• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

At least 6 dead as truck mows down biker on Lower Manhattan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SlowSpyder said:
What's amazing to me is that had this terrorist used a gun you and many here would have zero qualms about discussing gun restriction from go.
Click to expand...

Because the question of controlling motorised vehicle use is more complex, due to them having more legitimate uses? But, my first reaction, as it happens, was that more needs to be done to restrict motorised vehicles. A lot more bollards and other physical restrictions would be a simple and cheap start. I suppressed that reaction both because it seems too soon to discuss it and because there are obviously a lot of other issues involved in this event as well, namely all those around terror and Islamism. But as you've gone there anyway - let's do more to restrict car use, I'm all in favour of that. Are you? Or is this just your monomania about your precious guns again?
 
Our numb nuts president is live tweeting Fox and Friends this morning attacking a senator from NY over the incident.
 
pmv said:
Because the question of controlling motorised vehicle use is more complex, due to them having more legitimate uses? But, my first reaction, as it happens, was that more needs to be done to restrict motorised vehicles. A lot more bollards and other physical restrictions would be a simple and cheap start. I suppressed that reaction both because it seems too soon to discuss it and because there are obviously a lot of other issues involved in this event as well, namely all those around terror and Islamism. But as you've gone there anyway - let's do more to restrict car use, I'm all in favour of that. Are you? Or is this just your monomania about your precious guns again?
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that there should be more restriction on vehicles. Just laughing at how most of this overly left forum can't wait to politicize deaths when a gun is used, but when anything other than a gun is used its derpy to politicize the deaths.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I'm not arguing that there should be more restriction on vehicles. Just laughing at how most of this overly left forum can't wait to politicize deaths when a gun is used, but when anything other than a gun is used its derpy to politicize the deaths.
Click to expand...

So it is your monomania about guns then. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Commodus said:
Holy hell, folks, there's too much immaturity in both camps.

I see it as simple: grieve for those who were lost. Think about things you can do to understand what happened and help the injured. Resist knee-jerk reactions and tasteless jokes about regulating vehicles. Don't become like the very people you claim to detest and start stereotyping an entire religion or, for that matter, the people who hate that religion. Basically: use your head, show compassion and relax.
Click to expand...

Here goes that both sides argument again.
 
b318f89339886d6dcc68553727e046d7.jpg
While we're at it, can we have a merit-based President too? We need to get rid of this Diversity Electoral College Lottery System.
 
Ironically the Diversity Lottery would have been ended in favor of a merit based system under the bipartisan Gang of 8 immigration reform that the GOP killed. Schumer was 1 of the 8.

The Diversity Visa, which uses a lottery to distribute 55,000 permanent resident visas every year to natives of countries with low rates of immigration to the United States, would be eliminated starting in 2015. It would be replaced with a merit-based system using a mix of family ties, work history in the United States and strength of work skills. That would start at 120,000 visas per year and then grow to a maximum 250,000, growing by 5 percent every year that there are more applicants than spots and unemployment is below 8.5 percent.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...what-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.897e90f81a52

I am wholly confident that this incident will be used politically to justify greater reductions in all legal immigration into the country now that the GOP is being handed over to nativists.
 
brandonbull said:
Maybe Trump should put that country on the travel ban? You know the one that the limptards cry and complain about it being a Muslim ban.
Click to expand...

Are you going to ban all tourism and business travel too?

There is nothing in a immigration ban that would stop anyone coming here on vacation, renting a car and plowing into a crowd.

Someone could literally execute the operation in a day, and could come from a vast number of countries around the world, including much of Europe.

So how would you suggest we interpret such a useless idea of this ban?

Ignorant and incompetent, or plainly duplicitous?
 
Bitek said:
Are you going to ban all tourism and business travel too?

There is nothing in a immigration ban that would stop anyone coming here on vacation, renting a car and plowing into a crowd.

Someone could literally execute the operation in a day, and could come from a vast number of countries around the world, including much of Europe.

So how would you suggest we interpret such a useless idea of this ban?

Ignorant and incompetent, or plainly duplicitous?
Click to expand...

Ban all travel, build a wall around the entire US. It will be an amazing wall with really tall guard towers all around it to keep us safe. The best part is it will end the trade deficit overnight. SO MUCH WINNING!!!!!
 
pmv said:
Because the question of controlling motorised vehicle use is more complex, due to them having more legitimate uses? But, my first reaction, as it happens, was that more needs to be done to restrict motorised vehicles. A lot more bollards and other physical restrictions would be a simple and cheap start. I suppressed that reaction both because it seems too soon to discuss it and because there are obviously a lot of other issues involved in this event as well, namely all those around terror and Islamism. But as you've gone there anyway - let's do more to restrict car use, I'm all in favour of that. Are you? Or is this just your monomania about your precious guns again?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, highly dense public walkways will likely have to be designed with more impediments to vehicles.

However this will always be a limited application. There really is no defense to jumping a curb and plowing into ppl. Much of what we do in public assumes a level of trust of others as benevolent actors.
 
SlowSpyder said:
They think gun restrictions or outright bans are fine, the constitution can go pound sand. But bring up travel restrictions of Islamists and it is anti-constitutional to them The anti-gun left is chasing their own tails. No wonder they don't get things done.
Click to expand...

Thats because any government restrictions based solely on religion are against the 1a and unconstitutional.
Maybe the real problem is that the Trumpists believe that the Constitution consists of the 2a and only the 2a.
I'm pro-2a, but it shouldn't be a a surprise that people won't respect your rights when you won't respect theirs.
 
emperus said:
Here goes that both sides argument again.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm not trying to "both sides" it. The anti-Muslim, pro-gun panic that follows an attack like this comes from one side. Rather, it's that I see left-leaning people launching into immature responses, becoming the things they're supposed to hate. Be better: don't resort to hyperbolic or childish remarks. Rely on evidence and logic rather than gut reactions. You can acknowledge systemic problems, but don't paint whole groups with a broad brush like many on the right are so eager to do with Muslims. Basically, be the grown-up they refuse to be.
 
Last edited:
Mr Saipov, born in February 1988, is believed to have lived in Ohio, Florida and New Jersey since obtaining a green card that enabled him to work in the US.

US-based Uzbek religious activist and blogger Mirrakhmat Muminov told the BBC that Mr Saipov - who is married with three children - became an aggressive person after being radicalised on the internet once he had arrived in the US.

The pair met in Ohio soon after Mr Saipov moved to the US.

"He was not well educated and had no knowledge of the Koran before arriving in the US," he said. "At the beginning of his time here he was a normal sort of person."

But Mr Muminov said that Mr Saipov became depressed, separated from his community and more resentful and angry after failing to find work as a driver.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41828714
Click to expand...
 
Commodus said:
Nah, I'm not trying to "both sides" it. The anti-Muslim, pro-gun panic that follows an attack like this comes from one side. Rather, it's that I see left-leaning people launching into immature responses, becoming the things they're supposed to hate. Be better: don't resort to hyperbolic or childish remarks. Rely on evidence and logic rather than gut reactions. You can acknowledge systemic problems, but don't paint whole groups with a broad brush like many on the right are so eager to do with Muslims. Basically: be the grown-up they refuse to be.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this. What "the left" needs to do is stop attacking the 2a every time some white guy shoots up a school or a crowd. That way, "the right" will have no whataboutism to fall back on while they attack the 1a after every alleged act of terrorism.
Because let's be honest, the American people shouldn't be forced to choose between which Constitutional right they want to lose every time they go to the voting booth. Nor should the side that hates everything about the Constitution except the 2a be able to get away with calling themselves "strict constitutionalists."
 
Commodus said:
Nah, I'm not trying to "both sides" it. The anti-Muslim, pro-gun panic that follows an attack like this comes from one side. Rather, it's that I see left-leaning people launching into immature responses, becoming the things they're supposed to hate. Be better: don't resort to hyperbolic or childish remarks. Rely on evidence and logic rather than gut reactions. You can acknowledge systemic problems, but don't paint whole groups with a broad brush like many on the right are so eager to do with Muslims. Basically, be the grown-up they refuse to be.
Click to expand...
Vic said:
I can agree with this. What "the left" needs to do is stop attacking the 2a every time some white guy shoots up a school or a crowd. That way, "the right" will have no whataboutism to fall back on while they attack the 1a after every alleged act of terrorism.
Because let's be honest, the American people shouldn't be forced to choose between which Constitutional right they want to lose every time they go to the voting booth. Nor should the side that hates everything about the Constitution except the 2a be able to get away with calling themselves "strict constitutionalists."
Click to expand...
Thank you both for having a rational stance on this (and other) matters.
 
Authorities are now claiming the suspect was radicalized here in America. The WH is making proposals that will do nothing to prevent this kind of attack and probably result in further reduction of tourism.

What can the government do (without violating 1A) to prevent the radicalization of poor immigrants? Should we no longer take in the poor looking for a better life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top