> That is what you concluded from what I am saying. Why did you conclude that? > Oh but look at those magnitudes! You're saying again exactly what you're bein

> That is what you concluded from what I am saying. Why did you conclude that? > Oh but look at those magnitudes! You're saying again exactly what you're being cute about in the first sentence. Not much to deduce here. > I did not intend to say either of those things. That's your interpretation. But again, why did you think that? My take: A good chunk of the population in the US is sold on alarmism and "something needs to be done". That's interesting because your "take" completely ignores those suppositions you insist do not apply to you. It it CAN be helped, those who believe so would explore solutions: which one do you favor, and why? > Great. Another non-solution giving the appearance that something is being done. "Our calculations reveal that increasing rates of prosecution and conviction for DWI would reduce re-arrests for DWI and by implication drinking and driving more generally." -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5472385/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5472385/ It works. > I'm disgusted by it! You're disgusted by putting drunk drivers in jail? > No matter, let's watch their backpacks for guns. I never said I was in favor of the clear backpacks, not once. That won't deter anything. I do however think the ease of accessibility to guns is great among disturbed young people. > Why aren't we discussing the resources these kids had, or didn't have, facing their adulthood? We should. No one says we shouldn't. And yet, are you going to vote or write legislators to allocate resources this way? I doubt it. It's just another way to brush off the whole thing from cons who don't give a fuck and wish people would just not talk about it.