Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 672 posts

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

#641

Post by fein »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #492
fein wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think I misread your previous statement. I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives.

I think, however, that it's a bit of an absolute statement, as even skirmishes in the combat theaters still heavily rely on small arms from both sides. Perhaps it is possible for that to become the world we live in, however I don't see that being the case given past history.

Keep in mind the idea of an armed populace isn't a one dimensional outcome to only defend against terrorists, but as an equalizer against any assailant in a life or death situation, be they foreign or domestic.

I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose. In this case, the French people did not and do not have that option. Gun laws in France makes NYC look like a paradise for gun owners.

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

#642

Post by spellboots »

Asbostos wrote: post #335
jtblin wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it valuable to know that my friends and family in Paris are safe, so I'm grateful to FB for doing that. OTH It saddens me and make me wonder what kind of world we live in for FB to release such a feature.

You didn't need Facebook to tell you that. You could have just assumed it was true based on the enormous population of Paris (2 million) and the small number of deaths in this incident (100-200).

Assuming that humans will behave rationally is, in itself, quite irrational

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

#643

Post by peferron »

ehnto wrote: post #471
peferron wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have 0.01% chance of being wrong. How high would it need to be to warrant, in your eyes, checking if your family members are alive, instead of assuming they are? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? And why?

The world is full of a mean average of people who, believe it or not, do not run statistical analysis before deciding if they should care for their loved ones. The world is full of real people, with real understandable concerns for their families and friends. Not only that, but it isn't about the number who were killed anyway. It is about the probability of your friend being in that location at the time of the disast…

Did you read the post to which my reply was directed? I'm not addressing these questions to you or to one of the "people who do not run statistical analysis before deciding if they should care for their loved ones". I'm addressing these questions to someone who apparently does run statistical analysis.

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

#644

Post by TeMPOraL »

fein wrote: post #641
TeMPOraL wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think I misread your previous statement. I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives. I think, however, that it's a bit of an absolute statement, as even skirmishes in the combat theaters still heavily rely on small arms from both sides. Perhaps it is possible for that to become the world…

> I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives.

I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot before they strike. So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they're not walking out of that one alive.

> I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose.

The core question here is - defend from what? Guns won't help you defend from a terrorist attack anymore than they can help you defend from an asteroid strike. Since we don't use extinction of dinosaurs as a pro-gun argument, we shouldn't use terrorist attacks either. Note that I'm not supporting pro- or anti-gun stance here, I only refuse to accept invalid arguments - from either side.

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

#646

Post by dang »

deciplex wrote: post #483
davesque wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP began by saying "Islam soils the reputation of islam. It has a massive problem of large percentages of Muslims supporting (or being okay with) violence and terrorism." Without further proof, that statement is an allegation at best and a slur at worst (especially if the following proof doesn't hold up). He then went on to say "42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall)."…

I'd be in agreement with you if the OP started and stopped with that first sentence, but he didn't. And OP is not claiming that all Muslims are violent or making a generalization like that - he very specifically referred to reputation for same and cited a document showing a significant minority of Muslims who support or tolerate violence, especially in France. I also agree that he would have been better served to cla…

> I'd be in agreement with you if the OP started and stopped with that first sentence, but he didn't

No, it's exactly the other way around: if the comment had omitted the first sentence, it would have been fine. That bit could be taken out without any loss of information, and should have been.

Despite how much you've posted about this, there's no serious argument here. A slur followed by a factual statement is obviously still a slur.

As for "shutting down the discussion", that's a bit of a stretch with 650 comments in one thread and 500 in the other.

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

#647

Post by fein »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #644
fein wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I misread your previous statement. I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives. I think, however, that it's a bit of an absolute statement, as even skirmishes in the combat theaters still heavily rely on small arms from both sides. Perhaps it is possible for that to become the world…

> I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives. I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot before they strike . So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they're not walk…

> defend from what?

From any assailant, be it a mugger, rapist, breaking and entering, "terrorism" (whatever that actually means), an oppressive state, etc.

Would you rather just do nothing and accept whatever comes your way as fate?

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

#648

Post by philwelch »

stsp wrote: post #129
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".

Come on. Don't blame refugees. Normal people are refugees. Refugees are normal people. Their problems are rooted in abuse of power. http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/nov/11/... http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/nov/12/... http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/nov/13/...

I'm not blaming the refugees. If anything I feel sympathetic for them because the refugees are trying to escape entire countries that are effectively ruled by these people. But it's worth asking how ISIS managed to get these people into Paris.

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

#649

Post by TeMPOraL »

fein wrote: post #647
TeMPOraL wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot, so bombings and other "assailant not present" offensives. I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot before they strike . So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they're not walk…

> defend from what? From any assailant, be it a mugger, rapist, breaking and entering, "terrorism" (whatever that actually means), an oppressive state, etc. Would you rather just do nothing and accept whatever comes your way as fate?

I'm not going into the other potential enemies because I recognize there are valid arguments for guns there, but we know that guns won't help you against a) terrorists, because they have the initiative, so they'll attack in a way that is effective, taking into account whatever defense measures targeted population may have, and b) oppressive state, because a state actor has trained troops (as opposed to untrained civilians) with weapons and motorized equipment.

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

#650

Post by cLeEOGPw »

kevindeasis wrote: post #623
cLeEOGPw wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a losing game for us. If we don't make ANY backlash, then the terrorists will be encouraged to repeat attacks, as they see there are no consequences for their actions. Additionally, French will be more afraid of Muslims and will surrender whatever they have to them even more willingly, as they would feel helpless. On the other hand if we make backlash, more muslims will radicalize, again, increasing terrorism…

San Francisco seems to be a great example of multiculturalism. I have to admit that I disagree with a good amount of the things you said. I think that we will need multiculturalism to move forward. If we look back into our past, terrible things have come from preventing multiculturalism. What do you think about my statement?

What terrible thing came from preventing multiculturalism? None. On the contrary - terrible things happened BECAUSE of multiculturalism. Several groups of people cannot live as a community when their ideas of a community are different. "Multiculturalism" is only possible when the cultures WANT to live together. In our case here in Europe, whites want to live together with muslims, but muslims don't. Ant that is the problem. We can not fix it, only muslims can. And if they won't fix it, terrible things WILL happen. We are doing our part. It's time for other cultures to do theirs. And if they won't, we will have no choice.
Post reply on HN