Another terrorist attack in France

[fredtoast]

(07-16-2016, 07:27 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Ever hear the expression "I would rather have something and never need it, than need it and not have it."?

Pretty much the same principle.  I have been in situations where I was glad to have my firearm, of course that was when I was deployed and we were ambushed.

In my everyday life, no, I have not had the need.  However remember Luby's, remember the testimony of one Suzanna Gratia Hupp?  Yeah, she had a gun, but due to the legislation and her being a good law abiding citizen she left it in her vehicle.  Then in her everyday life, found herself wishing that just that once she had broken the law and kept her pistol on her.  She wished she had it even though she didn't think she would ever need it.

The question you must answer for yourself is "When can a terrorist attack occur?"

The real problem is that if we allowed people to carry guns into places where they get drunk then many more innocent people would die from drunken shootouts than terrorists attacks.

You can not ignore everything else just to make your self safe from a terror attck.  You have to balance all considerations for public safety.

I think that as long as a person qualifies for a CC permit he should be allowed to take his gun pretty much anyplace except where alcohol is served or government buildings.

[GMDino]

(07-15-2016, 05:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Those that say an end to religion would solve things like this, they wouldn't. Humans have a natural tendency to group together with those like us. And we tend to use those groups to divide us. If it wasn't belief in a higher power that was being used as an excuse it would be something else.

This story is older than religion, our countries, our cultures, all of it. It happens in other members of the great apes, which means it is so inherent in us it goes beyond anything we have created. It's just that what we have created makes it that much worse.

That's why I added jealousy.

[Rotobeast]

(07-15-2016, 05:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. Mostly because those that are prevented are things we never hear about. They are foiled by operatives whose names we will never know, who put themselves out there to gather intelligence and apprehend potential terrorists every day. I can say with near absolute certainty that more of these types of things have been prevented than have occurred because of these people.

I will back Matt up, here.
I have a family member that does exactly as he described.
Trust me, A LOT of things are caught and taken care of.
Keeping it on the "down-low" is essential in apprehending others that may be connected.

[tigerseye]

Read an article that said the brother of the mass murderer claims that the mass murderer had recently sent home a fortune of money to his family.

5 accomplices have been detained. one of which said the mass murderer had recently been raticulized.

Ratical Isman/Sharia/ISIS/ISIL taking full credit.

[Sovereign Nation]

(07-16-2016, 10:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The real problem is that if we allowed people to carry guns into places where they get drunk then many more innocent people would die from drunken shootouts than terrorists attacks.

You can not ignore everything else just to make your self safe from a terror attck.  You have to balance all considerations for public safety.

I think that as long as a person qualifies for a CC permit he should be allowed to take his gun pretty much anyplace except where alcohol is served or government buildings.

What's this we? 

It isn't like you or I have any say in this. 

Not only that, but this is a true irrational fear, there are plenty of people that carry guns in places that serve alcohol especially in Tennessee, Texas, SC, NC, AZ, and a slew of other states, and no such increase that you are so afraid of.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2016, 07:27 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Ever hear the expression "I would rather have something and never need it, than need it and not have it."?

Pretty much the same principle.  I have been in situations where I was glad to have my firearm, of course that was when I was deployed and we were ambushed.

In my everyday life, no, I have not had the need.  However remember Luby's, remember the testimony of one Suzanna Gratia Hupp?  Yeah, she had a gun, but due to the legislation and her being a good law abiding citizen she left it in her vehicle.  Then in her everyday life, found herself wishing that just that once she had broken the law and kept her pistol on her.  She wished she had it even though she didn't think she would ever need it.

The question you must answer for yourself is "When can a terrorist attack occur?"

In my life, carrying a firearm would increase my chances of violence rather than decrease them. The chances of me needing a firearm are so slim in my everyday life that it is unreasonable to assume it would be needed. Thus, the fear of needing my firearm in daily life would be irrational for me. That is logic based on statistics. Attempt to make all the arguments you like, the statistics and the logic are on my side.

But hey, you may put yourself in situations where you need a firearm. I don't know your life. I just know that the vast majority of people in the US are in the same position as me. Statistically speaking.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2016, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In my life, carrying a firearm would increase my chances of violence rather than decrease them. The chances of me needing a firearm are so slim in my everyday life that it is unreasonable to assume it would be needed. Thus, the fear of needing my firearm in daily life would be irrational for me. That is logic based on statistics. Attempt to make all the arguments you like, the statistics and the logic are on my side.

But hey, you may put yourself in situations where you need a firearm. I don't know your life. I just know that the vast majority of people in the US are in the same position as me. Statistically speaking.

How many times has your house been on fire and do you have anything that could start a fire in your home?

Statistically speaking, your house never will catch on fire, but having insurance against it probably makes you feel a little more secure.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2016, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many times has your house been on fire and do you have anything that could start a fire in your home?

Statistically speaking, your house never will catch on fire, but having insurance against it probably makes you feel a little more secure.  

