Author Topic: Who needs concealed carry?  (Read 14812 times)


Another Reader

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2015, 05:30:43 PM »
Two of the guys are US military, with training.  It also helped that the would be terrorist was not competent with his weapons.  One gun was missing the magazine, per the NYT article. 

These lone wolves are scattered everywhere.  More to come, I'm sure.

mr_orange

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5611
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Round Rock, TX
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2015, 05:58:18 PM »
Or you could inform the criminal that they're breaking the law by having a gun and brandishing it.  Oh wait...

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2344
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2015, 10:38:46 PM »
My plan is to go to the gym and spar so much that I am always concealed carrying these guns!.

So far, no progress.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2015, 11:37:16 PM »
The one French citizen was naturalized, born in the USA.  They all also benefited from the fact that the attacker wasn't actually familiar with firearms.  If he had been, the Americans who stopped him admitted that they "would have been in trouble".

What does it say that an attack, by assualt weapon, in France is thwarted by 3 people born in the US and a Brit?  Reminds me of the old newspaper ad joke about the French in WW2.  "French war rifle, collectable, never fired, dropped once"

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2015, 08:31:43 PM »
I think it says that American military training works well...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2015, 09:03:44 PM »
I think it says that American military training works well...

That would be one factor, yes, but I was talking about the French...

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2832
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2015, 05:32:58 PM »
I have this feeling you want to tell us.   So what does it say about the French?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2015, 05:33:57 PM »
I have this feeling you want to tell us.   So what does it say about the French?

That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2015, 01:12:23 AM »
I have this feeling you want to tell us.   So what does it say about the French?

That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it.
The approximately 1,150,000 combat deaths in WW1 alone would beg to differ.  That's more than the combined WW1 and WW2 deaths of USA soldiers.  So the continued disrespect shown towards those fallen soldiers in order to feel a momentary thrill on superiority really aught to be laid to rest.

jamaicaspanish

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2015, 01:56:12 AM »
True story:
My mom was convinced that she needed a concealed carry permit. Took the class. Carried a pistol with her in the glove box of her Corolla in suburban Kansas City, MO.

She said, "I feel safer knowing I have a gun with me at all times."

So I asked, "Has there ever been a time in you life, before you began packing,  where having a gun would have been the difference between living and dying?"

"Of course. I can think of many . . . "

I'm getting too old to roll my eyes at my mom.

MishMash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2015, 08:17:55 AM »
Sorry...Female CCW holder here, I can name several times in my life that carrying has saved me.  The NUMBER ONE of which was biking through a not so great part of town home after work when a guy popped out of an alley and grabbed me off my bike.   I shot him in the knee as he was standing on top of my back pulling his pants off.   I'm former military, I have the training, my husband is still AD in an elite field and we still train together to this day.  The fact of the matter is when someone is double to triple your size (I was 95lbs at the time) and gets the drop on you, a concealed weapon can mean the difference between him being in jail with a limp and you being dead in an alley someplace. 

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5894
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2015, 08:33:01 AM »
I have this feeling you want to tell us.   So what does it say about the French?

That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it.
I suggest you read about the last two world wars and the effects of having entire towns wiped clean of all their young men, twice, within living memory, before making assumptions about people and their values.

Dan Carlin's series on WWI is a good start, particularly the episode about Verdun.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2015, 05:40:09 PM »
I have this feeling you want to tell us.   So what does it say about the French?

That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it.
The approximately 1,150,000 combat deaths in WW1 alone would beg to differ.  That's more than the combined WW1 and WW2 deaths of USA soldiers. 

I wasn't showing disrespect for the dead, but for the currently living.  And among those 1.15 million dead French from WW1, a great many of them was due to epic incompetence of command.  They started the war wearing bright blue uniforms, and some of them still carried weapons last standard during the Crimean War (cap and ball).  There were more than a few cases of French soldiers firing upon their own officers after being ordered to charge over a parapet directly in front of a known German machine gun.  The number of dead is not a measurement of valor, but an indictment against their leadership.  Nor is the number of enemy dead a measurement of superiority.  The point of battle is not death, nor sacrifice; but to only get the enemy to quit.  Those Americans & that Brit on that train did exactly that, and little else.  They were hailed as heros because they saved a train car full of people they did not know; but first and foremost, they saved themselves.  The three Americans, at least, knew one another.   They all proved they were heros, not because they saved people they did not know, but because they were willing to risk great harm to themselves in order to save one another.  So many Europeans, on this list and otherwise, often complain that they don't understand why Americans love guns, why we are so violent.  Well, we are, and this is the virtue to our violent culture.  We tend toward isolationism as a culture, but every time Europe has really needed the United States, entire generations of men just like these three showed up for the fight.  What I see most damning, however, is that the French on that train were not willing to risk themselves in order to save their countrymen.  Worse, still, I also heard on the radio that some actual employees of the train locked themselves into a service closet in the hopes of hiding from death; locking out their countrymen.  These Frenchmen, at least, are just sheep.


"All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight...Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time."

-GS Patton.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2015, 06:10:27 PM »
I wasn't showing disrespect for the dead, but for the currently living.  And among those 1.15 million dead French from WW1, a great many of them was due to epic incompetence of command.  They started the war wearing bright blue uniforms, and some of them still carried weapons last standard during the Crimean War (cap and ball).  There were more than a few cases of French soldiers firing upon their own officers after being ordered to charge over a parapet directly in front of a known German machine gun.  The number of dead is not a measurement of valor, but an indictment against their leadership.  Nor is the number of enemy dead a measurement of superiority.  The point of battle is not death, nor sacrifice; but to only get the enemy to quit.  Those Americans & that Brit on that train did exactly that, and little else.  They were hailed as heros because they saved a train car full of people they did not know; but first and foremost, they saved themselves.  The three Americans, at least, knew one another.   They all proved they were heros, not because they saved people they did not know, but because they were willing to risk great harm to themselves in order to save one another.  So many Europeans, on this list and otherwise, often complain that they don't understand why Americans love guns, why we are so violent.  Well, we are, and this is the virtue to our violent culture.  We tend toward isolationism as a culture, but every time Europe has really needed the United States, entire generations of men just like these three showed up for the fight.  What I see most damning, however, is that the French on that train were not willing to risk themselves in order to save their countrymen.  Worse, still, I also heard on the radio that some actual employees of the train locked themselves into a service closet in the hopes of hiding from death; locking out their countrymen.  These Frenchmen, at least, are just sheep.


"All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight...Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time."

-GS Patton.
So because a few people on the train locked themselves away out of danger you come to the conclusion that the French as a whole do not value their culture enough to defend it?

Being a hero, dying because of incompetence or the colour of the uniform, your implication that no one else on the train besides the heroic Americans did anything at all and all the rest of this long winded pitiful attempt at justification means nothing.

The 1,150,000 dead french soldiers in WW1 alone clearly show your assertion that the French do not respect their own culture enough to defend it to be nothing more than the typically puerile and disrespectful American attempt to feel superior.  If someone made the same disrespectful comment towards the USA fallen I'm sure your attitude would be different.

Letj

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2015, 06:28:05 PM »
I do find it odd that a train full of French people but only the Americans were responsible for tackling the terroris. Very interesting. This reminds me of the rag tag armies in Africa who dropped their weapons and ran out of the villages abandoning the residents while ISIS ran amok.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2015, 06:31:21 PM »
I have this feeling you want to tell us.   So what does it say about the French?

That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it.
I suggest you read about the last two world wars and the effects of having entire towns wiped clean of all their young men, twice, within living memory, before making assumptions about people and their values.

Dan Carlin's series on WWI is a good start, particularly the episode about Verdun.

I am better educated about history, particular the history of war, than the average bear.  That said, perhaps you should consider what I have said, rather than what others have accused me of, before critiquing what you think are my assumptions.

MishMash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2015, 07:03:07 PM »
MoonShadow you quote "hey all proved they were heros, not because they saved people they did not know, but because they were willing to risk great harm to themselves in order to save one another.  So many Europeans, on this list and otherwise, often complain that they don't understand why Americans love guns, why we are so violent.  Well, we are, and this is the virtue to our violent culture."

Yet, in other posts you took GREAT offense to the manners in which we train said soldiers.  You went ape over the whole Jade Helm issue.  So it sounds like you are fine with the outcome of said training...just not in the manner in which soldiers learn that training?  Seems a bit hypocritical.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2015, 07:13:51 PM »

So because a few people on the train locked themselves away out of danger you come to the conclusion that the French as a whole do not value their culture enough to defend it?


It may be a small data set, but it's a real one.

Quote

Being a hero, dying because of incompetence or the colour of the uniform, your implication that no one else on the train besides the heroic Americans did anything at all and all the rest of this long winded pitiful attempt at justification means nothing.

Three American friends, one Brit and an American born French citizen.  And I didn't imply it, the news reports that I encountered concerning the event made that implication.  And what do you believe that I have to justify?  My opinion probably does mean nothing.  Likely less than nothing for some people.  Do you think me a rude American?  Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions you won't like the answer to.

Quote
The 1,150,000 dead french soldiers in WW1 alone clearly show your assertion that the French do not respect their own culture

That was then, I speak of now.  Is the virtue of a generation from a century ago your best argument?  If you want to shut up this rude American, show me a similar contemporary example of 1) more than one French citizen 2) who were not already obligated to action (not police or military)  3) who were willing, displayed by fact of their actual actions, to put themselves into harms way in order to save the people around them from an attack 4) since 2000.  I don't require that they were successful, only an example that they tried. 

Quote
enough to defend it to be nothing more than the typically puerile and disrespectful American attempt to feel superior.  If someone made the same disrespectful comment towards the USA fallen I'm sure your attitude would be different.

I doubt it, at least not if the accusation had merit.  Does it?  Is the reverse also true?  And I'm not trying to feel superior; I actually believe it, too.  Not all cultures are equal in values, virtue or merit; and if I were ranking the cultures of Europe, I'd put French behind German.  But notice that I'm not just talking about the superior culture of the United States, my comments apply as much to the British culture that begot, not just the lone Brit on that train; but by heritage, the US culture, Canadian, Australian and New Zealandic to somewhat varying degrees.  Referring back to that century old example, Canadians were world famous for their valor during WW1.  Does that automaticly mean that the living generation still has that same valor?  Not necessarily, but nor does it mean that they have lost it. My accusation is this, that the French generations living today have lost the willingness to risk themselves in order to defend their own (countrymen, culture, country, whatever); and this event on that train to Paris is evidence toward that accusation.  How say you?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2015, 07:22:04 PM »
MoonShadow you quote "hey all proved they were heros, not because they saved people they did not know, but because they were willing to risk great harm to themselves in order to save one another.  So many Europeans, on this list and otherwise, often complain that they don't understand why Americans love guns, why we are so violent.  Well, we are, and this is the virtue to our violent culture."

Yet, in other posts you took GREAT offense to the manners in which we train said soldiers.  You went ape over the whole Jade Helm issue.  So it sounds like you are fine with the outcome of said training...just not in the manner in which soldiers learn that training?  Seems a bit hypocritical.

Not at all, you have apparently misunderstood my complaint in that Jade Helm thread, which is unrelated to the training of soldiers per se, but specific to the nature of training during Jade Helm; and in particular, to the nature of who precisely is being conditioned in that exercise.  But that is a segway to another topic altogether.  Only two out of five people involved in subduing that attacker had military training.  Perhaps the training played a role in the overall success, perhaps not.  But one thing is certain, the three who were not trained did not get involved due to training.  Nor does training actually instill virtue or valor; but at best, merely refines it.  Every American soldier today is a product of both training and self-selection.  I have seen the seeds of valor in five year olds.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5894
  • Age: 17
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2015, 07:26:12 PM »
My accusation is this[/b], that the French generations living today have lost the willingness to risk themselves in order to defend their own (countrymen, culture, country, whatever); and this event on that train to Paris is evidence toward that accusation.  How say you?
I say you are taking the numbers from a freak incident that happens once in a blue moon to make generalizations.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2015, 09:14:04 PM »
Quote from: MoonShadow
It may be a small data set, but it's a real one.
A single point is not a data set.  Your ignorance of the difference only shows you to be uneducated as well as disrespectful.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Three American friends, one Brit and an American born French citizen.  And I didn't imply it, the news reports that I encountered concerning the event made that implication.  And what do you believe that I have to justify?  My opinion probably does mean nothing.  Likely less than nothing for some people.  Do you think me a rude American?  Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions you won't like the answer to.
You were the one who implied no one else did anything.  No report I have seen makes any implication about what others on the train were doing at the time.  At least have the balls to own up to your own words and don't try to obfuscate and dissemble.

How do you know others did not throw themselves over loved ones to save them from bullets?  How do you know others were not in the process of moving to help but were simply further away?  How do you know no one "valued their own culture enough to defend it"?

Simply put, you don't.
Quote from: MoonShadow
That was then, I speak of now.  Is the virtue of a generation from a century ago your best argument?  If you want to shut up this rude American, show me a similar contemporary example of 1) more than one French citizen 2) who were not already obligated to action (not police or military)  3) who were willing, displayed by fact of their actual actions, to put themselves into harms way in order to save the people around them from an attack 4) since 2000.  I don't require that they were successful, only an example that they tried.
Now you speak "of now".  You did not speak of now when you made the remark.  In fact I think you only speak of now after you were called out on the comment as another pitiful attempt at justification because you are too cowardly to own your remarks.

