• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Latest French Attacks: updates (in English)

Started by albrecht, November 13, 2015, 03:50:16 PM

chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 08:52:37 AM

Ahh yes, vitriol will really scare them off! Think with your brain and not your machismo. The UK was dealing with (partly) US funded terrorists long before the current crop.

OMG are you saying the UK is completely righteous? That's an amazing statement...

Anyway, you guys are completely safe from us crazy gun toting Americans as there is an ocean between us...my thoughts go out to all of you though facing these ISIS fanatics though...

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 08:53:58 AM
Each side of an argument considers it "common sense"...that's like saying, "you are a smart person, you would have to agree with me." No, I don't have to agree with that...

Look, you live in a country with strict gun control laws...good for you! You democratically chose those policies...cheers...but that doesn’t apply here in the US..I'll choose to protect myself and my family instead of rolling up in the fetal position and dying...


Protect yourself from...? Other paranoid trigger happy 'good guys' who see YOU as a threat. I'm glad you brought up in a round about way the statistics;

Quote
The intentional homicide rate in Britain is 0.03 per 100,000 people, ranked just under Japan at 0.02 per hundred thousand. Among other European countries, the rate in France is 0.06; Spain, 0.63; Germany, 1.10; Italy, 1.28.

The rate of intentional homicides in the United States is 2.98, 100 TIMES HIGHER than the rate in Britain.

http://worlddesk.org/2012/12/14/gun-homicide-rate-u-s-versus-britain-100-times-greater-chance-of-being-shot-in-u-s/


In actual fact, you're more likely to be shot if you own or use a firearm than if you don't.
Quote
Academics such as John Lott and Gary Kleck have long claimed that more firearms reduce crime. But is this really the case? Stripped of machismo bluster, this is at heart a testable claim that merely requires sturdy epidemiological analysis. And this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them."

This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in this area and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact. While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception â€" it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 08:55:22 AM
OMG are you saying the UK is completely righteous? That's an amazing statement...

Where did I say that? You did, I didn't.

You still haven't explained how the concert hall massacre would have been neutralised by having the audience armed.

chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:06:11 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

https://www.gunowners.org/op09282009gk.htm

Once again, I don't understand why you lefties want to focus on law abiding gun owners in the US and not the radical Islamic terrorists? One would start to have questions as to your motivations...

chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:07:00 AM
Where did I say that? You did, I didn't.

You still haven't explained how the concert hall massacre would have been neutralised by having the audience armed.

Ok, picture this...you seen a guy killing people where they sit...you have no gun so you just wait your turn or "play dead" as your suggested defence mechanism...

While you see him shooting innocent people, you can reach down, get your weapon and defend yourself...that's one scenario...

Oh, I'm waiting now for you to defend the right of the shooter not to be harmed without a trial...

SredniVashtar

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 08:53:58 AM
Each side of an argument considers it "common sense"...that's like saying, "you are a smart person, you would have to agree with me." No, I don't have to agree with that...

Look, you live in a country with strict gun control laws...good for you! You democratically chose those policies...cheers...but that doesn’t apply here in the US..I'll choose to protect myself and my family instead of rolling up in the fetal position and dying...

No, you said that I was using some sort of leftist rhetoric, and I was saying that I considered it a common sense position. I don't expect you to agree with me, merely to understand where I was coming from.

There is a lot of ego involved with this sort of argument. I am prepared to accept that there may be details in what you say that I have missed, but you don't seem prepared to accept that your own opinion may have similar flaws. I don't know what it is like to grow up in a gun culture, so I don't take such an emphatic line about it as some others do. There may be situations over there where owning a gun is a sensible precaution. I don't think gun owners are ever able to do us the same courtesy.

I wouldn't call any response that doesn't involve shooting "curling up in a ball". Flight is a perfectly sensible reaction to danger, just as fight can sometimes be the only response. Having a gun, for me, gives the illusion that you only have one option, which will almost inevitably lead to greater loss of life than the other option of getting out of the fucking way.

Don't boil all of this down into primary colours. There are so many subtleties involved here but you don't appear willing to acknowledge them.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:13:21 AM
Ok, picture this...you seen a guy killing people where they sit...you have no gun so you just wait your turn or "play dead" as your suggested defence mechanism...

While you see him shooting innocent people, you can reach down, get your weapon and defend yourself...that's one scenario...

Oh, I'm waiting now for you to defend the right of the shooter not to be harmed without a trial...


Not at all; I'm wanting to know how YOU would attempt to take out the three or four gun men (who have suicide vests attached too) in a very dark and loud concert hall, with perhaps 40-100 other audience members also armed, having panic break out around them. Not knowing who or where the shots were coming from. Surely that's easy to answer?

What the NRA shills fail to mention is that even with the latest terror attacks in Paris, you are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by gunfire in any comparably sized US city.  Hell, ISIS would need to attack Paris every three months just to catch up to Chicago's gun death rate. 

albrecht

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 08:30:04 AM
So that it your recommendation...play dead...dear God, I'm frightened for you Europeans...
That is why they are being over-run. White guilt, weakness, political correctness, cultural relativism? Who knows? They have a soldier beheaded in broad daylight in public on the streets, attacks on homosexuals, whole neighborhoods filled with Muslim youths who often riot and police considered a 'no go' area, artists stabbed and killed, all the terrorism by Muslims, and rape rates in some countries that rival 3rd world nations- due to the importation of 'refugees'. And in many cases have not already willingly given up the right to own firearms (or even the right of self-defense by any means in some cases) but often ceded control over their own immigration, financial, and legal system, effectively, to people outside their countries in places like Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.
I say if you are going to die, die on your feet, not knees. Sure I doubt a civilian with a gun can stop a coordinated Muslim attack but, maybe. Or maybe just the threat makes a common criminal, or even a terrorist, reassess the plan or go elsewhere? Or could allow a neighborhood, since the governments won't, help secure their neighborhood and fight back against the Muslim rioting hordes. Heck, it the worst case scenario at least you got a last bullet, like the old days in Indian territory, to end it before you become a hostage to be tortured, filmed, and used for Muslim propaganda.

chefist

Quote from: SredniVashtar on November 15, 2015, 09:16:00 AM


Don't boil all of this down into primary colours. There are so many subtleties involved here but you don't appear willing to acknowledge them.

Of course I do...but there are no subtleties in gun control...either the laws allow you to own or the prevent you from owning...I have mine at home and do not carry in public...however, I know that some do carry, both open and concealed (which is legal here in AZ).  You never really know if that person is off duty law enforcement or a private citizen...

Do I acknowledge that there would be chaos and environmental circumstances that prevented you from using your weapon, absolutely. However, given the choice, I would rather know that someone with good intentions that was armed was out there, armed...than know that the only people walking the streets armed were the bad guys...Bad guys will always get the weapons one way or another...gun control says, "if you are a law abiding citizen, you will not be allowed to own a gun" at the same time it says, "we understand that the criminals will always find them on the black market"...

I'm never going to convince you and vice versa...Pud said his defence was playing dead, yours is running as fast as you can...sure, given the right situation anyone may have to do that...but I want the 3rd option of having a gun for self defence...

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:10:44 AM
https://www.gunowners.org/op09282009gk.htm

Once again, I don't understand why you lefties want to focus on law abiding gun owners in the US and not the radical Islamic terrorists? One would start to have questions as to your motivations...

I haven't focused on 'law abiding gun owners' I've asked how you'd take out the terrorists when you don't know where they are in a dark hall. And going down the knee jerk (because you can't answer the question) 'leftist' path won't get you anywhere I'm afraid.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: albrecht on November 15, 2015, 09:22:58 AM
That is why they are being over-run. White guilt, weakness, political correctness, cultural relativism? Who knows? They have a soldier beheaded in broad daylight in public on the streets, attacks on homosexuals, whole neighborhoods filled with Muslim youths who often riot and police considered a 'no go' area, artists stabbed and killed, all the terrorism by Muslims, and rape rates in some countries that rival 3rd world nations- due to the importation of 'refugees'. And in many cases have not already willingly given up the right to own firearms (or even the right of self-defense by any means in some cases) but often ceded control over their own immigration, financial, and legal system, effectively, to people outside their countries in places like Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.
I say if you are going to die, die on your feet, not knees. Sure I doubt a civilian with a gun can stop a coordinated Muslim attack but, maybe. Or maybe just the threat makes a common criminal, or even a terrorist, reassess the plan or go elsewhere? Or could allow a neighborhood, since the governments won't, help secure their neighborhood and fight back against the Muslim rioting hordes. Heck, it the worst case scenario at least you got a last bullet, like the old days in Indian territory, to end it before you become a hostage to be tortured, filmed, and used for Muslim propaganda.


