Paris attack.... how might we protect ourselves?

P

PaulS

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
14,036
Location
New England
Display Name
Display name:
PaulS
***** I'm hoping we can keep this out of the spin zone by keeping the politics out of it. *********

So the carnage appears to be over in Paris, 100+ murdered. I sit here and I think about it and I wonder is there anything one could do if they found themselves in this position. For suicide bombers, there is probably very little one can do, seems that unless you spot the bomber, it is over before you know it.

But I think about those people at the concert venue. Two, three, four or maybe five gunmen in a crowd of hundreds, and they manage to kill a hundred. Does it really need to be like that? I don't want to take away from the deceased at all when discussing this, what happened to them is tragic, and not their fault.

The first instinct when confronted with something like this is to duck and run. And that is a good instinct, but sometimes it doesn't work. I just think about hundreds of people cowering, and waiting to see if their time is up, while cowards with guns pick people off. I think we need to change how we react.

Soft targets, that what they are calling them. I think we need to collectively understand that when we gather in a crowd, we are all soft targets. So how do we change? Arm everyone is a one possible solution, but maybe not a good one. In the case of the concert, I'm sure alcohol was being served, most municipalities ban carrying guns when consuming alcohol and that is a good idea. So arming ourselves in many cases is not answer.

I really think the way to stop these attacks is to adopt an attitude that overtook Flt 93. When they realized that the hijackers were going to kill them all, they fought back.

In Paris, in one venue, it was about five against fifteen hundred. What if instead of following instinct and ducking and running, potential victims instead rushed the attackers. Yes some would get killed, but they were probably going to get killed anyway. Eventually the cowards with the guns could be overpowered and dealt with. It just seems to me it would be better to die fighting back rather than cowering and hiding.

In order to do something like this we have to think about it and discuss it ahead of time as for most it is not a natural thing to do, run straight at danger. But times have changed. What do you think?

edit: Added in numbers I just saw about the concert venue.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is an answer.

How do we keep people from texting and driving, or drinking and driving, etc...
People are going to die. Far fewer from terrorist attacks then car crashes.

I think this is just what it is.


That said, move to Texas. We have plenty of room and it seems everyone is armed.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I don't think there is an answer.

How do we keep people from texting and driving, or drinking and driving, etc...
People are going to die. Far fewer from terrorist attacks then car crashes.

I think this is just what it is.


That said, move to Texas. We have plenty of room and it seems everyone is armed.
Click to expand...

I wonder if I'd have the stones to run at a gunman, rather than away. I'm not sure. I think it would be much easier if behind the guy.
 
PaulS said:
I wonder if I'd have the stones to run at a gunman, rather than away. I'm not sure. I think it would be much easier if behind the guy.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I would like to think if I knew I wasn't coming out of this, I would rush the guy. I can't imagine just cowering and waiting. But never know until you are faced with it.
 
I think you are right. And I think people have discussed it, and at least some intend to go into 'hero mode' but may or may not in an actual situation. The fellows in the train attack did, and were successful largely (IMO) because there was only one perp in a relatively confined space. Perhaps that was a learning point for the bad guys: reportedly five armed perps spread around a relatively open concert venue. I would think given a sample of 1500 people, especially with the demographics of a concert audience, you would be hard pressed to find enough 'heroes' to overcome that completely.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
I wonder if I'd have the stones to run at a gunman, rather than away. I'm not sure. I think it would be much easier if behind the guy.
Click to expand...
The only time you should ever consider charging a gunman is if you happen to be right there and see him when he is first taking the weapon out of concealment or he is trying to reload/clear a jam and you happen to be right there.

And the above doesn't necessarily apply if there are multiple shooters.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The only time you should ever consider charging a gunman is if you happen to be right there and see him when he is first taking the weapon out of concealment or he is trying to reload/clear a jam and you happen to be right there.

And the above doesn't necessarily apply if there are multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

That certainly makes sense, but I wonder, had groups of 30 or 40 or more, all rushed these guys while they were shooting if the death toll might have been less.
 
PaulS said:
In Paris, in one venue, it was about five against fifteen hundred. What if instead of following instinct and ducking and running, potential victims instead rushed the attackers.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, those are details that are almost always obtained when the dust settles. 5 jihadis with AK-47s may seem like a whole lot more when the bullets are flying. In those initial moments, it pure chaos and confusion and no one really knows what is going on.
 
Heroes not required. Five heavily-armed wankers would have been helpless against a howling mob of 1,500.
 
if you take away the wives and the children and the husbands trying to protect their wives and children, you're not looking at 5 against 1500 anymore. and the potential heroes that are left have to go flesh against high powered rifles and bullet proof body armor.

don't forget, this aint the movies. if you take away all the fake heroic BS you see in movies, there's not a whole lot of options in real life situations like this.
 
1500 people charging these 5 guys may not sound like a bad idea unless you are in the front of the pack. These guys had automatic weapons and anywhere from 30 to 100 round magazines. 5 times 30 means 150 rounds coming your way and I'm sure they had multiple mags, you get the picture. I am more in favor of armed citizens but then I have a permit to carry but even then I wouldn't go charging these guys. Having never been in this situation I can't say that I know what I would do. But I would like to think I would look for a way to take a shot when an opportunity presented itself.
 
PaulS said:
That certainly makes sense, but I wonder, had groups of 30 or 40 or more, all rushed these guys while they were shooting if the death toll might have been less.
Click to expand...

That's a tough call. Maybe they could IF they recognized what was happening soon enough. But at a big public event like that, in reality most wouldn't even realize there was an active shooter near them soon enough to charge.

And it only works if everyone all charges together. A few people take the fight response while the rest takes flight......and everybody dies.
 
Paul Hamilton said:
Heroes not required. Five heavily-armed wankers would have been helpless against a howling mob of 1,500.
Click to expand...

1500 is the size of the whole venue. In a place like a concert hall or stadium, you wouldn't have anywhere near that many in a position to charge and many of those 1500 won't even know what is going on.
 
Last I heard, they were wearing suicide vests and when confronted, detonated themselves.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Last I heard, they were wearing suicide vests and when confronted, detonated themselves.
Click to expand...

If true, rushing by a small group would be the quickest way to end it with fewest casualties, but obviously fatal for those doing the rushing.
 
Paul Hamilton said:
Heroes not required. Five heavily-armed wankers would have been helpless against a howling mob of 1,500.
Click to expand...
I think in a situation with a mob rush even if you get shot - it probably won't be well aimed and your chances of survival are decent.
 
N801BH said:
Oh.... Those Muslims are such peaceful people......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm not defending this massively disgusting act in Paris. But this is a ridiculous statement.

Indonesia has the most muslims in the world, NOT the middle east and there are no terrorists coming from SE Asia. This is a case of extremism, every religion has it and it's wrong. It is poverty and crappy ways of life and governments that breed extremism, not any given religion. I dont call all christians unpeaceful because of the Klan. The religion is irregardless. If these same people were christian, jewish, hindu, atheist, buddhist, Taoist, they would find a way to use it as means for violence.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I think in a situation with a mob rush even if you get shot - it probably won't be well aimed and your chances of survival are decent.
Click to expand...
But again, in such a situation you really don't have anywhere near that many people to rush in the first place.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I'm not defending this massively disgusting act in Paris. But this is a ridiculous statement.

Indonesia has the most muslims in the world, NOT the middle east and there are no terrorists coming from SE Asia. This is a case of extremism, every religion has it and it's wrong. It is poverty and crappy ways of life and governments that breed extremism, not any given religion. I dont call all christians unpeaceful because of the Klan. The religion is irregardless. If these same people were christian, jewish, hindu, atheist, buddhist, Taoist, they would find a way to use it as means for violence.
Click to expand...

I agree! It's not the religion but rather the perversion of the religion to influence vulnerable people to commit these heinous acts in the name of God. It is sick beyond words but as long as there are uneducated people living in poverty there will be no short supply of people willing to submit to those who would take advantage of them. The real cowards in theses acts are the planners behind the scenes.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I'm not defending this massively disgusting act in Paris. But this is a ridiculous statement.

Indonesia has the most muslims in the world, NOT the middle east and there are no terrorists coming from SE Asia. This is a case of extremism, every religion has it and it's wrong. It is poverty and crappy ways of life and governments that breed extremism, not any given religion. I dont call all christians unpeaceful because of the Klan. The religion is irregardless. If these same people were christian, jewish, hindu, atheist, buddhist, Taoist, they would find a way to use it as means for violence.
Click to expand...

Kool... And simple fix...

Let all the peaceful Muslims around the world create a army to wipe out Islamic Extremism and restore the honor to their religion...
 
Protect yourself by not letting them in your country. Israel's fence works great. If you think I'm taking a bullet bum rushing an open borders terrorist to save your open borders supporting wives and daughters behinds you are delusional. France got what she deserved and may she get more so others might learn.
 
I don't think you will ever eliminate or prevent terrorist attacks, but you can minimize them.

While I don't have a great deal of respect for the DHS, the latest ad campaign "if you see something, say something" has some validity. It may not be popular with the keep to yourself crowd, but it does have merit.

