Our ability to understand risk is imperfect, and certaintainly divorced from actual risk numbers. While perceptions based on media are surely a factor, its als

Our ability to understand risk is imperfect, and certaintainly divorced from actual risk numbers. While perceptions based on media are surely a factor, its also based on our control over the risk. Lots of people die in car accidents (presumably because they are bad drivers) but I am a good driver, therefore the risk for me is much lower or zero. I am in control therefore my perception of risk is reduced. What risk there is, I accept in return for the utility of a car. Same for drugs - my kids are well brought up, and I'm a good parent, so the risk of an overdose is low, and I feel in control of that. Clearly lots of people balance the risk of an overdose against the utility of taking the drugs (and clearly they get it wrong a lot.) School shootings have no (direct) utility. So I am both lacking in control, and there is no utility balance, I am concerned about this a lot more. I see the solution as fewer guns, but that crosses over with the utility perceived by a large segment of society. Since they are unwilling to give up that utility we reach an impass. School shootings are a side effect of gun ownership, which has a significant perceived utility to a large group of people. Those people implicitly accept that some people (including children) die in the service of that utility. To them taking away guns is as ridiculous as taking away cars (which also kill people.) taking away cars is absurd right? Of course perceived utility may not be real. Lots of people in the world live without guns. Lots live without cars. But these perceptions are hard, dare I say impossible, to change.