>When you look at white people's response to 9/11, one could
>argue that it was a shock to their lives, as it:

>A - Exposed a national vulnerability that had never been
>exposed before on that level

Pearl Harbor did this already as did the sinking of the Lusitania. So what is being illustrated here?

>B - Was an event that took the lives of nearly 3,000 people at
>once

It's not a contest but Pearl Harbor took 2,500

>C - Many people lived privileged lives free of that sort of
>tragedy up to that point.

This is not true based on the response to A.

>While the response of many black people was:
>
>"Niggaz die everyday, b"

Perhaps for this one tragedy, but among which age groups etc? However, in light of Pearl Harbor and the Lusitania do you believe that response to be consistent?

>So if we see these types of incidents with some level of
>frequency, and experience homicide of our people at an even
>higher level of frequency, how does that compare?

You should provide stats on the rate at which black people kill each other if you want to make that comparison. Also the killing of black people by black people is not equal to sanctioned killing of black people by law enforcement. Killers and criminals are not sworn to protect anyone (assuming swearing means something).