*shrugs* looking at the vicitms of drone stikes it seems most of the time we are hitting everything and everyone except for the bad guys.
Paris attacks - ongoing
- Thread starter Atomkilla
- Start date
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
I think you mean The West attacks while trying to keep civilian casualties as low as physically possible and ISIS deliberately tries to kill as many civilians as possible while also doing as much damage as they can.
Ah, so that's why the West has hit two Doctors Without Borders hospitals in the past months, 90% of people killed by drone strikes were not their targets and the Iraq War killed about a million people.
The West generally thinks civilian casualties are perfectly acceptable as long as the attacks serve some sort of military goal. The notion that we're super careful about not hitting civilians simply isn't borne out by the number of dead civilians on the ground. Is that better than actively targeting civilians the way ISIS is doing? Yeah, sure, but the idea that we're waging some sort of near-perfect war is extremely dangerous, serving to morally absolve us of all of the very real death and destruction we're causing.
Sander, now you're really unreasonable! We are killing in the name of freedom and democracy, you have to understand that. It is totally acceptable to sacrifice the life and wealth of others for that cause! Our freedom, if not worth enough to sacrifice our own lifes for it, should be at least worth the life of people we actually don't care about and live on the other side of the globe!
Remember, you are on the internet!
Dr Fallout
Centurion
The West still kills 90% civilians then actual ISIS members, which makes more people against the West, which makes more terrorists who attack the west which leads to vengeance strikes which kills 90% civilians then actual ISIS members which makes more people against the West, which makes more terrorists who attack the west and so on.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
1: I was fixing a sentence that Sergeant Politeness was trying to convey. It's grammar made it a bit hard to understand so I thought I'd clear it up.
2: I don't talk politics, so I won't discuss it.
Sergeant Politeness
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
My post didn'r need grammar correction, Big No. My grammar IS bad but I meant what I wrote.
I knew that the drone program was fucked up, but 90% ? That's horrible.
I knew that the drone program was fucked up, but 90% ? That's horrible.
As is customary with events like this, the tragedy in Paris is now being used by certain politicians to field a new EU firearms directive which would force member nations to adopt stricter gun laws although the guns used were already illegal in nature.
The proposal contains (amongst other things) a blanket ban of:
This is masqueraded as an "anti-terror" and "anti-smuggling" bill, but if you actually read it, there's very little in it that matters. It creates a workgroup to battle smuggling (wow, impressive) and forces EU countries to increase data exchange related to intra-EU passenger flights (US-style).
Pretty much all the rest is aimed at law abiding civilians, because fighting the actual enemy is obviously too hard...
But hey, now they can tell their voters they're doing something to help, right?
The proposal contains (amongst other things) a blanket ban of:
- Semiautomatics which were converted from full auto to semi-automatic: Functionally, they are semiautomatic and not easier to convert back to full automatic than any other semi weapon. So why bother?
- Semiautomatics that -look- like full automatics: If implemented, this is a defacto ban of more than 75% of all available semiautomatic rifles and more than a few pistols. It's absurd. All Glocks would be banned because the Glock 18 exists, all CZ75 would be banned because a full auto variant exists, all AR15s would be banned because the M16/M4 exists, and so on and so forth.
- Deactivated weapons which were converted from harmless lumps of metal but were previously full automatics: The current deactivation procedures are already very far reaching, I don't see any point in this.
This is masqueraded as an "anti-terror" and "anti-smuggling" bill, but if you actually read it, there's very little in it that matters. It creates a workgroup to battle smuggling (wow, impressive) and forces EU countries to increase data exchange related to intra-EU passenger flights (US-style).
Pretty much all the rest is aimed at law abiding civilians, because fighting the actual enemy is obviously too hard...
But hey, now they can tell their voters they're doing something to help, right?
Atomic Postman
Vault Archives Overseer
No, you don't understand. If we make guns illegal, terrorists won't be able to use them. It's just logic.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
SuAside,
well guns are not my hobby so I don't really care if there were some stricter regulations put in place. I'm sure for gun hobbyists it's horrible and a great injustice and their individuality is limited and their freedoms are stifled and their mojo is quenched, etc.
Even after this incident EU is still a lot safer from gun violence and has lower homicide figures then the States so the EU-heads must be doing something right.
well guns are not my hobby so I don't really care if there were some stricter regulations put in place. I'm sure for gun hobbyists it's horrible and a great injustice and their individuality is limited and their freedoms are stifled and their mojo is quenched, etc.
Even after this incident EU is still a lot safer from gun violence and has lower homicide figures then the States so the EU-heads must be doing something right.
Last edited:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Really the thing is, it's the monkey sphere. We can see and imagine parisians, and how bad we feel about then getting hurt. But when it comes to the middle east we both don't know enough about them to feel the same way and it's been going on for so long we accept it. But really the ratio of people killed by terrorist attacks versus american led warmongering is so off the charts. A single airstrike or dronestrike can easily kill more than the parisian attacks alone. And then there's how badly america fucked up the middle east before, iraq, afghanistan. Watch 'Why we fight' by the bbc or 'No end in sight.'
