Oregon shooting

[Canarr]

An interesting graph. Not just to illustrate the dangers of firearms, but also to show the true threat level of international terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us...inkId=17542133

[Greenday]

An interesting graph. Not just to illustrate the dangers of firearms, but also to show the true threat level of international terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us...inkId=17542133

So what it's saying is we are doing a good job against terrorism. Got it. It doesn't do ANYTING to show the "true" threat level of international terrorism. That link doesn't present anything on that topic. It only shows what they've actually been successful at.

And fighting the two issues are completely different. One involves large, organized groups for the most part. Unfortunately they are encouraging lone wolf attacks which will make things harder but still. We know who they are, we know where they are. Keeping track of Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL is going to be easier. How do you suggest the government do the same for mass shootings? If it's one person and he doesn't publicly talk about it or share information about it beforehand, how is the government supposed to find out and stop it? They can't look into everyone's bedrooms 24/7 to figure it out.

It's two drastically different battles and trying to compare the two is an effort in futility.

[s_stabeler]

it's showing that perhaps we should put more effort into preventing gun deaths- not just mass shootings, but all cases of gun deaths (yes, including suicide where possible)- when you are far more likely to be killed by someone with a gun than by a terrorist.

it's the old risk management rule. if it would cost £1,000 every year to prevent a once-in-10-years loss, said loss needs to cost less than $10,000 to prevent. It's not a perfect analogy ( we are talking about people's lives, not money) but as a general rule, more money should be budgeted to help prevent gun deaths than to prevent terrorism, since guns are actually a greater threat to your average american.

or, to put it bluntly, and, I'll admit, somewhat coldly, if you spend $1,000,000 on counter-terrorism, then that might save 43 lives. If you spend it instead on efforts to reduce gun deaths, it might prevent thousands of deaths. It's not quite as clear-cut as it looks at first.

[TheHuckster]

The problem is you don't know how many lives are saved due to counter-terrorism. Had we spent less than we did, there might have been two more terrorist attacks in the last 15 years which we had instead prevented. Those two terrorist attacks might have killed another thousand or so people if successful. So, maybe instead of 46 or so people saved, it actually saved hundreds or thousands.

The problem I have with debates like this is it's all about "what if" with tons of pointless speculation. We don't have magic glasses that tell us what the world would be like had we not given counter-terrorism a huge budget.

I would say, however, that gun violence would go down if we didn't have the finger-pointing politics we have now, where each side is saying it's guns, or violent entertainment, or Fox News riling up unstable people, or what have you. It's pretty clear to me that, guns or no guns, the people who are committing these murders don't just need their guns taken away. They need help. While everyone is running around saying that had these shooters not had access to guns, lives would be saved. Well, yeah, that's true. What's also true is these shooters first had the intention of killing as many people as they wanted. Taking away their access guns is not the only thing we need to do.

[Gravekeeper]

I was wondering how the fark we got from gun control to terrorism then I saw the link to CNN. -.-

Comparing these two vastly different subjects proves nothing except CNN will do anything for page views.

[Greenday]

I was wondering how the fark we got from gun control to terrorism then I saw the link to CNN. -.-

Comparing these two vastly different subjects proves nothing except CNN will do anything for page views.

It's the latest rage porn I've been seeing on Facebook. Everyone's trying to compare the two as if they are somehow similar.

Let's say we somehow came up with the money to spend on this issue. Where would we spend it? A good portion of those doing these shootings don't have actual mental issues. They are just entitlest assholes who are mad the world doesn't just magically give them everything they "deserve" (popularity, girls, etc.) or gangs. Neither of those things would be helped by putting funding into psychology. We have gun free zones already, but clearly those do nothing as every mass shooting is at a gun free zone. It's been suggested to put armed guards at schools, metals detectors, etc. but people freak out over this. More police? People don't trust the police these days. Better ways of researching into people who might do these? That'd require more personal invasions than what the NSA did and people freak out over that.

[Gravekeeper]

It's the latest rage porn I've been seeing on Facebook. Everyone's trying to compare the two as if they are somehow similar.

Let's say we somehow came up with the money to spend on this issue. Where would we spend it?

Well, money isn't the problem. Political will is. But that aside you would need a comprehensive plan to even begin to tackle it and it would have to be developed by actual experts in their respective fields. With utterly no input from politicians.

Just throwing money at it won't solve anything. It certainly didn't solve terrorism.

[dendawg]

This is my opinion on the gun ban proposal.

[Gravekeeper]

This is my opinion on the gun ban proposal.

Not sure if serious.

I'm really not sure how to respond when someone's position on a complex issue is a Seth McFarlene show.

[Canarr]

It's the latest rage porn I've been seeing on Facebook. Everyone's trying to compare the two as if they are somehow similar.