As for examples, I speak of generations of people who have laid down their lives through many wars in the defense of their country and culture.  You speak of one single incident to which you don't even know all the facts.  So I don't see the need to provide examples to you.
Quote from: MoonShadow
I doubt it, at least not if the accusation had merit.  Does it?  Is the reverse also true?  And I'm not trying to feel superior; I actually believe it, too.  Not all cultures are equal in values, virtue or merit; and if I were ranking the cultures of Europe, I'd put French behind German.  But notice that I'm not just talking about the superior culture of the United States, my comments apply as much to the British culture that begot, not just the lone Brit on that train; but by heritage, the US culture, Canadian, Australian and New Zealandic to somewhat varying degrees.  Referring back to that century old example, Canadians were world famous for their valor during WW1.  Does that automaticly mean that the living generation still has that same valor?  Not necessarily, but nor does it mean that they have lost it. My accusation is this, that the French generations living today have lost the willingness to risk themselves in order to defend their own (countrymen, culture, country, whatever); and this event on that train to Paris is evidence toward that accusation.  How say you?
What say me?

I say now you have not only shown yourself to be disrespectful to those willing to give their lives in defense of their nation and culture but also to be ignorant and too cowardly to accept responsibility for your remarks.  The fact that you pride yourself on your disrespect, ignorance and cowardice and see these as a reason to feel superior is to be pitied.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2015, 10:29:19 PM »
Quote from: MoonShadow
It may be a small data set, but it's a real one.
A single point is not a data set.  Your ignorance of the difference only shows you to be uneducated as well as disrespectful.
I honestly don't care.  I can make whatever generalizations I choose based on whatever information I have. If I didn't care about your opinion of myself when I started, why would you think that your opinions concerning my education or attitude would matter now?
Quote

Quote from: MoonShadow
Three American friends, one Brit and an American born French citizen.  And I didn't imply it, the news reports that I encountered concerning the event made that implication.  And what do you believe that I have to justify?  My opinion probably does mean nothing.  Likely less than nothing for some people.  Do you think me a rude American?  Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions you won't like the answer to.
You were the one who implied no one else did anything.  No report I have seen makes any implication about what others on the train were doing at the time.  At least have the balls to own up to your own words and don't try to obfuscate and dissemble.

How do you know others did not throw themselves over loved ones to save them from bullets?  How do you know others were not in the process of moving to help but were simply further away?  How do you know no one "valued their own culture enough to defend it"?
Do you have a contradictory report?
Quote
Simply put, you don't.
Nope, I have to limit myself to making judgements based upon the best information that I have access to.  Just like everyone does for everything they do, everyday.  I can't prove a negative, and I won't try. 
Quote
Quote from: MoonShadow
That was then, I speak of now.  Is the virtue of a generation from a century ago your best argument?  If you want to shut up this rude American, show me a similar contemporary example of 1) more than one French citizen 2) who were not already obligated to action (not police or military)  3) who were willing, displayed by fact of their actual actions, to put themselves into harms way in order to save the people around them from an attack 4) since 2000.  I don't require that they were successful, only an example that they tried.
Now you speak "of now".  You did not speak of now when you made the remark.  In fact I think you only speak of now after you were called out on the comment as another pitiful attempt at justification because you are too cowardly to own your remarks.
The context of the original comment was of contemporary Europe.  Of ancient cultures that appear no longer willing to defend themselves against the cultural influence of a religion & culture stuck in the 7th century, with the predictable end result that the living generations of those ancient cultures no longer consider their own culture and history superior to that which would subjugate it.  I may have failed to specify that I was referring to contemporary France, but that was my intention.  I certainly did not imply otherwise, and you have chosen to reach your conclusions by way of willful misunderstanding.

Quote

As for examples, I speak of generations of people who have laid down their lives through many wars in the defense of their country and culture.  You speak of one single incident to which you don't even know all the facts.  So I don't see the need to provide examples to you.
Quote from: MoonShadow
I doubt it, at least not if the accusation had merit.  Does it?  Is the reverse also true?  And I'm not trying to feel superior; I actually believe it, too.  Not all cultures are equal in values, virtue or merit; and if I were ranking the cultures of Europe, I'd put French behind German.  But notice that I'm not just talking about the superior culture of the United States, my comments apply as much to the British culture that begot, not just the lone Brit on that train; but by heritage, the US culture, Canadian, Australian and New Zealandic to somewhat varying degrees.  Referring back to that century old example, Canadians were world famous for their valor during WW1.  Does that automaticly mean that the living generation still has that same valor?  Not necessarily, but nor does it mean that they have lost it. My accusation is this, that the French generations living today have lost the willingness to risk themselves in order to defend their own (countrymen, culture, country, whatever); and this event on that train to Paris is evidence toward that accusation.  How say you?
What say me?

I say now you have not only shown yourself to be disrespectful to those willing to give their lives in defense of their nation and culture but also to be ignorant and too cowardly to accept responsibility for your remarks.  The fact that you pride yourself on your disrespect, ignorance and cowardice and see these as a reason to feel superior is to be pitied.

Pity me, then.  Somehow I don't believe that you actually will, though.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2015, 11:04:46 PM »
I honestly don't care.  I can make whatever generalizations I choose based on whatever information I have. If I didn't care about your opinion of myself when I started, why would you think that your opinions concerning my education or attitude would matter now?
At last you are at least admitting to your own ignorance and generalisation.  That's a good start and shows you obviously do care about my opinion of you otherwise you would not have even done that.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Do you have a contradictory report?
I'm not the one claiming or implying something regarding what the others on the train were willing or not willing to do.  Ergo, I'm not the one who needs to come up with reports.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Nope, I have to limit myself to making judgements based upon the best information that I have access to.  Just like everyone does for everything they do, everyday.  I can't prove a negative, and I Or won't try.
You are not confining yourself to making judgments based on the information you have.  You have made a generalisation disparaging an entire people base on nothing more than your own opinion.
Quote from: MoonShadow
The context of the original comment was of contemporary Europe.  Of ancient cultures that appear no longer willing to defend themselves against the cultural influence of a religion & culture stuck in the 7th century, with the predictable end result that the living generations of those ancient cultures no longer consider their own culture and history superior to that which would subjugate it.  I may have failed to specify that I was referring to contemporary France, but that was my intention.  I certainly did not imply otherwise, and you have chosen to reach your conclusions by way of willful misunderstanding.
The original comment was in direct reply to "So what does it say about the French".  Your answer was "That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it."

Nothing about contempary Europe.  Nothing about ancient cultures no longer willing to defend themselves.  Nothing about religion and culture stuck in the 7th century.  There is nothing about any of that in any part of the thread up to that point.  All that BS is simply your way of trying to justify your desire to slur an entire people and culture and the men and women who have died defending it, in order to get a laugh on the internet and feel superior for a moment or two.

So don't accuse me of willful misunderstanding.
Quote from: MoonShadow
Pity me, then.  Somehow I don't believe that you actually will, though.
No I wont.  I said it is to be pitied, not that I will pity you.  You don't deserve even that.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2015, 11:31:14 PM »

Quote from: MoonShadow
Do you have a contradictory report?
I'm not the one claiming or implying something regarding what the others on the train were willing or not willing to do.  Ergo, I'm not the one who needs to come up with reports.
http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/paris-train-crew-abandoned-passengers-as-muslim-opened-fire.html/

"Train staff on board the high speed train which was the scene of a suspected Islamic extremist attack yesterday have been accused of barricading themselves in their staffroom and locking the door, leaving passengers to fend for themselves.

The Moroccan terrorist was disarmed and beaten unconscious by US servicemen and a British man after he opened fire on a Paris-bound train with a Kalashnikov.

Now, French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was on board the Thalys train during the attack has slammed train staff who he claims locked themselves in an office away from the attacker and refused to help the trapped passengers.


...The actor told Paris Match: ‘We heard screaming passengers in English, ‘He shoots! He shoots! He has a Kalashnikov!”

The actor, who was travelling with his two children and his girlfriend, said: ‘Suddenly, members of the crew ran into the hallway and their faces were pale.’

He said the staff hurried towards their own car on the train and opened it ‘with a special key’ before they locked themselves inside.

Mr Anglade claims he and other passengers banged on the door and shouted at staff to open up, but their cries for help were ignored.

He said: ‘Nobody replied, there was radio silence. It was terrible and unbearable, it was inhumane.

‘The minutes seemed like hours and protected my children with my whole body, telling them everything was fine.’

The French Interior Minister said this afternoon that the train attacker is suspected to be a radical Islamist.

US airman Spencer Stone, who on board the train during the attack, spotted the 26-year-old Moroccan acting suspiciously and heard him trying to load his weapon in the toilet.

He was travelling with Oregon National Guard member Alek Skarlatos, 22, who was on leave and travelling through Europe at the time after returning from a tour in Afghanistan.

With the help of their friend Anthony Sadler, from Pittsburg, California, and fellow passenger British IT consultant Chris Norman, they managed to wrestle the attacker to the ground, stopping what could have been a deadly terrorist attack."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/europe/france-train-shooting/

"Mark Moogalian couldn't make it to the Legion of Honor ceremony Monday when four men were honored for subduing an armed terror suspect on a French train.

The French-American academic, 51, was in a hospital recovering from a gunshot wound. Before the other men got involved, Moogalian tried to take away the suspect's rifle but the man shot Moogalian in the neck with a Luger pistol, his wife, Isabelle Risacher, told France's Europe 1 radio.

He'll receive his own Legion of Honor when he gets better, the French government has said.

...A biography on Moogalian's website says he was born in Durham, North Carolina, and that his family later moved to Virginia.

As an adult he moved to France where he worked as a translator and English teacher for business professionals. His website says he's a artist, teacher and musician and recently published a novel.

Moogalian has dual citizenship and has been living in France for almost two decades, Julia Moogalian said. He traveling on the train with his wife and their dog, Benny."

Quote
Quote from: MoonShadow
Nope, I have to limit myself to making judgements based upon the best information that I have access to.  Just like everyone does for everything they do, everyday.  I can't prove a negative, and I Or won't try.
You are not confining yourself to making judgments based on the information you have.  You have made a generalisation disparaging an entire people base on nothing more than your own opinion.
That's what a judgement is.
Quote
Quote from: MoonShadow
The context of the original comment was of contemporary Europe.  Of ancient cultures that appear no longer willing to defend themselves against the cultural influence of a religion & culture stuck in the 7th century, with the predictable end result that the living generations of those ancient cultures no longer consider their own culture and history superior to that which would subjugate it.  I may have failed to specify that I was referring to contemporary France, but that was my intention.  I certainly did not imply otherwise, and you have chosen to reach your conclusions by way of willful misunderstanding.
The original comment was in direct reply to "So what does it say about the French".  Your answer was "That even they don't value their culture enough to defend it."

Nothing about contempary Europe.  Nothing about ancient cultures no longer willing to defend themselves.  Nothing about religion and culture stuck in the 7th century.  There is nothing about any of that in any part of the thread up to that point.  All that BS is simply your way of trying to justify your desire to slur an entire people and culture and the men and women who have died defending it, in order to get a laugh on the internet and feel superior for a moment or two.
Do you think I'm here trolling, for giggles?  The reference was a contemporary one, therefore I'm not actually required to point out that I'm discussing a contemporary event or it's implications.  If I was not, a segway would have been required of me, or it would have been a rational assumption that I was speaking about a contemporary event.  Since I didn't provide such a segway, or even imply such a leap of logic that you have taken, my only conclusion is that your assumptions are based upon willful misinterpretations.  Unless, of course, you have some other excuse.  Is English not your native language, perhaps?

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2015, 11:57:53 PM »
http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/paris-train-crew-abandoned-passengers-as-muslim-opened-fire.html/
snipped for brevity

So you can reasonably suggest based on that report that specifically the staff on that train did not want to engage the shooter.

What you can not reasonably suggest is that the entire French population do not care about their culture enough to defend it because those staff did not do anything about that shooter.
Quote from: MoonShadow
That's what a judgement is.
No, a judgement is an opinion regarding the facts at hand.  It is not a generalisation and extrapolation of those facts to suit ones purposes.

Maybe an example will help you see the difference....
Judgement = The staff on this train were cowards for not locking themselves away and not helping.
Generalisation and extrapolation = All French people do not care about their culture enough to defend it from this shooter because those staff did not do anything about that shooter.

See the difference?
Quote from: MoonShadow
Do you think I'm here trolling, for giggles?
No, I honestly think you do believe that disrespectfully slurring an entire population and culture based on one isolated incident which you don't fully understand or know all the facts about and then trying to weasel your way around responsibility for your own words somehow shows your own superiority rather than your own ignorance, cowardice and disrespect.
Quote from: MoonShadow
The reference was a contemporary one, therefore I'm not actually required to point out that I'm discussing a contemporary event or it's implications.  If I was not, a segway would have been required of me, or it would have been a rational assumption that I was speaking about a contemporary event.  Since I didn't provide such a segway, or even imply such a leap of logic that you have taken, my only conclusion is that your assumptions are based upon willful misinterpretations.  Unless, of course, you have some other excuse.  Is English not your native language, perhaps?
Your comment was in reply to "the French".  It made the general claim that "they" don't respect their culture enough to defend it.

It is disingenuous at best and willful deceit at worst to generalise about an entire people based on a single isolated event and then claim to have been referring only to a specific sub-set of the original generalisation in order to accuse others of willful misinterpretation when they suggest your generalisation is not accurate.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4945
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2015, 06:48:18 AM »
Quote
Mark Moogalian couldn't make it to the Legion of Honor ceremony Monday when four men were honored for subduing an armed terror suspect on a French train.

