Florida High School Shooting

[[DHT]Osiris]

You should try to read between the lines. Your investigative work has no value for me. It's a revelation to you and a non-issue to me. The NRA did not conform to a methodology you find to be more worthy. That's a big yawner for me.

I find personal rights to be a great thing to strive for, but your original premise was that they were a small fish in a big pond when it comes to lobbying, a premise which is flatly wrong. In regards to single issue lobbying, they're a megalodon.

 

[K1052]

It just occurred to me that I'd have a hard time seeing the nuns and Jesuit brothers at my old HS packing heat.

 

[woolfe9998]

You first mistakenly believe that I think death by gun is the same as death by obesity. I don't which is why I brought up that example before. Both cause deaths but obesity causes way more. Understanding the differences helps form a coherent argument which would help, in my opinion, give answers on how to deal with the problem(s).

If that is not what you think, then why do you pose everything as a cost-benefit analysis where you compare total deaths prevented to the cost of prevention?

The fact is, you cannot use this kind of equation because human beings perceive a massive difference based on what is causing the death. All these comparisons are thus apples to oranges.

I believe you have built an argument in your head not based on what my point was. 9/11 was significant in large part due to people over reacting. It was a major event, but terrorism generally is over valued by far too many. It should have resources, but not even close to what it has even considering how people react to terrorist incidents.

Perhaps we "over-reacted". We certainly spent trillions to prevent it, if both wars that Bush started are taken into consideration. But this kind of over-reaction is human nature and will never be changed. We are always going to be more concerned/worried over deaths due to terrorism and murder than we are to deaths from hearth disease. One reason is morality, "thou shall not kill" etc. and another is that we see a choice involved when it comes to unhealthy life styles but no choice involved when it comes to being killed by terrorists and psychos. You can't ever change that perception. Accordingly, it makes no sense to bring smoking, alcohol and bad eating habits into a discussion about gun control.

 

[woolfe9998]

You are still missing what is being said. Its the same if and only if your premise is that deaths is only metric you are going to measure.

Who ever said that total number of deaths is the only metric? It's implicitly obvious that the types of deaths we are talking about are not of the same type as deaths due to unintended causes like bad eating habits? Why does anyone even need to spell out that distinction for you?

 

[Younigue]

Ok let's just assume that no significant change in gun laws is going to happen. Let's say we get universal background checks but that's all. What ideas do you have to try to protect kids in school under those circumstances?

I don't have the answers but then I'm not paid with tax dollars to be a representative of the people to fix the problems. What I do know is that those who are paid with tax dollars are receiving their pay AND pay days from the NRA. That alone makes ANY decision or lack there of suspect. The NRA and bought politicians shouldn't have ANY say in what is the best way to protect the children.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd *personally* love a halt to fear mongering over terrorism and crime, as an overarching focus of our country. I'd rather us focus on statistically significant drivers of change, like social/economic inequality, violent culture as a whole, etc.

I'll give you a pass here because as I said, you are being logically consistent. I also tend to agree we spend too much time fear mongering over terrorism and crime, and there are broader and more important issues to discuss. However, I'm not going to agree with the simplistic equation that any one death is exactly the same as any other because literally no one believes that and I suspect that you don't either.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Perhaps we "over-reacted". We certainly spent trillions to prevent it, if both wars that Bush started are taken into consideration. But this kind of over-reaction is human nature and will never be changed. We are always going to be more concerned/worried over deaths due to terrorism and murder than we are to deaths from hearth disease. One reason is morality, "thou shall not kill" etc. and another is that we see a choice involved when it comes to unhealthy life styles but no choice involved when it comes to being killed by terrorists and psychos. You can't ever change that perception. Accordingly, it makes no sense to bring smoking, alcohol and bad eating habits into a discussion about gun control.

Hypothetical moral query:
What if those 'poor choices' were actually not nearly as much the responsibility of the perpetrator as originally thought? My entire young life, I was raised with the notion of the food pyramid, which we now perceive as pretty off-base and probably a big driver for childhood/adult obesity (at least taken at face value).

