11 ms·

While I understand the point being made, Breivig apparently acted alone, and his actions were most similar to Timothy McVeigh. The proper comparison would be t

by JackFr 14y ago

While I understand the point being made, Breivig apparently acted alone, and his actions were most similar to Timothy McVeigh. The proper comparison would be to compare changes in policy following Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. After the bombing of Khobar Towers, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, and finally the acts of 9/11, it would seem that US anti-terrorism policies in place at that time were not particularly effective. On the other hand, if we're just speaking of mass-murderers rather than terrorists, I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in increased police powers or surveillance, but rather implementing some rational gun laws.

ojbyrne 14y ago
Rational gun laws will be fought tooth and nail by the NRA, in an election year that will be a non-starter. Instead they'll find some way to circumscribe the rights of non gun-owners, that will be ineffective, but will play well in Republican states.
MichaelGG 14y ago
And when the next crazy guy brings in gallons of gas and lights people on fire? Edit: I don't particularly like guns, but non-representative, singular incidents to change policy seems like a very poor way to start debates or come to proper conclusions.
- scott_s 14y ago
  And at what point do such things become a pattern? Unfortunately, mass shootings happen in the US at a rate of roughly one per year.
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    So about one shooting a year, this year's had 12 fatalities. Remember that heat wave/power outage combination we had on the east cost (USA); at least 46 fatalities [1] [1]http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens-of-deaths-tied-to-heat-wave-over-last-2-weeks?lite http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens...
    - scott_s 14y ago
      And I hope that as a result of those outages, the power companies and state and local governments will evaluate if any policy or infrastructure changes could improve their ability to get the power back on.
  - riffraff 14y ago
    firearms killings _are_ a pattern, if I recall correctly they are something between 5 and 10 times more frequent in US than other first wold countries. I personally believe that US citizens are unable to understand how dumb their attitude to weapons is, but + mass shootings wouldn't be much impacted by changes in the policy + mass shooting don't seem to have a strong correlation with firearm policy
    - learc83 14y ago
      I agree with you on the mass shootings aspect. However... >firearms killings _are_ a pattern, if I recall correctly they are something between 5 and 10 times more frequent in US than other first wold countries. I personally believe that US citizens are unable to understand how dumb their attitude to weapons is, You can't compare crime rates without controlling for other differences. Most other first world countries are much more ethnically homogenous than the U.S. And they don't suffer from the cultural problems caused by the fairly recent institutional persecution of an entire class of people. It's not very PC to talk about, and I think that the high incidence of crime amongst black Americans is directly caused by the decades of persecution they suffered which causes them to occupy a lower socio-economic position on average than whites, not any inherent racial differences. But whatever the reason, whites and blacks both have similar access to guns and similar gun ownership rates, yet if you only count white americans, you'll find a fairly similar gun crime rate to the rest of the first World, so clearly, easy access to guns isn't the problem. The closest country I can think of to our situation is South Africa (Rights recently restored to an historical lower class. Though it's still not a great comparison because of their relatively lower GDP per capital, and different demographics). Their gun violence rate is about 5 times that of the US.
      - sgoranson 14y ago
        Offhand, do you know of any material that delves deeper into that taboo topic? Sociologically I find it really interesting but like you said, it's not a popular subject.
        learc83 14y ago
vacri 14y ago
Another thing to compare - the death toll caused by Breivig meant that his actions caused 50% more deaths per capita than the 9/11 attacks.
- vetler 14y ago
  Interesting comparison, but of course it isn't a competition (and I'm not suggesting you mean that, of course). It is interesting to think about how much 2011 attacks affected us Norwegians. Living in Oslo, I know people who work in the government buildings that were hit, people who earlier years have been to the AUF camp at Utøya, and I've also personally been to Utøya at a Maths camp. My girlfriend were a only few blocks from the bomb when it went off. The next six months, I'll be working in R6, one of the buildings in the executive government quarter where the bomb went off, but only suffered minor damages. I'll be walking past the bomb site. In fact, I was there earlier in the summer. Here's a photo I took: http://instagram.com/p/MK9aWrtM3z/ http://instagram.com/p/MK9aWrtM3z/ Norwegians are generally peaceful. We have a low crime rate and high employment rate. We do rank 11th on number of guns per capita by country[1], though, but the few people I know who have guns are active hunters. Norway usually tops the UNs list of best places to live. Norway has its share of problems, of course, but it usually pales in comparison to problems other places. The 2011 attacks were just unbelievable, and I try not to think about them in detail because it's too emotional. Before the attacks, Norway was so very, very innocent and unspoiled. We've managed to retain some of our innocence, perhaps, and even one year after the attack, I feel that we're still trying to find out how to handle it. I'm not entirely sure what my intention was with this post, but now that I've written it, I might as well post it. If you've read this far, I hope you got something out of it - perhaps new insight into the Norwegian psyche, if anything. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
learc83 14y ago
>but rather implementing some rational gun laws. Changing laws that could negatively impact millions of people because of the statistically extremely small amount of people killed in mass shootings is just the kind of overreaction the article is talking about. If you want to debate gun laws you have to weigh the rights of gun owners with the rights of people killed every year. Our policies shouldn't be based on statistically insignificant, but emotional charged tragedies. Even the Obama administration has said it is against calling for more gun regulation because of this. This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death toll that dwarfs anything we've seen.
- sophacles 14y ago
  Even the Obama administration has said it is against calling for more gun regulation because of this. Just saying: Despite the attack ad fueled mass hysteria about this, Obama hasn't done anything regarding US gun policy, in any direction.
  - learc83 14y ago
    I'm very aware. I was just pointing out that if anyone was likely to think more tougher gun laws were a solution, it would be a liberal president during campaign season. He's already lost the 2nd amendment voters, from perception alone. He really needs to motivate his base and I think calling for tougher gun laws might help him there. I disagree with him on most issues, but the fact that he seems not to be interested in using this for political gain deserves recognition.
- knorby 14y ago
  "This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death toll that dwarfs anything we've seen." I don't think it is wise to come to that conclusion so quickly. If his AR-15 hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly single-man massacre in history (he hit 70 people with a shotgun and pistols, and his AR-15 had a 100-round magazine), and I think that point merits some consideration. From what I understand of AR-15s, gun jams are somewhat common, but that isn't really a problem for adept users. It is too early to say exactly what was going on with this guy, but I get the impression that a growing insanity drove his actions more than rational planning; he probably would have been practiced if he had more of a plan as Brevick seemed to have. It should be obvious that guns aren't going anywhere, but there is a clear distinction in policy between methods violence that affect a few people and those that affect a large number. It seems like Holmes' goal was closer to killing 100 people, and he came very close to doing so. And he obtained the means to do so without what you could even describe as a speed bump. If he had used a bomb instead, would there be an uproar over attempts to curb bomb making? I don't see why the use of a gun should make the case so easy to dismiss.
tallanvor 14y ago
Breivik used violence in an attempt to cause political change (to try and force the government to stop promoting multiculturalism). That clearly fits within the definition of terrorism. You are correct in saying that McVeigh's actions may not fit that definition, as he claimed that his motive was revenge for the government's actions on Waco and Ruby Ridge, rather than trying to force political change, but terrorism also refers to the state of fear that an act can cause, so you can still call him a terrorist. The problem in the United States is that people are always willing to call Muslim extremists terrorists, but for some reason other individuals or groups that commit terrorist acts are simply labeled nuts, extremists, or the fringe element.
- tkahn6 14y ago
  > but for some reason other individuals or groups that commit terrorist acts are simply labeled nuts, extremists, or the fringe element. Yeah I'm sure that fits nicely with your narrative but can you provide any evidence of that?
- aggronn 14y ago
  Its not clear to me how your last comment is related to the rest of your post.
  - tallanvor 14y ago
    I think it's an important point in discussions relating to these types of events. --Why are people in the US so hesitant to label this sort of event as being the act of a terrorist unless the perpetrator(s) are Muslim?
    - ErrantX 14y ago
      Because the media applies the labels.

by JackFr 14y ago

ojbyrne 14y ago

Rational gun laws will be fought tooth and nail by the NRA, in an election year that will be a non-starter. Instead they'll find some way to circumscribe the rights of non gun-owners, that will be ineffective, but will play well in Republican states.

MichaelGG 14y ago

And when the next crazy guy brings in gallons of gas and lights people on fire? Edit: I don't particularly like guns, but non-representative, singular incidents to change policy seems like a very poor way to start debates or come to proper conclusions.

scott_s 14y ago
And at what point do such things become a pattern? Unfortunately, mass shootings happen in the US at a rate of roughly one per year.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  So about one shooting a year, this year's had 12 fatalities. Remember that heat wave/power outage combination we had on the east cost (USA); at least 46 fatalities [1] [1]http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens-of-deaths-tied-to-heat-wave-over-last-2-weeks?lite http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12597271-dozens...
  - scott_s 14y ago
    And I hope that as a result of those outages, the power companies and state and local governments will evaluate if any policy or infrastructure changes could improve their ability to get the power back on.
- riffraff 14y ago
  firearms killings _are_ a pattern, if I recall correctly they are something between 5 and 10 times more frequent in US than other first wold countries. I personally believe that US citizens are unable to understand how dumb their attitude to weapons is, but + mass shootings wouldn't be much impacted by changes in the policy + mass shooting don't seem to have a strong correlation with firearm policy
  - learc83 14y ago
    I agree with you on the mass shootings aspect. However... >firearms killings _are_ a pattern, if I recall correctly they are something between 5 and 10 times more frequent in US than other first wold countries. I personally believe that US citizens are unable to understand how dumb their attitude to weapons is, You can't compare crime rates without controlling for other differences. Most other first world countries are much more ethnically homogenous than the U.S. And they don't suffer from the cultural problems caused by the fairly recent institutional persecution of an entire class of people. It's not very PC to talk about, and I think that the high incidence of crime amongst black Americans is directly caused by the decades of persecution they suffered which causes them to occupy a lower socio-economic position on average than whites, not any inherent racial differences. But whatever the reason, whites and blacks both have similar access to guns and similar gun ownership rates, yet if you only count white americans, you'll find a fairly similar gun crime rate to the rest of the first World, so clearly, easy access to guns isn't the problem. The closest country I can think of to our situation is South Africa (Rights recently restored to an historical lower class. Though it's still not a great comparison because of their relatively lower GDP per capital, and different demographics). Their gun violence rate is about 5 times that of the US.
    - sgoranson 14y ago
      Offhand, do you know of any material that delves deeper into that taboo topic? Sociologically I find it really interesting but like you said, it's not a popular subject.
      - learc83 14y ago

vacri 14y ago

Another thing to compare - the death toll caused by Breivig meant that his actions caused 50% more deaths per capita than the 9/11 attacks.

vetler 14y ago
Interesting comparison, but of course it isn't a competition (and I'm not suggesting you mean that, of course). It is interesting to think about how much 2011 attacks affected us Norwegians. Living in Oslo, I know people who work in the government buildings that were hit, people who earlier years have been to the AUF camp at Utøya, and I've also personally been to Utøya at a Maths camp. My girlfriend were a only few blocks from the bomb when it went off. The next six months, I'll be working in R6, one of the buildings in the executive government quarter where the bomb went off, but only suffered minor damages. I'll be walking past the bomb site. In fact, I was there earlier in the summer. Here's a photo I took: http://instagram.com/p/MK9aWrtM3z/ http://instagram.com/p/MK9aWrtM3z/ Norwegians are generally peaceful. We have a low crime rate and high employment rate. We do rank 11th on number of guns per capita by country[1], though, but the few people I know who have guns are active hunters. Norway usually tops the UNs list of best places to live. Norway has its share of problems, of course, but it usually pales in comparison to problems other places. The 2011 attacks were just unbelievable, and I try not to think about them in detail because it's too emotional. Before the attacks, Norway was so very, very innocent and unspoiled. We've managed to retain some of our innocence, perhaps, and even one year after the attack, I feel that we're still trying to find out how to handle it. I'm not entirely sure what my intention was with this post, but now that I've written it, I might as well post it. If you've read this far, I hope you got something out of it - perhaps new insight into the Norwegian psyche, if anything. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...

learc83 14y ago

>but rather implementing some rational gun laws. Changing laws that could negatively impact millions of people because of the statistically extremely small amount of people killed in mass shootings is just the kind of overreaction the article is talking about. If you want to debate gun laws you have to weigh the rights of gun owners with the rights of people killed every year. Our policies shouldn't be based on statistically insignificant, but emotional charged tragedies. Even the Obama administration has said it is against calling for more gun regulation because of this. This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death toll that dwarfs anything we've seen.

sophacles 14y ago
Even the Obama administration has said it is against calling for more gun regulation because of this. Just saying: Despite the attack ad fueled mass hysteria about this, Obama hasn't done anything regarding US gun policy, in any direction.
- learc83 14y ago
  I'm very aware. I was just pointing out that if anyone was likely to think more tougher gun laws were a solution, it would be a liberal president during campaign season. He's already lost the 2nd amendment voters, from perception alone. He really needs to motivate his base and I think calling for tougher gun laws might help him there. I disagree with him on most issues, but the fact that he seems not to be interested in using this for political gain deserves recognition.
knorby 14y ago
"This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death toll that dwarfs anything we've seen." I don't think it is wise to come to that conclusion so quickly. If his AR-15 hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly single-man massacre in history (he hit 70 people with a shotgun and pistols, and his AR-15 had a 100-round magazine), and I think that point merits some consideration. From what I understand of AR-15s, gun jams are somewhat common, but that isn't really a problem for adept users. It is too early to say exactly what was going on with this guy, but I get the impression that a growing insanity drove his actions more than rational planning; he probably would have been practiced if he had more of a plan as Brevick seemed to have. It should be obvious that guns aren't going anywhere, but there is a clear distinction in policy between methods violence that affect a few people and those that affect a large number. It seems like Holmes' goal was closer to killing 100 people, and he came very close to doing so. And he obtained the means to do so without what you could even describe as a speed bump. If he had used a bomb instead, would there be an uproar over attempts to curb bomb making? I don't see why the use of a gun should make the case so easy to dismiss.

tallanvor 14y ago

Breivik used violence in an attempt to cause political change (to try and force the government to stop promoting multiculturalism). That clearly fits within the definition of terrorism. You are correct in saying that McVeigh's actions may not fit that definition, as he claimed that his motive was revenge for the government's actions on Waco and Ruby Ridge, rather than trying to force political change, but terrorism also refers to the state of fear that an act can cause, so you can still call him a terrorist. The problem in the United States is that people are always willing to call Muslim extremists terrorists, but for some reason other individuals or groups that commit terrorist acts are simply labeled nuts, extremists, or the fringe element.

tkahn6 14y ago
> but for some reason other individuals or groups that commit terrorist acts are simply labeled nuts, extremists, or the fringe element. Yeah I'm sure that fits nicely with your narrative but can you provide any evidence of that?
aggronn 14y ago
Its not clear to me how your last comment is related to the rest of your post.
- tallanvor 14y ago
  I think it's an important point in discussions relating to these types of events. --Why are people in the US so hesitant to label this sort of event as being the act of a terrorist unless the perpetrator(s) are Muslim?
  - ErrantX 14y ago
    Because the media applies the labels.