In what school of thought is a "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" not a terrorist?
In what school of thought is a "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" not a terrorist?
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
Hopefully, Gregory will soon be in hotwater up to his eyeballs. The magazine he had is illegal to posess in Washington D.C. The investigation in ongoing, but he could be looking at a year in jail and a fine. That would be hilarious if he gets arrested over it.Originally Posted by Yossarian
I doubt it'll happen but there's always hope...
That depends on whether we're talking about the definition an average 'man on the street' might give or the definition that our government might give. Considering that the term terrorist carries with it the loss of many civil rights I'd personally opt to define it as narrowly as possible and not include crazy gunmen unless their efforts are also politically motivated to overthrow the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...gs-meaningless
It IS an important point to consider and protect civil liberties. The term "terrorism", and by extension "terrorist" have reached the point in our society of being little more meaningful than "natural" or "artisan" or "awesome". When it comes to law the obvious problem is definition. There usually isn't any. Merriam Webster says:
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and
Terror: a state of intense fear
There is a LOT of room for interpretation in those definitions. The people in Sandy Hook Elementary School almost certainly felt a state of intense fear (aka, they were "terrorized"). Does that make Adam Lanza a terrorist? If A=B and B=C does A always equal C? Do we treat gang members who shoot up a neighborhood the same way as we treat members of al-Qaeda? One of the hard parts about living in a society like ours is that we have to protect the rights of a mass killer the same way we protect those of a shoplifter. The big thing here in NE right now is to charge anyone who uses a gun to threaten another person with "making terroristic threats". To me that is the most absurd wording that could have been used because I associate terrorism with political goals. Most other people I've talked with have a similar view. Everyone, I guess, except for our lawmakers.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
I like how you summed up the words terror and terrorism as having been reduced down to empty, hollow words like awesome, natural, and most especially, artisan. What exactly does artisan mean anyway? This really made me stop and think and see this whole issue a little differently. Thanks! Rob (I do see terrorism as being different and usually as you said connected to some kind of politics.)
Grist for the mill...
'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides
by Shankar Vedantam and David Schultz
...Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.
"Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," he says.
As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, "we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period."
Hoekstra obtained this result by comparing the homicide rate in states before and after they passed the laws. He also compared states with the laws to states without the laws.
"We find that there are 500 to 700 more homicides per year across the 23 states as a result of the laws," he said...
"There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
One again, using a Bushmaster AR15 assault weapon.
Of course, I knew that before they even reported the type of weapon used several days after the event, based solely on descriptions of the attack.
"There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
I wouldn't know. I am in the UK where, thankfully we have extremely tight gun laws.
Just curious what description tipped you off that it was this type of rifle used and not a semi-automatic hunting rifle or anything else other than an "assault rifle"?
There are a few facts from NY to consider that are relevant in the larger debate:
1. The gunman had been in prison before for murdering his grandmother. He didn't shoot her, he beat her to death with a hammer. Should we ban the tool used in that case as well?
2. He told his parole board that he might be capable of further violence, but was released anyway. Could there be a better way to deal with violent criminals than putting them back on the street without significant rehabilitation efforts?
3. There are already multiple state and federal laws on the books that made it illegal for this man to own guns. Whatever method he used to get them will be one example of how any criminal acquires guns. More laws won't change that. Going after illegal guns and gun traffickers might.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
The rapid fire coupled with long intervals before the need to reload, suggesting little kick and large magazine capacity. That is what makes these weapons different from hunting rifles.
Yes, he beat his grandmother to death, but fat chance doing that to four firefighters in the open. And while he could have gotten an assault weapon even if they had been banned, it would have been considerably more difficult.
Which to me is an advantage to gun control law. It doesn't make things like this and Newtown impossible, but it does make them more difficult to accomplish and potentially less deadly.
"There are too many books in the world to read in a single lifetime; you have to draw the line somewhere." --Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote