Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186

Solution to USA Mass shootings


As noted sociologists and other experts have proved- it's not the guns, it's the media. The media glorifying the shooters is what has caused the large uptick in mass shooting in this century.

As I showed over in the elections thread about O'Rourke:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...=882156&page=2

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...research-shows

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...rJRTObuojybVyc
The second dose came as I held my breath, hoping and praying the media wouldn’t amplify the violence.

But they did.

They did exactly what was needed to influence the next perpetrator to lock and load.
1. They named the shooter.
2. They described his characteristics.
3. They detailed the crime.
4. They numbered the victims.
5. They ranked him against other “successful” attackers.

School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.

There’s really no useful debate on the point. The consensus of social scientists since David Phillips’ groundbreaking work in 1974 is that highly publicized stories of deviant and dangerous behavior influences copycat incidents.


https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/com...HzwQqHI2r9fjYM
This study suggests that there is a pattern
between the spread of mass shooting news on social media platforms and the increase in these crimes. Over
time, as social media has increased in usage, so has the coverage of news concerning mass shootings. This
also further reflects shooters’ desire for fame and their tendency to copy a crime.
Evidence from this study reveals a large increase in the number of mass shootings after 2011’s social
media milestones, and one can conclude that social media most likely has some effect on these crimes,
although the degree of this relationship is beyond the scope of this study.


http://www.center4research.org/copy-...M3lsW1yXPMrEQ8
Shooters get enormous attention: their name, photo, motivations, and story are often shared for days following the event. The American Psychological Association points out that this “fame” is something that most mass shooters desire.[2] This sometime inspires a copycat shooting, where the potential shooter typically tries to kill more people than their predecessor.

The number of mass shootings in the U.S. has increased exponentially since the early 2000s


However, we can cut back the number of shootings without tearing up the 1st Ad.

1. Broadcast Media doesnt have unlimited 1st Ad protection. We banned tobacco ads, we can get them to agree to not broadcast the names, etc of the shooters. Show them the stick and the carrot, let them agree to do this under threat of having it forced on them. They can even use it to show "they care". Fine. Broadcast media is the problem.

2. Print Media may well go along to some extent, like they now do with not printing the names of rape victims. Encourage them. Some wont, but that's OK.

See- and in one stroke we cuts back the number of mass shootings to pre-2000 levels. Certainly far more than any Constitutional gun control measures would do, anyway.

Not that some gun controls measures, like banning the SALE of 'assault weapons', more background checks and "red flag" laws wont help some.
  #2  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,255
The existence of social media would completely undercut this approach. It would be absolutely ineffective; the information would still get out, and the shooters would still get all the fame they desire.

Based on the timing of things, I have a suspicious that the rise of shootings was largely caused by in social media and the corresponding 'validation through fleeting attention' that came with it.
  #3  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:02 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The media glorifying the shooters is what has caused the large uptick in mass shooting in this century.
Are you sure you know the meaning of the word "glorifying"?
  #4  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:07 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Every non-SDMB link in the OP is broken for me, and it makes me laugh that the OP suggests that the First Amendment needs to be further limited to suit his near-unlimited view of the Second Amendment.

Are there any other laws that should be offered up as ritual sacrifices to guns?
  #5  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:10 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
So what is your solution then? We all just collectively stop talking about mass shootings? Close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and yell nana I can't hear you? Something like that? Is this called the head in the sand technique? Do you really think if we just ignore the problem it will magically go away?

I'm really curious to hear what your actual solution is, in practical terms. Like how would we start right now? Lay out the steps for us like this:

1) ignore the problem, outlaw discussing these actual events that are happening?
2) ???
3) problem solved, no more mass shootings?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #6  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:22 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Are you sure you know the meaning of the word "glorifying"?
Well, while you and I might consider that being named in a news report is not glorification, to the perpetrator it certainly is glorification.
  #7  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:32 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So what is your solution then? We all just collectively stop talking about mass shootings? Close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and yell nana I can't hear you? Something like that? Is this called the head in the sand technique? Do you really think if we just ignore the problem it will magically go away?

I'm really curious to hear what your actual solution is, in practical terms. Like how would we start right now? Lay out the steps for us like this:

1) ignore the problem, outlaw discussing these actual events that are happening?
2) ???
3) problem solved, no more mass shootings?
It probably actually would make a difference, if all coverage of the incidents could be eliminated. The drastic uptick of mass shootings was caused by something, after all, and it wasn't a sudden surge in the availability of guns. And a lot of mass shooters clearly are doing it either for attention or to send a message.

It wouldn't fix all the problems, of course, because surely a significant factor in the uptick has been the racist in chief and his party of traitors spurring on their electorate towards hatred of The Other. But it would probably help some, if we could prevent anybody from hearing about them.

Of course that's all moot because there's no way to get the internet back into the bottle. There's no way to stop these people from having a good chance at internet fame for their actions, so a different approach would have to be taken if we actually cared to do something. (I lean towards disarming them, myself.)

Last edited by begbert2; 09-17-2019 at 01:32 PM. Reason: typo
  #8  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:40 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
1. Broadcast Media doesnt have unlimited 1st Ad protection. We banned tobacco ads, we can get them to agree to not broadcast the names, etc of the shooters. Show them the stick and the carrot, let them agree to do this under threat of having it forced on them. They can even use it to show "they care". Fine. Broadcast media is the problem.
Do you know what "broadcast media" is and how much of the media market it controls? By the way-from what article did you get all those broken links?
  #9  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:51 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,324
Pun somewhat intended, but the OP is suggesting "shooting the messenger"?

That we have a rather old, rather apt, and somewhat derogatory expression about that concept should be telling.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 09-17-2019 at 01:52 PM.
  #10  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
When better than Constitution Day to discuss gutting one amendment to shore up another, right?
  #11  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:12 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,677
So we must act on our suspicions and deprive potential shooters of one possible motivating factor by shitting on the First Amendment and ignore the real issue, the availability of guns, by hiding behind the skirt of the Second Half Of The Second Amendment.
  #12  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:14 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 301
DrDeth, I just want to clarify, do you feel mass shootings uniquely require a solution, where other forms of gun violence don’t? As in, mass shootings are bad, but other shootings aren’t?

Because it seems to me that probably THE BEST way to solve the problem of mass shootings is to solve the wider problem of shootings in general. With that said, while I can see how your idea of controlling the media narrative might well result in some reduction in mass/spree-killings by people who want to make statement, it would seem to have significant drawbacks. The two foremost being (as others have noted) the impracticality of so completely controlling the narrative when there are so many outlets available for information (as long as there is a market for details, details WILL get out: nature finds a way), and the whole thing about the first amendment.
  #13  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:15 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,236
I arrive at this gathering extremely skeptical, given that we are convened by someone calling emself DOCTOR DEATH!
  #14  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:32 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,437
First, assuming for argument's sake the OP is correct, Ravenman has the right question -- why impinge on the First Amendment because the Second Amendment is causing problems?

Second, it simply cannot be the case that it's all the glorification causing the uptick, since other countries with free press, but more restrictive gun laws, don't have this problem.

Third, gun availability may not have gone up recently, but gun ownership (number of guns owned, not necessarily the number of gun owners) has certainly gone up. Cite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...earm-ownership. NRA spending has gone up tremendously as well.

Fourth, while the US is an outlier in terms of mass shootings, it's also very much an outlier in terms of overall shootings. If you can figure out a way to solve the second, and much, much bigger problem, it will no doubt help with the first. That is, mass shootings is not really a problem, statistically, in the US -- several hundred people per year, compared to the tens of thousands of people routinely killed by guns here.

So, don't curtail First Amendment rights in order to try and solve a statistical non-issue like mass shootings. Rather, find ways to get guns away from people likely to use them on other people (fix the general shootings issue) and mass shootings will likely decline as well.
  #15  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:35 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
As noted sociologists and other experts have proved- it's not the guns, it's the media.


Quote:
https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/com...HzwQqHI2r9fjYM
This study suggests that there is a pattern
between the spread of mass shooting news on social media platforms and the increase in these crimes. Over
time, as social media has increased in usage, so has the coverage of news concerning mass shootings. This
also further reflects shooters’ desire for fame and their tendency to copy a crime.
Evidence from this study reveals a large increase in the number of mass shootings after 2011’s social
media milestones, and one can conclude that social media most likely has some effect on these crimes,
although the degree of this relationship is beyond the scope of this study.
I looked up this study. It appears to be from an undergraduate in the School of Communications from a university that doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. Link -- scroll down to the part about intern biographies to see the author (Ms. Lee) background. One should also check out her other internship experience -- I'm not going to mock her for it, as those are perfectly respectable endeavors, but they are quite far afield from psychology, sociology, criminology, etc.

Is this your version of a "noted sociologist?"

On the other hand, check out this study, funded by the National Institutes of Justice and headed by two PhDs, one in psychology and one in sociology. Both appear to have background in criminology. Link.

Quote:
Why mass shootings occur, and how we can all stop them

Our research has led us to a new, hopeful, framework to understand public mass shootings and how to prevent them. Mass shooters typically have four things in common:

1. Early childhood trauma and/or exposure to violence at a young age;
2. An identifiable grievance and/or crisis point;
3. Validation for their belief system, have studied past shootings to find inspiration;
4. The means to carry out an attack (access to people, places, and firearms).

This new framework acknowledges the complexity of this vexing social problem, but gives all of us things we can do to prevent the next tragedy. Each one of the four themes represents an inflection point—an opportunity for intervention.
Number 3 touches on how assailants seek validation from wherever they can, as opposed to saying that the media is being reckless in letting people know about murders.

More importantly, note number 4 -- that's about access to guns, which completely destroys your underlying point that guns have nothing to do with mass shootings (an absurdity on its face, of course).

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-17-2019 at 02:39 PM.
  #16  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:36 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,376
The problem, as always, is a "What's in it for us?" syndrome.

The mainstream media has a choice whenever some gunman does a Pulse, Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook: They can forego the clicks, revenue, views and ratings and $$$$$...........all the while knowing that their competitors will simply air the news and get the revenue that they're missing out on........or they can just fall for the forbidden fruit and do their sobbing routine for money and eyeballs.

For the media execs, it's an easy choice.
  #17  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:45 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They did exactly what was needed to influence the next perpetrator to lock and load.
1. They named the shooter.
2. They described his characteristics.
3. They detailed the crime.
4. They numbered the victims.
5. They ranked him against other “successful” attackers.
How could the media not report those things?! They're all newsworthy points -- the media wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't report them. When a media outlet has a policy not to report something about a crime, it is typically to protect the victims, i.e., rape and molestation victims -- the public doesn't need to know their names.
  #18  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:50 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
How could the media not report those things?! They're all newsworthy points -- the media wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't report them.
Be that as it may, it's giving killers exactly what they want.

Suppose you have an aggrieved white supremacist who feels that blacks are the cause of all his problems. He knows for a fact that if he shoots up a black wedding or block party or whatever, and kills dozens, and first publishes a manifesto, that the following things will happen:

His name and photo will be emblazoned everywhere. The media will report in-depth on his manifesto, poring over every single one of his paragraphs with a fine comb. He will become a household name, Googling him will get millions of hits, the President of the United States will be talking about him in a national address, every politician will be talking about him, all of his grievances will be carefully read, absorbed, thought about and pondered by numerous readers, thousands of people will be converted to his way of thinking, he will get thousands of fans on the Internet, there will be T-shirts with his face on them, there will be a Wikipedia page about him, possibly entire books will be written about him, maybe even a movie made one day about his shooting..............how can that be anything other than the most potent catnip to such a KKK-er?


The only thing he'd lament while alive would be that he wouldn't be around to see it for himself. (Unless he plans to be taken alive by police instead of shooting himself in the head)

Last edited by Velocity; 09-17-2019 at 02:52 PM.
  #19  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:52 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
If only the media would only report what conservatives want them to report and keep everything else secret, huh?

