Maybe they should pass a little bit less information to the media. As it seems it was the media who made the story of the ambulance filled with explosives.
This is why I do not watch the news. But it's hard to escape it on the internet, especially when friends & family pick up on it and I have to correct them all the time.Couldn't agree with this more. A lot of our problems stem from the media, from intolerance to fear to paranoia. Without that, maybe we'd all have a clearer perspective on reality, get to the root of all the problems and deal with them together, instead of somewhat splintered.
Got to argue with that stat. According to Police statistics, if you throw out just four cities (using 2015 data as of August) in the entire United States, Baltimore with 215 murders (a 56% increase from August of 2014), Chicago with 294 Murders (a 20% increase), New York City with 208 murders (9%), and Philadelphia with 171 murders (4%), we would actually have one of the lower homicide rates per 100,000 in the world. The common denominator in those four cities is that they have some form of "May Permit" form of Gun control when carrying a weapon in those cities. Just so we're clear, a May Permit adds another layer to the process of procuring a gun in any city that has one (another city that should be mentioned in this conversation, Washington DC, also has a May Permit system after the US Supreme Court struck down their Gun Control law a few years back.) Meaning that in addition to your standard background checks, you have to get final approval from your city's Chief of Police before even allowed to buy a gun.
Well ISIS isnt exactly what you call "sane" either.I don't think ANYONE that's sane would think that would ever be a good idea.
I agree, partly. We are now more aware. Anyone over the age of 35 had something of a shift in awareness. Not necessarily, an awareness of the threats in everyday life, in that sense, yes, business as usual. Terrorist attacks only ever benefit politicians, military industrial and security businesses (there may be others). They never benefit the common man, probably never benefit the terrorists [citation needed ;-)]. So the ideology must be fully understood. I don't think most people have even considered that the ideologies, it can only be done theoretically. Unless you know exactly who perpetrated it. Only when you know who has ordered the act, can you even consider the why's. So I can't consider the why, because I don't know. If we assume it was Isis, then what is there motive, "to kill the infidels" in order to reduce the number? To instill fear into the population? Why would they want to do this?The focus may be greater but the nature and ideology of the attacks hasn't changed.
A free press is essential for liberty and democracy, you just have to deal with it as it comes. Officials prematurely releasing information is something you can control but on the other hand, if 99 ambulances filled with explosives turn out to be false and one turns out to be true, I'd rather know about all 100 of them than keep them all a secret until 100% confirmed just because they will probably turn out to be false.Couldn't agree with this more. A lot of our problems stem from the media, from intolerance to fear to paranoia. Without that, maybe we'd all have a clearer perspective on reality, get to the root of all the problems and deal with them together, instead of somewhat splintered.
Gun laws are for people who buy guns legally. Criminals don't care about bans on guns, they don't apply to them.How would you explain Detroit, Saginaw, and Flint, Michigan? Three of the most dangerous cities in America and they don't have a ban on guns. I know St. Louis is on the list too, but I'm not sure of the gun laws there.
They never benefit the common man, probably never benefit the terrorists [citation needed ;-)]. So the ideology must be fully understood. I don't think most people have even considered that the ideologies, it can only be done theoretically. Unless you know exactly who perpetrated it. Only when you know who has ordered the act, can you even consider the why's. So I can't consider the why, because I don't know. If we assume it was Isis, then what is there motive, "to kill the infidels" in order to reduce the number? To instill fear into the population? Why would they want to do this?
Gun laws are for people who buy guns legally. Criminals don't care about bans on guns, they don't apply to them.
Yes yes we have heard this before.Gun laws are for people who buy guns legally. Criminals don't care about bans on guns, they don't apply to them.
Point being what? To get that supermarket gun you need a background check if I'm not mistaken, and you are then a legal gun owner. You don't think the murder rate among legal gun owners is the same as it is from criminals with illegal firearms do you? Is the murder rate in England the same among kitchen knife owners as it is among criminals with knives?Yes yes we have heard this before.
