Hacker News Reader

Comment by thomyorkie | Hacker News Reader

> Terrorism: more toddlers killed Americans than terrorists in 2015. For every terrorist killing someone on US soil, more than 4000 Americans killed each other.

Terrorism isn't a fake issue. You're ignoring the potential devastating effects that a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil could have. Terrorists are always trying to up their game and its because of this that they represent a significant threat. Toddlers, and homicidal fellow Americans, represent a fairly fixed threat compared to the unknown possibilities of terrorists (for example a chemical or nuclear weapon released in NYC).

View on HN

Terrorism isn't about an attack, it's about fear. When we sacrifice our freedoms to live in fear of terrorists, they win.

Freedoms and proactive steps to mitigate an attack are not mutually exclusive.

I think the proactive steps that aren't at the expense of freedoms aren't the ones that are controversial.

Like right to bear arms?

Restricting gun availability is a proactive step against terrorism reduces freedoms that is controversial.

I see that I was not being clear, my apologies. What I meant was that retaining the right to bear arms is a proactive step against terrorism (by minimizing "soft" civilian targets) that a)preserves freedoms, and b)is nonetheless controversial.

The parent comment was making the argument that there are no freedom-preserving counter terrorism measures that are controversial. The right to bear arms is a counter example.

In that case it's unclear that it is a proactive step against terrorism (for the reason I said, domestic terrorists get guns more easily) which is a different kind of debate than cases where everyone agrees a freedom limiting step would prevent terrorism and the question is if it's worth it.

Are you statistics challenged? Even an attack on the level of 9/11 will be significantly lower than the number of Americans that shoot each other to death per year. If you want to read about the likelihood of a nuclear attack by terrorists, read Physics for Future Presidents. It's very, very low.

Right, but we're human beings who have evolved in a specific environment to have specific wants and desires and fears.

And one of those is the fear of terrorism.

You can, I guess, beat on the statistics drum until the sun swallows the Earth, but human beings on planet Earth, largely, do not agree with your model for assessing the costs of international terrorism.

Your model assumes that, hey, a death is a death is a death, no matter the cause; but most people care more about some types of deaths than others.

You seem to think you just need to educate those people, but the difference is deeper than that.

No need to be condescending.

Can you tell me what the likelihood of a nuclear attack by terrorists will be in 10 years, 20 years? How about if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do you think 9/11 will be the worst terrorist attack we will ever see? My whole point is terrorists, and those that support them, are becoming increasingly competent in nearly every vector of attack, nuclear being only one. And their destructive ambitions grow even faster than their competency. I simply don't see how anyone can call it a fake issue.

This is just fear-driven speculation (which is a sign that you are being terrorized). What attacks are terrorists becoming "increasingly competent" at, exactly? What specifics are you talking about?

How about Occam's Razor? It takes only 10 drops of benzine to contaminate 50,000 gallons of drinking water. Will you vote for the candidate that will protect our drinking water no matter what? Is this making any sort of impression on you how this whole terrorism thing actually works?

> Will you vote for the candidate that will protect our drinking water no matter what?

I think you are making a straw man argument. Perhaps I haven’t been clear enough about this, but I’m not saying terrorism is the biggest existential threat or that it’s the only issue that matters or that it’s worth sacrificing our freedoms for or that certain groups should be discriminated against. I’m just saying that its something that should be taken seriously. Every political candidate takes it seriously and I think for good reason. I’m also not advocating some of Trump’s extreme rhetoric. I didn’t even vote for him. I also don’t believe that I’m personally being terrorized. I don’t think about this stuff on a daily basis. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t want my government to think about it.

> What attacks are terrorists becoming "increasingly competent" at, exactly?

The obvious one: aircraft as a weapon. Then there’s Chemical/biological. Historically, used by sovereign militaries and now starting to be used frequently by terrorist organizations. ISIS recently started using chlorine and possibly mustard gas. The fairly recent poisoning of schoolchildren. The recent use of other poisons such as rat poison. Another big one is Cyber attacks. Recent ISIS attacks on power grids show show increased capabilities. The department of homeland security thinks this is a new major threat to US infrastructure. BTW, the FBI and Homeland Security have published a detailed list of possible attack vectors which includes a lot more than the few I’ve mentioned here. As far as nuclear attacks go, terrorist organizations like al Qaida have expressed their desire to obtain these weapons specifically to attack the US. Shouldn’t we do every reasonable thing within our power to stop them?

Why are you measuring the number of people that shoot each other, vs. the number killed? Why only look at 2015? Your statistics are just as suspect. I'd recommend reading this:

slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-an-outlier-story/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...

Obama's quote from the article you posted: "We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so."

I agree with Obama's overall point about guns. But from what you've written, I'm under the impression you think he's wrong about terrorism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com