11 dead in French shooting

[SpontaneousOrder]

So you are a lamb to the slaughter as well?

Isn't that the point he's making? He'd rather not be. Others seem to like being so.

[Scruff]

This forum is full of Gladiators today. Jack Reacher, move over.

[xoggoth]

High time Islamophobia was renamed Islamosense. There is nothing at all irrational about loathing Islamism.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yes, because a driver and a soldier are obviously the same

The difference is that being a driver is MUCH more likely to result in you killing someone than responsibly owning a firearm.

Yet you don't advise people not to drive, just incase they run someone down and suffer psychological consequences.

Apart from that I'm not sure I follow the logic where being killed is better than suffering psychological trauma from taking a life.


**edit** snipped the off topic bit.

[mudskipper]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthi...y44#.alRbLRgjp

[Paddy]

10 people in office, attackers had no clue which ones could have had a few handguns (Glock 9mm to the head is as effective as 7.62 from Kalashnikov) - by the time they shot 3rd victim they should have received return fire from those who had firearms. Granted artists are not the ones carrying guns, but given the risks they took and much more liberal gun laws in France they should have armed themselves at least in the office.

Obviously it's NOT their fault that they were not armed, I am just saying had they been armed then attackers would not have killed so many.

More bollocks from ATW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgajiVpsvbA

[AtW]

More bollocks from ATW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgajiVpsvbA

And what this video is supposed to prove?

9mm shot in the head at short distance is OK to disarm somebody with AK, you can always shoot more than once to be sure.

[NickFitz]

They often have cartoons mocking religion, regardless of which one. I don't have all their covers but here's a couple of religious ones:

That's an (extremely shoddy) fake: for a start the Eye doesn't Photoshop their cover photos (probably because nobody there knows how to), and the font in the speech bubble is completely wrong. Here's the actual cover of that issue:

[NickFitz]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthi...y44#.alRbLRgjp

By Australian cartoonist David Pope (hence the date).

[darmstadt]

That's an (extremely shoddy) fake: for a start the Eye doesn't Photoshop their cover photos (probably because nobody there knows how to), and the font in the speech bubble is completely wrong. Here's the actual cover of that issue...

You're correct and I noticed it after hitting the submit button but couldn't be arsed (I was in Daily Mail mode!). I suspect the reason they don't photoshop their covers is more for integrity rather than knowledge, no-one can then blame them of a mock up. Instead here's a couple of German satirical magazine covers with religion: