One can argue how much a deterrent the American gun culture is to this sort of thing. But to say the presence of civilian guns would not make a difference cannot be proved. Blue on blue is often brought up, but in the couple case I am aware of, these were singular events in homes with police responding to a call to the home and mistaken identity. I can't find a case where an armed civilian responding in public caused a blue on blue or tactical confusion for the police. There are many cases of unarmed civilians taking down armed assailants sometimes when reloading, sometimes not. Without changing the venue, I remind you of the French train intervention just a few weeks ago. So if an unarmed individual can stop a mass shooting, why can't an armed one? It isn't unreasonable to believe an armed civilian could do the same thing an unarmed person could do more quickly and with less loss of life.
So, one might say, the Friday the 13th Paris attacks involved multiple shooter with automatic weapons. How could a modestly trained armed civilian make a difference? We throw around the word "disruption" all the time now. An unexpected response of any sort, let alone an armed response from someone not easily identified as the threat, like a police uniform, is very disruptive to the evil doers' plan. Simply disrupting their plan, diverting the shooters' attention, might allow more victims to flee, or unarmed individuals to intervene. These sort of guys clearly have some training and a plan. But they are not soldiers or police. They truly are amateurs. While the desire for martyrdom might fuel some to carry on the fight, others may flee, deviate from their plan, or take the quick way to the sixty virgins by their own hand to avoid capture. Any of those scenarios saves lives. Speculation, sure. But not unrealistic because there have been cases where all those things have occurred to one degree or another.
So, one might say, the Friday the 13th Paris attacks involved multiple shooter with automatic weapons. How could a modestly trained armed civilian make a difference? We throw around the word "disruption" all the time now. An unexpected response of any sort, let alone an armed response from someone not easily identified as the threat, like a police uniform, is very disruptive to the evil doers' plan. Simply disrupting their plan, diverting the shooters' attention, might allow more victims to flee, or unarmed individuals to intervene. These sort of guys clearly have some training and a plan. But they are not soldiers or police. They truly are amateurs. While the desire for martyrdom might fuel some to carry on the fight, others may flee, deviate from their plan, or take the quick way to the sixty virgins by their own hand to avoid capture. Any of those scenarios saves lives. Speculation, sure. But not unrealistic because there have been cases where all those things have occurred to one degree or another.
It will be interesting to see how they respond to any movement toward a UNSCR vis-a-vis Syria/IS.
