Why do Americans seem to fear terrorism, but ignore gun deaths? An article I found

[mattttherman3]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law Don't "shoot" the messenger by the way. Personally, I think it's in part because of the fear monger that is the mass media, if not mostly. I mean CNN covered a lockdown of a city for the whole day Friday where NOTHING HAPPENED for most of the day! Lets not forget the bullshit they reported to later retract(false bombers, false leads, false reports of other bombs)not just CNN either.

1 man shut down a city of over a million. Where is the logic in this? Anyway, I just thought it was a pretty good read.

 

[Fappy]

I think this belongs in the R&P section. May want to have it moved there.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Terrorism is supposed to be frightening. That's the whole point of it.

Also, gun violence is routine, boring almost. If you had constant bombings instead, people would freak out over the shootings.

 

[Seydaman]

Bombs are generally rarer. Although seeing as the article points about gun laws, I've found that gun laws do not even affect overall homicide rates.

Countries with either no gun control, or ridiculous gun control, are the ones with the least homicides. It points to a cultural influence being the main factor in saving lives, not how many guns are laying around. Keep in mind that about 15 countries in the whole world had these low homicide rates, and all had either no gun laws, or no guns. All countries that had any middle of the road legislation had a higher rate of homicides, it makes a nice bell curve when graphed.

 

[shrekfan246]

Bombs are generally rarer. Although seeing as the article points about gun laws, I've found that gun laws do not even affect overall homicide rates.

Something people (generally outside the US) seem to forget, or not notice, is that gun laws only impact... you know... legal guns. And while I don't doubt that a higher-than-insignificant percentage of gun-related violence in the US is due to legal guns, I seriously doubt that gangsters, wannabe gangsters, plain crazy people, etc. etc. are using legal guns.

Also, it's not exactly as though I, a plain citizen of the US with no criminal record, could actually go out today and literally just buy a gun. Even if I wanted a hunting rifle (since I live in a relatively rural part of the US), I'd still need a license for it, which would likely take a few weeks at least (I don't actually know, since I don't care about hunting).

 

[Basement Cat]

I think this belongs in the R&P section. May want to have it moved there.

Not necessarily. This subject isn't inherently R&P material.

OT: Gun violence is old hat to Americans. We're familiar with it.

Terrorism is different: We aren't familiar with it. It scares us.

 

[JoJo]

Gun violence is old hat to Americans. We're familiar with it.

Terrorism is different: We aren't familiar with it. It scares us.

This is very true, I'm British but I was working in the U.S. last year and one of my American co-workers was shocked when I casually dismissed the tensions in Northern Ireland as just "a bomb every now and again", because it's just a fact of life for Brits: the sky is blue, there are bombs in Northern Ireland, you just sort of accept it without thinking about it after a while. If your country has only been attacked once or twice before on the other hand... pretty scary.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Why do the British seem to fear gun deaths, but ignore football riots and violence?

It's simply a difference in what is culturally normal in your society. We have gangsters with guns, the British have soccar hooligans with tire irons and knives.

 

[Nieroshai]

Here's an alternate perspective. [http://infogr.am/include/php/embedded.php?graphicID=collegepolitico_1364355518&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2F2013%2F04%2F04%2Fthe-only-gun-infographic-youll-ever-need%2F]
Also, those licenced to carry concealed and those certified by law to carry higher-grade munitions are FAR less likely to use a gun to commit crimes than those who are carrying illegally, who are neither authorized to own nor conceal the weapons they kill with. One would think it would be ex-military doing all the recent shootings, but it's all disaffected punks with mental issues that either stole their guns or managed to find crooked dealers.

 

[Nieroshai]

Gun violence is old hat to Americans. We're familiar with it.

Terrorism is different: We aren't familiar with it. It scares us.

This is very true, I'm British but I was working in the U.S. last year and one of my American co-workers was shocked when I casually dismissed the tensions in Northern Ireland as just "a bomb every now and again", because it's just a fact of life for Brits: the sky is blue, there are bombs in Northern Ireland, you just sort of accept it without thinking about it after a while. If your country has only been attacked once or twice before on the other hand... pretty scary.

I would also like to note, not to argue with you but to continue with the thread, that I've never seen coverage of the IRA where they did not have guns. Are they legal in Ireland for some reason? I don't know how universal the UK's laws are.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

I'm going to sound like a smart ass.

