Why this isn't the time

Another mass shooting, again at a school, and the reactions are predictable as ever. "We need to talk about gun control." "Don't politicize the tragedy." "To not talk about it would be to politicize it." "I love you guys, but Americans are fucking idiots" (from a Canadian friend of mine).

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with politicizing the attack -- it's an inherently political topic -- but this is still the wrong time to be talking about changing policy. Why? We're in the wake of an attention-getting but unrepresentative event. Emotional reactions don't lead to good policy.

While this attack is clearly a terrible event for those directly involved, it's a detail from a public policy standpoint. There are roughly 9,000-10,000 per year in the US. That's 25-30 per day, every day. Newtown is, in a very real sense, just another day.

It also seems that most commonly proposed gun control measures wouldn't do much to prevent attacks like this. Waiting periods, background checks, registration, all sensible but not relevant to the situation at hand. These mass shootings tend to be perpetrated by people with no prior criminal record, a long planning horizon, and no concerns about getting caught.

What might help? The most effective policy would probably be to suppress media coverage. These people are copycats, looking for attention. We give it to them. I recently read about some countries that suppressed reports of suicide-by-train, with a resulting drop in rates (large drop by train, smaller one overall). It seems like a similar dynamic But would I advocate that? I'm not so sure. The only other thing I'd see maybe working would be eliminating all guns, but I'm not even sure that would be possible, setting aside for the moment the costs and Constitutional issues.

Imperfect polices

The left says we need tighter gun laws. The right answers that criminals don't follow the law in the first place. The left replies that making it harder to get a gun will stop some criminals, even if not all of them.

The right says we need tighter border enforcement. The left answers, "Show me a ten-foot fence, I'll show you an eleven-foot ladder." The right replies that making it harder to sneak into the country will stop some illegal immigration, even if not all of it.

I simplify a bit by saying left and right, but this is probably a pretty good segmentation of society. Obviously, everyone is able to realize that an imperfect policy might still be desirable. If the choice is between accomplishing none of your objectives and some of them, you might as well take the partial win. Yet somehow, people still act as if, "Your suggested policy is imperfect" is a convincing argument.

There are other arguments to be made for these policies. Tighter gun laws may or may not reduce crime. Illegal immigration may or may not be beneficial for citizens. Let's engage at that level.