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?
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.
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:
I’d be okay with all mass-shooting suspects not having their real names reported, referenced instead by nicknames like “Stinky McBedwetter”.
Right, in the same sense that if they have a cold and we have cancer, we’re both sick. Here:
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.
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.”
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.)
I heard it was Stinky McBedwetter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. **
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. **
Because they care about being accomplices to mass murder?