Your response weighs out pros and cons, and you are coming the the conclusion that the pro isnt worth the con in the school shooting scenario. You are entitled to that opinion, and while I dont agree, I wont argue with you on that either.

My takeaway from your article was not “should we weigh pros and cons” or is “the juice worth the squeeze”. Your article fairly clearly illustrates your belief that a)something of a small statistical probability should not dictate overall policy and b)people involved in those events should be precluded from developing that policy.

I return to my previous illustrations of statistical probabilities. Dont pretend to use the need for self defense in your analysis of gun policy then, because statistically it’s just not important. You can also eliminate any of the other arguments I cited statistics for in your debate, because again, they just arent statistically important.

While I agree that a victim of a crime (regardless of how rare or statistically probable it is) should not be the only voice in a discussion, your idea of precluding them is obscene. We don’t preclude lawmakers who have lost family members to DUI’s from developing policy on drinking and driving. In fact, we want their perspective because we recognize it benefits us as a society. We routinely vote combat war veterans into office, specifically for their experience. As a society, we specifically ask our politicians and leadership to bring their experience to the table, and saying that we shouldnt include anyone who even witnessed Parkland in a policy discussion is antithetical to our national history.

I’ll leave this one there.