Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
1–10 of 438 posts
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#2This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers.
I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.
Edit: Everybody is misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "terrorists are more dangerous than toddlers!" or "gun control is bad!". I'm saying that people fear terrorism for different underlying reasons than its impact on fatality, and that understanding this will help communication between the right and left (perhaps allowing your arguments to be heard across political lines.)
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#3Most things that kill people in the USA kill more people than terrorists do. The comparison is purposely sensationalistic and cheapens the argument much like 'think of the children.'
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#4Most things that kill people in the USA kill more people than terrorists do. The comparison is purposely sensationalistic and cheapens the argument much like 'think of the children.'
"Think of the children" is for hypothetical issues where there really isn't any clear danger to children actually. This is the opposite. People are so irresponsible with their guns that toddlers have access to guns. This is very shameful and not a "Think of the children" worthy issue.
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#5This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture…
> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers.
The article never made this point.
All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures (I suspect governments are more interested in the later because it really is a power grab for global surveillance and other not-yet-legislated powers).
> a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
I think 'dominate' is hardly the right word in this case, even relatively uneducated proponents of the ideology must know that such concept is totally fantastical. Rather it is more likely that assimilation is deemed (by some groups or ideologies) so completely impossible (with as you say the 'predominant culture' and I think this is important part to note, because as westerners we tend to forget that it is indeed predominant and forcefully so) that any form of destruction possible is considered preferable.
> Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 50 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.
I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization - even North Korea, which would seem the closest in this vein to have some kind of defense against as you put it 'assimilation' I think will ultimately mean very little in terms of global developments.
> I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
To sum it up, I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell.
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#6This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture…
It doesn't mean individual toddlers are more dangerous than individual terrorists. But it is largely irrelevant to us given that we don't have an easy way to influence the relative numbers.
> Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger?
Of course not. Which is why it is worth making the point that the degree of our response to terrorism is totally out of proportion, and that the terror should not be our focus.
> I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
This is a very odd way of looking at it to me. They are not nearly the only two choices.
> Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating.
Is terrorism increasing? I'm not saying it's not. I genuinely haven't looked at the numbers.
What I do know is that in Europe, for example, a long range of terrorist groups that were active in the 60's, 70's, 80's and/or 90's either does not exist any longer or have stopped carrying out attacks. New ones have appeared, but it's not clear to me whether over the longer term are seeing more or less terror. Whether that's true or not probably depends a great deal on what time-frame you look at, and what geographical region you choose to look at.
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#7This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture…
I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
The reason why terrorism works is because of the media bias for extraordinary events becoming familiar events, not solely because a subgroup wanted to be dangerous.
Violence by terrorist groups does not accomplish political objectives and often encourages governments to take a hardline approach rather than accede to any political demands that they may have, provoking state-actors to go to war or enact security policies contrary to civil liberties.
Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.
Suppose muslim terrorists keep doing what they do. Tit for tat, you got people fearful of terrorists, becoming fearful of Muslims beyond justification.
Muslims become more discriminated as alienation went up, encouraging more Muslim youth to join terrorist groups to act out their alienation.
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#8This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture…
No, it means that you should keep your guns away from toddlers.
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#9This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture…
The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.
The ultimate worry is that there won't be a 100 years. Some demagogues and dogmas attract ruthless followers. It only takes one well-supplied psychopath (with access) to cause a huge amount of damage. It might be an idiot with a bomb in his underwear, or it might be a North Korean nuclear submarine captain.
Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do
#10Terrorism is like a mosquito in a room. Hearing its buzz will drive people nuts but the actual harm caused is negligible.
But right now people are pretty much ready to throw their basic rights and freedom away in the hope it will make the buzz go away.
The worst part is that attacks like the Paris attacks are pretty much impossible to prevent unless we transform our democracy into a totalitarian state...