

What If the Tsarnaevs Had Been the “Boston Shooters”? - brianchu
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/04/the-boston-shooters.html

======
SingleEagle
Let me start by saying I may be biased as I live in the city of Boston.

This article is ridiculous and utterly worthless. There are glaringly obvious
differences between a crazed shooter who goes on to commit suicide and an
unknown criminal(s) with the demonstrated capability (and I'm not talking
strictly technical) to plant and blow explosives. I firmly believe that in
either case, were the assailants unknown, it would have resulted in a man-
hunt.

This article simultaneously exaggerates and undermines the efforts of the
"man-hunt" that took place here and it's crass and insulting. Life here was
largely uninterrupted by police action. The costs associated with the
additional police action will, I'm certain, be greatly dwarfed by the damage
directly caused by the bombings. The city was by no means shut down. Friday
involved a __voluntary __lock-in that most people abided by out of respect,
but that was it. The rest of the week was, by and large, business as usual. Do
you not think a city would be at the least equivalently "locked-down" were an
unknown shooter on the loose?

And while we're here, I'm absolutely fed up with the kill-count being used as
a speaking point. No one seems to acknowledge the medical tent 100 yards away,
or the many world-class area hospitals (and the sheer number of physicians
that live in the neighborhood that hosts the finish line) as the reason for a
"mere" 3 deaths. In any case, who cares? The fact of the matter is this was a
tragedy and, sure, in that sense it is not unique. It is fairly unique (at
least, in the US) in the way that they executed and in the sense that there
were two suspects on their way to being identified yet on the loose. That's
what is notable here.

And don't speak on behalf of the foreign world. They're doing a pretty good
job of it themselves and I haven't heard much "looking on in astonishment" as
the author has described it.

John Cassidy, you're a hypocrite and a truly offensive human being.

------
zhemao
"Numerically speaking, terrorism, especially homegrown terrorism, is a minor
threat to public safety and public health. It pales in comparison to gun
violence."

Numerically speaking, mass shootings using semi-automatic rifles like the
AR-15 are also quite rare. Most gun violence in the US is carried out with
handguns by gangbangers, muggers, drug dealers, and other such criminals, not
by unhinged psychopaths.

~~~
cpursley
"Most gun violence in the US is carried out with handguns by gangbangers,
muggers, drug dealers, and other such criminals, not by unhinged psychopaths."

Yep - this is why ending the war on drugs will solve 70% of the 'gun-violence'
problem.

~~~
LeeHunter
Two thirds of all gun-related deaths in the US are suicides, domestic violence
is another huge chunk.

------
sachingulaya
Most incidences of gun violence end with the shooters dead on the scene. With
the Tsarnaevs it was questionable whether they would ever be found. We don't
need to conjecture about what would happen if a "terrorist" was on the loose
with guns--it happened 2 months ago. His name was Christopher Dorner
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner>) and they assembled multi-
agency taskforces and set off on a manhunt equally resource intensity as the
hunt for the Tsarnaevs.

------
bifrost
This article is premised on a redherring, and its also factually incorrect on
a few things. The first thing its factually incorrect on is that even if the
legislation had passed, it would have done nothing to prevent this. If the FBI
agents investigating the older brother found nothing, there is nothing legally
saying these guys are different from anyone else in the US and they are
granted the rights and liberties of all americans. Background checks are
useless when you're dealing with sleeper cells or psychopaths.

My personal feeling is that small bombs are the tools of cowards and
terrorists, and cowards are unlikely to pull out guns and start shooting.
Crazy people yes, but cowards, no.

I also usually ignore arguments involving "the NRA has herpaderpa yadda
yadda". The NRA has power because there are millions and millions of gun
owners in the US who are tired of the negative story shoved down peoples
throats. Gun crime is so miniscule in this country compared to other types of
crime, and those comitting the crimes don't even fall under the veil of legal
gun owners anyways, so NRA members are being demonized because people don't
understand how the world works.

~~~
RealGeek
Most terrorists do not try to sneak away like a coward after planting a bomb.
In fact, they fight till they die once the attack is initiated. They are
stealth and death is usually a part of their plan. This is why they are able
to infiltrate even the most secure places.

Their modus operandi is not to run away, but cause maximum damage and get
maximum attention.

~~~
bifrost
Indeed, thats why I'd classify these guys as cowards more than terrorists,
they slithered away and hid out. Thats not to say they're not terrorists, but
they didn't act out the pseudo-jihadi dream.

------
sliverstorm
Point of speculation: bombs trigger a bit of a different response, at least in
my head. For starters, you don't get to flee from a bomb, and a bomb doesn't
need to be held by a human. It can be hiding anywhere.

Wasn't it just recently that a study found that the stress on our troops in
the Middle East due to traveling around risking IED's was at least as great,
if not greater than regular combat?

