Police Mistake Fallout Cosplay for Bomb

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A Fallout cosplayer had to activate V.A.T.S. this week after a group of police drew their guns on him for wearing what they thought was a bomb on his back. Law enforcement later realized that he was just wearing a costume, and the “bomb” was actually a set of Pringles potato chips cans. Maybe he should have been arrested anyway for the crappy dress-up effort.

Dressed as a character from Fallout, a popular post-apocalyptic video game series, the man walked down a street wearing a gas mask, helmet, armor, and bullet belt. He carried a flag that said "New California Republic" — one of the factions from the games. RCMP Cpl. Shawn Graham told CBC News that police received calls just before 5 p.m. Tuesday from citizens concerned the man was wearing what looked like a bomb on his back. At least eight officers responded with their long guns drawn.
 
With such Advanced Tech as "Pringle Cans" He should be happy it was not the BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL that stopped him!!

upload_2017-4-15_11-26-37.jpeg
 
The good news here is the police did not kill a completely innocent person from straight up ineptness.
On the other hand, we wouldn't have realistic concerns about people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded places if we didn't invite said terrorists into our countries... just sayin', there are consequences to security deterrents, and if one of them did walk into a crowded area and blew themselves up with a clearly displayed bomb strapped to them, we'd be demanding to know why police made zero effort to investigate.

Its Captain Hindsight syndrome.

"He wasn't a terrorist, why did you treat him like one?" - public, probably

"He was obviously a terrorist with a bomb in plain view, why didn't you stop him?" - public, probably
 
This game is on my Back log finished Automatron (which I though was really good with cheats for the final boss but never got the last DLC which is Nuka Cola DLC 2nd DLC also looks interesting. I think I lost interest in the game due to the bigger monitor I was playing on at the time lack of focus.
 
"long guns"? Where did this happen, the wild west?

It's a term used in Canada, because most gun owning citizens (a lot of us actually) own shotguns and rifles ONLY (no hand guns), therefore legislation around weapons is often referred to as "long gun" legislation to indicate that it's targeted to just general citizens in particular.

So to say the Mounties approach with long guns indicated shotguns and sniper weapons were out and in hand instead of just handguns. Basically they're saying the swat team came.
 
It's a term used in Canada, because most gun owning citizens (a lot of us actually) own shotguns and rifles ONLY (no hand guns), therefore legislation around weapons is often referred to as "long gun" legislation to indicate that it's targeted to just general citizens in particular.

So to say the Mounties approach with long guns indicated shotguns and sniper weapons were out and in hand instead of just handguns. Basically they're saying the swat team came.
I thought they meant something like this.
 
On the other hand, we wouldn't have realistic concerns about people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded places if we didn't invite said terrorists into our countries... just sayin',

I tried looking up suicide bombings in the United States and found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suicide_bombings_in_the_United_States
The only suicide bombing on American Soil since 2000 was perpetrated by an American Citizen from Colorado Springs.

I'd like to see any sources you have would support your "realistic concerns about people strapping bombs and blowing themselves up in crowded places if we didn't invite said terrorists into our countries". Note that the 9-11 terrorists were NOT "invited" into the country, but were in the US legally on various visas that they applied for.

Just trying to get more information. Cause I know of no terrorists that were "invited" into both the US or Canada. All the terrorists either entered by themselves through normal channels by requesting entry or were citizens.
 
Glad the cops didn't go in guns blazing. Makes me a little more appreciative of our law enforcement up here although they'll probably lose that again soon.
 
"long guns"? Where did this happen, the wild west?

It's a term used in Canada, because most gun owning citizens (a lot of us actually) own shotguns and rifles ONLY (no hand guns), therefore legislation around weapons is often referred to as "long gun" legislation to indicate that it's targeted to just general citizens in particular.

So to say the Mounties approach with long guns indicated shotguns and sniper weapons were out and in hand instead of just handguns. Basically they're saying the swat team came.
The term is used for firearms in the US as well. If you're doing any paperwork for buying/selling a firearm, they're classified as long guns or handguns.
 
