|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I mean, making cities less car navigable will just make it more likely Americans travel to the cities less, the interstates start getting routed around the outskirts of the cities rather than through them, and the urban sprawl D&D also hates so much will just accelerate. Nah. Just establish zero growth lines bordered by the highway system.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Doing a better job putting barriers between high traffic pedestrian areas and roads would probably be sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The best way to solve this is to make sure no one goes out in public like that Bruce Willis movie about incels. Surrogates is an exploration of the only real way we'll likely ever have "teleportation" and "continuity of consciousness" simultaneously. Wish I'd written a better screenplay in the decade between noticing the eventuality and the movie instead of doing gently caress all with the idea. Also you'd just have the surrogate things doing attack runs and bollards aren't going to stop them and then you've got that Will Smith movie about a luddite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 09:58
|
|
cowboy
|
FFT posted:Surrogates is an exploration of the only real way we'll likely ever have "teleportation" and "continuity of consciousness" simultaneously. Wish I'd written a better screenplay in the decade between noticing the eventuality and the movie instead of doing gently caress all with the idea. it's based on a comic that does a little more with the idea, you'd prob like it
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it's based on a comic that does a little more with the idea, you'd prob like it I had no idea. Thank you! /update: It's good, much better than the movie. The art works, too. FFT fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Road diets to narrow streets in areas that regularly have a lot of pedestrian traffic. Trees along sidewalks along with bike lanes make for natural and aesthetically pleasing bollards. Getting rid of parking minimums to move parked cars onto the streets and create a barrier of parked cars between road traffic and pedestrians also helps. This is a very good post, as it's basically all the best security-related traffic solutions thrown all together. I think that a lot of urban design advocates are looking at these terrorist attacks and recognizing that they are a really good opportunity for legitimating many of the existing best practices. Bollards are going up across the entrance of all sorts of pedestrian and cyclist pathways, many new construction projects are surrounding their buildings with benches and green spaces that also shield against vehicular attacks, and there is a greater appreciation for the safety benefits that are inherent to pedestrian-friendly design. I think that one solution that is particularly useful is segregated bike lanes, which in addition to their numerous health and economic benefits go a long ways towards securing roads against vehicular attacks. This can be in the form of car-resistant bollards that can provide a safe space for pedestrians and cyclists to escape to, or concrete barriers to shield separated boulevards from trucks. OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure I would recommend on-street parking as a solution to pedestrian safety because it makes it a lot harder to see them crossing. On-street parking improves pedestrian and cyclist safety by creating a barrier of cars between the traffic and pedestrians. Ideally these parking spaces are located between the vehicular lane and the cyclist lane, which protects cyclists and reduces conflict between the cyclists and drivers getting into or out of their cars. Providing accessible and responsive pedestrian crossings reduces the amount of jaywalking across busy roads, and the presence of those parked cars provides a safe escape space in case of a near accident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNtsWvNYKE Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:On-street parking improves pedestrian and cyclist safety by creating a barrier of cars between the traffic and pedestrians. Ideally these parking spaces are located between the vehicular lane and the cyclist lane, which protects cyclists and reduces conflict between the cyclists and drivers getting into or out of their cars. Providing accessible and responsive pedestrian crossings reduces the amount of jaywalking across busy roads, and the presence of those parked cars provides a safe escape space in case of a near accident. That video shows a hell of a lot of bike lanes separated by raised kerbs and trees, which are fine. But just telling people to park all over the road is a practice we already have in a lot of the UK and it just makes it hard to navigate for both cars and pedestrians and it also makes it much harder to see when people are trying to cross, as well as harder to cross as a pedestrian because it obstructs your view of traffic. It even says you shouldn't mix bike lanes and parking/heavy traffic. On street parking is fine for extremely low usage areas, but if your road sees heavy traffic, don't let people park on it, if it has a bike lane, don't let people park on it, and if it has heavy pedestrian traffic, don't let people park on it, put barriers up instead which stop people crossing and don't obstruct visibility at crossing points. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
The only thing that could be done is to bar muslims and immigrants from entering your country, and to expel all those that are already there. That would be a horrible undertaking that would destroy your society even more than the terrorist attacks, so the only practical answer is nothing. The police and intelligence services will catch most of these attacks in the planning phase, and some will get thru. These attacks will simply happen every once in a while. Only one thing can really be done. Develop alternative energy to the point we no longer need oil. Then drop western support for the middle east dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that we count as our friends. Then stop interphering in their countries except for supporting moderates, then wait for the Islamic world to have a reformation like the christian world did years ago. So like I said, nothing can or will be done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:The only thing that could be done is to bar muslims and immigrants from entering your country, and to expel all those that are already there. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I don't think the nazi guy who rammed antifascist protestors was a muslim. Also a lot of the people who do these attacks in the UK are born here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That video shows a hell of a lot of bike lanes separated by raised kerbs and trees, which are fine. But just telling people to park all over the road is a practice we already have in a lot of the UK and it just makes it hard to navigate for both cars and pedestrians and it also makes it much harder to see when people are trying to cross, as well as harder to cross as a pedestrian because it obstructs your view of traffic. It even says you shouldn't mix bike lanes and parking/heavy traffic. Well it's just like the video was talking about : It's important to get all the elements right. You don't want to have people parking all over the place willy-nilly, you want to provide them with good places to park in ways that make systematic sense. So if you have a road that is acting as a regional arterial, then you don't want to line it with parking spots and bike lanes. But if you have a moderately-moving road designed for access to residential or commercial areas, then road parking makes sense. If that parking makes it difficult to see pedestrians crossing, then either you need to remove the parking spots near the zebra crossings, or reduce the speed of traffic so that drivers will expect pedestrians to cross anywhere. Bike lanes and on-street parking can work very well together, but again it needs to be done properly. The bike lane should not double as taxi parking (this is what the video is talking about) or as an extension of the parking spaces - that creates a lot of conflict. But if you set up the on-street parking to protect the cycle or pedestrian lanes, then it is actually quite useful. Parking lots and parking garages have their place, but they can also have a really negative impact on urban design. So it's important to find a good balance between on-street and off-street parking. Parking mandates have been a blight throughout American cities, as they've made it very difficult to walk between businesses. Not only does this force people to use cars to get around, but it hurts the local economies of the area since people don't want to repeatedly drive and park while doing errands. The big winners are the big malls and warehouse stores, where people can go back to doing "one-stop shopping". Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well it's just like the video was talking about : It's important to get all the elements right. You don't want to have people parking all over the place willy-nilly, you want to provide them with good places to park in ways that make systematic sense. So if you have a road that is acting as a regional arterial, then you don't want to line it with parking spots and bike lanes. But if you have a slow-moving road designed for access to residential or commercial areas, then road parking makes sense. If that parking makes it difficult to see pedestrians crossing, then either you need to remove the parking spots near the zebra crossings, or reduce the speed of traffic so that drivers will expect pedestrians to cross anywhere. The issue in the UK is that many places are far older than sensible urban planning so they kind of have to make do with what they have, and that means that you have a lot of small, busy roads that also double as parking and major pedestrian thoroughfares. People are expected to cross at any point, and block sizes are small enough that you can't really break them up into crossing zones and parking zones. Generally you need to either put up barriers to stop people crossing, or ban parking, or both. But on road parking just causes a lot of problems in most of the places I've been with substantial pedestrian traffic, because those places generally have people wanting to cross at many points and not enough space for proper crossings or segregated roads. From a pedestrian safety perspective I think barriers are much better than parking spaces, on road parking is most desired in places with high pedestrian traffic because people don't want to walk but that's also the place where it causes the most problems with obstructing visibility. I don't really think it improves safety. As both a driver and a pedestrian I really don't like any of the places that have lots of people and lots of on road parking, they're a nightmare both to drive in and to cross the road in. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The issue in the UK is that many places are far older than sensible urban planning so they kind of have to make do with what they have, and that means that you have a lot of small, busy roads that also double as parking and major pedestrian thoroughfares. People are expected to cross at any point, and block sizes are small enough that you can't really break them up into crossing zones and parking zones. I totally get where you're coming from, and I think that the Dutch have some good ideas in that vein. Because they have also faced the difficulty of updating old urban design spaces. And basically their take is that roads should have a clarity of usage. A small, busy road that doubles as parking and also pedestrian usage has too many conflicting needs. So the solution is to update a neighborhood as a whole - identifying which roads should specialize as main streets, which should be residential streets, and which should be pedestrian thoroughfares. BicycleDutch has another good video talking about that process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q57sa7tjSNk
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I totally get where you're coming from, and I think that the Dutch have some good ideas in that vein. Because they have also faced the difficulty of updating old urban design spaces. And basically their take is that roads should have a clarity of usage. A small, busy road that doubles as parking and also pedestrian usage has too many conflicting needs. So the solution is to update a neighborhood as a whole - identifying which roads should specialize as main streets, which should be residential streets, and which should be pedestrian thoroughfares. BicycleDutch has another good video talking about that process: I know very little about urban planning. All this was fascinating to me. Thank you and Owl Fancier for this convo, which I'm learning a lot from. I wonder, with respect to Las Ramblas, what the rationale is for making it a street for cars at all. It kinda seems to me that if you have a street which is heavily pedestrian-ed you might just want to shut it down for vehicular traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
cda posted:I know very little about urban planning. All this was fascinating to me. Thank you and Owl Fancier for this convo, which I'm learning a lot from. Well I've never been to Las Ramblas, but I used to live on a boulevard in Spain that was very similar though not nearly as long (Avenida del Gran Capitąn in Córdoba). The basic design is: sidewalk - curb - one lane service road - bollard - pedestrian boulevard - bollard - one lane service road - curb - sidewalk. Access to the service roads are restricted at different points by retractable street bollards, and the pedestrian boulevard is capped by a large fountain. So in principle it's relatively protected from traffic. The reason the roads exist are so that the apartments (which have underground parking garages) and shops can be serviced by vehicle. This is particularly important for the elderly and the disabled, who often struggle to navigate the winding cobblestones of the central city. In Barcelona, the roads also serve as public transit corridors along the 1.5 km length of Las Ramblas. The security issue, of course, is that if a vehicle can overcome or avoid the access point protections and get into the boulevard, then the driver has a relatively free rein to drive wherever they please. This can be ameliorated in part by ensuring all vehicles are authorized to enter each section, and by adding additional foundations and bollards throughout the pedestrian area. But a balance has to be struck between blocking the streets for safety, and the regular use of the open areas for street cafes and festivals. Retractable bollards are a good solution, though they have traditionally been dogged by usage issues (i.e. if a bollard doesn't recognize the transponder for an ambulance, that's a real problem). Spain also supplements such areas with standing police patrols, so there usually is a cop nearby if there's any problems (though they aren't necessarily armed). My suggestion for those sorts of areas basically come down to increasing the strength of the access point security (i.e. ensuring that the bollards that cap and line the roadway cannot be easily driven over or avoided) as well as increasing the depth of that security by sectioning the roadway and boulevard (adding multiple bollards within the roadway complex, and using temporary barriers like heavy benches and greenery to cordon off the boulevard itself. One of the major reasons that there were so many casualties during the Las Ramblas attack was that the van was able to travel more than a third of a mile before it was finally halted by the van's collision safety systems. One of the things I've started to see here in Washington, DC, which has turned bunker-like roadblocks into a national art form, are manned gates that completely impede vehicles regardless of size. Many of them are massive shields that sink into the road in order to provide a level driving surface. If ideas those were combined with a local access registration system, as well as a Dutch-style system that restricts service vehicle access to pedestrian areas to the early morning, I think that a lot of the security issues for Las Ramblas could be addressed. Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
