Comments

1
I just love how Chris Christie started using the Paris attacks as the vehicle to revive his candidacy. If you fear terrorism, Christie's your guy. No idea why. It's just that primordial, reptilian part of your brain kicking in.

The San Bernardino shootings just show what a fine line the GOP walks with how we're supposed to respond to mass killings. A terrorist attack by jihadists? Be afraid, be very afraid. A mass shooting by a deranged gunman who may or may not be a jihadist? Hey, suck it up. That's the small price we pay for living in the greatest and free-est country ever.

Face it. Chris Christie wants us to be terrorized almost as much as ISIS wants us to be terrorized. Bread and circuses and terror.

At least he could never go so far as Vladimir Putin went with the apartment bombings that provoked the Chechnyan War and swept him to electoral victory where he apparently had his security services pull off the bombings themselves. (Frontline on PBS had a great report on this.) As we saw with the George Washington Bridge fiasco, Christie and his minions are just too incompetent to pull off any wag-the-dog stunts requiring stealth and coordination.
2
So is Colin Myler going out with a bang or has Jim Rich just taken charge?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/11/media/co…
3
Gun control will not totally stop terrorism, especially in this world wide war against Islamic Jihadism - for which the aggressor has so labeled themselves with the intentions to kill all infidels. It's really very simple.
4
If every mass shooting is terrorism, then none are.

Dear and the Jihadi Couple, definitely are. Paris, Breivik in Norway, obviously.

But an Amoklauf massacre like VA Tech, James Holmes in Aurora, or the Gifford shooting is not motivated by the goal of Terrorizing. It's motivated by Schizophrenia. Lanza, it's not as clear - despite his Autism, I think he understood Infamy.

I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, though.
5
@3: where do you get this "totally stop" idea? REDUCE is the best any rational person favoring GREATER control of firearms could hope for. REDUCE suicides, REDUCE familicides, REDUCE workplace shootings, REDUCE Amoklauf shootings.

Islamic Terror is another issue altogether, and it's not simple at all.
6
@4: No, you are right. Some people just see calling every violent event "terrorism," some kind of semantic/rhetoric victory. For something. Somewhere.
7
@ 3, Stopping terrorism requires a complex portfolio of economic and political strategies that our sadistic, moronic nation simply is incapable of implementing.

We can stop or at least significantly reduce the number of weapons of mass murder available to every lunatic with a grudge, despite the terrorist NRA and RepubliKKKan party's determination to give every psycho a gun.
8
@4: Good ponts Max.
9
The problem is obviously that we don't have enough guns. Once we reach peak gun, terrorism will cease to exist. Duh.
10
@3:

Nothing will totally stop terrorism, that's not the point of gun control. Gun control, as it is understood by most rational people, is simply a measured, common-sense set of actions that would serve to keep guns out of the hands of those who demonstrate they cannot own and use them in a responsible manner. And no, it won't be 100% effective, because nothing devised by human beings ever achieved that level of surety. But, it can significantly reduce the number of deaths by firearms, both those self-inflicted and inflicted on others. And if nothing else, giving people some level of assurance that they aren't going to encounter a random crazy with a semi-auto every time they go out in public may at least allay some of their own apprehensions, and that alone has to be good for ones mental outlook.

Of course, that won't be of much benefit to firearms manufacturers, who depend on promulgating feelings of fear and powerlessness in order to sell more of their products, but I'm pretty sure most of us could live with that.
11
If I am afraid of being shot every time I venture into any public space, whether by Islamic radicals or Fundamentalist Christian misogynist nutjobs with an agenda or by some MRA who hates women because he can't get laid or someone who hears voices telling him that he needs to shoot everyone in sight or by a disgruntled employee or former employee or someone who feels rejected and slighted and wants the world to know that 'you don't fuck with him' or someone who wants a bit of fame and glory or someone who has a vendetta against his ex or FILL IN THE FUCKING BLANK, then yes, I am TERRORIZED. And whover is shooting is de facto a terrorist.
It's that simple.

All this time spent arguing about whether to call someone who intends to kill as many people as possible a "terrorist" or not is a waste of time and energy and distracting from the real issue, which is that anyone who wants to kill a lot of people for whatever reason has ample ability to do so.

I'm sure it's a big comfort to the parents of the children slain by Adam Lanza or the families of those slaughtered in that movie theater in Colorado that those killers weren't terrorists.
12
@9: you know that is sort of how personal-safety gun advocates think.

they cannot conceive of an another alternative to answer the threat posed by other gun owners or gun possessors (aka "thugs" who possess illegal guns). a gun gives them a chance in their minds.

there's enough anecdotal defensive gun uses that the chance of self-defense is not zero. something like <2K a year are reported, but the pro-gun propaganda says there are "up to" 2.5 million. which is 8,000/day. I've tried to reason with people who insist this is realistic, but they don't use reason.

they use emotion.
13
@11: would it be a comfort if they were?

Terrorism is about intent. I won't argue that the effect of Lanza or Holmes isn't terror. If you're scared to send your kid to school, it certainly is.
16
@11: Some people will not swim in the ocean because they are terrorized by the thought of sharks. Are sharks terrorists?

Words have meanings. Your comfort or lack thereof does not change the meanings of words.

But I agree, arguing over whether or not someone is semantically a "terrorist" is pointless, so why not just stop and go with how law enforcement agencies worldwide define it, and stop extending the definition to everyone who is violent? So much simpler.
17
Well, looks like San Bernardino isn't going to be terrorism now, at least not in any legal sense. Major cable network reporters went into the couple's apartment and contaminated the crime scene.
19
@14:

We already know at least one of the shooting victims, Aneesha Kondokor, was known to Farook, and regularly regularly the same mosque as he; so, perhaps sectarianism didn't play as large a factor here as you surmise.
20
Correction the last name is Kondokar.
21
@17: The FBI released the scene before those pointless "tours" took place.
22
1. Hats off to the Daily News!
2. Cue Daily News online death threats in three, two, one...
23
@13 and 16: I guess my point didn't come through.
Given that all the gun murders on American soil have been perpetuated with (mostly) guns legally purchased in America, I don't think the issue is whether or not the killers were "terrorists" which is really code for "brown-skinned people who have names difficult for Americans to pronounce and who are Muslim." People can hate all they want, they can subscribe to all the ideology they want, but it is hard to murder 14 people in the blink of an eye without the appropriate firepower. And if we make that firepower so available, if we are making it easy for murderers--terrorists or not--to slaughter people, then we are partly responsible. And we can do something--if not about about the underlying issues causing the murderous impulse, then at least about the ability to kill many so easily and quickly.

Comparing sharks to armed killers is absurd. Sharks have to kill to eat. It's an instinct, it's necessary for their survival. People do not need to arm themselves and kill others for any reason.
BTW, I've been under a campus-wide lockdown when an armed stranger showed up at my university. I've spent hours wondering where he was, what he intended to do, how I would protect the freshmen in my class and whom I thus felt responsible for. I've wondered if I would be shot. For 5 hours. In that case, the armed man (who didn't end up shooting anyone) wasn't a "terrorist." But you know what? Several hundred people were terrified nevertheless.
24
Bravo!
Sometimes things like this need to be said to wake people up to the reality of the situation.
25
@23: No one is telling you that you can not imagine words to mean whatever they want in your head, but you can not demand everyone else follow your lead.
26
@25: Okay, fine. Let's spend our time and energy on this issue at the expense of addressing the easy availability of guns. We can worry about "terrorists" and argue about what constitutes one while we simultaneously make it harder to slaughter a lot of people anytime anyone wants. Or we can get distracted away from that issue by having this argument while the next mass shooter is already legally purchasing his guns.
27
@26: You are the one expending energy trying to change the definition of terrorism for some self-serving reason, please don't project that onto me.

Also, you do realize that nothing happens in comment sections, right? This is a way for us to waste time, no "work" is getting done here. This thread is not keeping people from finally passing sensible gun control measures. You are aware of this, yes?
28
@27: "Also, you do realize that nothing happens in comment sections, right? " Yes i do.
29
Nice.

*steps away from desk to go buy a copy down at the corner*
30
@4 "But an Amoklauf massacre like VA Tech, James Holmes in Aurora, or the Gifford shooting is not motivated by the goal of Terrorizing. It's motivated by Schizophrenia. Lanza, it's not as clear - despite his Autism, I think he understood Infamy."

Adam Lanza had a huge personality disorder. He was probably more in the category as Seung-Hui Cho and Elliot Rodger, some sort of depression combine with a huge personality disorder. I am guessing Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho probably couldn't feel much of anything. The Autism spectrum really didn't have much to do with Adam Lanza's intentions, or how he was emotionally stunted, in some ways it covered up or use as an excuse that he was very mentally ill, and had a very serious personality disorder..

Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and the other monsters had one thing in common, they should had never been near firearms, or had ready access to firearms. Adam Lanza's mother found out with her death for her irresponsibility..
31
@17 "Well, looks like San Bernardino isn't going to be terrorism now, at least not in any legal sense. Major cable network reporters went into the couple's apartment and contaminated the crime scene."

The TV news reports didn't contaminate the crime scene. The Crime Lab(s) were done with the condo/rental, and took away the tape.. Most crime labs don't like to loiter at a taped off scene, they have a job, and they try to get it done as soon as possible..

32
We need a system of personal "Flagging" of people who are potentially dangerous. Of COURSE we need to control access to guns in a more sensible way but it IS people committing these crimes. Hence a non-anonymous system whereby registered people could call attention to certain people whom they consider possibly dangerous. One flag only puts them in the database. Two flags puts them on a watch list. Three flags gets them a visit from law enforcement. More than that and a warrant is issued for a search for any illegal weapons (yes any) and a background check. If they are mentally ill we have the right to have them checked out by professionals and regardless of the legal ownership of their guns or other weapons, those are confiscated. Checks would be in place to prevent abuse by people exercising a grudge. Other controls would keep people from having their rights trampled (a quick review appeal process) But until we let the PEOPLE come forward in a meaningful way to help stop these insane people, or jihadists, or radicals from carrying out their violent plans.. NO gun control legislation will accomplish anything. This is NOT profiling. It's "see something say something" carried to a logical end with the infrastructure to assist.
33
@32, There are already so many millions of people choking the airlines' no-fly lists and various tracking systems already in place that they're basically worthless.