Just trying to get more information. Cause I know of no terrorists that were "invited" into both the US or Canada. All the terrorists either entered by themselves through normal channels by requesting entry or were citizens.
Ohhhhh, ok, we're doing the semantics thing. No, the United States government does not send out invitations to any foreign citizens since the country has existed. Most people figured out that this means granting them easy access.

Now if you are arguing that Islamists aren't escalating security concerns with exponentially increasing terrorist attacks, including on US soil, then you're smoking something.

United States: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx
World Tally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

That's over 20K people killed in Muslim terrorist attacks, and over 50K injured... seems like a lot. And that's not even including the jihadist attacks from Muslim extremists in Malaysia that religiously (no pun intended) kill Thai Buddhists for not respecting Sharia Law and Islamic customs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency

That adds another over 6.5K dead and around 12K injured in the last ten years alone.

The most obvious domestic one recently was just a few years back when two foreign-born Muslims that described themselves as devout Islamists exploded two bombs at the Boston marathon, injuring hundreds with loss of limbs and more and killing three. Granted, we don't have the virtual daily Islamic terror attacks like in Western Europe, but that's because we haven't opened up the flood gates like them... yet.

And remember, those are just the SUCCESSFUL attacks, and the attempts that are thwarted by police officers and counter-terrorist units doing their jobs (like in this case) also count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

Like tomorrow for example, a plot was just foiled in a major organized Islamic terrorist attack against Christians in the morning, which just hit the news cycle. Unfortunately, not all are prevented, like Palm Sunday church bombing that killed 44 and injured 100 just the other week.

The reason you're taking your shoes off at the airport, its not because of the threat of Shinto Japanese, its because of radicalized Islamists.
 
Last edited:
The term is used for firearms in the US as well. If you're doing any paperwork for buying/selling a firearm, they're classified as long guns or handguns.
Well in my defence I've never been to the continent.
 
On the other hand, we wouldn't have realistic concerns about people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded places if we didn't invite said terrorists into our countries... just sayin', there are consequences to security deterrents, and if one of them did walk into a crowded area and blew themselves up with a clearly displayed bomb strapped to them, we'd be demanding to know why police made zero effort to investigate.

Its Captain Hindsight syndrome.

"He wasn't a terrorist, why did you treat him like one?" - public, probably

"He was obviously a terrorist with a bomb in plain view, why didn't you stop him?" - public, probably

Captain Hindsight is why there are backpack searches. Eventually it'll lead in police stopping anyone in public with a large musical instrument, scuba gear, Igloo coolers, cardboard box larger than a foot per side, trashbags, 2 liter coke bottles. Basically anything that could contain explosives. I vote to fire Captain Hindsight and let's hire Captain Foresight from the Minority Report folks instead.
 
Captain Hindsight is why there are backpack searches. Eventually it'll lead in police stopping anyone in public with a large musical instrument, scuba gear, Igloo coolers, cardboard box larger than a foot per side, trashbags, 2 liter coke bottles. Basically anything that could contain explosives. I vote to fire Captain Hindsight and let's hire Captain Foresight from the Minority Report folks instead.
Which would be very inconvenient.

Joking aside, Captain Foresight could be a thing thanks to modern technology, and a Minority Report system could calculate "pre-crime" probability with sufficient information.

So we could foster a safer environment where completely random searching isn't necessary, like when I grew up where there was no concept of Islamic terrorism being such a normal thing outside the middle-east where it was really just sunni and shia and the like killing each other.

Use task forces that target probable suspects for radicalization for monitoring like they do in Singapore, stop immigration from the top 7 terrorist harboring nations as they were trying to do here already, and use data mining and profiling to narrow their efforts down to likely suspects (Jewish grandma Berta Goldstein born in the US who never even got a parking ticket and has her four grandchildren with her probably doesn't need to be searched, whereas Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad should be since he already received a red flag when he was arrested in Yemen for using a false Somali passport in 2008 and associates with others in circles that also throw up flags).

