According to iTele there are now 118 dead.
Edit: Now it's up to 140. What a sad day :(
replies(5):
Edit: Now it's up to 140. What a sad day :(
The knowledge that a network could carry out such a widespread and well-coordinated attack without being preempted, in a situation of maximum alert, will heavy on the minds of any French citizen regardless of whether victims were 118 or 119. Basically, the French security system has been revealed as completely ineffective. That is a huge problem.
How can a country possibly prevent these things while still maintaining a free society?
Edit: Seems HN would rather die on their knees. Shame.
What the hell is wrong with people, suggesting guns as a solution to unpredictable violent situations where guns wouldn't make any difference.
You arm citizens, now what? Shoot anyone that looks mildly suspicious? Hear a bomb go off, you take out your gun then scare the shit out of people surrounding you, then get shot by somebody else that thinks you're part of the bombing?
Not much you can do about bombs, see Timothy McVeigh.
I've seriously considered the "arm your citizens" argument, and honestly can't think of it helping, at all.
These guys aren't your run-of-the-mill muggers; they're actively thinking about inflicting the highest casualties in the most efficient manner.
Today it's shootings since most people wouldn't be armed, tomorrow it's something else that guns won't prevent.
As 'NotHereNotThere said, terrorists attack in a way adequate to the conditions. They have time to prepare, so whatever means of defense you have, they'll strike in a way in which those means won't help you.
I think, however, that it's a bit of an absolute statement, as even skirmishes in the combat theaters still heavily rely on small arms from both sides. Perhaps it is possible for that to become the world we live in, however I don't see that being the case given past history.
Keep in mind the idea of an armed populace isn't a one dimensional outcome to only defend against terrorists, but as an equalizer against any assailant in a life or death situation, be they foreign or domestic.
I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose. In this case, the French people did not and do not have that option. Gun laws in France makes NYC look like a paradise for gun owners.
I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don't get them shot before they strike. So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they're not walking out of that one alive.
> I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose.
The core question here is - defend from what? Guns won't help you defend from a terrorist attack anymore than they can help you defend from an asteroid strike. Since we don't use extinction of dinosaurs as a pro-gun argument, we shouldn't use terrorist attacks either. Note that I'm not supporting pro- or anti-gun stance here, I only refuse to accept invalid arguments - from either side.
From any assailant, be it a mugger, rapist, breaking and entering, "terrorism" (whatever that actually means), an oppressive state, etc.
Would you rather just do nothing and accept whatever comes your way as fate?