One thing I learned from years of anti-terrorism and force protection training is that just about every major terrorist attack had signs before hand that were ignored and people didn't come forward and speak about until after the fact. The operatives almost never act normally - which makes sense, what normal person would commit a suicidal terrorist act? The key is to be aware of your surroundings and speak up, alert authorities when you see something out of the ordinary. This can be done discreetly, but too often we get into a mentality of seeing someone act weird and we just ignore them. You can't do that with this kind of terrorism.

I predict that when the investigation is complete, someone will have seen the operatives behaving oddly immediately before the attack began and that is based on the aftermath investigations and lessons learned I have seen from attack after attack.

If you see something odd. Speak up. That may be the only chance you get. You may not prevent the attack, but it may just be enough to get law enforcement alerted in time to minimize the loss of life.
 
Phoenix said:
Protect yourself by not letting them in your country. Israel's fence works great. If you think I'm taking a bullet bum rushing an open borders terrorist to save your open borders supporting wives and daughters behinds you are delusional. France got what she deserved and may she get more so others might learn.
Click to expand...

Amen....
 
The OP requested that we keep this thread out of the SZ. Take the political remarks and comments against religions somewhere else.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If true, rushing by a small group would be the quickest way to end it with fewest casualties, but obviously fatal for those doing the rushing.
Click to expand...
Wasn't this one of the classic army moves against Napoleon? A small group of armed soldiers, their version of an expeditionary force/special ops that led against the entrenched French position in a battlement? Anyone who lived automatically got promoted, spoils of war, etc.

As for the train episode, two of the 3 that rushed the gunman are US Army and trained to go forward, not duck and cover.
 
murphey said:
As for the train episode, two of the 3 that rushed the gunman are US Army and trained to go forward, not duck and cover.
Click to expand...
Which goes along with my point of taking action when you see something out of the ordinary. They had training. They saw the situation unfold and probably knew they had one chance to stop it and they acted. And they did.

That is VERY different from being in a concert hall and taking action AFTER you are suddenly surprised by machine gun fire.
 
Everskyward said:
The OP requested that we keep this thread out of the SZ. Take the political remarks and comments against religions somewhere else.
Click to expand...

How do you discuss defense against religiously motivated terrorism without discussing religion?
I'll never go to a concert without a bag of defense pork rinds again.
 
murphey said:
As for the train episode, two of the 3 that rushed the gunman are US Army and trained to go forward, not duck and cover.
Click to expand...

Yup and they have been attacked in retribution, right here in America.
 
The long and short of it is there is nothing really you can do, dying is not meant to be your choice.
 
Phoenix said:
How do you discuss defense against religiously motivated terrorism without discussing religion?
I'll never go to a concert without a bag of defense pork rinds again.
Click to expand...
If you notice, the first post was about an attack in general and how you might react. Other people brought religion into it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But again, in such a situation you really don't have anywhere near that many people to rush in the first place.
Click to expand...
Assuming more people think like you than me, yeah, you're probably right. Wouldn't stop me from trying. Distract them to get them to empty half a mag, then rush. That leaves what, 15 bullets in an AK-47 mag? Assuming they need 2-3 shots to stop a person 7-8 guns could theoretically rush and have a chance of success.
 
Everskyward said:
If you notice, the first post was about an attack in general and how you might react. Other people brought religion into it.
Click to expand...

You ain't getting multiple terrorist attackers without religion to unite them. So if we ain't allowed to point out the obvious my advice is to: Close your eyes plug your ears and die like a frenchman.
 
Everskyward said:
If you notice, the first post was about an attack in general and how you might react. Other people brought religion into it.
Click to expand...

Right, most likely in America it will be some ****ed of person going postal because they hate society regardless religion.

Want to know what is most effective? Look at what a Marine is trained to do: 1st you go to ground and make yourself small, then you assess the situation and attack with rapid forward progress. How well this can be accomplished has a lot of variables, especially in a crowd.
 
The answer is: Gun control.

A well armed man, with sufficient rounds and good sight control.

Gun.
Control.
 
Phoenix said:
You ain't getting multiple terrorist attackers without religion to unite them.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic. What you mean is a common ideology uniting them but unfortunately you can't see that, and the comment about pork rinds makes me realize you're just trolling here.
 
docmirror said:
The answer is: Gun control.

A well armed man, with sufficient rounds and good sight control.

Gun.
Control.
Click to expand...

But that's only part of the equation as the crowd may not allow a person with good gun control to effectively discharge their weapon.

The only effective way to deal with these situations is to eliminate the cause and prevent them.
 
docmirror said:
The answer is: Gun control.

A well armed man, with sufficient rounds and good sight control.

Gun.
Control.
Click to expand...

Part of the solution, part of the solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top