To echo what others have said, while I agree that fame is probably a sizable driving factor in these, keeping them out of the press is impossible. Between social media and consipiracy theorists, it would get messy.
But we all remember the names of the Columbine shooters. And I do believe that these f-wads since are wanting to be known. That is why they always seem to buy the scary looking guns. Were black bdu commando style pants, black vests or shirts, black jackets, masks, etc. They want to look tough. They want to be remembered. But this guy clearly did not want to die. He did not stick around for a shootout or anything, he just left.
So while I think reduced media coverage might help, I think it is not ever going to happen in this age.
Yeah, Anderson Cooper has made a thing about not identifying the shooter the last several times. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop one of his guests from mentioning the name.
Actually, that was the FIRST time I’d heard the name of the shooter that day.
It’s my understanding that in recent years gun sales have heavily moved away from practical weapons like hunting rifles and shotguns and towards what can be best described as “scary black guns”, whose main virtue is usually being black and scary.
The kind of thing that is sometimes called “tacticool”.
I’d suggest to you that AR-pattern rifles are popular for reasons other than “being black and scary”. They’re extremely modular, there is a huge array of accessories on the market for them, so they can be conformed to a particular shooter’s preferred stance, grip, and shooting needs with relative ease, ammo for them is (relatively) cheap and plentiful, they’re light-weight and low-recoil, etc.
Additionally they are available in calibers from 22 Long Rifle up to 50 caliber and virtually everything in between. Who says they are not good hunting rifles?
Well, one way to slowing this killing trend is to find what is causing it and work on that.
I have heard:
1 No female shooters.
2 No private or parochial schools shot up.
3 Shooters had/have a connection to the school.
4 Young males with known mental health issues.
5 No random shooters.
IMO, it is a people problem and there is plenty of things being bandied about as to which or which combination is the biggest contributing factor.
We need to fix the people, not news reports, not new laws, just the knowledge that we all have the right to try but that we don’t have a right to win or ‘get what we want’ etc… The solution starts in the family.
News reporters or talking heads have to follow the company line if they want to keep getting paid. It makes no difference what they believe. Until we can separate the news from the $$$$ it is always going to be slanted and if we could, it would still be slanted to some degree because ‘people’…
IMO, the last thing that is needed is knee jerk politics passing bad law that does nothing to address the real problem. “The people.”
Besides which mass shootings in schools aren’t the only concern, and broad societal measures on guns, media, mental health wouldn’t only be aimed at them. Plenty of the non-school shootings are random, political etc. not necessarily people disgruntled with the particular location/institution where they attack.
But some narrower measures could aim at school shootings per se, ‘hardening’ of schools, training of teachers to defend (controversial but no realistic measure isn’t controversial), etc. And some mental health screening/warning measures could. And sure, those would end up mainly affecting male not female students if they were rational.
I’m trying to figure out what the utility of that would be. It seems to me the only information such photos would consistently convey is the race, and possibly the sex, of the shooter. I feel that something that principally serves to convey that this or that person was a black guy or a white guy is of questionable benefit to national discourse.
Not sure exactly how long the unwritten policy has been in place but based on youtube, it does not seem to have done anything to curb people from doing it.
Are there statistics on how often people run onto the field during games over the years? Anyway even assuming there were and it showed no decrease, I think the value of this point is in showing how hard it is to nail down cause and effect in aberrant behavior (serious or frivolous).
-people running on the field now can get publicity from their own or others’ cell phone videos on social media without TV showing them. My impression is that running onto the field did decline then rebounded somewhat with phone video and social media. Social media, though not cell phone video necessarily, is also a big loophole now in any rule about how media would cover mass shooters.
-Over the years since running on fields started becoming common (70’s maybe) venues and local police have cracked down. But since it’s a pretty non-serious crime, you can deter it to some degree with even slightly serious penalties (lifetime ban from venue, a night in jail etc) in the big picture of things. Mass shooters basically can’t be punished in a way commensurate with their crimes they are so enormous, and most don’t survive the incidents anyway.
-with that said, there might be way more running on the field if it was shown on TV.