After the Paris attacks, some pro-gun Americans are taking the opportunity to say:

"If some of those civilians in Paris had guns, they would've been able to fight back against the terrorists!"

This phrase disgusts me. First of all, no, the enemy is a group of trained killers wielding Kalashnikov assault rifles, and you're just a panicked civilian with a handgun. Secondly, the consequences for arming your country is devastating, as shown here in America. This second point is what this topic is about.

So let's say that France had gun restrictions resembling America's. Let's say that France had armed citizens the way America does. And let's say that those armed citizens were able to stop three quarters of the Paris attack casualties from happening. In this scenario, instead of 120ish people dying, only about 30 people died.
(Not that I agree that that would happen at all, but's that's a different argument for a different time)

But what are the costs of having a country full of guns? Well, let's use America's statistics, since in this scenario, France would have similar gun laws. Roughly 33,000 people die in America annually due to guns. (Yes, this figure includes suicides, accidental deaths n stuff, the important part is the gun, not the cause)

And yes, I know France's population is much smaller than America's. So after a bit of math I calculated that if America had France's population, then instead of 33,000 annual deaths, there would be about 6,875. That means, in this little scenario where France is full of armed civilians, roughly 6,875 people would die every year because of a gun, versus the usual 1,800 (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france#total_number_of_gun_deaths). So, finally, 6,875-1,800= ~5,000.

Approximately 5,000 additional gun-related deaths would occur in France every year if they were to adopt gun laws like America's.

So let's go back to the terrorist attack scenario. Sure, armed citizens spared 90 French lives. But is really worth the price? Is it worth losing 5,000 extra people every year just to MAYBE stop the terrorists from killing quite as many people?

I concur. Didn't think I'd hear this from a guy named "Trump2016" but it's sound logic.

^ Had the same thing in mind. I'm getting about skeptical about you Trump... has somebody hacked your account?

May I bump this thread becuase this dude touched my heart with this.

Whoops this is my Trump account.
I'm supposed to be pro-gun.


...WE NEED MORE GUNS!
PEOPLE NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!
WE MUST 'MURICA-FY THE WOOOORLD

British police don't even have guns....lol.

the enemy is a group of trained killers wielding Kalashnikov assault rifles

Kid, its not fucking spetznaz. Its a religious nut who got ahold of a gun. Someone who goes to a range and practices daily, takes classes and learns proper shot placement know how to deal with the situation. And guess what else classes teach you? How to stay calm in situations like that :o

But Lawlz, there's literally nothing fun to do in Syria except shoot your gun. You make it sound like the terrorists had never touched a gun before

While there guns give them a heavy advantage (compared to no gun countries) if they ever had to fight an oppression government I doubt they'd have the spirt to fight for long anyway. And it's not really worth the cost still it's swings and rounderbouts.

You make it sound like the terrorists had never touched a gun before

They practiced for years, and still fire from the hip half the time :^)

I doubt they'd have the spirt to fight for long anyway.

You doubt the lengths nuts go to to prove theyre right. Look at Palestine and Israel

Kid, its not fucking spetznaz. Its a religious nut who got ahold of a gun. Someone who goes to a range and practices daily, takes classes and learns proper shot placement know how to deal with the situation. And guess what else classes teach you? How to stay calm in situations like that :o

but the right wing argument has never been made to train americans how to use guns, it's just to let them own whatever guns they want and carry them around in public. i think if someone is carrying around a gun in a public place, then they need to have the same amount of training and certification as a police officer. i certainly don't want some bozo escalating a situation by waving his fallic symbol around pretending to be a superhero.

maybe possibly a TRAINED shooter could have prevented some of the death in Paris, but it's really impossible to say. there are still mass shootings in america, tragedy will happen everywhere regardless of whether or not a populace is armed.

it's better to think of ways to address the root of the problem and not just shoot at it when it gets close to you.

While there guns give them a heavy advantage (compared to no gun countries) if they ever had to fight an oppression government I doubt they'd have the spirt to fight for long anyway. And it's not really worth the cost still it's swings and rounderbouts.

What you don't take into account, my dear Luna, is that if a certain government of a pro-gun nation were to become so shitty that it would warrant a rebellion, the civilians would have a certain percentage of the military fighting alongside them, as can be seen in the American Civil War. I'm not saying which side would win, just that people wouldn't give up straight away.

(Yes, this figure includes suicides, accidental deaths n stuff, the important part is the gun, not the cause)

Yes, this figure includes suicides...

...the important part is the gun...

Might I ask why using a gun for suicide would matter?

^Because suicide amounts to the vast majority of France's gun deaths, at over 1400. Would they not find another way?

@Lawlz

Mmkay den. Refute only one point that I make. Refute the one point that I say is a different argument for a different time.

Also...

They practiced for years, and still fire from the hip half the time :^)

They fire from the hip because who needs the accuracy when you're simply spraying bullets into crowds of dozens of unarmed people?
And yep. They practiced for years... and? You've only strengthened my argument.

My only note on this:

If I knew the entire country had guns, I wouldn't hold hostages like they have done/do. I'd just shoot everyone around to make sure no one could shoot back.

I also wouldn't trust most civilians with weapons. People panic, that's a fact. The last thing you want is someone shooting a guy because he "Might have been a terrorist"....

leave it to the professionals.

Might I ask why using a gun for suicide would matter?

Because we're looking at gun deaths in general, not just gun violence.
Technically, "gun violence" would disclude things like accidental deaths, which should not be discluded since we're talking about a France that would have plenty of guns.
And although you'd think suicidal people would find a different way out, the majority would most likely not do so since suicide is so easy to commit when you have a gun in front of you. All you need to do is point the gun and pull the trigger. All it takes is one brief negative thought. On the other hand, alternative methods of suicide take a lot more commitment to overcome your body's instinct to stay alive.

the enemy is a group of trained killers wielding Kalashnikov assault rifles, and you're just a panicked civilian with a handgun.

And that's somehow worse than being a panicked civilian with no defense at all?

Roughly 33,000 people die in America annually due to guns. (Yes, this figure includes suicides, accidental deaths n stuff, the important part is the gun, not the cause)

Would the death toll really be lowered by banning/restricted guns? All the things you mentioned can easily be carried out by other means. Knives can be involved with suicide and mass killings. One can rig up an explosive using legal chemicals.

I really don't understand why so many people would rather be totally helpless than have guns. Armed citizens won't always prevent tragedies, but they can give the common folk a CHANCE, and that's better than nothing.

but the right wing argument has never been made to train americans how to use guns, it's just to let them own whatever guns they want and carry them around in public.

You're right, because gun owners generally are knowledgable about the weapon they're buying and take classes, because we care about safety. Gun owners are not nuts, we dont buy guns because "hurr hurr im so cool", we buy them to protect ourselves and hunt. To have to argue gun safety along with ownership is dumb, it should be common sense.

They fire from the hip because who needs the accuracy when you're simply spraying bullets into crowds of dozens of unarmed people?

Unarmed, gee I wonder why so many died. If only someone had been there to take action, such as a citizen with a .22 who took classes on Keeping calm and shot placement :o


Relevant pic

Knives can be involved with suicide and mass killings

It's a bit hard to go on a killing spree in a crowded area with a knife. One you've stabbed 1 person, everyone knows what you're doing. The stronger people who are around can fight you to take it off and everyone else can run. That makes the death total a lot lower.