Easier to get to Paris, especially with the EU rules on passports. However, ISIS will strike the USA eventually.

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.

It was not a military operation, it was terrorism. They need a soft target when their objective is to kill as many innocents as possible.

NY is a heck of a lot bigger than NY City! In the big cities is where the gun free zones prevail but out in rural NY I am quite sure we are as well armed as western NC. Our Governor is certainly anti gun but our county Sheriffs are in almost complete disagreement.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Down with political correctness forever. You have good points. I have a gun, dont want to ever have to use it, but if someone attacks me I wont hesitate to use it as well as anything else that I can. I could watch an attacker die that I killed and have no PTSD over it.

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.