3 ms·
That's what 'irks' you? Not the murder of an MP?
by matthewmorgan 5y ago
That's what 'irks' you? Not the murder of an MP?
- moffkalast 5y agoIt's not the first and likely not the last, regardless of what draconian measures they implement. It's a high profile job and the danger comes with it. If you're the one writing laws for everyone to follow, it's highly likely that many people will want you dead. It's a "fun" fact that US presidents have a nearly 20% death rate for example.
- hawk_ 5y ago> It's a "fun" fact that US presidents have a nearly 20% death rate for example. that's lower than the 100% death rate of general population.
- mdp2021 5y agoYou forgot the pars construens. "Occupational mortality rate"?
- mdp2021 5y agoLincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy, and Reagan came close (I cannot remember other close calls) out of 45: that is 10% at "best" ('best' here as improper as that 'funny'). Natural causes do not count for the context.
- moffkalast 5y agoYeah I think with natural causes it's 18.something percent.
- rich_sasha 5y agoIt’s an unspeakable tragedy. But this is HN and I thought we were meant to skip the obvious and focus on insightful debate. With any terror event, tragic as it might be, the aftermath tends to be way more impactful than the actual event. The death of 5,000 people in WTC started at least one UN-sanctioned war and cost the lives of many times more than the airplane strikes. So yes, I’m choosing to focus on the aftermath. But Sir David, rest in peace.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]