French getting another round of "inshallah"

[villanelle]

Where's that link? I've love to read the study and how the questions were worded.

 

[Spekkio]

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Page 53.

Also, 1 in 3 young Muslim Americans have a favorable view of Al Qaeda (I count 'don't know/won't answer' as a notch for the favorable side and fear of government repercussions).

 

[Flash]

Well, since preliminary reports indicate that most (maybe all) of these terrorists were from Syria, and at least two of them entered Europe as "refugees", it's pretty clear that they weren't scrutinized enough. They should have been turned away along with all the rest of the "refugees".

At least one was a French national.

As for the armed citizens thing, you apparently like playing the "what if" game. There are many cases of armed citizens stopping violent criminals. Your claim that there's no way of knowing whether armed citizens could help is simply idiotic. Then you throw in something nobody claimed about doing better than police. As for the green on blue stuff, who do you think stopped those attacks? How do you think they would have gone against unarmed victims? Why do I feel like I am explaining something to a child?

Because armed citizens in this country stop terrorists with automatic weapons and bombs strapped to them. As for having to explain it, you aren't doing a very good job of it in in an adult fashion.

Can we say that a majority of the green on blue attackers (> 50%?) are killed once they start attacking. How are these attackers dying? A wag of a finger and a stern look? I agree that a bunch of people who are armed get killed by attackers, but you can't stop with the logic there. You have to take it one step further and also say that the attacker is often stopped and additional people are NOT killed because people are armed (ie, they're shot).

Part of my point was that almost every single person targeted in those attacks was armed and so was almost every single 'bystander', it is very doubtful that any more than a handful of bystanders would be armed in any attack scenario here.

True. But there's also some anecdotal evidence that shows armed citizens can do exactly what Wink was saying...disrupt the attackers plan. The recent NOSC attack is a perfect example, even if one or both of the "Blue" shooters never hit their target.

Again, trained personnel and not 'average' bystanders.

Given where you live, I understand why you may say that. In other parts of the country, I think you'd be surprised. Again, anecdotal, but I always find it interesting that even "domestic attackers" (so we don't use the "T" word) who start shooting in the south or the west pick soft targets that are some form of a gun-free zone. In the case of the NOSC shooting, it turned out (allegedly) that people weren't following the rules (in a good way).

I haven't always lived here and even in Texas I only knew a few folks who carried regularly. You own view might be skewed by who you associate with, professional military personnel and former ones.

As for 'soft targets' of course they are going to target those, body counts matter.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Just how many terror attacks have been stopped by armed citizens? Less than those stopped by unarmed Americans recently. And why are you so sure armed citizens would do any better than professional soldiers or police? Like those that have been killed by 'green on blue' attacks or by bank robbers armed to the teeth with automatic weapons? It largely remains a fantasy unproven in real life.

Unfortunately, we will find out sooner or later here in the US. Like Mumbai, this will become the modus operandi for terrorism.

 

[Flash]

Unfortunately, we will find out sooner or later here in the US. Like Mumbai, this will become the modus operandi for terrorism.

This has been a feared scenario for many years, Tom Clancy even has a similar scenario in one of his pre-9/11 books (just like he had an airliner used as a suicide weapon, the guy wasn't dumb). But as I mentioned before the buffer of the two oceans has at least given us breathing room that Europe doesn't have.

 

[jmcquate]

Islam..............the elephant in the room.

 

[villanelle]

Isn't there room for some changes to our gun control laws, without making it so no one is ever carrying? I generally believe in allowing people who haven't shown themselves to be irresponsible assholes to own guns. Lots of guns if they want, and large guns. (Husband and I had a roommate for a while who owned a 50 cal, along with probably 20 other firearms, at least.) We can still allow that while making sure that every gun that is purchased is sold only after a confirmation that the owner is allowed to own. We can hold people responsible if their guns are not secured and are then used in crimes. We can require people who want to carry a weapon in Walmart to spend a few hours taking a class. These things do not prevent people from owning or carrying, but I do think they'd make us all a bit safer. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and in fact I think most people in favor of tightening gun laws don't want All (or would that be Nothing?). Our "militia" can still be well-armed if a few more safeguards are put in place.

 

[Recovering LSO]

@villanelle don't go trying to inject reason and maturity into the so-called gun debate

 

[jmcquate]

Where's that link? I've love to read the study and how the questions were worded.

Anything from Pew is solid villanelle, they have no skin in the game. In fact, they lean left, but hide it very well.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

At least one was a French national.

