Eugene (as always) makes a well reasoned point, but there is a necessary extension.
As he noted earlier, "unreasonable fears" are the underlying aspect of fear mongering. Though it is rational to fear violent crime, the average citizen (suburban or rural, or at least in the safer parts of large cities) are subjected to violent crime at much lower rates than in inner-city gang districts. Thus, in the absence of propaganda, their fears of violent crime would be low and rational in the context of their daily lives. By exaggerating data (such as the "13 children a day" myth) and by presenting violent crime with guns as an epidemic (as Joyce Foundation funding of medical school research in criminology attempts to do), it creates irrational fear in people. The interesting exceptions are televised mass public killings (Columbine, VA Tech, 9/11, Trolley Square). When assaulted, places normally devoid of violent crime - ones where the suburban masses frequent - as perceived as no longer being absolutely safe. Despite the fact that the statistical probability of the same event occurring at similar locations is low, people worry if their school/mall/office could also come under attack (enter the gun control industry, who over-hypes news stories to inflate and perpetuate the fear). Yours in Liberty Guy Smith www.GunFacts.info _____ From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:13 AM To: 'Guy Smith'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate. There are surely many arguments in the gun control debate that are based on factual falsehoods. Yet despite that, gun crime is something to fear, and not just when you're a gang member or live in a gun-infested neighborhood. So I don't think there is a sound objection here to fear-mongering, or even irrational fear-mongering; rather, the objection would be (1) to lie-mongering, and (2) to failure to recognize why the proposed solutions are unlikely to diminish the thing one reasonably fears. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Guy Smith Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate. My next book - Catalog of Canards, due out during the next election cycle - explains to people how political lies are created and spread, and uses (surprise) the gun control industry as the case study. The Lie of Fear has many variants, but as Ray accurately noted, is a primary weapon for the gun control industry. Eugene's definition is accurate as well, so we look then for examples of where irrational fear is invented to achieve legislation that would not otherwise pass. Distilling a lot a criminological data, we see that most serious violence centers in and around gangs and the drug trade, which overlap greatly. One Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows about 80% of all homicides (and thus likely more than 80% of all gang/gun homicides and a lion's share of wounding) were gang/drug related. However, such activity is primarily confined to poor neighborhoods of large cities - very isolated compared to the general population. However, when presented by the gun control industry or the media, the problem is generalized and portrayed as a national concern. This is one form of fear-mongering. Another example is worth repeating. The "13 child a day" myth in its original form was based on FBI UCS data that included victims upwards of 24 years of age. The goal of this inappropriate data usage was to inflate the number of "children" who died from gunshots and induce parental fear. In reading some of the amicus briefs in Heller, I see other ancient and well refuted "studies" which were the foundation of one or another fear campaign. Steven Breyer leaned upon these for his infamous balancing act. Thus I have to side with Ray on this point. Fear mongering - inciting unreasonable fear in the wide population - is a recurring theme in the public discussion and one that seeps into court decisions. Yours in Liberty Guy Smith _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate. I think we'd need a more specific definition of "fear-mongering" for this to work. Much fear is perfectly rational, and a sound basis for lawmaking. The Revolution was fought partly because of a fear of further British abuses. The Constitution was created because of various well-founded fears. The Bill of Rights was enacted because of fear of government abuse. Likewise, fear of terrorism, drugs, gun crime, and so on is generally quite reasonable. Now perhaps "fear-mongering" means arguing based on unreasonable fears (in which case the objection isn't to "playing the fear card" but to "playing the fear card in a context where the fear is unreasonable"). But I don't think there's anything unreasonable in fearing that privately owned guns will be misused for criminal purposes - they are, hundreds of thousands times a year. The sound objection to gun bans, I think, is that while gun crime is properly feared, trying to ban guns would do more harm than good. But I don't think that talk of "fear-mongering" adequately captures the argument. Eugene From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raymond Kessler Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:18 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate. IMHO & FWIW: One of the greatest threats to civil liberties comes from fear-mongering. Whether the fear comes from the left or right (e.g., of terrorism, fear of drugs, fear of guns, etc.), it is a threat. The fear campaign against incorporating the 2nd amend has started. (see link, there are numerous others) Look for amicus briefs for McD from Dave Kopel and Don Kates and others that deal with the gun-crime issue. The bloodbaths predicted after many states licensed concealed carry never occurred. Society has not collapsed since June, 2008. Nobody ever said the Second Amendment is absolute. In Heller the Court strongly hinted that many traditional gun control laws would be valid. Further, there is no convincing evidence that ordinary law-abiding citizens having common weapons is a cause of crime. Chicken Little is alive and well, prospering in this propaganda campaign. http://www.indystar.com/article/20091111/OPINION01/911110323/1002/OPINION/Ti me+to+re-examine+rights+of+Second+Amendment Ray Kessler Prof. of Criminal Justice Sul Ross State Univ.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
