Probabilities and the Boston attack and aftermath

[Dave_LF]

I wonder if eventually, to the people who live in these areas, these acts of violence become just part of the background noise of life, just another of the risks you gotta face when you get up in the morning but that isn't gonna prevent you from just getting on with your life as best you can.

I think it must. At some level, it eventually all just becomes random hazards you can't control.

It's not supposed to happen and it shakes us to our core.

Says who? I suspect the capacity to find violence shocking and anomalous is actually rather unusual and comes from living in an almost unprecedentedly peaceful time and place.

[axordil]

Says who? I suspect the capacity to find violence shocking and anomalous is actually rather unusual and comes from living in an almost unprecedentedly peaceful time and place.

This is bad thing how?

As I said earlier, societies approach chronic risk and acute risk very differently. That's one reason it always sends up a red flare when someone tries to portray what has always been an acute risk as chronic (or vice versa)--it's a political move by definition.

[yovargas]

Time warp somebody from 300 years ago to today's time, tell them the car accident death stats, then ask them if they wanna go on a car ride. They might have some contention with whether or not that's "supposed to happen" and might find their core pretty shaken (after they get over the time traveling bit ).

[JewelSong]

It's not supposed to happen and it shakes us to our core.

Says who?{/quote]

Well, says me, obviously.

I suspect the capacity to find violence shocking and anomalous is actually rather unusual and comes from living in an almost unprecedentedly peaceful time and place.

Perhaps you are correct and it all has to do with society and what is perceived as "normal." Doesn't make it any less horrible when it happens to you, does it? If your home was broken into and your family tortured and murdered, would you just shrug and go about your life as normal? Or would you be shocked and grieved - and angry? More angry than if they were killed by accident in a tornado?

[anthriel]

On

This tragically homicidal pair definitely wanted to kill people, and that puts a different spin on the risk, to me.

But why? An x% risk of death is an x% risk of death regardless of whether it's from an accident or a murder, and you're just as dead either way. Why do these two things feel so different?

I understand the argument here. In a purely mathematical world (and wouldn't that be a glorious place? <sigh>) people would calculate risks based on statistics, and never drive again. Not sure what to do with the suicide risk, but you get the picture. Avoidance based on numbers.

But when *I* drive, for each driving event, my possibility of death is not high. We do need to look at numbers, here... that person crossing the centerline is as lethal as those bombers with their guns. But most of the people I drive along side are not TRYING to kill me. There is a smallish chance one of us will make a big mistake, and tragedy will occur.

For those two guys? The danger in confronting them was close to 100%. The probability of being the lucky person with the boat in the front yard is pretty low, but once you are that person, your probability for bodily harm is pretty high.

I think staying in the house for those few hours while the cops did their job was a pretty good use of time, to avoid possibly (yes, a small possibility!) of running across someone who is actively killing people. Driving to the Circle K for milk is a necessary risk, and per event, not a terribly high one.

The numbers are disproportionate because there is so much driving and so few killers on the loose. Thankfully.

And yes, you do start to accept the risk of violent death, if you live in a violent area. My Iraqi friend was in Baghdad during the beginning of the war, and she said you sort of resigned yourself to the danger of death by combatants every day. When I asked her how that felt, she looked me very steadily in the eye and said "you can't imagine it".

She's probably right.

[Dave_LF]

Perhaps you are correct and it all has to do with society and what is perceived as "normal." Doesn't make it any less horrible when it happens to you, does it? If your home was broken into and your family tortured and murdered, would you just shrug and go about your life as normal? Or would you be shocked and grieved - and angry? More angry than if they were killed by accident in a tornado?

I don't think the shock or grief would be different. The anger would. It makes a lot of sense to be angry with a murderer. Some sense with a person who causes an accident. None with a tornado.

But the salient point is that before the fact, it wouldn't make any sense at all for me to spend more time, effort, and money protecting myself from murder than I do protecting myself from car accidents.

[yovargas]

I think a much more useful and interesting comparison - instead of bombing vs driving - is how a few horrific mass shootings get the entire nation talking about how we could prevent this and gets tons of discussion on things like gun control going, but having extremely high daily gun crime rates that vastly outstrip the death toll of these mass shootings doesn't really do much to get the attention or interest of the public or the lawmakers.

[anthriel]

I think a much more useful and interesting comparison - instead of bombing vs driving - is how a few horrific mass shootings get the entire nation talking about how we could prevent this and gets tons of discussion on things like gun control going, but having extremely high daily gun crime rates that vastly outstrip the death toll of these mass shootings doesn't really do much to get the attention or interest of the public or the lawmakers.

I think that is an important point, and I think it has to do with the demographics of each group, unfortunately.

[Dave_LF]

There is also a (perceived!) difference in randomness.

[anthriel]

There is also a (perceived!) difference in randomness.

An interesting point, which I am sure you will flesh out soon.

Actually, while I was mowing the back of the property and cleaning stalls, it occurred to me that what *I* wrote is about the illusion of control.

I have some (shaky) hope that my own behavior can mitigate the danger of driving, allowing for the fact that just being in the wrong place at the wrong time can happen and there is no defense against that.

Keeping off the streets while a wounded, dangerous, armed, desperate killer is on the loose? Well, I sure can control that. I'm staying inside!

[Dave_LF]

There is also a (perceived!) difference in randomness.

An interesting point, which I am sure you will flesh out soon.

Just that the victims of day-to-day gun crime are not usually random people, or at least that that is the perception. People imagine they can steer clear of that sort of stuff by not joining gangs, dealing drugs, keeping guns in the house, or marrying abusive lunatics. When a random bystander gets killed in a gun crime it usually does turn into a Big Story, and people do get nervous and call for action (for a while).

[anthriel]

There is also a (perceived!) difference in randomness.

An interesting point, which I am sure you will flesh out soon.

Just that the victims of day-to-day gun crime are not usually random people, or at least that that is the perception. People imagine they can steer clear of that sort of stuff by not joining gangs, dealing drugs, keeping guns in the house, or marrying abusive lunatics. When a random bystander gets killed in a gun crime it usually does turn into a Big Story, and people do get nervous and call for action (for a while).

That really is a good point! When I had the man break into my house many years ago (while I was home alone), the first question the 911 operator asked me is if I knew him. My immediate knee-jerk reaction was, WHAT?! If I KNEW him, I wouldn't be CALLING you.

Of course, it took a few minutes and about 47 gallons less of adrenaline to quite easily understand why she asked.

[Dave_LF]

In a purely mathematical world (and wouldn't that be a glorious place? <sigh>) people would calculate risks based on statistics, and never drive again.

I have to say I think the benefits generally outweigh the risks, even with the numbers where they are. But I also think people are overly cavalier about those risks. I know supermoms who all but wrap their children up in bubblewrap, yet think nothing of driving 100 miles to visit grandma for the afternoon just for fun. There's some sort of disconnect there. And more importantly, I think easy improvements to the highway system and traffic and licensing laws don't happen because people are numb to or in denial about the dangers.