You can't really terrorize a person if they're already dead.

 

[The Funslinger]

Because if they kill their own guys, the enemy team can't get points for it.

 

[Legion]

Terrorism instills terror to those it affects, that is the purpose of it.

To be honest in the Western world at least, "terrosism" is a meaningless buzz word.

If a person walked on to the street and shot another person dead purely for the sake of instilling fear in people, they wouldn't be called a terrorist. If a person blew up a street full of people because of a deeply instilled hatred of that particular race, and the fear it caused was a mere side effect, they'd be called a terrorist.

Then there is the common Western usage of the "War on terror", when there are hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern people living in constant fear of aerial bombardments and other such attacks from allied forces.

It's just a word used to make people sound like an undeniable enemy and rile people up. Which is probably the answer to the question the OP is asking. If you hear "terrorist attack" it could come from anywhere without warning, you feel unsafe because it is the unknown and the unstoppable (for the average person).

Guns on the other hand are a known quantity, you don't need to fear guns, just the people who may be dangerous with them. The people who kill with guns more often than not are targeting a very specific person, so the fear that it "may be me" isn't likely.

 

[Lilani]

Guns can arguably give you a degree of control over the situation. That is why gun violence causes many to call for everybody to be armed--if a gunman attacks, there are other people who can use those same weapons to take him down.

With terrorism, there is no even imaginary veneer of safety that can be divined from it. There is nothing about it that can make people safer. With a terrorist attack, you're either the terrorist or the victim. There's no middle ground, and there's no aspect of it that can be turned around to make anybody safer.

 

[NiPah]

London subway bombings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/international/europe/08bombings.html

The entire subway network was closed as rescue workers went deep below ground to look for the dead and wounded. Police officers in yellow slickers sealed off streets, and bus services were halted.

So yeah, not just America. Also whats with using CNN as a source? You know they hired Piers Morgan to have his own show right?

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

Gun violence is old hat to Americans. We're familiar with it.

Terrorism is different: We aren't familiar with it. It scares us.

This is very true, I'm British but I was working in the U.S. last year and one of my American co-workers was shocked when I casually dismissed the tensions in Northern Ireland as just "a bomb every now and again", because it's just a fact of life for Brits: the sky is blue, there are bombs in Northern Ireland, you just sort of accept it without thinking about it after a while. If your country has only been attacked once or twice before on the other hand... pretty scary.

I would also like to note, not to argue with you but to continue with the thread, that I've never seen coverage of the IRA where they did not have guns. Are they legal in Ireland for some reason? I don't know how universal the UK's laws are.

Well no, guns are not legal in the Republic of Ireland or in Northern Ireland. The IRA got a lot of it's guns from abroad (especially Libya) and sympathetic organisations. Yeah they got their hands on guns, but not easily. I have no idea where the UVF got their guns from. Most of the deaths during The Troubles were from homemade bombs, because really guns were tough to come by. You see the IRA with guns because that's how they want to be seen, as a military organisation.

 

[Britisheagle]

Why do the British seem to fear gun deaths, but ignore football riots and violence?

It's simply a difference in what is culturally normal in your society. We have gangsters with guns, the British have soccar hooligans with tire irons and knives.

How very stereotypical. To be honest there is not as much tension surrounding football in most parts of Britain and derby matches often end with little to no dispute. This is especially clear when you compare us with the likes of Egypt and other countries were riots often end in death.

OT: It does not matter if guns are regulated or not; if someone is set on going on a rampage with a gun they aren't going to double check they have the correct paper work, it just happens. Note this story as well:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21879313

So basically, regardless of how tight gun control is, it is ALWAYS the innocent that suffer.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Why do the British seem to fear gun deaths, but ignore football riots and violence?

It's simply a difference in what is culturally normal in your society. We have gangsters with guns, the British have soccar hooligans with tire irons and knives.

How very stereotypical.

Again, it's all about cultural relativism. The British can't hope to understand American gun culture any more than Americans understand British football culture. To the British every American who owns a gun is a crazy paranoid survivalist, and to Americans every British football fan is a crazy football hooligan who starts a riot whenever Arsenal losses. The difference being that the British keep telling Americans that we need to get rid of our guns because they make us barbaric, but Americans never tell the British that they'd probably have less violence if they outlawed soccer, because it's not our country and not our place to judge.