Shots Fired In Car Chase Northeast Of Paris
news.sky.com/story/1404787/shots-fired-in-car...
news.sky.comPosted Jan 9, 2015, 8:29 AM UTC
248131
news.sky.comOf course the shooters would bring more innocent people into this mess.
15
I have gotta say I'm totally agreeing with the 2nd Amendment as a result of all this.
Edited because "all" has 2x Ls!
13
During the 1966 University of Texas shooting, folks ran to their cars and retrieved hunting rifles and began returning fire at the sniper on the bell tower.
Now remember the attack in Paris. What did we see? Lots of people crouching down on rooftops and in their homes holding phones recording a police officer getting executed. Imagine if a few instead retrieved rifles and began sending lead at those fuckers.
16
As someone who lives in the UK, I've never had an opinion on the gun debate and have remained neutral but this is a strong point.
14
Yes; in France people are not allowed to possess guns, and this has still happened.
Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns
Even a 9mm semi-auto hangun with 7 rounds is better than your hands against an AK47; in all fairness I'd rather have an SMG or Fully Auto Rifle just in case. If I owned such a weapon I would not use it to hurt or harm anyone other than in extremis^1
Politicians are scared to arm the people; but the majority of people are no more dangerous to the law-abiding citizen armed or unarmed.
Think about it carefully. Think about it.
^1: And by in extremis, I mean it's gotta be me or you and you are attempting to slay me. For example, if you stuck a gun in my face, but I was fairly confident that you would not murder me, I'd rather simply hand you my wallet than kill you; the legal reprecussions would be a monumental headache even if I WAS justified in using lethal force. However, if I was permitted to openly carry a firearm and had awareness, a potential robber will probably opt for an alternative target, or perhaps go home and mend his or her ways.
Edited to add a footnote
7
Politicians are scared to arm the people
This is the real reason behind gun control.
10
And by in extremis, I mean it's gotta be me or you and you are attempting to slay me. For example, if you stuck a gun in my face, but I was fairly confident that you would not murder me, I'd rather simply hand you my wallet than kill you; the legal reprecussions would be a monumental headache even if I WAS justified in using lethal force.
I know Americans are generally to be preceived as wannabe cowboys when it comes to carrying weapons, but I feel your statement actually covers what most people actually do. They don't want to shoot anyone and just want the gun for the extreme contingencies. And even when a person has the drop on you there is still a chance to use the firearm to defend yourself.
4
What if nobody had guns? Including the terrorists? What if people werent stupid/evil?
You can imagine a lot of solutions for everything. Im gonna guess more people die from gunfire a year in America than in france even with this happening. Honestly: everyone having guns is a terrible idea. I mean its idiotic.
-4
You can never have nobody with guns idiot. The gun laws worked soooo well against these terrorists, right?
10
Just to clarify, gman133 said "a few" not "everyone". I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that everyone should be issued a firearm.
10
That police officer that was executed the other day would probably be alive today if those people with cameras had rifles pointed at those two men. One they had an elevated position to fire at and that's a total advantage. Anyone with experience using firearms can tell you having open fields of fire and an elevation difference to your target is a huge advantage. Two if they had training and time using a firearm. A 50-100 yard shot at anything living and or not living should be second nature with the correct equipment. And third having weapons in society is a deterrent for those that want to cause harm. I wish we lived in a world of peace and happiness, but there are bad people in this world that will go to no ends to see this world burn. Because when seconds count the police are minutes away.
7
If nobody had guns everyone would still have sticks, stones, knives, arrows, swords, maces and whatever other ways we humans have come up with to kill each other with throughout history.
tl;dr: Humans: killing each other since the dawn of the species.
5
You got a plan to destroy every single gun on the planet? Including all of the ones owned by military organizations and criminals/terrorsts? Some kind of self destruct button that makes every firearm fall apart and removes the knowledge of how to make them from people's minds?
If so, I would love to hear it. The perfect world is one without firearms, but that can't happen, they have already been invented. The next best solution to no firearms, is firearms in the hands of as many law abiding citizens as possible. That way, even though we will never be able to prevent every single attack like this, we can at least have a chance to end them before anyone innocent gets hurt.
5
That would be a great solution. But the terrorists do have guns, fully auto capable AK47s (illegal even in Texas).
