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.
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.
*
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!”
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.”
Also, can I ask for your Psychology Today cite – who is Joseph Grenny? I was googling for his academic credentials, and all I can find is that he is a motivational speaker and calls himself “a leading social scientist for business performance.” Again, he doesn’t seem to be a criminologist, and I can’t tell if he has an advanced degree in anything.
I disagree with any mandate, but I do think news outlets should voluntarily refrain from saying the shooters name or publishing their manifestos. And some do.
Well, I can only quote so much, and yes, no doubt the fact that we have 300 million guns does mean that guns are what crazy people seeking attention turn to- in other nations it’s bombs or even machetes.
No it just means she doesnt know anything about guns, and that last appears as a afterthought to me.
They dont have the media that we have. And then, explain why the mass shooting increased tenfold in the last couple of decades, while we have always had plenty of guns? *The Scientists say it’s the media. *
And no , there are quite a few nations that have higher guns deaths- Mexico is quite developed. And note you use “gun deaths” which is propaganda instead of murder rate. Not to mention= “developed”? :dubious:Cherrypicking.
The USA is right in the middle of *all *nations as regards homicide rates.
They dont have the 24/7/365 coverage and social media that we have.
I note the weasel words “Yet the fact is that the USA stands alone in the developed world in the rate of gun violence” since the USA stands right in the middle of all nations in terms of homicide rate. Nice cherrypicking.:rolleyes:
Not “my” theory,* the theory of scientists. * I bet you didnt even read the cites and their reasoning. I also love how laymen can decide that a scientific theory is “bullshit” based entirely on their own opinion, ignoring the studies of experts.
And once again, by “scientists,” you mean an undergraduate in communications, a motivational speaker, and some cherry-picked quotes out of an article written by real scientists who also said “it’s the guns, too.”
You know, when people say that the NRA and GOA are full of rocket scientists, those people are not being sincere.
Here we provide an overview of generalized imitation and discuss how the way in which the media report a mass shooting can increase the likelihood of another shooting event. Also, we propose media reporting guidelines to minimize imitation and further decrease the likelihood of a mass shooting. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094294?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532708616679144 This article identifies distinct mass media reporting stages used in the coverage of mass killings, and the inspiration they provide for future killers. Ethnographic content analysis was used to identify common and ordered stages/themes expressed through mass media accounts of the massacres committed by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (Columbine High School), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), James Holmes (Aurora Movie Theater), Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Elementary School), and Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub Orlando). Many of these infamous killers reference/discuss their well-publicized prior homicidal role models in self-created archival documents they leave behind. They do not just copycat prior killers, they often relate to them, are inspired by them, and want to outdo them. The entertainment form and logic of mass mediated news provides the inspiration and fuel for later killings.
I’m inclined to think that you’re just google barfing “blame media + mass shootings”.
ETA: I looked at your link to the Google books page. I apologize, the search was for “media mass shootings”. It shows that in the search box on the right side of the page.
It’s clear from her biography that she has several internships in fields related to fashion. I would clearly defer to her on issues relating to Cosmopolitan magazine, etc.
Still waiting on that detailed plan of how you think every media outlet can be banned from reporting on mass shootings and have our country remain a democracy. Free societies do not dictate what the media must or must not report. North Korea does that.
I always love it when laymen deny the science. We see it in climate change deniers, the layman will find some tiny reason that they thing invalidates the entire body of science, and gleefully trumpet that.
I notice you ignore “Alex Pew, Lauren Goldbeck, Caroline Halsted, and Diana Zuckerman, PhD, National Center for Health Research.”
“Dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!”
