Asymmetrical Information

However, you can still dress as a suicide bomber and attend University Halloween parties.

When I was a kid, most of us had photos taken holding guns and smiling for the camera. There was usually a dead deer or several dead birds in the picture...heck, I had a picture like that taken a week ago....

Um, that may be the wrong link. Maybe. I'm not sure.

Appalling.

Max, I was hoping you wouldn't see that.

It didn't work for John Kerry and Ted Strickland in 2004.

bristlecone,

Watch out! Someone may report you to the FBI's unit dedicated to capturing serial killers.

It's the right link, just scroll down to the second question.

And yes, it's ridiculous.

I'm really glad I got out of the public school system in 1992. I definitely would have been carted away for unhealthy interests these days.

Agree with bristlecone. I have a few pictures like that in my scrapbook too. I realize that the percentage of the population that is frightened by guns is growing, but for many of us, playing with guns is no more abnormal than playing football.

On a more serious note, the problem is that people are driven by ignorance and fear, in this case ignorance of what the kids are up to and fear that if there is another Columbine their guilty knowledge will result in blame or worse.

Ed-Not for Kerry, true. Strickland was reelected in '04. But Teddy Strickland had always been able to get away with saying "I'm for gun control, but my district doesn't agree, so I will support my district." Now that he's Govenor, he will be able to follow his personal "gun-control" agenda. He was overheard to assure an after-speech crowd during the recent election that one of his main aims will be to recind Ohio's "right-to-carry" law.

"On a more serious note, the problem is that people are driven by ignorance and fear."

"has the counseling culture gotten completely out of control?" Quite.

MikeInAppalachia, are you sure about Ted Strickland? He is A rated by the NRA.

Is it just me, or has the counseling culture gotten completely out of control?

Sorry, I have to say report it. Those are high school students, and it did not sound like a supervised hunting or range event. At the very least, some adult needs to know what those KIDS are up to.

If it were adults, its a whole other matter.

We don't have a link to the MySpace page, so we know absolutely nothing about the context. Absent context, there is no reason to assume that this is anything but harmless posing with constitutionally protected items. The vast majority of gun owners, including teenagers are no threat to anybody. Note that there was no advice to contact the parents of these teenagers. Rather, the advice was to go straight to the police. This is paranoid bigotry.

I don't see the problem. These are not kids proudly posing with a deer they shot. These are kids with an AK-47 from a school known for gang violence with a history of gun deaths displaying all the good sense of pointing a gun at the photographer. The teacher wants to know if he should inform the superintendent. Of course he should.

If you saw a high school student point a handgun at someone as a joke while his friend brandished an AK-47, would you report it to anyone? If you wouldn't, you are doing more to promote gun control than any liberal.

Ummm, have you heard of a camera on a tripod with a timer? Do a search of YouTube and you will find a considerable number of videos produced in a similar manner. Not to mention all the Hollywood movies.

Handguns are legal to own in most jurisdictions.

Semi-automatic AK-47s are legally just rifles in most jurisdictions. Sorry, just because the gun looks scary to you doesn't make it evil. It is less deadly than most hunting rifles. And of course people want to pose with it, it looks scary and cool.

In most jurisdictions, it is legal for teenagers to possess long guns without adult supervision and handguns with adult supervision.

Without actually seeing the MySpace page, there is no reason to believe that the teenagers are a bunch of school murderers. If they posted a picture of a sports car, would you leap to the conclusion that they are carjackers and drunk drivers?

We are not promoting gun control, we are promoting reason and common sense instead of paranoia. Young people (who may be adults for all we know) have a right to be treated with respect until they prove otherwise, just like the rest of us.

Well, hmm. On the one hand, we have hoplophobia at Slate ironically preceded by a discussion of wedding tackle. On the other hand, we have a Rule 2 violation on MySpace in connection with images of an EvilBabyKillingMurderMachineAssaultRifle in the hands of a Teen Ager, which in the modern world equates to WMD and calls for a SWAT team to visit ASAP...

What to do, what to do? Well, for a start, how about communicating with the students in question? If they trust/care enough to email the MySpace link, surely they'd be willing to chat a bit about what was going on when the image was taken, starting with a review of Rule 2 and why it matters? Of course, the odds of anyone who actually writes in to the agony aunt column in Slate knowing Rule 2 is probably pretty small.

I know that I would handle it differently, but frankly I'm sure by now the appropriate authorities have been informed, and the students in question detained and questioned. Most likely if they are gang-wannabes, they've been let go with a warning, and if they are just ordinary young folks who got carried away with stupidity one afternoon, there's a permanent blot on their record, suspension from school & a couple of hundred hours of community service in the offing. But either way, they'll learn the important lesson that the stuff posted on MySpace or other crannies of the net can turn around and bite one rather hard in the real world...

Bristlecone wrote:
However, you can still dress as a suicide bomber and attend University Halloween parties.

And have your picture taken with the President of the university, too. Plus have great fun pretending to decapitate other guests. Hey, where's your tolerance and appreciation of other cultures, Bristlecone?

Kevin P. asked:
MikeInAppalachia, are you sure about Ted Strickland? He is A rated by the NRA.

NRA's ratings have a habit of being about politics as much as about voting record. That said, I know nothing about Strickland at this time.

ellipsis, true, but Strickland had a favorable review from Dave Kopel as well and it is hard to reconcile an A rating with Mike's comment.

Kevin P., nobody is infallible, but Kopel is generally pretty reliable. Do you have any idea how GOA rated/rates Strickland?

Like most of her advice this response was spot on. Simulated AKs and handguns are not hunting equipment. Since the school has a history of gun and gang problems the person is understandably concerned. Most likely the police will send someone to the kids houses and the kids will be grounded for playing with daddy's guns. It is extremely unlikely that these kids will harm anyone.But given the stakes, the advice given is not an overreaction.

Thinking back to my youth, and the times we were out shooting up signs, bottles, cans, trees, junked cars, whatever... and considering that these guy had probably already shot up half the county, I find it hilarious to think that what can get them into trouble is posing for a picture and posting it on the internet.

Ummm, have you heard of a camera on a tripod with a timer? ...
Handguns are legal to own in most jurisdictions.

Semi-automatic AK-47s are legally just rifles in most jurisdictions.

Yes, it is entirely possible that they were not pointing the gun at a person. There is also a very significant possibility that they were. Years of compiled actuarial information indicates that young people are likely to do phenomenally stupid things, so when visual evidence of it arises, it is wise to consider it.

This isn't a court of law. They are not going to prison for anything they did. They are not even going to lose their guns for their behavior. None of this is about the student's rights which are not even in the slightest possible danger. Nothing suggested will prevent them from posting another 1000 photos like the one they posted.

No part of this discussion is about any person's rights. It is about decent behavior with regard to other people and society. It is not required that this behavior be reported. The school system does not have any right to be informed of it. It is just the decent thing to do to let the school system know what these students are up to.

Sorry, messed up the quotes in above post.

(fixed quotes)

"Ummm, have you heard of a camera on a tripod with a timer? ...
Handguns are legal to own in most jurisdictions.

Semi-automatic AK-47s are legally just rifles in most jurisdictions."

Yes, it is entirely possible that they were not pointing the gun at a person. There is also a very significant possibility that they were. Years of compiled actuarial information indicates that young people are likely to do phenomenally stupid things, so when visual evidence of it arises, it is wise to consider it.

This isn't a court of law. They are not going to prison for anything they did. They are not even going to lose their guns for their behavior. None of this is about the student's rights which are not even in the slightest possible danger. Nothing suggested will prevent them from posting another 1000 photos like the one they posted.

No part of this discussion is about any person's rights. It is about decent behavior with regard to other people and society. It is not required that this behavior be reported. The school system does not have any right to be informed of it. It is just the decent thing to do to let the school system know what these students are up to.

I agree with Njorl. What exactly, Jane, are you afraid will happen?

Given the hysteria with which schools respond to things like kids having tylenol or nail files in schools, I would not be surprised if the kids were suspended just for the pictures. I also would not be surprised if the police arrested them and/or confiscated their weapons. They may not be charged with anything and almost certainly wouldn't be convicted of anything (assuming the guns are legal), but the blot of an arrest and suspension from schools is not insignificant. I also would not be surprised if the confiscated guns were never returned to them or were only returned after a painful process.

I would think that contacting the parents, first, would be the right thing to do. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children. If the kids were being safe and responsible, the parents would be able to explain that. If they were not, then the parents should know so that they can correct it. If the parents are bad parents or irresponsible, THEN the police or school should be contacted. I don't think it's appropriate to assume that the police and/or school will make better parents for the kids than their own parents.

EI

Kevin-I know that NRA rated Strickland as such and, to his credit, Teddy's voting record supports an "A" rating. Again, he's always been upfront with his original base-Scioto and adjacent counties-that he was following their wishes. However, his personal view is that handgun (and certain rifles) possession (and use) should be restricted. As for the described statement in my initial post-I was present. What I stated is not an exact quote, but that was the essence. Should point-out that he was in the company of supporters of his more liberal fellow candidates, so could have been merely for their benefit. We'll (here in Ahia) see what comes.

Alternate scenario:

Concerned Adult finds a MySpace page with pictures of high school students displaying what appear to be sticks of dynamite, straps and duct tape, suggestive of suicide vests. Report? Not report? How different is this from the guns scenario? Why?

Mark, the answer is too obvious for me to think you are serious.

Guns are legal and used by millions of Americans (including minors) for safe, lawful purposes.

Suicide vests, not so much.

But seriously, I'm as much a gun nut as anyone here--more than most, I'd bet--and I don't have a huge problem with this advice. There's a difference between a kid and his first buck (or even a kid at the range, in a safe environment) and someone who is both so unsupervised and so immature as to produce a picture like the one described.

The real problem is the probable overraction of the school/police. Once when I was cleaning my guns in the garage, two police cars went by my house, veeeeery slowly. I stronly suspect someone had freaked out and called them, but they pretty much ignored it when they saw a guy cleaning a deer rifle in November. If the cops/principal in this case can react as sensibly, then reporting it just makes sense.

"If they trust/care enough to email the MySpace link, surely they'd be willing to chat a bit about what was going on when the image was taken, starting with a review of Rule 2 and why it matters? Of course, the odds of anyone who actually writes in to the agony aunt column in Slate knowing Rule 2 is probably pretty small."

You mean, "You do not talk about Fight Club"?

Suicide vests (of one variety) are just sticks of dynamite strapped to a person. Dynamite, although regulated differently than guns, is certainly used for "safe, lawful purposes" all the time.

My point is, the advice-seeker found pictures of minors who appeared to be preparing to use dangerous objects to harm others. The advice-columnist suggested that this may bear investigation.

The objects happened to be guns. They could have been knives, explosives, thumbtacks in food, or bananas on a staircase. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that someone look into the matter as a prudent way to head off potential harm.

Mark,

I agree with you... the person should have either contacted the kids to talk to them about it or contacted their parents. Calling the police and/or school administration was irresponsible and could quite possible cause the kids to get in a lot of trouble over nothing.

EI

"My wife and I taught at a high school in the Southwest for three years. It has been a year and half since we last worked there and we still occasionally receive e-mails from students."

Life lesson learned: don't trust or be friendly with your teachers.

njorl:

No part of this discussion is about any person's rights. It is about decent behavior with regard to other people and society. It is not required that this behavior be reported. The school system does not have any right to be informed of it. It is just the decent thing to do to let the school system know what these students are up to.

Twenty years ago, it might have been the decent thing to do.

Today, it will guarantee a very intrusive and humiliating intervention, all when there may nothing wrong anyway.

I agree with xxx above: The message is: don't trust your teachers, or anyone who works in the school system.

Dynamite, although regulated differently than guns, is certainly used for "safe, lawful purposes" all the time.

Oh, yes, I remember when I was a kid, my daddy took me to the quarry, and we blew up rocks all day...

Seriously, there is a qualitative difference here between objects widely available and widely used (guns), and objects frankly only very narrowly available and used only for highly specialized purposes (explosives). It's not that regulations are "different," it's that one is, for all practical purposes, legal for anyone to own, and the other is illegal for anyone to own.

Technically, cocaine and Tylenol are regulated "differently," but the comparison is silly.

But for all that, Mark, I do agree with you that reporting is a sensible response, although like others, I worry about the probable overreaction. I think even the anti-reporting crowd here wouldn't mind if someone checked this out to be sure everything was OK. They're just concerned that the police and principal are going to go bonkers for no reason.

And the gun nuts, me among them, resent the notion that "the system" (and you) seems to automatically regard us as murderers.

Rob Lyman:

I think even the anti-reporting crowd here wouldn't mind if someone checked this out to be sure everything was OK. They're just concerned that the police and principal are going to go bonkers for no reason.

Exactly. The parents should be tracked down and notified. If they investigate and find nothing untoward, then that should be the end of the matter. If they are unresponsive or uninvolved, then it can be taken to the next level.

Owning guns is widespread, legal and protected. Any investigation has to be conducted in a manner respectful of this basic fact.

In some jurisdictions, the police might actually have more common sense than the principal.

Seriously, there is a qualitative difference here between objects widely available and widely used (guns), and objects frankly only very narrowly available and used only for highly specialized purposes (explosives). It's not that regulations are "different," it's that one is, for all practical purposes, legal for anyone to own, and the other is illegal for anyone to own.

No one can dispute that dynamite is less widely available than guns and is more tightly controlled, but that's not really the point. The point is, both are dangerous. The prospective notifier-of-the-police didn't appear to believe any crime had been commited (yet), only that there may exist a dangerous situation.

I think this illustrates a difference we are unlikely to bridge. Many gun-control nuts, myself included, think it's self-obvious that guns are tools, but dangerous tools, quite like, say, explosives. We're not convinced by repeated insistence that an object designed expressly to kill other living things is nothing to be wary of, or restrict access to.

I think reactions to this article reflect this difference. If you believe that viewing guns as dangerous is ridiculous paranoia, you are likely to think it outrageous overkill to report minors posturing with them. If you view guns as intrinsically dangerous, it may strike you as reasonable to report the incident.

The point is, both are dangerous.

Yeah, so are cars. And Bleach. Also, tomato leaves and lawn fertilizer--no pictures of kids gardening on MySpace allowed!

And Mark, if you wouldn't compare gun owners to suicide bombers, you'd make more friends here.

Yeah, so are cars. And Bleach. Also, tomato leaves and lawn fertilizer

Sheesh. Do you have a point buried in here somewhere? If someone thought that some kids were planning to run people over with their car, pour bleach in people's eyes, spike the school's food with tomato leaves, or make a bomb out of fertilizer, I would suggest reporting it, wouldn't you?

How is this on point? Are you trying to argue that guns are safer than any of these other things?

Mark, if I told you I had suicide belts in my home, you'd call the police, right? Or even a few pounds of Semtex, not yet taped up into a proper vest.

Well, I'm telling you right now, I have guns. Do you intend to run to the cops? (Go ahead, I'll wait. But the local sheriff shoots at my range, so he may not be in a hurry to get me.)

What I don't like about your comparison is the suggestion that you seem to think that gun owners ought to be treated like people with suicide vests. Now if that's not what you meant, I'm sorry I misinterpreted.

Well, I'm telling you right now, I have guns. Do you intend to run to the cops?

If you made a video in which you appeared to be getting ready to shoot people, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Isn't that what we're discussing? None of us have seen the video. The viewer honestly feared the kids may have been planning to use the guns. Given that belief, it seems advisable to report the situation.

The viewer may have been motivated by a reflexive dislike and fear of guns, and imagined a threat when none existed. If this is what happened, I will happily agree with you that the viewer acted unreasonably. But I submit that we have no way to tell if this is the case.

It's unreasonable, though, to suggest that there is simply no way at all the video could indicate potential danger, simply because the dangerous objects involved were guns. Obviously, guns can kill people. Obviously, there can be videos of people getting ready to kill people with guns. If this was such a video, reporting it is a good idea.

For some reason I forgot we were talking about pictures and not video. Whatever.

Sheesh. Do you have a point buried in here somewhere? If someone thought that some kids were planning to run people over with their car, pour bleach in people's eyes, spike the school's food with tomato leaves, or make a bomb out of fertilizer, I would suggest reporting it, wouldn't you?

Of course. I believe the "point buried in there" is that it is utterly irrational, based on nothing more than the fact that someone is holding a gun in a photograph, to think that he intends to shoot someone.

This is the equivalent of reporting someone as a possible hit-and-run driver because he's photographed standing next to his car.

So suppose someone posted an image of a naked male high school student with an erection pointed at the camera...how many people here would report him to his school as a potential rapist?

Just wondering...

Oh god don't show them this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV74rbgIsr8

They'd probably stroke right the hell out.

Mark,

I don't disagree with you about the reporting, based on the description of the picture.

I just reacted--perhaps overreacted--to your suicide bomber analogy.

A gun owner can pose in such a way as to suggest a threat and justify a call to the cops. I would suggest that a person with a suicide vest can not pose in a way which could be considered harmless (unless it's an obviously fake vest, in which case we have extremely bad taste but no threat).

And I'd also apologize for being hypersensitive, but I'm an NRA member and therefore have been labled a terrorist and/or abettor of terrorists by urban politicians on numerous occasions. So suicide-bomber analogies get under my skin more than, say, axe-murderer analogies.

Given the hysteria with which schools respond to things like kids having tylenol or nail files in schools, I would not be surprised if the kids were suspended just for the pictures. I also would not be surprised if the police arrested them and/or confiscated their weapons. They may not be charged with anything and almost certainly wouldn't be convicted of anything (assuming the guns are legal), but the blot of an arrest and suspension from schools is not insignificant. I also would not be surprised if the confiscated guns were never returned to them or were only returned after a painful process.

Yes, either of these could happen, but the aggrieved parties have the right to take the school district and the police into court. The latter exercise may be difficult and unfruitful depending on the state, but the former ought to produce results, since there are very few school districts that aren't carping about money for some reason or another.

Successfully suing your school district for wrongful suspension is not exactly a ticket to pariah's prison, except possibly in the eyes of the administration...but they'll lie low unless they really want to get hit twice.

Reason 1 not to call the cops unless you have actual reason to believe they're going to do something: it could cost them a security clearance if, despite your teaching, they manage to graduate and get into a high-security field. Trust me on this, although they are minors.

You know what that description sounds like to me? Every bloody movie poster that includes a big gun and a pistol. Exactly what two (presumably) male students would pose as when a female friend is going "Hey! Look cool!"

If I was a parent for ANY of the kids involved and this person called the cops, I'd start calling a lawyer for harasment and/or stalking.

Comments are Closed.