Gun Control or Better Media? Which Will Really Stop the Violence?

Anyone who's been in touch with recent events in America knows that the school shooting in Connecticut has refocused attention on gun control. But will gun control really curtail gun violence?

THE PROBLEM IS THE ENVIRONMENT?

Certainly, as best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell points out in Tipping Point we are shaped by our environment. In a no-gun environment, gun violence would drop to zero. But no one seems interested in making America a no-gun environment. Gun control, yes. Gun elimination, no. We want our police and our military to have guns. Politicians, Hollywood stars, and high-level businesspeople want their bodyguards armed. As a people we don't seem terribly concerned about allowing people to hunt or to shoot guns recreationally. What we want is to curtail gun violence. So the question is: how is that possible in an environment where both legal and illegal firearms exist?

THE PROBLEM IS MOTIVATION

In his landmark TED talk Tony Robbins says, "If I pull a gun on you and I'm in the hood, instantly I'm significant from zero to ten how high? Ten!" Tony claims that everything we do is motivated by our six human needs. Particularly violence is motivated by our need for significance, that is our need for attention, or our need to feel unique, special, different. Looked at from this angle, people will turn away from violence when we take away its significance.

STORIES MOTIVATE

Going back to Tipping Point, Gladwell analyzes the meteoric rise in suicide attempts by teenage boys in Micronesia after a highly publicized 1966 suicide by the "charismatic scion of one of the wealthiest families" of Ebeye. That story motivated other boys whose publicity motivated others in a vicious cycle that has caused the suicide rate among young males in Micronesia to hit one out of every thousand, and on some islands, one in forty. Many of these suicides seem to be triggered by banal disagreements with older family members and do not fit the traditional "cries for help" model. Still, each one is highly publicized, giving permission and even encouragement to the next.

MORE LAWS OR BETTER MEDIA?

Now of course, Micronesia could outlaw rope, wire, belts, and anything else these men might try to hang themselves with, but wouldn't it make more sense to take away part of the reason they're committing suicide? What if the Micronesian media refused to report on suicides the way TV stations now refuse to show stadium streakers at baseball games? By taking away suicide's significance, you could take away a major motivational factor. And what about gun violence?

SHOOTER VS. HERO

By now everyone knows the name of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter. How many instead know the name of Victoria Soto? She's the 27-year old Newtown teacher who lost her life while saving a whole classroom full of first graders by hiding them in the classroom and telling the gunman they were in the gym. What, she didn't make your local newscast? What if the mass media agreed to a total media blackout about the shooters and focused on the heroes? What would that give us permission and encouragement to do?

Now I'm not saying we don't need intelligent gun laws. We do. I'm suggesting that violence could be greatly curtailed by a media blackout like they already use for streakers at sporting events. Cut away from the action, give a brief commentary, and then focus on the heroes everyone wants to see. Couldn't that spark a social revolution of heroic generosity?

Fr. Scott Kallal is one of the founding members of the Apostles of the Interior Life, a new community dedicated to answering Pope Benedict's call to raise up "a new generation of apostles rooted in Christ's word, able to respond to the challenges of our time, and ready to spread the Gospel far and wide." You can contact Fr. Scott at scottkallal@gmail.com

View the original article here

Which Candidate Is Best for Science?

In the wake of a traditional presidential debate it seems like an interesting time to recognize a call from the scientific community for a Presidential Science Debate. I suppose many people in the country might be swayed upon hearing how their president or a candidate might vote on various science issues.

In the eyes of many, this is a central issue to the future of the country. How will federal dollars be used to advance technology and mitigate potential "scientific" phenomena (or catastrophe)? I took it upon myself to do a little research to see what has been happening in the Presidential race, and what it might mean for science.

Both Romney and Obama have recently answered science questions posed by a large group of U.S. researchers. However, the answers proved too political. Shawn Otto, a researcher who led much of the effort to compile questions for the candidates, said, "Some of the questions aren't fully answered when they become politically difficult, others could really benefit from followup discussion.." But who does that surprise? They are, after all, just politicians.

A transcript of the candidates' responses to these questions can be found on the New York Times homepage. I will highlight just a few important topics to which each candidate responded:

1. Education

Obama was first to bring out the need for better training of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) teachers. He alluded to a program he began four years ago to fund better training of STEM teachers. Romney's concern over expenditure was loud and clear and should perhaps also be a concern to scientists. Despite leaning towards allowing cuts in education funding, Romney obviously seems in favor of experimentation with various MOOC style education and open access instruction. Romney is a stronger proponent of using evaluation to hold instructors responsible for their efforts in the classroom (something that might frighten the unions but anyone halfway honest must admit it is needed).

2. Investment and Research

Obama chose to highlight his spending on green initiatives, clean energy, and information technology. He cited unprecedented spending on such programs totaling $190 billion during his administration. Despite declines in the access to grant funding through the NSF and NIH it seems likely that an Obama administration will keep the grants flowing. Romney came down hard on Obama's clean-energy spending, citing a Harvard study that the funding was provided to an industry not yet ready for large capital infusions. Romney outlined what smart science spending would be like. He was quite adamant that he would not decrease NIH funding, though one must suspect what that might mean for the NSF. From his response, it seems that tech transfer will be a more simple process under Romney given his concern with hamstrung start-ups in the medical science industries.

3. Science in Public Policy

Both candidates spoke of the importance of informed public policy. While that is no surprise, the real question is: to what extent will policy yield to politics and ignore science? It is hard to ignore the concentration of TARP funds that went to small groups of large companies claiming to be doing revolutionary science. While this track record does the President no favors, plenty of G.O.P. administrations have been guilty of the same behavior (there have been so many it isn't worth giving an example). The question for science is: do we believe Romney when he says, "I will pursue legislative reforms to ensure that regulators are always taking cost into account when they promulgate new rules."

4. The Internet

How a scientist feels about the candidates' responses really depends on how she sits on the issue of intellectual property. I doubt anyone would disparage the need for proper attribution, but many feel like pay-walls on publicly funded research should be eliminated. Obama's comments seemed to come down on the side of a controlled internet. While open to those who wished to contribute to a wholesome net, it would have nine-foot walls to all others. Romney described the internet as an exciting place of innovation and change, without government deciding what can and can't be done. Without clear answers on the issue of open access, we are left to speculate on which administration would provide a clear but quick pathway to increased dissemination of research.

While I won't offer my opinion on the election. It should be clear that science is not the only issue, but it should be taken into consideration when deciding who would be best for the future.

More articles can be found at http://us.litroost.net/?post_type=post!

LitRoost is a non-profit effort to turn academic search engines into the candy shops they should be. With such a wealth of undiscovered world-changing ideas buried in academic articles there must be a platform designed to facilitate idea transfer. LitRoost is designed to not only promote community, but to put it to work.

We need smart people to try our software for free!

Contact us now to become a beta tester!

View the original article here