Are We Getting Used To Terrorism? (page 2)

minimus

So for those that have been in the real world of terrorism for some time now, do you carry on as somewhat normal or is your guard always up? Are you now conditioned to accept this as another reality of life?

expatbrit

do you carry on as somewhat normal or is your guard always up?

Some of both, as I recall.

My wife, a Canadian, was somewhat shocked when I explained to her why there were so many signs on the London Underground about not leaving your packages unattended, or why the spaces under the train seats had been blocked with metal (so that no-one can slide a bomb underneath). She had never experienced this sort of thing in Canada, so to her it was a suprise. To British people, it's a part of ordinary life to see counter-terrorism measures.

Expatbrit (who never leaves his package unattended)

breeze

NEVER...!!!

At least I hope that it is never accepted as the norm...

I can't understand why people get soooo wrapped up in a cause that they can rationalize that killing someone is n ecessary .

I guess some on this board think that being a witness could possiblily drive some individuals to act in this manner. I was never that faceless, mindless witness that seems to be prevalent in the minds of some that post here?

Minimus, I think it may be here to stay in the US, but I hope that we never become so used to it as to think it is acceptable.

BREEZE

Simon

Like most things, people forget about it over time until the next one ... a year later and people go on planes, sit at the top of tall buildings, go shopping in the rebuilt city centres etc...

It's part of the "it will never happen to me" human nature I guess.

breeze

Simon....

I don't think that we couldn't function if that part of human nature didn't exist, the "it isn't going to happen to me", complex human thinking processes protect us so we can get back to normal or routine....

Society just couldn't work, we would at some point in time all become recluse and stay home, don't you think?

BREEZE

Edited by - breeze on 23 October 2002 9:0:34

expatbrit

An interesting article on how Americans perceive risk:

The sniper, risk and public reaction

The logic of irrational fear Oct 17th 2002 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The reaction to the sniper reveals a lot about Americans' perception of risk

THE suburbs of the nation's capital are locked down. The Washington Area Girls Soccer League went on with its 2001 tournament despite the September 11th attacks. This year's event was cancelled because of the sniper who has killed nine people in the Washington area. Hundreds of schools have been operating under a code blue, which prohibits all outdoor activity. Autumnal trips to pumpkin patches have been cancelled. And for those who dare to venture out of their homes, traffic dragnets designed to trap the killer's white van cause hours of delay.

Contrast that with the reaction to September 11th. Then George Bush went on television urging the country to start spending again, to travel again and, in so far as possible, not to let daily life be disrupted. What accounts for the difference?

There are two and a half logical explanations. First, the nature of the events themselves. The enormity of September 11th put it in a category of its own. It was perceived as a one-off event, even though al-Qaeda is continuing its war. The sniper's attacks are much more obviously part of a series; indeed, he is constantly compared to other serial murderers.

Second, the political and legal concerns of the relevant authorities differ. Last year Mr Bush needed to reassure America that terrorists would not win. For school superintendents, the small risk of having a child shot far outweighs the passing inconvenience of cancelled events. They also run the risk of being sued.

Experts seem to agree that Americans find it harder than most people to evaluate risks accurately

The half-logical explanation concerns the scale of the sniper-murders. The nine murders took place in five counties with a total population of 3.1m. Over the course of the two weeks the sniper has been at work, there was a one-in-344,000 chance of being killed by him. That figure is tiny, but it equates on an annualised basis to a theoretical murder rate of 7.5 for every 100,000 people. That compares with a murder rate of 3.4 for those counties in 2000 (the last year for which all figures are available). And three-quarters of the area's ordinary murders took place in one county, Prince George's. The annual rate for the other four counties is only 1.4. In theory, the risk for their inhabitants has been raised several times by the sniper.

This is mathematically logicalbut it is also bogus. The sniper cannot continue at the same rate; he has already had to slow down, and he was nearly caught at his last murder. He will surely either stop or be caught.

So it is fair to say both that people are understandably alarmed, and that they are still exaggerating the risk. Why? Experts seem to agree that Americans find it harder than most people to evaluate risks accurately. Lawsuits, labels on coffee cups (Warning: the beverage you are about to enjoy is extremely hot), even political pronouncements all often suggest it is possible to avoid danger altogether.

Beyond that, there are a number of specific reasons why potential victims in any country would find it difficult to evaluate the risk from the sniper. People generally exaggerate spectacular but low-probability risks, such as murder or natural disaster, just as they underestimate more common risks, such as accidents in the home.

In this case, adds Kip Viscusi, an economist at the Harvard Law School, Americans face a new sort of riskand people do not know how to evaluate something they have never seen before. There has never been a serial killer like the sniper. Other serial murderers have preyed on particular groupsoften young women or boys. The sniper has killed randomly at a distance. This means no one in the Washington area can give any reason why he or she should not be the next victim.

Because the risk is new, it is also uncertain. As Mr Viscusi points out, people tend to overestimate unknown risks. Economists call this risk-ambiguity aversion. And in this case the main source of information for Washingtonians is the blanket, sometimes hysterical coverage from television and newspapers, which tends to exaggerate the perceived risk further. Everyone knows the number of murders. Few know how many people live in the affected area, or the murder rate.

Lastly, the sniper-killings share some peculiarities with other risks that are also exaggerated. One of the victims was a childand parents dramatically overestimate any uncommon threat to their children's lives (such as the risk of kidnapping by a stranger). Similarly, the sniper represents an involuntary risk, not one you run willingly for a benefit (such as driving too fast to get somewhere). People worry less about voluntary risks.

Worst of all, the risk is hard to mitigate. You cannot easily lessen it by changing behaviourlike wearing a seat belt. The only way to remove yourself from the sniper's mercy is not to go out at all. But that brings out another unusual side to this case. On the roads, the more people drive carefully, the lower your own risk. Here, if more people stay home, your risk actually rises marginally. If, say, the sniper chooses a commercial parking lot and only half the usual number of customers are there, your chances of being a victim double.

In such bizarre circumstances, fear can easily seem exaggerated. But it is hardly irrational to be scared and perplexed.

Are We Getting Used To Terrorism?

minimus

expatbrit

breeze

Simon

breeze

expatbrit

comforter

QUEENIE

minimus

QUEENIE

Share this