Another terrorist attack in France

[Rotobeast]

(07-15-2016, 02:48 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I hate to post this and seem cold or insensitive...but if you want to see raw video of things like that, liveleak is the place to go. 

I really didn't "want to", but happened across a link and...... the whole train wreck scenario and all.

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-14-2016, 08:28 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I was concerned over the 4th about something like this.  Other than some lone self-radicalized killers - which I'm not sure what can be done - we've been really good here at preventing things like this.

I wonder how much of that is the idea that Americans are armed.

I mean all of the attacks in America happen in gun free zones. 

A fireworks display doesn't have the same level of security to keep out the guns as a nightclub.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-15-2016, 07:06 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I mean all of the attacks in America happen in gun free zones. 

Personally, I think that is coincidental to the targets/impact.

Second, driving a truck through a crowd has nothing to do with gun laws.  Absolutely nothing.

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-15-2016, 07:09 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Personally, I think that is coincidental to the targets/impact.

Second, driving a truck through a crowd has nothing to do with gun laws.  Absolutely nothing.

I don't believe in the coincidence.

Second, your theory was of "some type" of attack happening in the US.  Not necessarily a truck driving through a crowd. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2016, 07:21 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I don't believe in the coincidence.

Second, your theory was of "some type" of attack happening in the US.  Not necessarily a truck driving through a crowd. 

It's correlation, but not causation. Some places have policies, and some states and municipalities have laws, regarding firearms in places where large groups of people gather. Churches, for instance, are off-limits for carry in Virginia. The very reason they are typically off-limits for carrying is why they make good targets: lots of vulnerable soft targets. But it isn't necessarily because the group is unarmed, just because it is a large gathering of people.

Besides, we have seen shootings in places that weren't gun free zones. The Dallas shootings are a most recent example. Not only did you have police, but you had people carrying rifles (that ended up being questioned as persons of interest because of it IIRC). Then there was that one school shooting in the Pacific NW that allowed firearms on campus. There have probably been others I just can't think of.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-15-2016, 07:21 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I don't believe in the coincidence.

Second, your theory was of "some type" of attack happening in the US.  Not necessarily a truck driving through a crowd. 

It's either coincidence or explainable.  Your belief has nothing to do with it.

Second, you didn't do anything to refute "my theory".  An attack is an attack, and usually people that mean to do harm will do so through whatever means available. The only thing surprising about France and driving a truck through a crowd is that it took this long to happen.

[GMDino]

(07-15-2016, 07:09 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Personally, I think that is coincidental to the targets/impact.

Second, driving a truck through a crowd has nothing to do with gun laws.  Absolutely nothing.

Before I knew there was an attack I found out because my Facebook feed started to get filled with people asking if Obama was going to talk about banning trucks now.

Seriously.

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-15-2016, 08:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's either coincidence or explainable.  Your belief has nothing to do with it.

Second, you didn't do anything to refute "my theory".  An attack is an attack, and usually people that mean to do harm will do so through whatever means available.  The only thing surprising about France and driving a truck through a crowd is that it took this long to happen.

Neither does yours then...


You posited that the only reason we didn't get attacked on the 4th is because we do a good job stopping this stuff before it happens.

I further postulated that one of the reasons we may not have been attacked on the 4th is due to a lot of armed Americans. 

You said an attack of some type, not necessarily a truck driving through the crowd.

Whatever though, you can rationalize it however you want, all I know is France at one time seemed like a great place to vacation, starting to change that perception now.

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-15-2016, 07:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's correlation, but not causation. Some places have policies, and some states and municipalities have laws, regarding firearms in places where large groups of people gather. Churches, for instance, are off-limits for carry in Virginia. The very reason they are typically off-limits for carrying is why they make good targets: lots of vulnerable soft targets. But it isn't necessarily because the group is unarmed, just because it is a large gathering of people.

Besides, we have seen shootings in places that weren't gun free zones. The Dallas shootings are a most recent example. Not only did you have police, but you had people carrying rifles (that ended up being questioned as persons of interest because of it IIRC). Then there was that one school shooting in the Pacific NW that allowed firearms on campus. There have probably been others I just can't think of.

Kinda hard to use the Dallas shootings as the person was actually targeting those with guns in the first place. 

I know we have seen shooting in gun free zones, but not to the same level of carnage as the soft targets. 

In SC there was a guy that attempted to go into a night club just like Orlando, the difference is that he was dropped after firing off a few shots by a concealed carry holder.

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2016, 09:10 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Kinda hard to use the Dallas shootings as the person was actually targeting those with guns in the first place. 

No, it should definitely be included. It shows that the presence of firearms is not necessarily a deterrent to someone who is set on carrying out a mass shooting, nor is it guaranteed to stop one. I understand what you are saying, because statistically it would be an outlier when looking at the data in certain ways, but when looking at it based on the presence of firearms among the victims it is anything but.

(07-15-2016, 09:10 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I know we have seen shooting in gun free zones, but not to the same level of carnage as the soft targets. 

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here.

(07-15-2016, 09:10 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: In SC there was a guy that attempted to go into a night club just like Orlando, the difference is that he was dropped after firing off a few shots by a concealed carry holder.

Indeed, and this sort of thing has occurred in other places. There have also been instances where there was someone carrying, or multiple people carrying, and the shooter killed themselves or the police killed them. There have been situations where someone carrying may have killed the shooter, but also created another victim.

So many of these events don't hit the news cycles as hard and/or can be difficult to find years later, but these things have happened. The evidence is not substantial enough to show any causal relationship between gun free zones and mass shootings.

[XenoMorph]

(07-14-2016, 07:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/truck-rams-bastille-day-crowd-in-southern-france/2016/07/14/18772ce6-4a0d-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html


Drove a truck into a crowd gathered for Bastille Day fireworks, then got out and opened fire.  Perhaps 60 dead and 100 injured.

last I saw was about 84 people dead.  I didn't see the part where he got out and started shoot just that he was running people over.     I saw islam groups slaming the incident. 

But that's crazy that's one guy that figured out to use a car.  what will be next.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-15-2016, 09:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Before I knew there was an attack I found out because my Facebook feed started to get filled with people asking if Obama was going to talk about banning trucks now.

Seriously.

Well, you have OKC, the first WTC, France, and probably some that I am forgetting that have used box style trucks, not to mention the rolling meth labs, so......


.....but seriously, when are the dirtbags in DC (saw Newt Gingerich comment something similar to what you refer to) going to quit using human suffering as talking points?  People aren't even embalmed or cremated, and you have Barry Soetoro frothing at the mouth everytime.....except for the deal in Oregon.  It's really quite unbecoming......vote the whole lot out and start over.

[GMDino]

(07-15-2016, 10:06 AM)Wyche Wrote: Well, you have OKC, the first WTC, France, and probably some that I am forgetting that have used box style trucks, not to mention the rolling meth labs, so......


.....but seriously, when are the dirtbags in DC (saw Newt Gingerich comment something similar to what you refer to) going to quit using human suffering as talking points?  People aren't even embalmed or cremated, and you have Barry Soetoro frothing at the mouth everytime.....except for the deal in Oregon.  It's really quite unbecoming......vote the whole lot out and start over.

I agree.

But I saw a political cartoon one time about gun violence and how it is always "too soon" to talk about it because it keeps happening so often.

At some point things need talked about.  But by sane people who can see a middle ground without making it, as you said "talking points".

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-15-2016, 09:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it should definitely be included. It shows that the presence of firearms is not necessarily a deterrent to someone who is set on carrying out a mass shooting, nor is it guaranteed to stop one. I understand what you are saying, because statistically it would be an outlier when looking at the data in certain ways, but when looking at it based on the presence of firearms among the victims it is anything but.


I'm not sure what you were trying to say here.


Indeed, and this sort of thing has occurred in other places. There have also been instances where there was someone carrying, or multiple people carrying, and the shooter killed themselves or the police killed them. There have been situations where someone carrying may have killed the shooter, but also created another victim.

So many of these events don't hit the news cycles as hard and/or can be difficult to find years later, but these things have happened. The evidence is not substantial enough to show any causal relationship between gun free zones and mass shootings.

No it shouldn't, the targets were police officers not the crowd.  If the target were the crowd then you would have a point.  The person used tactics designed for targeting police as opposed to targeting say a school or movie theater.

What I was trying to say, is in Pulse 50 people dead, in SC, I don't think there was a single person killed, or the number was so little as not even to register as a "mass shooting".

I'll tell you what though, feel free to obey the gun free zones all you want, as for myself, I just don't go to those places.

[Benton]

(07-15-2016, 10:06 AM)Wyche Wrote:  
 .....but seriously, when are the dirtbags in DC (saw Newt Gingerich comment something similar to what you refer to) going to quit using human suffering as talking points?  

Whenever people stop thinking 'yeah, I should reelect my congressman because h'es been good for my home town' and start electing people who want to make a change.

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2016, 10:33 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: No it shouldn't, the targets were police officers not the crowd.  If the target were the crowd then you would have a point.  The person used tactics designed for targeting police as opposed to targeting say a school or movie theater.

He went to a place where the police presence would be at a higher density than normal and made them an easier target than in other places. That's a tactic for just about every mass shooting I know of. You could argue that his tactics were modified because of the presence of firearms, but it was not a deterrent and he was still effective.

(07-15-2016, 10:33 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: What I was trying to say, is in Pulse 50 people dead, in SC, I don't think there was a single person killed, or the number was so little as not even to register as a "mass shooting".

The use of the SC incident in comparison to the Pulse shooting does not provide enough evidence to show the Pulse incident could have been prevented, or even had a smaller body count, with someone carrying. Too many variables to draw that direct comparison.

(07-15-2016, 10:33 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I'll tell you what though, feel free to obey the gun free zones all you want, as for myself, I just don't go to those places.

I absolutely will. Mostly because I respect the law and I respect the rights of private property owners. But also because I don't live in a constant state of irrational fear.

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2016, 10:33 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: No it shouldn't, the targets were police officers not the crowd.  If the target were the crowd then you would have a point.  The person used tactics designed for targeting police as opposed to targeting say a school or movie theater.

What I was trying to say, is in Pulse 50 people dead, in SC, I don't think there was a single person killed, or the number was so little as not even to register as a "mass shooting".

I'll tell you what though, feel free to obey the gun free zones all you want, as for myself, I just don't go to those places.

If you're making a generalization about mass shootings, you can pick and choose which ones count, especially since you're trying to lump in a guy in SC getting mad at someone and shooting at them to a guy planning a 50 person massacre.

[GMDino]

(07-15-2016, 10:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He went to a place where the police presence would be at a higher density than normal and made them an easier target than in other places. That's a tactic for just about every mass shooting I know of. You could argue that his tactics were modified because of the presence of firearms, but it was not a deterrent and he was still effective.


The use of the SC incident in comparison to the Pulse shooting does not provide enough evidence to show the Pulse incident could have been prevented, or even had a smaller body count, with someone carrying. Too many variables to draw that direct comparison.


I absolutely will. Mostly because I respect the law and I respect the rights of private property owners. But also because I don't live in a constant state of irrational fear.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-15-2016, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: I agree.

But I saw a political cartoon one time about gun violence and how it is always "too soon" to talk about it because it keeps happening so often.

At some point things need talked about.  But by sane people who can see a middle ground without making it, as you said "talking points".

.....brother, couldn't agree any more.....

(07-15-2016, 10:43 AM)Benton Wrote: Whenever people stop thinking 'yeah, I should reelect my congressman because h'es been good for my home town' and start electing people who want to make a change.

Yup......unfortunately, there are also folks like the gals from the "circle river" story in Klotsch that are allowed to vote.  We're all probably ******....

[Mike M (the other one)]

I saw there was pictures of the Eiffel Tower burning. Not sure if it was related as well.