Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "FRANCE 24 English" channel.

I like the part where the one guy admits to having absolutely no regard for the laws of the Country he wants to move to, by saying that even a giant wall won't stop him from breaking said laws. Guys like this are the very reason people are nervous about illegal immigrants.
7
+Nox Lucis And again, that's an argument you could make... in some situations. Just not this one. If you think you can easily be mistaken for a guy in a suicide vest with an AK, I would invite you to address some issues with your apparel choice and the firearm you carry. I'm pretty sure the terrorists were the only ones strapped with explosives and spraying automatic fire into the crowd. Pretty easy to draw a bead on the right people in that situation.
2
+Dylan Hussain A) I never voiced an opinion about refugees,so don't try to make it seem like I did. B) Sure. We should all just sit back and hope someone else handles it. What a wonderful idea. I'm sure Isis will just roll over and give up when they find out that the rest of the world has decided to be one, big soft target.
2
+BLOODYMOON62 Don't bother. I've since realized that it doesn't much matter. The cultural differences are too great. Some people would not defend their own lives even if they had the means. Such people can not be convinced to take up arms.
2
Not possible. Europe has very strict gun control and we all know that gun control keeps criminals from having guns in these Countries. Quick question: Why does it seem easier to get a fully automatic AK-47 in Europe than in the US? I mean sure, I can get a semi-auto "sporter" version that LOOKS the same but in all my years I've never been able to buy a real one....and they're legal here with the right paperwork.
1
+El Jeran Nearly every mass shooting incident in the US was carried out by liberals. How many liberal Republicans do you know? To clarify, I'm not saying liberals are responsible for mass shootings. It would be pretty juvenile of me to blame all liberals for the actions of a few unstable people. I mean seriously, what kind of a jackass would think that's a valid argum... oh wait. Sorry.
1
+Jabba Jay You spoke of wanting to have a civilized discussion about diplomacy vs retaliation. I believe you, so let's do that. "Following the money trail" speaks to what we should have done differently up to this point. It does not answer the question about where to go from here. I'll ask you to reply to my question, which refers to the very real possibility of being met with that answer if we were to attempt diplomacy. What would you say or do in response to their often repeated demand that all infidels must convert or die? How do you diplomatically move forward?
1
+CateSimulate I put two but I can see both. The first starts with "Okay, I'll bite" and the second starts "You spoke of wanting." Which one isn't showing up for you?
1
+CateSimulate Weird. That's okay though, the essence of my first comment is repeated in my second. Essentially, how does one diplomatically move forward in negotiations with a people whose only desire is to either convert or kill every person who does not follow Islam?
1
+8bit chess Are you going to lead the crusade against the US citizens? Last I heard they had all the guns. If they have no problem killing each other en masse, I'm pretty sure they'd have no problem dispatching you. At fault or not, what exactly do you propose be done?
1
+Nox Lucis So...it's better for nobody to have the Right to defend themselves from radicals? All because those of you who don't like guns don't think others aren't capable of using them? That's a great perspective that sure was effective in Paris... Look, I get it. You're one of those people who doesn't trust yourself with a gun. That's fine but don't project your inabilities onto others. You can only speak to how you would react in a given situation. Claiming some insight into the capabilities of every person involved in these attacks is a pretty weak argument. People should be allowed to decide for themselves what they're capable of. It's called personal responsibility and there's far too little of it in this world. These people had no choice as to their fate. None. There's nothing sophisticated or cultured about large groups of people being slaughtered like livestock because they lacked the means to defend their Right to live. You can't have world peace unless all of the bad people are gone. Until that day, it will always be better to have the choice whether you want to stand and fight or kneel and cry. More importantly, your decision to kneel and cry should never hinder someone else's ability to stand and fight.
1
+Daan Steijger France already announced an airstrike in retaliation. So much for that argument. As for what the terrorists want: they want people huddled in fear and dying. It's that simple. They don't want people arming themselves and putting up a resistance. They want the "infidels" wiped from the face of the earth. If you think talking will stop that kind of hatred, I'm glad you weren't in charge when we were fighting the Nazis. Most situations should not be handled with violence but some of them have to be. When someone is willing to die to kill you, the only option is to kill them before they get close enough to reach their goal. In this case it's an easy moral choice because they already want to die. Obliging them before they can take innocent people with them is the ONLY course of action that works.
1
+Sirellyn Y Do you have a solution or did you just want to complain?
1
+Sascha Kramarenko "Arming everyone with guns doesn't stop the massacres in America" Newsflash: Only about 1/3 of the US is armed and most of that is in rural and suburban areas. The cities have the highest gun crime rates and the lowest number of legally owned firearms. Mass shootings have become more prevalent as of late and typically in suburban areas HOWEVER, they are almost exclusively in gun free zones. The mass shootings that have occurred outside of suburban areas have been in cities, where again, very few law abiding citizens own guns. So, if nearly all of the shootings in the US are happening where the fewest citizens are armed, how exactly can you justify the claim that a well armed populous doesn't stop shootings by pointing to the US as an example? It seems we actually disprove your theory.
