[alehul]

I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, and that this surveillance plays a hand in it (but to admit that would hinder its effectiveness).

Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year, considering the population of our country, the amount of ideological extremism domestically and internationally, and the States' interventionism?

Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).

[mattashii]

> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year

Last time I checked, the USA didn't need terror plots 'against the country'; they have enough problems with "deranged individuals" shooting at schools, events, protests, etc.

Why would you label those who could be your child, parent or neighbor, and disagree violently with those who have a different opinion than yours, as terrorists against the country? /s

[fakedang]

Unless they have a long beard and are of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent though. /s

[throwaway0a5e]

If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.

[bleepblorp]

'Politically-motivated violence waged against civilians in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism.

I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.

[dragonwriter]

> Politically-motivated violence waged in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism.

It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".)

Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".

[pirocks]

Not OP, but probably because the patriot act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 when the understood meaning of terrorist attack was 9/11 scale not a dozen people max.

[usrusr]

If you take that definition and follow its logical implications to the extreme, you'll find that you can prevent a lot of terrorism by just legalizing handgun possession. Well.. ever heard of a country called United States of America?

[djsumdog]

There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them.

Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sledge hammer at a US Marshal, as what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Portland. (Remember, three of those Feds are now blind in at least one eye from the green lasers?)

But the Anarchists/Antifa types that are burning down Portland are also being thrown together with the McCloskeys who were arrested for having guns out, while on their lawn, after people broke into their gated community. Or Jake Gardner, who the DA ruled as acting in self defense, with a full video clearly showing him acting in self defense after both he and his father were attached.

We're starting to see real terrorists conflated with what are clearly political prisoners from local officials.

[macintux]

You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger.

[UncleEntity]

> One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot...

Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.

[bigbubba]

There are numerous formulations of this rule. The one used by the US Marines is 'Never point the weapon at anything you do not INTEND to shoot.'

In this formulation of the rule, pointing a gun with the intent to threaten isn't valid, since an intention to threaten is not an intention to shoot.

[UncleEntity]

What they tell you and what actually happens on the battlefield are two different things.

I've pointed weapons at people without the intention of shooting them while covering other solders and on occasions where they "just didn't look right" -- can't just randomly start shooting people but you also don't want to be caught off guard if they decide to start shooting at you. The last time this happened some car rolled up on our guard post and all of us were pointing our weapons at said vehicle while we sent someone out to figure out what they wanted (which turned out to be the main gate so they could find out what happened to one of their relatives who was arrested or something). Nobody intended on shooting them but if they didn't stop short or acted suspiciously we would've lit them up with the .50cal.

[InitialLastName]

My preferred formulation is "Never point a gun towards anything you don't mean to destroy". Including things within a reasonable solid angle of your target.

[snypher]

This is a hero fantasy, and allows you to be legally killed by pretty much anyone. Don't do this.

[djsumdog]

Well in her case, she knew the gun wouldn't fire. It turned out the firing pin was assembled backwards for it to be used in a play. (The police took apart the gun and put to back together to charge her; it's in the evidence documents)

But I agree, she should have treated the gun like it was armed and ready. She flagged the back of her husband's head several times.

BUT, that isn't in and of itself criminal. In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.

The law they're charged with says they were in violation of "brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner," but nowhere in the law do they define "threatening" .. it's ambiguous, it's a badly written law and it conflicts with federal laws and the 2nd amendment.

Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are two lawyers who have done some incredible breakdowns on this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRN-Xrcf8Co

[blaser-waffle]

> Well in her case, she knew the gun wouldn't fire. It turned out the firing pin was assembled backwards for it to be used in a play. (The police took apart the gun and put to back together to charge her; it's in the evidence documents)

Along with never pointing your gun at something you don't want to destroy, you always assume a gun is loaded. That's not just a gun you pickup, that's any gun anywhere. If someone else is holding it then it's loaded too.

> In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.

Bullshit. Brandishing is a crime in pretty much every US state and Canadian province. There are affirmative defenses to Brandishing, like real physical threats to life or property, but that gate was community property and not theirs alone.

I could see them getting out of the charges and having enough reasonable doubt to do so. Right now it's being leveraged as a kulturekamf headline to make 2nd Amendment nuts get angry.

But make no mistake, if you point a real gun at people, with a finger on the trigger, you're implying you're going to kill someone. You'd better have a damned good reason for it, and be ready to stand to any consequences; "judged by a jury instead of by St. Peter", etc.

[ShamelessC]

I don't have a response for you because you're probably dug in, but anyone reading this please consider that it's riddled with misinformation.

[djsumdog]

Could you consider maybe you're believing the misinformation?

I never finished my video on Portland, but I do have one up on CHAZ, and I use to live and have friends in that area. I suggest you watch it:

https://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f26-...

[ShamelessC]

Sorry but I don't think engaging with you will result in the interesting conversation that HN strives to achieve. I'm not trying to dismiss you outright, and I'm sure there are a few incidents that match your theories but that you are extrapolating to a trend that doesn't exist but has been reinforced by Fox News etc.

Anyway, best of luck. Thanks for being civil.

[tomjakubowski]

Portland: Feds suffer 277 injuries but no lasting blindness.

https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/475908-384635-portland-fe...

[djsumdog]

Well that's good. I'm glad they're not permanently blind. Those green lasers are still very powerful and shouldn't have been used they way they were.

[Proziam]

> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year

That depends on your definition. If you're talking about organized 9/11 style attacks, absolutely. It's hard to bring plans like that together no matter how strong your convictions. If you're talking "random mentally ill person unleashes devastation on a group of US citizens" then no, there's certainly far more. That said, situations like that are best handled by local authorities. The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a prime example of that because as the story unraveled it became clear that the shooter had a history that was well known to the local police (and FBI if I recall?).

[thelean12]

I'm not sure I believe the whole "oh the CIA and FBI stop a ton of stuff and they just don't tell us" thing.

The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?

[greyhair]

If you count domestic terror, for example, the recent conspiracy to kidnap a Governor (or possibly two).

That should count.