I saw this article in an English news site. Very thought provoking IMO.
I’d be interested in opinions from US citizens. A lot of the article seems to ring true for me, but I’m not from the USA.
Not a troll, not flaming. I know some people will get indignant at some of the opinions expressed in the article, I’d really like to get some understanding of why.
Mods, if this is the wrong place, apologies.
Asshole morons in newscasting, magazines and newspapers.
Honestly, bad shit has been happening to people since Og hit Thog over the head over some female and a couple of cavemates giggled about it.
If it doesn’t hit the news, it doesn’t heterodyne the maniacs into copying it.
I long for the days of the press release - We are investigating the matter and will issue a statement when we have an arrest … sigh
The author is an idiot. He says America doesn’t lose its head over shootings? And he cites Christopher Dorner? Did he fail to notice the part where the LAPD responded by trying to murder three innocent bystanders in two separate incidents?
But looking at this from afar, you have a major terrorist incident that kills a couple of thousand and a whole raft of security regulations are dumped in place with barely a shrug.
Tens of thousands killed each year by guns and not even the weakest of enhanced regulation gets put in place.
That’s the big picture that those of us outside the USA see.
Same reason plane crashes are talked about more than individual car crashes. They’re bigger, rarer, and when they happen, as a flyer you’re always helpless to avoid them.
These kinds of errors on processing risk are attributable to a basic flaw in the construction of the human brain.
The article author – much like his ideological brethern on this board – conflates issues. He wails about the background check bill’s defeat, and then bemoans the consequences: “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).” He then goes on to cite examples:
[ul]
[li] Breshauna Jackson killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend[/li][li]James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown[/li][li]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. [/li][li]An off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child[/li][/ul]
Not one of those deaths are shown to be an event affected by the bill’s passage. The closest might be an argument that if we were to find the unknown murderer of James Tucker III, he would have been a mentally ill person or felon who purchased his gun privately, thus avoiding the extant background checks.
And of course there’s no evidence whatsoever for that being the case. On the other end of the spectrum, even the most onerous gun control programs proposed in this country would not take away a firearm from a police officer.
So the article is long on emotion and short on sense. Why, the author wails, didn’t the background check pass with all these gun deaths in the mix? Answer: because it would have prevented none of the ones you mention. Next?
When we’ve recognized weapons of mass destruction and their lethality in the past, we’ve regulated them. In response to a very small number of organized crime murders that involved use of widely available automatic weapons we passed the National Firearms Act in the 30s which basically made such weapons nigh-impossible for anyone involved in organized crime to legally acquire.
When we realized that a hijacked plane wasn’t just a hostage situation/annoyance, but basically a steerable missile that could be used against key infrastructure or civilian structures we added new regulation.
Gun deaths in general are not seen in the same scope as they are mostly the result of interpersonal interactions. If you filter out all the suicides, spousal murders, and drug crime murders I imagine total number of gun deaths are very low. People in America, for whatever reason, “care less” about a gun death when it’s some personal reason. Man kills a cheating spouse? That’s tragic and should be punished, but we see that as a problem in that marriage. Guys in Baltimore shoot each other over a drug dispute? We see that as a result of them choosing to operate in an illegal criminal enterprise.
That’s why true “random gun crimes”, generally do get substantial news. The rest of gun deaths are primarily considered mundane, and do not get news.
There isn’t a 1:1 relationship between “stuff that gets attention” and “stuff that gets regulated”, but they are closely related. Since ordinary gun crime is not considered newsworthy by most outlets, only strong advocates of gun control really try to push awareness of that issue. Gun deaths are several multiples of most OECD countries in the U.S., but it’s still a very, very, very low number per 100,000 that die to guns. We’re a country of 310m, after all.
Why does the OP and the Guardian lose its head over gun deaths instead of emphasizing death from starvation?
U.S. gun-related deaths are a little over 30,000 annually, while over 23,000 people around the world die daily from starvation according to the U.N.
And of course, fussing about either of the above topics diverts attention from the impending demise of the human race due to climate change.
Unconscionable, if you ask me. :mad:
Why does America lose its head?
The short answer, in one syllable, is: guns.
It is becasue the Boston attack was not carried out with guns.
So: (again, in words of one syllable 
) :
Americans like guns. Americans understand guns.
Americans see that guns are used by individuals. Americans like individualism.
Terror is carried out with bombs.
Americans do not like bombs. Americans do not understand bombs.
Americans see bombs as used by secret organizations. Americans do not like secret organizations.
Now, for a more serious explanation:
Terror is ,well, terrifying…because it is unknown.
As the article points out, the British and Israelis learned to live with terror, because the attacks became common (too common!), and were no longer new,strange and terrifying.* The attacks came from an enemy who was known and identifiable, and against whom it was possible to retaliate.
The fear and terror–first on 9/11 ,and now Boston— is felt more deeply because it is so strange and unusual.
And people in general–not just Americans–" lose their heads" when faced with events with which they have no experience.
Social order is based on stability. Fear, and “losing your head” follows when you are faced with instablity and the unknown. Americans can handle gunmen shooting up post offices,classrooms, and cinemas, because the attacks are common (too common!), and carried out by common people with common weapons.
But Americans can’t handle instability. Attacks carried out with uncommon weapons and uncommon tactics, by unknown organizations —it’s all too far from normal experience, so people are easily scared, and lose their heads.
*(painful, yes…but not terrifying.)
Also mind we’re basically asking, “why does America go into a media fueled frenzy over certain issues.” Most of these frenzies are not rational and thus the reasons aren’t necessarily rational ones. Now, a terrorist attack is a rational thing to go into a media frenzy over. That’s something that would cause a frenzy in most countries in the world.
Other things, not so much. A random, totally unknown college girl disappears. Is that worthy of national media attention? With all due respect to the parents of the girl, generally no it is not. Girls go missing all the time all over the world in every country of the world. Some are kidnapped, some are murdered, some are adults who have chosen to go somewhere without telling people. It’s a police matter certainly but not what I personally consider a legitimate national news story.
I assume not in that order.
Regards,
Shodan
From across the border, it looks to me that American culture has profoundly deep belief in their Christian god and their guns. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
Trust me. The Guardian is WAY MORE ‘obsessed’ with those topics. This columnist is writing his weekly column on America so of course he was going to be covering Boston. And however you slice it your inability/unwillingness to put even the most minor of obstacles in the way of unsuitable people owning guns, compared to the utterly hysterical city-closing over-reaction to the bombing is somewhat odd to the outside world.
Can you quote the parts that “ring true” so we can debate them? Or, pick your top favoriet or top 3 and let’s have a go.
Last week I was shocked to hear one host on the local NPR say something like, “Why is there such a huge effect when in the grand scheme of things this really wasn’t that big of a deal. There were only 3 killed…”
There was no follow-up to this statement, but it was shocking to hear such a thing expressed publicly. I tend to ask similar questions.
As was the case with 9/11, I think Americans tend to be perfect foils for terror, as we grossly overreact, willingly casting off civil liberties in the hope for some minimal incremental increase in our health and safety (and maintenance of our effortless ease). Alternatively - or concurrently, choosing to increase the numbers of guns on the streets. Disasters allow chestbeating and reaffirmation of the fiction of us as a tough, self reliant sort. While ignoring the fact that even including the worst natural and manmade disasters, we are incredibly fat and happy compared to so much of the rest of the world.
I think folk like disasters because they are dissatisfied with their own lives. A bombing such as this provides a vicarious thrill, “That could’ve been me!” For a middle/upper class non-minority, that hits home more than some black-on-black violence or health issues in underprivileged parts of our country or the rest of the world.
Ask me to give up my rights for the rest of my life so you can keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and I’d probably refuse. Ask me to go along with a shutdown for a day so a killer like Tsarnaev can be hunted down and interrogated before he dies in custody, and I’d probably say yes.
On a related note, I’ll happily show up for a brief stint of jury duty, in hopes of seeing justice done – and yet I’m not enthusiastic about spending my remaining decades behind bars so that other decent people can likewise be locked up. Possibly you see that as a mysterious and odd mass of inconsistency as well.
It’s apples and oranges really.
If the Newton killer had not been apprehended immediately, how many schools in the area would be open the following day? None. That’s how many.
The police probably figured they had Tsarnaev cornered and asking people to stay put for an hour or so was a good plan. They didn’t think it would take all day to find him.
When people are murdered by guns it’s usually by someone they know. I think we all, as human beings, compartmentalize that differently than random killings for no apparent reason. Yes, it’s tragic when a mother kills her husband, baby and herself, but shit happens.
When an 8 year old boy is killed randomly by a bomb it holds more emotional significance for all of us, regardless of what country you’re from.
And yes, I do in fact have the same feelings when I hear about suicide bombers in Afghanistan. “Why? Who could do such a thing to innocent people?”
12th generation American here – I agree with the sentiments in the OP and linked article. I think my country is kind of crazy this way, and kind of divided by various groups manipulating current events for their perceived advantage.
After the September 11 attacks, I wondered why we put up with more than 7000 dead Americans every week from cigarette smoking, or why 5000 dead children per year from unwatched swimming pools isn’t a bigger story. This week I wonder why the 14 dead from an industrial explosion are lost in the hand wringing over Boston.
I like watching the news and the political talk shows. But for a week now they have covered almost nothing but Boston. And the Boston story is unimportant, in the sense that people like these two brothers have so little impact on the world, except to the extent that we trumpet their story day after day. Just this morning I commented to Mrs. Napier how stunning it is that all the participants in our news industry do not act as though they realize they are part of the problem. In fact, by being systematic and industrious about it, they are much more to blame than the pathetic but rare people who commit the initial acts out of whatever bizarre and detached thought process got them there.
But, jeez, it’s like I’m farting in church when I say it.
And you don’t think that odd at all?
I’d have thought it odd to outright batshit insane if the UK reaction to the London Tube bombings had been to ask the city to stay indoors.