General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuardian: Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?
"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."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)There is the remote possibility that perhaps some folks, here & and elsewhere, HAVE both used the expression and even offended this strange quasi-human group, and... you know... It didn't work. And (this is obscure, I admit), results of this "offense" may have been counter-productive.
Something worth considering.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)than human lives.
They can't be called out enough for the oceans of blood on their venal gun-humping hands.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I will continue to call them gun humpers. The only way to push them back, may be to equate them with the same type of thug as the KKK
Us anti-gun humpers need to become more vocal
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)Gun Murders vs. Terrorism by the Numbers
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
17 January 13
Number of Americans killed in domestic terrorist attacks, 2002-2011: 30
Number of Americans murdered by firearms, 2000-2011: 115,997
Cost of the War on Terror since 9/11: $5 trillion
Gun Murders vs Terrorism
Cost of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms since 9/11: $12.32 billion
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If you want a realistic picture of terrorism deaths in the UK, count from before 9/11. Failing that, at least count gun deaths over the same period.
Either way, there will be many times more gun deaths - enough to make your point, without making it look like you're deliberately trying to mislead rather than inform.
Likewise, comparing the cost of "the war on terror" to the budget of the ATF is comparing apples to orang-utans. How about the cost of domestic anti-terrorism measures?
avebury
(10,952 posts)gun violence deaths in the US totally blows away (pardon the pun) the number of terrorism related deaths. People (as a whole) don't care enough about gun related deaths to demand change and to refuse to accept anything less then change.
People have sat back and willingly given away their rights, allowed groups like the NRA and the 1% to rule this country, and vote in state legislatures that are more interested in passing asinine, unconstitutional laws then actually working to improve their states. It is really amazing that anybody in the world takes this country seriously any more. Without our military we wouldn't even be close to be a top tier nation anymore.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)America has the best military because it spends the most money on it.
It's able to spend the most money on it because it's both rich per capita and large. There are larger nations, and nations with more wealth per capita, but none with both.
avebury
(10,952 posts)spends to much money on their military will spend themselves into the ground. The USSR could not keep pace with the US on military spending and eventually broke up. The UK was the largest world power until it got itself into too many wars. No country can stay at the top economically while getting itself into too many military conflicts and pouring endless funds into its military. A lot of countries that are doing pretty well are countries that don't spend exorbitant money on their military. Why on earth should some of these countries even begin to think that they need a world class military on par with the US - all they have to do is let us take care of the world's problems. I have got news for you - the US should not be acting as the world's police force. If we get involved with issues overseas we should really pick and choose which fights to participate in. All we are do is enabling so much of what takes place around the world. We are like parents who refuse to kick grown children out of the house.
Look at the state of our infrastructure, the state of our schools, the number of people living below the poverty level. Look at how many people who actually work full time and still qualify for food stamps and public assistance. All of this is the result of a Military Industrial Complex and Congress that refuse to operate the military on a more common sense and reasonable basis. Why should tax payers be forced to fund military hardware that the Pentagon says it does not need and does not want?
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)that way too much of our economy is tied to military spending. If you cut military spending too drastically and/or too quickly, you risk a huge economic collapse. The best way to cut military spending would be to slowly drop it each year while simultaneously either transferring those jobs into something non-military and/or retraining the defense industry workers - it will likely take 10-20 years, or more, to make a major dent in military spending without tanking the economy.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)the looting of taxpayers dollars by the MIC.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)I agree with your reply.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and not give him more targets or cause anyone to be caught in crossfire. That said, we're a country founded on guns, we have a strong gun culture--from revolution times to the Old West until now. We don't apparently have a problem slaughtering ourselves, we just get mad or really scared when furriners do it.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)than from the marathon bombs.
Boston's response was appropriate, but shouldn't their (and all of our) response to gun deaths be more proportional?
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Imagine if we could just eliminate the gun deaths of organized crime (gangs). I honestly think gangs are not affixed with the "terror" label so as not to alarm and arouse the public. If it were fitted with that T title, there'd be ALOT of questions as to why so much is spent on defense from imagined foreign threats when there's a real & dangerous enemy ALREADY well entrenched WITHIN our national boundries!!!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe London would have been safer had they taken it more seriously. But also they did not have the technology in that day.
