Serious idea: survivors/families of mass shooting victims get same benefits and honors as veterans

[XT]

@iiandyiiii

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.

[iiandyiiii]

@XT

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.

[Czarcasm]

@iiandyiiii

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?

[iiandyiiii]

@Czarcasm

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.

[XT]

@iiandyiiii

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.

[UCBearcats]

@XT

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.

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.

[CarnalK]

@UCBearcats

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.

[UCBearcats]

@CarnalK

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.

[UCBearcats]

@HurricaneDitka

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.

[HurricaneDitka]

@UCBearcats

Having armed teachers might reduce the body count…

That seems like a worthwhile goal to me.

[UCBearcats]

@HurricaneDitka

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.

[HurricaneDitka]

@UCBearcats

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.

[John_Mace]

@Bryan_Ekers

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:

@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.

[Ruken]

@iiandyiiii

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.)

[Bryan_Ekers]

@John_Mace

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.

[Dinsdale]

I’d gladly support the proposal, if it meant drastically reducing the benefits and honors afforded to vets!

[Jonathan_Chance]

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.

[Bone]

To be clear, this note is still in effect:

@Bone

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:

@UCBearcats

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]

[Bone]

To be clear, this note is still in effect:

@Bone

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:

@UCBearcats

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.

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

Please say on topic.

[/moderating]

[CarnalK]

@Ruken

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.