Less violent, more firepower
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, April 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The Boston Marathon bombings have rightly awakened throngs of dozing social critics. However, I grit my teeth whenever someone grumbles a cliché like “nowadays, people are more violent.”
Literature exists explaining why humankind is considerably less violent today than at any point in history. Evolution dictates that humankind strive toward a peaceful existence. Survival of the fittest is a voided concept if nobody survives. However, as humankind evolves, technology advances in kind. Weapons become more destructive.
Although the world's population of rabble-rousers shrinks and becomes better contained, those remaining possess greater potential to wreak more widespread and devastating havoc. Imagine the consequences if Emperor Caligula, and only he, had commanded squadrons of F-16 fighter jets. What if Genghis Khan had controlled ballistic missiles tipped with chemical weapons? Outfit Hitler with a vast fleet of nuclear submarines and most of civilization would've been rubble and soot before Uncle Sam wiped the crust from his eyes.
To avoid a future asteroid belt forming between Venus and Mars, modern weaponry needs to be withheld from the dwindling few with a grudge and a spastic trigger finger.
Hiccups will inevitably occur. The Boston bombings were a sad and grisly hiccup.
It's not that “nowadays, people are more violent”; rather, the violent possess more firepower.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Proven success
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Funding priorities questioned
- Ukraine & history
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Tarentum’s ‘questionable practices’
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Class act
- Guzzardi for guv
- Saved her life