Skip to main content

View Diary: Homeland security my ass. HUGE jump in violent crimes in US. (138 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Question (9+ / 0-)

    We lost roughly 3,000 people on 9/11.

    How many people in the United States have died as a result of violent crime since 2001?

    Don't we have roughly 15,000 murder victims per year in the United States?

    I'm not saying that stopping terrorism isn't important. It is. I've just always been perplexed that our country seems utterly dispassionate about Americans being killed, provided other Americans are doing the ones doing the killing.

    If someone shoots me because they want to steal my wallet, then it's murder. But if that same person shoots me in the name of Osama Bin Laden, then it's terrorism. The first story is in and out of the newspaper in one day. The second story puts me in the history books until the end of time.

    The people actually doing the killing seem to bother us more than the fact that people are being killed.

    Anyone else think this is utterly perverse?

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 08:14:20 AM PDT

    •  The end result is the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It doesn't matter if you're caught in the crossfire of a street gang shootout or if you're blown to bits by a suicide bomber: you're just as dead either way.

      Using your 15,000 number, there's a 9/11's worth of murders every 10 weeks in this country.

    •  Run of the Mill Murders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Are systemic within the country and do not affect our standing in the world, nor is it a real threat to our national security (so the thinking goes) or our national standing against other nations.

      That's how the perverse thinking works. Not life = life.

      How many die of cancer? Of AIDS? Of car accidents? Of corporate malfeasance? Death is all around us - preventable death - and what's remarkable is how numb we are to it.

      Perhaps it's a survival thing. We can't really stare death in the eye every day and function. I think there's some of that going on.

    •  Ah yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caipirinha, clammyc

      but to prioritize those things, you'd have to have some concept of probability, statistics, and just general math. You're much more likely to be a CRIME victim than a TERRORISM victim. And you're probably even more likely to be an auto accident victim.

      You'd also have to get rid of the idea of 'hate crimes' - which I think would be a good thing.

      A crime is a crime. The motive can be examined in the overall trial, can be considered in the sentencing. But it shouldn't change the FACTS of the crime.

      To me, ALL criminals are terrorists. Anybody who's a victim of a crime is terrorized by the criminal. If you live in a bad neighborhood, you're terrorized by the gangs and violence. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.

    •  I've posted some statistics before (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zic, clammyc

      Something around 14,000 people died globally due to terrorism in 2005 (and 8000 were in Iraq, nto that they don't matter, but they'd be alive if not for our attempts to provide "safety").  By comparison, 16,000 people were murdered in the US alone.  Something like 43,000 were killed in highway accidents.

      So yeah, in my opinion, it seems fairly clearcut that terrorism is not a very legit security concern, BUT, combating violent crime or lack of safety features in automobiles are not nearly as profitable as the "war on terror" has been, and that is 100% the reason why it has been blown out of proportion to the actual threat it represents.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site