PDA

View Full Version : Connecticut School Shooting



PseudoSABR
12-14-2012, 01:53 PM
Little kids? Wtf?

luke829
12-14-2012, 02:12 PM
It would have been nice to see the gunman apprehended to face the punishment that he so rightfully deserved. Unfortunately (like so many of these other physcopaths) he took the cowardly way out.

minn55441
12-14-2012, 02:28 PM
I heard it was a 24 year old, that went into his mom's classroom. Killed her and then started killing the kids in her class.
How bad would someone life has to be to resort to something like this?

Brock Beauchamp
12-14-2012, 02:29 PM
Everyone will deride him publicly and then rush home to watch television that examines every minutia of his life... feeding right into the reason why he did this. Fame. Publicity.

What I'd give to see every major news network treat him as a non-entity and never mention his name. Talk about the issue all you want but never mention this prick's name... not even once.

spycake
12-14-2012, 03:25 PM
Brock, I've heard that sentiment from plenty of people today, and after similar tragedies. But you're applying WAY too much rational thought to what might be the most irrational act a human can perform. This simply isn't something you can ignore and it will go away.

However, I'm totally on board with focusing less media attention on such tragedies*, as a means of respect for the victims and to avoid sowing unnecessary fear. I just know I'm going to get some sideways looks when I bring my infant daughter to the local playground during school hours now, and I'm sure schools are going to try to "beef up" security. But it's all going to have about as much effect as taking your shoes off at the airport.

* Although the fact that we're posting about it many miles away on a baseball forum suggests that we feed the media attention too, even if we don't feel like "that kind" of media junkie.

gunnarthor
12-14-2012, 03:32 PM
Maybe the Yankees will wear elementary baseball hats so we can ignore the gun problem again.

Brock Beauchamp
12-14-2012, 03:33 PM
Brock, I've heard that sentiment from plenty of people today, and after similar tragedies. But you're applying WAY too much rational thought to what might be the most irrational act a human can perform. This simply isn't something you can ignore and it will go away.

However, I'm totally on board with focusing less media attention on such tragedies*, as a means of respect for the victims and to avoid sowing unnecessary fear. I just know I'm going to get some sideways looks when I bring my infant daughter to the local playground during school hours now, and I'm sure schools are going to try to "beef up" security. But it's all going to have about as much effect as taking your shoes off at the airport.

* Although the fact that we're posting about it many miles away on a baseball forum suggests that we feed the media attention too, even if we don't feel like "that kind" of media junkie.

I'm not talking about ignoring the tragedy or the mental health issues that caused it. I'm talking about ignoring the man that caused it.

TheLeviathan
12-14-2012, 04:00 PM
Here is what I'm proud of - we're 6 posts in here at TD.....and no one has taken this issue as a way to grandstand about guns. It seems like every time this happens - a school shooting, the batman movie, etc. - one side of the other has to use this to hammer their agenda. Let's keep that **** the frig out of this please.

Couldn't agree with you more RP - these guys get all the fame and publicity they could ever hope for following these events. They become stars for a day in a sea of blood and it disgusts me. Hell, today, we had such a rush to name the shooter that the damn media is reporting the name of the brother as the shooter rather than the actual guy! Just so they can get the scoop on who slaughtered innocent children in a place they should feel is as safe as any in their lives.

I can't imagine what that would be like. I teach second grade in a K-3 school, even thinking about this happening there makes me so angry at everyone who will now exploit this problem for whatever agenda they have. It's absolutely disgusting.

TheLeviathan
12-14-2012, 04:09 PM
My bad, gunnathor already brought us to that stupidity. Let's keep it at a one-time offense. These tragedies are far too often politicized.

biggentleben
12-15-2012, 01:42 AM
It's funny that people get up in arms (no pun intended) about guns after incidents like this and then don't blink about reducing the funding to mental health agencies...

I know, Lev, you wanted to avoid the gun topic, but being a mental health social worker, that's the thing that drives me bonkers as I was denied a raise based on the loss of federal funding for mental health agencies once again. I'm actively job searching because I can't afford to continue doing the job I do, and I don't pump my own abilities, but I work hard at helping consumers improve their well being along with building skills to maintain their stability. The folks that give a darn quickly find that giving a darn doesn't pay a bill, and they leave for something that will. I work in the unit of our agency that deals with those who are the most intense and nearest to permanent mental hospitalization, and our current case management staff of 8 has 4 with less than six months experience within this unit. There is only one case manager left from the day I started just over four years ago. With turnover like that so rampant and common, how can one imagine those with mental illness receiving consistent, excellent care that they so desperately need?

TheLeviathan
12-15-2012, 08:06 AM
It's funny that people get up in arms (no pun intended) about guns after incidents like this and then don't blink about reducing the funding to mental health agencies...

I think you and I have shared similar thoughts on this before ben, I know I've shared that I have worked in mental health before. (5 years of it actually, decided adolescent mental health was a less stressful thing to do while completing grad school. What the hell was I thinking!) But I hesitate to want to go down the mental health route on this one. Last night yahoo (credible journalism!) posted a horrific account of "what we know now" about this guy in which they very heavily implied that Aspergers was to blame and went on to cite growing autism numbers around the world. Not surprisingly, that article was edited to remove two paragraphs that were horribly innaccurate about that particular disorder, but the damage was already done. Just about any act like this would be easy to qualify someone for mental illness - I think it is a road we try to travel to quickly to help rationalize the horror to ourselves. I'm not sure now is the time for that issue either.

That said, I agree with your larger point. If there is one thing I learned in the years I worked mental health it's that the pay and stress of it pretty much leaves only people with mental health issues themselves in charge of care. Good people are few and far between.

Kobs
12-15-2012, 09:54 AM
I know, it's just like when people got all political about the bridge collapse and said that we should spend more money on infrastructure.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-15-2012, 10:30 AM
People will rant about his for a while, then forget about it, except for those directly affected. And nothing will change, and nothing will get done, and nothing will improve because no one will agree on how to prevent it next time or want to spend tax dollars to implement anything that might help.

spycake
12-15-2012, 01:49 PM
I'm not talking about ignoring the tragedy or the mental health issues that caused it. I'm talking about ignoring the man that caused it.

I get that -- but that's ascribing some really rational behavior to a lunatic. Nobody does this kind of thing just to get his name in the newspapers. Tip-toeing around his name isn't going to act as some kind of deterrent.

Brock Beauchamp
12-15-2012, 02:37 PM
I get that -- but that's ascribing some really rational behavior to a lunatic. Nobody does this kind of thing just to get his name in the newspapers. Tip-toeing around his name isn't going to act as some kind of deterrent.

It's not about tip-toeing around this particular man's name. It's about denying the people who do these terrible things something they certainly wanted: fame. Was this man mentally disturbed? Certainly, and we need to do a better job of identifying these warning signs.

I don't think it's any coincidence that these kinds of shootings have continued to escalate since the massive publicity of Columbine. If you're mentally unstable and considering such an act, knowing that your name will go down in the annals of history is only encouragement to one-up the horrible wretch who shot up a school/theatre/whatever before you.

