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

391–400 of 438 posts

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

#391

Post by BFatts »

gherkin0 wrote: post #296
skewart wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 it would be a different story. But, because they can't just shoot into a crowd, willy-nilly, the insurgents have an upper hand. Don't confuse tactics with cowardly action.

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

#392

Post by krapp »

pjc50 wrote: post #384
themartorana wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvote upvote upvote. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was that the country was founded by taking up arms against tyranny, and the framers knew that the new government they were forming could just as easily lean towards tyranny. Well, we're here. The police are no longer community organizations, rather they're full military units charged with waging war against the citizens they purport to protect. Personally, I…

> civil uprisings are much more likely in a country where people are armed* Yes - but this is not a good thing! It's a bug not a feature! I started this thread mentioning Dunblane, but perhaps I should have mentioned the Easter Risings and the Good Friday Agreement instead. The UK had an armed uprising for decades in Northern Ireland and it was terrible. I can't seem to get any of the guns-are-important-for-fighting-…

>Yes - but this is not a good thing! It's a bug not a feature!

From the point of view of many Americans, not only is it a feature, but the defining feature of a free state.

Then again, many Americans take to heart Jefferson's line about the 'Tree of Liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants' without realizing what he actually meant by referring to both patriots and tyrants as 'its natural manure.'

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

#393

Post by talmand »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #305
talmand wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I said news media. But assault rifle is a made up term for political reasons. I don't fault wikipedia for trying to explain it.

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

#394

Post by salgernon »

knz wrote: post #372
salgernon wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

I don't differentiate because I don't believe that those are sufficient safeguards. I believe this because when I was 12, friends routinely accessed firearms that their parents believed were secured, and many a starwars figurine was thus destroyed.

Your comment about chemical safety and tools bring up a very good point - a gun is just a tool, like a woodchipper, and while I wouldn't let my kid play with a woodchipper, I've never asked if there's one available at her friends house.

I'll freely admit that I'm inconsistent on this, and my attitude is based in part on my general anti-gun stance, and the easy moral superiority I feel when asking the question.

But seriously, my 12 year old self and friends never treated guns with the respect that we would a woodchipper. Possibly too many TV shows where guns were just bang bang bang, or that _Fargo_ hadn't come out yet.

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

#395

Post by zamalek »

jjn2009 wrote: post #375
zamalek wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side.

Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives - which is why both sides are having this argument in the first place.

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

#396

Post by FireBeyond »

protomyth wrote: post #374
FireBeyond wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It's a good point. Most studies show that charity giving by political affiliation to be nearly equal, or to put conservatives slightly ahead:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study...

That being said, conservatives are far more likely to give to their church as a charity, and when churches (but not 'all religious organizations') are removed from the equation, the balance dramatically shifts. It could certainly be argued that while for many churches their charitable contributions are valuable and well used, but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes.

Certainly this is compounded too, by certain churches, of which LDS is the biggest, that mandate tithing of income, skewing the numbers substantially.

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

#397

Post by ascorbic »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #169
hnal943 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...because the criminals are. And therein lies to fatal flaw of gun control - only people who are law abiding would comply with the new laws.

I don't believe that US criminals are more heavily-armed than those in other countries. In fact, the opposite is likely true. In the US most criminals who are armed have inexpensive, unreliable handguns. An armed criminal in the UK (while less common) would seem more likely to have something like a submachinegun or a machine pistol. If the penalty is severe and the gun is rare and expensive... why go through all that…

Because you couldn't just as easily. It's hard and expensive for a criminal to get hold of even a real revolver. Machine pistols and submachineguns are the preserve of organised crime. There's no way any regular criminal will be able to get their hands on one. Most handguns used by criminals are reactivated antiques and replicas. Guns are rare and expensive, but some are rarer and more expensive than others. Even when handguns were legal they were not common, as the licensing laws were already tight.

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

#398

Post by k-mcgrady »

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…

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

Yes. It's a non-violent situation until myself or the intruder decides to make it violent. I'm going to do what I can to minimise the chances of that happening.

I think this is just a different cultural attitude. In many places, the US in particular, there is a culture of fear. There is probably also a much greater chance of an intruder in the US having a gun due to the prevalence of them.

This is how I think about it:

Someone is breaking into my home. Why? They have nothing to gain by harming me unless they are insane in which case they can harm someone on the streets much more easily. They probably want my possessions. If I don't disturb them they aren't going to seek me out. If they are threatened they will, if not they will leave me alone. If you are truly scared keep your weapon in your bedroom and stay in your bedroom. If they don't come near you you have no reason to use it unless you are crazy enough to risk your like for your possessions.

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

#399

Post by protomyth »

FireBeyond wrote: post #396
protomyth wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It's a good point. Most studies show that charity giving by political affiliation to be nearly equal, or to put conservatives slightly ahead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study... That being said, conservatives are far more likely to give to their church as a charity, and when churches (but not 'all religious organizations') are removed from the equation, the balance dramatically shifts. It…

Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity, and part of our beliefs might include mandatory giving, then that charity is invalid?

"but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes"

You need proof of that.

I would also point out https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-201... - please note the areas that vote Republican versus Democrat. It is a nice counterpoint to the MIT study.

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

#400

Post by jjn2009 »

zamalek wrote: post #395
jjn2009 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side. Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a la…

>"common sense" gun laws

Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of americans.

>If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist

Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be using for arguments about how to write laws.

>Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom.

Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy.

>Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives

If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Post reply on HN