Similar? No. But I find looking at those figures puts a certain perspective on the topic.

I mean, what hasn't the American people consented to giving up over the last decade, just to combat the spectre "TERRORISM!" ? This has been the driving force behind US foreign policy since 9/11, and what has it brought you? Reduction of personal liberties, no-flight lists, airport scanners, financial and moral bankruptcy - the former because of billions spent in useless wars, the latter by trying to defend freedom and democracy through torture and oppression.

All of that for a threat that actually manages to kill less Americans per year than your own guns do per day.

Maybe, if you hadn't spent all that money on trying to squash the bug called Al Qaida, your citites wouldn't be broke, your infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling, and your health care system would actually have options for dealing with mentally ill people beyond dropping them in the streets.

Okay, that last one is a stretch. Your health care system would probably still be crappy.

My point is, basically: the US have been willing and able to go to ridiculous lengths in combating a largely imagined, external threat. But the idea to pass any kind of restrictions on sale, storage, or ownership of guns to reduce a very real, internal threat, is absolutely out of the question?

[TheHuckster]

Similar? No. But I find looking at those figures puts a certain perspective on the topic.

I mean, what hasn't the American people consented to giving up over the last decade, just to combat the spectre "TERRORISM!" ? This has been the driving force behind US foreign policy since 9/11, and what has it brought you? Reduction of personal liberties, no-flight lists, airport scanners, financial and moral bankruptcy - the former because of billions spent in useless wars, the latter by trying to defend freedom and democracy through torture and oppression.

All of that for a threat that actually manages to kill less Americans per year than your own guns do per day.

While I don't argue that a lot of the measures put in place did more harm than good (especially on the invasion of privacy and wars side), I'm sick of the use of the fallacy that "we did X, Y is low, therefore X was unnecessary." What if parts of X actually are why Y is low? And I say parts of X because I don't doubt that there were measures put in place that prevented another major terrorist attack, even though there are other parts that has a negligible effect on risk of terrorism at the expense of people's rights.

To put it another way, what if, this entire time, we had laws that, although invasive and overzealous, promoted gun safety and wack jobs' limited access to firearms, yet we did absolutely nothing as a result of 9/11 and the chart was inverted? Would you say something to the effect of "look at all the rights we gave up in the name of combatting mass shootings, yet it killed less Americans than terrorism?"

[protege]

[QUOTE=Canarr;163214]All of that for a threat that actually manages to kill less Americans per year than your own guns do per day.

Agreed. "Terrorism" and "9/11" have been used to justify all sorts of invasive shit. Yet, the number of incidents since 9/11 really doesn't justify it. All for the *illusion* of security.

For example, many of you know that I flew to Albany, NY the week after 9/11. Long lines at check-in, because each and every passenger had to go through a metal detector. I'm sure everyone remembers the infamous "did anyone place anything in your bag without your knowledge" question All of it bullshit.

Why? Because of what happened on the return trip. Again, I had to go through metal detectors, have my bag searched, etc....and yet, some asshole managed to get a box cutter onto one of planes earlier that day. End result? The entire airport on lockdown, all knives (even plastic ones) removed from airport restaurants, and everyone in the airport (myself included) being subjected to further trips through the metal detector.

For all we know, that box cutter could have been left behind...by one of the airline's own people...while restocking the fucking toilet paper!

Yet, the media jumped immediately to "terrorism." Mostly because they know it will get paranoia up, as well as get people watching

Also, many of the TSA types really don't know what they're doing. Last weekend, I took the train into NYC for some sightseeing. Imagine my surprise when I'm at the Empire State Building...and someone is screaming about the "long, metal object" inside my bag.

After emptying everything out of the bag--my sandals, inhaler, keys, wallet, etc. the guy kept on insisting that there was something in the bag. Really? Turns out the "long, metal object" was nothing more than a shadow, and the dipship didn't know how to use the machine. These are the people we have running our "security" folks.

Maybe, if you hadn't spent all that money on trying to squash the bug called Al Qaida, your citites wouldn't be broke, your infrastructure wouldn't be crumbling, and your health care system would actually have options for dealing with mentally ill people beyond dropping them in the streets.

Al Qaida has nothing to do with some cities--Detroit, for example--being broke. Detroit's issues stem largely from a lack of industry, a declining tax base, and a healthy dose of corruption.

For decades, the "Big Three" had a huge presence in the Detroit area. Ford, GM, and Chrysler not only offered thousands of jobs, but put millions into the city's coffers. After the race riots of the 1960s, the gas shortages of the 1970s, and many customers choosing imported cars in the 1980s, the city soon found itself on hard times. A declining population meant that the city couldn't meet its obligations. Well that, and the city actually wasn't collecting monies owed for basic services...like water and electricity, let alone taxes!

