Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say • Hacker News Board

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#491

Post by l33tbro » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 6:58 AM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #161

The war on terror has been going on for 15 years now - are there more terrorists in 2000 or 2015? Sooner or later, we will have to come to the realization that terrorism cannot be eliminated by force. Stop destabilizing Arab countries, stop imperial interference in Northern Africa, and perhaps we'll see an end to this nonsense.

Do you think tonight's actions were solely about economics and politicalstatus? Could they, and the January attacks, have also have been attributed to a specific reading of the Qur'an?

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#492

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:02 AM UTC

fein wrote: post #460

NotHereNotThere wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Adding armed citizens into the mix will just shift the method of killing. I've seriously considered the "arm your citizens" argument, and honestly can't think of it helping, at all. These guys aren't your run-of-the-mill muggers; they're actively thinking about inflicting the highest casualties in the most efficient manner. Today it's shootings since most people wouldn't be a…

At the very least you have some form of self defense. Do you assume all gun owners to be incompetent oafs? I probably shoot more than most police.

Won't help you at all against a bomb.

As 'NotHereNotThere said, terrorists attack in a way adequate to the conditions. They have time to prepare, so whatever means of defense you have, they'll strike in a way in which those means won't help you.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#493

Post by jakeogh » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:02 AM UTC

Asbostos wrote: post #320

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to bjs.gov (Bureau of Justice Statistics), it's been around 11-12,000 gun homicides in recent years, down from around 16,000 a few years ago. Over half of those are black-on-black shootings, mainly gang related. If you control for these gangland shootings, the per capita rate in the U.S. is about the same as Western Europe and Canada. The U.S. has a socio-economic problem in the ghetto areas, not a gun prob…

I suspect law abiding black citizens in gangland ghettos aren't doing most of the shootings either. What you've done here is to subdivide the whole American population into a group of "not many shooters" and "Higher proportion of shooters". Of course you can always do that, and always find a more specific group that dominates the statistics for any type of crime. But there's a worrying implication that we should some…

"Or allow people in rich neighborhoods to have guns but ban them from ghettos."

You have articulated the opposite of what self defense proponents want. Here in AZ proponents of humans being able to defend themselves got a recent (partial) win with United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Talking large groups of people hostage is logistically extremely difficult when even a few % are armed.

And to those who say "they will use bombs instead of attacking armed people"... Should bombs be banned too?

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#494

Post by DrScump » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:02 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #52

sosborn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically, the French security system has been revealed as completely ineffective. How can a country possibly prevent these things while still maintaining a free society?

They can't; even the not free societies - think prisons - are not safe. People that want to do Bad Things will do them. Even if they didn't have guns or weapons, they could've - for example - get enough people into a dinner party or restaurant, have everyone grab a fork, and start stabbing people in the eye. Terrorism doesn't need weaponry. The only deterrent would be to read people's minds, and you've probably watch…

  Terrorism doesn't need weaponry.

Indeed. Even if you deem well-coordinated attacks with just edged weapons (like the fictional ones in "The Following") unlikely, note that the Multiple-Victim public homicide with the most fatalities in US history used not a single firearm.

(and I'm not talking about 9/11, although it could count as such as well)

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#495

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:03 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #141

philwelch wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns and grenades are not that hard to get, even in Europe. The limiting factor is how many people are willing to lay siege to a concert hall and calmly execute a hundred people, and whether some of those people were let in under the guise of "refugees".

> Guns and grenades are not that hard to get, even in Europe. Not hard to get, but when you're talking about dozens of assault rifles, someone somewhere will know what is going where. If your intelligence people are worth their salt, of course. > whether some of those people were let in under the guise of "refugees". Yeah, because it's extremely effective to drop your people for months in a Turkish refugee camp, hopi…

Not long ago French journalists did a 'weird' documentary about smuggling military weapon from eastern Europe. They managed to pass a whole bag of them, neutralized before their trip home obviously and destroyed as soon as they crossed the border. Still, far too easy for two peaceful, networkless persons.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#496

Post by icewater » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:05 AM UTC

pje wrote: post #333

jmspring wrote: post #13

The repeated attacks, heavy immigration of refugees...I'm hoping for the best, but I feel like there is a powder keg here. Whether or not it is based in any fact, how this is handled and plays out is a serious concern.

How dare you mention refugees in the same sentence as this tragedy? Shame.

Thats a perfectly reasonable thing to mention.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#497

Post by neuro_imager » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:06 AM UTC

SHIT_TALKER wrote: post #380

noobermin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offtopic, but while multiculturalism makes certain things difficult (like congress in the US now, agreeing on policy) diversity also helps in other ways (like being able to understand and deal with those who aren't like you and don't agree with you). One example of an extremely sucessful, multicultural society is Singapore. And, be honest, for all of America's faults, it's still a world power and one of the largest e…

One example of an extremely sucessful, multicultural society is Singapore. So that's one. And one overseen and enforced by an autocrat.

Singapore is a success only if you appreciate 24/7 unrelenting surveillance not to mention brutal oppression of anything even vaguely against the status quo.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#498

Post by DrScump » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:06 AM UTC

TomGullen wrote: post #262

mkhpalm wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outlawing guns is a lot like outlawing drugs. If you want them, you can get them.

Drugs I could find. Guns? Wouldn't have a clue where to start.

I'd bet that your drug dealer has suitable connections.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#499

Post by aianus » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:07 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #456

aianus wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's dishonest to compare openly fighting ISIS with blowing up and shooting civilians as a primary mean. That's all well and good to say when you know enlisting in the US military in conventional warfare against ISIS has a good chance of succeeding. But what if the US was the small poor state and ISIS was the world's largest economy whose military targets were too well-defended to attack? I'm sure you'd find lots o…

I find this relativism disconcerting. Please explain how targeting innocent civilians for their ethnicity or beliefs is equal to military vs. military operations. Most of the world is shades of grey but one has to recognize when an ideology is clearly a danger to human society and needs to be fought against. Whether and how violent the means need to be is up for discussion, I just can't understand why people would do…

> Please explain how targeting innocent civilians for their ethnicity or beliefs is equal to military vs. military operations.

It's not. I'm sure the terrorists would actually prefer to be shooting soldiers and high-ranking politicians instead of innocent civilians. But since those targets are too well protected, in their minds the only thing they can do to retaliate against their enemies is to commit terrorist attacks against civilians in their enemies' homeland.

If the roles were reversed and ISIS were the world superpower launching cruise missiles against Houston (some) Americans would surely sign up to do similar things to get back at them. The only reason we don't is because we're rich and powerful and don't have to stoop to that level, not because we're incapable of it or somehow more morally enlightened.

Edit: see the firebombings and nuclear attacks on Japan in WWII for what the US is capable of when they don't have an overwhelming military superiority.

Re: Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

#500

Post by imaginenore » Sat, Nov 14, 2015, 7:08 AM UTC

auntienomen wrote: post #366

imaginenore wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know exactly who they are: islamists. We have video recordings where you can hear them yelling "allahu Akbar" while shooting. 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...

42% is appalling, but so what? What's your conclusion? (Recall that a majority of Americans have no problem with dropping bombs on foreign civilians.)

42% in a western non-islamic country is huge. My conclusion is that Islam is not compatible with the western cultures, with things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, personal freedoms, and it's a huge mistake for Europe to allow so many of them in. You don't have to believe me, listen to the muslims themselves talk about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU&t=138s