Moriah Wilson murder: Colin Strickland ‘in hiding’ until suspect Kaitlin Armstrong found

chrisonatrike wrote:

Thing about guns is... if "more guns, less regulation" were the solution surely the US would be doing really well on the homicide metric (from here):

Second response to this post, because it annoys me when people create and/or share bad data.  Both axes of this chart are nonsense. 

"Guns owned per 100 people" is a meaningless number.  Once you get beyond 2 guns per person, you cannot fire them all simultaneously, so there's no difference between owning 2 ( and for most people, 1 ) and owning a thousand.  This is relevant in particular because a small percentage of Americans own an enormous percentage of the private firearms.  Contrary to this misleading, junk chart, about 1 in 4 Americans own private firearms.  Not that different from, say, Switzerland's rate.

"Gun homicides per 100k people" is equally meaningless, since as repeatedly pointed out, the weapon used in a homicide is irrelevant -- the victim is dead either way.  Total homicide rate would be the appropriate number to use, if one is trying to be honest.  When using the appropriate statistic, one finds that the US' homicide rate is the 3rd-lowest in the Western Hemisphere, behind only Canada and Chile (slightly).  Yes, even Greenland's murder rate is higher than the US.

That awful Australia has a fifth of the murder rate of the US.

Your apparent freedom is measured in the number of gravestones of your murdered schoolchildren.

ktache wrote:

That awful Australia has a fifth of the murder rate of the US.

And one-twelfth the population density and one-fiftieth of the drug trade -- both of which are reliable predictors of violence.

You mentioned Greenland...

ktache wrote:

You mentioned Greenland...

I suggest making a point, or at least an attempt -- or discontinuing to waste our time here.  Yes, I mentioned that Greenland's murder rate is higher than that of the US.  What of it?

Please try and keep up.

How does Greenland's population density and drug trade relate to the US, if Australia cannot in anyway be compared to the land of the free. Seeing that I had already brought up Australia and it's tightening of gun laws after one mass shooting too many.

ktache wrote:

Please try and keep up.

You've got enough problems making a cogent argument, don't waste your time trying to get snippy.

ktache wrote:

How does Greenland's population density and drug trade relate to the US

Both are vastly smaller -- so the US' murder rate is far lower than would be expected based on the comparison to Greenland and considering those predictive factors.  Apparently the US gun legislation is not so dangerous after all.

If you were trying to make a point, you really do not want to touch Greenland as an example.  In point of fact, per some sources, Greenland's murder rate is 5 times that of the US.

ktache wrote:

if Australia cannot in anyway be compared to the land of the free. Seeing that I had already brought up Australia and it's tightening of gun laws after one mass shooting too many.

Since that tightening, Australia's murder rate is climbing.  And, for the record, Australia's rape rate is about triple the US' rate -- and second-highest in the OECD.  Their violent crime rate is higher as well.

Both, again, despite vastly lower population density and drug trade.  So in context, the relevant statistics are not what you attempted to make them out to be.

dh700 wrote:

You've got enough problems making a cogent argument, don't waste your time trying to get snippy.

A bit rich, given that 'snippy' would be a generous description of most of what you've posted here.

mdavidford wrote:

A bit rich, given that 'snippy' would be a generous description of most of what you've posted here.

Well I've made solid arguments, so I've earned that privilege -- unlike the commenter whose defense you've run to, who is blathering nonsense.

Why don't you make an attempt to illustrate how anything I've said is wrong, then?  Several other individuals have tried, with no success to date, so perhaps it is your turn.

My points have been, in no particular order:

* Firearm control is far more complex than the commenters here are willing to admit.

* Many people are quoting irrelevant and inaccurate statistics, here and in many other publications.

* The NRA is nothing close to the all-powerful organization that anti-gun folks frequently claim.  In fact, its budget is quite small and its election record is mediocre, at best.

* Gun laws do not work.  In fact, I'll go further, and point out that there are almost no examples of free societies successfully banning *anything* that people want.

I've made a few others, but those should keep you busy for a while -- unless you want to stay on the sidelines taking potshots.  Good luck.

dh700 wrote:

* Gun laws do not work.  In fact, I'll go further, and point out that there are almost no examples of free societies successfully banning *anything* that people want.

