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

http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2015/09/08/when-does-t...

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-b...

Obligatory un-zeroed-axis warning, but the point stands.

Given that firearm murders rose after the ban (link from jjoonathan), please explain very clearly to me how can the low rate (it was low in the first place) be caused by the ban (you said the ban 'means' the low rate)?

I'm really looking forward to seeing how you can support your claim.

This source shows the lowest number of gun deaths a year from 1996 as 130. Actual murders will be lower than this figure, but do you have a source? http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/192/total_num...

Both events lead to changes in firearm licensing rules, and in both cases if the existing rules had been correctly enforced, it's doubtful either person would have held a licence.

EDIT: And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings in 2010 10 dead, 11 injured.

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, prove it. Demilitarize the police at the same time.

edit: To be fair, I think such a plan is possible, but it requires fixing other problems that too many politicians are afraid to touch. It's obviously been done successfully elsewhere, but only when cultures and geographies were more ready for it. I enjoy shooting and prefer to own a gun, but I'd give them up for a plan I thought would work. I just haven't seen one proposed in the US yet.

Are you sure about those statistics?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/192/total_num...

Exhibit A) Switzerland, 25 guns for 100 inhabitants, two mass shootings in the last 100 years

Exhibit B) France, extremely restrictive gun laws, two mass shootings in less than one year

So there's that...

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

I think you are off by a factor of 40 ?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-hom...

terrorism is, above all, politically motivated theatrical act that should manipulate audience into something (fear and thus irrational behavior, election choices etc). plus some stray dogs that are out of any reasonable control.

we humans are vastly irrational, and just because mankind landed on the moon doesn't mean emotions don't hold more power than reason in most of us. that's why so many people are afraid of flying, are superstitious, believe in horoscopes and so on. you know, general folks out there who have same voting power as you or me or anybody else

The irony is that in totalitarian states terrorism increases, not decreases. Because then even more people have a reason to hate their own totalitarian leaders.

The article never made this point.

All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures (I suspect governments are more interested in the later because it really is a power grab for global surveillance and other not-yet-legislated powers).

> a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.

I think 'dominate' is hardly the right word in this case, even relatively uneducated proponents of the ideology must know that such concept is totally fantastical. Rather it is more likely that assimilation is deemed (by some groups or ideologies) so completely impossible (with as you say the 'predominant culture' and I think this is important part to note, because as westerners we tend to forget that it is indeed predominant and forcefully so) that any form of destruction possible is considered preferable.

> Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 50 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.

I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization - even North Korea, which would seem the closest in this vein to have some kind of defense against as you put it 'assimilation' I think will ultimately mean very little in terms of global developments.

> 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.

To sum it up, I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell.

> 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 terror should not be our focus.

> 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.

This is a very odd way of looking at it to me. They are not nearly the only two choices.

> Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating.

Is terrorism increasing? I'm not saying it's not. I genuinely haven't looked at the numbers.

What I do know is that in Europe, for example, a long range of terrorist groups that were active in the 60's, 70's, 80's and/or 90's either does not exist any longer or have stopped carrying out attacks. New ones have appeared, but it's not clear to me whether over the longer term are seeing more or less terror. Whether that's true or not probably depends a great deal on what time-frame you look at, and what geographical region you choose to look at.

The reason why terrorism works is because of the media bias for extraordinary events becoming familiar events, not solely because a subgroup wanted to be dangerous.

Violence by terrorist groups does not accomplish political objectives and often encourages governments to take a hardline approach rather than accede to any political demands that they may have, provoking state-actors to go to war or enact security policies contrary to civil liberties.

Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.

Suppose muslim terrorists keep doing what they do. Tit for tat, you got people fearful of terrorists, becoming fearful of Muslims beyond justification.

Muslims become more discriminated as alienation went up, encouraging more Muslim youth to join terrorist groups to act out their alienation.

The ultimate worry is that there won't be a 100 years. Some demagogues and dogmas attract ruthless followers. It only takes one well-supplied psychopath (with access) to cause a huge amount of damage. It might be an idiot with a bomb in his underwear, or it might be a North Korean nuclear submarine captain.

Focus on terrorism is worrisome because it kills relatively fewer people than the top national stressors, it distracts the nation in its very limited capacity to discuss anything, it justifies extreme expenditure, and by its covert nature it is difficult to mediate in effect size.

Does terrorism warrant attention and expenditure? Yes. But it should get in line behind highly preventable or mediatable stressors like vehicle and gun related deaths.

The nation has spent trillions trying to fight terrorism, terrorism that has killed several thousand American civilians in total throughout all years. In response the nation went to war with Iraq, which itself costed thousands of lives on the American side, and over 100,000 deaths to Iraqis.

Terrorism has justified massive expansion of executive powers, it has led to opaque operations like extraordinary rendition, torture, and black sites, it has justified mass surveillance, it has led the discussion on privacy and encryption, it has led to new executive departments with budgets in the billions per year, and it justifies the use of secret courts with secret judges and secret warrants.

All in the name of fighting terrorists, while severe domestic stressors take a backseat in national priority.

people fear terrorism because it's virtually nonexistent. we fear the thing we have no experience with more than those we do, because the lack of experience lets our lizard brain have a parade. the movie Alien works with this very well.

also... terrorism, aka politically-motivated violence is nothing new. it's just the framing by the mass media that seems to have changed a lot.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing :

In 2000, Magee spoke about the bombing in an interview with The Sunday Business Post. He told interviewer Tom McGurk that the British government's strategy at the time was to depict the IRA as mere criminals while containing The Troubles within Northern Ireland

(edited in a failed attempt to fix the list formatting)

It sounds like it's different in Europe, and maybe that's the perspective you're coming from. In the US, it's not generally about the difficulty of assimilation. The 9/11 attackers, for example, lived outside the US and only came here to carry out their attack. For mass shootings, the perpetrators are usually considered to be outright insane, but perfectly well assimilated. This isn't universal; San Bernardino and Fort Hood are two examples of mass shootings by Americans who you could say didn't assimilate well. But for the most part, it's either crazy people in our midst or invading visitors.

Look at the ongoing controversy over Syrian refugees for an example. I haven't heard people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because they'll fail to assimilate and turn into an outsider minority prone to violence. I have heard lots of people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because terrorists will hide among them and gain access to our country.

Anyone I've talked to who is afraid of terrorism is afraid because they don't want to get killed in an attack. It's not really more complicated than that.

Some people fear terrorism because they believe that the potential future risks are much higher than past rates. But a whole lot of people fear terrorism simply because they have no understanding of the risks. That's who articles like these are aimed at.

> No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

You can, however, swing probabilities.

> She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already.

This is a key point I think. One of the main arguments I hear from gun advocates is "protecting your family." For argument's sake assume that this is a valid point, play the devil's advocate. By leaving a loaded weapon lying around there is a higher probability of your family getting hurt by that weapon, than someone walking into your home and hurting your family. At this point you have become an imminent threat to everyone around you and that threat must be eliminated, possibly by preventing your whole household from ever laying their hands on a weapon (blacklisting).

In other words, by allowing Gilt to own a gun you are endangering her life and her child's life. She should not be let near one.

Settling the gun advocacy argument is clearly going to take a long time, but "common sense" laws can be put in place until a conclusion has been reached. In the short-term this would benefit both sides of the argument were they not both so belligerent.

Compare:

Psychoactive substances: We just lock up anybody touching them. Guns: We lock up anybody abusing them.

Observe how both approaches fail to protect us from irresponsible people.

This falls into the clickbait narrative that so easily triggers opinions either side of the gun law debate. If there's any value to be taken from this comparison it's how "terrorism" is used to direct funding towards agencies like the TSA (and many others) who don't perform any meaningful function.

Or distract us from any of the other difficult to monetize causes of death that overshadow "terrorism".

Meanwhile we all squabble between those holding up the constitution and those yelling 'told you so'. Yet another day in 'Merica.

We can debate to no end about how she should have, could have, would have, etc taken preventive measures. But the fact of the matter is, accidents do and will happen. We should really take a look at how literally the rest of the world does it and take notes.

Guns are a tool, but a potentially dangerous one. And any statistics I find (one reference for instance: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.ht...) suggest that the United States' safety record with guns is pretty horrible compared to everyone else (eg compared to other rich countries, we have a higher incidence rate of injuries, deaths, and gun-oriented suicides than any other).

While no amount of legislation is going to prevent complete idiots from being idiots, perhaps properly drawn up safety oriented regulations may help drive home the point to everyone who is not an idiot. Safety regulations seem acceptable in most other places in life, even when there has been some freedom-oriented resistance. (Think of seat belt laws, for instance -- despite the resistance from some, they have ended up being very effective at reducing traffic fatalities and injuries.)

Maybe some gun safety legislation is indeed misguided, but I have to roll my eyes when some gun rights advocates act like something like, say, a safe gun storage law is a Hidden Agenda To Facilitate Governments Disarming the American Public or something. I don't think that's the intention. Safety laws can be good; safety laws can be misguided... but if a safety law is misguided, I want to hear technical reasons why from the firearms crowd, not conspiracy diatribe.

That isn't true of cars or hospitals.

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

Guns are only useful in rare cases for preventing or stopping crime, and most people don't have one or if they do they have never used it beyond practice.

Are guns somehow way safer than cars?

Pretty much anything which is dangerous is regulated. I mean McDonalds even has to put a sticker on your cup, stating it is hot. Somehow hot coffee gets stricter regulation in the US than guns. That is totally backwards and it just boggles the mind of the rest of us why so many Americans are so dense they can't see this.

i.e., there's a Z which does Y, and it's a tiny, tiny problem that nobody considers to be an actual threat. e.g., toddlers murdering people.

And then there's an X, which is even less dangerous than that, namely terrorism.

And then there's a response to this X, which has trampled on basic civil rights, privacy and the constitution in the form of mass surveillance, and shows few signs of slowing. Further, there's another response which is inciting hysteria, fear, ignorance and increasingly racism towards a minority who hate terrorism as much as anyone.

That's what this article implies, and it's completely true. It presents an absurdity of threat vs response that has lost all sensibility, an absurdity that, though has been mentioned before many times in various articles, still hasn't resonated with the general public and media.

- 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 the list of gun ownership broken down by countries:

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

Firearm related death by countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

A bunch of armed citizens does not make an effective army. Untrained and uncoordinated citizens are no match against well trained soldiers.

Very few armed resistance fights have succeeded in bringing democracy or freedom anywhere. More often than not it has been non-violent resistance which has succeeded.

In most cases when violence gets involved it is the wrong kind of people who end up on the top of the pecking order and you end up with an equally bad or worse regime in the end. We've seen this in the french revolutions, south american revolutions, various revolutions and independent fights across Asia and Africa, and more lately the Arab spring.

Freedom of speech, privacy etc is more important for keeping a country free than gun laws. If you have no free press, society will have advanced too far in the wrong direction before you can make a difference with your gun.

Ironically the same right wing people supporting gun rights, seem to not care a lick about privacy, surveillance, excessive police mandates or draconian laws.

If they didn't see you with a gun they might not have acted with a dozen cops rushing the door but now you've escalated yourself into a threat in their eye, legit or not.

You are already being oppressed by the NSA sharing domestic data with the FBI, your gun will do zero to stop that.

There are far more pressing issues, some of which will actually decrease the threat of terrorism. (for example: global access to education and healthcare, as well as moderate, tolerant leadership will decrease the ability for extremism to forment in the first place).

I know this view is unpopular, but it is logical.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (very bottom)

kills: toddlers vs. terrorists, 21 to 19 (including 14 in San Bernardino)

I live in Appalachia. I hear shooting on almost every nice day. I am playing outside in the yard with my toddlers and the neighbors are shooting things. I don't even think about it.

EDIT I deleted a line about poor healthcare in America being a greater risk than guns because it was not necessary to the point I was making and possibly inflammatory.

The NRA created the gun lobby out of nothing at all.

EDIT: Found some links, it was 1977. here's one: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...

Or, are you limiting your interpretation to firearms in common use at the time of the Constitutional Convention? In which case, you can turn in your Glock and your AK.

Point being, we already have established restrictions on firearms. These restrictions have held up in court (for the most part).

In any case, IANAL but the US has not been crippled by absolutism in the pass. There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!). Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional?

The 2nd Amendment forestalls many arguments about what the law IS. It does not forestall arguments about what the law SHOULD BE.

And it is important that we engage in a discussion about what the law ought to be. For instance, although courts do not (well, ought not) respond to public opinion, there is a public discussion going on now about the appropriateness of the government ordering Apple to rewrite their OS to allow the FBI to decrypt a phone. That discussion is healthy, and a good thing. As another example, I often engage with people in discussions of why freedom-of-expression (1st Amendment) is so important, and I am prepared to lay out the arguments for why it is a good law.

The 2nd Amendment ought to be treated the same way. Those who think it is good policy should be able, and willing, to lay out the reasons why it is a good law. And many of them do. I believe some of those reasons may be based on bad science (e.g. "It is good not to restrict gun ownership because greater gun ownership reduces crime."), and we can talk about that. Other gun rights supporters pass laws requiring that no federal money be spent on collecting data on gun-related risks (perhaps for fear that the results will not support their positions?). I object to that behavior, and I hope you would too.