Once and yes. I think a better question would be about something to put out a fire rather than start one. And statistically speaking, a fire in your home where a fire extinguisher and/or insurance is needed is more likely than needing a firearm for self defense. At least where I live.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2016, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many times has your house been on fire and do you have anything that could start a fire in your home?

Statistically speaking, your house never will catch on fire, but having insurance against it probably makes you feel a little more secure.  

Using this example you should by health insurance and funeral insurance.

Or did you mean to ask if anyone has a fire extinguisher or smoke detector just in case?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2016, 09:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Once and yes. I think a better question would be about something to put out a fire rather than start one. And statistically speaking, a fire in your home where a fire extinguisher and/or insurance is needed is more likely than needing a firearm for self defense. At least where I live.

The start a fire was in correlation to you increasing the chances of something happening. But we both probably know why statistically you would increase your chance of violence by carrying a firearm and it has very little with average joe carrying. Folks that play with matches probably have a better chance of causing a fire, but we shouldn't blame it on the matches.

You could use a fire extinguisher, but I used the analogy to show that carrying a firearm is insurance in case of catastrophe, not because your burned the beans.    

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2016, 10:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The start a fire was in correlation to you increasing the chances of something happening. But we both probably know why statistically you would increase your chance of violence by carrying a firearm and it has very little with average joe carrying. Folks that play with matches probably have a better chance of causing a fire, but we shouldn't blame it on the matches.

You could use a fire extinguisher, but I used the analogy to show that carrying a firearm is insurance in case of catastrophe, not because your burned the beans.    

Ah, I see what you were saying now. While it has little to do with the average Joe carrying, the mere presence of a firearm can escalate a situation that would otherwise have been without violence. Matches in a drawer don't have the same effect. So I understand what you are saying but there is still a slight increase in risk with a firearm that makes it different.

Also, no, insurance is insurance of a catastrophe. You get robbed at gunpoint and let them take your things, there is insurance. You are injured from getting your ass whipped, stabbed, or shot, there is insurance. You get killed, there is insurance. A firearm is like a fire bucket full of water. It could help, or it could make things worse. Just depends on the situation.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2016, 10:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah, I see what you were saying now. While it has little to do with the average Joe carrying, the mere presence of a firearm can escalate a situation that would otherwise have been without violence. Matches in a drawer don't have the same effect. So I understand what you are saying but there is still a slight increase in risk with a firearm that makes it different.

Also, no, insurance is insurance of a catastrophe. You get robbed at gunpoint and let them take your things, there is insurance. You are injured from getting your ass whipped, stabbed, or shot, there is insurance. You get killed, there is insurance. A firearm is like a fire bucket full of water. It could help, or it could make things worse. Just depends on the situation.

Makes sense; unfortunately, it seems we have turned this thread into a gun control thread and it is inappropriate. 

As to the OP here's a more human side of the tragedy; that makes all our back and forth look petty:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nice-victims-boy-police-officer-125354532.html?ref=gs

Quote:Four-year-old Yannis Coviaux loved to throw pebbles into the sea.

Quote:He and his parents, who are Nice residents, were joined by friends at the Promenade des Anglais to watch fireworks. Michael Coviaux told Le Parisien newspaper that his son was a little farther away with his friends when the truck barreled through the crowd.
"My immediate reaction was to grab my wife and throw her out of the way ... when I got up, there was a huge crowd, and I prayed to God that Yannis was safe and sound," he said.
Then, Coviaux saw his son, not far away, lying in blood.
"When I saw him, I understood right away. ... He resembled Aylan, the little refugee boy who drowned on the beach in Turkey," Coviaux told the newspaper.
He grabbed his son and ran toward the nearest hospital. A car with three young men inside stopped and drove until the vehicle came upon an ambulance. There, physicians took the little boy and tried unsuccessfully to revive him.

If anyone can read that and the other stories and not be brought to tears and/or anger; they are much less emotional than I. 

[XenoMorph]

(07-16-2016, 10:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The real problem is that if we allowed people to carry guns into places where they get drunk then many more innocent people would die from drunken shootouts than terrorists attacks.

You can not ignore everything else just to make your self safe from a terror attck.  You have to balance all considerations for public safety.

I think that as long as a person qualifies for a CC permit he should be allowed to take his gun pretty much anyplace except where alcohol is served or government buildings.

having your C&C there are rules to follow about where to take it and what you can drink while carrying.. 

[Benton]

(07-16-2016, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many times has your house been on fire and do you have anything that could start a fire in your home?

Statistically speaking, your house never will catch on fire, but having insurance against it probably makes you feel a little more secure.  

This is why I support open carry of fire extinguishers. Keep one on your belt or else you car might melt, that's my motto.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2016, 12:51 PM)Benton Wrote: This is why I support open carry of fire extinguishers. Keep one on your belt or else you car might melt, that's my motto.