TheLeviathan
12-15-2012, 04:18 PM
I don't think it's any coincidence that these kinds of shootings have continued to escalate since the massive publicity of Columbine. If you're mentally unstable and considering such an act, knowing that your name will go down in the annals of history is only encouragement to one-up the horrible wretch who shot up a school/theatre/whatever before you.

The killers at Columbine were motivated, in part, by fame for their acts. Yet another tragedy happened when our media gave them that victory.

spycake
12-16-2012, 10:39 AM
Do you think if the media hadn't focused as much on Columbine or printed the name of the Virginia Tech shooter or whatever, that this kid in Connecticut may have just stayed home last Friday? You're missing the part of these being IMMENSELY irrational people and acts -- there are no easy answers. It doesn't really work to "put yourself in their shoes" so to speak and think these things through logically. There is absolutely no way that "fame" is the tipping point that causes these kind of acts.

Again, I'm all for less sensationalized coverage of this or any event, but let's not kid ourselves -- that's not going to help as a deterrant. It's just a matter of taste and etiquette for some of us, maybe/hopefully for the victims too, I don't know.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 11:23 AM
The killers at Columbine were motivated, in part, by fame for their acts. Yet another tragedy happened when our media gave them that victory.

The Media gave them? You mean the people... you and me... right?

Any expectation that the media will stay away from something that the people are looking for is a wasted expectation. The Days of Kronkite are long gone and its because Kronkite wouldn't get high enough ratings today and that's because of the audience today and the increase In options.

How do you want your news? You can have it with a republican slant on Fox News or delivered with a democratic slant on MSNBC...

Both Fox and MSNBC are more entertainment than News these days and I don't see it coming back as long as The National Enquirer stays profitable and Celebrity Ghost Hunters is on the Travel Channel.

Whatever you see on Television is on television because that is what people watch. If no one watches it... It goes away fairly quickly.

If the theory that Fame is the motivating factor in these type of events is correct. It isn't the media that gives them fame. We all need to look in the mirror... It's you and me.

Brock Beauchamp
12-16-2012, 03:19 PM
If the theory that Fame is the motivating factor in these type of events is correct. It isn't the media that gives them fame. We all need to look in the mirror... It's you and me.

It may be you but it ain't me. :D

I hate hate HATE tabloid journalism. I mean, I despise it to my very core. I do not read about celebrities. I do not read about tabloid court cases (Casey Anthony comes to mind). I won't read about this CT killer. I avoid this kind of thing as much as possible.

But you're right, this kind of tabloid news is only broadcast because the people like it. Drive around the Twin Cities and look at the billboards... How many "Dirty Every Thirty Celebrity News" signs do you see? I want to punch the people who watch that kind of **** straight in the face. Not joking. I absolutely loathe this part of American culture. It repulses me.

I view it as people who watch this kind of thing admitting that "My life is so inconsequential and boring that I have to feel better about myself by watching someone publicly fall to pieces, which somehow validates my existence... because I suck. I really, really suck as a person."

I don't hate much in this life but this is one of those things that I despise on so many levels.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 04:25 PM
It may be you but it ain't me. :D

I hate hate HATE tabloid journalism. I mean, I despise it to my very core. I do not read about celebrities. I do not read about tabloid court cases (Casey Anthony comes to mind). I won't read about this CT killer. I avoid this kind of thing as much as possible.

But you're right, this kind of tabloid news is only broadcast because the people like it. Drive around the Twin Cities and look at the billboards... How many "Dirty Every Thirty Celebrity News" signs do you see? I want to punch the people who watch that kind of **** straight in the face. Not joking. I absolutely loathe this part of American culture. It repulses me.

I view it as people who watch this kind of thing admitting that "My life is so inconsequential and boring that I have to feel better about myself by watching someone publicly fall to pieces, which somehow validates my existence... because I suck. I really, really suck as a person."

I don't hate much in this life but this is one of those things that I despise on so many levels.

I'm with ya... It's why I spend so much time watching Baseball...

However, avoiding publicity with this kind of tragedy is flat out impossible. Getting all these news organizations together and getting them to agree to avoid coverage for the greater good of society is impossible because someone isn't going to follow the script. Once one news organization decides to provide background information on the killer... Therefore, bringing him fame like he's the Joker or the Riddler... That news organization will have an advantage over the others because that's who the majority of folks will watch. Once an advantage is identified the others will be right behind because no one wants less viewers. It's why they don't dare leave the story. People want to know who this guy is... how he got to the point of doing this... They want to know when he did it and in what order... They want to know what he said to his mother before pulling the trigger.

The old question... Should executions be televised? Guess what... It's not a question of if... It's a question of when.

All it will take is one time. Fox News or MSNBC or the Food Network gets a wild idea... Approaches the state of Texas or Wyoming or the Phillipines and works out a deal. The state takes the money and allows the execution to be televised and the Ratings go thru the roof.

Once that happens... Other Networks will be competing for the right to broadcast the next one. The money will get larger with competition and pretty soon you have a public event and it will be promoted a week prior "The Beauchamp exection... Tuesday Night at 7PM... Only on AMC...

It sounds crazy to think about that... But... don't bet against it. A large portion of Americans would watch an execution.

If people watch... The money made from it increases because the competition for the rights will become important for any network that wants to make more money... And if money increases... It will be hard to stop. Anybody protesting such a Barbarian form of entertainment will be shouted down by the dollars and audience level.

It's only gonna get worse as the walls are chipped away at... But... We really can't blame the networks. It's what the people want.

Brock Beauchamp
12-16-2012, 05:19 PM
No, I don't fault the networks. I fault each individual in power who buckles to pressure and throws their morality to the curb, but mostly, I blame the people who watch this trash. If there was no demand for it, news agencies wouldn't bother.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 05:53 PM
You know, it is possible to cover a story without glorifying these monsters or giving them the time of day. I understand people needing closure or a chance to try and rationalize these actions, but what we have isn't deep introspection as a society - we reach for quick fixes and look for easy targets to blame the situation on. These initial, heavily covered aspects of the killer have been VERY wrong in the past (see: Columbine) and are driven by a tasteless lack of ethics.

You and me can't give them fame if we aren't given the ammo to do so. You and me can't put their name in the brains of every household. You and I can only control the degree you and I seek out information. The stream of information is controlled by the media, so deflecting blame from that is a ridiculous suggestion. Yes, we help motivate the media to do it, but it's just like the old "jump off a bridge" - just because many will eat it up doesn't mean you need to put it on the table.

Also, no one said this causes anyone to do anything. But it is a fact that some of these people have openly stated in their manifestos that notoriety is part of their objectives - why should we give them that? I'm not suggesting that stopping this kind of coverage will stop these actions, I will suggest this kind of wall-to-wall coverage isn't making it LESS appealing. And I will certainly suggest that we should do everything in our power as a community (which should include the media) to not make these actions achieve the meaning the killers intend. It can only inspire others to do the same. Columbine proved that if you want to send your message in a pool of blood - you can and the media won't hesitate to help as long as their ratings get a boost.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 07:21 PM
You know, it is possible to cover a story without glorifying these monsters or giving them the time of day. I understand people needing closure or a chance to try and rationalize these actions, but what we have isn't deep introspection as a society - we reach for quick fixes and look for easy targets to blame the situation on. These initial, heavily covered aspects of the killer have been VERY wrong in the past (see: Columbine) and are driven by a tasteless lack of ethics.

You and me can't give them fame if we aren't given the ammo to do so. You and me can't put their name in the brains of every household. You and I can only control the degree you and I seek out information. The stream of information is controlled by the media, so deflecting blame from that is a ridiculous suggestion. Yes, we help motivate the media to do it, but it's just like the old "jump off a bridge" - just because many will eat it up doesn't mean you need to put it on the table.

Also, no one said this causes anyone to do anything. But it is a fact that some of these people have openly stated in their manifestos that notoriety is part of their objectives - why should we give them that? I'm not suggesting that stopping this kind of coverage will stop these actions, I will suggest this kind of wall-to-wall coverage isn't making it LESS appealing. And I will certainly suggest that we should do everything in our power as a community (which should include the media) to not make these actions achieve the meaning the killers intend. It can only inspire others to do the same. Columbine proved that if you want to send your message in a pool of blood - you can and the media won't hesitate to help as long as their ratings get a boost.

Agreed... We have the ability(strength in numbers) to change lots of things... However... getting everyone to join hands is very difficult. Everyone hates the College Bowl system... If everyone who wants a playoff would link together... They could stop it... Have the alumni stay home... don't go to El Paso for the Sun Bowl... Dont watch it... The Schools and sponsors would lose money and things could change... If you hate partisan politics and polling seems to suggest that people do... If you want the Democrats and Republicans to work together for the good of us... We could band together and change things... We could vote them out... We have the power and the media is part of the problem. No doubt about that.

I dream of media that educates... Not a media that entertains... I am in the minority... I wish I could have in depth news... News that gets down to why its important... Instead I get news that is condensed into tiny segments on important stories and overblown on the sensational issues. I won't get the news I want because not enough people want news the way I do... News isn't even news anymore in my opinion... It's slanted commentary these days and that slanted commentary gets the highest ratings.

Expecting the media to take the high road is no different than expecting the Government to take the high road... Or... Wall Street... Major insurance companies... You name it... There is very little incentive to do so... You lose money on the high road... I'm not saying I agree with that... It just is what it is...

The media isn't glorifying the monsters who kill. No one is standing in front of the camera and approving... They all say the buzz words that everyone is thinking... senseless... evil...

The monster that the media feeds is the public monster and no media is going to walk away from it when the majority is tuning in looking for it. They can't wait for accuracy... They gotta get information and information quick... That means... Hearsay... The days of Cronkite are over... Satellite trucks can be anywhere in a moments notice. Reporters on scene in a jiffy... Audience waiting to find out in an instant... If you wait for accuracy... The audience is gone to one of the many other news operations that provides the hearsay. The Internet is another source to compete with.

Who knows why people do this... I don't understand... I don't think I'm capable of such things... It could be the quest for fame... It could pure anger... Mental problems... The NRA... Video games... I don't know... I can only guess... Very few will or can understand something like this.

I'm pretty sure that someone somewhere in the FBI or homicide squads across America... The CIA... Professors in College... There are people who have been studying this type of behavior and probably have some great suggestions to curb it... There are informed people in almost every field... however... way too often... the smart Informed people are shouted down by the uninformed people with more power.

biggentleben
12-16-2012, 07:30 PM
I will say that I was impressed seeing how the news focus has been different since Friday night. I don't watch a ton of CNN, but in light of this tragedy, I watched Friday night, and roughly 1/3 of the hour I watched was about the shooter. Saturday night, I returned home, and it was still the channel of choice from the previous night, so I watched. I was pleasantly surprised that in the hour+ that I watched, the shooter was not referenced by name once.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 07:54 PM
Expecting the media to take the high road is no different than expecting the Government to take the high road... Or... Wall Street... Major insurance companies... You name it... There is very little incentive to do so... You lose money on the high road... I'm not saying I agree with that... It just is what it is...

So we give up our expectations and our morals? Because that's what you are suggesting. You can say it isn't realistic, but you began by taking issue with the suggestion that it's wrong to focus on the shooter. Maybe you had another point, but I lost it in the multiple tangents.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 08:33 PM
Morality was given up a long time ago... The Churches are filled with folks who talk of morality and still act immoral because Bob's morality is different than Tom's.

I'm not saying its wrong to ignore the shooter. I wish we could... I took issue with the blaming of the media. The media is what we (not you, Brock or I) the people created.

How is it supposed to work? CNN decides to downplay the shooter for the good of society. Who's gonna notice... Are you? Me? The average viewer? CNN would have to run promos afterwards... "CNN... We didnt mention his name during our Sandy Hook coverage" just to get anyone to know they didn't mention his name.

Meanwhile... The viewers who didn't notice that CNN was staying away from adding to the killers legend. Those same viewers flip channels for information and there is MSNBC and Fox News with his picture and life story. And they watch MSNBC or Fox... Because they can get their arms around a picture and life story.

Game over CNN loses and gains nothing for the loss because no one noticed anyway. MSNBC and Fox has a bigger audience... Charges more from advertisers... Make more money and they laugh at CNN because they have more viewers. As time goes by... If CNN doesn't change to what the people want... They go away all together or new directors are brought in to improve ratings and the directors say "what the hell were you thinking... Not talking about the killers".

I understand that you are suggesting social responsibility for the media and I hole heartedly support your suggestion because I'd like that as well. However... They are a business. You have a long road to go if you expect the Media to be different than the Government or Wall Street.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 08:46 PM
I'm not saying its wrong to ignore the shooter. I wish we could... I took issue with the blaming of the media. The media is what we (not you, Brock or I) the people created.

You may be making a chicken and egg point. One could argue that had ethics never been tossed aside, they would've never known it sparks more ratings. You seem to imply that we salivate and the media gives us what we want. I'd argue, the media tells us what to salivate for and we do.

I also expect fair play and honesty in government and anywhere else. Free market isn't the Old West, there are still rules or it doesn't work. Part of the problem with journalism today is that they've thrown out the rule book. Anything to make the public salivate and I find that wrong. I understand it may be impossible to ever see that change, but I hope it can. I firmly believe the notoriety we give these monsters only adds to the chances of seeing another.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 09:12 PM
"Had ethics never been tossed aside they would've never known it sparks more ratings".

Of course. Thats obvious...

Someone came along and changed the news game and won that way... And the copycats follow... just like the success of the movie "Big" led to "18 again" and a whole bunch of "Big" like movies.

They have thrown out the rule book and its sad. I guess the question is... Do you think News is a business or a responsibility?

Id like it to be a responsibility but the people who own it... They think its a business and the success of the business is dependent on the wishes of the people.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 09:29 PM
You are demonstrating a very classic fallacy. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be.

Willihammer
12-16-2012, 09:44 PM
Is there evidence that the media's coverage of these events is encouragement to subsequent slayings?

