Earlier I said no more personal shots of any sort. Was I somehow unclear? Don’t personalize your arguments. Certainly don’t do it with pejorative terms.
The cites I looked at suggest that media don’t concentrate on the shooter. I’m fine with those guidelines - voluntary guidelines. We’re talking about making it illegal to name the shooter here. I couldn’t find any cites which propose this, or which deal with the problem of the name getting out. Have any?
On what grounds do you dismiss the observations documented in your very own cites, quoted by multiple posters in this thread, that the relative ease of access and abundance of guns in American society is an unequivocal contributing factor in the rate of mass murder, while the media influence on same remains a non-quantified (speculative) factor that is “out of scope” in some studies and “requires further study” in others?
I quote myself:
Actually I didnt say that I said " 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.
But as I pointed out earlier, according to Mother Jones, there were more mass shootings from 1990-1999 than from 2000-2009.
Mass shootings were a significant issue before 2000, which is what you are claiming. Also, according to this database, the frequency of mass shootings has greatly increased since 2012.
Since broadcast media is considered to go over publicly owned airwaves, I think it is possible that restrictions would be legal. I could be wrong. However, do you seriously believe that even one shooter would consider being on CNN, Fox and MSNBC inadequate? I’m 67 and I’m too young to watch network news anymore.
There is a giant pile of dynamite. With the addition of a match, it explodes.
You’re arguing that the dynamite can be disregarded as a part of the problem. This is, of course, nonsense.
You’re also arguing that we should restrict matches, which would be reasonable except I don’t think it’s possible to actually accomplish. Specifically I think you’re arguing that we should shave a tiny amount of sawdust off the back end of the matches, for all the good concealing the names will do.
I agree with the research that says that the rise of the internet and social media was an ingredient in the increase in mass shootings, just as it was also an ingredient in the radicalizing of the political right and the polarization of everybody. However I don’t agree that the one and only part of the rise of internet media that influenced shooters was that their literal names were showing up on CNN. And even if that was a significant contributing factor, I don’t think that you can roll those effects back by taking the names off of CNN now - news has gotten out that murdering makes you world-famous, and famous is famous even if you’re known as “the columbine shooter” instead of “Eric”.
His proposal is that the names be restricted from broadcast media, which I’m sure would make all the other types of media jump for joy as they proudly proclaim that they are “The Place To Get The Uncensored Truth!”.
I’m sure that’s the conclusion you want to draw, but the very same studies YOU cited don’t draw that conclusion. Not a single one concludes anything like, ‘It has to be the media’. They all suggest that media plays a role. How much of a role remains uncertain. Because the measure of how much of an influence was “not in scope” or inconclusive. That’s what the science says. Not what you claim it says. Do you dispute that your conclusions are in contrast to the very science you cite?
Ask the scientists. Apparently you as a layman, somehow found the loophole that a bunch of respected scientists and their reviewers have missed. Maybe a Nobel prize is on your way. Or maybe- you are wrong and the scientists are right.:rolleyes:
I never mentioned dynamite, what are you talking about?
And I am not arguing anything,* scientists* are. Argue with them.
Ask the scientists. Apparently you as a layman, somehow found the loophole that a bunch of respected scientists and their reviewers have missed. Maybe a Nobel prize is on your way. Or maybe- you are wrong and the scientists are right.