That seems to be the nonstop theme during the Trump era.

Also completely ridiculous, impossible, and at total odds with the first amendment and with having an informed public, which are both essential for a healthy democracy.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #20  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:56 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Be that as it may, it's giving killers exactly what they want.
So do lax gun laws which let these guys have the weapons they need to carry out these atrocities. However those we have some control over. We do not have control over what the news reports as they are here to report the news. Dictatorships control the media. Is that what you are advocating? Otherwise how do you plan to control every news outlet as well as every human with a social media account? Please give your detailed plan on how you suggest this is carried out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose you have an aggrieved white supremacist who feels that blacks are the cause of all his problems. He knows for a fact that if he shoots up a black wedding or block party or whatever, and kills dozens, and first publishes a manifesto, that the following things will happen:

His name and photo will be emblazoned everywhere. The media will report in-depth on his manifesto, poring over every single one of his paragraphs with a fine comb. He will become a household name, Googling him will get millions of hits, the President of the United States will be talking about him in a national address, every politician will be talking about him, all of his grievances will be carefully read, absorbed, thought about and pondered by numerous readers, thousands of people will be converted to his way of thinking, he will get thousands of fans on the Internet, there will be T-shirts with his face on them, there will be a Wikipedia page about him, possibly entire books will be written about him, maybe even a movie made one day about his shooting..............how can that be anything other than the most potent catnip to such a KKK-er?


The only thing he'd lament while alive would be that he wouldn't be around to see it for himself. (Unless he plans to be taken alive by police instead of shooting himself in the head)
Again, please lay out your plan to control every media outlet as well as every American with twitter, facebook etc. and not have us be North Korea. How exactly is that supposed to happen?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #21  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Second, it simply cannot be the case that it's all the glorification causing the uptick, since other countries with free press, but more restrictive gun laws, don't have this problem. ...
Which other countries are you referring to? Places like New Zealand? France? Norway? Germany? They all have more restrictive gun laws than us, and they "have this problem" too.
  #22  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:33 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which other countries are you referring to? Places like New Zealand? France? Norway? Germany? They all have more restrictive gun laws than us, and they "have this problem" too.
Which one of those countries have had 300 mass shootings this year?
  #23  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:34 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which other countries are you referring to? Places like New Zealand? France? Norway? Germany? They all have more restrictive gun laws than us, and they "have this problem" too.
You're right. Nothing can be done. They did nothing. Let's do nothing too.

And for god's sake, let's also stop reporting it and talking about it. It's such a buzz kill.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #24  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:36 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which other countries are you referring to? Places like New Zealand? France? Norway? Germany? They all have more restrictive gun laws than us, and they "have this problem" too.
It is true that other countries "have this problem too." But not to the same extent the US does. Finland and Norway came close in per capita deaths in mass shootings a few years back, but that was mostly due to a one or two incidents and the fact that they are a much smaller countries. Statistics, variation and all that.

This video, from Vox, stacks up the US and other developed countries on a number of gun-related statistics. It’s clear to me that the US is, indeed, and outlier when it comes to gun violence in the developed world:

The state of gun violence in the US, explained in 18 charts

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 09-17-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #25  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:30 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,233
I'd be okay with all mass-shooting suspects not having their real names reported, referenced instead by nicknames like "Stinky McBedwetter".
  #26  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:31 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which other countries are you referring to? Places like New Zealand? France? Norway? Germany? They all have more restrictive gun laws than us, and they "have this problem" too.
Right, in the same sense that if they have a cold and we have cancer, we're both sick. Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi...ries,_2010.svg

That's as-of 2010. The red bars are gun homicides. The blue bars are suicides. We lead in both! We're number 1! USA! USA!

I haven't looked for mass shootings, but then, I don't think mass shootings are really a problem statistically speaking.
  #27  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:59 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Be that as it may, it's giving killers exactly what they want.

