French getting another round of "inshallah"

[Flash]

Cold War? the inter-German wall? 866 miles from the Baltic to Czechoslovakia? On the eastern side, it was made one of the world's most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed GDR guards....

Is this a solution you are proposing or just a history lesson? I don't think anyone in Western Europe has the stomach for that anymore.

Europe is unraveling. The Schengen Treaty is moving into history as razor wires go up - again. Germany and Sweden welcome millions into their countries - and when the greatly underestimate the numbers, they try and force other countries to take migrants. Leaders are at each other's throats - Hungarian President Orban bluntly states that massive immigration is simply a way for the left to get more votes. http://news.yahoo.com/hungarys-orban-suspects-left-wing-plot-migrant-crisis-102909260.html The Far Right is on the rise from Poland to France to the UK - which may very well leave. Russia is waiting to expand and regain its buffer states, probably starting with a move into the Baltics once the EU splits. We are living in historic times.

Not sure where to even begin but Europe is far from 'unraveling'. And Russia, they bit off more they can chew in Crimea and Ukraine so I am not sure they would want to add the Baltics to that list of woes, especially with the whole NATO Article 5 thing too.

 

[Spekkio]

I think there's a lot of broad generalization going on, especially when people start discussion "European immigration policy." Europe is a continent with over a dozen countries who each have unique policies toward immigration and their own socio-economic issues.

I also don't think there's a single person in this thread who has the knowledge of France's history and modern demographic trends to make an educated argument whether or not France needs to alter its immigration policy.

When it comes to the U.S., drawing parallels to Islamic immigrants and Hispanic immigrants is silly. The challenges facing the U.S. from mass immigration from Latin America are how to get public schools to support a significant population of children who didn't learn to speak English and dealing with gang violence that resonates from the cartels, particularly when selling drugs pays better than picking strawberries. But the vast majority of Latin American immigrants come to America willing to work and make a better life for their families.

The challenges facing the U.S. from immigration of Muslims is how to assimilate someone with a culture that still believes it's okay to violently oppress people of different faiths, including raping their wives. Thankfully they are such a miniscule minority that it's not a national issue.

Having said all that, on a personal level I would love the day a nation had the balls to go Medieval Japan on ISIL.

 

[SynixMan]

So you asked the exact same thing that flash asked, and I answeed two posts up. You even included the North Korea strawman. Nicely done.

It's weird that different people came to a similar conclusion on your broad generalization of European immigration policies.

Again, I think you're being overly simplistic. Just because a strategy of securing your personal compound against Islam makes sense, doesn't mean it coorelates to a larger strategy for a nation or, hell, a fucking continent.

 

[Recovering LSO]

This. This will end up becoming a deciding factor in the minds of a lot of voters. And, those voters aren't all dumb, uninformed rednecks who "don't get it."

 

[picklesuit]

This. This will end up becoming a deciding factor in the minds of a lot of voters. And, those voters aren't all dumb, uninformed rednecks who "don't get it."

Hey!
I resemble that remark!

 

[wink]

A big part of the reason a rapid response by police officers has likely been effective is their constant training and mindset, something that the average citizen, including armed ones, don't have.

.

Consider the 25%. In training cops miss only 25% of their shots. In actual deadly force shootings just 25% of law enforcement shots hit their target. And that at a range of 10-20 feet. In all law enforcement shootings approximately 25% of the time an innocent bystander is shot. Few cops are actually gun guys. They carry a gun because it is simply a required tool. Most citizens that carry are gun guys and take the responsibility seriously. I would put up the accuracy of civilian gun use up against cops any day. It could not be worse and possibly better.

 

[Spekkio]

Consider the 25%. In training cops miss only 25% of their shots. In actual deadly force shootings 25% of law enforcement shots hit their target. And that at a range of 10-20 feet. In all law enforcement shootings approximately 25% of the time an innocent bystander is shot. Few cops are actually gun guys. They carry a gun because it is simply a required tool. Most citizens that carry are gun guys and take the responsibility seriously. I would put up the accuracy of civilian gun use up against cops any day. It could not be worse and possibly better.

