Van attacks people outside of mosque in London

[Hedra42]

monocle_layton said:

ironmanDX said:

In this massive country people are so desensitised to mass shootings most aren't even on the news anymore? It's a stupid exaggeration. You live in a glass house, I'd stop throwing stones.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

I never said the USA is perfect. I however didn't mention our ridiculous gun issue due to the fact that it holds no relevance in this topic. The last sentence was uncalled for. Had we been discussing gun violence, then I would've mentioned the flaws in my country

 

People are desensitised. What am I supposed to do about it? It's not my fault that hundreds of millions of guns are possessed by Americans. Not my fault that many of us think they'll magically protect us.

Hedra42 said:

Indeed, but it should be kept in context. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/

Not belittling any of the terrorist incidents, including the one in Manchester, but it should also be kept in mind that many more people were killed in the tragic fire in London last week - the numbers are still rising as they are still trying to account for people.

And I doubt that the story of the forest fire in Portugal has made as big a splash your side of the pond, despite there being just as many people being killed as those in the London tower block. Different circumstances, but equally tragic.

Looking at the bigger picture informs.

 

 

Haven't seen much coverage of the Portugal fire. Last time I checked, it was at 50 victims. Now it's at 62. The building which was sent into flames is still changing by the day. Even if we assumed only 70 people died from the fire, that's 132 people who died from two events, one of which had little to no coverage for some odd reason.

 

The Manchester attack had approximately 20 people dead and 140 injured. However, factoring in environmental damage does show that these attacks are not as dangerous as things such as fires.

 

I get that the natural disaster(s) were more devastating. I actually do point that out often. However, will we see a series of attacks as time goes on, or is London simply unlucky currently?

 

I should say that London is still much luckier and safer than some US cities where gun crime is a part of daily life. My point is that everyone who has commented in this thread along the lines of 'shit, London's a dangerous place to be' has done so without putting it into context and looking at the bigger picture.

There have been some terrible atrocities over the years, all over the world, that will take time to come to terms with. Some will never be able to come to terms with them. And believe me, there's a whole spectrum of emotion going on here right now.

What happens in the future, who can say. But people still live and work in London, all 8.6 million of them. They're not going to go running off because 'it's dangerous', which makes some of the comments in this thread look even more pathetic.