French Ambassador Attacks Trump
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
I'm an individual who is pro gun, but I agree with your assessment. A very well trained individual with a very high level of situational awareness would still have had to be in a location to respond effectively, and I'm curious, would a bullet strike actually detonate the vest? That said, if one attacker of three was taken out, there might still be less death. There are many situations in the US where armed individuals have stopped potential mass murders underway, though they weren't going up against trained terrorists (at least in the stories I reviewed), and in a few of the examples, the individuals that stopped the murders underway were actually off duty, armed LE...well trained with their weapons.
Several of the Middle Eastern wars in recent history were armed by American and Russian projects. Guys like Bin Laden directly benefited from some projects. More wars and more weapons is never a good thing. Weapons manufacturers have encouraged this situation, which can occur when pure capitalism isn't controlled on some aspects. The same thing occurred with respect to cigarettes and food additives, but recent years there has been a huge crackdown in those areas as the extreme health issues started to get measured and understood.
The real solution to terrorism is a more educated world wide populace, less poverty, and less reasons for people to hate other countries. I don't think bombing or invading countries is friendly behavior, some young people hating the US or Russia at this point is perfectly understandable. It's going to take decades though to undo the damage.
You have to consider, that the attitude towards guns of many Europeans is totally different from Americans. Ie. in the Netherlands gun possession by citizens has been forbidden at least a century, so the concept of owning and carrying a gun is totally alien to the Dutch and the French, since they have similar laws. It would take years if not decades before gun ownership would reach the same levels as in the USA, if liberal gun laws were to be established.
In countries with a hunting tradition like Finland or many Eastern-European countries the situation is more similar to the States.
Last edited:
I agree with some of this. We often arm the "less radical" elements to push for regime change of "more radical leaders", which almost always creates blowback. The people we arm often flee, leaving high quality weapons behind, change sides, or just don't like us to start with for what ever reasons...a few you mentioned. Your solution has it's attributes, but I think you left out the religious aspect, which cannot be ignored. Regarding the poverty angle: perhaps a factor when dis-affected youths need a sense of purpose and sign up, but many of the radicals come from wealthy backgrounds. It is the religion that converts them for some reason.
So from what I am reading, the anti-gun forces will try to exploit this tragedy to push for more international controls on the small arms trade. Obama and Clinton already are salivating over the prospect of using an international agreement to limit small arms trade to eviscerate the Second Amendment. There are plenty of moderate republicans who would be happy to go along.
Arming citizens is basically giving everyone a part time job as a cop on the street in their every day life. It's an unrealistic ideal that reminds me of video games. And it's real life, where one mistake means death(s), and whatever rules of conduct that pro gun people think will occur go out the window fairly easily in many situations.
I agree. Completely!
The price for the western countries has been losing the battle! Losing their freedom/liberty and losing their economy! While producing many more fears and uncertainties! Without concrete and promising solutions!
Using mass killing to stop mass killing certainly is Not a proper way, according to any civilized standards. Wasting a lot of money on wars and weapons! Destroying constructions and infrastructures that are used for production of food and shelters.
Destroying their houses/homes with guns and bombs would even produce more terrorists!
Instead: We should Imagine, after 911 or else, what the bombs from the airplanes contain are food, canned fish, rice, canned meat, canned veges, etc. A lot of different books. Toys and radios and dry batteries! Seeds of plants and veges. Clean water. Camps. Preloved mobile phones. Their Bibles (Not ours) with moderate interpretation/remarks. And local currencies that can buy food and books to heal and feed the boys hungers and dreams and their parents!
Last edited:
This has turned into a competition to see who is the more idiotic. My money is on Nine-Ender, the sort of liberal who is so highly evolved, he has lost the basic human instinct for self-preservation. The other guy seems confused about the object of war. Hint: it's to kill the enemy, not mount a welfare program.