If a government cannot protect it's citizens, then the government needs to accept that the citizens must not be impeded from organising their own defense.
Think about it. If this massacre had occurred in Austin, Texas, the gunmen would quite probably all be dead by now.
Think about it.
4
How do you get rid of all the guns? When a gun can be made by a competent person in a machine shop in minutes all you are doing is disarming those that obey laws.
3
Only a idiot would disagree with the 2nd amendment,it protects the 1st.duh
See there going to hate Edit: this pics 10 well maybe 7 years old lolz us American's can never remember. When our boat tipped over.
8
You should never defend words with bullets.
-2
You're words are defended by firearms
Edit: What does you're military do. You might need to think about that. Ugh some people are dense
4
You should if that's what they are using to attack them.
3
Words aren't defended by bullets but your right to choose which ones you want to use surely are.
0
[deleted]
1
Why, you want more deaths? http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3_washpost.jpg
-4
thats just all the terrorist we shoot in 'merica
but seriously, im gonna get a gun
2
Please do the rest of us gun owners and take some safety classes.
11
Keep one on me at all times especially in Houston... People approach your car and you never actually know the reason.
2
- Comparing a very urbanized, highly populated, very large-area country to tiny European countries is bullshit, even if rates are used. Population density can completely change the rates.
- Much of the gun-related deaths in the US are a result of gang wars in major cities like Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, D.C., Oakland (all illegal guns; you're not allowed to have handguns in these cities yet they have high gun-murder rates), and drug wars at the Mexican border area
- Because anti-gun cities like Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, D.C., Oakland, skew the statistics, it is bullshit to compare the US to European countries where they have a unified anti-gun policy.
- Why do you only use homicide-gun rates? Why not homicide-rates total? In some cultures, like Japan, South Korea, China, knives are the preferred weapon of choice. Finally, in Europe, the homicide rate is similar to the US. They just use other weapons of killing.
- LASTLY: your chart is misleading because 3.2% and 1.5% is not a huge difference. They are all incredibly low gun-homicide rates.
- Also, you are forgetting that the US has had relaxed gun laws compared to the 1990s and yet the crime rate is still going down. How do you explain this miracle? Maybe your gun laws were the problem in the first place.
1
Slight correction, it is 3.2 and 1.5 per 100,000, which would be .0032% and .0015% respectively. Very small numbers.
2
Because somehow getting murdered by a gun is worse than getting murdered by someone else? Its because after your "gun violence" argument, you have nothing else. I try to have a discussion with your type, but every time I try and have a discussion in your forum, am instantly banned for having a conflicting opinion. Good message to put out there
0
Even when you ignore firearm homicides, the US has a much higher homicide rate than every other developed country by many orders of magnitude. I guess Americans are just abnormally violent people as the culture would also suggest.
0
Israel would be way higher if they included all the civilians in the west bank and gaza that the soldiers kill.
0
Why do you undermine your own argument by using gun murder rates only, as opposed to overall murder rates? The graph would look pretty similar, but a bit less exaggerated, and your point would be much stronger.
If you are going to claim that there are more deaths in the US, you can't just look at gun deaths. Someone killed by a knife is just as dead as someone killed by a gun. The US murder rate is higher than most other developed countries, but not as much higher as the gun murder rate, because we have more guns so we choose guns as a tool in a higher percentage of our murders.
Where your argument falls apart is the fact that no country has demonstrated causation between gun control and a reduction in murder rates, or on the other hand causation between loosening gun laws and increasing murder rates. In fact in the US we have seen the opposite correlation in the past 10+ years, loosening gun laws and overall murder rates and gun murder rates fell.
So your implication that loosening gun laws in france would increase murder rates is not supported by evidence. There are too many other variables at play which can explain the difference between US and French murder rates, gun laws aren't necessarily a significant factor and there is no reason to believe that they are.
Edit: and hello to the vote brigaders from GRC! Welcome to the party: https://np.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/2rw1ul/pointing_out_that_the_second_amendment_would/
-1
Where your argument falls apart is the fact that no country has demonstrated causation between gun control and a reduction in murder rates, or on the other hand causation between loosening gun laws and increasing murder rates.
Just because you are uneducated on the matter does not mean it hasn't happened.
0
The thing is, they don't view them as innocent. They're guilty.
