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.