Re: Gun control at IETF 114

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 12:24 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 6/7/22 12:45, Mary B wrote:



On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:30 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 7, 2022, at 11:47 AM, Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   If IETF is making decisions based on risk of death, then they should be changing the food offerings at breaks (i.e., get rid of the cookies and sodas with HFCS) (and there's already a document wtih some helpful guidelines for providing healthy food ;).

There are lots of things that will likely shorten your life if you make a habit of them, but which have a negligible effect on most people’s life expectancies if they only do them rarely.    That’s an entirely different kind of risk than getting shot. 
 
[MB] It is different in that you have a choice whether you want to die because you eat garbage versus being shot.

That choice is a very important difference.   An individual has a lot of control over how many cookies they eat and how many sodas they drink at IETF meetings.   But if they need to attend the IETF meeting (say for work) they have little effective control over their risk of getting shot.

And the fact that IETF serves cookies at its meetings should not be used as an excuse to dismiss the risk of violence to its attendees.

But, we were talking about risk of death and keeping people safe and healthy.  

No, *we* were talking about the risk of being shot, which is a very different kind of risk than, say, eventually succumbing to renal failure from type 2 diabetes from having eaten too many cookies at IETF meetings.

And, statistically, your risk of death from a gunshot from a mass shooting event (which is 1% of gun deaths in the US) is much lower than other causes

If you get shot, you probably don't care whether it's from a mass shooting event or from some other cause.  As you implicitly point out, there are many more deaths from firearms in the US than from mass shooting events.   So why would we only consider mass shooting events in this discussion?


[MB] Because that was how this thread started.  And, if you want to look at the other types of deaths from guns, the vast majority happen in the home with 3/4 of those involving domestic violence.  And, well over half are actually suicides.   And, if you look at the demographics for other gun deaths, that excludes the majority of IETFers - e.g., here's Philly stats: https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/mapping-gun-violence/#/?year=2022&map=11.00%2F39.98500%2F-75.15000.  [/MB]
  "If we overestimate our risk in one area, it can lead to anxiety and interfere with carrying out our normal daily routine. Ironically, it also leads us to underestimate real risks that can injure or kill us." 

I agree with that statement.   But that's not a justification for dismissing risks out-of-hand, or with handwaving arguments.  

[MB] I'm just trying to point out that this is very, very subjective.  If we were being objective, we would consider things like mold (mycotoxin) exposure that can also be deadly for some.    The basic stats are that the average IETFer is way more likely to be impacted by other external and environmental factors than guns (as much as we don't like the current situation).  [/MB] 


Keith



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux