4 ms·

Can you imagine a bomb in a crowded audience only injuring four people today?

by soneca 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago
My point rather is, can you image an audience continuing as if nothing much have happened after even an ad-hoc indoor firework was blasted, much less an actual pipe bomb injuring 4-5 people.
- Larrikin 9y ago
  Are you trying to imply people shouldn't react to a bomb and stay near the site of an explosion? You evacuate because you don't know if there are more or if there is structural damage.
  - ZoF 9y ago
    I dont think that was implied at all, he/she was just pointing out the contrast.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    This question reinforces the parent's point. It seems totally obvious to us that everyone should GTFO of the theatre. And yet in the 1950s they didn't. What was different about the mindset of someone from the 50s? Were they inured to explosions coming out of WW2? Were "pranks" with pipe bombs a normal thing? Was it just that nobody had ever been killed by one so they didn't recognize the threat? Was the 50s mind somehow more stoic?
    - PaulHoule 9y ago
      Explosives, gunshots, etc. are outside the normal sensory experience of most people and they are not accurately perceived. Even stimuli such as fire alarms which are intended to produce action frequently leave people standing slack-jawed wondering what to do. For instance, when under attack from long-range gunfire, it frequently takes multiple shots, possibly even seeing multiple people get hit, before people understand what is going on. In eyewitness accounts people often disagree about which direction the shots came from, how many shots there were, etc. In fact, sometimes people get shot and don't know that they were shot until later. A person getting injured by a small bomb in a theatre might understand they were injured, and not know how. Maybe they got shot, maybe they got stabbed, ... Everybody was looking at the screen so it is not clear. That person might go out to get help and people will focus on treating the injuries rather than understanding the situation. It's actually pretty hard to make homemade bombs that reliably kill. It took the Unabomber more than a decade to figure it out, and that is why they have terrorist training camps. It is not very dangerous to make small pyrotechnics, simply because they don't contain much energy. If you were screwing around with those cough lozenge detonators and were making bombs big enough to be really hazardous, you would probably blow yourself up before you blew up anybody else.
    - roman_savchuk 9y ago
      Probably 2nd bomb tactic was something unheard of back then
  - coldtea 9y ago
    I'm implying that people in the 50s had larger metaphorical balls and less hysteria than people now -- regardless of what is prudent to do. It was also evident in how free-er kids would walk around -- a 10 year old having adventures around NYC by itself instead of being taken everywhere by their chauffeur parents.
    - barking 9y ago
      Supposedly the rot started after the disappearance of Etan Patz in 1979, the first missing kid to have his picture on milk cartons. That's when parents started becoming more restrictive of their children's freedom.
      - cat199 9y ago
        Seeing pictures / hearing stories of parts of NYC in the mid 70's, I'd think any parent letting their adolescent/teenager roam completely freely in those days was pretty negligent..
        coldtea 9y ago
        And yet nothing much happened -- just those kids got less snow-flakey and entitled, and with a better grounding in reality.
        jamespo 9y ago
        Well, the murder rate was steadily increasing, so something happened
    - rdiddly 9y ago
      We're safer and more connected than they were back then. That means more sensitive to smaller risks, and better able to talk & hear about risks of all sorts.
    - ad_hominem 9y ago
      They also had less historical precedent for bombs going off preceding an armed terrorist attack, or a larger "double tap" follow-up explosion. Additionally, the low explosive gunpowder used in these bombs is considerably less powerful than what you'd encounter in a modern day terrorist attack using high explosives (e.g. TATP, PETN or RDX). Even compared to other deflagrating low explosives, regular gunpowder is pretty mild compared to e.g. flash powder[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgFKibzY3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgFKibzY3s
Houshalter 9y ago
Easily. Terrorists are mostly incompotent. Im always surprised at how low the injuries are when a bombing happens. Most terrorists attacks fail to kill a single person. The internet helps a bit, letting terrorists look up how to make bombs a bit better. But they still suck.

Can you imagine a bomb in a crowded audience only injuring four people today?

by soneca 9y ago

Can you imagine a bomb in a crowded audience only injuring four people today?

My point rather is, can you image an audience continuing as if nothing much have happened after even an ad-hoc indoor firework was blasted, much less an actual pipe bomb injuring 4-5 people.

Larrikin 9y ago
Are you trying to imply people shouldn't react to a bomb and stay near the site of an explosion? You evacuate because you don't know if there are more or if there is structural damage.
- ZoF 9y ago
  I dont think that was implied at all, he/she was just pointing out the contrast.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  This question reinforces the parent's point. It seems totally obvious to us that everyone should GTFO of the theatre. And yet in the 1950s they didn't. What was different about the mindset of someone from the 50s? Were they inured to explosions coming out of WW2? Were "pranks" with pipe bombs a normal thing? Was it just that nobody had ever been killed by one so they didn't recognize the threat? Was the 50s mind somehow more stoic?
  - PaulHoule 9y ago
    Explosives, gunshots, etc. are outside the normal sensory experience of most people and they are not accurately perceived. Even stimuli such as fire alarms which are intended to produce action frequently leave people standing slack-jawed wondering what to do. For instance, when under attack from long-range gunfire, it frequently takes multiple shots, possibly even seeing multiple people get hit, before people understand what is going on. In eyewitness accounts people often disagree about which direction the shots came from, how many shots there were, etc. In fact, sometimes people get shot and don't know that they were shot until later. A person getting injured by a small bomb in a theatre might understand they were injured, and not know how. Maybe they got shot, maybe they got stabbed, ... Everybody was looking at the screen so it is not clear. That person might go out to get help and people will focus on treating the injuries rather than understanding the situation. It's actually pretty hard to make homemade bombs that reliably kill. It took the Unabomber more than a decade to figure it out, and that is why they have terrorist training camps. It is not very dangerous to make small pyrotechnics, simply because they don't contain much energy. If you were screwing around with those cough lozenge detonators and were making bombs big enough to be really hazardous, you would probably blow yourself up before you blew up anybody else.
  - roman_savchuk 9y ago
    Probably 2nd bomb tactic was something unheard of back then
- coldtea 9y ago
  I'm implying that people in the 50s had larger metaphorical balls and less hysteria than people now -- regardless of what is prudent to do. It was also evident in how free-er kids would walk around -- a 10 year old having adventures around NYC by itself instead of being taken everywhere by their chauffeur parents.
  - barking 9y ago
    Supposedly the rot started after the disappearance of Etan Patz in 1979, the first missing kid to have his picture on milk cartons. That's when parents started becoming more restrictive of their children's freedom.
    - cat199 9y ago
      Seeing pictures / hearing stories of parts of NYC in the mid 70's, I'd think any parent letting their adolescent/teenager roam completely freely in those days was pretty negligent..
      - coldtea 9y ago
        And yet nothing much happened -- just those kids got less snow-flakey and entitled, and with a better grounding in reality.
        jamespo 9y ago
        Well, the murder rate was steadily increasing, so something happened
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    We're safer and more connected than they were back then. That means more sensitive to smaller risks, and better able to talk & hear about risks of all sorts.
  - ad_hominem 9y ago
    They also had less historical precedent for bombs going off preceding an armed terrorist attack, or a larger "double tap" follow-up explosion. Additionally, the low explosive gunpowder used in these bombs is considerably less powerful than what you'd encounter in a modern day terrorist attack using high explosives (e.g. TATP, PETN or RDX). Even compared to other deflagrating low explosives, regular gunpowder is pretty mild compared to e.g. flash powder[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgFKibzY3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tgFKibzY3s

Houshalter 9y ago

Easily. Terrorists are mostly incompotent. Im always surprised at how low the injuries are when a bombing happens. Most terrorists attacks fail to kill a single person. The internet helps a bit, letting terrorists look up how to make bombs a bit better. But they still suck.