Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1646 1647 [1648] 1649 1650 ... 3515

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 3594745 times)

redwallzyl

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24705 on: October 28, 2018, 03:33:50 pm »

It's fairly easy to just go shoot up somewhere less risky I would expect.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24706 on: October 28, 2018, 04:10:03 pm »

I'm curious, have any studies actually been done to determine the efficacy of a small number of armed guards at intervening in a mass shooting situation? I would think that the guards would be the first targeted by the shooter, and would likely be killed before they even realized what was happening.
I don't think so. Anecdotal evidence from Europe and terrorism would indicate that terrorists don't like targeting areas with armed guards or quick police response times. Terrorists and mass shooters don't exactly have the same psychology or motives though so it may be another issue entirely. Biggest problem would just be logistical though, how do you guard everywhere? You need a lot of guards to guard every population centre

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24707 on: October 28, 2018, 04:17:03 pm »

And if certain areas guard themselves more, does that actually dissuade terrorism at all?  Or only shift it to softer targets?
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24708 on: October 28, 2018, 04:30:28 pm »

I'm curious, have any studies actually been done to determine the efficacy of a small number of armed guards at intervening in a mass shooting situation? I would think that the guards would be the first targeted by the shooter, and would likely be killed before they even realized what was happening.
I don't think so. Anecdotal evidence from Europe and terrorism would indicate that terrorists don't like targeting areas with armed guards or quick police response times. Terrorists and mass shooters don't exactly have the same psychology or motives though so it may be another issue entirely.

The psychology and motives may be different, but the general aim is the same, to inflict as much damage as possible in as much time as possible and usually in a place that isn't hardened against such acts. For terrorism, the reasoning is a bit different in that it takes less work to go after a softer target than it is to go after a hard (and often higher profile) target.

Quote
Biggest problem would just be logistical though, how do you guard everywhere? You need a lot of guards to guard every population centre

The NRAs answer to that would be 'Arm everybody! from the oldest most senile elder who doesn't even have the strength to lift a gun all the way down to those just born (who also would have difficulty)'.

And if certain areas guard themselves more, does that actually dissuade terrorism at all?  Or only shift it to softer targets?

If the aim is just to kill, it would probably just shift to softer targets.
Logged

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24709 on: October 28, 2018, 04:41:37 pm »

Terrorists generally aren't going to switch to a "softer" target, because a terrorist almost universally picks targets of extreme (to them) symbolic importance. 9/11 is a perfect example - there are literally thousands of potential attack plans where those planes would have killed many more people, but Bin Laden was obsessed with the WTC as a symbol of American dominance, which is why he'd already bombed it once.


Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24710 on: October 28, 2018, 04:55:08 pm »

So, arm the nurses?
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24711 on: October 28, 2018, 04:56:19 pm »

Terrorists generally aren't going to switch to a "softer" target, because a terrorist almost universally picks targets of extreme (to them) symbolic importance. 9/11 is a perfect example - there are literally thousands of potential attack plans where those planes would have killed many more people, but Bin Laden was obsessed with the WTC as a symbol of American dominance, which is why he'd already bombed it once.

Unless they just want to kill and terrorize.

So, arm the nurses?

Against bombs? (yes, I know you're not being serious)
Logged

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24712 on: October 28, 2018, 05:03:06 pm »

Against bombs?
Sooo, armour the nurses?
Logged

Lord Shonus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Angle of Death
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24713 on: October 28, 2018, 05:10:48 pm »

Terrorists generally aren't going to switch to a "softer" target, because a terrorist almost universally picks targets of extreme (to them) symbolic importance. 9/11 is a perfect example - there are literally thousands of potential attack plans where those planes would have killed many more people, but Bin Laden was obsessed with the WTC as a symbol of American dominance, which is why he'd already bombed it once.

Unless they just want to kill and terrorize.


Terrorism is, by definition, violence with a purpose. Terrorists almost always have a goal that makes perfect sense to them, no matter how random or deranged that goal seems to everybody else. Even the Unabomber had a precise method to his attacks.

The only times truly random violence serves any greater purpose is when that purpose is delivering the message "You can never stop us from killing you. GO. AWAY.".
Logged
On Giant In the Playground and Something Awful I am Gnoman.
Man, ninja'd by a potentially inebriated Lord Shonus. I was gonna say to burn it.

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: October 28, 2018, 05:13:46 pm by Rolan7 »
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24715 on: October 28, 2018, 05:44:32 pm »

And if certain areas guard themselves more, does that actually dissuade terrorism at all?  Or only shift it to softer targets?
It might depend on the terrorist. Doesn't seem to bother some (that there was a lack of stationed armed response unit seems to have been a failure of scheduling, not a key aspect to the attack), maybe others went for a "non-target" area to do more random terrorising in the eight minutes they got to act before being taken down. All of these individuals were obviously committed to dying.


As to the latest attack and the ramifications of the suggestion there ought to have been an armed guard (to dissuade the dissuadable, though it's probably more like moving them on to some other target unless it's a secret armed guard, waiting to pop out of a cupboard-cum-sentry-box when CCTV shows a 'situation') I think the better question is not whether there could be an armed guard absolutely everywhere to (hopefully!) make things better, but whether countering this threat with such a global measure is better than not having the same easy possibility of occurence in the first place.

Too late for the US, probably, which is probably heading towards a Snow Crash future of private nation-enclaves/gated communities where each locale hires its armed gatekeepers from an NRA-approved list of guns-for-hire (or some other equally capable third-party subscription service with a register/membership-roll of 'dangerous, but not randomly dangerous' individuals with negotiable loyalties). Peoppe with just the right level of crazy, and just below a certain level of imagination themselves.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24716 on: October 28, 2018, 06:18:07 pm »

Terrorists generally aren't going to switch to a "softer" target, because a terrorist almost universally picks targets of extreme (to them) symbolic importance. 9/11 is a perfect example - there are literally thousands of potential attack plans where those planes would have killed many more people, but Bin Laden was obsessed with the WTC as a symbol of American dominance, which is why he'd already bombed it once.
In Europe the attacks on concerts, bridges, train stations, markets and so forth had no symbolic significance, the one thing they had in common was that they had large numbers of undefended civilians on them. Once they were fortified and had armed guards, the attacks moved elsewhere
There is a difference I suppose even between terrorists

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24717 on: October 28, 2018, 06:42:53 pm »

Terror is a vehicle of a small and vocal group to enact prompt and sweeping changes by a much larger group, to establish more favorable conditions or treatment.

Since we are discussing the middle east, it is important to point out that the average person there gets treated like shit by their own leaders. Leaders that the west continues to support, despite their less than spectacular track records concerning humanitarian practices. (You know, like how they treated a certain troublesome journalist.) This leads to a disenfranchised demographic that is systemically oppressed, and whos oppressors are supported financially by strong international interests. (because modern society does not run on good will. It runs on energy resources, and the exchange of goods and services.)

This makes these demographics of people vulnerable to anyone who would offer a light in their respective darkness dominated lives. Bin Laden, and the extreme islamic cleric groups over there, are such individuals/groups, preying on vulnerable people.

These groups tell their supporters that the west does not care about them, and never will. That the west is only concerned with money, oil, and power, to further their own selfish consumption and selfish world political policies.  And-- they are not wrong. 

The purpose of terrorism is to do the following:

1) Make other people in "sheltered" societies that are supporting the wholesale subjugation of their own people, through their government's support of their oppressors, aware--- personally aware--- of what it feels like to have your loved ones killed in front of you, and to have no means of preventing it. (For the purposes of forging a commonality of understanding. The terrorists ultimately want people to understand that turning a blind eye toward suffering, any suffering, is unpardonable. The purpose of the terrorist act is to cause maximal suffering, so that it cannot be ignored.)

2) Cause sufficient material and logistical disruption in those countries targeted, along with sufficient civil unrest, to cause the governments of those targeted countries to reconsider their foreign and domestic policies concerning their support of oppressive government regimes.


Depending on which of those two goals the terrorist attack is intended to accomplish, determines the nature of the attack.  An attack on the WTC is clearly the latter.  The attack on a crowded civilian establishment is clearly the former.

In both cases, there is still a very clear thread behind the reasoning.  "YOU CANNOT IGNORE US. WAKE UP, AND STOP IGNORING THE SUFFERING YOU CAUSE."

The commonly ascribed "Oh, those people are just crazy. Continue to ignore them." mindset is 100% at odds with that, and will only serve to further embolden the actions of the desperate, which terrorists are, by definition.

Sadly, even if the US and pals completely switched away from fossil fuel based energy, and left the saudis high and dry, it would not fix the domestic problems present in the region; the people there are still going to be manipulated by the next set of militant assholes that will crush them under their boots. (See also, what the taliban did, what extremist clerics do with sharia law, etc.)

Terrorism is what you get when you have vulnerable and oppressed people, fashioned into a weapon by the insidiously minded.
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24718 on: October 28, 2018, 06:48:47 pm »

We weren't discussing the middle east. Yes, terrorist attacks from the middle east (or inspired by) are what LW meant, but we were also discussing the attempted bombings and the synagogue shooting in the context of all that as well.

Middle East related terror have become a focus in recent decades, but they aren't the only terrorists out there.

So, basically, are you saying that the attempted bomber and the synagogue shooter are vulnerable oppressed people? Not every terrorist is going to fit in that mold, some are just batshit crazy.

And yes, I know you just said that the 'they're just crazy' mindset is at odds, but the 'oppressed people' part doesn't fit here.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2018, 06:57:03 pm by smjjames »
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #24719 on: October 28, 2018, 06:55:20 pm »

The basic threads still apply though, even to something as domestic as the ALF, or the ELF.

The choice of target will either be for maximal exposure (and thus, maximal damage and impact), or will be performed for maximal consequence (target of critical infrastructure or critical logistical processing)

The exact thing being sought will change, but ultimately, the same basic features apply.

1) Small group seeks to change behavior of the larger group via means of terror/terrorist action.
2) Small group feels that it is being ignored by the larger group, and that the actions of the larger group are unconscionable.
3) Small group seeks to force the larger group to wake up to how unconscionable its behavior is, through high impact disruption and being generally unignorable.

The reality that these are organized actors set to potentially cause widespread change (and thus, represent a vehicle to power for the unscrupulous), makes them a powerfully seductive thing to coopt by the unscrupulous, who genuinely do not care about the baseline issue that people would be willing to die over-- only that it brings THEM, PERSONALLY, to the fore, to start dictating policies.

In that capacity, yes-- even domestic group members are indeed victims of being organized by unscrupulous and hypocritical leaders, who use them as if they were just disposable things.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2018, 06:59:57 pm by wierd »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1646 1647 [1648] 1649 1650 ... 3515