Originally Posted by Kepi

Historically, banning has been the favored tactic of females. It's why they got the right to vote... Because the prohibition supporting protestants, Klan and the religiously affiliated or communist labor unions could count on them to back prohibition and without them it would never pass. It's also probably why bans don't usually make it out of the 4T, because it's generally when men see a rise in proportional power.

As I have indicated before, I'm not an advocate of banning guns. I'm an advocate for some common sense reforms. There are other ways to reign in the violence, like dealing with what crap we surround ourselves with. In other words, treat our minds as we would our bodies for ultimate health. While we can't prevent all maladies, we can make a difference.

This country was founded on aggression, the conquest and subjugation of the Native population, and that set the course from the outset. There has developed a strong propensity to address and solve differences, not through diplomacy and compromise, but rather through aggression and force. This has become our national model and we saw it manifested in Newtown. In the words of David Gregory, host of Meet the Press, this is a "culture in which violence is routine and is considered routine."


The best selling video games are the most violent ones. Spectators go to hockey games in the anticipation that they will see fights and brawls. Even in the violent sport of professional football, there was an escalation when one team paid a bounty for injuring an opposing player. And let us not forget that the War and Aggression [Defense] budget is sacrosanct. These are not singular, unrelated events -- they are an imbedded part of our culture.

Let's look at a culture that's drenched in violence to find keys to less violent attacks on one another. We need to evolve out of the Gladiator pits into a more sane form of being in this world.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you can't get it up any other way, it will have to do.

Men, and some women, would add much more to our society if they viewed life as precious, rather than over compensating for a sense of powerlessness. Our culture has put a false degree of meaning to what it is to be a man. I'll take a peace loving male any day compared to the macho type.

We are a fear based society drowning in weapons and violence. It's time for another way of being in this world.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Men, and some women, would add much more to our society if they viewed life as precious, rather than over compensating for a sense of powerlessness. Our culture has put a false degree of meaning to what it is to be a man. I'll take a peace loving male any day compared to the macho type.

We are a fear based society drowning in weapons and violence. It's time for another way of being in this world.

Indeed; long past time. Yesterday was a good marking point in time for moving to this other way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Cato Institute is a biased, libertarian organization. Don't bother with them, or with "Reason" either.

You asked, I delivered. As usual, when you materialists and reactionaries ask me for evidence, and I present it, you dismiss it. Nothing new there.

And the sources you posted were not biased?

Actually that was exactly the answer I expected from you. Granted only one of us is an actual analyst of things so I guess I can find your response forgivable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Gun control and a ban on military assault and semi-auto weapons is not prohibition.

Actually it is, since that is exactly what the word prohibition means.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And the sources you posted were not biased?

Not to my knowledge; they were neutral journalistic sources, not a think tank specifically dedicated to promoting right-wing libertarian views.

Actually that was exactly the answer I expected from you. Granted only one of us is an actual analyst of things so I guess I can find your response forgivable.

Yes, granted that only one of us is

I mean, do you ever respect the evidence that someone else researches and posts? I guess not, if it conflicts with your "values lock" (government is bad, government uses force, etc.)

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually it is, since that is exactly what the word prohibition means.

Yeah, I thought you might jump at that. But it's quite obvious. Free speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, just as "the right to bear arms" is guaranteed in some manner or another by the 2nd. So I guess you think inciting to riot and libel are guaranteed by the constitution, and that laws against them are "prohibition." But all the courts disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not to my knowledge; they were neutral journalistic sources, not a think tank specifically dedicated to promoting right-wing libertarian views.

Ah yes, because journalists have no bias.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, granted that only one of us is

I mean, do you ever respect the evidence that someone else researches and posts? I guess not, if it conflicts with your "values lock" (government is bad, government uses force, etc.)

I did in fact (I read all three). As I said the only one that even remotely presented "evidence" was the Huffington Post article and I recall giving my critique of the very limited data it cited. We can contrast this with the source I made available which had quite a bit of data in it along with actual analysis (which you did not refute). In fact I have posted a number of studies and statistics on firearms and crime to refute a great many claims and correct all sorts of inaccuracies. You may feel free to go back and read them and refute them with your own data.

Or not.

Journalist written op-eds are not analysis Eric, they are opinions and often hinge on wrong or even fabricated, second-hand information. In other words, not much different than the written opinions we find here on this forum. I mean, just look how many people still believe the Connecticut shooting was done with an automatic weapon (it wasn't).

I study data and systems. You just believe things because you want to.

I know you like to roll in your own ignorance like a dog rolls in shit Eric, but all that really means at the end of the day is that you get the hose before you come in the house.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ah yes, because journalists have no bias.

And you have a bias against journalists. And your particular worldviews are the bane of the Earth.

I did in fact (I read all three). As I said the only one that even remotely presented "evidence" was the Huffington Post article and I recall giving my critique of the very limited data it cited. We can contrast this with the source I made available which had quite a bit of data in it along with actual analysis (which you did not refute). In fact I have posted a number of studies and statistics on firearms and crime to refute a great many claims and correct all sorts of inaccuracies. You may feel free to go back and read them and refute them with your own data.

Or not.

iirc they were all provided by other biased sources, and they were refuted by other studies. We have posted the relevant stats here on this thread. You ignore them, as you ignore the valid stats that I posted above.

Journalist written op-eds are not analysis Eric, they are opinions and often hinge on wrong or even fabricated, second-hand information. In other words, not much different than the written opinions we find here on this forum. I mean, just look how many people still believe the Connecticut shooting was done with an automatic weapon (it wasn't).

It was done with a semi-automatic; everyone knows that. Anyone with any sense or concern knows that such weapons don't belong in civilian hands too. No-one said anything about an op ed.

I study data and systems. You just believe things because you want to.

Nothing the Cato Institute does is worth a pile of beans. They are worse than creeps. Present something by a journalist or a scientist, not filtered through a propaganda organization. I didn't present my evidence above from the Brady Campaign.

Drunk driving laws were passed in the 80s, and both drunk driving and deaths from drunk driving went down substantially thereafter, and name calling on your part does not change those evident facts.

I know you like to roll in your own ignorance like a dog rolls in shit Eric, but all that really means at the end of the day is that you get the hose before you come in the house.

It's your house you are talking about.

The fact is that regulations work. Examples are so legion that I would be here for another year and a day giving you examples with stats, even though I only have what's online. Consider how the ozone layer was restored after regulations outlawed freon. Consider that we can breathe the air now because pollution has gone down, thanks to laws. We have national parks, thanks to laws. Lake Erie was dead before regulations cleaned it up; toxic waste sites were everywhere, but we cleaned them up by law. There are laws requiring seat belts and child safety seats. They work. Cigarette deaths have declined because of warning labels, among other things. Handicapped people have greater access because of regulations. Children don't work in factories, and people only work 8 hours a day, and for decent wages, only because of regulations. After a disastrous fire in NYC in 1911, regulations required factory owners not to lock the workers into their plants.

Regulations work. All anarchists and libertarians should write that on their wall 100 times. And your anarchist utopia doesn't have a chance anyway, in your worldview, because in it people are just machines and numbers. And you have expressed your disdain for humans anyway. I won't go further..........

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And you have a bias against journalists. And your particular worldviews are the bane of the Earth.


iirc they were all provided by other biased sources, and they were refuted by other studies. We have posted the relevant stats here on this thread. You ignore them, as you ignore the valid stats that I posted above.

It was done with a semi-automatic; everyone knows that. Anyone with any sense or concern knows that such weapons don't belong in civilian hands too. No-one said anything about an op ed.

Nothing the Cato Institute does is worth a pile of beans. They are worse than creeps. Present something by a journalist or a scientist, not filtered through a propaganda organization. I didn't present my evidence above from the Brady Campaign.

Drunk driving laws were passed in the 80s, and both drunk driving and deaths from drunk driving went down substantially thereafter, and name calling on your part does not change those evident facts.

It's your house you are talking about.

The fact is that regulations work. Examples are so legion that I would be here for another year and a day giving you examples with stats, even though I only have what's online. Consider how the ozone layer was restored after regulations outlawed freon.

Restored?

Why do you pretend to have scientific knowledge when you know others will expose your ignorance?

Ozone levels will take decades to recover.

Consider that we can breathe the air now because pollution has gone down, thanks to laws. We have national parks, thanks to laws. Lake Erie was dead before regulations cleaned it up; toxic waste sites were everywhere, but we cleaned them up by law.

Past tense?

Pure magic pony land!

In 2011, 25 new sites were added to the 1,652 NPL total awaiting cleanup through Superfund.

FY 2011 Summary

There are laws requiring seat belts and child safety seats. They work. Cigarette deaths have declined because of warning labels, among other things. Handicapped people have greater access because of regulations. Children don't work in factories, and people only work 8 hours a day, and for decent wages, only because of regulations.

Clearly you don't know anything about daily work. Many, many people work more than eight-hour days!

After a disastrous fire in NYC in 1911, regulations required factory owners not to lock the workers into their plants.

Regulations work. All anarchists and libertarians should write that on their wall 100 times. And your anarchist utopia doesn't have a chance anyway, in your worldview, because in it people are just machines and numbers. And you have expressed your disdain for humans anyway. I won't go further..........

I wish you wouldn't go at all. While I often agree with your political sentiment, the fact that you can't discern the difference between facts and wishful thinking makes you "our own worst enemy" from the point of view of fellow progressives.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Regulations work. All anarchists and libertarians should write that on their wall 100 times. And your anarchist utopia doesn't have a chance anyway, in your worldview, because in it people are just machines and numbers. And you have expressed your disdain for humans anyway. I won't go further..........

Ah yes, here we have Eric the Obtuse demonstrating his unwavering belief in his God, which is the state. Despite his opinion of Reason they wrote a rather good on how populations have responded to banning firearms, including the so-called enlightened populations in Europe. The Reason article notes that the same people that have been supplying certain forbidden recreational pharmaceuticals, with considerable success the objective observer will note, will move into supplying other forbidden items such as firearms and munitions with the same success.

There is one other factor that people like Eric the Obtuse is overlooking is that as 3D printing and CNC machine tools get cheaper the barriers to manufacturing firearms by individuals will be eliminated. While the folks at Reason may be libertarian, this same problem has been noticed other publications who are not libertarian by any means. These first efforts are crude but will they will improve in time as technology tends to. Naturally the same people that can make recreational pharmaceuticals will have no problem with smokeless gun powder. The profits to be made from the large number of people who don't care what the government wants will provide the motivation to supply them. Once again, the market provides even in the face of government prohibitions.

If you want kids to be responsible, you buy them a pet, not teach a child with an obvious anti-social mental disorder to shoot a friggin weapon. She had obviously seen a deterioration in her son and was preparing to move to an area that had a school that was a better match for him.

This poor mom must have been at her wits end. I just find the following extremely sad.


Nancy Lanza let Adam use guns to “teach him responsibility”

Newtown gunman reportedly hadn't talked to brother or father in two years, relationship with mom was deteriorating


The Journal, in what may be the deepest account yet of the inner workings of the Lanza family reports that:

* Adam Lanza stopped talking with his father, Peter, during summer 2010, which coincided with the time a relationship with Peter Lanza’s now-wife turned serious.

* That Christmas, Lanza stopped communicating with his older brother Ryan.

* Nancy Lanza let Adam use her guns at a local shooting range in order to bond with him and “teach him responsibility.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/23/nanc...esponsibility/

As usual, Galen is to be ignored, and Deb to be congratulated. The facts about Columbine, Ft. Hood and Virginia Tech are duly noted.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If you want kids to be responsible, you buy them a pet, not teach a child with an obvious anti-social mental disorder to shoot a friggin weapon. She had obviously seen a deterioration in her son and was preparing to move to an area that had a school that was a better match for him.

This poor mom must have been at her wits end. I just find the following extremely sad.


Nancy Lanza let Adam use guns to “teach him responsibility”

Newtown gunman reportedly hadn't talked to brother or father in two years, relationship with mom was deteriorating


The Journal, in what may be the deepest account yet of the inner workings of the Lanza family reports that:

* Adam Lanza stopped talking with his father, Peter, during summer 2010, which coincided with the time a relationship with Peter Lanza’s now-wife turned serious.

* That Christmas, Lanza stopped communicating with his older brother Ryan.