Suppose you have an aggrieved white supremacist who feels that blacks are the cause of all his problems. He knows for a fact that if he shoots up a black wedding or block party or whatever, and kills dozens, and first publishes a manifesto, that the following things will happen:

His name and photo will be emblazoned everywhere. The media will report in-depth on his manifesto, poring over every single one of his paragraphs with a fine comb. He will become a household name, Googling him will get millions of hits, the President of the United States will be talking about him in a national address, every politician will be talking about him, all of his grievances will be carefully read, absorbed, thought about and pondered by numerous readers, thousands of people will be converted to his way of thinking, he will get thousands of fans on the Internet, there will be T-shirts with his face on them, there will be a Wikipedia page about him, possibly entire books will be written about him, maybe even a movie made one day about his shooting..............how can that be anything other than the most potent catnip to such a KKK-er?


The only thing he'd lament while alive would be that he wouldn't be around to see it for himself. (Unless he plans to be taken alive by police instead of shooting himself in the head)
When I become god emperor of the world able to control giant corporations and social media alike through sheer terror, I will cause all reporting of mass shooters to refrain from giving the name of the shooter or their image, or detailing the contents of any manifestos. They will simply make an honest report not unlike the following:

"A white male, seemingly unable to hold down a job and reportedly riddled with mental problems, used X guns to murder Y innocent people at Z location. He died at the scene. The guns were apparently purchased legally according to the laws in his area. Investigation into his motives indicated that he was motivated by racism and xenophobia. Stay tuned for a segment of clips from politicians who support free access to guns and who promote racism and xenophobia, giving reactions that indicate no interest whatsoever in doing anything about the situation."
  #28  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:01 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,178
I feel like the whole "Media blasting the shooter's name" is going away. The Columbine shooters are well known. How many people know the El Paso shooter's name off hand?
  #29  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:05 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I feel like the whole "Media blasting the shooter's name" is going away. The Columbine shooters are well known. How many people know the El Paso shooter's name off hand?
I think it's more that people don't care. I mean, we care that the shootings are happening, but which particular dipshit was pulling the trigger is only relevant in determining which political and social groupings are spawning the mass shooters, so we can impotently shake our fists at them. Their name though doesn't matter - they're not novel or unique or anything anyway.

None of which changes the fact that they'll still be famous and their deeds will be known. They'll have made an impact on the world! (More of one than I will, at any rate.)
  #30  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:04 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I feel like the whole "Media blasting the shooter's name" is going away. The Columbine shooters are well known. How many people know the El Paso shooter's name off hand?
I heard it was Stinky McBedwetter.
  #31  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:53 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,811
I'm not for anything that would limit the 1st amendment but publicizing killers who kill for publicity does kind of turn the media into accessories after the fact. This is especially true of politically based killers like Stinky McBedwetter and Billy Bob Sheepfucker.
  #32  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:56 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,233
Perhaps like the weather service uses for hurricanes, we could compile an alphabetical list of derisive shooter nicknames.

Of course given the rate of mass shootings in the U.S., it's likely to cycle through the alphabet a dozen times a year.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #33  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The existence of social media would completely undercut this approach. It would be absolutely ineffective; the information would still get out, and the shooters would still get all the fame they desire.

Based on the timing of things, I have a suspicious that the rise of shootings was largely caused by in social media and the corresponding 'validation through fleeting attention' that came with it.
Social media can also be controlled. It would be more difficult, but if broadcast media and the police dont divulge the names, it wont be until the news is stale the FB, etc will get ahold of it.

You may have a point.
  #34  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Every non-SDMB link in the OP is broken for me, and it makes me laugh that the OP suggests that the First Amendment needs to be further limited to suit his near-unlimited view of the Second Amendment.

Are there any other laws that should be offered up as ritual sacrifices to guns?

Well, see, that sometimes happens when you cut and paste, so I provided you with a link to my original post.

I dont have a "near-unlimited view of the Second Amendment" My view pretty much matches the Supreme Courts, and here in the SDMB, I have suggested several gun control methods.

So, you'd rather just ban guns, instead of actually doing something about the mass shootings? Because it aint the guns.
  #35  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you know what "broadcast media" is and how much of the media market it controls? By the way-from what article did you get all those broken links?


