I have no way of being sure, and I am definitely pro-gun and am looking into carrying more regularly, but would armed citizens have saved that many people in the case of suicide bombings?

I don't know enough of the specifics of the three bombings though, so maybe.

Close the "gun show loopholes" and the terrorists won't be able to get their guns!
Sorry, guys and gals...really bad humor, there.

Better training and the very best equipment has been an ongoing battle by every police department and law enforcement agency all over this country. In a nut shell We don't want to pay for it! Heck, my department complained about one eight hour day of range training per year and a grand total of 60 rounds of ammunition per man per year.
A gun is a tool. We all have a hammer but not all of us know how to use it or can call ourselves carpenters. Some cops strap a gun on every day and are horrible shots and hope they never have to use the gun. Other cops and many thousands of sportsman take the initiative to become proficient with the tools and their guns and can shoot the eyes out a snake and carry a gun safely. If you are such a person then I want you armed everywhere I go. With my gun or not it will brake my heart if any member of my family got shot and I did not do all I could at that very moment to protect them. I would rather die fighting then watch my family getting slaughtered while I play dead.
Guns and ammunition should be made much cheaper rather than more expensive and even unobtainable in many cases. Anti gun nuts in this country are the first to beg for a cop with a gun when faced with such force while men like me would rather have the cops come and clean up the mess after I do my job and protect myself and my family.

Restricting gun carry to the "well trained" is a can of worms and akin to what the gun control advocates are trying to do anyway. IE... Police and military only.

If it's you and me in a crowded theater and someone starts shooting people, I'd rather get shot by you accidentally then get shot by some POS shouting alwho ockbar.

Uh, no. That's my point. Although I like to think I am qualified, I probably would not be. The same goes for those Mac Bolan fans as well. Again, I am not sure of the answer about how to balance these two contradictory ideas. I would like to think better training would be a good start.

I'd rather take my chances with the friendly fire then go down as just another unarmed victim.

Then the more of you that are armed, the better, Eh?

Nice scenario TS but highly flawed! Do you really think all cops are trained in confrontational gun fights? I can tell you from many years on my departments gun range that many cops have a hard enough time just qualifying on a paper target while many others do bring themselves to a much higher standard. So, you think a good guy with a gun could get shot by another good guy with his own gun while the bad guys are blasting away. How about an on duty plain clothes cop doing his job? When ever the cops do storm these fanatics there is almost always some civilians that do get hurt or killed but then you have to consider with no good guns they might have been killed anyway. I do agree we do not need a bunch of gun totting cowboys in every crowd who have not versed themselves on the laws and rules of engagement but can also tell you I damn sure want me and a few others like me with guns when TSHTF.

I have no doubts that there will be more attacks in France. Probably in a different city. They'll wait until the French pull more forces into Paris and then strike elsewhere. The French are just too easy, juicy and stupid of a target. After the next attack, the French will formally surrender (in keeping with their tradition).

Oh, yes, the scare scenario that every anti-gunner screams about (talking points, anyone?). In fact, in all mass shootings where a good guy with a gun fired back at the shooter, this scenario has never happened. Neither did the police ever shoot the good guy because he had a gun. As a scare tactic - yes; possible - yes; did it ever happen - no! Meanwhile, a number of mass shootings have been stopped (some before they began) by a good guy with a gun. Moral of the story - don't follow your feelings; follow the facts.

Established networks are a two edged sword. The more folks in your network, the more chance there is of an information leak, thus exposing the network. The network needs to be just big enough to get access to resources and no bigger. These guys in France were amateurs. They had no training in trade craft. They left all kinds of evidence to allow their trail to be followed. If they actually knew what they were doing things would have been much worse.

Anybody can make up hypothetical scenarios on either side of the debate. The fact is that there are more defensive uses of handguns than criminal uses. Most criminals seek soft targets (e.g., "gun-free zones").

