Shootings and explosions in Paris.

[TenEightyOne]

Again your assumption is that everyone is as fearful and unprepared as you are.

I see what you did there.

stopped the French train massacre in its tracks???

...and there too. Puns are definitely safer ground than putting words in the mods' collective mouth, I'd stick to that if I were you.

Well, notice how the LAW ABIDING folks in the US do NOT carry their weapons in Gun free Zones - only the criminal is doing that.

We, the LAW ABIDING are sitting ducks in the Gun Free Zones. This is why the criminal chooses the Gun Free Zone for their attack.

Cool, so we can agree that the "arm everybody" plan was a crap one then?

This is true. I lived in France for 10 months and I was killed by jihadis like 6 or 7 times probably.

Me too, I hate it when that happens.

 

[RC45]

Cool, so we can agree that the "arm everybody" plan was a crap one then?

No, the idea of the Gun free Zone as a deterrent to killing people is a crap idea.

This is true. I lived in France for 10 months and I was killed by jihadis like 6 or 7 times probably.

What a pathetically flippant comment - I dare you to face a relative of one of the people killed in France by jihadis over the past 2 years and make that poor joke.

 

[Brend]

This is true. I lived in France for 10 months and I was killed by jihadis like 6 or 7 times probably.

👍

Contender for quote of the year right here.

 

[Joel]

No, it is not - but then again how was it possible for the French train massacre to have been stopped if it wasn't a movie?

I already said I understand the self defense argument in your home, in the street, etc. Places where target recognition is more clear and there's less confusion it's much more reasonable. They also stopped the gunman...without using guns so I'm not sure what your point is.

A well lit train with a single gunman and small area they could possibly be is not the same thing as a cramped concert hall or movie theatre in the dark with loud music, smoke, and multiple gunmen carrying automatic rifles.

What a pathetically flippant comment - I dare you to face a relative of one of the people killed in France by jihadis over the past 2 years and make that poor joke.

As someone who lived in France for a non trivial amount of time, somehow I'm skeptical French people would be thrilled with you grandstanding and fear mongering on the bodies of people killed to push American ideas of gun ownership.

 

[Touring Mars]

Anyway, you don't have to keep attacking me and making this about me - you have a jihadi problem on your hands and are refusing to tackle it head on.

Good luck with that.

I am not attacking you - I'm debating your point.

Newsflash - every right-minded person has a problem with jihadists - I remember thinking about this while I drank a bourbon at the top of the One World Trade Center in Manhattan a couple of months ago, while paying my respects to those who died in 2001...

As has been said before, there are no easy or quick answers to this problem, but just because jihadists choose to shoot hundreds of people (many in drive-by shootings) and others while wearing suicide bomb vests doesn't mean that the solution is as straightforward as you seem to think it is i.e. by advocating that all and sundry start carrying loaded guns everywhere.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Again your assumption is that everyone is as fearful and unprepared as you are. Do you recall when the folks ran towards the gun fire and stopped the French train massacre in its tracks??? Again, there are many people who would be willing to put their life on the line to save your arse.

Well, notice how the LAW ABIDING folks in the US do NOT carry their weapons in Gun free Zones - only the criminal is doing that.

We, the LAW ABIDING are sitting ducks in the Gun Free Zones. This is why the criminal chooses the Gun Free Zone for their attack.

Anyway, you don't have to keep attacking me and making this about me - you have a jihadi problem on your hands and are refusing to tackle it head on.

Good luck with that.

You're making the assumption that in a situation where the attackers know they might be met with lethal force that they will still go in all guns blazing.

They have access to explosives, what the hell use is a hand gun when one second you're watching a band, and the next second you are hit by a bomb blast, or how about if you are simply overcome by fumes and/or burn to death when the attackers decide to simply use arson as their weapon?

Also,

- you can attack me all you want -

you don't have to keep attacking me ...

Make your mind up...

 

[RC45]

I am not attacking you - I'm debating your point.

The right to self defense is an inalienable right - there is no debating that.

You are either a subject or a free man - you choose which.

Newsflash - everyone has a problem with jihadists - I remember thinking about this while I drank a bourbon at the top of the One World Trade Center in Manhattan a couple of months ago, while paying my respects to those who died in 2001...

As has been said before, there are no easy or quick answers to this problem, but just because jihadists choose to shoot hundreds of people (many in drive-by shootings) and others while wearing suicide bomb vests doesn't mean that the solution is as straightforward as you seem to think it is.

The solution to opposing mass murder by crazed gunman is a simple one, do not force folks to have to cower among the dead bodies hoping they don't get shot as they wait for the cops to show up - hoping, praying that the cops get there before it is their time to be executed.

By NOT permitting people to even be able to try defend themselves what you are guaranteeing is that more people will die than not.

History and facts are on my side.

I guess you and everyone else opposing the idea of being able to defend yourself are willing to just cower and wait to be executed.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I guess you and everyone else opposing the idea of being able to defend yourself are willing to just cower and wait to be executed.

How do you propose to counter
explosives?

 

[RC45]

You're making the assumption that in a situation where the attackers know they might be met with lethal force that they will still go in all guns blazing.

They have access to explosives, what the hell use is a hand gun when one second you're watching a band, and the next second you are hit by a bomb blast, or how about if you are simply overcome by fumes and/or burn to death when the attackers decide to simply use arson as their weapon?

What an asininely cowardly position to take - in these situations the attackers started shooting people, then when the chaos died down, went around shooting people one by one, then they stopped to reload, and started again.

That was plenty of time for even 1 person to try and mount some sort of defense/attack.

You are again taking the most extreme situation and projecting it onto events that did not occur the way you want them to have just to further your agenda.

Here is a simple question - Would you rather just lie down and wait to be shot to death or would you like the chance to fight back or even have someone else fight back for you to allow you to try escape?

 

[Carlos]

The right to self defense is an inalienable right - there is no debating that.

You are either a subject or a free man - you choose which.




The solution to opposing mass murder by crazed gunman is a simple one, do not force folks to have to cower among the dead bodies hoping they don't get shot as they wait for the cops to show up - hoping, praying that the cops get there before it is their time to be executed.

By NOT permitting people to even be able to try defend themselves what you are guaranteeing is that more people will die than not.

History and facts are on my side.

I guess you and everyone else opposing the idea of being able to defend yourself are willing to just cower and wait to be executed.

9/11

Point is, it'll happen anyway. Criminals have guns, I can get a gun legally after shooting lessons and gov prove of good behaviour, they're not new to us. We just want our safety to be provided by our governments and we are not giving up on that idea because a handful of people attack us every now and then.

 

[Tornado]

I would assume there is a bit of a middleground between "requiring an armed populace in all areas" and "having a police force usually only equipped to deal with surly homeless people in a country that you can apparently walk in fully functional assault rifles."

 

[GTP_Ingram]

History and facts are on my side.

Go on...

 

[killerjimbag]

Yeah because everyone's a real crack shot in a small, crowded, dark concert hall with hundreds of people screaming and panicking. The most unsettling part of this whole "good guy with a gun" schtick after every mass killing is the subtext, "if I had been there with my gun, I would have stopped this".

I get the self defense stuff, I really do. If you're talking about someone defending their home from intruders, stopping assailants on the street, sure. I can buy the argument and I can understand where you're coming from. But it's just an asinine power fantasy to imagine that a French John McClane could have stopped 4 assailants with automatic weapons in a tiny cramped concert hall with all the panic and confusion. This isn't a Die Hard movie.

Totally agree,I hunt,I own guns,it's (almost) impossible to walk around with a gun in Canada,especially a hand gun. Not going to happen. Now if someone thinks their going to pull out their Glock, or whatever their packing and disarm a bunch of lunatics with automatic weapons,it isn't going to happen. They would not allow anyone to carry a weapon into a concert,sporting event,think about it!