The UK effectively banned handguns after Dunblane in 1996 and haven't had a school shooting in the 26 years since, the US has had 27 so far this year alone. We have 0.2 gun murders per 100,000 population, the US has sixty times that. That's successful.

Rendel Harris wrote:

The UK effectively banned handguns after Dunblane in 1996 and haven't had a school shooting in the 26 years since, the US has had 27 so far this year alone. We have 0.2 gun murders per 100,000 population, the US has sixty times that. That's successful.

No, it's not successful, because before Dunblane, the UK had no mass school gun murders in its history, as far as I can tell.  They have some number of stabbings, though, plus one attack with a flame-thrower since Dunblane.

Furthermore, limiting the question to schools is meaningless, and you are conveniently forgetting about the Cumbria, Moss Side, and Plymouth shootings -- probably among others.

You're quite right.  Two in a couple of decades which Rendel totally failed to mention:

Quote:

There have been two mass shootings since the laws were restricted: the Cumbria shootings in 2010, which killed 13 people, including the perpetrator; and the Plymouth shooting in 2021, which killed six people, including the perpetrator.

That's your Wikipedia junk of course.  I don't recall any others but then they barely rate a mention in our news, so inured have we become to this.  That's on the "four, not including the perpetrator" definition - so Moss Side doesn't make the cut (2) but that is indeed 2 people who - as you put it - could have been stabbed instead.  (Maybe we should expand the definition as the UK is a smaller place than the US?)

You have a point in that it's easier to look good if you start from a good place.  If you ignore the effects of the situation in Northern Ireland the rate "before" was not huge.  If you don't then indeed the rate looks like around 1 per year.  Going back further this is not unknown here however - and you can keep extending that back a ways.

But we still have people dying by gunshot.  So our gun laws are clearly a failure.  We should look to the US, where by that definition there is slightly more than one "mass shooting" (per above definition) every two days.  There are more people in the US though and you have crime there though so that probably explains the difference.

Maybe there are other reasons for having easy access to guns though which make the whole package more acceptable?  Freedom, or defence of your country?

chrisonatrike wrote:

 If you ignore the effects of the situation in Northern Ireland the rate "before" was not huge. 

<snip>

Maybe there are other reasons for having easy access to guns though which make the whole package more acceptable?  Freedom, or defence of your country?

Since you brought it up, why didn't your country simply ban all of the weapons used in the Troubles?  Why did they allow 50k casualties when such a simple solution was easily available?  Did it have something to do with "Freedom, or defence of country"?

I don't believe that Semtex is even legal in the land of the free.

I hope you've researched that - you might be surprised with what you can get away with:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/106mm-m40-recoilless-rifle-history-and-firing/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuw7-3nDslE

My favourite - the following is essentially "not a weapon" for (federal) legal purposes as long as you don't want to run explosive shells.   Good example of "bullet control" though - you'd have to be a Bond villain to afford the reloads or get much nefarious use from it.  Interesting technology:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/shooting-an-original-hotchkiss-revolving-cannon/

But wait until BosnianBill gets out that lock pick he made...

I can't remember if the Hotchiss revolving cannon needs to be "rotated counter-clockwise" but I bet the LockPickingLawyer would be up for trying it!

Well ... as you're a stickler for accuracy they weren't all dying from firearms - they did like an explosion or two.  And as I'm sure you're aware many of those weapons - and certainly ammunition and explosives - "leaked" in from another country where they were much more readily available!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation

In a more sorry chapter a common source for the Loyalist side was "accidental loss" by the police and paramilitary.  Sadly our politicians weren't so motivated to stop "inter-ethnic" violence as they were when it came across to England.

You're right about one thing though - rules were relaxed in what was seen as a "insurrection" situation.  "Personal protection weapons" to have during travel / at home were permitted to an army paramilitary group and also the police.  Surprising to me apparently this was allowed until recently.

But not the general population, because that might have made things worse, no?

Showing that things were at least made pretty difficult people got into DIY.  Very common in terrorist / insurrection / insurgency situations.  And indeed in organised crime.  Doesn't suggest to me that trying to restrict these things is a fool's errand though, rather the reverse.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well ... as you're a stickler for accuracy they weren't all dying from firearms - they did like an explosion or two. 

As repeatedly mentioned, this does not matter.  The weapon used in a murder is irrelevant to the deceased -- they are very much in the same final state regardless.

Why didn't you all just ban those explosives, too?

chrisonatrike wrote:

And as I'm sure you're aware many of those weapons - and certainly ammunition and explosives - "leaked" in from another country where they were much more readily available!

So it's almost like it's difficult, well-nigh impossible in fact, to ban weapons, and the use thereof.  Especially when the users are already prepared to die -- what, exactly, can you threaten such a person with, in order to enforce your ban?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Showing that things were at least made pretty difficult people got into DIY.  Very common in terrorist / insurrection / insurgency situations.  And indeed in organised crime.  Doesn't suggest to me that trying to restrict these things is a fool's errand though, rather the reverse.

I own most of the equipment necessary to make a firearm and have access to the rest -- and arguably have 2 or 3 fairly-serious bombs in my shop right now, although one is technically a science project, and not intended to explode, and the others are just tools.  I could also make chlorine gas, were I so inclined -- but I try hard not to, because that's a bad way to go.  I have a number of friends who can and/or do manufacture firearms in their shops. And I don't run in gun circles, so imagine how many there are overall. This is another part of, as I originally said, an enormously complex problem.

What good, precisely, does it do to take firearms away from only the law-abiding?  Especially if you cannot also take away the variety of other weapons?

dh700 wrote:

This is another part of, as I originally said, an enormously complex problem.

The only comment on that I can make is the Onion's trope - but you know that one.

dh700 wrote:

What good, precisely, does it do to take firearms away from only the law-abiding?  Especially if you cannot also take away the variety of other weapons?

Well ... lots of reasons!  The main one being there's no test to distinguish the law-abiding from those who are not - until they've broken the law!  Why do we put locks on things?  Most locks are pretty easily bypassed and especially the common kinds.  "Keeping honest men honest" maybe?  As we know from driving the human "perfect driver" doesn't exist.  Everyone has lapses / makes mistakes, there are temptations to not follow the rules, those who feel that that certain rules don't apply to them.  There are even some malevolent folks.  Fortunately for us all the latter share other human characteristics e.g. are also distractible, lazy and sometimes stupid.  We do indeed engineer our vehicles and road infrastructure with some (currently not enough) thought given to the fact that it's humans driving.  So even though they should be (!) trained, tested and licenced ("otherwise law-abiding" is a very common comment at trials in these cases...) we still place physical restrictions on how and where people can drive.  The number of people who still manage to do things entirely to their own detriment (see the long-running "cars in houses" thread here) points to this being a prudent approach.

In reducing the number and types of firearms - and regulating those which do exist - it does seem like somehow there are fewer being used in crime in the UK.  We don't have a border with Mexico, true.  As you point out there are lots more guns in the US currently so at present the principle of "osmosis" will suggest which direction they will flow.

As you know all nations regulate things all the time for crime or harm prevention.  Rarely perfectly.  As it happens the in the UK, for firearms, we've not gone with an "all or nothing" approach.  For a bunch of historical reasons - but one was definitely "why not reduce harm somewhere?" 

Anyway, in one sense it's irrelevant debating if something works in theory if it works in practice - as is the case in the UK. "But maybe it's your history, or your lack of crime(?), or ... the Royal Family?"  We could argue that - and if the UK ever went back to a worse situation we might wish then we'd delved into the complexities.  But at that point we'd be in a novel situation and who knows if that would help us?

You mention DIY and as you suggest a "home-building scene" in the UK too.  Rather small, thankfully but the following may be of interest:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/weapons-as-political-protest-p-a-lutys-submachine-gun/

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well ... lots of reasons!  The main one being there's no test to distinguish the law-abiding from those who are not - until they've broken the law!  Why do we put locks on things?

You seem to be confused about the question-at-hand.  At least in this country, the government does not put locks on private property.  Nor do they require owners of that property to do so.  They certainly do not make locks illegal to own.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Most locks are pretty easily bypassed and especially the common kinds.  "Keeping honest men honest" maybe?  As we know from driving the human "perfect driver" doesn't exist.  Everyone has lapses / makes mistakes, there are temptations to not follow the rules, those who feel that that certain rules don't apply to them.

