This was RTFirefly’s idea, but I thought it was so good it deserved its own GD thread.
If we’re not going to do anything to stop these sorts of tragedies, we may as well honor and materially support those most harmed by them.
Wounded survivors and family members of those killed in mass shootings in America should receive the same benefits as wounded soldiers and the families of American military service-members killed in the line of duty. In a very real sense, these unfortunate folks are sacrificing life and limb for our freedoms – specifically our freedoms to very easily obtain very deadly firearms.
These families have sacrificed as much as those of military veterans (and I say that as a veteran myself). They should be entitled to the same sorts of benefits and honors. Especially since, as a country, we’re not doing a damn thing to stop these mass shootings.
Sort of like what we did for the families of 9/11? Seems like it would be doable and I can’t think of any reason why we shouldn’t do it, at least not at 8am before I’ve had any caffeine…
I also would like to know the rationale for limiting this to the victims of mass shootings.
If I get shot in a liquor store hold up, doesn’t my family deserve the same? If I get stabbed by some repeat offender, am I not equally sacrificing my life on the altar of the Eighth Amendment, because we don’t send all felons to prison for life?
The difference between a veteran’s family, and the family of a crime victim, is that in some sense the veteran chose the risk - no one chooses to be the victim of a mass shooting, or any other kind. So we encourage and reward that kind of voluntary service by supporting their families.
Arlington is gonna fill up awful fast.
By the way, I hate cars and think everyone should ride bikes. Therefore I have a serious idea: All bike riders hit by cars and their families should get the same honors and benefits as veterans.
Um…how many mass shootings do you think happen each year? :dubious:
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.
As others have pointed out, this will lead to immediate comparison-resentment. People who have died as victims of solo shootings, or stabbings (“Why is getting killed by a bullet, special, but a knife, not?”), will want to know why they don’t qualify. And if we paid out benefits to everyone who died as such, that will be a huge financial bill.
iiandyiiii’s proposal might have one beneficial effect, though: If a gunman knows that by mowing down a lot of victims in a shooting rampage, he’s going to get their surviving families a lot of money, that might be a *slight *deterrent to him doing so. The gunman might (very logically) conclude, however, that to the families, the grief of losing their loved ones in such a manner will outweigh the compensation money they receive, though, and still carry out the shooting nonetheless.
Because fanatics with guns consider the possible financial benefits of the survivors before deciding to shoot people? Please tell me you were being facetious.
Suppose a KKK gunman knows that shooting up a crowd of black people will get their families all a big payday. That might not be enough of a deterrent to prevent the shooting from happening regardless, but it would still be some sort of a deterrent in his mind.
I don’t know why you find the concept shocking. Some mass shootings have been motivated by clear hatred toward the victims’ cohort (one of the earlier ones, the 1989 slaughter at the Ecole Polytechnique, was motivated by hatred of women). They probably represent a very small minority of mass shootings, most of which, like this recent one, seem directed at random victims who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Among other objections, restricting this to victims of mass shootings would be seen as racist.
In Chicago alone, more than 3500 people were shooting victims last year; few of these shootings met the standards for a mass shooting. Some 77% of the victims were black. Why should they and their families be excluded?