Admittedly not everyone will fully understand the analogy.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Getting back on track here.

http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/crime-war-france-just-attacked-isis-syria-video/

After Nice attack, where 80 people died, France is really MAD!

The French Ministry of Defense just confirmed the massive bombing of Raqqa, the “capital” of Syria, the headquarter of ISIS.

The operation was conducted in coordination with US forces. US intelligence has provided information to identify ISIS targets while minimizing innocent damage.

France has dropped 20 bombs in Syria: 12 aircraft have been employed, including 10 fighter jets.

People on social media are going crazy: Destroy them, Kill them one by one, #KillISIS is the new viral hashtag.

The reaction of the French government continues even at home. French Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, said they will start shutting down mosques that preach hate and violence. They will check all the mosques and imams in France.

“I want to combat the preachers of hate, we have to act quickly,” said Cazeneuve.

[Mike M (the other one)]

And:

BREAKING: US Special Forces Engage ISIS for First Time, Inflict Heavy Casualties

Reports out of Iraq indicate that American Special Forces “advisers” have engaged ISIS in ground combat for the first time.

ISIS forces attacked an Iraqi Army outpost occupied by more than 100 Americans around 1a.m. local time. The American forces responded “equipped with light and medium weapons, supported by F-18” fighter jets according to sources on the ground.

According to Shafaq News Iraq,

US troops have entered with its Iraqi partner, according to Colonel, Salam Nazim in line against ISIS elements and clashed with them for more than two hours, to succeed in removing them from al-Dolab area, and causing losses in their ranks, at a time American fighter jets directed several strikes focused on ISIS gatherings that silenced their heavy sources of fire. He points out that the clashes took place between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.

A field commander told reporters that the Americans were able to inflict heavy casualties on ISIS while suffering no casualties of their own while forcing the terror group back to their base some 10 kilometers away.

Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi, a prominent tribal leader in the region, said that “US forces intervened because of ISIS started to come near the base, which they are stationed in so out of self-defense, they responded, welcoming the US intervention, which I hope will not be the last.“

The Sheikh continued, “We have made progress in al-Dolab area, in which ISIS has withdrawn from to the villages beyond, after the battles which involved a private American force , and provided a great impetus firearm, and opened hubs around the region enabled them to storm and surprise ISIS fighters.”

The short version is that ISIS attacked a base where more than 100 Special Forces “advisers” are stationed and took a two hour beating from both the air and the ground while the good guys took no casualties.


Read more: http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-us-special-forces-engage-isis-for-first-time-inflict-heavy-casualties/#ixzz4EnDD4b41

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 05:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And:

BREAKING: US Special Forces Engage ISIS for First Time, Inflict Heavy Casualties

Reports out of Iraq indicate that American Special Forces “advisers” have engaged ISIS in ground combat for the first time.

ISIS forces attacked an Iraqi Army outpost occupied by more than 100 Americans around 1a.m. local time. The American forces responded “equipped with light and medium weapons, supported by F-18” fighter jets according to sources on the ground.

According to Shafaq News Iraq,

US troops have entered with its Iraqi partner, according to Colonel, Salam Nazim in line against ISIS elements and clashed with them for more than two hours, to succeed in removing them from al-Dolab area, and causing losses in their ranks, at a time American fighter jets directed several strikes focused on ISIS gatherings that silenced their heavy sources of fire. He points out that the clashes took place between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.

A field commander told reporters that the Americans were able to inflict heavy casualties on ISIS while suffering no casualties of their own while forcing the terror group back to their base some 10 kilometers away.

Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi, a prominent tribal leader in the region, said that “US forces intervened because of ISIS started to come near the base, which they are stationed in so out of self-defense, they responded, welcoming the US intervention, which I hope will not be the last.“

The Sheikh continued, “We have made progress in al-Dolab area, in which ISIS has withdrawn from to the villages beyond, after the battles which involved a private American force , and provided a great impetus firearm, and opened hubs around the region enabled them to storm and surprise ISIS fighters.”

The short version is that ISIS attacked a base where more than 100 Special Forces “advisers” are stationed and took a two hour beating from both the air and the ground while the good guys took no casualties.


Read more: http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-us-special-forces-engage-isis-for-first-time-inflict-heavy-casualties/#ixzz4EnDD4b41

Ahhhh...the proverbial hornet's nest.

[*bfine32*]

Another attack in Germany:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-police-kill-man-attacked-train-passengers-axe-215349487.html

The Afghan refugee shouted "Allahu akbar" as he committed the assault; but the it will take about a week to figure out his motivation. Local law enforcement is currently perplexed as to the motivation.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2016, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Another attack in Germany:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-police-kill-man-attacked-train-passengers-axe-215349487.html

The Afghan refugee shouted "Allahu akbar" as he committed the assault; but the it will take about a week to figure out his motivation. Local law enforcement is currently perplexed as to the motivation.

Last update I saw said he had an IS flag.