10 ms·

93 victims were unarmed, 33 were armed with a toy, and 27 unknown. That is a lot more than Americans killed by terrorists in US.

adam12 11y ago
For me, this highlights how overblown the terrorist problem is.
- cryptoz 11y ago
  About 30,000 Americans die in car crashes every year. That's about ~400,000 Americans killed by other Americans in their cars since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's pretty clear that the emotional appeal is what people seem to care about ("someone wants to kill us") and it has absolutely nothing to do at all with Americans dying. Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars? Oh, nobody cares about that, cars are freedom, cars are what we went to war to protect.
  - soheil 11y ago
    > it has absolutely nothing to do at all with Americans dying I think it does, it's just that people are simply not aware of the numbers.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    What you call emotion, I call justice, and I think that matters. Consider, without any emotion, the issue of murder versus suicide. What are the negative impacts of those acts? From the point of view of that person's friends and family and society at large, leaving aside emotion or notions of justice, the impact of the acts is the same: loss of that person, loss of their financial and emotional support. In fact, the impact on family and friends is often worse in cases of suicide because insurance policies often have an exemption for suicide. Yet, almost nobody thinks murder should be legal while quite a few people think suicide should be legal. If we just mechanically consider "a death is a death" and count up the monetary impact of each case, we have no way to explain or justify why people feel this way.
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      So you agree that the general lack of prosecutions for vehicle caused fatalities is a failure of justice? The only difference between murder and suicide is if the person who dies chose to die.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        We don't prosecute people for "fatalities". We prosecute them for homicide and manslaughter, which are offenses in which the prosecution must prove intent to commit harm. Meanwhile we do in fact prosecute car fatalities when they are caused by recklessness, and, of course, when they're caused intentionally.
        shkkmo 11y ago
        You engage me in a semantics debate in a condescending tone and then are wrong. Manslaughter does not require 'intent to commit harm'. Yes, there are prosecutions of reckless/negligent drivers. However, the fact remains: 1) Most traffic fatalities are the result of human error. 2) Most traffic fatalities do not result in prosecution. I can't find numbers to back up #2 but this semi-anecdotal evidence is telling: http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so-few-fatal-bike-crashes-lead-to-arrest-in-nyc/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so... This quote in particular makes my point: > “We as a society have chosen to drive these big cars," said Joe McCormack, Assistant District Attorney for the Bronx. It’s his job to prosecute traffic crimes. "And we also as a society have chosen not to criminalize every single small mistake that just has a dramatic consequence because you're driving a car,” he said.
        tptacek 11y ago
        I think it's actually you who have decided on the semantic debate, since the reason we don't charge lots of people with felonies for killing people with cars is pretty apparent from the comment I just wrote. I also don't think you read my comment carefully. As a reset: here's what the state must prove in a manslaughter case: First, the defendant unlawfully killed someone; Second, while in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation: a) the defendant intentionally killed someone; or b) the defendant killed name of victim recklessly with extreme disregard for human life; and Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might arouse a reasonable and ordinary person to kill someone. Maybe you'd rather look at a vehicular manslaughter statute? Here you go, California's: To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant (drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug]/drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher/drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug] when under the age of 21/ drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of 21); 2. While driving that vehicle under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug], the defendant also committed (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death); 3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with gross negligence; AND 4. The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person. This describes only a tiny percentage of vehicular fatalities. Again: we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly.
  - harryh 11y ago
    > Where is our war on cars? We do have a war on car fatalities. It's been remarkably successful: http://www.donerdesigns.org/_/rsrc/1376697199749/other-causes/110404-fatality-rate-per-100-million-vehicle-miles-traveled.jpg http://www.donerdesigns.org/_/rsrc/1376697199749/other-cause...
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      That graphic is rather misleading. Our success in reducing traffic fatalities is rather mixed and not nearly so dramatic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_population_1900-2010.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fr...
      - cbr 11y ago
        The first graph shows that we have made driving far less dangerous over time. The second graph shows that driving has become far more popular over time, popular enough to outweigh this effect until the early 70s. The recent improvement in car accident rates is pretty impressive.
        shkkmo 11y ago
        Yet it is misleading to support the claim of a "war on traffic fatalities" with a graph that measures something else. The first graph show we have made driving far less dangerous per mile. The second graph shows the likelihood that any given person will die due to traffic.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        I would make the reverse argument. Someone driving 100 miles today is far less likely to die doing it than, say, 30 years ago. The odds look about 3:1, eyeballing the chart. That, to me, seems like driving is far less dangerous than it was. The fact that people drive more miles today than before is an entire separate concern. One could even argue that making driving safer has also made it more popular, though I wouldn't bet on it being a large contributing factor.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. I was interested if this is true, and on the face of it it is. 2996 people died in 9/11, in 2001 (the entire year) 37,795 people died in car accidents (source: NHTSA), or an average of 3149/deaths per month. Injuries are also higher from accidents than 9/11 for the month of Sept. 2001.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    This is an argument that gets wheeled out a lot, and I'm afraid I don't see the logic in it at all. More Americans died in car crashes in December, 1941 than were killed at Pearl Harbor, too; are you going to assert that, therefore, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor was not a problem?
- jrlocke 11y ago
  In arguments over the relative safeness of the world it is often pointed out that relatively few people have died recently in terrorist attacks, but as N. N. Taleb points out, the distribution of deaths by terrorist attacks is a fat tailed one: the current average does not preclude much higher future numbers.
- spikels 11y ago
  I though the same thing until 9/11. The 3,000 people killed were 20% of the 16,000 murders that year. It was by far the biggest mass murder in US history. Next biggest was 44 in the 1927 Bath School disaster. And of course terrorism is a much bigger problem in some countries.
rayiner 11y ago
Not a lot more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-g.... About 30 terrorism-related deaths per year, not counting 9/11. If 9/11 is a once-every-50 year sort of event, that's another 60 per year on average.
notatoad 11y ago
I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a toy and armed should be treated as the same thing. When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot.
- tptacek 11y ago
  There is probably a better way to word this.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  There are regularly displays by men armed with AR-15s around cities in the US. Yet the police seem to be disinterested in shooting them. I wonder why?
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?
    - drumdance 11y ago
      Look at this guy: http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.... He was walking away from the police when they shot him -- 16 times! Fortunately this was caught on camera, but a lot of shootings are not.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      And people like these guys weren't pointing guns at other people or breaking the law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confrontations_and_suspension_of_roundup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren... I'm certainly not suggesting that we encourage violent responses from law enforcement. (I'm relieved injury and harm were minimized in both of the above instances.) But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun.

adam12 11y ago

For me, this highlights how overblown the terrorist problem is.

cryptoz 11y ago
About 30,000 Americans die in car crashes every year. That's about ~400,000 Americans killed by other Americans in their cars since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's pretty clear that the emotional appeal is what people seem to care about ("someone wants to kill us") and it has absolutely nothing to do at all with Americans dying. Terrorism has never been a problem. The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. Where is our war on cars? Oh, nobody cares about that, cars are freedom, cars are what we went to war to protect.
- soheil 11y ago
  > it has absolutely nothing to do at all with Americans dying I think it does, it's just that people are simply not aware of the numbers.
- rayiner 11y ago
  What you call emotion, I call justice, and I think that matters. Consider, without any emotion, the issue of murder versus suicide. What are the negative impacts of those acts? From the point of view of that person's friends and family and society at large, leaving aside emotion or notions of justice, the impact of the acts is the same: loss of that person, loss of their financial and emotional support. In fact, the impact on family and friends is often worse in cases of suicide because insurance policies often have an exemption for suicide. Yet, almost nobody thinks murder should be legal while quite a few people think suicide should be legal. If we just mechanically consider "a death is a death" and count up the monetary impact of each case, we have no way to explain or justify why people feel this way.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    So you agree that the general lack of prosecutions for vehicle caused fatalities is a failure of justice? The only difference between murder and suicide is if the person who dies chose to die.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      We don't prosecute people for "fatalities". We prosecute them for homicide and manslaughter, which are offenses in which the prosecution must prove intent to commit harm. Meanwhile we do in fact prosecute car fatalities when they are caused by recklessness, and, of course, when they're caused intentionally.
      - shkkmo 11y ago
        You engage me in a semantics debate in a condescending tone and then are wrong. Manslaughter does not require 'intent to commit harm'. Yes, there are prosecutions of reckless/negligent drivers. However, the fact remains: 1) Most traffic fatalities are the result of human error. 2) Most traffic fatalities do not result in prosecution. I can't find numbers to back up #2 but this semi-anecdotal evidence is telling: http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so-few-fatal-bike-crashes-lead-to-arrest-in-nyc/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so... This quote in particular makes my point: > “We as a society have chosen to drive these big cars," said Joe McCormack, Assistant District Attorney for the Bronx. It’s his job to prosecute traffic crimes. "And we also as a society have chosen not to criminalize every single small mistake that just has a dramatic consequence because you're driving a car,” he said.
        tptacek 11y ago
        I think it's actually you who have decided on the semantic debate, since the reason we don't charge lots of people with felonies for killing people with cars is pretty apparent from the comment I just wrote. I also don't think you read my comment carefully. As a reset: here's what the state must prove in a manslaughter case: First, the defendant unlawfully killed someone; Second, while in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation: a) the defendant intentionally killed someone; or b) the defendant killed name of victim recklessly with extreme disregard for human life; and Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might arouse a reasonable and ordinary person to kill someone. Maybe you'd rather look at a vehicular manslaughter statute? Here you go, California's: To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant (drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug]/drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher/drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug] when under the age of 21/ drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of 21); 2. While driving that vehicle under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug], the defendant also committed (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death); 3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with gross negligence; AND 4. The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person. This describes only a tiny percentage of vehicular fatalities. Again: we don't prosecute people for errors. We prosecute them for doing things intentionally, or, as I said, for causing grave harm recklessly.
- harryh 11y ago
  > Where is our war on cars? We do have a war on car fatalities. It's been remarkably successful: http://www.donerdesigns.org/_/rsrc/1376697199749/other-causes/110404-fatality-rate-per-100-million-vehicle-miles-traveled.jpg http://www.donerdesigns.org/_/rsrc/1376697199749/other-cause...
