17 ms·

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

331 points by plg 11y ago

neonhomer 11y ago
I always hate these kind of articles. As a US citizen there's only rule when it comes to firearms and that's the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments are invalid.
- bwindels 11y ago
  So until a law is changed, it's invalid to argue for changing that law?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  My understanding, and someone correct me if I am wrong, is the 2nd amendment was in no way held to be a generic right for all to bear arms until the 1970s. 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-second-amendment-106856 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    You could say the same thing about gay marriage, of course.
- alistairSH 11y ago
  So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Because, if this is about securing the state (either against a tyrannical government, or a 3rd party), rifles and handguns aren't going to cut it. 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).
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Most of those are prohibitively expensive, but why not? Is your argument that somehow ordinary people will be more likely to use them indiscriminately? I mean, who is the US government, which owns bazookas and air craft carriers, but a collection of ordinary people who have done their share of indiscriminate usage of weaponry?
    - alistairSH 11y ago
      My argument was that the 2A isn't absolute, as the parent implied. There are restrictions placed on the ownership and use of firearms (see child comment about NFA items and the extra paperwork, fees, and licensing involved). I'm not anti-gun, in the general sense. I am pro-gun control in a much as the current system allows too many irresponsible people to own guns for no good reason (Jamie Gilt being a prime example).
  - throwaway21816 11y ago
    You can actually own a bazooka if you fill out the correct paperwork. It is a NFA item as regulated by the ATF and each round (aside from rounds containing no explosives) are their own NFA regulated item. Each bazooka and explosive round requires a long approval process, $200 fee, fingerprinting and passport photos. Each explosive round must be stored in a ammunition bunker built to strict ATF regulations and you must inform the ATF of each round fired. Rifles and handguns sure are doing quite a number in the middle east and they worked in vietnam.
    - alistairSH 11y ago
      Huh, didn't realize bazookas were actually legal. But, the fact that there is an NFA requirement proves my point - the 2A isn't absolute - there are restrictions placed on firearms.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Yes, of course. You'll need quite a bit of money to buy the second two and comply with safety regulations, though … There is an argument that the 2nd Amendment only covers personal weapons, e.g. rifles, pistols, swords, knives, bazookas &c. I don't find it fully persuasive, but I don't really feel strongly enough about the issue to spend all my time arguing about whether nukes should be legal: I'm far more concerned about things like firearms, knife & sword bans. Edit: s/too/two/
- rwj 11y ago
  Isn't that kind of the point? Americans can't decide if they want new laws or to amend the constitution before deciding what the ideal would be. Your point is to shut down discussion before they get that far. 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?
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    > There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!) Those are limitations on the improper use of speech, not on merely possessing the means to communicate. > Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional? Found unconstitutional? I'm not at all sure of that, as the judicial system doesn't lend itself well to prediction. Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt.
    - zeveb 11y ago
      > > Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional? > Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt. I don't really think so. The State has the power to deprive citizens of their rights — to include their right to life — so long as it observes due process, so it has the ability to deny firearms ownership to e.g. felons (otherwise one would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to arms of prisoners …). I think that it can require sellers to check whether or not someone is permitted to receive an item before transferring it. I just don't know that this is particularly effective. Honestly, weapons crime is not a problem of weapons: it's a problem of criminals.
- misnome 11y ago
  And I'm sure that well-regulated militia would be an improvement! Perhaps the country should start adhering to the second amendment, rather than statutorily ignoring the first half?
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    10 USC 311: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The first half (the prefatory clause) needn't be ignored for the Second Amendment to apply to everyone - unless you're arguing for firearms restriction to apply only to women of all ages and men over age 45, but I doubt that's the case.
- mcherm 11y ago
  I completely disagree with you. 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.
melling 11y ago
Another ape shit HN statistics story. How about we derive a different title? Your odds of being killed by a terrorist and by furniture are the same. https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-by-furniture/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-more-l... "Toddlers with guns kill more people than people killed by furniture."
anexprogrammer 11y ago
This is more a reflection of how vanishingly rare either event is than a compelling argument for fewer guns. In a population of 300m or thereabouts some people will die in some very peculiar ways. We can dig up some of the rarer ones to compare with terrorism. That said some limitation of US gun ownership law does seem sensible. But this story is no more than gossip.
agarden 11y ago
What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying that are not. If you are driving your kids across town and get t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving. Something really bad happened, everyone move on with your lives. Or when a relative dies because of a medical error, they might be rage at the particular doctor at fault, but there isn't a general outcry against hospitals or doctors. Everyone will still urge you to go to the ER at first signs of a serious problem. But if a lunatic shoots a few people in a public place, then guns should just be banned altogether and there is a general outcry and the POTUS needs to visit the victims to console them. Maybe someone can enlighten me why the risk of gun deaths is so much less acceptable (to a portion of the population) than the risk of death by automobile. EDIT: Skiing is purely entertainment. About 41.5 people die a year in skiing accidents[1]. This, too, is considered an acceptable risk. [1] http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snowboarding-Safety-10-1-12.pdf http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snow...
- notontopicbut 11y ago
  I think most people don't find guns crucial to their day to day lives, but doctors and cars are.
- massysett 11y ago
  Because automobile travel has positive economic and social effects. You can't say the same about mass handgun ownership.
- alistairSH 11y ago
  Because guns are expressly designed to kill. They serve no other purpose (ignoring sporting uses, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can kill with a gun). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs a gun to carry out their day to day jobs. That isn't true of cars or hospitals.
  - throwaway21816 11y ago
Kenji 11y ago
Obvious answer: Ban toddlers rather than end-to-end encryption. On a more serious note, the gun deaths in America are a cultural problem (being careless with weapons, not locking them away properly, etc). No ban will fix culture. There are ways of improving the world without bans. I loathe the kneejerk reactions like "someone was harmed by X - BAN IT FOR EVERYONE!". What happened to self-responsibility? Why can't we just educate people and encourage them to train in the safe handling of guns? It's not that hard.