Whenever I go online, the advertisers all know that I've been looking at Jeeps or cars in particular and that I like computer games and computer parts and have all kinds of ads that are definitely targeted appropriately for me, and I have a fake facebook account that I use for coupons and the like since I don't facebook, with a made up female name no less, and yet it STILL asks me if I know all my friends and work acquaintances (guessing via IP address check when I'm at work or connecting to their wifi at their homes, not sure how they figure that out). If there's that much info out on the web, and there are obvious advantages to targeted advertising, how about some targeted policing. ;)
 
Last edited:
Which would be very inconvenient.

Alternatively, we could just foster a safer environment where that isn't necessary, like when I grew up where there was no concept of Islamic terrorism being such a normal thing outside the middle-east where it was really just sunni and shia and the like killing each other.

Use task forces that target probable suspects for radicalization like they do in Singapore, stop immigration from the top 7 terrorist harboring nations as they were trying to do here already, and use data mining and profiling to narrow their efforts down to likely suspects (Jewish grandma Goldstein born in the US who never even got a parking ticket and has her four grandchildren with her probably doesn't need to be searched, whereas Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad should be since he already received a red flag when he was arrested in Yemen for using a false Somali passport in 2008).

Whenever I go online, the advertisers all know that I've been looking at Jeeps or cars in particular and that I like computer games and computer parts and have all kinds of adds that are definitely targeted appropriately for me, and I have a fake facebook account that I use for coupons and the like since I don't facebook with a made up female name no less and yet it STILL asks me if I know all my friends and work acquaintances (guessing via IP address check, not sure how they figure that out). If there's that much info out on the web, and there are obvious advantages to targeted advertising, how about some targeted policing. ;)

Here's the thing about safer environments. If we can trust our governments with our privacy, and they don't frequently abuse it, then they should be snooping on all the citizens, and watching those who are doing unusual things and only making moves if they're doing something dangerous. I kind of expect our governments to do some of that already, but they really should not be revealing what these techniques are since once they are known, the cat's out of the bag and the dangerous ones know how to avoid detection. Unfortunately we currently have a mix of government agencies arresting people for profit (civil forfeitures, etc.), overextending their reach into civil issues (well if we're looking for terrorists with this secret tech, we might as well use it to look for speeders, pirates, political dissidents, immigration issues and sexual behavior).

I think that lots of old world cultures, where traditionally freedom was less of a poster boy, something like that probably works because everyone is willing to have 24 hour ubiquitous monitoring (like the tens of thousands of cameras in London) in exchange for the common good because they trust their police more (well at least not shoot them unexpectedly). Scandinavian countries are safety nazis, so they're ok with restrictions on almost anything fun for the greater good. Asian countries are mostly influenced by Confuscian values so Big Brother and conformity is a virtue.

But America is the land of the free and many viewpoints so there's not enough of a national identity to pull off a privacy violation like that. So we just have to live with the freedom to do what you want until someone blows up something like a shoe, then for fairness sake, all shoes are now suspect. It's not PC to say "well this guy was indoctrinated so he could blow up before a crime. To profile motivational/social factors (country of birth, race, language, relatives, friends, reading history, favorite websites, etc.) isn't at all ok before the crime occurs, though we analyze the hell out of it afterwards since we know someone's guilty. Before the crime, we're only allowed to scrutinize externalities and physical evidence (clocks could be timers, liquids could be explosives, shoes can be bombs), and only now social media content. I bet if we fed all the data we had into machine learning for profiling purposes, the results would appear to be too offensively biased for the public to accept, so we instead focus on the physical evidence.

The opposite approach works, the Israelis profile the hell out of social/racial/familial factors, and have been pretty successful but Americans would never accept that, and frankly it makes the majority profiled group pretty miserable so that's not good).