I second this. My dad (corrections officer) and brother (cop) shoot their guns twice a year to qualify. That's it.

 

[wink]

Props to your pops. Corrections is a tough gig. Really didn't care for the few days I have worked in a jail.

 

[Spekkio]

He's counting down the days until retirement but it put food on the table a hell of a lot more consistently than doing roofs and kitchen remodeling.

 

[Flash]

Consider the 25%. In training cops miss only 25% of their shots. In actual deadly force shootings just 25% of law enforcement shots hit their target. And that at a range of 10-20 feet. In all law enforcement shootings approximately 25% of the time an innocent bystander is shot. Few cops are actually gun guys. They carry a gun because it is simply a required tool. Most citizens that carry are gun guys and take the responsibility seriously. I would put up the accuracy of civilian gun use up against cops any day. It could not be worse and possibly better.

I will repeat with what I responded to Gator earlier, the folks you know are gun guys but that does not mean most folks who carry are the same way. I have known a few folks who carry and some have much less training or practice than your cop who goes to the gun range twice a year. I also know a few cops who regularly are required to do far more than go to the range periodically, to include realistic training to respond to a variety of situations to include mass shootings.

So all things still considered I still trust your average cop who is required to have a minimum of training, and most periodic recertification, over Joe Schmo who is often required little to no training of uneven quality before getting a concealed carry permit.

 

[villanelle]

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

Maturity? Did you just call me old?!?!!?!

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

I generally respect Pew. I just wanted to see the question. Even after reading through the document, I'm not sure how I feel about the results, or how to interpret the responses.. If someone asked most Americans, "Do you agree with the use of terrorism if America is under attack?" I don't know that we wouldn't see similar numbers, but I am not sure that means the respondents are generally violent or extremists.

Admittedly, my narratives are being pretty significantly challenged and I'm perhaps not in the best place to be evaluating these things with much detachment. But I don't know that those numbers are quite as scary as they might first appear to be.

 

[Brett327]

But is that the threshold, or should it be?

That seemed to be implied in your original posting about the constitution, but in practical terms, there's a balance to be struck. Just like when PATRIOT Act was being debated, some think it went too far, others no far enough. I'm just trying to get a sense of what people are thinking, because the "Islam=bad" crowd is potentially advocating for some pretty radical things that may not square legally or morally with a lot of people, and I'm wondering how that gets reconciled.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Oh c'mon.... I'm sure we'll get it right. We've got out best people on the job...Wait. What's that Homeland Security Chairman? Hmmm, ok. Hey, FBI and NCTC - what do you think? We can vet all these folks right? Ahhh, here we go, finally, somebody who thinks it's all much ado about nothing...

Just another refugee, nothing to see here...

 

[nittany03]

The challenges facing the U.S. from immigration of Muslims is how to assimilate someone with a culture that still believes it's okay to violently oppress people of different faiths, including raping their wives. Thankfully they are such a miniscule minority that it's not a national issue.

You do realize that not all Muslims believe that that's an OK thing to do, right? And that no one person or group has a monopoly on interpreting Islamic law? And that some Muslims are very devout, while others might enjoy the occasional beer or bacon cheeseburger? Because they're mostly just imperfect people like you or me?

 

[jmcquate]

That seemed to be implied in your original posting about the constitution, but in practical terms, there's a balance to be struck. Just like when PATRIOT Act was being debated, some think it went too far, others no far enough. I'm just trying to get a sense of what people are thinking, because the "Islam=bad" crowd is potentially advocating for some pretty radical things that may not square legally or morally with a lot of people, and I'm wondering how that gets reconciled.

The Liberty vs Security debate is as old as the country. And you're right, it is a difficult and important issue. I think that we've handled temporary suspensions of Constitutional protections quite well in that they have been "temporary". This threat, however, is troubling in that it doesn't seem to be ending anytime soon, thus enabling any suspension of Constitutional protections to become the new normal. In other words Brett.........I haven't the slightest fucking idea about what should be done.