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

Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 249 posts

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#121

Post by nixme »

pronoiac wrote: post #106
kiba wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take away easy access to guns then sure the hard criminals will still have guns but the wannabe criminals and the lunatics will do less damage. Taking away legal access != eliminating easy access to guns. It still may well be the case that it is easy to buy guns on the black market. On the other hand, you also disarm the population, making them easier target for mass murderer.

On the other hand, you also disarm the population, making them easier target for mass murderer. Has a massacre in the US ever been stopped by someone with a gun, who wasn't a cop?

Possibly the Appalachian School of Law shooting, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_sho...

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#122

Post by epo »

olalonde wrote: post #34
arturadib wrote: post #26

Think outside the box. I've lived in the US for 10 years, and I follow plenty of world news. It is clear that Columbine-like shootings are (mostly) an American phenomenon. [1] So what is it so special about the US that makes this a recurring problem? Is it poor parenting, without much communication? Is it societal pressure, i.e. Mr Popular vs Mr Loser? Is it easy access to guns? Is it the disproportionate amount of m…

I personally don't have an opinion on gun control but it is pretty clear to me that easy access to guns is what stands out.

I am not an American and it is clear to me that without essentially unrestricted to guns that crimes like this would be less frequent (and probably just not happen).

Guns kill things, it is their purpose and easy access to guns makes the killing of people more likely.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#123

Post by stan_rogers »

kiba wrote: post #74
leot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of determination required to do that much killing with a knife would have had its effects amplified by the ready availability of a gun. You think some person with a handgun would stand much of a chance against someone in body armor with an assault rifle?

You think some person with a handgun would stand much of a chance against someone in body armor with an assault rifle? It would not be certainty a fair fight. Even so, a murderer is forced to engage civilians who are shooting at them rather than civilians who are simply defenseless. The only thing a person with handgun can do is buy time for a SWAT team to arrive and the slower the SWAT are, the more likely for death…

Unless those civilians have been trained under live-fire circumstances, there is a far greater probability that they would add to the toll of bystander injuries than that they would quickly stop the original threat. It's not life on the target range; flinching, adrenalin tremors and tunnel vision are real, and a miss (or a through-and-through) doesn't always go safely into a sand berm. And what about the other armed individuals whose situational awareness is formed when they see two or three shooters rather than the original one?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#124

Post by arturadib »

vacri wrote: post #119
InclinedPlane wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, except for Utoya, Liege, Florence, Alphen aan den Rijn, Bratislava, Cumbria, Sello mall, Winnendon school, Kauhajoki school, Akihabara, Jokela school, Linchang school, Kauhajoki school, Shiguan kindergarten, Rio, Azerbaijan State Oil Academy, Siakago, the Chengdu bus fire, and others. Yup, entirely an "American phenomenon". These aren't terror attacks predominantly. These aren't drug crimes predominantly. Thes…

It's not uniquely American, sure. But Europe has 2.5 times the population of the USA, yet has only 12 listings in the last 10 years in your first link, against the USA's 10. In the second link, the page points to individual pages for rampage killers, which give 19 for the USA in the last 10 years against 13 for Europe. But really, arguing about spree killers isn't really the way to do it, even though they are symptom…

One more data source to support your point (the US accounts for 10 of the 20 worst rampages in Western democratic countries):

http://www.statista.com/statistics/1871/number-of-victims-of...

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#125

Post by 54mf »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #99
54mf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your first point. The "black market" isn't a place you just go to if you want to buy illegal shit. The fact is, if the shooter didn't have legal, easy access to an assault rifle, he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did. Period. "It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other." Well, yeah, it is. Assault rifles are legal in most states. What does bei…

No, not "Period." There are any number of other ways he could do the same damage. We all know that. So don't force in an absolute where it doesn't belong.

He rigged his apartment with, supposedly, 30 or so IED/IIDs, and had full body armor during the assault. As far as I can tell, he pulled out all the stops. If he could have done more, I'm pretty sure he would have.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#126

Post by corford »

Frozenlock wrote: post #81
corin_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe... but two big differences. First: I live in the UK. I've never wanted to kill someone. If I could legally buy a handgun and use it on a shooting range I would. Let's say someday I, for some reason, become a psycho and want to kill people. Right now I don't have anything like a gun to use, best I could come up with is a kitchen knife. Under US gun law, I'd have a glock, even though when I purchased it I had no…

Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY? Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more). And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have…

I often think exactly the same thing about terrorists. What kind of half arsed nutbag thinks "I know, I'll strap some explosives to my underpants and get on a plane. That ought to do it!" ?? If you wanted to do serious damage in a reasonably guaranteed way (i.e. not having to get past strict security checks), why not just walk in to a crowded arrivals hall and detonate yourself there? Same goes for large railway stations, shopping smalls etc. I mean, it doesn't take much imagination.

Either we're very lucky that most terrorists are completely incompetent or the terrorist threat itself is hugely overblown. I think it's the latter.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#127

Post by corin_ »

corford wrote: post #126
Frozenlock wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY? Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more). And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have…

I often think exactly the same thing about terrorists. What kind of half arsed nutbag thinks "I know, I'll strap some explosives to my underpants and get on a plane. That ought to do it!" ?? If you wanted to do serious damage in a reasonably guaranteed way (i.e. not having to get past strict security checks), why not just walk in to a crowded arrivals hall and detonate yourself there? Same goes for large railway stat…

The ones that get me are the ones where we're strictly not allowed to do something yet it seems that if it was actually dangerous terrorists would be doing it. The most oft-talked about example being using a phone on a flight, another being a flame in a petrol station - if that was dangerous, surely terrorists could target 10s of them with no preparation other than recruitment?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#128

Post by gcb »

Alex3917 wrote: post #80
rauljara wrote: post #49

"Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward." Correction: Freud described depression as anger turned inwards. Specifically, he described anger at external forces (your mother, etc.) turned inwards. In his view, the only way to get rid of depression would be to allow this anger to express itself against the actual external force. This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (wh…

"This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (which has dismissed the vast majority of Freudian thought), but I still hear it repeated all the damn time." Actually a lot of therapists still use personal mythology construction as a therapy tool, which is very similar to Freud's idea of directing anger outward in the sense that both creating a new identity for the person or strengthening the…

I may be wrong, but personal myth is not a Freudian concept and it used to beoften associated with dream analysis... a long time ago.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#129

Post by jeffdavis »

tokenadult wrote: post #64

From the submitted article: "At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also cru…

"So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood."

What about suspending the Fourth Amendment? Surely enough random house checks, possibly automated with cameras, could also detect possible criminal activity and save lives.

Traditionally, Americans are willing to pay something for their freedoms. Freedom always comes with both costs and benefits, and so long as the costs don't far outweigh the benefits, then (in my opinion) freedom should prevail.

If, in your judgement, the cost of allowing individual gun ownership outweighs the benefits so much that you think the freedom should be removed, so be it. But keep in mind that there are plenty of other freedoms that can be removed in the name of safety (e.g. 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendment).

I'd also like to point out that violence is low and decreasing[1]. So, the case to restrict freedoms is weakening. The newsworthiness of a particular event doesn't change that fact. Also, removing a freedom is no guarantee that you'll actually get the safety you seek; it's only a guarantee that the freedom is gone.

[1] See Steven Pinker's new book, "The Better Angels of our Nature"

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#130

Post by zanny »

leot wrote: post #62
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US certainly has a higher frequency of apparently motiveless mass murders, but I think it is fairly certain that this is due to easy access to weapons. Someone who is mentally unbalanced is probably going to kill fewer people with a knife before being stopped than with a gun. In Japan, one mass murderer kills 8 Japanese schoolchildren with a knife. In another incident, a mass murderer kills 3 people with a truck…

The amount of determination required to do that much killing with a knife would have had its effects amplified by the ready availability of a gun. You think some person with a handgun would stand much of a chance against someone in body armor with an assault rifle?

If a psychopath wants an assault rifle, they will go to any means to obtain one, regardless of it is legal to own one wherever they live. Meanwhile, if you have unarmed police and no armed civilians, you are likely to have killers go on even more unstoppable rampages.

Additionally, killers who can't get guns will just resort to other methods of mass destruction, like our little theater shooter who had bombs and gas grenades as well. You can build a pipe bomb in your own basement with commodity supplies. Tools of destruction are cheap and always readily available.

Post reply on HN