Only in America

[JimC]

Toddlers FTW!

Suck it up, Daesh!

[rainbow]

Toddlers vs terrorists

Noting that “in most cases, the toddlers are killing or injuring themselves,” Ingraham counted 58 total toddler-involved shootings in 2015 as of 17 December of that year. In 19 instances toddlers shot and killed themselves, and in two others toddlers shot and killed other individuals. That brought the total of toddler-involved shooting deaths in the United States in 2015 to 21.

By contrast, if we counted both the Chattanooga shootings and San Bernardino as instances of Islamic terrorism, that would mean 19 Americans were killed in instances of suspected, reported, or potential Islamic terrorism in 2015. Counting American victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks brought that number up to 20.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-a ... errorists/

Suicide toddlers.

...the worst kind.

[laklak]

Toddlers are terrorists. Mine certainly were.

[Forty Two]

Toddlers vs terrorists

Noting that “in most cases, the toddlers are killing or injuring themselves,” Ingraham counted 58 total toddler-involved shootings in 2015 as of 17 December of that year. In 19 instances toddlers shot and killed themselves, and in two others toddlers shot and killed other individuals. That brought the total of toddler-involved shooting deaths in the United States in 2015 to 21.

By contrast, if we counted both the Chattanooga shootings and San Bernardino as instances of Islamic terrorism, that would mean 19 Americans were killed in instances of suspected, reported, or potential Islamic terrorism in 2015. Counting American victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks brought that number up to 20.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-a ... errorists/

As a result, western countries, particularly the US, should focus their energies on accidental injuries and deaths, rather than devote energy on preventing terrorist organizations from developing and obtaining the means of carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks. It's not just toddlers.... The fact that it's more likely I'll die slipping and falling in the shower than being bombed by a terrorist means that the Obama Administration waste hundreds of billions of dollars in military and foreign affairs dollars addressing nonexistent issues. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... hs/244457/

The terrorists are just a small time issue in the world....

Oh, and this is perfect for the "Only in America" thread, because let's face it, this happens only in America. Every other western industrialized country has their priorities much straighter.

[pErvinalia]

I think the point is to put the relative danger in perspective. Attempt to get those who are driven by fear to try and get some perspective.

[Forty Two]

I think the point is to put the relative danger in perspective. Attempt to get those who are driven by fear to try and get some perspective.

Body counts are not the only way to assess relative danger. The potential damage is a factor when analyzing risk. A .001 percent chance of another 9/11 style attack is worth more investment than a 1% chance of a slip and fall, because of a view of the consequences. Let's call the damage from a slip and fall death at, say $1,000,000 for a round number, and let's call the expected damage from a 9/11 style attack as like $15 billion just for infrastructure, with 3,000 lives, and let's call them each a $1,000,000 too, so that's like $18 billion dollars right there. So, even if we limit the damages caused by a 9/11 attack to a million per person and the property damage directly caused (not factoring in long term losses, the effect on the economy overall, etc.), its far more important to stop the highly speculative, but highly damaging 9/11 type attack.

[Hermit]

Toddlers vs terrorists

Noting that “in most cases, the toddlers are killing or injuring themselves,” Ingraham counted 58 total toddler-involved shootings in 2015 as of 17 December of that year. In 19 instances toddlers shot and killed themselves, and in two others toddlers shot and killed other individuals. That brought the total of toddler-involved shooting deaths in the United States in 2015 to 21.

By contrast, if we counted both the Chattanooga shootings and San Bernardino as instances of Islamic terrorism, that would mean 19 Americans were killed in instances of suspected, reported, or potential Islamic terrorism in 2015. Counting American victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks brought that number up to 20.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-a ... errorists/

As a result, western countries, particularly the US, should focus their energies on accidental injuries and deaths, rather than devote energy on preventing terrorist organizations from developing and obtaining the means of carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks.

Oh, just look at that! A strawman.

If you are trying to make that an either/or issue you are the only one.

Oh, and this is perfect for the "Only in America" thread, because let's face it, this happens only in America. Every other western industrialized country has their priorities much straighter.

Feel free to compare the rate of toddler-triggered ( ) gun deaths in the USA with that of any other western industrialised country. Go on. You know you want to - if you really think there'll be any statistics that you might be able to massage until they support what you're trying to say here.

[JimC]

None of the toddler-style comparisons implies that zero effort should go into straightforward, effective intelligence and police work to detect and prevent terrorist acts.

It simply is a useful counter-balance to hysteria generated for political purposes.

[pErvinalia]

I think the point is to put the relative danger in perspective. Attempt to get those who are driven by fear to try and get some perspective.