byeya
(2,842 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Thanks for writing them.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)It's nice that they identified and caught some suspects (who did murder someone else in their attempt to escape the dragnet). I bet a hell of a lot more murders would be solved if we handled all of them in the same way, but we can't. I'm afraid that the message sent is that the lives of people at high profile events are worth more than the lives of poor people just going about their daily routine.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)AND may be acting as part of a terrorist cell in this country, yes. He and his brother are criminals, but especially dangerous and destructive ones, and we don't know yet if they acted alone.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Seriously? With most random shootings, there's a pretty quick resolution, usually. And those events generally don't involve the potential massive damage of explosives. So for public safety, yes, I'd say Boston did the right thing.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)At least not with the random mass shootings--I think those are a form of terror, and we do next to nothing about them. But a one-day city shutdown to find these losers, when they were so close to catching both, isn't beyond the pale or a big overreaction.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)You think people who live in areas plagued with high rates of gun crime aren't terrorized by it? They are, as they well should be, because they're far more likely to be hurt or killed by gun violence than anyone in the US is by a bombing.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Or having buildings or other structures blown up--lots of people affected, random victims. It's NOT BillyJoeBob going after a romantic rival with a gun, or a robbery gone awry. I struggle to define it, but that's as close as I can come.
The word "terror" has become little more than a political instrument in the U.S.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)Holy shit, I can't believe someone could actually ask your question. Because BOMBS KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE AT ONCE. Differently placed bombs might have killed a lot more people in Boston.
Guns are inherently more dangerous than knives because they make it easier to kill more people quickly. Automatic guns are more dangerous than semi-auto, or bolt-action rifles. And bombs are more dangerous than guns. As much of a monster as Timothy McVeigh was, I doubt he could have killed 168 people with any kind of gun.
The weapon used makes a difference. I don't know how that's difficult to understand.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)This is interesting.
IMO there shouldn't be any difference.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And that was a lot worse. They caught him in the usual way they catch people. Police legwork and following up leads. No hysterical overreaction or shutting down entire towns.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)They let Rudolph get away in the Atlanta bombings, too. We're faster on the draw since 9/11. Boston was only inside for a day, the shelter in place was already called off when they caught him--kind of a last-ditch effort to prevent him from escaping or killing more. It's not like the city was acting as if under siege day after day.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)We acted like normal human beings, not pissing our pants in fear, and they caught McVeigh. Rudolph got away largely because the FBI was focused on someone else AND he had help. There were many, many people who aided and abetted him while he was living in the mountains.
So, no, normal police procedures work generally. Locking a city down did not work. They lifted the order (I know it wasn't an order, I'm just not sure of the correct term) and he was found. So by what logic can we say the "shelter in place" actually worked? It certainly didn't help police find him, when more eyes not fewer might have been better.
Our vaunted "surveillance" state didn't work either. They were found because, like a couple of rank amateurs, which they no doubt were, they held up a convenience store. It's like they watched too many movies. So, again, old-fashioned police footwork. Sure, all those photos helped narrow it down a bit but there is a lot of data to sift through if you're in a hurry and probably led to a delay in identifying the proper suspects.
I'm dismayed at the ease in which we have given up freedom for illusory security. By just accepting the need to stay off the streets and disrupt normal life we have given in to the terrorists. They love nothing more than to disrupt everything.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Someone figured out where our deepest button resides and has been hammering on it since 2001.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)I'm ashamed of the amount of TV I watched following this drama.
In proportion to the amount of people who die on the streets everyday, it's insignificant.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Sadly, you are 100% correct.
avebury
(10,952 posts)terrorism incidents from the IRA for decades and, to my knowledge, never shut down an entire city.
Having heard after the fact that they knew the boy was injured does make it look like authorities might have gone too far in shutting down such a big piece of territory.
The same Government that freaks out on the possibility of a terrorist act need to be asked why they don't consider incidents like Newtown; Aurora, CO; Virginia Tech shooting as terrorist incidents? Why does our Government view mass shootings less atrocious then what happened in Boston? The brothers both had access to guns (as proven by the shootout) so why isn't the issue of gun control and passing reasonable legislation brought up - again? When will this country refuse to let the NRA rule OUR country?
When you look at what has taken place in this country since 9-11, laws that have been passed, criminal activity by people in government going unpunished, a private group (NRA) dictating nationwide policy, efforts to deny citizens their right to vote - one could make the argument that we have already lost the war on terror and things will not change. Out ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War against the tyranny of King George III would, today, be deemed domestic terrorists.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...the biggest chunk of the pie is suicide, then there is gang related/criminal activity (criminals killing each other) then acts of domestic violence. Few gun deaths are random acts like Sandy Hook, etc. But those are the ones that scare us the most because we can say
"I'm not suicidal, I'm not involved in criminal activity, my spouse doesn't want me dead, etc" .
