
Toddlers Kill More People in the USA (with guns) Than Terrorists Do - plg
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do
======
pjc50
Since this is today's gun argument thread, I'll just point out that the UK is
currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of its first _and last_ "mass
shooting" incident, at a school in Dunblane, Scotland.

The ensuing total ban on handguns and further restriction on gun licensing
mean that mass shootings are nonexistant, firearm murders are extremely rare
(about one per year in a country of 60m), shooting of suspects by police is
extremely rare (police are not routinely armed, except for anti-terrorist
patrols at strategic points with MP5s), and of course firearm accidents and
suicides are less common as well. Sadly suicide is a problem in the farming
community; farmers often have shotguns for pest control purposes and deer
culling.

~~~
TallGuyShort
>> police are not routinely armed

I'm a gun owner and this is the key point for me. No politician is in a
position to tell me I don't need my semi-automatic pistol if every day I see a
patrol car go by my house with 2 fully automatic AR-15s locked between the
front seats and my local police department owns an armoured vehicle. If you
really think you have a plan for getting rid of guns for bad guys as well as
me, prove it. Demilitarize the police at the same time.

edit: To be fair, I think such a plan is possible, but it requires fixing
other problems that too many politicians are afraid to touch. It's obviously
been done successfully elsewhere, but only when cultures and geographies were
more ready for it. I enjoy shooting and prefer to own a gun, but I'd give them
up for a plan I thought would work. I just haven't seen one proposed in the US
yet.

~~~
optimuspaul
Huh, what's wrong with me then. I absolutely do not need a gun, ever. Nobody
needs a gun. If you think you need a gun then you have serious problems.

Let's talk about basic human needs. Food, water, Air, and to a lesser extent
clothing and shelter. You don't need a gun for any of those things. Sure a gun
can help with food, but guess what, you don't even need to eat meat, there are
so many other sources of food.

So no, you don't need a gun, and you sure as hell don't need a "semi-automatic
pistol".

~~~
LyndsySimon
Respectfully, what right do you have to determine my needs?

From a more practical perspective, what are you going to do about it? Are you
proposing to take arms from the American people by force? How many deaths are
acceptable to make that happen?

To be clear, I don't mean the above as a threat or anything of the sort. I'm
merely pointing out the certain result of a policy of disarmament, and the
hypocrisy of using force to render a population defenseless.

~~~
salgernon
> Are you proposing to take arms from the American people by force

To the extent that libertarians believe that taxes are extracted by force (I
usually see this written as "violence") then yes. If each gun carried a tax
sufficient to mitigate it's societal cost, and if each cartridge were an order
of magnitude more expensive, we would be done with this issue in 100 years.

It will take a long time, but it won't get done if we don't start.

(Preventively - yes, you can 3D print yourself a handgun, and likely blow your
hand off, and reload your own bullets. At that point your personal time doing
that work is a proxy for the taxes you would have payed.)

------
cm2187
Terrorism is like a mosquito in a room. Hearing its buzz will drive people
nuts but the actual harm caused is negligible.

But right now people are pretty much ready to throw their basic rights and
freedom away in the hope it will make the buzz go away.

The worst part is that attacks like the Paris attacks are pretty much
impossible to prevent unless we transform our democracy into a totalitarian
state...

~~~
saiya-jin
unless it's a mosquito with malaria or dengue :) (aka terrorist with
nuclear/dirty bomb).

terrorism is, above all, politically motivated theatrical act that should
manipulate audience into _something_ (fear and thus irrational behavior,
election choices etc). plus some stray dogs that are out of any reasonable
control.

we humans are vastly irrational, and just because mankind landed on the moon
doesn't mean emotions don't hold more power than reason in most of us. that's
why so many people are afraid of flying, are superstitious, believe in
horoscopes and so on. you know, general folks out there who have same voting
power as you or me or anybody else

~~~
cm2187
The problem is the more we over react to it, the more we encourage the next
attack. When a plane crashes, the medias are now reasonable and repeat again
and again that it is an extremely rare event and that flying is very safe. For
terrorism the message is "this could happen to you!".

~~~
jjn2009
It would be naive to think that turning the other cheek would make these
people rethink their viewpoint, if we cannot expect them to rethink their
viewpoint by pacifism then what other choice do we have than to take a hard
stance against such actions. There should be a good balance between not
exploiting peoples fear but also realizing that at some point you have to
react.

------
lhnz
This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there
are more toddlers.

I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react
to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always
thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would
prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the
predominant culture.

Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The
ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate
warring tribes.

Edit: Everybody is misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "terrorists are
more dangerous than toddlers!" or "gun control is bad!". I'm saying that
people fear terrorism for different underlying reasons than its impact on
fatality, and that understanding this will help communication between the
right and left (perhaps allowing your arguments to be heard across political
lines.)