* Nancy Lanza let Adam use her guns at a local shooting range in order to bond with him and “teach him responsibility.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/23/nanc...esponsibility/

My take on reading yesterday's news story is that it was plain he had been seriously mentally or emotionally dysfunctional all his life. Nothing was said about whether anyone had ever sought treatment for his problems, let alone whether or not they had ever found any help.

THe story said that for the past year and a half, his mother had been talking about taking her son out West and finding a facility or a school for him. For someone who, the story made plain, was barely coping with a thoroughly familiar environment, the prospect of change could have been very frightening.

Then he found a video game showing a mass shooting. Perhaps he found in that an answer to what had seemed like an insoluble problem - shoot everyone and it will end all his troubles.

As to why he chose a grade school, it might be worthwhile to ask if he had ever attended that school and how he, with his obvious behavioral differences, had been treated by the children and the teachers.

But the real root of his crime, I've come to think, is that he received little to no help for his condition, and he might have been frightened of a future he felt he could not cope with.

Just my guess,

Pat

I've read that Nancy Lanza was a prepper. If that is true, she would have had an arsenal of weapons to defend her stash against the starving masses after civilization collapsed, and she would have trained Adam to do the same. And of course, the result of all that "preparation" was the deaths of her son, herself, and 26 staff and children at Sandy Hook.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I've read that Nancy Lanza was a prepper. If that is true, she would have had an arsenal of weapons to defend her stash against the starving masses after civilization collapsed, and she would have trained Adam to do the same. And of course, the result of all that "preparation" was the deaths of her son, herself, and 26 staff and children at Sandy Hook.

I hadn't read this. It's getting more bizzare by the day. Just boggles my mind.

Personal liability insurance for guns, like cars? Mandatory? Imagine Dick Cheney's premiums...

The first step in the gun therapy program is to be shot by your own weapons. If Nancy Lanza were alive, she would be facing law enforcement/lawsuits, the media, the community, and her own conscience. Weapons enthusiasts generally speak well of personal responsibility; let them speak to this.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Personal liability insurance for guns, like cars? Mandatory? Imagine Dick Cheney's premiums...

Yeah, aside from the old age thing, having shot a guy in the face once would probably put him pretty high up there in the risk pool.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I've read that Nancy Lanza was a prepper. If that is true, she would have had an arsenal of weapons to defend her stash against the starving masses after civilization collapsed, and she would have trained Adam to do the same. And of course, the result of all that "preparation" was the deaths of her son, herself, and 26 staff and children at Sandy Hook.

I'm not entirely sure all preppers are survivalists. After all, the American Red Cross offers much of the same advice the preppers do, and so does the LDS Church. Nor an I sure all survivalists are expecting to stand off starving hordes of 'zombies' (since I think that's where our current preoccupation with zombies originates) by blasting anything that moves. And I don't really want to sit here and try to watch or listen to a video rather than read plain old text*, so I'm not sure what Salon has to say or how reliable their information is. But the point is worth making, if true.

*Why, in a literate culture, does so much information have to be broadcast as videos or podcasts? It's a lot easier to read these things than to try to hear them through aging ears and tinny speakers!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

*Why, in a literate culture, does so much information have to be broadcast as videos or podcasts? It's a lot easier to read these things than to try to hear them through aging ears and tinny speakers!

I've found that when I'm reading something, it's more of an active process, so I'm thinking about what I read, how well does it match what I have read previously, etc. When watching and listening however, I tend to be a little more passive in consumption. For me, this translates into I prefer listening to or watching fiction, but reading nonfiction. On the other side, think about how much easier it is in audio visual media to emphasize or deemphasize certain parts through body language, tone of voice, etc, and how much more difficult when you only have words on a page.

Originally Posted by Joral

I've found that when I'm reading something, it's more of an active process, so I'm thinking about what I read, how well does it match what I have read previously, etc. When watching and listening however, I tend to be a little more passive in consumption. For me, this translates into I prefer listening to or watching fiction, but reading nonfiction. On the other side, think about how much easier it is in audio visual media to emphasize or deemphasize certain parts through body language, tone of voice, etc, and how much more difficult when you only have words on a page.

