Guns Part 4: Moral Hazard | Revisionist History | Malcolm Gladwell

Robert Kennedy was killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1968, ending his presidential run. Had he been shot today, would he have lived? A what-if story about homicides and medical care and the moral consequences of a world where trauma surgeons have gotten really, really good at what they do.
Binge the 6-part series from Revisionist History about everything Americans get wrong about guns with a Pushkin+ membership now: www.pushkin.fm/join-pushkin
Season 8 (2023)
#podcast #revisionisthistory #malcolmgladwell #robertkennedy
ABOUT REVISIONIST HISTORY
Revisionist History is Malcolm Gladwell’s journey through the overlooked and the misunderstood. Every podcast episode re-examines something from the past - an event, a person, an idea, even a song - and asks whether we got it right the first time. Because sometimes the past deserves a second chance.
ABOUT MALCOLM GLADWELL
Malcolm Gladwell is president and co-founder of Pushkin Industries. He is a journalist, a speaker, and the author of six New York Times bestsellers including The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, David and Goliath, and Talking to Strangers. He has been a staff writer for the New Yorker since 1996. He is a trustee of the Surgo Foundation and currently serves on the board of the RAND Corporation.
ABOUT PUSHKIN INDUSTRIES
Pushkin Industries is an audio production company dedicated to creating premium content in a collaborative environment. Co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg in 2018, Pushkin has launched seven new shows into the top 10 on Apple Podcasts (Against the Rules, The Happiness Lab, Solvable, Cautionary Tales, Deep Cover, The Last Archive, and Lost Hills), in addition to producing the hugely successful Revisionist History. Pushkin’s growing audiobook catalogue includes includes the bestselling biography “Fauci,” by Michael Specter, “Hasta La Vista, America,” Kurt Andersen’s parody Trump farewell speech performed by Alec Baldwin, "Takeover" by Noah Feldman, and “Talking to Strangers,” from Pushkin co-founder Malcolm Gladwell. Pushkin is dedicated to producing audio in any format that challenges listeners and inspires curiosity and joy.
STAY CONNECTED
Web: www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revis...
Twitter: / gladwell
Facebook: / malcolmgladwellbooks
Instagram: / malcolmgladwell
Newsletter: www.pushkin.fm/newsletter

[@ronalterman3130]

I really enjoy this series but as a Neurosurgeon with lots of experience treating trauma, there are numerous holes in this piece regarding the RFK assassination. Most important is that today, the assassin would not use a .22 caliber handgun; he would use a .9mm, which would have blown the back of RFKs head off and he would have died immediately. I lived through the transition from .22's to .9mm's in the late 80s during the crack wars in NYC. The improvements in trauma outcomes that Mr. Gladwell reports are for chest and abdominal wounds, NOT headshots. Including the RFK case made this piece more intriguing but is not at all representative of the data that Mr. Gladwell was trying to highlight.

[@bettydean4149]

I believe what Malcolm is trying to communicate in this episode is that we made tremendous progress in all kinds of areas however when we are talking about guns and what should we be doing, we actually went backwards. He actually makes a point in the previous episode about guns, and he states that a gun is a gun and its soul purpose is to kill. But I also want to say thank you for your point of view, I didn't realize that.( I learn something every day)

[@BLINDFAITH104]

I love these intelligent comments they add even more to his podcasts.

[@mnfoges12]

Yeah, he’s assuming same wound w todays medical advancements.

[@ddkratochvil5593]

Brilliant analysis of insane circumstance. How many of those successful surgeries lead to lives that faced brain damage so severe, the victims were unable to function fully in society again.

[@AH-wr1ir]

Brilliant. Again. Again!

[@mickphelan1295]

I really enjoy these and I listen more and more to the whole Revisionist History podcast. I don’t want to geek out over this, but for enlightenment, the illustration of driving recklessly because of a belief that SUVs are safe, is not Moral Hazard - it is another concept, ‘Consumer Effect.’ You need moral conflict to create Moral Hazard. Consumers modifying their behavior consciously or subconsciously because of beliefs about a product is not considered moral conflict - they are not making a ‘moral’ choice. Staying in your example of SUVs: An auto manufacturer who decides to produce SUVs because they are on truck chassis and so in the US have less safety requirements (being ostensibly a commercial vehicle and therefore less costly to build), is a moral conflict between extra profit and less safety. The systemic system pressures the manager to choose short-term profit over the long-term reputation of the company even though he’s been hired to help that company. This moral conflict invokes Moral Hazard (meaning the artifice that creates moral conflict). Keep going! Love these stories and thoughts. 🙂

[@mikewiz1054]

Malcolm must not know about the Dickey Amendment. It was a congressional rider attached to a 1997 spending bill that forbids the CDC from studying gun violence. 15 years later, Jay Dickey said it was the worst thing he ever did in congress and wished that it would be repealed.

[@bubstacrini8851]

​@@jocobcohen1835well joco, guns are not alive, and that calls into question your understanding . Guns are devices that are designed by humans primarily to kill, when activated by the human user.

[@thinkharder9332]

to a 1997 spending bill that forbids the CDC from studying gun violence -False. Just searching CDC gun deaths would easily disprove this. Or reading the actual amendment. , Jay Dickey said it was the worst thing he ever did in congress and wished that it would be repealed. -Except the CDC has studied gun violence, and the wording of the legislation doesn't prohibit it either. This claim strikes me as a tall tale.

[@maxheadrom3088]

As a sociologist he's a great trauma surgeon!

[@kramotakra]

Two parent home The trauma surgeon was on point

[@v4yt126]

Munk Debate you got OWNED!!!! LOL

[@maxheadrom3088]

History is shaped by randomness.

[@user-yo5jx1kd4z]

The bullet Reagan caught was unique. It was an exploding (frangible) bullet made only to be used by air marshals so that the bullet would not penetrate an airplane hull. This probably worked in Reagan's favor as it limited the penetration of the bullet. This incident should not be used as an example of gunshot wound. Maybe without Reagan humiliating Russia after the iron curtain fell would mean a Russian leader that could be negotiated with and who wouldn't try and resurrect the Soviet Union City of counter Reagan's humiliating them.

[@Shackleford_Rusty]

Good episode. It’s really crazy to see how many lunatics you have in the comments section looking to attempt to rewrite the bill of rights. I’m really glad most of the country is educating themselves on the ratification of the constitution and the bill of rights so this level of ignorance can be slowly burned out.

[@evelynramos445]

Sibling died from brain trauma and of things have a member studing to be a surgeon.

[@slowerlane]

Don't understand your comment ? Please clarify.

[@terencewinters2154]

Rfk doesn't advance the moral hazard argument its the gun owners . They advance at their peril.

[@evelynramos445]

Swelling of the brain to release that pressure of fluids

[@evelynramos445]

Suggesting, the response data provided not?

[@evelynramos445]

Yet the data not provided by

[@bearsmartdurango]

The bigger question is how we went from RFK to Trump? So sad.

[@huntergrant6520]

Wtf are you talking about? That's not even a coherent idea or argument. Just some vague crap.

[@bobcornwell403]

I'm a repeal the 2nd amendment guy. No. I do not support confiscating all the guns. I have one myself. But, if the shield of "...the right to keep and bear arms" is removed, everyone with a firearm is likely to be much more careful. And, for the bad actors (not necessarily criminals) who should not have a gun, it would be far easier to take their guns away.

[@StephsGardenJams]

I removed my comment here, as it was not meant to be a reply to this thread, but instead a general comment

[@Shackleford_Rusty]

This would be considered treason🙃

[@bobcornwell403]

@Shackleford_Rusty I suppose any idea you don't like would be considered "treason." It just so happens that treason has a very precise meaning (as I wish my "woke" fellow travelers understood). The definition is: Giving direct aid and comfort to the enemy. And this "enemy" must be foreign. And such should apply mainly in a time of war with said enemy, but can apply aid and comfort to a very likely future enemy (such as China or Russia). But this "aid and comfort" must significantly improve the military advantage of said likely enemy. Selling military secrets to a likely enemy would certainly qualify. Sabotaging our democratic process may or may not. But if there is any "...or may not," it would almost impossible to convict for treason. So, taking away the right of ordinary citizens to "keep and bear arms" to protect the rest of us from crazed gunmen hardly qualifies, even though ther is at least a halfway credible argument that such an armed citizenry might be useful for a resistance to a foreign occupation (after, of course, the enemy conquers us.)

[@bobcornwell403]

@jocobcohen1835 I suppose this little snarky little two-word comment was supposed to impress me by posing as a real argument. I don't see it as one. And instead of putting up one of my own, I'll go ahead and argue against the implied premise. If guns were as available in 1920's Germany as they are in 2020's USA, Hitler would have seen to it that all of his little brown shirt thugs had one. They would be much better than the brass knuckles and clubs that they actually used. Ordinary, peaceful, people are nowhere near as attracted to firearms as violent, would-be thugs, who crave them for two major reasons: 1.) To bolster their manhood. They are typically insecure in that regard, so the immediate access to deadly force helps fill that void. 2.) They are about the most effective tools of intimidation ever invented. When you see these losers walking around with high-powered carbines, it is almost never to defend themselves. It is really about projecting power. And sometimes, it is about doing actual violence.. Something that Hitler would really understand.

[@huntergrant6520]

​@@bobcornwell403you would suppose wrong. It would be treason.