Well, see, that sometimes happens when you cut and paste, so I provided you with a link to my original post. Apparently you havent figured that out.

Not to mention I have posted them several times, but I will bet you never bothered to read them, I mean, why not get in there with the Climate change deniers, and ignore the science?
  #36  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:28 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
So we must act on our suspicions and deprive potential shooters of one possible motivating factor by shitting on the First Amendment and ignore the real issue, the availability of guns, by hiding behind the skirt of the Second Half Of The Second Amendment.
You want to ignore the science then?

The real is is the Media. As begbert and the scientists sez, before 2000 there were LOTS of guns, but mass and school shootings were uncommon. Then the 24/7365 media started and mass shootings went way up.

It's science. Not your emotions.

And we already have controls on the Broadcast media- perfectly within the Constitution. They cant say or show many things. No 1st Ad issues.
  #37  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
DrDeth, I just want to clarify, do you feel mass shootings uniquely require a solution, where other forms of gun violence don’t? As in, mass shootings are bad, but other shootings aren’t?

Because it seems to me that probably THE BEST way to solve the problem of mass shootings is to solve the wider problem of shootings in general. With that said, while I can see how your idea of controlling the media narrative might well result in some reduction in mass/spree-killings by people who want to make statement, it would seem to have significant drawbacks. The two foremost being (as others have noted) the impracticality of so completely controlling the narrative when there are so many outlets available for information (as long as there is a market for details, details WILL get out: nature finds a way), and the whole thing about the first amendment.
Nope, all murders are bad (some shootings, like when the police down a killer in the middle of a felony are OK). But it's the Mass Shootings which generate media attention and calls for Gun control- even tho gun control wont help.

Now sure, some mild gun control, like the ones legal under the Constitution, such as better background checks and good red flag laws (with due process) can help, and the background checks might reduce the violent crime rate a bit, reducing gun murders. I dont expect any big decrease, but even if we had a 10% decrease that would be worthwhile, no?

Here I disagree. The motives are hugely different, and the getting hold of guns is a different issue.

Mass shooting : Motives- fame, vengeance, suicide. Guns- before the shooter is likely a law abiding citizen, able to pass any background check with ease- other than red flag laws, no background check will stop this type of killer from getting his guns. AR15 and AK 47 rifles are the guns of choice.

Violent crime: Motives- money, anger, vengeance. No desire to see ones name in headlines in fact one doesnt want ones name known at all (except maybe to ones gang members). Guns- the criminal likely has a record and can't pass a background check, and thus must get their guns illegally. Handguns are the guns of choice, almost never rifles.

Entirely different.

Now yes, there are some practicality issues, I agree. But hasnt the "voluntary" not listing of rape victims name thing worked pretty well? I dont see why the "voluntary" not listing of mass shootists names might not work as well.
  #38  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
First, assuming for argument's sake the OP is correct, Ravenman has the right question -- why impinge on the First Amendment because the Second Amendment is causing problems?

Second, it simply cannot be the case that it's all the glorification causing the uptick, since other countries with free press, but more restrictive gun laws, don't have this problem.
...
Fourth, while the US is an outlier in terms of mass shootings, it's also very much an outlier in terms of overall shootings. ...

So, don't curtail First Amendment rights in order to try and solve a statistical non-issue like mass shootings. Rather, find ways to get guns away from people likely to use them on other people (fix the general shootings issue) and mass shootings will likely decline as well.
Well, becuase the 2nd isnt really causing the problem.

They do, but they didnt have the mass availability of guns (yes, guns are a factor, no one denies that) nor do they have the media like we have, in some nations the names of killers arent broadcast. But few nations have the 24.7/265 newscycle and etc liek we have.

Actually no. The USA is right smack dab in the middle of ALL nations in terms of murder rate. And, for some reason, perhaps cultural, almost ALL of "The Americas' have a higher murder rate than western europe. (Canada being the main exception, maybe they are too darn polite to kill others). Of the fifty nations in "The Americas'- the USA ranks 45th in murder rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

I explain in the post above why mass shooting are a entirely different issue than violent crime in general. Sociologists and criminologists agree.

