What we should have learned from Sandy Hook

[Perd Hapley]

I bring this up because of a recent thread on the Sandy Hook killings, and because it seems overlooked.

Gun-deniers like to criticize us or mock us, by asking "Why are you so frightened to be in the produce section without a gun?" or "Like you're really going to be attacked by ninjas in the library." I would think the obvious comeback to this would be to point out that no one expected a man to bust into a nice little grade school in Connecticut, and start killing people with a scary black rifle. And no one expected four armed men to run up into a grocery store in Illinois, and rob the place. link To wit: crimes happen evurwhere. EVURWHERE.

Not that the diehard gun-nuts would really be convinced, but the onlookers might learn a thing or two.

[Boomhauer]

The average person is a sheep and will not be swayed, no matter how much you try to educate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Hell, look at how many CCW holders think they don't need to carry to a certain place because it's "a safe place" or "a good area"

Nobody wants to think about or acknowledge the depravity and evil out there.

Good luck changing that, because I've given up.

[Perd Hapley]

The average person is a sheep and will not be swayed, no matter how much you try to educate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

  You just said that people are sheep, and therefore can't be swayed. Not make sense.

As I said, this won't turn the real gun nuts. Plenty of folks are on the fence, though, and recent history shows that they can be persuaded.

[Boomhauer]

  You just said that people are sheep, and therefore can't be swayed. Not make sense.

As I said, this won't turn the real gun nuts. Plenty of folks are on the fence, though, and recent history shows that they can be persuaded.

What do you mean I'm not making sense?

I'm telling you that the average person is not willing to hear about the threats to their lives. They just want to believe that so long as they don't go into a "bad" area that they are safe. You can show them examples all you want to of bad things happening in so-called "good neighborhoods" but their attitude is going to be "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". So long as they don't hear about anything bad happening in their nice little subdivision world, all is right. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that.

Like I said, plenty of CCW holders will not carry if they feel they are going to be in a "safe" area. If you can't convince CCW holders...not much hope with Soccermom Sally...bad things happen to "other people"

[Perd Hapley]

Proverbially, the sheep is very easily led. Maybe you're thinking of goats or mules.

You seem to think I'm trying to tell people to carry guns everywhere they go. That's not what I'm driving at. I'm saying that we can use high-profile incidents like Sandyhook, when gun-deniers try to tell us that we're crazy for having a gun at whatever place where they think it would be silly to expect a shoot-out. And to finish my complete restatement of the OP, it will not convince the diehards, but at least it won't let them look like they've won.

[Boomhauer]

When I'm saying they are sheep, I'm talking in the sense of Lt. Col. Grossman and the whole sheep/wolves/sheepdog thing.

I'm saying that we can use high-profile incidents like Sandyhook, when gun-deniers try to tell us that we're crazy for having a gun at whatever place where they think it would be silly to expect a shoot-out

Good luck with that, because for the most part, your average person is not going to be convinced.

Me, I don't care, I'm not engaging in debates with the antigun idiots or the so-called "fence sitters". I have better things to do.

[grampster]

Funny this thread pops up today.  Swmbo and I were having lunch at a favorite spot today.  One of the bartenders had her arm in a sling and she was getting some good natured grief from regular patrons.  Then I heard a couple guys saying that wearing a sling would be a good place to conceal a handgun.  They were sitting next to us and I sort of chuckled to myself.  If they only knew the guy next to them had Ruger LCP in his pocket.

[Perd Hapley]

Funny this thread pops up today.  Swmbo and I were having lunch at a favorite spot today.  One of the bartenders had her arm in a sling and she was getting some good natured grief from regular patrons.  Then I heard a couple guys saying that wearing a sling would be a good place to conceal a handgun.  They were sitting next to us and I sort of chuckled to myself.  If they only knew the guy next to them had Ruger LCP in his pocket.

Maybe they had their own.

When I'm saying they are sheep, I'm talking in the sense of Lt. Col. Grossman and the whole sheep/wolves/sheepdog thing.

Good luck with that, because for the most part, your average person is not going to be convinced.

Me, I don't care, I'm not engaging in debates with the antigun idiots or the so-called "fence sitters". I have better things to do.

I don't know why you think I'm trying to tell you to argue with people. If this thread gives you that idea, then maybe don't read it. Or if you must, start reading for comprehension.

And not that it's really worth it, but again:

I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO ARGUE WITH ANYONE.

I'M ALSO NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE TO CARRY A GUN.


Oh. I sometimes forget that ALL CAPS means yelling. The convention has never made much sense to me. I was just hoping Boomy might read it, if I made it very large.

[Hawkmoon]

When I'm saying they are sheep, I'm talking in the sense of Lt. Col. Grossman and the whole sheep/wolves/sheepdog thing.

I think Fisty understood that. That''s why what you wrote is the opposite of what you meant.

The average person is a sheep and will not be swayed, no matter how much you try to educate.

Sheep are followers. That means they ARE easily swayed, by whatever political Pied Piper comes along and tells them what they want to hear. The second part of your statement, however, is correct. Once hypnotized by the dulcet sound of the nanny state saviors, the once-swayed sheep generally cannot be educated out of their delusions.

[MechAg94]

The "average" person is not quite as deliberately oblivious as the average lefty.  Polls have shown that the vast majority are not hostile to gun ownership.  They may be oblivious to the need for self protection most of the time, but in the right situations, it is on their mind. 

I think you can successfully bring up the subject with non-gun owners, but you have to get your timing right.  Don't do it in the crowded resturant in the middle of the day.  Do it at night in the dark parking lot or street.  Do it when you both just heard about a murder or robbery that hits a little close to home.  They might a bit more interested in listening. 

Also, don't try to argue open carry or full auto legality in those instances (I know those gun owners are out there), or otherwise be too pushy.  Just bring up thoughtful information/ideas, and let them think it over. 

[Perd Hapley]

Just to be clear, I didn't bring up Sandy Hook as a way to encourage people to think about their own safety, but in response to the anti-gun meme that gun-toters are paranoid, and that it's absurd to expect violence in various "safe" places.

IOW, you may not be concerned about violent crime in place X, but you can't tell me I'm crazy if I am. Sandy Hook, et al, are just examples that justify me in being prepared for unexpected crimes.

[lee n. field]

but you can't tell me I'm crazy if I am.

"Ferguson"

[Fitz]

Back to the OP, what should we have learned from Sandy hook?


Buy low, sell high, for starters.

[Balog]

Maybe the average person can just do risk assessment? "You might be the victim of a mass shooting" is significantly below the chances of "You might get struck by lightning." Which isn't an argument in favor of gun control or not carrying, but it does rather illustrate why your argument is not convincing.

[Fitz]

Maybe the average person can just do risk assessment? "You might be the victim of a mass shooting" is significantly below the chances of "You might get struck by lightning." Which isn't an argument in favor of gun control or not carrying, but it does rather illustrate why your argument is not convincing.

Then that person isn't doing a complete risk assessment.

One of the tenets of most good risk assessment systems is the idea that you attempt to mitigate for a hazard based on risk if :

- There is a mitigation available
- The risk level of the hazard is high enough
and
- The cost of mitigating the risk is favorable to the potential cost of the hazard occurring.



Risk is a function of likelihood vs. severity. A mass shooting is really really low on the likelihood scale, but enormously high on severity. The residual risk therefore would be "high", which warrants control

The cost of mitigating this hazard is a decent carry gun, some training, some ammo. Pretty low.

[Balog]

Then that person isn't doing a complete risk assessment.

One of the tenets of most good risk assessment systems is the idea that you attempt to mitigate for a hazard based on risk if :

- There is a mitigation available
- The risk level of the hazard is high enough
and
- The cost of mitigating the risk is favorable to the potential cost of the hazard occurring.



Risk is a function of likelihood vs. severity. A mass shooting is really really low on the likelihood scale, but enormously high on severity. The residual risk therefore would be "high", which warrants control

The cost of mitigating this hazard is a decent carry gun, some training, some ammo. Pretty low.

You're both overstating the likelihood and understating the cost of mitigation.

Do you have a five point harness in your car? Literally orders of magnitude more likely to cause you serious injury or death, and no downside other than some initial financial outlay. Carrying a gun can require a complete reordering of your life, depending on person and location. Entirely new wardrobe for a woman (severely limited by the constraints of carry), limitations on where you can go depending on local laws, ongoing training, cost of permits, cost of training, range fees, possibility of accident, associated liability in the event of a shooting, limitations on activities etc etc etc.