Body counts are not the only way to assess relative danger. The potential damage is a factor when analyzing risk. A .001 percent chance of another 9/11 style attack is worth more investment than a 1% chance of a slip and fall, because of a view of the consequences. Let's call the damage from a slip and fall death at, say $1,000,000 for a round number, and let's call the expected damage from a 9/11 style attack as like $15 billion just for infrastructure, with 3,000 lives, and let's call them each a $1,000,000 too, so that's like $18 billion dollars right there. So, even if we limit the damages caused by a 9/11 attack to a million per person and the property damage directly caused (not factoring in long term losses, the effect on the economy overall, etc.), its far more important to stop the highly speculative, but highly damaging 9/11 type attack.

Most people's fears aren't driven by costs. They are driven by harm. People need to understand that you are far more likely to die from thousands of other things than terrorism. Therefore spending so much effort and time fearing an unlikely event is irrational.

[Forty Two]

I think the point is to put the relative danger in perspective. Attempt to get those who are driven by fear to try and get some perspective.

Body counts are not the only way to assess relative danger. The potential damage is a factor when analyzing risk. A .001 percent chance of another 9/11 style attack is worth more investment than a 1% chance of a slip and fall, because of a view of the consequences. Let's call the damage from a slip and fall death at, say $1,000,000 for a round number, and let's call the expected damage from a 9/11 style attack as like $15 billion just for infrastructure, with 3,000 lives, and let's call them each a $1,000,000 too, so that's like $18 billion dollars right there. So, even if we limit the damages caused by a 9/11 attack to a million per person and the property damage directly caused (not factoring in long term losses, the effect on the economy overall, etc.), its far more important to stop the highly speculative, but highly damaging 9/11 type attack.

Most people's fears aren't driven by costs. They are driven by harm. People need to understand that you are far more likely to die from thousands of other things than terrorism. Therefore spending so much effort and time fearing an unlikely event is irrational.

That's got little to do with what government policy should be on the matter, which should take into account expected value of risk. The likelihood of dying in a nuclear explosion is miniscule. But, if it happens, it's world-shaking in its effects. Therefore, I would hope that the State is spending a bit more in resources addressing that issue than whether there are unfilled potholes on my street or whether my bathtub is too slippery. Although, i will acknowledge that potholes and slips-and-falls are far more relevant to my daily life than nuclear arms.

it is not some irrational "fear" gripping the populace here. These folks make it sound like the population is running around pulling out their hair, just fearing a Muslim behind every tree with a scimitar gleaming in the moonlight. That's not the way it is here, although it serves the purpose of those activists who sell that notion to suggest that everyone is such a bunch of raving racists, afraid of anything darker than caramel, because then they can push for things to "quell" that "climate of fear and hatred."

[laklak]

I haven't seen this climate of fear and hatred, am I living in the wrong place?

[Forty Two]

I haven't seen this climate of fear and hatred, am I living in the wrong place?

If you have seen someone refuse to use the pronoun "zhi" or draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad, then you are well-acquainted with the climate of fear and hatred....and don't get me started on Blasphemy Day.... my god, the hate... the unmitigated hate...

[pErvinalia]

I think the point is to put the relative danger in perspective. Attempt to get those who are driven by fear to try and get some perspective.

Body counts are not the only way to assess relative danger. The potential damage is a factor when analyzing risk. A .001 percent chance of another 9/11 style attack is worth more investment than a 1% chance of a slip and fall, because of a view of the consequences. Let's call the damage from a slip and fall death at, say $1,000,000 for a round number, and let's call the expected damage from a 9/11 style attack as like $15 billion just for infrastructure, with 3,000 lives, and let's call them each a $1,000,000 too, so that's like $18 billion dollars right there. So, even if we limit the damages caused by a 9/11 attack to a million per person and the property damage directly caused (not factoring in long term losses, the effect on the economy overall, etc.), its far more important to stop the highly speculative, but highly damaging 9/11 type attack.

Most people's fears aren't driven by costs. They are driven by harm. People need to understand that you are far more likely to die from thousands of other things than terrorism. Therefore spending so much effort and time fearing an unlikely event is irrational.

That's got little to do with what government policy should be on the matter,

Who's talking about government policy? As usual it is pointless trying to discuss anything with you.

[JimC]

A fair chunk of government policy in the west (ably supported by sensationalist media) is to exaggerate the terrorist threat to both distract voters from other issues, and to ramp up support for ever more intrusive security legislation...

Saying that does not imply that governments should not be using effective, rational policing methods to minimise the harm done by terrorists, nor that fundamentalist Islam doesn't deserve to be opposed with force.

[pErvinalia]

Yep.