Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:10 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'd certainly welcome those families' opinion, and if most opposed it I wouldn't be of favor of it. But what you call backfiring would actually be one of the goals - it would formally record (as much as can be done) that the United States recognizes that we, as a country, bear responsibility for the incredibly high frequency of mass shootings. ISTM that a huge portion of the country, including the government in power, denies this.
Hm. Well, would we, as a country, have to do the same things for alcohol and tobacco as well? I mean, it's our collective choice to allow those things that basically kills hundreds of thousands a year after all.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #102  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Hm. Well, would we, as a country, have to do the same things for alcohol and tobacco as well? I mean, it's our collective choice to allow those things that basically kills hundreds of thousands a year after all.
I don't know.
  #103  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't know.
You should seriously think about it. If you are doing this for the survivors, why does this particular class of survivor get the benefits while others that have suffered the same amount of loss don't?
  #104  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You should seriously think about it. If you are doing this for the survivors, why does this particular class of survivor get the benefits while others that have suffered the same amount of loss don't?
Before I submit the bill to Congress, I certainly will. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we're doing just fine.
  #105  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:17 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't know.
Yeah, me either, but it's hard to justify differentiating victims when you start to really think through the fact that a lot of stuff we, collectively allow is harmful to a non-zero number of citizens. Where does collective responsibility end and individual responsibility start? Also, as a society, we DO pay for all of these things in the form of insurance rates, both on the death benefit side and healthcare side, as well as a bunch of secondary and tertiary costs we collectively endure to allow those things to be legal.

ETA: And BTW, it's an interesting take and something we haven't discussed to death in the past, so don't get discouraged. I'm enjoying the thread and discussion, FWIW. It will allow you to really look at this and see if it's viable or something that just won't work out but still might be useful.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 02-15-2018 at 05:20 PM.
  #106  
Old 02-15-2018, 06:18 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Um...how many mass shootings do you think happen each year?

Yeah, I agree with questioning the rationale of just victims of mass shootings. As for families deserving it, well, like I said we did this for 9/11 victims so this seems like it would be along those lines. Doesn't make it a good idea, but it's similar logic.
This was a bullshit thing for 9/11 to give everyone's family future earnings. There is no idea how long someone will earn or live.
  #107  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
This was a bullshit thing for 9/11 to give everyone's family future earnings. There is no idea how long someone will earn or live.
They do that in wrongfull death lawsuits all the time.
  #108  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:20 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
They do that in wrongfull death lawsuits all the time.
If the victims' families received that from the terrorists that would be fine. It is/was bullshit for the government to pay it out of my tax dollars.
  #109  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:24 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There already is a certain percentage of teachers that are properly trained and willing to carry in school. Certainly more would be better, but there already are some. In most states, either the laws or school policy don't allow them to.

Ideally, the students (and everyone else) would not know which teachers might be carrying.
Having armed teachers might reduce the body count, but it doesn't keep a shooter from hitting a few people before being killed.
  #110  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Having armed teachers might reduce the body count...
That seems like a worthwhile goal to me.
  #111  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:51 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That seems like a worthwhile goal to me.
Not at the risk of a gun being taken from a teacher or left out in the wrong spot.
  #112  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:06 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Not at the risk of a gun being taken from a teacher or left out in the wrong spot.
Admittedly, this is one of the risks / downsides of such a policy. I wouldn't quarrel with someone who estimated that it was more of a risk than the potential reward of deterring / stopping the occasional school shooting.
  #113  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:14 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It is? Perhaps I am missing something, but it looks like he was talking about mass shootings, and you want to talk about mass shootings and street crime, he is not currently interested in talking about street crime, so you are presenting his opinion on his behalf?
Yeah, one often misses something when one jumps into them middle of a conversation. I started this exchange with the OP responding to a post where he said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiii
Murders and violence aren't anywhere close to uniquely American, but regular mass shootings are uniquely American
If you want to quibble that "murders and violence" in that quote are not the same as "street crimes" then I'll let you have the last word on that.
  #114  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:42 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The actual proposal -- treat victims and families of victims of mass shootings like we treat the families of 9/11 victims, and/or soldiers wounded or killed in action and their families (it's my understanding that they are treated similarly).

