Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gun owners show what would have happened if Charlie Hebdo workers had been armed

Gun owners show what would have happened if Charlie Hebdo workers had been armed
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 02:54 PM
 
Spolier alert: It doesn't go any better.
Gun Owners Participate In Simulation Of Paris Massacre « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
A group called The Truth About Guns organized a simulation of last week’s terrorist attack in Paris. They hoped to learn how things may have played out differently at Charlie Hebdo, or any other mass shooting.

“It’s the one people are Monday morning quarterbacking at the moment,” said group member Nick Leghorn. “It’s interesting to see how people react under stress. It’s not what you’d expect people do.”

Volunteers took turns on a set designed to look like the offices of the French satirical weekly magazine. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, volunteers played the role of armed civilian.

“He started shooting – and I started shooting,” said volunteer Linda Cruz.

Time and time again, the armed civilian “dies” – shot by a round that marks him or her with paint.

In only two cases volunteers were able to take out one of two gunmen in the process.

“Still got killed but did better than I thought I would,” said father of four, Parks Matthew. He was curious to see what protective instincts may kick in.

“If I’m in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do? I know now I’m not gonna just fall on my kids and protect them, I need to advance on the threat,” said Matthew.

Twelve volunteers participated in the exercise. Only one survived after running away. No one was able to take out both shooters.
Remember these people were expecting the terrorists.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 03:01 PM
 
Still a better outcome than what happened.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 03:02 PM
 
What if they had legs too?
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Remember these people were expecting the terrorists.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking is right - this "experiment" is of absolutely no value beyond anecdotal, and maybe a bit of fun for the volunteers.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jan 15, 2015 at 04:00 PM. Reason: Edit: Answered my own question)
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 04:15 PM
 
They don't mention if there are any changes in the total number of fatalities. And they don't run it with an increasing number of armed civilians.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 04:21 PM
 
I had been waiting for "if only they'd been armed" cries. This is as close to that as I've heard so far.

An interesting experiment given the outcome of their tests.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
They don't mention if there are any changes in the total number of fatalities. And they don't run it with an increasing number of armed civilians.
It says one survived by running away.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I had been waiting for "if only they'd been armed" cries. This is as close to that as I've heard so far.

An interesting experiment given the outcome of their tests.
This makes no sense, it's France. It's their country, if they don't want their citizenry to lawfully keep and bear firearms, that's their business. *shrug*
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I had been waiting for "if only they'd been armed" cries. This is as close to that as I've heard so far.

An interesting experiment given the outcome of their tests.
Experiment is the wrong word. This was a simulation.

The simulation also specifies "gun-owners" and not "concealed carry permit holders." There is a level of safety and training required for the latter that is absent the former. Aside from the headline, there is nothing in the article that specifies that the participants were actually gun-owners, and I'm skeptical that the word "gun-owner" was shoved in there as clickbait.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jan 15, 2015 at 06:22 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Remember these people were expecting the terrorists.
The terrorists were also expecting exactly one armed civilian.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 06:15 PM
 
More info on the simulation. The CBS article is severely lacking in context, and omits several "positive" consequences.

TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: Preliminary Results - The Truth About Guns
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The simulation also specifies "gun-owners" and not "concealed carry permit holders." There is a level of safety and training required for the latter that is absent the former. Aside from the headline, there is nothing in the article that specifies that the participants were actually gun-owners, and I'm skeptical that the word "gun-owner" was shoved in there as clickbait.
No where is the source does it specify the volunteers were gun owners, I am wondering where CBS got the headline.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
This makes no sense, it's France. It's their country, if they don't want their citizenry to lawfully keep and bear firearms, that's their business. *shrug*
So Americans are forbidden to comment?

Because I think that is happening in this thread.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 09:35 PM
 
The test was conducted by gun enthusiasts, their terrorists were highly trained. Its clearly worded to draw attention but it seems a safe bet that technically they are correct and that at least a couple of gun owners participated in the tests in some capacity.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The test was conducted by gun enthusiasts, their terrorists were highly trained. Its clearly worded to draw attention but it seems a safe bet that technically they are correct and that at least a couple of gun owners participated in the tests in some capacity.
A bit different than a lone gunman in a restraunt or school. We've had lone nut jobs stopped by off duty cops and other armed citizens.
45/47
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2015, 10:15 PM
 
indeed, this test was the opposite of the usual and perhaps the opposite of what one might expect in this scenario too.
I can't imagine those two gunmen were particularly good as gunmen go. I never heard anything about them having combat experience and lets face it: smart people don't do that sort of thing as a rule, they find dumb people to do it for them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 01:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So Americans are forbidden to comment?

Because I think that is happening in this thread.
They don't have guns, as a general rule, good on them. Of course you're fishing for ridicule, but I don't have any, it's what they've chosen for themselves.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They don't have guns, as a general rule, good on them. Of course you're fishing for ridicule, but I don't have any, it's what they've chosen for themselves.
I'm not fishing for anything. I said I was expecting to see comment somewhere from a pro-gun American saying "If the victims had been armed it wouldn't have been a problem."

Regardless of whether you or I agree with that statement or not, surely you see that there are plenty of people around who are likely to say it? Why would it be ridiculous to expect to hear that? Someone says it every time there is a mass shooting in the US, usually within 48 hours. It should be an even more obvious thing to say about a country where carrying guns is not a choice.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 05:47 AM
 
Maybe try an NRA forum? While I will say that they would probably be alive if they'd hired a couple of extra armed guards (I believe they had one, and he was armed with a handgun), if for no other reason than to act as a deterrent (would have been smart considering the number of threats they regularly received), I won't beat them up for not being armed themselves. That takes a willfulness to act that many people there apparently do not possess, it isn't in them. You can't simply arm regular folks with no training and expect them to be a proper defense against terrorists with assault rifles. Most likely they'd forget they even have guns (not uncommon for untrained people in those situations). In the US decent inexpensive training for civilians is widely available, as are the guns and ammo, not to mention a higher percentage are former military.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Maybe try an NRA forum? While I will say that they would probably be alive if they'd hired a couple of extra armed guards (I believe they had one, and he was armed with a handgun), if for no other reason than to act as a deterrent (would have been smart considering the number of threats they regularly received), I won't beat them up for not being armed themselves. That takes a willfulness to act that many people there apparently do not possess, it isn't in them. You can't simply arm regular folks with no training and expect them to be a proper defense against terrorists with assault rifles. Most likely they'd forget they even have guns (not uncommon for untrained people in those situations). In the US decent inexpensive training for civilians is widely available, as are the guns and ammo, not to mention a higher percentage are former military.

Like I said, big difference between the Hebdo attack and Virginia Tech. One involves trained Jihadists, the other a student off his meds. The one that would not have mattered is the Charles Whitman case..
45/47
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not fishing for anything. I said I was expecting to see comment somewhere from a pro-gun American saying "If the victims had been armed it wouldn't have been a problem."

Regardless of whether you or I agree with that statement or not, surely you see that there are plenty of people around who are likely to say it? Why would it be ridiculous to expect to hear that? Someone says it every time there is a mass shooting in the US, usually within 48 hours. It should be an even more obvious thing to say about a country where carrying guns is not a choice.

Surely there a bunch of people around that will say all sorts of stupid things. Infact, thanks for proving my point.

Do you want to talk about the topic? Or are you going to continue to blather about what someone might say somewhere else some other time?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The test was conducted by gun enthusiasts, their terrorists were highly trained. Its clearly worded to draw attention but it seems a safe bet that technically they are correct and that at least a couple of gun owners participated in the tests in some capacity.
So gun-owners are "probably" in there somewhere and that makes it worthy of the headline

As long as the article jives with how you feel, who cares? Right? Let's not get something like facts or journalism in the way.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 07:43 PM
 
TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: 7 Out of 9 Armed Defenders Got Hits on One Terrorist - The Truth About Guns

7 of 9 of the armed civilians got hits on one terrorist. Imagine if there were multiple armed civilians. Even getting one of the terrorits would have reduced the death toll significantly as well as slowed down the terrorists enough to foil their plans and allow authorities to respond.

Not bad, and further just goes to show how skewed and shitty that CBS article was. Journalism is dead over there.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 09:15 PM
 
The gun control faithful always act as if gun rights advocates say that guns are a perfect solution to every problem. There are plenty of cases where they help little, and others that they help a lot and save lives.

All they offer is a chance.
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2015, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not fishing for anything. I said I was expecting to see comment somewhere from a pro-gun American saying "If the victims had been armed it wouldn't have been a problem."

Regardless of whether you or I agree with that statement or not, surely you see that there are plenty of people around who are likely to say it? Why would it be ridiculous to expect to hear that? Someone says it every time there is a mass shooting in the US, usually within 48 hours. It should be an even more obvious thing to say about a country where carrying guns is not a choice.
If they had been armed AND properly trained in the use of firearms, with tactical scenarios being included in the training, the odds would have been much better for the civilians.
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2015, 04:01 PM
 
I'd bet that if there had been one more armed civilian than the attackers then the results would be significantly different
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2015, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Not bad, and further just goes to show how skewed and shitty that CBS article was. Journalism is dead over there.
...dude. It's a local affiliate.

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
The gun control faithful always act as if gun rights advocates say that guns are a perfect solution to every problem.
That's probably because every time there's a gun tragedy all they yell about is how it could have been prevented with guns.

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
All they offer is a chance.
Which is fair, but then you have to consider the downsides.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...dude. It's a local affiliate.
So they get a pass on dishonest reporting (aka propaganda)?

That's probably because every time there's a gun tragedy all they yell about is how it could have been prevented with guns.
Who is "they" and where are "they" in this thread? Straw man.

Which is fair, but then you have to consider the downsides.
As france is so tragically embroiled in doing now.

How come this type of thing hasn't happened in the US? We are after all the biggest target for radical Islam. The problem is you can't quantify things that have been prevented.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So they get a pass on dishonest reporting (aka propaganda)?
The point being the CBS as a national news entity has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Who is "they" and where are "they" in this thread? Straw man.
Strawman for Smac's strawman.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How come this type of thing hasn't happened in the US?
You mean other than 9/11? Other than the World Trade Center Bombing?

Europe has large muslim immigrant communities, from what I understand.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The point being the CBS as a national news entity has nothing to do with it.
They could certainly enforce some kind of journalistic integrity to the affiliates thats bear their logo.

You mean other than 9/11? Other than the World Trade Center Bombing?
And look at that - citizens couldn't be armed on the plane. The one place they knew we'd be disarmed.

And yeah, guns are ineffective at stopping planted bombs.

Europe has large muslim immigrant communities, from what I understand.
As does the US.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
They could certainly enforce some kind of journalistic integrity to the affiliates thats bear their logo.
They could, but I doubt that'd be quick or cheap. You really want to plant a flag here on this one?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
And look at that - citizens couldn't be armed on the plane. The one place they knew we'd be disarmed.
Yes, the 'one' place.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
As does the US.
I don't believe they are congruous.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Which is fair, but then you have to consider the downsides.
The downsides of defending your own life? What, in your opinion, would those be?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
They could, but I doubt that'd be quick or cheap. You really want to plant a flag here on this one?
It was shitty journalism on a shitty article from a shitty organization. I'm not sure what else you're looking for from me?

Yes, the 'one' place.
You know what I mean. Jus' saying.

I don't believe they are congruous.
I don't believe they are causative, either.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 08:02 AM
 
There's a substantial difference between being licensed to carry a weapon, and being well practiced with it in stressed situations, like a dynamic event such as in Paris.

Joe Concealed Carry probably isn't any more able to participate in defending against a dedicated terrorist attack than an unarmed person, but he IS almost certainly better able to participate in ending a typical criminal's activities. How long ago was it that two thugs with bats tried to rob everyone in an internet cafe and found out the old guy in the back was armed?

A terrorist attack, whether by a single actor or many, is different. Any level of practice and training for the terrorists makes them much harder to counter because they have the advantage of surprise - they're the only ones who know what's really going on. Still, ANY civilian response and resistance to a terror attack changes things for the terrorists in a basic way. It doesn't take much to disrupt a plan that absolutely depends on everyone else turning into targets and victims.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
The downsides of defending your own life? What, in your opinion, would those be?
The downsides of the presence of guns.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It was shitty journalism on a shitty article from a shitty organization. I'm not sure what else you're looking for from me?
It is nothing indicative of CBS as a national news organization, despite branding. The quality of the two is mutually exclusive, even if similar.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't believe they are causative, either.
Ok then.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The downsides of the presence of guns.
Don't you actually mean weapons?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It is nothing indicative of CBS as a national news organization, despite branding. The quality of the two is mutually exclusive, even if similar.
Well considering there's a CBS logo slapped on the top of the article, I beg to differ. I guess CBS is gonna have to do an extra good job through their national coverage to....ah who are we kidding?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
There's a substantial difference between being licensed to carry a weapon, and being well practiced with it in stressed situations, like a dynamic event such as in Paris.

Joe Concealed Carry probably isn't any more able to participate in defending against a dedicated terrorist attack than an unarmed person, but he IS almost certainly better able to participate in ending a typical criminal's activities. How long ago was it that two thugs with bats tried to rob everyone in an internet cafe and found out the old guy in the back was armed?

A terrorist attack, whether by a single actor or many, is different. Any level of practice and training for the terrorists makes them much harder to counter because they have the advantage of surprise - they're the only ones who know what's really going on. Still, ANY civilian response and resistance to a terror attack changes things for the terrorists in a basic way. It doesn't take much to disrupt a plan that absolutely depends on everyone else turning into targets and victims.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Well considering there's a CBS logo slapped on the top of the article, I beg to differ. I guess CBS is gonna have to do an extra good job through their national coverage to....ah who are we kidding?
All I'm saying is its like blaming George Steinbrenner (when he was alive) for the woes of the minor league Yankee Team. Same branding, different team.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
All I'm saying is its like blaming George Steinbrenner (when he was alive) for the woes of the minor league Yankee Team. Same branding, different team.
If the minor league team were found to be cheating, you bet your ass the Yankee's organization would be the ones responsible for cleaning it up.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 08:27 PM
 
An local affiliate is just one node in the broadcast network, some stations are larger than others, but they're all sources and contributors to the network. WCBS-TV is the hub for CBS, but it's just another affiliate, albeit much larger than most others.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
albeit much larger than most others.
Which is a valid criticism. You'd hope a bigger affiliate in a huge city like Dallas might be run a little better than another from some podunk area of another state.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Which is a valid criticism. You'd hope a bigger affiliate in a huge city like Dallas might be run a little better than another from some podunk area of another state.
Not necessarily, I've seen plenty of crap journalism from the big stations, and smaller stations win most of the broadcast awards every year.

RTDNA : 2014 National Edward R. Murrow Award Winners

For instance, one of my local stations (our NBC affiliate) is one of the most "decorated" in the nation. Journalists go apeshit to work there, presumably because of its news director.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The downsides of the presence of guns.
What downsides are you speaking of?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
What downsides are you speaking of?
No thanks. If you haven't actually heard of them, they're out there if you're genuinely uninformed.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No thanks. If you haven't actually heard of them, they're out there if you're genuinely uninformed.
How about applied to this particular situation (which is what Smac was asking, I believe)?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How about applied to this particular situation (which is what Smac was asking, I believe)?
You want me to speculate as to the risks of having a gun at the Charlie Hebdo offices based of statistics?
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 03:10 PM
 
I think there's already a thread for discussing gun control.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 07:06 PM
 
Charlie Hebdo was a target of opportunity because the terrorists knew that it was highly unlikely that anyone in those offices would be armed. Like a million to one shot. Now what if the "offensive" content had been published by a magazine headquartered in Houston? Not so much....

Whether you are pro- or anti-gun, you cannot argue that a terrorist organization would be nearly as likely to attack a location in the US the way they did in Paris, where it was even possible that one or more of the people in the location were armed. They don't go after targets that are likely to be "difficult" for them. It's kind of part of the definition of terrorism: attacking undefended, unprepared civilians in order to cause terror and fear. That doesn't work if the targets even might shoot back.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2015, 08:36 PM
 
Except they attack police departments and military patrols all the time.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,