[stray]

It is impossible to prevent while only criminals/terrorists have the weapons.

An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.

[miguelrochefort]

A recent tweet by Newt Gingrich echoes precisely that:

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/665312487147896832

I understand that this is not the popular opinion around here, but I genuinely can't think of an alternative.

[sirrocco]

I call bullshit on that. Tell me one theater/school/whatever attack in the States that has been foiled by armed citizens.

[stray]

According to the FBI (https://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-...):

[In] 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but 3 cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack.

So it appears that even the FBI says there were 3 over a span of 12 years that were foiled by armed citizens. And that fully one third of them were stopped by citizens without guns.

I would assume that if everybody were armed then, that more than 33 percent would be foiled by armed citizens.

That is of course, if you accept the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be a credible source

[hyperliner]

Here are a few: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/1...

[brogrammer90]

Concealed carry permit holders actually follow the law and don't solicit businesses that are "gun free zones."

[miguelrochefort]

"Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones"

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-m...

[hokkos]

But what is the proportion of not gun free colleges ? (because this is where most shooting are)

[kohanz]

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that the timing of that politically-charged tweet was in incredibly poor taste.

[stray]

Fully disagree.

It is precisely during tragic times like these that people need to be reminded that an unarmed citizenry is completely vulnerable to armed criminals/terrorists.

Gun control has zero effect on people who don't care about the law.

And many innocent people have just died as a result. Hundreds of families have just been forever changed because of it.

[staunch]

"Now is the time" = I agree with the argument.

"Now is not the time" = I disagree with the argument.

[miguelrochefort]

I can't think of a better opportunity to post such a tweet.

[notahacker]

When your adversaries are armed with suicide bombs and have no intention of living, armed citizens are very easily victimised. Iraqi civilians have plenty of firearms, and minimal restrictions on carrying them.

What actually did reduce the magnitude of the damage caused in the Paris attacks was the kind of intrusive security checks on people entering the Stade de France that are usually rather less popular around here...

[asadlionpk]

Even if we don't count the side-effects of this. I don't think armed citizens stand a chance against highly trained militants with heavy weaponry.

[stray]

Have any idea how many of us are even better trained ex-military?

In the US, about 13.4% of men are veterans. And 1.4% of women are veterans. So if you're in a theater with a hundred men and a hundred women -- fifteen of those people are competent in the responsible use if firearms AND have proven themselves willing to put their lives on the line for their countrymen.

I'd put money on an overweight, half-blind, ARMED, 60 year old US Marine up against 5 religious zealots with AK-47s any day of the week.

Hell, even those Air Force guys probably know what they're doing :-)