Charlie Hebdo

[BraveUlysses]

farbin i think you need a pair of deez






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

[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.

[slaterd]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

Absolutely agree. Canada's long gun registry was a direct result of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre where a guy with a mini-14 went on a rampage, it was a flinch decisions to appease the terrified public.

[frankenbeemer]

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.

It doesn't appear your conclusions are shared by the TTAG website. They state:

"The main takeaway: seven out of the nine armed defenders got hits on one of the terrorists. There may have been one defender who managed both terrorists. Which means . . .
If you define success as two dead terrorists, the scenario we devised – one armed defender with a semi-automatic pistol facing two terrorists armed with rifles in an office environment – it didn’t happen. If you define success as making the terrorists pay for their attack, it was a partial success in two out of nine simulations. In one case, the armed defender’s actions enabled a successful retreat for the defensive shooter and some of the intended victims.

I caution anyone reading this to wait for the complete results, which will include the full protocol, all the significant variables and Nick’s better-informed, expert interpretation of the results."

[mrsleeve]

^
That ethos does not fit in darrin's world view so is not a valid analysis or positive outcome.

[E30 Wagen]

Man, I'm getting kind of nervous for an outright war between the Islamic states and Europe. Think it could happen? I haven't been following politics at all so sorry if it's a dumb question.

[sumoashe]

Love how people will see the results off a test like that and still proclaim "If I was there it'd be different". Or just generally debate the results based solely on their ego. Another great example of how reality and perception rarely intersect in this county.