4 ms·

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

> Terrorism: more toddlers killed Americans than terrorists in 2015. For every terrorist killing someone on US soil, more than 4000 Americans killed each other. Terrorism isn't a fake issue. You're ignoring the potential devastating effects that a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil could have. Terrorists are always trying to up their game and its because of this that they represent a significant threat. Toddlers, and homicidal fellow Americans, represent a fairly fixed threat compared to the unknown possibilities of terrorists (for example a chemical or nuclear weapon released in NYC).

gwbas1c 10y ago
Terrorism isn't about an attack, it's about fear. When we sacrifice our freedoms to live in fear of terrorists, they win.
- thomyorkie 10y ago
  Freedoms and proactive steps to mitigate an attack are not mutually exclusive.
  - esrauch 10y ago
    I think the proactive steps that aren't at the expense of freedoms aren't the ones that are controversial.
    - lliamander 10y ago
      Like right to bear arms?
      - esrauch 10y ago
        Restricting gun availability is a proactive step against terrorism reduces freedoms that is controversial.
        lliamander 10y ago
        I see that I was not being clear, my apologies. What I meant was that retaining the right to bear arms is a proactive step against terrorism (by minimizing "soft" civilian targets) that a)preserves freedoms, and b)is nonetheless controversial. The parent comment was making the argument that there are no freedom-preserving counter terrorism measures that are controversial. The right to bear arms is a counter example.
        esrauch 10y ago
        In that case it's unclear that it is a proactive step against terrorism (for the reason I said, domestic terrorists get guns more easily) which is a different kind of debate than cases where everyone agrees a freedom limiting step would prevent terrorism and the question is if it's worth it.
nickbauman 10y ago
Are you statistics challenged? Even an attack on the level of 9/11 will be significantly lower than the number of Americans that shoot each other to death per year. If you want to read about the likelihood of a nuclear attack by terrorists, read Physics for Future Presidents. It's very, very low.
- dionidium 10y ago
  Right, but we're human beings who have evolved in a specific environment to have specific wants and desires and fears. And one of those is the fear of terrorism. You can, I guess, beat on the statistics drum until the sun swallows the Earth, but human beings on planet Earth, largely, do not agree with your model for assessing the costs of international terrorism. Your model assumes that, hey, a death is a death is a death, no matter the cause; but most people care more about some types of deaths than others. You seem to think you just need to educate those people, but the difference is deeper than that.
- thomyorkie 10y ago
  No need to be condescending. Can you tell me what the likelihood of a nuclear attack by terrorists will be in 10 years, 20 years? How about if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do you think 9/11 will be the worst terrorist attack we will ever see? My whole point is terrorists, and those that support them, are becoming increasingly competent in nearly every vector of attack, nuclear being only one. And their destructive ambitions grow even faster than their competency. I simply don't see how anyone can call it a fake issue.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    This is just fear-driven speculation (which is a sign that you are being terrorized). What attacks are terrorists becoming "increasingly competent" at, exactly? What specifics are you talking about? How about Occam's Razor? It takes only 10 drops of benzine to contaminate 50,000 gallons of drinking water. Will you vote for the candidate that will protect our drinking water no matter what? Is this making any sort of impression on you how this whole terrorism thing actually works?

gwbas1c 10y ago

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

thomyorkie 10y ago
Freedoms and proactive steps to mitigate an attack are not mutually exclusive.
- esrauch 10y ago
  I think the proactive steps that aren't at the expense of freedoms aren't the ones that are controversial.
  - lliamander 10y ago
    Like right to bear arms?
    - esrauch 10y ago
      Restricting gun availability is a proactive step against terrorism reduces freedoms that is controversial.
      - lliamander 10y ago
        I see that I was not being clear, my apologies. What I meant was that retaining the right to bear arms is a proactive step against terrorism (by minimizing "soft" civilian targets) that a)preserves freedoms, and b)is nonetheless controversial. The parent comment was making the argument that there are no freedom-preserving counter terrorism measures that are controversial. The right to bear arms is a counter example.
        esrauch 10y ago
        In that case it's unclear that it is a proactive step against terrorism (for the reason I said, domestic terrorists get guns more easily) which is a different kind of debate than cases where everyone agrees a freedom limiting step would prevent terrorism and the question is if it's worth it.

nickbauman 10y ago

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

dionidium 10y ago
Right, but we're human beings who have evolved in a specific environment to have specific wants and desires and fears. And one of those is the fear of terrorism. You can, I guess, beat on the statistics drum until the sun swallows the Earth, but human beings on planet Earth, largely, do not agree with your model for assessing the costs of international terrorism. Your model assumes that, hey, a death is a death is a death, no matter the cause; but most people care more about some types of deaths than others. You seem to think you just need to educate those people, but the difference is deeper than that.
thomyorkie 10y ago
No need to be condescending. Can you tell me what the likelihood of a nuclear attack by terrorists will be in 10 years, 20 years? How about if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do you think 9/11 will be the worst terrorist attack we will ever see? My whole point is terrorists, and those that support them, are becoming increasingly competent in nearly every vector of attack, nuclear being only one. And their destructive ambitions grow even faster than their competency. I simply don't see how anyone can call it a fake issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nickbauman 10y ago
  This is just fear-driven speculation (which is a sign that you are being terrorized). What attacks are terrorists becoming "increasingly competent" at, exactly? What specifics are you talking about? How about Occam's Razor? It takes only 10 drops of benzine to contaminate 50,000 gallons of drinking water. Will you vote for the candidate that will protect our drinking water no matter what? Is this making any sort of impression on you how this whole terrorism thing actually works?