I don't think anyone really trusts US law enforcement with those types of powers. Especially when we train police to prioritize protecting themselves before the citizenry unlike most other 1st world countries. The flavor of the month could be asians with close relatives in NK, low self esteem, wire money overseas often, and read all the articles on the NK conflict are the most likely profile for NK infrastructure saboteurs, so it becomes ok to shoot any Asians in power stations if they're there at night and not wearing a badge. It's probably an accurate profile, but there will be some idiot out there who decides it's safer to shoot first. (I like to remind my family members that 50% of the people you meet are below average intelligence, so don't presume they'll react the way that brings the best outcome). That's why I think we should go back to researching precogs like during the cold war, the other options are destined to fail :)
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone really trusts US law enforcement with those types of powers. Especially when we train police to prioritize protecting themselves before the citizenry unlike most other 1st world countries. The flavor of the month could be asians with close relatives in NK, low self esteem, wire money overseas often, and read all the articles on the NK conflict are the most likely profile for NK infrastructure saboteurs, so it becomes ok to shoot any Asians in power stations if they're there at night and not wearing a badge. It's probably an accurate profile, but there will be some idiot out there who decides it's safer to shoot first. That's why I think we should go back to researching precogs like during the cold war :)
True, we have different levels of law enforcement though, and instead could use something like a credit score for regular street cops.

We use credit scores because we know the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the guy giving you a car loan doesn't need to know the specifics of why you have good or bad credit (that's none of his bidness), just if its good or bad.

Likewise, the police don't need to know specifically why you have a good or bad criminality score, just whether or not to maybe keep less or more of an eye on you. If they approach a car and see that the listed driver has a 300 score, they can approach it with more caution and probability of fleeing than say one with a score of 800.

Also, I think the perception of police and the reality is far different. We have a population of 320 million, and a media that likes to sensationalize police encounters using inflammatory language and partial info to paint a narrative that later turns out to be completely false. Considering the danger our police face, they are far more lenient than in other high criminality areas of the world. Sure, police in Norway may be super chill, but that's because the people of Norway are super chill. Look at the police in Brazil by contrast... they shoot first and ask questions later, just see Liveleak.

For example, I was just watching this video this morning, and even though the crazy B used her vehicle as a weapon driving at the cops after being busted using a stolen ID, they didn't shoot.


I do love cops now having cameras on them, more info is always good!
 
That's over 20K people killed in Muslim terrorist attacks, and over 50K injured... seems like a lot.

That's not really that many. I mean we're losing a whole hell of a lot more people to obesity related heart disease, tobacco related lung cancer, car accidents, firearm related suicide, and even accidental firearm discharge. Seems like if we took all that effort we're putting into keeping the "bad people" out into making ourselves not suck then it would have a much greater impact on helping more people live, and live longer, and live happier and healthier.

Disclaimer: I am a formerly obese, occasional cigar smoking, gun owning (I have to have a big gun safe I have so many guns), muscle car owning, maniac driver.
 
That's not really that many. I mean we're losing a whole hell of a lot more people to obesity related heart disease, tobacco related lung cancer, car accidents, firearm related suicide, and even accidental firearm discharge.
People have a right to kill themselves IMO, and many times a good reason to (I can tell you right now if I have a 100% fatal degenerative brain disease I will end it before it gets too bad), and whether they use a gun or helium bag isn't really a concern to me.

Likewise, absolutely the obesity epidemic is a monumental problem, but that's a personal problem. Everyone has the freedom on whether or not to place themselves at risk, and the same with smoking. If you aren't smoking around me, how much say should I really have about how you choose to kill yourself? That's your business, and you're not forcing twinkies and cigars in my mouth.

What I do have a right to worry about is when others are putting my life in danger through their actions, and Islamic extremism falls into that category, the same as car accidents. Now, with car accidents, many times they are just that an accident (motivation matters), but reckless drivers absolutely I believe in treating as criminals and throwing the book at them, as my many rants on this forum can attest to. And we do spend billions of dollars on law enforcement on our roadways to police that very real problem. But I can also still care about Islamists, because I can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time.

There's also far more to Islamic extremism than JUST the death toll.

If there are 500 regular people and one Islamist with a machete in a room that shouts "BEHEAD THOSE THAT INSULT ISLAM", even if the guy only manages to kill or injure a single person, he has already affected pretty much every single person in the room through intimidation. People can no longer exercise their right to freedom of speech, out of fear that they will be maimed or murdered, and while you may say "well, in total only 70K people are murdered or maimed by Islamists", hundreds of millions are afraid due to the examples made of Charlie Hebdo. I can tell you right now that in person I do not have the the balls to say anything bad about Islam, because I don't want acid thrown in my face or to be assaulted or killed.

Look at South Park, how they have a character Jesus on the show and make fun of everyone equally without fear of bodily harm, but the network would not allow them to even draw a representation of Muhammad, because they have realistic concerns that people could die.

Its like the KKK, even if the KKK doesn't kill that many black people, if they kill or mutilate 70K black people, that creates terror in the entire black population, and rightfully so. Luckily, the KKK is pretty much a non-issue now and have no power, but Islamists do ahve power, have taken over entire regions, and do spread terror around the globe today influencing everyone's daily lives and how free they feel to voice their thoughts for fear of reprisal.

Its Easter today (happy Easter BTW) and in Egypt public Easter festivities were all cancelled because of fears of another Islamist attack like the other week, so the effect of terrorism is tangible and matters.
 
Last edited:
True, we have different levels of law enforcement though, and instead could use something like a credit score for regular street cops.

We use credit scores because we know the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the guy giving you a car loan doesn't need to know the specifics of why you have good or bad credit (that's none of his bidness), just if its good or bad.

Likewise, the police don't need to know specifically why you have a good or bad criminality score, just whether or not to maybe keep less or more of an eye on you. If they approach a car and see that the listed driver has a 300 score, they can approach it with more caution and probability of fleeing than say one with a score of 800.

Also, I think the perception of police and the reality is far different. We have a population of 320 million, and a media that likes to sensationalize police encounters using inflammatory language and partial info to paint a narrative that later turns out to be completely false. Considering the danger our police face, they are far more lenient than in other high criminality areas of the world. Sure, police in Norway may be super chill, but that's because the people of Norway are super chill. Look at the police in Brazil by contrast... they shoot first and ask questions later, just see Liveleak.

For example, I was just watching this video this morning, and even though the crazy B used her vehicle as a weapon driving at the cops after being busted using a stolen ID, they didn't shoot.


I do love cops now having cameras on them, more info is always good!


Oh, I agree on the danger part, I don't fault police for it, it's just a side effect of our weapons policy. Can't have one without the other, and we as a country have continued to vote for being armed so that's just the way it is. We have jumpy cops and if a driver is listed as "5% higher likelyhood of criminal tendencies" there's always the one guy who doesn't understand math who chooses to be safe. But it's interesting, even in the cases where a suspect is most definitely armed, european cops (not just the crazy Norweigan ones) almost never end up killing a suspect unless fired upon, I think stress of dealing with weapons all the time is cumulative on the reaction response. On the other hand, the attitudes in non-first world countries are usually closer to dictatorial, and not necessarily based on western attitudes. I doesn't surprise me that the Brazilians are quick to shoot first, especially if there's no feedback loop to control that behavior (successful lawsuits, etc).

The point system is in use in China already, there is a citizenship index (not sure what the chinese name is though), and it seems to work for them pretty well. Helps them identify and persecute dissidents and prevent insurrection, especially in poor parts of the country where you have no vertical mobility and aren't allowed to move. It's also used to qualify you for public services, a QoS tag for humans. All backed with relatively good machine learning, citizen records, the great firewall that intercepts all traffic, and a huge sample set. The only inefficiencies are the localized management/inconsistency of the great firewall censorship, bribery (still an issue despite the crackdown), and manipulation by the well connected.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I agree on the danger part, I don't fault police for it, it's just a side effect of our weapons policy. Can't have one without the other, and we as a country have continued to vote for being armed so that's just the way it is.
I disagree, and think its a side effect of our culture (percent of population that are "f-da-police" hostile attitude) and demographics, and has nothing to do with gun laws. Its illegal for private citizens to own firearms in Mexico for the most part, and they have some of the harshest anti-gun laws in the world, and yet their murder rate dwarfs the United States.

Proof? If more guns = more violent crime, then CHL holders that carry a firearm with them most of the time should have a much higher crime rate than the general public. Instead, the crime rate is not twice or three or four times as low as the general public, but an unbelievable FOURTEEN times lower than the average person without a firearm on their person. Additionally, the murder rate has dropped as CHL issuance have increased, showing that gun availability does not create crime (and if anything the opposite): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/

Also, despite it being illegal, here two guys in Mexico are attacking a woman in broad daylight in public, and the criminal accidentally shoots his partner in crime in the head, killing him. He then shoots the woman for holding on to her purse. Bystanders come by to see what happened, and one of the bystanders sees a crime of opportunity and steals her purse:

Either it was only a very unusual fluke that this happened, or more likely is that most people in that area are douchebags. The percent of douchebags in your population affects safety, not the number of firearms or firearm laws. Norway is safe because it has a wealthy well educated homogeneous population, which is the same reason that affluent suburbs in the United States are also very safe, and the safer the area the more chillaxed the officers will be. Different kinds of people, and if more of those people from that town move North into your town, the more your town will be like that town.
We have jumpy cops and if a driver is listed as "5% higher likelyhood of criminal tendencies" there's always the one guy who doesn't understand math who chooses to be safe. But it's interesting, even in the cases where a suspect is most definitely armed, european cops (not just the crazy Norweigan ones) almost never end up killing a suspect unless fired upon, I think stress of dealing with weapons all the time is cumulative on the reaction response.
Look at the murder rate of police officers in Norway and here. Cops aren't "jumpy" around me, because I walk, talk, and quack like a non-threatening law abiding peaceful Norweigan, despite the fact that the first words out of my mouth are "hello officer, here is my license and Concealed Handgun Carry Permit, my firearm is located at XYZ". Brazilian cops are ten times as likely to shoot as American cops because they are ten times as likely to be attacked by the people they are pulling over. Brazil doesn't have a higher per capita firearm ownership rate than the United States, it just has a higher per capita criminal douchebag rate. More violent douchebags, more risk to cops, more jumpy cops. In Brazil you see cops shooting from motorcycles and helicopters and blowing away criminals at the drop of a hat, there's no issuing commands or anything, just shoot on sight for a criminal with a gun, machete, or using their vehicle as a weapon, and its in response to the amount of crime they deal with and the number of other cops they know that have been injured or killed.
 
Last edited:
Bad idea to run around town in a cosplay costume but he wasn't hurting anyone. I don't like the precedence this sets. It's alright for Police to hassle people and arrest them for simply wearing a costume. It can be determined in less than 30 seconds that it was just a costume but instead they arrested him and took the costume. That sounds like a bad lawsuit in the US, I'm not sure how that works out in Canada.
 
Ohhhhh, ok, we're doing the semantics thing. No, the United States government does not send out invitations to any foreign citizens since the country has existed. Most people figured out that this means granting them easy access.

Now if you are arguing that Islamists aren't escalating security concerns with exponentially increasing terrorist attacks, including on US soil, then you're smoking something.

United States: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx
World Tally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

That's over 20K people killed in Muslim terrorist attacks, and over 50K injured... seems like a lot. And that's not even including the jihadist attacks from Muslim extremists in Malaysia that religiously (no pun intended) kill Thai Buddhists for not respecting Sharia Law and Islamic customs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency

That adds another over 6.5K dead and around 12K injured in the last ten years alone.

The most obvious domestic one recently was just a few years back when two foreign-born Muslims that described themselves as devout Islamists exploded two bombs at the Boston marathon, injuring hundreds with loss of limbs and more and killing three. Granted, we don't have the virtual daily Islamic terror attacks like in Western Europe, but that's because we haven't opened up the flood gates like them... yet.

And remember, those are just the SUCCESSFUL attacks, and the attempts that are thwarted by police officers and counter-terrorist units doing their jobs (like in this case) also count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

Like tomorrow for example, a plot was just foiled in a major organized Islamic terrorist attack against Christians in the morning, which just hit the news cycle. Unfortunately, not all are prevented, like Palm Sunday church bombing that killed 44 and injured 100 just the other week.

The reason you're taking your shoes off at the airport, its not because of the threat of Shinto Japanese, its because of radicalized Islamists.

Ah, the "don't read what I say, but what it's what I meant" argument.
Okay. You really should say what you mean... we're not mind readers.