Except in the US you can walk into the supermarket and buy a gun for about $1000. Here you are looking more $50,000 plus you need connections.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657Heavy shooting has been heard in the northern Paris suburb of Saint Denis and reports say a police operation linked to last Friday's attacks is under way there. Some police have been wounded, French TV station BFMTV reported. Earlier, security sources said surveillance video showed a possible ninth assailant during Friday's attacks in which 129 people died.
The so-called Islamic State (IS) group has said it carried out the attacks. One report said roads had been blocked off around Place Jean Jaures in Saint Denis. The Stade de France, where suicide attackers detonated bombs on Friday, is in the same district.
Amateur video aired by TV stations BFMTV and iTele cited witnesses saying sporadic gunfire had rung out since around 04:30 local time (03:30 GMT).
Right, but how I read Sanji's post was that cities with additional gun laws are more dangerous. I don't agree with because three of the most dangerous cities in the nation are in Michigan where we don't have very strict gun laws.
I have to agree with @TenEightyOne that where it concerns terrorist attacks, not much has changed since the Seventies. I remember many of the attacks by the IRA, the Red Brigades, Rote Armee Fraktion, South Moluccans, the PLO, Greek Marxists, the Italian mafia, the ETA, Abu Nidal, Libyan agents. Just to name a handful. Many of their attacks were aimed at specific targets like politicians, Jews, the police, the military and the rich. But also in those days the general public was attacked with guns, bombs and hijackings. What has changed most in my opinion, is the exposure the recent attacks get, due to advancements in technology (read: the Internet).Unfortunately, we do not live in the same place that we lived in pre-911
Amazing parenting ...
Such is the problem with the twenty-four hour news cycle - the facts are the first casualty in the race to get an exclusive. But harnessing the media can be pretty potent; the French raided an apartment overnight that they believe was used as a staging area for the attacks. Some of the footage showed what appeared to be drug paraphernalia on a table, and of course the authorities were quick to point out that the syringes and the tubing could have been used to build the bombs - but it also implies that the attackers were supplying their own with drugs, and from that it can be inferred that the attackers weren't true believers, but addicts.Maybe they should pass a little bit less information to the media.
I thought the argument all along was, "they aren't real followers of Islam, Islam doesn't condone this...". We need drug paraphernalia to confirm their true status? Does that mean that any Christian terrorist that ever smoked a joint is also off the Chrisitian terrorist hook?Such is the problem with the twenty-four hour news cycle - the facts are the first casualty in the race to get an exclusive. But harnessing the media can be pretty potent; the French raided an apartment overnight that they believe was used as a staging area for the attacks. Some of the footage showed what appeared to be drug paraphernalia on a table, and of course the authorities were quick to point out that the syringes and the tubing could have been used to build the bombs - but it also implies that the attackers were supplying their own with drugs, and from that it can be inferred that the attackers weren't true believers, but addicts.
👍Just to throw my source under the bus, it is the New York Times:
Interesting that among the "support fleet" of the Charles de Gaulle there is a british ship (HMS Defender). THis not being NATO I have no idea what kind of agreements or protocols are in place to make this happen.
I don't get why this became a gun control topic.
As a wit better than I pointed out that could be dangerous as the French drive on the other side.
I heard that France used an EU defense article instead of a NATO one.Interesting that among the "support fleet" of the Charles de Gaulle there is a british ship (HMS Defender). THis not being NATO I have no idea what kind of agreements or protocols are in place to make this happen.
Its amazing how the west is continuing to play into the hands of terrorist with these knee-jerk reactions, in this case responding with bombs rather than reason. It makes you wonder why despite being outgunned militarily, groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda are winning the ideological war. That said, with every bomb dropped the terrorist can make the argument that indeed there is a war on Islam thus making it easy for them to radicalize individuals.