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

a reply to: introvert

I don't care how prepared you are to put a terror attack in motion, you have just one armed individual with the know how and desire to use it, and your great plan can go to sh*t real quick.

Like the wasp nest next to a picnic, it makes for a trying adventure that doesn't go as planned.

a reply to: anxiouswens

Maybe from any chaos and looting that would happen in the aftermath of an infrastructure failure?

Not advocating or questioning just a thought.

originally posted by: BooCrackers
a reply to: introvert

I don't care how prepared you are to put a terror attack in motion, you have just one armed individual with the know how and desire to use it, and your great plan can go to sh*t real quick.

Like the wasp nest next to a picnic, it makes for a trying adventure that doesn't go as planned.

I agree, but a lot of things have to go just right for one armed citizen to foil a well-planned attack. Like I said, timing and luck.

And I hate to be the one to say this, the average firearm owner can't hit the broadside of a barn if their life depended on it. Put them in that sort of situation and it's more likely they will miss their target. Even police have a high miss rate in stressful situations.

Also, what good will a firearm do if a terrorist walks in to a busy market or building and simply pushes the button for the bomb strapped to his chest? It wouldn't be of any use because you're most likely already dead.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

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.

Killed by a Police Officer. Not armed civilians.


However, bullets going in the direction of Terrorists is a better alternative to screams and cries for help.

Killed by a civilian security guard, Not a police officer

a reply to: Gothmog

Link

Killed by a Police, mate.

A security guard was shot in the leg though.

a reply to: anxiouswens


This has probably been done already xxx times over on this thread, but the simple answer is that you go in, get your gun and shoot the terrorists rather than call 911 and wait--what ever is the average time in your area--for some cops to roll up.

originally posted by: BooCrackers
And then there's this.

Barber Shop shootout with CWP holders

They were citizens, and it was legal. They stopped the robbery and shot the robber. I could keep going with this all day.

There are 3 kinds of people

-Those who run from the fire
-Those who stand by and watch the fire happen
-Those who run to the fire

Which one are you?

Love the great states of South Carolina, Florida, Alaska, Texas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon....I'm sure there's more.

Indiana has had some of the most relaxed gun laws in the entire US back when it was hard to get CC in Texas.

This isn't a discussion its another anti gun troll thread....take off....I get tired of these endless trolls.....ask a stupid question much?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Actually, your not entirely correct.

" Harn originally said that a single police officer shot and killed both attackers with his service weapon, but told the AP Monday night that police didn't know who fired the fatal shots. "

Source : www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: angryhulk
Unless the public are all going to start the practice of concealed or open carry I can't imagine they would protect much people from attacks in public places.

You don't need ALL the public carrying. You need a few who are willing to put their lives on the line to stop a shooter.

The first instinct is to run for cover, to a safety area, armed or not, but if you are armed, you run for cover, and then you can return fire to neutralize the threat and save yourself and others involved. Easy.

You don't need ALL the public carrying. You need a few who are willing to put their lives on the line to stop a shooter.

Your post reminds me of the tale of the sheep, predators and sheepdogs. There are sheepdogs throughout our society, and they would be the type to step up and stop a shooter at their own risk.

a reply to: anxiouswens

You might want to read further into the Paris attack.
At least one terrorist was stopped by illegal arms traders in Paris that were armed.


Stopping evil is clear to many people. If I am armed, and in a situation, I can take actions to stop what is happening.

a reply to: MayanBoricua

Thats what happens when you mess with Texas.

Guns didn't stop Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. Guns wont stop a suicide bomber in the future unless circumstances change and a sniper is required-if people pulled out their second amendment phallic extension in that situation many lives could be lost.

Guns do not make us heroes-our actions do. If I own a fast car that does not make me fast.

People say that because they have a romanticized version of themselves being Rambo. In reality, the terrorist would attack and then they might be gunned down by conceal carry holders. It does nothing to stop a terrorist attack from happening that has to do with foreign policy and stopping the war machine...neither of which are ever going to change.

For one thing if bad people knew certain areas where not safe for them. Because people carried their own guns for self protection. The bad guys go else where. I am sure there are statistics out there that show crime has dropped in area's where conceal and carry are allowed. The bad guys mostly do not want to go up against a bunch of people with guns. The terrorist hit only area's where guns are not allowed. That in itself should let anyone know that having a gun could be the difference between life and death.

a reply to: MayanBoricua

That's a pretty pathetic #ing story that involves Americans enticing blatant systemic racism and prejudice. Then other Americans think that you can gun down others over free speech and opression, and finally they get shot by the first Americans that should legitimately be allowed to defend themself.

In any event, "drawing Mohammed day" sounds like the legitimate most stupid thing someone that dislikes Islam could do. I understand that maybe others are too stupid to see how that's equivalent to a "burn the bible day" being celebrated by Muslims.

They do burn American Flag # all the time, but seriously way to stoop to the level of them. It's honestly worse because they knew it would entice local violence, thats the only reason they had "draw Mohammed day", to flush out local Muslims. They wouldn't have even mentioned Mohammed otherwise. Congratulations Texas, you picked a fight a won, just like any other bully.

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.

a reply to: TheBulk

So how would a gun aide you if you're in the top floor at the the WTC? You'd shoot the pilot in the 747 and he would miss the tower swerving out of its way duh [Texas logic].

How do you think someone with a bomb that's triggered to explode if he let's go, can safely be shot?


The issue is you make these arguments like it's safety against criminal gangs. These are terrorists, basic weapons are useless. We need to fight them with intelligence.