11 ms·

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence co

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence community instead to help your country, if that what you're actually after, not just blind revenge because you have to admit that these attacks were a big SNAFUS on the French security apparatus part and some heads got to roll over this but I was amazed to see that Hollande is going to raise their compensation and reward them even more for their incompetence. I REALLY REALLY wish I had a job like this where they pay me more every time I fuck up and make a total mess of a situation. I really picked the wrong field and career here. Also, I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue and took out the terrorists instead of filming the massacre as it was unfolding helplessly. It proved beyond doubt now that security forces can be overwhelmed when faced with ops of such scale & magnitude and it would very imprudent to have just a single line of defense to protect people, when two or three backup could make wonders and end the situation in a matter of minutes and save the lives of a lot of people. So, maybe you should petition your government to relax the laws concerning purchasing and carrying guns to avoid such a disaster from occurring on this scale in the future and leave the ME to its people to sort out the mess.

1_player 11y ago
> I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue Please, no. Liberalization of guns (that is, a tool for hurting and killing living beings) doesn't solve terrorism. It doesn't make people safe. It doesn't help. People in USA don't understand why guns aren't sold freely in Europe just as we do not understand how guns are available to everybody in the States. Unfortunately I can't express that other than "it just feels wrong." Don't be naive and think that making everybody a vigilante is going to solve terrorism and Middle East crisis. It goes much deeper than that. EDIT: don't you have crazy people shooting around over there? I would argue that it's much easier given how available guns are to the populace, but the point is: gun liberalization has nothing to do with keeping citizens safe.
- gotchange 11y ago
  > it just feels wrong Here's the answer to your doubts. You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments. First, I am not American and I live in a country that restricts the lawful acquisition of guns for legitimate reasons but I can see that arguments put forward by gun rights advocates make sense from a defense point of view. I think that imposing reasonable restrictions on guns is a very good position to take that strikes a good balance between ensuring national security on one hand and individual security on the other. I must say that I find it interesting that left-wing people are spearheading the fight against gun rights given that weapons were a central theme in the French Revolution, October Revolution and other emancipating movements in the 20th century when they're supposed to be the ones championing the cause and fight the encroachment of the state on the people's rights. Please note that guns are not available to everyone in the US. There are still regulations in place and also not everyone would like to be a vigilante but if people would love to volunteer to defend themselves, their family or community, we should not get in their way for the illusion of security that proved very non-existent over and over again.
  - 1_player 11y ago
    > You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments. If not ideology (ideals) and emotions, what else are we? Anyway, you're wrong about me. I feel strongly about this, and I do not have nor am pushing any particular political agenda. To me, simply, restricting gun ownership is in the same boat of restricting access to grenades, restricting access to RPGs, restricting access to plutonium to the general public. People should not be able to buy a tool that is designed for the sole purpose of doing harm. I keep making the comparison with drugs, but I'm all for drugs legalization, because the only person you are harming is yourself, and you should be free to do so if you want. And do not think that I loathe weapons: I would love to shoot an M4A1, put my hands on an AK-47, and spend far too much time researching weapons as I come across them in games. They have a kind of forbidden beauty, but still I do not see a valid reason for the public to have them, including safety. There's no safety when anybody could carry a pistol in their handbag, IMHO. I agree that you can stop or scare away a burglar with your handgun, but the downsides are far too big: much more people will buy guns, the percentage of mentally unstable people with guns increases, bad things happen. EDIT: > guns are not available to everyone in the US. I know, but since many have guns, if I, mentally deranged teenager, want to get one to shoot people at my school, I know plenty of people to get one from. You know how many people I have ever known with a gun or rifle? One. I don't even know where to buy one, I don't think I've ever seen a gun shop where I lived in 28 years.
omginternets 11y ago
>Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence community instead to help your country, if that what you're actually after, not just blind revenge I posted it further below, but the reserve corps are not what you seem to think they are. Reservists patrol cities, especially airports and train stations. I'm not going to war; I just want to be on the front lines when the war comes to me, because someone has to be the trigger-man and I'm capable of doing it. I should add that I have no desire to kill another human being, even a daesh soldier. From what I've heard it's a burden you carry for the rest of your life. But, I'd rather do that then do nothing for a third time.

1_player 11y ago

> I find it really amusing that the general sentiment in France towards guns and a 2nd amendment style right is negative when it is not a stretch to say that some lives could have been saved if armed persons of the populace came to the rescue Please, no. Liberalization of guns (that is, a tool for hurting and killing living beings) doesn't solve terrorism. It doesn't make people safe. It doesn't help. People in USA don't understand why guns aren't sold freely in Europe just as we do not understand how guns are available to everybody in the States. Unfortunately I can't express that other than "it just feels wrong." Don't be naive and think that making everybody a vigilante is going to solve terrorism and Middle East crisis. It goes much deeper than that. EDIT: don't you have crazy people shooting around over there? I would argue that it's much easier given how available guns are to the populace, but the point is: gun liberalization has nothing to do with keeping citizens safe.

gotchange 11y ago
> it just feels wrong Here's the answer to your doubts. You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments. First, I am not American and I live in a country that restricts the lawful acquisition of guns for legitimate reasons but I can see that arguments put forward by gun rights advocates make sense from a defense point of view. I think that imposing reasonable restrictions on guns is a very good position to take that strikes a good balance between ensuring national security on one hand and individual security on the other. I must say that I find it interesting that left-wing people are spearheading the fight against gun rights given that weapons were a central theme in the French Revolution, October Revolution and other emancipating movements in the 20th century when they're supposed to be the ones championing the cause and fight the encroachment of the state on the people's rights. Please note that guns are not available to everyone in the US. There are still regulations in place and also not everyone would like to be a vigilante but if people would love to volunteer to defend themselves, their family or community, we should not get in their way for the illusion of security that proved very non-existent over and over again.
- 1_player 11y ago
  > You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments. If not ideology (ideals) and emotions, what else are we? Anyway, you're wrong about me. I feel strongly about this, and I do not have nor am pushing any particular political agenda. To me, simply, restricting gun ownership is in the same boat of restricting access to grenades, restricting access to RPGs, restricting access to plutonium to the general public. People should not be able to buy a tool that is designed for the sole purpose of doing harm. I keep making the comparison with drugs, but I'm all for drugs legalization, because the only person you are harming is yourself, and you should be free to do so if you want. And do not think that I loathe weapons: I would love to shoot an M4A1, put my hands on an AK-47, and spend far too much time researching weapons as I come across them in games. They have a kind of forbidden beauty, but still I do not see a valid reason for the public to have them, including safety. There's no safety when anybody could carry a pistol in their handbag, IMHO. I agree that you can stop or scare away a burglar with your handgun, but the downsides are far too big: much more people will buy guns, the percentage of mentally unstable people with guns increases, bad things happen. EDIT: > guns are not available to everyone in the US. I know, but since many have guns, if I, mentally deranged teenager, want to get one to shoot people at my school, I know plenty of people to get one from. You know how many people I have ever known with a gun or rifle? One. I don't even know where to buy one, I don't think I've ever seen a gun shop where I lived in 28 years.

omginternets 11y ago

>Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence community instead to help your country, if that what you're actually after, not just blind revenge I posted it further below, but the reserve corps are not what you seem to think they are. Reservists patrol cities, especially airports and train stations. I'm not going to war; I just want to be on the front lines when the war comes to me, because someone has to be the trigger-man and I'm capable of doing it. I should add that I have no desire to kill another human being, even a daesh soldier. From what I've heard it's a burden you carry for the rest of your life. But, I'd rather do that then do nothing for a third time.