Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions

[Pickman's model]

Has one of those american rampage gunmen ever been stopped by an ordinary citizen with a gun?

i'm disappointed rampagers have never to the best of my knowledge been killed by other rampagers

 

[Pickman's model]

Perhaps 'growing up' would be more accurate. Getting there, slowly, but getting there.

i am not sure that 'there' - presumably the rapture - is worth getting to.

 

[LDC]

Has one of those american rampage gunmen ever been stopped by an ordinary citizen with a gun?

There's plenty of stories knocking about of armed 'citizens' (puke, but that's what they're usually referred to as) stopping assaults etc. through being armed, and I think I have read one story of someone stopping a possible mass shooting that way. I'll have a look and PM you if I can find the links.

 

[Sasaferrato]

tell that to the child soldiers in the lords resistance army

If you can explain how that organisation is in any way Christian, I'm more than happy to listen.

 

[Mumbles274]

There's plenty of stories knocking about of armed 'citizens' (puke, but that's what they're usually referred to as) stopping assaults etc. through being armed, and I think I have read one story of someone stopping a possible mass shooting that way. I'll have a look and PM you if I can find the links.

Really? I'm surprised

 

[dylanredefined]

i'm disappointed rampagers have never to the best of my knowledge been killed by other rampagers

Read of at least one guy pulls a gun and heads towards shooter who then shoots himself.
Someone wanting to suicide by cop is a bit different than a group of terrorists with
ak47s and suicide vests. Still all those gun carrying Americans can feel it wouldn't happen if they were around.
Probably as Daesh know a gun massacre in America wouldn't really be terrorising
would it?

 

[Sprocket.]

I remember a headline from South Africa in the eighties,
' Rioters shot dead by passing church goers!'

 

[Sasaferrato]

i am not sure that 'there' - presumably the rapture - is worth getting to.

Not the rapture, indeed I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but being a religion in tune with society, and a benign influence on society. I'm all in favour of persuasion, but not coercion.

In the last two decades, the stance of various churches has changed. Women ministers, unthinkable 50 years ago, are here. The C of E has its first woman bishop. They are a bit behind the C of S and Episcopalian's, who have had women ministers for a long time, and the C of S has already had a female Moderator (who could be very loosely equated to the Archbishop of Canterbury).

Christianity is still evolving. The attitude towards gay men, for example, is getting better. The attitude towards gay men in the priesthood is getting better. One may say that such attitude should not be getting better, because the prejudice should not have been there in the first place, and I fully agree, but it takes a wee bit of time to change something that has been the norm for centuries. The whole point is though, that attitudes are changing, Christianity is evolving, as it should. Any institution that stands in place will die, because it ceases to be relevant. I cannot think of any major major prejudice within the church that remains to be addressed. The ban on gay church marriage will fall, as will the bar on married gay clergy. It has taken the churches a long time to realise that 'God made man in his own image' encompasses all types of sexuality, and all colours of skin. We're getting there, and progress is accelerating.

 

[existentialist]

If the populace had been armed, the ensuing fire fight would have killed even more people.

The thing that the gun lobby (conveniently) forgets is that arming people isn't even half the story.

There are any number of simulations and psychological experiments that demonstrate remarkably consistent aspects of human behaviour under stress or in unfamiliar situations. If all you do is give someone a gun, all you achieve is to ensure that they will act pretty much as they would have anyway, only with a means of death in their hands - simplistically, we might think that it will make people more confident and able to decide what to do, but in practice, all you're likely to end up with is a (probably) slightly-less scared person with a gun. Which is, arguably, as much of a handicap as it is a benefit.

There's a reason that people who have to use guns to deal with conflict do an awful lot of training which isn't just about getting a shot on target - it's because they need to be able to operate in familiar situations (and it's not just combat - at least one of the hospitals in Paris had done a critical incident exercise only that morning so that the medical staff would be able to do the same).

And yes - one of the likely consequences of a tooled-up populace would have been quite a lot of people (except the ones paralysed by fear) loosing off wild shots all over the place, quite probably at more risk to their fellow civilians than the attackers.

 

[laptop]

tcsb

tfsb surement?


Or even tfss: tous flics sont salauds

 

[Sasaferrato]

I remember a headline from South Africa in the eighties,
' Rioters shot dead by passing church goers!'