Again, you seem to have fallen off the rails a bit here.  Accidental shooting deaths, even in the US, are really quite rare -- about 1 for every 100 vehicle-related deaths.  Or 1 accidental shooting death for every 500 accidental fatal injuries not involving a gun ( which does not even include overdoses ).

If you want to ban things because people aren't perfect, start with ladders and bathtubs and cars and alcohol.

chrisonatrike wrote:

In reducing the number and types of firearms - and regulating those which do exist - it does seem like somehow there are fewer being used in crime in the UK.  We don't have a border with Mexico, true.

And yet, the overall death rate in the UK and the US are the same.  10 per 1,000 lately, due to the Pandemic, but previous to that, the United States' death rate was significantly lower -- around 8.5 per 1k, versus 9 for the UK.

So what difference, exactly, does the precise manner of those deaths make?

chrisonatrike wrote:

As you know all nations regulate things all the time for crime or harm prevention.

You seem to be under the misimpression that the US lacks gun regulations.  Nothing could be further from the truth, we have tens of thousands of gun laws.  The building my office is in, is a gun-free zone.  All schools in the US have been Gun-Free Zones for 32 years now.  Most government buildings are Gun-Free Zones.  Many states require a Federal permit to purchase a gun.  49 states require a permit to concealed-carry.  I could go on all day and night -- but those laws do not work, so there isn't much point.

dh700 wrote:

 

And yet, the overall death rate in the UK and the US are the same.  10 per 1,000 lately, due to the Pandemic, but previous to that, the United States' death rate was significantly lower -- around 8.5 per 1k, versus 9 for the UK.

So what difference, exactly, does the precise manner of those deaths make?

Well that's certainly a different take.  "Death exists, so why care how it comes?"  I'd agree with you on a personal level - it doesn't matter to *you* at that point.  Although several popular religions might want to object there!

You might also want to be briefed on likely ways to go - and your chances - before you do, though.  And it might be of interest to your relatives.  And have broader consequences for society.  I think that may be why we bother to measure these things at all, in fact.  I doubt "the murder rate has gone up by a factor of 10, but it's OK because you'll die from something and we're still bringing all the perpetrators to justice" would meet with a shrug anywhere.

In the UK most people are recorded as dying of the diseases of old age (dementia, heard disease, cancer).  I imagine that's true - a defining feature even - for most developed nations.  We're especially interested in things which might get us before we get taken out by one of those.

chrisonatrike wrote:

So what difference, exactly, does the precise manner of those deaths make?

You are reading a little more into my statement than intended -- as I suspect you know.  You are painting the US as though it's horrifically dangerous, and still the Wild West, but it's not.  People die in the UK just as often -- and to address your final paragraph claim, not at substantially older ages.  Before the Pandemic, the UK average lifespan was about 1 year more than in the US -- and that was largely due to the US having about 20 times as many drug overdoses, and an obesity rate about 50% higher than the UK's, not to mention a terribly-unequal healthcare system.  Also, for reasons that are unknown to me but would be fascinating to study, the average age of overdose victims in the UK is about double that of American OD victims -- the latter being in their twenties on average, and the former pushing 50.

chrisonatrike wrote:

 

In the UK most people are recorded as dying of the diseases of old age (dementia, heard disease, cancer).  I imagine that's true - a defining feature even - for most developed nations.  We're especially interested in things which might get us before we get taken out by one of those.

As I said previously, we can imagine many things, but that doesn't make them true.  Official statistics report that citizens in your country do not reach a peaceful death in old age very much more frequently than in mine.

dh700 wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

So what difference, exactly, does the precise manner of those deaths make?

You are reading a little more into my statement than intended -- as I suspect you know.

That seemed to be what the statement said (and what you'd said before).  What was intended?

dh700 wrote:

You are painting the US as though it's horrifically dangerous, and still the Wild West, but it's not.

I hope I'm not (and I think you know).  Hence my points about road deaths and the fact that most people in developed countries die from the diseases of old age.  And in noting that we might be a rather more wary when travelling to e.g. El Salvador, Venezuela or the wrong part of Mexico.  And indeed that I've visited the US without being shot - several times even.  (I did have a cop pull a gun though but that was a little misunderstanding about the red light turn rules and then further misunderstanding that you don't go boldly approach the officer's car after they've pulled you over to ask what the trouble is).

