How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#101

Post by knorby » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:46 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #14

JackFr wrote: post #3

While I understand the point being made, Breivig apparently acted alone, and his actions were most similar to Timothy McVeigh. The proper comparison would be to compare changes in policy following Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. After the bombing of Khobar Towers, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, and finally the acts of 9…

>but rather implementing some rational gun laws. Changing laws that could negatively impact millions of people because of the statistically extremely small amount of people killed in mass shootings is just the kind of overreaction the article is talking about. If you want to debate gun laws you have to weigh the rights of gun owners with the rights of people killed every year. Our policies shouldn't be based on stati…

"This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death toll that dwarfs anything we've seen."

I don't think it is wise to come to that conclusion so quickly. If his AR-15 hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly single-man massacre in history (he hit 70 people with a shotgun and pistols, and his AR-15 had a 100-round magazine), and I think that point merits some consideration. From what I understand of AR-15s, gun jams are somewhat common, but that isn't really a problem for adept users. It is too early to say exactly what was going on with this guy, but I get the impression that a growing insanity drove his actions more than rational planning; he probably would have been practiced if he had more of a plan as Brevick seemed to have.

It should be obvious that guns aren't going anywhere, but there is a clear distinction in policy between methods violence that affect a few people and those that affect a large number. It seems like Holmes' goal was closer to killing 100 people, and he came very close to doing so. And he obtained the means to do so without what you could even describe as a speed bump. If he had used a bomb instead, would there be an uproar over attempts to curb bomb making? I don't see why the use of a gun should make the case so easy to dismiss.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#102

Post by ktizo » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 11:52 PM UTC

berntb wrote: post #80

praptak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders! Of course the race (and religion) plays a huge role in the emotional reaction to violence. Uncomparatively more so than the technical "domestic/external" categorization based on residence, citizenship and whatnot. Race and religion are the top factors in eliciting the "us vs them" reaction.

Race isn't the problem, I believe. If Breivik was a convert to Islam, then the reaction would have been different: He would have been taken seriously, not seen as a crazy "one hit wonder". Because of, well, the few right wing crazies in Europe the last few decades.

It does seem to be the case in much of the media reporting, that with white supremacist terrorists, the loner aspect is generally played up, where as with those of a somewhat darker hue, grand conspiracy and existential threat is more on the agenda.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#103

Post by thelibrarian » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 12:12 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #69

mootothemax wrote: post #4

I do find it rather worrying that people around the world seem absolutely fine with all the various initiatives introduced, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop. My wife's now tired of me complaining - a…

Was that guy in Norway part of a known terrorist group or something? Why isn't he a "madman" like the one in Aurora, US last week? I do find terrifying what's happening in UK lately, seemingly all of the sudden from those of us not living there, like that new law proposal to monitor everyone's private communications. Not too long ago that kind of proposal would've been seen as insane. Now it seems a lot of politician…

The Colorado guy is a "madman" because he went on a killing spree for the sake of killing, whereas Breivik went on a killing spree for explicitly political ends, thus is a terrorist.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#104

Post by swa14 » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 1:05 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #93

epo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"something no other country has ever faced"? For God's sake, catch up on world news or at least spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements.

If he's talking about the scale of a single incident then he is correct. The death toll from the 9/11 attacks far exceeded any other single terrorist attack.

For a moment there one might have been thinking he meant atrocious actions with high death tolls against a civilian population, in which case the OP is definitely failing to understand it with his "for something no other country has ever faced", and the "spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements" is spot on.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#105

Post by infectoid » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

praxulus wrote: post #78

mootothemax wrote: post #4

I do find it rather worrying that people around the world seem absolutely fine with all the various initiatives introduced, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop. My wife's now tired of me complaining - a…

London had to bring in the army largely because the private firm that had the contract to provide event security completely failed to hire enough security guards, and this became apparent far too late for London police to raise the necessary staff themselves. There were probably ways to avoid the army, but would have cost much more.

Would I be wrong in assuming that perhaps trained military personnel may be easier to deal with and more level headed than some plastic policeman with a weekend certificate in security and law enforcement?

Just putting it out there. It could be better than the alternative.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#106

Post by learc83 » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 2:50 AM UTC

knorby wrote: post #101

learc83 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but rather implementing some rational gun laws. Changing laws that could negatively impact millions of people because of the statistically extremely small amount of people killed in mass shootings is just the kind of overreaction the article is talking about. If you want to debate gun laws you have to weigh the rights of gun owners with the rights of people killed every year. Our policies shouldn't be based on stati…

"This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death toll that dwarfs anything we've seen." I don't think it is wise to come to that conclusion so quickly. If his AR-15 hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly single-man mas…

>If his AR-15 hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly single-man massacre in history (he hit 70 people with a shotgun and pistols...

That doesn't really say much, at the range he was firing and for his skill level, a shotgun may have been the optimal weapon for "number of people hit."

>his AR-15 had a 100-round magazine

With training you can switch magazines fast enough that there isn't enough of a difference between a 100 round magazine and 3 standard 30 round magazines to matter. There is a reason you don't see the military using drum magazines. They have an inherently more complicated feed mechanism and are therefore more likely to fail. They are pretty much novelty only (range use).

>It should be obvious that guns aren't going anywhere, but there is a clear distinction in policy between methods violence that affect a few people and those that affect a large number.

But my argument is just that, it wasn't a large number. Even 100 people killed is barely a blip compared to the total number of gun deaths per year.

You need to look at the whole picture, not just a single emotional event. If 10 gangbangers each killed 3 extra people last night you wouldn't bat an eye. This is a completely emotional reaction.

>If he had used a bomb instead, would there be an uproar over attempts to curb bomb making?

Yes, if bombs were useful tools used by millions of Americans.

I'll ask you this, if a madman drives a hummer into a big crowd of people and manages to kill 13 of them would you be calling for more regulation on SUVs?

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#107

Post by learc83 » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:10 AM UTC

lars512 wrote: post #100

learc83 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can check the DOJ for statistics, but I've found it incredibly hard to find any unbiased analysis. I was interested in the topic after I saw a DOJ chart that listed crime by race. I had to research myself to find anything really useful, and by research I just mean taking data from DOJ statistics. The thing is, it's like we live in 2 separate countries, if you're white or asian, America is almost as safe as other…

To be clear, this is after controlling for income? It's not just about poverty?

Black Americans are 2 to 3 times more likely to live below the poverty line than white Americans, and the median white household makes about 1.5 times more money than the median black household.

But black Americans are about 8 times more likely to commit a violent crime, and about 6 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.

I've seen some statistics that show at least a portion could be accounted for by controlling for the increased percentage of black single mothers.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#108

Post by tsotha » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:36 AM UTC

It seems like every time I read something new from Schneier I lose a little of the respect he's built up over the years. Are you really going to pretend the threat posed by one self-taught and self-financed guy with no friends is in any way comparable to that of a well-financed international terrorist organization with a shared ideology that has deep cultural and religious ties? Really?

Of course Norway's response is different. Norway isn't the target of a terrorist organization. It had a terrorist incident that's now over. We had something similar in the US with Timothy McVeigh, and our response wasn't any more radical than Norway's.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#109

Post by djeliba » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:50 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #93

epo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"something no other country has ever faced"? For God's sake, catch up on world news or at least spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless pronouncements.

If he's talking about the scale of a single incident then he is correct. The death toll from the 9/11 attacks far exceeded any other single terrorist attack.

Terrorism can be brought on by a state as well as by non state actors. Wikipedia defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." Conscription during any of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century fits this definition nicely. Many more people died from these than on 911.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#110

Post by carlosaguayo » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 4:20 AM UTC

mootothemax wrote: post #4

I do find it rather worrying that people around the world seem absolutely fine with all the various initiatives introduced, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop. My wife's now tired of me complaining - a…

I still wonder why while there's technology so advanced that can see under your clothes, there isn't technology or common sense to figure out that a bottle of water is completely safe ...