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)You mean poor people killing poor people, right? Or do you mean that most people who are murdered with guns have it happen when they're in prison? No? That's what I thought.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)Because I have no idea what you are talking about.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)People who die or are maimed by terrorists do not know the terrorists and don't know that it's coming.
The latest stats I could find from the FBI indicate that only about 10-15% of murders by gun are committed by total strangers.
While that's still a huge number of murders that needs to be addressed, comparing terrorism to gun deaths is not apples to apples.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)because I missed it too. And why does that stat make the article "stupid"?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I think some people actually feel that way.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)hunter
(38,317 posts)... but they occasionally hit innocent bystanders or misidentify their targets.
The two brothers in Boston sound like unsuccessful gangsters who decided to make a quick stop as terrorists on their highway to hell.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Comparing one death to one death is definitely apples and apples.
Moreover, if we're talking about attempts to prevent deaths rather than the deaths themselves, if anything you can probably prevent *more* deaths from people you know per tax dollar spent than you can prevent deaths from strangers.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Insane NRA logic.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Murdered is fucking murdered. (nt)
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)AlinPA
(15,071 posts)accidents involving guns and even children killing themselves and others are part of the American culture now.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)WinniSkipper
(363 posts)...pro control side is silent on inner city handgun deaths but scream about Aurora, Newtown, and Laughner?
malaise
(269,054 posts)Rec
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"100 people killed" is more newsworthy than 100 "people killed".
3000 people died on 9/11 *in one event*.
Note also how much more publicity rare events like the Newtown mass murder get than the very large number of single shootings.
indepat
(20,899 posts)therewith, but to be afraid, very afraid, to wallow cowardly in the face of/the very thought of terrorism which serves to feed a burgeoning $5 trillion industry, all the while pols maneuver to cut social security benefits.
+ infinity.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)deurbano
(2,895 posts)...(and without loss of civil liberties) if there was any will at all. The Texas fertilizer plant disaster should have the country in an uproar... but these are just "accidents" that we are supposed to accept as part of the "cost" of doing business.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)adieu
(1,009 posts)Same reason why the auto industry was dragged kicking and screaming into adding proper safety features into cars: seat belts, rubberized steering wheels, shatter resistant windshields, passenger-side sideview mirror, crumple zones...
krispos42
(49,445 posts)People kill each other, and the reasons are personal, emotional, business, or some combination of the three.
Let's not forget that we're also ignoring the daily non-gun deaths, too. And the rapes, and the child molestation, and the beatings of children and spouses, and the animal abuse, and the stabbings and kidnappings and torturing and all the other non-political crime that is part of daily life in any concentration of humans.
Why? It's not political. When a man murders because of a cheating wife, it is most emphatically NOT because of the oppression of his people at the hands of the Pentagon, or because his family was wiped out in a drone strike, or because the CIA installed an oil-friendly brutal dictator that tortured his nation.
Motive matters. A drug dealer killed by a drug user was not the drug user waging war on the US government or the people that supports it and funds it.
A radialicalized Christian blowing up an abortion clinic, a radicalized Muslim blowing up a baseball game, a radicalized libertarian blowing up an IRS building, a radicalized anti-federalist blowing up a federal building, a radicalized racist blowing up a black church, a radicalized environmentalist blowing up an SUV dealership... those are all political, and we all fear those much more than drug dealers and betrayed lovers. Because political ideas can become movements that can grow to millions of people and affect everybody.
There's never going to be a mass movement of betrayed lovers slaughtering their cheating spouses, or of drug users rising up and slaughtering their drug dealers.
But a rising up of Christians or Muslims or libertarians or anti-federalists or racists or environmentalists? Yeah, that's a possibility. That kind of rising up can lead to prolonged campaigns of terror, insurgency, even revolution or civil war.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)due to out-of-control libertarian ideology.
"Political ideas can become movements that can grow to millions of people and affect everybody". Indeed they can...think NRA.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The issue of the murder rate is addressed through politics.
The people doing the killing are not killing to make a political point.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)Benghazi was an outrage by GOP - Newtown an inconvenience.
bulloney
(4,113 posts)"We took a hit, and now, somebody's gonna pay."
agent46
(1,262 posts)Our perceptions are being managed, weighted and prioritized constantly by politicians, advertisers and the news industry. The fear of "terrorism" is a carefully crafted reality tunnel. It's a diversion from the more pervasive cannibalistic crimes and policies that are eating away at society.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)the question, why does America freak out more over gun deaths than it does about deaths related to:
Smoking...
Drunk driving...
Heart disease caused by shitty food...
Child abuse deaths...
Medical error...
etc.
Why all the focus on gun deaths?
PS...not speaking for or against guns. Just wondering why one cause of death is getting all this attention when so many other causes probably account for even more deaths than guns...
?
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Maybe it's different to have your dad die at age 80 from heart disease than to have him die at age 30 from getting shot in the face. I'm glad that my father is still alive at the age of 74. I'd be upset if he died from a heart attack, but I think I'd be more upset if he was shot in the head. I mean, it's just hypothetical to me, so what do I know?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)Hypothetical to me
I'm glad your dad is still alive at 74
My younger brother died two years agol at the age of 40. Liver and kidney failure
As did my daughter's husband in 2005
An uncle in 1982. He was early 50s. Liver cancer
My second husband in 1988. Oral/throat cancer
Dad in 2002. Liver cancer.
Two aunts (my dad's sisters) from lung cancer.
First husband (divorced) in 2002 at 52. Heart failure
A cousin last year, early 40s. Drank himself to death accidentally to
stop pain from bad teeth. No health insurance
An old friend in 2010 at 54. Stroke. Drugs
I could go on....
Not one of them from gun violence
So I always wonder how many people have actually lost that many friends and family
due to guns
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Thousands of people will be killed with guns in the US this year. By extension, I think it's safe to assume that it's tens of thousands of family members who lose someone to gun violence every year.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)many more lose friends and families to things other than gun violence.
If we take into account every other tragic and preventable cause of death, I mean.
But the point I was wondering about is how many DUers have lost more friends and family to guns than they have to other causes. From some of the ranting and raving I've seen over time, it would seem that all DUers doing the ranting have lost as many friends and family to gun violence as I have, for example, to other things, but I don't think that's true.
And so I wonder why gun violence is such a hot button issue for so many people.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)but... what don't you get?!?! There's a big difference between getting cancer and dying from that (it sucks, I'm sure we all know several people it's happened to), and being murdered. Most murders in the US are committed with guns. Are you a zen master or something, and dead is dead, so it's time to move on no matter how someone died?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)to a measly gun death, but a mass shooting or terrorism gets a second look because it still has some limited ability to shock and anger.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)What I think they're really asking is why haven't Americans essentially outlawed guns yet. It's not that Americans aren't aware that people are getting killed every day by guns, it's not that the newspapers aren't reporting gun deaths, it's not that people aren't talking about the issue, it's not that politicians aren't debating legislation, the question really is, "why haven't Americans freaked out sufficiently over gun deaths to override any concerns about gun rights?"
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Roughly 75% of Americans believe 2A recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. And that number must include millions of non-gun-owners.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)As I see it, the writer is asking, given how people can be willing to give up all sorts of rights after a bombing, why do so many people still support RKBA despite daily gun related killings? How is it that politicians have been unable to use the fear created by these killings to push through major gun control legislation? Why does person A shooting person B (happening many times a day) not inspire the same fear in Americans as a single bombing does?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Perhaps they should take time, and have the respect, to inquire. Perhaps the Guardian is operating from an Anglo-centric vantage which has limited value in the U.S.
I am struck by Great Britain's gun law history. There seems to be little of it until the 20th Century. In any case, there seems little problem with gun-related violence before their laws. Perhaps the laws passed were also related to the politics of terrorism -- as in the rise of union activism and militant "leftist" politics.
Blue Owl
(50,427 posts)Most of us, that is...
spanone
(135,844 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)period.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Sometimes lots of sacrifices all at once, but definitely daily. Don't believe those lies about preserving our freedoms.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Do you think there'd be big support for the manufacture of commercial explosive killing devices for the public? I'll be unemployed soon, and if I could make money doing it, what harm could it cause? It someone used one of my bombs to kill people, why on earth should I be held responsible for that?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)ramapo
(4,588 posts)I've expressed the same sentiments as this article does a few times this past week, often to the bewilderment of some people. I truly have little patience with all the wringing of hands and, as expressed so well in the article, the collective freak-out of society and the endless hours of empty talk that went with it.
The bombing was a despicable, horrible, cowardly act and the cost in lives lost and forever broken is heart wrenching. There is no doubt that our Congress and society will go to almost any end to stop a terrorist while remaining basically numb and accepting of the never ending gun violence that permeates this country.
The religious zeal that surrounds the Second Amendment and guns in general has resulted in death and grievous injury to countless thousands. That this endless toll is accepted, indeed in some ways sanctioned, is something that I will never come to grips with.
Most of those killed by guns are victims, many totally innocent victims. Each person killed by a gun is just as dead as those that lost their life in the Boston tragedy. To say there is any difference simply does not seem right to me.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Minimizing what happened in Boston is NOT the way to constructively talk about gun policies.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)...or at the top of the list of murders by handgun. I can tell you that Chicago doesn't lose its mind over this because white people aren't dying and the shootings aren't occurring in white, middle, upper-middle, and upper class neighborhoods. Despite its dubious claim to fame, Chicago doesn't lose its mind over handgun violence because blacks and Hispanics and gang members are doing all the shooting and the dying.
Chicago is just a microcosm of America.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)A coworker lost his wife on Easter Sunday morning because some useless piece of shit was upset about being bounced from a Southfield nightclub. There are some really clear photographs of "persons of interest" circulating, but last time I checked, no new news.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/04/southfield_police_seek_persons.html
Somebody knows something, but the "Stop Snitchin'" mentality is keeping a killer (or killers) on the street, where they are free to take someone else's wife / husband / mother / father / child away.
Guns and egos - nothing but tragedy waiting to happen.
Robb
(39,665 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)And you think I'm going to be impressed with your per capita stats?
Yours is about as stupid a comment I've seen in a while.
Robb
(39,665 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)and your post was stupid
Robb
(39,665 posts)Do you understand Detroit saw 400+ murders, and has a population that's less than a third of Chicago's?
Response to Robb (Reply #117)
Post removed
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'm just trying to understand what you're on about here.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Putting murder rates in the context of my original post, the combined per capita data tells me nothing. People think Chicago is a dangerous city because of all the murders. I come here to say it's only a matter of white vs dark skin. Much of Chicago is mostly white and virtually murder free. Per capita murder rates in these neighborhoods are nominal.
By contrast, virtually all of the murders occur in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Per capita murder rates here are off the charts. Lumping all neighborhoods together both hides and understates the problem. The focus should be on where the shootings and killings occur, not on whether Chicago's dubious distinction is warranted or not.
People in Chicago don't lose their minds because the shootings and the killings occur in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Chicago is a microcosm of America.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on Terror.
We've had other mass murders, with far more casualties and no city was shut down. Maybe if it was, more people would be angry over the lack of gun regulations in this country.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)There is a pecking order to the victims of violence in the US. Members of Criminal Gangs rank among the lowest. There is a sense that they get what they deserve. On the opposite end is the Blond haired girl for which any transgression is a capital offense.
Racism, culture it's all a piece of the puzzle. Much of the US won't complain if the Bloods, Cripes, MS-13 and AB all mutually destroy each other.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)(National Terror Association)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Some crazy guy in the street, they have bodyguards for, but a terrorist with a big enough bomb, from some country far away, there is not that much you can do about. It has always been very hard to stop someone who is smart, unknown, and willing to die. All this data collecting they want to do is really an attempt to spot the bombers before they act. But of course the bombers don't want to be spotted.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Why does the UK lose its head over the regressive, anachronistic and embarrassing worship of "The Royals" instead of rejecting that primitive insititution as the offensive monument to classism that it has always been?
For that matter, why did the UK prostrate itself in such humble adoration of the recently departed Baronness Thatcher?
Every nation has its idiotic quirks that seem so self-evidently preposterous to those outside of those nations.
For I know my work is right and theirs was wrong.
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)How about their police shooting an innocent man seven times in the head following the 2005 London bombings, for the crime of taking public transportation? Or the fact that the shoot-to-kill policy for suspected bombers is still in place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
marmar
(77,081 posts)nt
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)than to pretend it's just the US that freaks out when someone starts blowing people up. And I know the point is about gun violence, but he chose a horrendous way to argue it.
gussmith
(280 posts)We lose our citizens daily due to gun violence. The deaths add up to unimaginable counts yet we do not appear concerned at the incremental slaughter. Why are Americans so willing to expose their fellow Americans to the horrors caused by use of guns? Pure madness.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Mutually Assured Destruction, from not imagined, or suspected nuclear weapons, but thousands of them, all aimed at us.
The way our government now behaves, at home and abroad, economically, and militarily, especially since 911 is very disconcerting.
Good article, thanks for sharing
dutchroll
(6 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)because when someone sets off a bomb and gets chased all over town just as many people think, "Shit, I better buy a gun to protect myself" as think "there are too many guns out there."
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)... single shootings and car accidents, despite the fact that they kill several orders of magnitude more people: we only notice spectacle.