Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by hnal943 » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

Loque wrote: post #101

greenisland wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one but scared liberals want "gun control". Freedom-loving Americans want elected officials to enforce the existing laws, not create new ones out of fear. Registration is the first step to disarmament. Look back no further than Janet Reno, thankfully no longer in her position, who famously said that the actual goal is disarmament of the population. A certain venomous Democrat presidential hopeful has also echoed t…

> Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution? Because it is adjusted as we develop and learn more about the world we live in, it has happened in the past, and I sincerely hope it continues to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Rat...

Then the politicians who wish to ban guns should do it through the front door and propose a constitutional amendment. They won't do that, because it won't pass because there is nowhere near the level of consensus in the country to get such a massive change to the American law done.

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

#152

Post by goldbrick » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #50

mtgx wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unless we transform our democracy into a totalitarian state The irony is that in totalitarian states terrorism increases, not decreases. Because then even more people have a reason to hate their own totalitarian leaders.

I am not sure that's true. Crime under totalitarian regimes is usually very low, because the level of control and delation makes it almost impossible to get away with it.

source?

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

#153

Post by mikeash » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

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…

I don't think I've ever seen that assimilation thing. The kind of terrorists that people are afraid of in the US tend to be visitors who come to this country with the purpose of doing violence, not anyone who would be assimilating, even if they were perfectly nice people.

It sounds like it's different in Europe, and maybe that's the perspective you're coming from. In the US, it's not generally about the difficulty of assimilation. The 9/11 attackers, for example, lived outside the US and only came here to carry out their attack. For mass shootings, the perpetrators are usually considered to be outright insane, but perfectly well assimilated. This isn't universal; San Bernardino and Fort Hood are two examples of mass shootings by Americans who you could say didn't assimilate well. But for the most part, it's either crazy people in our midst or invading visitors.

Look at the ongoing controversy over Syrian refugees for an example. I haven't heard people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because they'll fail to assimilate and turn into an outsider minority prone to violence. I have heard lots of people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because terrorists will hide among them and gain access to our country.

Anyone I've talked to who is afraid of terrorism is afraid because they don't want to get killed in an attack. It's not really more complicated than that.

Some people fear terrorism because they believe that the potential future risks are much higher than past rates. But a whole lot of people fear terrorism simply because they have no understanding of the risks. That's who articles like these are aimed at.

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

#154

Post by throwaway21816 » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #86

agarden wrote: post #76

What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying that are not. If you are driving your kids across town and get t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving. Something really bad happened, everyone move on with your lives. Or when a relative d…

Because guns are expressly designed to kill. They serve no other purpose (ignoring sporting uses, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can kill with a gun). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs a gun to carry out their day to day jobs. That isn't true of cars or hospitals.

Knives are expressly designed to cut. They serve no Purpose (ignoring cooking, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can cut with a knife). There is no reason anybody outside of the kitchen needs a knife to carry out their day to day jobs.

Encryption is expressly designed to hide terrorists. It serves no purpose (ignoring privacy, as that is basically a proxy for proving how well one can hide from the government). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs encryption to carry out their day to day jobs.

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

#155

Post by LyndsySimon » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

rwj wrote: post #90

neonhomer wrote: post #61

I always hate these kind of articles. As a US citizen there's only rule when it comes to firearms and that's the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments are invalid.

Isn't that kind of the point? Americans can't decide if they want new laws or to amend the constitution before deciding what the ideal would be. Your point is to shut down discussion before they get that far. In any case, IANAL but the US has not been crippled by absolutism in the pass. There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!). Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found…

> There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!)

Those are limitations on the improper use of speech, not on merely possessing the means to communicate.

> Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional?

Found unconstitutional? I'm not at all sure of that, as the judicial system doesn't lend itself well to prediction.

Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt.

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

#156

Post by FussyZeus » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

blackrose wrote: post #136

FussyZeus wrote: post #87

This is the latest in a line of articles (and arguments) for that matter that completely fails to address the gun culture we have in the United States. It paints a picture that people who have guns are just these crazy old hicks, ha ha look at them with their silly guns. First of all in large areas of the country (and around the world) guns can be useful tools of survival or hobbies, including around where I live. We…

Yes, now if only the government would let me buy that cocaine I want.

Well considering how effective the War on Drugs has been, I'm honestly fine with you buying cocaine. You can't possibly do as much damage as the various District Attorney's do.

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

#157

Post by Loque » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

AI_Overlord wrote: post #129

Loque wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is subjective, I personally do not think it will happen in the UK. I would also rather take that risk than allow everyone to own guns just for this unknown eventuality... If it assures you in anyway, my grandfather who was in the war, handed in his 1911.

The thing is, when the gov goes crazy it is usually against some group of people. If you are not part of that group then you may actually believe the gov is quite sane. Also, all it takes is some really bad times for nice people to elect a tyrant. We've seen it before many times in history. Trump phenomenon fueled on xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism, which is scary for minorities, is an example of a gov that…

I would argue that if Trump gets voted in, it is the people who are crazy. I do see your point though - I guess everything feels very nice and pedestrian here... nothing owning guns would solve anyway.

I would also argue that all those xenophobic trump fans can legally own guns...

After the last elections in the UK, I don't really trust the "general public" =D

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

#158

Post by HelloNurse » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #125

TallGuyShort wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> police are not routinely armed I'm a gun owner and this is the key point for me. No politician is in a position to tell me I don't need my semi-automatic pistol if every day I see a patrol car go by my house with 2 fully automatic AR-15s locked between the front seats and my local police department owns an armoured vehicle. If you really think you have a plan for getting rid of guns for bad guys as well as me, pro…

I guess this amounts to a chicken-and-egg problem. In many European countries, police officers are only minimally armed (just a handgun, used only in rare circumstances).

Unlike USA police, for a typical European police officer shooting at someone is a career-limiting move. Even self-defense guarantees an unpleasant trial.

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

#159

Post by throwaway21816 » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #127

TallGuyShort wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> police are not routinely armed I'm a gun owner and this is the key point for me. No politician is in a position to tell me I don't need my semi-automatic pistol if every day I see a patrol car go by my house with 2 fully automatic AR-15s locked between the front seats and my local police department owns an armoured vehicle. If you really think you have a plan for getting rid of guns for bad guys as well as me, pro…

And part of the reason why cops are armed to the teeth is because the citizens are. It would require real total mutual disarmament of citizens and police to change anything in the USA. So I don't see it changing any time soon.

>And part of the reason why cops are armed to the teeth is because the citizens are.

The vast majority of deaths from firearms result from handguns not AR15s. You dont have criminals in Level 4 hard plates roaming around down town LA with shoulder fired rockets.

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

#160

Post by LyndsySimon » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

misnome wrote: post #95

neonhomer wrote: post #61

I always hate these kind of articles. As a US citizen there's only rule when it comes to firearms and that's the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments are invalid.

And I'm sure that well-regulated militia would be an improvement! Perhaps the country should start adhering to the second amendment, rather than statutorily ignoring the first half?

10 USC 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The first half (the prefatory clause) needn't be ignored for the Second Amendment to apply to everyone - unless you're arguing for firearms restriction to apply only to women of all ages and men over age 45, but I doubt that's the case.