Paris terrorist attacks

SimonR501 said:
I'm confused now!

I have just read an article written by a muslim christian saying that the prophet Mahammad Jesus was a tolerant person who allowed different faiths(and non-faiths) to co-exist side by side. Also that the Koran bible forbids killing in the honour of the faith. He also says that extremist imams preachers have twisted the good book to suit their own prejudices.

The extremist top brass are the people that I believe are the real culprits, the ones at the top of the terrorist heirarchy who will not sacrifice their own lives but load the bullets for someone else to fire - very clever!
They brainwash those of more feeble minds to believe that evil is good.
Click to expand...

Or change the wording to suit any religion you can think of.

Me. I'm athiest and happy to remain so.
 
'71 SF said:
Maintaining the same direction with the blinders on we will soon find one with the same fate. Pity for those that live in countries that don't have laws that allow the ownership or possession of a well crafted firearm. In the US those that have a CCP, and that have been in similar situations, have at least had a fighting chance with most cases ending the situation before it became a massacre. The zealots have no problem getting their weapons and using them, while pacifism leads to an earlier than expected demise.
Click to expand...

Have never read such total bullshit ever......
 
Unfortunately, I have, Drikko. Any time you discuss these things with a US citizen that is part of the republican party and/or watches Fox and/or is member of the NRA (National Riffle Association), who want even children to be trained in school on weapons, you'll find the same argumentation, sadly... After each event, be it a school massacre, be it a terrorist attack, be it - what ever, the call for more weapons in private, untrained hands get louder. Cynically, even when 2 year old kids shoot their parents by accident, they do not wake up but call to lower the age children get trained on guns.

much more cynically though, these events would most likely never have happened with stricter laws. You don't think so? Why then does this school massacre event happen in USA roughly 5 - 10 times more often than in any other country in the world?

Let's think it through: if all of the french people had guns and this terrorist attack would have happened - how many lives could have been saved? Maybe half of the number, so about 10, right? France has maybe 100 - 200 killed people by fire arms every year,so you could maybe safe 50 - 100 People with a population of 120 Million (roughly half of what USA has). USA - fully armed - has roughly 12.000 people every year killed by fire arms. Please can ANYONE show me a logic in arming the population that shows it saves lives? USA is the perfect example that this is total BS.

Arming a complete population based on very rare and single events is totally nonsense to do. Sorry.
 
'71 SF said:
Pity for those that live in countries that don't have laws that allow the ownership or possession of a well crafted firearm. In the US those that have a CCP, and that have been in similar situations, have at least had a fighting chance with most cases ending the situation before it became a massacre. The zealots have no problem getting their weapons and using them, while pacifism leads to an earlier than expected demise.
Click to expand...

Hmm, don't pity us too much Clay! Here the professionals seem to have the firearms.
Not sure if a wild west shootout would have ended any better.
 
SimonR501 said:
Hmm, don't pity us too much Clay! Here the professionals seem to have the firearms.
Not sure if a wild west shootout would have ended any better.
Click to expand...

for sure it wouldn't. There is nothing more dangerous than a private person with a gun. I was in the army and even in a relatively controlled environment like a shooting area, we had so many events where people got almost killed or at least seriously injured by comrades due to them turning around with a blocked weapon or with another unshot bullet in the riffle/gun.

If you do not train day by day to handle a gun properly, you will not be able to make use of it in a stress situation. Even the 2 policeman that got shot in front of the charlie office, they did not have the slightest chance against these two highly trained terrorists. How should a private person that maybe goes to shooting club every 4 - 6 weeks (if ever) and only shoots on still hanging paper ever protect themselves efficiently in the most stressful situation ever with moving targets? Nonsense, complete nonsense, sorry.
 
'71 SF said:
Maintaining the same direction with the blinders on we will soon find one with the same fate. Pity for those that live in countries that don't have laws that allow the ownership or possession of a well crafted firearm. In the US those that have a CCP, and that have been in similar situations, have at least had a fighting chance with most cases ending the situation before it became a massacre. The zealots have no problem getting their weapons and using them, while pacifism leads to an earlier than expected demise.
Click to expand...

Did you read my post earlier ? Americans shoot and kill 8000 Americans a year on average ( they murder another 8000 but dont use guns) No wonder you want to carry a gun. ;) Americans shoot each other at a rate higher than al qaeda could ever manage even with a 911 every year !!
I walk down my high street. No one has a gun, even the police don't have guns. No one has ever been shot in my town of 30,000 people. Are you really saying giving guns to people would improve that ?
 
Laverdalothar said:
Unfortunately, I have, Drikko. Any time you discuss these things with a US citizen that is part of the republican party and/or watches Fox and/or is member of the NRA (National Riffle Association), who want even children to be trained in school on weapons, you'll find the same argumentation, sadly... After each event, be it a school massacre, be it a terrorist attack, be it - what ever, the call for more weapons in private, untrained hands get louder. Cynically, even when 2 year old kids shoot their parents by accident, they do not wake up but call to lower the age children get trained on guns.

much more cynically though, these events would most likely never have happened with stricter laws. You don't think so? Why then does this school massacre event happen in USA roughly 5 - 10 times more often than in any other country in the world?

Let's think it through: if all of the french people had guns and this terrorist attack would have happened - how many lives could have been saved? Maybe half of the number, so about 10, right? France has maybe 100 - 200 killed people by fire arms every year,so you could maybe safe 50 - 100 People with a population of 120 Million (roughly half of what USA has). USA - fully armed - has roughly 12.000 people every year killed by fire arms. Please can ANYONE show me a logic in arming the population that shows it saves lives? USA is the perfect example that this is total BS.