What is your murder rate again? Roughly?

VtaGeezer

Quote from: Mild Bill on November 15, 2015, 12:56:54 AM
Yemen seems to be putting up a good fight against the Saudis...what do you think?
Exactly as I said. The Saudis were threatened by Iranian-supported Shia Yemenis.  The result...instant and heavy response. But they're wary of casualties so are trying to bomb the Houthi rebels out...a tactic we know won't work on a diffuse insurgency.

chefist

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on November 15, 2015, 09:22:23 AM
What the NRA shills fail to mention is that even with the latest terror attacks in Paris, you are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by gunfire in any comparably sized US city.  Hell, ISIS would need to attack Paris every three months just to catch up to Chicago's gun death rate.

The vast majority of those killings are gang related, and the weapons are acquired on the black market...

It's important to understand the Europe has the largest black market for weapons due to strict gun control laws...also, Europe has some of the largest gun manufacturers in the world...

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:28:58 AM
The vast majority of those killings are gang related, and the weapons are acquired on the black market...

It's important to understand the Europe has the largest black market for weapons due to strict gun control laws...also, Europe has some of the largest gun manufacturers in the world...


And our gun deaths in the UK are about 40-50 per annum. A lot of those by farmers committing suicide, and a few by armed Police units taking out criminals/terrorists.

chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:31:07 AM

And our gun deaths in the UK are about 40-50 per annum. A lot of those by farmers committing suicide, and a few by armed Police units taking out criminals/terrorists.

Switzerland has a very large rate of gun ownership and a very low murder rate...the overall societal components of culture are what determine violence, not which weapons are legal...

The vast majority of deaths in the Rwandan genocide were committed with machetes....


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:34:04 AM
Switzerland has a very large rate of gun ownership and a very low murder rate...the overall societal components of culture are what determine violence, not which weapons are legal...

Switzerland has a small army; the civilian men of a certain age are in effect militia, they're trained to be so. It's why. They also have very strict control and accountability of firearms.

Quote
The vast majority of deaths in the Rwandan genocide were committed with machetes....

Indeed, and not a concert hall in sight...

albrecht

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:27:34 AM

What is your murder rate again? Roughly?
High, freedom come with a price. But nail that murder rate down by demographics, and then eliminate gang activity (which also, usually, is in certain demographics,) and then murder rate in cities where guns are banned vs others? Not so bad. But I agree way too high. Things like suicide rate certainly is effected by guns because they allow relatively quick, impulsive often fatal action. But with an open-border with a narco-state and multiculturalism and legacy of slavery what are you going to do? I guess we could ban everything, cede our laws to some unelected judges and bureacrats in another country, and put CCTV cameras everywhere- but even then I risk getting slashed with a Stanley knife or attacked by a Muslim. So ban those also, I guess. I don't know anybody who has even been shot, even in a hunting accident, much less murdered. And there are TONS of guns around here.

chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:36:55 AM
Switzerland has a small army; the civilian men of a certain age are in effect militia, they're trained to be so. It's why. They also have very strict control and accountability of firearms.

Indeed, and not a concert hall in sight...

Here are the options we have identified when the terrorists come for a civilian: England/Europe = run or play dead.    US = run, play dead or fight back with a gun

SredniVashtar

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:34:04 AM
Switzerland has a very large rate of gun ownership and a very low murder rate...the overall societal components of culture are what determine violence, not which weapons are legal...

I completely agree. Just because a nation has guns it is not inevitable that they are going to be abused. I think you are missing the point, though. If, as so many people say, the issue in the US is a mental health problem not a gun problem, given that you have a mental health problem that is not going away any time soon, does it not make sense to look at guns as merely an exacerbating factor and take steps to limit them as much as possible? A longer term goal would be to address the mental health issue, yet you have the means to do something about gun control, as long as you have the will to do it.

Rwanda is a red herring. No one man can carry out the kind of atrocities with a machete that he could with an automatic weapon, and machetes actually have a practical purpose.


chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:36:55 AM
Switzerland has a small army; the civilian men of a certain age are in effect militia, they're trained to be so. It's why. They also have very strict control and accountability of firearms.

