The Stories and Novels By Derek Ward
Blasting over the blogosphere has been Jim Carrey “distancing” himself from the movie Kick-Ass 2 because of the violence. You know, if he really wanted to improve kids lives and prevent deaths, maybe he should “distance” himself from the anti-vaccination movement.
Or he could, y’know, learn before trying to be erudite and morally superior.
Skeptic Magazine has a long article by Michael Shermer on gun control and mental health. Shermer does a good job explaining that 1) mass shootings are rare (essentially “black swan” level events) and unpredictable, and 2) we’re becoming a less violent society.
His analysis of the mental health issues is typical of Shermer’s normal excellent scholarship.
Shermer discusses the “Run, Hide, Fight” video put out by the city of Houston as well as a mental health hotline as possible solutions. Then he gets to gun control.
Shermer makes three major mistakes in his gun control analysis. First, his scholarship relies on the infamous Kellermann study on the dangers of keeping guns in the home. A study that had sloppy data collection and treated all deaths by firearm the same, regardless whether it was accident, suicide, or defensive gun use.
Second, Shermer accepts the arguments that banning standard capacity magazines because the shooter can be attacked as he changes magazines. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen in reality. The Arizona shooter wasn’t changing magazines when the crowd subdued him – his pistol jammed. Further, the Virginia Tech shooter was using 10-round magazines during his spree. With a little practice, magazine changes can be accomplished in less than a second. So, if banning standard capacity magazines is not going to provide the openings that its supporters claim, then why ban them?
Thirdly, Shermer attacks “assault weapons.”
Even though it is not clear that the two suggested laws banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines over 10 bullets would have a significant effect on mass murders, there could be a net gain, and it seems to me to be no great threat to liberty if we lump them with the already-existing bans on private citizens owning and operating bazookas, tanks, drone aircraft, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons. Bans on semi-automatic assault rifles and high-volume ammo clips will not stop Sandy Hook Events, but there is some evidence that they could curtail the level of carnage, and that strikes me as a rational response that even freedom-loving libertarians can live with.
Emphasis mine.
I’m tired of our opponents trying to lump our black rifles with non-small arms types of military equipment. That is a strawman argument. The issue are firearms in common use. According to the FBI, the last time we banned “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines, there was a negligible effect on crime. If anything, the rifles being discussed are probably the best home defense weapons. The use a low-powered, but effective round that has less chance of going through a home’s walls than most standard pistol or shotgun cartridges. A single rifle with a collapsible stock can be adjusted to work for any member of the family that might need to use it.
I carry a pistol because I am not a Highlander with the ability to conceal a three-foot blade without printing. If I had that capability, an AR with a couple of spare PMAGs would be better for defense than my M&P. Ask a police officer why they have patrol rifles. Remember, they face the same threats you do.
IntelNews.org put out an analysis on Five Dangerous Myths About the Boston Bombings. You need to RTWT.
The big one was that the Boston bombings may not have been an act of terrorism anymore than the shooting at Sandy Hook was an act of terrorism.
It’s very hard to keep things in perspective when most of the information sources have the volume cranked up to eleven – either for commercial or ideological reasons.
Every so often, I have the realization that my normal vernacular isn’t always shared by the majority of the populace. Sometimes, it’s because of the subcultures that I run in (What do you mean you’ve never heard of Cthulhu?). Sometimes, it’s technical jargon that I’ve learned to take for granted (Why are you going to all those websites when you could use an RSS Reader? What do you mean, what’s RSS?). And sometimes, it’s because of my circle of friends proclivity to use, as one of them so eloquently puts it, “five-dollar words.” The real humor comes when I am completely unaware that the word I am using is not in common usage. It gets worse when I can’t comprehend how a person doesn’t understand the word I’m using, mostly because I have no poker face.
An example of this was when I was working as a manager at Mickey D’s. One of the other managers and I had, to put it politely, a personality clash. To be blunt, I thought she was an idiot. Then this occurred, which really kind of soured the relationship.
Her: Derek, you tied your tie too short.
Me (with my normal sarcasm): Please don’t preach to me about your archaic fashion ideas.
Her (very annoyed): Why do you always use those big words?
Me (confused): Which word?
Her: Archaic.
Me: You couldn’t figure it out from the context?
Her: You don’t have to be so condescending to me. I have a degree in education.
Me: And you’ve never even heard of the term “archaic”?
Her: Where would I have come across that word?
Me (in an overly smug tone): Thank you for demonstrating why we in the business school have stereotypes about those of you in the education school.
For the record, I made that last comment just to piss her off. It was one of my few joys during that period of that job. Granted, she’s not a representative sample of the population. This was the same woman who got a degree in elementary education before realizing she didn’t like working with elementary-age children, and then went to work at Mickey D’s because it was the only job she felt she could get.
Why do I bring up this particular anecdote (other than it amuses the hell out of me)? Because I, as a writer and occasional presenter, have to remember that my audience isn’t exactly like me. I like using terms that are as precise as possible, but aren’t in common usage. This is a particularly difficult issue when talking to another person about skeptical, atheist, or even gun rights issues. A good example of this is XKCD’s Up Goer 5 comic. This is explaining the Saturn 5 program using the 1,000 most common words in the English language. It’s a little bit of taking the issue to the extreme, but it does remind me to try and moderate my speech to my audience. It doesn’t mean I can’t occasionally throw in a technical or subculture term (or even a “five-dollar word”). It just means I have to make sure that if I do, the meaning can be extrapolated from the context. Or at least provide some hyperlinks so the reader can easily look it up.