 

[Touring Mars]

No-one is opposing the right to self-defence, so you can stop making that assertion. Does the fact that I am not permitted to carry a gun onto a plane mean that I am opposed to the right of self-defence?? Of course not. What I and others are saying is that exercising one's right to carry a gun to a cafe, bar or concert hall is not only unlikely to make a difference against a bunch of determined terrorists who are prepared to die, but is also going to have negative consequences in the wider scheme of things such as an increase in the number of accidental deaths and gun crime - history and facts are on my side too.

What an asininely cowardly position to take

Keep it civil or keep it to yourself.

 

[RC45]

How do you propose to counter
explosives?

I know you are not this stupid - a surprise bomb attack is a surprise bomb attack, but a shooting is not a surprise bomb attack and the jihadis on Friday took their time picking people off where they could.

But I hear you loud and clear and I will put you in the "I would rather die in a pool of my own p!ss than even have a chance to fight back if I could" column.

Unfortunately I don't see anything funny about what I said.

Have you ever fired a gun before? And if you have, has it ever been during a stressful situation? I'm guessing neither to be the case if you think it's easy. And while I've never fired a gun in a stressful situation before, I have had enough conversations with military personnel and LEO to know that they don't find it exactly easy.

And I'm a little curious as to why you think my argument holds no water, do you really think having an untrained civilian in the concert hall trying to shoot back at the attackers would have done anything?

Many times, under artificially induced and real stress.

Not everyone in the US was born here in complete comfort and luxury, some of us emigrated and bring with us many skills and crafts from "the mother country".

Why are you so opposed to being able to fight back? And yes, I believe that having at least 1 armed victim would have at least tipped the scales in the favour of the victims. Following your model means they never stood a chance. Why do you assume everyone is untrained?

Please stop. Even though I mostly agree with you, the fact is that for hundreds of years, most of the common citizenry in Europe weren't allowed to carry weapons, as it was the rights of the nobles to keep law and order over there. Even the concept of a citizen militia wasn't necessary until the US Revolutionary War, and even then it became necessary after a failed gun grab by the British. (Paul Revere's ride was to warn the citizenry that the British were coming to take their legally own guns away.) Heck, even the concept of Rules of Engagement came from that war.

Forcing Europe to be armed just flies in the face of hundreds of years of history.

I see, so Europe is filled with subjects that live and die by the will of the ruling class and you are ok with that?

What part of this aren't you understanding??? HAD THE ATTACKERS EXPECTED TO MEET WITH IMMEDIATE LETHAL FORCE THEY WOULD HAVE NOT TAKEN THEIR TIME IN KILLING EVERY AND PROBABLY RESORTED TO SIMPLE BOMBING IN THE FIRST PLACE, REMOVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOCENT PEOPLE TO RETALIATE AT ALL.

I understand, I understand you are willing to be a lamb to the slaughter. I understand you are not willing to offer any resistance - I also understand I was trained to run toward the gun fire, not cower from it like many here appear to be espousing is their position.

You have repeatedly pointed out it is a futile situation - you are most likely going to be killed by a jihadi, so why then do you not want to even give yourself a fighting chance?

Are you too scared to fight for your own life?

Again:
Here is a simple question - Would you rather just lie down and wait to be shot to death or would you like the chance to fight back or even have someone else fight back for you to allow you to try escape?

I know you are not this stupid - a surprise bomb attack is a surprise bomb attack, but a shooting is not a surprise bomb attack and the jihadis on Friday took their time picking people off where they could.
Click to expand...

Except they didn't. They quite literally prayed and sprayed. The reality is that they could have just as easily detonated the.bomb and still had the same.
impact.

Incorrect - if you listen to the survivors they said that they walked around shooting people 1 by 1 after the initial panic rush was over.

There was many a chance for someone to fight back if they had the means. They just did not have the means.

But I hear you loud and clear and I will put you in the "I would rather die in a pool of my own p!ss than even have a chance to fight back if I could" column.
Click to expand...

I'll tell that to my Sergeant tomorrow evening, just after I've finished my dayjob on the firing range with a 50 cal. Remind me what you do in your day job and spare time?

Ah, I see youare using the good old "I am trained but no-one else is" response.

You go ahead and tell your Segeant that you a) do not want any victim to be able to fight back and b) would prefer they just roll over and wait to die because you are too fearful of people having the means to defend themselves at hand.

As to me and my history, I served before I emigrated and keep myself proficient and trained - I do not plan on ever going without a fight - especially not at the hand of some jihadi.

But you may have other views.

 

[MatskiMonk]

What an asininely cowardly position to take - in these situations the attackers started shooting people, then when the chaos died down, went around shooting people one by one, then they stopped to reload, and started again.

That was plenty of time for even 1 person to try and mount some sort of defense/attack.

You are again taking the most extreme situation and projecting it onto events that did not occur the way you want them to have just to further your agenda.

Here is a simple question - Would you rather just lie down and wait to be shot to death or would you like the chance to fight back or even have someone else fight back for you to allow you to try escape?

What part of this aren't you understanding??? HAD THE ATTACKERS EXPECTED TO MEET WITH IMMEDIATE LETHAL FORCE THEY WOULD HAVE NOT TAKEN THEIR TIME IN KILLING EVERY AND PROBABLY RESORTED TO SIMPLE BOMBING IN THE FIRST PLACE, REMOVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOCENT PEOPLE TO RETALIATE AT ALL.

 

[Tornado]

I know you are not this stupid - a surprise bomb attack is a surprise bomb attack, but a shooting is not a surprise bomb attack and the jihadis on Friday took their time picking people off where they could...

...And were covered in explosives in case anyone did try to shoot back at them. Since, you know, they were perfectly willing to blow themselves up as soon as they were met with resistance.

 

[Joey D]

Wow - that's funny - the UNTRAINED jihadis had NO problem shooting and killing people in a dark theatre.

Any person with any gun savvy would be able to shoot the bad guy - it is that easy. If it wasn't that easy then the bad guys would not be able to pull it off as easily as they do.

Your (and others) argument carries no water, and until folks are allowed to defend themselves these mass killings will continue and continue and continue.

Unfortunately I don't see anything funny about what I said.

Have you ever fired a gun before? And if you have, has it ever been during a stressful situation? I'm guessing neither to be the case if you think it's easy. And while I've never fired a gun in a stressful situation before, I have had enough conversations with military personnel and LEO to know that they don't find it exactly easy.

And I'm a little curious as to why you think my argument holds no water, do you really think having an untrained civilian in the concert hall trying to shoot back at the attackers would have done anything?

 

[Famine]

But I hear you loud and clear

This is the part you ought to have heard loud and clear:

Keep it civil or keep it to yourself.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I guess you and everyone else opposing the idea of being able to defend yourself are willing to just cower and wait to be executed.

Please stop. Even though I mostly agree with you, the fact is that for hundreds of years, most of the common citizenry in Europe weren't allowed to carry weapons, as it was the rights of the nobles to keep law and order over there. Even the concept of a citizen militia wasn't necessary until the US Revolutionary War, and even then it became necessary after a failed gun grab by the British. (Paul Revere's ride was to warn the citizenry that the British were coming to take their legally own guns away.) Heck, even the concept of Rules of Engagement came from that war.

Forcing Europe to be armed just flies in the face of hundreds of years of history.

 

[mister dog]

So we got US gun-nuts hijacking this topic to push their own agenda now? 👎 Personally, I'd pick a terrorist attack every now and then over people shooting the crap out of each other every day. We have a long way to go until our death toll per year is even anywhere near to that of gun deaths in the US. The 'good guy with a gun' is a myth.

Hear hear.

 

[Tornado]

Why are you so opposed to being able to fight back?

Why are you so incapable of seeing the mismatch between someone with a fully automatic rifle who doesn't care who he hits when he sprays the crowd he's standing amongst and is strapped with explosives in case that doesn't work, and the theoretical guy with a handgun who has to shoot specific people in a panicking crowd in a specific way so that they don't just decide to blow themselves up and level the venue? If a trained handgun owner is so easily able to neutralize a larger group of "untrained" attackers with superior weaponry, why does the US military splurge on M4s for people fighting similar groups in the middle east? Surely a lowly M9 should do the trick.


