# Normalcy Bias and Salman Rushdie



## lklawson (Aug 12, 2022)

I'm sure some of you by now have seen news of the attack on author of "The Satanic Verses," Salman Rushdie.  Some of the things that just pop out are:


_An Associated Press reporter witnessed a man confront Rushdie on stage at the Chautauqua Institution and punch or stab him 10 to 15 times as he was being introduced._
_The assailant ran onto the platform "and started pounding on Mr. Rushdie. At first you're like, 'What's going on?' And then it became abundantly clear in a few seconds that he was being beaten," Savenor said._
_"We thought perhaps it was part of a stunt to show that there's still a lot of controversy around this author. But it became evident in a few seconds" that it wasn't, she said._
So a crowd of 2,500 people just stood around thinking, "This can't actually be happening.  It is surely something other than what my eyes are telling me!" while a 75-year-old man was apparently stabbed over and over in front of their very eyes.

This is the very definition of Normalcy Bias likely with a dose of Bystander Effect thrown in for good measure.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 12, 2022)

lklawson said:


> So a crowd of 2,500 people just stood around thinking, "This can't actually be happening.  It is surely something other than what my eyes are telling me!" while a 75-year-old man was apparently stabbed over and over in front of their very eyes.
> .
> This is the very definition of Normalcy Bias likely with a dose of Bystander Effect thrown in for good measure.
> 
> ...


Yes, these two psychological states show a weakness in the human psyche.  Beyond these, however, IMO there is the more basic human trait of belonging to the "watchers" or the "doers." I think it can be seen individually whether one is in a group or not.  A propensity for action vs inaction, regardless of what others may do.  Is this a prerequisite for courage?  Maybe there's a connection.  Maybe it's also related to being predator vs prey, or that in-between guard dog that protects the prey from the predator.  Deep stuff.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 14, 2022)

We've put too much time and effort into teaching people not to fight back, not to get involved, just be a victim.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 14, 2022)

Makes sense. If it is not the right shape it is hard to see.

Lime when people hit motorcycles.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 14, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> We've put too much time and effort into teaching people not to fight back, not to get involved, just be a victim.


This is not confined to the dojo.  If a 3rd grader punches a 4th grade bully in the nose for self-defense both get the same punishment.  Despite good Samaritan laws in some states, helping out a fellow citizen can cost you in money or even jail time.  Society has encouraged non-action.  (Maybe a government pushed trend to make more non-thinking, non-doing malleable sheep?)


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 15, 2022)

I saw the clip a few times before, it's quite a ways to get up on the stage, so it's not as if people can come to his rescue in a split second.

Also, people are there to listen to him, not there to fight. It's likely to take a second or two to register what's happening and then the question whether they want to get up there or not. REMEMBER, they are not body guards, they don't have their eyes open to look out for this kind of things.

What is not clear is whether he has body guards since he know there's a bounty on his life. Then it's more the question if he has body guards, where the hell are they!!! They are truly the ones to be blamed.

I don't think there should be a discussion how the audience should respond. Hell, I most likely would *NOT* go up there unless he's a member of my family or friends. It is *NOT* my responsibility to protect him. You guys seem to try to put responsibility on the audience. We *pay money* to listen to a speech, not there to risk our lives. I am pretty sure most of the common people do not have a HERO syndrome that they need to step up to save the day.

I blame the extremist, that's where the blame should be.


----------



## Argus (Aug 15, 2022)

Was there no-one else on stage with him? Those are the only people I think one could judge.



Alan0354 said:


> I saw the clip a few times before, it's quite a ways to get up on the stage, so it's not as if people can come to his rescue in a split second.
> 
> Also, people are there to listen to him, not there to fight. It's likely to take a second or two to register what's happening and then the question whether they want to get up there or not. REMEMBER, they are not body guards, they don't have their eyes open to look out for this kind of things.
> 
> ...



I kinda agree with regards to the crowd. They're probably too far away to climb up on stage and help within a realistic time frame, as well.
If there was anyone else on stage nearby though, I think the judgement is fair. They'd be both close enough to help and have, likely, more interest in helping / connection with the victim.

It's hard to know what one would do without experiencing the situation directly. What would I have done? I don't know. I think my instinct would be to help -- because witnessing someone assaulting someone else, especially someone weaker, frankly, makes me mad. Like, what right do you have to think you can take someone's life like that? I can't claim it's smart from a personal safety or legal standpoint, as by helping someone else, you risk serious repercussions (either you succeed, and no good deed goes unpunished, or you fail, and probably get seriously injured or killed yourself), but it's hard for me to tolerate such BS, especially if I perceive it to be life threatening to someone. I'd likely be motivated to just run up and knock the guy out, were I near enough to help, and aware enough to realize what's going on within the window of opportunity to interfere. But I can't presume to know if that's how I'd actually act, because frankly, it's all speculation until you actually experience such a thing, and learn for sure how you would react.


----------



## Holmejr (Aug 15, 2022)

Security- either asleep at the wheel or complicit. Considering the bounty…


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 15, 2022)

Holmejr said:


> Security- either asleep at the wheel or complicit. Considering the bounty…


That's where I would look into. I have not heard anything whether he has body guard. It's hard to blame on normal security of the place, it's before the speech, I don't think people are exactly in the on guard mode yet.

Like I said before, blame on the extremists, they are the ones that are evil. then blame the body guards if he has any. as for audience, it's easy to say "I would have done that" sitting on a comfy chair and type on the computer. I bet it would take a few seconds for people to even register what they see, then to react to it. Not everyone is master of MA, people do have second thoughts whether to engage. AND, what if the attacker has a gun, there goes your MA. even the attacker only has a knife, that still change the whole balance even if you are a master of MA. So don't be judgemental and Monday morning quarterbacking. Be in the situation before you can say.


----------



## mograph (Aug 16, 2022)

It's bigger than just fighting: we've become a spectator society, which I'd say started with television. Think of it: how much of peoples' lives (for those who have access to technology, anyway) are spent watching _other_ people do things? ... or interacting in a predetermined manner with things created by someone else? How often are we fed scripted entertainment, to the point where we cannot tell the difference between real and fake?

We need more direct engagement with the real, sensory world. We need to recover our own agency and stop watching other people use theirs.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 16, 2022)

mograph said:


> It's bigger than just fighting: we've become a spectator society, which I'd say started with television. Think of it: how much of peoples' lives (for those who have access to technology, anyway) are spent watching _other_ people do things? ... or interacting in a predetermined manner with things created by someone else? How often are we fed scripted entertainment, to the point where we cannot tell the difference between real and fake?
> 
> We need more direct engagement with the real, sensory world. We need to recover our own agency and stop watching other people use theirs.


Maybe. It wasn't until the late 50s that TVs were a household item (by 55 half of the households had one, but not a majority yet, by 1960 90% of households had one). The big incident that paved the way for the bystander effect, kitty genovese's murder, where supposedly close to 40 people watched her get raped and murdered without acting, happened in 1964.

Whether or not that's accurate (there are disputes about the number of witnesses, what the witnesses could see, and whether or not any of them called the police and the police were the ones that ignored it, I don't think any of it can really be proven 60 years later), within the next few years study started on the bystander effect, and found it to be a real thing. This was all within 5-9 years of TV becoming popular, which I don't think would be enough time to have everyone become 'spectators', especially since from my understanding even once everyone had a tv, TV was not a ubiquitous, constant thing back then like it is today.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 16, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> Also, people are there to listen to him, not there to fight. It's likely to take a second or two to register what's happening and then the question whether they want to get up there or not. REMEMBER, they are not body guards, they don't have their eyes open to look out for this kind of things.


Spectator culture has overridden Good Samaritan responsibilities.



Alan0354 said:


> What is not clear is whether he has body guards since he know there's a bounty on his life. Then it's more the question if he has body guards, where the hell are they!!! They are truly the ones to be blamed.


"Somebody else will take care of it." Bystander effect and distributed responsibility syndrome.




Alan0354 said:


> . Hell, I most likely would *NOT* go up there unless he's a member of my family or friends. It is *NOT* my responsibility to protect him.


This is about the only part that I actually do agree with.

(mobile)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2022)

During the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there were numerous examples of people choosing not to be passive victims, regardless of the final effects of their self-defense.  However, it does seem as though it takes a great deal to break through the veneer of complacency and fear that surround us today.  I think several people in this thread have given good reasons why this is so.  I'm not sure what the cure for it is.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 16, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Spectator culture has overridden Good Samaritan responsibilities.
> 
> 
> "*Somebody else will take care of it.*" Bystander effect and distributed responsibility syndrome.
> ...


Yes, I would expect they have security and/or body guard that is PAID to protect him. I think I would tend to help if I see someone trying to beat up an old person on the street or in the bart etc. Those famous people should know better and take more precaution.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> I think I would tend to help if I see someone trying to beat up an old person on the street or in the bart etc.


I stil remember my long fist teacher told his students, "If you have a good reason to fight, but you didn't, I'll beat you up when I find out". All my life, I respect him for saying that.

We all have 2 choices:

1. Pretend we didn't see it, leave safely, and feel ashame for the rest of our lifes.
2. Jump in to help, take the risk, and feel good for the rest of our lifes.

IMO, MA training without "侠 (Xia) - knight spirit" is meaningless.


----------



## mograph (Aug 16, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Maybe. It wasn't until the late 50s that TVs were a household item (by 55 half of the households had one, but not a majority yet, by 1960 90% of households had one). The big incident that paved the way for the bystander effect, kitty genovese's murder, where supposedly close to 40 people watched her get raped and murdered without acting, happened in 1964.
> 
> Whether or not that's accurate (there are disputes about the number of witnesses, what the witnesses could see, and whether or not any of them called the police and the police were the ones that ignored it, I don't think any of it can really be proven 60 years later), within the next few years study started on the bystander effect, and found it to be a real thing. This was all within 5-9 years of TV becoming popular, which I don't think would be enough time to have everyone become 'spectators', especially since from my understanding even once everyone had a tv, TV was not a ubiquitous, constant thing back then like it is today.


I wasn't addressing the Genovese murder: in _general_, we've become a spectator society. I recall stories of the men in our family (pre-war) making their own fun and getting into trouble, knowing their neighbours, doors unlocked. They spent more of their time _doing_ things rather than _watching_ other people do things, at a distance. 

The spectator effect has always been with us when there is a disconnect between individuals; it's a _symptom_, not a cause, of a loss of a shared community. I believe there are many causes of a loss of shared community, and one of them is the lack of _direct_ engagement with individuals and our environment, replaced with _indirect_ engagement moderated by software, algorithms, scripts, and screens.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 16, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I stil remember my long fist teacher told his students, *"If you have a good reason to fight, but you didn't, I'll beat you up when I find out".* All my life, I respect him for saying that.
> 
> We all have 2 choices:
> 
> ...


I would find another school!!!

This might work in old China and HK back in the days. Here? You have guns and all. You better think twice before getting involve. I don't even think people think like this in China and HK today.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2022)

lklawson said:


> I'm sure some of you by now have seen news of the attack on author of "The Satanic Verses," Salman Rushdie.  Some of the things that just pop out are:
> 
> 
> _An Associated Press reporter witnessed a man confront Rushdie on stage at the Chautauqua Institution and punch or stab him 10 to 15 times as he was being introduced._
> ...


 Some people just can't process violence very well. Mentally and emotionally they can't work out the danger or reality of it.  My guess is that the next couple of generations will have a better sense of it with school shoots being a norm.  There are a lot of kids out there who have been in shooting compared to the older adults.  I don't think they will have that same issue of just watching.  My guess is that they will have a very serious perspective on it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> I would find another school!!!
> 
> This might work in old China and HK back in the days. Here? You have guns and all. You better think twice before getting involve. I don't even think people think like this in China and HK today.


This is why over 200 Texas cops waited for 77 minutes doing nothing and let children to be killed. Not even one Texas cop had the courage to *take the risk* to save those children.

When a cop has the idea of de-escalation, avoid trouble, run away, just watching,  ..., the world become a sad place to live.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 16, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why over 200 Texas cops waited for 77 minutes doing nothing and let children to be killed. Not even one Texas cop had the courage to *take the risk* to save those children.
> 
> When a cop has the idea of de-escalation, avoid trouble, run away, just watching,  ..., the world become a sad place to live.


*NO*!!! That's completely different. They are* PAID* to do the job, not the rest of us.

Now make sure you be the hero next time when you see something like this. Don't just talk. I'll cheer you on.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> I don't think there should be a discussion how the audience should respond. Hell, I most likely would *NOT* go up there unless he's a member of my family or friends. It is *NOT* my responsibility to protect him. You guys seem to try to put responsibility on the audience. We *pay money* to listen to a speech, not there to risk our lives. I am pretty sure most of the common people do not have a HERO syndrome that they need to step up to save the day.


I'm not sure what I would have done.  I can better analyze someone running towards me than someone running towards the stage.  Things just aren't going to be analyzed the same way as it would have been if I was on the stage.  


Alan0354 said:


> I bet it would take a few seconds for people to even register what they see, then to react to it.


If I was in the seats and not on stage I wouldn't react either unless I saw that the people on the stage were scared.  I don't know what type of reaction it would be but I would "click on".  In the case of Salman Rushdie, I would probably know that something was really wrong 2 or 3 seconds before he got stabbed and that's only if I wasn't checking my phone.  Lots of variables that would delay reaction time.  The biggest being the distance of where the man was running to and where I would be sitting.



isshinryuronin said:


> If a 3rd grader punches a 4th grade bully in the nose for self-defense both get the same punishment. Despite good Samaritan laws in some states, helping out a fellow citizen can cost you in money or even jail time.


I never did like this.  I told my son not to obey it.  I told him that it's better to have week of suspension than to be in the hospital too because he didn't fight back in fear of "the school rules."  Fortunately no one bullied or tried to bully my son in school, as far as I know of.  I tell him stories about high school years and he looks at me like I'm the crazy one lol.. Which is fine with me that he didn't have to go through the crap I did. 



Alan0354 said:


> You better think twice before getting involve.


