Maybe that’s the way it sounds to you. The article is written by liberals for liberals. It therefore deals with the liberal mind. It’s liberals who equate deaths due to murder with deaths due to accidents. This is because “murder” is a convention. There is no God. No moral absolute. “We” or the elite among us decide whether we should care about who or how many are killed. Killing may even be a good thing. Killing retarded people, for example. Liberals look into the abyss and fall in love. You have either not read Nietzsche or have, and have concluded that lying, like murder, is also a convention. So, let me ask you a question: what is the difference between (1) a baby drowning in a bathtub [the subject of this thread], (2) a retarded person being euthanized by the state, (3) executing Dylan Roof after he is found guilty of capital murder by the state, and (4) terrorists killing people at random by driving a truck into a crowd?
The article criticizes the “bathtub fallacy” and says “the quite explicit expectation of the American public that its government protect it from this form of deliberately targeted, violent death in particular — whereas the American public has expressed no such concern about the accidental perils of the bathtub.”
Everyone gets the difference between bathtub deaths and the need to stop terrorism.