How would legal gun ownership protect citizens from a terrorist attack?

a reply to: anxiouswensThat of course is the really burning question in the UK. In answer to your question ,why are we soft targets in the UK? Think it through.
Why, because we are innocent people who actually believe that the police and security forces can protect us. Nothing is further from the truth. Virtually all actions by police and security are retro-active, they wait for the crime to be commited before they act. But when it's your life that can be lost before they act it is not good enough.
Whether that's through an assault, break in or an act of terrorism if they cannot protect us first hand then we must be allowed to protect ourselves.
In answer to your post the power of gun ownership is in the deterrent factor. If we were allowed to carry guns the soft target option would vanish overnight. Ok, we all know there is no defence against bombers but shooters are another scenario and it's called damage limitation and if it saves just one life it's well worth it.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: anxiouswensThat of course is the really burning question in the UK. In answer to your question ,why are we soft targets in the UK? Think it through.
Why, because we are innocent people who actually believe that the police and security forces can protect us. Nothing is further from the truth. Virtually all actions by police and security are retro-active, they wait for the crime to be commited before they act. But when it's your life that can be lost before they act it is not good enough.
Whether that's through an assault, break in or an act of terrorism if they cannot protect us first hand then we must be allowed to protect ourselves.
In answer to your post the power of gun ownership is in the deterrent factor. If we were allowed to carry guns the soft target option would vanish overnight. Ok, we all know there is no defence against bombers but shooters are another scenario and it's called damage limitation and if it saves just one life it's well worth it.

Again, you can fight someone with intelligence. Preventing the terrorist from making it to America is the goal. Most of you people want guns to shoot local American Muslims now.

A gun won't aide you from an explosion, chemical warfare, financial warfare, propagated terrorism, or an army of Muslims. Their goal is the stuff above, not to come at us 1 by 1.

A gun will aide you in a robbery or suicide however and statistics directly link them.

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
a reply to: anxiouswens

There was a Draw Muhammad Day in the Outskirts of Dallas, Texas a while back. A few muslims got angry and decided to go shoot up the building it was being held at.
The assault didnt even last 30 seconds, and the didnt make it ten feet from the car before they were gunned down. No one was hit in the crossfire, and guns were put away once the threat ended.
Thats what happens when you mess with Texas.

Bunch of redneck idiots go out of their way to insult a religion they do not understand. Don't mess with Texas? Don't try and think they are playing with a full deck of cards. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Grow up.

a reply to: imjackBut that is what they are doing in Europe, coming one, two or three at a time. It is agreed that no-one can protect against a bomber (except if he is identified and neutralised before he can detonate.
But against knifemen or gunmen it comes down to, as I said, damage limitation.
The gunman must act first to identify him as a threat but from then on if there was an armed person with the will they can limit the loss of life. One must remember the perpetrators are out for the maximum deaths as possible, if that could be kept minimal (god forbid we are talking about loss of life here) then the odds are they would not attempt it in the first place. Remember they go for crowded places not isolated people.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert
Legal gun ownership does not necessarily mean citizens are more protected from terrorist attack.

ARMED/UNARMED

Who has the best chances? Stop being so purposely dense. You're not fooling anyone.

The topic of the OP was legal gun ownership and terrorism. I would agree that an armed individual has a better chance in a "normal" situation, but we are talking about their chances during a terrorist attack.

In that situation, I don't see how an armed individual could be as effective.

How does a firearm help you if it is a suicide bomber? By the time you realize what the hell is going on, you're already in pieces.

a reply to: introvert

but its not always a suicide bomber or planes crashing into buildings...

the concert in paris for example, what if a half a dozen people had been able to return fire on the gunmen? Might have made a difference might not... either way it doesnt matter. The last thing I would want to to is huddle in fear hoping someone comes along to save me before I am shot.

Its very cliche I know, and I hope I never have to find out... but I would rather die on my feet trying to survive, and protect my family or innocents around me than die on my knees praying for a miracle.

Why do terrorists in Europe have fully automatic weapons, but, Europeans complain about US gun laws? I can't remember the last time a crime was committed with fully automatic weapons in the US.

When you ask what a person carrying a legal gun can do against terrorists? I keep seeing the video of that terrorist blowing away that UNARMED French cop. I don't know what I could do with a gun against a terrorist. I DO know that I would have a better chance with one than without.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: introvert

but its not always a suicide bomber or planes crashing into buildings...

the concert in paris for example, what if a half a dozen people had been able to return fire on the gunmen? Might have made a difference might not... either way it doesnt matter. The last thing I would want to to is huddle in fear hoping someone comes along to save me before I am shot.

Its very cliche I know, and I hope I never have to find out... but I would rather die on my feet trying to survive, and protect my family or innocents around me than die on my knees praying for a miracle.

That is a reasonable statement and I would agree. As someone that carries, I'd rather have the option. But I don't believe, in the end, that the average firearm owner is trained well enough that they could turn a situation like that in to their favor and not cause collateral damage in the process.