This is how it was in Baltimore for me.   A fight in the streets where a man is yelling at a woman could very be an argument that is drug or gang related.  Getting involved in the wrong way could literally mean death.  There are many ways to help, we only need to pick the one that leads to the best outcome and then hope we didn't get it wrong.  But yeah, definitely think before jumping into action, and continue to process and analyze the situation as you are moving into action.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 16, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why over 200 Texas cops waited for 77 minutes doing nothing and let children to be killed. Not even one Texas cop had the courage to *take the risk* to save those children.
> 
> When a cop has the idea of de-escalation, avoid trouble, run away, just watching,  ..., the world become a sad place to live.


Oh, I forgot to mention, it's *NOT* the police inside the school that were at fault, they were ordered not to breach by the upper commander. This is being investigated last I heard. That was bad. I am sure those police want to go in, but they can get fired disobeying the direct order.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why over 200 Texas cops waited for 77 minutes doing nothing and let children to be killed. Not even one Texas cop had the courage to *take the risk* to save those children.
> 
> When a cop has the idea of de-escalation, avoid trouble, run away, just watching,  ..., the world become a sad place to live.


It pretty much validates my perspective.  No one wants to risk getting shot by an AR.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> That was bad. I am sure those police want to go in, but they can get fired disobeying the direct order.


I'm sure some of them wanted to go in.  Other's were probably glad that the order came through because they knew people like you would say the exact thing you stated.  I got mixed feelings on that, personally.  I don't follow anyone's orders and have been told to follow bad decisions and illegal ones as well.  Each time I did what was right.  I'm sure the the investigation will reveal the truth.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm sure some of them wanted to go in.  Other's were probably glad that the order came through because they knew people like you would say the exact thing you stated.  I got mixed feelings on that, personally. * I don't follow anyone's orders* and have been told to follow bad decisions and illegal ones as well.  Each time I did what was right.  I'm sure the the investigation will reveal the truth.


Those police inside don't have a choice, they have to listen to the superior and follow order, it's their job. We don't have to follow order because we are private citizens and we don't get pay. We don't ask to do those kind of job. As for me, I don't even want to think what would I do in those situation, if it ever happens, then I'll think about it at the time. It's no point of thinking about what I should do sitting in a comfy chair and typing on the computer.

I am neutral towards the police, I don't like or hate them. They choose the job at their own free will and they are paid for doing their job. They are supposed to go in if ordered. If they have second thoughts that it's too dangerous, they should quit. I don't call them brave if they go in because it's their job.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> II never did like this.  I told my son not to obey it.  I told him that it's better to have week of suspension than to be in the hospital too because he didn't fight back in fear of "the school rules."  Fortunately no one bullied or tried to bully my son in school, as far as I know of.  I tell him stories about high school years and he looks at me like I'm the crazy one lol.. Which is fine with me that he didn't have to go through the crap I did.


That would make him the exception.  Last time I looked, research seemed to indicate that most kids are bullied at some point.  The difference is in how often, how long, and how they deal with it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> It pretty much validates my perspective.  No one wants to risk getting shot by an AR.


No one wants to be shot by *ANYTHING*.  The .223 that most AR's are chambered for is a varmint cartridge, small game, often referred to as a "poodle shooter" in the hunting community.  But no one wants to get shot by a poodle shooter, a .25ACP, or a .22LR.  No one wants to be shot by *ANYTHING*. 

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> As for me, I don't even want to think what would I do in those situation, if it ever happens, then I'll think about it at the time. It's no point of thinking about what I should do sitting in a comfy chair and typing on the computer.


You don't have to dwell on it, but to think about it does no harm.  The best time to think about what if scenarios is when you are in a comfy chair and typing on the computer.   The worst time to think about what to do in an emergency is when you are in one.  Your brain isn't going to process the situation very well if the situation is completely new.  This is why children go through active shooter drills.  It's why I went through Tornado drills in school.  I was never in a Tornado at school.  Many kids will never be in an active shooter situation.  

If you haven't thought about it such things before hand then you will most likely have a difficult time to process the situation when it happens.   You don't have to dwell on it. But a little thought about different scenarios can be more helpful than what people realize.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> That would make him the exception.  Last time I looked, research seemed to indicate that most kids are bullied at some point.  The difference is in how often, how long, and how they deal with it.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


yep.  when he first told me that he was never picked on, I was shocked and didn't believe him, but based on what he told me and what teachers have told me.  It looks like he went through all of his school years without an issue which is good because being bullied sucks.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> No one wants to be shot by *ANYTHING*.  The .223 that most AR's are chambered for is a varmint cartridge, small game, often referred to as a "poodle shooter" in the hunting community.  But no one wants to get shot by a poodle shooter, a .25ACP, or a .22LR.  No one wants to be shot by *ANYTHING*.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


No one wants to be shot by Anything is a given.  But it does matter at what you face.  The type of weapon police will face will have a direct impact on the decisions that they will make and how they will approach a situation.  While no one wants to be shot by Anything, if you had to confront a revolver vs an AR.  I'm pretty sure your analysis of the situation and of the actions you may take will be different. 

The type of weapon that you face will always have a direct impact on your actions and hopefully your approach


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> No one wants to be shot by *ANYTHING*.  The .223 that most AR's are chambered for is a varmint cartridge, small game, often referred to as a "poodle shooter" in the hunting community.  But no one wants to get shot by a poodle shooter, a .25ACP, or a .22LR.  No one wants to be shot by *ANYTHING*.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I know for a fact that I don't want to be shot by anything.  Rubber bullets don't make me feel any better about being shot even though the wounds from that and lethal ammo are completely different.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> No one wants to be shot by Anything is a given.  But it does matter at what you face.  The type of weapon police will face will have a direct impact on the decisions that they will make and how they will approach a situation.  While no one wants to be shot by Anything, if you had to confront a revolver vs an AR.  I'm pretty sure your analysis of the situation and of the actions you may take will be different.
> 
> The type of weapon that you face will always have a direct impact on your actions and hopefully your approach


If people are more afraid of this:




than they are afraid of this:



then they don't know gun stuff works.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> If people are more afraid of this:
> View attachment 28787
> than they are afraid of this:
> View attachment 28788
> ...


Are people getting shot with the M1 Garand?

The reason I ask is because if they were then they would feel the same way that they would about being shot with an AR-15.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 17, 2022)

mograph said:


> I wasn't addressing the Genovese murder: in _general_, we've become a spectator society. I recall stories of the men in our family (pre-war) making their own fun and getting into trouble, knowing their neighbours, doors unlocked. They spent more of their time _doing_ things rather than _watching_ other people do things, at a distance.
> 
> The spectator effect has always been with us when there is a disconnect between individuals; it's a _symptom_, not a cause, of a loss of a shared community. I believe there are many causes of a loss of shared community, and one of them is the lack of _direct_ engagement with individuals and our environment, replaced with _indirect_ engagement moderated by software, algorithms, scripts, and screens.


I know you weren't-that was my own example of how this spectator effect existed before TV/computers/the digital age. Which means it's not a symptom of the digital age.


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Spectator culture has overridden Good Samaritan responsibilities.


I'm really interested to see the data on this.  Anecdotally, it's very common to hear stories about good Samaritans, and if we can all agree that it's unlikely 100% of them are reported in the news, I would surmise there are more examples than are reported.  And we can see examples of the bystander effect going back a long way, suggesting it's not a generational thing.  I mean, isn't the Good Samaritan story itself an example of the bystander effect?  

Point is, we know both exist in the world... but I am super interested in any data that would tell us whether one is becoming more common now.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Are people getting shot with the M1 Garand?
> 
> The reason I ask is because if they were then they would feel the same way that they would about being shot with an AR-15.


People who are afraid of getting shot by an AR15 don't understand statistics.  In 2020, there were 21,570 homicides in the U.S.  Of those, 455 homicides were committed with rifles of any kind, of which AR's were a fraction of that.  

People scared of an AR15 are simply not thinking rationally.


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> Oh, I forgot to mention, it's *NOT* the police inside the school that were at fault, they were ordered not to breach by the upper commander. This is being investigated last I heard. That was bad. I am sure those police want to go in, but they can get fired disobeying the direct order.


I think there is plenty of blame to go around on that one.  The police, the commander, and a lot of other people who contributed in a straight line to that massacre.  I am not a religious person, but I wish there were a hell so these people could burn in it for eternity.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> I'm really interested to see the data on this.  Anecdotally, it's very common to hear stories about good Samaritans, and if we can all agree that it's unlikely 100% of them are reported in the news, I would surmise there are more examples than are reported.  And we can see examples of the bystander effect going back a long way, suggesting it's not a generational thing.  I mean, isn't the Good Samaritan story itself an example of the bystander effect?
> 
> Point is, we know both exist in the world... but I am super interested in any data that would tell us whether one is becoming more common now.


I dug up a list of references.


Darley, J. M., & Latané´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8_, 377–383.
Garcia, Stephen M, Weaver, Kim, Moskowitz, Gordon B, & Darley, John M. (2002). Crowded Minds. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83_(4), 843–853.
Hortensius, Ruud, & De Gelder, Beatrice. (2018). From Empathy to Apathy: The Bystander Effect Revisited. _Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27_(4), 249–256.
Latané´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10_, 215–221.
Latané´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). _The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?_ New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Latané´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1976). <em>Help in a crisis: Bystander response to an emergency. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Latané´, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. _Psychological Bulletin, 89_, 308 –324.
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. _American Psychologist, 62_, 555–562.
Prentice, D. (2007). Pluralistic ignorance. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), _Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 674–674)_. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rendsvig, R. K. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance in the bystander effect: Informational dynamics of unresponsive witnesses in situations calling for intervention. _Synthese (Dordrecht), 191_(11), 2471–2498.
Shotland, R. L., & Heinold, W. D. (1985). Bystander response to arterial bleeding: Helping skills, the decision-making process, and differentiating the helping response. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_
Shotland, R. L., & Straw, M. K. (1976). Bystander response to an assault: When a man attacks a woman. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34_(5), 990.
Siegal, H. A. (1972). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? _1(3)_, 226–227.
Van Bommel, Marco, Van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, Elffers, Henk, & Van Lange, Paul A.M. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. _Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48_(4), 926–930.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> I dug up a list of references.
> 
> 
> Darley, J. M., & Latané´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8_, 377–383.
> ...


Cool.  Which ones have you actually read?  All of them?  Can you share a few relevant excerpts?

Also, can you share where you copied this list from?  I'm curious to take a look and see if there is anything from the last decade available.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> People scared of an AR15 are simply not thinking rationally.


That doesn't stop them from being afraid of it when confronted with it or not being confronted with it.   From when I lived in Baltimore the AR-15 wasn't the issue to be concerned with. There are a lot of other options for being shot in the hood.  In all the shootings I could remember, the AR-15 wasn't in the mix.   Inner city shooters prefer things that are easier to hide and ditch if need be.   A rifle of any type is just going to stick out in the hood.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> Cool.  Which ones have you actually read?


None.  You asked for some studies, here are some studies.  



Steve said:


> Also, can you share where you copied this list from?  I'm curious to take a look and see if there is anything from the last decade available.


From this article:








						The Bystander Effect — A Deep Sociological Issue
					

Diffusion of responsibility or absence of empathy?




					medium.com


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> None.  You asked for some studies, here are some studies.



Yeah. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to be snarky or helpful.  I think it’s clear now.

So have you read any of those articles?


lklawson said:


> From this article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you read this article?  I just did and didn’t see anything in the article about it being more common now than in times past.  Interesting information, though, if uij care to take a few minutes to read it.

Will add that I read it pretty quickly, so if you can point to what you have in mind in the article, I’ll take a look.  Happy to stand corrected.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> Yeah. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to be snarky or helpful.  I think it’s clear now.


Definitely not being snarky.  I used to try to be subtle when I was snarky but too often people missed it.  So, no.  You asked from some studies, here's a list.



Steve said:


> So have you read any of those articles?
> 
> Did you read this article?  I just did and didn’t see anything in the article about it being more common now than in times past.  Interesting information, though, if uij care to take a few minutes to read it.
> 
> Will add that I read it pretty quickly, so if you can point to what you have in mind in the article, I’ll take a look.  Happy to stand corrected.


I did read the article, yes.  I wasn't pointing out anything in particular about that article.  I read it, and it had a list of references at the end.  There was nothing special about the article to me past what has already been generally discussed in this thread but it did have the references.  I posted the references to the studies, etc. because you asked for some.  I didn't post the article until you asked me where I found the references.


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Definitely not being snarky.  I used to try to be subtle when I was snarky but too often people missed it.  So, no.  You asked from some studies, here's a list.
> 
> 
> I did read the article, yes.  I wasn't pointing out anything in particular about that article.  I read it, and it had a list of references at the end.  There was nothing special about the article to me past what has already been generally discussed in this thread but it did have the references.  I posted the references to the studies, etc. because you asked for some.  I didn't post the article until you asked me where I found the references.


Alright.  Thanks for that.  So, to be clearer, you said that spectator culture has overridden the good Samaritan behaviors.  You and a few others in this thread have suggested this is a recent phenomenon and have proposed a few theories about why.  

So, I'll just say again, I'd love to see some actual data that supports your assertion that this happens more frequently now than in the past.  I think it's an open question whether this spectator culture is more prevalent now than at any time in history.  I'm interested in whether there is anything out there to support your claim.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> I dug up a list of references.
> 
> 
> Darley, J. M., & Latané´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8_, 377–383.
> ...


I've read a few of those, though not all. From what I recall, they describe the bystander effect well, but don't really address whether or not it's increasing or decreasing, just that it exists, why it exists, what it is, and how we know it exists.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> You don't have to dwell on it, but to think about it does no harm.  The best time to think about what if scenarios is when you are in a comfy chair and typing on the computer.   The worst time to think about what to do in an emergency is when you are in one.  Your brain isn't going to process the situation very well if the situation is completely new.  This is why children go through active shooter drills.  It's why I went through Tornado drills in school.  I was never in a Tornado at school.  Many kids will never be in an active shooter situation.
> 
> If you haven't thought about it such things before hand then you will most likely have a difficult time to process the situation when it happens.   You don't have to dwell on it. But a little thought about different scenarios can be more helpful than what people realize.


I really don't think about this. I already moved on from this thread, just seeing this thread keep going and going talking about what people should do this and that and this situation. That's why I put in my two cents.


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've read a few of those, though not all. From what I recall, they describe the bystander effect well, but don't really address whether or not it's increasing or decreasing, just that it exists, why it exists, what it is, and how we know it exists.


For sure, and I think we can all agree that it happens.  As I mentioned earlier, I think the parable of the good Samaritan is itself an object lesson in the bystander effect.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> None. You asked for some studies, here are some studies


ha ha ha.. curve ball


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 17, 2022)

I tend to frame the issue in a lightly different way. I think of it in terms of "scripts".

In most human interaction, the people involved are not looking at all the available information, applying their relevant personal values, then formulating an appropriate course of action from scratch on the basis of that info and those values. Rather, we have a large selection of plug-and-play "scripts" which cover the general outline of how to handle the current situation and we intuitively select one of those scripts based on a handful of cues that we perceive in whatever we are dealing with.

These scripts aren't as rigid as the ones a telemarketer might have written down for them to follow and most people aren't even consciously aware that they are following a script. They just get the cues which tell them what general direction to go, what sort of things to expect, and some appropriate "if this, then that" actions to take if the expected events occur.

This isn't a criticism. Our brains use these sorts of heuristics all the time to enable us to move through daily life at speed without having to stop and ponder every word and action. (It goes beyond social interaction as well. Shortcuts like this also underly things like basic visual perception.)

As useful as these scripts can be, they also can cause problems. 

Swindlers, salesmen and manipulative abusers make use of other people's scripts by doing and saying things to trigger a standard social script for their marks, then switching things up in the middle, going outside the parameters of the expected interaction, then pressuring the other person into the direction they want while the victim is confused by not having an appropriate response ready at hand.

It also contributes to a lot of online (and in-person) nastiness in political (and other) discussion. People get overly simplified scripts which allow them to drop the person they are disagreeing with into a stereotyped pigeonhole and then spout pre-determined counters to what they imagine the other person is saying based on the role they have assigned to them in their internal script.

Getting back to the original topic at hand - most people, when they go to hear an author deliver a public speech, have a set number of standard scripts easily available in their heads. Maybe it's "sit back and enjoy an entertaining story." Maybe it's "wait for Q&A so I can ask something about his next book." Maybe it's "scroll through my phone until the talk is over, then go up to ask if he can sign a copy of his book for my nephew who is a really big fan." One script which is not going to be prepared for the vast majority of people is "hey, someone just jumped up there and is trying to murder the author, what do I do now?" It's just not something that matches the experiences or expectations of the vast majority of people in that context. In the absence of an appropriate prepared mental script, it's pretty common for a person to freeze or to look around to the people around them for cues as to what to do next. If those people are also going through the same process, it can take a little while for somebody to do something. I haven't read any descriptions of exactly how long it took for someone to move to intervene and stop the attacker, but it wouldn't have to be more than a few seconds for the would-be assassin to inflict serious damage. (It's also worth noting that the moderator of the event, a 73 year old man, was injured in the process of helping defend Rushdie and subdue his assailant. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of having a "bystander mentality.")


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. curve ball


Man, you are petty.  I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games.  It's projection.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 17, 2022)

I should add that our internal scripts don't just affect our actions, they also affect our perceptions of the situation.

Based on my personal life experiences, I know that if I had been in the audience when Rushdie was attacked that I would have attempted to help as soon as I realized what was going on. What I don't know is how quickly I would have realized what was going on. Expectation is a huge component of perception. When I'm sitting and listening to an author speak, I am not expecting an assassination attempt. It's very likely that it would have taken me longer to figure out what was happening than it would if I was in an environment where I thought a violent attack was more probable.


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I tend to frame the issue in a lightly different way. I think of it in terms of "scripts".
> 
> In most human interaction, the people involved are not looking at all the available information, applying their relevant personal values, then formulating an appropriate course of action from scratch on the basis of that info and those values. Rather, we have a large selection of plug-and-play "scripts" which cover the general outline of how to handle the current situation and we intuitively select one of those scripts based on a handful of cues that we perceive in whatever we are dealing with.
> 
> ...


This is super interesting.  I encourage new managers and supervisors to think about "what if" scenarios.  Violence doesn't happen every day, but it's a realistic concern for them.  We had an office just a few weeks ago where a person walked into the doorway to the office and committed suicide, for example.  So, in the absence of experience, some visualization and consideration of what they would do if X happens seems to be helpful.  Particularly when there may be no clear direction or if there is conflict between two core principles.  For example, if something happens and the manager may have to go outside of their delegated authority to keep folks safe.


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I should add that our internal scripts don't just affect our actions, they also affect our perceptions of the situation.
> 
> Based on my personal life experiences, I know that if I had been in the audience when Rushdie was attacked that I would have attempted to help as soon as I realized what was going on. What I don't know is how quickly I would have realized what was going on. Expectation is a huge component of perception. When I'm sitting and listening to an author speak, I am not expecting an assassination attempt. It's very likely that it would have taken me longer to figure out what was happening than it would if I was in an environment where I thought a violent attack was more probable.


And you know, how you (or I) react in one situation will probably affect how we would react if it ever happens again.  In one of those articles that were shared earlier, someone talked about all of the folks who failed to act in the Kitty Genovese crimes did act in future events.  

Another article (or may be the same one... it was a lot to consume pretty quickly) mentioned there were an average of 6 events in a person's life where they may be required to act.  So, whether it's your first time in a situation like that or your 3rd or 6th would reasonably impact your performance in that crisis quite a bit.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I tend to frame the issue in a lightly different way. I think of it in terms of "scripts".
> 
> In most human interaction, the people involved are not looking at all the available information, applying their relevant personal values, then formulating an appropriate course of action from scratch on the basis of that info and those values. Rather, we have a large selection of plug-and-play "scripts" which cover the general outline of how to handle the current situation and we intuitively select one of those scripts based on a handful of cues that we perceive in whatever we are dealing with.
> 
> These scripts aren't as rigid as the ones a telemarketer might have written down for them to follow and most people aren't even consciously aware that they are following a script. They just get the cues which tell them what general direction to go, what sort of things to expect, and some appropriate "if this, then that" actions to take if the expected events occur.


Pretty close to my description of "Robodroid" and how we have to "program" ourselves for scenarios and actions.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> there were an average of 6 events in a person's life where they may be required to act.


I always wonder what an average person will do in the situation as showing in this film - no guns involved, no police around.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I haven't read any descriptions of exactly how long it took for someone to move to intervene and stop the attacker, but it wouldn't have to be more than a few seconds for the would-be assassin to inflict serious damage.


There was no time limit, so how ever long it took for a person to run up on stage either from the front seats or from the back seats would be the time range. I don't know if the victim saw the attack coming or if he was blindsided.  Quite a few people reacted and ran to the stage but that was after the physical attack began.  Others followed, more likely a result of "safety in numbers."  More people are willing to assist if they see someone else assist.  



Tony Dismukes said:


> It's also worth noting that the moderator of the event, a 73 year old man, was injured in the process of helping defend Rushdie and subdue his assailant. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of having a "bystander mentality."


I think the "bystander mentality" only exists at a distance.  I don't think it's viable at close distance even though it happens sometimes, but not often.   I think we naturally perceive nearby danger for someone as danger for us.  If a dog attacks you and you are standing next to me, then my brain may automatically register that I'm in danger too.  But if the same thing happens to you and I'm 20 feet away then my brain may automatically register that the danger is "over there, don't go over there."  Both are natural responses and would be beneficial to self preservation.


Tony Dismukes said:


> I should add that our internal scripts don't just affect our actions, they also affect our perceptions of the situation.
> 
> Based on my personal life experiences, I know that if I had been in the audience when Rushdie was attacked that I would have attempted to help as soon as I realized what was going on. What I don't know is how quickly I would have realized what was going on. Expectation is a huge component of perception. When I'm sitting and listening to an author speak, I am not expecting an assassination attempt. It's very likely that it would have taken me longer to figure out what was happening than it would if I was in an environment where I thought a violent attack was more probable.


Placement also matters.  Had you been on the stage, a guy running towards you would trigger the red flags, because off the back you know that it's not normal to have people run towards you.  I think your brain would have been able to detect anger in the movement.  People who running angry doesn't look the same as running scared.  That process would have happened much faster and your eyes would have been able to pick up more visual cues provided that you weren't blindsided.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Pretty close to my description of "Robodroid" and how we have to "program" ourselves for scenarios and actions.


I think it's a MUST for self-defense.  It's not practical to experience them first hand.  It's better to run scenarios and use the information and experience provided by people who unfortunately have been in that situation before.  If someone was attacked while trying to break up a fight then I can use that information to help calibrate my own actions.  The best thing about sharing experiences like that is that you are no longer using a what if outcome.  You are using a real possible outcome to calibrate actions to avoid going down the same path or actions to use if you are on the same path.  

For me personally I run scenarios all the time just out of curiosities and a lot of the times, my responses aren't to jump in as a hero.  I tend to move towards the preventive actions than the responsive actions.  In my 30's someone asked me how do I stay calm in emergencies and dangerous situations.  This person saw me handle various situations and was curious.  My answer to that person was simple "I don't freak out because I've thought about scenarios like this."

So while the reality of a situation may be new to me, the elements of that situation aren't.   The only thing I would caution in terms of "programming  ourselves" is that we don't become consumed by it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I always wonder what an average person will do in the situation as showing in this film - no guns involved, no police around.


Depends on who was on the bus that day.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on who was on the bus that day.


Of course if you and 20 of your MA studnts are on that bus, the outcome will be different.

Also if you have a walking cane like this (since firearm is not available), the outcome will also be different.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> Man, you are petty.  I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games.  It's projection.





Steve said:


> Man, you are petty.  I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games.  It's projection.


and?


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 17, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course if you and 20 of your MA studnts are on that bus, the outcome will be different.
> 
> Also if you have a walking cane like this (since firearm is not available), the outcome will also be different.
> 
> View attachment 28790


A regular cane can do a lot of damage already, this is illegal in Kalifornia for sure. I am pretty sure it's illegal in a lot of other states. Or else, it's too easy.

I carry a 20oz fiber filled Nylon cane, I don't think anyone would appreciate hitting by that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course if you and 20 of your MA studnts are on that bus, the outcome will be different.


It won't take that many.  Two or three willing people should be enough.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> Man, you are petty.  I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games.  It's projection.


Did I miss something here?


----------



## Steve (Aug 17, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Did I miss something here?


Probably. It’s okay. I’m done farting around with him. 😅


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 17, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> It won't take that many.  Two or three willing people should be enough.


I always like to see when 2 guys try to rape a girl and 20 guys jump on them and eat both alive.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> A regular cane can do a lot of damage already, this is illegal in Kalifornia for sure. I am pretty sure it's illegal in a lot of other states. Or else, it's too easy.
> 
> I carry a 20oz fiber filled Nylon cane, I don't think anyone would appreciate hitting by that.


Sword canes and "sword-sticks" are illegal in most states.  There are a few that cover it under their CCW laws.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 18, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Sword canes and "sword-sticks" are illegal in most states.  There are a few that cover it under their CCW laws.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Regular cane I carry is legal!!! One just need to practice, not just carrying. I carry this Fiber filled Nylon:
United Cutlery 39" Adjustable Walking Black Molded Nylon Shaft Cane 3129 760729312968 | eBay

I cut the hook off and make it look innocent:




I started out with shorter, as I practice, I got stronger and I move to a longer cane. I have two that I wrap the end for hitting heavy bags.

They are like 20oz, it's not like those rattan stuffs, it can hit hard.

I used to carry and rattan and practice with one hand. Then I saw a stick competition where the two guys just hitting each other stupid from beginning to end. They were still standing after that. Even though they wore protect stuffs, but still. I switched to two hand and using a heavier cane. With this hitting with two hands, I don't care they wear protective gear, this is going to hurt.

Wood cane made of Hickory can be good, I have one that is thicker and it's like 18oz. My problem is I don't trust wood. I had one cheaper cane from Amazon. I hit the bag to try out, it broke into two pieces in less than a minute.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

lklawson said:


> If people are more afraid of this:
> View attachment 28787
> than they are afraid of this:
> View attachment 28788
> ...


Sing it brother!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Are people getting shot with the M1 Garand?
> 
> The reason I ask is because if they were then they would feel the same way that they would about being shot with an AR-15.


Well statistically, it’s handguns that are responsible for the VAST majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. Less than 5% of firearm deaths are by long guns, and even fewer with AR 15 style rifles. Yet, people are more concerned with the AR15 than with handguns. It makes no practical sense to focus on banning the statistically less lethal firearm, and yet the most commonly owned long gun.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Well statistically, it’s handguns that are responsible for the VAST majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. Less than 5% of firearm deaths are by long guns, and even fewer with AR 15 style rifles. Yet, people are more concerned with the AR15 than with handguns. It makes no practical sense to focus on banning the statistically less lethal firearm, and yet the most commonly owned long gun.


They want to ban ALL guns. Just a first step.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> And you know, how you (or I) react in one situation will probably affect how we would react if it ever happens again.  In one of those articles that were shared earlier, someone talked about all of the folks who failed to act in the Kitty Genovese crimes did act in future events.
> 
> Another article (or may be the same one... it was a lot to consume pretty quickly) mentioned there were an average of 6 events in a person's life where they may be required to act.  So, whether it's your first time in a situation like that or your 3rd or 6th would reasonably impact your performance in that crisis quite a bit.


6?! That depends a lot on your job and where you live in the world. I have few military buddies that would disagree with those numbers. I have a feeling that a lot of first responders might differ in opinion with that as well.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> They want to ban ALL guns. Just a first step.


I agree, that is exactly the idea. Incremental regulation, registration, and then confiscation. That is how it has been historically accomplished elsewhere.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I agree, that is exactly the idea. Incremental regulation, registration, and then confiscation. That is how it has been historically accomplished elsewhere.


OK, I don't want to get into debate, I am all for guns

In your situation, you need long guns like AK47 or AR15. With wild animals and drug cartels, even a 44 Mag handgun is questionable. For me, I live in big city and most people are not around drug cartels and big animals. AK47 and AR15 is not good for self defense, it's way over kill. Problem is the rounds can go through a few houses and kill someone that has nothing to do with it sitting in their living room. Handgun or shot gun is the best way for protection, not AKs.

I would not do anything to go against those rifles, I still support the 2nd Amendment, I just do NOT buy them. I own over 20 handguns and one shotgun, I just never bring myself to buy an AR15 or AK47. I am tempted to buy one just for show and tell.

AND NO, you cannot reason with those anti gunners, you just have to FIGHT every inch with them. If they ban Those rifles, they will move to your handguns.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Well statistically, it’s handguns that are responsible for the VAST majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. Less than 5% of firearm deaths are by long guns, and even fewer with AR 15 style rifles


Statistically you have to look at things more specifically.  What's the stats for guns being used in mass shootings? 

How many hand guns are used 1 -3 people killings vs 4+people killings.   It's not enough to just lump them all together as if they are the same.  The numbers will be more useful once we can identify which situations dictate the type of gun.   But if you guys say hand guns kill more people then let's ban hand guns and keep the AR-15.   Since hand guns kill more people.  Ban the thing that kills the most people 
right?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> They want to ban ALL guns. Just a first step.


Don't believe that nonsense.   That's political talk. Like I tell everyone.  We got guns too. We just don't talk about them like the other side. We don't feel the need to brag about what we got.  Black people got guns, Hispanics got guns, Asians got guns, white people got guns.   

So who this this group that wants to ban guns? THEY don't exist.  Just saying don't fall for that THEY JUST WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS.   Here's my mentality.  Why would I let people who hate people like me be the only ones with guns. 

I have a white co-worker tell me the same thing that you just stated.  I have him the same answer.  He no longer talks to me about guns.   I kept it 100 (real).  And he no longer says "They just want to ban all guns."  There are hate groups with guns and Anarchist groups with guns. Criminals with guns and fans with guns.  Now tell me again how many people do you think really want to ban all guns? 

You have to think through that political noise.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Statistically you have to look at things more specifically.  What's the stats for guns being used in mass shootings?
> 
> How many hand guns are used 1 -3 people killings vs 4+people killings.   It's not enough to just lump them all together as if they are the same.  The numbers will be more useful once we can identify which situations dictate the type of gun.   But if you guys say hand guns kill more people then let's ban hand guns and keep the AR-15.   Since hand guns kill more people.  Ban the thing that kills the most people
> right?


In all fairness, there's a lot of miss conception about "assault riffles". What you can buy is NOT the same as the ones use in war. Those are FULL AUTO, not like the ones you buy that are SEMI AUTO.....that you fire one round each time you pull the trigger. You can shoot no faster than a semi auto handgun.

The major difference is the bullet penetration. Those riffles with bigger bullets can go through more walls to shoot people hiding behind stuffs. Maybe it's psychological that people use those for mass murder in schools and others. I can shoot just as fast with a Glock 19 handgun as those riffles and I can get magazines that hold just as many rounds. To me, it's easier to carry two or three handguns than one riffle for that.

My biggest complain is those riffles bullets can go through a lot of walls and kill innocent people that has nothing to do with it. That to me is the biggest problem. Also, it's easier to aim using a long gun. You need training to shoot with a handgun.


----------



## Alan0354 (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Don't believe that nonsense.   That's political talk. Like I tell everyone.  We got guns too. We just don't talk about them like the other side. We don't feel the need to brag about what we got.  Black people got guns, Hispanics got guns, Asians got guns, white people got guns.
> 
> So who this this group that wants to ban guns? THEY don't exist.  Just saying don't fall for that THEY JUST WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS.   Here's my mentality.  Why would I let people who hate people like me be the only ones with guns.
> 
> ...


*WRONG*, we are not supposed to talk politics. I am very into politics and current affair. I watch news hours a day. We can really go into deep debate and I can pull out news clips after news clips. 

But we need to leave it at that before we both get banned. This is not the place.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I agree, that is exactly the idea. Incremental regulation, registration, and then confiscation. That is how it has been historically accomplished elsewhere.


That stuff isn't going to happen here.  The US has a history of on group saying "This is for us but not for you. "  If the laws were carried out equally then yes, this would be a possibility. But we all know the truth.  There some laws for one group that aren't applied equally to another group.  People be defenseless in this country.  Not when there's a history of Americans turning on each other.   Even Alan knows this. Asian people getting attacked in the streets out of hate.   Just saying.  It's not the first time Asians have been targeted in the US.  There are alot of people who you don't think have guns so do.  There are people who don't have guns who still want the option to have one of they feel the need.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> For me, I live in big city and most people are not around drug cartels


You would be surprised who is around you.  Suburbs have drug dealers too.  https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/they-want-hide-plain-sight-mexican-drug-cartels-operating-metro-atlanta-neighborhoods/NWUMQBEZSBFE3KOFMTNVM4S46Q/

This is nothing new.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> AND NO, you cannot reason with those anti gunners, you just have to FIGHT every inch with them.


You don't have to fight them because what they say is unrealistic.  There to much hate in the US for people to seriously ban all guns.   Just like defend the police.  And now from the other side defend the FBI.  Neither one is going to happen.  Don't even sweat that stuff.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> *WRONG*, we are not supposed to talk politics. I am very into politics and current affair. I watch news hours a day. We can really go into deep debate and I can pull out news clips after news clips.
> 
> But we need to leave it at that before we both get banned. This is not the place.


I haven't brought up political ideas leaning on way or the other.  I just saying think about what you hear out there.  Alot of it is noise.


----------



## Steve (Aug 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> 6?! That depends a lot on your job and where you live in the world. I have few military buddies that would disagree with those numbers. I have a feeling that a lot of first responders might differ in opinion with that as well.


I don’t think it’s intended to be a hard number.  It was mentioned in one of the articles Kirk posted.

edit.  Never mind. I just read the rest of the recent posts.  😬


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> In all fairness, there's a lot of miss conception about "assault riffles". What you can buy is NOT the same as the ones use in war. Those are FULL AUTO, not like the ones you buy that are SEMI AUTO.....that you fire one round each time you pull the trigger. You can shoot no faster than a semi auto handgun.


That's why I said you have to think through all of that noise.  

Alot of people make more problem then what is really out there. And I'm not just talking about weapons.  In general people sit the pot and create problem that didn't exist before stiring the pot.   From one extreme to another just nuts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> My biggest complain is those riffles bullets can go through a lot of walls and kill innocent people that has nothing to do with it. That to me is the biggest problem.


My biggest problem is that the police should never be out gunned. If the police use a revolvers then citizens should get less than that for hand guns or fewer bullets for the same weapon.   Don't make the job harder than it already is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> My biggest problem is that the police should never be out gunned.


If you have Pontiac GTO with 400 hp (8 miles per gollon), you can outran police car. Police also need better car.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2022)

REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:

Political discussion is not allowed in any MartialTalk forum. Further political commentary will result in the thread being locked, and may result in points.

———
Gerry Seymour 
MT Moderator
@Gerry Seymour


----------



## Buka (Aug 18, 2022)

I have a hard time discerning what's political and what's not.

Is this statement political - if you commit a crime with a firearm, you go to trial the following week, if found guilty you appeal the week after, if found guilty again, you are executed the same day.

Would that be considered political? If so, why?

I honestly want to know because I don't know. Honest.


----------



## Steve (Aug 18, 2022)

Buka said:


> I have a hard time discerning what's political and what's not.
> 
> Is this statement political - if you commit a crime with a firearm, you go to trial the following week, if found guilty you appeal the week after, if found guilty again, you are executed the same day.
> 
> ...


The way it was explained to me is conversation about defense and use of a gun or against a gun is fine but policy is considered political.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Statistically you have to look at things more specifically.  What's the stats for guns being used in mass shootings?
> 
> How many hand guns are used 1 -3 people killings vs 4+people killings.   It's not enough to just lump them all together as if they are the same.  The numbers will be more useful once we can identify which situations dictate the type of gun.   But if you guys say hand guns kill more people then let's ban hand guns and keep the AR-15.   Since hand guns kill more people.  Ban the thing that kills the most people
> right?


How bout we figure out why people are killing each other? Help people who need it, get a nationwide mental health system that works, get universal background checks that work. Stop punishing the law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals.


----------



## Buka (Aug 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> The way it was explained to me is conversation about defense and use of a gun or against a gun is fine but policy is considered political.


"Policy"? As in what the law says?


----------



## Steve (Aug 18, 2022)

Buka said:


> "Policy"? As in what the law says?


just sharing what I was told. But no, I don’t think they meant just the law. 

 For example, I think @Wing Woo Gar ’s last post is political. But what the hell do I know?    😀


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> That stuff isn't going to happen here.  The US has a history of on group saying "This is for us but not for you. "  If the laws were carried out equally then yes, this would be a possibility. But we all know the truth.  There some laws for one group that aren't applied equally to another group.  People be defenseless in this country.  Not when there's a history of Americans turning on each other.   Even Alan knows this. Asian people getting attacked in the streets out of hate.   Just saying.  It's not the first time Asians have been targeted in the US.  There are alot of people who you don't think have guns so do.  There are people who don't have guns who still want the option to have one of they feel the need.


I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of this, but I don’t think this is the place to have this discussion. Pm me if you like. I’m willing to discuss with you but I don’t want to be banned. In any case, whether you do or don’t pm me, I do want you to know that I understand and respect all opinions on this topic. I do not have all the answers and I hope to get fresh perspectives and communicate rather than try to convince anyone of anything.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> My biggest problem is that the police should never be out gunned. If the police use a revolvers then citizens should get less than that for hand guns or fewer bullets for the same weapon.   Don't make the job harder than it already is.


Wait, what?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> just sharing what I was told. But no, I don’t think they meant just the law.
> 
> For example, I think @Wing Woo Gar ’s last post is political. But what the hell do I know?    😀


I didn’t mean it that way. I was speaking in a somewhat rhetorical way because I don’t believe I know anything at all for sure on the topic. I think it is worth discussing if people can be polite and constructive. I believe everyone has valid opinion here that can be informative  and useful. I did not mean to offend in any way, I apologize if I have.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:
> 
> Political discussion is not allowed in any MartialTalk forum. Further political commentary will result in the thread being locked, and may result in points.
> 
> ...


I read this after I had commented already. Please accept my abject apologies.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> just sharing what I was told. But no, I don’t think they meant just the law.
> 
> For example, I think @Wing Woo Gar ’s last post is political. But what the hell do I know?    😀


Perhaps it could be considered political, but I doubt you could attribute all of those statements to any one political view. That was my point, after all.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> OK, I don't want to get into debate, I am all for guns
> 
> In your situation, you need long guns like AK47 or AR15. With wild animals and drug cartels, even a 44 Mag handgun is questionable. For me, I live in big city and most people are not around drug cartels and big animals. AK47 and AR15 is not good for self defense, it's way over kill. Problem is the rounds can go through a few houses and kill someone that has nothing to do with it sitting in their living room. Handgun or shot gun is the best way for protection, not AKs.


The .223 makes a better home defense cartridge than many people realize.  This is because they tend not to penetrate many walls.  The .223 begins to tumble and break up after penetrating a wall or two.   Conversely, handgun rounds such as 9mm and .45ACP tend to stay together and penetrate wall after wall until their energy is eventually spent.  Lots of tests showing this starting with Box o' Truth and Tom Gresham's Gun Talk.  I can post links if you don't feel like googling it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Statistically you have to look at things more specifically.  What's the stats for guns being used in mass shootings?



This is what I mean by humans not being good at threat assessment.  Statistically, it's *still* handguns.  But because of the hysteria and "if it bleeds it leads," people (apparently you included) are worried about AR's.  Here:














						Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2022 | Statista
					

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022.




					www.statista.com


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Alan0354 said:


> In all fairness, there's a lot of miss conception about "assault riffles". What you can buy is NOT the same as the ones use in war. Those are FULL AUTO, not like the ones you buy that are SEMI AUTO.....that you fire one round each time you pull the trigger. You can shoot no faster than a semi auto handgun.
> 
> The major difference is the bullet penetration. Those riffles with bigger bullets can go through more walls to shoot people hiding behind stuffs. Maybe it's psychological that people use those for mass murder in schools and others. I can shoot just as fast with a Glock 19 handgun as those riffles and I can get magazines that hold just as many rounds. To me, it's easier to carry two or three handguns than one riffle for that.
> 
> My biggest complain is those riffles bullets can go through a lot of walls and kill innocent people that has nothing to do with it. That to me is the biggest problem. Also, it's easier to aim using a long gun. You need training to shoot with a handgun.


The .223 tends to tumble and break up after penetrating drywall.  Well documented.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Buka said:


> "Policy"? As in what the law says?


You can share what the law itself is. Discussing whether or not that should be the law and if the law should change; (ie: whether or not guns should be banned/what guns should be banned, among other things) is where it gets to politics. At least from where we are concerned.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> My biggest problem is that the police should never be out gunned. If the police use a revolvers then citizens should get less than that for hand guns or fewer bullets for the same weapon.   Don't make the job harder than it already is.


I remember the '80s.  There was a perception that the police were "outgunned" by the drug gangs.  Turns out that it wasn't true, just media hype and fear.  Much like what is happening today with the media hype and fear surrounding the AR.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Lol there are some fast police cars out there.


lklawson said:


> This is what I mean by humans not being good at threat assessment.  Statistically, it's *still* handguns.  But because of the hysteria and "if it bleeds it leads," people (apparently you included) are worried about AR's.  Here:
> 
> View attachment 28796
> 
> ...


I'm not worried about ARs they have never been an issue in the neighborhoods I've lived in and around.   From the news abbot who shot who and who did what crime is always hand guns.  Operational wise is easier to conceal a hand gun to commit a crime.  That's always been the case. 

If the person is a criminal or plans to surprise someone with a bullet then it's usually a hand gun.   The biggest gun I've seen some pick up with for the purpose of shooting someone was a shotgun back in 1991 because of road rage.   So I'm not afraid of ARs and in the past I haven't had to personally confront one or run from one.   
Nor do I have a job that requires me to confront an active shooter of any type.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Lol there are some fast police cars out there.
> 
> I'm not worried about ARs they have never been an issue in the neighborhoods I've lived in and around.   From the news abbot who shot who and who did what crime is always hand guns.  Operational wise is easier to conceal a hand gun to commit a crime.  That's always been the case.
> 
> ...


You asked at least twice what people/cops are being shot at with, particularly during the remarkably rare event of a mass shooting, and then asked specifically about handguns used in mass shootings, apparently trying to imply that the AR pattern rifle is "the weapon of choice for mass shootings," as is so often claimed by people wanting to restrict it.  Well, here's the answer.  It's not what you apparently believed or was wanting.  But no, the AR isn't used that often in crimes, murders, or even mass murders.  The "news coverage" of events including it are dramatically over-represented compared to the actual statistics.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> This is what I mean by humans not being good at threat assessment.  Statistically, it's *still* handguns.  But because of the hysteria and "if it bleeds it leads," people (apparently you included) are worried about AR's.  Here:
> 
> View attachment 28796
> 
> ...


Thanks for the stats.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> I remember the '80s.  There was a perception that the police were "outgunned" by the drug gangs.  Turns out that it wasn't true, just media hype and fear.  Much like what is happening today with the media hype and fear surrounding the AR.


Yes, this is factually what started the militarization of our urban police forces. Anyone remember the batter ram?


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Lol there are some fast police cars out there.
> 
> I'm not worried about ARs they have never been an issue in the neighborhoods I've lived in and around.   From the news abbot who shot who and who did what crime is always hand guns.  Operational wise is easier to conceal a hand gun to commit a crime.  That's always been the case.
> 
> ...


Self defense is highly contextual.  What will help a college coed be safer isn't the same as what will help you, which is different from what would help me.  I grew up in the city and now live in a semi-rural area.  I'd guess half, or more, of my neighbors have a personal arsenal in their homes, and every one of those people has multiple AR-15s and multiple hand guns.  I keep an eye on them because they are well armed, proudly radicalized, and prone to fits of temper.  

Not disagreeing with you.  Simply pointing out that it's possible to overgeneralize.  


lklawson said:


> You asked at least twice what people/cops are being shot at with, particularly during the remarkably rare event of a mass shooting, and then asked specifically about handguns used in mass shootings, apparently trying to imply that the AR pattern rifle is "the weapon of choice for mass shootings," as is so often claimed by people wanting to restrict it.  Well, here's the answer.  It's not what you apparently believed or was wanting.  But no, the AR isn't used that often in crimes, murders, or even mass murders.  The "news coverage" of events including it are dramatically over-represented compared to the actual statistics.


I think the issue is that you have a threshold for defining "remarkably rare" that is out of sync with how others would characterize it.  I mean, how many school shootings with AR-15s is too many for you?  One per year?  10 per year?  100 per year?  At what point would you move it out of the "remarkably rare" category and into the "more than is acceptable" category?  Relevant to where the discussion is now, I think we can say that it is a fact that school shootings, with AR 15s, is a self defense issue for kids in schools.  Schools routinely conduct drills and we (adults as parents and educators) talk to kids about the self defense reality of school shootings.  And while we may all disagree on how best to address them (more guns, less guns, arming teachers, hiring cops, etc), most people have an opinion about it one way or the other.

In 2020, one child was killed in a school bus related accident (54 people total including pedestrians and the occupants of other vehicles).  That's out of about 25 million kids who are carted to and from schools in hundreds of thousands of school buses each year.  And yet there is vigorous discussion about requiring school bus seat belts.  And the upshot is, most people would agree that kids are safer if they're wearing seatbelts.  The functional reason they aren't legislated nationally is that it would be cost prohibitive for most school districts to retrofit their fleet.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Self defense is highly contextual.  What will help a college coed be safer isn't the same as what will help you, which is different from what would help me.  I grew up in the city and now live in a semi-rural area.  I'd guess half, or more, of my neighbors have a personal arsenal in their homes, and every one of those people has multiple AR-15s and multiple hand guns.  I keep an eye on them because they are well armed, proudly radicalized, and prone to fits of temper.
> 
> Not disagreeing with you.  Simply pointing out that it's possible to overgeneralize.
> 
> ...


I completely empathize with the fear parents have of sending their children to school. I agree that even one child is too many. It’s the factual information and logical discussion sans emotional input that seems to be missing in our national debate about a great number of things. I hope for a day where logic and science is what informs and drives leadership.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think the issue is that you have a threshold for defining "remarkably rare" that is out of sync with how others would characterize it.


In comparison with other violent crime causing death.  The simple fact is that death and injury caused by mass shootings is remarkably rare when compared with pretty much anything else.  It's not my fault that humans are bad at understanding statistics and judging risk based on reality instead of inflated fear.  Worry about the things that are most likely first and least likely last.  In self defense training you learn how to block a simple punch or a haymaker first and worry about the jump quadruple tornado pretty much last because one is likely and the other isn't.   But hey, the jump quadruple tornado is exiting.  Same with mass shootings.  They're rare but people foolishly want to focus on them.  

The simple fact is that, statistically, mass shootings are outliers in violent crime and those with an AR are outliers among the outliers.  Do do anything other than admitting that is to admit to not being able to understand statistics and to be driven by fear and mass panic.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You can share what the law itself is. Discussing whether or not that should be the law and if the law should change; (ie: whether or not guns should be banned/what guns should be banned, among other things) is where it gets to politics. At least from where we are concerned.


If we think through the problem then we should be able to  Identify the problem.  Identify the facts. Like the graph that was put up.  Then explore possible solutions and possible challenges that come with implementing any give solution. 

Think of it as if we as a team, are responsible for finding a solution.   Got at it like that then you'll be far from the nonsense.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> In comparison with other violent crime causing death.  The simple fact is that death and injury caused by mass shootings is remarkably rare when compared with pretty much anything else.  It's not my fault that humans are bad at understanding statistics and judging risk based on reality instead of inflated fear.  Worry about the things that are most likely first and least likely last.  In self defense training you learn how to block a simple punch or a haymaker first and worry about the jump quadruple tornado pretty much last because one is likely and the other isn't.   But hey, the jump quadruple tornado is exiting.  Same with mass shootings.  They're rare but people foolishly want to focus on them.
> 
> The simple fact is that, statistically, mass shootings are outliers in violent crime and those with an AR are outliers among the outliers.  Do do anything other than admitting that is to admit to not being able to understand statistics and to be driven by fear and mass panic.


So what is a possible solution for preventing our reducing mass shootings?


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I completely empathize with the fear parents have of sending their children to school. I agree that even one child is too many. It’s the factual information and logical discussion sans emotional input that seems to be missing in our national debate about a great number of things. I hope for a day where logic and science is what informs and drives leadership.


How many of them are afraid of their children drowning?  That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.

According to the CDC, not some breathless propaganda clickbait by Forbes, the *leading* causes of death and injury among children are

Suffocation
Drowning
Poisoning
Motor Vehicle














						Child Injury Prevention
					

Take steps to prevent injury where children live, learn, and play.




					www.cdc.gov


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> So what is a possible solution for preventing our reducing mass shootings?


One way of reducing is the same way that we are working reducing suicide.  If you haven't heard of "Suicide Contagion" then you should go start reading.  But the short version is that by reporting breathlessly on these things, including mass shootings, i.e. "making them famous," we are laying the groundwork for the next.

In suicide prevention, the concept of "responsible reporting" has show dramatic positive results, not only in the U.S. but also abroad.  Stop making it a multi-day mass media blitz and it will help reduce incidents.

Here are a few quick references





						Why Suicide Reporting Guidelines Matter | NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness
					

The fact is: how we talk about, write about and report on suicide matters. For someone already considering suicide, it’s possible to change their thoughts into action by exposing them to detailed suicide-related content, including graphic depictions or explanations of the death or revealing the...




					nami.org
				











						Responsible Reporting of Suicide
					

Experts estimate that about 800,000 people die by suicide every year. Media portrayals of deaths by suicide can have profound impacts—both good and bad. How can suicide be treated constructively by the media?




					www.nih.gov
				











						Copycat suicide - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> You asked at least twice what people/cops are being shot at with, particularly during the remarkably rare event of a mass shooting, and then asked specifically about handguns used in mass shootings, apparently trying to imply that the AR pattern rifle is "the weapon of choice for mass shootings," as is so often claimed by people wanting to restrict it.  Well, here's the answer.  It's not what you apparently believed or was wanting.  But no, the AR isn't used that often in crimes, murders, or even mass murders.  The "news coverage" of events including it are dramatically over-represented compared to the actual statistics.


I presented this statements to generate thought is regardless of perception. Perceptions won't  be a solution.  What it will do is cause someone to grab the facts.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I completely empathize with the fear parents have of sending their children to school. I agree that even one child is too many. It’s the factual information and logical discussion sans emotional input that seems to be missing in our national debate about a great number of things. I hope for a day where logic and science is what informs and drives leadership.


I would argue that facts AND emotion are both equally important.  One without the other is problematic and leads to poor judgment and decision making.


lklawson said:


> How many of them are afraid of their children drowning?  That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.
> 
> According to the CDC, not some breathless propaganda clickbait by Forbes, the *leading* causes of death and injury among children are
> Suffocation
> ...


I think most parents have a healthy respect for the risks of drowning.  My kids all had swimming lessons.  We have lifeguards at public pools, lakes, etc.  And most people take precautions when they have pools in their backyards, particularly when they have small children. 

There is also a lot of work done to try and keep kids from poisoning themselves.  I mean, it's not as though we put unlabeled poisons in the pantry and then throw up our hands in despair when our kids ingest it and say, "Why does this keep happening?"  Right?  

Honestly, your argument would only make sense if we, as a society, disregarded these other real hazards.  But we don't.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> How many of them are afraid of their children drowning?  That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.
> 
> According to the CDC, not some breathless propaganda clickbait by Forbes, the *leading* causes of death and injury among children are
> Suffocation
> ...


I agree with what you say. I still feel empathy for the anxiety parents have, regardless of the origin of that fear. In a recent study that claims gun violence is responsible for child deaths, they included 18 and 19 year olds as children.  As one might expect, that changed the stats in a meaningful way. I think that is a good example of how statistics can be manipulated.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> How many of them are afraid of their children drowning? That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.


As a pool owner I was more afraid of my son drowning as a kid before he knew how to swim.  My biggest fear was that he would did because of something I did or didn’t do.  There are solutions to that issue and fear and I had to use more than one to keep himsafe. Each solution reduced the risk.  A one solution fix would have been to fill the pool but then we wouldn't have a pool to swim in.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> One way of reducing is the same way that we are working reducing suicide. If you haven't heard of "Suicide Contagion"


What are some things we could do to address this? Do we implement the solution locally or set a national standard? What if the person who needs help moved to a state with standards that don't meet the needs? What are the major elements that in involve "suicide contagion"  what's the best way to find the solution so that the budget will be consistent?


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> What are some things we could do to address this? Do we implement the solution locally or set a national standard? What if the person who needs help moved to a state with standards that don't meet the needs? What are the major elements that in involve "suicide contagion"  what's the best way to find the solution so that the budget will be consistent?


As I wrote; responsible reporting.  Don't make it a media blitz.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> I would argue that facts AND emotion are both equally important.  One without the other is problematic and leads to poor judgment and decision making.
> 
> I think most parents have a healthy respect for the risks of drowning.  My kids all had swimming lessons.  We have lifeguards at public pools, lakes, etc.  And most people take precautions when they have pools in their backyards, particularly when they have small children.
> 
> ...


We don’t make fire safety rules based on how we feel about it. While I do respect emotions and count them as valid, I do not agree with allowing emotion to lead debate when it comes to regulation or safety. I may sincerely feel that I have a certain right to act in a certain circumstance, but try using that in a court of law as a defense. Would you like to see laws enacted based on the feelings people have? I don’t see that going well for the poor, the disenfranchised, or most vulnerable people amongst us. I don’t pretend to have the right answers here. I do try to see this from as many perspectives as possible.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> One way of reducing is the same way that we are working reducing suicide.  If you haven't heard of "Suicide Contagion" then you should go start reading.  But the short version is that by reporting breathlessly on these things, including mass shootings, i.e. "making them famous," we are laying the groundwork for the next.
> 
> In suicide prevention, the concept of "responsible reporting" has show dramatic positive results, not only in the U.S. but also abroad.  Stop making it a multi-day mass media blitz and it will help reduce incidents.
> 
> ...



This is getting pretty far afield, but guns lead to more suicides, as well, because guns are a more effective way of doing it.   Has to do with the finality of what is often an impulsive act.  Of suicide attempts using a firearm, about 85% are lethal.  Of suicide attempts by drug overdose, less than 3% are lethal.  Simply put, easy access to firearms leads to more successful suicides.  









						Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk
					

Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.




					med.stanford.edu
				












						Here’s why guns increase the risk of suicide–especially in stressful times
					

Handgun owners are almost four times more likely to die by suicide than people who don’t have guns, according to research by Matt Miller.




					news.northeastern.edu
				




And gun violence is a legitimate self defense issue in the USA, in many different contexts.  What it looks like will vary depending on where you live, but whether you deal with gang violence, petty crime, or radicalized 2nd amendment zealots, there is legitimate danger.  

Lastly, the very idea that a mass shooting in a classroom even one time is "hysteria" is just bonkers to me, and is symptomatic of how broken things are right now in our country.  This is not and should not be a clinical issue approached from a perspective of acceptable loss.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> As a pool owner I was more afraid of my son drowning as a kid before he knew how to swim.  My biggest fear was that he would did because of something I did or didn’t do.  There are solutions to that issue and fear and I had to use more than one to keep himsafe. Each solution reduced the risk.  A one solution fix would have been to fill the pool but then we wouldn't have a pool to swim in.


I knew a toddler, and his mother, who drown in a friend's pool.  The mother had an emotional breakdown (unsurprisingly) and my friends were haunted by it for the rest of their lives (also unsurprisingly).

They'd taken all of the standard precautions including locking the gate.  But the child accessed the pool area through the home, instead of the gate, because they were guests in the home at the time.  The child fell into the pool, got caught under the pool cover, and, well, drown.

I also have a relative who got caught under a riding lawnmower.   I sat with her parents in the emergency room and looked at the photos and video the doc brought out.  Gruesome.  They saved the leg and most of the foot but eventually, a few years later, the circulation died and they ended up amputating below the knee.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> As I wrote; responsible reporting.  Don't make it a media blitz.


I saw this very thing happen in the 1992 LA riots. Fires and looting went rampant because of news media coverage.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> We don’t make fire safety rules based on how we feel about it. While I do respect emotions and count them as valid, I do not agree with allowing emotion to lead debate when it comes to regulation or safety. I may sincerely feel that I have a certain right to act in a certain circumstance, but try using that in a court of law as a defense. Would you like to see laws enacted based on the feelings people have? I don’t see that going well for the poor, the disenfranchised, or most vulnerable people amongst us. I don’t pretend to have the right answers here. I do try to see this from as many perspectives as possible.


The emotion comes into play when we calculate acceptable loss.  The response should be rational and effective.  The call to action, however, and the urgency with which we approach the issue can be (and in some cases should be) emotional.  It's about where the threshold lies, and why many of the things we take for granted exist.  For example, why we have OSHA and don't let kids work unsupervised in factories any more.  Why we have building codes.   Why we don't let children under 21 by liquor.   And on and on.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think most parents have a healthy respect for the risks of drowning. My kids all had swimming lessons. We have lifeguards at public pools, lakes, etc. And most people take precautions when they have pools in their backyards, particularly when they have small children.


I did the same.   I didn't want to be that parent who says they turned their back for a few seconds only to find their child had drowned.  To many examples of that to make me think " oh that won't happen with me". We even took the neighbors child into consideration for when we go out of town or away from the house for la long period of time.  There's tons of everyday stuff that we're of concern to me in tend of my child safety.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> This is getting pretty far afield, but guns lead to more suicides, as well, because guns are a more effective way of doing it.   Has to do with the finality of what is often an impulsive act.  Of suicide attempts using a firearm, about 85% are lethal.  Of suicide attempts by drug overdose, less than 3% are lethal.  Simply put, easy access to firearms leads to more successful suicides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most studies bear out that it's just the method not the attempt.  Suicide attempts remain more or less static, outside of the Suicide Contagion effect.  What changes is what method is used.  Even this report sort of acknowledges this when they write, "Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds."   Well, duh.




Steve said:


> And gun violence is a legitimate self defense issue in the USA, in many different contexts.  What it looks like will vary depending on where you live, but whether you deal with gang violence, petty crime, or radicalized 2nd amendment zealots, there is legitimate danger.
> 
> Lastly, the very idea that a mass shooting in a classroom even one time is "hysteria" is just bonkers to me, and is symptomatic of how broken things are right now in our country.  This is not and should not be a clinical issue approached from a perspective of acceptable loss.


That people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about the less likely events does, in fact, indicate that something is broken.  It's human risk assessment.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I saw this very thing happen in the 1992 LA riots. Fires and looting went rampant because of news media coverage.


I remember watching it on the news.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> This is getting pretty far afield, but guns lead to more suicides, as well, because guns are a more effective way of doing it.   Has to do with the finality of what is often an impulsive act.  Of suicide attempts using a firearm, about 85% are lethal.  Of suicide attempts by drug overdose, less than 3% are lethal.  Simply put, easy access to firearms leads to more successful suicides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who claims a mass shooting is mass hysteria?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Honestly, your argument would only make sense if we, as a society, disregarded these other real hazards. But we don't.


I agree with this. There are effective solutions to these things. For the most part, when the solutions are implemented, parental neglect is the only thing left for why a young child drowns in a private pool.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Who claims a mass shooting is mass hysteria?


I think he's trying to conflate my comments where I say that many of the responses to "mass school shootings" are hysterically based and not logically based.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this. There are effective solutions to these things. For the most part, when the solutions are implemented, parental neglect is the only thing left for why a young child drowns in a private pool.


Pools are the most commonly thought of for drowning but they're not really the only thing.  IMS, baths are actually more common but there are other things as well.  I recall reading the 5-gallon buckets are a particular hazard to toddlers because they tip over into them, head first, then cannot get themselves out.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 19, 2022)

Buka said:


> I have a hard time discerning what's political and what's not.
> 
> Is this statement political - if you commit a crime with a firearm, you go to trial the following week, if found guilty you appeal the week after, if found guilty again, you are executed the same day.
> 
> ...



Hi Buka,

Not official just my take on it. 

Comments like: "They always want to ..." Or " well people should just ..." 
The generic and plural brings in the general population and this leads to Political discussion, especially trying to identify 'They' and ' People'. 

If I was to say, I was standing in front of a building (Security) and a drive by happened and detailed the situation of no time to react, and the after math of sending the guy next to me home to take a shower (not clocking out - no one else needed to know his body's reaction) and get clean clothes. 

To me this is a specific case. 
Now taking this case and saying well I expect the guys in the car were *Insert racial or economic profile* and this now becomes the line for political. Then the next posts is political or even closer until the frog in the water while it is heating slowly didn't jump out and we have frog soup / politics. The slow creep is what gets the thread and posters / members down that rabbit hole. 

If I was to post they pulled a gun and I was in the right spot to move it offline and grapple with the person (not saying this ever happened) then that is still data. 
If I were to say I raised my hands and stated, "You are in charge, what do you want?" (* Did happen *) . This is not political. 
Yet if someone posts after me and says that the person with the firearm should never have been there, or that there should be laws, or that other people should have reacted differently then this crosses (slowly to fast) into politics. 

A topless or shear topped woman in an add for female underwear is not porn in the initial intent for the targeted audience , yet it could be used for porn in a different situation. 

So not being able to clearly identify it is not a bad thing. Context really does matter. 

I hope my rambling kind of helped.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Simply put, easy access to firearms leads to more successful suicides.


Makes sense to me. We also run into the issue that a person is fine one day and mentally broken the next day. Life can change in a heart beat and there is no guarantee that a person will be able to mentally handle the new reality. It makes it difficult to identify who may need help when the act of a suicide is impulsive.  What are the possible solutions when watching people 24/7 for them to mentally break is not a practical approach.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Makes sense to me. We also run into the issue that a person is fine one day and mentally broken the next day. Life can change in a heart beat and there is no guarantee that a person will be able to mentally handle the new reality. It makes it difficult to identify who may need help when the act of a suicide is impulsive.  What are the possible solutions when watching people 24/7 for them to mentally break is not a practical approach.


But it turns out to not be true.

The Quick Take-aways​
Suicide “deaths” are those regardless of medical attention.
Successful suicide victims receive no EMT or hospital treatment.
EMT/hospitalization is effective for some modes of suicide and not others.

The big clue​
We at the Gun Facts project have routinely noted the international disconnect between firearm ownership and suicide rates. *In short, the availability of a gun did not affect the probability of a successful suicide.*









						Suicide, Survival and Guns | Gun Facts
					

Medical intervention produces different outcomes for suicides due to the time required to die. Hence, firearm suicide death rates are high while firearm suicide attempts are low.




					www.gunfacts.info


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> IMS, baths are actually more common but there are other things as well.


This goes back to reducing the risks.  I think age 5 was when my son took his first bath "alone" with me right outside the door making sure he washed and not just play or sit in the water.  Such things we monitored events because that reduces the risk of drowning. When you look at child drownings is it a case of not monitoring the child.   If so then would you be open to a similar monitoring of guns?


----------



## lklawson (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> This goes back to reducing the risks.  I think age 5 was when my son took his first bath "alone" with me right outside the door making sure he washed and not just play or sit in the water.  Such things we monitored events because that reduces the risk of drowning. When you look at child drownings is it a case of not monitoring the child.   If so then would you be open to a similar monitoring of guns?



You didn't monitor the bathtub, you monitored your son. You didn't monitor the bathtub, why would you monitor the guns?  A more effective response would be to "monitor the people."  One of the most unsettling things we see is that in the vast majority of these cases the perpetrator was not only "known to police" but known to the community, had had multiple instances of very troubling mental health issues, and a many instances of violence.

This has nothing to do with guns, outside of their choice of a tool, and much more to do with the person committing the crime.  In almost every case there were multiple red flags, and often even reports to law enforcement (or even the FBI!) without any true followup.

To go further along this path, I've been noting for years the closing and defunding of mental health facilities.  Places where people with problems can check themselves in, or be Baker Acted.  There are now fewer of these today than in the past.  I believe this needs to change.  I'd even vote for tax increases to fund these facilities and I never vote for taxes for anything.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> I think he's trying to conflate my comments where I say that many of the responses to "mass school shootings" are hysterically based and not logically based.


Ok that’s the response being labeled not the event itself. I can imagine people having a hysterical response to children being shot, in my opinion, it is completely understandable to be horrified. That shouldn’t be leading the way we go about creating solutions.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Makes sense to me. We also run into the issue that a person is fine one day and mentally broken the next day. Life can change in a heart beat and there is no guarantee that a person will be able to mentally handle the new reality. It makes it difficult to identify who may need help when the act of a suicide is impulsive.  What are the possible solutions when watching people 24/7 for them to mentally break is not a practical approach.


True. We all get sad sometimes.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> But it turns out to not be true.
> 
> The Quick Take-aways​
> Suicide “deaths” are those regardless of medical attention.
> ...


Hmm. Interesting. A little counterintuitive to my thinking.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> You didn't monitor the bathtub, you monitored your son. You didn't monitor the bathtub, why would you monitor the guns?  A more effective response would be to "monitor the people."  One of the most unsettling things we see is that in the vast majority of these cases the perpetrator was not only "known to police" but known to the community, had had multiple instances of very troubling mental health issues, and a many instances of violence.
> 
> This has nothing to do with guns, outside of their choice of a tool, and much more to do with the person committing the crime.  In almost every case there were multiple red flags, and often even reports to law enforcement (or even the FBI!) without any true followup.
> 
> To go further along this path, I've been noting for years the closing and defunding of mental health facilities.  Places where people with problems can check themselves in, or be Baker Acted.  There are now fewer of these today than in the past.  I believe this needs to change.  I'd even vote for tax increases to fund these facilities and I never vote for taxes for anything.


This is my number one take away. Many of the mental health facilities were closed in the eighties. Tens of thousands of the inpatients of these facilities were lost track of in the years following. It is really the first thing I would like to see happen as a generalized response.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> They'd taken all of the standard precautions including locking the gate. But the child accessed the pool area through the home, instead of the gate, because they were guests in the home at the time. The child fell into the pool, got caught under the pool cover, and, well, drown.


There will be some exceptions where life is just horrible even when all the right stuff is done.  a realistic goal would be to reduce the risks which in turn should reduce the tragedy.  because there is a human element there will always be an exception or a gap.  There will be periods where things are not as stringent as it should be. where we let our guard down or have blind spots

I don't know any parents who wouldn't break down at such a lost.  I wouldn't be.  That would be an instant trip to multiple doctors and some spiritual guidance for something that I could never forgive myself.   I know there are parents who are the opposite but I don't communicate with those type of parents ( not referring to the person you know)   At least I hope I don't.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> The emotion comes into play when we calculate acceptable loss.  The response should be rational and effective.  The call to action, however, and the urgency with which we approach the issue can be (and in some cases should be) emotional.  It's about where the threshold lies, and why many of the things we take for granted exist.  For example, why we have OSHA and don't let kids work unsupervised in factories any more.  Why we have building codes.   Why we don't let children under 21 by liquor.   And on and on.


I think I understand your meaning. This is an emotional topic for many people. My grandmother committed suicide with a .32 auto. She was able to fire the gun twice, the third pull of the trigger caused a stovepipe jam in the pistol. She died of blood loss subsequently. I was the one to discover her body. I was twelve.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

I saw a man shoot and kill another man in the temple with a 1911 pistol while walking with my grandfather when I was 5 years old. I will never forget it. I tell this because I don’t want anyone to think I don’t take the topic seriously. I have seen an awful lot of violence in my younger life, I think it may affect my opinions somewhat.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> If we think through the problem then we should be able to  Identify the problem.  Identify the facts. Like the graph that was put up.  Then explore possible solutions and possible challenges that come with implementing any give solution.
> 
> Think of it as if we as a team, are responsible for finding a solution.   Got at it like that then you'll be far from the nonsense.


I agree with all of this. We should be able to identify issues, and come up with solutions. But when those solutions are policy changes, legal changes, or forced cultural changes, then it is politics. Which, while still being worth discussing, is no longer allowed on this forum. 

At one point, it actually was allowed here. But people were not able to stay rational and it was causing opinions to seep through, in a similar way it does now but even moreso. So it's banned. Our recommendation is to go to US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum if you would like to discuss something specific


----------



## Buka (Aug 19, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You can share what the law itself is. Discussing whether or not that should be the law and if the law should change; (ie: whether or not guns should be banned/what guns should be banned, among other things) is where it gets to politics. At least from where we are concerned.


Thanks, brother.


----------



## Buka (Aug 19, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> Hi Buka,
> 
> Not official just my take on it.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Rich, it did help.


----------



## Buka (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I think I understand your meaning. This is an emotional topic for many people. My grandmother committed suicide with a .32 auto. She was able to fire the gun twice, the third pull of the trigger caused a stovepipe jam in the pistol. She died of blood loss subsequently. I was the one to discover her body. I was twelve.


My heart goes out to you, brother.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Buka said:


> My heart goes out to you, brother.


All good. I didn’t tell it for sympathy, but rather to let people know that it is close to my heart too. Thanks for the support.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> international disconnect between firearm ownership and suicide rates. *In short, the availability of a gun did not affect the probability of a successful suicide.*


The concern I have with this is that it appears to be an international comparison and not all countries have the same access to guns that the US does. How can there be a comparison of gun related suicides with a country that doesn't have the same access to guns? Wouldn't the numbers be off?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I agree with all of this. We should be able to identify issues, and come up with solutions. But when those solutions are policy changes, legal changes, or forced cultural changes, then it is politics. Which, while still being worth discussing, is no longer allowed on this forum.
> 
> At one point, it actually was allowed here. But people were not able to stay rational and it was causing opinions to seep through, in a similar way it does now but even moreso. So it's banned. Our recommendation is to go to US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum if you would like to discuss something specific


You could just lock it. I think everyone said their piece. I have to say I am impressed with how everyone kept their cool and were actually discussing in a positive way. Thanks to all involved including the moderators.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> The concern I have with this is that it appears to be an international comparison and not all countries have the same access to guns that the US does. How can there be a comparison of gun related suicides with a country that doesn't have the same access to guns? Wouldn't the numbers be off?



You would look to see if there are more suicides in total I imagine.

And then skew the results to whatever bias you are trying to sell.

We have less than Texas by the way. Which I use for easy comparison because the populations match.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> You didn't monitor the bathtub, you monitored your son. You didn't monitor the bathtub, why would you monitor the guns?


To me is the same if my son was in it then I was monitoring the tub as well.  For example if the water is running then I make sure that the water temperature didn't change to hot 

I always made sure it was clean before us and I always kept an ear open for water running when it shouldn't be on.  If I tell my wife that I'm going to monitor the pool then that includes the pool and everything in or around it. I don't separate the 2 when it comes to monitoring.   When I monitor my guns it's to check that everything is in order is in order and that nothing has been tampered with. Maybe that's just me but that's fine since I'm sharing what I do and what monitoring means to me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> why would you monitor the guns?


Aren't serial numbers a way to monitor guns?  It's not real time monitoring but it does allow fit some aspect of monitoring right?


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Most studies bear out that it's just the method not the attempt.  Suicide attempts remain more or less static, outside of the Suicide Contagion effect.  What changes is what method is used.  Even this report sort of acknowledges this when they write, "Men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn’t to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds."   Well, duh.


Right.  That is exactly what the reports say.  It's the difference between a suicide attempt and a suicide.  As I said, someone who attempts suicide by drug overdose is only 3% likely to succeed, where someone who attempts suicide by gun is up around 85% likely to succeed.  The takeaway is that people who are suicidal shouldn't have ready access to firearms.  



lklawson said:


> That people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about the less likely events does, in fact, indicate that something is broken.  It's human risk assessment.


I don't believe the time trying to prevent school shootings is disproportionate.  

Okay.  Let's try a different approach.  You allege there is no real risk.  It's not an actual problem.  Right?   

If I want to know the non-political evaluation of risk, where it is as cold and calculated as possible, I'm going to check out an actuarial analysis.  I mean, life insurance companies HAVE to know how long you are probably going to live.  The entire business model depends upon an accurate analysis of life expectancy.  



			https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1539-6975.2005.00128.x
		


According to actuaries, firearm related deaths are significant, and do have a direct impact on life expectancy in the USA.  The link above provides the abstract for an actuarial study from 2005.  The author says,  "I show that firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by 104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males).  Among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect."

Articles since then highlight that as recently as 2018, "Firearm fatalities are the third leading cause of injury-related death, just behind motor vehicle fatalities. Indeed, in recent years, the difference between the two has been less than 0.5 percent, and firearm fatalities have now exceeded automobile fatalities in 21 states."









						Firearm Risk: An Insurance Perspective - The Actuary Magazine
					

Actuaries can apply their skills to help quantify firearm-related risk



					theactuarymagazine.org
				




This isn't political, and as the article linked above says, "We deliberately do not take a stand on policy issues related to firearms. Rather, we focus on the associated insurance risks, share known data and call for further research."

Point is, if this is a bunch of handwringing and media driven hysteria, as you would like for us to believe, these guys would say so.  Because for them, it's about money.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Ok that’s the response being labeled not the event itself. I can imagine people having a hysterical response to children being shot, in my opinion, it is completely understandable to be horrified. That shouldn’t be leading the way we go about creating solutions.


The reaction, that rational, reasonable reaction to be horrified, should provide the moral, ethical, and emotional energy to driving for A solution.  Right?  To be clear, the discussion in this thread so far isn't (but should be) about what we can and should do to help folks (all folks, including and perhaps in particular, children in schools) from being shot.  Self defense.  

Not about that at all.  It's not practical.  Instead, some folks are suggesting it's really not that big a deal.  It's just overblown.  Not as many kids get shot in schools as the media suggests.  It's hysteria.  Hype.  And besides, it's not even AR-15s.  They're more likely to be shot by handguns.   It's an acceptable number of kids...  a relative few in the grand scheme of things.  

Reprehensible.  I am emotional.  Proudly so.  That's the right reaction, IMO, and a good starting place for discussions about self defense.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> There will be some exceptions where life is just horrible even when all the right stuff is done.  a realistic goal would be to reduce the risks which in turn should reduce the tragedy.  because there is a human element there will always be an exception or a gap.  There will be periods where things are not as stringent as it should be. where we let our guard down or have blind spots
> 
> I don't know any parents who wouldn't break down at such a lost.  I wouldn't be.  That would be an instant trip to multiple doctors and some spiritual guidance for something that I could never forgive myself.   I know there are parents who are the opposite but I don't communicate with those type of parents ( not referring to the person you know)   At least I hope I don't.


Had a coworker back in the late 90s whose three year old kid got outside and wandered behind his car as he was heading to the store.  He backed over and killed his son.  It literally ruined his life.  The grief, the guilt... he quit his job, his wife left him, and he ended up taking his life.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> To me is the same if my son was in it then I was monitoring the tub as well.  For example if the water is running then I make sure that the water temperature didn't change to hot
> 
> I always made sure it was clean before us and I always kept an ear open for water running when it shouldn't be on.  If I tell my wife that I'm going to monitor the pool then that includes the pool and everything in or around it. I don't separate the 2 when it comes to monitoring.   When I monitor my guns it's to check that everything is in order is in order and that nothing has been tampered with. Maybe that's just me but that's fine since I'm sharing what I do and what monitoring means to me.



Or pool fences. Would be an analogy.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> The reaction, that rational, reasonable reaction to be horrified, should provide the moral, ethical, and emotional energy to driving for A solution.  Right?  To be clear, the discussion in this thread so far isn't (but should be) about what we can and should do to help folks (all folks, including and perhaps in particular, children in schools) from being shot.  Self defense.
> 
> Not about that at all.  It's not practical.  Instead, some folks are suggesting it's really not that big a deal.  It's just overblown.  Not as many kids get shot in schools as the media suggests.  It's hysteria.  Hype.  And besides, it's not even AR-15s.  They're more likely to be shot by handguns.   It's an acceptable number of kids...  a relative few in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Reprehensible.  I am emotional.  Proudly so.  That's the right reaction, IMO, and a good starting place for discussions about self defense.


I understand your point and appreciate your perspective. To be fair, I don’t think anyone, however practical or logic minded, would say that even one person of any age is an acceptable number.  Your emotional response is understandable to me. It may help to try to speak each other’s language in these discussions. I have to believe that the differences in opinion here are far fewer than the similarities. Common ground is the road forward for everyone. There can be no resolution without starting there. Honestly, Im not sure we necessarily disagree very much at all. The media are competing  corporate business, we as people are their customers and their content. They necessarily view us as such. This relationship can obviously lead to actions and decisions by these businesses that don’t have positive results for people. I don’t want to generalize here, but it does somewhat temper the lens with which I view any type of media, from any source whatsoever.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Had a coworker back in the late 90s whose three year old kid got outside and wandered behind his car as he was heading to the store.  He backed over and killed his son.  It literally ruined his life.  The grief, the guilt... he quit his job, his wife left him, and he ended up taking his life.


That’s an awfully sad story.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

lklawson said:


> This has nothing to do with guns, outside of their choice of a tool, and much more to do with the person committing the crime. In almost every case there were multiple red flags, and often even reports to law enforcement (or even the FBI!) without any true followup.


This is something I often ask myself.  The thing of multiple red flags. Is great if you can catch them but a Lo of times they will slip through.  You may see a red flag today.  I may see one next week but we don't know that we are both seeing the same red flags exorcism if we are strangers and don't realize that we know the same person.  In terms of reporting the red flag match up usually doesn't come until the death comes and then that's when people "compare notes"




drop bear said:


> We have less than Texas by the way. Which I use for easy comparison because the populations match.


I thought about that too in terms of numbers.  That it may not be good to compare all of the US as a whole.  It would seem to compare population size and go from there.  Especially in the U.S where geographic location may have an effect.  I'm not sure if this interest anyone but it has some numbers related to death.  This page is the suicide page but if you click on the State it will be show other mortality rates for that state.

Stats of the State - Suicide Mortality


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2022)

Buka said:


> "Policy"? As in what the law says?


What a law should say, or whether a law is good or bad. That’s political, for MT purposes. What the law actually says - presented objectively - isn’t likely to be political.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

drop bear said:


> And then skew the results to whatever bias you are trying to sell.


Well if I was trying to solve a problem then I wouldn't want to skew my bias.  That's not going to help arrive at possible solutions.   If there is a hole in the road that is 10 feet, then the solution to getting over or around that hole doesn't need to be skewed by "I think it's 8 feet or someone thinks it's 11 feet, or someone thinks it's 9 feet."  Once the facts are there then people can look at possible solutions and their associated challenges.   

Like the questions I'm asking lklawson are being asked because I want to know what he thinks vs me making assumptions about what he thinks or about what position he thinks.  For example,  We look at monitoring a different way.  Which is important because if there's a possible solution through monitoring then our perception of what involves monitoring will affect how we see the solution.   If he knows what I consider monitoring and I know what he considers monitoring then we can come closer to what may work and what doesn't



drop bear said:


> Or pool fences. Would be an analogy.


Yes, and for me.  I'm in the process of saving up for a new fence as the current fence is not the best example of a quality fence anymore.  It's old and falling apart and it's probably more of a risk for minor injury due to the splitting wood or rusted metal  that is keeping it together.  Not sure when that project will happen, I just know when I save the money, that all of it will be replaced.  I was thinking about putting one up myself, but I really don't want to use my time in that manner.  Good thing there are people who are good at it and do it for service.  Our pool cover was replaced 2 or 3 years ago. That's still good and we made sure that there are no other flaws that would basically form a hole into it.  



Steve said:


> The takeaway is that people who are suicidal shouldn't have ready access to firearms.


The difficulty in that is that people who aren't suicidal today may be suicidal down the road.  Same with mental health in terms of biological changes in mental capacity.  A person can be fine in their 60's and then have normal age related mental deterioration.  But even then a person doesn't have to be old.  I went to a school where I knew a guy that forgot to take his medicine.  I didn't know he even was on medicine until one night he ran through the dorm naked and knocked on doors (co-ed dorm). 12 hours ago he seemed fined.  12+ hours later.  Not so much.  He had a mental break down in the past and was taking medicine to balance out.  He stopped taking medicine and that's when things got crazy for him.  It's going to be difficult tell if someone is suicidal unless they are open about it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Had a coworker back in the late 90s whose three year old kid got outside and wandered behind his car as he was heading to the store.  He backed over and killed his son.  It literally ruined his life.  The grief, the guilt... he quit his job, his wife left him, and he ended up taking his life.


That sounds like Hades on earth.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I understand your point and appreciate your perspective. To be fair, I don’t think anyone, however practical or logic minded, would say that even one person of any age is an acceptable number.  Your emotional response is understandable to me. It may help to try to speak each other’s language in these discussions. I have to believe that the differences in opinion here are far fewer than the similarities. Common ground is the road forward for everyone. There can be no resolution without starting there. Honestly, Im not sure we necessarily disagree very much at all. The media are competing  corporate business, we as people are their customers and their content. They necessarily view us as such. This relationship can obviously lead to actions and decisions by these businesses that don’t have positive results for people. I don’t want to generalize here, but it does somewhat temper the lens with which I view any type of media, from any source whatsoever.


Sure.  That's why I have shared a couple of different, relevant articles.  If we want to remove all emotion and politics from the topic, and talk about it simply from a risk perspective, I shared an article written for actuaries.









						Firearm Risk: An Insurance Perspective - The Actuary Magazine
					

Actuaries can apply their skills to help quantify firearm-related risk



					theactuarymagazine.org
				




These are the folks whose job is to figure out how long people are going to live so that they can set premiums that are based on risk.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Sure.  That's why I have shared a couple of different, relevant articles.  If we want to remove all emotion and politics from the topic, and talk about it simply from a risk perspective, I shared an article written for actuaries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never thought about using those as a source of data before.  I wonder how that compares with other countries insurance information. Do you know if the data for previous years are available.  It may be possible to match other element that existed within the same year. It may be possible to create a timeline of possible associations to see if there are any patterns that could lead to predictable changes.

Thanks for the links


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Well if I was trying to solve a problem then I




Nobody is trying to solve a problem.  They are trying to defend a normalcy bias.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Nobody is trying to solve a problem.  They are trying to defend a normalcy bias.


It's a good thing that it's choice and we can decide which category we want to be in on any particular problem.

We are in big trouble when defending a normalcy bias is the only option.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> The concern I have with this is that it appears to be an international comparison and not all countries have the same access to guns that the US does. How can there be a comparison of gun related suicides with a country that doesn't have the same access to guns? Wouldn't the numbers be off?


