Paris under attack

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
Mayhem
Posts: 4741
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:05 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Mayhem » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:02 am

Sephiroth81 wrote:Either the USA is just a bad example and people there are nuts, or the guns are a major contributing factor. I tend to think its the latter.
No, some people are just nuts. I like Americans in general, they are a good people, but there's a problem with attitude. Attitude and respect, and that when something goes south, too many people resort to firearms to resolve a conflict. Respect is earned, it isn't automatic, and that along with entitlement generation, has bred a problem.

Switzerland and Finland have quite high guns per capita ratios too, but have a fraction of the gun related homicide. In fact there are more gun related suicides in both countries than murders. So it can't be merely that there are lots of guns about that is the sole, or even major cause of gun related death in the US.
Lie with passion and be forever damned...

Image

pratty
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Paris under attack

Post by pratty » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:07 am

Sephiroth81 wrote:
pratty wrote:
pratty wrote:
As for the number of gun homicides in the US (I assume you're not including suicides, self defence, law enforcement etc, but actual criminal murders), you have no proof that the number of homicides by any means (what difference does the method make?) would be greatly reduced by the unavailablibity of legally owend guns, because illeagally owend guns could and would still be used (criminals by definition don't obey the law), and other means could be used instead of guns. If gun violence carried out by criminals in the US is as bad as you say it is, how is it common sense to disarm the law abiding public during such a period when as you say criminals using guns is so rife, do you think the criminals will hand their guns in?
Your entire post has become entirely off topic and sounds like the kind of excuses that the NRA would be reaching for. I think the comparison with immigrants is also bizarre.

The homicide rate (regardless of what choice of murder weapon) is 4 to 5 times in the US than it is in France, UK, Spain, Germany (ie other western civilised countries). The USA is basically in the same league of homicides as India, Iran, Egypt and Ukraine (and yea, we are talking per capita here). Is this acceptable for a country as rich as the United States? Around 2/3rds to 3/4s of all homicides in the US are caused by firearms. Gun crime IS as bad as I say and most other people say. And this is just homicides, and doesn't include accidents, self defence deaths and suicides (which are all far easier with guns).

As for being "sitting ducks" to the criminals, if they banned all guns....and that a "good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" - this kind of wild west mentality doesn't make it safer. The firearm related deaths in general prove this. It just makes everyone overly vigilant (and yes, its possible that its a negative to be super-vigilant) paranoid, and therefore more likely trigger happy.

I don't think all criminals (and would be-criminals) would hand their guns in, if there was a gun amnesty - but it might make them less likely to use their gun if they know other people don't have them in many cases (citizens are less of a threat), like robberies, and if you make it highly illegal to be caught with a weapon, you'd soon see illegal gun-ownership decrease (they're not going to do as much damage if they are in jail).

As for the incident in paris and being "sitting ducks" - I'm not sure what good would come of everyone being armed in the long run, but even with that in mind, there is no guarantee that they could have stopped the suicide bombing, and if the terrorists knew that firing AK-47 would not be effective (as they'd get shot quicker by an armed citizen), they'd just use other methods of killing people in mass (some of them just detonated bombs). I don't want a society where we all are armed - this is a slippery slope and no guarantee of safety with plenty of examples to suggest it has the opposite effect. It just makes "death" easier. British criminals could get hold of guns, but there are far less mass shootings here, as well as any kind of deaths firearms or not. Same with other countries. Either the USA is just a bad example and people there are nuts, or the guns are a major contributing factor. I tend to think its the latter.
It's not a bizarre comparrison at all.

You said in reference to the refugees that out of public fear the good majority shouldn't suffer because of the actions of a bad minority (apparently no matter how bad their actions are, what could be worse than this?), the complete opposite of yours and other 'liberals' stance as it pertains to US gun ownership.

Perhaps the reason that the US has 5 times the number of homicides than France is because the US has 5 times the population.

Of course there is no guarantee that those killed would have been able to save their lives if they or someone around them was armed, but equaly there is no denying their chance of survival would be higher if they had the opportunity to actually defend themselves.

I can't be accountable for what other people might do with their gun ownership but I know I'm a good person and if I were unfortunate enough to be in a situation like Friday night I would prefer to have the means to protect myself and anyone else around me, and yes I would like to make the death of terrorists easier.

