How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#141

Post by thelibrarian » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 5:41 AM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #115

thelibrarian wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. He's a madman because the media can't comprehend any other possible explanation. Breivik isn't a madman because it's Norway, and that's a long way away. I'm sure the Aurora guy had his "reasons", just like Breivik. It all just relates to how we rationalise a position we don't understand. I'd call neither of them a madman or terrorist. To Add: I seem to recall there were media sources calling Breivik a madman (I h…

I would call both "madmen" in that their reasons and methods are irrational to a "normal" citizen of sound mind. Breivik is also a terrorist as he was attempting to further a political goal (however irrational and incorrect said goal is).

But, as you say, the term "madman" is an easy and emotive term used by the media, and also incorrect. They are irrational about one or more things, which led them to take irrational actions (however rational and clear their thinking seems to themselves).

> If he were exactly the same person, but of muslim descent he would have been a terrorist.

Yes, the media (and probably the authorities) would certainly have done that, but they would have been wrong (c.f. the Ft Hood massacre)

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#142

Post by qw » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 8:15 AM UTC

j-g-faustus wrote: post #36

JeanPierre wrote: post #11

There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists. A white lie, I'm afraid. Lex Breivik [1] has changed the laws so that regional security departments have a lot more power, in fact more power than what prisons have as of today. [1]: http://www.goo…

The "regional security departments" the article refers to are high-security psychiatric wards. The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't (legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison, and there was no equivalent for psychiatric cases. Now there is. It is a change, and clearly in response to this case, but the scope of the change is limited.

I agree. It was a known weakness in the system that had been discussed before the event. The change would have happened eventually. Breivik speeded the process, because he was such a clear example of someone you don't want back on the streets.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#143

Post by TomGullen » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 11:50 AM UTC

aggronn wrote: post #96

TomGullen wrote: post #18

> pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not undermined. Is this not a little dangerous surely if we take this over to USA where gun ownership is part of their core values?

Not really.

Thanks for the insight!

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#144

Post by knorby » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 7:28 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #106

knorby wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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."

And he hit a lot of people, but the AR-15 would have led to a lot more people dead.

> 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.

But he wasn't trained. He tried to get a gun range membership, but he couldn't hold himself together enough to actually get said membership. Is it not reasonable to ask if a feel hurdles wouldn't have stopped him from buying the guns in the first place?

> 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.

First of all, I live in Chicago, and I see such reports about gangbangers and the random people who get caught up in their wars all the time, and it always bugs me. I went to see the movie last weekend too, and even if I knew I was at greater risk travelling to the theater at all, a tinge of fear still entered in. Why does it matter if the reaction is emotional? I consider my abhorrence of early death part of my humanity, and I'm hardly alone in that. I would rather see 100 fewer deaths a year from guns than 100 more.

> 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?

You need a revocable license that requires a few basic competency tests to acquire in the first place. On top of that, you are required to have insurance to drive as well. It doesn't stop everyone from driving who shouldn't, but it certainly helps. I would be thrilled if the same sort of requirements existed on guns across the country. It is also worth noting that cars are much, much more useful than guns, even in places like Alaska.