Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
On Point Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Terror and Surprise on the Paris Express
SYSOP    8/25/2015 10:11:15 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
portsidedown    Best be in a state that allows people to carry personal firearms   8/26/2015 5:40:51 AM
Mr. Bay, 
 
your piece seems to contradict the suggested criticism of the European authorities to prevent the presence of an armed person on the train in the first instance - would that not be too much further complicated by the possible presence of firearms in the possession of numerous passengers?
 
This situation was well managed because of the fortuitous circumstances which were certainly well executed by the persons involved, but were not in any way an endorsement of the widespread distribution of firearms.
 
Surely the tragic experience of the US with the numerous, unpredictable and catastrophic incidents involving privately owned firearms in the general community send a message? What is the proportion of terrorists to private citizens killed or wounded in those exchanges facilitate by access to weapons of extreme lethal capability?
 
I am Australian, a former serviceman. I live in a regional area of eastern Australia, where private gun ownership is common for all the reasons those in a rural environment are familiar with. However, we have strict gun control when it comes to handguns, full/semi-auto rifles and such. We are lucky that our society is not so dysfunctional that we have to consider such weapons a requirement of individual security, or necessary to defend our property. In fact, I keep my own rifle [sans bolt] at the local police station which provides a lockup for just that purpose, largely because our biggest cause of  casualties is suicides resulting from the personal effects long-term drought - a situation as difficult to manage as any outbreak of 'terrorism'.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Raven008       8/26/2015 8:46:46 AM
As an US national who has lived and worked in Australia, I would agree that you have a point about gun control...it has worked very well in Australia, but I would also point out that Australia is unique in this area because 1. it is a literal island and the import of weapons can be tightly regulated and 2. Australia's population is only around 23 million people, which is about the population of the state of California alone.  Your small population and geography afford you a luxury that, in my opinion, is simply unfeasible in a country the size and population of the US.
 
Quote    Reply

Rocinante3d       8/26/2015 1:03:40 PM
This is a situation that makes one weep.  This guy was identified by the authorities as a bad guy.  A lot of time and money was spent by the Spanish security forces on tracking him, his emails, his habits and most mind boggling was the fact that nothing was done to impede him.  Apparently Spanish security forces don't talk to the French.  Or maybe the French don't want to listen. 
 
 This is a situation that could have been prevented by the watchers and yet nothing was done.  What is remarkable is the guy managed to get an AK-47 and a lot of ammunition.  For a beggar it is very remarkable to get that much firepower and ammunition despite the regulations.  Makes you wonder if the regulations are selective.
 
Quote    Reply

Rocinante3d       8/26/2015 1:30:43 PM
This is a situation that makes one weep.  This guy was identified by the authorities as a bad guy.  A lot of time and money was spent by the Spanish security forces on tracking him, his emails, his habits and most mind boggling was the fact that nothing was done to impede him.  Apparently Spanish security forces don't talk to the French.  Or maybe the French don't want to listen. 
 
 This is a situation that could have been prevented by the watchers and yet nothing was done.  What is remarkable is the guy managed to get an AK-47 and a lot of ammunition.  For a beggar it is very remarkable to get that much firepower and ammunition despite the regulations.  Makes you wonder if the regulations are selective.
 
Quote    Reply

enoriverbend       8/27/2015 5:28:26 PM
portsidedown raises an excellent point.  As we have seen in the Australian experience, putting severe restrictions on firearm ownership reduces the risk of perfectly law-abiding citizens suddenly going berserk and shooting up the place, which of course rarely happened anyway. 
 
And in return, the Australians got a substantial number of citizens killed by being fried to death by arson, or stabbed to death, or clubbed to death with hammers, instead of being shot.  Isn't that so much better? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

portsidedown       8/28/2015 4:50:49 AM
Define a 'substantial number', then compare it to the Port Arthur Massacre.
 
Quote    Reply

portsidedown       8/28/2015 5:02:28 AM
I see your point; there is a problem even in Australia with the proliferation of illegal firearms that are smuggled in despite the factors that you outline so accurately. But I do think that if the effort the US devotes to immigration and narcotics control was applied to firearms, there would be a chance. Of course, the main problem you have is with a poorly interpreted constitutional amendment that will be almost impossible to change with the influence of lobby groups like the NRA and others. These folks seem to be immune to the implications of ths empirical analysis of the data that is all too obvious.
 
 
Quote    Reply

portsidedown       8/28/2015 5:11:56 AM


 






 
Define a 'substantial number', then compare it to the Port Arthur Massacre, if you've googled that.one. I think you will find that the US experiences a substantial number of  non-firearms related murders too, but you have the additional, and overwhelmingly egregious, addition of gun-inflicted deaths and woundings totally unmitigated by the possession of firearms by the 'perfectly law-abiding citizens', who, I might add, are only 'law-abiding' until they are not. 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       8/28/2015 7:50:31 AM
>who, I might add, are only 'law-abiding' until they are not.
 

That is seriously your threshold for banning and restricting an objects use?  The potential it might be used for harm?

By that standard.. lets start with the automobile.  I'm far more likely to injured or killed in my daily activities by an automobile than the 100 + million legal firearms owners in this nation.  Automobiles on yearly basis kill and injure more people than guns worldwide (include the various wars going on).  If you listen to the environmental crowd.. automobiles are killing us all..   So.. your solution is:  Only approved government officials can possess an operate them.. and only under tightly controlled models and regulation can a private individual posses one.. and god forbid operate it.
 
By that level of standard drugs of almost any kind would only be able to be dispensed and used under hospital supervision... and the list goes on..
 
The biggest individual acts of murder in mayhem in the last few decades have involved fertilizer and box cutters.. lets regulate and control those more.... someone "might" misuse them..
 
On the suicide front.. nations with gun controls that would make Australia seem as open as the U.S. have much higher suicide rates (per capita) than the U.S.. to include Japan, South Korea... and a variety of northern Euro countries..
 
In short.. blaming "object" for societal problems.. is simple minded and hardly a solution.. it's attempting to treat a symptom rather than the disease..   Not one single gun, by itself jumped into a users hands and convinced that person to do bad things with it.. (same for any other "object")  
 
Yes, of course in a society where people are "allowed" (good lord.. go live in North Korea.. the will certainly prevent the public from owning "dangerous" items..)   to have something.. whether it's cold medication or firearms.. or private automobiles.. there is going to be misuse... but maybe look at the "why" people do things.. rather than the "how"...   there will always be a work around on the "how".. the solutions are at the "why"...  My 2 cents..
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       8/29/2015 5:18:14 PM
The problem that gun control solves is not crime. It is the threat of an outraged populace which opposes tyranny. Someone needs to remember that personal arms are far more used to protect innocent life than to take innocent life as with, say, mass shootings. A local TV talk show had a guest who said that guns have no place in a civilized society. I had to chime in so I emailed that no civilized society murders 55 million babies in forty years. That stung because the show host immediately tried to lead me into saying are need to shoot up clinics which was off subject. The obvious implication of my rejoinder was that where the sanctity of life is not respected guns are indeed appropriate. And if babies were armed there would be no abortion.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics