4 ms·

> Would you like to raise a family in those conditions? apparently hundreds of millions of people already do it... A provocative answer to your comment: would

> Would you like to raise a family in those conditions? apparently hundreds of millions of people already do it... A provocative answer to your comment: would you like to raise your family where your kids can walk to school and play with other kids in a nearby park at walking distance and never be afraid of mass shootings? I get the impression that huge houses are a symptom of a bigger issue: people in US feel they need a lot of "safe space" around them because the more they are isolated from strangers, the more they feel safe.

sokoloff 5y ago
I would like to (and do) raise my family like that. We live in Cambridge, MA; our kids walk to school and to play with friends in the park, I’ve never feared a mass shooting*, we have reasonable accommodations for cars, bikes, and pedestrians. * - Do you live in fear of drowning, choking, or bicycling? All are significantly higher lifetime risks in America than mass shootings. Drowning is 10x more likely but few live in fear of it. Use statistics to guide your intuition on fears. (I’ve had well-meaning family members caution me about sharks before a day at the ocean. Sharks are sensational and sell ads, but are not the actual risk.) https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-sta...
- oftenwrong 5y ago
  It's sad that "riding inside a car, van or truck" and "pedestrian" are so high on that list, but also surprising that "bicycling" is so significantly safer.
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    Lifetime odds of dying due to an activity is a poor indicator of how safe that activity is. Lifetime odds of dying due to an activity = Probability of dying due to activity while performing it x Expected number of times that activity is performed in lifetime. (Only the first factor corresponds the inherent safety of the activity.) It is not that bicycles are more dangerous than sharks. It is that people are cycling much more than they are interacting with sharks. It is not that walking is more dangerous than cycling. It is that people are walking much more than they are cycling.
- throwamon 5y ago
  Choking can happen anywhere you are; preventing accidents from drowning and bicycling is 100% under your control (just don't swim or ride a bike). Mass shootings don't and aren't.
  - harambae 5y ago
    >preventing accidents from drowning and bicycling is 100% under your control (just don't swim or ride a bike) With a risk profiles like this I'm starting to see why emergency covid measures never end.
    - throwamon 5y ago
      I mentioned relatively extreme measures that are still reasonable for the sake of argument. The point is you can greatly reduce risk from these activities without affecting your life too much (except maybe if you're a professional swimmer/cyclist); the equivalent for shootings would be to never leave your house and that has an obviously much worse impact on most people's lives.
jvvw 5y ago
Walkability isn't a binary thing I guess. I'm in a pleasant but unexciting town (population 12K) in the UK and everybody is in walking distance of the schools, the supermarket, parks and leisure centre. Most houses here are 3 or 4 bedroom (but probably small compared to US family houses and gardens aren't huge), but you do really need to drive to say get to many types of shops, a cinema or any restaurant that isn't an Indian or Chinese for example. I get the impression that most people drive to work (most jobs are in larger towns nearby, some come be reached by train but not all). I suppose there is a balance between house prices, space and the level of walkability and like many families here, this is the compromise we've gone for.
dang 5y ago
> A provocative [...] mass shootings? Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29104807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29104807.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  Judging from the subsequent posts nobody took it as a flamewar, but as an announced provocative answer aimed at exposing the hyperbole contained in the message I was replying to.
  - dang 5y ago
    The problem is that in the general case it would with high likelihood lead to a flamewar. Dropping a lit match in a dry forest is a bad idea even when that particular match doesn't happen to catch fire.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > Dropping a lit match in a dry forest is a bad idea I'm sure you studied this metaphors a lot over the years, but that wasn't a match in a dry forest, it was the image of a match in a dry forest with the label "this is not how you should do it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
      - dang 5y ago
        That's much too complicated. What you posted was flamebait. Please don't do that on HN.

sokoloff 5y ago

I would like to (and do) raise my family like that. We live in Cambridge, MA; our kids walk to school and to play with friends in the park, I’ve never feared a mass shooting*, we have reasonable accommodations for cars, bikes, and pedestrians. * - Do you live in fear of drowning, choking, or bicycling? All are significantly higher lifetime risks in America than mass shootings. Drowning is 10x more likely but few live in fear of it. Use statistics to guide your intuition on fears. (I’ve had well-meaning family members caution me about sharks before a day at the ocean. Sharks are sensational and sell ads, but are not the actual risk.) https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-sta...

oftenwrong 5y ago
It's sad that "riding inside a car, van or truck" and "pedestrian" are so high on that list, but also surprising that "bicycling" is so significantly safer.
- alex_smart 5y ago
  Lifetime odds of dying due to an activity is a poor indicator of how safe that activity is. Lifetime odds of dying due to an activity = Probability of dying due to activity while performing it x Expected number of times that activity is performed in lifetime. (Only the first factor corresponds the inherent safety of the activity.) It is not that bicycles are more dangerous than sharks. It is that people are cycling much more than they are interacting with sharks. It is not that walking is more dangerous than cycling. It is that people are walking much more than they are cycling.
throwamon 5y ago
Choking can happen anywhere you are; preventing accidents from drowning and bicycling is 100% under your control (just don't swim or ride a bike). Mass shootings don't and aren't.
- harambae 5y ago
  >preventing accidents from drowning and bicycling is 100% under your control (just don't swim or ride a bike) With a risk profiles like this I'm starting to see why emergency covid measures never end.
  - throwamon 5y ago
    I mentioned relatively extreme measures that are still reasonable for the sake of argument. The point is you can greatly reduce risk from these activities without affecting your life too much (except maybe if you're a professional swimmer/cyclist); the equivalent for shootings would be to never leave your house and that has an obviously much worse impact on most people's lives.

jvvw 5y ago

Walkability isn't a binary thing I guess. I'm in a pleasant but unexciting town (population 12K) in the UK and everybody is in walking distance of the schools, the supermarket, parks and leisure centre. Most houses here are 3 or 4 bedroom (but probably small compared to US family houses and gardens aren't huge), but you do really need to drive to say get to many types of shops, a cinema or any restaurant that isn't an Indian or Chinese for example. I get the impression that most people drive to work (most jobs are in larger towns nearby, some come be reached by train but not all). I suppose there is a balance between house prices, space and the level of walkability and like many families here, this is the compromise we've gone for.

dang 5y ago

> A provocative [...] mass shootings? Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29104807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29104807.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
Judging from the subsequent posts nobody took it as a flamewar, but as an announced provocative answer aimed at exposing the hyperbole contained in the message I was replying to.
- dang 5y ago
  The problem is that in the general case it would with high likelihood lead to a flamewar. Dropping a lit match in a dry forest is a bad idea even when that particular match doesn't happen to catch fire.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > Dropping a lit match in a dry forest is a bad idea I'm sure you studied this metaphors a lot over the years, but that wasn't a match in a dry forest, it was the image of a match in a dry forest with the label "this is not how you should do it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
    - dang 5y ago
      That's much too complicated. What you posted was flamebait. Please don't do that on HN.