Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 438 posts

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#51

Post by ascagnel_ »

saiya-jin wrote: post #20
cm2187 wrote: post #10

Terrorism 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...

unless it's a mosquito with malaria or dengue :) (aka terrorist with nuclear/dirty bomb). terrorism is, above all, politically motivated theatrical act that should manipulate audience into something (fear and thus irrational behavior, election choices etc). plus some stray dogs that are out of any reasonable control. we humans are vastly irrational, and just because mankind landed on the moon doesn't mean emotions do…

The moon landing was a tool to create a different emotion, though. It was to stir up some national pride and put a happy face on the rocket tech that nearly led to a total nuclear annihilation during the cold war.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#52

Post by Loque »

youngone wrote: post #37
Loque wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot less mass shootings for starters, same for Australia - in fact IIRC none, in Australia since the ban.

That wasn't what was claimed by the person I replied to. He claimed at the low rate of firearms murders was a result of the ban. But firearms murders rose after the ban.

Aye I think I have lost the point of this.

The ban was put in place after mass shootings for both the UK and Australia - I believe that was primary driving factor behind it so I am not sure how that stat would or would not be effected by it and would suggest it is a bit of a red herring - and I am sure that data is interesting, if someone had the time to go through it and break it down.

All I can say is that in the UK, you don't need to worry about being shot.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#53

Post by cm2187 »

saiya-jin wrote: post #20
cm2187 wrote: post #10

Terrorism 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...

unless it's a mosquito with malaria or dengue :) (aka terrorist with nuclear/dirty bomb). terrorism is, above all, politically motivated theatrical act that should manipulate audience into something (fear and thus irrational behavior, election choices etc). plus some stray dogs that are out of any reasonable control. we humans are vastly irrational, and just because mankind landed on the moon doesn't mean emotions do…

The problem is the more we over react to it, the more we encourage the next attack. When a plane crashes, the medias are now reasonable and repeat again and again that it is an extremely rare event and that flying is very safe. For terrorism the message is "this could happen to you!".

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#54

Post by lhnz »

threatofrain wrote: post #27
lhnz wrote: post #2

This 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 point of this article is not that children are more dangerous than terrorists. The point is that terrorism over-dominates national discussion of priorities. Focus on terrorism is worrisome because it kills relatively fewer people than the top national stressors, it distracts the nation in its very limited capacity to discuss anything, it justifies extreme expenditure, and by its covert nature it is difficult to m…

I tried to explain to somebody else here [0] already - "[This establishes] a frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and right."

Effectively the reason terrorism appears to over-dominate the public sphere is that it does so for different reasons than the ones that are visible to you. You can mitigate these reasons but first you have to acknowledge them (otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#55

Post by marklgr »

youngone wrote: post #37
Loque wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot less mass shootings for starters, same for Australia - in fact IIRC none, in Australia since the ban.

That wasn't what was claimed by the person I replied to. He claimed at the low rate of firearms murders was a result of the ban. But firearms murders rose after the ban.

So what? He/she didn't say there was a _total-and-exclusive_ correlation between the ban and the murders; other factors come into play. You got to watch on the long term here.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#56

Post by anexprogrammer »

pjc50 wrote: post #12

Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first and last "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects…

You forgot the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre in 1987 where 16 people were killed.

Both events lead to changes in firearm licensing rules, and in both cases if the existing rules had been correctly enforced, it's doubtful either person would have held a licence.

EDIT: And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings in 2010 10 dead, 11 injured.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#57

Post by agarden »

skippytheroo wrote: post #21
jfaucett wrote: post #16

Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z, where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population. Examples: 1. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic groups combined! 2. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV! In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argu…

Perhaps if HIV was endlessly highlighted by government and the media as a major problem in Sweden your analogy might have made some sense. In my opinion your post exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even legitimate criticism.

Okay, try this: far, far more people die in the US in car accidents than are shot. More people die because of DUIs than because of guns. Yet guns are endlessly highlighted as a major problem and the talk is constantly about making it harder to attain them and yet few people are ranting on about the dangers of automobile or licquor.

Indeed, the original article dismisses drunk teenagers as a non-threat. Drunk teenagers almost certainly kill more people than toddlers with guns.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#58

Post by jasonkester »

This will no doubt be framed as a victory for our Pro-Gun society.

After all, ubiquitous gun ownership has so diminished the rampant terrorism problem facing the USA that fewer people in 2015 were killed by terrorists than by small children. Compare that to, say, 2001, when thousands of people were killed by terrorists on average each month, and you can only see a victory in todays improved pro-gun climate.

I don't hold out much hope for a return to reason any time soon.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#59

Post by pjc50 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #23
pjc50 wrote: post #12

Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first and last "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects…

I don't think it worked out quite the way you said: http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-b... Obligatory un-zeroed-axis warning, but the point stands.

As soon as I saw John Lott, I knew I was going to be dealing with one-sided data. But I'm having trouble replicating that graph from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

It did point out that I was wrong about no mass shootings (p57):

"In 2010/11, the police provisionally recorded 642 offences of homicide, which includes the 12 people killed by Derrick Bird in June 2010. Homicide offences increased by four per cent (24 offences) compared with 2009/10 (Table 2.04).3 Caution should be taken in looking at short term changes in the number of homicides, as they can fluctuate from year-to-year. For example, the rise in homicides this year follows a fall the previous year"

But the dead giveaway is buried in a footnote on p58:

"As measured by the Homicide Index. The number of currently recorded homicides peaked in 2001/02 at 794. There are more currently recorded homicides for 2002/03 (943), but these include the 172 victims of Harold Shipman, which were all recorded in 2002/03 but took place over a number of years."

Harold Shipman was a doctor who spent a large part of his career murdering elderly patients with medication. The huge spike in John Lott's graph is almost entirely due to this one set of crimes being recorded in 2002/03.

Re: Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do

#60

Post by StreamBright »

jfaucett wrote: post #16

Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z, where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population. Examples: 1. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic groups combined! 2. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV! In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argu…

I think most of these articles are trying play the emotional card and most people ignore facts like:

- higher gun ownership rate does not cause higher gun related homicides (check Switzerland or Finland compare to US) - lower gun ownership rate does not cause lower mass shootings (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...)

I don't understand why people try to make these conclusions.

Here is the list of gun ownership broken down by countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...

Firearm related death by countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

Post reply on HN