Why? Because regular mass shootings are uniquely American, so I think this uniquely American phenomenon perhaps deserves particular attention, and those victims/survivors/families of this uniquely American phenomenon deserve particular recognition due to their involuntary sacrifice for the uniquely American freedom to very easily legally obtain extremely deadly firearms. We should recognize that they aren't dying for nothing, but rather dying so these weapons can be so easily acquired, and (perhaps) so America can continue with our unique cultural obsession with guns and gun violence, and such sacrifice, even when involuntary, should be recognized/honored/memorialized.

The cost? I'm not sure. Head-arithmetic doesn't give me any number that wouldn't be tiny compared to the federal budget.
Accomplish, not do. Many jobs have death and disability benefits, with the military being one of them. Mine does too as part of my compensation package. It's a way to get people to sign up. I can also purchase this (or additional) insurance on the open market if my employer doesn't provide any or enough.

Right now we're in "not even wrong" territory. The proposal isn't good or bad, it's just not even half-baked. We can't perform a cost benefit analysis with undefined costs and benefits. We can't compare against competing proposals because we don't have a defined goal. Some possibilities might be:

Reduce one type of gun violence that rational people don't spend any time worrying about,
Tickle Ruken's easily tickled liberal feels,
Profit,
Show those gun enthusiasts...something

Whichever it is, there are probably other ways to do it. And there's always the option of leaving the money in taxpayers' pockets (or more realisticly, not borrowing it from our kids.)
  #115  
Old 02-15-2018, 10:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Yeah, one often misses something when one jumps into them middle of a conversation. I started this exchange with the OP responding to a post where he said:



If you want to quibble that "murders and violence" in that quote are not the same as "street crimes" then I'll let you have the last word on that.
So he's saying street crime is worldwide but mass murders at a "regular" rate are uniquely American.

I don't know what it is you're objecting to, but I guess the mystery will remain forever.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #116  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:33 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,442
I'd gladly support the proposal, if it meant drastically reducing the benefits and honors afforded to vets!
  #117  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:37 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,914
The Moderator Speaks

There is cause here, following Bone's mod note on page 2, for an arbitrarily large number of warnings in this thread.

This thread is for specific discussion of the OPs proposal and NOT about gun control or gun statistics in general. Stay on topic, please.

Meanwhile, your moderation staff will discuss who - if anybody - is sanctioned for disregarding moderator instructions. I don't promise anyone will be warned, nor do I promise that 20 posters or more won't earn warnings.

So, again, stay on topic.
  #118  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:15 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,678
Moderating

To be clear, this note is still in effect:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I agree.

Please take general gun control, and discussion about the specific incident in Florida to another thread. iiandyiiii crafted a specific proposal that can be debated without being overtaken by the general discussion.

[/moderating]
So this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCBearcats View Post
Having armed teachers might reduce the body count, but it doesn't keep a shooter from hitting a few people before being killed.
This is off topic, as are the subsequent replies, etc in #110-112. It's understandable given current events, and in a fast moving thread where notes could be missed. Please say on topic.

Even if someone misses the note, it's okay to not reply and continue the hijack.

Please say on topic.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 02-16-2018 at 09:17 AM.
  #119  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:37 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Right now we're in "not even wrong" territory. The proposal isn't good or bad, it's just not even half-baked. We can't perform a cost benefit analysis with undefined costs and benefits. We can't compare against competing proposals because we don't have a defined goal. Some possibilities might be:

Reduce one type of gun violence that rational people don't spend any time worrying about,
Tickle Ruken's easily tickled liberal feels,
Profit,
Show those gun enthusiasts...something

Whichever it is, there are probably other ways to do it. And there's always the option of leaving the money in taxpayers' pockets (or more realisticly, not borrowing it from our kids.)
That's about it, though I suppose iiandyiii has stated his goals, such as they are: it's the right thing to do and will officially record that easy access to guns makes mass shootings more likely. Though he "don't know" if we should officially record the much much higher death rate caused by alcohol and tobacco.
  #120  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:44 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Accomplish, not do. Many jobs have death and disability benefits, with the military being one of them. Mine does too as part of my compensation package. It's a way to get people to sign up. I can also purchase this (or additional) insurance on the open market if my employer doesn't provide any or enough.

Right now we're in "not even wrong" territory. The proposal isn't good or bad, it's just not even half-baked. We can't perform a cost benefit analysis with undefined costs and benefits. We can't compare against competing proposals because we don't have a defined goal. Some possibilities might be:

Reduce one type of gun violence that rational people don't spend any time worrying about,
Tickle Ruken's easily tickled liberal feels,
Profit,
Show those gun enthusiasts...something

Whichever it is, there are probably other ways to do it. And there's always the option of leaving the money in taxpayers' pockets (or more realisticly, not borrowing it from our kids.)
Yeah. If anything, this proposal would make Americans care even less about mass shootings. The families were compensated, so at leas there's that! We keep hearing, after these types of shootings, that we need to "do something". Well, this is "something". It makes no sense to think this will make Americans care more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I'd gladly support the proposal, if it meant drastically reducing the benefits and honors afforded to vets!
So what' you're saying is we're going to pay the victims of mass shootings, and we're going to make the Mexicans the vets pay for it!

Last edited by John Mace; 02-16-2018 at 09:45 AM.
  #121  
Old 02-16-2018, 05:36 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I'd gladly support the proposal, if it meant drastically reducing the benefits and honors afforded to vets!
One hopes this was said in jest.

The OP's proposal already suffered by a needless invoking of veterans' benefits, which have nothing to do with compensating a class of crime victims. While this example may have meant no such intent, such a comparison carries an odor of resentment and hostility toward attention/honor given to present or former members of the armed forces, a politically counterproductive and otherwise dubious attitude seen all too often in discussions on this board.
  #122  
Old 02-16-2018, 05:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
One hopes this was said in jest.

The OP's proposal already suffered by a needless invoking of veterans' benefits, which have nothing to do with compensating a class of crime victims. While this example may have meant no such intent, such a comparison carries an odor of resentment and hostility toward attention/honor given to present or former members of the armed forces, a politically counterproductive and otherwise dubious attitude seen all too often in discussions on this board.
You may sense that odour but the OP is former Navy and iirc, works for them still as a civilian. From the OP "and I say that as a veteran myself". Is your indignation based on your own service?
  #123  
Old 02-16-2018, 06:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Yeah. If anything, this proposal would make Americans care even less about mass shootings. ...
I think it's a mistake to assume that the public's resistance to gun control proposals means that Americans don't care (much?) about mass shootings.
  #124  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:01 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it's a mistake to assume that the public's resistance to gun control proposals means that Americans don't care (much?) about mass shootings.
Yeah, that was not worded well. What I meant to say was make Americans inclined to do even less about changing gun control laws in reaction to mass shootings. We talk like we want to do something, but we rarely do. This would lower the impetus to act.
  #125  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it's a mistake to assume that the public's resistance to gun control proposals means that Americans don't care (much?) about mass shootings.
Functionally, it is the same thing. Like an alcoholic who "knows he has a problem" but the solution never seems to involve stopping drinking.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-16-2018 at 07:04 PM.
  #126  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:02 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think it's a mistake to assume that the public's resistance to gun control proposals means that Americans don't care (much?) about mass shootings.
Well, however much they care about mass shootings, they care about their guns more.

"They" being the cohort of Americans who are resisting gun control proposals, a fraction of "the public" overall. I daresay the largest relevant cohort is the ~50% of the American electorate who don't care enough to bother voting either way.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017