FBI Study Finds, Surprise, Surprise, mass shootings are over before cops arrive

[MDS]

The middle is a mound of jello in a bedsheet, held at either end by extremes, and moved by whoever is willing to sink lower.

Holy... This quote is the most elegant, succinct juxtaposition of simile and mixed metaphor that I've ever seen. But I think it misses an important point: the extremes can only control the middle on subjects of which they (the middle) are ignorant. I did a little experiment a couple of years ago, and too many grown ups believed me when I said something like "Obama needs to learn from history, because FDR's pride cost many lives back in 1776 when he didn't commit to an air campaign in the civil war instead of insisting on putting boots on the ground." Seven of 11 grown ups mentioned nothing about the obvious problems with that statement. Three objected but were calmed and impressed when I pointed out that air campaigns in the 17th century were fought with hot air balloons. Only one knew enough to call bs on the whole thing.

Whatever the answer is, it won't work without an (accurately) educated and informed voting public. Maybe this will happen when Google glass becomes ubiquitous and everyone can fact-check anything in the blink of an eye. Until then, we'll have to fumble along with factual reports like the one in the op.

[GardoneVT]

Holy... This quote is the most elegant, succinct juxtaposition of simile and mixed metaphor that I've ever seen. But I think it misses an important point: the extremes can only control the middle on subjects of which they (the middle) are ignorant. I did a little experiment a couple of years ago, and too many grown ups believed me when I said something like "Obama needs to learn from history, because FDR's pride cost many lives back in 1776 when he didn't commit to an air campaign in the civil war instead of insisting on putting boots on the ground." Seven of 11 grown ups mentioned nothing about the obvious problems with that statement. Three objected but were calmed and impressed when I pointed out that air campaigns in the 17th century were fought with hot air balloons. Only one knew enough to call bs on the whole thing.

Whatever the answer is, it won't work without an (accurately) educated and informed voting public. Maybe this will happen when Google glass becomes ubiquitous and everyone can fact-check anything in the blink of an eye. Until then, we'll have to fumble along with factual reports like the one in the op.

The core of the issue is sociology, not science. There's piles of scientific fact which says gun control is a steaming heap of fail, but none of it gains traction because modern gun control is a sociological phonemonon. Even Google Glass can't save someone unwilling to leave the plantation of ignorance .

To demonstrate the point, some months ago at an FFL I had an enlightening discussion with the older counter jockey. As if to make up for the basura I've heard in such places before, he told me of a time when as a kid he bought a .22 rifle at his Montgomery Wards and pedaled through town with it in his bicycle-and to think, SWAT wasn't called, nor was the Justice Department notified of child endagerment.

Try that stunt today in some states, and the parents would be facing no-kitten jail time. What's the difference? Social attitudes. That is why beating the drum isn't the way forward , because the antis aren't talking hardware anymore. They're talking social software, and that's a language the NRA just doesn't seem to comprehend. We need to evolve past 'Becuz Constitution', as for one most kids nowadays don't know any of the Bill of Rights' besides Amendments One and Five.

Two, what we need to do is evolve the 'Apple' style marketing. Less magazine capacity and Constitutional study, and more civil rights and positive social connotations with firearms. Forget national reciprocity- we cannot rest until major celebs are debating Glock versus 1911 on Jimmy Kimmel.

[MDS]

In my naivete, it makes me sad to agree that in a world where most people would take my word about FDR's air support strategy during the civil war of 1776, the worldly thing may well be to hire top marketing talent. But even then, why don't we brainwash people into exercising some fact checking skills? The habit of fact checking is perhaps the single most educational habit possible - it educates you on very relevant topics, (just-in-time education,) and it tells you as much about the people telling you stuff as about the stuff itself.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, dear - according to the Gun Guy - the FBI study indicates that having a gun in a critical incident is a bad thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-w...p_ref=politics

Must be true, as it is on the Internet and he is the gun guy.

[LOKNLOD]

While that approach has worked for the previous generation, of what shall we do when the current crop of public school raised kids attain voting age? The "molon laabe" approach will not reach a generation raised to view TSA and government regulation as "normal". Further, as the demographics of America shift away from old white guys and towards Asians and Latinos, we need a marketing model more evolved then " my cold dead hands, for sayeth the Constitution."

These days I see a lot of Asians and Latinos demonstrating an understanding of personal liberty at a much deeper level than most of the old white guys I know.

[cclaxton]

In my naivete, it makes me sad to agree that in a world where most people would take my word about FDR's air support strategy during the civil war of 1776, the worldly thing may well be to hire top marketing talent. But even then, why don't we brainwash people into exercising some fact checking skills? The habit of fact checking is perhaps the single most educational habit possible - it educates you on very relevant topics, (just-in-time education,) and it tells you as much about the people telling you stuff as about the stuff itself.

In addition to fact-checking, reading and understanding government policies and knowing the history of those policies is critical to understanding how we got where we are today. These laws didn't just drop from heaven or boil up from hell.

The history of gun control came about over decades of events that created a popular movement that resulted in politicians trying to do something to create a remedy or at least the perception that they did something to make changes.

So to change the politicians, we must change public perception. And we have to start with the most fundamental reason that SCOTUS has delivered: defense of ourselves, our homes, and of others. Everybody gets that. We need to reinforce that in the public messages, especially when events happen.

From that foundation of defense, public perception on concealed carry and castle doctrine and parking lot rights can be improved.

Cody

[Lomshek]

While that approach has worked for the previous generation, of what shall we do when the current crop of public school raised kids attain voting age? The "molon laabe" approach will not reach a generation raised to view TSA and government regulation as "normal". Further, as the demographics of America shift away from old white guys and towards Asians and Latinos, we need a marketing model more evolved then " my cold dead hands, for sayeth the Constitution."

We're way off topic but I'd argue the opposite. I don't know of anyone of any political belief who doesn't chafe at the additional restrictions on our liberty. The majority roll their eyes as they instinctively know it is theater. That group is tired (as are us older ones) of double speak and welcomes no BS truth. Softening the approach will turn them away as they smell yet another political ploy.

[MDS]

In addition to fact-checking, reading and understanding government policies and knowing the history of those policies is critical to understanding how we got where we are today. These laws didn't just drop from heaven or boil up from hell.

I don't disagree, but I just don't think we're going to get people to care about such esoteric knowledge as government policies, let alone their history, per se. But if fact-checking were effortless and immediate, it might become a ubiquitous enough habit. If for no other reason than to win arguments with strangers, people would look up this FBI report and counter fallacious arguments with actual data. So when someone says something like...

The history of gun control came about over decades of events that created a popular movement that resulted in politicians trying to do something to create a remedy or at least the perception that they did something to make changes.

...wouldn't it be cool if your internet implant automatically brought up a relevant wikipedia entry, so you could respond with some knowledge like:

According to historian Saul Cornell, states passed some of the first gun control laws, beginning with Kentucky's law to "curb the practice of carrying concealed weapons in 1813." There was opposition and, as a result, the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment began and grew in direct response to these early gun control laws, in keeping with this new "pervasive spirit of individualism." As noted by Cornell, "Ironically, the first gun control movement helped give birth to the first self-conscious gun rights ideology built around a constitutional right of individual self-defense."

I'm not really debating your statement, it's probably correct in the way it was intended. I'm just illustrating how I feel that, if technology can make fact-checking a truly effortless (because people are lazy) and immediate (because people are impatient) activity, it might have a similar effect as if people were actually at least slightly educated on the topic at hand.

[Chuck Haggard]

Oh, dear - according to the Gun Guy - the FBI study indicates that having a gun in a critical incident is a bad thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-w...p_ref=politics

Must be true, as it is on the Internet and he is the gun guy.

That was one of the most perverse spins to fit a political ideology that I have ever seen. It's truly disgusting.

[cclaxton]

The core of the issue is sociology, not science. There's piles of scientific fact which says gun control is a steaming heap of fail, but none of it gains traction because modern gun control is a sociological phonemonon. Even Google Glass can't save someone unwilling to leave the plantation of ignorance .

To demonstrate the point, some months ago at an FFL I had an enlightening discussion with the older counter jockey. As if to make up for the basura I've heard in such places before, he told me of a time when as a kid he bought a .22 rifle at his Montgomery Wards and pedaled through town with it in his bicycle-and to think, SWAT wasn't called, nor was the Justice Department notified of child endagerment.

Try that stunt today in some states, and the parents would be facing no-kitten jail time. What's the difference? Social attitudes. That is why beating the drum isn't the way forward , because the antis aren't talking hardware anymore. They're talking social software, and that's a language the NRA just doesn't seem to comprehend. We need to evolve past 'Becuz Constitution', as for one most kids nowadays don't know any of the Bill of Rights' besides Amendments One and Five.

Two, what we need to do is evolve the 'Apple' style marketing. Less magazine capacity and Constitutional study, and more civil rights and positive social connotations with firearms. Forget national reciprocity- we cannot rest until major celebs are debating Glock versus 1911 on Jimmy Kimmel.

Nicely Stated....+1
Cody