valine 11y ago
Gun ownership is less about protecting individuals from other individuals, and more about protecting our society from governments that want to oppress it. You could make the argument that no such power exists today, but that's besides the point. Powerful, oppressive, nations have existed before and they could exist again. An armed population is our last line of defense.
- jernfrost 11y ago
  That is actually an extremely weak argument. Iraq had higher gun ownership than the US, and yet they were all under an oppressive dictator. There are actually several oppressive countries with high gun ownership. 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.
  - valine 11y ago
    I've noticed that too. The trend of right wing gun activists to support increased survalence. It's an odd issue that seems to draw support from both political parties. President Obama has made his stance on privacy and survalence pretty clear. Ironicically it's the same stance that most of the republican candidates are taking.
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      I am a right wing gun nut and I am strongly pro-Snowden, for what its worth. I am a gun nut because I fear government, and the NSA revelations are proof that my fears are justified. A lot of other gun nuts think like me. Don't assume the Republican party represents us.
FussyZeus 11y ago
This is the latest in a line of articles (and arguments) for that matter that completely fails to address the gun culture we have in the United States. It paints a picture that people who have guns are just these crazy old hicks, ha ha look at them with their silly guns. First of all in large areas of the country (and around the world) guns can be useful tools of survival or hobbies, including around where I live. We have shooting ranges, gun safety courses, numerous retailers that sell them, and no mass shootings either alongside a healthy and large hunting population. Guns are important here is the takeaway. It's awfully sad what happened to Jamie Gilt and that toddler is probably going to have some serious issues to work out as they grow up, but let's be clear: she left the gun loaded in an accessible area. That was her choice and now she's paying for it. Second of all, the problem with this article is that it's basing all of it's arguments in the rational. Guns are dangerous; yeah, we know, they're literal killing machines, that's what they're for. Guns are unnecessary; maybe where you live and we could get by without them too, but we don't want to. We LIKE the guns, that's why we spend large amounts of money on them. In Australia they made big steps in what many consider to be the right direction with a buyback program, but if that was offered here I can honestly say I wouldn't go for it. I bought my guns for a reason; I want them here. You know a Toyota Camry would probably be much safer and much more economical and better for the environment than a Charger with a V8 engine, but the argument of safety, economy and environment completely misses the reasons I would buy the Charger; it's fun and I like it. And I feel it's an essential part of our freedom to make certain that people are allowed to choose what they WANT instead of what is necessarily the best decision FOR them. My $0.02.
- blackrose 11y ago
  Yes, now if only the government would let me buy that cocaine I want.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Well considering how effective the War on Drugs has been, I'm honestly fine with you buying cocaine. You can't possibly do as much damage as the various District Attorney's do.
jron 11y ago
Lightning Kills More People in the USA Than Terrorists Do
- jbmorgado 11y ago
  So does cancer, diabetes and cows... they don't do it with firearms though. The operative word here is firearms and that's what people are trying to discuss.
  - jron 11y ago
    Correct, lightning kills with electricity, not firearms. The point is both incidents are incredibly rare. Your first two examples don't really work in this context; cows on the other hand - good example. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm
amelius 11y ago
This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "but think of the children!" :)
ikeboy 11y ago
1. The source for this article is http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/, which says >Broad counts indicate that 21 toddlers shot and killed themselves or others in 2015; 19 Americans died at the hands of potential or suspected Islamic terrorists. Even taken at face value, that's 21 to 19. That page is itself a bit confusing. They count the number of deaths by Islamic terrorists while evaluating a claim that merely says foreign terrorists. The guardian then spins that into terrorists, not specifying foreigners. Glancing over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J... turns up the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting, 9 dead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren..., 3 dead Neither seem to be by foreigners, so snopes is not wrong, just confusing. The guardian is flat out wrong. The numbers are 9+3+19=31 versus 21 for toddlers. 2. The fear of terrorism is of the tail. People aren't that worried over the 10 people who die in an attack, comparatively. They're worried about the 3000 people that die for a large scale attack, even if it's less likely. I bet if you took the last 25 years, terrorist deaths would be more than toddler gun deaths. If the latter is around 25 a year, we have a total of 625, versus 3000 from 9/11 alone.
throwaway21816 11y ago
There are more toddlers in the USA than terrorists in the USA. This is pretty inconsequential.
imgabe 11y ago
To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from getting shot by her toddler? As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been around guns for a long time and should have been well versed in how to handle them safely. I doubt there's any training that could be mandated that would exceed the experience she already had. Short of banning guns entirely, which would require a constitutional amendment, I don't see what the proposed solution is. She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already. In general, I think it makes more sense to have laws that punish people for bad things that actually happen, not for things that might, conceivably, possibly lead to something bad happening. No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.
- zamalek 11y ago
  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 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.
  - 11y ago
justin_vanw 11y ago
More people in the US die every year from television than die from terrorism in the last 10 years. I don't mean by being sedentary contributing to heart disease. I mean physically killed by a television falling on you. http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-caused-by-falling-tvs http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-ca... This article is misleading. Virtually nobody dies of terrorism. Virtually nobody dies from toddler shootings.
- talmand 11y ago
  Especially since so many people can interpret the cause of such a death in so many ways. One person says terrorism, another says work place violence. Not many people argue over describing an accidental death caused by a toddler.
tmaly 11y ago
You have to remember only law abiding citizens in the US follow the gun laws. If a bad guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police response time is not enough to save you and your family. If you want to protect your young child in this case, its better to lawfully own a gun and have proper training on how to use it.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  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 life threatening.
  - thatswrong0 11y ago
    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 the night, I'm not going to be a robot and be running probabilities in my head. I'm going to protect myself and my family to the fullest extent possible, which is eliminating the threat. I'm not going to assume anything other than the worst about the threat.
