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

301–310 of 438 posts

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

#301

Post by geodel »

piyush_soni wrote: post #290
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…

As an outsider, I've always wondered about this: Since a lot of people in America are so much hell bent on keeping a gun for a hypothetical future situation of government turning hostile (completely ignoring the 'real, actual' killings that are happening very frequently because some psycho got access to what they obtained for their own safety) - will all these people be personally willing to take responsibility and g…

Strange line of argument. But I will be okay if such policy is broad based. All good doctors to be responsible for some one in their professional indulged in massive malpractice, all s/w developers be responsible for someone writing virus or other kind of malware and so on.

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

#302

Post by terrywilcox »

knz wrote: post #283
terrywilcox wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has all those things...

Indeed. And they also have comparatively high rates of firearms ownership per capita ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c... ). Hunting and protection from wild animals probably factor in to that.

Hunting yes.

Protection from wild animals? Contrary to popular belief, we don't all have polar bears in our yard.

We had a coyote on our street last year, but nobody felt threatened enough to pull out a gun.

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

#304

Post by Loque »

th0waway wrote: post #148
Loque wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Ahh, the fallacy of not learning from history - as soon as a populace is disarmed they are helpless before their lord and master... I mean government. The battle for freedom began in Lexington and Concord when a group of British soldiers attempted to disarm a group of Colonists. You (and many people) are under the bad assumption that as we learn more our basic human nature changes, but it does not.

We live in different times.

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

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

#305

Post by anexprogrammer »

talmand wrote: post #187
anexprogrammer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a lot of discussion at the time, and my recollection is he was already known to mental health services. The Sun et al had him painted as a rabid survivalist of course. Wiki seems to say it was retrospective diagnosis, so I'm not sure... I can understand wanting to collect, or at least try, different types, but who in the world needs an assault rifle?

Depends on what one is defining an "assault rifle". The most common definition used by the news media can be a semi-automatic hunting rifle with aftermarket parts on it. The term "assault rifle" is a dishonest attempt by certain people to influence a certain reaction in people.

From wikipedia "Type 56 assault rifle". The title of the page that loaded when I followed a link from the wiki page on the Hungerford shooting. Far as I knew it was the correct name.

I am not attempting to influence any reaction. Are wikipedia?

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

#306

Post by salgernon »

ksk wrote: post #292
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…

You don't need a gun because nobody is going to shoot you. And secondly because even if you had a gun, I don't trust YOU to not flip out and go postal when someone looks at you the wrong way, or carry your loaded gun in an unsafe manner. From my point of view, and for anyone who doesn't know you, you are no different than a criminal with a gun. By simply owning a gun YOU increase the threat level for other people.

For a slightly different take: I won't let my seven year old have play dates at the houses of her friends when there is a gun in the house. And yes, I do ask.

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

#307

Post by douche »

vidarh wrote: post #6
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…

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 te…

The fall of the Soviet Union cut most of the funding and weaponry for the European domestic terrorist groups.

The fall of the House of Saud will cut funding for most of the Islamic terrorist groups.

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

#308

Post by bazzargh »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #242
maxerickson wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A statement like I don't believe that US criminals are more heavily-armed than those in other countries. sure sounds like a statement that is inclusive of rates to me. Say 1 guy uses a legitimate high caliber machine gun to commit some crime, is that the only crime that gets used when describing how criminals are armed in that country?

OK, let me rephrase then - "I believe that the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions where firearms are heavily restricted is almost certainly much greater than the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions with comparatively permissive firearms laws"

Without wanting to weigh in on the rest of the gun debate issues, statistics don't show criminals in the UK having more effective firearms, in fact just the opposite.

More than half of the firearms offences in England&Wales involved the use of air weapons, a substantial number of the rest are imitation weapons, and only 12 of over 8,000 recorded violent crimes involved a machine gun (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt... table 3.02)

A study by the police of the gun crime market (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/htt...) concluded that automatic weapons were mostly used in gang warfare and as a status symbol; they're more expensive and the study noted that ammunition for all weapons was in short supply, which would make a bullet-hungry gun less attractive for other criminal usage (which is mainly to threaten).

With an imitation gun going for £20 and an automatic costing £1000, why would you choose the real gun to commit a robbery?

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

#309

Post by magicGLASSman »

AI_Overlord wrote: post #223
magicGLASSman wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believed the negative hype about Trump till I actually listened to what he had to say in context. I don't agree with the guy on a lot, but the emotional reactions instead logical debate really need to stop >Trump phenomenon fueled on xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism, which is scary for minorities, is an example of a gov that could go crazy. Sentences like this are not arguments they are emotional regurgitat…

-Calls most Mexicans rapists ands stands by it -tweets a statistic that most white people are killed by black people, never apologizes, refuses to backtrack -pretends he has no idea who white extremist groups or the kkk are when asked point blank whether he will disavow their support ... The list goes on and on

>Calls most Mexicans rapists ands stands by it

(slanted framing)

Because they are illegals the stats are difficult to prove or disprove.

-An estimated 25,000 of these undocumented immigrants serving sentences for homicide

-A cumulative total of 2.89 million offenses committed by these undocumented immigrants between 2003 and 2009 (although half a million of these were for immigration-related offenses)

-Among those offenses: An estimated 42,000 robberies, 70,000 sex crimes, 81,000 auto thefts, 95,000 weapons offenses, and 213,000 assaults

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

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

#310

Post by thatswrong0 »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #194
tmaly wrote: post #179

You have to remember only law abiding citizens in the US follow the gun laws. If a bad guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police response time is not enough to save you and your family. If you want to protect your young child in this case, its better to lawfully own a gun and have proper training on how to use it.

You're presuming that the person breaking in to your house at night wants to harm you. If they're breaking in at night they probably want to steal your stuff without you encountering them. So the best course of action is probably to stay in your bedroom, stay quiet, and call the police. Pull out your gun and that bad guy probably also has one and you've put your own life in danger and made a non-violent situation lif…

You're calling someone (who you say is probably armed) breaking into your home a non-violent situation?

...??

And what about in San Francisco, where that person could very likely be mentally unstable.. Should I just assume they probably won't harm me?

What about in a rural area, where police could be tens of minutes away?

This logic seems incredibly unreasonable to me.

If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be a robot and be running probabilities in my head. I'm going to protect myself and my family to the fullest extent possible, which is eliminating the threat. I'm not going to assume anything other than the worst about the threat.

Post reply on HN