Ummmm... not all those who profess to be Christian are Christian in their beliefs and actions? It is difficult. You don't always do what is right, but you should try.

 

[existentialist]

i don't think you know anything about the dark ages.

That is probably the nicest thing anyone has said to Sasaferrato in a long time

 

[Pickman's model]

tfsb surement?


Or even tfss: tous flics sont salauds

tous chiens sont batardes

or perhaps better tcss

 

[existentialist]

tous chiens sont batardes

or perhaps better tcss

 

[Pickman's model]

Not the rapture, indeed I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but being a religion in tune with society, and a benign influence on society. I'm all in favour of persuasion, but not coercion.

In the last two decades, the stance of various churches has changed. Women ministers, unthinkable 50 years ago, are here. The C of E has its first woman bishop. They are a bit behind the C of S and Episcopalian's, who have had women ministers for a long time, and the C of S has already had a female Moderator (who could be very loosely equated to the Archbishop of Canterbury).

Christianity is still evolving. The attitude towards gay men, for example, is getting better. The attitude towards gay men in the priesthood is getting better. One may say that such attitude should not be getting better, because the prejudice should not have been there in the first place, and I fully agree, but it takes a wee bit of time to change something that has been the norm for centuries. The whole point is though, that attitudes are changing, Christianity is evolving, as it should. Any institution that stands in place will die, because it ceases to be relevant. I cannot think of any major major prejudice within the church that remains to be addressed. The ban on gay church marriage will fall, as will the bar on married gay clergy. It has taken the churches a long time to realise that 'God made man in his own image' encompasses all types of sexuality, and all colours of skin. We're getting there, and progress is accelerating.

if it's taken 2000 years to get to the shit we see today i am not sure it is worth proceeding with

 

[BlackArab]

Nothing new on this point tbh, we who grew up during the Cold War will recognise this. At least we haven't got 'Protect & Survive' leaflets dropping through our letterbox...yet!

Looks like I spoke too soon..

How to survive a terror attack: Run, don't play dead

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[Sasaferrato]

The thing that the gun lobby (conveniently) forgets is that arming people isn't even half the story.

There are any number of simulations and psychological experiments that demonstrate remarkably consistent aspects of human behaviour under stress or in unfamiliar situations. If all you do is give someone a gun, all you achieve is to ensure that they will act pretty much as they would have anyway, only with a means of death in their hands - simplistically, we might think that it will make people more confident and able to decide what to do, but in practice, all you're likely to end up with is a (probably) slightly-less scared person with a gun. Which is, arguably, as much of a handicap as it is a benefit.

There's a reason that people who have to use guns to deal with conflict do an awful lot of training which isn't just about getting a shot on target - it's because they need to be able to operate in familiar situations (and it's not just combat - at least one of the hospitals in Paris had done a critical incident exercise only that morning so that the medical staff would be able to do the same).

And yes - one of the likely consequences of a tooled-up populace would have been quite a lot of people (except the ones paralysed by fear) loosing off wild shots all over the place, quite probably at more risk to their fellow civilians than the attackers.

Yep. Training on how to load, fire and clean a weapon, took up considerably less time in basic training, than the 'when you may shoot, and the consequences of getting it wrong'.

It was made absolutely clear that you were responsible for your actions, and to shoot where it was not necessary, could lead to a lifetime in prison (preceded by six months in MCTC Colchester, which would have seemed a lifetime on its own.).

 

[Sasaferrato]

That is probably the nicest thing anyone has said to Sasaferrato in a long time

 

[existentialist]

Yep. Training on how to load, fire and clean a weapon, took up considerably less time in basic training, than the 'when you may shoot, and the consequences of getting it wrong'.

It was made absolutely clear that you were responsible for your actions, and to shoot where it was not necessary, could lead to a lifetime in prison (preceded by six months in MCTC Colchester, which would have seemed a lifetime on its own.).

I'm not even talking about that - I'm talking about the psychological preparedness to a) deal with an unexpected and stressful situation, b) potentially take a human life without hesitation, deviation or repetition.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not even talking about that - I'm talking about the psychological preparedness to a) deal with an unexpected and stressful situation, b) potentially take a human life without hesitation, deviation or repetition.

it would make episodes of 'just a minute' considerably shorter

 

[Sasaferrato]

if it's taken 2000 years to get to the shit we see today i am not sure it is worth proceeding with

There has been more real progress in the last twenty years than in the preceding 1995. Trite perhaps, but you can't turn a supertanker on a tanner, it takes time.

I don't know what your personal faith is, if any, and it's none of my damn business anyway, but, as a Christian, albeit not a terribly good one at times, it does give me pleasure to see the faith evolve. I appreciate that if you are not a Christian, you may not realise how massive the progress has been in the last couple of decades.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you can explain how that organisation is in any way Christian, I'm more than happy to listen.

That's the whole point, though, isn't it? 'Christianity' or 'Islam' can be used to justify a massive range of actions. There is no true Christianity and no true Islam, and it's dangerous imo to talk as if there were, precisely because the likes of IS or the Lord's Resistance Army make exactly that kind of claim for their version. Truth is that, much of the time, the action is justified post-fact by reference to some cherry-picked bit from the favoured holy text. And the holy texts contain so much stuff that you can cherry-pick from them to justify pretty much anything you like.

 

[phildwyer]

I am aware of the wonderful things that Islam has done in the past, and had Islam continued to develop in that way, it would be a lot different today. Islamic art and literature are of high standard, or were one may say. The religion seems to be going backwards, becoming more hard line in the face of the modern world. I strongly suspect that the diatribes against Western culture are driven by fear. When people see what the rest of the world has to offer, Islam and Sharia is a poor substitute.

As far as I am aware, no other mainstream religion advocates death for anyone leaving it, and this is not in the abstract, this is happening today. I have no doubt that the initial teachings of Mohammed have to an extent been altered by his brutal successors, frightened that their young people will leave, thereby lessening their grip on society.

Islam is as much about command and control as it is the worship of Allah. The excuse given by the Sunni and Shia, when breaking the prohibition of the Koran on killing other Muslims, is that the Sunni/Shia are not 'proper' Muslims, therefore killing them doesn't count.

Give Islam a few more decades/centuries and it will be where Christianity is today. I fully accept that the path of Christianity to where it is today has been bloody, but Christianity has 'grown up', something that Islam is still in the process of doing. Christianity went through its phase of command and control perversion, but it passed.

It is foolish and ignorant to speak of "Islam" when what you mean is "Wahabbism."

 

[Pickman's model]

There has been more real progress in the last twenty years than in the preceding 1995. Trite perhaps, but you can't turn a supertanker on a tanner, it takes time.

I don't know what your personal faith is, if any, and it's none of my damn business anyway, but, as a Christian, albeit not a terribly good one at times, it does give me pleasure to see the faith evolve. I appreciate that if you are not a Christian, you may not realise how massive the progress has been in the last couple of decades.

i remember victoria climbie

and she's by no means the only one. i don't doubt there has been movement within some denominations of the xian church but i think it a bold claim - to say the least - that there's been more progress in the last 20 years than the previous 1995.

 

[phildwyer]

Has one of those american rampage gunmen ever been stopped by an ordinary citizen with a gun?

Yes, often.

12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns

 

[Teaboy]

Yes, often.

12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns

12 doesn't seem very often to me. Unless of course you mean wanks in a day.

 

[D'wards]

The good ole British tabloids have turned up a nipple shot of the female suicide bomber - excellent!

 

[phildwyer]

12 doesn't seem very often to me. Unless of course you mean wanks in a day.

That's just the first thing that comes up on Google. Do a bit of research, it happens a lot. Makes perfect sense really.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I'm not even talking about that - I'm talking about the psychological preparedness to a) deal with an unexpected and stressful situation, b) potentially take a human life without hesitation, deviation or repetition.

Oh yes, that too. If the circumstances merit it, you shoot. The closest I came to killing anyone was one of our own* in Hannover. I was cocked, safety off, aimed and just waiting for the driver to be silhouetted by an overhead light. Thank God, my mate, who had been asleep in the sentry box, recognised the car, and pushed the gun barrel away. I shook for quite a while afterwards, but at the time, was absolutely focussed on the task. There was no thought that I was about to kill another human being. If I had fired, there was no question of ever being charged with anything, but I am very glad indeed that I didn't, it would take a bit of living with. I still get pangs of conscience, over acts carried out decades ago, when I was younger and somewhat more stupid, which were many magnitudes less than killing someone.

*When we got off stag, we went up to his room, and battered him black and blue.