This post is wrong on so many levels. First, it's irrelevant whether deaths occur on accident or on purpose. What matters is preventing death and suffering. Le

This post is wrong on so many levels. First, it's irrelevant whether deaths occur on accident or on purpose. What matters is preventing death and suffering. Let's say I gave you a large sum of money, and somehow proved it could prevent 1000 accidental deaths/year or 10 murders/year. How could you morally justify choosing to prevent the murders over the accidents? What makes up for those 990 lives lost? Second, the "message" we sent via our response to this situation was anything but good. We essentially showed terrorists how to easily cause $billions in damage to our economy and effectively publicize their message to the globe. On top of that, we've proven our inability to prevent and defend against poorly-executed attacks in crowded locations, and our difficulty in apprehending injured teenage suspects traveling on foot. Great. If I were a terrorist, I'd be drawing up plans to bomb shopping malls and little league football games. Third, you don't fully comprehend the inefficiency with which money and attention are currently being spent. Accidental deaths are not unavoidable. With additional research and attention focused in the right direction, we can prevent far more deaths due to accident and disease than we do currently. We stand to save tens of thousands of lives per year. But that would be boring. People don't care about run-of-the-mill deaths. They aren't exciting, they aren't captivating, and the media knows this well. The average Joe cares more about watching a firefight and "sending a message" than he cares about saving lives or reducing human suffering. And that's a damn shame.