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    That graphic is rather misleading. Our success in reducing traffic fatalities is rather mixed and not nearly so dramatic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_population_1900-2010.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fr...
    - cbr 11y ago
      The first graph shows that we have made driving far less dangerous over time. The second graph shows that driving has become far more popular over time, popular enough to outweigh this effect until the early 70s. The recent improvement in car accident rates is pretty impressive.
      - shkkmo 11y ago
        Yet it is misleading to support the claim of a "war on traffic fatalities" with a graph that measures something else. The first graph show we have made driving far less dangerous per mile. The second graph shows the likelihood that any given person will die due to traffic.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        I would make the reverse argument. Someone driving 100 miles today is far less likely to die doing it than, say, 30 years ago. The odds look about 3:1, eyeballing the chart. That, to me, seems like driving is far less dangerous than it was. The fact that people drive more miles today than before is an entire separate concern. One could even argue that making driving safer has also made it more popular, though I wouldn't bet on it being a large contributing factor.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > The same number of people died in car accidents during September 2001 as they did in terrorist attacks. I was interested if this is true, and on the face of it it is. 2996 people died in 9/11, in 2001 (the entire year) 37,795 people died in car accidents (source: NHTSA), or an average of 3149/deaths per month. Injuries are also higher from accidents than 9/11 for the month of Sept. 2001.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  This is an argument that gets wheeled out a lot, and I'm afraid I don't see the logic in it at all. More Americans died in car crashes in December, 1941 than were killed at Pearl Harbor, too; are you going to assert that, therefore, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor was not a problem?
jrlocke 11y ago
In arguments over the relative safeness of the world it is often pointed out that relatively few people have died recently in terrorist attacks, but as N. N. Taleb points out, the distribution of deaths by terrorist attacks is a fat tailed one: the current average does not preclude much higher future numbers.
spikels 11y ago
I though the same thing until 9/11. The 3,000 people killed were 20% of the 16,000 murders that year. It was by far the biggest mass murder in US history. Next biggest was 44 in the 1927 Bath School disaster. And of course terrorism is a much bigger problem in some countries.

rayiner 11y ago

Not a lot more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-g.... About 30 terrorism-related deaths per year, not counting 9/11. If 9/11 is a once-every-50 year sort of event, that's another 60 per year on average.

notatoad 11y ago

I've seen police shoot and kill a man "armed with a toy" and it's very, very hard for me to fault them for it. It sounds bad when you say it, but armed with a toy and armed should be treated as the same thing. When a man being chased by police stops his car, gets out, takes cover behind the door and starts pointing something that looks remarkably like a gun at police, he should be shot.

tptacek 11y ago
There is probably a better way to word this.
rodgerd 11y ago
There are regularly displays by men armed with AR-15s around cities in the US. Yet the police seem to be disinterested in shooting them. I wonder why?
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Simple: because they aren't pointing the AR-15s at anyone or breaking any laws. Hope that answers your question -- anything else you need help with?
  - drumdance 11y ago
    Look at this guy: http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.. http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/11/25/laquan-mcdonald-chic.... He was walking away from the police when they shot him -- 16 times! Fortunately this was caught on camera, but a lot of shootings are not.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    And people like these guys weren't pointing guns at other people or breaking the law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confrontations_and_suspension_of_roundup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#April_12_confro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren... I'm certainly not suggesting that we encourage violent responses from law enforcement. (I'm relieved injury and harm were minimized in both of the above instances.) But, it's disingenuous to think that all demographics get an equally fair shake/generous response from law enforcement when they are holding (or believed to be holding) a gun.