3 ms·
You make a great point about expected value of damage done, rather than focusing on the probability of an attack. But I think an attack with guns has a low upp
by zeroer 10y ago
You make a great point about expected value of damage done, rather than focusing on the probability of an attack. But I think an attack with guns has a low upper limit on the number of people you can kill (maybe around 100, plus or minus?) before an armed response is mobilized. Things like nuclear, chemical, biological attacks or bombs bringing down buildings scare me more from a statistical standpoint.
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoI'm pretty sure that P(bombs|guns) > P(bombs), so my point stands. It's a mix of guns being dangerous, as well as gun possession being evidence of possession of other dangerous things.
- zeroer 10y agoSomething like 30% of US households own guns. I'm not so sure gun ownership is higher amongst terrorists.