• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A radical idea to prevent gun shooting sprees

N

nibunnoichi

Member
The recent rash of mass shootings have gotten me thinking.

Google "media glorifies shooting" or "The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings" for background on this thread.

Assuming such articles and claims are correct, and I think they are, I have a potential solution that a sadistic altruist could undertake to partially solve this problem, by making the ultimate sacrifice.

One such person can instigate another mass shooting - perhaps trying his best to injure many but not intent on killing. And leave behind a note (in case he is killed in the process) citing things mentioned in such articles such as

  • He wants to be (in)famous and recognized.
  • He knows the media will cover the story - coverage intensity varies with number of victims.
  • He would not have committed the spree if it wasn't such an easy path to fame through the media
And in case he is not killed in the process, he can be tried and will have the chance to explain his motivation to the entire nation, shedding a glaring light on the media's culpability in such shootings, and hope the national media institutes smarter policies with regard to future shootings.


Thoughts?



(and in case anyone has the wrong idea, this is a hypothetical scenario. I am not sadistic, and I am not altruistic. In fact, I'm pretty selfish - I value my life very much and will never give it up in such a fashion even if it can potentially save many lives).
 
Or just don't let random people buy and use guns like it was a cell phone.

Though I do think there is a market for a "gun phone". Surprised nobody has invented that. "Shoot me a text" could mean two different things, all conveniently packed in one toy.
 
That would be an attempt to engineer a result based on what could be an incorrect hypothesis of the cause of such shootings. If you're wrong all you do is redirect the nation's attention away from any other potential cause and make the whole problem take that much longer to solve.
 
i-am-so-stoned-on-these-aliens.jpg
 
Red Squirrel said:
Or just don't let random people buy and use guns like it was a cell phone.

Though I do think there is a market for a "gun phone". Surprised nobody has invented that. "Shoot me a text" could mean two different things, all conveniently packed in one toy.
Click to expand...

How does that random person buy a gun? Last I checked you need a background check to buy a gun.
 
nibunnoichi said:
The recent rash of mass shootings have gotten me thinking.

Google "media glorifies shooting" or "The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings" for background on this thread.

Assuming such articles and claims are correct, and I think they are, I have a potential solution that a sadistic altruist could undertake to partially solve this problem, by making the ultimate sacrifice.

One such person can instigate another mass shooting - perhaps trying his best to injure many but not intent on killing. And leave behind a note (in case he is killed in the process) citing things mentioned in such articles such as

  • He wants to be (in)famous and recognized.
  • He knows the media will cover the story - coverage intensity varies with number of victims.
  • He would not have committed the spree if it wasn't such an easy path to fame through the media
And in case he is not killed in the process, he can be tried and will have the chance to explain his motivation to the entire nation, shedding a glaring light on the media's culpability in such shootings, and hope the national media institutes smarter policies with regard to future shootings.


Thoughts?



(and in case anyone has the wrong idea, this is a hypothetical scenario. I am not sadistic, and I am not altruistic. In fact, I'm pretty selfish - I value my life very much and will never give it up in such a fashion even if it can potentially save many lives).
Click to expand...

That is the most conflicted idea ever. You're suggesting that someone become a martyr to expose the media as culpable to shootings while at the same time validating their necessity by handing them the story for his motives.
 
zerocool84 said:
How does that random person buy a gun? Last I checked you need a background check to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

Most of the shootings are random people who decide to randomly go shoot a place up for shits and giggles, and are usually screwed in the head. They should not be able to go buy guns. Make it harder to get a gun and they probably wont be bothered. If they REALLY want to kill someone, yes they'll find a way, and yes I'm sure sometimes they're stolen. But the fact that they're so easily obtainable and everyone and their dog has them must have SOME effect on this crazy high rate of gun crime.

Look at Canada, this stuff rarely happens. Sure, it does, people still find a way to get guns, but most don't bother, they might try to go with other ways to kill. You cannot stab 40 people in a large hall by standing in one spot, like you can kill with a gun. Shootings and mass killings just don't happen all that much here. There has to be SOMETHING we're doing right.

The problem of the US is a tough one though. I won't pretend I know the exact solution. I don't think simply banning guns or certain types of guns will do much at this point. The people who bought them with bad intentions sure wont turn them in. The honest people will. Then you'll have a bunch of bad guys with lot of guns. With all these guns on the street there will simply be a large black market going on and it will be a while till guns actually get harder to get. If they did ban guns the problem would get worse before it gets better.
 
decrease poverty levels and youll decrease shooting sprees. and just because a certain family doesnt make the poverty cutline doesnt mean the kids are being taken care of properly.
 