~~~
threatofrain
The point of this article is not that children are more dangerous than
terrorists. The point is that terrorism over-dominates national discussion of
priorities.

Focus on terrorism is worrisome because it kills relatively fewer people than
the top national stressors, it distracts the nation in its very limited
capacity to discuss anything, it justifies extreme expenditure, and by its
covert nature it is difficult to mediate in effect size.

Does terrorism warrant attention and expenditure? Yes. But it should get in
line behind highly preventable or mediatable stressors like vehicle and gun
related deaths.

The nation has spent trillions trying to fight terrorism, terrorism that has
killed several thousand American civilians in total throughout all years. In
response the nation went to war with Iraq, which itself costed thousands of
lives on the American side, and over 100,000 deaths to Iraqis.

Terrorism has justified massive expansion of executive powers, it has led to
opaque operations like extraordinary rendition, torture, and black sites, it
has justified mass surveillance, it has led the discussion on privacy and
encryption, it has led to new executive departments with budgets in the
billions per year, and it justifies the use of secret courts with secret
judges and secret warrants.

All in the name of fighting terrorists, while severe domestic stressors take a
backseat in national priority.

~~~
lhnz
I tried to explain to somebody else here [0] already - "[This establishes] a
frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The
extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of
losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely
in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear
over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and
right."

Effectively the reason terrorism appears to over-dominate the public sphere is
that it does so for different reasons than the ones that are visible to you.
You can mitigate these reasons but first you have to acknowledge them
(otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.)

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173)

~~~
mikeash
The "way of life" thing either depends on terrorism killing enough people to
destroy our way of life, or it's a self-fulfilling prophecy when we destroy
our own way of life by overreacting. Either way, "terrorism doesn't kill very
many people, so don't worry about it so much" addresses it. Not that people
will _listen_ , but it doesn't fail because it misses the point.

~~~
lhnz
> depends on terrorism killing enough people to destroy our way of life

Demographic and therefore cultural shifts do not only occur when a majority
population has a high number of killings. They can also occur when immigrant
populations are more fertile than the majority population. Terrorism is a
signal of clashing ideologies but this in itself isn't a problem for a
majority culture unless they believe themselves to be in rapid decline.

If you want to convince a group of people not to be fearful, you should
probably show them communities in which different cultures peacefully co-
exist, and actively try to lessen their fears that their own culture is
weakening as its members grow older and die. Reducing the causes of fear seems
to me a better path than misunderstanding it and then calling them ignorant.

The way everybody is going I see the opposite happening, and it's only going
to ramp up fear and hatred. I worry about eventual violence.

~~~
mikeash
I don't see much fear of being out-bred. Maybe in some fringe, but the
mainstream seems to fear foreign terrorists coming here to kill people.

For example, look at the debate over Syrian refugees. The "against" side is
not talking about refusing them because they'll start breeding here and their
ideologies will clash, at least not that I've seen. Their reasoning is that
terrorists will hide among the legitimate refugees as a way to gain access to
the country.

~~~
lhnz
You are right about what you see in the mainstream but I have a different
perspective.

It is my opinion that media scapegoating is a symptom of people with poor
economic opportunity and declining institutions giving attention to anybody
that can point at an enemy. Decline, opportunism and imperfect psychologies
are the root causes.

I'm hopeful that elites will attempt to lessen the underlying causes which
would make it more difficult for demagogues to capitalise. However, so far
I've only seem attempts to demonise whole peoples - a mirror image of itself.

------
imgabe
To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from
getting shot by her toddler?

As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been around guns for a long time
and _should_ have been well versed in how to handle them safely. I doubt
there's any training that could be mandated that would exceed the experience
she already had. Short of banning guns entirely, which would require a
constitutional amendment, I don't see what the proposed solution is.

She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and
endangering a minor if she isn't already. In general, I think it makes more
sense to have laws that punish people for bad things that actually happen, not
for things that might, conceivably, possibly lead to something bad happening.

No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

~~~
zamalek
I live in South Africa and while our gun situation is very depressing, I've
never heard of a situation like this happening here. The owner needs
absolutely no common sense about how to safely store a gun. There are very
specific laws about this and there are _heavy_ penalties for neglecting them.
Your training is not about safety, that is merely a consequence of learning
the _rules._

> No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

You can, however, swing probabilities.

> She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and
> endangering a minor if she isn't already.

This is a key point I think. One of the main arguments I hear from gun
advocates is "protecting your family." For argument's sake assume that this is
a valid point, play the devil's advocate. By leaving a loaded weapon lying
around there is a higher probability of your family getting hurt by that
weapon, than someone walking into your home and hurting your family. At this
point you have become an imminent threat to everyone around you and that
threat must be eliminated, possibly by preventing your whole household from
ever laying their hands on a weapon (blacklisting).

