Charlie Hebdo

[mrsleeve]

^ I would have 360 no-scoped both of them and then carried all the women to safety.

Pistols are for defending against personal threats, not for staging a counter offensive against multiple rifle wielding foes. Freak incidences such as these should not be the fuel for slackening gun regulations.

By the same argument, nor should they be the incidents used as the justification for which the laws are strengthened either................

[cale]

^ I would have 360 no-scoped both of them and then carried all the women to safety.

Pistols are for defending against personal threats, not for staging a counter offensive against multiple rifle wielding foes. Freak incidences such as these should not be the fuel for slackening gun regulations.

[z31maniac]

And therein is the repeated concept of dying on feet as opposed to living on knees, regardless of their tool being a pencil or a gun.

Or talking big for the camera like most do behind the keyboard. ;D

[Farbin Kaiber]

I like the guy that, even though he was killed in a sim where he knew what was coming, said in real life he would still "advance on the threat."

lulz

And therein is the repeated concept of dying on feet as opposed to living on knees, regardless of their tool being a pencil or a gun.

[z31maniac]

I like the guy that, even though he was killed in a sim where he knew what was coming, said in real life he would still "advance on the threat."

lulz

[CorvallisBMW]

So this is interesting: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/01/13/g...aris-massacre/

On Tuesday members of a gun-rights group called "The Truth About Guns" re-created the Charlie Hebdo massacre but with 1 key difference: an armed civilian in the Hebdo office. They ran 12 varying simulations throughout the day with various participants playing the role of the armed civilian. In every single simulation, the armed civilian was killed (save for the one where she ran away) and the gunmen completed their objective.

Think about that. Everyone in this simulation knew exactly what was coming for them. They knew how many people there were, when to expect them, what door they were entering from... they had perfect hindsight, and yet were still completely unable to stop the shooters from succeeding.

Hopefully this lays to rest the ridiculous fantasy that armed civilians are in some way capable of stopping things like this. These were gun-rights nuts, all well-trained and well-armed, with 100% knowledge and foresight in to exactly what was coming for them, and they were still killed outright. The idea that someone with zero knowledge of what's about to happen is somehow going to do better than this perfectly controlled reenactment would be laughable if it wasn't so impossible.

[slaterd]

This is why a lot of people have some kind of hatred towards Muslim populations in Europe.

http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-vows-thwart-mohammed-insults-105534042.html

They don't understand that others outside of Muslim and Islam don't have to abide by their rules and laws, however, they try to force it in a political environment when it shouldn't. The UN gives amnesty to countries from either being sued or facing some kind of retaliation by another country if the action form the "offending country" is legal there. They need to grow the fuck up and deal with it. This "religion" is a joke and has no place in today's modern world. I personally think that the petition going on in Britain is a good idea. Peaceful Muslim or not, the 15-20% of the total 1billion+ Muslim population has been determined by special intelligence agencies to hold some kind of radical viewpoints. This is 150-250 million people!!! It doesn't take that many people to cause destruction. In Nazi Germany, WWII Japan, USSR, 9/11, etc, etc, etc...the majority of the population was considered peaceful and did not want to be affiliated with these groups. Even with that said, however, it did not matter that the majority was "peaceful". The world needs to stop being so damn politically correct and afraid to say what this is. The Muslim and Islam religion does not evolve with the world. It still holds its barbaric, ancient designs and any of those who offend it should, according to them, be killed. It is NOT a peaceful religion. It is barbaric and countries should have the right to ban this religion from being practiced in their country.

Any who oppose I would love to hear your side.

[slaterd]

Please tell me that's sarcasm...the internet doesn't do it very well.

[Hooffenstein HD]

First, from the early 1930's to 1945, Hitler's Germany exterminated 6 million Jews and killed about 9 million Christians.

Zionist propaganda.

[BraveUlysses]

farbin i think you need a pair of deez






https://www.kickstarter.com/projects.../atheist-shoes

[Farbin Kaiber]

smooth has been removed from your Ignore List

But serious, I don't use the feature. As I stared down the block of text, I prepared for a smooth post and was surprised. Now I need to go back and rethink everything.

[smooth]

Just because something was NOT done in the name of a particular religion does not mean that it WAS done in the name of Atheism (i.e. I did NOT have an orange for lunch today, but that doesn't mean that I DID have an apple). If you can't understand why that is, you're pretty hopeless.

Atheism is not an ideological movement so asking if things have been done "in the name of" atheism is bizarre, at best.

Plenty of atheists have done monstrous deeds throughout history and often done it to religious folk on the basis of them being believers. Similarly, just because a religious person ends up slaughtering one or many people does not automatically mean that the person is doing so in the name of his or her religion.

Add to that the reality that religious based wars are ideologically driven, not religious driven, and more often than not fought against other ideologues *and* the simple fact that the amount of militant religious folks are orders of magnitude less than just normal, everyday believing folks, and the setup of this question that you've asked becomes nonsensical.


As for the pragmatics: no I haven't had any self-identified atheists place a leaflet on my door. I believe I've had one or two home visits from religious youngsters and possibly a leaflet or two on my car or door--so infrequently that I can't really remember and can't conceive of why it would bother someone. Certainly can't conceive of why it would make an atheist buddy of mine purposely let his dog shit on the local church lawn near his house.

I've also had to suffer far more over the top discussions from atheists than religious folk and in the end of the day, except for the most vicious right wing types that couch a whole lot of angst and hatred in religious terms, I'd much rather be stranded on an island with some sunday goers than atheists.

[CorvallisBMW]

Well, I'm in the middle of a meeting, maybe you could wait to drop by until after I'm done?

Too soon?

If I have to drive all the way to Idaho I'm going to give you more than a pamphlet

[Farbin Kaiber]

Well, I'm in the middle of a meeting, maybe you could wait to drop by until after I'm done?

















Too soon?

[decay]

You see, I left it at the bottom after real stuff as a joke. I know it's a satire. At least I know people are checking my links.

i'm very offended and will be at your house with an ak47 shortly.

(and correction: you know *i'm* checking your links.)