Lindsay Beyerstein on exploitation.

Lindsay Beyerstein, who I admire very much, writes:

It’s not a question of exploitation. It’s a matter of proffering solutions and offering critiques while our increasingly fragmented national attention is focused on an issue.

If Instapundit thinks that the concealed carry ban caused the tragedy, let him say so. I think it’s a dumb argument, but I don’t see why there should be any kind of inverse statute of limitations for offering it.

Well first, Lindsay -- it's not a matter of "letting" anyone do anything. Putz is free to write what he wants, as I am free to criticize him for it. And my post wasn't a substantive critique of his argument's merits -- it was a critique of his taste. As he's anointed himself the Arbiter of Blogger Ethics and Behavior (and remember, he called the New York Times "vultures" for printing an editorial about gun policy the day after his post) his taste is perfectly fair game.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan: it's just creepy for a person's immediate response to a tragedy of that proportion be to spit out their personal political biases. It's not just about "proffering solutions" -- there's a human element when that much life is lost that should be observed. Changing the gun laws on the Virginia Tech campus that minute wouldn't have brought those people back.

And most importantly: Putz admitted that he didn't even know all of the details of the shooting in his first post. How can one offer valid critiques and workable solutions if one doesn't even have all the facts?

So what's the appropriate time frame to offer solutions and get into the policy? I don't know, but I know it's longer than a couple of hours.

Lindsey adds,

The taboo against "political" arguments in the wake of tragedies infantilizes the public and cheapens our discourse. If we rule out substantive discussion, we’re left with a residue of content-free sentiment. If we refuse to debate, analyze, contextualize, or explain, we turn mass killings vacuous celebrity deathfests.

I don't know anyone who has suggested we rule out discussion. There should be no moratorium on substantial debate. But there's a time and a place for that debate and it must be informed by all the facts and tempered by the settling of the dust to be substantial.