The other issue is that generally, vehicle access restrictors of that nature aren't impenetrable, they're there to tell you "yo you can't drive down here" not to physically stop you from trying it, because as said, some vehicles do need access such as service (particularly emergency) vehicles and until recently, there was no way to allow access in an emergency without a manned checkpoint. Most drivers just need to be told it isn't a road, they don't need to be physically fenced out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The other issue is that generally, vehicle access restrictors of that nature aren't impenetrable, they're there to tell you "yo you can't drive down here" not to physically stop you from trying it, because as said, some vehicles do need access such as service (particularly emergency) vehicles and until recently, there was no way to allow access in an emergency without a manned checkpoint. Most drivers just need to be told it isn't a road, they don't need to be physically fenced out. Agreed. One of the big security issues with our existing infrastructure is that the barriers are generally designed to be surmountable. Curbs are intentionally low enough to be hopped by trucks, traffic barriers have gaps for emergency vehicles, and bollards are intended to break rather than hold fast (even the trees that line the roads are supposed to be thin so they don't kill drivers that hit them). But all of that flies in the face of vehicular terrorism, which is all too happy to take advantage of those sorts of loopholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
I'd say honestly in that instance it's more important for ambulances to be able to get through than to stop the occasional terrorist, more people die of heart attacks than terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd say honestly in that instance it's more important for ambulances to be able to get through than to stop the occasional terrorist, more people die of heart attacks than terrorism. Oh totally agreed. We lose way more people to traffic collisions than we'll ever lose to terrorism. It's just yet another thing to consider as we develop responses to this sort of thing. As much as we'd like to, we can't just surround the roads with concrete.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd say honestly in that instance it's more important for ambulances to be able to get through than to stop the occasional terrorist, more people die of heart attacks than terrorism. If you're expecting a large group of pedestrians on the street you should be planning for both. Barricades can't prevent vehicles from plowing through them, but you can ensure that they'll have to lose enough momentum that your on site police will be able to respond. Of course you should have on-site police because you're expecting a bunch of people anyway. You can easily design access points through barricades that will allow ambulances through and still be a barrier to a vehicle forcefully entering. But again, it isn't about preventing entry completely but slowing entry so that police and pedestrians have time to react.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If you're expecting a large group of pedestrians on the street you should be planning for both. Barricades can't prevent vehicles from plowing through them, but you can ensure that they'll have to lose enough momentum that your on site police will be able to respond. Of course you should have on-site police because you're expecting a bunch of people anyway. I mean, where I live, a lot of pedestrians on the street is just "a normal day in anywhere other than the tiniest village" That's true of most UK towns, we don't really do the pure suburban sprawl with nobody in it that much. For pedestriansed roads or, I suppose, event spaces, it would make sense to have raisable barriers for when you're running an event in them, because yes then you can have manned checkpoints, but you can't do that on every road every day. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Barricades can't prevent vehicles from plowing through them, but you can ensure that they'll have to lose enough momentum that your on site police will be able to respond. Well you'd think that, but then you see what happens when a car totals itself after slamming into one of the big modern barricades, and the drat thing is literally unscratched. But yeah, for the most part we're talking about middle-weight bollards that aren't fun to crash into but won't put the driver in the hospital either. http://wtop.com/dc/2015/07/streets-closed-as-police-investigate-vehicle-crash-into-capitol-barricade/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, where I live, a lot of pedestrians on the street is just "a normal day in anywhere other than the tiniest village" True but these daily street pedestrian traffic is less commonly the target of terrorism than event related traffic. And even then, if you honestly have hundreds or thousands of pedestrians in a core street zone in a single day that even further justifies the infrastructure spending to protect pedestrians from drivers. You don't even need manned checkpoints to allow emergency vehicle traffic to pass through, a common solution is just a regular automatic gate with either a transponder in the emergency vehicle or just a regular fire key required to open it. Breaking down the 2016/2017 attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalonia_attacks - The successful vehicle attack occurred on a controlled pedestrian mall and the unsuccessful one occurred on a more regular street. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally - A special event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois-Perret_attack - Regular streets but it was targeting a group of soldiers instead of any crowd of pedestrians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_Champs-%C3%89lys%C3%A9es_car_ramming_attack - Was a vehicle ramming police vehicles also not too successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack - Regular street, but as far as a terrorist attack goes, less effective than a knifing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack - A special tourist attraction level high pedestrian traffic bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_attack - A pedestrian street was where the attack occurred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack - Another bridge with tourist traffic and abnormal levels of pedestrian traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Jerusalem_truck_attack - I'm not sure of the normal pedestrian flow on this street, but it was also targeting soldiers disembarking from a bus versus any pedestrian crowd they could find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack - Was an attack on a special event, a Christmas market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack - Didn't kill any victims and was targeting the courtyard of an evacuated building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack - Was an attack on a special event, Bastille Day celebrations. My point is I believe that most of the risk from these attacks are on either year-round high pedestrian areas or special events and both of those are examples of when the infrastructure to protect pedestrians should be worth it, either permanent dividers for year-round areas or temporary protections for special events.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
An opinion in today's New York Times lays out a lot of the same arguments and solutions that have been discussed here, but I was surprised to read about how major European cities are just permanently pedestrianizing core parts of their major cities. I feel like, as smart as that is, those solutions would never fly in NYC or Chicago. Anyway, here's the article: Another Good Reason to Make Cities Car-Free https://nyti.ms/2vIvZZB
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I mean, making cities less car navigable will just make it more likely Americans travel to the cities less, the interstates start getting routed around the outskirts of the cities rather than through them, and the urban sprawl D&D also hates so much will just accelerate. They already are routed around the outskirts of cities though, for long distance traffic? Kinda weird to complain about beltways when they've been around since like the 40s but whatever man. cda posted:An opinion in today's New York Times lays out a lot of the same arguments and solutions that have been discussed here, but I was surprised to read about how major European cities are just permanently pedestrianizing core parts of their major cities. I feel like, as smart as that is, those solutions would never fly in NYC or Chicago. To be frank, a lot of those places were just barely functioning with cars on the streets in the first place. Their age and frequent narrowness or turning issues always made driving said streets annoying at best. And while they often had accompanying roads in those same city centers that were of the requisite width and other attributes to handle car traffic, it still made sense to seal those off when you're sealing off most of the roads in the area anyway. In NYC and Chicago by contrast, the vast majority of the roads were laid out with far more generous limits back in the early 1800s for NYC and late 1800s for Chicago, for example. And even though nobody laying them out had an inkling about car needs, they proved quite suitable. Even still there's been many streets cut off to all but pedestrians and bikes and authorized vehicles in NYC over the years, especially recently. Lots of chunks of Broadway for instance are closed to cars, transformed into pedestrian plazas, like most of Times Square is. Various other streets and avenues are getting partially or wholly cut off. But you're not going to get all of Lower Manhattan or all of Midtown or whatever made into a car-free zone. Here's one rough comparison of how Times Square's transformation into pretty much all a pedestrian zone has gone:  And this is another decent photograph of the new pedestrian area and how the through traffic zones have been reduced a lot:  Although it's kinda hard to see in this, as that road crosses diagonally across the shot, on the other side of it from the photo's perspective there's a similar pedestrian plaza are as on this side. cda posted:I mean, poo poo, I'm still not sure why we haven't seen someone driving an 18 wheeler into a crowd (more work to get a CDL? Not easy to steal a huge truck? Bad acceleration?) Ok like, to be frank there just aren't that many terrorists around. At least ones willing to do things. And even the ones who do bother to actually do things don't really seem to be big on getting mass casualties or the maximum disruption. Like realistically there are many hugely important bridges across the US that if you detonated a truck full of explosives on it, you would both kill a bunch of people outright and cripple transportation in the region for a very long time, perhaps permanently, as things got repaired. And there's not really explosives detectors that are going to stop you from getting on the bridge. Yet we've basically never had people do that, even though there's been numerous instances of terrorists like Tim McVeigh (or Al Qaeda in the initial 1993 WTC attack) and others using such truckbombs against/under buildings. Perhaps this is down to the fact that anyone who would get in deep enough to be driving around truck bombs is so into the symbology of their actions that they just have to go and attack the government building, or the symbol of capitalism, or whatever other things their ideology drives them to. And those bridges are so fundamentally hard to secure too. Some of them have 250,000 or even 310,000 vehicles passing over them a day and there's just no way to check out what averages to as much as 215 vehicles a minute across the day. Things basically just have to rely on the fact that people won't bother to attack them, and instead focus on things like making sure someone transporting explosives for legit reasons across it does so in the proper manner, maybe waits for police escort, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Weapons are good, they allow good guys to kill bad guys. Terrorism is bad, the question should be what can we do about terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
I recommend sealing off the whole country with bullet proof lucite.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Weapons are good, they allow good guys to kill bad guys. Terrorism is bad, the question should be what can we do about terrorism. Is this meant to be a real post, I can't even tell anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Is this meant to be a real post, I can't even tell anymore. Well it's not like you can put the weapon genie back in it's bottle anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well it's not like you can put the weapon genie back in it's bottle anyway. I feel like you could if you had enough weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well it's not like you can put the weapon genie back in it's bottle anyway. I made a snarky comment when this thread started wondering if it was going to end up devolving into an anti-gun control thing, but I have to be honest, its actually been pretty good so far about talking about the actual original issue in a pragmatic manner that offers some workable ideas that could reduce the effectiveness of this phenomenon. I'm well acquainted with the way you post about things like this and it's nearly exclusively to tie into a fatalistic argument that you can basically never ever do anything to prevent a person from killing another person if they really want to no matter what so don't you dare touch my weapons. If that's where this is going to go then I'll get off right here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Like realistically there are many hugely important bridges across the US that if you detonated a truck full of explosives on it, you would both kill a bunch of people outright and cripple transportation in the region for a very long time, perhaps permanently, as things got repaired. And there's not really explosives detectors that are going to stop you from getting on the bridge. Yet we've basically never had people do that, even though there's been numerous instances of terrorists like Tim McVeigh (or Al Qaeda in the initial 1993 WTC attack) and others using such truckbombs against/under buildings. Perhaps this is down to the fact that anyone who would get in deep enough to be driving around truck bombs is so into the symbology of their actions that they just have to go and attack the government building, or the symbol of capitalism, or whatever other things their ideology drives them to. *not in a good way, but still
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:30
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
This thread is once more relevant.quote:Truck attack in Manhattan kills 8 in 'act of terror'
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:This thread is once more relevant. Thank God for tough New York gun laws. Imagine if he had real guns when he came out of that truck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Thank God for tough New York gun laws. Imagine if he had real guns when he came out of that truck. Imagine if we banned Muslim immigrants! He wouldn't have been here to kill those people!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Imagine if we banned Muslim immigrants! He wouldn't have been here to kill those people! Yeah! Then an American could do that job, like the Founders wanted!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Gonna be a big gun nazi and say that deporting guns is not enough and it's more ethical to destroy them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:This thread is once more relevant. lmao of course its you
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Gonna be a big gun nazi and say that deporting guns is not enough and it's more ethical to destroy them. Swords into plowshares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Or sick-rear end chairs, that's cool too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or sick-rear end chairs, that's cool too. Guns aren't swords, either. It's just a metaphor. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:23
|
|