On Guns: Everyone Is An Expert

One more reason for me to be happy about the fact that the gun debate continues in America almost two months after the tragedy that sparked it, is that I don't have to feel foolish still continuing the subject.

I will, however, reference something that I heard several weeks ago already. One morning when I was up too early, I heard the colorful former republican congressman, who now hosts the morning show on MSNBC go on about how it's ridiculous to say violent video games and movies aren't a cause for gun violence. Maybe my 5 a.m. brain is more prone to being fried, but I got so angry at him I had to change the channel: When his guest was citing studies showing no increase in violent behavior from exposure to fictional violence, Scarborough went on (practically foaming at the corner of his mouth but that's just how most of the MSNBC male hosts of his generation talk) about how it's too plain not to see it does, and come and show me that scientist - those studies aren't worth the paper they're printed on, was basically his message. Because how can it be that exposure to fictional violence doesn't cause desensitization to actual violence? And that, in his opinion, was clear indication that seeing fictional violence causes people to commit violence.

His point about desensitization is, in my opinion, quite fair. I'm hardly as shocked to see a violent movie scene as I was fifteen years ago. But that's as far as Scarborough should take his argument. Because unlike half or more of America's reporters, and a fair chunk of the populus thinks, scientists actually know what the heck they are writing about. Reporters - not so much. They might, and on things like politics I'll trust a reporter more than a politician. On social sciences or psychology? Give me a scientist's opinion and I'll listen.

It is far too popular to wave off the scientific community as a bunch of airheads, probably with ulterior motives, maybe in the pocket of big money, and to declare your gut feeling as something of more value. This of course goes beyond just the gun issue. Climate change is a classic example: I have heard otherwise smart people suggest that climate scientists are in on a conspiracy and climate is not changing, at least not because of human action - while never, I have to assume, considering that the interests of some of the most powerful companies in the world would make it perfectly logical for those companies to spend millions on trying to discredit climate science and using perfectly legal if unethical ways to influence politicians to stay on their side. (And besides it was cold today so there can't be climate change.)

But I digress. I don't doubt Scarborough's sincerity on this issue, as he is apparently saying smart things on this issue as well. But he doesn't come off as smart when he takes the leap from "desensitization" to causation. Granted, I have a scientific eduation which included not only reading and analyzing scientific articles but also gaining undestanding that correlation doesn't mean causation. (Smart guys can get that from life and Wikipedia too, though.) Granted, it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis to make: Seeing violence on screen causes violence on street. But when that hypothesis is tested with scientific method and rejected, you either have to conduct more scientific research to try and find frickin' evidence on which to base your argument, or accept that your gut was simply wrong. As desensitized as I may be to screen violence, it has not made it more likely that I will grab a weapon and attack someone. Accept it, there are no easy scapegoats here.

Because blaming the guns is definitely not an easy scapegoat, not in this country. And blaming poverty would mean we should actually do something to reduce it.