Two People Killed And Four More Injured In Horror Paris Shooting

This homeless/migrant problem in France was long before COVID it just made it probably worse.


a reply to: musicismagic

a reply to: Dizle81

When has it ever been going to get any better seems to be the salient point.

We are still alive and kicking Dizle81 and to be honest, I don't see that really changing much anytime soon.

Merry Christmas to all by the way, hope you all have a fantastic day. x

The Parisian Kurds are now saying that this was a political killing, with some adding Turkey is behind it.

Paris shooting: Fresh skirmishes as rally takes place for Kurdish victims of 'racist' attack

PS: the article above doesn't mention Turkey, but the Portuguese version, as usual, does.

Google translation of the Portuguese version

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
This homeless/migrant problem in France was long before COVID it just made it probably worse.


a reply to: musicismagic

Very true. The migrant aspect has been building since the end of French Algeria in the 1960s.

Cheers

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: carewemust

France already has strict gun control laws carewemust.

www.thelocal.fr...

Guns in the hands of lunatics like that muppet is the problem.

Isn't that what we always say? Why does that only become the problem when everyone else who isn't the problem is disarmed?

If it's the problem, it's the problem no matter who else is or is not armed.

a reply to: ArMaP

My thoughts when I heard it was Kurdish.

I immediately went - This has to be more complicated than "ma racism" herpty, derp.

The kurds have all kinds of enemies running around and just because this or that group immigrated to the same place doesn't mean they all assimilated and become happy, happy French together.

a reply to: andy06shake

I've never been (touch wood) but one thing that always stood out was the difference in category. Hotel Vs the big stay.

The radicalisation of criminals spending a few months at his majesty's pleasure is all too common from what I gather. I know a few people who went in, got fit and healthy physically but came out with some messed up ideas and a bit knowledge of how to go about them. More drugs on the inside than the outside too apparently.

I don't know the statistics although I'd guesstimate that a majority (more than half) of criminals half some form of mental illness.

To add:
Merry Xmas Andy and everyone else

my dad and step mom went to France this summer and my step mom almost got robbed on the train coming from the hotel going to the tower(shocker).

France is still very nice you just have to have money.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: andy06shake

I've been to France a few times, North and South.

Armed police were a common sight in Metropolitan areas, even in the 90's. They carried Mp5's back then.

I wouldn't be surprised if they carry something heavier these days given the relatively recent terrorist attacks.

I won't visit France again.

yes i was going to say the same thing.

when we were in paris at a mall,

3 man groups were walking around with machine guns, looked military uniforms but could be wrong.

this was a few yrs ago.

a reply to: andy06shake

The most important question is never asked. Why are Kurds and many other muslims even in France? France belongs to the indigenous French. France is not the United States. Neither is the rest of Europe. Plain and simple.

a reply to: ketsuko

Isn't that what we always say?

Where?

Depending on the nation, rhetoric and opinion may vary far as I can establish.

To buy a firearm in France you require a hunting/shooting license which is a necessity as far as I'm aware.

That whackjob should never have been armed or in possession of a firearm ketsuko, simple as that.

As to problems, well he's the one that seems to have had those.

Of the racist sorts no less, which seems to have led to mass murder, because his racial or religious sensibilities were somehow bent out of shape and he decided to go on a shooting spree.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Italy has the same problem and the new far right government is doing nothing but giving speeches about the issue and unfortunately i dont see anything positive out of this issue.

a reply to: RobLucian

The most important question is never asked. Why are Kurds and many other muslims even in France? F

You do realize that France had an empire and colonies all over the world at one point where they invaded and subjugated the local populace.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

France is not the United States. Neither is the rest of Europe. Plain and simple.

Cheers for the geography lesson. LoL

But whoever suggested France or Europe was in the United States?

France is part of Europe, that's a given plain and simple, and Paris is, and always has been, a multicultural city comprised of a load of different ethnicities, which again is a plain and hard fact.

a reply to: andy06shake

Paris is, and always has been a, multicultural city comprised of a load of different ethnicities, which again is a plain and hard fact.

Not quite true on that one.

That had being only occurring since after WW2.

a reply to: RAY1990

The radicalisation of criminals spending a few months at his majesty's pleasure is all too common from what I gather.

It's school for criminals mate.

I know a few people who went in, got fit and healthy physically but came out with some messed up ideas and a bit knowledge of how to go about them.

Me to, its screws a lot of people's heads up and gives them a large chip on the shoulder by my estimation.

More drugs on the inside than the outside too apparently.

That's not quite true, they are just a lot more expensive, but Spice is the main problem that most HMP in the UK have to contend with.

I don't know the statistics although I'd guesstimate that a majority (more than half) of criminals half some form of mental illness.

I don't think you are far wrong there, and if they don't have them going in then they probably will come out.