On a side note while many of the forum users you disagee with don't like you personally, I habour no ill feelings towards you despite our many debates, which I enjoy.
Rayne wrote:Can you imagine how much more chaotic that football stadium would have been if every other person pulled out their personal firearm and started looking for terrorists?
Can you imagine anyone attacking a football stadium full of armed people in the first place? I can't.
RetroAerosmith wrote:Within 24hrs youtube was full of "false flag" videos.
Alex Jones isn't going with "false flag" on this one, he is saying it's a genuine attack by IS, but that IS is essentially the out of control creation of Western intelligence.
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Sephiroth81 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:25 am

pratty wrote:
It's not a bizarre comparrison at all.

You said in reference to the refugees that out of public fear the good majority shouldn't suffer because of the actions of a bad minority (apparently no matter how bad their actions are, what could be worse than this?), the complete opposite of yours and other 'liberals' stance as it pertains to US gun ownership.

Perhaps the reason that the US has 5 times the number of homicides than France is because the US has 5 times the population.
Incorrect, the stats are based on per 100,000 population, not entire populations - I had pointed this out. So the rate/chance of death is 4-5 times higher (of homicide) in USA than it is in those western countries I stated.

This is not about "liberals" - this is about common sense. The deal-breaker is that tens of thousands of people are losing their lives (consistently) every year due to guns and is a given each year. Islamic terrorism is sporadic, and unpredictable, and a different "animal" to manage. If America wanted to reduce the number of gun deaths, then they could start by reducing the number of guns (or at least enforce tighter gun controls rather than liberalising them) and its highly likely that it would drop significantly. There are no guarantees in anything, but this would certainly be worth trying, considering the lives lost every year are 3 times the amount of lives lost in the world trade center in 9/11 which the media covered so extensively ever since.
pratty wrote: Can you imagine anyone attacking a football stadium full of armed people in the first place? I can't.
Suicide terrorists have attacked places throughout the world in various places and with different levels of gun laws. The result is largely the same. Mass casualties are inevitable when there is a will to cause them. Arming the general public wouldn't work, and over the course of time, accidents would happen (do you trust people carrying guns and drinking alcohol?), people would take the law into their own hands etc etc. I only trust the police and security forces to hold weapons. I don't want to carry one, and would feel uncomfortable knowing any individual is free to carry one as well.

User avatar
Sel Feena
Posts: 3571
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Sel Feena » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:32 am

Image

^ These pictures always make me smile. It would be nice if media made more of an effort to trot out pundits that weren't alabaster-white. Surely there are respectable experts from the regions involved that would want their say.
Image

pratty
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Paris under attack

Post by pratty » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:04 am

Sephiroth81 wrote:
pratty wrote:
It's not a bizarre comparrison at all.

You said in reference to the refugees that out of public fear the good majority shouldn't suffer because of the actions of a bad minority (apparently no matter how bad their actions are, what could be worse than this?), the complete opposite of yours and other 'liberals' stance as it pertains to US gun ownership.

Perhaps the reason that the US has 5 times the number of homicides than France is because the US has 5 times the population.
Incorrect, the stats are based on per 100,000 population, not entire populations - I had pointed this out. So the rate/chance of death is 4-5 times higher (of homicide) in USA than it is in those western countries I stated.
Fair enough, but you are still assuming it's just down to guns and not other factors such as the mentality of the people, the amount of crime etc.
Sephiroth81 wrote:If America wanted to reduce the number of gun deaths, then they could start by reducing the number of guns (or at least enforce tighter gun controls rather than liberalising them) and its highly likely that it would drop significantly.
Again why the focus on gun deaths? Why not just murder in general? (I say murder because not all gun deaths are a bad thing, the gun deaths of terrorists for example would be a good thing.) Why is a gun death worse than a knife death? A gun murder may actually be the preferable of the two due to the fact that guns leave more clues.

And the guns used by criminals are already out there and in their hands, reducing legally bought firearms by law abiding citizens bought for the purpose of sport and self defence doesn't take guns away from criminals, the people commiting the majority of gun murders and murders in general. Even if more gun control reduced the amount of murders you still have to square that with the amount of innocent lives guns save which I would suggest you haven't even considered.
pratty wrote: Can you imagine anyone attacking a football stadium full of armed people in the first place? I can't.
Sephiroth81 wrote:Suicide terrorists have attacked places throughout the world in various places and with different levels of gun laws. The result is largely the same.
Which is the more preferable target to a terrorist, a target full of armed people able to defend themselves, or a target full of unarmed people unable to defend themselves?
Sephiroth81 wrote:Mass casualties are inevitable when there is a will to cause them.
Taking this literally you're effectively admitting there is nothing we can do.