[@evelynramos445]

Disparities

[@scribblydoodle2924]

Hope this series gets Gladwell a pulitzer. Hope also that his marketing team finds a way to send links to the series to every member of the US House, US Senate, Supreme Court Justices, every Governor's office in every state and every big city Mayor. With news that Drug Cartel Violence is largely fueled by guns EXPORTED from the USA to Mexico, my sincere hope is that Revisionist History future parts of this series addresses that aspect of the gun problem. I am old enough to remember sitting in front of the TV watching the coverage of the JFK murder, as well as that of MLK, and RFK...and yes, the attempt on Reagan....etc. But every morning, I wake up to the morning news and hear about yet more gun violence in my own community. Senseless stuff like guns left in a car with children who get ahold of it and kill one of their baby brothers. Or people who leave guns on the front seat of their fancy vehicles and cry and moan when the gun gets stolen -- as though they are the victim. They are at least the victim of their own blatant stupidity. Americans, for some reason, have brains on fire. Brains that feel as though the best answer to a problem is pulling out a gun and pretending they are on movie sets. And BTW, I don't think guns are the problem. Bullets are. Fact is, if most of the bullets were blanks, you couldn't tell which you had, you'd be a lot less likely to play that game of roulette. Bullet manufacturers should be rationned in what they cannot produce, making ammo more difficult to come by. Wouldn't stop the cartels, by it might stop the stupid street bloats.

[@bearsmartdurango]

As if Lauren Boebert would listen to this.

[@chrisolmsted5678]

The ownership of guns and bullets isn't the problem. When a person prepares to carry a loaded weapon in public for defensive purposes they have assumed the role of a colonial militia. They are prepared for homicide in response to some nonspecific hypothetical situation. The states have a constitutional right and obligation to provide well regulated militia for the protection of their people. When the people act like a poorly regulated militia, the government must step in. Although regulation can be delegated to small jurisdictions and can be different in Wyoming than on Broadway. The founders would say, Try to be wise. Lincoln would say follow due process. Scalia would say that I am wrong. But he never knew that an unregulated militia caused the constitution to be written, (Shay's Rebellion).

[@bubstacrini8851]

what if even Malcolm is fiddling well rome burns...or rather continues a profitable business that really only appeals to that minority of Americans who embrace Canadian values?

[@99guspuppet8]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ lots of fudging…… Let’s all go to sugar rock Candy Mountain

[@thevagabond07]

The fruit 😂🤟👹🦍

[@cherylcarlson3315]

The man suggesting stable 2 parent families is the answer hasn't seen gun toting, drug using men and had to make the choice to go with idealized family that may kill you and child or be single parent and live with integrity, free of guns and drugs. I maintain restricting guns, applying greater responsibility to men who become casual fathers/absent/non supporting fathers to man up. Too many women I know carry guns to protect themselves from the men in their lives. More guns is not the answer

[@Transhumanist_Adam]

He said “STABLE” two parent homes. What you describe is not stable. He’s also correct. There is close to no gun violence in areas with a higher percentage of stable homes. Also he never says that “more guns are the answer”.

[@cherylcarlson3315]

@@Transhumanist_Adam Nor does he give constructive path to decreasing gun violence or male immaturity.

[@Transhumanist_Adam]

@@cherylcarlson3315 your “force greater responsibility on men” is no more or less constructive than “encourage stable 2 parent homes”

[@Transhumanist_Adam]

@@cherylcarlson3315 lol, now you're just trying to make your comment make sense.

[@Darker_Void_Scientist]

"Two parents in the home" ... Where do you find these guys to interview? The insentive was built in them to protect themselves from possible civil cases if they take responsibility for any failure. They can't formulate a preventative procedure for the sources of gun violence? Maybe, it's not their line of work.

[@Camperlife4ever]

They are surgeons. What suggestion do you have to prevent gun violence? It is such a big complex issue people often throw up their hands and give simple answers, what is yours?

[@Darker_Void_Scientist]

@@Camperlife4ever You target gun manufactures and corrupt governmental entities which enable profiting from the enhanced damage these weapons make possible? Even if the surgeon was trying to be "safe" , that being unbiased or take a non-political approach, I find it typical for cowards which join the pile to step on the less fortunate to protect possible sources of relief. You can't know the history of The United States and claim two parents' households are the key preventative measures.

[@fredeisele1895]

Here is some information about these two trauma surgeons. Mallory Williams, MD, MPH Chief of the Division of Trauma and Critical Care; Associate Professor, General Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC Edward E. Cornwell III Trauma surgeon, educator In 2000 Cornwell was featured in the ABC television series Hopkins 24/7

[@scribblydoodle2924]

@@Darker_Void_Scientist Someday Americans will realize that some problems are so HUGE that they need a team effort. 2 parents in the household is NOT a solution if the two parents are worthless tormenters themselves. Good teachers (but we pay most in that industry justly slightly above the minimum wage...at least to start...so who but the pollyanna go into that line of work?). Ditto for our idiot politicians. They are making money off of KZbin videos for showing their radical anger, rather than their concrete solutions. Gladwell is only scratching the surface in our idiot logic and reasoning (if we can call it that). The surgeons get paid very well to do this and the taxpayer is paying for the violence, but those same taxpayers don't connect the dots between the cost of this elaborate care and our fascination that guns are the ANSWER to protection issues, and not the Problem.

[@lawnnome88]

@Darker_Void_Scientist should we also target car manufacturers for the damage caused by car accidents? Or alcohol distributors for the damage caused by drinking?

[@fsff2070]

I am sorry I purchased your books and fell for your incorrect ‘facts’. Don’t write anymore books until you fact check your information.