Thing B ostensibly exists to mitigate thing A. It is attempting (/pretending) to mitigate thing A.
Thing B bears the burden of proof. It is not sensible to say “we’re doing thing B unless you solve A.” Thing B has to demonstrate itself to have any impact whatsoever upon A, before it becomes defensible by virtue of A remaining unsolved.
The harm in mind is all of the stuff listed in the essay and in the studies linked.
Of course one does not have to accept that thing B thing mitigates thing A just because it says so. But it seems like the sort of thing that could work, and there is nothing in the OP to suggest that it doesn’t—the OP only says that school shootings are “unlikely”, without quantifying that.
There’s a rationalist version of the OP waiting to happen.
The obvious (and rational!) response is that “it seems like the sort of thing that could work” is a grossly insufficient reason to do anything remotely resembling what’s described in the OP, especially given the massive harms of the intervention in question. It just doesn’t even approach being a sufficient reason. It’s not even in the same ballpark as a sufficient reason. The relative scales of harms to be mitigated, certainty of mitigation, and harms inflicted by the intervention, are orders of magnitude off from where they’d have to be for that to be a sufficient reason.
I suspect Zvi didn’t spell out “active shooter drills haven’t prevented school shootings because we’ve had active shooter drills for a decade now and school shootings haven’t stopped”
(and the corollary “active shooter drills haven’t improved outcomes in the shootings that still occur”)
because he figured his readers would be able and willing to make that particular inferential leap on their own.
“Stopping” is not what “mitigate” means. It means that consequences are not so bad. Bullet proof vests are mitigation, not prevention. Option C is what prevents shootings happening.
because he figured his readers would be able and willing to make that particular inferential leap on their own
In my culture, it’s an obvious fact that school shootings are a completely soluble problem … But I wouldn’t expect other cultures to have an implicit understanding of that .
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur, relative to my comment above.
You seem to be responding as if I had … made some sort of claim that school shootings cannot be solved or prevented? Or that Zvi had made such a claim?
Which leaves me confused. I do not think I said what it seems you think I said.
TAG, you are not communicating, here. Communication is not currently managing to happen, between us. (Edit to reduce blameyness/hostility.)
I don’t know what your quoting a comment several steps up the comment chain has to do with answering my confusion about your non-sequitur. Are you trying to say “it’s not a non-sequitur relative to your last comment, Duncan, because it ties in with something many steps previous in the conversation”?
Remember , there’s an option C that removes the need for drills and removes the harm of shootings. I’m not pro drill, I’m pro dealing with the real problem.
It is a separate and entirely different problem.
First, do no harm.
If thing B exists to mitigate thing A, they are not separate.
I don’t know what harm you had in mind.
Thing B ostensibly exists to mitigate thing A. It is attempting (/pretending) to mitigate thing A.
Thing B bears the burden of proof. It is not sensible to say “we’re doing thing B unless you solve A.” Thing B has to demonstrate itself to have any impact whatsoever upon A, before it becomes defensible by virtue of A remaining unsolved.
The harm in mind is all of the stuff listed in the essay and in the studies linked.
Of course one does not have to accept that thing B thing mitigates thing A just because it says so. But it seems like the sort of thing that could work, and there is nothing in the OP to suggest that it doesn’t—the OP only says that school shootings are “unlikely”, without quantifying that.
There’s a rationalist version of the OP waiting to happen.
The obvious (and rational!) response is that “it seems like the sort of thing that could work” is a grossly insufficient reason to do anything remotely resembling what’s described in the OP, especially given the massive harms of the intervention in question. It just doesn’t even approach being a sufficient reason. It’s not even in the same ballpark as a sufficient reason. The relative scales of harms to be mitigated, certainty of mitigation, and harms inflicted by the intervention, are orders of magnitude off from where they’d have to be for that to be a sufficient reason.
I suspect Zvi didn’t spell out “active shooter drills haven’t prevented school shootings because we’ve had active shooter drills for a decade now and school shootings haven’t stopped”
(and the corollary “active shooter drills haven’t improved outcomes in the shootings that still occur”)
because he figured his readers would be able and willing to make that particular inferential leap on their own.
“Stopping” is not what “mitigate” means. It means that consequences are not so bad. Bullet proof vests are mitigation, not prevention. Option C is what prevents shootings happening.
That’s fair, but the burden of proof is still on B. There is zero evidence that B mitigates school shootings in any fashion.
In my culture, it’s an obvious fact that school shootings are a completely soluble problem … But I wouldn’t expect other cultures to have an implicit understanding of that .
This seems to be a complete non-sequitur, relative to my comment above.
You seem to be responding as if I had … made some sort of claim that school shootings cannot be solved or prevented? Or that Zvi had made such a claim?
Which leaves me confused. I do not think I said what it seems you think I said.
TAG, you are not communicating, here.Communication is not currently managing to happen, between us. (Edit to reduce blameyness/hostility.)I don’t know what your quoting a comment several steps up the comment chain has to do with answering my confusion about your non-sequitur. Are you trying to say “it’s not a non-sequitur relative to your last comment, Duncan, because it ties in with something many steps previous in the conversation”?
Remember , there’s an option C that removes the need for drills and removes the harm of shootings. I’m not pro drill, I’m pro dealing with the real problem.