Since one (maybe more) of the gunmen was a French citizen, stopping the immigration of other murderous jihadis is pointless. Thanks for your insightful opinion and a good laugh.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
French getting another round of "inshallah"
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
Since one (maybe more) of the gunmen was a French citizen, stopping the immigration of other murderous jihadis is pointless. Thanks for your insightful opinion and a good laugh.
Would it matter if they were illegal, legal or even just on a tourist visa? All have been used by terrorists. And just how do they 'stop' immigration when the borders of Europe are wide open? You simplistic response is just as laughable to me.
How do they stop immigration when their borders are wide open? Are you serious? Why don't you give that a think and tell us what some solutions would be. Do you think at all before you post?
Sure, though I don't think one can argue that IS poses an existential threat to the US. A lot would have to change before that was the case, IMO.
Your example, truly not on point but I'll work with it, proves only that SOME people can be killed by a determined shooter. I never, nor has anyone here suggested, that an armed citizen would PREVENT an active shooter situation. In fact, it would be nearly impossible since in virtually all cases an armed citizen is carrying concealed and his presence would be unknown to the evil doer.
As pointed out above, in your example guns stopped the carnage. If guns were not present then more would have been killed. Why does that not translate to an armed civilian getting involved? No armed response means more dead people. Unless your armed citizen accidently shoots more people then the determined terrorist it is impossible for more to die from an amateur armed response. You want to argue that an armed citizen would not be as effective as a swat officer or infantry trained grunt, no argument. But to suggest that it is somehow a better idea to simply let people be gunned down then let an armed citizen throw a few rounds toward the bad guy so he gets his head down or diverts his attention long enough innocents can get up and escape or even rush the attacker is nonsense. The universal active shooter response by law enforcement in the USA is based on that theory. The real experts in mass shootings have determine that patrol officers making an immediate confrontation will result in fewer deaths then waiting for more highly trained officers like swat to arrive. Yes we will have cops armed only with a hand gun and maybe 30 rounds go on the attack against a long gun with more ammo. The tactic works. It has saved lives. The concept is the same when applied to an armed civilian.
If your argument is that an armed citizen is not effective because so few carry, then I am sure you will be happy to promote more armed citizens, so as to be a more likely response to the terrorist that might shoot up the mall where your family is shopping. I know I would. I'd rather take my chances with an errant bullet from a do gooder than an aimed one from a killer.
But is that the threshold, or should it be?
Are you talking about Europe as a whole or individual countries there? Because closing their borders would roll back 70 years of European integration that has helped keep the peace in a region that had just endured the most destructive war in modern history. And unless they completely shut their borders and don't let anyone in, which would be impossible as demonstrated on our borders, then some 'bad' guys are going to get in no matter what.
I don't have a solution as I have mentioned before but 'stopping immigration' isn't the answer. Perhaps a good election slogan but not practical. Unless you think Europe or France should turn itself into North Korea, they seem to have an effective immigration and emigration strategy.
You present a reasonable argument for an armed citizenry and while a good theory I think it is still impractical in practice. 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. I think the minuscule chance that an armed citizen would be able to be help defeat a determined terrorist isn't justification for more citizens to be armed. My opinion, and with so few mass shootings thwarted by armed citzens I think it is valid one.
For every competent person carrying a weapon you have plenty that aren't. Don't think so? What about the idiot that shot the sidewalk guarding a recruiting station? Or the moron who shot at the shoplifter fleeing the scene? Or the scores of folks who leave their guns unsecured so their kids have a chance to play with them? Is all that worth the 1 in whatever chance Joe Schmo will take down the next Dylann Roof or Nidal Hasan? Especially with the tens of thousands killed by guns in this country every year? I don't think so. But again, my opinion.
Ideally, all of Europe should wake up before it's too late and close their doors. If they won't, then France should act on their own to protect themselves.
I hope you felt a twinge of irony when you typed the part about their open borders preserving peace.
I also hope you realize how silly it is to use our border policy as an example of why it's impossible for Europe to secure theirs. We could absolutely secure our border, if the will was there. Instead, we have the current administration and various state and local governments actively working to thwart our own laws.
Europe will cease to exist as a free liberal society if they don't develop the backbone to turn away the waves of immigrants and "refugees". That's not a campaign slogan, it's as plain as night and day.
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. Built by East Germany in phases from 1952 to the late 1980s,[2] the fortifications were constructed to stop the large-scale emigration of East German citizens to the West, about 1,000 of whom are said to have died trying to cross it during its 45-year existence.
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.
Do you mean French borders, EU borders, or what? The people of the EU were resoundly for the Schengen Area being made.
Putting up an angry fence with guards and land mines is what North Korea does. I'd argue "Screw them, keep em out" is a overly simplistic view. You don't get the economic benefits of a global economy when you choose to close yourself off. I think you're taking the easy route of applying small scale common sense to large scale problems, and it doesn't translate.
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.
The war that spurred integration counted its casualties in the tens of millions while the current conflict counts its casualties in the hundreds in Europe. A balance many Europeans and their leaders probably keep in mind even after the events of yesterday.
Turn away hordes of migrants, trigger WWIII and the next holocaust. Got it.
Seriously though, there is no reason to think that applying some common sense to their immigration policy would lead to a rise in tensions between European countries. Right now the tension is over who will absorb more of them.