The French-American academic, 51, was in a hospital recovering from a gunshot wound. Before the other men got involved, Moogalian tried to take away the suspect's rifle but the man shot Moogalian in the neck with a Luger pistol, his wife, Isabelle Risacher, told France's Europe 1 radio.
So one example of a French-American also trying to do something about the shooter.

And then you have the french parent:
Quote
‘The minutes seemed like hours and protected my children with my whole body, telling them everything was fine.’
Yes, sure seems like someone who is not brave and willing to protect someone. 

Your issue is the staff which should not be then generalized to a whole population. 

gobius

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2015, 08:44:26 AM »

Do you think I'm here trolling, for giggles?  The reference was a contemporary one, therefore I'm not actually required to point out that I'm discussing a contemporary event or it's implications.  If I was not, a segway would have been required of me, or it would have been a rational assumption that I was speaking about a contemporary event.  Since I didn't provide such a segway, or even imply such a leap of logic that you have taken, my only conclusion is that your assumptions are based upon willful misinterpretations.  Unless, of course, you have some other excuse.  Is English not your native language, perhaps?

To be fair, you did bring up the joke about the French WWII rifle, which I believe is what irritated some people and is why they brought up French WWI and WWII deaths.  It wasn't a big leap to think that you were basically saying "the French have been pussies since at least WWII" or "when things get tough, the French roll over".  Just because YOU didn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also, I agree with the others: extrapolating the workers' actions to the current French population (which you did in your initial comment) is not productive and is quite demeaning. 

I suggest you take a good look at what you wrote and think about how someone else would read that, rather than jumping to the defensive and assuming there's something wrong with the reader.  There are other things to suggest, but this would be a start.

I also found the joke to be kind of funny, but not in that "it's funny because it's SO true" kind of way.  I'm also American, so it wasn't disparaging me.

gobius

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2015, 08:57:27 AM »
Regarding the OP, although I am liberal by US standards (probably even regarding gun control), I have a soft spot for the second amendment and concealed carry.  I've considered getting a pistol a few times but it makes my wife uneasy.

After one of the last school shootings the debate about having armed guards came up, and I read about/watched videos where people actually train students to gang up on a shooter.  They teach them to immediately turn the lights off in the classroom and, when the shooter enters, they all ambush him.  They showed a lot of the practicing and it actually seemed pretty effective; sometimes they would even put something (such as a desk) a few feet from the door to distract the shooter when he enters.  When you enter a room and 20 people are tackling you and pulling your gun off, you have virtually no time to react.  Granted, this is training for after hearing shots fired so it wouldn't apply to when the shooter initially opens fire, but I think it's more about containing the damage and preventing the shooter from sweeping class-to-class.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4945
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2015, 09:01:15 AM »
Regarding the OP, although I am liberal by US standards (probably even regarding gun control), I have a soft spot for the second amendment and concealed carry.  I've considered getting a pistol a few times but it makes my wife uneasy.

After one of the last school shootings the debate about having armed guards came up, and I read about/watched videos where people actually train students to gang up on a shooter.  They teach them to immediately turn the lights off in the classroom and, when the shooter enters, they all ambush him.  They showed a lot of the practicing and it actually seemed pretty effective; sometimes they would even put something (such as a desk) a few feet from the door to distract the shooter when he enters.  When you enter a room and 20 people are tackling you and pulling your gun off, you have virtually no time to react.  Granted, this is training for after hearing shots fired so it wouldn't apply to when the shooter initially opens fire, but I think it's more about containing the damage and preventing the shooter from sweeping class-to-class.
How young were these children who were being trained.  Honestly that description made me sick to my stomach.  I don't agree with using children in that respect. 

rebel100

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Location: Central Florida
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2015, 11:02:48 AM »
I wasn't showing disrespect for the dead, but for the currently living.  And among those 1.15 million dead French from WW1, a great many of them was due to epic incompetence of command.  They started the war wearing bright blue uniforms, and some of them still carried weapons last standard during the Crimean War (cap and ball).  There were more than a few cases of French soldiers firing upon their own officers after being ordered to charge over a parapet directly in front of a known German machine gun.  The number of dead is not a measurement of valor, but an indictment against their leadership.  Nor is the number of enemy dead a measurement of superiority.  The point of battle is not death, nor sacrifice; but to only get the enemy to quit.  Those Americans & that Brit on that train did exactly that, and little else.  They were hailed as heros because they saved a train car full of people they did not know; but first and foremost, they saved themselves.  The three Americans, at least, knew one another.   They all proved they were heros, not because they saved people they did not know, but because they were willing to risk great harm to themselves in order to save one another.  So many Europeans, on this list and otherwise, often complain that they don't understand why Americans love guns, why we are so violent.  Well, we are, and this is the virtue to our violent culture.  We tend toward isolationism as a culture, but every time Europe has really needed the United States, entire generations of men just like these three showed up for the fight.  What I see most damning, however, is that the French on that train were not willing to risk themselves in order to save their countrymen.  Worse, still, I also heard on the radio that some actual employees of the train locked themselves into a service closet in the hopes of hiding from death; locking out their countrymen.  These Frenchmen, at least, are just sheep.


"All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight...Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time."

-GS Patton.
So because a few people on the train locked themselves away out of danger you come to the conclusion that the French as a whole do not value their culture enough to defend it?

Being a hero, dying because of incompetence or the colour of the uniform, your implication that no one else on the train besides the heroic Americans did anything at all and all the rest of this long winded pitiful attempt at justification means nothing.

The 1,150,000 dead french soldiers in WW1 alone clearly show your assertion that the French do not respect their own culture enough to defend it to be nothing more than the typically puerile and disrespectful American attempt to feel superior.  If someone made the same disrespectful comment towards the USA fallen I'm sure your attitude would be different.
  Well said!

rebel100

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Location: Central Florida
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2015, 11:08:33 AM »

How young were these children who were being trained.  Honestly that description made me sick to my stomach.  I don't agree with using children in that respect.
[/quote]

Run, Hide, Fight is becoming the standard fair for response to active shooters.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0 In the scenario laid out we teach, even children, to fight as a last resort as an option to simply being killed.  The notion makes me sick as well, but prefer the thought of going out swinging to simply cowering till I'm shot.

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2015, 11:28:41 AM »
that video.... they run around without knowing where the shooter is? then stand behind a wall and gather everyone there?

And why didn't any of them have phone to call 911 since the captions said to call.