    - ta0967 11y ago
      And what about in San Francisco, where that person could very likely be mentally unstable.. the startup scene must be reeeally cutthroat. ;)
    - k-mcgrady 11y ago
      >> "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.
theworstshill 11y ago
Mass shootings are a small price to pay for real freedom. Imagine the type of societies that could evolve in Russia/China/etc... if the population was heavily armed. Corruption/Cronyism? Less likely since there is a real chance you might be shot by an unhappy citizen.
protomyth 11y ago
And more toddlers die in backyard swimming pools than by any terrorist. Once again, the CDC has an amazing list[1] of what kills US citizens in the USA. Violence doesn't even make the top 15 anymore. Self-harm is at position 10 and we really need to work on that. Plus, all the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the US are the most violent and have the most murders. Stop blaming an object, and start blaming the policies of government that create a cycle of crime. 1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  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'.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    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. The Republicans don't want mental treatment homes in the community and vote to cut there funding. Since they cannot agree we get a whole lot of problems.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      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-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/ 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.
lhnz 11y ago
This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? 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. 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. Edit: Everybody is misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "terrorists are more dangerous than toddlers!" or "gun control is bad!". I'm saying that people fear terrorism for different underlying reasons than its impact on fatality, and that understanding this will help communication between the right and left (perhaps allowing your arguments to be heard across political lines.)
- ta0967 11y ago
  > 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. 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/Carlos_the_Jackal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing 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)
- mikeash 11y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen that assimilation thing. The kind of terrorists that people are afraid of in the US tend to be visitors who come to this country with the purpose of doing violence, not anyone who would be assimilating, even if they were perfectly nice people. 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.
matwood 11y ago
Most things that kill people in the USA kill more people than terrorists do. The comparison is purposely sensationalistic and cheapens the argument much like 'think of the children.'
- baldfat 11y ago
  "Think of the children" is for hypothetical issues where there really isn't any clear danger to children actually. This is the opposite. People are so irresponsible with their guns that toddlers have access to guns. This is very shameful and not a "Think of the children" worthy issue.
- Intermernet 11y ago
  Have you perhaps considered that the treatment of terrorism is "purely sensationalistic" as well? The argument against terrorism shouldn't be "cheapened", but it should have far less value than it currently does. 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.
  - matwood 11y ago
    Terrorism is almost by definition sensationalist. The argument I referred to as cheapened was the argument being made in the article against guns. Both sides of the gun argument are very passionate. In order for either to make headway with the other they have to avoid starting with hyperbole. Instead, all you get is both sides shouting at each other.
    - Intermernet 11y ago
      As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US homes. My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but they're almost always illegal guns involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes. Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have is subject to restrictions. Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway. EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable (given a modern agrarian viewpoint) 1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood. 2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat. 3: Self defense.
cm2187 11y ago
Terrorism is like a mosquito in a room. Hearing its buzz will drive people nuts but the actual harm caused is negligible. But right now people are pretty much ready to throw their basic rights and freedom away in the hope it will make the buzz go away. The worst part is that attacks like the Paris attacks are pretty much impossible to prevent unless we transform our democracy into a totalitarian state...
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  unless it's a mosquito with malaria or dengue :) (aka terrorist with nuclear/dirty bomb). 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
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    The moon landing was a tool to create a different emotion, though. It was to stir up some national pride and put a happy face on the rocket tech that nearly led to a total nuclear annihilation during the cold war.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      what I meant that we can achieve amazing stuff as mankind (especially with 60's tech), but still be completely irrational redneck-style when emotions kick in
      - ascagnel_ 11y ago
        We're kind of arguing past each other -- you're saying emotions can lead to irrational behavior, while I'm saying emotions can be manipulated for many ends.
pjc50 11y ago
Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first and last "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects by police is extremely rare (police are not routinely armed, except for anti-terrorist patrols at strategic points with MP5s), and of course firearm accidents and suicides are less common as well. Sadly suicide is a problem in the farming community; farmers often have shotguns for pest control purposes and deer culling.
- mizchief2 11y ago
  Paris. Virtually the same if not more restrictive gun laws.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  >> police are not routinely armed 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.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    This is a good point. I think it's ingrained in American culture (and the Constitution) that part of the purpose of personal gun ownership is to curb governmental power. How can gun control be justified when police are roaming around like a para-military group?
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
> Growing up here myself didn’t prepare me for how distinctly, viscerally frightening it would be to raise children in a gun-obsessed nation. All arguments aside, this is just... really? I mean, come on.
- agarden 11y ago
  I am a bit baffled by the terror-stricken tone of the article, summed up in this sentence. 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.
  - pnut 11y ago
    Just don't piss them off while they're drunk.
- lukeasrodgers 11y ago
  As a Canadian raising a small child in America, I echo the sentiment expressed by the author. It may be slightly irrational (e.g. statistically I should be more afraid of my kid getting hit by a car), but I don't think the author is just intentionally sensationalizing. When you don't grow up around guns, and regularly hear news stories about kids accidentally or intentionally shooting each other/family members, it is quite concerning. 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.
axelfreeman 11y ago
This link in the article is more interessting that this article himself. http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/
jfaucett 11y ago
Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z, where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population. Examples: 1. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic groups combined! 2. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV! In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even ligitimate journalism.
- skippytheroo 11y ago
  Perhaps if HIV was endlessly highlighted by government and the media as a major problem in Sweden your analogy might have made some sense. In my opinion your post exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even legitimate criticism.
  - agarden 11y ago
    Okay, try this: far, far more people die in the US in car accidents than are shot. More people die because of DUIs than because of guns. Yet guns are endlessly highlighted as a major problem and the talk is constantly about making it harder to attain them and yet few people are ranting on about the dangers of automobile or licquor. Indeed, the original article dismisses drunk teenagers as a non-threat. Drunk teenagers almost certainly kill more people than toddlers with guns.
    - jamespo 11y ago
      Maybe because taking away cars has more downsides than taking away guns?
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Nah... fuck cars. Ride a bike!
    - arprocter 11y ago
      IIRC US road deaths and shooting deaths are about even (around 30k each), although the gun figure includes suicides
dheera 11y ago
How exactly do we define "terrorist"? For example, why is the San Bernandino mass shooting NOT considered terrorism? Because more people were killed in that single incident than were shot by toddlers in all of 2015.
- trill1 11y ago
  Wait, the San Bernandino shooting is constantly referred to as terrorism by the media and by politicians... When the perpetrator isn't Muslim though, the situation is different (e.g. Dylan Roof, Anders Brevik, James Holmes) and the same people instead are much more likely to frame the violence as a mental health issue.
  - lliamander 11y ago
    terrorists and lone wackos may both engage in mass shootings, but their threat profiles are different[1]. The San Bernandino shooters fit the 'terrorist' threat profile; Dylan Roof, et al., fit the profile of 'lone wacko'. [1]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943
    - trill1 11y ago
      I see no meaningful distinction between the San Bernandino shooters and the "lone wackos". Cultural background influences how an angry, mentally ill person will brand and target their particular act of violence. For Dylan Roof it was racism, for Anders Breivik it was Christianity, and for Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, it was radical Islam. So far even the FBI says they acted alone. It's undeniable that whether or not a person is Muslim influences how their violent act is framed by the media and politicians. Also worth noting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_to_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_t...
- scotty79 11y ago
  Actually this includes San Bernardino as terrorism: http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (very bottom) kills: toddlers vs. terrorists, 21 to 19 (including 14 in San Bernardino)
marknutter 11y ago
When was the last time a toddler killing someone led to the passage of something like the Patriot Act or the creation of a department like Homeland Security. Terrorism isn't about killing as many people as possible, it's about instilling terror in your enemy and all the negative stuff that goes along with that. Comparing it to accidents involving guns and toddlers is lazy.
kelvin0 11y ago
”If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” - Marc Aurelius.
njharman 11y ago
This says more about the minuscule threat terrorists pose than the rate of firearm accidents.
iraldir 11y ago
The simpsons did it
jasonkester 11y ago
This will no doubt be framed as a victory for our Pro-Gun society. After all, ubiquitous gun ownership has so diminished the rampant terrorism problem facing the USA that fewer people in 2015 were killed by terrorists than by small children. Compare that to, say, 2001, when thousands of people were killed by terrorists on average each month, and you can only see a victory in todays improved pro-gun climate. I don't hold out much hope for a return to reason any time soon.
emblem21 11y ago
In a world full of corporate sponsered politicians who make the laws without regard of the masses, a power mad executive branch that uses state of the art tech to monitor everything in an attempt to detect precrime, the mass incarceration of males based on balance sheet projections, and wide spread police brutality, and growing geopolitical unstability due to interventionalists refusing to allow the markets to reflect risk, it is no wonder the fourth estate and their loyal cadre of narrative worshippers want to totally eliminate gun ownership.
joesmo 11y ago
Any discussions of guns in America that doesn't delve into the differences between states is bound to be uninformed just like this article. You want to see what gun control looks like in America? Go to New Jersey. We have gun control. You cannot leave your house in New Jersey with a gun. The laws and their enforcement are so draconian, you cannot safely even go to the gun range with your very legal gun. This is what gun control looks like in America. We have some of the worst ghettos and gun violence in America because we have gun control, because the only people stupid enough to have a gun on them in New Jersey are criminals. This isn't some hypothetical. This has been reality for decades here. So before some uninformed idiots make idiotic generalized statements about guns in America, I'd like to invite them to New Jersey and see how safe and wonderful their gun-controlled vision of America is. No one could possibly make such arguments if they really considered the outcome of their actions, but most Americans are too stupid to do that generally and can only consider their own fantasies as reality. That's how we ended up in this situation of draconian drug and terrorism laws. Americans consider what they want to happen as what will and what is happening, despite a flood of evidence to the contrary. Then they write idiotic articles like this without even doing research and finding out what really happens when you have gun control in America. When there's a researched, well-thought out article on gun control, maybe there'll be something to discuss. Until then, we're wasting words on both sides. Conversation my ass.
puppetmaster3 11y ago
Sometimes the legal system is wrong or even miss used: ergo, lets shut down the legal system. Sometimes a car kills: ergo, lets ban cars. Children.
sobbybutter 11y ago
The statistics are always misinterpreted; they can't be considered in the same domain. Terrorists fall in the risk domain that is subject to tail events. Toddlers with guns don't. In plain English, you're not going to see a 10x increase in deaths one year from toddlers playing around with guns, while that's very possible with terrorist activity. In fat-tailed domains like terrorism, single, extreme events make up the entire mean, so just because something bad doesn't happen for a short period of time doesn't mean it's any safer. All it takes is one extreme terrorist event to do some serious damage.
lliamander 11y ago
Many people have rightly pointed out that terrorism, being a tail risk, should not have such an out-sized influence on policy or lead to the erosion of civil rights. If that is your take-away from this article, good for you. Some people, including the article's author, then go on to argue that because of a different tail-risk (toddler's shooting people with guns) we should ban* all guns. This is a terrible argument. I am not saying there are no good arguments out there, I am saying this is not one of them. *Yes, I said ban. Guns are already regulated, no proposed legislation would prevent this incident, and bans are the explicit end goal of most pro gun-control groups[1] [1]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912
BFatts 11y ago
Soon as I got to "rightwing scapegoat" I stopped reading. Sorry, but if it included "leftwing wacko" it would be the same with me. If you can't get your point across without trying to be witty and calling Florida, USA's penis, you don't deserve my attention.

