The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns • Hacker News Board

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#61

Post by coldtea » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #55

coldtea wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've only done the lazy thing of looking at Wikipedia, but it appears that the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11 is the only event carried out by non state actors in recent history that killed more than 1000 people. That doesn't offer much guarantees though. Before that one, the ceiling was much lower for attacks in the US (or even elsewhere), but it suddenly got to 3000 at one go. Here's a kind of disaster that ca…

His analogy is specious. One reason that there is little violence caused by legal immigrants is that there have been screening processes in place. Equating the status quo of US immigration policy with dismantling nuclear deterrents is ridiculous.

>One reason that there is little violence caused by legal immigrants is that there have been screening processes in place.

He talks about odds of being "killed by an immigrant" though -- doesn't say "by a legal immigrant" specifically.

Plus, in places like France and Germany it's often not even immigrants, it's citizens that have been born there (of immigrant parents) that have been radicalized post-facto.

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#62

Post by coldtea » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:39 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #59

coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it though? How well does it work on, say, Mexico? Or Eastern Europe?

Why would Mexico be instructive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Mexico#Type_of_fir... This isn't a great table, but which Eastern Eupopean country do you think has worse problems with gun violence than the US? They tend to have stricter laws on guns and less intentional homicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_guns_and_...

>Why would Mexico be instructive?

Because, as it says right above the section you've linked to, ownership is much more strictly regulated there:

"Under this clause, only citizens who have been granted a license to carry can lawfully carry a firearm outside their homes. Beyond military and law enforcement members, these permits are only issued to persons who qualify such as those employed in private security firms, those who live in rural areas, or those who may be targets of crime (politicians, public officials, wealthy citizens)".

And even those are limited to specific (and less potent) types of guns (unlike the US).

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#63

Post by morganvachon » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

arjie wrote: post #52

morganvachon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guns kill more people than terrorism, period. People with guns kill more people than terrorism. Guns aren't sentient (yet). Guns are inanimate tools; it's a people problem, not a tool problem. Just as you wouldn't say that cars kill people and try to ban cars when it's actually irresponsible drivers (drunk, inattentive, etc) that cause the accident, you can't blame an inanimate object for what its user does with it…

Assuming you're not a native speaker, that's an example of synecdoche. Just like The White House does not issue proclamations (it refers to the person occupying the office of the President, who occupies The White House). One could also say, "The suits are coming for your money." but articles of clothing do not, as a rule, walk around robbing people. Anyway, I'm pro-gun, but 'guns' kill people is just saying that gun…

The issue is that anti-2nd Amendment folks always want to simply ban guns period, as if that will make the problem go away, hence they use the term "guns kill people". They literally fear the gun itself, not the person holding the gun, and that's a serious problem. The people who say "the White House" in your example indeed don't blame the building for what goes on inside, however the people who chant "guns kill people" invariably believe that the gun itself is to blame, rather than the person behind it. It's irrational and nonsensical, but go into any debate about gun issues and you'll see it all day long.

I recall recently seeing a video (by a progressive minded producer) who laid out several "mean" looking guns (black synthetic stock, picatinny rail, etc) that were actually low power, single shot or limited capacity target guns (one was a BB gun), next to old-fashioned looking but semi-automatic and high powered rifles much more capable of harming large groups of people. Invariably the gun hating types picked out the less harmful weapons as "scary" and said they shouldn't be produced, while they were not nearly as frightened of the wooden stock weapons designed to shoot up to thirty rounds in as many seconds before reloading.

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#64

Post by grzm » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

cooper12 wrote: post #46

grzm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't generalize HN like this, particularly as you choose to participate in the community. If you have specific criticisms, please address them civilly.

I'm not generalizing, the proof is right in this thread, the top comments are all focusing on the specific numbers and completely missing the point. And that is a specific criticism.

No subset of commenters represent all of HN. There are a wide variety of positions held by members of the HN community. Failing to recognize that is just as much "missing the point" as that of which you accuse these commenters. No matter how wrong you think others may be, please take extra care when commenting on contentious topics.