I know a lot of people like to listen to things when they drive. It's how a lot of Millies who commute get English books they're supposed to read, read. Because they just don't have time otherwise to do everything and sleep.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Deb C

As I have indicated before, I'm not an advocate of banning guns. I'm an advocate for some common sense reforms. There are other ways to reign in the violence, like dealing with what crap we surround ourselves with. In other words, treat our minds as we would our bodies for ultimate health. While we can't prevent all maladies, we can make a difference.

This country was founded on aggression, the conquest and subjugation of the Native population, and that set the course from the outset. There has developed a strong propensity to address and solve differences, not through diplomacy and compromise, but rather through aggression and force. This has become our national model and we saw it manifested in Newtown. In the words of David Gregory, host of Meet the Press, this is a "culture in which violence is routine and is considered routine."


The best selling video games are the most violent ones. Spectators go to hockey games in the anticipation that they will see fights and brawls. Even in the violent sport of professional football, there was an escalation when one team paid a bounty for injuring an opposing player. And let us not forget that the War and Aggression [Defense] budget is sacrosanct. These are not singular, unrelated events -- they are an imbedded part of our culture.

Let's look at a culture that's drenched in violence to find keys to less violent attacks on one another. We need to evolve out of the Gladiator pits into a more sane form of being in this world.

You're arguing based on the words of others not the relevant statistical data that really goes to show that the countries that are most like us culturally but have greater regulations have a much larger crime problem in all indexes but gun crime (which includes issues of possession and use even in contexts of nonviolent offenses) and homocide (which is only true experientially for people living in very particular inner city neighborhoods). Now, for whatever reason, the US has bucked this trend of increased criminal activity throughout the Western Industrialized World. Is that really worth messing with over an attempt to prevent an exceptionally tragic occurance, especially in the context of a premeditated series of actions which show that such people aren't snapcases and are not acting out of a fit of emotion?

What happened at Sandy Hook was a tragedy, but let's be very clear, it was also a statistical anomoly. These are not the "norm", and are infact so outside of the realm of normal, that they manage to get weeks of airtime every time one happens. News is only news when it's rare.

Much like 9/11 attempts to prevent these behaviors by regulation as opposed to engagement will lead to unaffordably expensive programs and proceedures that exponentially exceed the value of the event they're meant to prevent, whose possibilities of occurance are so minimal there's no reasonable way to verify the program's effectiveness.

I'm getting that from statistics. I'm sure Rick Steves does a lot of things, but statistically he's wrong. US crimerates are low. Even in our economic environment, crime rates are low.

We always need to worry about nonviolent crimes. You yourself care about DUI. Burglaries, thefts, etc. are much more commonplace than any violent offenses. While of course they shouldn't be valued as high as high injury occurrances, sex crimes or murder, but I'd much rather be punched in the face than have my car stolen so there's a relative value in there.

They aren't happening "much more frequently" in terms of likelyhood of occurrance to happen to you. Most crimes are measured in occurrances per 100,000's, these would have to be measured in terms of ten millions to come up with a whole number, if you can even get that. These guys are as rare as Serial Killers.

By engagement, I mean social dialog. I know many people who've said in response to Sandy Hook "I understand shooting up your work, or shooting up a school you're attending, but I don't get shooting an elementary school..." And I totally agree! But if we understand shooting up our works or schools, and just aren't in the situation where we would, we need to figure out what sucks in our society and fix that. That's what the dialog should be having, and hopefully one that doesn't refer to any of it's participants as "young people" because that's utterly condescending.

The downside to banning anything in the interm is the cost. It will cost a lot of money to enforce a ban. When you're talking about the proportions of people who own weapons in the US, it'd need to be enforced. Because your definition of "military weapons" is so broad, you're talking pretty much close to all people who own firearms. The scope of that is going to be at a much higher cost than the War on Drugs and the War on Terror combined.

Originally Posted by Kepi

You're arguing based on the words of others not the relevant statistical data that really goes to show that the countries that are most like us culturally but have greater regulations have a much larger crime problem in all indexes but gun crime (which includes issues of possession and use even in contexts of nonviolent offenses) and homocide (which is only true experientially for people living in very particular inner city neighborhoods). Now, for whatever reason, the US has bucked this trend of increased criminal activity throughout the Western Industrialized World. Is that really worth messing with over an attempt to prevent an exceptionally tragic occurance, especially in the context of a premeditated series of actions which show that such people aren't snapcases and are not acting out of a fit of emotion?