331 points by plg 11y ago

I always hate these kind of articles. As a US citizen there's only rule when it comes to firearms and that's the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments are invalid.

bwindels 11y ago
So until a law is changed, it's invalid to argue for changing that law?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
anexprogrammer 11y ago
My understanding, and someone correct me if I am wrong, is the 2nd amendment was in no way held to be a generic right for all to bear arms until the 1970s. 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-second-amendment-106856 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  You could say the same thing about gay marriage, of course.
alistairSH 11y ago
So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Because, if this is about securing the state (either against a tyrannical government, or a 3rd party), rifles and handguns aren't going to cut it. 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).
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Most of those are prohibitively expensive, but why not? Is your argument that somehow ordinary people will be more likely to use them indiscriminately? I mean, who is the US government, which owns bazookas and air craft carriers, but a collection of ordinary people who have done their share of indiscriminate usage of weaponry?
  - alistairSH 11y ago
    My argument was that the 2A isn't absolute, as the parent implied. There are restrictions placed on the ownership and use of firearms (see child comment about NFA items and the extra paperwork, fees, and licensing involved). I'm not anti-gun, in the general sense. I am pro-gun control in a much as the current system allows too many irresponsible people to own guns for no good reason (Jamie Gilt being a prime example).
- throwaway21816 11y ago
  You can actually own a bazooka if you fill out the correct paperwork. It is a NFA item as regulated by the ATF and each round (aside from rounds containing no explosives) are their own NFA regulated item. Each bazooka and explosive round requires a long approval process, $200 fee, fingerprinting and passport photos. Each explosive round must be stored in a ammunition bunker built to strict ATF regulations and you must inform the ATF of each round fired. Rifles and handguns sure are doing quite a number in the middle east and they worked in vietnam.
  - alistairSH 11y ago
    Huh, didn't realize bazookas were actually legal. But, the fact that there is an NFA requirement proves my point - the 2A isn't absolute - there are restrictions placed on firearms.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers? Yes, of course. You'll need quite a bit of money to buy the second two and comply with safety regulations, though … There is an argument that the 2nd Amendment only covers personal weapons, e.g. rifles, pistols, swords, knives, bazookas &c. I don't find it fully persuasive, but I don't really feel strongly enough about the issue to spend all my time arguing about whether nukes should be legal: I'm far more concerned about things like firearms, knife & sword bans. Edit: s/too/two/
rwj 11y ago
Isn't that kind of the point? Americans can't decide if they want new laws or to amend the constitution before deciding what the ideal would be. Your point is to shut down discussion before they get that far. 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?
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  > There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!) Those are limitations on the improper use of speech, not on merely possessing the means to communicate. > Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional? Found unconstitutional? I'm not at all sure of that, as the judicial system doesn't lend itself well to prediction. Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > > Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional? > Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt. I don't really think so. The State has the power to deprive citizens of their rights — to include their right to life — so long as it observes due process, so it has the ability to deny firearms ownership to e.g. felons (otherwise one would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to arms of prisoners …). I think that it can require sellers to check whether or not someone is permitted to receive an item before transferring it. I just don't know that this is particularly effective. Honestly, weapons crime is not a problem of weapons: it's a problem of criminals.
misnome 11y ago
And I'm sure that well-regulated militia would be an improvement! Perhaps the country should start adhering to the second amendment, rather than statutorily ignoring the first half?
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  10 USC 311: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The first half (the prefatory clause) needn't be ignored for the Second Amendment to apply to everyone - unless you're arguing for firearms restriction to apply only to women of all ages and men over age 45, but I doubt that's the case.
mcherm 11y ago
I completely disagree with you. 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.

melling 11y ago

Another ape shit HN statistics story. How about we derive a different title? Your odds of being killed by a terrorist and by furniture are the same. https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-by-furniture/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-more-l... "Toddlers with guns kill more people than people killed by furniture."

anexprogrammer 11y ago

This is more a reflection of how vanishingly rare either event is than a compelling argument for fewer guns. In a population of 300m or thereabouts some people will die in some very peculiar ways. We can dig up some of the rarer ones to compare with terrorism. That said some limitation of US gun ownership law does seem sensible. But this story is no more than gossip.

agarden 11y ago

What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying that are not. If you are driving your kids across town and get t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving. Something really bad happened, everyone move on with your lives. Or when a relative dies because of a medical error, they might be rage at the particular doctor at fault, but there isn't a general outcry against hospitals or doctors. Everyone will still urge you to go to the ER at first signs of a serious problem. But if a lunatic shoots a few people in a public place, then guns should just be banned altogether and there is a general outcry and the POTUS needs to visit the victims to console them. Maybe someone can enlighten me why the risk of gun deaths is so much less acceptable (to a portion of the population) than the risk of death by automobile. EDIT: Skiing is purely entertainment. About 41.5 people die a year in skiing accidents[1]. This, too, is considered an acceptable risk. [1] http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snowboarding-Safety-10-1-12.pdf http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snow...

notontopicbut 11y ago
I think most people don't find guns crucial to their day to day lives, but doctors and cars are.
massysett 11y ago
Because automobile travel has positive economic and social effects. You can't say the same about mass handgun ownership.
alistairSH 11y ago
Because guns are expressly designed to kill. They serve no other purpose (ignoring sporting uses, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can kill with a gun). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs a gun to carry out their day to day jobs. That isn't true of cars or hospitals.
- throwaway21816 11y ago

Kenji 11y ago

Obvious answer: Ban toddlers rather than end-to-end encryption. On a more serious note, the gun deaths in America are a cultural problem (being careless with weapons, not locking them away properly, etc). No ban will fix culture. There are ways of improving the world without bans. I loathe the kneejerk reactions like "someone was harmed by X - BAN IT FOR EVERYONE!". What happened to self-responsibility? Why can't we just educate people and encourage them to train in the safe handling of guns? It's not that hard.

valine 11y ago

Gun ownership is less about protecting individuals from other individuals, and more about protecting our society from governments that want to oppress it. You could make the argument that no such power exists today, but that's besides the point. Powerful, oppressive, nations have existed before and they could exist again. An armed population is our last line of defense.

jernfrost 11y ago
That is actually an extremely weak argument. Iraq had higher gun ownership than the US, and yet they were all under an oppressive dictator. There are actually several oppressive countries with high gun ownership. 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.
- valine 11y ago
  I've noticed that too. The trend of right wing gun activists to support increased survalence. It's an odd issue that seems to draw support from both political parties. President Obama has made his stance on privacy and survalence pretty clear. Ironicically it's the same stance that most of the republican candidates are taking.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    I am a right wing gun nut and I am strongly pro-Snowden, for what its worth. I am a gun nut because I fear government, and the NSA revelations are proof that my fears are justified. A lot of other gun nuts think like me. Don't assume the Republican party represents us.

FussyZeus 11y ago

This is the latest in a line of articles (and arguments) for that matter that completely fails to address the gun culture we have in the United States. It paints a picture that people who have guns are just these crazy old hicks, ha ha look at them with their silly guns. First of all in large areas of the country (and around the world) guns can be useful tools of survival or hobbies, including around where I live. We have shooting ranges, gun safety courses, numerous retailers that sell them, and no mass shootings either alongside a healthy and large hunting population. Guns are important here is the takeaway. It's awfully sad what happened to Jamie Gilt and that toddler is probably going to have some serious issues to work out as they grow up, but let's be clear: she left the gun loaded in an accessible area. That was her choice and now she's paying for it. Second of all, the problem with this article is that it's basing all of it's arguments in the rational. Guns are dangerous; yeah, we know, they're literal killing machines, that's what they're for. Guns are unnecessary; maybe where you live and we could get by without them too, but we don't want to. We LIKE the guns, that's why we spend large amounts of money on them. In Australia they made big steps in what many consider to be the right direction with a buyback program, but if that was offered here I can honestly say I wouldn't go for it. I bought my guns for a reason; I want them here. You know a Toyota Camry would probably be much safer and much more economical and better for the environment than a Charger with a V8 engine, but the argument of safety, economy and environment completely misses the reasons I would buy the Charger; it's fun and I like it. And I feel it's an essential part of our freedom to make certain that people are allowed to choose what they WANT instead of what is necessarily the best decision FOR them. My $0.02.

blackrose 11y ago
Yes, now if only the government would let me buy that cocaine I want.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Well considering how effective the War on Drugs has been, I'm honestly fine with you buying cocaine. You can't possibly do as much damage as the various District Attorney's do.

jron 11y ago

Lightning Kills More People in the USA Than Terrorists Do

jbmorgado 11y ago
So does cancer, diabetes and cows... they don't do it with firearms though. The operative word here is firearms and that's what people are trying to discuss.
- jron 11y ago
  Correct, lightning kills with electricity, not firearms. The point is both incidents are incredibly rare. Your first two examples don't really work in this context; cows on the other hand - good example. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm

amelius 11y ago

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "but think of the children!" :)

ikeboy 11y ago

1. The source for this article is http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/, which says >Broad counts indicate that 21 toddlers shot and killed themselves or others in 2015; 19 Americans died at the hands of potential or suspected Islamic terrorists. Even taken at face value, that's 21 to 19. That page is itself a bit confusing. They count the number of deaths by Islamic terrorists while evaluating a claim that merely says foreign terrorists. The guardian then spins that into terrorists, not specifying foreigners. Glancing over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J... turns up the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting, 9 dead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren..., 3 dead Neither seem to be by foreigners, so snopes is not wrong, just confusing. The guardian is flat out wrong. The numbers are 9+3+19=31 versus 21 for toddlers. 2. The fear of terrorism is of the tail. People aren't that worried over the 10 people who die in an attack, comparatively. They're worried about the 3000 people that die for a large scale attack, even if it's less likely. I bet if you took the last 25 years, terrorist deaths would be more than toddler gun deaths. If the latter is around 25 a year, we have a total of 625, versus 3000 from 9/11 alone.

throwaway21816 11y ago

There are more toddlers in the USA than terrorists in the USA. This is pretty inconsequential.

imgabe 11y ago

To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from getting shot by her toddler? As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been around guns for a long time and should have been well versed in how to handle them safely. I doubt there's any training that could be mandated that would exceed the experience she already had. Short of banning guns entirely, which would require a constitutional amendment, I don't see what the proposed solution is. She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already. In general, I think it makes more sense to have laws that punish people for bad things that actually happen, not for things that might, conceivably, possibly lead to something bad happening. No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

zamalek 11y ago
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 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.
- 11y ago

justin_vanw 11y ago

More people in the US die every year from television than die from terrorism in the last 10 years. I don't mean by being sedentary contributing to heart disease. I mean physically killed by a television falling on you. http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-caused-by-falling-tvs http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-ca... This article is misleading. Virtually nobody dies of terrorism. Virtually nobody dies from toddler shootings.

talmand 11y ago
Especially since so many people can interpret the cause of such a death in so many ways. One person says terrorism, another says work place violence. Not many people argue over describing an accidental death caused by a toddler.

tmaly 11y ago

You have to remember only law abiding citizens in the US follow the gun laws. If a bad guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police response time is not enough to save you and your family. If you want to protect your young child in this case, its better to lawfully own a gun and have proper training on how to use it.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
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 life threatening.
- thatswrong0 11y ago
  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 the night, I'm not going to be a robot and be running probabilities in my head. I'm going to protect myself and my family to the fullest extent possible, which is eliminating the threat. I'm not going to assume anything other than the worst about the threat.
  - ta0967 11y ago
    And what about in San Francisco, where that person could very likely be mentally unstable.. the startup scene must be reeeally cutthroat. ;)
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    >> "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.