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#65

Post by iopq » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #25

coldtea wrote: post #11

A great example how, based on your readings of the data, you can lie or present any case with statistics... First of all, among the gun deaths there are people that shot themselves, and also people shot in gang shootings and such (where, if you're not in a gang you're not that affected). So the number is somewhat inflated (of course still bigger than terrorism). Second, people fear going into violent neighborhoods wi…

I think you're wrong about point 4. Could you outline such a plan? As a counter-example: CIA trained operatives with decades of experience and a 20+ person team launching a coordinated attack could only kill 3,000 -- and that was only because of underlying weaknesses in our security policy. The 9/11 attacks were so easy to counter, they didn't even work through one full morning. (By which I mean, 25% of the planes we…

Release a highly-contagious pathogen on a population

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#66

Post by nadezhda18 » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:47 PM UTC

jnardiello wrote: post #9

As a EU citizen living where guns are essentially banned (in 30yrs I've seen a gun only once - excluding law enforcement) I'm equally scared by both guns and terrorism. Just to outline that the feeling mentioned in the title can be different given your background and social environment.

yeah, agree with you

I am from Canada and I am more scared by guns than by terrorism even given that just several days ago, we had one such attack on our soil.

A terrorist attack for me is like a lightning strike. Seems to be deadly but not very probable.

Meanwhile, living among people who casually own guns (like in US) is like living in a place where everybody has untamed wild tigers and bears at home. Unpredictable, dangerous, not very smart. It's a real day-to-day threat to our lives.

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#67

Post by SomeStupidPoint » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #57

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. Im not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying adding hundreds or thousands of gallons of poison to a distributed system isn't easy nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. You're well in to the realm of controlled/watc…

> The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. How about just that of a huge building, say a hotel or hospital? > nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. Who said anything of a "few pissed off people doing it alone" though?

A single building wouldn't impact tens of thousands before discovering the attack. Even attacking a single large building is a complex task, unlikely to succeed.

Large networks are easier to detect via our mass surveillance technologies. That's why most of the attacks we see these days are from small groups acting quickly.

My point was your scale was way off about what's realistic to be afraid of. It's easily 100 times as likely a large corporation will kill tens of thousands than that a terrorist group will.

Now, there probably are terrorist attacks that could harm tens of thousands (and no, I won't list what I think they are here), but none of those suggested here are them, they'd likely be coordinated by a state actor (and so questionable if we want to count it as just crazy people), etc.

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#68

Post by coldtea » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #67

coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The city Im in uses about 100 million gallons per day. Delivering a toxic dose to tens of thousands would require poisoning a targeted 10 million gallons without being detected early. How about just that of a huge building, say a hotel or hospital? > nor is it something a few pissed off people can do alone. Who said anything of a "few pissed off people doing it alone" though?

A single building wouldn't impact tens of thousands before discovering the attack. Even attacking a single large building is a complex task, unlikely to succeed. Large networks are easier to detect via our mass surveillance technologies. That's why most of the attacks we see these days are from small groups acting quickly. My point was your scale was way off about what's realistic to be afraid of. It's easily 100 tim…

>A single building wouldn't impact tens of thousands before discovering the attack.

Tens of thousands can work on a single small building. Heck, tens of thousands can eat at single McDonalds per day, where one might e.g. infect it's storage.

And why think it would be discovered quickly? An attack, eg. some virus or poison could be selected that takes a day or more to manifest any symptoms.

>they'd likely be coordinated by a state actor

There are groups of terrorists that are not state actors too, and some have considerable funding...

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#69

Post by iopq » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #37

iopq wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing is that even if you BAN guns, it would not affect gang shootings because gang members would get guns illegally.

it would not affect gang shootings Saying this categorically is going too far. I absolutely agree that banning guns wouldn't end gang shootings. I do think it would have quite some impact.

AFAIK you cannot buy new guns in Brazil, but the homicide rate in Brazil is way higher than in the United States.

Re: The psychology of why we're irrationally more scared of terrorism than guns

#70

Post by iopq » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #59

coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it though? How well does it work on, say, Mexico? Or Eastern Europe?

Why would Mexico be instructive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Mexico#Type_of_fir... This isn't a great table, but which Eastern Eupopean country do you think has worse problems with gun violence than the US? They tend to have stricter laws on guns and less intentional homicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_guns_and_...

Ukraine, Russia, Belarus all have higher homicide rates and lower rates of gun ownership.