Normalcy Bias and Salman Rushdie

[lklawson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

Who claims a mass shooting is mass hysteria?

 

[JowGaWolf]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Hmm. Interesting. A little counterintuitive to my thinking.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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]

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.