The political system can over-react in a 4T. Question: is the freedom to keep arms worth an occasional senseless massacre? Surely the National Rifle Association would never be so crass as to say that a senseless killing or two dozen or so is a necessary consequence of the freedom of any American to amass arms as he sees fit. After all the right to bear arms is more important than... freedom of the press, the right to not incriminate oneself, the right to an open trial, or the right to vote? (Irony intended).

During the late 3T middle-class America could easily overlook brown and black kids being murdered in gun violence. If one was prosperous enough one could simply tell one's kids to avoid the 'rough parts of town'. But what could one say to kids stranded in the 'rough parts of town'? 'Suck it up and live with it'?

Firearms do not kill people, but they certainly make killing people far easier. A serial killer might never have a firearm in his possession (Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer)... but the mass-killer usually does. Face it: Jared Laughner may have changed the course of American history by putting a hiatus in the political career of one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party.

Whether the mass killing in Sandy Hook Elementary School or the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is the consequence of high-power firearms of mental illness is itself controversial. That said, people mentally unstable in possession of firearms implies a dangerous conjunction of hazards.

In a 4T Americans have a habit of addressing decisively what they neglected badly in the laissez-faire, Devil-take-the-hindmost, I've got mine-$crew you 3T. Absurd policies politically acceptable because they enrich the 'right people' at the expense of everyone else or ignore the human costs of gross neglect of a 3T often reverse sharply in a 4T. Maybe that differs to some extent from other countries. Maybe the difference in crime stats in the US and European countries is the sort of immigration that the US and European countries get. Could it be that immigrants to America, heavily from Latin America, assimilate more easily into America (they would do so in Europe, too) because the culture that they come from is closer to ours? Contrast what most Europeans are getting, which isn;t so much from Latin America.

We need to recognize that a cute first grade student in a prosperous Connecticut town is no less precious than one in South Central LA. Whether the killer is a stark raving lunatic or a member of a street gang, the victim is just as dead. I'm not accusing anyone of racism here, by the way. The means of addressing gun violence that kills children will have to be even-handed. (Expletive deleted) the Blood and Crips, too. When serial killers seemed an infamous menace, the FBI set up studies of serial killers so that people like Bundy, Gacy, and Dahmer couldn't get away with so many murders before getting caught. The phenomenon of the serial killer is far rarer because murderer-rapists who used to exploit the weaknesses of law enforcement such as jurisdictional disputes and inattention to missing-person reports don;t get away with such anymore.

While we are at it we need also address mental illness before it ends up putting the mentally-ill person in the morgue or a prison. I can't imagine anyone regaining sanity in prison. Yes, we have basically turned mental illness from a public concern to a family concern, and few families have the means or competence to deal with a mental illness of any kind.

What happened at Sandy Hook was a tragedy, but let's be very clear, it was also a statistical anomoly. These are not the "norm", and are in fact so outside of the realm of normal, that they manage to get weeks of airtime every time one happens. News is only news when it's rare.

True. When I lived in the Dallas area about a quarter-century ago, armed robberies were so common that they were not news. One thing was certain: one didn't spend any more time at a convenience store or fast-food place than one absolutely had to spend there. Businesses adjusted by using drops of surplus cash into a safe, putting clerks in bullet-proof cages, and installing video cameras. When junkies found that they couldn't get enough money to get a fix from a business robbery they changed their ways.

Children as 'collateral damage' of turf wars between rival drug gangs are much more frequent victims than are middle class kids like those in Newtown, Connecticut. That said, the political system might just respond. Guns, mental illness, and street drugs are part of the problem of children getting shot to death. We Americans may address the causes when the pathology is already abating, but even that can still do some good.

Much like 9/11 attempts to prevent these behaviors by regulation as opposed to engagement will lead to unaffordably expensive programs and procedures that exponentially exceed the value of the event they're meant to prevent, whose possibilities of occurance are so minimal there's no reasonable way to verify the program's effectiveness.

Perception of fear and real dangers are usually quite different. 3000 people died of terrorism on 9/11, yet preventable causes of death (smoking, obesity, DUI, street crime, family violence, and bar-room brawls) still killed more people. Go figure.