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

371–380 of 438 posts

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

#371

Post by krapp »

magicGLASSman wrote: post #294
AI_Overlord wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-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

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…

>Why should he know David Duke is?

Donald Trump knows perfectly well who David Duke is and what he stands for[0].

[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...

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

#372

Post by knz »

salgernon wrote: post #306
ksk wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's great that you ask (as a parent unsecured firearms also concern me) but wouldn't it make more sense to ask what type of firearms are in the house and how they are stored? There is a huge difference between an unloaded rifle locked in a safe and a loaded pistol in a drawer. Even then, how can you be sure that people respond truthfully? I intend to teach my kids about the hazards of firearms in the same way I would with chemicals and tools.

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

#373

Post by thinkcontext »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #328
piyush_soni wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's irresponsible to not take reasonable precautions with guns. I keep mine in a GunVault. But mandating that by law and assigning liability to the owner is a slippery slope. I agree it makes sense with guns, but if someone breaks into my house looking for prescription medicines and I failed to adequately label poison, am I liable? If they ban guns and an armed robber breaks into my house, are the politician…

I don't think your drug analogy is right, there most certainly are laws that mandate secure storage of dangerous items, explosives, animals, chemicals, etc. A more apt one would be an explosives store owner that locked their front door but didn't store their explosives in a safe. If someone broke in and stole the explosives wouldn't you expect the owner to be in big trouble?

A significant number of guns used in crimes are stolen, so its too bad that more gun owners don't believe in secure storage like you do. I don't get your "slippery slope" comment, could you expand on this more?

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

#374

Post by protomyth »

FireBeyond wrote: post #362
protomyth wrote: post #201

And more toddlers die in backyard swimming pools than by any terrorist. Once again, the CDC has an amazing list[1] of what kills US citizens in the USA. Violence doesn't even make the top 15 anymore. Self-harm is at position 10 and we really need to work on that. Plus, all the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the US are the most violent and have the most murders. Stop blaming an object, and start blaming…

There's also a funny, "startling" correlation between those who would be both the largest defenders of gun rights and ownership who point to "terrrorists and the mentally ill"... who also are the heaviest lobbiers for reducing funding and services available to those same mentally ill, decrying it as 'not their problem'.

I'd ask for actual stats including citing a study that is not geographically isolated to the inner city. This is another one of those soundbite arguments in the US. Also, dig up some stats on donation to charities by party members.

Both sides in the US have reduced our services to the mentally ill. The Democrats don't like institutions and wanted in-community services to the point of cutting funding for institutions. The Republicans don't want mental treatment homes in the community and vote to cut there funding. Since they cannot agree we get a whole lot of problems.

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

#375

Post by jjn2009 »

zamalek wrote: post #163
imgabe wrote: post #145

To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from getting shot by her toddler? As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been around guns for a long time and should have been well versed in how to handle them safely. I doubt there's any training that could be mandated that would exceed the experience she already had. Short of banning guns entirely, which would require a constitutional a…

I live in South Africa and while our gun situation is very depressing, I've never heard of a situation like this happening here. The owner needs absolutely no common sense about how to safely store a gun. There are very specific laws about this and there are heavy penalties for neglecting them. Your training is not about safety, that is merely a consequence of learning the rules. > No amount of legislation is going t…

>You can, however, swing probabilities.

This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens give up liberties in the name of reducing a probability which is less significant than the risk of eating cheese burgers every day and dying from heart disease, or entering a vehicle.

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

#376

Post by jrs235 »

optimuspaul wrote: post #176
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…

Huh, what's wrong with me then. I absolutely do not need a gun, ever. Nobody needs a gun. If you think you need a gun then you have serious problems. Let's talk about basic human needs. Food, water, Air, and to a lesser extent clothing and shelter. You don't need a gun for any of those things. Sure a gun can help with food, but guess what, you don't even need to eat meat, there are so many other sources of food. So n…

> Nobody needs a gun. If you think you need a gun then you have serious problems.

Tell that to the president and secret service.

EDIT: The purpose of the comment above is to point out the prescription above isn't a black and white issue. At least not if you are thinking about the real world we live in.

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

#377

Post by ta0967 »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #310
k-mcgrady wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And what about in San Francisco, where that person could very likely be mentally unstable..

the startup scene must be reeeally cutthroat. ;)

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

#378

Post by welterde »

nsxwolf wrote: post #224
valine wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that too. The trend of right wing gun activists to support increased survalence. It's an odd issue that seems to draw support from both political parties. President Obama has made his stance on privacy and survalence pretty clear. Ironicically it's the same stance that most of the republican candidates are taking.

I am a right wing gun nut and I am strongly pro-Snowden, for what its worth. I am a gun nut because I fear government, and the NSA revelations are proof that my fears are justified. A lot of other gun nuts think like me. Don't assume the Republican party represents us.

How does having a gun alleviate your fear of the government?

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

#379

Post by marrs »

adwf wrote: post #266
marrs wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, that graph shows the gun crime rate going up directly after the handgun ban, not down. That doesn't say to me that banning handguns reduced gun crime. Here's another graph showing the same thing, and another one below showing a correlation in the reduction of gun crime to an increase of policing resources. http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-b... Not to mention that of course "gun crime /…

You must be wearing some funny glasses, I see a very clear downward trend from left to right over all those charts. And that chart you just linked is the very same one that was completely debunked earlier in the thread and still shows a consistent long term downward trend... It's not irrelevant as a large number of firearms were unlicensed. There were a ton of old service guns lying in peoples attics completely unreg…

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 in peoples attics completely unregistered. It takes time to enforce a law.
There are probably still service guns lying in people's attics; I don't suppose much crime is being done with them.

As far as handguns that were in active use - i.e. the ones relevant to this conversation - they had to be (and were) handed over to police within the year iirc. It was done quickly and efficiently.

The licensing laws are and were very strict. Anybody who had a handgun was required to have a licence for it, for which good character references and criminal record background checks were (and are) required, and they had to renew it every year. They also had to be an active member of a gun club (the only place you were allowed to use a handgun), and that membership was also reviewed every year.

So it's difficult to imagine how banning handguns would have much of an effect on handgun crime in the first place, unless you want to argue that licenced gun owners were committing crime and getting away with it, which I don't.

But still, I'm willing to be convinced with evidence. A graph that doesn't show gun crime increasing after a ban would be a good place to start.

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

#380

Post by ChrisLomont »

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?

No, but as a group the people of the US would most certainly defeat the US military. As others pointed out much less armed and smaller groups have held the military at bay, and for long periods of time. But there are two much bigger factors in US military vs US people.

1) Telling soldiers to attack their own people is not going to be as smooth as telling to attack foreigners, especially in any size.

2) The biggest issue by far is that the US military needs a massive functioning economy to provide support for them to function any length of time. Look how much war costs - that represents acquisitions, salaries for civilians, replacement, etc. If they disrupted their own economic base they'd fall pretty quickly.

So comparing a handgun to a drone is shortsighted. In reality the people are a massive check on the current form of the military.

Post reply on HN