In other words, by allowing Gilt to own a gun you are endangering her life and
her child's life. She should not be let near one.

Settling the gun advocacy argument is clearly going to take a long time, but
"common sense" laws can be put in place until a conclusion has been reached.
In the short-term this would benefit both sides of the argument were they not
both so belligerent.

~~~
jjn2009
>You can, however, swing probabilities.

This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming
amount of law abiding citizens give up liberties in the name of reducing a
probability which is less significant than the risk of eating cheese burgers
every day and dying from heart disease, or entering a vehicle.

~~~
zamalek
All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly
(by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look
good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter
leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for
either side.

Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control
advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people
are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal,
instead of saving lives - which is why _both_ sides are having this argument
in the first place.

~~~
jjn2009
>"common sense" gun laws

Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that
liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of
americans.

>If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't
exist

Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then
why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or
heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be
using for arguments about how to write laws.

>Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom.

Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom
even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and
use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their
customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it
is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until
conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time
has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some
form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step
towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy.

>Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives

If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-
death.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

------
justin_vanw
More people in the US die _every year_ from television than die from terrorism
in the _last 10 years_.

I don't mean by being sedentary contributing to heart disease. I mean
physically killed by a television falling on you.

[http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-
ca...](http://theweek.com/articles/469421/shocking-number-deaths-caused-by-
falling-tvs)

This article is misleading. Virtually nobody dies of terrorism. Virtually
nobody dies from toddler shootings.

~~~
talmand
Especially since so many people can interpret the cause of such a death in so
many ways. One person says terrorism, another says work place violence. Not
many people argue over describing an accidental death caused by a toddler.

------
ikeboy
1\. The source for this article is [http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-
americans-terrorists/](http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-
terrorists/), which says

>Broad counts indicate that 21 toddlers shot and killed themselves or others
in 2015; 19 Americans died at the hands of potential or suspected Islamic
terrorists.

Even taken at face value, that's 21 to 19.

That page is itself a bit confusing. They count the number of deaths by
Islamic terrorists while evaluating a claim that merely says foreign
terrorists. The guardian then spins that into terrorists, not specifying
foreigners. Glancing over
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015)
turns up the following:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting),
9 dead
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Paren...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting),
3 dead

Neither seem to be by foreigners, so snopes is not wrong, just confusing. The
guardian is flat out wrong. The numbers are 9+3+19=31 versus 21 for toddlers.

2\. The fear of terrorism is of the tail. People aren't that worried over the
10 people who die in an attack, comparatively. They're worried about the 3000
people that die for a large scale attack, even if it's less likely.

I bet if you took the last 25 years, terrorist deaths would be more than
toddler gun deaths. If the latter is around 25 a year, we have a total of 625,
versus 3000 from 9/11 alone.

------
agarden
What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that
there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying
that are not. If you are driving your kids across town and get t-boned by a
drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will
advocate giving up driving. Something really bad happened, everyone move on
with your lives.

Or when a relative dies because of a medical error, they might be rage at the
particular doctor at fault, but there isn't a general outcry against hospitals
or doctors. Everyone will still urge you to go to the ER at first signs of a
serious problem.

But if a lunatic shoots a few people in a public place, then guns should just
be banned altogether and there is a general outcry and the POTUS needs to
visit the victims to console them.

Maybe someone can enlighten me why the risk of gun deaths is so much less
acceptable (to a portion of the population) than the risk of death by
automobile.

EDIT: Skiing is purely entertainment. About 41.5 people die a year in skiing
accidents[1]. This, too, is considered an acceptable risk.

[1] [http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-
Snow...](http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snowboarding-
Safety-10-1-12.pdf)

~~~
alistairSH
Because guns are expressly designed to kill. They serve no other purpose
(ignoring sporting uses, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well
one can kill with a gun). There is no reason anybody outside of the military
_needs_ a gun to carry out their day to day jobs.

That isn't true of cars or hospitals.

~~~
throwaway21816
Knives are expressly designed to cut. They serve no Purpose (ignoring cooking,
as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can cut with a knife).
There is no reason anybody outside of the kitchen needs a knife to carry out
their day to day jobs.

Encryption is expressly designed to hide terrorists. It serves no purpose
(ignoring privacy, as that is basically a proxy for proving how well one can
hide from the government). There is no reason anybody outside of the military
needs encryption to carry out their day to day jobs.

~~~
alistairSH
Nice throw-away. How 'bout you man up and own your opinions?

------
jfaucett
Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of
outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z,
where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population.

Examples:

1\. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic
groups combined!

2\. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV!

In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argument or even
ligitimate journalism.

~~~
StreamBright
I think most of these articles are trying play the emotional card and most
people ignore facts like:

\- higher gun ownership rate does not cause higher gun related homicides
(check Switzerland or Finland compare to US) \- lower gun ownership rate does
not cause lower mass shootings
([http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/12/research_on_mass_shootings_shows_guns_do_not_make_u_s_safe.html))

I don't understand why people try to make these conclusions.

Here is the list of gun ownership broken down by countries:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

Firearm related death by countries:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-
related_death_rate)

~~~
welterde
Not that this will change your opinion, but Switzerland is not that great of
an example to support your "fact" (and even if it was - a few outliers don't
prove the lack of an correlation).

For starters it has fairly strict gun laws (essentially no carry permits, gun
safes, etc.).

Second the reason for the high gun ownership is the mandatory military service
(no standing army) - you can purchase your service weapon at the end of your
service period. And for the service weapon the ammunition is stored at the
armory - not at home. And without ammunition I would think killing someone
with a gun is much more difficult.

~~~
StreamBright
> For starters it has fairly strict gun laws...

Hmm what you are saying is that gun laws have an impact on gun related death?
I totally agree. Lets create a study that tells us how can we drive down the
gun related death in the US by better laws. That has all of my support.

The rest I agree.

------
valine
Gun ownership is less about protecting individuals from other individuals, and
more about protecting our society from governments that want to oppress it.
You could make the argument that no such power exists today, but that's
besides the point. Powerful, oppressive, nations have existed before and they
could exist again. An armed population is our last line of defense.

~~~
jernfrost
That is actually an extremely weak argument. Iraq had higher gun ownership
than the US, and yet they were all under an oppressive dictator. There are
actually several oppressive countries with high gun ownership.

A bunch of armed citizens does not make an effective army. Untrained and
uncoordinated citizens are no match against well trained soldiers.

Very few armed resistance fights have succeeded in bringing democracy or
freedom anywhere. More often than not it has been non-violent resistance which
has succeeded.

In most cases when violence gets involved it is the wrong kind of people who
end up on the top of the pecking order and you end up with an equally bad or
worse regime in the end. We've seen this in the french revolutions, south
american revolutions, various revolutions and independent fights across Asia
and Africa, and more lately the Arab spring.

Freedom of speech, privacy etc is more important for keeping a country free
than gun laws. If you have no free press, society will have advanced too far
in the wrong direction before you can make a difference with your gun.

Ironically the same right wing people supporting gun rights, seem to not care
a lick about privacy, surveillance, excessive police mandates or draconian
laws.

~~~
valine
I've noticed that too. The trend of right wing gun activists to support
increased survalence. It's an odd issue that seems to draw support from both
political parties. President Obama has made his stance on privacy and
survalence pretty clear. Ironicically it's the same stance that most of the
republican candidates are taking.

~~~
nsxwolf
I am a right wing gun nut and I am strongly pro-Snowden, for what its worth. I
am a gun nut because I fear government, and the NSA revelations are proof that
my fears are justified.

A lot of other gun nuts think like me. Don't assume the Republican party
represents us.

~~~
welterde
How does having a gun alleviate your fear of the government?

~~~
nsxwolf
I don't recall saying it did.

~~~
welterde
Perhaps I worded it poorly.. why have guns if you fear the government? How
does being a gun nut and fearing the government relate?

~~~
nsxwolf
An armed populace is a deterrent to the worst abuses. Even with the modern
military. They can't drone strike everyone and can't carpet bomb every town.
Guerrilla wars are bloody and hard to win, as Vietnam and Iraq showed.

~~~
welterde
Don't really see this happening in a modern western country to be honest. Or
do you have some concrete scenario in mind? There are limits on how much the
military will blindly follow orders. So either it will only affect small
groups of people (in which case having the house full of weapons and
explosives will be of limited help to you [2]) or it will affect enough
people, that even the people in the military might start wondering if they are
doing the right thing here.

Also isn't Iraq an counter example to your point (as mentioned in a parent
post [1])? Since it did have a fairly high gun ownership rate and yet it had
an oppressive government. Or did it simply not yet reach the necessary worst
abuses level yet? Or was the gun ownership rate not high enough?

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289520)
[2] heard some funny stories from bomb squad people, about such encounters..
really have to wonder what these people are thinking

------
anexprogrammer
This is more a reflection of how vanishingly rare either event is than a
compelling argument for fewer guns.

In a population of 300m or thereabouts some people will die in some very
peculiar ways. We can dig up some of the rarer ones to compare with terrorism.

That said some limitation of US gun ownership law does seem sensible. But this
story is no more than gossip.

------
jasonkester
This will no doubt be framed as a victory for our Pro-Gun society.

After all, ubiquitous gun ownership has so diminished the rampant terrorism
problem facing the USA that fewer people in 2015 were killed by terrorists
than by _small children_. Compare that to, say, 2001, when thousands of people
were killed by terrorists on average each month, and you can only see a
victory in todays improved pro-gun climate.

I don't hold out much hope for a return to reason any time soon.

------
protomyth
And more toddlers die in backyard swimming pools than by any terrorist. Once
again, the CDC has an amazing list[1] of what kills US citizens in the USA.
Violence doesn't even make the top 15 anymore. Self-harm is at position 10 and
we really need to work on that. Plus, all the places with the most restrictive
gun laws in the US are the most violent and have the most murders. Stop
blaming an object, and start blaming the policies of government that create a
cycle of crime.

1) [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm)

~~~
FireBeyond
There's also a funny, "startling" correlation between those who would be both
the largest defenders of gun rights and ownership who point to "terrrorists
and the mentally ill"... who also are the heaviest lobbiers for reducing
funding and services available to those same mentally ill, decrying it as 'not
their problem'.

~~~
protomyth
I'd ask for actual stats including citing a study that is not geographically
isolated to the inner city. This is another one of those soundbite arguments
in the US. Also, dig up some stats on donation to charities by party members.

Both sides in the US have reduced our services to the mentally ill. The
Democrats don't like institutions and wanted in-community services to the
point of cutting funding for institutions. The Republicans don't want mental
treatment homes in the community and vote to cut there funding. Since they
cannot agree we get a whole lot of problems.

~~~
FireBeyond
It's a good point. Most studies show that charity giving by political
affiliation to be nearly equal, or to put conservatives slightly ahead:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-
conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-
charities/)

That being said, conservatives are far more likely to give to their church as
a charity, and when churches (but not 'all religious organizations') are
removed from the equation, the balance dramatically shifts. It could certainly
be argued that while for many churches their charitable contributions are
valuable and well used, but that for others they are used more for
publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes.

Certainly this is compounded too, by certain churches, of which LDS is the
biggest, that mandate tithing of income, skewing the numbers substantially.

~~~
protomyth
Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that
informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity,
and part of our beliefs might include mandatory giving, then that charity is
invalid?

"but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing
purposes"

You need proof of that.

I would also point out [https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-
gives-201...](https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-2014/1)
\- please note the areas that vote Republican versus Democrat. It is a nice
counterpoint to the MIT study.

~~~
FireBeyond
The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches",
actively resist revealing that information.

A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel
relative salaries, without divulging any specifics:
[http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho...](http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/how-727-megachurches-
spend-their-money-leadership-network.html)

But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their
givings on staffing costs".

"The most strategic churches we work with are realizing that a premier
children’s pastor/leader can become one of, if not the largest growth engines
for the church. And such churches are paying accordingly. We are seeing an
increasing trend of churches who pay the top person over children’s ministry
more and more. In some cases, the children’s pastor is one of the top paid
people on staff, higher than the student pastor, worship pastor or small
groups pastor."

This is from a site that is specifically pro-Christianity, and goes directly
to that - whilst I might not believe in a religious organization, spending
money on growing the church is in no way something I'd consider 'charitable
giving'.

"Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting
that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away
about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported
$13.9 million in cash assets."

(this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19
acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he
was paid) - [http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-
megachu...](http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachurch-
pastor-says-revealing-his-salary-would-violate-christs-teachings/)

A study by ECCU
([http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...](http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20))
stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth
programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence
receives 1 percent of the typical church budget.

So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving'
as 'charitable contribution'.

~~~
protomyth
> So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving'
> as 'charitable contribution'.

So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church
going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the
charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes,
staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral
work. Of course a church tries to spread the word. That is not much different
than a lot of secular charities.

1) [http://www.charitynavigator.org](http://www.charitynavigator.org)

~~~
FireBeyond
I can't help but feel like you're engaging in goalpost moving.

Me: "much money is used for publicity purposes"

You: "you need to prove that"

Me: here's some links talking about both megachurches AND a cross section of
churches and how much they spend on publicity.

You: "well of course they have to spread the word, that's no different to
secular charities!"

Charity Navigator is awesome. I was 'glad' to see that the Wounded Warrior
Project finally ousted their leadership, who were happier spending money on
parties to pat themselves on the back than they were to help soldiers.

Here's the thing. The initial discussion is about charity giving as it related
to party affiliation, and how the conservative side was "ahead", only if you
factored in religious giving.

Yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean
organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into
benevolence).

But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if
anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board,
"Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church
budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after
school care, social or group activities).

If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten
Inefficient Fundraisers
([http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=10#.VuiSS8dZb8s))
we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program
expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do).

I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if
charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what
they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status
revoked.

And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined,
which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're
not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much
money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back,
competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down
the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of
millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can
value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.

~~~
protomyth
What you call publicity is the primary purpose of churches. I consider that a
purpose not an advertisement. I don't take the megachurches as a
representative percentage of the church going community. Funding an actual
church facility is just as valid as any other charity giving and benefits a
neighborhood. Calling that administration is insulting.

> I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if
> charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what
> they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status
> revoked.

Well, no. You can scam 9/11 money and get away with it (e.g. Red Cross &
United Way).

Also, all that giving on secular charities part does go to someones salaries
and administration and supplies and stipends. Giving to A pays for group B.
The grants we've received went to salaries and administration but are listed
as giving.

------
joesmo
Any discussions of guns in America that doesn't delve into the differences
between states is bound to be uninformed just like this article. You want to
see what gun control looks like in America? Go to New Jersey. We have gun
control. You cannot leave your house in New Jersey with a gun. The laws and
their enforcement are so draconian, you cannot safely even go to the gun range
with your very legal gun. This is what gun control looks like in America. We
have some of the worst ghettos and gun violence in America _because_ we have
gun control, because the only people stupid enough to have a gun on them in
New Jersey are criminals. This isn't some hypothetical. This has been reality
for decades here. So before some uninformed idiots make idiotic generalized
statements about guns in America, I'd like to invite them to New Jersey and
see how safe and wonderful their gun-controlled vision of America is.

No one could possibly make such arguments if they really considered the
outcome of their actions, but most Americans are too stupid to do that
generally and can only consider their own fantasies as reality. That's how we
ended up in this situation of draconian drug and terrorism laws. Americans
consider what they _want_ to happen as what _will_ and what _is_ happening,
despite a flood of evidence to the contrary. Then they write idiotic articles
like this without even doing research and finding out what really happens when
you have gun control in America.

When there's a researched, well-thought out article on gun control, maybe
there'll be something to discuss. Until then, we're wasting words on both
sides. Conversation my ass.

------
axelfreeman
This link in the article is more interessting that this article himself.
[http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-
terrorists/](http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

------
matwood
Most things that kill people in the USA kill more people than terrorists do.
The comparison is purposely sensationalistic and cheapens the argument much
like 'think of the children.'

~~~
Intermernet
Have you perhaps considered that the treatment of terrorism is "purely
sensationalistic" as well? The argument against terrorism shouldn't be
"cheapened", but it should have far less value than it currently does.

There are _far_ more pressing issues, some of which will actually decrease the
threat of terrorism. (for example: global access to education and healthcare,
as well as moderate, tolerant leadership will decrease the ability for
extremism to forment in the first place).

I know this view is unpopular, but it _is_ logical.

~~~
matwood
Terrorism is almost by definition sensationalist. The argument I referred to
as cheapened was the argument being made in the article against guns.

Both sides of the gun argument are very passionate. In order for either to
make headway with the other they have to avoid starting with hyperbole.
Instead, all you get is both sides shouting at each other.

~~~
Intermernet
As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there
should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the
arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On
the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit
the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the
black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of
the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US
homes.

My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than
motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In
Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but _they 're almost
always illegal guns_ involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes.

Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have
is subject to restrictions.

Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything
you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway.

EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable
(given a modern agrarian viewpoint)

1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood.

2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat.

3: Self defense.

~~~
matwood
A reasonable thought on gun control and gun violence is not allowed the US!
Either you're for the mass killings of Americans or you're for the door to
door confiscation of all guns. /s

------
kelvin0
”If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing
itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at
any moment.” - Marc Aurelius.

------
marknutter
When was the last time a toddler killing someone led to the passage of
something like the Patriot Act or the creation of a department like Homeland
Security. Terrorism isn't about killing as many people as possible, it's about
instilling _terror_ in your enemy and all the negative stuff that goes along
with that. Comparing it to accidents involving guns and toddlers is lazy.

------
FussyZeus
This is the latest in a line of articles (and arguments) for that matter that
completely fails to address the gun culture we have in the United States. It
paints a picture that people who have guns are just these crazy old hicks, ha
ha look at them with their silly guns.

First of all in large areas of the country (and around the world) guns can be
useful tools of survival or hobbies, including around where I live. We have
shooting ranges, gun safety courses, numerous retailers that sell them, and no
mass shootings either alongside a healthy and large hunting population. Guns
are important here is the takeaway.

It's awfully sad what happened to Jamie Gilt and that toddler is probably
going to have some serious issues to work out as they grow up, but let's be
clear: she left the gun loaded in an accessible area. That was her choice and
now she's paying for it.

Second of all, the problem with this article is that it's basing all of it's
arguments in the rational. Guns are dangerous; yeah, we know, they're literal
killing machines, that's what they're for. Guns are unnecessary; maybe where
you live and we could get by without them too, but we don't want to. We LIKE
the guns, that's why we spend large amounts of money on them. In Australia
they made big steps in what many consider to be the right direction with a
buyback program, but if that was offered here I can honestly say I wouldn't go
for it. I bought my guns for a reason; I want them here.

You know a Toyota Camry would probably be much safer and much more economical
and better for the environment than a Charger with a V8 engine, but the
argument of safety, economy and environment completely misses the reasons I
would buy the Charger; it's fun and I like it. And I feel it's an essential
part of our freedom to make certain that people are allowed to choose what
they WANT instead of what is necessarily the best decision FOR them.

My $0.02.

~~~
blackrose
Yes, now if only the government would let me buy that cocaine I want.

~~~
FussyZeus
Well considering how effective the War on Drugs has been, I'm honestly fine
with you buying cocaine. You can't possibly do as much damage as the various
District Attorney's do.

------
BFatts
Soon as I got to "rightwing scapegoat" I stopped reading. Sorry, but if it
included "leftwing wacko" it would be the same with me. If you can't get your
point across without trying to be witty and calling Florida, USA's penis, you
don't deserve my attention.

------
lliamander
Many people have rightly pointed out that terrorism, being a tail risk, should
not have such an out-sized influence on policy or lead to the erosion of civil
rights. If that is your take-away from this article, good for you.

Some people, including the article's author, then go on to argue that because
of a different tail-risk (toddler's shooting people with guns) we should ban*
all guns. This is a terrible argument. I am not saying there are no good
arguments out there, I am saying this is not one of them.

*Yes, I said ban. Guns are already regulated, no proposed legislation would prevent this incident, and bans are the explicit end goal of most pro gun-control groups[1]

[1][http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4912)

------
njharman
This says more about the minuscule threat terrorists pose than the rate of
firearm accidents.

------
sobbybutter
The statistics are always misinterpreted; they can't be considered in the same
domain. Terrorists fall in the risk domain that is subject to tail events.
Toddlers with guns don't. In plain English, you're not going to see a 10x
increase in deaths one year from toddlers playing around with guns, while
that's very possible with terrorist activity. In fat-tailed domains like
terrorism, single, extreme events make up the entire mean, so just because
something bad doesn't happen for a short period of time doesn't mean it's any
safer. All it takes is one extreme terrorist event to do some serious damage.

------
amelius
This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "but think of the children!" :)

------
dheera
How exactly do we define "terrorist"? For example, why is the San Bernandino
mass shooting NOT considered terrorism? Because more people were killed in
that single incident than were shot by toddlers in all of 2015.

~~~
trill1
Wait, the San Bernandino shooting is constantly referred to as terrorism by
the media and by politicians... When the perpetrator isn't Muslim though, the
situation is different (e.g. Dylan Roof, Anders Brevik, James Holmes) and the
same people instead are much more likely to frame the violence as a mental
health issue.

~~~
lliamander
terrorists and lone wackos may both engage in mass shootings, but their threat
profiles are different[1].

The San Bernandino shooters fit the 'terrorist' threat profile; Dylan Roof, et
al., fit the profile of 'lone wacko'.

[1][http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6943)

~~~
trill1
I see no meaningful distinction between the San Bernandino shooters and the
"lone wackos". Cultural background influences how an angry, mentally ill
person will brand and target their particular act of violence. For Dylan Roof
it was racism, for Anders Breivik it was Christianity, and for Syed Rizwan
Farook and Tashfeen Malik, it was radical Islam. So far even the FBI says they
acted alone.

It's undeniable that whether or not a person is Muslim influences how their
violent act is framed by the media and politicians. Also worth noting:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Links_to_organizations)

------
emblem21
In a world full of corporate sponsered politicians who make the laws without
regard of the masses, a power mad executive branch that uses state of the art
tech to monitor everything in an attempt to detect precrime, the mass
incarceration of males based on balance sheet projections, and wide spread
police brutality, and growing geopolitical unstability due to
interventionalists refusing to allow the markets to reflect risk, it is no
wonder the fourth estate and their loyal cadre of narrative worshippers want
to totally eliminate gun ownership.

------
jron
Lightning Kills More People in the USA Than Terrorists Do

~~~
jbmorgado
So does cancer, diabetes and cows... they don't do it with _firearms_ though.
The operative word here is _firearms_ and that's what people are trying to
discuss.

~~~
jron
Correct, lightning kills with electricity, not firearms.

The point is both incidents are incredibly rare. Your first two examples don't
really work in this context; cows on the other hand - good example.
[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5829a2.htm)

------
Kenji
Obvious answer: Ban toddlers rather than end-to-end encryption.

On a more serious note, the gun deaths in America are a cultural problem
(being careless with weapons, not locking them away properly, etc). No ban
will fix culture. There are ways of improving the world without bans. I loathe
the kneejerk reactions like "someone was harmed by X - BAN IT FOR EVERYONE!".
What happened to self-responsibility? Why can't we just educate people and
encourage them to train in the safe handling of guns? It's not that hard.

------
melling
Another ape shit HN statistics story. How about we derive a different title?

Your odds of being killed by a terrorist and by furniture are the same.

[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-
more-l...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/youre-8-times-more-likely-
to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-by-furniture/)

"Toddlers with guns kill more people than people killed by furniture."

------
puppetmaster3
Sometimes the legal system is wrong or even miss used: ergo, lets shut down
the legal system.

Sometimes a car kills: ergo, lets ban cars.

Children.

------
tmaly
You have to remember only law abiding citizens in the US follow the gun laws.

If a bad guy breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police
response time is not enough to save you and your family. If you want to
protect your young child in this case, its better to lawfully own a gun and
have proper training on how to use it.

~~~
k-mcgrady
You're presuming that the person breaking in to your house at night wants to
harm you. If they're breaking in at night they probably want to steal your
stuff without you encountering them. So the best course of action is probably
to stay in your bedroom, stay quiet, and call the police. Pull out your gun
and that bad guy probably also has one and you've put your own life in danger
and made a non-violent situation life threatening.

~~~
thatswrong0
You're calling someone (who you say is probably armed) breaking into your home
a non-violent situation?

...??

And what about in San Francisco, where that person could very likely be
mentally unstable.. Should I just assume they probably won't harm me?

What about in a rural area, where police could be tens of minutes away?

This logic seems incredibly unreasonable to me.

If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, I'm not going to be
a robot and be running probabilities in my head. I'm going to protect myself
and my family to the fullest extent possible, which is eliminating the threat.
I'm not going to assume anything other than the worst about the threat.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "You're calling someone (who you say is probably armed) breaking into your
home a non-violent situation?"

Yes. It's a non-violent situation until myself or the intruder decides to make
it violent. I'm going to do what I can to minimise the chances of that
happening.

I think this is just a different cultural attitude. In many places, the US in
particular, there is a culture of fear. There is probably also a much greater
chance of an intruder in the US having a gun due to the prevalence of them.

This is how I think about it:

Someone is breaking into my home. Why? They have nothing to gain by harming me
unless they are insane in which case they can harm someone on the streets much
more easily. They probably want my possessions. If I don't disturb them they
aren't going to seek me out. If they are threatened they will, if not they
will leave me alone. If you are truly scared keep your weapon in your bedroom
and stay in your bedroom. If they don't come near you you have no reason to
use it unless you are crazy enough to risk your like for your possessions.

------
iraldir
The simpsons did it

------
throwaway21816
There are more toddlers in the USA than terrorists in the USA. This is pretty
inconsequential.

------
JustSomeNobody
> Growing up here myself didn’t prepare me for how distinctly, viscerally
> frightening it would be to raise children in a gun-obsessed nation.

All arguments aside, this is just... really? I mean, come on.

~~~
agarden
I am a bit baffled by the terror-stricken tone of the article, summed up in
this sentence.

I live in Appalachia. I hear shooting on almost every nice day. I am playing
outside in the yard with my toddlers and the neighbors are shooting things. I
don't even think about it.

~~~
pnut
Just don't piss them off while they're drunk.

------
neonhomer
I always hate these kind of articles. As a US citizen there's only rule when
it comes to firearms and that's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments
are invalid.

~~~
alistairSH
So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft carriers?
Because, if this is about securing the state (either against a tyrannical
government, or a 3rd party), rifles and handguns aren't going to cut it.

Or, are you limiting your interpretation to firearms in common use at the time
of the Constitutional Convention? In which case, you can turn in your Glock
and your AK.

Point being, we already have established restrictions on firearms. These
restrictions have held up in court (for the most part).

~~~
forgetsusername
> _So, we should all be allowed to own bazookas and nukes and aircraft
> carriers?_

Most of those are prohibitively expensive, but why not? Is your argument that
somehow ordinary people will be more likely to use them indiscriminately?

I mean, who is the US government, which owns bazookas and air craft carriers,
but a collection of ordinary people who have done their share of
indiscriminate usage of weaponry?

~~~
alistairSH
My argument was that the 2A isn't absolute, as the parent implied. There are
restrictions placed on the ownership and use of firearms (see child comment
about NFA items and the extra paperwork, fees, and licensing involved).

I'm not anti-gun, in the general sense. I am pro-gun control in a much as the
current system allows too many irresponsible people to own guns for no good
reason (Jamie Gilt being a prime example).