1
+gusgus 1991 Well, considering the story you're commenting on is undeniable proof that NOT fighting back doesn't work, I don't think you have much of an argument. One hand: Terrorists attack, everyone is unarmed, hundreds of people die before the terrorists are finally killed. Other hand: Terrorists attack, armed citizens fire back, only a dozen or so die before the terrorists are killed. In a no win situation, you go with the option that causes the least amount of innocent death. People are GOING to die in these situations. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Prayer circles and diplomacy don't stop extremists. Bullets do. This isn't debatable.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko Way to try turning the argument into something I never said. All I did was correct the blatantly incorrect claims that everyone in the US is armed and that's why we have a lot of gun crime. If you want to get into this, fine. I'll oblige you. The reason we have lots of gun crime is because we have a broken system that doesn't enforce the laws on the books and that releases violent criminals long before their sentences should be up. We have straw purchases with no investigations leading to their prosecution. We have unmedicated psychos walking the streets. We have gangs that would give most third world rebel armies a run for their money. THAT'S why we have so much gun crime. Believe me, your cute little cat burglars wouldn't be all that terrifying even if they had guns. Your criminals are simply not of the same maniacal level that ours are. You don't have nearly as much to worry about.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko That's funny. I love it when people try the "we have criminals too" argument. If your criminals were as bad, you'd have as much death. It's really that simple. You're right, it's nit about the guns. Here, when they can't get guns, they maul you with bats, machetes, axes... whatever's handy. Your "different way of doing things" would not stop our criminals. Gangs would (and do) carry machetes. Mass killers would (and have) build bombs. Your claim is that it isn't about the guns...but then you go on to talk about gun violence like it's a separate issue from any other kind of violence. The double speak is strong in your argument. Anyway, I'm going to bed. You can respond if you like but you won't get an answer for a few hours at least.
1
+gusgus 1991 So create a training system. It's not hard. Nobody said to do it exactly like the US. I'm not disputing the importance of firearms education. In fact, I believe in advanced classes with real life scenario drills for everyone. Now, as I told the other guy, I'm going to bed. I'll happily respond tomorrow if you want to continue this but for now, I need sleep.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko I won't dispute that your criminal justice system is better. I honestly don't know much about it other than your lower number of criminals, so I'll give you that based on that metric. As for the gun control, I personally think places like GB have taken it too far but then, they have a long history of overstepping and taking too many Rights away from the populous. I really don't see why - if they've jumped through every hoop, filed every form and passed every check - a person should not be allowed to carry a firearm. Then again, I also don't understand the idea that a government thinks it can legislate away a living thing's natural born right to defend its self, family and home. Every creature on earth is born knowing it has that right, yet parliament thinks they know better? They're essentially making survival instinct illegal. Now, while we need some serious changes in this Country, those two things aren't up for grabs. There's a fine line between safety and oppression and trying to tell people they can't fight for their own Right to live is on the wrong side of that line.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko The average home invasion in the US is enacted by 2-5 attackers. A woman in Detroit managed to defend herself and her children from 5 men who kicked in her front door in the middle of the afternoon - with her husband's semiautomatic rifle. It's really easy for people to say "just karate chop them or swing a bat" when it's not their life on the line. What would you tell this woman? "Sorry. I know you're a responsible gun owner but we don't like guns, so you can't have one any more. Here's a baseball bat and a Karate class pamphlet. Have fun being gang raped while your children watch. But hey, if you survive it, you get to spend the rest of your life waking up in cold sweats and jumping at every sound, for fear that they'll come back for another go at you." I don't much care for Europe's version of this story.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko Except that it happens quite a bit here. The majority of gun owners who are confronted with these situations survive them and stop their attackers. Apparently 1% is a bit conservative. I really don't understand how people can claim that guns are such efficient killing machines that can lay waste to large groups of people and then, out of the other side of theirs mouths, claim that anyone who used a gun to successfully defend themselves was just lucky. Which is it? Are guns an efficient way of dispatching multiple targets or aren't they? I know the answer but then, I have a lot of hands on experience with various types of firearms. Mass shooters don't have special forces training that makes them better with their weapons than regular citizens. They have guns and time at the range, just like everyone else. To imply that guns are only capable of killing innocent people and that they have an ingrained inability to stop criminals is naive at best. I promise, a bullet doesn't do a background check before it hits you. A gun fired by a woman defending her children is no less effective than a gun fired by a police officer (Yes, I said it. The police have a TERRIBLE shot:hit ratio. Google it). Speaking of which, I'd like to weigh in on your conversation with Joe. The great majority of Police officers in the US retire having never fired at a person while on duty. The majority of gun owners can make the same claim. Somehow, you