As I said before, the average firearm owner can't hit the broadside of a barn and in such a stressful situation they are going to miss more than they hit.

a reply to: introvert

True... Lots of stupid people out there, but what folks almost never mention is for every stupid gun owner there are many more intelligent owners. Not saying they can shoot like a Seal... but sometimes just brandishing a firearm makes all the difference. (see link below)

Mall shooting

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter. As Iwas going down to pull, Isaw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and Iknew if Ifired and missed, I could hit them, he said. Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision. I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him, said Meli. Iknow after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.

The people that do these things are not brave people they are looking to be martyrs and want easy victims not armed ones. The simple act of deterring them from entering a room saves lives, in my opinion.

While this was a mall shooting not an act of terror (in the context of the discussion) the premise is the same in my opinion, judging by where the terrorists have struck in europe they are looking for soft targets to make sure they get the body count they are looking for.

a reply to: JIMC5499

They are able to reactivate weapons sold as deactivated ones, different nations have different rules on whats good and whats bad.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Umm I was there, he was a Garland traffic officer who killed them, the security guard was only grazed in the ankle. By the way the chalk outlines were by far the best drawings at the show!

(Ohh and in fairness the Garland PD officer was a competition shooter with several awards)

a reply to: uncommitted

What gives you the idea that we are rednecks or idiots??? As far as understanding a religion, child brides, FGM, beheadings, and so on and so forth, I think we have a clear understanding of what we don't like. Ohh and yes it is for the most part a bad idea to mess with Texas.

a reply to: anxiouswens

In most circumstances? It won't.

Some of us who have carry permits, and proper training (and I'm taking some classes to improve my skill level...) might, just maybe, be able to do something about it.

Plus, there is the thought that's in the back of every criminal type that maybe, just maybe, some of those perspective victims might be armed...and able to shoot back.

However in most cases, it is unlikely that it will help. However...not totally unlikely. As we've seen in many cases.

Guns would have stopped the attack in San Bernardino if someone in the Party would have recognized the threat in time and been able to draw and shoot the perps on target... but not the one in Brussels. Guns can be good deterrents or force multipliers but they don't help in every situation nor can they be used in every situation.

a reply to: amazing

Yep. Handguns/Rifles are tools, not magic wands.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: uncommitted

What gives you the idea that we are rednecks or idiots??? As far as understanding a religion, child brides, FGM, beheadings, and so on and so forth, I think we have a clear understanding of what we don't like. Ohh and yes it is for the most part a bad idea to mess with Texas.

Because what the hell do you expect the response to a draw the Mohammed competition to be? That is pure baiting but of course you think it's clever because...................................? Backward, plain backward in thinking that doing something like that will progress understanding.

a reply to: anxiouswens

The "most natural thing to do" for YOU, and others of a similar mindset, may be to run and hide. And there's nothing wrong with that instinct.

And for the majority of the population, you would be correct in that statement. And I would include many of the "ISIS hunter pop me a turrirst and have a beer" crowd in that statement.

Some people, however, are well trained and more than capable of not only running away from a shooting event, but running towards it.

One answer does not cover all the bases for your question.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: imjackBut that is what they are doing in Europe, coming one, two or three at a time. It is agreed that no-one can protect against a bomber (except if he is identified and neutralised before he can detonate.
But against knifemen or gunmen it comes down to, as I said, damage limitation.
The gunman must act first to identify him as a threat but from then on if there was an armed person with the will they can limit the loss of life. One must remember the perpetrators are out for the maximum deaths as possible, if that could be kept minimal (god forbid we are talking about loss of life here) then the odds are they would not attempt it in the first place. Remember they go for crowded places not isolated people.

Alright gunman and knifemen, but again how is this different than the level of protection we need from gangs? I don't see terrorism as an advocate for gun protection because if they had it there way none of the attacks they would use would be countered by guns. They KNOW America loves guns and we have tons regardless of legislation like this. Why make it easy for THEM to get one?


The truth is, its almost a propagated terrorist attack to make guns so available in this country. The thought of everyone having them more so then now is terrifying with our highest-in-the-world homicide rates. That's true terrorism. I don't have issues with Texas owning guns, that's partly what makes people afraid to come here.(in Texas atm) My issue is them being as available as cigarettes nationwide.

a reply to: uncommitted

We do not want or require the approval or permission to invoke our right to freedom of expression, If they have a problem with pictures of the pedophile in question being drawn don't go to the event, don't look at the pictures, if that still isn't good enough then go back to what ever sand pit you crawled out of, this is the USA, PC is crap and nobody cares who has their feel bads hurt over a drawing.

a reply to: imjack

Since when is Texas in Panama? Or Africa? I'm confused. You said highest in the world homicide rates, yet the US does not have the highest in the world homicide rates.

Or did something get annexed last night?