I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.
-Megan McArdle [above], The Daily Beast
I can just see the teacher instructing her students: "Kids, when the madman with the assault rife comes through the door, I want the class to run toward him. Susie and Billy, you lead."
Brilliant.
Most conservatives apparently would rather sacrifice America's children than ever consider doing anything about the availability of guns in this country.
Truly amazing.
*******
Today, McArdle realized what she had said was pretty stupid, so she clarified herself.
I completely agree that small children rushing a shooter would be a terrible idea. I can see how taken out of context, if you maybe hadn’t read the whole article, "young people" could be read to refer to the Newtown school children. But I was talking about teenagers, not first graders.*Facepalm*
.
11 comments:
Wow, what a depressing article.
Shorter Megan McArdle: Nothing is going to work so let's give up and stop trying.
Rick, I think it's pretty irresponsible of you to boil down a 4500 word essay into one paragraph taken out of context in an attempt to demonize someone you want to characterize as a "conservative," since you clearly despise people who identify themselves as such. Did you read the entire article? It's pretty long and I know you skim a lot of stuff, but when you post something like this, it has an effect on that person's reputation, since people implicitly trust you to share the news that you've ostensibly reviewed. You're trying to pigeon hole this woman when her response was an extremely well thought out and nuanced argument leading to her conclusion. It'd be more informative if you'd included at least the paragraph before and after, or at the minimum, the paragraph in its entirety. Kind of like how you took "black sounding" out of context from my recent post about Johnny Rockets, I assume to make me sound like a racist. I'm beginning to think you're a real dick.
"It would certainly be more comfortable for me to endorse doing something symbolic--bring back the "assault weapons ban"--in order to signal that I care. But I would rather do nothing than do something stupid because it makes us feel better. We shouldn't have laws on the books unless we think there's a good chance they'll work: they add regulatory complexity and sap law-enforcement resources from more needed tasks. This is not because I don't care about dead children; my heart, like yours, broke about a thousand times this weekend. But they will not breathe again because we pass a law. A law would make us feel better, because it would make us feel as if we'd "done something", as if we'd made it less likely that more children would die. But I think that would be false security. And false security is more dangerous than none.
My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity. I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.
But I doubt we're going to tell people to gang rush mass shooters, because that would involve admitting that there is no mental health service or "reasonable gun control" which is going to prevent all of these attacks. Which is to say, admitting that we have no box big enough to completely contain evil."
Robert Shaw as "Mr. Blue":
Blue: Now ladies and gentlemen do you see this gun? It fires 750 rounds of 9mm ammunition per minute. In other words if all of you simultaneously were to rush me, not a single one of you would get any closer than you are now.
Colin, Colin, Colin...There are plenty of people who think I'm a "dick" when I simply repeat their words, so you (and Megan) may be the latest to join that always expanding crowd.
Yes, I thought it rather strange that you used "black sounding" to characterize someone's name and that's why I mentioned it. But I don't think it was any more racist when I used it than when you used it. And by "any more" I mean "not at all." It was unusual...and I thought the paragraph that I quoted in conjunction with the mention adequately showed your admiration for the guy. What can I say? Sorry you feel that way.
Conservatives...yeah, I don't like them. Not at all. Something about their gay bashing, Muslim hating, anti-intellectual, duplicitous and bigoted points of view that really turns me off. But apparently all that's okay with other people. Who am I to judge, right?
That paragraph that I quoted was quoted around the internet...because it is exactly what she wrote and even in the context it was written shows the idiocy of the Right when it comes to dealing with guns.
I would hope that before you go ahead with your verdict of me being a "dick" you would consider these posts in the context of the 4 or 5 years that I've been covering the South Florida blogosphere. I review what people write. Whatever it is and whatever it sounds like.
.
Rick, you seem to me to be saying that your posting something out of context is fine because many others did so, but that really it's not out of context because the point of the whole article was what you concluded it was. It's an intellectually dishonest form of debate and anyone who does it, on the right or on the left, is doing this country a disservice because he or she is stifling honest and open discussion about issues that people want to work out. Your response is patronizing, right from the get-go. No big surprise. This must be the whiny tone you referred to on my blog. Whatever dude.
Whatever dude.
Couldn't agree more.
.
With her clarification, it should be pretty obvious to everyone (including Eat It, Miami) that Megan meant exactly what she said the first time around.
You guys are simpletons and it's apparent that you didn't read the entire article and probably not even the three paragraphs I copied and pasted in my previous comment. She did not say "the solution to mass shootings is that children should rush the shooter," as you not only imply, but explicitly state. She says over and over throughout the article that she believes in gun control and in very specific measures, but you want to defame her for some reason.
Colin, I read the article even before Rick posted it. It's hard to say that an article that starts: "The things that would work are impractical and unconstitutional. The things we can do won't work." and goes on a lengthy exploration of how there isn't anything that can prevent a shooting 100%, would be a nuanced discussion of what can be done. In the three paragraphs you excerpted, there's only one sentence that faintly endorses gun control:
"My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity"
"Small measures that might have some tiny actual effect" is no one's idea of enthusiastic support. The only other thing she suggests elsewhere in the article is some form of mandatory training and background checks. Then she goes on to propose that imbecility of bum rushing a shooter. It's funny that in the same article she deplores impulsive reactions and presents a solution based on overcoming the most impulsive reaction of all, which is to flee from danger.
I think there are two simpletons here. One is Ms. McArdle. You can guess who's the other one.
Ohhhhhh, Alex! You burned me! The purpose of including the paragraphs that I did was to provide at least some minimal amount of context, unlike Rick. You guys are wrong and you can gang up on me all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Nice try co-opting my word. Nothing McArdle or I have written suggests that either one of us is a simpleton. I'm technically a genius, since you've brought it up. Thanks for commenting. Good work all around. Lots of hustle.
Speaking of "dicks"...
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.