Shooting in Paris

[airdvr 200]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330145/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-2011-firebomb-over-Prophet-Mohammed-issue.html

Charlie Hebdo attack: 2011 firebomb over Prophet Mohammed issue

Seems they've been fighting this battle for a long time.

Quote

Jean-Marc Ayrault, France's then Prime Minister, defended the magazines right to publish but openly asked whether it had been acting responsibly.
"I have spoken of the the firmness of the French government. We are in a state that has a rule of law. We have a free press that can express itself right up to the point of caricature," he said at the time.
"But there is also a question of responsibility. And as far as public order is concerned, all the precautions will be taken with the interior ministry for order to be maintained."

Of course it's always a plus when your government has your back.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

It's just not going to make any difference with this type of thing.

Bullshit!

You don't know that anymore than anyone of us here and if you (think) you do, backup the argument with details.

[rushmc 18]

quade

Quote

We're detecting a fatalistic sort of, "you're gonna die so don't try" sensibility from you. It's what we see in most mass murder circumstances. Everyone cowers and nobody attacks. For good reason.

1. You're now speaking using the "royal we." How . . . silly.

2. Nonsense.

There is nothing fatalistic in my message. It's not about cowering; it's about being realistic about how much a CCW would be able to actually do in a situation such as this.

Again, the Secret-fucking-Service with all of their advanced training and weaponry were unable to stop John Hinkley Jr.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have access to arms or carry or attempt to protect yourself, only that you need to be realistic when it comes to the chances of being able to actually change this type of situation. It's just not going to make any difference with this type of thing.

None.

Ya
Only those that agree with you are being realistic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,678]

normiss

Yet again with the one sided surprise.

It's always one way and dead end with you.

I'm sure you're MUCH better than the Secret Service men who protected Reagan from Hinckley.

I bet you could also land a Velo 84 when you were just off student status.

I'm surprised Marvel doesn't make superhero movies about you and Turtle.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I bet you could also land a Velo 84 when you were just off student status.

This is the second time you have trolled with this topic. Just curious how many highly loaded cross braced canopies have you flown? I am guessing zero, but perhaps I am wrong. Should low timers be attempting to swoop highly loaded cross braced canopies? Of course not. But unless you've flown a cross braced canopy, what the fuck do you know about their flight characteristics? They are extremely efficient wings. It was only a joke but back when I was a competitive swooper I used to joke with my swooping peers that everyone should be flying a cross braced canopy.

Troll ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Rick 67]

kallend

*********

but hey let's not miss any opportunity to knock gun owners

I didn't mention guns or gun owners.

Apparently it's YOU who equates gun owners to those who resort to violence as a solution to life's problems.

so the scared Floridian's standing there ground was in reference to what?


never mind I will "deal with it" sir

I reckon I ain't smart enough to figure out what the hell you meant by that

Apparently.
In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Use of lethal force can be with a crossbow, an axe, a bare hand...

You leaped to a conclusion based on your own insecurity.


Not sure which of my insecurities you are referring to. But I am really trying to understand what SYG in Florida has to do with a terrorist attack in Paris.

Honestly maybe I am missing something here.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 642]

Well they certainly will never make one about a cowering brit hiding from scary people.
Grow a pair already.
Stand up for yourself.

Seriously?

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

I'm surprised Marvel doesn't make superhero movies about you and Turtle.

in all honesty, it's Marvel. you should check and see if they have already before using that as a mockery.

They'll make a superhero for everyone and anyone.....

"You want a wheelchair bound cat loving dark attitude flying version of the Green Lantern? YOU GET a wheelchair bound cat loving dark attitude flying version of the Green Lantern - you get FOUR of them from each gender and a couple ethnicities"

You get a superhero
You get a superhero
and You get a superhero

do I get a superhero? YES, you also get a superhero


and don't get me started on DC. WONDER WOMAN CAN'T FLY - seriously, why the heck does she have the invisible jet. If they want a female version of Superman, it's called Supergirl. PC DC sigh

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,678]

normiss

Seriously?

