Normalcy Bias and Salman Rushdie

[JowGaWolf]

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

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

"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.



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.

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]

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"



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

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]

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 1982-2024 | Statista

As of September 4, eight people were killed in mass shootings in the United States in 2024.

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]

"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.

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.

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]

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 1982-2024 | Statista

As of September 4, eight people were killed in mass shootings in the United States in 2024.

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

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]

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?

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?

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]

So what's your answer then?

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.