My statement in this post that rather than banning guns we should instead ban the media was hyperbole. Please don't take it seriously.
The point I was trying to make is one that Ronald Coase made almost forty years ago. When I hear media pundits argue that the most recent attack by some personality defect with a gun is renewed fodder for banning guns, there's a better case to be made for banning the media. The media's sensation with these stories - constantly plastering the perpetrator's picture on the front pages of newspapers or on television screens, or showing repeatedly pictures of the tormented faces of the family of a victim, or constantly running banners like "Tragedy In Colorado," etc. - perpetuates this type of behavior by fulfilling the perpetrator's objective(s). This makes it far more attractive for the next personality defect looking to make a statement to follow suit. Therefore, the media deserves more blame for perpetuating violent events like this than even the most negligent gun seller. If it's cause to ban guns because someone with a personality defect shoots people, then it also must be cause to ban the media.
Neither, of course, are desired, with both amendments to the Bill of Rights essential to a free society. But that's just the point: the Second Amendment is just as essential to protecting freedoms as is the First.
Comments