Arming a complete population based on very rare and single events is totally nonsense to do. Sorry.
Click to expand...

+ 1
 
Laverdalothar said:
Unfortunately, I have, Drikko. Any time you discuss these things with a US citizen that is part of the republican party and/or watches Fox and/or is member of the NRA (National Riffle Association), who want even children to be trained in school on weapons, you'll find the same argumentation, sadly... After each event, be it a school massacre, be it a terrorist attack, be it - what ever, the call for more weapons in private, untrained hands get louder. Cynically, even when 2 year old kids shoot their parents by accident, they do not wake up but call to lower the age children get trained on guns.

much more cynically though, these events would most likely never have happened with stricter laws. You don't think so? Why then does this school massacre event happen in USA roughly 5 - 10 times more often than in any other country in the world?

Let's think it through: if all of the french people had guns and this terrorist attack would have happened - how many lives could have been saved? Maybe half of the number, so about 10, right? France has maybe 100 - 200 killed people by fire arms every year,so you could maybe safe 50 - 100 People with a population of 120 Million (roughly half of what USA has). USA - fully armed - has roughly 12.000 people every year killed by fire arms. Please can ANYONE show me a logic in arming the population that shows it saves lives? USA is the perfect example that this is total BS.

Arming a complete population based on very rare and single events is totally nonsense to do. Sorry.
Click to expand...
So how do you explain Switzerland? Guess they watch a lot of FOX news.
 
Switzerland has national service, and current or ex service people are required by law to have possession of firearms.
Plus, as a Swiss ex-colleague once told me "Switzerland is a small country surrounded by tall mountains".
 
Grant said:
Switzerland has national service, and current or ex service people are required by law to have possession of firearms.
Plus, as a Swiss ex-colleague once told me "Switzerland is a small country surrounded by tall mountains".
Click to expand...
So does a country that has everybody armed deter crime? Bad people live everywhere, including Switzerland, but the stats show that the crime rate is that low because they all carry. If this isn't the case then explain why they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, with and without guns.

We could argue this from so many points but simply put if we think the problem is going away it's not. If we think that the muslims are going to cease their attacks, they're not. If people chose to be unarmed then that's their choice. Police response times in an average US city is 10 minutes (4 is the lowest, and over 30-45 minutes in rural areas), a lot of time to try and hide. I also don't think that the police can be everywhere there is trouble, and they are really undermanned for the amount of people they are expected to protect.

And BTW, I don't watch FOX, and I am not a NRA member.
 
The Swiss (as mentioned) weapons are kept locked away at all times until they are required to react to a war or something.
The Swiss are a very ordered nation and respectful of their laws to a level I find incredible.
I don't think it's a good comparison; them vs almost any other nation in this respect.
 
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Seems they carry openly, but I agree they are an incredible country with a fantastic model for other nations to follow.
 
'71 SF said:
Bad people live everywhere, including Switzerland, but the stats show that the crime rate is that low because they all carry. If this isn't the case then explain why they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, with and without guns.
Click to expand...

I have a sneaky feeling that not a lot happens in Switzerland. They are in general wealthy so they don't have to rob each other and they also have a strong sense of order, so littering the place with dead bodies would probably be frowned upon.
 
I remember some guy in Zug that went postal and attacked the local town hall as he had a grudge. Killed some folk.

I actually witnessed a robbery in Zurich one evening. Some 'gastarbeiters' entered a restaurant I was dining in with some work colleagues and one of them nicked a handbag cool as you like and they were gone before anyone could react.
 
Grant said:
Switzerland has national service, and current or ex service people are required by law to have possession of firearms.
Plus, as a Swiss ex-colleague once told me "Switzerland is a small country surrounded by tall mountains".
Click to expand...

not the case at all, they are allowed to give them back if they wish, most of them don't and many have a multiplicity of weapons at home. the swiss are much better armed than the americans, they just don't go around shooting each other as enthusiastically

 
Laverdalothar said:
Let's think it through: if all of the french people had guns and this terrorist attack would have happened - how many lives could have been saved? Maybe half of the number, so about 10, right? France has maybe 100 - 200 killed people by fire arms every year,so you could maybe safe 50 - 100 People with a population of 120 Million (roughly half of what USA has). USA - fully armed - has roughly 12.000 people every year killed by fire arms. Please can ANYONE show me a logic in arming the population that shows it saves lives? USA is the perfect example that this is total BS.

Arming a complete population based on very rare and single events is totally nonsense to do. Sorry.
Click to expand...

currently, no, but if you have fanatics running around all the time doing what they did in paris, this might well change


the population of france is around 65 million
 
Laverdalothar said:
I was in the army and even in a relatively controlled environment like a shooting area, we had so many events where people got almost killed or at least seriously injured by comrades due to them turning around with a blocked weapon or with another unshot bullet in the riffle/gun.
Click to expand...

very, very poor discipline -- if they had done that with our sergeant major around he would have half killed them and they would have been running round the parade ground carrying a telegraph pole in the african sun
 
SimonR501 said:
I have a sneaky feeling that not a lot happens in Switzerland. They are in general wealthy so they don't have to rob each other and they also have a strong sense of order, so littering the place with dead bodies would probably be frowned upon.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree that the wealth has a definite impact (more officers ?), but I would also add in that they still carry their guns, shoot often (according to the government), and from what I can tell they are good at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top