Honestly, for as long as there were humans on earth, there were conflicts. If it weren't for the current rise of Islamic Extremism, it was something else.

Did you even look at your list of Islamist Terrorist Attacks? Did you realize that the vast majority of the people killed by the Islamist Terrorists were Muslims in Muslim countries?
You probably don't know that the Taliban in Afghanistan kill more way more Afghani Muslims (to intimidate and control them) than foreigners and aren't counted on that list.

I'd say, me being a non muslim living in the US, I'm not statistically significantly more likely to be injured in an Islamic Terrorist attack today than say in 1980. Sure the chances are higher today, but so small that it really doesn't matter. I'm more likely to die from a lightning strike.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states/

Oh, the Boston Marathon Bombing... the one carried out by Russian Refugees that were brought over to the US as children. Increased border controls can't filter out if a child will eventually become radicallized. Anyways, the big eff up is that Russian Intelligence informed the US that one the of the brothers may have been radicalized and the feds investigated and brushed it off. Also we're pretty much capable of creating US born crazies that will kill other Americans, so restricting "imports" by banning immigration from certain countries won't change the stats much.

The reason I have to take my shoes and belt off at airports is not because of radical Islamists, it's because of two things:
a) Crazy people who if weren't "radicalized Islamists" would be "radicalized something-else" and would still do what they do, and
b) People like you that demand "action" from government officials to make the US safe, and so we get "security theater" at airports to placate all the shouting

So you think only Muslims can be radicalized... Buddhist Monks have been responsible for inciting violent mobs that have killed Muslims: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306

Fuck, Buddhism is ALL ABOUT PEACE AND TRANQUILITY... if they can't stay non-violent that shows that some humans no matter what religion will kill to get what they want.
 
Ah, the "don't read what I say, but what it's what I meant" argument.
Okay. You really should say what you mean... we're not mind readers.
Sure, that's cool. Oh, sorry, you only read things literally. See, when I said "cool", I didn't actually mean a cold temperature. I don't mean to confuse you on purpose.
Honestly, for as long as there were humans on earth, there were conflicts.
Islam is a religion of conquest that has been on a jihad for global domination as long as its been able to wage one. Economic collapse and technological inferiority were what limited their violence to the middle-east until recent tactical changes thanks to globalization.
I'd say, me being a non muslim living in the US, I'm not statistically significantly more likely to be injured in an Islamic Terrorist attack today than say in 1980.
You can say anything you want. Bruce Jenner says that he's a female now.
Buddhist Monks have been responsible for inciting violent mobs that have killed Muslims: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306
So now we're victim blaming, bravo. Yes, and battered women from abusive husbands have after decades of torture lashed out too, and next up we're going to condemn slave rebellions for the violence they inflicted. Islamists have been bullying, maiming, and killing Buddhists for decades for the same goal that has always existed, to instill global Sharia Law through whatever means necessary, including force and intimidation. So I'm glad some are finally overcoming their passive nature and defending themselves from tyranny and pushing back, although personally I prefer a "containment" policy of staying away from the middle-east and quarantining the worst parts. And yes, even the Dalai Llama has warned Europe to turn away the migrants before its too late, as he's seen what happens.

I'm an Atheist, but not all religions have the same teachings, and Scientology and Islam are two that I find dangerous because its really difficult for me to interpret passages like this as metaphors for something positive:
And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
 
I disagree, and think its a side effect of our culture (percent of population that are "f-da-police" hostile attitude) and demographics, and has nothing to do with gun laws. Its illegal for private citizens to own firearms in Mexico for the most part, and they have some of the harshest anti-gun laws in the world, and yet their murder rate dwarfs the United States.

Proof? If more guns = more violent crime, then CHL holders that carry a firearm with them most of the time should have a much higher crime rate than the general public. Instead, the crime rate is not twice or three or four times as low as the general public, but an unbelievable FOURTEEN times lower than the average person without a firearm on their person. Additionally, the murder rate has dropped as CHL issuance have increased, showing that gun availability does not create crime (and if anything the opposite): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/

Also, despite it being illegal, here two guys in Mexico are attacking a woman in broad daylight in public, and the criminal accidentally shoots his partner in crime in the head, killing him. He then shoots the woman for holding on to her purse. Bystanders come by to see what happened, and one of the bystanders sees a crime of opportunity and steals her purse:


Either it was only a very unusual fluke that this happened, or more likely is that most people in that area are douchebags. The percent of douchebags in your population affects safety, not the number of firearms or firearm laws. Norway is safe because it has a wealthy well educated homogeneous population, which is the same reason that affluent suburbs in the United States are also very safe, and the safer the area the more chillaxed the officers will be. Different kinds of people, and if more of those people from that town move North into your town, the more your town will be like that town.

Look at the murder rate of police officers in Norway and here. Cops aren't "jumpy" around me, because I walk, talk, and quack like a non-threatening law abiding peaceful Norweigan, despite the fact that the first words out of my mouth are "hello officer, here is my license and Concealed Handgun Carry Permit, my firearm is located at XYZ". Brazilian cops are ten times as likely to shoot as American cops because they are ten times as likely to be attacked by the people they are pulling over. Brazil doesn't have a higher per capita firearm ownership rate than the United States, it just has a higher per capita criminal douchebag rate. More violent douchebags, more risk to cops, more jumpy cops. In Brazil you see cops shooting from motorcycles and helicopters and blowing away criminals at the drop of a hat, there's no issuing commands or anything, just shoot on sight for a criminal with a gun, machete, or using their vehicle as a weapon, and its in response to the amount of crime they deal with and the number of other cops they know that have been injured or killed.


I'm not sure that we can simply attribute the cause to douchebagism as that doesn't really help understand the problem at it's roots. I don't know what causes this scientifically but I would guess that is our history of rebelliousness, the obsessive celebration of freedom, the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government (implying that the new government may in the future become tyrannical) and the fact that while the USA has a higher average living class than most countries, the median and lower income people have fewer social protections and living standard than almost any other 1st world nation breeds douchebagism among the disadvantages or those that perceive themselves to be disadvantages etc. In any free market there are the losers, just as in a meritocracy there are the less successful. We may simply be over rewarding the winners by out pursuit of open competition and not providing a decent lifestyle for the merely average and below. We have concepts like charity and welfare but they haven't been exactly well managed or successful enough to offset the damage over decades. Most of the socialist states in Europe provide a better median standard of living, at least those not battered by the Euro fiasco, while the very progressive Norwegians have a very heavy reinvestment into long term social benefits that provide a historical safety net. The US safety net is non-existent and people this generation are paying social security taxes into a system that admits it may be insolvent by the time it's needed. Douchebagism may just be the derogative labeling of the unhappy masses, like the British referred to the Yankees in the revolution. This time it's the domestic downtrodden masses versus the domestic elites, instead of the foreign imperialists.
 
This statement bothers me:

Photos appear to show officers smiling and laughing after the incident was resolved. "We have to believe everything is real until proven otherwise"

So, they have to believe the calling party is always likely right, and that the reported party is out to get everyone? How about investigating since people are generally idiots (incl myself)? Especially when it's just a "I thought I saw something weird" report.
 
This statement bothers me:

Photos appear to show officers smiling and laughing after the incident was resolved. "We have to believe everything is real until proven otherwise"

So, they have to believe the calling party is always likely right, and that the reported party is out to get everyone? How about investigating since people are generally idiots (incl myself)? Especially when it's just a "I thought I saw something weird" report.

Well, they did come and investigate and discovered it was just a costume. I think times change now with all the terrorist stuff and crazy people so one has to exercise more than just common sense now. If not, then you risk getting shot by the police.
 
It would be nice if people could stop being scared of....well, everything, at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xorbe
like this
How about investigating since people are generally idiots (incl myself)?
Isn't stopping a guy to check if its real or not "investigating"? Seems to me they did a very quick investigation, thought it was all fine and funny, and let him on his way. As long as they were respectful and professional during the process and didn't hold him up for more than a moment, I wouldn't have any complaint.
 
Back
Top