Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#51

Post by PerfectElement »

colund wrote: post #48

Unfortunately, I think the terrorists suffer from a severe lack of empathy. I'd say the terrorist seem to be psychopaths or schizofrenic. So probably they need to be de-brainwashed via some hard-to-reject facts. The problem with the world is that social structures work in cluster (especially with Internet) and it's hard to reach into social structures with people who have opposite beliefs for a meaningful discussion.

I don't think it's hard to convince people to suppress or nurture their empathy towards certain groups, specially when they are indoctrinated from a young age. Just look at the way most of us care so much about certain animals' wellbeing, while completely ignore the suffering of others.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#52

Post by notahacker »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #38
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Namely, law abiding citizens should be able to conceal-carry weapons. Although it couldn't stop all kinds of terrorist attacks, it could very well put a stop to most mass shootings. Here we go again... When I read this, in my head, this analogy comes to mind: "We could stop bombings by allowing all citizens to carry concealed bombs [to use in self-defense]." Now obviously that is an absurd analogy, but it mirrors a…

"Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones" http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-m...

If you're not content taking your bogus statistics from the sort of blog with so little handle on reality it described Bloomberg as a "communist organisation", you can read the actual report

It excludes mass shootings if the shooters were gang members or robbers, if the victims were in [multiple] private homes, if concealed carry permits weren't handed out like candy in the local area or if the heavily armed guards in place throughout the incident were naval officers or law enforcement officials stationed there to stop shootings....

Trouble is, once you've concluded armed guards were shot because they were "gun free", anywhere where concealed carry isn't commonplace is also "gun free" and mass shootings in private homes don't matter to analysis of gun owners' ability to defend themselves you've probably concluded that rather more than 92% of the US population are in gun free areas...

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#53

Post by colund »

eivarv wrote: post #49
colund wrote: post #48

Unfortunately, I think the terrorists suffer from a severe lack of empathy. I'd say the terrorist seem to be psychopaths or schizofrenic. So probably they need to be de-brainwashed via some hard-to-reject facts. The problem with the world is that social structures work in cluster (especially with Internet) and it's hard to reach into social structures with people who have opposite beliefs for a meaningful discussion.

I'm surprised so many people during the last days have said stuff like this here on HN, i.e. that these things have something to do with mental illness. Do people really know this little about what mental illness (in this case psychopathy or schizophrenia) actually is? I also thought it was widely known that very little is needed for people to be able to act abhorrently towards someone they identify as somehow other…

Come on. I am aware that most people have a "psychological dark side" so to speak and that normal people can go to war. My point was that the ruthlessness of the terrorists show a sever lack of empathy of innocent people, and that it seems hard to reason with their obsessive minds. I'm not saying that all terrorists are psychopaths. Probably their manipulative leaders are, though!

I'm sure that you can debate whether they are sane or not.

A psychologist supports the view that terrorists may be psychopaths when she writes "As we turn now to Islamofascist terrorists, we can begin to see that they meet almost all the criteria listed above for psychopathic traits. They even use the same excuses for their unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their own actions." http://drsanity.blogspot.se/2004/10/psychopathology-of-terro...

Another article supports the idea that terrorists are not mentally ill and furthermore discusses whether terrorists may be depressed: http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/06/29/mental-i...

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#54

Post by colund »

PerfectElement wrote: post #51
colund wrote: post #48

Unfortunately, I think the terrorists suffer from a severe lack of empathy. I'd say the terrorist seem to be psychopaths or schizofrenic. So probably they need to be de-brainwashed via some hard-to-reject facts. The problem with the world is that social structures work in cluster (especially with Internet) and it's hard to reach into social structures with people who have opposite beliefs for a meaningful discussion.

I don't think it's hard to convince people to suppress or nurture their empathy towards certain groups, specially when they are indoctrinated from a young age. Just look at the way most of us care so much about certain animals' wellbeing, while completely ignore the suffering of others.

In fact animal abuse indicates high risk of psychopathic disorder http://www.examiner.com/article/animal-abuse-indicates-high-...

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#55

Post by mrits »

sirrocco wrote: post #10
miguelrochefort wrote: post #6

The only true way to prevent these acts is to eliminate ideological conflicts altogether. Usually, this is done by letting the state pick a winning ideology and suppress those who don't adhere to it. This tends to ensure a level of homogeneity that makes violence obsolete. A more moderate solution is to allow conflicting ideologies to exist as long as they don't reach extremes. This is usually done through mass surve…

No, having guns won't help one bit. Just name one attack in the States that has been foiled by a citizen. What will happen unfortunately is that the surveillance measures will increase exponentially, normal citizens will throw privacy out the window, terror attacks will still happen. It's the world we live in.

It happens quite frequently. If everyone had a gun it would prevent almost all of the incidents. I'm not sure why you would argue this. The other question is how bad is the result of everyone carrying a gun.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#56

Post by DanBC »

mrits wrote: post #55
sirrocco wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, having guns won't help one bit. Just name one attack in the States that has been foiled by a citizen. What will happen unfortunately is that the surveillance measures will increase exponentially, normal citizens will throw privacy out the window, terror attacks will still happen. It's the world we live in.

It happens quite frequently. If everyone had a gun it would prevent almost all of the incidents. I'm not sure why you would argue this. The other question is how bad is the result of everyone carrying a gun.

> I'm not sure why you would argue this.

Because there are plenty of places where lots of people have guns but suicide bombings or kidnapping or etc still happen regularly.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#57

Post by j2bax »

stray wrote: post #42
yongjik wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is more important to prevent automobile ownership. That's why the US has DMV offices, administrating automobile ownership and zealously preventing "unqualified" people from driving these vehicles. Imagine how many more will die if people say "Driving a vehicle isn't privilege, it's my basic right." Snark aside, I think we're talking about different problems. The comment I'm replying to proposed that armi…

Yeah I just think the increased number of accidental shootings will balance or possibly exceed the number if intentional shootings including terrorism. A guy with a gun isn't going to be as brave when he knows others probably have guns too. And most shootings are intentional. So it seems no more dangerous to arm everybody. And possibly far less dangerous. Not to mention that many other types of crime would likely dec…

That's debatable. I have to think of situations like one I saw in the news recently where some hero decided he should shoot an unarmed robber in the mall. I think there would be far more situations like this if everyone was packing. People aren't always very rational and if every time a major conflict breaks out the guns come out you are going to have a far bigger issue than the occasional terrorist attack. I'm not saying I don't agree that well trained individuals shouldn't be able to carry and provide safety to everyone around them, but I don't think the grand majority of the populous would be willing to put in the time to have this kind of training. Even if everyone has a gun, handling a terrorist in a crowded space can be a very tricky ordeal and you could easily have people killing each other with crossfire if everyone is trying to take them out.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#58

Post by dynamic99 »

maxharris wrote: post #2

The #1 thing you can do is to name the party responsible (once it is known for certain), and to name the ideology that motivates these repeated, ever more brazen attacks. If this is what everyone thinks it is (but is cautiously tip-toeing around), "extremism" is not specific enough.

Didn't you just tip-toe around it?

Re: Ask HN: What can we do against terrorist attacks, like the one in Paris?

#59

Post by eivarv »

colund wrote: post #53
eivarv wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised so many people during the last days have said stuff like this here on HN, i.e. that these things have something to do with mental illness. Do people really know this little about what mental illness (in this case psychopathy or schizophrenia) actually is? I also thought it was widely known that very little is needed for people to be able to act abhorrently towards someone they identify as somehow other…

Come on. I am aware that most people have a "psychological dark side" so to speak and that normal people can go to war. My point was that the ruthlessness of the terrorists show a sever lack of empathy of innocent people, and that it seems hard to reason with their obsessive minds. I'm not saying that all terrorists are psychopaths. Probably their manipulative leaders are, though! I'm sure that you can debate whether…

I totally understand what your point is, I just don't think that it makes much sense. I would even hesitate to call it a "dark" side, as many of the same patterns of thought are used (to an extent) by most people.

You might be able to establish some sort of link between ruthlessness and "psychopathy". I'd love to hear where schizophrenia enters the picture, though.

While your first link is only a personal blog post, it does present some coherent thought - but even the author states that "terrorists, by and large, do not suffer from psychosis".

There is also the fact that what we think of as psychopathic actions (or stereotypes thereof) are primarily driven by the ego of the perpetrator, as opposed to the alleged ideological motivations of (e.g. islamic) terrorists.

Note that the first article focuses on the common superficialities (their behaviors appears somewhat similar), but says nothing of the cognitive processes at play in practice - the piece is mostly speculation.

By the way, the statements that "the Palestinians have perfected victimhood as a science" (near the end of the article) leads me to take this source with a grain of salt.

The second article is an argument based on a hell of a lot of assumptions (it even admits this), and basically assumes that since the causes of mental illness and terrorism resemble each other they must be connected (or even the same).

My gripe with your initial post is that the assertion is dubious (at best, and not really theoretically supported), and that it:

- Gives a psychologically satisfying explanation as to how "they" can do things like this, that makes it easier for us to see them as something other than us.

- Ends up perpetuating mental health stigma.

- Politicizes psychopathology.

I suggest taking a look at what a professional authority, e.g. APA [0] says about the matter.

[0]: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx

Post reply on HN