Another Example of MSM Shaping 2nd Amendment Debate
This post details several incidents in which armed civilians were able to stop a mass shooting. Of particular interest was this:
At Appalachian Law School, in Grundy, Va., a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Mr. Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Mr. Bridges’ gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air. (My pro-Second Amendment documentary, “Michael and Me,” goes into detail about this incident, as well as others.)
Professor and economist John Lott checked 280 separate news stories in the week after the Appalachian Law School shooting, and only found four that mentioned the students who stopped the shooter had guns. The Washington Post, for example, said the students “helped subdue” the killer. Newsday wrote the shooter was “restrained by students.” The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, however, wrote that the shooter “was wrestled to the ground by fellow students, one of whom aimed his own revolver at [the killer].” Four months later, the Times-Dispatch detailed the students’ actions, including the second student’s use of a gun.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:40 am
“Israel gets it. Since the 1970s, on school campuses in Israel, policy requires teachers and parent aides to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. The result? School shootings have plummeted to zero.”
haha i love this. But seriously, WTF is up with America’s children that is driving them to want to go on killing sprees? Whereas the 2nd ammendment argument goes something like this:
teachers should have guns to prevent or stop gun violence vs. kids couldn’t shoot up schools if they did not have access to guns. Here both sides are right.
But the real question is what is causing so many kids to want to go out and murder in cold blood? Is it violence in the media? Perhaps it is sign that all is not well in our culture, that these kids feel lost and frustrated and not knowing what else to do they pick up arms and go on a rampage. I don’t know, but simply framing the problem as a 2nd amendment issue ignores the root of the problem.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Israel is a poor choice of an example; it has higher rates of murder than many states with strict gun control laws, for example in Western Europe. Canada has lots of guns, but there are tight restrictions on non-hunting firearms (even down to things like clip capacity), and they appear to have a lower homicide rate than Israel or the US. This would tend to imply that types of guns may have a greater impact than quantity of guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
(If you can find a more accurate list, feel free to post it - I’m aware of the weakness of inconsistent data collection there)
I was surprised to see that many conservative Muslim countries have have extremely low rates of reported homicide. It probably has something to do with the indisputable fact that conservatives are good and liberals are bad.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I wonder if in Western countries there has been an increase in homocide rates as religiosity rates decrease. That would probably explain the low homocide rates in Muslim Countries.
Thinking about it further, it might be the much more severe laws in Muslim countries. Knowing the state will kill you if you kill someone has got to have an overall affect on homicide rates.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The idea that religion can influence rates of violent behavior is certainly not a new one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_%28book%29
As for severity of punishment determining murder rates - it is true that Singapore for example has a high execution rate and low murder rate. But if that were the primary factor in determining murder rates, would we not expect China, the U.S., Uganda, and Mongolia to have much lower murder rates than many Western European countries in which the death penalty has been abolished entirely?
October 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Where do you stand on capital punishment, Steve? I’m guessing that you are in favor of it, since you seem to be such a hardcore proponent of centralizing power in the hands of big government (except for programs that don’t involve killing people - those you see as bad, because only a bleeding heart liberal would ignore the obvious dangers of giving that much power to the government).
October 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I’m not an anarchist.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:13 am
I am not calling you an anarchist, and I’m not quite clear as to how you got that from what I said. But since you bring it up, if I had to attach a particular political label to you, I would probably base it off the following considerations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but have you not espoused all of the following positions, either in your blog here or in conversation with me?