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 09:49 PM
Cue the Bruce Hornsby. "That's just the way it is... But don't you believe them"

More power to ya... And I mean that sincerely. Start with your 2nd graders... I'll work on my sons... In my opinion... It's up to them to fix it. We broke it.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 09:55 PM
Is there evidence that the media's coverage of these events is encouragement to subsequent slayings?

What sort of "evidence" could there possibly be? Even when one of these people live it's hard to take anything they say seriously. So no, there is no evidence either way, but I have trouble believing that infamy is a discouragement. At the very least, the infamy we give is a slap in the face of their victims whom generally die in obscurity while their killer is known forever. That's more than enough reason for me oppose the coverage.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 09:57 PM
Is there evidence that the media's coverage of these events is encouragement to subsequent slayings?

Personally... I don't know. Like I said earlier..i'm sure there are some experts out there with a darn good idea of why. It's hard to hear them because the truth gets lost with all kinds of different things... Video games... Guns... Media... Meds... Parental care... The crumbling school system... Obama and sugar Imbalances.

Lots of people throwing stuff at the wall.

Willihammer
12-16-2012, 10:21 PM
What sort of "evidence" could there possibly be? Even when one of these people live it's hard to take anything they say seriously. So no, there is no evidence either way, but I have trouble believing that infamy is a discouragement. At the very least, the infamy we give is a slap in the face of their victims whom generally die in obscurity while their killer is known forever. That's more than enough reason for me oppose the coverage.

Are you making a moral argument or an aesthetic one? It is only the appetites of consumers the media is feeding, however morbid they may be. Until its determined that this food is actually unhealthy, then there's no moral argument to be made. And even if it is proved unhealthy, ie. it increases one's likeliness of going out and shooting people, you can't stop the media serving it outright any more than you can stop McDonald's serving cheeseburgers, I would think. Its a product of living in a free society, the bad with the good. Don't eat it if you don't want to be fat.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 10:29 PM
Are you making a moral argument or an aesthetic one? It is only the appetites of consumers the media is feeding, however morbid they may be.

Is it? You're making an assumption that are appetites are purely our own. Behavioral psychology and many other fields would argue that often what we want is told to us, not driven by us.


Until its determined that this food is actually unhealthy..

What constitutes "proof"? Other prior school killers have cited Columbine killers as inspiration. Not only is it counter-intuitive that fame would be a non-factor, it has been cited by subsequent killers as motivation. No one is suggesting it is the sole factor, but I do believe it contributes. I will make the argument that the focus on the killer and not the victims is morally wrong.

SpiritofVodkaDave
12-16-2012, 10:36 PM
I'm not in the mood to get drawn into a debate (seriously I have seen enough dumb **** on facebook this week to make me want to leave that site forever) but all I am going to say is we need to start looking at gun control seriously in this country. We have proven time and time again that we make terrible decisions in this country when we allow private citizens to stock pile a half+ dozen weapons in their own home (often including auto and semi auto weapons)

I'm not saying abolish the 2nd amendment (nobody really is), and I'm not saying people can't keep a hand gun in there home if they think it protects them (even though it really doesn't) and this has absolutely nothing to do with hunters, just these people who feel the need to keep multiple hand guns and semi/auto weapons in ones home.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 10:42 PM
Is it? You're making an assumption that are appetites are purely our own. Behavioral psychology and many other fields would argue that often what we want is told to us, not driven by us.

Nature or Nurture? The age old question... I gotta go primarily with Nurture myself... thats just my opinion... but the implication of that goes far beyond media. As matter of fact demographic research would tend to suggest that the under 24 crowd is not watching the news so I wouldn't be rock solid in the role news directly plays as an influence.

The assertion that Media is more of an acceptable possible target for blame than gun control is questionable.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 10:55 PM
The assertion that Media is more of an acceptable possible target for blame than gun control is questionable.

Again, that was never suggested. I don't purport to know why this individual did it. If anything, I'd suggest we'll never know.

I'm only suggesting it's wrong that we spend more time making a killer infamous than we do celebrating life.

Riverbrian
12-16-2012, 11:01 PM
I'm not tying to start something... honest... Just re-posting your words to show where I became confused by your guns and Media sentiments.

If I misunderstood... I apologize.


Here is what I'm proud of - we're 6 posts in here at TD.....and no one has taken this issue as a way to grandstand about guns. It seems like every time this happens - a school shooting, the batman movie, etc. - one side of the other has to use this to hammer their agenda. Let's keep that **** the frig out of this please.

Couldn't agree with you more RP - these guys get all the fame and publicity they could ever hope for following these events. They become stars for a day in a sea of blood and it disgusts me. Hell, today, we had such a rush to name the shooter that the damn media is reporting the name of the brother as the shooter rather than the actual guy! Just so they can get the scoop on who slaughtered innocent children in a place they should feel is as safe as any in their lives.

I can't imagine what that would be like. I teach second grade in a K-3 school, even thinking about this happening there makes me so angry at everyone who will now exploit this problem for whatever agenda they have. It's absolutely disgusting.


The killers at Columbine were motivated, in part, by fame for their acts. Yet another tragedy happened when our media gave them that victory.

TheLeviathan
12-16-2012, 11:20 PM
I don't understand your confusion. My criticism of the media isn't political. The guns, video games, mental health angles are all often political. I despise these tragedies being used to soapbox politically.

My soapbox about the media is apolitical. It's about moral and ethical decency about the victims and the glorification of killers.

Willihammer
12-16-2012, 11:55 PM
Is it? You're making an assumption that are appetites are purely our own. Behavioral psychology and many other fields would argue that often what we want is told to us, not driven by us.

I think that's called marketing. And whether its effective or not in shaping consumer demand, the onus is still on each consumer to make responsible decisions. If someone lacks the little bit of mental fortitude or loses the self-control required to avoid these things, then you have an eating disorder. It still doesn't give you the right to make a moral judgment about cheeseburgers or go around closing McDonaldses.

glunn
12-17-2012, 01:33 AM
It sounds like the murderer here may have suffered from Asbergers syndrome, and fame might not have been a motivating factor.

That said, it seems to me that our nation needs to further increase security at our schools. With so many people who are unemployed, maybe it makes sense to pay some of them to guard schools instead of just giving them unemployment benefits and welfare.

And I think that we need to find the money to hire more mental health professionals to help stop disasters before they happen. Again, I prefer paying people to do work that we really need, such as helping mentally ill (and potentially dangerous people) than giving the same people unemployment benefits and/or welfare.

Finally, I think that some reasonable level of gun control makes sense, but at this point there are so many assault rifles out there that I don't see gun control helping much except over the very long run.

biggentleben
12-17-2012, 02:08 AM
And I think that we need to find the money to hire more mental health professionals to help stop disasters before they happen. Again, I prefer paying people to do work that we really need, such as helping mentally ill (and potentially dangerous people) than giving the same people unemployment benefits and/or welfare.

The last piece of that paragraph is where it goes horribly wrong. If ANYONE is working with mentally ill for the paycheck, God help us all. You do it because you want to see someone grow beyond stigma, because you have a heart for those who suffer, because you want to promote equality of all humans, but never because of the money. The second it becomes about your paycheck is the second that no one really cares about helping those who are mentally ill and we return back to the 1960s as far as mental health treatment goes.

