[drewcoo]

If we were dealing with the victims of a school shooting, first we'd make sure none of them were going to bleed out. Then they'd be prioritized for dealing with their root cause injuries.

We can apply similar tactics to these school financial injuries. We don't need to choose one or the other.

And the core problem with people taking on debt to pay for college in the US is individual people having to pay for college, unlike many other countries. How much it costs is a secondary issue. If it can cost anything, market forces will boost the price until it passes a fairness threshold.

[Aunche]

Providing emergency aid to shooting victims doesn't incentivize more school shooters. If anything, it's a disincentive because it counteracts their goal. By contrast, forgiving student loans incentivizes more people to take loans, which in turn allows colleges to raise tuition prices.

[nonethewiser]

> If we were dealing with the victims of a school shooting, first we'd make sure none of them were going to bleed out.

Well... no. Obviously stopping the shooter is the top priority.

Beyond that, it depends on how many people are there to solve the problem and how many victims there are. Everything beyond whats required to stop the shooter would attend to the wounded.