Seriously, I believe you and turtle consider yourselves Chuck Norris lookalikes. You way overestimate your Ramboesqe abilities.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,410]

https://twitter.com/davpope/status/552844593046097920/photo/1

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 642]

I think you continually miss the point.
It's not about heroically saving everyone.
It's about reducing the end effects and altering it's course. It's about not tolerating being put down like animals and letting the bad guys win.

WE have to stand up to this.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>If the flight 93 terrorists had automatic weaponry, then the terrorists would have
>probably taken themselves out and the passengers and the plane.

That's a myth; that would have just made holes in the side of the airplane (if that.) Mythbusters did a pretty good episode on it a while back. To get actual explosive decompression, they had to use explosives.

He said "automatic weapons." I didn't just mean taking out the compression. The line of fire would also be down the aisle. Know how a "lucky shot" can take down an aircraft? An automatic weapon will do far more damage. Not only creating a BUNCH of holes but probably hitting other control systems. Shoot the the floor and hope you don't hit the control system? Decompress and try to control a bunch of people with an oxygen mask?

Come to think of it, a slow decompress may render the whole plane unconscious within a minute.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[regulator 0]

normiss

I think you continually miss the point.
It's not about heroically saving everyone.
It's about reducing the end effects and altering it's course. It's about not tolerating being put down like animals and letting the bad guys win.

WE have to stand up to this.

You say WE but do you really see kallend standing up to anyone other than conservatives on this forum...especially with a firearm?

[ryoder 1,410]

The only thing that could stop a bad guy with a rifle, 1000 rounds of ammo, and two handguns, was...

One good woman with a concealed handgun: http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murray-matthew.htm


And two years later, the church thanked her by telling her to leave when she came out as gay: http://gazette.com/article/113486

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I've actually been to New Life at least half a dozen times. My Springs girlfriend at the time was a member and to earn brownie points (she was a hottie and my best friend) I attended her church a few times with her and her family. At the time I have to say Pastor Ted was a heck of a good speaker. Not good enough to change me from an Agnostic into a Christian. But he was still one heck of a good motivational speaker who had many good points in his sermons. Of course Pastor Ted did turn out to be a hypocritical nutcase himself. New Life is weird.

But New Life and pastor Ted have nothing to do with this Islamist Terrorist attack. Last time I checked the members of New Life do not go around murdering people who refused to convert.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Boomerdog

Quote

It's just not going to make any difference with this type of thing.

Bullshit!

You don't know that anymore than anyone of us here and if you (think) you do, backup the argument with details.

There were armed people there, specifically trained and tasked with protecting. They were taken by surprise and murdered.

Now, I know all the keyboard commandos on this site would have performed much better. But if you go by the data, armed presence didn't stopnnor affect the outcome of this attack.

I applaud this magazine for continuing on with what they stood for. Many hear might be surprised to find out this magazine was certainly considered to be left leaning, many here would probably call it socialist.

This was one media outlet openly standing up against terrorists (and many other figures). Not too many North American media outlets have been willing to do the same. None with any stature like Charlie Hebdo.

The people who worked there knew of the threats and the risks. Yet, they continued. While the internet commandos here regail us with tales of how their Rambo skills would have taken care of all of this, the people working at that magazine are the true heroes.

(and catfishhunter, you can blame the woman who opened the door as much as you want. However I don't know too many mothers who would sacrifice their children in that situation)

[Anvilbrother 0]

This guy was totally taken off guard and had a gun in his face, and he was still able to be the victor.

http://i.imgur.com/hf0oiht.gif


There was ongoing discussions online yesterday about the pictures taken of the attackers by regular citizens. And the fact that if you have time to realize, pull out your camera phone, turn on the camera app, and snap a few pictures, you could have engaged the person. See the attached pics

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Anvilbrother

This guy was totally taken off guard and had a gun in his face, and he was still able to be the victor.

http://i.imgur.com/hf0oiht.gif


There was ongoing discussions online yesterday about the pictures taken of the attackers by regular citizens. And the fact that if you have time to realize, pull out your camera phone, turn on the camera app, and snap a few pictures, you could have engaged the person. See the attached pics

Could, would, should....

