Mass shootings

[Sentryau2]

We are going to have to do something, we cannot continue to ignore these incidents. 1 mass shooting at a college and 1 attempted shooting/bombing in Georgia. If this keeps up I expect the 2nd amendment to be done away with. I know all violent crime is down and that gun deaths are at an all time low but the mass public doesn't know that and the anti gunners are NOT going to correct them. HIPAA is a problem but at the same time I don't want some left wing doctor locking people up/preventing them from owning guns because they have minor depression. Maybe armed guards ARE the solution, or removing all "gun free zones"
I would support legislation that banned news sources from publishing the face/names of mass shooters/attempted mass shooters. Or that limited the duration of time that they could run the story. How can we change the tide of the media.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I would support legislation that banned news sources from publishing the face/names of mass shooters/attempted mass shooters. Or that limited the duration of time that they could run the story.

So you're okay with restricting the 1st amendment (freedom of the press) just not the 2nd? Hmmmm

 

[Sentryau2]

We have restrictions on the 2nd Amendment and we have restrictions on the 1st. NFA laws, background checks, need for a CC permit etc. Restrictions on the 1st, Religion can freely be practiced by children as long as a teacher doesn't lead it. You cannot copy someone else's writings and claim them as your own. You cannot make false claims about someone, or verbally harass someone and you cannot threaten to murder a specific person. Just like we have restrictions on the other amendments. Pat downs are legal the search of unlocked cars are legal, hand bags etc.

The only way to have pure freedom is to have anarchy and I dont think anyone wants that.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

That's a far cry from telling the press what they can report and what they can't because you think it might be harmful.

Don't get me wrong, I wish they would refuse to air the names of the shooters. But I don't agree with telling them they can't.

But there are a few things in your response that aren't correct.

You cannot make false claims about someone

Sure you can. Lying about someone is not against the law. Now if that person suffers a loss due to your lies they could win a civil suit for slander or libel. But simply lying about someone is not a crime.

the search of unlocked cars are legal

BS.
They can't open the door to an unlocked car and search it without cause. They still have to have a warrant, probable cause or consent. Now for parked vehicles there is something called the "plain view doctrine" where if someone is stupid enough to leave something illegal in plain sight, they can confiscate said illegal item.
An incident such as this took place where I go to college. Some moron left a handgun in plain sight in his car. The campus is posted at the driveway entrance that guns are not allowed on the premises. Arkansas signs carry the weight of the law. Now his car was locked, but it didn't help him. The Little Rock PD was there waiting on him when he got out of class.
So whether or not the car is locked doesn't factor into the equation.

 

[Potatohead]

We need a legally armed non LEO stepping in and ending one of these mass shootings one day IMO.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I agree PH. The problem is they seem to coincidentally occur in gun free zones, making it impossible for someone who obeys the law to do anything to help.

 

[itsa pain]

So you're okay with restricting the 1st amendment (freedom of the press) just not the 2nd? Hmmmm

The press has used the 1st amendment to whip up people for war by falsifying facts starting with the Spanish American war millions have been killed.

 

[Sol]

Just because the 1 bad apple ruins the barrel is true for apples, it shouldn't be true for our rights.

 

[OptimusPrime]

We need a legally armed non LEO stepping in and ending one of these mass shootings one day IMO.

They have, on few occasions. There was a mall shooting about 1 year ago, l'll have to look it up again for details. Mall shooter was confronted by a CCW carrier and he surrendered on the spot.
It is rare because not many people do carry in the general population, and many shootings happen to be where law-abiding folks are not allowed to carry.
And some shootings happen where the shooter actually expects to get into it with cops as some sort of twisted death wish/blaze of misguided glory. The Georgia shooter went to the courthouse which is staffed by.......a bunch of LEOs. That outcome had no other possibility.

 

[alsaqr]

Mass shootings are not new.. They count for a small fraction of all homicides.

This guy came prepared to invade the local courthouse. His plan was foiled by a deputy sheriff.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/0...ack-on-georgia-courthouse-attack-report-says/

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Don't get me wrong, I wish they would refuse to air the names of the shooters. But I don't agree with telling them they can't.

In fact, naming the shooters and publicizing what they do advances their agenda. And if it produces more mass shootings, so much the better from their standpoint.

What can we do? Go armed!

 

[bergmen]

Here is a letter I wrote to the Santa Rosa California Press Democrat that was published Wednesday, 6-4:

After yet another disastrous mass killing at the hands of yet another crazed individual, I have yet to see evidence of any news source looking itself in the mirror to honestly ask themselves whether their coverage of these events is a part of the problem.

Whenever these horrific killings occur, most of the major news outlets rush to be first to publicize every detail of the crime and perpetrator.

The next crazed copycat individual who is thinking of doing the same thing is watching all of this and realizes that he/she will be immortalized as a result. This is an insidious incentive that encourages another disaster.

Published guidelines exist recommending the media completely change how these tragedies are reported. These guidelines are based on a very successful effort to curb teen suicides in the 1980s that was adopted by news reporting agencies worldwide and has shown itself to be very effective at reducing these incidents.

The December 19, 2012 issue of The Atlantic published an article titled “The Media Needs to Stop Inspiring Copycat Murders. Here's How.”

Obviously, the mass media has paid no attention to these guidelines and right now would be a good time to do so.


