Strict gun control in france.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, and Japan's gun control laws didn't prevent the sarin gas attacks. Pity, really. If all those Japanese on the subways were armed, they could have shot the clouds of colourless, odorless toxic gas and 12 people wouldn't have died.

Stupid gun control laws.

Boru

[I_am_not_mafia]

Yeah, and Japan's gun control laws didn't prevent the sarin gas attacks.  Pity, really.  If all those Japanese on the subways were armed, they could have shot the clouds of colourless, odorless toxic gas and 12 people wouldn't have died.  

Stupid gun control laws.

Exactly. And in Paris in the Heavy Metal concert, everyone would have calmly taken out their 9mm pistols while being shot at with AK47s. They would have stood there, paused while they carefully took aim and shot the attackers without anyone rushing around screaming, getting in the way of their well aimed shot, without being knocked over by fearful concert goers and without risk of missing and killing someone else that the terrorist wasn't even aiming at.

People would then carefully put their guns away and say things like "Sacre Bleu! I am so glad that we are all carrying guns! It's worth having a more dangerous society just for rare moments like this"

Guns would also have helped against the suicide vests. The terrorists would have thought to themselves, damn, I had better not blow myself up in case I get shot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Exactly. When the perpetrators are motivated and work as a team, laws, any laws, are easily subverted.

Then what use are gun laws?

I'm guessing it has to do with lower per-capita murder rates, as spelt out above. You might want to read that post.

While you're at it, you might want to read, and perhaps answer if you're not too tired, my first post in this thread.

Finally, let me just say that your putative argument falls afoul of the guideline of let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Simply because a law doesn't eliminate all acts it outlaws doesn't mean that law should be stricken.

I'd suggest that you start thinking without allowing your agenda (obvious as it is) to be your mental filter (again, obvious).

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I just think it's ignorant to think that laws intended to curb common gun violence are also intended to prevent ideologically driven mass murders such as this one.

Well that's the argument that we hear all the time from people who advocate stricter gun laws. Every single shooting in the US is used as an example by people on these forums all the time. Not surprisingly the same people are suddenly screaming 'oh but this is a statistical abnormality'

I'm certainly not arguing that line of reasoning. I'm arguing that in the face of a motivated and opportunistic enemy, a written law cannot be expected to be the only line of defense. Thinking otherwise is naive.

Murder is against the law, yet they happen all the time. Given that those laws sometimes fail, would you advocate their revocation? That seems to be your reasoning here: gun laws didn't work to stop this, therefore why have them?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, and Japan's gun control laws didn't prevent the sarin gas attacks.  Pity, really.  If all those Japanese on the subways were armed, they could have shot the clouds of colourless, odorless toxic gas and 12 people wouldn't have died.  

Stupid gun control laws.

Exactly. And in Paris in the Heavy Metal concert, everyone would have calmly taken out their 9mm pistols while being shot at with AK47s. They would have stood there, paused while they carefully took aim and shot the attackers without anyone rushing around screaming, getting in the way of their well aimed shot, without being knocked over by fearful concert goers and without risk of missing and killing someone else that the terrorist wasn't even aiming at.

People would then carefully put their guns away and say things like "Sacre Bleu! I am so glad that we are all carrying guns! It's worth having a more dangerous society just for rare moments like this"

Guns would also have helped against the suicide vests. The terrorists would have thought to themselves, damn, I had better not blow myself up in case I get shot.

Straw man.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Exactly. And in Paris in the Heavy Metal concert, everyone would have calmly taken out their 9mm pistols while being shot at with AK47s. They would have stood there, paused while they carefully took aim and shot the attackers without anyone rushing around screaming, getting in the way of their well aimed shot, without being knocked over by fearful concert goers and without risk of missing and killing someone else that the terrorist wasn't even aiming at.

People would then carefully put their guns away and say things like "Sacre Bleu! I am so glad that we are all carrying guns! It's worth having a more dangerous society just for rare moments like this"

Guns would also have helped against the suicide vests. The terrorists would have thought to themselves, damn, I had better not blow myself up in case I get shot.

Straw man.

Just cutting to the chase, because like a broken record the gun nutters say the same things again and again, like there being far fewer terrorists around if people were armed. But all the while conveniently forget that it wouldn't make a difference in a crowded concert. More guns being used = more casualties.

[Dystopia]

Because terrorists get their guns and bombs somewhere else and even if guns were legal I'm sure Kalashnikovs wouldn't be the most readily available weapons. I'm trying to understand the point here, Cpt.Awesome. France works like the rest of Europe, guns are only authorized to specialists (i.e. Police, military,, etc.), and guns being legal would not prevent this tradegy.

[The Grand Nudger]

AK's are readily available anywhere in the world, even where guns are illegal.  Want an ak, just say the word and one appears, lol.  

[Dystopia]

AK's are readily available anywhere in the world, even where guns are illegal.  Want an ak, just say the word.  

Yes, but what relevance does that have? What is Cpt.Awesome's point regarding French laws?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

France is not the US. Regardless of what one thinks about their gun legislation, it's academic because the support for allowing people to hold weapons in France is very, very small (police are often armed in France).

Also, carrying a gun isn't going to help you if someone decides to shoot you in the back of the head at a rock concert, or detonate a bomb outside a restaurant.

The reasons for the attack in Paris have nothing to do with their gun legislation.