Indeed, and not a concert hall in sight...

I guess in your mind all terrorist events take place in a concert hall...

albrecht

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:36:55 AM
Switzerland has a small army; the civilian men of a certain age are in effect militia, they're trained to be so. It's why. They also have very strict control and accountability of firearms.

Indeed, and not a concert hall in sight...
Switzerland also control their borders and actually cares what types of people move there.

Maybe not "concert halls" but there were several churches where people were massacred during the Rwanda mess. Sometimes while the UN and European-types didn't intervene and looked on, to their credit we didn't want to get involved that much at all. So, I guess, saving some (like at Amahoro stadium) and documenting the crimes is better than nothing?

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:40:10 AM
Here are the options we have identified when the terrorists come for a civilian: England/Europe = run or play dead.    US = run, play dead or fight back with a gun


How did that work out back in september 2001? Things got better since?

albrecht

I find it interesting, psychologically speaking, of how the response from many a European, Englishman, and politicians in most Western Nations to terrorism is too ponder what rights can citizens give up to prevent, how we can accommodate Islam better, how we can outreach to Muslims, and hand-wringing about 'what did we do?' 'how can WE be different or change our ways?' and so on....

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:41:59 AM
I guess in your mind all terrorist events take place in a concert hall...

No. I know a woman who was in the Arndale shopping centre in Manchester when the PIRA detonated a bomb outside in the street. She and her daughter were covered in broken glass. How would a gun have helped her?

VtaGeezer

Quote from: chefist on November 15, 2015, 09:28:58 AM
...and the weapons are acquired on the black market...
Not sure that the patriotic gun dealers of Indiana and Missouri will appreciate being called "the black market".

chefist

Quote from: SredniVashtar on November 15, 2015, 09:40:44 AM
I completely agree. Just because a nation has guns it is not inevitable that they are going to be abused. I think you are missing the point, though. If, as so many people say, the issue in the US is a mental health problem not a gun problem, given that you have a mental health problem that is not going away any time soon, does it not make sense to look at guns as merely an exacerbating factor and take steps to limit them as much as possible? A longer term goal would be to address the mental health issue, yet you have the means to do something about gun control, as long as you have the will to do it.

Rwanda is a red herring. No one man can carry out the kind of atrocities with a machete that he could with an automatic weapon, and machetes actually have a practical purpose.

We used to have a rather good mental health infrastructure here in the US...it was dismantled by both on the right and left....we have to establish a better system...we used to deem mental health as a public safety issue, which it really is...

What happened in Rwanda is fact...it was gangs armed with machetes that did most of the killing...intent is more powerful than any single type of weapon...

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: albrecht on November 15, 2015, 09:44:52 AM
I find it interesting, psychologically speaking, of how the response from many a European, Englishman, and politicians in most Western Nations to terrorism is too ponder what rights can citizens give up to prevent, how we can accommodate Islam better, how we can outreach to Muslims, and hand-wringing about 'what did we do?' 'how can WE be different or change our ways?' and so on....

Not from me I don't. Nor anyone I know.

chefist

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on November 15, 2015, 09:46:18 AM
No. I know a woman who was in the Arndale shopping centre in Manchester when the PIRA detonated a bomb outside in the street. She and her daughter were covered in broken glass. How would a gun have helped her?

It would not have helped in that instance...and gun control will never prevent people from making bombs...

pyewacket

It never fails- any topic of this nature is eventually reduced to left/right political bickering. Please don't misunderstand me- I would not deny you your right to argue, but this does take the focus away from the root cause of the trouble and the questions we should be demanding answers to from our so called leaders.

Why the hell is this happening in the first place? Now that we've seen this lethal behaviour pattern for years, why are they ignoring it at the peril of their citizens? You know, the citizens they swore to protect?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/15/confirmed-second-paris-gunman-entered-europe-via-greece-posing-refugee/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/15/obama-admin-still-wants-to-admit-syrian-refugees-into-u-s/

This is compounded by the insanity of open borders. I do understand that there are human beings in need of sanctuary, BUT, it appears that these are not the ones making it into safe countries.

I heard someone, yes most likely of a conservative stripe, saying that all refugees applying for entry to the USA are vetted by the Saudis and -*guess what?*- they overwhelmingly grant papers to Muslims not Christians.




Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod