It bothered me then, and it still bothers me now, that in the Columbine shootings B.J. Clinton was pronouncing blame while the bodies were still warm. Lest you forget, B.J. blamed the shooting on talk radio, and by impication Rush Limbaugh. No evidence ever emerged to support Clinton’s impromptu theory and no apology from the cigar master either.
In the spirit of preaching over still warm bodies, Brian Ross and Dana Hughes, ABC News, jumped the shark, “Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips [1]“. I can’t imagine how the magazine capacity could affected anything. The gunman had all the time he needed. It wasn’t like anybody was shooting back while he changed magazines. Ross and Hughes don’t explain their supposed connection either.
With the bitter taste of B.J.’s hasty and ill considerd remarks, I made it point not to jump to premature conclusions. In the spirit of sanity I offer the wisdom of Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy [2]:
Policy and Reactions to Tragedy: Eugene asks below [3]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.
Our campuses are still extremely safe. Campus shooting remain rare. There is no driving need for urgent action. Let us indentify the problem before we attempt to impose a solution.