11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[frunk]

Actually, being armed gives you a sense of responsability that you normally don't have. I do not get carried away into stupid arguments when I'm packing. I drive defensively and I am far more corteous than when I'm flat bellied. Road rage is for the weak and unarmed.

You are not a typical civilian.  You've received more training and experienced hostile situations with firearms than probably 99.999% of the population.  I'd trust you walking around with a gun, even with your PTSD, over some numbnut who decided he needed to carry to express his rights.

You understand that responsibility because you've learned to, but it doesn't innately happen when someone picks up a weapon.

[dps]

While watching the video of the terrorist killing the cop, I was thinking that it would have been a good thing if the person with the camera had had a rifle instead.

[CountDeMoney]

FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

  John R. Lott, Sr, President.  Give me a fucking break.   

[11B4V]

FWIW page 9
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

  John R. Lott, Sr, President.  Give me a fucking break.   

Is there anything wrong with the basic numbers in regards to the conversation at hand?

Would this suit your tastes
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Page 75

[Razgovory]

If I was carrying when something like this went down, I do think I would at least see if I could come up with a way of taking them by surprise, perhaps.

Of course, the difficulty in hitting a human target with a handgun at anything more than very short range is pretty problematic. It would be very hard to get to a range short enough to make a surprise kill without being seen.


edit: What I mean is, even if you are a cop with reasonable training, and this is going down and the bad guys don't even know you are there, it would STILL be very hard to do more than increase the body count by one (your own). Still, I think I would be compelled to try at least...

I would hide in a dumpster and then accidentally shoot myself when the police arrived.

[crazy canuck]

While watching the video of the terrorist killing the cop, I was thinking that it would have been a good thing if the person with the camera had had a rifle instead.

Terrorists generally want the publicity that comes with being recorded.  Civilians pointing rifles at them are another thing.  If someone was carrying around a rifle they would probably also be dead.

[CountDeMoney]

Is there anything wrong with the basic numbers in regards to the conversation at hand?

Would this suit your tastes
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Page 75

I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.

But it's nice to see that statistics quack Lott is still running around spouting the same shitty math for 30 years.  And he won an election, to boot!  El Presidente!

[11B4V]

Is there anything wrong with the basic numbers in regards to the conversation at hand?

Would this suit your tastes
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf Page 75

I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.

But it's nice to see that statistics quack Lott is still running around spouting the same shitty math for 30 years.  And he won an election, to boot!  El Presidente!

I don't care what gun nutter crap he's spinning  . The pages for state permits are what are applicable to the conversation at hand.

[DGuller]

I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.

[11B4V]

I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.

Here we go.

[Razgovory]

I'm not even sure you can get a list of people with gun permits in this state.  When the state gave the feds some of these ists to cross examine with lists of mental patients the General Assembly damn near impeached the governor.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm sure there are many reasons why the murder rate has dropped in states where the sudden increase of white people who live around other white people getting guns to carry because they are afraid of black people has increased.

Personally, I think it's the rise in the global water levels.  Water levels go up, crime goes down.  Just like Mr. Lott's graph on concealed carry going up, crime going down.  Graphs are fun!

[Capetan Mihali]

It's abortions/lead paint/Freakanometry!

[Sheilbh]

I dunno. I'm of the camp that you can support freedom of speech without republishing what the controversy is about - it all depends on whether the thing being published is, in fact, subjectively impolite to a significant group.

For example, I myself am not offended by porn; I don't think porn should be illegal to publish; however, I acknowledge that, to some, porn is impolite in public. When Larry Flynt of Hustler was shot by an assassin during his obsenity trial, that would certainly be news - nasty as Flynt is, that was a significant moment for free speech. But if I was publishing a newspaper, I would not necessarily have republished the porn pics that were the subject of his trial (even assuming that there was no question of my being arrested for doing so) - even though, otherwise, the readers would be left somewhat in the dark as to what the controversy was about. 

OTOH, you don't want politeness to absoluely rule, or you would be able to publish nothing. As always, it's a balancing act. I'd be more willing, I think, to cut some slack for the sensitivities of minority groups that have traditionally had a rough time at the hands of the majority - for example, if Native Americans sincerely held the view that pics of native grave artifacts were upsetting, I'd refrain from displaying them in a publication to the general public, even though as an amateuer into archaeology and anthropology I find them most interesting and not in any way "gratuitously offensive".

As I say I don't think this necessarily matters as a defence of free speech - except of course as a defence of the free speech of the Muslims who haven't shot people over blasphemous images whose opinion we don't seek and is often dictated instead by the men of violence. So we assume Muslims are universally offended by this but we are ultimately taking the opinion of murderers to get that view. I don't think we should accept the extremists argument that this necessarily is of such overwhelming offence to Muslims until other Muslims actually voice an opinion.

But the issue I have is the duty of a newspaper/broadcaster to their consumers.

For me the Larry Flynt analogy doesn't work. Everyone excepts there are limits on obscene speech and just because he's shot during an obscenity trial doesn't make his porn part of the story.

The analogy I'd use is if a loony fanatic Catholic killed Andres Serrano and the gallery director, say Nicholas Serota, over a gallery showing Piss Christ. I think it's difficult to explain that story on TV or print without showing Piss Christ - albeit with an explanation of why people may find it offensive.

The recent story is ever worse because it was about Charlie Hebdo's new edition with its frontpage. The entire subject of the story is that image. So if the gallery re-opens a week later and puts Piss Christ in pride of place that is the story. It's absurd to describe that with words. The NYT I think acknowledges this is newsworthy by, despite the offence caused, including it on their website.

Obviously context matters. I can understand not wanting to put any of these images on the front page*. I don't necessarily think it's necessary for, say, breakfast news shows to have any of these images. But if you're MSNBC, or Sky News you're a serious broadcaster whose entire purpose is to report the news. Your audience is tuning in for things of news value and these images are sufficiently newsworthy to hold up a copy of Charlie Hebdo then I think you owe it to your viewers not to pixellate that out. If you're the NYT (with your pompous 'all the news that's fit to print' slogan) then I think you should treat your readers with a similar level of seriousness and assume they can take the images.

As I say I have a different opinion for, say, South Park or the Jewish Chronicle who have both said relating to this sort of image that they won't publish because they're afraid there could be violent consequences.


*Having said that I don't think front pages know much decency, in the UK 8 papers included the image of the policeman about to be shot on their front page which I find troubling:

[mongers]

....

*Having said that I don't think front pages know much decency, in the UK 8 papers included the image of the policeman about to be shot on their front page which I find troubling:
....

Yes I too found that troubling as you didn't need photographic or evidence to understand the brutality of executing/finishing off an injured man with a shot to the head.