theworstshill 11y ago

Mass shootings are a small price to pay for real freedom. Imagine the type of societies that could evolve in Russia/China/etc... if the population was heavily armed. Corruption/Cronyism? Less likely since there is a real chance you might be shot by an unhappy citizen.

protomyth 11y ago

And more toddlers die in backyard swimming pools than by any terrorist. Once again, the CDC has an amazing list[1] of what kills US citizens in the USA. Violence doesn't even make the top 15 anymore. Self-harm is at position 10 and we really need to work on that. Plus, all the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the US are the most violent and have the most murders. Stop blaming an object, and start blaming the policies of government that create a cycle of crime. 1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

FireBeyond 11y ago
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'.
- protomyth 11y ago
  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. The Republicans don't want mental treatment homes in the community and vote to cut there funding. Since they cannot agree we get a whole lot of problems.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    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-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/ 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.

lhnz 11y ago

This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? 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. 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. Edit: Everybody is misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "terrorists are more dangerous than toddlers!" or "gun control is bad!". I'm saying that people fear terrorism for different underlying reasons than its impact on fatality, and that understanding this will help communication between the right and left (perhaps allowing your arguments to be heard across political lines.)

ta0967 11y ago
> 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. 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/Carlos_the_Jackal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing 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)
mikeash 11y ago
I don't think I've ever seen that assimilation thing. The kind of terrorists that people are afraid of in the US tend to be visitors who come to this country with the purpose of doing violence, not anyone who would be assimilating, even if they were perfectly nice people. 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.

matwood 11y ago

Most things that kill people in the USA kill more people than terrorists do. The comparison is purposely sensationalistic and cheapens the argument much like 'think of the children.'

baldfat 11y ago
"Think of the children" is for hypothetical issues where there really isn't any clear danger to children actually. This is the opposite. People are so irresponsible with their guns that toddlers have access to guns. This is very shameful and not a "Think of the children" worthy issue.
Intermernet 11y ago
Have you perhaps considered that the treatment of terrorism is "purely sensationalistic" as well? The argument against terrorism shouldn't be "cheapened", but it should have far less value than it currently does. 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.
- matwood 11y ago
  Terrorism is almost by definition sensationalist. The argument I referred to as cheapened was the argument being made in the article against guns. Both sides of the gun argument are very passionate. In order for either to make headway with the other they have to avoid starting with hyperbole. Instead, all you get is both sides shouting at each other.
  - Intermernet 11y ago
    As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US homes. My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but they're almost always illegal guns involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes. Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have is subject to restrictions. Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway. EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable (given a modern agrarian viewpoint) 1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood. 2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat. 3: Self defense.

cm2187 11y ago

Terrorism is like a mosquito in a room. Hearing its buzz will drive people nuts but the actual harm caused is negligible. But right now people are pretty much ready to throw their basic rights and freedom away in the hope it will make the buzz go away. The worst part is that attacks like the Paris attacks are pretty much impossible to prevent unless we transform our democracy into a totalitarian state...

saiya-jin 11y ago
unless it's a mosquito with malaria or dengue :) (aka terrorist with nuclear/dirty bomb). 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
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  The moon landing was a tool to create a different emotion, though. It was to stir up some national pride and put a happy face on the rocket tech that nearly led to a total nuclear annihilation during the cold war.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    what I meant that we can achieve amazing stuff as mankind (especially with 60's tech), but still be completely irrational redneck-style when emotions kick in
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      We're kind of arguing past each other -- you're saying emotions can lead to irrational behavior, while I'm saying emotions can be manipulated for many ends.

pjc50 11y ago

Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first and last "mass shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare (about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects by police is extremely rare (police are not routinely armed, except for anti-terrorist patrols at strategic points with MP5s), and of course firearm accidents and suicides are less common as well. Sadly suicide is a problem in the farming community; farmers often have shotguns for pest control purposes and deer culling.

mizchief2 11y ago
Paris. Virtually the same if not more restrictive gun laws.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
>> police are not routinely armed 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.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  This is a good point. I think it's ingrained in American culture (and the Constitution) that part of the purpose of personal gun ownership is to curb governmental power. How can gun control be justified when police are roaming around like a para-military group?

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

> Growing up here myself didn’t prepare me for how distinctly, viscerally frightening it would be to raise children in a gun-obsessed nation. All arguments aside, this is just... really? I mean, come on.

agarden 11y ago
I am a bit baffled by the terror-stricken tone of the article, summed up in this sentence. 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.
- pnut 11y ago
  Just don't piss them off while they're drunk.
lukeasrodgers 11y ago
As a Canadian raising a small child in America, I echo the sentiment expressed by the author. It may be slightly irrational (e.g. statistically I should be more afraid of my kid getting hit by a car), but I don't think the author is just intentionally sensationalizing. When you don't grow up around guns, and regularly hear news stories about kids accidentally or intentionally shooting each other/family members, it is quite concerning. 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.

axelfreeman 11y ago

This link in the article is more interessting that this article himself. http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

jfaucett 11y ago

Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z, where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population. Examples: 1. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic groups combined! 2. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV! In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even ligitimate journalism.

