4 ms·

Let's see what happens when you apply critical analysis and derive conclusions from data instead of rhetoric: Real Talk about School Shootings – where show how

Let's see what happens when you apply critical analysis and derive conclusions from data instead of rhetoric: Real Talk about School Shootings – where show how school shooting numbers are a terrible thing around which to craft policy. <https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-school-shootings https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-school-shootings> The Gun Solution - where we fix the entire gun problem. <https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-gun-solution https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-gun-solution>

johnmarcus 4y ago
> They’re (school shootings) not even a blip on the radar screen in the overall “gun deaths” problem. LOL. Um, IDK, some people might disagree. Some people - like those innocent childrens' parents - might think it's like 99% of the problem.
- settrans 4y ago
  Surely then, we ought to ban pools, wall off access to the beaches and lakes, and generally prohibit human contact with water, as drowning is 100x more likely to kill than school shootings. And any parents of innocent children who have drowned are no doubt incensed by the outcome!
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    While we don't ban beaches and pools, we do require them to be monitored by trained lifeguards! I think we should have reasonable safeguards in place for guns as well.
    - wilsonnb3 4y ago
      I don't think pools or beaches have to be monitored by lifeguards anywhere that I have lived. You just have to have a sign that says 'no lifeguard'.
      - Supermancho 4y ago
        > I don't think pools or beaches have to be monitored by lifeguards anywhere that I have lived. My house doesn't have a no-lifeguard sign around our pool or on the lake a block away. I think you're right.
    - umvi 4y ago
      So... should we ban private backyard pools that don't have lifeguards? Lots of kids down in those.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Some cities won't grant a permit unless the pool is fenced because of the drowning risk to small children.
      - gooberdoop 4y ago
        Can I buy an extended magazine for my private, backyard pool? Or should we just admit this metaphor lost all meaning some time ago? Like, really, that’s what you’ve got? But what about backyard pools? That’s your humdinger, parliamentary argument for why inaction is better when confronted with a logical comparison? To extrapolate the comparison further and a-ha! the degenerate cases like you’re arguing philosophy in Plato’s company? What is it about topics like these that make a forum of otherwise intelligent people argue like they’re practicing bird law? In any other context someone making the point you’re making would be ridiculed for taking the argument here.
  - progman32 4y ago
    This does not address the argument. It merely also points out that beaches, etc are dangerous. Nobody is arguing the beach model is a _good_ model to follow.
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      if I accept the GP's statistics, it looks to me like by not arguing to close the beaches 100x more than arguing about guns, yes, people are comparatively arguing that they are ok with the beach model.
  - d0gbread 4y ago
    If pools, beaches, and lakes were manufactured primarily to kill, and people used them to cause mass tragedy... maybe?
  - scollet 4y ago
    What the fuck?
- dontcare007 4y ago
  100000 people die every year due to infections contracted while under medical care.
dragonwriter 4y ago
A solution narrowly focussed on school shootings (changes to how schools are constructed, changing policing in schools, etc.) is bad for that reason. OTOH, school shootings as a vivid call for action on policy that address the drivers of firearms injuries (generally or among children specifically) — currently the leading cause of death in children in the US — do not become less valid because school shootings are themselves a small slice of that problem.
- itsyaboi 4y ago
  I'm having trouble parsing your second paragraph. Are you saying that the #1 cause of firearm related deaths for children in the US are school shootings? Can you share a source?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Are you saying that the #1 cause of firearm related deaths for children in the US are school shootings? No, I am saying that school shootings, which are themselves a small share of deaths of children, are the high visibility tip of the iceberg on deaths of children by firearms injuries, which is the leading cause of death of children. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
softcactus 4y ago
The Gun Solution proposed here is one of the more measured and level-headed assessments I have come across. The proposals it puts forth make a lot of sense, but I think it is missing a few things: 1. It completely ignores non-fatal gun injuries. I cant find a source atm but I believe around 40% of non-fatal gun injuries are accidental. To me, this is an indication that SOME level of training is required. Even if it's a $20 online course. This is an incredibly moderate take but many of the 2A enthusiasts I know would be opposed to this because "shall not be infringed" has been pushed as an axiom from 2A special interest groups. Which brings me to point #2 2. The article places the burden of action on the "liberals". No matter how sane the laws, no matter how good the messaging from the American "left" it will not penetrate the right's sphere of influence. Why? Because we all exist in our own media echo chambers. Any proposal will be completely misrepresented in bad faith, no matter how much of a compromise it is. 3. In many instances the implementation of gun control has not been lefty loonies taking guns away from red-blooded conservative Americans. The laws had bipartisan support. The Mulford Act in California was motivated by Black Panthers open carrying, and was passed under Reagan's Governorship. Bush Sr. banned importation of assault weapons in an attempt to be "tough on crime" and Clinton passed gun control legislation while also passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which turned us into a de facto police state. The liberal media doesn't focus on data, it never has. Their analysis is flawed and their purpose is to drive traffic and manufacture consent. But even if CNN was repeating this article's proposals word for word, it would fall on deaf ears. The reason why we can't even have a discussion in the first place is because gun ownership has been fetishized and turned into an identity for people. It is now a facet of "identity" politics.
- tomrod 4y ago
  > Because we all exist in our own media echo chambers. I disagree strongly. Some do, in the US it is typically right-wing though smaller left-wing media echo chambers exist. But mainstream US media is not an echo chamber.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I am not sure I would categorize them as echo chambers (Fox being the exception) but their agenda is certainly not to represent the truth. They sensationalize and craft narratives, usually by lying through omission, or not covering stories at all. A recent example, Google "Steven Donziger CNN" and you will notice that there isn't a single story about him from the network even though his case is one of the most newsworthy of the decade.
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
It's not a terrible thing to craft policy around if you want to stop school shootings. Looking at raw death numbers is dumb. Not all deaths are considered equal. At my grandfathers funeral people told nice stories and laughed at jokes. Despite it being sad for us no one thought it tragic - he died at 90, had lived a fun life, and was a respected and loved man. For all time the death of innocent children has been viewed as tragic. It is. It's worse than death of 40 yos, whose deaths are worse than a 90 yos(all else equal). Similarly, few were upset by Bernie Madoff's death, nor Epsein's (bad people).

johnmarcus 4y ago

> They’re (school shootings) not even a blip on the radar screen in the overall “gun deaths” problem. LOL. Um, IDK, some people might disagree. Some people - like those innocent childrens' parents - might think it's like 99% of the problem.

settrans 4y ago
Surely then, we ought to ban pools, wall off access to the beaches and lakes, and generally prohibit human contact with water, as drowning is 100x more likely to kill than school shootings. And any parents of innocent children who have drowned are no doubt incensed by the outcome!
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  While we don't ban beaches and pools, we do require them to be monitored by trained lifeguards! I think we should have reasonable safeguards in place for guns as well.
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    I don't think pools or beaches have to be monitored by lifeguards anywhere that I have lived. You just have to have a sign that says 'no lifeguard'.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > I don't think pools or beaches have to be monitored by lifeguards anywhere that I have lived. My house doesn't have a no-lifeguard sign around our pool or on the lake a block away. I think you're right.
  - umvi 4y ago
    So... should we ban private backyard pools that don't have lifeguards? Lots of kids down in those.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Some cities won't grant a permit unless the pool is fenced because of the drowning risk to small children.
    - gooberdoop 4y ago
      Can I buy an extended magazine for my private, backyard pool? Or should we just admit this metaphor lost all meaning some time ago? Like, really, that’s what you’ve got? But what about backyard pools? That’s your humdinger, parliamentary argument for why inaction is better when confronted with a logical comparison? To extrapolate the comparison further and a-ha! the degenerate cases like you’re arguing philosophy in Plato’s company? What is it about topics like these that make a forum of otherwise intelligent people argue like they’re practicing bird law? In any other context someone making the point you’re making would be ridiculed for taking the argument here.
- progman32 4y ago
  This does not address the argument. It merely also points out that beaches, etc are dangerous. Nobody is arguing the beach model is a _good_ model to follow.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    if I accept the GP's statistics, it looks to me like by not arguing to close the beaches 100x more than arguing about guns, yes, people are comparatively arguing that they are ok with the beach model.
- d0gbread 4y ago
  If pools, beaches, and lakes were manufactured primarily to kill, and people used them to cause mass tragedy... maybe?
- scollet 4y ago
  What the fuck?
dontcare007 4y ago
100000 people die every year due to infections contracted while under medical care.

dragonwriter 4y ago

A solution narrowly focussed on school shootings (changes to how schools are constructed, changing policing in schools, etc.) is bad for that reason. OTOH, school shootings as a vivid call for action on policy that address the drivers of firearms injuries (generally or among children specifically) — currently the leading cause of death in children in the US — do not become less valid because school shootings are themselves a small slice of that problem.

itsyaboi 4y ago
I'm having trouble parsing your second paragraph. Are you saying that the #1 cause of firearm related deaths for children in the US are school shootings? Can you share a source?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Are you saying that the #1 cause of firearm related deaths for children in the US are school shootings? No, I am saying that school shootings, which are themselves a small share of deaths of children, are the high visibility tip of the iceberg on deaths of children by firearms injuries, which is the leading cause of death of children. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

softcactus 4y ago

The Gun Solution proposed here is one of the more measured and level-headed assessments I have come across. The proposals it puts forth make a lot of sense, but I think it is missing a few things: 1. It completely ignores non-fatal gun injuries. I cant find a source atm but I believe around 40% of non-fatal gun injuries are accidental. To me, this is an indication that SOME level of training is required. Even if it's a $20 online course. This is an incredibly moderate take but many of the 2A enthusiasts I know would be opposed to this because "shall not be infringed" has been pushed as an axiom from 2A special interest groups. Which brings me to point #2 2. The article places the burden of action on the "liberals". No matter how sane the laws, no matter how good the messaging from the American "left" it will not penetrate the right's sphere of influence. Why? Because we all exist in our own media echo chambers. Any proposal will be completely misrepresented in bad faith, no matter how much of a compromise it is. 3. In many instances the implementation of gun control has not been lefty loonies taking guns away from red-blooded conservative Americans. The laws had bipartisan support. The Mulford Act in California was motivated by Black Panthers open carrying, and was passed under Reagan's Governorship. Bush Sr. banned importation of assault weapons in an attempt to be "tough on crime" and Clinton passed gun control legislation while also passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which turned us into a de facto police state. The liberal media doesn't focus on data, it never has. Their analysis is flawed and their purpose is to drive traffic and manufacture consent. But even if CNN was repeating this article's proposals word for word, it would fall on deaf ears. The reason why we can't even have a discussion in the first place is because gun ownership has been fetishized and turned into an identity for people. It is now a facet of "identity" politics.

tomrod 4y ago
> Because we all exist in our own media echo chambers. I disagree strongly. Some do, in the US it is typically right-wing though smaller left-wing media echo chambers exist. But mainstream US media is not an echo chamber.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I am not sure I would categorize them as echo chambers (Fox being the exception) but their agenda is certainly not to represent the truth. They sensationalize and craft narratives, usually by lying through omission, or not covering stories at all. A recent example, Google "Steven Donziger CNN" and you will notice that there isn't a single story about him from the network even though his case is one of the most newsworthy of the decade.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

It's not a terrible thing to craft policy around if you want to stop school shootings. Looking at raw death numbers is dumb. Not all deaths are considered equal. At my grandfathers funeral people told nice stories and laughed at jokes. Despite it being sad for us no one thought it tragic - he died at 90, had lived a fun life, and was a respected and loved man. For all time the death of innocent children has been viewed as tragic. It is. It's worse than death of 40 yos, whose deaths are worse than a 90 yos(all else equal). Similarly, few were upset by Bernie Madoff's death, nor Epsein's (bad people).