feel that the Police who patrol my neighborhood need a gun more than I do, even though statistically they're not much more likely to need them than I am. Why do the Police get special privileges? Are their lives worth mire than mine? My wife's? My children's? I know for a fact that I have more range time in than most of them and that the majority aren't even required to have stress based training (a course that's readily available throughout the Country). Remember, when seconds matter, the Police are only minutes away. I'm not comforted by the fact that the guys who come to make a report after an incident, are armed. Especially since they're such lousy shots anyway. I can tell you for certain that I can empty an entire magazine at intruders in my home without ever endangering my children (not that I would likely need all 30 rounds to get the job done but still). I can also tell you that the Police can't make that claim. I would MUCH rather handle the situation and let the cops do the paperwork than have a shootout in my house between the Police and the guys who broke in.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko - A man stopped attackers with his bare hands so everyone should be able to? No. - The Police are "special" and the citizens are not? Hell no. - Police control the crime? Ha! They capture criminals AFTER THE FACT and put them in jail. - Your criminals are soft, therefore our criminals are? Do you not see how this conversation is getting redundant? If your criminals were as bad as ours, they would be killing as many people. Again, it's that simple. - The FACT that the majority of Police officers NEVER have to use their guns is incorrect? Try again. Seriously, the blatant ignoring of facts and making claims that Police are somehow more worthy than everyone else is getting pretty annoying. Not to mention the FACT that we have far more criminals who are willing to kill. If we didn't, you wouldn't be busy telling people to give up guns BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD BE GETTING SHOT. If you're not going to face the realities of this issue and just keep implying that our criminal element is really just a bunch of softies who are only made bad by the presence of guns, there's no point in continuing this discussion. You blame the weapon. I blame the person wielding it. One of these positions applies responsibility to a living, breathing being with the ability to reason and make choices. The other position applies the responsibility to an inanimate object that is wholly incapable of acting on its own behalf. Yeah, I think we're done. You have a nice life.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko The body count, for starters.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko You're still not getting it. You seem to think that every violent criminal in the US has a gun. They don't. Not even the majority do. You're so focused on "gun crime" that you don't bother to look at "overall murder rate." I would recommend spending some time perusing the FBI's crime statistics before continuing this conversation. Notice that I said crime, not just gun crime. All of it. And feel free to compare it to your own Country's numbers. When you're done you should have a much better understanding of the situation. Maybe then you'll be able to see that what you're suggesting really is a band-aid on a belly wound. Until then, this conversation has nowhere to go.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko Way to skim through and find only what you're looking for. Please, continue ignoring all of the other unspeakable acts. I wouldn't want you to hurt that fragile position of yours. Does everyone in your Country think murder is the only violent crime or are you unique in that regard? Did the words "for starters" magically jump off the screen after I typed body count? You wanted to know why I think our criminals are so much worse. It's all there in black and white. Of course, the anti-gun crowd will always ignore the rest of the picture because it doesn't support their (your) agenda. Meanwhile, the rest of us look at all of the facts and know exactly why we need the guns (that's right, I said need). But please, keep that narrow focus. Don't do as I suggested by looking at the crime statistics in their entirety. Just keep looking for the numbers that will stop you from having to consider the possibility that you are trying to claim to have a solution to the problems of a Country that you know relatively little about. Of course you think your solution would work here. After all, it worked for you and it's not like there is a mountain of societal and cultural differences that adversely affect such an idea, right? You just keep on believing that and I'll just keep shaking my head in disbelief.
1
+Sascha Kramarenko See, you just showed your true colors. I said that we can make changes that would allow us to improve these numbers and increase the decline without having to give up our Rights but you're buried so deep in anti-gun dogma that your brain actually translated that into "we'll do nothing and just hope it gets better." You are so focused on the guns that you don't actually care about anything else. The gun crime rate in the US could plummet overnight and you wouldn't care because your problem isn't actually the death, it's the guns themselves. If we ever got to the point of zero gun deaths, you'd immediately jump on the "See, you don't need them! Melt the guns down!" bandwagon because even if there wasn't a single instance, you would still have that deeply ingrained fear of them. It doesn't matter that they're thousands of miles away. It doesn't matter how many or how few people are hurt by them. All that matters is that you don't like them so you make it your mission to rally against them. Now seriously, there's no point in continuing this. I like guns and believe in freedom and personal responsibility. You don't like guns and believe in government overreach and tasking others with your safety. We will never see eye to eye on this. Neither of us will "win." You will continue being a European without a gun and I will continue being an American with a gun. Feel free to post some witty reply so you can feel like you "won" by getting the last word. Goodbye.
1