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe the average person can just do risk assessment? "You might be the victim of a mass shooting" is significantly below the chances of "You might get struck by lightning." Which isn't an argument in favor of gun control or not carrying, but it does rather illustrate why your argument is not convincing.

I thought I was saying that Sandy Hook demonstrates the fact that violent crime can, and sometimes does, happen anywhere, even in safe neighborhoods. It didn't occur to me that anyone would read that as, "we'll probably all be shot by a mass-murderer." Do you really think it comes across that way?

FWIW, I also mentioned a lesser-known example of a more prevalent type of crime (armed robbery).

[Perd Hapley]

You're both overstating the likelihood and understating the cost of mitigation.

When did I do either of those things? I said that crimes can occur in non-crimey places, and it's not crazy to be armed, just in case. I presume you agree with this, as I think you've copped to carrying a gun yourself.

[Balog]

I thought I was saying that Sandy Hook demonstrates the fact that violent crime can, and sometimes does, happen anywhere, even in safe neighborhoods. It didn't occur to me that anyone would read that as, "we'll probably all be shot by a mass-murderer." Do you really think it comes across that way?

FWIW, I also mentioned a lesser-known example of a more prevalent type of crime (armed robbery).

Saying "There is an infinitesimal chance of Bad Thing X happening, therefore you should adopt Political Stance Y!" is not a convincing argument.

When did I do either of those things? I said that crimes can occur in non-crimey places, and it's not crazy to be armed, just in case. I presume you agree with this, as I think you've copped to carrying a gun yourself.

I was quoting and replying to Fitz dude.

I'm a strong proponent of carrying. I just think that mass shootings (and you started this thread referring to what a mass shooting demonstrated) are a poor argument in favor of carrying.

[Perd Hapley]

I was quoting and replying to Fitz dude.

Oh. You said both, and I thought you were referring to both Fitz and I.

Saying "There is an infinitesimal chance of Bad Thing X happening, therefore you should adopt Political Stance Y!" is not a convincing argument. I'm a strong proponent of carrying. I just think that mass shootings (and you started this thread referring to what a mass shooting demonstrated) are a poor argument in favor of carrying.

Again, Sandy Hook only demonstrates that crimes (even very shocking crimes) happen in low-crime areas. It's obviously not that common, which is why they are low-crime areas. I didn't say Sandy Hook demonstrated any more than that.

[MechAg94]

I would just say that if you want to pull out a specific incident to argue for carrying, you can probably find a local news report for a much more common crime that happened close to home.  Mass shootings are severe, but very very rare. 

[Fitz]

You're both overstating the likelihood and understating the cost of mitigation.

Do you have a five point harness in your car? Literally orders of magnitude more likely to cause you serious injury or death, and no downside other than some initial financial outlay. Carrying a gun can require a complete reordering of your life, depending on person and location. Entirely new wardrobe for a woman (severely limited by the constraints of carry), limitations on where you can go depending on local laws, ongoing training, cost of permits, cost of training, range fees, possibility of accident, associated liability in the event of a shooting, limitations on activities etc etc etc.

It's not a single risk that is mitigated by carrying.

A mitigation that addresses multiple hazards is even easier to justify.

Again, someone who determines they don't need to carry because of "risk assessment" isn't doing a complete job of making a risk assessment.

Go take a look at any good CRM text (the army's manuals are quite good) and you'll see what I mean. risk management is a whole process, and discounting a mitigation on a single hazard's likelihood is a common mistake.

To continue the car analogy, it's a bit like saying "I won't wear a seatbelt because one of my hazards is 'losing traction due to a banana peel on a left turn at Isle of Man,' and that's just NOT gonna happen."

[Perd Hapley]

I would just say that if you want to pull out a specific incident to argue for carrying, you can probably find a local news report for a much more common crime that happened close to home.  Mass shootings are severe, but very very rare. 

I did point out a local crime (the Cahokia grocery store robbery, 4 gunmen, one of them having an SKS with thirty-caliber clip). I could have mentioned the guy who was gunned down outside the theatre in Creve Coeur.

But this is the internet, so I led with something we all know of. Mainly, though, I mentioned Sandy Hook because the other side tries to make it into some kind of case for gun control. And, hey, I can't resist a good script-flipping. 

[Fitz]

one of them having an SKS with thirty-caliber clip).

SKS with thirty-caliber clip).

thirty-caliber clip

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

[Perd Hapley]

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

   I'm not sure what that meme is, but