Policy and Reactions to Tragedy:
Eugene asks below about how we respond to tragedies, and in particular whether it is appropriate to focus on policy so soon after hearing about tragedies. Obviously people can do what they like; people are complicated, and will react to tragic events in different ways. But in my view, the problem with responding to news of tragedy with policy ideas right away is that we tend not to realize in such situations how often our "proposals" are really expressions of psychological need. It's human nature to respond to tragedy by fitting it into our preexisting worldviews; we instinctively restore order by construing the tragic event as a confirmation of our sense of the world rather than a threat to it.
This means that often we won't pay a lot of attention to the details of tragedies and what caused them. We'll just know deep down inside what happened, and what caused it, and how to stop it next time. Take today's tragic events at VA Tech. If you're committed to gun control, the tragedy probably proves to you that there are too many guns; if you're against gun control, the tragedy probably proves the exact opposite. Given that people will tend to see in events what they want to see, turning to policy right away will come off as rudely "playing politics" to those who don't share your worldview. And obviously this doesn't foster a helpful environment for policymaking, either.
This means that often we won't pay a lot of attention to the details of tragedies and what caused them. We'll just know deep down inside what happened, and what caused it, and how to stop it next time. Take today's tragic events at VA Tech. If you're committed to gun control, the tragedy probably proves to you that there are too many guns; if you're against gun control, the tragedy probably proves the exact opposite. Given that people will tend to see in events what they want to see, turning to policy right away will come off as rudely "playing politics" to those who don't share your worldview. And obviously this doesn't foster a helpful environment for policymaking, either.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
So it becomes soap opera as fast as possible, and then stays there.
This is important, especially when the proper response to a tragedy is dictated by the specific facts of the case. (e.g. did the shooter obtain his weapons legally or illegally? Both scenarios lend themselves to radically different policy choices.)
It also occurs to me that, like it or not, policy decisions are going to be made in the wake of an event like this, even if it is, objectively speaking, unwise: it's when the public is most energized about the issue, and when policymakers are under the most pressure to "do something." The real choice may therefore not be between whether we turn to policy or not, but whether we stand aside while those with whom we disagree turn to policy alone, or jump in and participate in the process.
Completely ban handguns on one-third of the nation's college campuses.
Allow carry permits for faculty and staff on one-third of the nation's campuses
Allo unlimited carry permits on one-third of the nation's campuses.
Then wait for 20 years.
(Yes, I know it's completely impractical)
I expect that we will be seeing the two sides - no guns/more guns - coming up with ideas and comments. Of course, given the general liberalism of the media, the "more guns" group will get extremely short shrift in the major media while the "no guns" approach will be loudly trumpeted.
Too bad, because I personally think (based on both evidence and some sober thought) that the "more guns" approach is the correct one.
These include copious use of timely and skillful psychological operations (psyop), with its component false flag violence and media disinformation elements, near total corporate/law enforcement domination of American mainstream media, criminalization of trivial transgressions, clamp down on time-honored, legitimate dissent... etc.
Witness the Stalinesque "sweeps" of Operation Falcon, the mandatory "Real ID", NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" of 700,000 NYC youth in 2006--mainly Afro-Americans/Latinos, the current farcical FBI roundup aimed at senior-citizen ex-members of the Black Panther Party and BLA on evidence "overlooked" 30 years ago.
Whatever the ghastly, likely avoidable events that unfolded at Virginia Tech, we must not forget that the masters of the post-9/11 emerging US Debt-Prison complex will parlay these events to further annul and revoke the rights once guaranteed under the all but extinct U.S. Bill of Rights.
Many disturbing questions and contradictions as regards the actual agents behind the 9/11 attacks, subsequent anthrax letter attacks, Oklahoma City, Columbine and other "terrorist" events, remain unsolved. The London and Madrid train bombings have also aroused significant doubts as to "official" and mainstream echoed claims.
So now we are facing yet another horror: the untimely killed, injured and traumatized and their grieving families. But we need to stay doubly alert and wary of the potential involvement of US corporate, military and political elites in such heinous events, whether direct, by proxy or by exploiting our psychological/emotional vulnerability in their wake. These agents' agenda at a time of an "Endless War on Terror" thrives on confusion and trauma, duly parroted by mainstream media, fostered to justify further control over US civil society and annihilation of our liberty.
This is merely standard procedure under the strategy of biopower, and so-called "full-spectrum dominance" wielded by transnational and military elites. It requires psychological, economic, social, physical...ie, total control over social space and civil society. In this scheme, any and all are deemed real or "potential" insurgents by Panopticon; commodities to be surveiled and "managed" by the unblinking all-seeing eye.
One thing, though. You say: "Given that people will tend to see in events what they want to see, turning to policy right away will come off as rudely 'playing politics' to those who don't share your worldview."
But I'm as put off by those who have turned to policy right away and who do share my worldview as much as I am by those who have turned to policy right away and do not. Perhaps I'm being idiosyncratic here, but I find the move to policy in the immediate wake of mass murder to be callous regardless of which policy one moves to.
This is correct. The callousness makes the policy advocate seem aloof and misdirected. For example, I read some of the policy comments in other threads and I can't help but see the scene in the Big Lebowski where Walter doesn't want to leave the diner:
I understand the intent behind the procedure but is it more designed to protect armed and armored police than innocent civilians? It seems like an SOP for high-risk traffic stops or unaccompanied exits from crime scenes ("Come out of the house with your hands up") than a reasonable procedure to evacuate civilians under police escort given the added danger it exposes the evacuees to.