I am more hopeful, I would say it depends. If a terrorisit just walks into the stadium and detonates then sure the people around him stood no chance whether they were armed or not. However if walks in, reveals he's wearing a bomb and starts reciting a prayer, then someone has the chance to put him down before he detonates.
Sephiroth81 wrote:Arming the general public wouldn't work, and over the course of time, accidents would happen (do you trust people carrying guns and drinking alcohol?), people would take the law into their own hands etc etc. I only trust the police and security forces to hold weapons. I don't want to carry one, and would feel uncomfortable knowing any individual is free to carry one as well.
I agree not everyone is responsible to own and hand gun, I do believe only those able to demonstrate the necessary state of mind to own one should. Hopefully in the light of such tragedies hopefully people would aspire to be such a person so they can protect themselves and others. It's not about taking the law into your own hands, it's about self defence.
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Sephiroth81 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:05 am

Mayhem wrote: No, some people are just nuts. I like Americans in general, they are a good people, but there's a problem with attitude. Attitude and respect, and that when something goes south, too many people resort to firearms to resolve a conflict. Respect is earned, it isn't automatic, and that along with entitlement generation, has bred a problem.

Switzerland and Finland have quite high guns per capita ratios too, but have a fraction of the gun related homicide. In fact there are more gun related suicides in both countries than murders. So it can't be merely that there are lots of guns about that is the sole, or even major cause of gun related death in the US.
The Switzerland example gets trotted out a fair bit by the NRA (not sure about Finland), and they are not like for like examples (gun laws wise). But I agree that a big part of it is culture and society. Finland in particular is a far more egalitarian country, same as Switzerland, where they invest huge amounts of public money into education, health and other social and welfare programs fairly and equally. Whether this breeds respect is possible, community - for sure, but I certainly don't feel the US has a good enough welfare state for them to have that "entitlement" tag, and not sure how this leads to them turning guns on each other.

But going back to the point of gun ownership, in Switzerland its strict and regulated. They need licenses, go through numerous background checks, and "carrying" weapons, especially with ammunition is rare because you need specific licenses or to be in a "security" style role or job. Their firearm death rate (homicide) is of course naturally higher than in the UK still (to be expected since gun ownership is rare in Britain), but of course overall homicide rates are lower in Switzerland - and with the kind of society they have compared to ours and the USA's, its to be expected. I think the issue with the USA is though that they clearly face a huge problem that is ending the life of tens of thousands of citizens each year, and they have to do something. They are doing very little - which is why the homicide and accident rates with firearms is consistent.
pratty wrote: Fair enough, but you are still assuming it's just down to guns and not other factors such as the mentality of the people, the amount of crime etc.
Not entirely true - I have said more in my post to Mayhem about culture and society.
pratty wrote: Again why the focus on gun deaths? Why not just murder in general? (I say murder because not all gun deaths are a bad thing, the gun deaths of terrorists for example would be a good thing.) Why is a gun death worse than a knife death? A gun murder may actually be the preferable of the two due to the fact that guns leave more clues.

.
The first stat was focusing on murders/homicides. A gun death is no worse than a knife death, but you're far more likely to survive an attack from a knife and a gun. I believe one of the recent US school shootings had a parallel in China more or less at the same time, except the perpetrator used a knife instead - they were subdued and i believe only injuries were caused, rather than scores of deaths.
pratty wrote:
Taking this literally you're effectively admitting there is nothing we can do.

I am more hopeful, I would say it depends. If a terrorisit just walks into the stadium and detonates then sure the people around him stood no chance whether they were armed or not. However if walks in, reveals he's wearing a bomb and starts reciting a prayer, then someone has the chance to put him down before he detonates.
You are taking it too literally.

