Why does America lose its head over "terror" but, mostly, ignore daily gun deaths? Milkster is awful

[Milkster]

The thriving metropolis of Boston was turned into a ghost town on Friday. Nearly a million Bostonians were asked to stay in their homes – and willingly complied. Schools were closed; business shuttered; trains, subways and roads were empty; usually busy streets eerily resembled a post-apocalyptic movie set; even baseball games and cultural events were cancelled – all in response to a 19-year-old fugitive, who was on foot and clearly identified by the news media.
The actions allegedly committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were heinous. Four people dead and more than 100 wounded, some with shredded and amputated limbs.

But Londoners, who endured IRA terror for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right – and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few that we've seen previously in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.
After all, it's not as if this is the first time that homicidal killers have been on the loose in a major American city. In 2002, Washington DC was terrorised by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, a disgruntled police officer, Christopher Dorner, murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles. In neither case was LA or DC put on lockdown mode, perhaps because neither of these sprees was branded with that magically evocative and seemingly terrifying word for Americans, terrorism.

To be sure, public officials in Boston appeared to be acting out of an abundance of caution. And it's appropriate for Boston residents to be asked to take precautions or keep their eyes open. But by letting one fugitive terrorist shut down a major American city, Boston not only bowed to outsize and irrational fears, but sent a dangerous message to every would-be terrorist – if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here's your instruction booklet.
Putting aside the economic and psychological cost, the lockdown also prevented an early capture of the alleged bomber, who was discovered after Bostonians were given the all clear and a Watertown man wandered into his backyard for a cigarette and found a bleeding terrorist on his boat.

In some regards, there is a positive spin on this – it's a reflection of how little Americans have to worry about terrorism. A population such as London during the IRA bombings or Israel during the second intifada or Baghdad, pretty much every day, becomes inured to random political violence. Americans who have such little experience of terrorism, relatively speaking, are more primed to overreact – and assume the absolute worst when it comes to the threat of a terror attack. It is as if somehow in the American imagination, every terrorist is a not just a mortal threat, but is a deadly combination of Jason Bourne and James Bond.

If only Americans reacted the same way to the actual threats that exist in their country. There's something quite fitting and ironic about the fact that the Boston freak-out happened in the same week the Senate blocked consideration of a gun control bill that would have strengthened background checks for potential buyers. Even though this reform is supported by more than 90% of Americans, and even though 56 out of 100 senators voted in favour of it, the Republican minority prevented even a vote from being held on the bill because it would have allegedly violated the second amendment rights of "law-abiding Americans".

So for those of you keeping score at home – locking down an American city: a proper reaction to the threat from one terrorist. A background check to prevent criminals or those with mental illness from purchasing guns: a dastardly attack on civil liberties. All of this would be almost darkly comic if not for the fact that more Americans will die needlessly as a result. Already, more than 30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died last year in terrorist attacks).
What makes US gun violence so particularly horrifying is how routine and mundane it has become. After the massacre of 20 kindergartners in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, millions of Americans began to take greater notice of the threat from gun violence. Yet since then, the daily carnage that guns produce has continued unabated and often unnoticed.
The same day of the marathon bombing in Boston, 11 Americans were murdered by guns. The pregnant Breshauna Jackson was killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend. In Richmond, California, James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown. Nigel Hardy, a 13-year-old boy in Palmdale, California, who was being bullied in school, took his own life. He used the gun that his father kept at home. And in Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child.

At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers that ended on Friday evening, 38 more Americans – with little fanfare – died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3,531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months – a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.

It's not just firearms that produce such legislative inaction. Last week, a fertiliser plant in West, Texas, which hasn't been inspected by federal regulators since 1985, exploded, killing 14 people and injuring countless others. Yet many Republicans want to cut further the funding for the agency (OSHA) that is responsible for such reviews. The vast majority of Americans die from one of four ailments – cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease – and yet Republicans have held three dozen votes to repeal Obamacare, which expands healthcare coverage to 30 million Americans.

