Wednesday, December 19, 2012

A thought on frustration with media and gun control, etc.

I hate it too, guys. This idea that cracking down on guns will fix our problems is naive and the sort of collective guilt that people are heaping on gun owners is dangerous. I'm sure there are plenty of smart things around licensing and background checks that we could do and I'm sure concealed carry would help too. I'm not saying this stuff isn't worth talking about. But I agree that the apocalyptic approach some people are taking is misguided.

But when it comes to the media and politicians: they give you what you want.

Journalists and politicians both feel that they have a code of ethics to serve the public and to serve truth, and that's a useful code for them to feel that they have. It does a lot of good for them to think that's "their job". But ultimately their job is to give you what you want. Stuff doesn't make it on TV if it isn't what people want to be staring at. Stuff doesn't make it in Congress if it doesn't have a constituency.

If you're bothered by the fact that the media is being so single-minded about all this, just realize that they're that way because a lot of the country is single-minded about it. Not that that makes it a good thing, of course. But I feel like people give a lot more agency to the media than they really have.

10 comments:

  1. Daniel, there is nothing naive about repealing the second amendment and doing away with public ownership of guns.

    Technology is going to happen sometime and it might as well be now. Do you seriously believe our society in 50 years will tolerate guns?

    There are lots of ways to provide greater security coming down the road very quickly. Have you seen the new robots and that roll and fly, which could go with you everywhere, and which will soon very effectively serve as a policeman for everyone? For example, they hover overhead and spray everyone with nerve agents or dye or both, summon other nearby robots, track the perp, etc.

    Combine that with the elimination of cash . .

    Last, anyone who thinks that our Democracy is so unstable that we need guns, well that lack of judgment is compelling evidence we need the government to intervene in their lives and provide adult supervision 24 hours a day in a remote tropical island.

    It is absolutely absurd that American school children should be living in War like children in Israel when there is no enemy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, now assume criminals disobey the bans, and get guns anyway.

      You saying I cannot protect myself against his gun, with any guns of my own?

      I really don't understand how anti-gun people want to disarm and make victims out of innocent people. It's crazy.

      Delete
  2. "This idea that cracking down on guns will fix our problems is naive and the sort of collective guilt that people are heaping on gun owners is dangerous" - good lord, I couldn't come up with a better straw man if I tried.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is one of those "if the shoe fits..." times, Aidan. Notice I have not said that everyone advocating gun control is saying this. Be careful before you stumble into your own strawman.

      Delete
    2. Daniel

      You are avoiding the question, entirely. The fact of the matter is that no good public policy supports the second amendment today. In fact, permitting some to arm themselves in self defense only makes for bad public policy. First, it makes those who can't arm themselves soft targets. Second, it removes the pressure to become involved in and to support societal solutions. Look at the NRA which all of a sudden wants to fund more mental health care. A fire arm to a middle aged southern Illinois republican is a viewed as free ride from the responsibility of dealing with South Chicago.

      Most certainly we will have the technology in w/in fifty years to detect people walking around with a "firearm." Vehicles a little harder but traffic stops will be very thorough and effective

      So why wait to repeal the second amendment? Why not move forward now. Well within 20 years everyone is go to have one or more personal R2D2s. Look at the video. The robot is a toy, but this is the first version.

      http://phys.org/news/2012-11-illinois-robotics-lab-hytaq-air.html

      Version x.x will be far better at self defense

      You are, Aidan writes, just setting up a strawman.

      Delete
    3. Daniel

      You are avoiding the question, entirely. The fact of the matter is that no good public policy supports the second amendment today. In fact, permitting some to arm themselves in self defense only makes for bad public policy. First, it makes those who can't arm themselves soft targets. Second, it removes the pressure to become involved in and to support societal solutions. Look at the NRA which all of a sudden wants to fund more mental health care. A fire arm to a middle aged southern Illinois republican is a viewed as free ride from the responsibility of dealing with South Chicago.

      Most certainly we will have the technology in w/in fifty years to detect people walking around with a "firearm." Vehicles a little harder but traffic stops will be very thorough and effective

      So why wait to repeal the second amendment? Why not move forward now. Well within 20 years everyone is go to have one or more personal R2D2s. Look at the video. The robot is a toy, but this is the first version.

      http://phys.org/news/2012-11-illinois-robotics-lab-hytaq-air.html

      Version x.x will be far better at self defense

      You are, Aidan writes, just setting up a strawman.

      Delete
    4. "Vehicles a little harder but traffic stops will be very thorough and effective"

      Repeal the 2nd and 4th amendments?

      Delete
    5. If Sherlock Holmes ever gets in power, I'm getting a gun. And I'm probably not the only one. I shudder at the thought of the kind of society he wants to create.

      Delete
  3. Cass Sunstein's availability cascade in action. A commission to review the scholarly studies and statistics would be in order so we don't jump to conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel:

    Here is comment of the effect of current technology on crime

    Law Profs Suggest Another Explanation for Lower Crime Rate: Ubiquitous Cellphones

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_profs_suggest_explanation_for_lower_crime_rate_ubiquitous_cellphones/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.