Bus Stabbing

[Andy44]

If you were in Texas, oh yeah, the bullets MIGHT have been flying, but the victim would still have been dead. And the authorities would still have not been there, being too busy rounding up the children of another cult.

[sigh]

I was, and am, genuinely glad to see you return to the Orbiter boards, StarLost, and I like the fire in your posts, but I wasn't picking on Canadians, just wondering about people in general.

It may be true that in the circumstances, where it is dark and people don't know for sure what is going on, that it's understandable for people to just want to get some distance first. Who knows. All a bunch of what-ifs and maybes and all that.

Stay safe.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think he is still on a pretty objective course, even if the message is maybe offensive to people who think of Texas like assault rifle wonderland. All he basically said:

- Texas has not different people as other states. I think we can agree on that Texans are human, too.
- Texas has also problems with gun related violence in it's history. It is not really less as in other states.

Also, from my experience: When you have 20 people firing independent of each other from all directions, how many bullets will hit innocent people? especially as not all bullets stop inside the body of the target.

 

[Native Son]

Also, from my experience: When you have 20 people firing independent of each other from all directions, how many bullets will hit innocent people? especially as not all bullets stop inside the body of the target.

You had experience with twenty people shooting independently from different angles with innocent people involved? Where were you based? Gary, Indiana?

I'll throw in a couple of cents. While I do agree with your assessment that a bus full of armed citizens shooting at a one target is a very BAD idea, I believe that most people, even Texans, will recognize the consequences of that poor decision, even in the light of panic.

Perhaps I'm the naive optimist, I'll confess, I do think that a body of individuals could responsibly take out an aggressor in such tight confines.

Of course, this is all worthless hypothetically speaking....

 

[Kyle]

You had experience with twenty people shooting independently from different angles with innocent people involved? Where were you based? Gary, Indiana?

I'll throw in a couple of cents. While I do agree with your assessment that a bus full of armed citizens shooting at a one target is a very BAD idea, I believe that most people, even Texans, will recognize the consequences of that poor decision, even in the light of panic.

Perhaps I'm the naive optimist, I'll confess, I do think that a body of individuals could responsibly take out an aggressor in such tight confines.

Of course, this is all worthless hypothetically speaking....

Hes probelly based in New Jersey

 

[Urwumpe]

You had experience with twenty people shooting independently from different angles with innocent people involved? Where were you based? Gary, Indiana?

Actually, I only saw a group from a maintenance platoon pick the same training target during a relaxed exercise. Also a way to bring air under the soil.

I'll throw in a couple of cents. While I do agree with your assessment that a bus full of armed citizens shooting at a one target is a very BAD idea, I believe that most people, even Texans, will recognize the consequences of that poor decision, even in the light of panic.

Perhaps I'm the naive optimist, I'll confess, I do think that a body of individuals could responsibly take out an aggressor in such tight confines.

Of course, this is all worthless hypothetically speaking....

Yes, but hypothetically speaking, the opposite reaction of people acting by their fears and according to their personal reaction to fear instead of controlled is also possible.

I would even say, unless you make basic police training mandatory, most people will not know how to react properly and instinctively organize themselves (Heck, even trained soldiers have a problem to know where they should stand in such situations).

At least the witness stories told so far, support my theory that the shock of the unbelievable (Honestly, how many people in this forum would have expected something like that happening - I didn't) took a while to be overcome.

 

[Native Son]

Actually, I only saw a group from a maintenance platoon pick the same training target during a relaxed exercise. Also a way to bring air under the soil.



Yes, but hypothetically speaking, the opposite reaction of people acting by their fears and according to their personal reaction to fear instead of controlled is also possible.

I've been watching too many happy endings.

 

[Tex]

It's hard to say what anyone would do in that situation for sure until they're actually in it. I just know how myself and my neighbors/friends/fellow Texans think so I can really only speak of what I think we would do, but I have a hard time believing we wouldn't do anything.

You could even argue had someone shot the attacker shortly after the stabbing began then it could be very possible for the victim to be saved since the attacker would be dead with a bullet in his head while the others could have tended to the victim until help arrived, ie: stop the bleeding.


But, as Native Son said, " Of course, this is all worthless hypothetically speaking...."

 

[James.Denholm]

You've got to realise, that if you tried something, the loon might have turned on you. I don't think I would take on a guy with a knife unless I had a weapon of my own. Preferably something that fired really, really big projectiles, however, if there was a cattle prod on a very long stick lying about, that would do.

That assumes, however, that I would be level headed enough to think things through. I probably wouldn't be, instead I think most people (myself induced) would be in the state of hysteria.

 

[GregBurch]

- Texas has not different people as other states. I think we can agree on that Texans are human, too.

Careful! That's dangerously close to insulting a stereotype we Texans work very hard to maintain!

