Normalcy Bias and Salman Rushdie

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
lklawson

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
My biggest problem is that the police should never be out gunned. If the police use a revolvers then citizens should get less than that for hand guns or fewer bullets for the same weapon. Don't make the job harder than it already is.
I remember the '80s. There was a perception that the police were "outgunned" by the drug gangs. Turns out that it wasn't true, just media hype and fear. Much like what is happening today with the media hype and fear surrounding the AR.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,260
Reaction score
4,683
Lol there are some fast police cars out there.
This is what I mean by humans not being good at threat assessment. Statistically, it's still handguns. But because of the hysteria and "if it bleeds it leads," people (apparently you included) are worried about AR's. Here:

View attachment 28796

I'm not worried about ARs they have never been an issue in the neighborhoods I've lived in and around. From the news abbot who shot who and who did what crime is always hand guns. Operational wise is easier to conceal a hand gun to commit a crime. That's always been the case.

If the person is a criminal or plans to surprise someone with a bullet then it's usually a hand gun. The biggest gun I've seen some pick up with for the purpose of shooting someone was a shotgun back in 1991 because of road rage. So I'm not afraid of ARs and in the past I haven't had to personally confront one or run from one.
Nor do I have a job that requires me to confront an active shooter of any type.
 
OP
lklawson

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
Lol there are some fast police cars out there.

I'm not worried about ARs they have never been an issue in the neighborhoods I've lived in and around. From the news abbot who shot who and who did what crime is always hand guns. Operational wise is easier to conceal a hand gun to commit a crime. That's always been the case.

If the person is a criminal or plans to surprise someone with a bullet then it's usually a hand gun. The biggest gun I've seen some pick up with for the purpose of shooting someone was a shotgun back in 1991 because of road rage. So I'm not afraid of ARs and in the past I haven't had to personally confront one or run from one.
Nor do I have a job that requires me to confront an active shooter of any type.
You asked at least twice what people/cops are being shot at with, particularly during the remarkably rare event of a mass shooting, and then asked specifically about handguns used in mass shootings, apparently trying to imply that the AR pattern rifle is "the weapon of choice for mass shootings," as is so often claimed by people wanting to restrict it. Well, here's the answer. It's not what you apparently believed or was wanting. But no, the AR isn't used that often in crimes, murders, or even mass murders. The "news coverage" of events including it are dramatically over-represented compared to the actual statistics.
 

Wing Woo Gar

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
1,218
Location
Northern California
This is what I mean by humans not being good at threat assessment. Statistically, it's still handguns. But because of the hysteria and "if it bleeds it leads," people (apparently you included) are worried about AR's. Here:

View attachment 28796

Thanks for the stats.
 

Wing Woo Gar

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
1,218
Location
Northern California
I remember the '80s. There was a perception that the police were "outgunned" by the drug gangs. Turns out that it wasn't true, just media hype and fear. Much like what is happening today with the media hype and fear surrounding the AR.
Yes, this is factually what started the militarization of our urban police forces. Anyone remember the batter ram?
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,951
Reaction score
6,420
Location
Covington, WA
Lol there are some fast police cars out there.

I'm not worried about ARs they have never been an issue in the neighborhoods I've lived in and around. From the news abbot who shot who and who did what crime is always hand guns. Operational wise is easier to conceal a hand gun to commit a crime. That's always been the case.

If the person is a criminal or plans to surprise someone with a bullet then it's usually a hand gun. The biggest gun I've seen some pick up with for the purpose of shooting someone was a shotgun back in 1991 because of road rage. So I'm not afraid of ARs and in the past I haven't had to personally confront one or run from one.
Nor do I have a job that requires me to confront an active shooter of any type.
Self defense is highly contextual. What will help a college coed be safer isn't the same as what will help you, which is different from what would help me. I grew up in the city and now live in a semi-rural area. I'd guess half, or more, of my neighbors have a personal arsenal in their homes, and every one of those people has multiple AR-15s and multiple hand guns. I keep an eye on them because they are well armed, proudly radicalized, and prone to fits of temper.

Not disagreeing with you. Simply pointing out that it's possible to overgeneralize.
You asked at least twice what people/cops are being shot at with, particularly during the remarkably rare event of a mass shooting, and then asked specifically about handguns used in mass shootings, apparently trying to imply that the AR pattern rifle is "the weapon of choice for mass shootings," as is so often claimed by people wanting to restrict it. Well, here's the answer. It's not what you apparently believed or was wanting. But no, the AR isn't used that often in crimes, murders, or even mass murders. The "news coverage" of events including it are dramatically over-represented compared to the actual statistics.
I think the issue is that you have a threshold for defining "remarkably rare" that is out of sync with how others would characterize it. I mean, how many school shootings with AR-15s is too many for you? One per year? 10 per year? 100 per year? At what point would you move it out of the "remarkably rare" category and into the "more than is acceptable" category? Relevant to where the discussion is now, I think we can say that it is a fact that school shootings, with AR 15s, is a self defense issue for kids in schools. Schools routinely conduct drills and we (adults as parents and educators) talk to kids about the self defense reality of school shootings. And while we may all disagree on how best to address them (more guns, less guns, arming teachers, hiring cops, etc), most people have an opinion about it one way or the other.

In 2020, one child was killed in a school bus related accident (54 people total including pedestrians and the occupants of other vehicles). That's out of about 25 million kids who are carted to and from schools in hundreds of thousands of school buses each year. And yet there is vigorous discussion about requiring school bus seat belts. And the upshot is, most people would agree that kids are safer if they're wearing seatbelts. The functional reason they aren't legislated nationally is that it would be cost prohibitive for most school districts to retrofit their fleet.
 

Wing Woo Gar

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
1,218
Location
Northern California
Self defense is highly contextual. What will help a college coed be safer isn't the same as what will help you, which is different from what would help me. I grew up in the city and now live in a semi-rural area. I'd guess half, or more, of my neighbors have a personal arsenal in their homes, and every one of those people has multiple AR-15s and multiple hand guns. I keep an eye on them because they are well armed, proudly radicalized, and prone to fits of temper.

Not disagreeing with you. Simply pointing out that it's possible to overgeneralize.

I think the issue is that you have a threshold for defining "remarkably rare" that is out of sync with how others would characterize it. I mean, how many school shootings with AR-15s is too many for you? One per year? 10 per year? 100 per year? At what point would you move it out of the "remarkably rare" category and into the "more than is acceptable" category? Relevant to where the discussion is now, I think we can say that it is a fact that school shootings, with AR 15s, is a self defense issue for kids in schools. Schools routinely conduct drills and we (adults as parents and educators) talk to kids about the self defense reality of school shootings. And while we may all disagree on how best to address them (more guns, less guns, arming teachers, hiring cops, etc), most people have an opinion about it one way or the other.

In 2020, one child was killed in a school bus related accident (54 people total including pedestrians and the occupants of other vehicles). That's out of about 25 million kids who are carted to and from schools in hundreds of thousands of school buses each year. And yet there is vigorous discussion about requiring school bus seat belts. And the upshot is, most people would agree that kids are safer if they're wearing seatbelts. The functional reason they aren't legislated nationally is that it would be cost prohibitive for most school districts to retrofit their fleet.
I completely empathize with the fear parents have of sending their children to school. I agree that even one child is too many. Its the factual information and logical discussion sans emotional input that seems to be missing in our national debate about a great number of things. I hope for a day where logic and science is what informs and drives leadership.
 
OP
lklawson

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
I think the issue is that you have a threshold for defining "remarkably rare" that is out of sync with how others would characterize it.
In comparison with other violent crime causing death. The simple fact is that death and injury caused by mass shootings is remarkably rare when compared with pretty much anything else. It's not my fault that humans are bad at understanding statistics and judging risk based on reality instead of inflated fear. Worry about the things that are most likely first and least likely last. In self defense training you learn how to block a simple punch or a haymaker first and worry about the jump quadruple tornado pretty much last because one is likely and the other isn't. But hey, the jump quadruple tornado is exiting. Same with mass shootings. They're rare but people foolishly want to focus on them.

The simple fact is that, statistically, mass shootings are outliers in violent crime and those with an AR are outliers among the outliers. Do do anything other than admitting that is to admit to not being able to understand statistics and to be driven by fear and mass panic.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,260
Reaction score
4,683
You can share what the law itself is. Discussing whether or not that should be the law and if the law should change; (ie: whether or not guns should be banned/what guns should be banned, among other things) is where it gets to politics. At least from where we are concerned.
If we think through the problem then we should be able to Identify the problem. Identify the facts. Like the graph that was put up. Then explore possible solutions and possible challenges that come with implementing any give solution.

Think of it as if we as a team, are responsible for finding a solution. Got at it like that then you'll be far from the nonsense.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,260
Reaction score
4,683
In comparison with other violent crime causing death. The simple fact is that death and injury caused by mass shootings is remarkably rare when compared with pretty much anything else. It's not my fault that humans are bad at understanding statistics and judging risk based on reality instead of inflated fear. Worry about the things that are most likely first and least likely last. In self defense training you learn how to block a simple punch or a haymaker first and worry about the jump quadruple tornado pretty much last because one is likely and the other isn't. But hey, the jump quadruple tornado is exiting. Same with mass shootings. They're rare but people foolishly want to focus on them.

The simple fact is that, statistically, mass shootings are outliers in violent crime and those with an AR are outliers among the outliers. Do do anything other than admitting that is to admit to not being able to understand statistics and to be driven by fear and mass panic.
So what is a possible solution for preventing our reducing mass shootings?
 
OP
lklawson

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
I completely empathize with the fear parents have of sending their children to school. I agree that even one child is too many. Its the factual information and logical discussion sans emotional input that seems to be missing in our national debate about a great number of things. I hope for a day where logic and science is what informs and drives leadership.
How many of them are afraid of their children drowning? That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.

According to the CDC, not some breathless propaganda clickbait by Forbes, the leading causes of death and injury among children are
  • Suffocation
  • Drowning
  • Poisoning
  • Motor Vehicle

death and injury children.png


 
Last edited:
OP
lklawson

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
So what is a possible solution for preventing our reducing mass shootings?
One way of reducing is the same way that we are working reducing suicide. If you haven't heard of "Suicide Contagion" then you should go start reading. But the short version is that by reporting breathlessly on these things, including mass shootings, i.e. "making them famous," we are laying the groundwork for the next.

In suicide prevention, the concept of "responsible reporting" has show dramatic positive results, not only in the U.S. but also abroad. Stop making it a multi-day mass media blitz and it will help reduce incidents.

Here are a few quick references
 
Last edited:

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,260
Reaction score
4,683
You asked at least twice what people/cops are being shot at with, particularly during the remarkably rare event of a mass shooting, and then asked specifically about handguns used in mass shootings, apparently trying to imply that the AR pattern rifle is "the weapon of choice for mass shootings," as is so often claimed by people wanting to restrict it. Well, here's the answer. It's not what you apparently believed or was wanting. But no, the AR isn't used that often in crimes, murders, or even mass murders. The "news coverage" of events including it are dramatically over-represented compared to the actual statistics.
I presented this statements to generate thought is regardless of perception. Perceptions won't be a solution. What it will do is cause someone to grab the facts.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,951
Reaction score
6,420
Location
Covington, WA
I completely empathize with the fear parents have of sending their children to school. I agree that even one child is too many. Its the factual information and logical discussion sans emotional input that seems to be missing in our national debate about a great number of things. I hope for a day where logic and science is what informs and drives leadership.
I would argue that facts AND emotion are both equally important. One without the other is problematic and leads to poor judgment and decision making.
How many of them are afraid of their children drowning? That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.

According to the CDC, not some breathless propaganda clickbait by Forbes, the leading causes of death and injury among children are
Suffocation
Drowning
Poisoning
Motor Vehicle

View attachment 28797

I think most parents have a healthy respect for the risks of drowning. My kids all had swimming lessons. We have lifeguards at public pools, lakes, etc. And most people take precautions when they have pools in their backyards, particularly when they have small children.

There is also a lot of work done to try and keep kids from poisoning themselves. I mean, it's not as though we put unlabeled poisons in the pantry and then throw up our hands in despair when our kids ingest it and say, "Why does this keep happening?" Right?

Honestly, your argument would only make sense if we, as a society, disregarded these other real hazards. But we don't.
 

Wing Woo Gar

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
1,218
Location
Northern California
How many of them are afraid of their children drowning? That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.

According to the CDC, not some breathless propaganda clickbait by Forbes, the leading causes of death and injury among children are
Suffocation
Drowning
Poisoning
Motor Vehicle

View attachment 28797

I agree with what you say. I still feel empathy for the anxiety parents have, regardless of the origin of that fear. In a recent study that claims gun violence is responsible for child deaths, they included 18 and 19 year olds as children. As one might expect, that changed the stats in a meaningful way. I think that is a good example of how statistics can be manipulated.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,260
Reaction score
4,683
How many of them are afraid of their children drowning? That kills and injures vastly more than being shot.
As a pool owner I was more afraid of my son drowning as a kid before he knew how to swim. My biggest fear was that he would did because of something I did or didnt do. There are solutions to that issue and fear and I had to use more than one to keep himsafe. Each solution reduced the risk. A one solution fix would have been to fill the pool but then we wouldn't have a pool to swim in.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
12,260
Reaction score
4,683
One way of reducing is the same way that we are working reducing suicide. If you haven't heard of "Suicide Contagion"
What are some things we could do to address this? Do we implement the solution locally or set a national standard? What if the person who needs help moved to a state with standards that don't meet the needs? What are the major elements that in involve "suicide contagion" what's the best way to find the solution so that the budget will be consistent?
 
OP
lklawson

lklawson

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
5,035
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Huber Heights, OH
What are some things we could do to address this? Do we implement the solution locally or set a national standard? What if the person who needs help moved to a state with standards that don't meet the needs? What are the major elements that in involve "suicide contagion" what's the best way to find the solution so that the budget will be consistent?
As I wrote; responsible reporting. Don't make it a media blitz.
 

Wing Woo Gar

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2021
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
1,218
Location
Northern California
I would argue that facts AND emotion are both equally important. One without the other is problematic and leads to poor judgment and decision making.

I think most parents have a healthy respect for the risks of drowning. My kids all had swimming lessons. We have lifeguards at public pools, lakes, etc. And most people take precautions when they have pools in their backyards, particularly when they have small children.

There is also a lot of work done to try and keep kids from poisoning themselves. I mean, it's not as though we put unlabeled poisons in the pantry and then throw up our hands in despair when our kids ingest it and say, "Why does this keep happening?" Right?

Honestly, your argument would only make sense if we, as a society, disregarded these other real hazards. But we don't.
We dont make fire safety rules based on how we feel about it. While I do respect emotions and count them as valid, I do not agree with allowing emotion to lead debate when it comes to regulation or safety. I may sincerely feel that I have a certain right to act in a certain circumstance, but try using that in a court of law as a defense. Would you like to see laws enacted based on the feelings people have? I dont see that going well for the poor, the disenfranchised, or most vulnerable people amongst us. I dont pretend to have the right answers here. I do try to see this from as many perspectives as possible.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
20,951
Reaction score
6,420
Location
Covington, WA
One way of reducing is the same way that we are working reducing suicide. If you haven't heard of "Suicide Contagion" then you should go start reading. But the short version is that by reporting breathlessly on these things, including mass shootings, i.e. "making them famous," we are laying the groundwork for the next.

In suicide prevention, the concept of "responsible reporting" has show dramatic positive results, not only in the U.S. but also abroad. Stop making it a multi-day mass media blitz and it will help reduce incidents.

Here are a few quick references

This is getting pretty far afield, but guns lead to more suicides, as well, because guns are a more effective way of doing it. Has to do with the finality of what is often an impulsive act. Of suicide attempts using a firearm, about 85% are lethal. Of suicide attempts by drug overdose, less than 3% are lethal. Simply put, easy access to firearms leads to more successful suicides.



And gun violence is a legitimate self defense issue in the USA, in many different contexts. What it looks like will vary depending on where you live, but whether you deal with gang violence, petty crime, or radicalized 2nd amendment zealots, there is legitimate danger.

Lastly, the very idea that a mass shooting in a classroom even one time is "hysteria" is just bonkers to me, and is symptomatic of how broken things are right now in our country. This is not and should not be a clinical issue approached from a perspective of acceptable loss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top