TheLeviathan
12-17-2012, 06:30 AM
I think that's called marketing. And whether its effective or not in shaping consumer demand, the onus is still on each consumer to make responsible decisions. If someone lacks the little bit of mental fortitude or loses the self-control required to avoid these things, then you have an eating disorder. It still doesn't give you the right to make a moral judgment about cheeseburgers or go around closing McDonaldses.

Good think you're not stepping too far out on a limb and comparing school shootings to cheeseburgers, you know you have a strong point when you walk down that analogy.

No one is denying consumer responsibility. But our law books are filled with orders for businesses to act responsibly and not harm the general public. Anywhere from usury to FDA regulations. It's not so simple as you seem to want to make it out to be. Also, the media is made of of individuals as well - I'm just demanding that they have the "self-control required to avoid these things." So I fail to see where you have anywhere to stand.

Willihammer
12-17-2012, 08:27 AM
Are you holding out for a religious awakening in the marketplace where merchants stop selling products that might make their customers unhealthy if consumed in large quantities? Or would you have this sort of product censored or served with a disclaimer?

TheLeviathan
12-17-2012, 09:14 AM
Does operating a business make you immune from ethics? That appears to be your point.

Willihammer
12-17-2012, 10:18 AM
Whose ethics, yours or the merchants? Or do you expect all merchants to volunteer to a common ethic, and adhere to it equally in some religious fashion?

TheLeviathan
12-17-2012, 11:18 AM
First - you are consistently falling into the is-ought fallacy. Second - answer my question and then I will answer yours. Fact is that we hold businesses accountable on any number of moral grounds in our legal system. You have no meaningful point you have articulated yet. This is pretty much the last time I'll bother with your web of fallacies and empty rhetoric. Asking businesses to act ethically at their own loss his hardly radical.

Willihammer
12-17-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm only skeptical that anyone's ethics are being broken. That's why I asked for evidence of a relationship between how the media covers these subjects and the slayings that occur later. It is premature to be talking about censorship until we actually understand whatever relationship may exist there.

Riverbrian
12-17-2012, 01:05 PM
Myself... I won't get involved in an ethics discussion. I think it's unethical for paparazzi to chase Princess Di through the streets of Paris. Yet... There appears to be a market fo it because they wouldn't chase her through the streets of Paris if they didn't get paid to do it... So... My thoughts and feelings on it don't seem to matter much.

I'll just say that the media as it exists today is a creation of the 1st amendment and what the public wants it to be and leave it at that. If the media is reporting on something that society doesn't want. Metrics will let them know fairly quickly and they will stop. This can't be disputed and if that point is not germaine to this discussion. It doesn't need to be explored anymore.

The Media has many aspects to it that don't jive with my personal feelings or ethics. I think the media has responsibility and I think they fail and I think they fail because it is a business first and as a business it's morality or ethics is a direct reflection of our collective morality and ethics.

As things stand today and as things have stood throughout time. I'd say its completely impossible to report the Sandy Hook story without mentioning who did it and attempt to answer why he did it and therefore bringing about fame in the process.

We all know who Jack the Ripper is... Hitler... Mark David Chapman and Marcus Junius Brutus. Who-Dun-It is a question that goes back to the Garden of Eden. It's nothing new and I would say that none of these people have been glorified (your word). It takes a special kind of insane mind to want fame in this negative light and if you are dealing with an insane mind, can you really legislate or filter enough to control what influences the insane mind? This fame can also be fleeting and a terrible miscalculation. For every Jeffery Dahmer... There is a Gerald Stano... Anyone remember him without googling. How Bout Michael Swango? Jane Toppan? Carl Panzram? The list of killers of multiple human beings we don't remember is much much longer than the ones we do. If fame was his goal... It will be short lived and a big mistake.

This discussion has gone a totally different direction. I'm trying to imagine how you would report a story like this without bringing fleeting or lasting fame to the killer. It's never been done before is the only thing I can come up with.

Baseball refusing to televise the people who run on the field hasn't stopped them from doing so.

glunn
12-17-2012, 02:30 PM
The last piece of that paragraph is where it goes horribly wrong. If ANYONE is working with mentally ill for the paycheck, God help us all. You do it because you want to see someone grow beyond stigma, because you have a heart for those who suffer, because you want to promote equality of all humans, but never because of the money. The second it becomes about your paycheck is the second that no one really cares about helping those who are mentally ill and we return back to the 1960s as far as mental health treatment goes.

That was not my intent. I am a big fan of mental health professionals -- my oldest son is a social worker -- and what I intended to convey was my desire to get many of those professionals off unemployment and back to work helping people who need help. I understand your point and agree that few people get into such profession for the money.

TheLeviathan
12-17-2012, 03:56 PM
I'm only skeptical that anyone's ethics are being broken. That's why I asked for evidence of a relationship between how the media covers these subjects and the slayings that occur later. It is premature to be talking about censorship until we actually understand whatever relationship may exist there.

Who said anything about censorship? I would suggest it isn't ethical to direct most of the attention on the killers. I have never said the general public isn't fascinated with these things, but the media dictates their degree of coverage and ultimately makes the decision about just how much glorification these murderers get. Those decisions come into play before my thumb can ever flip the channel. Making excuses for their poor ethics is just that - excuses.

I understand what the world is, I disagree that it ought to be that way. It isn't a hard distinction. And my disagreement stems from the fact that A) some (not all) past killers have felt motivated by prior mass murders. Perhaps "inspired" is the best way to say it. B) Our wall to wall coverage of "why this person did it" never amounts to much of any substantive progress. So not only do we make these vile human beings famous, we don't even garner anything practical out of the process. I gladly sign-up to decry that.

TheLeviathan
12-17-2012, 04:00 PM
Baseball refusing to televise the people who run on the field hasn't stopped them from doing so.

If the claim was that it would then you have a point, but that has never been claimed. The reason they don't is only partly to discourage repeat offenders. The larger reason is so that they don't give some jackass the 5 seconds of fame he's trying to earn by being an *******. In other words - to not dignify being a jerk.

Which is precisely the point. We do, intended or not, dignify the act. Columbine is the ultimate example - it spawns copycats, it has made those two murderers into cultural icons (negative icons, but icons nonetheless), and there was ZERO substantive, practical results out of the process that dignified them. I call that stupid and unethical.

biggentleben
12-17-2012, 05:43 PM
That was not my intent. I am a big fan of mental health professionals -- my oldest son is a social worker -- and what I intended to convey was my desire to get many of those professionals off unemployment and back to work helping people who need help. I understand your point and agree that few people get into such profession for the money.

I didn't assume that was your intent, but you weren't the first person who's said that, and frankly, I know more than I should that do the job for the money being in the field myself. It sickens me, to put it kindly.

glunn
12-17-2012, 06:33 PM
I didn't assume that was your intent, but you weren't the first person who's said that, and frankly, I know more than I should that do the job for the money being in the field myself. It sickens me, to put it kindly.

For what it's worth, I could not be more proud of my son for choosing such a difficult and underpaid career, or more appreciative for your efforts in this regard. You are making the world a better place and your efforts are appreciated by people like me.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-18-2012, 08:05 AM
It sounds like the murderer here may have suffered from Asbergers syndrome, and fame might not have been a motivating factor.



Aspergers is NOT a mental illness and would NOT cause someone to do this. He may or may not have had it, but that is not a factor. Now anyone with autism will have yet another stigma to face.

TheLeviathan
12-18-2012, 09:29 AM
Exactly - instead of video games or bullying I fear the national dialogue will be on autism. Given our track record on these conversations I am genuinely worried. Yet another reason to back off coverage on him.

biggentleben
12-18-2012, 11:41 AM
Aspergers is NOT a mental illness and would NOT cause someone to do this.

You are wrong and right both. In many states, Aspergers is classified under mental illness, not developmental disability. For instance, in South Dakota, none of the autism spectrum alone qualifies someone as being developmentally disabled, but does qualify them for mental health services.

Aspergers and autism are not violent disorders to the community, however. Possibly within their own circle (family, very close friends), but not strangers.

gunnarthor
12-18-2012, 02:16 PM
Wow. OK. So the problem is the media or maybe video games or maybe mental health or maybe bullying but let's make sure we don't consider guns as a problem. Stunningly stupid.

glunn
12-18-2012, 03:37 PM
Aspergers is NOT a mental illness and would NOT cause someone to do this. He may or may not have had it, but that is not a factor. Now anyone with autism will have yet another stigma to face.

My point was NOT that Aspergers was a causative factor. My point was that, taking into account his Aspergers, the shooter may not have been motivated by a desire for fame.

TheLeviathan
12-18-2012, 03:39 PM
Wow. OK. So the problem is the media or maybe video games or maybe mental health or maybe bullying but let's make sure we don't consider guns as a problem. Stunningly stupid.

I absolutely believe we should consider guns. I just don't find the politicized debates about them productive. Particularly in the wake of these tragedies that debate becomes heavy handed and lacking in all nuance.

TheLeviathan
12-18-2012, 03:42 PM
My point was NOT that Aspergers was a causative factor. My point was that, taking into account his Aspergers, the shooter may not have been motivated by a desire for fame.

Again, no one is making that argument. Giving these murderers wall to wall coverage, I can assure you, is not de-motivating, it can only inspire. The issue is why do we give these murderers infamy at all - it flies in the face of common sense and decency.

diehardtwinsfan
12-18-2012, 04:00 PM
The problem with the media is that all of it is owned by something like 5 companies who are also owned by a handful of individuals. This is why you get force fed what Brittney Spears had for breakfast and whatever the latest Teen Mom's flub up was. I'm not sure I'd go so far to blame them for this tragedy, though Lev makes a great point...ethics in journalism is gone. Like many other industries, much of this would get fixed by simply breaking up the mega-conglomerates... but anti-trust laws died several decades ago, and the powers that be get way too much benefit from keeping things as is to resurrect them.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-18-2012, 05:52 PM
You are wrong and right both. In many states, Aspergers is classified under mental illness, not developmental disability. For instance, in South Dakota, none of the autism spectrum alone qualifies someone as being developmentally disabled, but does qualify them for mental health services.

Aspergers and autism are not violent disorders to the community, however. Possibly within their own circle (family, very close friends), but not strangers.

Then the classification is wrong. It's a neurological disorder. Perhaps it's 'classified' that way because of special needs those of autism may required, but it is not a mental illness. I have three good friends with kids with autism, to varying degrees, and they are livid with the media throwing that out there. And a colleauge of mine with Aspbergers.

TheLeviathan
12-18-2012, 06:23 PM
Anything in the DSM is technically a mental illness. Aspergers, as part of the ASD spectrum, is also in that mix. But many reports are trying to refute laying this crime at the feet of that diagnosis. Either way, I worry that this will be the banner that flies from this crime: Worry about Autism. Scary thought if it is.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-18-2012, 06:43 PM
Anything in the DSM is technically a mental illness. Aspergers, as part of the ASD spectrum, is also in that mix. But many reports are trying to refute laying this crime at the feet of that diagnosis. Either way, I worry that this will be the banner that flies from this crime: Worry about Autism. Scary thought if it is.

Agreed. But the thing is, we don't even know if he had this. Someone in the media was quick to throw it out there as a possibility, then wham, he has it and it was a cause or contributing factor when it just isn't/wasn't, even if he had it. In our thirst to have answers, the media responds very irresponsibly and now have created more problems where there were none before.

TheLeviathan
12-18-2012, 06:58 PM
All part of why I don't find any value in blasting this guy's name and story all over the media. We do more damage and we give this a-hole infamy. I don't understand how that is being defended in this thread.

biggentleben
12-18-2012, 07:18 PM
Then the classification is wrong. It's a neurological disorder. Perhaps it's 'classified' that way because of special needs those of autism may required, but it is not a mental illness. I have three good friends with kids with autism, to varying degrees, and they are livid with the media throwing that out there. And a colleauge of mine with Aspbergers.

It's as much for funding as anything else, but that is the classification. Medicare/Medicaid issues weigh heavily into that, based primarily, as Lev referenced, on the most recent DSM. The DSM-V has no announced changes regarding autism and where it falls, so I would wager it will remain classified that way for another decade or more.

biggentleben
12-18-2012, 07:23 PM
The media basically understands very little about the autism spectrum, but that "very little" is much more than they know about personality disorders. Heck, the common person does not understand much, if anything, about personality disorders. Watch the television, and you'll see stories about multiple personality disorder - something that has no mental health backing and even its closest relative (disassociative personality disorder) removed from the DSM-V, but most people you ask would state that someone in a mental hospital very possibly may have multiple personality disorder. Obsessive compulsive disorder is in the grouping of personality disorders, but it is far different than borderline personality disorder, so there is a wide array of things to know in the area, and believe me when I say the media knows NONE of it. In fact, if they did, there would actually be something to latch onto and "blame" depending on if it was ever diagnosed within the personality disorder family - antisocial personality disorder, whose sufferers typically will commit numerous petty crimes as an essential "need" to fight against rules of society, and a person with this disorder can actually be driven in anger to the point of lashing out physically and violently.

TheLeviathan
12-18-2012, 07:46 PM
Well said Ben. Just to add to your list, bi-polar is thrown around ignorantly a lot these days. Much of the discussions about mental illness are far more harmful than beneficial, IMO, in large part because of the rampant ignorance of specific mental illnesses. People only know vague generalities, including the media. That's a dangerous basis for a national dialogue about a sensitive subject.

biggentleben
12-18-2012, 09:01 PM
Well said Ben. Just to add to your list, bi-polar is thrown around ignorantly a lot these days. Much of the discussions about mental illness are far more harmful than beneficial, IMO, in large part because of the rampant ignorance of specific mental illnesses. People only know vague generalities, including the media. That's a dangerous basis for a national dialogue about a sensitive subject.

Heck, I'm just happy when someone uses the words "bipolar" and not "manic depressive", and that change was made when my father was in high school (and I was born before Reagan was in office).

Kobs
12-20-2012, 12:10 AM
Baseball refusing to televise the people who run on the field hasn't stopped them from doing so.

Seatbelts haven't eliminated traffic deaths either.

