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“. 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:
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.
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.
Tags: BitsBlog, Democrats, Second Amendment, Social Issues, WHAT biased press?
April 17th, 2007 at 6:23
I personally agree that laying blame for the shooting itself, is a feeble attempt to bend the nation’s agenda by means of current events. The investigation is ongoing, the identity of the shooter is being withheld for reasons known only to the investigators, as yet. Thus any comment regarding what sets this particular shooter off, is mere speculation. For that reason, whatever the blame for the shooting, is, frankly, inconsequential of the moment.
In the end, however, it doesn’t matter very much what this gunman’s reasons were. If it wasn’t that gunman, and that reason, it would’ve been some other gunman, and some other ‘reasoning’.
What we can say at this moment, are things related to the utter failure of anti-gun laws to protect those people, as has been pointed out so very often before… the response of the administration at the school,(or the lack thereof) and the lack of the ability of the students and teachers to respond appropriately; The latter of which also falls squarely on the shoulders of the “gun free” administration.
Those are all things we already know about. Those are all things whose lessons have already been taught in other places around the world such as San Ysidro California at the McDonald’s, a school in Montreal the name of which escapes me, Munich in 1972, and so on. The list is agonizingly long… that of lessons already taught, and yet, unlearned. Virginia Tech, as of yesterday, sadly, becomes one more example on that long list.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:27
The drive-by media is extremely hoplophobic. The name of Joel Myrick ought to known to every parent. Myrick ended a school shooting in Pearl, Missippi by invoking rule 1911.
As to legislation, no law is perfect. It is therefore not a valid argument to say that law A was imperfect therefore law B is justified. The important thing is investigate and find the facts and not your particular bogey man, ala B.J. Clinton.