The reality is in the middle east people have little to turn to, and terrorist organizations offer many things, and the west is sleeping while murder is being done in the name of their defence.
The reality is in the middle east people have little to turn to, and terrorist organizations offer many things, and the west is sleeping while murder is being done in the name of their defence.
Last edited:
Nas92
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Leave it to "European" politicians to blame and punish the victims. What's next, banning pepper sprays, and other non-lethal items that could be used to defend yourself? Why not just make it law that you have to lie down and take it as a bunch of scumbuckets brutalise you and yours and if you don't, you get to go to prison and apologise to the poor criminals? Wait a minute, that already happens Europe-wide, prolly every fucking day.
Yeah, but gun laws to fight terrorism? That seems a bit of an overaction. I have the feeling that certain ... groups, just see the oportunity here to push their agenda trough, what ever if it helps the situation or not. And I guess that's pretty much SuAs point, which I share, at least the way he explained it here.
I don't mind regulations and laws if they actually help. But baning weapons that actually are not even used in said terrorist attacks? What's that going to help here? Doesn't make much sense to me. It seems this is exactly the kind of reaction that we should avoid after such incidents, making decisions out of fear.
As far as I am aware the weapons they used ARE already illegal - automatic fire arms for example. It simply seems, in my opinion ,like someone trying to ban alcohol to combat heroin. Or something like that. As said, if I can take SuAs word for it. But I have no reason to doubt him.
I feel, at least for Germany, our gun laws are already strict enough and they get the job done, and I guess the same is true for many European nations. No reason to tighten them even more. At least not with this incident, as I fail to see the conection really. You will neither stop this particular kind of terrorists/attackers of getting their weapons - they ARE already illegal I think, nor will it prevent their attacks.
In this particular situation, tighter laws will actually solve absolutely nothing. This has been shown countless of times by the way how nations like Spain, Britain, Germany and many more have dealt with terrorist attacks in the past. Radicalisation as answer to fanatics rarely if ever leads to any success. All it does is actually leading to more extreme and questionable measures and actions by both sides.
Last edited:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/17/3722968/nra-texas-rep-no-syrians-gun-access/
I am slightly amused.
I am slightly amused.
I giggled :]
Sergeant Politeness
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
What the...
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Crni Vuk,
I don't think it's as simple as you say in regards to alcohol and heroin. If they put in place new legislation for certain gun types, this will free the law enforcement to do checks on stores of guns that might potentially have some full auto/assault rifle - type weapons as well in them. Now the law enforcement has to ignore a lot of gun stores and the full auto - type weapons go unnoticed to their shady customers.
Again, I'm not an expert on this subject nor do I work in high levels of law enforcement but this is the view I have of the situation. EU isn't a bad place to live in on this planet. There are many many worse places, even after this individual attack. I'm sure there are a lot of responsible gun folks out there like SuAside, just that sometimes the hands of the law enforcement are tied because of legislation and then stuff like this incident happens.
Hassknecht,
Funny stuff.
I don't think it's as simple as you say in regards to alcohol and heroin. If they put in place new legislation for certain gun types, this will free the law enforcement to do checks on stores of guns that might potentially have some full auto/assault rifle - type weapons as well in them. Now the law enforcement has to ignore a lot of gun stores and the full auto - type weapons go unnoticed to their shady customers.
Again, I'm not an expert on this subject nor do I work in high levels of law enforcement but this is the view I have of the situation. EU isn't a bad place to live in on this planet. There are many many worse places, even after this individual attack. I'm sure there are a lot of responsible gun folks out there like SuAside, just that sometimes the hands of the law enforcement are tied because of legislation and then stuff like this incident happens.
Hassknecht,
Funny stuff.
You should care, because the same nanny state bullshit can happen to you.
That may very well be, but the matter is already very strictly regulated, and said additional regulations would do nothing to combat terrorism. So why support those measures? The only reason would be because you don't like guns in general and want to abuse this opportunity for political gain.
That's already the case in many EU countries. Belgium for instance bans pepper spray, tasers and so on from civilian use. They are considered illegal weapons.
Euhm, what?
You do realise that checking if a weapon is full auto or not is the matter of putting the selector in the right position, pressing the trigger (keeping it pressed down) and working the bolt twice. If the hammer falls twice, it's a full auto. If it only falls once, it's a semi. That's a very complicated test.
Gun stores are not "ignored" they are extremely regulated and are often checked by police. Gun stores are also allowed to have full auto weapons, because they can have them converted to semiauto, or even sell them as full auto to the police forces.
As for shady customers, do you really think they get their weapons through legitimate gun stores?
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Maybe I didn't use the right word, I didn't only mean gun stores where they sell guns but also all types of shipments of guns, gun storages and other places where guns are stored. Also if there is additional legislation to target certain types of weapons it would mean more funds and means to target the trade and trafficking of all illegal weapons. So IMO it's not as simple as "this is bad legislation", one has to look at the whole picture.
But like I said above, I'm not an expert in this field. However if gun fans get to have an opinion on this matter, so do I. My actual wish is that there was less violence, gun violence included, in EU and in Europe.