Your theoretical isn't "fighting back". It's "offer yourself up to be killed specifically by four people with assault rifles with the chance of having even more people killed in response if you do manage to hit one".

 

[Joey D]

Why are you so opposed to being able to fight back? And yes, I believe that having at least 1 armed victim would have at least tipped the scales in the favour of the victims. Following your model means they never stood a chance. Why do you assume everyone is untrained?

I'm not opposing it, I'm thinking rationally and saying that having an untrained person in a crowded, dark, hazy room under extreme stress probably wouldn't have tipped the scales, especially since the attackers were spraying bullets from assault rifles and didn't really need to aim. I support gun ownership and I do believe under certain conditions someone with a gun can prevent something bad from happening, I just don't think the conditions that were present with the Paris attacks would have benefited from an armed civilian.

And I assume people are untrained because a vast majority of gun owners are. I can walk into any outdoors store here and buy a gun with zero training, so can anyone else as long as they are 18, not a felon, and doesn't have a mental disorder. Just because you own a gun and shoot it occasionally doesn't mean you know how to use it when in a situation with a thousand different variables.

 

[TenEightyOne]

History and facts are on my side.

[Citation required]

 

[FoRiZon]

Are we suddenly living in Call of Duty world where justice is counted by how many killstreaks?

Give all people a gun! That'll show em! Besides, all people are civil and trusted, right?

/s

 

[urmie]

Now that I've seen a face, I can't have that opinion, I felt bad for the man, sorry:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/1...n.cnn/video/playlists/paris-attacks-reaction/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is Australia's stance on Muslims that hard?

Unofficially, yes. There has been some tempering of the rhetoric from the government ever since the last Prime Minister was taken out of office by his own party a few weeks ago, but the burden of responsibility to combat radicalisation still rests firmly with Muslim community leaders. All the signs of tension are there - there are no resources to identify at-risk youth in schools, frequent and vehement protests against the construction of new mosques (particularly one in Bendigo), and there have been multiple instances of people abusing Muslims on public transport. They all might seem relatively benign, but there is a pattern here and a very definite feeling in the Muslim community that they are being targeted by their authorities because of their faith. There were a series of co-ordinated pre-dawn raids a few months ago that picked up a string of terror suspects (only one was ever charged with anything) that pretty much got live coverage from the media because they were tipped off. It wasn't a case of a police spokesperson holding a press conference, but a full contingent of broadcast journalists set up at a barricade at the far end of the street.

The problem, I think, was the way the government relied on its "tough on [insert here]". "Tough on illegal asylum seekers" won them the last election. "Tough on Putin and Russia" was a surprise hit with the electorate after MH17, and probably what made them twig to the idea that a tough stance worked. And so we got "tough on terrorism" every time there was a dip in the polls, and there were many dips to record lows; the last government we had was probably the worst in our country's history. "Tough on terrorism" became a sugar rush in the polls, but it really screwed with our social cohesion. It was politically convenient to have the spectre of terrorism lingering over us.

 

[JKgo]

Every terrorist has family/relatives, why don't they go after them? Play dirty like they do. Has this ever been done before?

...

You want what now? You want to retaliate against the family members of suspected terrorists?

I'll support your notion if those people have commited a crime... until then, please no.

 

[FoRiZon]

Every terrorist has family/relatives, why don't they go after them? Play dirty like they do. Has this ever been done before?

These are relatively young men, what the heck are the parents doing? When there are bullies, the parents are to blame, why not these parents as well? Blacklist the family in the community, turning a blind eye on your sons/daughters doesn't make you "innocent".

If they've been "gone" for awhile, (gee, our son went to "vacation" in Turkey, but hasn't returned, hmmmmm) report it to the authorities and not keep quiet hoping for their return.

Tactics need to change, not just drop bombs.

This is so wrong in so many levels.

 

[killerjimbag]

20 States are now refusing any Syrian refugees. This is not a good thing.