Seen from America, where we have watched Europeans engage in genocide and mass murder of political opponents twice in the last century, it is absurd to think that putting all power in the hands of the government is safe.
Sorry, but the weapon used was an automatic weapon, and as far as I know, automatic weapons are designed for war, not for bird-shooting. I'm encline to think that such a bloodshed wouldn't have occurred if the killer had used a hunting rifle. Remind me when a similar thing occurred in another industrialized country, where automatic weapons are banned. Remind me how often it occurs in the US. If you don't blame the weapon for the scale of the tragedy, what are you willing to blame?
Seen from America, where we have watched Europeans engage in genocide and mass murder of political opponents twice in the last century, it is absurd to think that putting all power in the hands of the government is safe.
We're talking about mass shootings in America in 2007, not about the Holocaust, and not about the genocide of the Native Americans either. History is History, and it may be time for America to move on on the gun issue. By the way, maybe the reason why gun control is so tight in Europe is actually because Europe went through so much bloodshed in the past century.
Read an analysis of the influences in our "Chain Letter Society" that may be precipitating events like the tragedy at Virginia Tech and how our focus on winning and being number one may be fostering a generation of children with fully inadequate coping skills who have a misguided sense of self-worth...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
No, it was a semi-automatic (i.e., self-loading) pistol, which required a separate trigger-pull for each round fired. An automatic weapon continues to fire as long as the trigger is depressed. It's good to know what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
In addition, we would need ~2 million Virginia Tech shootings to match the Holocaust, so perhaps you should tone down the self-righteousness a bit.
You are simply wrong about "another industrialized country." Britain allowed semiautomatic weapons until Hungerford. Quite a number of European nations still allow them (Switzerland, France, are two that come to mind). And guess what? France has these sort of massacres occasionally too. I've seen coverage of at least two such incidents in the last few years. Remember also that our population is larger than any European country; even if there were no other differences, we're going to have more incidents because we have more people.
You've got it backward. Weimar Republic Germany adopted restrictive gun control laws to disarm Nazis and Communists (who were partial to street brawling). When the Nazis came to power, they used those laws to disarm their opponents.
Britain adopted its 1920 Firearms Act specifically out of fear of Bolshevik uprising. See this paper for the details from the Cabinet minutes declassified in 1969-70. There's nothing subtle about the motivations.
And you are right to mention the extermination of a number of Indian tribes. The American colonies relied on a variety of laws that prohibited sale of guns to the Indians.
OK guys, I was wrong, and you certainly know more than me about the subtle differences between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You still miss the point. Do you think a 20-something student should be able to legally acquire a 22mm and a 9 mm? What about the weapons used at Columbine and other mass-shootings? Wake up!
Porkchop said: In addition, we would need ~2 million Virginia Tech shootings to match the Holocaust, so perhaps you should tone down the self-righteousness a bit.
I didn't bring up the Holocaust. Clayton E. Cramer did. I will just quote you: "It's good to know what you are talking about before you open your mouth."
Clayton E. Cramer said: You are simply wrong about "another industrialized country." Britain allowed semiautomatic weapons until Hungerford.
You are proving my point here. Hungerford happened in 1987, and prompted tighter gun laws. Since then, no similar tragedy occurred. Coincidence?
Clayton E. Cramer said: And guess what? France has these sort of massacres occasionally too. I've seen coverage of at least two such incidents in the last few years.
I'm not aware of these incidents. Can you be more specific?
Two winters ago saw youngsters riot in the suburcbs of several French cities. Cars were burned; cops and firefighters were stoned. Interestingly, no one got killed. If France had the same laxism than the US toward guns, there would have been hundreds of people shot dead, as in the LA riots of the early 90's.
Remember also that our population is larger than any European country; even if there were no other differences, we're going to have more incidents because we have more people.
I totally agree with you here. But then, isn't it another good reason to adopt stricter gun laws?
Clayton E. Cramer said: You've got it backward. Weimar Republic Germany adopted restrictive gun control laws to disarm Nazis and Communists (who were partial to street brawling). When the Nazis came to power, they used those laws to disarm their opponents.
Britain adopted its 1920 Firearms Act specifically out of fear of Bolshevik uprising. See this paper for the details from the Cabinet minutes declassified in 1969-70. There's nothing subtle about the motivations.
And you are right to mention the extermination of a number of Indian tribes. The American colonies relied on a variety of laws that prohibited sale of guns to the Indians.
You're certainly very knowledgeable about gun laws in European history, but what is your point exactly? That without these gun laws, the Nazi wouldn't have come to power, the Russian revolution wouldn't have occurred, and the Native Americans wouldn't have been slaughtered? Do you really think that the proliferation of guns in the US would protect people against an authoritarian US government in charge of the most powerful army worldwide? What exactly are you fearing from your democratically elected government? I just spent 10 years in the US, and I realize how paranoid people were about their government, something I never quite understood. Why don't you spend a couple of years abroad, and see how other people live?
I thought it was pretty clear his point was that in history most gun restrictions were about suppressing political opposition, even if as you suggest, they had limited effect in that regard. This is why the many of us are skeptical of the public safety argument for gun control.
So, you really think that gun control is just a safety argument used by your democratically elected government to suppress political opposition? Sorry, but I don't follow. The amusing thing is actually that the very politicians who are against gun control are mostly the Republicans, who are doing everything they can to concentrate the power in the hands of a rich, White minority, and have been reinforcing the powers of the US government in the past 7 years. Ironic, isn't it?