3 ms·
>>> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. >> The article never made this point. All it said is that
by forgotpwtomain 11y ago
>>> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers.
>> The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures..
> If that was the case they would not have mentioned terrorism.
Your first statement 'toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists' is not to be found anywhere in the article, the article mentioned terrorism in order to make the second statement which I pointed out to you. I'm not sure what you are unclear about?
- lhnz 11y agoSorry for being unclear. My point is that the article and subsequent comments by you and threatofrain establish a frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and right. I did not invoke your second point as I fully agree with it.