You say it is highly unlikely that an armed good guy might stop a tragedy? I'm not saying it is probable (we never know the situation in advance), but I do believe it might give potential victims more of a chance. A chance they certainly deserve, don't we agree? Your claim is difficult to disprove by the stats due to the nature of the case. If a gunman kills 15 people, it instantly makes national news for weeks, along with immediate cries for more gun control (ignoring that the tragedy happened in a "gun free zone"...until it wasn't). But to show that what you claim is unlikely, we can't just say go back in time and try again with an armed citizen; we need to look to potential massacres that were stopped, which means they were not news-making massacres. This happens regularly, but is not widely reported. If a good guy stops a shooter after only a few casualties (or none), it might make a local paper that day, but that's the end of it. Those stories can be found, but not in the mainstream media's narrative. Those stories can be found, but will not convince each other, so also most people convinced by the mainstream media do not want to look at conflicting data and stories.

But even if the stats are wrong, it is the principle of the matter. We have the right to life. That right is meaningless without the right to self-defense. That right is meaningless without the right to equip ourselves with the tools efficient for self-defense.

They are bothering with France because they already have a strong support network there. Organized terrorism can be successful only with an established support network, otherwise it becomes unreliable and more often than not the attacks are foiled before they even begin. The more "refugees" western countries take, the more they enable the support networks.

I don't know. We can't have untrained idiots waving pistols in the air and going everywhere while constantly watched by security forces is unappealing as well. As long as there is trouble in the Middle East and as long as people there are unwilling to look at the root causes (Islam and the hatred of Jews), there will always be trouble. The countries surrounding Israel have to allow the Palestinians the right to enter these countries and they need to accept that Israel is here to stay. Israel needs to get rid of its state religion and become secular and to finally deal with the religious issues over ownership of land and artifacts. Finally, countries in the Middle East need to stop financing terrorism.

Should be completed in a month. No problem. :)

"In his panic, he misses and starts hitting other scrambling people in the crowded room."
This certainly could happen. But what's the alternative? I don't want to leave self-defense to the professionals. Beyond the security benefits, there's a cultural benefit in expecting citizens to have some right and responsibility for their own protection and for trying to stay calm and not panic in an emergency.

Right. And totally unrealistic. Unless the civilian initially shooting is specially trained for attack and defensive situations under hostile enemy fire, he is not going to coolly act accordingly. I was in the Army for ten years (ten years ago) and would like to think I would take a steady bead on the bad guy, take him down and be the hero. In reality I would either have a heart attack since my cardio has gone to shit, or cower under a seat. It is really easy to armchair quarterback after the fact.

That is a great number of assumptions. If the first of them is wrong and that person aims carefully, the media never report the matter, the police arrest that person and many now dead people go on with their lives. Disappointing scenario, eh?

Great. One guy pulls out his pistol to start shooting wildly at the terrorists in the crowded room. Another guy sees the first guy pull out his pistol and thinks he is involved with the attack and starts to shoot at him. In his panic, he misses and starts hitting other scrambling people in the crowded room. The third guy, seeing someone who looks like they are shooting into the crowd, starts to shoot at him, causing even more damage. If you do happen to hit one of the bad guys with your pistol, you would probably have to be close to him. His accomplices turn and kill you then promptly go about their business.

Real life is not a movie. You are not Rambo.
Not anti-gun at all but just realistic.

they opened one in phoenix actually

I suspect the answer as to why it isn't happening is one simple word: terrorism.

With the Hebdo attack there as a call for it. I don't think we will see it here because people have placed terrorism and general crime involving guns into two distinct categories. We even have a legal distinction for it.

But because it was an act of terrorists rather then "mere" criminals the French public is unlikely to connect the two. After all, terrorists are clearly bad outsiders who don't follow the laws, but criminals are just people who might follow the law.

The fact that this involved bombs will make the gun aspect even smaller, and emphasize it as being "different". The fact that it involved weapons in their highest classification will do the same.

And yes, there is high cognitive dissonance potential for those among them who dare to actually think and reason about it.

ROBOBURGER?

What was that famous line... oh yeah...

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country..."

Knew I learned that in high school typing class for some good reason... (Do they even still teach typing as a class in school??)

To arms... To arms... the meance is coming...

Now you could send out a robot to mow the lawn as well as a LOT of other things including making a burger at mcdonalds !

I used to get PTSD when my dad wanted me to mow the lawn.

Similarly, all the focus is on banning guns that shoot many bullets and shoot them fast, despite the fact that the vast majority of gun crime are one- or two-victim crimes and don't involve shooting many bullets fast.