- Anti-intellectual populism; in this case, the idea that experts have no right to tell folks what to do
- Irrationalism; I am fine with someone saying that injection centers are more expensive than the benefit gained from them - however, you go a step further and suggest that regardless of the practical outcome it is intuitively bad because of the message it sends (I can provide additional examples if you wish but otherwise I won’t belabor this point)
- Rejection of conservatism, liberalism, and especially communism
- Belief in national renewal, the restoration of an imagined golden age that has been corrupted by infiltration of weak, antinationalist groups
- Belief in the inferiority of foreign cultures, peoples, and/or ethnic groups, particularly if accompanied by rejection of the tolerant as sympathizers (sooner or later, likely to lead to severe xenophobia directed towards to target culture, people, or ethnic group)
- Imperialism
- Glorification of masculine, militaristic virtues, as well as glorification of subservience to the state military apparatus, and the military apparatus itself
- Social darwinism, or more generally the belief that perpetuation of conflict is a positive thing
- Dissent is treason
- The belief that war is the ultimate manifestation of state strength and glory, and even revitalizing
- Devaluation of extensive critical thinking as an obstacle to action
- Militarism
- An emphasis on the (real or imagined) crisis of total victory or total defeat being the only options - this dichotomy provides a justification for legal measures that may intimidate or marginalize dissent and opposition
- Advocacy of an economic model wherein the interests of businessmen are promoted, particularly through protection of corporate power and aggressive destruction of trade unions, coupled with government spending directed principally towards military
- National exceptionalism, which is often supported by nationalist historical revisionism
- Disdain for legal human rights standards, particularly in the context of a belief in enduring national exceptionalism
- Marginalization of the interests of the individual (’a few thousand people will die, of course, but charities will quickly pick up the slack…’) before the glory of the state (exemplified by expenditures to save face through victory in warfare)
- Expansion of state mechanisms for subduing dissent, with these mechanisms rationalized as tools for defeating a security threat
Does this combination of positions sound familiar to anyone?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:37 am
If I had to clarify I would say I find a random expert telling me what to do no more compelling than some guy off the street. Experts using their reputation to influence political will towards policy are to be viewed skeptically for their obvious conflict of interest. As I have said before, science allying itself with environmentalism is a foolish move. Science is cashing in it’s reputation for truth to constrain markets. I already know how thats going to end.
I’m not sure why this would be considered irrationalism. Besides, I could easily say that I think the cost in changing the institutional message about drug usage is more costly, or if you prefer, less practical than ’saving lives’.
You missed socialism. The wicked step sister of communism. Bleh.
As for belief in national renewal or restoration of a golden age, I have no idea what you are talking about. I would agree that those pushing transnational position do so at the threat of harming this countries advantages. Often times I find those pushing such an agenda do so out of fear, jealously or some equally asinine reason. Needless to say I find those reasons less than compelling.
I believe, as do you, that some cultures are inferior to others. I’m just willing to state it.
Have no idea how you got this.
Are you serious? Really? Are you serious?
Perpetuation of conflict is not social Darwinism. I reject social Darwinism on many grounds but a big one is that it requires your beloved experts to ‘determine’ what is good and what is bad. While you would argue such determinations are necessarily true I would argue it was simply bullshit.
If making public secret programs needed to stop our enemies from killing us is dissent then yes; dissent is treason.
Huh!?!?!?
On the whole I can agree with this, but I suspect we are going to have different understandings of the term ‘extensive’. Many people, particularly the so-called ‘intelligent’ perservate on all outcomes of a decision as a means to avoid making a decision.
Seriously do you smoke crack?
As to the first part I can agree with. It’s unclear what partial defeat or partial victory means. As to your second part you can say its justifies legal action, but then you would have to deal with my opposition to legislation attempting to squelch dissent. Personally I can’t see the connection between want do do war right and feeling justified in oppressing dissent that sates otherwise, but whatever.
This seems to be a fair analysis of my position. Of course you are using harsher language than I would prefer, but then again your not exactly trying to paint a positive light on my positions. Also I would add that if the federal government is going to spend my money I would prefer to be on the military then the social programs. However, one the whole, I would prefer the federal government not spend my money.
Hey how about National exceptionalism that does not support historical revisionism which is about where I land.
Sounds about right.
If getting the state out of the individual’s interests (owners of the hospital) means marginalizing the interest of the individual and wanting the state to finish the job in a war they are clearly winning means saving face, then I agree.
If dissent means flying civilian planes into skyscrapers than I favor ‘expanding state mechanism for subduing dissent’.
October 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I would cite your belief in the onslaught of a liberal bias in the MSM as an example of the belief in destruction of national strength by an antinationalist group, and in this example the associated revitalization is the rejection of the MSM for alternative news sources.
It seems that in some cases a clarification of semantics is necessary.
“To give glory, honor, or high praise to; exalt.” - American heritage dictionary’s first definition of glorify
Does this not summarize your attitude towards the military?
Have you not argued that a state at war is much more useful in terms of technological progress, and that warfare is the ideal context for manifestation of state strength and glory?
Social Darwinism: “a 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the social order is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions and in accord with which a position of laissez-faire is advocated.”
Perhaps not selection that is exclusively naturalistic, but you are a strong advocate of laissez-economy in which those you deem most valuable to society are rewarded, at the expense of those least valuable to society.
Militarism: “1. a strong military spirit or policy.
2. the principle or policy of maintaining a large military establishment.
3. the tendency to regard military efficiency as the supreme ideal of the state and to subordinate all other interests to those of the military.”
Does this not describe your position?
Imperialism: “1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.”
Have you not advocated the extension of American authority over Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran?
” Expansion of state mechanisms for subduing dissent, with these mechanisms rationalized as tools for defeating a security threat
Yes, as I said, security is always the rationalization. But do you deny that things like wiretapping could intimidate dissent as well?
“Nationalism: For example when reading schoolbook history in Europe, it is possible to read about an event from completely different perspectives. In the Battle of Waterloo most British, French, Dutch and German schoolbooks slant the battle to emphasise (sic) the importance of the contribution of their nations.” - Wikipedia article on Historical Revisionism
Honestly I think most people do it to some extent or another. An example would be a German during the interwar years who suggested that Germany did not lose the great war from battlefield defeats but instead from the political ‘blunder’ of accepting an armistice when victory was still plausible, and cite as support of this the claim that in many of the major battles, the allies suffered more casualties than the Germans.
This isn’t really what you were arguing though, was it? Indeed you said that you would accept in private conversation that for certain types of drugs the users would be incapable of discontinuing regardless of the message sent. This to me suggests that your argument was centered around an appeal to intuition rather than rational consideration of outcomes.
Irrationalism: “Part of the movements involved claims that science was inferior to intuition.” So I somewhat misused the phrase; more specifically I was referring to appeals to intuition at the expense of rational deliberation.
October 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I wouldn’t consider the obvious slant of war coverage to be destroying national strength. Hell I don’t even know what the means. Furthermore the development of technological means to get around this problem is by its very definition not a revitalization of some previous era in America.
All i said was we should honor a returning solider that served in Iraq. Returning soldiers from Iraq does not equal military. Jeez and I thought you were the nuance guy. I’m not a give glory kind of guy but it might float someone else’s boat. Maybe yours. Perhaps you could glorify soldiers.
I simply argued that the state is most effective at innovation in times of war. Which is really not all that surprising when you consider war is the only time the state is in competition. Its competing for coercive force with another state entity.
If you mean the more benign Social Darwinism that mostly points out that people find the niches in which they are most valuable then i can probably agree with that. I thought you had in mind the more macabre form in which your beloved experts are called in to ’scientifically’ determine who should live and die.
Sigh. The nice thing about free markets is that I don’t get to the deciding about what is valuable for someone else. The worse part about other economics systems is that bureaucrats sometimes backed by so-called experts do all of the deciding about is valuable for someone else.
No.
1.Not sure what that means. I do know that a state’s existence relies on the military.
2.A military does not need to be large it just has to be effective at protecting the state.
3.If you ask me the absolutely worst state ideal is a militaristic one. The state’s necessary job is to manage coercion and a military state has collapsed to much power under to few people. My ideal state is a democracy. Making the state supremely inefficient is the best way to guard against abuse of power.
I never have advocated for holding Iraq as a colony. You are being disingenuous when ignoring the second part of the definition, which is the part detractors wish to use when accusing the Iraq war as an example of US imperialistic policy.
Do you deny that maintaining pre 9/11 policy in intelligence gathering could lead to more terrorist attacks?
Now your argument borders on absurdity. According to you, whether one is an exceptionalist or not they will tend to revise history. Why not believe the US is exceptional if not believing so will still lead to revisionism?
After all the bitching about nuance with the on the whole question I should think you are the last person i would have to explain this to. There is difference when talking with close friend about how to approach johnny’s drug problem then how a state entity manages the social problem of drug use, but whatever.
LOL. Science inferior to intuition. The whole of science is built on intuition. The two are not in opposition they need each other.
As to appealing to intuition over rational deliberation? One should apply their intuition until it fails and then be willing to deliberate a new set of intuitions for application. This strikes me as the most efficient use of both systems.
October 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Did you not suggest that media coverage contributed to the defeat of American forces during the Vietnam war? And the type of revitalization to which I refer is a reactionary one in which radical new developments remove the domination of a perceived cabal in a given sector.
You extended your argument to a broader claim about military in general during conversation with me.
Free markets are the mechanism most likely to make a determination about value that is in accord with what you deem valuable. That was my point; you are in favor of laissez-faire economics because they cause promotion or demotion of individuals in a fashion that in in accord with your opinions.
1: I agree that this part is a bit vague, but I would say that you are more in favor of a strong military spirit or policy than for example someone like myself.
2: Do you or do you not support a large military budget as a percentage of national income?
3: That’s BS. If you believed that making the military apparatus inefficient was a good thing, you would not believe that it is a bad thing for newspapers and legislators to take actions that you see as decreasing the efficiency of the military.
I guess you want to ignore the part of the definition that says ‘or’ and imagine it is an ‘and’.
I never said I disagreed with all of these policies. I am merely attempting to characterize your position in preparation for a summary judgment, but giving you the opportunity to disavow any or all of the perceptions I have about your positions before I do so.
I acknowledged that MANY people do that to some extent or another, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to.
Fair enough, although I’m still unconvinced that your principle argument was based on rational rather than intuitive grounds (and more generally I am under the impression that you see extreme deliberation as inferior to summary use of intuition, because it can paralyze judgment)
I was attempting to raise a more general question about your argumentation - does it sometimes make appeals to intuition (for example, the intuitive belief that a certain taxation system is unfair) rather than citing specific historical examples or primary data that support the claim that negative consequences result from that sort of taxation structure? I would consider the latter to be a more rational line of argumentation.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Your naivette about all things science has been duly noted. The fact that you believe that science is intuiton is completely unacceptable. Science is built off of discovery. Hypotheses are formed from empirical observation. They do not appear in your head. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised as you’ve told me a number of times that you don’t care what a grad mentor has to teach you as you already know what you want to show. Your science is a religion…. Mine and many others is based off of observation and data.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Is you contention that intuition has no role in science?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
“The whole of science is built on intuition.” I am somewhat curious as to whether you would be willing to say this in, for example, a graduate school interview.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I would happily agree that poor media coverage in the Vietnam war played a part in the defeat. I’m not convinced that this was destructive to national strength. You second point is sufficiently vague enough to no longer have much meaning in the context of this discussion.
Technically i didn’t, but whatever it can’t be proven one way or the other at this point.
This is simply not the case. I don’t deem top athletes, celebrity stars, lawyers, or a million other things other as valuable as other do. I prefer free markets because everybody gets what they want and while minimizing coercion. Its turns out that free markets provide a multitude of advantages, but primarily my interest in free markets is that it doesn’t force people to do things they don’t want to do.
I would be willing to agree that one of things I find alluring about free markets is that really does seem to reward those willing to work hard. However I would still favor a system that disburses value determination to the hands of many rather than consolidates it in a few bureaucrats even if diligence remains unrewarded.
1. I probably favor a larger standing army, or at least a more effective one than you.
2. Nope. Just larger than what you would support.
3. Seriously you need to look into nuance. I want the institution that makes decision about how the military should be used to be as inefficient as possible. I want the actual military organization to be profoundly efficient, and beholden to a slow inefficient democratic government. Again my ideal is diffusion of coercive power. Not the consolidation of it. I’m a freaking libertarian for Christ’s sake.
My bad. Like you I’m an imperialist. We both believe there are times when it’s appropriate for the US Military to hold foreign land. Unless of course you felt that the North was unjustified in occupying acquired land of the South during the civil war. As a side note most on the left use the term imperialism not to mean hold land but to exploit other people’s land. Which we most certainly are not doing in Iraq.
That being the case see my original response.
I have written in the past:
The opposite, which is endemic to conservatives, is hyper-judgment which leads to missing essential nuance for proper judgment.
All arguments end in appeals to intuition. Historical examples will rely intuition. Primary data will rely on intuition. For example, in the case of the injection center you might have data showing that drug overdoes goes down. But thats only relevant if you have the intuition that reducing drug overdoes is good.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:59 am
“I’m not convinced that this was destructive to national strength.”
So you think that Americans forces withdrew from Vietnam because the media made them stronger?
“2: Do you or do you not support a large military budget as a percentage of national income?”
“2. Nope. Just larger than what you would support.”
Let’s consider the percentage of national budget that you would allocate to military expenditures (almost 100 I suspect, since police can be handled at the local level, and you’ve stated numerous times that the sole function of the state should be protection of its people from harm caused by other people), and examine where it would place the United States as a percentile (compared to other extant nations) in terms of percent national budget allocated to military. I have a hunch that it would place our country above the 95th percentile in that regard.
“3. Seriously you need to look in nuance. I want the institution that makes decision about how the military should be used to be as inefficient as possible. I want the actual military organization to be profoundly efficient, and beholden to a slow inefficient democratic government. Again my ideal is diffusion of coercive power. Not the consolidation of it. If freaking libertarian for Christ’s sake.”
Your stance on wiretapping is sufficient to cast doubt on all of the points you attempt to make in the above paragraph.
“Like you I’m an imperialist.”
As I said, whether I agree or disagree with you has little pertinence to whether you in fact hold these views. As for the economic exploitation bit… Although I don’t really see what it has to do with this discussion, I’ll bite: are you honestly trying to suggest that there aren’t Americans who are gaining considerable profit from the war?
“Primary data will rely on intuition. For example, in the case of the injection center you might have data showing that drug overdoes goes down. But that only relevant if you have the intuition that reducing drug overdoes is good.”
Right, but I wouldn’t be trying to present my argument as if to persuade solely on the basis of intuition; I acknowledge that such an argument would be wholly unpersuasive to an individual who thought drug overdoses were good. Instead of attempting to make futile appeals to an opponent’s intuition, one alternative approach, for a person trying to advocate that position, would be to reframe the discussion in terms of some other benefit which the opponent found intuitively advantageous (perhaps the benefits non drug users gain from safe needle disposal). Alternatively, they could attempt to rationally demonstrate a connection between overdoses and some other outcome the opponent found unfavorable. Yes, in a way it is an appeal to intuition, but surely you see the difference?
October 29th, 2007 at 9:19 am
2 quck points.
1.) How is it that you “proudly” say that you believe some cultures are inferior to others, and yet when I say that that is racism and biggotry you cry like a school kid? Why? Is that belief not racism? Isn’t that the essence of racism? Why the tears?
2.) Your suggestion that science is intuition is naive and perfectly reflects everything you never learned. Hypotheses are not intuition. Hypotheses are based off of empirical observations and knowledge of the systems and techniques made available. Theories are not intuition, they are based off of available data. It doesn’t surprise me that you believe this though as you have proudly stated in the past that you don’t want a mentor to teach you anything as you already know what you are doing. Go on with your bad self.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Sorry for the repeat post. The only part that was different was the 1st part. I had a computer error when I posted it last night and I didn’t think it made it. I’m also dealing with the stupid state of north carolina and silly state politics.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
[…] Bettina emailed me to say: I have been rereading and rereading your latest dialogue with your roomate, and at the end of all this, I came to the conclusion that one label was missing, […]
November 1st, 2007 at 11:35 am
[…] Jamie notes in a previous post: […]