October 7, 2002

11:15 PM

Bush's "war on terrorism" may be fine and all, but shouldn't he be attacking something more pressing? In times of elevated terrorism threat levels, your leader has yet to do much about the situation, except promising federal help and sending his "thoughts and prayers" to the families of the victims. Isn't this domestic terrorism? When will we see similar pro-active measures taken against this terrorist just as Bush is taking against Saddam? And where's that gosh-darned knee-jerk reaction from the media that we've come to expect?
posted by manero (47 comments total)

The beautiful thing about being in a country with more than one person is that we can do more than one thing at a time. Law enforcement is working on the sniper case. Bush is working on international politics and terrorism. I can't say I like the way everything in this country is run, but it generally works to some effect.
posted by fatbobsmith at 11:25 PM on October 7, 2002

your leader has yet to do much about the situation

Yeah, not much except send the FBI and ATF to help the police, and the Dept of Heath and Human services to council people in the area.... Not much at all...


What exactly do you want him to do? Gestapo-style raids on every house in side the beltway until they find these guys?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:27 PM on October 7, 2002

Where's Asterion?

Oh sorry. Different labyrinth.....
posted by hama7 at 11:42 PM on October 7, 2002

Bush is busy, people! There are bigger problems, like making sure Americans have "enough toys made in China in time for the holiday season" and stuff like that.
posted by blackholebrain at 11:56 PM on October 7, 2002

I agree manero. Terrorism's terrorism. If a leader is to have us seriously take at his word about a war on a fucking verb, therefore I would hope that he's studied up enough on the different variances of definition his hijacking of the very important term "terror" includes. Unfortunately, this is not terror, not at all. This is a nut with a sniper rifle. Sniper rifles are OK whereas "terror" isn't.

Terror is of and by, not those American nuts who wreak terror, but by those who jeopardize American-style economic hegemony. Nobody's stopping our Maryland victims from shopping. Just be carelful. As sick as these shootings are, a real American president would have come out tonight and denounced all terror and that includes that done by his voter bloc. He would have illuminated the very cellars of terror he hopes will come to the fore and beat dissent down should the peace movement gain momentum.

Terror comes many ways. And should the word be heard, terror is caused by any entity who causes it.

Terrorism has become a meaningless word if we cannot call the corporate and underhanded fundamentalist greed influenced, American right's terrorism for what it is.
posted by crasspastor at 12:04 AM on October 8, 2002

Steve, this is the first time we've ever agreed on anything. Let alone to the letter. Western society typically just doesn't have many options available to it when it comes to dealing with Jack-the-Ripper types. Wait for him to get sloppy, the police to get lucky, or for him to decide to lay low.

Blatant self-pimpage: If you're interested, I did write up a few bits on what the usage of 5.56mm (.223) might mean on another site I post to here. If you're in the mood for some long rambling on bullet ballistics and some slightly-educated guesses on the types of gun used, that is.
posted by Ryvar at 12:06 AM on October 8, 2002

crasspastor, you are so dramatic.
posted by Witty at 12:51 AM on October 8, 2002

What exactly do you want him to do? Gestapo-style raids on every house in side the beltway until they find these guys?

Ack. Please watch those Nazi references, if you don't mind.

Here's exactly what we want him to do: help get rid of guns. I really doubt the Maryland Maniac sniper or whatever name they are using would have killed this many people by throwing knives or darts or cream pies from a white van.

But oh, I keep forgetting. Guns make us safer. Well, easy access to American guns sure made Maryland a safer place. Thanks, NRA.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:44 AM on October 8, 2002

Here's exactly what we want him to do: help get rid of guns.

Not happening.... EVER. New idea please.

Here's an idea. No more delivery vans so insane crazy mother fuckers can't get around so easily and elude capture.

I can't wait til we hear of someone walking into an elementary school or a McDonald's and beating 4-5 people to death with a baseball bat or maybe a clawed hammer.

(not that I really want that to happen of course)
posted by Witty at 2:13 AM on October 8, 2002

fold_and_mutilate, it's worth point out that the Western nation that banned all firearms is also the one with the highest crime rate.

It's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of crimes involving firearms are committed with handguns (in the area of 90-95%, IIRC, though I have no link), and of those the majority with 9mm handguns such as the ones policemen carry. It's worth pointing out that the only guarantee the people have of their government not selling them down the river - even in a 'democracy' - is if the government has a real reason to fear the citizenry.

Non-handgun firearms do not contribute significantly to the crime rate due to their awkwardness for things like running away from a store, bank, or site of a killing. Not to mention the difficulty in concealing them. Non-handgun firearms are the only variety useful in any sort of revolution. Shotguns (a non-handgun firearm) are generally the best weapon to have available for self-defense.

See a trend here? The problem isn't any weapon that fires 5.56mm, but rather firearms that lend themselves to criminal activity and can easily be transported, concealed, and hidden. Putting the same restrictions on such weapons as are put on things like silencers (Class 2 license) would be a sensible idea, if not an outright ban for citizen-ownership altogether.

Personally, I'd like to see a compromise along the lines of 'we ban handguns now for private ownership, and stop making laws altogether about other types of firearms.' It would be the first sane gun law passed in a long, long time.
posted by Ryvar at 2:21 AM on October 8, 2002

What exactly do you want him to do? Gestapo-style raids on every house in side the beltway until they find these guys?

Sounds good to me.

I can't wait til we hear of someone walking into an elementary school or a McDonald's and beating 4-5 people to death with a baseball bat or maybe a clawed hammer.

Pretty improbable, hence the argument. It's hard for a group of people to wrestle someone down when they have a gun without getting a few more people killed. Not so hard when they only have a bat, hammer, knife, box-cutter, spork etc.

It's worth pointing out that the only guarantee the people have of their government not selling them down the river - even in a 'democracy' - is if the government has a real reason to fear the citizenry.

The US government doesn't fear the rest of the world, why do you think it would fear a people's army of its own citizens? You could get the biggest weapons you could afford to buy and the government could wipe out you, and your state, in seconds.
posted by digiboy at 2:54 AM on October 8, 2002

The US government doesn't fear the rest of the world, why do you think it would fear a people's army of its own citizens?

Because the armed forces aren't going to start butchering their own families en masse?
posted by Ryvar at 3:00 AM on October 8, 2002

What exactly do you want him to do? Gestapo-style raids on every house in side the beltway until they find these guys?

Why not? He supports the same actions by Ariel Sharon. You might want to add an attack helicopter or two just to be sure, 'collateral damage' will be an operational risk but you have to get this guy.
posted by niceness at 3:04 AM on October 8, 2002

Isn't it time we stopped using the word terrorism to describe any unpleasant fact we want to draw attention to? We all know what terrorists are: they're small, powerless groups of people with access to nasty weapons who kill in order to shock and sway the actions of powerful governments. They have a cause, they think they're oppressed, they're high minded and fanatical. We know the type. They're not corporations, not the powerful governments themselves playing at realpolitik and not serial killers. Pre 9/11 we all knew this. We used the word so that we then knew the kind of people/act we were dealing with.

If you're going to argue that this description is too broad or not precise enough then I say that's the nature of language. Dictionary definitions often don't cover it. Attempts to misappropriate the word are transparently political and just expose your agenda (that includes you Mr Bush and Mr Blair).
posted by Summer at 4:12 AM on October 8, 2002

help get rid of guns

Yeah, because that is what is really the problem here, we don't have harsh enough gun laws... because I am soooo... sure that these guy bought these rifles legally...

Most guns used to commit a crime do not come from a gun store or show.... So what good are the laws if the "bad people" don't have to follow them...

And if some one doesn't belive me on the % used in crime, email me, it is far too late at night for me to look it up and post, but I can get it for you tomorrow....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:36 AM on October 8, 2002

they're small, powerless groups of people with access to nasty weapons who kill in order to shock and sway the actions of powerful governments. They have a cause, they think they're oppressed, they're high minded and fanatical. We know the type. They're not corporations, not the powerful governments themselves playing at realpolitik and not serial killers.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.

From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

terrorism
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or
coerce societies or governments

ie, it's well possible for a government to be terrorist, and being radical isn't required to fit the description, nor is high-mindedness. Wether serial killers are terrorist would depend on if they did it for gratification or compulsively, or if they were doing it to scare people into changing their behaviour in some way.
posted by fvw at 4:44 AM on October 8, 2002

One man's revolutionaries are another man's . . . you get the idea. 'Terrorism' is simply a conveniently sinister-sounding descriptor for any small military engagements you or whomever else is using it don't like. I'm sure the Panamanians (is that the right word?) thought of US action back in the Drug War as 'terrorism.' Many in the Middle East would describe those bombing the USS Cole as 'heroes.'

There are no terrorists. There are simply people committing actions you either do or do not approve of, and connotation-ridden labels slapped on top of them is just a less form of Godwin.
posted by Ryvar at 5:11 AM on October 8, 2002

fvw: did you not read the part where I said dictionary definitions don't cover it?

Ryvar: exactly
posted by Summer at 5:22 AM on October 8, 2002

Summer: admitted, I must have read over it. Wicked, Wicked zoot (*spanks self*).

But if you're going to deviate from the authorative sources on the matter (and I think dictionaries are as close as you get for these kinds of things) you quickly deviate from any possible reasonable discussion.

not to mention that I agree with the dictionary definition, a government can well be terrorist.
posted by fvw at 6:05 AM on October 8, 2002

fvw, as RavinDave said in another thread:

Save me from the pedantic fools who somehow imagine that dictionaries dictate pronunciation instead of merely attempting to document select common usage

replacing the word 'pronunciation' with 'meaning'.

The meanings of words are cultural and change with time. The word terrorist was used by newspapers and TV to describe a certain kind of group because there was no other word to describe them. Rebel is too glamorous, as is freedom fighter and soldier is too legitimate. That's how the word spread, similar to words and phrases such as coup d'etat and guerilla. New words were needed for new situations and new types of people.

Some groups are now trying to manipulate the language artificially by using the word to describe something else entirely and they're doing it for political reasons, either because they want the 'war on terror' to be extended to their own pet hatred, or because they want to expose the 'war on terror' as a sham. It won't work, because people already have a picture in their heads of what a terrorist is, and it doesn't look like Aerial Sharon, George Bush or Saddam Hussein.
posted by Summer at 6:36 AM on October 8, 2002

what about McVeigh and his ilk?
(I say this because that's the type of person I think is doing this)
posted by amberglow at 6:44 AM on October 8, 2002

Maybe he needs a new word. I can think of a few.
posted by Summer at 6:53 AM on October 8, 2002

Speaking of domestic terrorism, domestic abuse prevention in my area is losing $1million in funding. I imagine they would rather spend that money in Iraq.
posted by kayjay at 7:02 AM on October 8, 2002

it's worth point out that the Western nation that banned all firearms is also the one with the highest crime rate.

Which is supposed to imply what, precisely? That more weapons naturally results in a lower crime rate? That's a good one.

..

Crap. As I typed that I realized that's probably exactly what you meant. I just don't know what to say to Americans sometimes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:12 AM on October 8, 2002

It's also worth noting that the counties this is happening in are some of the most gun-free in the country, and that Maryland is one of the most self-defense unfriendly states in the nation.

After the school shooting yesterday morning, when officials were reinforcing the fact that children needed to be in school around "adults", I couldn't help but think: "Yeah, adults who will not have the power to do anything but stand around and nicely ask the killer to please not pull the trigger. They'd be safer if some of the folks about were packing."

I'm hoping that this will make some of those folks see the light, but I seriously doubt it. If anything, people will become even more fervently anti-gun, and will try to pass laws banning carrying everything except for well-dulled sticks in self defense. Cuz, you know, once you outlaw guns, the bad people won't have them any more.

I wish I still had my childish naivite. It must be such a pleasant way to view the world.
posted by jammer at 7:50 AM on October 8, 2002

jammer, a teacher pulling out a gun in front of a classroom full of kids to confront someone else with a gun is a recipe for catastrophe...and what does it teach the kids about problem-solving or reacting to emergency situations?
posted by amberglow at 7:54 AM on October 8, 2002

It's also worth noting that the counties this is happening in are some of the most gun-free in the country, and that Maryland is one of the most self-defense unfriendly states in the nation.

Eureka! If all the sniper victims and bystanders only had .40-caliber Glocks, full-auto M-16s or Streetsweeper 12-gauges at the ready, they would not be dead.

This is how far the gun psychosis has come in America: A sniper kills seven total strangers and his fellow citizens rush to defend his right to his tools.

God bless America.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:08 AM on October 8, 2002

I wish I still had my childish naivite. It must be such a pleasant way to view the world.

Childish naivete is believing that the gun is the answer to everything. Hello? A hidden, unidentified, sniper.
posted by niceness at 8:11 AM on October 8, 2002

Incidentally - if this was in 'the Western nation that banned all firearms', it would be a hell of a lot easier for police to track down who's responsible. We don't have a whole lot of high-velocity sniper rifles knocking around the UK.
posted by niceness at 8:16 AM on October 8, 2002

This is how far the gun psychosis has come in America: A sniper kills seven total strangers and his fellow citizens rush to defend his right to his tools.

It has nothing to do with defending his right to bear arms. It has a lot to do with showing that anti-gun laws don't stop this kind of crime from happening.
posted by fatbobsmith at 8:18 AM on October 8, 2002

It has a lot to do with showing that anti-gun laws don't stop this kind of crime from happening.

Nope. It shows that in a nation flooded with firearms, the weak, gutted laws so far enacted are not effective.

This is a nation whose top law enforcement official, John Ashcroft, refused to let the FBI's Sept. 11 investigation use some firearms licensing records to look for clues to al-Qaida, because it might potentially compromise the Right to Bear Arms.

Least we've got our priorities straight.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:34 AM on October 8, 2002

anti-gun laws don't stop this kind of crime from happening.

Less people have guns in Maryland but people still get shot, therefore more people should have guns in Maryland.
posted by niceness at 8:37 AM on October 8, 2002

niceness: Childish naivete is believing that the gun is the answer to everything. Hello? A hidden, unidentified, sniper.

Fine. I'll grant that perhaps bystanders packing may not have been very helpful in this particular case. But I also want the gun-grabbers to grant that it's entirely possible that outlawing all guns would not have kept the rifle from the hands of this asshole.

sacre_bleu: This is how far the gun psychosis has come in America: A sniper kills seven total strangers and his fellow citizens rush to defend his right to his tools.

Damn straight. Just as 75% of the people on this thread would remove from everyone in the country the right to bear arms. I fervently disagree with them, but I would fight to the end for their right to say what they have to say.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can take it away. And knee-jerk, short-sighted reactions like "Well, obviously, if we banned all guns, things like this wouldn't happen!" solve no problems, and only serve to enrage those who would otherwise be willing to debate rational solutions.
posted by jammer at 8:48 AM on October 8, 2002

It has a lot to do with showing that anti-gun laws don't stop this kind of crime from happening.

...but how does it show that possessing guns would help?

But I also want the gun-grabbers to grant that it's entirely possible that outlawing all guns would not have kept the rifle from the hands of this asshole.

Yep. Entirely possible, though, I don't see this as a reason to arm an entire nation and give any old nutter the opportunity to go mental, grab their arsenal of weapons and go on a killing spree whenever they want.

I'd at least like to make it difficult for them and others, and make it easier for the authorities to track them down.
posted by digiboy at 8:52 AM on October 8, 2002

jammer, a teacher pulling out a gun in front of a classroom full of kids to confront someone else with a gun is a recipe for catastrophe...and what does it teach the kids about problem-solving or reacting to emergency situations?

Awww... how sweet. Being threatened at gun point by a lunatic is the PERFECT opportunity for teaching children a good lesson about problem resolution.

My form of the lesson would be... BANG!

(not that I think guns in the classroom is a good idea)

I'd at least like to make it difficult for them and others...

And what do you propose?

...and make it easier for the authorities to track them down.

Serial numbers on bullets... it's the only way.
posted by Witty at 9:03 AM on October 8, 2002

Serial numbers on bullets... it's the only way.

No way, that would be infringing on my right to bear arms or whatever Charlton says...
posted by niceness at 9:06 AM on October 8, 2002

it's worth point out that the Western nation that banned all firearms is also the one with the highest crime rate.

Ryvar, there are several problems with drawing any connection between anti-gun laws and the crime statistics in that article. A few that pop immediately to mind:

1. You've confused cause with effect. Perhaps anti-gun laws were passed in response to elevated crime trends, rather than crime being caused by a lack of guns. At any rate, a correlation does not causation make.
2. The crime statistics were statistically vague. Large sampling error and low incidence frequency mean that even under generous assumptions the cross-country rank comparisons are most likely invalid. Notice that no variances/standard deviations/confidence intervals are reported. It turns out that the statistics for England and for the US are not significantly different from each other (in a statistical sense, at reasonable confidence levels).
3. The crimes in the survey include many non-violent crimes, and even "contact" crimes may have involved no weapons.

I actually downloaded the data from the Interregional Crime Victims Survey of 2000, and the data reveal a slightly different story from what you implied. In the 2000 survey, we see that even though more than twice as many robberies per respondent were reported in England than in the US, twice as many in the US involved weapons of any sort than in England/Wales, and 6 times as many involved guns in the US than did in England! Moreover, more than 15% of the robberies committed with guns in the US involved "long guns." But again, due to small sample sizes and low response rates, these numbers must be taken as a rough guide only. Here are some raw numbers from the survey you cited:

England & Wales:
Number of survey responses: 1947
Robberies in sample: 68
Number involving weapons: 19 yes, 45 no, 4 don't know
Weapons used: 11 knives, 2 guns, 2 other, 4 "something used as a weapon"
Number of long guns: 0 reported, 1 didn't know

USA:
Number of survey responses: 1000
Robberies in sample: 21
Number involving weapons: 13 yes, 7 no, 1 don't know
Weapons used: 5 knives, 6 guns, 2 "something used as a weapon"
Number of long guns: 1 reported

Canada:
Number of survey responses: 2078
Robberies in sample: 61
Number involving weapons: 22 yes, 34 no, 5 don't know
Weapons used: 7 knives, 5 guns, 4 other, 4 "something used as a weapon", 2 don't know
Number of long guns: 1 reported

Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but I hate it when bad statistics are cited in support of positions they don't, in actuality, support. The survey in no way supports the assertion that anti-gun laws increase crime, or that having a large gun-toting contingent in the general public in any way deters crime. There may be other studies that show that, but the study you cited most certainly does not.

As for the other bald assertions in this thread, I can only say that I'm amazed, on MeFi, to see such an alarming dearth of supporting links!
posted by dilettanti at 9:28 AM on October 8, 2002

<irony>I'm amazed, on MeFi, to see such an alarming dearth of supporting links!</irony>

...and then, of course, I forgot my own link! Argh. Here is the International Crime Victim Survey that claimed England to be the most crime-ridden country in the world. Sorry 'bout that. Seems like I slipped through the idiot filter today...
posted by dilettanti at 9:49 AM on October 8, 2002

foldy, you fucking hypocrite.
posted by dhartung at 10:16 AM on October 8, 2002

Hmm. The discussion here wasn't centered around robbery here, but murder. The murder rate is dramatically higher in the U.S. than in the U.K.
posted by raysmj at 10:20 AM on October 8, 2002

Whatever made you think that our friend the original poster intended anything like an erudite discussion regarding gun laws in the U.S.? You just meant to flame the administration, didn’tcha, manero?

The sniper shootings started as local cases. The FBI even caught some flack for showing up when they did, and the local police chief found it necessary to do some we’re-all-in-this-together, press-relation hand-holding with them. (It may have become a federal case by now, or should have when the shootings in the other states became linked to the first, but it didn’t start that way.)

Trust me, we’re lucky Dubbya delegates.
posted by mirla at 10:37 AM on October 8, 2002

Sorry about the unsupported characters. Mefi was jammed, so I typed it into Word. Damn autocorrect, and damn Microsoft.
posted by mirla at 10:39 AM on October 8, 2002

a bigger issue, the country going into deficit and spending more on so called war. I think we are given something to ponder on (WAR) since W cannot solve our economic crisis. Wake up W and smell the air, stop spending our tax dollars.
posted by pyr at 10:56 AM on October 8, 2002

Hmm. The discussion here wasn't centered around robbery here, but murder. The murder rate is dramatically higher in the U.S. than in the U.K.

You're right, of course. It's just that the article claiming England has the highest crime rate was based on a victim survey—which means it doesn't include murder statistics. I used robbery simply as an example of how the report failed to reflect gun usage and difference in violent crime rates. But murder is much higher in the US than in England, Canada, and lots of other countries that don't have so many gun-toting crazies running around calling themselves "citizens."

As for the sniper and what Bush should be doing about it: I haven't a clue. I just moved to Montgomery County this week and it's quite a welcome party...
posted by dilettanti at 11:26 AM on October 8, 2002

stavrosthewonderchicken: "Which is supposed to imply what, precisely? That more weapons naturally results in a lower crime rate? That's a good one."

."Crap. As I typed that I realized that's probably exactly what you meant. I just don't know what to say to Americans sometimes."

Absolutely. Check out More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott. It's a very well documented look at the relationship between gun laws and crime rates.

It also shows clear trends of crime going up after restrictive gun laws have been passed. (Like what happened in England.) And also crime going down after less restrictive gun laws have been passed.

The reason things work like that is because restrictive gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who are willing to use them illegally. What they do is restrict regular law-abiding citizens from having guns.

And criminals are more willing to mess with people when they think there's a lower chance of them having a gun. Funny how that works.
posted by wrffr at 2:25 PM on October 8, 2002

fold_and_mutilate: Ack. Please watch those Nazi references, if you don't mind.

dhargung: foldy, you fucking hypocrite.

Oh good lord. Friend, I suspect you've lost whatever sense of humor you ever had. My reference was just another gentle jibe at those who want to escape or shape dissent here...at those who don't mind Nazi-comparisons when it supports their viewpoint, but who throw tantrums when they do not. Looks to me like there probably is a fucking hypocrite here...or else when can we expect a MetaTalk thread for the Gestapo comment above?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:51 PM on October 8, 2002

summer: As long as at least a large part of the people use a certain definition, you can't just hijack the word and say it suddenly means something else.. I wasn't using the dictionary as the rulebook, but as evidence that your definition is not the common usage.
posted by fvw at 2:01 PM on October 9, 2002