As for the infrastructure, a major problem here is this: Nobody wants to take care of things. They'd rather build a new highway, or bridge, or whatever...instead of maintaining the old. Millions get spent to build another highway, and then nobody seems to have a funding plan to maintain it.

Then there's the mental health system. Something really needs to be done. But, mental health issues are still very much taboo in the US. The nasty little secret that gets swept under the rug. Until the shit hits the fan, anyway. Problem is, that everyone bitches and moans about the system...but nobody wants to fund it.

For example, PA once had several mental hospitals. Nearly all have closed now, either after massive abuse scandals (Pennhurst) or a lack of funding. Now those people are on the street

[Gravekeeper]

I mean, what hasn't the American people consented to giving up over the last decade, just to combat the spectre "TERRORISM!" ? This has been the driving force behind US foreign policy since 9/11

We've always been at war with Eastasia

What if parts of X actually are why Y is low? And I say parts of X because I don't doubt that there were measures put in place that prevented another major terrorist attack, even though there are other parts that has a negligible effect on risk of terrorism at the expense of people's rights.

Nope. The NSA has effectively done nothing. The vast majority of terrorist plots uncovered / prevented since 9/11 have been by existing measures and authorities ( local police, FBI, citizen tips, etc ).

A number of studies have already been done on this. They have all come up notta. In fact only a single conviction is credited to the NSA since its inception. The reaction to 9/11 has been an overwhelming success for terrorism to be brutally honest.

"What if parts of X actually are why Y is low?" is basically the BS argument that's put forth every year to keep all this security theatre bullshit in place.

[s_stabeler]

the issue is that yes, parts of X could be why Y is low. However, the fact of the matter is, at present, we basically just have the government's word for it. ( it's why I get deeply skeptical whenever new terrorism powers are brought up. Since 9/11, there have been what? 2 incidents that got to the stage of at least attempting to set off the device. ( the Boston Marathon bombings, and the underwear bomber) Of the two, the underwear bomber would not have been helped by increased anti-terrorist powers, since the security services had been specifically warned. That is a failure in communication ( they should have acted on the information given, at least to get the airport to give the guy greater scrutiny) As for the Boston Marathon Bombing, IIRC that was a random nutjob. Not necessarily a lot you can do to stop that.

In short, the government keep demanding new powers to tackle terrorism, but as far as I can tell, they have been able to prevent terrorist attacks perfectly well without new powers- and convenience for the government is never sufficient justification for eroding people's rights. (it's why I am opposed to detaining terrorists indefinitely without trial- the exact argument used to justify Gitmo was "We know they will commit terrorist offences if they are released, but we cannot prove it"- excuse me for saying this, but is that not "we know he is guilty, but we can't prove it- let's punish him anyway" despite the fact that the presumption of innocence is one of the most fundamental principles of justice. (indeed, it's what separates the death penalty from a lynch mob.)

I know you might be thinking "in short?" now, but to actually summarize: in the absence of terrorists succeeding due to additional counter-terrorism powers being granted, such powers really shouldn't be granted where they result in an erosion of somebody's rights. Or, to bring it back on topic, while it's true that cutting terrorism funding might lead to an increase in attacks, it is not a given. Facts- not speculation- would need to be presented on the ACTUAL effect a cut in counter-terrorist funding would produce- and the likely effect of a rise in funding for efforts to prevent gun crime. If more deaths would be prevented by spending the money on combatting gun crime, then the moral picture gets far more murky.

[Gravekeeper]

Facts- not speculation- would need to be presented on the ACTUAL effect a cut in counter-terrorist funding would produce- and the likely effect of a rise in funding for efforts to prevent gun crime. If more deaths would be prevented by spending the money on combatting gun crime, then the moral picture gets far more murky.

Here's a rather startling one I stumbled on: The US is spending 500 million dollars on counter terrorism per victim of terrorism per year. For comparison, heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. The US currently spends $3000 per victim per year on heart disease research.

So....yeah, wow. When you look at it from straight risk of death its grossly disproportionate.

According to the CDC numbers, the worldwide chance of being killed by a terrorist is something like 1 in 22 million. You are actually 9 times more likely to be killed by a police officer in the US than you are by a terrorist worldwide. Yet we can't be bothered to do shit about the state of US law enforcement. You're almost 6000 times more likely to be killed by your doctor or healthcare provider through a medical error than a terrorist.

The leading cause of death of Americans abroad is actually just plain ol' car accidents. Terrorism isn't even close.

Here's a really good one: Toddlers ( with guns ) killed more Americans in 2013 than terrorists did. Seriously.

Right, enough of that. The more I research this the more insane it becomes.