skippytheroo 11y ago
Perhaps if HIV was endlessly highlighted by government and the media as a major problem in Sweden your analogy might have made some sense. In my opinion your post exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even legitimate criticism.
- agarden 11y ago
  Okay, try this: far, far more people die in the US in car accidents than are shot. More people die because of DUIs than because of guns. Yet guns are endlessly highlighted as a major problem and the talk is constantly about making it harder to attain them and yet few people are ranting on about the dangers of automobile or licquor. Indeed, the original article dismisses drunk teenagers as a non-threat. Drunk teenagers almost certainly kill more people than toddlers with guns.
  - jamespo 11y ago
    Maybe because taking away cars has more downsides than taking away guns?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Nah... fuck cars. Ride a bike!
  - arprocter 11y ago
    IIRC US road deaths and shooting deaths are about even (around 30k each), although the gun figure includes suicides

dheera 11y ago

How exactly do we define "terrorist"? For example, why is the San Bernandino mass shooting NOT considered terrorism? Because more people were killed in that single incident than were shot by toddlers in all of 2015.

trill1 11y ago
Wait, the San Bernandino shooting is constantly referred to as terrorism by the media and by politicians... When the perpetrator isn't Muslim though, the situation is different (e.g. Dylan Roof, Anders Brevik, James Holmes) and the same people instead are much more likely to frame the violence as a mental health issue.
- lliamander 11y ago
  terrorists and lone wackos may both engage in mass shootings, but their threat profiles are different[1]. The San Bernandino shooters fit the 'terrorist' threat profile; Dylan Roof, et al., fit the profile of 'lone wacko'. [1]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943
  - trill1 11y ago
    I see no meaningful distinction between the San Bernandino shooters and the "lone wackos". Cultural background influences how an angry, mentally ill person will brand and target their particular act of violence. For Dylan Roof it was racism, for Anders Breivik it was Christianity, and for Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, it was radical Islam. So far even the FBI says they acted alone. It's undeniable that whether or not a person is Muslim influences how their violent act is framed by the media and politicians. Also worth noting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_to_organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_t...
scotty79 11y ago
Actually this includes San Bernardino as terrorism: http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (very bottom) kills: toddlers vs. terrorists, 21 to 19 (including 14 in San Bernardino)

marknutter 11y ago

When was the last time a toddler killing someone led to the passage of something like the Patriot Act or the creation of a department like Homeland Security. Terrorism isn't about killing as many people as possible, it's about instilling terror in your enemy and all the negative stuff that goes along with that. Comparing it to accidents involving guns and toddlers is lazy.

kelvin0 11y ago

”If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” - Marc Aurelius.

njharman 11y ago

This says more about the minuscule threat terrorists pose than the rate of firearm accidents.

iraldir 11y ago

The simpsons did it

jasonkester 11y ago

This will no doubt be framed as a victory for our Pro-Gun society. After all, ubiquitous gun ownership has so diminished the rampant terrorism problem facing the USA that fewer people in 2015 were killed by terrorists than by small children. Compare that to, say, 2001, when thousands of people were killed by terrorists on average each month, and you can only see a victory in todays improved pro-gun climate. I don't hold out much hope for a return to reason any time soon.

emblem21 11y ago

In a world full of corporate sponsered politicians who make the laws without regard of the masses, a power mad executive branch that uses state of the art tech to monitor everything in an attempt to detect precrime, the mass incarceration of males based on balance sheet projections, and wide spread police brutality, and growing geopolitical unstability due to interventionalists refusing to allow the markets to reflect risk, it is no wonder the fourth estate and their loyal cadre of narrative worshippers want to totally eliminate gun ownership.

joesmo 11y ago

Any discussions of guns in America that doesn't delve into the differences between states is bound to be uninformed just like this article. You want to see what gun control looks like in America? Go to New Jersey. We have gun control. You cannot leave your house in New Jersey with a gun. The laws and their enforcement are so draconian, you cannot safely even go to the gun range with your very legal gun. This is what gun control looks like in America. We have some of the worst ghettos and gun violence in America because we have gun control, because the only people stupid enough to have a gun on them in New Jersey are criminals. This isn't some hypothetical. This has been reality for decades here. So before some uninformed idiots make idiotic generalized statements about guns in America, I'd like to invite them to New Jersey and see how safe and wonderful their gun-controlled vision of America is. No one could possibly make such arguments if they really considered the outcome of their actions, but most Americans are too stupid to do that generally and can only consider their own fantasies as reality. That's how we ended up in this situation of draconian drug and terrorism laws. Americans consider what they want to happen as what will and what is happening, despite a flood of evidence to the contrary. Then they write idiotic articles like this without even doing research and finding out what really happens when you have gun control in America. When there's a researched, well-thought out article on gun control, maybe there'll be something to discuss. Until then, we're wasting words on both sides. Conversation my ass.

puppetmaster3 11y ago

Sometimes the legal system is wrong or even miss used: ergo, lets shut down the legal system. Sometimes a car kills: ergo, lets ban cars. Children.

sobbybutter 11y ago

The statistics are always misinterpreted; they can't be considered in the same domain. Terrorists fall in the risk domain that is subject to tail events. Toddlers with guns don't. In plain English, you're not going to see a 10x increase in deaths one year from toddlers playing around with guns, while that's very possible with terrorist activity. In fat-tailed domains like terrorism, single, extreme events make up the entire mean, so just because something bad doesn't happen for a short period of time doesn't mean it's any safer. All it takes is one extreme terrorist event to do some serious damage.

lliamander 11y ago

Many people have rightly pointed out that terrorism, being a tail risk, should not have such an out-sized influence on policy or lead to the erosion of civil rights. If that is your take-away from this article, good for you. Some people, including the article's author, then go on to argue that because of a different tail-risk (toddler's shooting people with guns) we should ban* all guns. This is a terrible argument. I am not saying there are no good arguments out there, I am saying this is not one of them. *Yes, I said ban. Guns are already regulated, no proposed legislation would prevent this incident, and bans are the explicit end goal of most pro gun-control groups[1] [1]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912

BFatts 11y ago

Soon as I got to "rightwing scapegoat" I stopped reading. Sorry, but if it included "leftwing wacko" it would be the same with me. If you can't get your point across without trying to be witty and calling Florida, USA's penis, you don't deserve my attention.