I just want to say two important things..

First the recent school shooting is a tragedy and we should all be sad about the death of any children, especially as a victim of muder.

Second, we have to realize, for the sake ofperspective, how unfathomably rare it is for a child to die in a school shooting in america. It seems common because america is huge and the news makes this stuff public. But the numbers are more telling.

To put some numbers to it the chance of a child dyingin a school shooting in a public shool on any given day is 1 in 614 million. For comparison the chance of a person getting struck by lightening on any given day is **less** than 1 in 370 million.

In other words a child is more than **twice** as likely in the USA to get struck by lightening as they are to die in a school shooting.

Should we still mourne and be outraged by it... sure.. does that mean it is a problem that is common enough to be a huge concern... not really. We should probably put more effort into addressing the "lightening problem" than we should be about addressing school shootings.

#gun #guns #GunReform #2A

@freemo "We should fight lightning before we do something about school shootings (which many other countries have none of)" is so violently american...
It reminds me that this exists: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd-faq/ (check under "nuclear weapons")

@admitsWrongIfProven other countries have none sure. But they also have better mental health access... why not focus on something that is 2x more likely?

@freemo Because getting struck by lightning is something to defend against within your own agency. I won't even check the numbers here, there is simply no resource conflict: the state will not protect you from lightning strikes, you need to use your brain for that one. School shootings, on the other hand, are not a personal responsibility but need concerted action and regulations.

@admitsWrongIfProven You cant do anything individually to protect against lightening. But the school can by ensuring there is a good investment in lightening protection infrastructure. So Id say kf course that is the school and states responsiblity.

@freemo Ok, now this sounds extremely weird. Are you stipulating that more students die from lightning strikes that hit poorly earthed schools than from shootings?
Just checked that the date of your original toot was not the first of april... i have no idea what you mean to say.

@admitsWrongIfProven no im suggedting chikdren get struck by lightening at twice the rate they die in school shootings.

Both are so astronomically rare that neither should be a.prioroty when it comes to concerns that need attention.

@freemo I still don't get it. If they would get struck in school, it would have something (little, but not nothing) to do with resource allocation.
But now you say it does not have anything to do with school, which would mean they just should not run around in thunderstorms, which again has no resource conflict with stopping school shootings.

To the rarity: If an extremely destructive event is rare, it influences peoples well-being despite its rarity.
Especially if it can be prevented but is not, since this decision is a signal.

A bit like the utilitarian view on actions that have negative utility: the negative utility is one thing, but setting the example that the action is ok is what hurts the whole society.
And that those shootings are preventable is evidenced by no other country having near as many.

In conclusion: say it is not a problem, you tell people you think it is ok that the shootings happen.

@admitsWrongIfProven no you misread. It has to do with schools and can be prevented with better infrastucture investment... but as i said like school shootings its so astronimically rare its not where our attention should be in either case.

@admitsWrongIfProven and yes the shootings are preventable. The key is preventing them without causing a huge increase in rape and other violent crimes as you do it... ban guns you replace one murdered kid with 10000 raped and/or murdered adult... focus on mental health access and you can solve it for real potentially.

@freemo What would increase rape and violent crime?

@admitsWrongIfProven banning or restricting guns, usually.

@freemo So adapting standards for gun control similar to countries with little to no school shootings that have no more (usually way less) rape and violent crime would cause rape and violent crime...

You don't have a leg to stand on and you know it. Just admit you don't want to care about the consequences of having as many guns as you desire without pesky background checks. Honesty would be appreciated.

@admitsWrongIfProven Acyually other countries that mansged to grt ridnof school shootings did sonwith gun bans. In the vast majority of countries that did so there were usually huge spikes in rape and violent crimes following the ban... a prime example of what not to do.

@freemo Cite the sources, please. I feel made fun of.

@admitsWrongIfProven i am on my phone so i cant look it up. Ive posted examples from 6 or more countries/ststes in the past. Ill find it when im at my computer.

@admitsWrongIfProven in the meantime the evidence is so overwhelming it shoukd be obvious with even a casual glance.. look up rape, violent crime, and homicide rates for various countries and just mark the date gun bans were instituted.

Attached is england and whales

Worth noting a single graph means very little. People can come upnwith explanations that might explain any one graph.. but when you notoce thisnpattern is consistent across a great many countries and states that enact gun restrictions (jamaica, detroit, england, whales, almost everywhere) its hard to deny.

@freemo Wait, you speak about a peak...
So if i understand correctly, you say that of there would be a hard time to be overcome, it is better to let people just shoot each other indefinitely instead of adressing the hard but limited time you would otherwise have?

Well, i'm quite happy to not be physically close to you or any other americans. Dangerous bunch.

@admitsWrongIfProven wait what... no... in saying we shouldnt look at killings and make a decision in an attempt to reduxe killing thst is know to in fact increase the number of killings instead... it seems straightforward to me. Dont do things that cause kore people to be killed, rsther than fewer, the only metric that matters.

@freemo It is straightforward. Enjoy your guns, i will make sure to stay far, far away.

@admitsWrongIfProven i am rarely living in the usa, i live mostly in europe and thr middle east. So chances are you might not be sonfar away.

@freemo But you do not get to carry your guns in Europe, so it's fine. There are enough gun nuts here too, but as long as they don't get to carry i'm fine. I don't judge inclinations, actions are important.

@admitsWrongIfProven in much of europe you can, and at least i get a vote to change the laws too which is the important part in thisnconvo

@freemo Oops, you said the thing out loud 😆

Your claim was that going from little to no gun regulation would lead to a peak of violence. That you would want to prevent that peak.

Now you say that you would vote to deregulate guns in countries that have already passed that peak.

Sorry, better luck next time 😛

@admitsWrongIfProven because it works both ways.. outlawing guns csuse violence tonspike, and generslly never improves to anpoint it isnbetter than before thr ban, so therenis no benefit...

Similarly when you deregulate guns you will see a dip in violence. So there is a huge benefit fornderegulating guns to reduce violence.

@admitsWrongIfProven you act like the peaks are done and over... after a few years obviously its harder to see the long term effects without more rigerous analysis, partly because over long periods other effects will overwhelm the violence rates.. but the positive effects on lowering violence from having access to guns. Or increaing it when you ban it, is certainly an ongoing net positive/negative, not a one off gain.

@freemo This is kind of disappointing.
"the positive effects on lowering violence from having access to guns" - i am used to better reasoning from you.

@admitsWrongIfProven How ya figure. I think your applying less reaskn here than bias. I think it shoukd be obvious why a gun can protect a rape victim and is ultimately a power equalizer, especially considering how cops will likely not be on the scene for most crimes.

Takes some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to ignore the idea of guns as a power-equalizing protection

@freemo Thinking about how what you say could be true. We would need to arm every person that can be raped, and that is all people: men, women, trans people, children. They would all need to be trained well enough to draw fast enough to make a difference. For that last requirement... no lounging around, everyone needs to be on the lookout for attacks, all the time. Otherwise, they could be taken by surprise (by their now also armed attackers).

I think i just described the iconic us mentality pretty well. Not a pleasant thing to everyone, some people want to relax sometimes.

@admitsWrongIfProven No, we should give everyone the right to arm themselves and protect themselves while we do the impossible (and likely multigenerational) task of eliminating rape and violence... but until we do, people have a right to protect themselves.

@freemo Who would you say people should protect themselfs from?

While i still think those numbers are largely irrelevant to this whole discussion, i none the less perused the wikipedia entry on firearms related deaths per capita. Americans have found an answer to the question above: themselfs.

So, while in a morbid and cynical fashion, the problem does solve itself.

@admitsWrongIfProven I thought we already addressed this...

Talking about "firearm related death" in a discussion about banning firearms isthe intellectual equivelance of anti-vaxxers talking about "vaccine deaths" in a discussion about banning vaccines... It is intellectually dishonest and intentionally avoids the actual issue (if guns are a net goo dor a net bad)..

Lets not forget when an antivaxxer says "If you would ban vaccines you would have 0 vaccine related deaths"... i mean yea, but its still an intellectually dishonest argument, true or not.

@freemo We adressed a lot of things, and i am disappointed.
You failed to deliver any hint of how guns would save lifes, applying handwaving liberally.
Please don't do more of that. It just makes me sad at this point.

@admitsWrongIfProven Every single point I made had literal evidence attached to it.. only thing left to do is show you the 5 other countries I mentioned i had data from rather than the one country i already shared. Incomming...