Well then that changes everything, right? Of course not, it's just you grasping at straws like you have been this whole thread.

Because armed citizens in this country stop terrorists with automatic weapons and bombs strapped to them. As for having to explain it, you aren't doing a very good job of it in in an adult fashion.

What are you even trying to argue? That it's impossible for an armed citizen to stop a terrorist? It's not. It is absoulutely possible and soft targets are chosen for a reason. You look like a buffoon arguing otherwise.

The green on blue example is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum, and I've read some whoppers. People that are armed can be victims of an ambush? Shocking. When was the last time you heard of a green on blue attack that killed almost 100 people in one sitting, like at the concert in France? Oh yeah, that doesn't happen because there are people with guns in a green on blue scenario. You said I'm not doing a good job of explaining it, so I am trying harder. Do I need to draw you a picture?

 

[Brett327]

Islam..............the elephant in the room.

I'm honestly interested in how folks would crack that nut. How do you operationalize "Islam bad." I'm not being flip, as I'm curious what kinds of policies would emerge from that kind of mindset.

If our government were to decide to take that leap, are we going to parse the Muslim world into good and bad, or are we comfortable (for the sake of security) with throwing the Islamic baby out with the Jihadist bathwater? Do we take the same approach that we did with the Japanese-Americans during WWII, or something less stringent. What would be considered legal under current statutes and what would require something akin to PATRIOT Act part II to facilitate?

I'm sure I've just scratched the surface here, but for those of you who think we should go there - or at least move closer to that, I'd love to hear your ideas on what that would look like.

 

[jmcquate]

Like I said Brett "the elephant in the room". All of your questions are valid, and I agree with your points. But it's there and it's real, and it's at the core of the problem. I have no idea how the west should address it, and I don't think anyone else does either.

 

[Flash]

Well then that changes everything, right? Of course not, it's just you grasping at straws like you have been this whole thread.

Just the facts, sorry all of them don't fit your narrative.

What are you even trying to argue? That it's impossible for an armed citizen to stop a terrorist? It's not. It is absoulutely possible and soft targets are chosen for a reason. You look like a buffoon arguing otherwise.

It's also possible I win the lottery tomorrow, I just don't think it is likely.

The green on blue example is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum, and I've read some whoppers. People that are armed can be victims of an ambush? Shocking. When was the last time you heard of a green on blue attack that killed almost 100 people in one sitting, like at the concert in France? Oh yeah, that doesn't happen because there are people with guns in a green on blue scenario. You said I'm not doing a good job of explaining it, so I am trying harder. Do I need to draw you a picture?

I think the examples are very germane to the argument, if significant casualties can result from a single shooter surrounded by armed personnel how is a single citizen going to fare against several terrorists armed to the teeth? I doubt very well.

As for the picture, I've got plenty of stick drawings from my kids.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I think a starting point is convincing (coercing) the peaceful imams at mosques and madrassas across the west to take some ownership and begin exerting their own pressure. Look at the stats from the aforementioned survey:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Page 53.

Also, 1 in 3 young Muslim Americans have a favorable view of Al Qaeda (I count 'don't know/won't answer' as a notch for the favorable side and fear of government repercussions).

Who addresses that? Big bad marauding white Christian men? Nope. Somehow, someway, sometime all the peaceful Muslims that show up on TV after something like this have got to take a stand and push back in defense of their faith. And, I don't mean push back against western non-muslims....

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I'm honestly interested in how folks would crack that nut. How do you operationalize "Islam bad." I'm not being flip, as I'm curious what kinds of policies would emerge from that kind of mindset.

If our government were to decide to take that leap, are we going to parse the Muslim world into good and bad, or are we comfortable (for the sake of security) with throwing the Islamic baby out with the Jihadist bathwater? Do we take the same approach that we did with the Japanese-Americans during WWII, or something less stringent. What would be considered legal under current statutes and what would require something akin to PATRIOT Act part II to facilitate?

I'm sure I've just scratched the surface here, but for those of you who think we should go there - or at least move closer to that, I'd love to hear your ideas on what that would look like.

It's a tough thing to discuss because it's ugly and against what we say we stand for. However, jihadists aren't the only problem. Islam itself is incompatible with western society. I don't think there's a need or justification for doing something like we did to Japanese here during WWII. I do think that preventing people from specific countries from coming here makes sense and doesn't violate the rights of our citizens.