This doesn't address the weapons or use thereof, just the responsibility of the press (no need for legislation, they need to self-regulate as a social and public responsibility IMO).

Dan

 

[blarby]

We need a legally armed non LEO stepping in and ending one of these mass shootings one day IMO.

We did.

Clackamas.

It got swept under the rug so fast you'd have thought the criminally insane perp got struck by lightning, or gave up solely on gods good graces.... Maybe both.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We have had several such incidents where armed citizens stopped a mass shooting -- at a law school in Virginia, in Mississippi, and in a fairly recent mall shooting. And you're right -- they got swept under the rug.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Nice idea bergmen. I like the way you think.

 

[Sol]

Here is a letter I wrote to the Santa Rosa California Press Democrat that was published Wednesday, 6-4:

After yet another disastrous mass killing at the hands of yet another crazed individual, I have yet to see evidence of any news source looking itself in the mirror to honestly ask themselves whether their coverage of these events is a part of the problem.

Whenever these horrific killings occur, most of the major news outlets rush to be first to publicize every detail of the crime and perpetrator.

The next crazed copycat individual who is thinking of doing the same thing is watching all of this and realizes that he/she will be immortalized as a result. This is an insidious incentive that encourages another disaster.

Published guidelines exist recommending the media completely change how these tragedies are reported. These guidelines are based on a very successful effort to curb teen suicides in the 1980s that was adopted by news reporting agencies worldwide and has shown itself to be very effective at reducing these incidents.

The December 19, 2012 issue of The Atlantic published an article titled “The Media Needs to Stop Inspiring Copycat Murders. Here's How.”

Obviously, the mass media has paid no attention to these guidelines and right now would be a good time to do so.


This doesn't address the weapons or use thereof, just the responsibility of the press (no need for legislation, they need to self-regulate as a social and public responsibility IMO).

Dan

A grand idea indeed, but it's really pushing that slippery slope of censorship.
If you start legislating what the press can expose, you are opening a can of worms that probably could be more dangerous to society then all these fake mass killers.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Sol, explain to me how published journalistic guidelines = legislation.

 

[Sol]

They are not and you are correct.

 

[barnbwt]

We are going to have to do something, we cannot continue to ignore these incidents.

Seriously? Have you missed everything from our side while obsessing over news media? We've been doing little but talking about this stuff since the recent hyped shooting in CA.

A grand idea indeed, but it's really pushing that slippery slope of censorship.

And we just ban the guns, too, then shooters won't get the idea to do bad, nor have the means to do so

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Whenever these horrific killings occur, most of the major news outlets rush to be first to publicize every detail of the crime and perpetrator.

Was there a rash of disappearances after the Lindbergh Kidnapping? I honestly don't know, but if there was ever an impact due to obsessive media coverage to be found, that would be it; it was practically the first one of these 'celebrity tragedy' stories that seem to dominate news cycles any more.

TCB

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Aren't you starting from a false premise? Who is ignoring anything? Every time one happens there are multi-page threads on it.

 

[Red Wind]

Was there a rash of disappearances after the Lindbergh Kidnapping? I honestly don't know, but if there was ever an impact due to obsessive media coverage to be found, that would be it; it was practically the first one of these 'celebrity tragedy' stories that seem to dominate news cycles any more.

There was an incredible rush, news and radio reporters stepping over each over.

Certainly, the crime of the century until JFK in 1963.

 

[R.W.Dale]

There are a couple of dynamics at play here.

As noted the media perpetuates the martyrdom of the chronic loser. This will not end, this isn't the 80's any more. It was a different world when you had news consisting of 30min drive by reporting each night on 3 channels. Now we have entire networks dedicated to nothing but news. These guys aren't going to pass up a sensational story in their cutthroat business out of pure fear their competitor will.

The second thing and probably the most disturbing is that as a nation as more and more of these tragedies occur we are becoming desensitized to the violence and death in our midst.

My greatest fear and I see no reason with the current trajectory we're on it's not entirely possible is that there will finally be an act so heinous and horrifying that executive action will be taken against the weapons being used. Public opinion will be on the presidents side and in a contentious election cycle our spineless legislative branch will not offer up any resistance.

And don't think for a minute the police won't go right along with it just as if it was any other day at work.



I support none of this but at the same time I'm seeing the way the wind is blowing and have decided its best if I DONT have a bunch of money tied up in semiauto firearms for the near term future

 

[Red Wind]

My greatest fear and I see no reason with the current trajectory we're on it's not entirely possible is that there will finally be an act so heinous and horrifying [/I]that executive action will be taken against the weapons being used. Public opinion will be on the presidents side and in a contentious election cycle our spineless legislative branch will not offer up any resistance.

That is never going to happen. Calm down.

 

[scaatylobo]

15 minutes of fame = NOT

I see that IF the press and all journalism stopped giving the criminal acts their 15 minutes of fame.

AND then their "jailhouse" interviews = MAYBE the perp's would not get the idea that they were going to get infamous [ Charles Manson sound familiar = STILL giving interviews ].

Just an idea that might hold water,at the very least ,how about telling the news people that they are partly responsible for this crap and they might take action to see it ends.

OR an attorney could sue the press for promoting such actions,just a thought that I am sure wont happen.