill said:

Would you like to carry a gun?

I wouldn't want to carry one, I'd like the freedom to own one. Similar to a fast car, do you need a car that can go 0-60 in 3.2 seconds on the roads? No. Do I want one regardless?Yes.

And as you want one... you should be immediately disqualified from owning one.

The only thing guns do.... is fire a piece of metal at a very high velocity with the intent to hit a target of the handler's choosing.

Every year 32,000 American die because of hand guns.