That's one of the advantages.  You can compare "success rates" more equally.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> To me is the same if my son was in it then I was monitoring the tub as well.  For example if the water is running then I make sure that the water temperature didn't change to hot
> 
> I always made sure it was clean before us and I always kept an ear open for water running when it shouldn't be on.  If I tell my wife that I'm going to monitor the pool then that includes the pool and everything in or around it. I don't separate the 2 when it comes to monitoring.   When I monitor my guns it's to check that everything is in order is in order and that nothing has been tampered with. Maybe that's just me but that's fine since I'm sharing what I do and what monitoring means to me.


But if he wasn't near the tub, then you weren't monitoring the tub.   ...or the tub in the master bath, or the kiddie pool.    It doesn't make sense to monitor the thing.  It makes sense to monitor the person.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Aren't serial numbers a way to monitor guns?  It's not real time monitoring but it does allow fit some aspect of monitoring right?


Not really.  It doesn't work well for various technical and legal reasons.  It's not like in the movies where Joe Schmoe turns on his PC and logs into an imaginary database, plugs in a SN, and the database tells him where the gun is and who owns it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> Right.  That is exactly what the reports say.  It's the difference between a suicide attempt and a suicide.  As I said, someone who attempts suicide by drug overdose is only 3% likely to succeed, where someone who attempts suicide by gun is up around 85% likely to succeed.  The takeaway is that people who are suicidal shouldn't have ready access to firearms.


"Shouldn't?"  How do you intend to prevent it?



Steve said:


> I don't believe the time trying to prevent school shootings is disproportionate.


You're spending a ton of time talking about how to prevent what is a statistically unlikely event when it makes a lot more sense to work on preventing more likely events.  You can't trust your "feelings."  Feelings lie to you; it's part of why humans are so terrible at actual risk assessment and risk management.




Steve said:


> Okay.  Let's try a different approach.  You allege there is no real risk.  It's not an actual problem.  Right?


Nope.  I affirm that the risk is exceptionally small and is greatly overshadowed by the risk of many other dangers.  But because of human psychology many, apparently including you, are worried about addressing the low risk thing instead of high risk events.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2022)

lklawson said:


> "Shouldn't?"  How do you intend to prevent it?
> 
> 
> You're spending a ton of time talking about how to prevent what is a statistically unlikely event when it makes a lot more sense to work on preventing more likely events.  You can't trust your "feelings."  Feelings lie to you; it's part of why humans are so terrible at actual risk assessment and risk management.
> ...


When we talk risk assessment in a generic sense, frequency isn’t always the deciding factor. If the thing is pretty rare, but high impact when it does occur, it may still be worth preventing. 

(Note that I’ve stepped from likelihood to frequency, since events being discussed are statistically rare, but occur and appear likely to continue to occur.)


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is something I often ask myself.  The thing of multiple red flags. Is great if you can catch them but a Lo of times they will slip through.  You may see a red flag today.  I may see one next week but we don't know that we are both seeing the same red flags exorcism if we are strangers and don't realize that we know the same person.  In terms of reporting the red flag match up usually doesn't come until the death comes and then that's when people "compare notes"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The U.S. has shut down so much of its mental health treatment infrastructure.  There are a lot of reasons for this but the two big ones are, money (it costs it) and a general shift in the perception of the public that these treatment centers are a bad thing (think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.").  Yet the evidence indicates that these treatment centers actually made a huge difference, and not just to those inclined to violence.  They made a huge difference in substance addiction/abuse.  One study I read years ago indicated that it was many times more effective than making the "bad drugs" illegal, and at a much lower overall dollar cost.  

The Secret Service released a 2019 study which tabulated key "red flag" markers and offered remedies (p42).  Again, the short version is, track the person, using a Threat Assessment Center model.



			https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf
		


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> When we talk risk assessment in a generic sense, frequency isn’t always the deciding factor. If the thing is pretty rare, but high impact when it does occur, it may still be worth preventing.
> 
> (Note that I’ve stepped from likelihood to frequency, since events being discussed are statistically rare, but occur and appear likely to continue to occur.)


Sure.  Besides the frequency we can also look at the total number of casualties in comparison with the total casualties.  The statistics still show the number is remarkably low, even when accounting for the 2021 blip.









						Mass shooting victims in the United States by fatalities and injuries 1982-2022 | Statista
					

As of November 22, 73 people were killed in mass shootings in the United States in 2022.




					www.statista.com
				











						FBI Designates 61 Active Shooter Incidents in 2021 | Federal Bureau of Investigation
					

In 2021, the FBI designated 61 shootings as active shooter incidents, representing a more than 50% increase from 2020.




					www.fbi.gov
				




The truth is that these events are presented as being very scary and occupy a disproportionate amount of media time.  When these two things come together for humans (we're told it's really scary and we hear about it a lot), it artificially magnifies the perceived threat.

It's the same thing for Church Security.  The membership/leadership is worried about mass violence events, child kidnapping, and child abuse in nurseries.  But statistically, the real danger to parishioners is, wait for it...   slips, trips, and falls.  So, while you may want to be sure the Nursery has windows and background checks, if you really are interested in improving safety for the congregants you should be sure to keep up with salting in the winter, making sure rugs and runners aren't wrinkled or flipped up, ensure that there aren't any exposed cords and cables on the floor, and pick up any other tripping hazards.  But that doesn't catch the "attention" of the congregation.  In the past 5 years there have been 4 slip/trip injuries at my Church which were serious enough to require medical treatment but zero of the "scary" events.  

Humans aren't good at risk assessment.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2022)

lklawson said:


> "Shouldn't?"  How do you intend to prevent it?


This seems like progress.  If your impulsive reaction is to ask "how", I'll take it.  That's a much more constructive discussion than arguing about whether we should or shouldn't.



lklawson said:


> You're spending a ton of time talking about how to prevent what is a statistically unlikely event when it makes a lot more sense to work on preventing more likely events.  You can't trust your "feelings."  Feelings lie to you; it's part of why humans are so terrible at actual risk assessment and risk management.


No problem here.  It's not that much time.  I'd say it's an appropriate amount of time, at least for me.  And just to reassure you, it doesn't keep me from also thinking about other things.  You're indulging in a specious train of thought.  We can talk about this and also about other things.  We can address this and also consider and address other things.


lklawson said:


> Nope.  I affirm that the risk is exceptionally small and is greatly overshadowed by the risk of many other dangers.  But because of human psychology many, apparently including you, are worried about addressing the low risk thing instead of high risk events.


But that's just your feelings.  Actuaries' jobs are literally to evaluate risk and make unemotional assessments that equate directly to profitability.  Actuaries are often the first people to identify risks, even before the medical community or society at large.  You want to remove feelings, that's fine.

Edit:  For example, a guy named Frederick Hoffman published an article on "miner's asthma" in 1918.  He was trying to figure out why people in certain areas were dying younger than they "should".   "All of these processes unquestionably involve a considerable dust hazard, but the hygienic aspects of the industry have not been reported upon. It may be said, in conclusion, that in the practice of American and Canadian life insurance companies asbestos workers are generally declined on account of the assumed health-injurious conditions of the industry."

The premiums for life insurance were higher because the actual risk was higher for the insurance companies.  And the recommendation was to deny insurance to these folks, for purely practical, unemotional reasons.  But it took everyone else 50 years to catch up.  1969 the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act was passed.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Sure.  Besides the frequency we can also look at the total number of casualties in comparison with the total casualties.  The statistics still show the number is remarkably low, even when accounting for the 2021 blip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just to be really clear here.  You're not disputing that school shootings happen. You're just saying that aren't that big of a deal.  Discussion is overblown and the issue is sufficiently rare that it doesn't warrant consideration.   

I mean, that may not be how you feel, but it is what you're saying.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> This seems like progress.  If your impulsive reaction is to ask "how", I'll take it.  That's a much more constructive discussion than arguing about whether we should or shouldn't.


So what's your answer then?




Steve said:


> No problem here.  It's not that much time.  I'd say it's an appropriate amount of time, at least for me.  And just to reassure you, it doesn't keep me from also thinking about other things.  You're indulging in a specious train of thought.  We can talk about this and also about other things.  We can address this and also consider and address other things.


Really?  Where have you spent 9 pages of a thread about slips, trips, and falls?  Drowning?  Auto accidents?  Cancer?  Heart disease?




Steve said:


> But that's just your feelings.  Actuaries' jobs are literally to evaluate risk and make unemotional assessments that equate directly to profitability.  Actuaries are often the first people to identify risks, even before the medical community or society at large.  You want to remove feelings, that's fine.


Numbers don't lie.  The risk of being in a "mass shooting" are dramatically lower than the risk of almost everything else short of being hit by an asteroid.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2022)

lklawson said:


> So what's your answer then?


You purport to be the gun expert.  What do you suggest? 


lklawson said:


> Really?  Where have you spent 9 pages of a thread about slips, trips, and falls?  Drowning?  Auto accidents?  Cancer?  Heart disease?


Because I haven't discussed it in this thread, I don't think about how to mitigate other risks?  That's another specious train of thought.  

Cancer is pretty common in my family, as is heart disease.  My brother had a heart attack at 39.  I can assure you, I've given both some thought.  In another thread, if you'd like to bring those topics up so that they are relevant, I'm happy to share my thoughts and opinions with you, along with what I've learned over the years. 

More relevant, society at large gives a lot of thought to both of those things, as well as auto accidents and routine household safety.  And we have a lot of things we (society at large) do to mitigate the relative danger those things represent. 



lklawson said:


> Numbers don't lie.  The risk of being in a "mass shooting" are dramatically lower than the risk of almost everything else short of being hit by an asteroid.


So, it's not too many kids.  Acceptable loss.  We can agree to disagree on that.  I may be wrong, but you sound like someone who doesn't have kids.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> Just to be really clear here.  You're not disputing that school shootings happen. You're just saying that aren't that big of a deal.  Discussion is overblown and the issue is sufficiently rare that it doesn't warrant consideration.


No. Again, I affirm that the risk is exceptionally small and is greatly overshadowed by the risk of many other dangers.  But because of human psychology many, apparently including you, are worried about addressing the low risk thing instead of high risk events.

I'm really getting tired of you trying claim that I've said it's "not that big of a deal," "You allege there is no real risk" and, "It's not an actual problem."

I've written multiple times in this thread, and two or three times to you in specific.  This Straw Man stuff is getting old and it's increasingly clear that it's deliberate, perhaps because you are having trouble refuting what I say so you think it's better to try to attack me personally by Straw Man statements.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> So, it's not too many kids.  Acceptable loss.  We can agree to disagree on that.  I may be wrong, but you sound like someone who doesn't have kids.


Reported.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2022)

lklawson said:


> No. Again, I affirm that the risk is exceptionally small and is greatly overshadowed by the risk of many other dangers.  But because of human psychology many, apparently including you, are worried about addressing the low risk thing instead of high risk events.
> 
> I'm really getting tired of you trying claim that I've said it's "not that big of a deal," "You allege there is no real risk" and, "It's not an actual problem."
> 
> I've written multiple times in this thread, and two or three times to you in specific.  This Straw Man stuff is getting old and it's increasingly clear that it's deliberate, perhaps because you are having trouble refuting what I say so you think it's better to try to attack me personally by Straw Man statements.


You're literally trying to claims it's not big deal and simultaneously denying that's what you're saying.  

"I affirm that the risk is exceptionally small"
"I affirm that the risk is greatly overshadowed by... other dangers."

You say these both and pointing it out isn't a strawman.  But you know what is a strawman?  This:  "Apparently.. you are worried about addressing the low risk thing *instead of high risk events."  *

I've literally pointed out that addressing one does not have any impact on whether or not we can or do address others.   That, my friend, is an actual straw man.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Reported.


That's a genuine shame because I feel like you were on the cusp of figuring something pretty important out.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> When we talk risk assessment in a generic sense, frequency isn’t always the deciding factor. If the thing is pretty rare, but high impact when it does occur, it may still be worth preventing.
> 
> (Note that I’ve stepped from likelihood to frequency, since events being discussed are statistically rare, but occur and appear likely to continue to occur.)


Statistically rare is itself a relative term.  "Rare" is subjective, and implies the follow up questions, "Compared to what?"  

It's a subjective label applied to a numeric to try and give it some context.  For example, your doctor says, "There's a risk if you take this that you might die.  But don't worry, it's rare."  You would probably ask, "How rare? We talking 1 in 100, or 1 in a million?"

With regards to school shootings, I'd argue they are not rare, and in fact, are common.  I would base that on the increasing frequency of school shootings, and the direct and indirect impact it has throughout the country.  Kids are killed, as are teachers and other folks, and those who survive are traumatized by the event in many ways.  Kids in other schools are impacted, as well.  Whether it's increased number of armed cops patrolling their hallways, active shooter drills, armed teachers, or whatever other mitigation efforts are put in place, it is impacting kids everywhere.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Aug 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> Statistically rare is itself a relative term.  "Rare" is subjective, and implies the follow up questions, "Compared to what?"
> 
> It's a subjective label applied to a numeric to try and give it some context.  For example, your doctor says, "There's a risk if you take this that you might die.  But don't worry, it's rare."  You would probably ask, "How rare? We talking 1 in 100, or 1 in a million?"
> 
> With regards to school shootings, I'd argue they are not rare, and in fact, are common.  I would base that on the increasing frequency of school shootings, and the direct and indirect impact it has throughout the country.  Kids are killed, as are teachers and other folks, and those who survive are traumatized by the event in many ways.  Kids in other schools are impacted, as well.  Whether it's increased number of armed cops patrolling their hallways, active shooter drills, armed teachers, or whatever other mitigation efforts are put in place, it is impacting kids everywhere.


I have to ask you what you would suggest as the best way to mitigate or stop these events from happening? It’s all fine for us to argue about the semantics of statistical jargon, but how about we talk solutions?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 22, 2022)

*THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW*


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2022)

*THREAD PERMANENTLY LOCKED*

Thread was locked due to political posting after warning. 

As a reminder, discussing what is (how the law currently works, what is current policy, etc.) is usually okay. On the other hand, judging the worth of a law or policy, or talking about what a law or policy should be, is usually considered political.

-----
Gerry Seymour
*MartialTalk Moderator*
@Gerry Seymour


----------

