3 ms·

My take away from those numbers is the drop in deaths per incident: from about 5.5 to 3.9. A 30% drop in deaths per incident seems like a big win to me. Sure t

by wfme 4y ago

My take away from those numbers is the drop in deaths per incident: from about 5.5 to 3.9. A 30% drop in deaths per incident seems like a big win to me. Sure there were more incidents, but the population also grew considerably from an average of 15.6m over the first period, to 22.1m over the second - a 41% increase. Applying that increase to the 16 incidents gives us 22.5, almost exactly the actual number (23). So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%.

robswc 4y ago
>So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%. Honestly, to me that number isn't nearly as impressive enough to justify surrendering one of your only practical defenses against a tyrannical regime. This takes your chances of dying from a terrorist attack from 0.0000001% to 0.000000066% ?
- wfme 4y ago
  How many of these "tyrannical regime"s have you had to defend yourself against in your lifetime?
  - robswc 4y ago
    Zero. Do you truly believe we are past the need to defend against tyrannical regimes?
    - wfme 4y ago
      Yes, in most countries I think we are well past that point. What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against?
      - robswc 4y ago
        >What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against? The fact that many, many people have thought exactly as you do. That they had reached the pinnacle of governance to the point that they would never collapse or need to defend themselves. A significant portion of the population figured WW1 was the "war to end all wars" merely on the premise that the war was so great, like nothing they had ever seen before. We are seeing unprecedented peace but I see no reason to think that historical peace == future peace. If you want a more "objective" answer... Conflicts arise far too often to suggest one of them won't turn into a scenario that allows for occupation or tyranny. How many people seriously predicted Ukraine would be invaded? If you truly think "most countries are past that point" - which countries are you referring to and how long do you think they will last/remain stable? How would one come to this estimate?
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    The US just went through 4 years during which it should have been quite clear to everyone that the stability and norms of our government and civilization are very fragile things. Imagine for a moment Jan 6 actually was a successful coup, especially given the supposed coziness of the various police forces to said coup initiators. There are quite a few groups of people who might have benefited from having a strong civilian ownership and knowledge of firearms in that event. Likewise, there's an entire country currently undergoing an invasion being fought not only by their regular army but by civilian volunteers too. And sure, such an event happening in the US is unlikely given our particular neighbors, but then again even up to the day of the invasion various analysts were sure it would never happen so predicting the future can be a bit difficult. We don't live in a post conflict world, and our country isn't immune to bad actors.

by wfme 4y ago

robswc 4y ago

>So even though the number of incidents per capita didn't drop, the deaths per incident fell 30%. Honestly, to me that number isn't nearly as impressive enough to justify surrendering one of your only practical defenses against a tyrannical regime. This takes your chances of dying from a terrorist attack from 0.0000001% to 0.000000066% ?

wfme 4y ago
How many of these "tyrannical regime"s have you had to defend yourself against in your lifetime?
- robswc 4y ago
  Zero. Do you truly believe we are past the need to defend against tyrannical regimes?
  - wfme 4y ago
    Yes, in most countries I think we are well past that point. What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against?
    - robswc 4y ago
      >What makes you think it is still a prominent threat that should be defended against? The fact that many, many people have thought exactly as you do. That they had reached the pinnacle of governance to the point that they would never collapse or need to defend themselves. A significant portion of the population figured WW1 was the "war to end all wars" merely on the premise that the war was so great, like nothing they had ever seen before. We are seeing unprecedented peace but I see no reason to think that historical peace == future peace. If you want a more "objective" answer... Conflicts arise far too often to suggest one of them won't turn into a scenario that allows for occupation or tyranny. How many people seriously predicted Ukraine would be invaded? If you truly think "most countries are past that point" - which countries are you referring to and how long do you think they will last/remain stable? How would one come to this estimate?
- tpmoney 4y ago
  The US just went through 4 years during which it should have been quite clear to everyone that the stability and norms of our government and civilization are very fragile things. Imagine for a moment Jan 6 actually was a successful coup, especially given the supposed coziness of the various police forces to said coup initiators. There are quite a few groups of people who might have benefited from having a strong civilian ownership and knowledge of firearms in that event. Likewise, there's an entire country currently undergoing an invasion being fought not only by their regular army but by civilian volunteers too. And sure, such an event happening in the US is unlikely given our particular neighbors, but then again even up to the day of the invasion various analysts were sure it would never happen so predicting the future can be a bit difficult. We don't live in a post conflict world, and our country isn't immune to bad actors.