3
One hostage taken at a warehouse- reported by French media. Hoping this ends without innocent lives being lost
11
I don't want the terrorists to die, it's to good for them. I want them to be caught and to rot for the rest of their lives. I doubt that'll happen though.
9
To kill them (especially without trial) is surely saying we are no better than them. They did something we don't like so they're executed. That also smacks in the face of the whole 'pen is mightier than the sword campaign' that's going on if the only way to 'defeat' them is to kill them.
If they have to be shot and killed to defend someone so be it but to just kill them otherwise nah. Don't let them die thinking they will now be idolised and their death is avengence for their 'god,' that they'll know at the end of it all we are all just like them taking lives for the sake of it. Let them sit in a dock given a civilised fair trial, showing them they are no different to any other criminal, then they can eventually die of old age after many mind numbing years in a high security prison knowing no one knows or cares who they are any more, they aren't dying for a cause and more importantly they'll see we are better than them we have mercy we didn't need bullets to have our revenge we just had to carry on as usual.
7
I'm good with them being captured, dead or alive.
6
And left to rot in a cell with Bacon Sheets!!!
2
You realise that this kind of ridiculous racism does nothing but fuel their cause, right?
Also, bacon really isn't the "unholy substance" you think it is.
2
Ok then they can be forced into the Parolees and Pit's program where inmates train dogs.
0
Bullshit. Kill 'em. Saves taxpayer money, sends a message.
2
If they are killed they'll become "martyrs"
9
Honestly, two more dead martyrs really isn't going to change anything.
4
The small scale attacks France Suffered after Mohammed Mera's kindergarten massacre a few years back were inspired by him. It will change things.
1
only in the eyes of the drone targets
0
If it goes on much longer I doubt they'll die by the authorities bullets anyway. They will want to die I think, don't give them what they want.
2
Capture them both alive. Then let the French secret police spend a few weeks "interrogating" them thoroughly.
1
Lock them up and throw away the key and never speak their names again. That would be the best punishment. You can't execute people who bask in the idea that martyrdom is glorious and honorable.
1
For God's sake, kill those extremists without hurting hostages and the police. God bless France.
6
Vive le Gendarmerie. Vive la Police Nationale. VIVE LA FRANCE.
7
Fuck the police
-28
So edgy, computer gangsta
19
Check his comment history. It's priceless.
6
Nothing says entitlement like this statement.
6
Problem is life isnt a videogame with friendly fire immunity.
0
[deleted]
4
I hope these two are badly maimed, but taken alive. Killing them will only fulfil their wishes of becoming martyrs. Having said that, their death would be a satisfying outcome as well.
4
This is intense. We need Sheriff John Bunnell reporting
3
The French Gendarmerie have said after this sky news article was posted that there are currently NO CASUALTIES so far. Let's all hope it ends that way too.
Edit (source heard on radio, but here too)
cairnsd 22 minutes ago
Paris prosecutor's office denies earlier reports from RTL radio that one person was killed in a shootout.
3
Shots have been fired and there are reports of a hostage being taken as French police close in on suspects linked to the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
3
"Several people are said to have been wounded at Dammartin-en-Goele, 35km (22 miles) from Paris, but officials denied reports of deaths."
I will give life and limb to see these 2 fucked up idealists flayed by Roose Bolton.
3
But I thought they didn't have gun's over there? How's this possible?I'm confused, you mean criminals can get guns? Crazy
2
Death is what they WANT. Do not give them what they want, if at all possible. Stick them in a small cell and surround them by vile, disgusting drawings of their precious Mohammad. Let them spend the rest of their lives looking at nothing else but copies of Charlie Hebdo.
2
It's up to GIGN now
2
and a strict bacon diet
-2
He (one of the suspects) then told a worker: "Get out of here, we don't kill civilians."
If that doesn't speak volumes about these two's mindsets...
I'll be glad when this is finally over. And it looks like it's nearly there. It's been a long two days of keeping track of this news from overseas, and I can only imagine how hard it's been on the people of France and their police officers.
2
[deleted]
1
[deleted]
1
BBC News (Live Coverage)
1
Every time I hear anything gun related with France I think about Spy vs Spy for some reason.
1
Watching the feed right now. As much as I hate to say it, this is really reminding me of the Boston manhunt, in the sense this feels just so surreal.
Do you have a link for a live feed in English?
Sure! http://feed.matthewkeys.net/sky-news-international/
[deleted]