|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 10, 2015 16:37:07 GMT
A lot of incidents seem to be caused by people taking up extremist views which (at least according to the British media) come from various hate preachers and/or extremist websites. As far as the multiculturalism aspect goes, there is a stereotype of certain "liberals" defending nasty things which ethnic minorities do ( www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal-paedophile-4113152 being the most ridiculous example of this kind of thinking) while taking a ridiculously harsh view of other activities ( www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/27/ukip-adoption-row-rotherh_n_2195818.html ) which aren't really offensive in themselves(while I'm not going to defend a lot of the idiotic comments important UKIP members make, the idea that being anti-EU stops someone fulfilling vague "cultural needs" for foster children is ridiculous). Regarding whether multiculturalism and/or immigration are responsible for these sorts of atrocities, www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-border-agency-shambles-officials-1133106 and www.express.co.uk/news/uk/391474/Border-control-farce-as-beast-strolls-into-Britain-to-rape-again suggest that terrorists could potentially get into the UK relatively easily even without the apparent lack of checks which supposedly happen when people from other EU countries enter, especially since things probably haven't improved much since then if more recent newspaper articles on the subject are true. On the other hand, Farage doesn't seem to have any real reason to bring this up being as it was as irrelevant to the French massacre as blaming it on the aftermath on the Scramble for Africa. As far as multiculturalism goes, I'd argue that people who are willing to kill because of their religion aren't going to care that much about whether the authorities endorse their beliefs or not. If there are cases where people are conducting illegal activities which aren't investigated by the authorities for reasons which are linked to a fear of being branded as racist, there is a chance that it could encourage some people to join in though (Broken Window Theory springs to mind here).
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 10, 2015 19:20:23 GMT
Outside of certain states and districts that's not true. Explosive ammunition is "class 3" (not illegal per se, but heavily regulated) but solid armor-piercing ammunition is legal for the most part.
However, ammunition that is capable of defeating armor isn't popular in a self defense role because of the high risk of collateral damage and lower effectiveness against an assailant who is most likely unarmored. Also, most armor-piercing rounds are typically available only in rifle or shotgun cartridges which are too bulky to make good carry weapons.
That being said, most body armor only protects the vitals (heart, lungs, liver, digestive tract, and possibly the groin) but not the head, legs, arms. Also, armor is not infallible. A bullet that doesn't penetrate can still cause impact trauma resulting in broken bones and organ damage.
With all that being true, in all likelihood the outcome would have been the same even if the victims in this case were armed. It's difficult to react properly to a planned attack even if you are "prepared", especially when you are caught by surprise. Still, it's a stretch to say that it would have been immaterial. A small chance is better than no chance.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 10, 2015 19:30:43 GMT
That makes sense thanks (now that I think about it, isn't most body armour is only really good for stopping pistol shots at relatively long range?). That is a good point about a small chance being better than not having a chance at all.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 10, 2015 20:11:20 GMT
There are different grades of body armor for different uses. Type I, Type IIA, Type II, Type IIIA are soft body armor, the type typically worn by police because of their lighter weight, breathability, and comfort. Type III and Type IV are hardened body armor, usually used by military in a war zone or police expecting to receive heavy gunfire.
All protection ratings are considered to be at point blank range.
Type I is only effective against .380 ACP or lesser pistol rounds. As such it isn't produced very often anymore.
Type IIA is effective against most common pistol rounds in standard velocity soft point 9mm, .40 s&w, .45 ACP. Is popular among police in very hot or humid environments and among bodyguards who want low visibility protection.
Type II takes it up a notch and protects against high velocity and hardened versions that the Type IIA protects against, plus .357 Mag in soft point. This is considered standard protection by most police forces.
Type IIIA is the strongest of the soft armors but is usually considered too heavy and bulky for everyday wear. It is rated for .44 mag with soft point.
Most soft armors can be improved with the addition of hardened steel or ceramic plating, but at the cost of additional weight. You'll note that none of the soft armors offer any worthwhile protection against high powered rifle bullets. That's not to say they won't protect you against them, but the manufacturers can't make any claims that they will.
Type III is hardened and will protect against non armor piercing rifles with power up to the .308 Winchester.
Type IV is capable of protecting against armor piercing rifles up to the .30-06 (7.62x63mm) M2 AP round.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 10, 2015 20:26:05 GMT
I think I'm in the camp with StyxD; immigration policy should be looked at again.
@tempest; it depends on what it's constructed from and how. There are different classes of ballistic armour, with the lowest rated vests being made from Kevlar or something similar, and only good for very weak pistol cartridges, and higher rated vests being made from many layers of Kevlar and hard ceramic or laminated fibre plates, and capable of protecting from rather high-power rifles.
The thing is though, the higher the rating, the heavier, bulkier, and stiffer the armour.
