Criminal terrorism

Started: 2013-04-21 13:18:51

Submitted: 2013-04-21 13:47:11

Visibility: World-readable

In which the intrepid narrator tries to figure out why similar mass-casualty events are treated differently

I want to make sure I understand:

Person X uses a number of guns to kill 27 people, most of them children, and the National Rifle Association falls over themselves to defend everyone's God-given constitutional right to arm themselves to the teeth without any oversight whatsoever, and convinces enough senators to defeat a modest measure designed to improve background checks that is supported by a vast majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, Person Y uses two bombs to kill three people and permanently disable dozens, and the very same senators fall over themselves to declare him a terrorist not deserving of our most basic constitutional rights, even when it's not at all clear that the bombs had any particular political motivation. Apparently it's the weapon that matters, not the perpetrator.

(The bombers in Boston used guns, too, so I'm looking forward to the NRA defending their right to own weapons of mass destruction.)