-
I’m aware of the OP’s point.
-
Simple answer to the why: because cougars have no one to defend them from being killed just for looking dangerous. In our society, those beings are typically killed with impunity. Including of course, some persons.
-
Why don’t we eliminate the threat of guns? Because millions of (typically white, overwhelmingly male) people DON’T WANT TO. Why they don’t want is one of those questions that can’t be answered factually by anyone, including them, because it has zero to do with facts, and 100% to do with emotions. Pleasure in violence, the desire to feel safe, to feel powerful, to frighten others, anger, and I’m sure a whole lot else. Emotions. And you know what emotions don’t respond to? Rationality.
-
you are wrong about cougars and reflexive attacking. They would rarely be in such a situation in the wild, but it is not uncommon in domestic livestock attacks.
Perhaps multiple cougars prowling the streets independently were cornered and provoked by idiots, in some ten or twenty different parts of the city, who were promptly mauled and mangled.
~Max
One can dream.
Thinking a bit outside of the box:
There would be an immediate discussion on the Straight Dope board, which would be taken over by people who would argue whether the “cougars” were in fact “cougars” or some other species, and whether the victims had somehow provoked the attack.
The Federal Government would fund development and rollout of a cougar-detecting robot. Cities across the United States, including those where cougars have not been seen in centuries, would queue up to be the first with this new technology. Eventually it would be found that robots were giving too many false alarms because they could not differentiate between cougars and squirrels. Years later the robots would be found in storage rooms gathering dust.
News reporters would interview anyone they could find, from the governor on down, asking for their “cougar protection plan”. Multiple celebrities, who wouldn’t recognize a cougar if one bit them, would say in interviews “this is all too sad” and other vapid comments.
Cougar-protection suits and anti-cougar sound-emitters would be sold on the shopping channels.
I’m sure you can think of others…
They would probably wipe out all of the cougars in that area in case there was a genetic disposition. So anyone genetically associated with these killers should probably be neutered .
People’s perceptions regarding tragedies vary, and quite justifiably so, according to the circumstances.
E.g., one comparison to 9/11 that was made back then was that every day in the US four fully laden, packed in the aisles, jumbo jets crash and burn killing everyone on board. The government, media, the plane makers, etc. all know this very well. And no one gets nearly as excited as the 9/11 deaths.
Okay, not literal planes. Deaths due to tobacco.
A person dying from old age doesn’t attract the same police response as someone getting murdered. Circumstances vary. Responses vary. That’s the way things are.
Trying to suggest that fair comparisons could be made between a nutjob with guns and cougars doesn’t make any sense at all.
Actually it does.
The point is that people normally react by taking action to remove a threat. TSA grew significantly after 9/11, Lawn Darts and Sonic Canon were banned or modified due to injuries. Most states have laws regulating keeping dangerous animals.
I think, to answer the OP’s question, the US would react to a mass cougar attack by buying more guns.
Note that the OP is explicitly a comparison. If someone wanted to merely know what the response would be to X people being killed by Y cougars there is no need at all to bring up an unrelated circumstance.
Actually it doesn’t.
The point is that the public at large, and our representatives, are in general horrible at assessing and responding to risk and threats rationally. We respond emotionally and respond much more to the novel even if it is statistically small, than to old news, even though it is much larger. And then we respond in ways that assuage the emotions.
Cougar attacks would be very novel. Even a very few would spark calls for a mass cougar extermination campaign by many. The resources brought to bear, the costs tolerated, would be huge. And it wouldn’t matter much if it was actually effective. The point would be for leadership to be seen doing something. Something must be done!!!
Meanwhile we would continue to tolerate many many deaths, years of lost life, decreased in quality of life, from air pollution, smoking, poverty … Other threats we readily accept in trade off for the perceived benefits (e.g. driving); we do not remove all threats and we do not process the nature of threats and responses to them rationally much of the time.
What the silly analogy actually illustrates is an argument that the gun rights side might want to make: just like responding to a sudden rash of cougar attacks should not justify responses to kill all cougars or expensive actions that cause harms with little benefit other than emotionally feeling good, so, they would say, should we not respond with what they think are irrational and expensive to them regulations that they think will make little difference.
I don’t accept their argument as I believe significant reductions in harms can be had in all gun deaths (not just the mass shooter ones that make headlines) with rational actions that are not unduly burdensome. But rational analysis does not sell well. Emotional appeals do. On all sides.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.
Best answer.
There are surely better comparisons to make than a hypothetical cougar attack.
Take the COVID-19 pandemic. Some 2,700 people in New York City died due to 9/11. Some 3,000 people died in New York City between March and April of 2020 due to the effects of the pandemic. It made the news. When removing the threat to people’s lives wasn’t (isn’t) an option, we try to mitigate it, which is the next best thing.
You’ll notice a strong parallel between the frustration of gun control advocates who face opposition when they try to mitigate the threat of gun violence, and the frustration of public health advocates who face opposition when they try to mitigate the threat of epidemic disease.
~Max
What if Cougars had stormed the Capitol though, would liberals still call for their heads?
I think a much more productive thread would be to analyze why the OP insisted upon capitalizing this common noun so intractably.
Morning Joe this AM showed the Uvalde City Council being more concerned about who leaked a video of the school incident than it’s contents.
I haven’t seen any reporting on corrective or preventive actions.
Moderator Note
Proper spelling and grammar have never been a requirement on the SDMB. Let’s not pick on others over quirks of capitalization.
Don’t threadshit.