For those who may not know, Port Arthur is a city in Tasmania, Australia. On April 28, 1996, a gunman killed 35 and wounded 23 before being captured by the police the following day. Like Sandy Hook, the atrocity shocked the nation’s people. The Australian government, in response, enacted strict gun control laws. We can see the echoes of this tragedy on our nation with the cries from the usual suspects for more gun control. Unfortunately, we are also seeing echoes of Port Arthur in the appearance of conspiracy theories that the government was the true culprit. (For a synopsis of the Port Arthur conspiracies and rebuking, I would recommend Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid episode. BTW, why aren’t you listening to every episode of this great podcast?) Just as we must take a stand to fight the onslaught of gun control measures being bandied about, we must also fight those that attempt to denigrate the horror of the event by claiming it was the work of a shadowy government like some B-movie plot.
This is perhaps the most dangerous time for gun owners since the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. Our opponents and their willing myrmidons (look it up) in the media have a rag covered in children’s blood, and if waving won’t get them what they want, they’ll try to rub our collective noses in it to shame us. None of their proposals would have stopped the tragedy at Sandy Hook, but that doesn’t matter. As far is they’re concerned, now is their time and they intend to push it as far as they can. We must be willing to push back – hard. We must be willing to contact our senators and representatives. Ruger (yes, that Ruger) and Smith & Wesson (yes, that S&W) have tools to help let your elected officials know that you oppose any and all legislation that would curb your Second Amendment rights. It’s better to write your own letter, even better to call their offices. Even if your congress critter is solidly pro-gun or solidly anti-gun, make your voice heard. I think some of the other bloggers are right, and this may be the fight that decides the flow of the debate for the next decade.
As hard and nasty the fight against the antis is going to be, we must also fight against those who would perpetrate conspiracy theories about what happened that horrible morning at Sandy Hook. There are already YouTube videos of how there were multiple shooters, faked social media posts, and “crisis actors” brought in to pretend to be parents of “slain” children. The Blaze (which I’m not normally a fan of) does a great job of taking down most of these crank theories. Here, at least, we have allies who are often our opponents in the gun control debate – the skeptical community. This may be a chance for outreach to a community of individuals who are supposed to be swayed by reason and facts. Or at least proving that those conspiracy nuts are an infinitely small group of people who claim they are on our side of the debate.
One murderer has foisted on the gun community a slew of battles. We’ve lost some (New York) and won others (Chicago), but this is just the beginning. We must fight for our rights and for the truth behind those rights from all those that would threaten them.
The only real consensus I found [in the literature] was that these types of school shootings, or even spree killings, are too rare to do any kind of meaningful analysis of cause and effect… There’s more variables than there are data points. So you can’t do any kind of meaningful analysis. So we just don’t know what the important influences are and policies might reduce the risk of this happening again in the future.
Dr. Steven Novella, on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe #388
Everyone has been rushing to find a solution to these types of incidents. It must be guns, it must be violent video games, it must be because we don’t have armed security, it must be because of mental illness. The truth is we just don’t know.
I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves.
Christopher Hitchens, writer, commenter, and renown atheist and skeptic
I am surrounded in my daily life by some very devout Christians. If they want to believe in an all-powerful deity and beg for his intercession in their lives, so be it. I think they’re wrong and foolish and missing out on the true grandeur of the natural world, but they are competent adults. Generally, my relationship with them is more important than my activism. That is, until one starts to preach to me. If they are not dissuaded by my stating that I’m an atheist and don’t want to broach the topic, well then the battle is joined. I will feel no compunction about attempting to shatter their illusions.
I’m less restrained with people who I don’t need to keep a strong relationship. These would include street proselytizers, salespeople pushing junk, and loud-mouthed fellow customers in line. (This may have happened on occasion.)
H/t to the Brother for finding the quote for me
Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — *”No, you move.”*
Captain America, in Amazing Spider-Man 537, written by J. Michael Straczynski
I first read this quote and felt inspired. When writing about topics that are not popular with large segments of the population, sometimes it feels like I’m standing alone against a wave of ignorance. Of course, every other person fighting for their beliefs are doing the same thing. To them, they are also fighting against those dark forces of ignorance and malevolence. So, it’s up to me to make damn sure that my armor of ideals have been tempered in the cauldron of research and introspection.
To be scientifically literate is to empower yourself to know when somebody is full of shit.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, on the Nerdist posdcast for 10/31/12
Maybe it’s people blaming scientists for not warning of an earthquake, or believing that water has “memory,” or that cheap consumer items can affect how the basic particles of the universe operates, but it absolutely amazes me how little people understand of how science works. What’s worse, this lack of understanding is causing harm to them and to those under their care.
Six Italian scientists were convicted of manslaughter because they followed the evidence and didn’t predict a massive earthquake that killed 300 people in 2009. In Italy. Not some third-world backwater of a place, but what is supposed to be a modern, industrialized nation. In response to the convictions, most of the senior members of the Civil Protection Commission, including its leader, have resigned. If this could happen in Italy, where else could such trials occur? France, Germany, Britain, the United States?
Why did this happen? In my opinion a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic principles of science led to the easy scapegoating of these scientists when the public needed someone to blame in their grief. “Those damn scientists told us nothing was happening and then an earthquake killed 300.” Here’s the dirty, little secret of science. It can only make predictions based on the current knowledge of how the physical world works, and that knowledge is incomplete. Sometimes that leads to incorrect hypotheses. In this case, the scientists looked all at the evidence made a prediction and the physical world did something else. It would be no different if a doctor looked at a patient’s symptoms and test results and treated appropriately, but the patient died because of something unknown or unpredicted. We don’t blame the doctor because of the limitations of modern medicine.
I am encouraged by the public backlash to these convictions, but I can easily see the same thing happening elsewhere. The only way to combat this is to help educate our fellow citizens on how science works and what it can or can’t do.