British Soldier Beheaded on London Street.

[Yla]

Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.

Is it because the victim is a soldier?

Would you call not-funny if it would be a man going to his white-collar job?
Would you call not-funny if it would be a woman, any civilian profession?
Would you call not-funny if it would be a woman soldier?
Would you call not-funny if it would still be a male soldier, but we'd know more about him as a person, his family, his hobbies?

Thing is, I wasn't particularly perturbed by Fe-bite's post either. I have to answer the same questions. Let's explore our shortcomings as humans.

[agentCDE]

Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.

Would you call not-funny if it would still be a male soldier, but we'd know more about him as a person, his family, his hobbies?

I think this is it, right here. Well, to a more extreme degree; from what I remember, Joey's quip was right in the middle of a bunch of posters trying to comfort a forumite who had just learned a close family friend had been seriously injured. Yeah. I can tolerate black humor just fine, but, well, good comedy is 90% delivery.

EDIT: It helps that Ironbite isn't acting like we're his own personal Antichrists for not thinking he's the second coming of George Carlin.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.

That said, this is horribly despicable act and if these bastards haven't been shot dead by the cops, I hope they get death.

Ironbite-monsters don't deserve life.

We don't have the death penalty. And thank fuck, tbh.

Lucky you.

[ThunderWulf]

Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.

Would you call not-funny if it would still be a male soldier, but we'd know more about him as a person, his family, his hobbies?

I think this is it, right here. Well, to a more extreme degree; from what I remember, Joey's quip was right in the middle of a bunch of posters trying to comfort a forumite who had just learned a close family friend had been seriously injured. Yeah. I can tolerate black humor just fine, but, well, good comedy is 90% delivery.

EDIT: It helps that Ironbite isn't acting like we're his own personal Antichrists for not thinking he's the second coming of George Carlin.

Last paragraph before the edit nails it.  There is such a thing as "too soon" sometimes.

[Auri-El]

Dude at my job was talking about this- said if england allowed guns it would've been stopped, and he couldnt believe everyone just stood there. I said england does allow guns and theres this thing where everyone thinks someone else will help, so no one does, and he looked at me, then looked away and said well if england had concealed carry permits, this couldve been stopped. Smh.

[Katsuro]

Dude at my job was talking about this- said if england allowed guns it would've been stopped, and he couldnt believe everyone just stood there. I said england does allow guns and theres this thing where everyone thinks someone else will help, so no one does, and he looked at me, then looked away and said well if england had concealed carry permits, this couldve been stopped. Smh.

Surely a gun would only have stopped hm after the attack anyway?  Unless he is suggesting people should shoot other people premptivley? Coz I can't see how that could go wrong, nope.

Plus, does he really trust the average random tosser on the street to own a gun responsibly and use it effectivley in a confusing situation where they're panicking and afraid?  I wouldn't trust half the people I run into on an average day to use a fucking sandwhich properly, never mind a gun.

I mean christ when I'm playing a multiplayer FPS game it turns into a total disaster when my adrenaline starts pumping too much.  I start shooting at everything that moves and even thigns that don't.  I can't imgine how much worse it would be in a real life situatiion.

And I think gun crime in parts of London is high enough as it is without making the laws on gun ownership looser.

[booley]

Dude at my job was talking about this- said if england allowed guns it would've been stopped, and he couldnt believe everyone just stood there. I said england does allow guns and theres this thing where everyone thinks someone else will help, so no one does, and he looked at me, then looked away and said well if england had concealed carry permits, this couldve been stopped. Smh.

But of course that almost never happens though.  Not even in the US where we have load sof guns and would be dirty harry's.

I mean for one, someone still has to have a gun
Then we still have bystander syndrome as already described.
Then we have the fact that, believe it or not, most humans are repelled at the idea of killing.  Talking about it all macho before is easy but when faced with the actual thing, most of us balk.  (the military does a lot of means to get around this, of course)

Not to mention, if random citizens can have easy access to guns, that means random crazy people can too.  And it may not have been just one guy murdered.