Sniped.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 11, 2015 2:27:55 GMT
I don't know how reliable the news reports are, but the terrorists were described wearing "flak jackets". A flak jacket isn't quite the same as body armor since they weren't developed to protect the wearer vs bullets, but sometimes the terms are interchanged. The flak jacket was developed mostly to protect the wearer vs shrapnel from grenades and mines, but weren't quite up to task for stopping bullets.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 11, 2015 2:46:23 GMT
Probably meant ballistic vests; I know I use the terms interchangeably a lot, guys I know in the military tend to as well.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 11, 2015 5:02:49 GMT
The idea of arming everyone at all times in case of a terrorist attack is completely insane to me. Should we also all wear rubber suits in case of lightning strikes? You are far more likely to get hit by lightning than killed by a terrorist if you live in a western country. Is Donald Trumps hair a defence against lightning bolts I wonder? That would explain a lot. Rubber suits would be less likely to cause fatal accidents or cause minor altercations to turn deadly as people reach for weapons in the heat of the moment etc. Gimp suits for all!
For regular crime, carrying a gun is not a clear cut safer option. Unlike crazed terrorist, most criminals don't want to kill people. When someone robs a shop, they are hoping the shop keeper will cooperate so they can run off with the money. Even the most immoral robber (and lets face it, most criminals are not complete psycho monsters) doesn't want to kill people if for no other reason than it means he is now a murderer! The police put a lot more effort in catching murderers and punish them a lot more harshly. But if the robber is robbing someone, and that person pulls out a gun...now its life or death. The situation has escalated for the robber has to try to kill the other person first or be killed himself. Now I am not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves or attack a robber. But its worth considering that doing so you may well be putting yourself in a lot more danger, not less. The only time it would clearly 100% make you safer would be if the criminal was like one of these terrorists and killing was their entire goal, but such people are a very tiny minority of criminals. People (like Trump) can get a bit too gung ho about defending themselves and having a fantasy of taking down criminals and terrorists. As Renard points out, against the real terrorist it would probably not do you any good and against normal criminals you risk turning a crime into a blood bath. Again, not saying you don't have the right to defend yourself, but life isn't a hollywood movie and what you have the right to do and what is a good idea to stay safe are not the same thing.
StyxD calling multiculturalism a failure seems an odd way to react. 3 muslims in france went on a killing spree. How many millions of muslims didn't, and never will? To call the entire idea a failure based on the actions of a group that by any measure are statistically insignificant seems very illogical. One of the policemen they shot was a muslim...was he also a failure of multiculturalism?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 11, 2015 5:10:37 GMT
Europe has never been good at multiculturalism.
But to say this means they've failed might be a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 11, 2015 7:40:45 GMT
Thanks for the armour information. I think the term "flak jacket" was also used in WW2 to describe the anti-shrapnel armour bomber crews, if not other airmen too, were given.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 11, 2015 13:20:16 GMT
We also have to worry about the thousands who've gone over to fight for extremist groups in the Middle East. And it's not so much that three did, it's that three have done so in the past week, more did in December one man walked into a police station and stabbed several officers, and two people ran cars into crowds of shopper (a third did, but he was mentally unhinged and seemed to have just copied what he'd seen in the news), and the French government have admitted that they've stopped an undisclosed number of attacks before they were executed.
I'm not saying that multiculturalism is a failure, or that the borders must be sealed, or that the Muslims must be deported, but I do think there needs to be some dialogue on immigration, especially in regards to the number of people who just show up on boats and the like.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 11, 2015 14:41:13 GMT
Oh yes, immigration is an important issue and one that needs careful consideration.
As with everything else, bigots fuck things up because they make any reasonable discussion of immigration tainted with the association with racists.
The danger of people going over to fight for ISIS and then coming back more radicalised and better trained is especially worrying.
I'm very cautious about the idea of a land war by the west in Iraq again (for obvious reasons) but I would say how ever many air strikes we are doing on them at the moment...we should probably do more.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 11, 2015 14:54:04 GMT
Not only are the bigots a problem because they taint things, but the liberals are a problem because they often refuse to discuss immigration for fear of offending people or being labelled racist, governments have the added problem of dealing with Brussels.
In fact, I think the lack of real dialogue about immigration and the rights of individual states is the reason why the far right has seen an upswing in support recently.
I think I said that before.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 11, 2015 15:45:24 GMT
Another idiot jumping in to say something stupid about the events in Paris-
Rupert Murdock says "Maybe most Moslems are peaceful, but until they recognise and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."
This coming from a man whose "news" organisations do nothing but spew hate, ignorance, misinformation and racism.
Rubert Murdock can't complain about a social cancer, because he IS a social cancer.
By the same logic, I guess since me and Rupert are both white, I am responsible for hacking the voice mails of dead school girls in order to boost my corrupt and vapid media empire.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Jan 11, 2015 17:56:26 GMT
It's not a singular event, just a most extreme link in a long chain. Somehow, we ended up with things like honor killings and people trying to push sharia as state law for certain communities.
I don't know if multiculturalism as a whole is a failure. But somewhere, in the name of letting people live their life as they want to, Western Europe must have made some mistake. And now we have to deal with it, somehow.
Yeah, but on the other hand, it's hard to expect of racists to admit they're racists (not in this age at least; although in Eastern Europe you can still find people proudly embracing their status as homophobes (they probably do take offence that the name implies fear, but still), they are the last of their kind).
I'm with Renard on that one: it's the liberals' fault for not having the guts to tackle the issue because of their ideology.
And what is with this "Moslem" thing? Wikipedia claims it's an alternative (if older) spelling of Muslim, but I swear, I never hear it unless some bigot opens their mouth. It feels like we're back in grade school, mispronouncing names to offend people.
|
|