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

421–430 of 438 posts

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

#421

Post by bazzert »

radiorental wrote: post #323
pjc50 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that was indeed way out. The true number is a few hundred per year, still far lower per population than the US.

No question, a lot less than the US. Even when we Irish were at the height of bashing the crap out of each other there were still more total gun related incidents in D.C. than had happened across the peak 25 years of the troubles. All other factors aside your proposition is true; fewer guns per capita, fewer bullets leaving said guns at capita

DC is a good example, because it highlights that the problem is not the number of guns but the propensity to use them. Ther e are many states with very high gun ownership rates but relatively lower gun death rates; for example TX has twice the ownership of CA but half the gun homicides. The distribution of gun deaths is very uneven, for your 'average' American the risk of death by gun is only marginally higher than in Europe.

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

#422

Post by rsync »

FireBeyond wrote: post #351
adwf wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sorry. Work guns are the exception. They're the exception in the UK also. However, the vast majority of firearms sold are not for farming purposes. Agricultural jobs make up ~1% of the US workforce, yet there's over 1 gun per person. It's a bit of a red herring to talk about it though; no-one is advocating complete gun bans, but sensible gun control.

Similar in Australia, farmers are allowed to own rifles.

"Similar in Australia, farmers are allowed to own rifles."

Not really. Farm workers in Australia are allowed to own "class C" firearms which are "Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles" ...

I wouldn't really characterize a rimfire weapon as a real rifle and I am not really sure how useful that is, other than the raccoon work that I mentioned above. I wouldn't attempt shooting foxes or coyotes with a .22.

The Australian gun laws are amazingly restrictive for a country that large and wild and varied. I would feel quite hamstrung as a farmer (or even simply a resident) in a remote, rural area with only a shotgun and/or a .22 (the typical rimfire weapon) ...

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

#423

Post by magicGLASSman »

FireBeyond wrote: post #359
magicGLASSman wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending trump, I just don't see a place for emotional "-ist" words based on very selective framing of someones speech. we need to talk about illegal immigration and criminal activity. We need to talk about Black on Black violence not just police violence. Why should he know David Duke is? and he disavowed 15 times. I love the push back, that is what america is about having debates about important issues, no…

"David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK... would you disavow his support or that of his organization?" "I don't know who David Duke is, and as for any organization, well, I'd have to do further research before disavowing their support" The next day "Oh, of course I would. It was a bad earpiece they gave me, I told them it wasn't working well." Well enough that he heard the question just fine and was able to put t…

Ok.. you might not trust him saying he had a bad earpiece but he did disavow many times. I'm still not seeing the most evil man on the planet as many try to associate him with. Every argument is based on 90% emotion and a tiny bit of negatively framed fact.

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

#424

Post by trill1 »

lliamander wrote: post #357
trill1 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, the San Bernandino shooting is constantly referred to as terrorism by the media and by politicians... When the perpetrator isn't Muslim though, the situation is different (e.g. Dylan Roof, Anders Brevik, James Holmes) and the same people instead are much more likely to frame the violence as a mental health issue.

terrorists and lone wackos may both engage in mass shootings, but their threat profiles are different[1]. The San Bernandino shooters fit the 'terrorist' threat profile; Dylan Roof, et al., fit the profile of 'lone wacko'. [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943

I see no meaningful distinction between the San Bernandino shooters and the "lone wackos". Cultural background influences how an angry, mentally ill person will brand and target their particular act of violence. For Dylan Roof it was racism, for Anders Breivik it was Christianity, and for Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, it was radical Islam. So far even the FBI says they acted alone.

It's undeniable that whether or not a person is Muslim influences how their violent act is framed by the media and politicians. Also worth noting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_t...

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

#425

Post by gherkin0 »

BFatts wrote: post #391
gherkin0 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US military is vastly more powerful than any gun owner. Do people really think they can compete? Various insurgencies have given the US military a run for their money, even with all the advanced weaponry at its disposal. I think that a similar insurgency of Americans on American soil would be even harder for the US military do deal with than those foreign ones.