I think we started (days ago) from the point that the US - on the numbers rather than just some euro-perception - is a bit of an outlier amongst developing nations for a particular thing.  Again that doesn't mean that I or most people really (when they're not bantering on the net) think the US is Tombstone in the 1880s or Chicago of the 20s or that I'd expect to see people going on the nod around the Capitol.  Small compared with "total deaths" (like road casualties, or drugs) - but neither insignificant nor meaningless.

I confess I'm mostly still bumping my gums as it's proved a useful contrast point for looking at attitudes to motor vehicle use here.  The "but we can't get there from here!" when we speculate about making the roads safer or more pleasant for non-drivers.  That's also a lower total / ratio / whatever than cancer etc (and globally low).  It's also something where the wider effects are important, and people keep telling me is complicated.  It is - but it's much less complicated if we can spot the implicit "change - but without any changes for drivers" requirement and examine if we can let go of that.

dh700 wrote:

People die in the UK just as often -- and to address your final paragraph claim, not at substantially older ages.

Yep, I'm pretty sure it's once each here too *grin*.  Maybe more of us are dying at our keyboards if we're not getting shot or shooting ourselves?  I still think that "what of / why?" is a question of interest - more than academic interest.

chrisonatrike wrote:

That seemed to be what the statement said (and what you'd said before).  What was intended?

People in the two countries die at the same rate, and at the same ages -- overall.  Some of the causes and weapons differ, but does that make a critical difference?  In my opinion, no.  The alleged epidemic of American gun violence resulted in a death rate that was less than the United Kingdom's until the Pandemic.  I am not finding evidence that one approach is vastly superior to the other.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I hope I'm not (and I think you know).

Well you did blame us for both the Mexican cartel wars and the Troubles.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Hence my points about road deaths and the fact that most people in developed countries die from the diseases of old age.  And in noting that we might be a rather more wary when travelling to e.g. El Salvador, Venezuela or the wrong part of Mexico.  And indeed that I've visited the US without being shot - several times even.

It is actually quite difficult to get shot in the US, statistically.  My family has been here 14 generations now -- more if you want to count some native intermingling a long time ago -- and while my uncle is the genealogist, I don't believe any have been shot to death on this side of the Ocean.  A couple did go over to help y'all out with the Germans, and one didn't come back, but that's clearly a different issue.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I think we started (days ago) from the point that the US - on the numbers rather than just some euro-perception - is a bit of an outlier amongst developing nations for a particular thing.

It's an outlier on many issues, though.  No other country has 25% of the world's GDP.  No other country is by-far wealthier than the rest of its hemisphere -- combined!  Few other countries have its impossible-to-secure borders.  No other country has its illegal drug trade.  No other country has its prison system.

The assumption that gun regulation is the only factor driving that "particular thing", is naive and unsupported.

Northern Ireland is the size of Massachusetts, with only one tiny land border and no domestic manufacturing to speak of, and the United Kingdom -- one of the world's great Naval powers -- still couldn't keep all manner of weapons out, or from being used there.  And it's not like the IRA had or has the financial resources of even one drug cartel.  So it's nonsense to think that such could be done in the United States, even if there existed the will to do so.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I confess I'm mostly still bumping my gums as it's proved a useful contrast point for looking at attitudes to motor vehicle use here.  The "but we can't get there from here!" when we speculate about making the roads safer or more pleasant for non-drivers.  That's also a lower total / ratio / whatever than cancer etc (and globally low).  It's also something where the wider effects are important, and people keep telling me is complicated.  It is - but it's much less complicated if we can spot the implicit "change - but without any changes for drivers" requirement and examine if we can let go of that.

We have an island over here with no cars at all, and it works great.  You all should just do that, ban all the motor vehicles tomorrow.  'Tis easy.  Sure, it's only 11 km^2 and has no industry apart from summer tourism, and not very many permanent residents, but little details like that don't matter.  It's an island just like yours.

Or maybe it's a bit more complex than that...

dh700 wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

I hope I'm not (and I think you know).

Well you did blame us for both the Mexican cartel wars and the Troubles.