I have not made any suggestion to "curtail First Amendment rights". Broadcast media is already under control by the FCC, they have banned certain advertising (tobacco , etc) , certain words, nudity, sex, and the networks must have somewhat "balanced " support for candidates. Not to mention media already had it's arms twisted to "voluntarily" not name rape victims, and went along with it. So, nothing I propose is a curtailment of 1st Ad rights in any way shape or form.
  #39  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:04 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
...

Number 3 touches on how assailants seek validation from wherever they can, as opposed to saying that the media is being reckless in letting people know about murders.

More importantly, note number 4 -- that's about access to guns, which completely destroys your underlying point that guns have nothing to do with mass shootings (an absurdity on its face, of course).
I notice you ignored my other three cites.

Of course, access to guns is part of the problem, I never said otherwise. Except that we have had access to guns (and guns with plenty of "firepower" )here in the USA for well over over a century, but the mass shootings have only been a significant issue in the last 20, with the rise of the media. Hell, you could buy Tommyguns in the 1920's, at hardware store, with no checks at all. But except for criminals using them on each other, few of what the experts would call a "mass shooting" until 2020. So sure, guns are #4 in a list of 4, sure. So the rare once a decade or once a year mass shooting happened- but why NOW the huge increase? It's not the guns, it has to be the media- and science has proven it.
  #40  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:07 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
How could the media not report those things?! They're all newsworthy points -- the media wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't report them. When a media outlet has a policy not to report something about a crime, it is typically to protect the victims, i.e., rape and molestation victims -- the public doesn't need to know their names.
Because they care about being accomplices to mass murder?
  #41  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:14 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So do lax gun laws which let these guys have the weapons they need to carry out these atrocities. However those we have some control over. We do not have control over what the news reports as they are here to report the news. ...

Again, please lay out your plan to control every media outlet as well as every American with twitter, facebook etc. and not have us be North Korea. How exactly is that supposed to happen?
Really? Because by and large, the vast majority of mass shooters have been- up to that moment- totally law abiding citizens who could pass ANY background check.

I am not suggesting that. We "ask" the broadcast media to do so "voluntarily", like they did with victims names). The FCC can regulate broadcast media with few 1st Ad issue- they can and have done so since the 1950s.

We then ask the same of Facebook, etc. Maybe they comply or not, no force or threats need be used. Just shaming.

And of course the Police and Law enforcement simply dont release the names, etc.

So, if the Police dont release the names, and broadcast media with their nosy reporter dont release the names- it's gonna be pretty hard for the Twitterers and FBers to get ahold of the names.

I ask you- is there a issue now with the names of rape victims being widely publicized? And wasnt that voluntary? Sure, some jerk on twitter, ect will spill it, but it doesnt spread much.
  #42  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:22 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Right, in the same sense that if they have a cold and we have cancer, we're both sick. Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi...ries,_2010.svg

That's as-of 2010. The red bars are gun homicides. The blue bars are suicides. We lead in both! We're number 1! USA! USA!

I haven't looked for mass shootings, but then, I don't think mass shootings are really a problem statistically speaking.
Note that that is "gun related deaths" and of course "high income countries" means cherrypicked. (Mexico is pretty high and it's rate is several time that of the uSA, but of course it's cherrypicked out, in fact note that of all nations in the American continents, only the USA and Canada are listed. Chile, Mexico, etc are also OECD nations but they are not listed. Hmmm. And Jpan has a much higher suicide rate than the uSA- but they dont use guns. But they are still just as dead. So, those stats are completely, totally bogus.
  #43  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:36 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
It probably actually would make a difference, if all coverage of the incidents could be eliminated. The drastic uptick of mass shootings was caused by something, after all, and it wasn't a sudden surge in the availability of guns. And a lot of mass shooters clearly are doing it either for attention or to send a message.
How well has not reporting worked for rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, animal torture...?
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #44  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:39 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
How well has not reporting worked for rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, animal torture...?
We dont report the names of victims of rape here.