Kobs
12-20-2012, 12:14 AM
I absolutely believe we should consider guns. I just don't find the politicized debates about them productive. Particularly in the wake of these tragedies that debate becomes heavy handed and lacking in all nuance.

Adaptation does not occur without a stimulus. This is simply a stall tactic. If we wait until the undefined tragedy wake is over for this, there will be another one that we'll have to wait for.

TheLeviathan
12-20-2012, 06:47 AM
Adaptation does not occur without a stimulus. This is simply a stall tactic. If we wait until the undefined tragedy wake is over for this, there will be another one that we'll have to wait for.

Fair point. I would just caution that sometimes the issue we choose to hang our hats on isn't always the right one (see: Columbine and bullying) and in our emotional reaction to the tragedy we don't have think clearly in our responses. Good gun control reform is going to take some nuance or it simply isn't going to work either.

PseudoSABR
12-21-2012, 10:06 PM
Fair point. I would just caution that sometimes the issue we choose to hang our hats on isn't always the right one (see: Columbine and bullying) and in our emotional reaction to the tragedy we don't have think clearly in our responses. Good gun control reform is going to take some nuance or it simply isn't going to work either.Jesus, Levi, you sound like the NRA: “Out of respect for the families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from commenting. While some have tried to exploit the tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectably silent." That's ****ing rich.

Having the conversation can do no harm, and despite your admonishments, it seems to be happening pretty sensibly in public.

TheLeviathan
12-22-2012, 08:24 AM
Having the conversation can do no harm, and despite your admonishments, it seems to be happening pretty sensibly in public.

Could you have twisted what I said any worse? Seriously? The gun control reforms against assault rifles and those pertinent to mental health are going to take some serious nuance to achieve what we want not only responsibly but effectively. A national dialogue that is too heavy-handed in it's tact towards either angle of that is not going to get us anywhere. See: Columbine and bullying. A tragedy like this should lead to a better solution than we have seen in the past.

So far I like how the President is handling things and their approach to trying to find a solution. I also think the national dialogue about guns has been pretty fair from what I've seen in editorials and talk shows. I'm more worried about Autism now at this point.

TheLeviathan
12-22-2012, 08:33 AM
Or you can just read this crappy article that pretty much uses a wrecking ball for tact and includes all kinds of quotes or opinions that just make you shake your head: New details emerge a week after school massacre - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/details-emerge-week-school-massacre-080111997.html)

PseudoSABR
12-22-2012, 12:26 PM
Champions of the status quo call for quiet (as the NRA does and righteously relishes in).

Bullying? Oh the irreparable harm we've caused by suggesting bullying in school might lead to violence! How can we let ourselves be so maniacal in our discussions! The mental health issue and bullying issue are problem more related than one might think at first blush, so your poo-pooing it seems odd to me.

No one doubts the seriousness to address policy, but public discourse actual needs to hit a fever pitch (even some hyperbole) before the pols will listen and even act reasonably.

I know you can totally be reasonable on these issues, but your role as discourse police seems like a misstep to me.

Look whether its bullying, mental health, magazine and assault weapon bans, the emotional disconnect between teachers and students, etc., let's tackle this problem and talk about it in as many ways as we can. There's plenty of reasonable people that are charged with sorting through the muck to get to some real solutions. I'm going to be curious as to what the Biden task force comes up with...

PseudoSABR
12-22-2012, 12:37 PM
Or you can just read this crappy article that pretty much uses a wrecking ball for tact and includes all kinds of quotes or opinions that just make you shake your head: New details emerge a week after school massacre - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/details-emerge-week-school-massacre-080111997.html)Yes, the media is sensationalizing this discussion in an unhelpful way. Stunning. But what's different is some in the media are actually trying to be thoughtful and are willing to table their ideology to have a serious discussion.

Example: Joe Scarborough (http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/17/scarborough-today-as-a-nation-we-grieve-and-today-as-a-people-we-feel-helpless/) (Totally worth checking out.)

TheLeviathan
12-22-2012, 12:48 PM
Bullying? Oh the irreparable harm we've caused by suggesting bullying in school might lead to violence!

Are you done? In the wake of that shooting we actually started to make the killers sympathetic for being bully victims and blamed violent video games. As it turned out, those reasons were far less central to their actions than the immediate narrative indicated. Any time you take minimal evidence and try to make sweeping changes it isn't likely you're going to make effective change.

It's not about policing it - public hyperbole is simply not going to impress on policy makers more than 20 dead first graders. If that isn't enough to shock action, public outcry (regardless of it's direction) isn't going to make a dent.

I'm all about the conversation....once we've cooled off, thought about it, and committed ourselves to not making an rash observations. To me the goal is to make sure this never happens again and the best way to do that is to talk about facts and what we can do and try (as hard as it is) to keep our emotions as the fuel for the process, but not the end-all, be-all.

PseudoSABR
12-22-2012, 01:14 PM
After Columbine we sympathized with the shooters? What alternative reality are you living in?

Once we've cooled off, our desire to make difficult changes and face powerful special interests might be mitigated...

TheLeviathan
12-22-2012, 02:25 PM
After Columbine we sympathized with the shooters? What alternative reality are you living in?

Once we've cooled off, our desire to make difficult changes and face powerful special interests might be mitigated...

Much of the dialogue post-Columbine is that these were bully victims seeking revenge. While that was a small part of the issue, it was not even close to the central motivator, but it put them in a victim light themseleves was more sympathetic.

I'm not suggesting we let our emotions die, but we don't let them drive the boat completely. It's not like gun control or changes to the mental health system are going to be easy. We could just as easily cause even more harm out of this if we aren't careful. (Especially since the shift is going towards mental health now)

TheLeviathan
12-22-2012, 02:49 PM
Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/keeping-kids-safe/200905/columbine-bullying-and-the-mind-eric-harris)

Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.

PseudoSABR
12-22-2012, 08:19 PM
Honestly, who cares about being right about the central motivation of the mass-murderer of the month; rather we need to look at all the possible motivators as well as the ease with which these murderers carried out their plans and the mental health issues that may have prevented such an act. It's a tall order, but asking people to clam up--as if any discussion about preventive measures is necessarily emotionally motivated and dismissable--doesn't help.

PseudoSABR
12-22-2012, 08:24 PM
Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/keeping-kids-safe/200905/columbine-bullying-and-the-mind-eric-harris)

Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.Ugh. You are impossibly snide. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the discussion surrounding Columbine being more than about bullying. This point in particular is a petty one; just drop it. It's like your own pet straw man. And for the record, again, bullying probably is an important part of the mental health issues that face adolescents--but that's certainly not my take from Columbine. Jesus.

TheLeviathan
12-22-2012, 09:30 PM
Honestly, who cares about being right about the central motivation of the mass-murderer of the month; rather we need to look at all the possible motivators as well as the ease with which these murderers carried out their plans and the mental health issues that may have prevented such an act. It's a tall order, but asking people to clam up--as if any discussion about preventive measures is necessarily emotionally motivated and dismissable--doesn't help.

I'm sorry...what exactly is your aim here? You have yet to accurately take the content of anything I've said into account in your replies. Your tone is that of someone who just had their dog kicked. I'll try one more time, but if your little routine here is going to stick it's not worth it.

One....I never said the only thing discussed out of Columbine was bullying. I said it was "central" and "much of". Talk about straw-man arguments. The problem, which I've clearly outlined for everyone not trying to have a problem, is that rash initial judgements paint the wrong picture of the situation and make real solutions difficult. You can't hit the target if you don't know what you're aiming at. Public discourse, driven by the media, creates these irrational moving targets. After Columbine, as the link I posted suggested accurately in a reputable source, is that we started looking at every mass murderer as a victim themselves rather than actually considering the situation for what it was. And, out of Columbine and that ridiculous emotional response that made the figures more sympathetic, we had the largest rash of these kinds of killings. Out of the well-intentioned care to end bullying we, in fact, caused more of them to happen by our ham-handed response.

Here we present with the same risks. We don't know the picture here and a rush to make changes to the mental health system DOES present serious risks to those with mental health issues and those without them. Gun-control has sensitivity with it as well (not as much, but certainly some) Best intentions or not it is a worthy endeavor to arriving at solutions that don't cause more harm out of a tragic situation. The discourse at the top levels of the government is appropriate - it is focused on police responses and the difficulties of law enforcement - not on rash diagnoses and assumptions about what the quiet and shy are capable of doing. We should be more prudent as civilians that we don't take tragedies and make them worse. Simple as the point is. I look forward to your next twist to it though, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

glunn
12-23-2012, 12:01 AM
The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

ChiTownTwinsFan
12-23-2012, 08:35 AM
The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

The first step to a solution is to address the means, now, and then work on the whys. This is what happens ... people talk and talk and talk, debate and argue, and nothing happens, nothing changes.

Musk21
12-27-2012, 09:59 AM
The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

For many in this country it seems like their "right" to have guns like the AR-15 is the most important issue here.

glunn
12-28-2012, 02:45 AM
For many in this country it seems like their "right" to have guns like the AR-15 is the most important issue here.

I feel that my shotgun is ample for home defense, and I would not want to lose my "right" to defend my home against criminals who may be armed. On the other hand, assault rifles seem excessive for home defense and more dangerous in the hands of a madman than a shotgun.

PseudoSABR
12-28-2012, 12:07 PM
I feel that my shotgun is ample for home defense, and I would not want to lose my "right" to defend my home against criminals who may be armed. On the other hand, assault rifles seem excessive for home defense and more dangerous in the hands of a madman than a shotgun.The majority of people agree with this. Hopefully, something gets done. There's a minority of people who actually believe they have a 'right' to such weapons. Boo-hoo for them.

luke829
12-28-2012, 06:04 PM
To change the subject just slightly, it will be interesting to see what the geneticists discover with their research. Was the guy wired wrong from birth, a product of his environment, or both? And as far as weapons are concerned, I agree that assault weapons (as least in the hands of civilans) seems absurd. I have yet to see your average hunter out in the field utilizing such a weapon for game (at least I don't).

Reginald Maudling's Shin
12-29-2012, 01:08 PM
The majority of people agree with this. Hopefully, something gets done. There's a minority of people who actually believe they have a 'right' to such weapons. Boo-hoo for them.
The problem is, the weapons identified as assault rifles are not that different than those used for hunting. If by assault rifle you mean a fully automatic rifle then we would all be in agreement (but those are already banned). People seem to want to ban so-called assault rifles because they "look mean". The rifle used by Lanza was about the same caliber as one I used as a teen to hunt squirrels. Are we going to ban .22s now?

There is absolutely no nuance in the gun control debate from leftists like Feinstein who want to register every single firearm in the USA. That's why people are pissed off. I don't agree with bans on semiautomatic rifles, nor do I agree with bans on limiting magazine capacities, mainly because they won't do anything. None of these proposed weapons bans will have any effect at all on the next mass murder. You know it and I know it. So let's stop pretending like politicians like Feinstein are trying to help keep people safe here. She and her ilk have a philosophical issue with people owning guns at all.

luke829
01-01-2013, 10:51 AM
Apparently the father claimed the body, which just goes to show that no matter how estanged you are from your children or how wicked their actions, you are still a parent first and foremost.

Brock Beauchamp
01-01-2013, 07:58 PM
The problem is, the weapons identified as assault rifles are not that different than those used for hunting. If by assault rifle you mean a fully automatic rifle then we would all be in agreement (but those are already banned). People seem to want to ban so-called assault rifles because they "look mean". The rifle used by Lanza was about the same caliber as one I used as a teen to hunt squirrels. Are we going to ban .22s now?

There is absolutely no nuance in the gun control debate from leftists like Feinstein who want to register every single firearm in the USA. That's why people are pissed off. I don't agree with bans on semiautomatic rifles, nor do I agree with bans on limiting magazine capacities, mainly because they won't do anything. None of these proposed weapons bans will have any effect at all on the next mass murder. You know it and I know it. So let's stop pretending like politicians like Feinstein are trying to help keep people safe here. She and her ilk have a philosophical issue with people owning guns at all.

Very true. I don't get this "assault rifle" nonsense. As you said, most of them are little more than a tarted-up hunting rifle (and most actually use smaller calibre rounds than, say, a deer rifle). Banning them accomplishes nothing and is the worst kind of turd polishing Washington can devise.

Mental health support, better screening processes, conceal/carry law revisions, and a long hard look at handguns are where we should be starting. Not ****ing "assault rifles". As usual, Feinstein has her head up her ass when it comes to guns. We need real solutions, not token gestures so all the Dems can go home an tell their constituencies that they "fixed" the problem because they banned a bunch of black matte rifles that are the similar size, shape, and calibre to a typical hunting rifle.

But you'd still be able to go buy that same hunting rifle. Derp.

TheLeviathan
01-16-2013, 10:45 PM
Reg (or anyone else) I'm no gun expert.....so care to share thoughts on what Obama presented today?

I'm curious to see the details on the two mental health provisions that are executive orders, I haven't seen much about what that entails so far.

glunn
01-20-2013, 03:23 AM
Very true. I don't get this "assault rifle" nonsense. As you said, most of them are little more than a tarted-up hunting rifle (and most actually use smaller calibre rounds than, say, a deer rifle). Banning them accomplishes nothing and is the worst kind of turd polishing Washington can devise.

Mental health support, better screening processes, conceal/carry law revisions, and a long hard look at handguns are where we should be starting. Not ****ing "assault rifles". As usual, Feinstein has her head up her ass when it comes to guns. We need real solutions, not token gestures so all the Dems can go home an tell their constituencies that they "fixed" the problem because they banned a bunch of black matte rifles that are the similar size, shape, and calibre to a typical hunting rifle.

But you'd still be able to go buy that same hunting rifle. Derp.

I have always been a shotgun guy. But it seems to me that an AR-15 would be more maneuverable in close quarters than a hunting rifle.

Willihammer
01-20-2013, 01:52 PM
I have a Bushmaster AR-15. The barrel weighs a ton, its very unwieldy in my opinion. I mounted a by-pod to it with a 30x scope and use it to hunt prairie dogs and coyotes.