[Closed] Driver kills multiple cyclists tonight in New York

Perhaps some better steps would be a ban on large capacity magazines, assault rifles, hand guns - in fact most guns in the US, would make the place safer much quicker and perhaps promote integration, though given the hostility towards the non white population in many parts of america that could be a long way off.

John Oliver back in 2015 when they were last calling for more "extreme vetting" (then for Syrian refugees):

I'm sure that many sides were to blame and there were some very fine people on both sides of the windscreen.

muppetWrangler - Member

Nope, only around a quarter of Americans own a gun.

And half of all guns are owned by only three per cent of the pop!

https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/

[img] [/img]
1/4 own all the guns - so 1 in 4 are armed in some way

mikewsmith - Member

[img] [/img]

1/4 own all the guns - so 1 in 4 are armed in some way

Was this attack some kind of response to the issue of gun ownership? Did the killer murder people with a gun? What's your point here?

Point being Islamic terrorism is a drop in the ocean in the US, they could have done something that would have saved 59 people in Vegas recently, the massive reaction is not in proportion to the threat or danger in the US.
Most of the bold and shouty reactions will do nothing and not change a thing, they are driven by religious hatred.

mikewsmith - Member

Point being Islamic terrorism is a drop in the ocean in the US,

So in the event of a murder, or a mass murder the motivations of a killer or a group of killers should be ignored because there's always a bigger problem? Ie the people murdered in Nice or Paris or London doesn't really matter because lots of people die in Europe due to road traffic collisions, or cancer. Is that how we should approach these incidents?

Most of the bold and shouty reactions will do nothing and not change a thing, they are driven by religious hatred.

What bold and shouty reactions are you talking about? I presume the religious hatred you're referring to is that of the islamists who explicitly want to kill apostates?

Not at all, but an immediate call for more extreme vetting would not have spotted this problem.
The answer to this problem is a lot deeper than some knee jerk reaction however the US could do a serious amount of work to prevent serious numbers gun deaths but refuses to acknowledge a problem.

What bold and shouty reactions are you talking about? I presume the religious hatred you're referring to is that of the islamists who explicitly want to kill apostates?

This guy was radicalised in the US, by people in the US so the problem is in the US.
On top of that there is a huge number of people in the US using religion to oppress and control people, just they seem to think it's fine as it's their religion.

Classic diversionary tactics. We have a domestic issue with gun ownership and mass murders but we are unwilling to address that. Let's demonise some foreigners instead.

Bold perhaps but I wasnt really shouty, there just ideas for discussion I think thats clear in the way they are phrased.

Would I rather fix gun crime in the US? Yes. Would I rather fix pollution globally? Yes.

Does that mean we shouldnt look to solutions to this problem?

however the US could do a serious amount of work to prevent serious numbers gun deaths but refuses to acknowledge a problem.

Lots of people know it's a problem.
Lots of people don't see the guns as the problem.

The biggest problem is what can you actually do about it? The genie is already out of the bottle.

2 of my American colleagues have around 30 guns each, it's a n+1 thing to them. They LOVE guns. They collect them. They make their own ammunition. They and a lot of others would resist any type of gun control. They have never shot anyone with their guns and are law abiding.

Personally, I think the situation is madness but, as above, what can you actually do? There are so many guns in circulation, I can't see how it can be realistically changed.

mikewsmith - Member

Not at all, but an immediate call for more extreme vetting would not have spotted this problem.
The answer to this problem is a lot deeper than some knee jerk reaction however the US could do a serious amount of work to prevent serious numbers gun deaths but refuses to acknowledge a problem.

Sorry but I can't help but think this is double whataboutery. A man was motivated to kill a bunch of people and try to kill himself. What was he trying to achieve. How do you prevent this from happening again.

This guy was radicalised in the US, by people in the US so the problem is in the US.

Who radicalised him? What problem is in the US? Does this problem have a name? Where did it come from?

On top of that there is a huge number of people in the US using religion to oppress and control people, just they seem to think it's fine as it's their religion.

That sounds like something going on somewhere else....

slowoldman - Member

Classic diversionary tactics. We have a domestic issue with gun ownership and mass murders but we are unwilling to address that. Let's demonise some foreigners instead.

Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in England?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in France?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in Germany?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in Russia?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in Spain?