I can't disagree with the run.hide.fight plan though, what else would you do? Arm everyone and go straight to fighting? Those cubicle walls aren't going to stop random shots, better aim well or hope no one is hiding on other side. Even if you hit the shooter, it could still go through him and into someone else.

if people were so concerned about this, why aren't there plans for this like fire/tornado drills? Think it gives a "shooter" knowledge of where people gather so they can go straight there? At least police would know where the main gathering spots are to evacuate first. Firefighters generally get a blueprint and know where the main areas to look for people are. Shooting incidents, it seems like a chaotic everyone runs in random directions, people get separated and police has no idea who might be running out/at them.

rebel100

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Location: Central Florida
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2015, 11:35:36 AM »
Most Police Dept's have moved to actively engage the shooter.  They usually teach that the first 4 arriving officers form a strike team and go in seeking the shooter.  The goal is to engage the shooter with overwhelming firepower and neutralize.  This began after Columbine where arriving units encircled the building and called on the swat team giving the shooters time to continue killing random folks.  I wouldn't expect them to stop and help you or to evacuate people...their initial job is to prevent further carnage.  It isn't however lost on me that had the guys on that train in France followed the run-hde-fight advice the outcome would probably have been quite different.

In many ways its a repudiation of the natural right to self preservation to deny folks the ability to protect themselves.  I care deeply about my loved ones and have a right to my own life, therefore I have the right to the tools to defend those lives.

gobius

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2015, 11:46:33 AM »
Regarding the OP, although I am liberal by US standards (probably even regarding gun control), I have a soft spot for the second amendment and concealed carry.  I've considered getting a pistol a few times but it makes my wife uneasy.

After one of the last school shootings the debate about having armed guards came up, and I read about/watched videos where people actually train students to gang up on a shooter.  They teach them to immediately turn the lights off in the classroom and, when the shooter enters, they all ambush him.  They showed a lot of the practicing and it actually seemed pretty effective; sometimes they would even put something (such as a desk) a few feet from the door to distract the shooter when he enters.  When you enter a room and 20 people are tackling you and pulling your gun off, you have virtually no time to react.  Granted, this is training for after hearing shots fired so it wouldn't apply to when the shooter initially opens fire, but I think it's more about containing the damage and preventing the shooter from sweeping class-to-class.
How young were these children who were being trained.  Honestly that description made me sick to my stomach.  I don't agree with using children in that respect.

It's been a couple years since I watched it, but I believe they were high school age.  For elementary school kids it probably wouldn't work as well.  From what I remember, people were talking of using this as an alternative to having armed guards or armed teachers.  It also wasn't supposed to replace trying to escape or call the police; it was mostly what was suggested if you can't escape and police isn't there yet to help.  Part of the point of shutting the lights off, I believe, is to make the shooter think there is nobody in the room.  If he still enters, then you ambush.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2015, 12:10:52 PM »

Do you think I'm here trolling, for giggles?  The reference was a contemporary one, therefore I'm not actually required to point out that I'm discussing a contemporary event or it's implications.  If I was not, a segway would have been required of me, or it would have been a rational assumption that I was speaking about a contemporary event.  Since I didn't provide such a segway, or even imply such a leap of logic that you have taken, my only conclusion is that your assumptions are based upon willful misinterpretations.  Unless, of course, you have some other excuse.  Is English not your native language, perhaps?

To be fair, you did bring up the joke about the French WWII rifle, which I believe is what irritated some people and is why they brought up French WWI and WWII deaths.  It wasn't a big leap to think that you were basically saying "the French have been pussies since at least WWII" or "when things get tough, the French roll over".  Just because YOU didn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also, I agree with the others: extrapolating the workers' actions to the current French population (which you did in your initial comment) is not productive and is quite demeaning. 

I suggest you take a good look at what you wrote and think about how someone else would read that, rather than jumping to the defensive and assuming there's something wrong with the reader.  There are other things to suggest, but this would be a start.

You are asking me to be reasonable, with unreasonable people engaged in a contentious topic tainted with emotion and a chronic lack of facts.  Even that request is unreasonable.  I came to this thread already defensive, because I could tell from the title it was going to be a contentious topic.  It always is.  No one likes to have their culture disparaged, and most don't like when they see another disparaged, especially when the comments have merit, because they can see parallels to their own cultures that also apply.  Almost all of this is subconcious to almost everyone.  Rare is the person who can see that words have such power on their minds.  What I've really done here is set an 'anchor' in the minds of everyone who actually read my words, and highlighted a distinction between (current) French culture and (current, maybe past) Anglo-derivative cultures (with the US as a focus).  I have just altered the worldview of everyone who has come this far, and even admitting that it was deliberate (combative language activates an emotional response, which undermines the built up filters against evidence contrary to an accepted worldview) you can't do much to counteract it.  There will be, however small, the seed of the idea that America (anglo) is culturally distinct from France (Europe); to such a degree that arguments against gun ownership that would apply to European cultures may not apply to the United States.

I have just used a contemporary event, widely known in international news, to do to you that which other people with other agendas have been doing to you for your entire lives.  It's called cognative programming.  It's a skill that negotiators are often very skilled at, and currently Donald Trump has been using to publicly 'whip' the media & every other Republican candidate to amazing effect.  Pick any topic in the public eye in the past 20 years, and there is at least one example of one or both sides using this to influence their base and manipulate the public for support.

I will admit, that when I started, I didn't expect it to work so well.  This was my first attempt at this.

regulator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2015, 02:13:30 PM »
Sorry...Female CCW holder here, I can name several times in my life that carrying has saved me.  The NUMBER ONE of which was biking through a not so great part of town home after work when a guy popped out of an alley and grabbed me off my bike.   I shot him in the knee as he was standing on top of my back pulling his pants off.   I'm former military, I have the training, my husband is still AD in an elite field and we still train together to this day.  The fact of the matter is when someone is double to triple your size (I was 95lbs at the time) and gets the drop on you, a concealed weapon can mean the difference between him being in jail with a limp and you being dead in an alley someplace.

Ugh.  If you do not mind me asking, how much in the way of legal ramifications did you have to deal with after that?  In addition to all the scary things that could happen leading up to me plugging someone, I would dread being hauled off to jail for defending myself.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2015, 03:19:35 PM »
You are asking me to be reasonable, with unreasonable people engaged in a contentious topic tainted with emotion and a chronic lack of facts.  Even that request is unreasonable.  I came to this thread already defensive, because I could tell from the title it was going to be a contentious topic.  It always is.  No one likes to have their culture disparaged, and most don't like when they see another disparaged, especially when the comments have merit, because they can see parallels to their own cultures that also apply.  Almost all of this is subconcious to almost everyone.  Rare is the person who can see that words have such power on their minds.  What I've really done here is set an 'anchor' in the minds of everyone who actually read my words, and highlighted a distinction between (current) French culture and (current, maybe past) Anglo-derivative cultures (with the US as a focus).  I have just altered the worldview of everyone who has come this far, and even admitting that it was deliberate (combative language activates an emotional response, which undermines the built up filters against evidence contrary to an accepted worldview) you can't do much to counteract it.  There will be, however small, the seed of the idea that America (anglo) is culturally distinct from France (Europe); to such a degree that arguments against gun ownership that would apply to European cultures may not apply to the United States.

I have just used a contemporary event, widely known in international news, to do to you that which other people with other agendas have been doing to you for your entire lives.  It's called cognative programming.  It's a skill that negotiators are often very skilled at, and currently Donald Trump has been using to publicly 'whip' the media & every other Republican candidate to amazing effect.  Pick any topic in the public eye in the past 20 years, and there is at least one example of one or both sides using this to influence their base and manipulate the public for support.

I will admit, that when I started, I didn't expect it to work so well.  This was my first attempt at this.
What a load of absolute bullshit.

There had been exactly 4 posts prior to your entry to the thread.  Not one had been anti gun control.  In fact if anything they had a jokingly positive attitude to gun control.

All you did here was come in and make a pretty stereotypical, commonly repeated disrespectful slur against the French people in an attempt to get a laugh and make yourself feel good.  When you got called on it you showed your true cowardice and tried to weasel out of it any way you could.

As for the cognitive reprogramming yadda yadda yadda........do you really think the effect of yet another smug American repeating a tired, unoriginal slur is really going to make everyone sit up and suddenly believe the superiority of the USA culture?

What a dick.

In the past day I've read a few of your other posts to see if, as you asked, you are the sort that "comes in trolling just for giggles" and it is obvious that you are.  So I'm done with you.  Enjoy your trolling, it is obvious it is the only thing in your sad pathetic life that gives you any sense of self worth.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2015, 03:23:29 PM »

What a load of absolute bullshit.


Opinion noted.

Quote

In the past day I've read a few of your other posts to see if, as you asked, you are the sort that "comes in trolling just for giggles" and it is obvious that you are.  So I'm done with you.

Perhaps you should put me on ignore.  It seems that the stress has reached an unhealthy level for you.  Please, I don't mind.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #39 on: September 04, 2015, 04:45:42 PM »
Opinion noted.

Perhaps you should put me on ignore.  It seems that the stress has reached an unhealthy level for you.  Please, I don't mind.
In your attempt to give some sort of small meaning to your life, regardless of how illusory, you give yourself too much credit.  Like all trolls, you are too insignificant to be stressful.  It's not stressful at all to call out a troll when one sees one.  In fact it is quite enjoyable.  Why would I want to go to the bother of finding the ignore option and thus denying myself of that enjoyment.  Particularly when I read so few threads here anyway?

Consider it my gift to you of cognitive reprogramming of your mind so as to assist in your personal growth.  Perhaps if you have the courage and integrity to do so you may admit your own shortcomings, consider the anchor I have placed and finally gain some self respect and self worth outside of trolling.  Just imagine what your life could then begin to be.  Or not.  No skin off my nose either way. :)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2015, 04:48:36 PM »
Opinion noted.

Perhaps you should put me on ignore.  It seems that the stress has reached an unhealthy level for you.  Please, I don't mind.
In your attempt to give some sort of small meaning to your life, regardless of how illusory, you give yourself too much credit.  Like all trolls, you are too insignificant to be stressful.  It's not stressful at all to call out a troll when one sees one.  In fact it is quite enjoyable.  Why would I want to go to the bother of finding the ignore option and thus denying myself of that enjoyment.  Particularly when I read so few threads here anyway?

Consider it my gift to you of cognitive reprogramming of your mind so as to assist in your personal growth.  Perhaps if you have the courage and integrity to do so you may admit your own shortcomings, consider the anchor I have placed and finally gain some self respect and self worth outside of trolling.  Just imagine what your life could then begin to be.  Or not.  No skin off my nose either way. :)

:) right back at ya.

MishMash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #41 on: September 04, 2015, 06:48:08 PM »
Opinion noted.

Perhaps you should put me on ignore.  It seems that the stress has reached an unhealthy level for you.  Please, I don't mind.
In your attempt to give some sort of small meaning to your life, regardless of how illusory, you give yourself too much credit.  Like all trolls, you are too insignificant to be stressful.  It's not stressful at all to call out a troll when one sees one.  In fact it is quite enjoyable.  Why would I want to go to the bother of finding the ignore option and thus denying myself of that enjoyment.  Particularly when I read so few threads here anyway?

Consider it my gift to you of cognitive reprogramming of your mind so as to assist in your personal growth.  Perhaps if you have the courage and integrity to do so you may admit your own shortcomings, consider the anchor I have placed and finally gain some self respect and self worth outside of trolling.  Just imagine what your life could then begin to be.  Or not.  No skin off my nose either way. :)

+2000

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #42 on: September 04, 2015, 06:54:30 PM »

+2000

Wow! I earned a plus two thousand against me from MishMash!  How generous of you!  I expected a contentless plus one, but a plus two thousand!

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11704
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #43 on: September 04, 2015, 07:06:29 PM »
A generic reminder (from http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/):

Quote
The overriding principle here on this site: Be a human being and treat others respectfully.

That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person.
3. Your posts must not break any laws.
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.

Believe it or not, it is possible to argue things on their merits.  Some (many? most?) people in this forum are actually good at it.  If you are one of the ones who are, keep it up.  If you find yourself resorting to ad hominem attacks, you might challenge yourself to do better.

Kriegsspiel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #44 on: September 04, 2015, 08:57:41 PM »
Quote from: gobius
After one of the last school shootings the debate about having armed guards came up, and I read about/watched videos where people actually train students to gang up on a shooter.  They teach them to immediately turn the lights off in the classroom and, when the shooter enters, they all ambush him.  They showed a lot of the practicing and it actually seemed pretty effective; sometimes they would even put something (such as a desk) a few feet from the door to distract the shooter when he enters.  When you enter a room and 20 people are tackling you and pulling your gun off, you have virtually no time to react.  Granted, this is training for after hearing shots fired so it wouldn't apply to when the shooter initially opens fire, but I think it's more about containing the damage and preventing the shooter from sweeping class-to-class.

I've seen that type of training and I think it is the most effective defense against an active shooter in a school. Again though, the key is beating them unconscious. With their own weapon, if possible. Dozens of tiny fists are able to achieve this feat. I agree and disagree with Gin. Yes, it's sad as fuck that we would train kids to take down an active shooter, especially with a technique that may lead to a number of them being killed. But sadly, this is the time we live in. If someone invaded a school, this is probably the best way to take them down.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2015, 12:59:38 AM »
A generic reminder (from http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/):

Quote
The overriding principle here on this site: Be a human being and treat others respectfully.

That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person.
3. Your posts must not break any laws.
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.

Believe it or not, it is possible to argue things on their merits.  Some (many? most?) people in this forum are actually good at it.  If you are one of the ones who are, keep it up.  If you find yourself resorting to ad hominem attacks, you might challenge yourself to do better.
These guidelines bring up some interesting philosophical questions worth pondering.....

1:  Is a troll really a person and as such able to be personally attacked?
2:  If a poster is a person who willfully and consciously decides to act the persona of a troll and engage in the behaviours of a troll to the point of being indistinguishable in all aspects from a troll, is it reasonable to expect other posters to be aware that the poster is not actually a troll but a person and therefore should not personally attack the poster?
3:  What constitutes a member of the community?  Is a troll or person enacting the persona of troll, truly a member of the community or rather an outsider of the community present within the community for the sole intention of undermining the community?

And a few that perhaps have more immediate bearing on this particular thread.....

4:  If a poster does not have the moral courage to defend their own arguments and comments but instead chooses to obfuscate, dissemble and engage in sophistry in an attempt to avoid responsibility for said arguments and comments, can it be considered an attack if one simply points out this cowardice?
5:  If a poster is a troll or acting as a troll can it be considered to be a personal attack if one simply points out the trolling behaviour and gives advice on ways to change such trollish behaviour?

And in light of a concurrent thread in which the civic and moral duty to disobey unjust laws is being discussed......

6:  If the law, or guideline in this case, has the result of giving a troll or poster posing as a troll free reign to slur and disparage others at will, is it not our civic and moral duty to disobey the guideline and call out the trollish behaviour so as to attempt to see that justice is done or perhaps that the behaviour is changed?

TL;DR....I see no violation of the guideline in one calling a troll a troll but that's just my interpretation.  If it is a violation I would prefer to violate than to allow the troll free reign to be a troll at will.

Silverado

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2015, 06:01:19 AM »
Opinion noted.

Perhaps you should put me on ignore.  It seems that the stress has reached an unhealthy level for you.  Please, I don't mind.
In your attempt to give some sort of small meaning to your life, regardless of how illusory, you give yourself too much credit.  Like all trolls, you are too insignificant to be stressful.  It's not stressful at all to call out a troll when one sees one.  In fact it is quite enjoyable.  Why would I want to go to the bother of finding the ignore option and thus denying myself of that enjoyment.  Particularly when I read so few threads here anyway?

Consider it my gift to you of cognitive reprogramming of your mind so as to assist in your personal growth.  Perhaps if you have the courage and integrity to do so you may admit your own shortcomings, consider the anchor I have placed and finally gain some self respect and self worth outside of trolling.  Just imagine what your life could then begin to be.  Or not.  No skin off my nose either way. :)

I love this, and it shows a wonderful attribute of threads. PKFFW can't not read your posts. Doesn't have the ability to ignore, will always claim not to be worked up, but likely is. Then come up with rationale to explain.

There is no such thing as a troll, just posts from people that you shouldn't read. People who get upset at the written word are even weaker than those who get upset at spoken words. Sticks and stones saying still apply.

From my observations, it's not that the French are weak, it's that they don't admit it. Grand sweeping generalizations for sure, but their military has not really lead the way in many battles in the past. Who knows if they are tougher and brighter now.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2015, 03:36:19 PM »
I love this, and it shows a wonderful attribute of threads. PKFFW can't not read your posts. Doesn't have the ability to ignore, will always claim not to be worked up, but likely is. Then come up with rationale to explain.
Believe me when I say I do have the ability to not read anything I choose not to read. 

If by "ability to ignore" you mean there is an ignore button here somewhere I honestly don't know because in 20 years of using forums I've never bothered to look for one anywhere.  If you mean I personally can't ignore posts you are incorrect as I frequently do. 

I never claimed to not be worked up, I claimed not to be stressed.  I am not stressed but I freely admit that calling out trolls does work me up.  I have already previously admitted I find it fun.  Don't you get worked up by things you find fun?

No rationale to explain is needed.  If you care to re-read my comment, I stated exactly that I find it fun to call out trolls.  Do you feel the need to explain what you find fun?
Quote from: Silverado
There is no such thing as a troll, just posts from people that you shouldn't read. People who get upset at the written word are even weaker than those who get upset at spoken words. Sticks and stones saying still apply.
Semantics.  Common usage definition of "troll" clearly demonstrates there is such a phenomenon as a "troll".  If you want to use the sentence "only posts from people that you shouldn't read" in place of the term "troll" that is your choice.

Further, how can you tell a post is by someone you shouldn't read if you have never read posts by that poster before?

I stated previously I read very few threads here.  It may come as a shock but I simply don't frequent this site much anymore.  I read MMM's articles when notified a new one is out, occasionally have a quick browse through the forum for any subject headline that might be interesting and that's it.  I can honestly say I do not recall ever having read anything by MoonShadow prior to this thread.  So how should I know not to read his/her posts?  Once I read a few it became clear MoonShadow is a classic example of a troll so I took the time to point this out because, as stated previously, I find it fun.
Quote from: Silverado
From my observations, it's not that the French are weak, it's that they don't admit it. Grand sweeping generalizations for sure, but their military has not really lead the way in many battles in the past. Who knows if they are tougher and brighter now.
Anecdote != data.

But at least you admit it is a grand sweeping generalisation and are not trying to pass your comment off as some sort of grand experiment in cognitive reprogramming.  And since you do admit it is a generalisation I feel confident that if asked about it you would not try to weasel your way out of responsibility for the comment or try to deny your intention and meaning in making the comment.  All classic tactics of a troll.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2015, 03:49:16 PM »
Some things to point out here....

1) I have admitted to limited 'trolling' as a small social experiment.  Perhaps I took it too far, but I have stopped, and don't intend to further pursue said experiment.

2) I never attacked any forum member, directly or indirectly.  The reverse was certainly not true, for there is one individual in particular that could not take the emotional stress.

3) I do stand by my expressed opinions, even if I could have put them in a softer manner.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Who needs concealed carry?
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2015, 04:39:13 PM »
Some things to point out here....

1) I have admitted to limited 'trolling' as a small social experiment.  Perhaps I took it too far, but I have stopped, and don't intend to further pursue said experiment.
I don't see any admission of trolling from you.  I've seen a claim that you were making a social experiment to justify your comments.
Quote from: MoonShadow
2) I never attacked any forum member, directly or indirectly.  The reverse was certainly not true, for there is one individual in particular that could not take the emotional stress.
Firstly, if you are trolling you deserve to be attacked for trolling.  My opinion of course and one I doubt you will agree with since you are the one doing the trolling by your own admission.  You forfeit the right to be treated with respect when you, by your own admission, are treating others without respect.

As for emotional distress, again you give yourself too much credit.
Quote from: MoonShadow
3) I do stand by my expressed opinions, even if I could have put them in a softer manner.
Ah then why the repeated attempts to modify your opinions and assertions?  Why the claim of others willfully misinterpreting you when you continuously change your statements to suit your purpose at the time? Why the claim that you were not implying things only repeating what newspapers had implied when this is demonstrably false?  Why the need to be "defensive from the start" if you stand by your opinions?

Having said that, I will give you credit for finally admitting to trolling and for having the courage to stand by your trolling.  Kudos to you for that small step forward.