[cm2187]

For school shootings, it’s rationally absurd to worry about those rare events. It’s like worrying about dying from a terrorist attack or a plane crash in France. The probability is mathematically non zero, and the country makes a big deal when that happens, but it is statistically a non problem.

Being confronted with an armed robber in a home invasion is more of a problem in the US (but France has its own fair share of violent crime). Outside of that I think the bulk of gun violence is suicides and gang on gang violence.

[apexalpha]

>It’s like worrying about dying from a terrorist attack or a plane crash in France.

The aviation sector is one of the most regulated on earth and has extreme safety standards for exactly this reason: we don't want to crash.

Societies also implemented security measures after terrorist attacks. Especially after Bataclan in France.

These are extremely rare events because we take measures to prevent them.

[chii]

> Societies also implemented security measures after terrorist attacks.

i would argue that those measures are costing more than the attacks themselves. It's security theater - high cost (in terms of time and resources), high visibility (politically). But doesn't really prevent any terrorist attacks, because terrorist attacks are fairly rare all things considered.

So you can say that those terrorists' attack succeeded in making the lives of those they attacked worse, and it's because we let them dictate due to "fear", rather than rationally ignore them.

[Clubber]

>These are extremely rare events because we take measures to prevent them.

When you use the TSA and Patriot Act as an example of meaningful, useful legislation, you're probably not on strong footing. One is considered an expensive boondoggle jobs program, the other is tasked with illegal mass spying of US citizens and deprivation of rights. Neither shows any strong evidence of preventing terrorist acts. Its legislation like these that give gun owners pause of any "common sense" gun control solutions implemented based on emotion.

[polypodiopsi]

Apexalpha was talkimg about bataclan in France. The european context is super different from the US context. For example this year someone killed one person in a Amoklauf (~schoolshooting) in germany with a sports crossbow. These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public. As they should be. What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?

[Clubber]

>What does anyone really NEED, a crossbow for?

This isn't a very compelling argument, and it's kinda intellectually dishonest because you wouldn't accept any answer I gave you. You are now acting as "dear leader," who decides what individuals do or don't need.

Why does anyone NEED to go over 10 miles per hour, why does anyone NEED more than one pair of shoes? Why does anyone NEED coffee, tea, beer, lots of things, why does anyone NEED a fast computer? Why does anyone NEED cologne or perfume? Why does anyone NEED dessert? Why does anyone NEED fashionable clothes? Why does anyone NEED art? How do you even justify that outside of a profit motive in a way you will accept? See it's a trick you are playing.

Of course to answer your question, a gun would be the preferred tool. If you ever go camping in the woods, they are certainly handy. If someone tries to rape or murder you, it would certainly come in handy. If you were a woman (or a man even) and attracted a crazy stalker, invaluable. If you have a massive plague where the police stop working and society stops functioning correctly, it would certainly come in handy. Remember covid?

>These things will now be put under weapons regulation, and will be basically unavailable to the general public.

Of course, someone will kill someone with a bow and arrow, then it will be banned, then someone will kill someone with a knife, and they will ban the "scary looking" ones. Then someone will use a slingshot and those will get banned. You know it's all just a theatrical overreaction at that point to placate the hysterical masses.

[polypodiopsi]

Lol. All the things you listed are more or less harmless to others, or general purpose tools/forms (mihht dispute art in this regard but I'm personally very willing to accept the dangers that art poses). A crossbow is an updated medieval weapon, that by the way, lower aristocracy (knights) at that time, tried to declare a warcrime, because it could penetrate the state of the art armour... What's it with the desserts? They are tasty and, if you're not scared of crazy clowns that try to embaress you in public, more or less harmless.Certainly not a weapon. Our forests here went through some thousand years of culture and there really isn't anything a manly man would need to defend himself against. Maybe the ones on the border to/in czech republic, but where that is the case, these areas are natural reserves, and you're not supposed to go there unless you leave no traces. Certainly not shooting left and right on animals for some sporting fun.

[polypodiopsi]

Well there is possibly enjoyment in all of these things. Now you might say: "yeah thats true for weapons also". And that I think is precisely the problem. Why do you think the enjoyment of having a weapon, owning it, feeling the potential power of it, should be acceptaple? If you want to argue then why I dont make that argument for other things, I'll habe to tell you: There is a word for people who argue like that: imbecile. Stop playing stupid games by seemingly following sime logic, that is purely linguistical and onedimensional and take responibility for xou're critical cognitive capabilities, by realising that weapons are a different category than desserts and computers, and try to realise that the enjoyment of something that is made to kill might be a perversion, not a right.

[Clubber]

>All the things you listed are more or less harmless to others, or general purpose tools/forms (mihht dispute art in this regard but I'm personally very willing to accept the dangers that art poses).

Yes, but why do you NEED them, isn't that the argument you made?

[spaceman_2020]

> For school shootings, it’s rationally absurd to worry about those rare events.

Rare events that only happen in America.

I don't know what kind of parent looks at a rare event where their kid might die and says "yeah, I'm okay with that".

[korijn]

You can make them extremely rare to non-existent. Why the US people do not jump at the opportunity is beyond me.

[scambier]

"School shootings are mathematically irrelevant", what a take.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Talk about normalisation of deviance!

I've read that more children have died of gunshot wounds this year than police officers have died in the line of duty.[1]

Granted, there are probably more school children at school than there are police at work on any given day, so ... of course children are more likely to be shot at a school?

But then again, here in Australia we have reasonable gun control after that mass schooling in Tasmania all those years ago ... and the country still turned to shit ... so?

While were here, anyone else got any arguments no one would intentionally make?

1. https://en.as.com/latest_news/more-children-have-died-in-sch...

[chii]

and thousands more died due to motor traffic accidents (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/prelimina...)

The outrage always happens on politically charged subjects, but worse outcomes happen on the roads, and nobody talks about it as though it was normal.

Kids should fear crossing the street more than an active shooter. While i don't disagree that gun control is a good outcome, the difficulty of achieving it in the US is real. Effort is better spent addressing the root cause of gun violence, rather than attempting to take the guns away and just hope that the violence doesn't occur.

[Handytinge]

> Kids should fear crossing the street more than an active shooter.

And in most countries, they do.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

School children don't cross roads inside classrooms.

There's enough concern to go around to work at improving both.

[spaceman_2020]

"My child died but I can take comfort in the fact that his death was a statistical anomaly!"

[akomtu]

It's true, though. If you were to live many lives in a row, when would be your first time getting shot? "News" agencies are great at distracting attention from real issues: cancer, chemicals contamination, healthcare prices.

[ricardobayes]

That's very true. There's an unprecedented amount of distorted news too. I never believed it until I got a worried message from a friend about wildfires in our area. There are none. I had also read an article in my local news about devastating wildfires in his area, of which there are also none at his place. These were both generally well-respected mainstream media outlets. That's not saying we shouldn't focus on climate change ASAP, but it looks to me as the news broadcasts have an agenda to keep people in fear.

[rtp4me]

Exactly. As I tell my son, the news organizations are no different than other vendors. They have a product to sell (fear, societal divide) and do their very best to continue selling it to the masses. And, astonishingly, people eat it up day and night.

For the people who live outside the US and consume our "news", it must seem our country is falling apart. From gun violence, to wildfires, to racism, to homelessness, we truly must be living in a 3rd world country. However, my experience does not reflect any of this. Yes, these issues exist, but everyday I can go to the grocery store, put gas in my wife's car, walk downtown, take a trip to the lake, visit a neighboring town, etc - all without fear. People of differing backgrounds/colors talk pleasantly with each other, neighbors help neighbors, etc. Totally different from what the "media" is pushing these days.

My advice - walk/run away from the media and don't attach yourself to any political party. Your emotional state will thank you later.

[fleetwoodsnack]

If the statistical relevance fails to capture the underlying practical relevance of a phenomenon, it’s usually the job of the statistician to explain why.

One way is examining the dimensions of analysis. A simple counting exercise and declaring “well it’s just not relevant,” despite contradictory qualitative evidence is really simple-minded and an abuse of statistical reasoning.

But this is typical of non-research thinking, in non-academic contexts so forgive me if I come off harshly.

[akomtu]

No such thing as "practical relevance". It doesn't matter that sharks or bears look scary: hard stats say that both dangers are imaginary. Same for guns.

[fleetwoodsnack]

“Practical relevance” (funny use of quotes here) is the end-goal of statistics, and what makes it worth studying in the first place. On its own, the practice and theory of statistics is actually fairly vulnerable, not exactly “hard” in the sense we’d use for conventional mathematics.

The principles we use for relevance, and other techniques we’ve built upon them are axiomatic: there’s no real reason they persist except as a form of historical convention and necessary standardization.

What makes statistics useful is when it’s able to capture quantitatively something that exists practically, i.e. material phenomena. When the stats don’t square with reality, it’s not exactly reality’s fault, so to speak. It’s the statistician’s job to understand and explain why the statistics, or the techniques thereof, failed. This is the red meat of “hard” statistics, how the field refines itself, and it’s also the most fun and challenging thing about it.

When eye-to-eye with a provoked bear in real life, I’d be curious to see if any statisticians would dismiss it on statistical grounds. My bet is zero because they know the limits of their discipline.

[akomtu]

It captures the reality very well. Emotions don't increase the likelihood of meeting a bear.

[Beldin]

> If you were to live many lives in a row, when would be your first time getting shot?

Statistically: that time I lived in the US.

[chung8123]

For children it is diet. I bet that our children's diets kill more than guns.

[bearmode]

>Outside of that I think the bulk of gun violence is suicides and gang on gang violence.

Good job those gang bullets aren't allowed to hit anything other than gang members!

[throwaheyy]

No, school shootings are like a weekly event in the US. They are not “exceedingly rare”.

Do you seriously think the traveling public would accept a plane crashing every week?