I suspect I'm probably the only person here who actually works in the news industry, even if I'm just a traffic reporter. I have worked at an all news station though.

There's this unwritten rule that you don't report suicides. It's a professional thing. We don't want to give unstable people ideas. Of course you run into issues if it's a public one, like a subway jumper. So we word it differently using vague terms. So I can understand why people don't want the names of shooters published.

Do I think we should stop publishing them? It depends on a case by case basis. If the killer dies, it should be treated as a suicide and the name probably should be kept secret so as not to inspire others. If they survive and go to trial, it becomes an issue of public interest. Keeping the name of the accused secret is really only reserved for young offenders, which is law in Canada. Though I have never agreed with it when it comes to indictable (felony) crimes.

The bigger problem is how American media operates. FOX, CNN, and MSNBC have 24 hours to fill. So stories like this become big spectacles. It's yellow journalism and infotainment at their finest. Facts and accuracy go out the window and the public walks away without actually learning anything relevant. It also gives perpetrators weeks worth of celebrity status. I think a lot of these shooters do it for attention, and that's exactly what they're being fed. So the problem isn't journalism, it's rather the lack of it.
 
mmntech said:
Though I have never agreed with it when it comes to indictable (felony) crimes.
Click to expand...

Why? As long as you are not a person of public interest, why should anybody know that you were accused of a crime, until proven guilty; except the involved parties, of course.

It's different if you are already a person of public interest. But the crime shouldn't matter. The crime itself is of public interest, but the accused should retain relative anonymity until sentenced guilty.
 
And in case he is not killed in the process, he can be tried and will have the chance to explain his motivation to the entire nation, shedding a glaring light on the media's culpability in such shootings, and hope the national media institutes smarter policies with regard to future shootings.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a surprise to anyone, even now. Problem is media doesn't care, they want a story.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Most of the shootings are random people who decide to randomly go shoot a place up for shits and giggles, and are usually screwed in the head. They should not be able to go buy guns. Make it harder to get a gun and they probably wont be bothered. If they REALLY want to kill someone, yes they'll find a way, and yes I'm sure sometimes they're stolen. But the fact that they're so easily obtainable and everyone and their dog has them must have SOME effect on this crazy high rate of gun crime.
Click to expand...

here I was being silly thinking that most shootings AREN'T mass shootings
 
mmntech said:
I suspect I'm probably the only person here who actually works in the news industry, even if I'm just a traffic reporter. I have worked at an all news station though.

There's this unwritten rule that you don't report suicides. It's a professional thing. We don't want to give unstable people ideas. Of course you run into issues if it's a public one, like a subway jumper. So we word it differently using vague terms. So I can understand why people don't want the names of shooters published.

Do I think we should stop publishing them? It depends on a case by case basis. If the killer dies, it should be treated as a suicide and the name probably should be kept secret so as not to inspire others. If they survive and go to trial, it becomes an issue of public interest. Keeping the name of the accused secret is really only reserved for young offenders, which is law in Canada. Though I have never agreed with it when it comes to indictable (felony) crimes.

The bigger problem is how American media operates. FOX, CNN, and MSNBC have 24 hours to fill. So stories like this become big spectacles. It's yellow journalism and infotainment at their finest. Facts and accuracy go out the window and the public walks away without actually learning anything relevant. It also gives perpetrators weeks worth of celebrity status. I think a lot of these shooters do it for attention, and that's exactly what they're being fed. So the problem isn't journalism, it's rather the lack of it.
Click to expand...

This. American media is so prevalent that any violent outbreaks become acts of glory. Wonder why these kinds of things happen in groups? It's the appeal of becoming a celebrity. People that lack proper mental maturity also do not comprehend consequences and lack the ability to empathize. So when they see the Holmes kid plastered all over the internet and the newspapers and the TV they see death and violence as a way to gain fame. They do not understand or even consider punishments or understand the far reaching effects they have on others.

These people aren't psychopathic killers. In fact, perpetrators of this kind of violence have never committed any kind of violent crime on this scale (caught or not). They are simply looking for attention and see this as the best avenue to get it.
 
Your reco is silly, there is no outcome in what you propose other than suggesting more that the media is partially responsible which is already known as you cited. Then what? Your reco does nothing.

I dont agree with any kind of censorship but Wouldn't it make more sense just to make it illegal for the media to cover mass killings to accomplish your objective?
 
Cattlegod said:
Your reco is silly, there is no outcome in what you propose other than suggesting more that the media is partially responsible which is already known as you cited. Then what? Your reco does nothing.

I dont agree with any kind of censorship but Wouldn't it make more sense just to make it illegal for the media to cover mass killings to accomplish your objective?
Click to expand...

That's the Catch-22.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top