The fact you Americans think this is normal for a protest says more then anything I can comment.
A good test is to think of a private entitiy doing this and if that passes the smell test. I don’t think deploying snipers at events has ever saved anyone (correct me if I am missing an incident) and in this case if they are there to protect the students why does the school not hire their own sharpshooters?
You bring up a good point. The prevention part - snipers are seemingly ineffective. The reaction/response portion however, does point to guns being used to prevent further damage. 2016 dallas shooting - police used a bomb to take out the shooter after the fact. LA airport shooting in 2013 - taken down with regular guns.
Overall, I think you make a good point, they’re ineffective at prevention, and even response can be handled w/o the need of long range or automatic weapons. There’s always the argument that “well there aren’t any attacks because we have these” that I can see people making but that feels fallacious somehow, just not sure how exactly.
I am still left to wonder, how do you actually prevent the bombing and other attacks from happening. What is effective?
When the bomber intends to die in glory, there is no deterrent possible. Death isn’t any deterrent. It can only be stopped before they get to the scene.
Reeducation or incarceratin of zealots.
Large investment in mental health.
Prosecution of group’s and individuals that call for violence or have violent philosophies.
Reduce access to weapons and materials.
High bounties for reporting suspicious activity or behavior.
Promotion / enforcement of a homogeneous society.
None WILL be done. Many are undesirable. But they can be used to prevent. Does that help you?
Yes absolutely. These are most definitely actionable and are also excellent conversational pieces that can be discussed further, which was all I wanted instead of outrage commenting basically.
I think healthcare in general (including mental health) services would be hugely impactful to the general population.
I also think our educational system is being eroded and a lot of kids are pushed away from continuing education (in any form, not just traditional university which fails a lot of people) in favor of blue collar work
Now I’m not saying blue collar work is bad, but I do think continuing education is important, especially as our life expectancies are increasing. It’s important people stay educated and continue to practice things like the scientific process so that we don’t lose that information and become disinformation spreaders.
Without solid education, we can’t possible expect a “bright” future imo.
What did you mean about the homogenous society? In what ways? Looking forward to any examples/explanation you could give!
In a homogeneous society, everyone has the same background. No differences of traditions, religions, art, music, etc. They all look roughly similar. They have no fuel to make another member into the “other”. As I understand, Iceland has something approaching this. I expect the Sentinalese do, to. The ways to get to this from a large and diverse society are, of course, appalling.
Yeeeeeahhh, not sure if I agree with this one. To me it feels sort of lazy and skirts around the true nature of accepting people for who they are and learning to be more tolerant of people not exactly like us
Sorta feels lazy to say, well let’s get rid of what makes us different/unique.
Nature doesn’t really believe in the homogeneous, I don’t see why we should strive to make it so
I agree. But you wanted (insisted) on solutions. Thorough and complete genocide eliminates all opponents. Very few of my suggestions are desirable. Diversity with ignorance, inequality, and poverty breeds distrust and resentment - leading to civil strife. This is elementary.
I think the resistance you are getting on this thread is due to an overly naive view of “solutions” combined with a bit of unintentionally arrogant phrasing. You seem to want to discuss at a high level while ignoring the complexity of the problems involved. You strike me as young and thoughtful, with good intentions - but still inexperienced. Ease back on the pressure - no one owes you an answer. This (and all anonymous forums back to Usenet) is a crowd of semi-hostile strangers with nothing to lose. If you want engagement you need to sell yourself as worth engaging first.
I think you might be mistaken as to the point of the police being on site. Its not really the job of police to protect (and extra so for protesters). The risk of a terror attack on any large group of people is a weak excuse for this sort of response from police.
Something about those who give up liberty for safety deserve nether…
I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn’t really take anything away, they were just there. It’s definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can’t see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; “to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats” even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.
The fact you Americans think this is normal for a protest says more then anything I can comment.
A good test is to think of a private entitiy doing this and if that passes the smell test. I don’t think deploying snipers at events has ever saved anyone (correct me if I am missing an incident) and in this case if they are there to protect the students why does the school not hire their own sharpshooters?
You bring up a good point. The prevention part - snipers are seemingly ineffective. The reaction/response portion however, does point to guns being used to prevent further damage. 2016 dallas shooting - police used a bomb to take out the shooter after the fact. LA airport shooting in 2013 - taken down with regular guns.
Overall, I think you make a good point, they’re ineffective at prevention, and even response can be handled w/o the need of long range or automatic weapons. There’s always the argument that “well there aren’t any attacks because we have these” that I can see people making but that feels fallacious somehow, just not sure how exactly.
I am still left to wonder, how do you actually prevent the bombing and other attacks from happening. What is effective?
When the bomber intends to die in glory, there is no deterrent possible. Death isn’t any deterrent. It can only be stopped before they get to the scene.
Why won’t anyone answer my question, I know this.
What can be done to prevent
OK…
Reeducation or incarceratin of zealots. Large investment in mental health. Prosecution of group’s and individuals that call for violence or have violent philosophies. Reduce access to weapons and materials. High bounties for reporting suspicious activity or behavior. Promotion / enforcement of a homogeneous society.
None WILL be done. Many are undesirable. But they can be used to prevent. Does that help you?
Yes absolutely. These are most definitely actionable and are also excellent conversational pieces that can be discussed further, which was all I wanted instead of outrage commenting basically.
I think healthcare in general (including mental health) services would be hugely impactful to the general population.
I also think our educational system is being eroded and a lot of kids are pushed away from continuing education (in any form, not just traditional university which fails a lot of people) in favor of blue collar work
Now I’m not saying blue collar work is bad, but I do think continuing education is important, especially as our life expectancies are increasing. It’s important people stay educated and continue to practice things like the scientific process so that we don’t lose that information and become disinformation spreaders.
Without solid education, we can’t possible expect a “bright” future imo.
What did you mean about the homogenous society? In what ways? Looking forward to any examples/explanation you could give!
In a homogeneous society, everyone has the same background. No differences of traditions, religions, art, music, etc. They all look roughly similar. They have no fuel to make another member into the “other”. As I understand, Iceland has something approaching this. I expect the Sentinalese do, to. The ways to get to this from a large and diverse society are, of course, appalling.
Yeeeeeahhh, not sure if I agree with this one. To me it feels sort of lazy and skirts around the true nature of accepting people for who they are and learning to be more tolerant of people not exactly like us
Sorta feels lazy to say, well let’s get rid of what makes us different/unique.
Nature doesn’t really believe in the homogeneous, I don’t see why we should strive to make it so
I agree. But you wanted (insisted) on solutions. Thorough and complete genocide eliminates all opponents. Very few of my suggestions are desirable. Diversity with ignorance, inequality, and poverty breeds distrust and resentment - leading to civil strife. This is elementary.
I think the resistance you are getting on this thread is due to an overly naive view of “solutions” combined with a bit of unintentionally arrogant phrasing. You seem to want to discuss at a high level while ignoring the complexity of the problems involved. You strike me as young and thoughtful, with good intentions - but still inexperienced. Ease back on the pressure - no one owes you an answer. This (and all anonymous forums back to Usenet) is a crowd of semi-hostile strangers with nothing to lose. If you want engagement you need to sell yourself as worth engaging first.
I think you might be mistaken as to the point of the police being on site. Its not really the job of police to protect (and extra so for protesters). The risk of a terror attack on any large group of people is a weak excuse for this sort of response from police.
Something about those who give up liberty for safety deserve nether…
I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn’t really take anything away, they were just there. It’s definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can’t see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; “to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats” even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.