Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
OK, lets consider a nation which has banned all firearms: China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8648...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-le...
Has this stopped people from committing horrible acts of murder and mayhem?
A gun, just like a knife, is a tool (granted an evil tool, but still a tool.) which is totally dictated by its user. How much harm can a rifle do if they take it to a licensed firing range, with all the relevant safety standards met? About the same as using a sharp kitchen knife to cut your meat. How dangerous a firearm is, is based entirely on the user. Just like a knife is harmless if the person wielding it only intends to cut their chicken breasts, but deadly if they go to the local supermarket with it, intent on causing mayhem. To ban everyone from access to firearms, in all forms, is disproportionate and unnecessary. You might disagree, but I'm happy I live in a country that still maintains the right to own certain firearms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8648...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-le...
Has this stopped people from committing horrible acts of murder and mayhem?
A gun, just like a knife, is a tool (granted an evil tool, but still a tool.) which is totally dictated by its user. How much harm can a rifle do if they take it to a licensed firing range, with all the relevant safety standards met? About the same as using a sharp kitchen knife to cut your meat. How dangerous a firearm is, is based entirely on the user. Just like a knife is harmless if the person wielding it only intends to cut their chicken breasts, but deadly if they go to the local supermarket with it, intent on causing mayhem. To ban everyone from access to firearms, in all forms, is disproportionate and unnecessary. You might disagree, but I'm happy I live in a country that still maintains the right to own certain firearms.
I'm not against citizens being armed in principle but not convinced it would have helped much in the Bataclan. As others say it would likely lead to a panicky shoot out with more innocent people killed by civilians and police mistaking them for terrorists.
With 800 people and 4 terrorists (?) in tight quarters the public could have over-run them with fewer dead if they were prepared for it. It happened on that train a few months ago. The difficulty is panic and confusion. Quite how you prepare people to do something like that I don't know. It seems that the train incident was just fortunate there were a couple of guys with military experience and some brave bystanders joined in.
With 800 people and 4 terrorists (?) in tight quarters the public could have over-run them with fewer dead if they were prepared for it. It happened on that train a few months ago. The difficulty is panic and confusion. Quite how you prepare people to do something like that I don't know. It seems that the train incident was just fortunate there were a couple of guys with military experience and some brave bystanders joined in.
This is a ridiculous idea given armed citizens might benefit against an ad hoc random shooting but against terrorists who a) are prepared to die to achieve their aims and b) their aims are to terrorise.
Firstly if 4 terrorists attack a train and kill 1 person and then get killed they've still achieved their aim.
Secondly armed populous doesn't do anything against the first few surprise shots.
It might reduce the death toll in a singular attack but many more will die throughout the year simply due to domestic accidents.
Firstly if 4 terrorists attack a train and kill 1 person and then get killed they've still achieved their aim.
Secondly armed populous doesn't do anything against the first few surprise shots.
It might reduce the death toll in a singular attack but many more will die throughout the year simply due to domestic accidents.
I think in some way citizen defence has to be part of the solution. You simply can't have armed police everywhere at all times.
Having everyone in the Bataclan blazing away in the dark and confusion would not have helped, but security guards, people living or running businesses nearby could have. Looking at the Charlie Hebdo videos, anyone with a rifle in an upstairs window could have saved a few lives.
There's no perfect answer but responsible, trained and willing people with weapons could be part of it. Having everyone running like mad or playing dead doesn't seem so great.
Having everyone in the Bataclan blazing away in the dark and confusion would not have helped, but security guards, people living or running businesses nearby could have. Looking at the Charlie Hebdo videos, anyone with a rifle in an upstairs window could have saved a few lives.
There's no perfect answer but responsible, trained and willing people with weapons could be part of it. Having everyone running like mad or playing dead doesn't seem so great.
Cannot see that the average concert goer or the average business owner or the average security guard will be the ones that have spent hours undergoing intensive "what if" training and dead calm in a real life and death situation. Heck, the exam to the special forces would be a lot easier I suppose if we are that good when carrying and a few hours at a target. If there were ever a credible possibility of a viable defence against such an attack, all the terrorist will do is alter the method to suit.
Problem is still there. It needs sorting out at the root.
Problem is still there. It needs sorting out at the root.
The mad lot in Ulster seemed to get pretty handy without necessarily being formally trained or doing years in the military/police.
I'm not saying it's the catch all answer by any means and completely agree that the root of the problem lies elsewhere, but at the moment we have no real defence against these people other than waiting for the armed police to arrive. And as pointed out elsewhere France has a hell of a lot more armed police than we do.
I'm not saying it's the catch all answer by any means and completely agree that the root of the problem lies elsewhere, but at the moment we have no real defence against these people other than waiting for the armed police to arrive. And as pointed out elsewhere France has a hell of a lot more armed police than we do.
rb26 said:
OK, lets consider a nation which has banned all firearms: China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8648...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-le...
Has this stopped people from committing horrible acts of murder and mayhem?
A gun, just like a knife, is a tool (granted an evil tool, but still a tool.) which is totally dictated by its user. How much harm can a rifle do if they take it to a licensed firing range, with all the relevant safety standards met? About the same as using a sharp kitchen knife to cut your meat. How dangerous a firearm is, is based entirely on the user. Just like a knife is harmless if the person wielding it only intends to cut their chicken breasts, but deadly if they go to the local supermarket with it, intent on causing mayhem. To ban everyone from access to firearms, in all forms, is disproportionate and unnecessary. You might disagree, but I'm happy I live in a country that still maintains the right to own certain firearms.
Yeah it works well for America. The whole 'they are a tool' argument is not even remotely worthy of discussion. A gun's sole purpose is to kill things. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8648...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-le...
Has this stopped people from committing horrible acts of murder and mayhem?
A gun, just like a knife, is a tool (granted an evil tool, but still a tool.) which is totally dictated by its user. How much harm can a rifle do if they take it to a licensed firing range, with all the relevant safety standards met? About the same as using a sharp kitchen knife to cut your meat. How dangerous a firearm is, is based entirely on the user. Just like a knife is harmless if the person wielding it only intends to cut their chicken breasts, but deadly if they go to the local supermarket with it, intent on causing mayhem. To ban everyone from access to firearms, in all forms, is disproportionate and unnecessary. You might disagree, but I'm happy I live in a country that still maintains the right to own certain firearms.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/...
Ten times the number of people killed in USA over the last 3 years than were killed in Paris. None by 'terrorists' but ordinary citizens with easy access to guns.
Daily Mail would probably summarise it to 'one a day'.
Up to October there were 294 shootings in 274 days in 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/1...
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 25th November 07:36
rb26 said:
A gun, just like a knife, is a tool (granted an evil tool, but still a tool.) which is totally dictated by its user. How much harm can a rifle do if they take it to a licensed firing range, with all the relevant safety standards met? About the same as using a sharp kitchen knife to cut your meat. How dangerous a firearm is, is based entirely on the user. Just like a knife is harmless if the person wielding it only intends to cut their chicken breasts, but deadly if they go to the local supermarket with it, intent on causing mayhem. To ban everyone from access to firearms, in all forms, is disproportionate and unnecessary. You might disagree, but I'm happy I live in a country that still maintains the right to own certain firearms.
The rather large point you've failed to address is that killing people with guns is by far the easiest method. Knives are more risky, and a lot more up close and personal. Cars are easily identifiable, etc. Of all the people who have been shot dead in USA, how many do you think would still have been killed by other means if guns didn't exist? I bet the number would be drastically lower. No school shootings for a start.
Also, wrt your "guns just as safe as knives when used responsibly" argument - what about irresponsible users? How many children accidentally stab someone to death? How many children accidentally shoot someone to death?
Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 25th November 07:37
Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 25th November 07:39
AJS- said:
The mad lot in Ulster seemed to get pretty handy without necessarily being formally trained or doing years in the military/police.
I'm not saying it's the catch all answer by any means and completely agree that the root of the problem lies elsewhere, but at the moment we have no real defence against these people other than waiting for the armed police to arrive. And as pointed out elsewhere France has a hell of a lot more armed police than we do.
Wonder at what point they get rushed if this happens again.I'm not saying it's the catch all answer by any means and completely agree that the root of the problem lies elsewhere, but at the moment we have no real defence against these people other than waiting for the armed police to arrive. And as pointed out elsewhere France has a hell of a lot more armed police than we do.
jmorgan said:
Cannot see that the average concert goer or the average business owner or the average security guard will be the ones that have spent hours undergoing intensive "what if" training and dead calm in a real life and death situation. Heck, the exam to the special forces would be a lot easier I suppose if we are that good when carrying and a few hours at a target. If there were ever a credible possibility of a viable defence against such an attack, all the terrorist will do is alter the method to suit.
Problem is still there. It needs sorting out at the root.
What's your average concert goer?Problem is still there. It needs sorting out at the root.
I live/work a mile from 40 commando so I meet plenty of marines, they go to concerts/football etc just like anyone else.
Although for some weird reason the ones I know all seem to like erasure and ones a massive Billy brag fan?
Stickyfinger said:
How the hell did you find that? 
Apt username
Stickyfinger said:
AJS- said:
I think in some way citizen defence has to be part of the solution. You simply can't have armed police everywhere at all times.
Having everyone in the Bataclan blazing away in the dark and confusion would not have helped, but security guards, people living or running businesses nearby could have. Looking at the Charlie Hebdo videos, anyone with a rifle in an upstairs window could have saved a few lives.
There's no perfect answer but responsible, trained and willing people with weapons could be part of it. Having everyone running like mad or playing dead doesn't seem so great.
how do these civilians tell armed plain clothes cops from bad guys? (or even baddies wearing bulletproof vests and black combat gear from cops wearing the same - just trust in the word 'Police' across the front?)Having everyone in the Bataclan blazing away in the dark and confusion would not have helped, but security guards, people living or running businesses nearby could have. Looking at the Charlie Hebdo videos, anyone with a rifle in an upstairs window could have saved a few lives.
There's no perfect answer but responsible, trained and willing people with weapons could be part of it. Having everyone running like mad or playing dead doesn't seem so great.
cops can radio each other to avoid shooting at each other
and how do the cops tell the bad guys from the responsible armed populace?
sounds like a recipe for a free-for-all shootout
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff