[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rhyme

Cowperson's point is a good one--don't over-estimate the risk involved or sensationalize the topic and perpetuate a culture of fear that chokes social trust.

For my part, I think that calculations of odds and death rates miss the point, however. It's really a conversation of competing principles, not a numbers game.

Accidental automotive deaths, though high, don't evoke the same outrage because people overall find those risks to be acceptable. Drivers for the most part feel they have control over their own decisions, and we're all taught the risks involved in driving as teenagers. There are idiots and drunks who increase the risks for others, so we attempt to restrict those persons. We take these risks as reasonable--you don't often hear the media report a random car accident.

But you do hear reports about random shootings because we generally feel that these ought not to happen. A reasonable person should expect to go to the mall, the theatre, a political rally, the office, or the class room without the expectation of any risk of being killed without provocation or recourse. Any risk of a random gun death is an unreasonable one; it's a violation to the social contract.

An aside: dying by lightning strike is also random, which is why we teach ourselves and our children tactics to mitigate that risk, but ultimately we're not subject to the will of another person like in a shooting death.

So it’s the principle of dying at random in a mass shooting, not the numbers that matter. In the States that principle competes with another principle--the liberty to carry weapons. For those who hold that principle, the risk of a random gun death is reasonable. Or, they want to treat gun ownership like driving--arm everyone to make the personally responsible for their protection and educate them about the risks. The social contract should be upheld by mutual firepower not mutual trust.

For many in Canada, the principle of liberal weapons ownership seems senseless (a risk of greater overall harm). One mass shooting death is enough to warrant a response, even if more lives could be saved by mitigating the risks of car accidents by 0.36%. The risk is never zero (Dawson College) but you try to get there on principle.

My two cents.

How do you not post more? Very good post.