To add:
Merry Xmas Andy and everyone else

Cheers mate same to yourself and the family, hope you have a good'yin.

Im a bit tender myself this lovely Boxing day morning, I think a curer may be in order.

a reply to: vNex92

Bullcrap take the Jewish population, Chinese people, or Moroccans for instance, who have resided in the city long before any of the world wars ever took place and whose recorded history in the city of Paris stretches back to antiquity.

Humans are animals, bound to natural intrinsic laws, which we try and suppress in our kind of civilised societies when all is peaceful and we have no problems.
But make no mistake, the animal side will come out when we are forced into unnatural situations which threaten our own herd. Sticking other human animal herds into ours and expect us all to hug and kiss is totally against Nature.
Just observe Chimpansees if you'd stick a few young males from another clan into an established group. Watch and learn what comes naturally.
The same applies to us humans.
You may hate it, but it's absolutely inevitable and will escalate, because it's all too fast, too much and too alien to our own.
Amalgamation of clans need to happen slowly and gradually, with respect to the accommodating clan foremost.

Otherwise this will happen with absolute certainty.
Nature, we must not override it for political games.

a reply to: Hecate666

Integration is the ticket Hecate666, but they have to want to, which can be problematic on both sides.

Tell you one thing though, racist lunatics gunning them down outside community centers certainly does not inspire such.

Your right all the same to a certain degree as human beings are indeed tribal by nature.

Generally afraid of the unknown or unusual.

originally posted by: Hecate666
Humans are animals, bound to natural intrinsic laws, which we try and suppress in our kind of civilised societies when all is peaceful and we have no problems.
But make no mistake, the animal side will come out when we are forced into unnatural situations which threaten our own herd. ...

Some argue that the propensity for violence or killing has always been inborn in humans. Supporters of evolution maintain that we come from wild animals and have simply inherited their violent characteristics. Such theories would leave us doomed to an endless cycle of violence from which there is no hope of escape.

However, there is much evidence to the contrary. The theories mentioned above do not explain why in different cultures there are wide variations in frequency and types of violence. They do not indicate why in some cultures responding with violence seems to be the norm, whereas other societies report very little violence, with murder almost nil. Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm exposed cracks in the theory that we inherit aggression from primates by pointing out that although some of them are violent as a result of physical needs or for self-protection, humans are the only ones who have been known to kill for the sheer thrill of killing.

In their book The Will to Kill​—Making Sense of Senseless Murder, Professors James Alan Fox and Jack Levin state: “Some individuals are more prone to violence than others, yet free will still exists. The will to kill, though governed by numerous internal and external forces, still includes choice and human decision making, and thus accountability and culpability.”

People are surrounded by violence​—in cities, in books, plays and movies, in their streets, in their living rooms. Television floods minds from infancy on with mayhem and murder. One study estimates that by age 14 the average American child has been exposed to 11,000 television murders. A Congressional subcommittee investigated violence in the schools and came up with this statement of historic import: “More children were killed in the schools, often in gun fights with other pupils, between 1970 and 1973, than soldiers in combat in Vietnam.”

Evolutionary scientists assure us that all of this is natural. Aggression is innate, they say, handed down to us by animal ancestors. Not true, other scientists contend. Anthropologist Ashley Montagu writes as follows:

“There are many societies that, far from engaging in aggressive behavior, are remarkably nonviolent and cooperative. Examples are the Tasaday of Mindanao, the Todas of southern India, the Tahitians, the Hadza of Tanzania, the Ifaluk of the Pacific, the Yamis of the Western Pacific, the Lapps, the Arapesh and the Fore of New Guinea. . . .

“When anthropologists study such nonaggressive societies, we observe that it is principally through their child-rearing practices that they produce cooperative, nonviolent personalities. Great affection is lavished on children. From infancy on, small children are scarcely ever out of bodily contact with someone who is either cuddling or carrying them. . . .

“Aggression and nonaggression are each learned ways of behavior. Every society provides models for its preferred forms of behavior​—models that are continually reinforcing the behavior of the individual. America sets before the child the most aggressive kinds of models, and then we wonder why we have such high rates of violent crime.”

One of the glories of our humanity is that we are free moral agents. That is, we are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and are free to choose to be governed by one or the other. This, as much as any other one factor, testifies to the vast gulf that exists between us and animals. Those who accept the evolution theory choose to overlook this all-important difference. Yes, we alone of all earth’s creatures have a moral sense; we alone can appreciate the difference between what is, a world filled with wickedness and violence, and what ought to be, a world of righteousness and peace. We alone find a need for an explanation of things, a need for religion.

To be governed by moral principles means to put obedience to conscience ahead of selfish gain, ahead of material things. When we stop to think about it, actually all the animals are materialists, for to them physical comfort and satisfaction of their sexual impulses are all that matter. Interestingly, the Bible tells us that the wisdom marked by selfish strife and jealousy is animalistic. Further, the Bible tells us that the wicked are like unreasoning brutes, and, like them, such people will also perish.​—Jas. 3:14-16; 2 Pet. 2:10-13.

Today the world has, by and large, become animalistic and as a result it is ever harder to govern oneself by moral principles. Never before have there been such temptations and pressures toward self-interest, expediency, greed, love of sensual pleasure or thirst for power. Is it any wonder, that when people are conditioned into believing they are descendent from animals and have inherited their traits from them, that they feel they have an excuse to behave more animalistic rather than allowing themselves to be governed by moral principles.

A moral code is present in all human societies. Whether they wish to admit it or not, all peoples feel a need for a guiding force above and beyond themselves. They instinctively look to a higher power to worship or serve. It may be the sun, the moon, a star, a mountain, a river, an animal, a man, or an organization. Their moral code may be set forth in one of the many sacred writings of different cultures. The need is found in people everywhere. It is instinctive in man.

“Religion,” according to prominent psychiatrist C. G. Jung, “is an instinctive attitude peculiar to man, and its manifestations can be followed all through human history.” The well-known scientist Fred Hoyle wrote of “the moral code present in all human societies” and added: “It would be easy to build a considerable argument to show that the moral sense in man persists despite all the temptations [and persecutions] which constantly work against it.”

The best known and most widely circulated of all the sacred writings, the Bible, recognizes this inherent moral sense in man. It says at Romans 2:14, 15: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”

Hoyle considers evolution “an open charter for any form of opportunistic behaviour,” and he continues: “Frankly, I am haunted by a conviction that the nihilistic philosophy which so-called educated opinion chose to adopt following the publication of The Origin of Species committed mankind to a course of automatic self-destruction. A Doomsday machine was then set ticking. . . . The number of people who nowadays sense that something is fundamentally amiss with society is not small, but sadly they dissipate their energies in protesting against one inconsequential matter after another.”

Then, with mathematical precision, Hoyle proceeds to show that the probabilities for life to have originated on earth by chance are nil. Orthodox scientists, he says, have been turned away from the idea of a creative force by “the religious excesses of the past.” But Hoyle believes that life was created by some intelligent force out in universal space. He believes that what was impossible on earth was possible in outer space​—but he postulates that even out there some kind of intelligence was at work. Even the simplest form of life, a bacterium, is so amazingly complex that intelligence had to be involved in its creation, but he can’t bring himself to call that intelligence God.

Others who “sense that something is fundamentally amiss with society” are not so reluctant to do so. One of such is psychiatrist Jung, previously quoted: “The individual who is not anchored in God can offer no resistance on his own resources to the physical and moral blandishments of the world. For this he needs the evidence of inner, transcendent experience which alone can protect him from the otherwise inevitable submersion in the mass.”

Presiding Justice Francis T. Murphy of the Appellate Division says that modern man “does not know the ultimate meaning of his life and doubts that life has any meaning. Whatever his moral pretensions may be, he has in fact driven God out of his life, out of his office, out of his home. He therefore lacks a moral center.” From the sports world, Howard Cosell voiced the same opinion when discussing the problem of drug abuse by athletes. He said: “There is no definable moral center in America anymore . . . and that is a problem for the entire culture.”

“It is impossible,” says syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, “to have a moral community or nation without faith in God, because everything rapidly comes down to ‘me,’ and ‘me’ alone is meaningless. . . . When ‘me’ becomes the measure of all things​—at the expense of God, of church, of family and of the accepted norms of civil and civic human behavior—​we are in trouble.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that if asked to identify in a few words the principal trait of the 20th century, he would say: “Men have forgotten God.” He continued: “The entire twentieth century is being sucked into the vortex of atheism and self-destruction. . . . All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain.”

a reply to: andy06shake

Here in the US.

And in most cases, there were always, always reasons why he should not have been able to obtain what he had, assuming he didn't steal them outright.

But instead of saying he's a nutjob who shouldn't ever have had access, the default is always on us for not disarming everyone. Of course, it could also be that there is a misperception of how US gun laws work simply because so many US citizens do avail themselves of the right to keep and bear arms. It is a tradition over here. While I don't have a firearm, many of my family do for various reasons as many live in rural areas. It's necessary, and yes, some of them hunt.

I also know some firearms enthusiasts who appreciate guns for what they are like an auto enthusiast appreciates cars. Those types are seldom the problem too.

I also know some for whom a firearm is just another tool of personal security for the home and family. Strangely, they also aren't the problem.

And those three types make up the majority of firearms owners in the country, but they are also the target of almost all new rules and regs proposed every time someone decides he wants to shoot a bunch of people.