Muzman on 9/1/2015 at 17:37
Crucifixion's too good for 'im.
I'm not sure what the punishment should be for staggeringly poor taste of that sort. Something a lot less grandiose and symbolic of martyrdom that's for sure.
Renault on 9/1/2015 at 17:45
I'm sure Al Quida and ISIS will view this entire episode as a victory, but I tend to think these situations are actually counter productive for them. It just unites and galvanizes an entire country against them. ~3000 people died in 9/11 - I wonder how many terrorists died in the aftermath of it, probably an exponentially higher number that we can't even calculate. How is that accomplishing anything?
Briareos H on 9/1/2015 at 17:51
The human ability to act stupidly exceeds the human ability to actually be deterred by a stronger force, so as much as I'd love to have a gun and wave it around (seriously, life would be like video games, how cool is that), it just doesn't work. No need to crucify anyone, but more guns doesn't solve anything.
Quote Posted by fortuni
the media did not cause them to feel that way, they felt that way because of what has happened in Paris, and to a person they believed that this attack was an attack on the French belief in freedom of speech, and did not need the media to tell them that
Quote Posted by heywood
I have to disagree with you Briareos.
I've reached my limits with regards to the concise and exact use of the English language. I don't think I can express my thoughts clearly here, so I apologise for not bringing arguments to the debate I started. I really do feel we are fed the narrative that this is our 9/11 (Le Monde actually made this its headline) and the more they insist, the better it works. I really don't have the words in English to express how weirded out and ill at ease I feel for receiving prayers and support from abroad, and how all of this feels like such a well-oiled machine, although one which isn't made on purpose -- no conspiracy theory here, just how the world and media work.
Anyway, do what you think is right, this is probably the best thing anyone can do.
Azaran on 9/1/2015 at 17:53
Quote Posted by Muzman
Crucifixion's too good for 'im.
I'm not sure what the punishment should be. for staggeringly poor taste of that sort. Something a lot less grandiose and symbolic of martyrdom that's for sure.
I would have settled for extreme public humiliation, followed by a lifetime of solitary confinement. Then sell their possessions at auction and give the money to a victims fund
nickie on 9/1/2015 at 18:14
Quote Posted by Briareos H
I really don't have the words in English to express how weirded out and ill at ease I feel for receiving prayers and support from abroad . . .
I don't have the words to explain either and I'm English but I think I understand a little, maybe. Death is a very public matter now. There is no privacy for grief. Professional mourners turn up everywhere and it's as if people feel they have a right to join in what should be private. Perhaps not in this case though as I think it goes to the 'there but for the grace of God go I' feeling, but I do rant at the media when they shove their microphones and cameras in people's faces at all times, inappropriate and otherwise.
Volitions Advocate on 9/1/2015 at 18:42
Quote Posted by Azaran
I would have settled for extreme public humiliation, followed by a lifetime of solitary confinement. Then sell their possessions at auction and give the money to a victims fund
This already happens to me in Canada on a daily basis. Daily criminal background checks. Invasions into my private life. The government knows things about me that the Geneva Convention would say is none of their business.
Well okay.. the part about auctioning off my stuff and giving the money to a victims fund doesn't happen. They just kick in my doors after ordering everybody out of an area for evacuation and THEN steal all my stuff, destroy half of it, then return the other half only after a huge public outrage.
Google High River Alberta.
Freedom from guns? I'm pretty sure AK 47's are prohibited in France. Good bit that law did in stopping the murder of 12 people. The Terrorists didn't follow the law. How did the law and "not having to be bothered by guns on a daily basis" do anything to save these people?
Pass laws. feel good about it. but do nothing to actually improve public safety.
Google Michael Zehaf-Bibeau
Google Nathan Cirillo
Google Phu Lam
Tell me about how gun laws that restrict lawful citizens did anything to help protect people.
I don't talk about this a lot here because I know what the majority of people here think about the issue, but everywhere else I've been talking about it I've run into the most slanderous, emotional, and violent cyber bullying on the other side of the debate, while remaining as logical and non-confrontational as possible.
How would even just a single member of the magazine having a pistol they carry around have any impact on the safety of other people around him in France? Why have a gun when the police are only minutes away? Well you could pretty quickly kill a dozen people with an illegal fully automatic AK 47. Might as well kill a few cops while you're at it. But what could you have done with a pistol that nobody ever knows you have, that you never show off, that you carry all your life just in case and hope you never have to use it? We will never know in this instance, I know that. What if? doesn't hold much relevance.
