Are the 3 people who died in the Boston bombings more important than the 26 who died at Sandy Hook? Republicans think so. Killing 26 with one gun requires no action whatsoever by our politicians, but killing 3 with two bombs shuts down an entire city.
I’m not claiming that the Boston bombing wasn’t terrible. It was absolutely horrible; no denying. What I am claiming, however, is that so are all the other acts of mass killing that Americans ignore simply because they’re done with guns instead of bombs. Why is a gun that kills dozens of people not a weapon of mass destruction, whereas a pressure cooker bomb that kills three people is?
More people died at Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Tucson.
Ten times more people die every single day from gun violence than people who died in Boston Marathon explosions.
More people were injured with by the two bombs, but fewer people died than any other “mass violence” event since 9/11. All the other acts of terror have been performed with the weapon of mass destruction of choice: guns… and in all those other terror events more people were killed than were in Boston.
Had these two brothers been in possession of semi-automatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines: they would have killed more people than they did with two bombs. We all know that’s the case… and yet republicans won’t even allow universal background checks or gun trafficking laws. It’s mind-boggling.
Why is the country reacting in to bomb violence vs. gun violence in entirely different ways? Why is bomb terrorism something the Republican Party is more than happy to trounce on with policy, but filibuster every policy that might even mention the word gun? Guns are mythical in the Republican Party. Guns are God.
Why are the people of the United States allowing that level of hypocrisy? Guns kill more than “terrorists”, so why aren’t we placing strong restrictions on gun ownership?
Americans only call it terrorism when the weapon is a bomb and the act motivated by very extreme (and misinterpreted) Islam. That’s where the problem starts.
Do you think they would have shut Boston down if they killed with guns? Would the possible links to religious extremism overseas seem somehow less “scary” if they killed with guns instead of bombs? Why is a suicide bomber scarier than a suicide gunner?
It makes no sense whatsoever – but that’s how Americans think and feel: killing 26 people with guns requires no action by the government – but killing 3 people with a bomb shuts down an entire city.
The one argument I will grant the other side of this is that bombs are scary because they can be anonymous, and yes, they can kill a lot all at once. But once again I ask: When more people have been killed by acts of gun violence than by bombs, why do we let unregulated guns continue as the norm in America? Are the three people who died in the Boston bombings more important than the 26 who died at Sandy Hook?
CAN a bomb kill more than a gun? Sure, but in tallying up the numbers, guns held by terrorists cause thousands more deaths than bombs do – yet no meaningful regulation on guns can be achieved due to the gun lobby and boogymen created by the NRA – republicans and their illogical love of guns.
No matter how you shape it: it doesn’t make sense. Americans look at bombs differently than they do guns – even though guns kill ten times more people every single day than these bombs did.
Changing perspective on guns vs. other mass killing weapons.
When a society (or in this case certain conservative pockets of a society) adopts change, it is most often achieved by changing one’s perspective; sometimes one person at a time.
The far right view guns as a personal liberty and a freedom-imperative… but they don’t view bombs that way. Our culture has developed those two distinctions. Now we have to change the perception so that guns are in the same category as bombs in the minds of the super-conservative.
Those who are Second Amendment purists look at guns as an individual right, but not the effect of guns as a matter of public safety. THAT is the perception that we need to change in the minds of gun-loving Americans: personal freedom vs. public safety. To them, guns are personal, and that personal right outweighs the impact on public safety. However, bombs are not personal (mainly because for some reason they won’t want to own them… not as cool to hold in your hands and take photos with, I guess). Since bombs are not a personal “thing” they seem to want as deeply as they have been taught to want guns, their minds make the judgment based on a larger criteria: safety of the general public. As such, they’re perfectly fine siding with most people in the country in saying that people really shouldn’t have bombs.
We need to change how gun lovers perceive guns’ impact on public safety. We need to get Second Amendment purists to change where they place the threshold ana balance between weapon possession and the weapon’s impact on public safety. Super-conservatives concede that bombs are bad for the public, but they don’t see that guns are even worse – because for them it’s still a personal liberty and a freedom-imperative to stockpiled guns. That’s the perception that must be changed.
Ten times more people die every day than died at the Boston Marathon Bombing, and yet republicans in the Senate filibuster every gun they can. It’s up to the rest of us to teach them the truth and change their perception.