But wifebeaters and dogbeaters dont want fame like mass shooters and terrorists do. In fact they want as little coverage as possible. So, when we list their names, it's shaming.


When we list the names and body count of a mass killer, some psycho is going "Hmm, I'll bet i can beat that score!"
  #45  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:42 AM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Of course, media attention is just one issue that contributes to mass shootings. Since copycat shooters are often aiming to kill even more people than previous shooters, reducing their access to guns and especially to automatic weapons is especially important. This can be accomplished by making it more difficult for some individuals to obtain guns (such as Red Flag laws and background checks) and limiting everyone’s access to all assault weapons and other weapons of war.
From your last cite, which you most conveniently left out.

Of course, since she refers to 'automatic weapons', her opinion may be safely ignored on that point, eh, drdeth? Just not the rest of course.

Again, every developed nation has media, has video games, and has mental illness - and every developed nation has far lower rates of gun deaths, and far fewer mass shootings. The only difference the that the US has far more guns, and it's much easier to get one. That's all there is to it.
  #46  
Old 09-18-2019, 01:32 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,071
OP, are you under the impression that all the other wealthy countries in the world similar to the USA don't have media? Because they do, and as I've indicated in other threads, they report on mass shootings pretty much the same way that US media do. Yet they have nowhere near the same epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings.

In fact I recall that when there was a terrible mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canadian media reported on the shooter's identity, ideology, possible motivations, published his picture, etc. etc. -- all the stuff you want to use to deflect blame from gun culture to the media. Yet the fact is that the USA stands alone in the developed world in the rate of gun violence.

So, in short, your theory is bullshit.

I'm always amused by the efforts of gun advocates to fabricate creative excuses for gun violence that don't implicate guns.

Last edited by wolfpup; 09-18-2019 at 01:35 AM.
  #47  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:05 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 330
Maybe there’s a compromise to be made here? How about we do allow the news to broadcast the shooters’ names, but we also encourage them to make up lurid fake news about them, too. Like

”10 people were killed today in a mass shooting perpetrated by John Smith, of Bumblefuck, Nowheresville. Smith, a twice convicted goat fondler described by his parents as “a mistake”, was reportedly angry about being fired from his job as head of the Nowheresville chapter of the American Micropenis Association...”

That way, we’ll know who did it, and they can still be famous. Everyone wins
  #48  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:35 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,437
OP, the idea that other countries don't have 24/7 media is laughable. You don't think that Sky News runs all the time in the UK? Canada doesn't get CNN and Fox News? This is some assertion that I think you'll need to back up with a cite.

The reason why we don't compare the US with third-world countries in the Americas is because the US is vastly wealthier than Mexico, Chile, Guatemala, etc. I don't want us to have gun violence comparable to Nicaragua, for example. We're rightly compared to Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, because those are other wealthy first-world countries that we should aspire to be like. Further, I don't give a crap about suicide rates in Japan -- that has nothing to do with gun violence.

Anyway, you miss my main point, but maybe it's too off-topic for this thread. I don't think we should do anything in response to mass shootings directly. They are statistically insignificant. People who want tighter gun laws use mass shootings to make the case for those laws, in hopes that it will also help with our real problem -- the tens of thousands of people killed by "everyday shootings". I would like to curtail our broader gun violence problem and if mass shootings enable the kinds of background checks that would help that, then fine, use mass shootings as the call to action. You hit on this concept yourself -- people are pushing for more background checks, even though many mass shooters would pass them. And yet, many everyday shooters would actually be denied guns if there were tighter background checks. So, don't bother with the media -- address our societal gun violence problem and maybe we're reduce mass shootings as well.
  #49  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:52 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I feel like the whole "Media blasting the shooter's name" is going away. The Columbine shooters are well known. How many people know the El Paso shooter's name off hand?
When mass shootings happen on a near-weekly basis, who can keep track?
  #50  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:03 AM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You want to ignore the science then?



.


Do you?

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S...072-0/abstract

“Higher levels of firearm ownership were associated with higher levels of firearm assault and firearm robbery. There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide.”
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017