Fact remains that what actualy happened was that trained and armed people were prent, yet it didn't stop or alter the incident.

So, the "if only there were guns" argument is bogus.

The, "if only there was a gun here" or "if only my rambo skills were present" or "if only this guy had done this" is nice, but kind of useless for this argument.

Quade stated that a gun presence wouldn't have made a difference. the pro-gun crowd wanted evidence. Well the evidence is right in the damn incident, guns were present.

If you want to argue that if Rambo happened to have been there with his mad skillz (or any of the regular posters on this forum, who are all Chuck Norris equivalents), the outcome would have been different....have at it.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Not a single person here is saying its always going to work, Quade is the one saying it would NEVER would have made a difference. Just because you are "trained, and armed" doesn't mean your alert and ready. The average "tracer security" person that your alleging to be a commando ready for the fight as a armed and trained security guard couldn't get a job at a best buy if they wanted to. The fact remains that there are documented incidents where it saved lives, vs the anti-gun solution of never having any guns means 100% it would have never saved lives.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Anvilbrother

Not a single person here is saying its always going to work, Quade is the one saying it would NEVER would have made a difference. Just because you are "trained, and armed" doesn't mean your alert and ready. The average "tracer security" person that your alleging to be a commando ready for the fight as a armed and trained security guard couldn't get a job at a best buy if they wanted to. The fact remains that there are documented incidents where it saved lives, vs the anti-gun solution of never having any guns means 100% it would have never saved lives.

Yes there are documented cases where a gun made things better and there are documented cases where a gun made things worse.

In this particular case, armed people were on the scene, during the incident, at least one specifically tasked with trying to prevent such an incident. Yet, it made no difference. So clearly in this case Quade is right, having guns present made no difference.

[normiss 642]

You guys are intentionally ignoring a different perspective.
Fine, guys like you can hide, whimper, and get murdered because you have no desire to defend yourselves.
I'll die fighting.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Once again, I will say properly selected, trained, supervised and alert guards are better than nothing. Also action is faster than reaction. This guard was probably properly trained, and selected being from the Interior Ministry’s special unit, and not just some off the street Joe, but being complacent can kill you.

Look at Chris Kyle. During Chris's career on different occasions he was the one surprised and had things such as a brick wall suddenly blown up on him by an rpg, was shot multiple times off guard in his helmet, and body armor, had a building almost fall down on him when a grenade was dropped in the room. Despite all that he was still able to kill 255 people with witnesses which met STRICT ROE under very tight observation of Jag and other lawyers who were monitoring him due to his success. A few times he was caught off guard, but many times he caught the enemy off guard. Ultimately he was killed by someone he was trying to help.

So how can this decorated war vet who had a clear documented history of being able to stop bad guys from killing others get killed himself? He was caught off guard in a situation where the thought was safe and there were no threats.

Most armed guards in the states are a joke, but that does not mean the idea of armed guards or citizens is a joke and cannot be a success.
[/url]http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/us/armed-guards-investigation/[url] CNN did a story on this.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[SkyDekker 1,150]

normiss

You guys are intentionally ignoring a different perspective.
Fine, guys like you can hide, whimper, and get murdered because you have no desire to defend yourselves.
I'll die fighting.

I am sure the two cops who got shot had every intention to die fighting as well. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you will get that opportunity.

For me, the risk of dying in a shooting are minor enough that I don't feel the need to be armed. Even if allowed, statistics simply show my family would be at greater risk just by having the firearm around.

I guess I am resigned to playing the favourable numbers. If you call that hide, whimper etc. Oh well, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Lastly, those people working at Charlie Hedo went down fighting. They never surrendered until mowed down in a hail of gunfire. I haven't seen too many North American media outlets display the courage this French media outlet displayed.

[rushmc 18]

normiss

You guys are intentionally ignoring a different perspective.
Fine, guys like you can hide, whimper, and get murdered because you have no desire to defend yourselves.
I'll die fighting.

You need to remember that he and kallend think defending yourself is espousing violence on others

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Even if allowed, statistics simply show my family would be at greater risk just by having the firearm around.

MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.




http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,