It is a surreal and difficult-to-explain dynamic. Americans seemingly place an inordinate fear on violence that is random and unexplainable and can be blamed on "others" – jihadists, terrorists, evil-doers etc. But the lurking dangers all around us – the guns, our unhealthy diets, the workplaces that kill 14 Americans every single day – these are just accepted as part of life, the price of freedom, if you will. And so the violence goes, with more Americans dying preventable deaths. But hey, look on the bright side – we got those sons of bitches who blew up the marathon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...mbs-us-gun-law

[Churchill]

Honestly we need less people in the world so it's better if people die.

Gonna need a WWIII scenario to thin out the herd if start getting too altruistic.

[Plow]

Really? REALLY?

People act like they figured out who the suspects were and then locked shit down til they found them.

It's pretty fucking hard to overreact to some asshole with serious guns indiscriminately flinging large homemade explosives that ran over his brother (who was wearing a suicide vest) to survive and escaped a massive fucking shootout with serious police forces.

[archibaldcrane]

Plow, the point is less that we're "overreacting" to terrorism, but that we're "underreacting" to gun violence.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Because the Joker was actually right: Guns are part of "the plan"

bombs aren't

[jmc]

Plow, the point is less that we're "overreacting" to terrorism, but that we're "underreacting" to gun violence.

You can't compare the boston bombings to a disgruntled ex-LAPD officer.

Boston bombings were designed to strike fear into civilians by attacking civilians in large events.

The ex-officer was attacking police officers, or individuals somehow tied into his life at one point.


Another thing is gun violence happens daily, where a explosive device going off does not. In Boston alone we had 8 people shot since monday, even more in large towns like NYC or Chicago.

[Athas]

Another thing is gun violence happens daily, where a explosive device going off does not.

I believe that's the point, many many more people die as a result of gun violence then of 'terrorism'.

[jmc]

I believe that's the point, many many more people die as a result of gun violence then of 'terrorism'.

Gotcha, seems the point of the article flew over my head.

I will say this though, most people I deal with are more scared of dogs than they are guns now. I can have someone at gunpoint and they will still take off running, but the minute they hear a dog barking in the background they give up. Its unreal

[hey]

I believe that's the point, many many more people die as a result of gun violence then of 'terrorism'.

It's also a big part of why people ignore them. They happen all the time. It's not unusual. When something bad (or good) happens all the time, you grow accustomed to it, and it doesn't really feel as bad anymore.

[archibaldcrane]

It's also a big part of why people ignore them. They happen all the time. It's not unusual. When something bad (or good) happens all the time, you grow accustomed to it, and it doesn't really feel as bad anymore.

And the irony is that the article talks about places where terrorism was common (London during IRA, Israel during 2nd intifada, etc.) and how the commonness of terrorism made them not really react that much, but for some reason when the commonness of gun violence in the US has us not reacting, it's for some reason weird as opposed to exactly the same.

[Plow]

Plow, the point is less that we're "overreacting" to terrorism, but that we're "underreacting" to gun violence.

Really?

In February, a disgruntled police officer, Christopher Dorner, murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles. In neither case was LA or DC put on lockdown mode, perhaps because neither of these sprees was branded with that magically evocative and seemingly terrifying word for Americans, terrorism.

It sure seems to me like they're implying shit didn't get shut down around dorner like this (it did), and that the key ingredient here was the word "terror" rather than the heavily armed guys with bombs.


I mean, I really hope you're not asking why people that go on killing sprees aiming to get as much attention as possible tend to get more attention than people that want to keep it on the dl.

[archibaldcrane]

Really?

If you think the point of this article is about terrorism, then you've missed it.

[Ashmada]

If you think the point of this article is about terrorism, then you've missed it.

Seriously, this. The point is that americans have grown extremely apathetic and resigned to daily homicides by firearm. I'd widen the point from "americans" to "pretty much everyone on the globe" and "daily homicides by firearm to "daily homicides", personally.

[Cleveland_7795]

You can't compare the boston bombings to a disgruntled ex-LAPD officer.

Boston bombings were designed to strike fear into civilians by attacking civilians in large events.

The ex-officer was attacking police officers, or individuals somehow tied into his life at one point.


Another thing is gun violence happens daily, where a explosive device going off does not. In Boston alone we had 8 people shot since monday, even more in large towns like NYC or Chicago.

This must be incorrect. Chicago and NYC have very strict gun laws to prevent this sort of thing.

[Helm]

I assume part of this issue is they probably think gun violence mostly happens among groups of people they count themselves outside while terrorism targets 'Murica and the "good Americans."

[Xantavia]

This must be incorrect. Chicago and NYC have very strict gun laws to prevent this sort of thing.

The current gun laws in Chicago are fine. The problem is that people just hop on over to Indiana to get their toys.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Guns are like Gay Marriage. If your state says no, go to one that says yes!

[Kyreth]

DC area resident during the sniping stuff.

Did they lock things down? No. There wasn't someone planting bombs. Were they going apeshit searching the areas when shots got fired? Absolutely. Cop cars swarmed around, unaware that the vehicle in question had a well-hidden firing port built into it and in fact, most folks were looking for the wrong vehicle entirely, and not for some random kid driving while the killer was tucked up in the trunk out of sight. In effect, the killer was well hidden by the mental camo of "nobody expects a teenager to be a professional sniper", so eyes went right over him killing after killing, until enough people put the right vehicle in the killing areas in enough cases to put two and two together...and they still didn't catch him. Someone had to call the vehicle in from a rest stop.

Heck, the Boston bombers only got caught so fast because the older brother panicked while a 7-11 was being robbed across the street and shot up a cop. If they'd stayed calm, odds are they'd have at least gotten a couple more days out and about before someone noticed, if not vanished from the area with their aunt and ended up in Russia on a trip their family would have told authorities had been planned well in advance. Which was apparently the "escape plan".

When you have someone capable (and effective) in mangling dozens of people in a single stroke with the expectation of it being repeated, the level of response goes up greatly. One man shooting one person = serious response. One man blowing up dozens at a time = greater investment in insuring it doesn't happen again. The bomber is a far greater threat to society than the guy with a gun, and even the latter is guaranteed to have SWAT teams and police searching the area- just not to the level that the bomber did.

[Nephlite]

Equate it to how we (Bluegartr or even people who troll the internet in general) have become desensitized to some things because we see a lot of shit on the internet. If I had began browsing the BG of today about 15 years ago (especially before I discovered Imgur, Reddit, 4chan, etc. and before the military and police job), I would have probably puked at the wheelchair dude with his legs blown off. I probably would still freak out or scroll quickly past a Spider picture if I hadn't seen so many during a Kerb dump on the Random Image Thread. I've become desensitized to the point where stuff like that doesn't bother me. I laugh at Racism because it's been meme'd and trolled to the point where the mere concept makes me giggle. Porn (and all it's different categories including the tranny brushing her teeth), crazy extreme things (wingsuiting), the cruel beast known as nature, and the cruel mistress known as the "human mind" don't bother me.

Stuff like shootings and homicides are ingrained in to our culture and we've been desensitized to it. That's another reason why I (and some of my companions) don't profile certain races anymore because of the way they dress. Skinny jeans, backwards caps, bulky clothing, designer crap mixed with off-brand crap, it's all a part of the culture and has become the "norm" so we're desensitized to it. Just doesn't bother us anymore when we see a guy walking down the streets all tattoo'd up with gold chains everywhere speaking "thug". Now we're bothered by other stuff like the middle-eastern looking guy walking down the street with a badly shaved face and burn marks on his hands and face or smells heavily of flowered perfume. Stuff like tattoo's of the swastika still bother us because it's so cliche' but that's probably never going to change.

The point is once you get desensitized to something, you stop caring. Life goes on. Worry about the little things and you'll always be looking over your shoulder. As paranoid as I am about life, I won't let my paranoia get the best of me. Could worry about terrorists bombing my home but that won't necessarily mean I could stop it just by worrying about it. I just do my best to prevent it and keep going.

[quannum]

ah the good ol days, when blacks were thugs and browns weren't blowin shit up