Sorry but I can't help but think this is double whataboutery. A man was motivated to kill a bunch of people and try to kill himself. What was he trying to achieve. How do you prevent this from happening again.

Who radicalised him? What problem is in the US? Does this problem have a name? Where did it come from?

Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in England?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in France?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in Germany?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in Russia?
Just like they demonised foreigners after jihadist attacks in Spain?

Exactly like that, you do realise that most of those attacks were carried out by citizens of those countries don't you? Attaching the word "jihadist" to the act doesn't make the terrorists foreign.

mikewsmith - Member

Hard question, going after a body of 1.6 billion people won't help, Trumps demonising over time isn't going to work, making a religion the enemy probably won't work either.

I agree, that's why there has to be open and honest discussion about where this brand of Islam comes from, what is it about this interpretation that is so dangerous or so compatible with radicalisation. Who is spreading it, why are they spreading it? Is it canonical? Who if anyone has the authority to condemn it?

If everyone on one side says it's nothing to do with Islam and everyone on the other saying, it's Islam then there's no progress.

Obama tried to dismiss any connection - that emboldened Trump.

Well, as it's happening in the US it's probably a problem there. However in the bigger scheme of things a country that can rationalise the deaths of 12,000 people this year but not have a rational way of dealing with this has a big problem.

Yes but you can't just weigh everything up numerically.

MSP - Member

Exactly like that, you do realise that most of those attacks were carried out by citizens of those countries don't you? Attaching the word "jihadist" to the act doesn't make the terrorists foreign.

I do realise that. If they weren't "foreigners" as such they must have had something in common. Wonder what the common thread was.

Who radicalised him? What problem is in the US? Does this problem have a name? Where did it come from?

Probably bombing their countrymen might have something to do with it, much like the guy who blew up 500 people in Mogadishu just recently.

DrJ - Member

Probably bombing their countrymen might have something to do with it,

But I thought the vast majority of jihadi terrorists who attacked European cities were citizens of those countries?

This guy was radicalised in the US, by people in the US so the problem is in the US.

We don't know he was radicalised by people in the USA. AFAIK much radicalisation is online and hence worldwide. Therefore the problem is not confined to the USA but is part of a wider international problem with radical Islam being the common factor.

But I thought the vast majority of jihadi terrorists who attacked European cities were citizens of those countries?

Indeed, but they still probably have some idea that what is happening back home is wrong.

DrJ - Member

Indeed, but they still probably have some idea that what is happening back home is wrong.

I guess they must all come from Iraq then?

you do realise that most of those attacks were carried out by citizens of those countries don't you?

....and that's why it's a cultural/religious issue and not racism.

To understand why this is happening we need a frank conversation about the role off Islam in these events....but some in here try to shut that down as 'racist'....

...repeat after me, Islam is not a race.

Some supposedly educated people on here really don't get that.

(Weird double post thing going on)

I could convert to Islam tomorrow, does my race change with it?....off course not, there are Black Muslims, Asian Muslims, Arab Muslims, Caucasian Muslims etc

It's a religion, that's all....but because of a semi successful attempt to conflate race to religion in the case of Islam people are shit scared of being labeled racist just for wanting to talk about the small but poisonous radical sect within it that encourages terrorism.

Stand up comedians shred Catholicism, some of the braver ones will have a pop at Judaism too, they're all fair game....but when was the last time you saw a stand up routine lampooning Islam...doesn't happen does it?....and that's wrong, it's a religion FFS and its fair game, racism isn't but they're different and the only people who can't see that are those trying to stifle debate.

deviant - Member

when was the last time you saw a stand up routine lampooning Islam...doesn't happen does it?....

It was the last time i went to see a standup so, yes it does.

If we as individuals or as a country don’t understand what happens in mosques that is our choice.

I didn't mean as individuals, I meant from a security point.

I've spent many a happy hour manning muslim service on a Friday afternoon.

Indeed, but they still probably have some idea that what is happening back home is wrong.

Has b****cks all to do with that so lets not apologise for them. It is all about the spread of an extreme form of Islam and the creation of a caliphate by Jihad and purging the world of all the non-believers. The biggest proponents of war mongering in the ME is ISIS themselves, they are responsible for killing the most muslims through the ME and torturing and murdering fellow muslims and other people from any faith or nation.

...repeat after me, Islam is not a race.

