Donald Trump Says Paris Attacks Would Have Been ‘Much Different’ If People Had Guns
Source: ABC News
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that the devastating attacks in France that killed at least 129 people would have turned out differently if people were armed.
"You can say what you want, but if they had guns -- if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry -- it would have been a much, much different situation," he said to thunderous applause from the audience in Beaumont, Texas.
"When you look at Paris, you know, the toughest gun laws in the world, nobody had guns except for the bad guys, nobody," he said. "Nobody had guns, and they were just shooting them one by one."
Trump had a similar response to the January attack on the French satiric newspaper Charlie Hebdo, tweeting that the shooting took place in one of the toughest gun control countries.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-paris-attacks-people-guns/story?id=35207857
katmondoo
(6,457 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,861 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And let's do something about his hair, too.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Seriously. Fuck you.
msongs
(67,441 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)please tell me how this rational or the lack of it would work . you cant can you ?
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)How many people in THAT audience had their guns with them? Want to bet they were told not to bring them into the venue? The Donald is bankrupt in many ways, other than financially on a regular basis. Bankrupt of any normal feelings.
sarge43
(28,945 posts)Asshole.
just in case.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)how's that bone spur doing?
gvstn
(2,805 posts)Relating that he is an asshole is not really sarcasm.
sarge43
(28,945 posts)Gaping asshole
gvstn
(2,805 posts)underpants
(182,879 posts)He can barely form a sentence.
Quixote1818
(28,968 posts)elleng
(131,107 posts)OMG, I need a drink, and I rarely drink!
Marthe48
(17,021 posts)even if the normal sane people who were there for the concert had guns, they were there for the concert. Not alert, not watching for crazy murderers with guns. That's why more guns are no solution. Normal people are trying to live normal lives. Even if a normal person had a gun <oxymoron>, he/she would be focused on doing a normal thing, not on guard. We can't live our lives on guard every second of every freaking day. Although that might be why we are all so screwed up all the time.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)User Actions
Follow
Newt GingrichVerified account
?@newtgingrich
Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits. We live in an age when evil men have to be killed by good people
Native
(5,943 posts)that's not exactly something you'd carry with you to a concert in your purse.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)uppityperson
(115,679 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)As if international terrorism has anything to do with civil laws on gun ownership...
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)I used to do that with my family on facebook, but I realized it never really did any good. Even if I got them to admit they may not be logical, a few days later they'd be back to the same BS. Either that or they'll say I'm constantly trying to start fights them because of their opinion. Which is really odd to me. Why post a political statement if you don't want to discuss it? Anyway, good luck with your continuing efforts.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)What a safe world that would be. Everyone would be so fucking scared they'd look like they were smiling all the time.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)What a peaceful world that would make, what with death being so peaceful and all.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)You just ride it:
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when..."
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)how crazy a president he would make.... stand united against the Trump..
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Turns out that was a "good guy with a gun" responding to the sound just like you,...along with ten other "good guys with guns".
(Perfect place to pop a paper bag.)
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Should everyone walk around with hand grenades too?
sdfernando
(4,941 posts)...a lot more people would have been killed...How stupid can this guy be??? I'm sick of this fucking asshole...please just go away!
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)houston16revival
(953 posts)any advantage will be momentary
Citizens with guns would be out-gunned with the
assault rifles, and the terrorists don't have any barriers
as to how many accomplices they need to carry out their mission
Guns are useless against suicide bombers
Trump's thinking is being seriously flummoxed by the static in his hair
ustilago
(30 posts)But wait...
What if EVERYBODY walked around with high explosives strapped to their bodies? Imagine how safe the world would be THEN!!! /s
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)IrishEyes
(3,275 posts)Republican = idiot. Republican is another word for idiot.
rpannier
(24,338 posts)Pretty sure China and Vietnam do too
Judi Lynn
(160,623 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)What good did guns do us on 9/11? There are instances where it's possible someone with a gun might make a difference, if they know how to use one, if they know who to shoot at, if things don't get so out of control that it becomes a random bloodbath. If we aren't dealing with bombs strapped to peoples bodies - people who are all too ready and all too eager to die for their cause.
It might have been different, it might not have been. Our citizens being well armed hasn't really done much to reduce the murder rate in our own Country, not with millions of unregistered weapons, school shootings - and so very many murders over the years. From muggings gone wrong, to drive-by shootings, to trigger-happy cops.
Let's be honest now, if Mr. Trump had been there, armed or not, he would have found the best hiding spot he could, wet his pants, and cried.
What we need isn't more guns. What we need is more common sense, more generosity, more good will among humanity. What the world really needs now is more love, not more bullets.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)and the sad thing to think, for me, is many agree with this clown from the "short bus".
DinahMoeHum
(21,809 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)These victim-blaming gun humping imbeciles are beneath contempt.
packman
(16,296 posts)Is that asshat going to suggest that everyone should be armed with suicide bomb vests? And the audience clapped, Jesus on a pogo stick please save America.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)no, not at all
NonMetro
(631 posts)I'll chip in for his plane ticket. You?
tabasco
(22,974 posts)NonMetro
(631 posts)Of course!
chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)Because once evreyone starts pulling out weapons and firing no one will know who is who, especially the police when they arrive.
Moral Compass
(1,525 posts)Trump proves yet again that he is an idiot. This is just the latest in a long series of spouting idiocies. Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya! Build a wall between the U.S and Mexico! Deport the 11 million illegal aliens with a deportation force!
And now this. The death toll in Paris would have been much lower if all of the French were armed.
Lets look at some recent history.
After the Charlie Hebdo massacre a gun rights organization staged a simulation of the attack to prove their contention that the attack could have been foiled if the writers and editors of Charlie Hebdo had been armed. The January 15th edition of Texas Monthly published a story (by Dan Hoffman) entitled: A Gun Rights Organization Staged a Re-Enactment of the Charlie Hebdo Shooting (link: http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/a-gun-rights-organization-staged-a-re-enactment-of-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting/)
The organization is called The Truth About Guns. The article points out that the simulation was done a dozen times and a key variable was missingthe element of surprise. The participants were not only armed by knew the attack was coming.
The simulation proved one thing and one thing only.
That being armed had little impact on the ultimate outcome. In the absolute best result one attacker (out of two) was killed, but all of the writers and editors except one died (and that one ran).
This was a simulation put on by an organization that wanted to prove that being armed when attacked by armed attackers would prevent a massacre. They eliminated the element of surprise. Yet they still couldnt prove the point they set out to prove.
Wrap your head around that one. It was a rigged test created by a group that had a dog in the hunt and they couldnt make it work.
Trump and everyone that advances this argument every time there is a massacre is simply wrong. There is no objective evidence that turning the world into an armed camp will result in anything than more violence. More weapons mean only one thing--more gun deaths from accident, confrontations that escalate, deliberate shootings, and, yes, criminal acts.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)How well would guns have defended the restaurant?
Jesus Christ. Guns are not the fucking answer to every-fucking-thing.
But it plays to the insane base, and Donald knows it.
Kennah
(14,315 posts)Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)Those who applauded Trump are idiots.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)would soooo effective against ak47s and suicide vests