So imagine you own a bunch of ponds and let groups of people use them. Some people use them for breeding goldfish. Some use them for canoe races. Some for swim meets.

But one of the biggest ponds you own lies still and stagnant. A perfect place for mosquitos to lay their eggs. In fact you’ve managed to make it especially hospitable to mosquitos that carry malaria. And all your other ponds are next to it, all your other ponds connect to it. Lots of people who come to your ponds for other things end up with malaria.

Should you be allowed to keep operating these ponds?

> Should you be allowed to keep operating these ponds?

Are your actions illegal? I don't want pond ownership determined by the moral outage of the day.

Mass murder as a tool of genocide is a bit more than 'the moral outrage of the day'.

Statistically, approximately nobody dies in mass shootings (per [0], 387 deaths in 2018). Getting up in arms about something so small is absolutely a moral panic.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

Statistically, approximately nobody is worse off for 8ch being inaccessible.

Presumably you have some threshold of statistical significance that would cause you to be worried about risk factors, but that threshold is itself subjective. Besides the questionable proposition that the number of deaths below that threshold don't matter, a lack of interest in the problem impairs the ability to make future predictions, since by the time you do take it seriously, you'll have to do a lot of catching up before you can assess the future course of events.

you might like to think about this in similar terms to epidemiology. while a small number of fatalities from a disease outbreak in a remote location isn't that troubling to most people, epidemiologists are in the business o assessing the potential scope, speed, and severity of communicable diseases and seem to prefer nipping things in the bud to waiting to see whether they develop into a pandemic if left alone.

It's human psychology.

Of course more people die of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, car accidents (and probably any number of other things) than in mass shootings every day.

But the seemingly random and violent nature of it is what's scary.

I can eat healthier, exercise, buy a safer car, drive more carefully, etc etc. But mass shooters aren't really avoidable while leading a normal life. That makes it scary and noteworth.

I don't think equating people to mosquitos is a good analogy, it seems dehumanizing the other to me.

But let's roll with it anyway. What we have here is actually a large-scale land owner who leases out the land to anyone without further conditions to the lessee. It would seem silly to blame the leaser and not the lessee for what happens on those lands. Of course the government can still come in and request that they do something about the mosquitoes, if laws and regulations require that, but until then they won't become active because it would mean going back on their lease agreements which grant the lessee free use.