The Terrible Attacks on A Fellow New England State

There have been 2 confirmed deaths and 22 injuries confirmed so far, including lost limbs. I suppose they attacked the marathon because it would be highly populated. I'm wondering if anybody will step forward to claim responsibility, like N. Korea or maybe some other enemy. I'm also interested to see if any person of public interest was killed or harmed during this event.

MSNBC reports 107 (edit) injured. I would also assume the marathon was chosen due to it being a broadcasted event and that would be hard to regulate/monitor. A comment someone they had been interviewing (missed his credentials) suggested the perpetrator was on the scene, that people who do these kinds of things like to witness their actions first hand.

Considering the set up, sounds like it was done in advance to the event.

Edit: Seems they assume that the bombs were set up in trash cans made to go off simultaneously.

My father was in the Kennedy Library when it all happened. So I was extremely worried, he's Ok though. He said they didn't immediately stop air traffic out of Logan nor did they stop the ferries.

In regard to your first reply, the United States is a world superpower. The fact that more crimes are happening on a continent that has a significantly large number of countries in an eternal war with themselves is not very surprising. The fact that at least four major incidents would happen within a world superpower is.

In regard to your second reply, the fact that some people wish to throw out the (dated) Second Amendment card all willy-nilly is (forsooth) a problem. My point is: why can't the government do anything about it?

Only 1 of the 5 (heard of another) incidents I listed were "Major". The other one that could have been major was stopped from occurring, (as much as I know) New York Subway. The other 3 involved IED's, the kind that I could make with a quick internet search, a cellphone, and a visit to my local wall-greens.

Edit: With Neo-Nazi's and white Supremacist's staging bombings/attacks, doesn't count as internal conflict? Being at war with every Middle Eastern and North African country housing Al-Queada (and other classified "Terror movements") members, and rising tensions with North Korea, Iran, and indirectly Syria, doesn't count?



I wasn't attacking the second amendment, I was stating that she used her "American right" to militarize someone she shouldn't have (no more no less, your the one seeing it as an attack on the 2nd). What could government do in that situation? What could Obama personally do?

Perhaps, but I can tell you for certain that I have yet to have to deal with any neo-national socialists. I've only seen them on the telly. From what I can see, Neo-Nazism seems to be mostly confined to the midwestern, western and southwestern states. I might be wrong though.

And no, I wasn't saying that you were attacking the second amendment. I was stated that the concept behind having the right to bear arms is somewhat dated.

The West (Coast) has yet to deal with terrorist attacks... So I'm not entirely sure of your point, all I get is, "It's sufficiently far enough from me to not count".



So you were stating that "The second amendment needs to be revised" and "Why can't government do that"? Or that "government needs to change peoples conceptualization of what the second amendment means"?

If so (to the first 2), this video indirectly answers why the second amendment is so hard to touch.

In regard to your first reply, I must apologise if I came off as haughty. Such was not my intent. I was merely stating that I have yet to see widespread Neo-Nazism throughout the United States.

In regard to the second, 成程...

But I still must point out that the "I must have a gun in case a time comes where there is a generally agreed upon need to rebel against the government" attitude toward gunsis still not universal. And as the fellow in the video stated, many people in those parts of the country actually have an unjustified "don't take my blankie" attitude toward gun control.

I'm totally shattered by this.

To hurt innocent people gathered on a day meant to be a show of love and patriotism, inclusiveness, health, and friendship worldwide, nay, right under all the flags of many nations... is so sickening.

As I mentioned to friends on Facebook today: I think what most upset me about images/video captures of this tragedy is how very "movie-like" they seem. Obviously art (and foley sounds) imitate life, but to see and hear such similar things in recorded footage is very disturbing, and reminds me how desensitized I am when the context is fiction.
I'm not sure what that says about modern media, but it makes you think.

I agree with your general point here, but i do think moving forward he could have emphasized treatment for people struggling with mental disorders a bit more. Like, i don't want guns in the hands of people not mentally fit to use them, but i would also like to see more politicians talking about helping said people before they try to get their hands on a weapon.

OT:My faith in humanity crumbles a bit more day by day

I would think that had been politically motivated, considering that was mostly the republican standing. (Most of Obama moves step carefully around political landmines.)

I'm not sure whats your criteria for "Mentally Fit" -Omitted rant-... I consider the majority of the vocal gun owners to be Mentally unfit, with a utter disregard for the life of the others and the power of the tool they possess.

Even if they talk more, it wouldn't motivate them anymore so to do anymore than whats been done, most politicians are in it for the position they won't risk losing it, is how I see it. (If they betray the constituency too much, they may be replaced by a more "faithful" runner.)

Response to OT: Maybe I am too desensitize or lack enough empathy after looking at other countries, but what is shocking to us is almost everyday life for other places in the world. Losing faith in America's (supposedly) inherent security, I would understand that statement, but these kind of events are not so uncommon in other parts of the world. Looking at history it's not uncommon to humanity in general, all thats really changed is how it's conducted, with what tools.

Forsooth, my friend.




I lost faith in humanity a long time ago. I see a future of red skies, hazy, smoke-filled cities with the impoverished slowly withering away in the streets.

EDIT: The young boy who died because of the explosions was ironically a cadet for pacifism. Truly terrible.

By "that" you mean treatment for the mentally ill?I don't think that would be a political landmine, or at least not more than gun control.There is a possibility republicans might start calling it "socialism",but they use that for everything at this point.



What i was referring to are mental disorders, in particular ones like schizophrenia and such that would make them dangerous.

You mean Native Americans or the descendants of the first settlers?

I would assume that Obama put more focus on guns as a whole to push mental illness as one of many factors. Otherwise Republicans may have insisted harder with, "You obviously feel mental disorders are dangerous" and "focus on those then, leave guns alone". As well, Obama weighing in too much on a subject always has painful back lash, take for instance when he identified with the Sandy victims using his own position as a father too. Republicans attacked him pretty hard for it. He tries to avoid public (Republican) backlash.

To reiterate, I would think the lack of focus on the other subjects was to prevent too much of a divide from their main goals.



"...a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by a deficit of typical emotional responses. Common symptoms include auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction", wiki.

"The onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood."

"Prevention of schizophrenia is difficult as there are no reliable markers for the later development of the disease."

"...makes it difficult to distinguish between what is real and unreal, think clearly, manage emotions, relate to others, and function normally", helpguide.org.

"...schizophrenia can appear for the first time in middle age or even later."

A person doesn't have to be a schizophrenia to exhibits these traits. Given a sufficient enough scenario or lack of mental strength(?), integrity(?), stability (can't think of the word that sounds right to me). Even a lack of sleep/build up of stress can cause extreme paranoia and damaged emotional states (experiencing first hand... Don't worry I don't carry weapons, at most I have a pocket knife stashed somewhere under the sink.)

Not only that, they can as well develop disorders at any given time (after they have the tool they wanted) without warning. Sure we can learn to identify better, but those studies (to gain those abilities to diagnose) take time. As well, unless their mandatory we most likely won't know. Even if it became possibly to identify disorders before hand, like the NRA/Republicans would allow when they don't even want to allow the more vague diagnosis of the background checks. Mental disorder seems to be more of an excuse that no valid solution exist for, that only procrastinates the amount of time of inaction, from the Republican point (IMO).

Though (for the first time supporting the sciences) Obama is (maybe indirectly or as part of a greater goal) doing something about it. He's supporting the brain mapping project (and NASA). So I am liking him a slight bit better, though I am curious what his goal is.

Edit: You should also look up the "Common Misconceptions about Schizophrenia", from what I read, it's not as dangerous as you seem to think.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/01/18/13-myths-of-schizophrenia/
http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/DopaHypoWeb04/anava_page_8.html
http://www.health.am/psy/more/op-ten-myths-about-schizophrenia/

Some quickly skimmed google searches.

Edit 2: You'd have to come up with another disorder as proof of potential danger. Considering Schizophrenia people seem no more dangerous than "normal" people.

=/, very sad indeed.

And the stock market plummeted too.

The latter.