If they weren't battling with a bunch of pussies who wear scarves to hide their identities, that also use innocent civilians as shields, then they would be vastly superior. Unfortunately, these so-called "insurgents" wear scarves to mask their identities and use innocents as shields. That is how they give the military a run for its money. If the US didn't care, like these pussies don't, about the civilian population…

They're exploiting the weaknesses of the American military, as they must, since the alternative is suicide and assured defeat. It's unreasonable to expect your enemy to present himself so that your advantage is maximized. If there's an American insurgency against the government, I'm certain they'll employ similar tactics, rather than gathering in fields and waiting to get killed by a drones.

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

#426

Post by StreamBright »

welterde wrote: post #170
StreamBright wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Not that this will change your opinion, but Switzerland is not that great of an example to support your "fact" (and even if it was - a few outliers don't prove the lack of an correlation). For starters it has fairly strict gun laws (essentially no carry permits, gun safes, etc.). Second the reason for the high gun ownership is the mandatory military service (no standing army) - you can purchase your service weapon at…

> For starters it has fairly strict gun laws...

Hmm what you are saying is that gun laws have an impact on gun related death? I totally agree. Lets create a study that tells us how can we drive down the gun related death in the US by better laws. That has all of my support.

The rest I agree.

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

#427

Post by forgetsusername »

skewart wrote: post #214
forgetsusername wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good point. I think it's ingrained in American culture (and the Constitution) that part of the purpose of personal gun ownership is to curb governmental power. How can gun control be justified when police are roaming around like a para-military group?

I completely agree that the "curb government power" is a common argument for gun ownership in the US. However, I've never understood the logic behind it. Do people really think their handgun is going to help them resist a predator drone strike? The US military is vastly more powerful than any gun owner. Do people really think they can compete? What's more, advocates of legal gun ownership often also push for more mil…

>Do people really think their handgun is going to help them resist a predator drone strike?

It can do some damage to the person flying the drone. Or maybe "right to bear arms" will include the right to own our own drones?

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

#428

Post by [deleted] »

agarden wrote: post #99
smcl wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ... t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving Apples and oranges there. It is a criminal offense to drink drive where I am, and probably where you are too. I find it a bit painful/hilarious that I actually predicted someone would come up with your second example about 25 minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289280

It is a criminal offense to shoot people.

[deleted]

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

#429

Post by marrs »

adwf wrote: post #386
marrs wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

long term, yes, but in the few years after the gun ban, the graph goes steeply up, so I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that banning guns had the consequence of reducing gun crime. And the graph I linked to seems to use the same data yours does, so aparently your data is just as worthless as mine. It's not irrelevant as a large number of firearms were unlicensed. There were a ton of old service guns lying…

You seem to be falling prey to Simpsons's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox The chart is very clearly downward, with a couple of upward slopes in the middle. If you cherry pick the evidence like that crimeresearch.org link does, you'll get the upward slope. If you look at the data as a whole, you get the long term downward trend. This is pretty much the definition of Simpson's Paradox. The down…

If anyone is falling prey to Simpson's Paradox, it's you. You're the one implying a causation based on those statistics. I'm asserting that there's not enough information there to make any such connection, and I'm highlighting on the graph a short-term upward trend that contradicts the assertion that you are trying to make. Ignore that part of the data if it makes you feel better; I still wouldn't accept that there's enough data there to support your theory.

Another interpretation of the data, also just a theory but no less valid, is that handguns rose in popularity as the weapon of choice within gangs, and the police responded by targeting gun crime. Again, I wouldn't want to state it as fact, but it would be a useful starting point for additional research.

The reason frankly why I would need so much convincing that banning hand guns had any effect gun crime rates in the UK is because I just don't think there were enough gun owners to be statistically significant in the first place. Handgun shooting was a niche sport - a very niche sport.

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

#430

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

forgetsusername wrote: post #113
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…

This is a good point. I think it's ingrained in American culture (and the Constitution) that part of the purpose of personal gun ownership is to curb governmental power. How can gun control be justified when police are roaming around like a para-military group?

I thought the purpose of the militias and the 2nd amendment was to suppress slave rebellions.
Post reply on HN