Some supposedly educated people on here really don't get that.

your basic point of ignorance stems from the fact that races dont exist

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

also as for islam stand-up, theres a funny sketch from a guy called eshan ackbar? on muslim tinder, cant find the vid now

your basic point of ignorance stems from the fact that races dont exist

Ok I'll play along....'most' people in West Africa look different to those in North Africa who look different to the indigenous people in the Arctic circle who look different again to 'most' people from India, ****stan etc....of course there are differences and calling them races is fine...unless of course your article is correct and in which case there's no such thing as racism if there aren't any races....yay!

It also flies in the face of other scientific research that shows certain medical conditions are prevalent in certain racial groups...good that we can now discount that as nonsense too and tell all those black people with sickle cell they're imagining it....or those Indians and ****stanis with renal problems that it's just bad luck and not race/genetics.

God, that article smacks of social sciences, gender is a social construct was laughable enough but now race?....lol, brilliant, I'm going to be black from now on, we'll see how that goes down with any black people I get taking about race with

Maybe I'll attend a black lives matter rally and tell everyone that blacks as a race don't exist and the whole thing is pointless....i can see me needing a police escort out of that one too!

It also flies in the face of other scientific research that shows certain medical conditions are prevalent in certain racial groups...good that we can now discount that as nonsense too and tell all those black people with sickle cell they're imagining it....or those Indians and ****stanis with renal problems that it's just bad luck and not [s]race[/s]/genetics.

You almost got it then, almost

So what are the genes that make you a certain race? not everyone with sickle cell is black after all.

That there's more genetic diversity within 'races' than between them has been known pretty much since we cracked the genome

And the more we learn the truer that is
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531797/

Defining a race is impossible, how many are there?, we are outbred & the world was seeded by continual waves of migration, the fallacy of racial purity is a fantasy we should've learnt by now only leads to trouble

which case there's no such thing as racism if there aren't any races....yay!

This is epic. Top marks! Racism could never be conceptual, ignorant and ill-informed.

Genius.

Great comfort to the world.

See also sexism. If gender is a 'spectrum', ergo there's no sexism. Solved.

.lol, brilliant, I'm going to be black from now on, we'll see how that goes down with any black people I get taking about race with

I imagine they'll just smile politely and pass on by. The issue is not whether you can become black or not, it's about whether "black" is a fundamental biologicial category, or just some way we have chosen to label people.

8 dead and multiple injuries, and most not usa citizens.so sad,.

....and yet the title of this thread says some old tosh about a driver knocking down cyclists....i can only assume this is to skirt the issue of confronting another radical Islam attack.

Any lengths to shut down debate eh?, even British Muslims I've seen interviewed on tv recently say that "islam is not in a good place at the moment " but get a load of (presumably) white middle class people together to talk about the incident and people are at pains to turn it into something other than terrorism.

Thank Christ I live nowhere near a city or town likely to be attacked next, you couldn't pay me enough to live somewhere like London at the moment.

...i can only assume this is to skirt the issue of confronting another radical Islam attack.

Thank Christ I live nowhere near a city or town likely to be attacked next, you couldn't pay me enough to live somewhere like London at the moment.

Thank Christ I live nowhere near a city or town likely to be attacked next, you couldn't pay me enough to live somewhere like London at the moment

It must be quite horrible to be so paranoid all the time !

The Las Vegas attack, for some Americans, typically those on the left, represented the terrorism of unchecked gun laws.

Classifying the Las Vegas attack as terrorism might mean classifying guns as national threats requiring a response. The right would see this as an attempt to tar all gun owners and conservatives.

Attacks like the one in New York, led by a man from Uzbekistan who shouted “Allahu akbar,” are seen by many on the right as stemming from the wider threat of uncontrolled Muslim immigration. If it is an act of terrorism, as Mayor Bill de Blasio and others have defined it, then the attacker cannot be dismissed as a disturbed loner.

More than 16 years after the Sept. 11 attacks, many Americans, particularly on the left, are questioning the readiness with which lone Muslims are defined as terrorists while lone non-Muslims are deemed “mass shooters.”

Even if the label fits in individual cases, they say, the inconsistency suggests a tendency to see Muslims as part of a hostile fifth column and white male killers as exceptions.

You should check out the statistics of the 100s of things more likely to kill you than terrorism then even in central London

Citation or else nonsense.

Deviant has more feelings on his side against Muslims. No matter how you spin 'statistics' they don't beat real-life threats and feelings of threats.

If you (for instance) as a cyclist in your town were (say) 15x times more likely to die on yr bike than be killed by an Islamaniacal terrorist- would you stop riding your bike? Or would you just move to somewhere with a smaller/non-existent Muslim population?

Malvern Rider - Member

If you (for instance) as a cyclist in your town were (say) 15x times more likely to die on yr bike than be killed by an Islamaniacal terrorist- would you stop riding your bike? Or would you just move to somewhere with a smaller/non-existent Muslim population?

I'd be amazed if I'm not at least 15 times more likely to die on my bike than be killed by a terrorist. I'll neither stop riding, or move, because the actual risk of either is small whereas the risk of having your life impacted by a change of behaviour is 100%

(essentially the odds of being killed by a terrorist are 1% of **** all, and no matter where you go in the UK it's 1% of **** all, + or - .1%. And you're roughly as likely to die of falling out of a window as you are to die while cycling)

Malvern Rider - Member

Deviant has more feelings on his side against Muslims. No matter how you spin 'statistics' they don't beat real-life threats and feelings of threats.

Statistics [i]are[/i] real life threats- that's how they work, you take the real life things and add them up. Feelings of threats are sadly not very connected to actual threats- fear of crime often rises as crime falls for instance. Obviously we have to deal with the real threats before the perceived ones, otherwise we'll go around striving to make people feel safer, while actually making them less safe. Fear of crime is generally best tackled with reason rather than police.

Or as the man said, fear of zombies is at an all time high but we don't demand that the government has an initiative to urgently tackle the zombie outbreak.

The actual incidence of being killed by a terrorist today is lower than at any time in the 70s and 80s and much of the 90s. But people are way more scared of terrorism than they were then. Comes a point where you have to say, get real. Be scared of the bloomin flu, which kills 350 times more people in an average year than terrorism.

[img] [/img]

Stats are older from 2009 but still relevant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010s
Total terrorism deaths in the UK since 2010 was 38

In contrast back in 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The UK recorded 594 Murders - 15x the terrorism deaths in 7 years
In 2016 125 Cyclists were killed 3.2x the terrorism deaths in 7 years
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/casebook/cycling-fatalities-2016/
Rough maths has that at 23x more likely

If you (for instance) as a cyclist in your town were (say) 15x times more likely to die on yr bike than be killed by an Islamaniacal terrorist- would you stop riding your bike? Or would you just move to somewhere with a smaller/non-existent Muslim population?

Deviant has more feelings on his side against Muslims. No matter how you spin 'statistics' they don't beat real-life threats and feelings of threats.

For the US Perspective take a scroll through this list and tell me which groups we should be most fearful of
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

being sucked in by media reports and some of the hyper active anti islam BS doesn't help either.

Thanks for the graphs etc. Probably lefty apologist cookery. TBH I'd prefer to be 'sucked in' by Deviant and ilk, because he/she confirms my fears and prejudices while 'statistics' are just numbers and 'damned lies' (as the man said). Better safe than sorry. I hope another terrorist attack doesn't once again prove you wrong. Apologist-'statistics' can change very quickly. Like the widths of goal-posts. Even if in a given area there are X1000 more muggings, drunken assaults, rapes, knife attacks etc etc than there are Islamaniac terrorisms - NONE of those 'threats' compare to the vileness and certainty of a terrorism attack. Not now. Not ever. So statistics be damned. Real life trumps all fake news.

. Not now. Not ever. So statistics be damned. Real life trumps all fake news.

So we dont treat Cancer because more people are dying of Heart Disease?

Terrorism by default is supposed to create disproportionate fear.

Wilburt we make priorities, the fear of terrorism is far greater than the hance of it happening full stop. The more you change the more it impacts. Some of the crap proposed will not help anything and alienate more moderates and push people to feel persecuted. The stats show what the likelihood is you can either work with that or run from it, the UK and most western nations spend disproportionately on terrorism compared to illness and other causes of death. Look at the US this week proposing extreme vetting and visa overhaul plus sending the guy to Guantanamo. Compare that to the massive action taken on gun control when a guy massacred 59 people from the comfort of his hotel room.

That's the discrepancy that irks me mike.

Las. Vegas massacre: it's still "too soon" to talk about gun control.

New York; immediate action to increase the extreme vetting procedures despite no indication that would have prevented it.