It's hard to know if it's more remarkable that the Dayton police were able to take out the shooter so quickly — less than a minute, according to reports — or that he was nonetheless able to kill and injure so many in in that time.
"More good guys with guns" is not unreasonable as one among many parts of a national response, but this sure shows its limits.
At the press conference, Dayton PD says they took out the shooter within 30 seconds of the first shot. 37 people in 30 seconds. This is... incredible if true.
I don't mean to say it's doubtful. I mean it's incredible.
(The surveillance video they play later in the conference leaves little room for doubt about the timing — it looks like 33 seconds from first to last audible gunshot.)
I'm not finding any information at the moment on whether all of the injuries are from gun shots, or include falls or trampling.
Me (watching a bomb level a building): This is incredible.
People responding to me on Twitter: Well actually, if you've ever taken a chemistry class--
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This should be the biggest story in the country right now.
Barksdale is the HQ for our B52 nuclear bombers, it's where Bush sheltered on 9/11, and the drones are reported as "far more sophisticated than anything seen in Ukraine ... and well beyond Iranian capabilities."
I also wonder how you pursue ordinary political resolution to such questions when you have an entire generation that, on top of being priced out of housing and brain-sacrificed as guinea pigs to a grand social experiment in 100% online life, is now mass structurally unemployed.
To me this looks like the beginnings of a scenario where a question like "What policy best compensates for this structural shift in labor markets?" may simply break down, because the shared background buy-in to the system dissolves.
Graph: "exposed" meaning, to AI replacement
If you got into software development, infosec, database admin, web dev, network support, or other computer occupations, and you were born before ~1995, so far you're fine.
If you try to protest against “Population Bomb” fears to mainstream wonks, you get a smirky “Yeah, we moved on from that decades ago.” But talk to any faithful NPR Boomer and they have absolutely not gotten the memo, and greet news of a shrinking Europe/Japan/NY with relief.
So there’s a weird effect where mainstream outlets are finally running birth/population decline stories — but after having run decades of *overpopulation* warnings, and then just quietly stopping without ever explaining why that was wrong. So of course the audience is perplexed!
There are definitely still devoted elite Malthusians, but I think it really has ebbed from the Ehrlich, Gore, and Greta-era peaks.
What we have now is mass, zombie Malthusianism. It's arguably harder to combat because it's attitudinal more than explicit.
I'm just home now and will write my impressions up. I'm writing just in my personal capacity as a witness, not a journalist.
For context: I live in north Alexandria, a couple miles from the airport. My drive home takes me right by the airport along the George Wash Parkway. I love watching the string-of-jewels effect of the planes lined up to land — so I'm always paying attention to them on this drive.
I remember hearing Nate Silver interviewed by a big-name reporter about the model showing Clinton with 65% odds. The reporter says "Okay, 65%, put that in context—how often does someone with that big a lead win?" There's an awkward pause. Silver says: "Well, 65% of the time."
Imperfect analogy, but this account of democracy feels like arguing that a marriage certificate not only constitutes a marriage, but is all that constitutes a marriage.
If you go to certain Melanesian islands and find long strips of pavement and wave your hands around in just the right way, will huge quantities of food drop from the sky? Well, sort of, yes! Under the right conditions. (Namely: If it's 1942 and you are a soldier for Tojo.)