Advocating a Soviet-style Report Your Neighbors and Family Members system will only further overwhelm the authorities with worthless leads.

But let's not even talk about banning machine guns from public sales--that would violate the terrorists' 2nd Amendment rights!
34
How does a country like Switzerland manage to arm all its citizens without succumbing to near-daily massacres? Through a combination of laws and social pressure? But there will never be negative social pressure in the US about irresponsible purchase, storage, and use of high-powered automatic weapons as long as the governments of the states and of the nation collectively continue to bow down to the NRA and listen to the voices in the fevered imaginations of the paranoid neocons.
35
@26: I spend time on the definition because I think it should inform how we approach the issue of firearm access. I want exorbitant bullet taxes, police interviews as part of background checks, licensing tests, I want marching up an down a parade ground twice yearly. I want gun ownership REGULATED to the point that it's not worth it.

@30: we more or less agree. autistic or not, I think the trail Lanza left shows he was concerned with his notoriety, rationally planning the worst massacre he could imagine for his demise. it worked.
36
Good points nocute. The outcome is people feel terrorised by those whose humanity has left them.
37
@34:

Because in Switzerland, the "A well-regulated militia" clause takes precedence over the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" clause.

Swiss citizens (male, sorry ladies, not my call) between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo basic military and weapons training before being issued firearms, which includes full-auto rifles. At the end of their service obligation they can convert their militia-issued weapons to private ownership, but automatic weapons are modified to operate only in semi-auto mode. Furthermore, in order to obtain a permit to privately acquire weapons, Swiss citizens must provide rigorous documentation, including: proof of psychiatric qualification, residency and citizenship records, and criminal records; these same records must be presented in order to purchase ammunition, and one can only buy it for the specific weapons one legally owns. And on top of all that, personal carry permits are highly restricted; aside from militia-issued weapons, only those who are employed in security-related jobs can obtain a permit, as one must demonstrate a specific need to carry, in addition to passing an exam proving both competency with the weapon and knowledge regarding its legal use.

The result of all this is that, while some 60% of Swiss households possess firearms compared to about half that for the U.S., the number of firearms-related homicides per capita is about 6% of ours, while the rate of gun-inflicted suicides is about one-third ours.
39
@33 Sorry but you are mistaken. There were 10,000 names on the no fly list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013. It rises and falls based on threat level.The point is that PEOPLE commit these crimes. Most of them have SOME kind of relationships, neighbors, co workers or others who they deal with. Yes, it DOES create a system whereby people watch others. Do you honestly believe they don't do that NOW? In the case of the San Bernadino shootings.. their neighbor saw men frequentlng the shooter's garage late at night but did not say anything out of fear of "racial profiling".. Bad behavior, illegal behavior is often observed and ignored. That has to end and a system of public accountability put in place. With 300 million guns in circulation and an epic fight to try and regulate them in ANY way.. it's more sensible to have people report to authorities (with THEY THEMSELVES accountable... no anyonymous reports) if they see potentially dangerous activities. The Terrorist Watchlist had a million names in 2009. Are they ALL being investigated? No.. but should they try to fly, buy a gun, fertilizer, or other weapons.. it sensible that we try to prevent that. We could elminate "false positives" with mulitple flags from people. A simple appeal process would remove them if they meet some simple criteria.. and THIS is after being flagged by two different people (not connected to one another).
40
@39

I'm pretty sure you should be on the SPLC's watch list.
41
Overseen in the FB comments thread on a Slate article on President Obama's suggestion that people on the no-fly list be restricted from buying firearms: Bailo is shitposting again.
"It's insane that people on a No-Fly list can fly into our country and get the red carpet treatment."
wut
42
@12: I consider myself a reasonable person, so let me ask: Do you assume the number of reported defensive uses of firearms accurately reflects the total defensive uses of firearms?

Gun owners understand that brandishing a gun--just brandishing, with no shots fired--is a crime unless one can prove that it was in self-defense. Courts don't always care if it was: Marissa Alexander got 20 years for defensively firing a warning shot to deter her abusive ex-husband, who admits he would have beaten her had she not been armed.

Knowing that, why would any gun owner who successfully deterred a robber, stalker, rapist, etc. with their gun call up the police and file a report? That, to me, is substantial reason to believe that defensive uses of firearms are under reported.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the 2.5 million figure is accurate. It means we don't know. But I'm comfortable owning a gun in that knowledge gap, knowing that I have a crazy stalker ex, and knowing that I'll do everything in my power to ensure it is stored and handled safely. I've never had to use one, and I hope I never do. But it is something of a comfort to know I can if I must.
43
I think an argument about the semantics of what exactly makes someone a terrorist is exactly what the national gun debate needs.

Please wait...

and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.