3 ms·

What does a previous incident involving a real sword have to do with this? Is the risk of sword related violence higher because it happened recently? Is the h

by daten 16y ago

What does a previous incident involving a real sword have to do with this? Is the risk of sword related violence higher because it happened recently? Is the heightened fear any more justified? Should I always be afraid of people carrying swords because one person in millions used one to hurt somebody?

roel_v 16y ago
Are you seriously arguing this? Day t someone chops someone up in a school with a sword, day t + 1 someone walks into the same school with a sword on his back and you'd be like 'oh, carry on, I took Stat 101 so I know that you have no higher chance of getting violent than in any other place!' ? People's judgments of situations are influenced by their previous experiences. Is a fear of flying of someone who survived a plane crash rational? No. Is it normal? Yes. Is a (heightened) fear of dark alleys normal for someone who was raped in one? No. Is it normal? Yes. So, when someone walks in an area where there was recently an attack with a sword, it's perfectly normal for people to be more jittery than they would have been had there not been a recent attack. Apart from this, there is a different dynamic at work. After an attack, there is public pressure on the people in charge to make the area more secure. We can bicker about the measures they take and how it's token security blah blah blah - but when you get a signal that there is a guy walking around with a sword, as a security officer you'll run your ass off to get there and check this guy out, before it's another nut job who has come to vent his frustrations on his ex roommates or whatever. Rational? Not sure, may not - but irrelevant. Is it understandable? Yes. You can argue now that you feel that these reactions are wrong because they are not rational (for a narrow definition of rational, i.e. based on facts and pure, logically sound reason). That's fine. However for you to not acknowledge that the reactions as they were in the present case (for as far as we know the facts from this thread) could not have been foreseen, or that they would come as a surprise, or even that they are not 'normal' reactions for the majority of the population, is plain intellectually dishonest.
Pahalial 16y ago
Well, bluntly, yes. Copycat crime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crimes ) is a known fact, brought into the public psyche by media at large (see: school shootings, media asking themselves "how much covering should we really give this?") Given a largely publicised slashing with a katana on that same campus mere months ago (perhaps even less time had elapsed - thinkgeek does not clarify when they received the email) it is not unreasonable to assume a higher potential risk. I am not a criminology expert, so could not reliably say how much of an increase it would be. But it would probably be enough to justify unusually strict enforcing of an existing rule barring weapons on campus.

by daten 16y ago

roel_v 16y ago

Are you seriously arguing this? Day t someone chops someone up in a school with a sword, day t + 1 someone walks into the same school with a sword on his back and you'd be like 'oh, carry on, I took Stat 101 so I know that you have no higher chance of getting violent than in any other place!' ? People's judgments of situations are influenced by their previous experiences. Is a fear of flying of someone who survived a plane crash rational? No. Is it normal? Yes. Is a (heightened) fear of dark alleys normal for someone who was raped in one? No. Is it normal? Yes. So, when someone walks in an area where there was recently an attack with a sword, it's perfectly normal for people to be more jittery than they would have been had there not been a recent attack. Apart from this, there is a different dynamic at work. After an attack, there is public pressure on the people in charge to make the area more secure. We can bicker about the measures they take and how it's token security blah blah blah - but when you get a signal that there is a guy walking around with a sword, as a security officer you'll run your ass off to get there and check this guy out, before it's another nut job who has come to vent his frustrations on his ex roommates or whatever. Rational? Not sure, may not - but irrelevant. Is it understandable? Yes. You can argue now that you feel that these reactions are wrong because they are not rational (for a narrow definition of rational, i.e. based on facts and pure, logically sound reason). That's fine. However for you to not acknowledge that the reactions as they were in the present case (for as far as we know the facts from this thread) could not have been foreseen, or that they would come as a surprise, or even that they are not 'normal' reactions for the majority of the population, is plain intellectually dishonest.

Pahalial 16y ago

Well, bluntly, yes. Copycat crime ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crimes ) is a known fact, brought into the public psyche by media at large (see: school shootings, media asking themselves "how much covering should we really give this?") Given a largely publicised slashing with a katana on that same campus mere months ago (perhaps even less time had elapsed - thinkgeek does not clarify when they received the email) it is not unreasonable to assume a higher potential risk. I am not a criminology expert, so could not reliably say how much of an increase it would be. But it would probably be enough to justify unusually strict enforcing of an existing rule barring weapons on campus.