I personally feel that not *every* personal decision is made in a bubble, and lack of education/societal influences can be big drivers when it comes to outcomes with individuals, so it's very hard for me to separate a masked gunman with a rifle, and a masked (behind the veil of a corporation) marketing specialist/CEO pushing *knowingly* unhealthy food on a population, and telling them 'cmon down for some eats! not our fault if you die from obesity though!'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'll give you a pass here because as I said, you are being logically consistent. I also tend to agree we spend too much time fear mongering over terrorism and crime, and there are broader and more important issues to discuss. However, I'm not going to agree with the simplistic equation that any one death is exactly the same as any other because literally no one believes that and I suspect that you don't either.

Not strictly speaking no, I don't believe that. I only argue in that direction when an argument is presented to do xyz to save lives. Not eliminate/reduce violence, not prevent mass shootings for the sake of preventing them, not solve economic/societal divides etc, but 'save lives'.

 

[realibrad]

If that is not what you think, then why do you pose everything as a cost-benefit analysis where you compare total deaths prevented to the cost of prevention?

The fact is, you cannot use this kind of equation because human beings perceive a massive difference based on what is causing the death. All these comparisons are thus apples to oranges.

you are still misunderstanding. When I brought up obesity it was in response to just looking at gun deaths and deaths in totality. I felt that just looking at total deaths was flawed, so I brought up obesity and how if you looked at just deaths as the metric you would think that obesity was far more of an issue and we should be working on banning foods. That is not my stance and I was attempting to show how you need to understand the underlying principles of the issues so you don't equate the two when really they are quite different.

That failed as the person could not understand the abstraction there so I stopped pushing it. I hope that clears it up. I do not think obesity is the same as gun violence.

Perhaps we "over-reacted". We certainly spent trillions to prevent it, if both wars that Bush started are taken into consideration. But this kind of over-reaction is human nature and will never be changed. We are always going to be more concerned/worried over deaths due to terrorism and murder than we are to deaths from hearth disease. One reason is morality, "thou shall not kill" etc. and another is that we see a choice involved when it comes to unhealthy life styles but no choice involved when it comes to being killed by terrorists and psychos. You can't ever change that perception. Accordingly, it makes no sense to bring smoking, alcohol and bad eating habits into a discussion about gun control.

I think I am in agreement here. You can bring up those things to help test the underlying principles that are the foundation of an argument and see how they play out with the different topics you listed. Sometimes doing that helps you see conclusions you did not realize and you can further refine your argument. Understanding why an obesity death is not the same as a gun suicide to me is helpful.

 

[realibrad]

Who ever said that total number of deaths is the only metric? It's implicitly obvious that the types of deaths we are talking about are not of the same type as deaths due to unintended causes like bad eating habits? Why does anyone even need to spell out that distinction for you?

You appear to believe that I and Osiris are saying that they are the same. Your understanding of the argument is what I am calling into question.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not strictly speaking no, I don't believe that. I only argue in that direction when an argument is presented to do xyz to save lives. Not eliminate/reduce violence, not prevent mass shootings for the sake of preventing them, not solve economic/societal divides etc, but 'save lives'.

When we're talking about preventing deaths, I don't think anyone should have to explain that a death due to murder is not the same thing as a death due to clogged arteries. It's implicitly obvious.

That having been said, I do think we spend too much time and energy worrying over terrorism and mass murder. I get why they have a negative impact on the public which is not strictly proportional to the number of deaths caused but our focus on them is vastly disproportionate to the risk.

I'm not much in favor of gun control by the way. All I would do is strengthen background checks. I'm just tired of the stupid analogies and inconsistent reasoning I keep hearing from the right. Anyone constantly whining about Islamic terrorism has no business arguing that deaths due to cigarettes are more important than deaths due to gun violence.

 

[woolfe9998]

you are still misunderstanding. When I brought up obesity it was in response to just looking at gun deaths and deaths in totality. I felt that just looking at total deaths was flawed, so I brought up obesity and how if you looked at just deaths as the metric you would think that obesity was far more of an issue and we should be working on banning foods. That is not my stance and I was attempting to show how you need to understand the underlying principles of the issues so you don't equate the two when really they are quite different.

That failed as the person could not understand the abstraction there so I stopped pushing it. I hope that clears it up. I do not think obesity is the same as gun violence.

That's good, because the people who are for gun control clearly don't think so either. And that should have been obvious. When someone raises the number of deaths caused by guns, they shouldn't have to add something like, "we have a greater interest in preventing a death caused by murder than we do in preventing a death caused by eating too much sugar."

I think I am in agreement here. You can bring up those things to help test the underlying principles that are the foundation of an argument and see how they play out with the different topics you listed. Sometimes doing that helps you see conclusions you did not realize and you can further refine your argument. Understanding why an obesity death is not the same as a gun suicide to me is helpful.

As I said, the underlying distinction is too obvious for words. Which is why some of us are becoming frustrated by these analogies which are being used to deflect the issue. It's either not the right time to discuss gun control or there is something else we should be discussing first. Nonsense. As I've said before, I'm not a big advocate for gun control but these kinds of deflections are just muddying the issue rather than providing clarity.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

When we're talking about preventing deaths, I don't think anyone should have to explain that a death due to murder is not the same thing as a death due to clogged arteries. It's implicitly obvious.

It isn't to me, and never has been. It's possible something's broken in my head or something but I've always felt compelled to think this way. No idea why.

That having been said, I do think we spend too much time and energy worrying over terrorism and mass murder. I get why they have a negative impact on the public which is not strictly proportional to the number of deaths caused but our focus on them is vastly disproportionate to the risk.

I'm not much in favor of gun control by the way. All I would do is strengthen background checks. I'm just tired of the stupid analogies and inconsistent reasoning I keep hearing from the right. Anyone constantly whining about Islamic terrorism has no business arguing that deaths due to cigarettes are more important than deaths due to gun violence.

Agreed on both points.

 

[woolfe9998]

It isn't to me, and never has been. It's possible something's broken in my head or something but I've always felt compelled to think this way. No idea why.

A basic point of moral reasoning: when you shoot and kill someone, the victim has no choice in the matter. When you sell them unhealthy foods, they do. Yeah, it's abundantly obvious that there is a moral difference between the two. Not sure why you don't see the difference. You do realize that by your reasoning, the executives of companies which sell unhealthy food or pollute the air should face the same criminal penalties as serial killers, right? Yet that's not what we or for that matter, any society, does. We impose jail time or even the death penalty for the one, and at most regulatory fines for the other.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'll give you a pass here because as I said, you are being logically consistent. I also tend to agree we spend too much time fear mongering over terrorism and crime, and there are broader and more important issues to discuss. However, I'm not going to agree with the simplistic equation that any one death is exactly the same as any other because literally no one believes that and I suspect that you don't either.

The impact of deaths are not equally distributed in society. An 89 year old dying of a heart attack doesn't have nearly the impact of a 16 year old or a 40 year old dying of the very same heart attack.

All the more reason why laws to prevent deaths on campuses and schools are needed. Who is to say if one of those kids was going to eventually cure cancer or solve our energy woes or etc.

Any discussion that a murder with a gun is equivalent to selling someone a burger or a cigarette or even hard drugs is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Bird222]

I don't have the answers but then I'm not paid with tax dollars to be a representative of the people to fix the problems. What I do know is that those who are paid with tax dollars are receiving their pay AND pay days from the NRA. That alone makes ANY decision or lack there of suspect. The NRA and bought politicians shouldn't have ANY say in what is the best way to protect the children.

Well if that's the case then why are you so against non-politicians offering their ideas?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

A basic point of moral reasoning: when you shoot and kill someone, the victim has no choice in the matter. When you sell them unhealthy foods, they do. Yeah, it's abundantly obvious that there is a moral difference between the two. Not sure why you don't see the difference. You do realize that by your reasoning, the executives of companies which sell unhealthy food or pollute the air should face the same criminal penalties as serial killers, right? Yet that's not what we or for that matter, any society, does. We impose jail time or even the death penalty for the one, and at most regulatory fines for the other.

Oh, I'm not saying there isn't necessarily a perceived moral difference between the two, I can recognize that. I'm just saying that if we're really talking about saving individual lives as the unit of measurement for making policy changes, then yes, I see them as equivalent, as morality isn't entering the equation when simply talking about saving lives. Again, I don't expect others to feel the same way I do, I acknowledge that most don't. It's probably good I'm not involved in making public policy.

FWIW I do feel that executives knowingly selling dangerous/unhealthy food, while presenting it as healthy/good for you, should probably face the same criminal penalties as serial killers. Again, I'm probably not the best person to make policy decisions like this.

Edit: to caveat the above, I should state that I recognize that individual lives differ in their 'value' to society, such as an 80yo man dying from cancer vs 16yo kid who's still got a chance to become Elon Musk or something. But this is getting into even more detached scenarios where we build weighting systems to human lives, so I'll try to keep things a big higher-level.

 

[realibrad]

That's good, because the people who are for gun control clearly don't think so either. And that should have been obvious. When someone raises the number of deaths caused by guns, they shouldn't have to add something like, "we have a greater interest in preventing a death caused by murder than we do in preventing a death caused by eating too much sugar."

They don't have to add that. I think you are confused as to what happened.

Here is the argument Spy put forward that started this.

Why do we have to put up with deaths? Guns are a net negative for personal safety and this is very well established in the empirical research. If the idea is that we have to have 30,000 people a year die in order to preserve a means of self defense that makes us overall less safe what sense does that make?

His argument for banning most guns is because we should not put up with 30,000 dead because some people want to use guns for defense even though net its more likely that your gun will be used against you.

In that is 30,000 is too many deaths for the right to have access to guns because the net benefit is less than the net cost.

So, if that is his argument, swap total deaths with that of obesity and access to guns with access to obesity causing foods. Is the total net benefit of good tasting food worth the obesity and inevitable deaths. You will see that was also exactly what I said.

Same could be said of food in terms of obesity. Why should we put up with foods that we know are making people fat? Why should we allow the freedom of unhealthy food that kills almost 600,000 people a year? What logic do you have that allows you to take away guns but not bad foods? If the justification is that 30,000 deaths is too many for the benefit of guns, than what justification do we have for almost 600,000 deaths from things tasting good?

That argument was never addressed beyond say it was stupid. He never explained why, just that it was stupid and that he would not respond to it. His premise is flawed and the analogy shows that, but he never modified his premise which I think can be done.

As I said, the underlying distinction is too obvious for words. Which is why some of us are becoming frustrated by these analogies which are being used to deflect the issue. It's either not the right time to discuss gun control or there is something else we should be discussing first. Nonsense. As I've said before, I'm not a big advocate for gun control but these kinds of deflections are just muddying the issue rather than providing clarity.

If the argument is that we need to remove things from society when the cost is too high vs the benefit, then how can we take away guns and not fatty foods?

Answer that question and you likely answer the question posited by pro gun people.

 

[K1052]

Per the WH press pool, apparently the president wants to give bonuses to teacher who carry firearms. He contradicted DeVos about active shooter drills, says they are bad. Wants to "harden" schools.

 

[soundforbjt]

Per the WH press pool, apparently the president wants to give bonuses to teacher who carry firearms. He contradicted DeVos about active shooter drills, says they are bad. Wants to "harden" schools.

He also just said gun-free zones are like going for ice cream....whatever the F that means.

 

[jpeyton]

Trump is broadcasting another round-table discussion on gun control and school safety today.

Let me repeat: a Republican President is holding, and broadcasting, discussions with lawmakers about gun control and school safety.

Granted, Trump is being extremely combative and acting like a child on live TV, but that plays well for Democrats as well.

I predicted a red letter day for Democrats this morning, and so far Trump has delivered.

 

[K1052]

Per Haberman from the NYT:

We surely are in good hands here people.

 

[Dulanic]

Because so many of the people in those meetings and some here in the forums are calling for some bans of firearms and massive confiscations. We have school districts across this country that are already training and arming faculty with more passing laws every day.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...iew-school-district-head-defends-arming-staff

And this is just some more deflection. There will be people that argue for any viewpoint, that shouldn't prevent conversation and ideas to just be ignored because "some people" think something else. Still haven't answered by original post of why it should be so damn easy to buy a gun and not some more regulation around it. Because you can deflect isn't a response.

 

[realibrad]

And this is just some more deflection. There will be people that argue for any viewpoint, that shouldn't prevent conversation and ideas to just be ignored because "some people" think something else. Still haven't answered by original post of why it should be so damn easy to buy a gun and not some more regulation around it. Because you can deflect isn't a response.

Agreed. There needs to be a coherent argument behind the stance. If there is not, then we move on. If someone wanted to give rubber chickens to kids to prevent mass shootings, we should not entertain that.

 

[soundforbjt]

Per Haberman from the NYT:

We surely are in good hands here people.

The littlest hands.