Okay, so no real "news" in an
immigrant [noon update: homegrown prison-radicalized] radical islamic jihadist attempting to kill a large number of people at a public location. But the question here is about having (likely) smaller stature persons, (likely) of less overall strength, bearing arms in these public locations. The article does not say whether the other two soldiers were male or female, but I'd guess the religion-of-peace advocate likely attacked the smallest soldier. Since one of the common "gun control" arguments is that ordinary citizens are not trained sufficiently in weapons retention, that criminals will be taking guns left and right if people are allowed in public with firearms, especially open carry (though of course there is no record of such things happening, except very rarely, in the 44 states that allow open carry). I wonder if the Leftist/Feminists now make the same argument against women soldiers carrying openly while on security detail? My guess: crickets. Because that would be politically incorrect.
Paris airport attack: Prosecutors say attacker was monitored for suspected Islamic extremismhttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/18/paris-airport-attack-prosecutors-say-attacker-was-monitored-for-suspected-islamic-extremism.htmlExcerpts:
The 39-year-old suspected attacker killed at Paris’ Orly airport on Saturday after trying to wrestle away a soldier’s weapon had already crossed authorities’ radar for suspected Islamic extremism.
French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said the attacker
assaulted three Air Force soldiers patrolling the airport. He said
the soldier who was attacked managed to hold on to her rifle and the two soldiers she was with opened fire to protect her and the public.
[This "official" account is contradicted later in the article by a supposed "eye witness"]: A witness identified only as Dominque told BFM television: "The soldiers took aim at the man, who in turn
pointed the gun he had seized at the two soldiers."