Just remember that you guys are the ones talking about public humiliation and about how I'm not even good enough to be graced with as violent an execution as crucifixion. But i'm the one who is irrational and will be waving my gun around just like in the video games. Right.
Gunsmoke told us about why he doesn't carry anymore. I respect him for that, but he was able to make that decision. People who want the right, know of the responsibilities ( at least in my Country) and are fully capable of knowing when they should leave it at home. They are also willing to go through the training to make sure they're qualified.
I'm not even advocating more guns, just let me use the one I have in a lawful and safe way to protect myself if one of these psychos comes to MY place of work, or if I see a police man who is injured and begging for his life on the side walk with a couple of psychos who want to toy with him before they kill him.
Even so. More guns was the solution in Switzerland, and it worked. but that's just an old tired "gun lobby" argument that isn't relevant, or so I'm told.
faetal on 9/1/2015 at 19:00
The guns in Switzerland aren't for personal protection / empowerment, they're for civilian military service and they can't be carried anywhere and need to be stored unloaded. That and Finland (also related to civilian militia) are always raised by people who want to justify gun ownership.
Volitions Advocate on 9/1/2015 at 19:07
No part of the debate is purely black and white. But that doesn't make the Switzerland argument completely invalid.
This is a quote (that I got permission to share) from a friend of the family who is a retired police officer in Canada. We were talking about that mom in Idaho who was accidentally shot by her 2 y/o son.
"My 2 cents. If you have a licence to carry a gun - or any weapon for that matter, it should never be carried in a box, bag, purse, carry-on, fanny pack, back pack, or any way that restricts access by the person who is licenced/the person responsible for it's use or misuse in public. (Israelies fiqured this out long ago) If that cannot be done, then leave the gun locked and secure at home. The gun should be carried in a way that solicits easy access by the holder, with optimun retention options if physically challenged by an assailant. (ankle holsters useless for ex) Competency standards in the use, retention, and practical simulation training, should be set high and practical testing manditory yearly to qualify in these areas. The majority of cops get this in North America so why not every licenced holder? Everyone in Switzerland gets it, in fact when I presented a paper on this years ago, it was manditory in Switzerland and at that time the firearms crimes were just about non-existant there. (:{)>----+"
Then a bit later:
"All a police service in a free democratic country can do, regardless of opinion,desire,want, or need, is create a 'status quo' in society. (The good citizens think and feel that they are safe; the criminals think and feel there are boundries to that effect) "Why do you need a gun to protect yourself? Why not ask, "Why do countries need weapons to protect their sovernty? Switzerland has made a statement to the world that they are serious in protecting the sovernty of their country by allowing their citizens the right to 'train' and bear arms to that effect. They can only hope to attain a 'status quo' with the rest of the world thereby protecting their sovernty as a free nation, the rest of the world thinking twice before trying to take that away. Boundries have been presented and percieved. The reality is cloaked somewhere in peoples perceptions. Food for thought? (:{)>----+"
France... Canada.... the UK. We're all pretty soft targets. What applies for Swizerland in terms of national security against other countries can just as easily be applied to acts of terror.
EDIT: What does empowerment have to do with it? I don't seek power over anybody else. Not unless they are trying to kill me.
faetal on 9/1/2015 at 19:43
The Switzerland argument is totally invalid because the gun ownership is mandatory and not at all down to individuals' seeking weapons ownership as a form of personal empowerment.
I don't want to live anywhere that people feel compelled to use guns to protect them from each other. This was a planned attack. If France had broader gun ownership, the attack would have gone ahead, just with heavier weaponry to compensate for the increased threat. The argument that there'd be less gun crime if all the good guys had guns is risible.
[EDIT] Seriously - look at the US, home of the good guys with guns.
Tony_Tarantula on 9/1/2015 at 19:44
Quote Posted by faetal
Atheism isn't a cure for anything, but religion and state should be kept separately, that's for damn sure.
It's even worse than that. Mixing the two is poisonous for the religion that gets involved with that, as the religion's teachings inevitably become subverted to support secular agendas.
And no, firearms laws wouldn't have had an effect in this instance. While firearms laws do correlate to a reduction in minor violent crimes the catch is that those minor crimes are generally committed by people who are more or less rational. When you are dealing with people who look forward to martyrdom all bets are off and their actions are difficult to accurately predict.
