Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?

The New American ^ | November 16, 2015 | Bob Adelmann

[TexasTransplant]

If not why did we drop these from Airplanes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

[LostInBayport]

I listened to a few BBC radio interviews over the weekend. One was with a very heroic young man who lay atop his girlfriend on the floor of the Bataclan Theatre while they pretended to be dead.

He said the two killers were simply executing people. They’d reload and the killings would stop for minutes. Then they’d start again.

A theater of hundreds of people held at bay by two people. Granted, they had big firepower, but had a few of the people in that theater had their own weapons, might not more people be alive today?

[SkyDancer]

So their laws only worked on those that obeyed them. The others, not so much. Kinda like Chicago?

[pfflier]

It is unlikely that the concert and sporting events outcome would have been different.

Unless several people had ccw permits and were willing to get involved then the odds are heavily in favor of the attackers.

In venues like that in the US, legal guns still would have been blocked by entry screening.

On the second part, even if people have weapons they are primarily trained to survive and protect themselves, not stop a general (and powerful) attack.

The only real way to prevent this is eliminate the threat before it can attack. Bravo to the governors who are standing up to odumbo about letting syrians into the country.

[pfflier]

"...my right to bare arms..."

I always bare my arms in the summer.

[Lurking Libertarian]

He said the two killers were simply executing people. They’d reload and the killings would stop for minutes. Then they’d start again. A theater of hundreds of people held at bay by two people. Granted, they had big firepower, but had a few of the people in that theater had their own weapons, might not more people be alive today?

I heard one of the survivors say on TV that the two shooters were spelling each other-- one would cover the crowd while the other was doing the shooting. Very hard for someone in the crowd to deal with that, especially with only a handgun.

[Mr Rogers]

That is OK. We’re going to bring the same folks into the US so our elementary schools can look like Paris...because, after all, ISIS is contained, and we don’t want to hurt the feelings of Muslims...

[Sergio]

bkmk

[Fai Mao]

Hey I live in the tropics.

I have a closet full of sleeveless shirts

Please people its a joke OK!

[Tupelo]

re: You cannot require all citizens to be armed.

I don’t know about that.
The Federals now require you to buy approved insurance. Why not guns? As I said, I was informed by the smart people here that Trump would outlaw “Gun Free” zones. So what is to stop him from just adding a paragraph requiring all adult citizens to buy a firearm from an approved dealer or manufacturer?

[Winniesboy]

re: You cannot require all citizens to be armed.

I don’t know about that. The Federals now require you to buy approved insurance. Why not guns? As I said, I was informed by the smart people here that Trump would outlaw “Gun Free” zones. So what is to stop him from just adding a paragraph requiring all adult citizens to buy a firearm from an approved dealer or manufacturer?

Wouldn't such a requirement itself be a breach of the2nd Amendment? Surely any permissive right implies ipso facto the right not to exercise that right?

Incidentally, this is one of the things that U.S. commentators often get wrong about guns in the U.K. The assumption is that before there were any controls gun ownership in Britain was as widespread as in the U.S.A. Not so. The condition of the country when guns first became available in industrial quantities was such that it would never have occurred to most Brits that they might ever need or want one, so the habit of gun ownershp was never established. They had the right to own, but for the most part chose not to exercise that right.