The thing is guns play into human nature and how we often deal with horrific things like this.

We second guess, wondering how they could have been avoided.
And we also look for things that will give us security in a frightening world.  Even if it's just psychological.

So guns get seen as some kind of super power.  They can give us the feeling that we have the power to keep bad things like this from happening, even if we may still be powerless.

I'm sure there's some kind of psychological term for that.

[mellenORL]

If the other attacker had not had a gun himself, a citizen with a Taser or a stun gun baton could have more effectively and safely stopped the butcher knife attack than a citizen with a gun.  It would have been very risky to try it though, dealing with two maniacs at once, regardless if they had a gun or not.

As it is, I believe these two monsters specifically planned that the gun wielder would keep an eye out and shoot anyone who tried to break up the attack on the soldier.

[DiscoBerry]

And now there appears to have been a copycat attack in France. 

The 23-year-old was patrolling in uniform with two other soldiers as part of France's Vigipirate anti-terror surveillance plan when he was approached from behind around 6 p.m. and attacked with a knife or a box-cutter.

A police union spokesman said surveillance footage of the attacker showed him as tall and bearded, aged about 35, possibly of North African origin and wearing a white Arab-style tunic.

Hollande, in the Ethiopian city of Addis Ababa, commented on the stabbing to say police were hunting for the attacker but did not provide any details about his identity or any possible motivation for the attack.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/25/us-france-stabbing-idUSBRE94O09420130525

[Lt. Fred]

Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?

Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.

[MadCatTLX]

Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?

Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.

It's because the guy is supposedly a muslim.

[Askold]

Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?

Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.

This was a terrorist attack done by religious extremists. Just because it was done by two guys with no apparent relation to Al Gaida or other major players or the lack of explosives or huge casualties do not change that fact.

Yes, only one dead and the killers were arrested (which was part of their plan) but it is a new kind of threat: This type of attack is really hard to predict since there is no connection to any larger organisations and the attacker used whatever was available and he had skills for. If they had known how to make explosives out of household items or had a gun they could have done that but they just used a knife and a car and were still able to make their statement.

[RavynousHunter]

Terrorism isn't about death toll, its about intent.

[Lt. Fred]

Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?

Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.

This was a terrorist attack done by religious extremists.

I'm not clear on why we should be more concerned about a murder motivated by a desire to bring down the government than a murder motivated by money or love. Why should motivations enter into the equation? Surely it's threat alone we should care about. If you're a paralytic terrorist, you are not a threat and everyone can calm down. On the other hand, if you have a nuclear weapon and will use it to extort money, you are a threat and we should pay attention. Motivation is irrelevant. These guys had an axe, not a nuke.

Nor is this terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to create fear in order to cause some political end. They murdered a soldier, not a civilian. That is not an act of terrorism. It's murder, not terrorism.

Nor is even the worst terrorism a serious threat. Even the worst terrorist attack in history killed few people and did little damage compared to basically ignored social phenomena like lack of medical care. Ironically, these much more serious problems have gone unfunded in the name of a (failed) attempt to reduce terrorism.

This is irrational. We should calm down and think this through.

[Askold]

Nor is this terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to create fear in order to cause some political end. They murdered a soldier, not a civilian. That is not an act of terrorism. It's murder, not terrorism.

It would be easier to agree on what is terrorism if there was a consencus on what terrorism means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of people by non-government political activists for political reasons, often as a public statement.

This definition would mean that this particular act can be said to be terrorism, but the same article states that there is no international consencus or laws that define terrorism just some subjective views and separate laws.

Nor is even the worst terrorism a serious threat. Even the worst terrorist attack in history killed few people and did little damage compared to basically ignored social phenomena like lack of medical care. Ironically, these much more serious problems have gone unfunded in the name of a (failed) attempt to reduce terrorism.

Does the fact that there are bigger threats mean we should ignore the smaller ones?

If car crashes kill more people than plane crashes does this mean we should remove all the laws and regulation concerning planes until we have fixed the problem with the cars?