I believe the use of security, policing, CCTV has all prevented plenty of attacks, and its no guarantee of safety, but neither is arming everyone to the teeth with weapons. We just need to let the security services do their job, and not let it ruin our lives by panicking and living in fear to the extreme where we need to go everywhere carrying a weapon and wondering if they will have to use it.

pratty
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Paris under attack

Post by pratty » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:44 am

Sephiroth81 wrote:I believe the use of security, policing, CCTV has all prevented plenty of attacks, and its no guarantee of safety, but neither is arming everyone to the teeth with weapons.
I'm happy to agree to disagee and let the gun stuff go. However relying on the above hasn't proven to be enough, so one would assume they will have to intensify the methods above, are you not concerned about slipping closer and closer into a police state? Say what you will about public firearms but that 'solution' is a least a liberal one where we chose more freedom over less and contrary to fear actually face the danger of terrorism head on, surely increased security, surveillance and powers of policing will only infringe on our freedom more.

People are being arrested around the world for merely cirticising Islam (which like any religion is fair game for criticsim in my opinion), presumably (and hopefully ) this is merely an overreactive effort by police to keep the peace but it still a clamp down on free speach. A Canadian man was arrested recently for simply saying the police would prefer to arrest someone criticising Islam on one side of Toronto than than arrest an Islamic terrorist on the other, regardless of whether he was right or wrong that's no cause for arrest.

And why wouldn't you extend the use of security to immigration? You can't pick and chose when something is done out of fear and when it isn't, the anti-terror freedom compromising security measures you believe in are equally in place out of fear.
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Sephiroth81 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:42 am

pratty wrote: I'm happy to agree to disagee and let the gun stuff go. However relying on the above hasn't proven to be enough, so one would assume they will have to intensify the methods above, are you not concerned about slipping closer and closer into a police state? Say what you will about public firearms but that 'solution' is a least a liberal one where we chose more freedom over less and contrary to fear actually face the danger of terrorism head on, surely increased security, surveillance and powers of policing will only infringe on our freedom more.

People are being arrested around the world for merely cirticising Islam (which like any religion is fair game for criticsim in my opinion), presumably (and hopefully ) this is merely an overrative effort by police to keep the peace but it still a clamp down on free speach. A Canadian man was arrested recently for simply saying the police would prefer to arrest someone criticising Islam on one side of Toronto than than arrest an Islamic terrorist on the other, regardless of whether he was right or wrong that's no cause for arrest.

And why wouldn't you extend the use of security to immigration? You can't pick and chose when something is done out of fear and when it isn't, the anti-terror freedom compromising security measures you believe in are equally in place out of fear.
You can't rely on any solution 100% - humans are humans, and can either be utterly benign, decent, law abiding citizens who just go about their daily lives, and you get other extremes of humans who for whatever reason, want to wage war on other human beings, with their brainwashed ideology. Terrorists have targeted military installations, as well as public areas as well, and been "successful" on many occasions in their quest to take lives or injure others, whether they are in the highest security places or not. Where there is a will, there is a solution to kill/maim. Terrorists have also targeted churches and schools in the USA, and have of course not been muslims, so we tend these days (the media) to not use the "T" word, as it doesn't fit the narrative!

I don't want us to become a police state, but neither do I want us to become the wild west, where basically everyone can take you down at any time at the drop of a word said out of place, or someone who has had a bad day/week. Holding a gun would not make me feel safer, as being armed instantly makes you a threat - it doesn't always work as a deterrent, since you may be in no position to fire back. I believe, last time I checked, that burglaries in the USA is slightly less than it is here in the UK - part of that could be that a gun is a deterrent, but when there is a home invasion/burglary, there is also a much much higher risk of someone getting injured or killed (and by accident). A burglary may just be someone trying to get money for food, and to think that if they took that risk and got killed by a paranoid trigger-happy resident - this is not a positive outcome for anyone. Accidents happen, and people take law into their own hands, or pressure gets to them - can we rely on them holding weapons which can cause so much damage?

I have no issue with immigration per se. I think countries throughout the world should be doing better to handle people escaping warzones and also economic migrants, but this country and others have been hugely enriched by welcoming in immigrants (so going back to the comparison of guns - have guns really "enriched" society in the US? Does the UK feel bereft and lacking that we don't pack firearms?). There will always be arguments to suggest they haven't, but i've not seen anything compelling enough to reconsider this. The masterminds of these attacks were french and belgian born citizens....just as I believe many of the 7/7 hijackers were, and the murderers of Lee Rigby. I think anyone coming in to the country should be subject to security checks, and lets face it, they'll already be under far more scrutiny than any middle class white boys like you or me.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 27005
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Antiriad2097 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:06 am

pratty wrote:surely increased security, surveillance and powers of policing will only infringe on our freedom more.
Do you really believe that? What freedom is it that you fear losing that this would impact on? We're not living in a dictatorship where simply holding beliefs is an arrestable offence.

I welcome increases of these kind, they make me safer.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
gman72
Posts: 8018
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:41 pm
Location: UK. Norfolk

Re: Paris under attack

Post by gman72 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:47 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:
I welcome increases of these kind, they make me safer.
THIS
If it helps to keeps my family safe then I'm all for it. Whereas giving everyone a gun does not fill me with confidence one bit.
“To gain your own voice, you have to forget about having it heard.” —Allen Ginsberg, WD

pratty
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Paris under attack

Post by pratty » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:06 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:
pratty wrote:surely increased security, surveillance and powers of policing will only infringe on our freedom more.
Do you really believe that? What freedom is it that you fear losing that this would impact on? We're not living in a dictatorship where simply holding beliefs is an arrestable offence.

I welcome increases of these kind, they make me safer.
What about the freedom to assemble, say you want to meet with like minded people and discuss your dissatisifaction with the government, only to have your meetings disrupted by the authorities because the government decides you might be subversive, plotting violence and/or guilty of 'hate speech'.

And that they could arrest you for up to 14 days with no charge under the terrorism act, I would consider wrongful arrest an infringement of freedom.

Even if it doesn't come to that the fear of being watched and under suspicion may be enough to put good people off exercising their freedom of speech and assembly.
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Sephiroth81 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:10 am

pratty wrote:
What about the freedom to assemble, say you want to meet with like minded people and discuss your dissatisifaction with the government, only to have your meetings disrupted by the authorities because the government decides you might be subversive, plotting violence and/or guilty of 'hate speech'.

And that they could arrest you for up to 14 days with no charge under the terrorism act, I would consider wrongful arrest an infringement of freedom.
You probably don't fit the current profile of what they are looking for - so you'll be safe! Just don't shout allahu ackbar, otherwise you may get picked up.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 27005
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Antiriad2097 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:14 am

pratty wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote:
pratty wrote:surely increased security, surveillance and powers of policing will only infringe on our freedom more.
Do you really believe that? What freedom is it that you fear losing that this would impact on? We're not living in a dictatorship where simply holding beliefs is an arrestable offence.

I welcome increases of these kind, they make me safer.
What about the freedom to assemble, say you want to meet with like minded people and discuss your dissatisifaction with the government, only to have your meetings disrupted by the authorities because the government decides you might be subversive, plotting violence and/or guilty of 'hate speech'.

And that they could arrest you for up to 14 days with no charge under the terrorism act, I would consider wrongful arrest an infringement of freedom.

Even if it doesn't come to that the fear of being watched and under suspicion may be enough to put good people off exercising their freedom of speech and assembly.
I welcome these changes. The government does not decide. The law is the law and it will be put to good use protecting citizens, helping to avoid indoctrination as it currently happens. These proposals don't come from nowhere, they are a direct reaction to threats to our safety.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
Sephiroth81
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:35 am

Re: Paris under attack

Post by Sephiroth81 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:21 am

Its true, but safety in numbers, and we are far more likely to die of the terrorist that is "alcohol" than any other group :P 8,500 a year - so beat that ISIL!

At the moment, the aspirin is a bigger killer than Islamic terrorism here....but don't have nightmares, just read the label carefully and don't take more than the recommended amount.

pratty
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: Paris under attack

Post by pratty » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:26 am

Sephiroth81 wrote: I have no issue with immigration per se. I think countries throughout the world should be doing better to handle people escaping warzones and also economic migrants, but this country and others have been hugely enriched by welcoming in immigrants (so going back to the comparison of guns - have guns really "enriched" society in the US? Does the UK feel bereft and lacking that we don't pack firearms?).
Either you missed the point or are just dodging it, I only compared them because as a general principle you said

"So any policy about anything has to be entirely changed because of a very very very small minority and a distant possibility?"

Implying that a policy shouldn't be changed because of a small minority. This is your stance regarding refugees but not the second amendment which I found odd and inconsistant.
Sephiroth81 wrote:I think anyone coming in to the country should be subject to security checks, and lets face it, they'll already be under far more scrutiny than any middle class white boys like you or me.
So you do think Syrian refugees should be subject to security checks, so we shouldn't permit entry to those sneaking across ours and other's borders without said security checks?
Pratty's trade list, updated (May 2019)!
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=54823

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests