Slashdot Mirror
Two US Marines Foil Terrorist Attack On Train In France
hcs_$reboot writes: A heavily armed gunman opened fire aboard a packed high-speed train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris late Friday afternoon, wounding several passengers before he was tackled and subdued by two Americans Marines. The assault was described as a terrorist attack. President Barack Obama has expressed his gratitude for the "courage and quick thinking" of the passengers on a high-speed train in France, including U.S. service members, who overpowered the gunman. Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister, paid tribute to the Marines as he arrived at the scene, and said "Thanks to them we have averted a drama. The Americans were particularly courageous and showed extreme bravery in extremely difficult circumstances."
No idea where the marine story everyone is printing came from. US Govt identified them only as service members, but Oregon newspaper figured out who they were:
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/08/oregon_national_guard_member_h.html
will feed into the NRA mantra of everyone being armed everywhere every time
which would have made everything a lot easier.
you do realize not more than 15 years ago you could fly with a weapon in the cabin. I'm sure you're also aware of the violence statistics in Chicago after they lifted the handgun ban.
"This sort of thing feeds into the TSA mentality - search everyone everywhere every time. And then it will feed into the NRA mantra of everyone being armed everywhere every time."
And best of all, it's the umpteenth time that an illegal alien terrorist (sorry, "refugee") has taken advantage of European white guilt to slaughter people he know were unarmed and wouldn't resist. But whoops, US Marines happened to be standing near that toilet.
How many Charlie Hebdos will it take before they know
That too many people have died?
These guys weren't armed with anything more than good training, and the mental preparedness to take action in a crisis, nevermind the guts to do so at considerable personal risk.
The average person will most likely freeze in a crisis, just out of sheer human nature. It takes a lot of training to overcome that, and to build up the instinct to act (nevermind in a beneficial manner), which in a combat situation is often the difference between life and death.
Considering the deleterious impact that acts of terrorism have had on civil liberties, and how that bleeds over into the tech/internet/etc space, I'd say that it's certainly within the realm of news of interest to nerds when something takes place - especially when it's not any official TSA nude body cavity search type stuff, or NSA type vacuuming up of all data and metadata, that prevents a bunch of deaths, just a couple of well-trained people in the right place at the right time.
I don't necessarily agree, but some would argue that this is "Stuff That Matters". If the tagline was "High Tech News / Stuff That Matters" you would have a point. You'd do better to ask how which finger you press the "6" key with is in keeping with the supposed theme. (It is neither news, nor does it matter)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
you do realize not more than 15 years ago you could fly with a weapon in the cabin. I'm sure you're also aware of the violence statistics in Chicago after they lifted the handgun ban.
I did not know that. 15 years ago, I flew quite often, and I thought I had to check any rifles, shotguns, or handguns. I always had to do their "residue check" which was NOT RANDOM. LIARS! But please elaborate on carrying firearms in cabin at that time. Thanks!
A dingo ate my sig...
These guys weren't armed with anything more than good training, and the mental preparedness to take action in a crisis, nevermind the guts to do so at considerable personal risk.
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with training and mental preparedness to take action in a crisis".
Hmm. It'll never fit on a bumper sticker, but training more people how to effectively handle a violent person might be a better idea than handing everyone a gun and hoping for the best.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Considering the deleterious impact that acts of terrorism have had on civil liberties
The greatest impact on civil liberties came from from the gross hysterical, overreaction to 'terrorism'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
While flying without nail clippers might be debatable, 15 years ago you could not fly with a gun in the cabin.
You had to check your gun, and you can still fly with a gun, provided you check it. It cannot be checked in undeclared, and in the process of declaring it, it must be inspected to be save (unloaded) and secure (typically in a locked hard case).
A gun can puncture the pressure hull of the plane, and considering it's altitude, that would be both unpleasant and potentially life threatening (in addition to any other immediate threats). We have already seen personnel lost overboard on aircraft, and while a single small bullet hole is likely to not directly cause such issues, bullet holes could (in theory) cause other failures, leading to rapid depressurization.
Also note that in 2012, against a national trend, Chicago murder rates spiked, two years after lifting the handgun ban. Currently the rate is down for Chicago; however, on average a handgun ban lift doesn't create an easy prediction of future crime. Some cities it goes down, some it goes up. Odds are the ban doesn't have a direct impact, probably because people were already carrying, just illegally.
A lot of truth in that. Handing untrained people a gun is a good way to have a mess. It takes a lot of training to teach a person to handle a gun in a crisis situation. Most people get excited and snatch the trigger spraying bullets around and hitting everything except what they're aiming at. It's amazing how many shots get fired with no one getting hit. This video is a good example, lots of shots and no one hit. All at almost point blank range too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, thank heavens for the US war industry, otherwise a lot of lives could have been lost.
Good to know. I bet the Marines wish they could claim these guys. Reading more, they apparently spotted the guy acting suspiciously as he went to the bathroom, then heard the sounds of the clips being loaded. Amazingly heads-up. The perp apparently had 300 rounds in total. This could have been a major bloodbath.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I woke up this morning to all the news stories about the terrorist in the train who was taken down by three passengers. It’s a great story, but I wish the news services would stop referring to “American marines”. First, as far as I can tell, the three central figures were: one guy in the Air Force, one guy in the Oregon national guard, and a Brit who wasn’t a soldier at all. Plus other passengers who were involved, also not soldiers.
Second – more importantly – we need to encourage any bystanders to take down attackers. If you have a train full of hundreds of people, the only right answer is to swarm the lone gunman. If you’re close to him, you’re gonna get shot anyway, so you’d just as well make it count for something. Easy to say from my armchair, of course, but I’d like to think I would react that way in reality as well.
Of course, the SJW press is busily trying to not call him a terrorist, despite the plain evidence that he was, and was even known for his previous involvement with jihadists.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
https://xkcd.com/705/
Learn to love Alaska
And yet the NRA thinks that the "average person" with a firearm is the solution to the problem.
Do you think one of the marines (in critical condition) would have been shot in the neck if he had been armed himself? Would even any other civilians had been shot when the first shots fired were from someone trained not to hit people if needed vs. someone trying to hit anyone?
It's absurd to say this shows you can always do without a gun when two marines in the prime of their life take out a gunman they know is exiting from a very small space.
What if you are not two cut marines and there's a guy with a gun who just swings around a corner? What if you are a woman alone and there's someone with a knife telling you to strip your clothes off? What if you are home alone and three guys bust the door open wide and storm inside your house? There are a lot of situations where a gun is much better than most other things, including being unarmed - and the very case you claim is proof of how you "don't need guns" is one of them.
The whole good guy with a gun bullshit you argue here falls apart in one hell of a hurry in the real world. IN THE REAL world the guy busting into a room has the gun at the ready and guess what sucker? HE HAS THE DROP ON YOU. Better still your move to get a gun in another room in a lockup so your kid does not blow his brothers brains out by accident, is not going to cut it.
What you are suggesting is having granny sitting on the porch 24/7 with a shotgun for security to keep the trespassers out. HERE are the real facts about why arming the hell out of the public is not how to stop crime; ASK ANY experienced police officer and they will tell you that over 60 percent of guns that wind up on the street are stolen from property crimes and that most bad guy incidents like home invasions and burglaries are not helped by the home owner or any resident using a firearm to either scare off or defend their life and property. AMERICANS are stupid idiots when it comes to fire arms, the truth is unless you are packing 24/7 and it is loaded and at the ready a handgun is useless for protection. So essentially the NRA is correct lets get rid of the morons, let every one pack a piece and make it mandatory. BANG BANG SHOOT SHOOT happiness is warm gun OOH OOH.
The moronic comments here do not surprise me at all but they are an insult to the courage and skill of the Marines that put their lives at risk stopping another idiot with a gun! Idiots with guns confronting idiots with guns is not the answer here, never has been and never will be.
I HUNT and use firearms and have done so since I was a little kid. Most citified morons that worship the almighty hand gun can't even shot a grouse in the head with a 22 short the way we did when we were kids. I am Canadian and the American attitude towards guns is one very good reason why all of you should have your vehicles searched at the border. Like an American uncle of mine that took pride in showing off his 38 that he packed in his glove box loaded all the time just in case some mad trapper or savage wild man attacked while he visited us in our igloos, we all laughed like hell at him cause with a real gun he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and the hand gun he had and shot off all the time was so far beyond his abilities that I would duck when he blasted away because you never knew if he was gonna double on the trigger and pop two off on recoil! So PEOPLE WHO do nothing but watch movies and tv and think they can use firearms should not be allowed anywhere near them and this especially goes for most arm chair Clint Eastwoods which is what most NRA members and supporters are!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
The attacker chose his target intelligently. If he hadn't have been stopped, this could have been horrific.
If he had attacked a cinema or a shopping mall with multiple exits, people would disperse and flee very easily and quickly as soon as he started shooting. Armed police would be on the scene in minutes.
On a train, hundreds of people would effectively be trapped in there with him until it could be brought to a halt and the doors opened. He would have walked the length of it, killing at will. This would have been worse than Anders Breivik's attack. The two that stopped him averted a nightmare.
Of course now, there'll be talk about airport security at railway stations. The UK has over 2500, including many small ones used by less than 100 passengers a month. So that's going to be a problem.
I think whoever downvoted this doesn't understand the paradox. In the absence of a large US war industry, those soldiers wouldn't have been on the train. But likewise neither would have the terrorist.
As for chicago the answer is: nothing changed, because when you ban guns locally but not just a few miles down the road in the outlying suburbs, the ban doesnt actually mean or do anything.
In other words, it's the local culture that's the problem, not the guns.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
But likewise neither would have the terrorist.
Islamist wackadoos wanting to take over Europe (and elsewhere) aren't doing so because they think the US has too big a military. They're doing it because they think the rest of the world should live under the culture they consider to be the only valid one. As they've been doing for centuries, they are willing (and in fact feel obliged) to do their bit for medieval theocracy through violence. The existence of large militaries run by cultures that don't wish to live under the thumb of Islam is indeed annoying to them, but that's not what motivates them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I hope the 2015 Chicago Bears defense does not encounter any bad guys with guns.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They are doing it because your country (and the US) is doing things in their country.
So, just to be clear, the Taliban drags female school teachers out into a public square and shoots her in the head for teaching girls to read ... because they're angry at the US? Militant Islamists in Africa slaughter villages full of non-Islamists because they're angry at the US, which isn't even present in the area they're taking over? Militant Islamists are lining up and beheading rows of Egyptian Christians in Libya because they're not happy with the US?
Sunni and Shia factions, which have been fighting each other for centuries, have been and continue to do that because of the US?
If you consider yourself informed on the subject (which you can't be - these groups are telling you in plain language why they're doing what they're doing, and it generally comes down to: "people who aren't sufficiently Islamic by our standards should be killed") then please don't do anything dangerous like voting.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, your solution is to penalize all of those that know how to use a gun in order to stop the few that cause problems. Which has been shown repeatedly doesn't work, criminals are a very creative bunch. Instead, people point to senseless statistics as if killing 9 people is acceptable, but 10 is not.
You sir, sound like an idiot. An idiot who likes to generalize. I've known many people who shoot, and the vast majority of them are not beer drinking good 'ol boys. They are my neighbors, my family, my friends, and my fellow geeky workers.
NRA doesn't 'pander' to anyone. The NRA is supported by millions of people who use guns, and it simply echos their views. The tired generalization that somehow the NRA is pushing an agenda is misplaced, the millions of VOTERS who support the NRA are pushing an agenda. The NRA is no different from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, who also are supported by millions of people who help to shape their agendas.
The real problem is idiots who think they know what is best for everyone else, probably because their ego is so huge. The majority of gun owners I know simply want to be left alone and allowed to target shoot in peace, buy a gun whenever they find one they like, and be able to defend themselves if necessary.
I am also anti-stupid-fucking-idiot-with-a-gun. The problem is determining who the stupid-fucking-idiots are. I personally don't trust you to make that judgement, it sounds to me you are like most car drivers .. everyone driving faster than you is an asshole and everyone driving slower is an idiot. You talk like you would think you are the only one that knows exactly the right speed to travel.
When you and your fellow anti-gun fanatics can come up with a method that keeps guns out of the hands of the very small minority of criminals and allow the far greater number of legal gun owners to go out and target shoot, carry a gun for defensive purposes, and collect guns without being overly burdened with fees or procedures, or having to register their property, let me know.
Until then, please leave me the fuck alone. Your tired, ignorant rhetoric is getting boring. My wife an I own several revolvers, pistols, bolt-action rifles, and semi-automatic rifles. Never once has any of them been pointed at another person or animal. They have been used to shred a large number of paper targets and put holes into plastic water-filled bottles (which where collected and recycled afterward.) They have been used to help my wife sleep at night when I'm away. And to make me feel a bit safer investigating what that noise was at night.In my 56 years of living, and probably 46 years of shooting, no one has been even remotely put into danger by my actions.
Insinuating that somehow I shouldn't be allowed to have guns because you know someone who is an idiot or because someone else shot somebody is just moronic. If we used that logic, we should also remove all the cars from the roads and knives from our kitchens.
Oh wait .. several years ago in the UK, a bunch of people suggested just that .. that pointy kitchen knives had no use other than killing people and should be banned. It seems that once guns were effectively banned, people started finding other ways to kill people. I can't wait for the day when cricket bats become the weapon of choice. Oh .. wait ... during some riots in London, miniature baseball bats became the self-defense weapon of choice when the unarmed police couldn't control the crowds.
The real problem is a very small minority of people sometimes want to hurt other people. And all the banning of devices in the world will never stop that.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Seriously, when the only support for your insanity is fiction, shouldn't that give you a hint of reality?
It's been noted that in spite of the high gun ownership and limited law enforcement, the so-called "wild west" was actually not significantly less lawful than the rest of the country. That doesn't actually speak to whether the presence of guns promoted that atmosphere, because we'll never know what it would have been like without them. Anti-gun advocates still seek to paint it as a lawless time, but they are quite a bit off the mark. Their anecdotes favor more local law enforcement as a solution, not the elimination of firearms.
The best support for the argument that people should be able to legally carry firearms, perhaps with some background checks and licensing (which is the case in at least some of the states which permit carry, and AFAIK true of all the states which permit concealed carry) is that the people who legally carry firearms within these programs very rarely use them to commit crimes. They should not be required to justify themselves by claiming that they will protect you. All the justification that should be required is that they are not doing harm. You and I and everyone else here does a dozen things a day or more that cause harm to other people. We drive, we use the internet, we throw stuff away that has a high percentage likelihood of being disposed of improperly and which was typically produced with little concern for the unwanted outputs — nearly no industry on earth would be profitable if it had to account for its externalities.
I'm not against reasonable gun control. I have concerns regarding the government's qualifications in deciding what constitutes mental fitness, however. That's something that can easily be wielded awry. The latest DSM can be read such that if you ask questions about your health care, you may have something wrong with you. We're one fine red hair away from criminalizing dissent, and don't think it can't happen here. It can, and it can happen in tiny steps that are nearly imperceptible to the average citizen.
There is plenty of support for the notion that a responsibly armed society is a polite society. When Heinlein imagined the majority of people acting responsibly of their own accord, he engaged in works of fiction, and he knew that. While it's not the current state of affairs, there's no particular reason why that cannot eventually become reality. But there's far more people than you notice carrying weapons legally, and you don't notice them because there's no reason why you should do so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"