Well you'll read what you think but nope.  Just where a lot of the weapons come from - part of the "wider consequences".  Call that the "complicated" part if you like.  You're correct - in both cases some of those came from military or police sources.  But quite a lot come from elsewhere - I was just noting that a major source was indeed the US (which the US government tends to agree with in the Mexican case).  If I wanted to accuse the US of causing trouble elsewhere there more direct examples [1] [2] but that isn't what I was saying.

[ Can't keep the guns out ]

Interestingly in the UK we did have ready access to guns only a few generations back.  We still do, just much less so than the US.  We don't have so many Mexicans or bears though, so there's that.  We don't have land borders (except the one we have) but we have quite a lot of coast.

[ America is exceptional ]

A common view.  And the US has the majority of the world's Americans...  I was just pointing out two ways in which it was.

Lots of your points seem to be "it's black or white".  Including a silly one about "car issues? why don'tcha ban cars then".

So I say "potato", you hear "tomato".  Let's call the whole thing off.

chrisonatrike wrote:

[ America is exceptional ]

A common view.  And the US has the majority of the world's Americans...  I was just pointing out two ways in which it was.

The U.S. may have the biggest American population, but the majority of Americans don't live in the U.S. (e.g. Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Argentina etc)

Good correction!  I was obviously using that for "nationality" but the word has both meanings.

chrisonatrike wrote:

But quite a lot come from elsewhere - I was just noting that a major source was indeed the US (which the US government tends to agree with in the Mexican case). 

Go back and read some of your prior citations.  The Mexican government is cooking those books by only submitting a fraction of their recovered weapons for tracing -- precisely to fool people like yourself into believing that Mexico would be a peaceful oasis were it not for the US gun trade, and also with an eye on financial recompense.

chrisonatrike wrote:

If I wanted to accuse the US of causing trouble elsewhere there more direct examples [1] [2] but that isn't what I was saying.

I'm positive that a former colonial power such as yours can match, and maybe exceed, that record.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Interestingly in the UK we did have ready access to guns only a few generations back. 

And fairly few shooting deaths... so it's almost like other factors are important.

chrisonatrike wrote:

We don't have land borders (except the one we have) but we have quite a lot of coast.

Less than Florida, but who's counting?

chrisonatrike wrote:

A common view.

It ( the idea that America is unique ) is more than just a view.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Lots of your points seem to be "it's black or white".

Well yeah, I talk about things I know.  I don't know if there's life after death, so I don't run around making black or white pronouncements on that topic.  That said, calling a problem complex and difficult to solve is not really "black and white".

chrisonatrike wrote:

  Including a silly one about "car issues? why don'tcha ban cars then".

I thought you would understand the analogy there.  You are telling the US that we need to adopt your solution to a problem, while largely ignoring the differences between the countries -- I turned that around and suggested a nonsensical solution to your motor vehicle problem which works splendidly here, on a tiny island with almost nothing in common with yours.

Motor vehicles have been mentioned - that's an interesting one.  Motor vehicles get a pass in the UK - and in most places.  Until recently accident figures elicited a sad expression, and maybe something about urging people to be more careful but the general view was "it's a very sad side-effect but there you go".  We - and notably a neighbor - have started looking beyond that now.  In terms of the bare figures (however you slice) the UK roads are globally among the safest.  In absolute terms "not many killed / seriously injured" as a fraction of the population.  This glosses over things slightly.  The effects of pollutants tend to get recorded separately - and until recently some weren't well-recognised at all.  (This may turn out to be a major proportion of the deaths from motor traffic.)

Thing is though the death rate is not equally shared over different categories of people, nor are the benefits of their use equally distributed.  There is a lot of dispute about how necessary a car is - or indeed certain trips (e.g. very short distances) - and how we might better incentivise people to choose alternatives.  Finally having a car-filled environment and devoting land space to them has a wide range of other consequences for society.  For example children's welfare, old people's independence etc.

It's also big business - lots of money lobbying for it.

In the UK we tend to "lawyer the balance back" - but this is always after the fact of someone having a bad day.  I think it's more useful to find out how we can get the safety in from the start and divert people to real alternatives.  Maybe not all the motor vehicles / trips are needed?