Seriously, based on descriptions of this incident, I think it happened so fast, in such close confines and while the other passengers would have been naturally so inattentive that there was no way anyone could have intervened to save the victim.

The truth is that there are some dangerously crazy people out there and sometimes there's not a damned thing anyone can do to stop them from harming others.

The truth also seems to be that such psychopaths are pretty rare. The real danger from them is actually quite slight, unless they also combine their lack of moral sense with intelligence, such as with Kazinsky or this creep that just killed himself who seems to have been the anthrax killer. Fortunately, it appears that the majority of this small minority of people are so insane that they aren't very effective at harming large numbers of people. This has been the only satisfying answer anyone has ever offered to the famous "Terrorist Paradox."

 

[James.Denholm]

The truth is that there are some dangerously crazy people out there and sometimes there's not a damned thing anyone can do to stop them from harming others.

I think that there is: finding out if these people have abnormalities in earlier life, and working from there. Preventative measures.

This has been the only satisfying answer anyone has ever offered to the famous "Terrorist Paradox."

Must have been before my time...

 

[GregBurch]

I think that there is: finding out if these people have abnormalities in earlier life, and working from there. Preventative measures.

Far easier said than done. A close study of psychopaths shows that they almost always exhibit certain specific characteristics in early life. Unfortunately, most of these characteristics will be exhibited by a large proportion of normal children at one time or another, as well. Distinguishing between what are signs of a real moral monster in the making and what are just transitory development issues in otherwise normal children requires long-term monitoring by skilled psychiatric professionals.

It could be done, but it would 1) cost a fortune and 2) require a much, much more professional approach to child development and education than any society that has ever existed has taken.

Must have been before my time...

The Terrorist Paradox is a problem that has been discussed for a few decades by security professionals. It is chilling today to read what was written about it before 911. Basically the paradox is this: Given that it isn't that hard to conceive of plans that would create mass murder and mayhem in modern technological societies, and given that it is known that there are sufficient numbers of people who want to commit such acts, why are such acts as rare as in fact they are? There was a lot of attention given to the problem after the Aum Shin Rikyo saren attacks in the Japanese subway system, and during the Unabomber days, but it had been discussed in arcane security journals for years before that -- basically since the first wave of techno-terrorism in the 1960s.

The theory that seems to offer the best answer is that, yes, there are lots of psychopathic, murderous crazies out there, but most of them are too stupid, too insane, or both, to organize themselves and others enough to actually carry out the kinds of attacks under consideration, even though they aren't that hard to do. In other words, there are lots of people with the will, and lots of people with the ability, but there aren't very many people at all that fall into the set that has both characteristics.

 

[Urwumpe]

Of course, in the franchise of terror, the ability of committing attacks becomes easier. A lone maniac suddenly gets a network around him and people to further radicalize him.

 

[GregBurch]

Of course, in the franchise of terror, the ability of committing attacks becomes easier. A lone maniac suddenly gets a network around him and people to further radicalize him.

B I N G O !

It's what I've called in some of my own work, "user-friendly WMD." Unfortunately, there are huge segments of our society that are in deep denial about the problem.

 

[James.Denholm]

Unfortunately, most of these characteristics will be exhibited by a large proportion of normal children at one time or another, as well. Distinguishing between what are signs of a real moral monster in the making and what are just transitory development issues in otherwise normal children requires long-term monitoring by skilled psychiatric professionals.

Very good point there, but perhaps if these people had specific brain issues? Like, a higher level of one particular chemical in their brain fluids, scarring on the brain surface, etc. Surely it would be fairly easy and cheap to simply test for these sorts of things?

The theory that seems to offer the best answer is that, yes, there are lots of psychopathic, murderous crazies out there, but most of them are too stupid, too insane, or both, to organize themselves and others enough to actually carry out the kinds of attacks under consideration, even though they aren't that hard to do. In other words, there are lots of people with the will, and lots of people with the ability, but there aren't very many people at all that fall into the set that has both characteristics.

Of course, in the franchise of terror, the ability of committing attacks becomes easier. A lone maniac suddenly gets a network around him and people to further radicalize him.

Very, very true. Thanks for educating me on this.

 

[Urwumpe]

B I N G O !

It's what I've called in some of my own work, "user-friendly WMD." Unfortunately, there are huge segments of our society that are in deep denial about the problem.

Of course, for understanding that problem, you would first have to look beyond the borders of the USA (which IMHO most people of any country dislike except for holidays), then realize that there are people who make a profit when the USA gets attacked, and finally understand, that these people won't make losses when a idiot gets caught. As long as they are in a safe haven.

That's why it is soo stupid to believe a war against terror works with military power. There is no terrorist homing bomb yet. And if there was one, this bomb would likely aim for "allies" of the USA...

 

[GregBurch]

Very good point there, but perhaps if these people had specific brain issues? Like, a higher level of one particular chemical in their brain fluids, scarring on the brain surface, etc. Surely it would be fairly easy and cheap to simply test for these sorts of things?

Research like this:

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-35126.html

seems to point the way toward the kind of technology you're describing. One theory that is gaining traction is that the kind of "moral retardation" seen in psychopathic killers is actually a kind of autism, and may well be driven by very specific deficits in identifiable areas of the brain, and is often caused by specific kinds of experiences in the first two years.

We're just beginning the process of really drawing the map of the brain. I've said in the past that our knowledge of the brain in 1990 was basically analogous to our knowledge fo the New World in c. 1600 -- we had the coastlines pretty well mapped, but the vast majority of the interior was a total mystery. Huge progress has been made since then, and we're in a period of significant cross-disciplinary integration in our knowledge of the brain. Major new insights are happening every day. I'd say we may be right about at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, to continue the analogy of mapping the New World.

So -- yes -- there's hope, but we're talking about a technology that is five or ten years away, at best.

Of course, for understanding that problem, you would first have to look beyond the borders of the USA (which IMHO most people of any country dislike except for holidays), then realize that there are people who make a profit when the USA gets attacked, and finally understand, that these people won't make losses when a idiot gets caught. As long as they are in a safe haven.

That's why it is soo stupid to believe a war against terror works with military power. There is no terrorist homing bomb yet. And if there was one, this bomb would likely aim for "allies" of the USA...

Right -- as usual, we see the "it all comes down to an economic analysis of who benefits." Urwumpe, where do you think this idea comes from?

Clue: He's also German.

 

[Urwumpe]

Right -- as usual, we see the "it all comes down to an economic analysis of who benefits." Urwumpe, where do you think this idea comes from?

Clue: He's also German.

No idea, I am not too deep into political sciences. :sorry: I derive most of my political understanding from Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli... some old wisdoms never change.

All I know is, that you can't explain all erratic behavior by economic analysis. Such an act as in Canada would not fit into the scheme. But it explains well a large amount of terrorism and insurgency.

 

[GregBurch]

No idea, I am not too deep into political sciences. :sorry: I derive most of my political understanding from Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli... some old wisdoms never change.

With all due respect, why is it that if someone with no real technical education came into a discussion of, say, a subject like rocket engine design and expressed firm opinions about core issues that were not informed by a basic education in physics and engineering, they wouldn't be taken seriously, but any intelligent person is somehow assumed to have the ability to express meaningful opinions about political philosophy without having done the work in the basics?

When an intelligent layman comes into a technical discussion and offers intelligent, but ill-informed opinions, they very often say something that the technically-educated people in the discussion know is wrong because, well, they studied the subject and know that the idea is an appealing mistake and that it requires some work to figure out why it's wrong.

Believe it or not, the same thing happens in discussions of social, political and philosophical subjects.

But somehow, we scholars in the humanities are considered rude when we say: "You know what, that idea is basically such-and-such, and if you knew the history and had studied the ideas in depth, you'd know what it leads to ..."

Excuse the rant, but for decades, I've often been the only or one of the few people with a real education in the humanities in technical fora ... every once in a while I have to blow off this particular head of steam ....

 

[simonpro]

With all due respect, why is it that if someone with no real technical education came into a discussion of, say, a subject like rocket engine design and expressed firm opinions about core issues that were not informed by a basic education in physics and engineering, they wouldn't be taken seriously, but any intelligent person is somehow assumed to have the ability to express meaningful opinions about political philosophy without having done the work in the basics?

Perhaps because the average layman will not, during their life, be expected to work upon a problem in Quantum Mechanics or orbital transfers. The average layman is, however, expected to help decide the fate of their country through elections...they are part of the political process and are thus entitled to say whatever they think regardless of whether they have studied it or not.

As far as I can see this comes as a direct consequence of living in a democracy. There's another word for places where only certain "acceptable" people are allowed an opinion on things

 

[GregBurch]

Perhaps because the average layman will not, during their life, be expected to work upon a problem in Quantum Mechanics or orbital transfers. The average layman is, however, expected to help decide the fate of their country through elections...they are part of the political process and are thus entitled to say whatever they think regardless of whether they have studied it or not.

As far as I can see this comes as a direct consequence of living in a democracy. There's another word for places where only certain "acceptable" people are allowed an opinion on things

Of course, you're right. What gets me, though, is not the lack of deference to "experts" in political philosophy -- that just comes with the territory of democracy, as you correctly point out. It's the lack of a "meta-level" in the way people approach these problems: In other areas of life, people seem to be better at assessing their own lack of knowledge, and qualifying their opinions accordingly -- They'll offer opinions tentatively, they'll be aware that their opinions are based on only a relatively shallow and perhaps very uneven understanding of the issues involved. But in matters of politics and social organization, people seem to go straight to a relatively high level of certainty without much thought to how they got there.