When was that?
We NEED to understand what causes them to do what they do, and that means we NEED to know their backgrounds so we can identify causal factors. Aren’t YOU always pounding the drum about “Guns aren’t the problem, mental health is the problem”? Well, how about *working *on the mental health problem instead of handwaving that away too? Make any sense to ya?
That one time when “assault style” weapons were restricted from sale. Still not over it.
Oh, so like that time I tried to stop traffic by looking sternly at it, then.
No, you didnt, let’s try again:
And what is wrong with you guys? Why do you NEED to see the names of the killers? Why do you need to read their names at the cost of more dead?
As far as this: “However, the extent to which it motivates and amplifies this effect has not been effectively studied, much less concluded.” I have cited like ten studies now. That’s pretty much “effectively studied”. Why are you ignoring the science?
**Why do you NEED to see the names of the killers? **
I agree, but the media would rather make money.
CA has the strongest Gun control laws in the nation. Assault weapons, including he AR15 and AK 47 are banned, full background checks on every sale, most handgun makes and models are banned, long waiting periods, gun classes, etc. Still the murder rate is high, right in the middle of all states, with states with nearly no controls much lower murder rate. DC & Chicago Banned handguns.
Sure, the Police, FBI and experts need to know that, but why do** YOU**?
You’re being awfully accusatory. Do you think that some specific person here has exhibited a shooter obsession? And why do you think it would matter if we had?
I get mystified why guns rights advocates NEED AR-15s. NEED!!! At the cost of more dead!!!
Then it’s not going to do any good, since these people will be remembered by their work. Given that they are usually dead after the shooting, I don’t think basking in the glory has much to do with it.
Plus, while their names are not newsworthy, their backgrounds are. Want to encourage rumors that the killing was foreign terrorism? The bigots will eat up the opportunity to spread such rumors.
Copy cats are copying the actions, and don’t probably care about the identity of the killer.
How many more papers get sold by publishing the name of the nonentity who did the killing versus the details of the act? So, bullshit.
He seems to think that he, and the general public needs to know those names. And I suppose the names of rape victims also.
“We NEED … we NEED” those are his words, not mine. Why do “we” need to know those things?
I dont own one, never have had. I own a .22 rifle may Dad gave me and my old Service pistol. But I like the Bill of Rights and I dont like useless laws. Hiding the names on broadcast media is perfectly Constitutional.
I have said I have no issue with laws that ban the sale of AR15s. They wont do much good, but it’s a gesture.
You know there are numerous forms of media that is not “broadcast” right? What sense would it make to hide the names on a few television channels?
The only thing I saw that Quicksilver said “we need” is gun control. But regardless, I don’t think that hammering this drum is helping you.
And I also think that screening the names and faces out of the major players of mass media wouldn’t make a lick of difference, as I said a bit upthread.
Companies choosing of their own volition to hide the names and images and refer to shooters only as “white male right-wing racist Trump-supporting shithead” is totally constitutional. The government ordering them to do that, ehhhhh…
Well, yeah, as long as they’re gestures that won’t do any good I’m sure they sound fine. Myself I’d rather pass laws that would do some good, but they would mostly involve banning sale of all guns, and/or banning accessible carry on public property. To do the latter would probably require us to redefine “arms” as “bludgeons” though.
Yes, I did. Once more, with feeling, just for you:
I don’t NEED to see or hear the names. I don’t even NEED or want to see their faces. I suspect, but can’t be sure, you have an ulterior motive for making this information unavailable but I could be wrong there. Either way, I don’t NEED any of that.
Follow up question: Do you also feel that we don’t NEED testimonials of survivors and/or victims’ friends or family? Should that be something that the media be restricted from showing as well?
Now as to your “science”, what you quoted specifically says that a study has not been conducted to quantitatively evaluate the extend to which media has the effect you claim. I’ll quote it for you again if you insist. Additionally, conclusions drawn by the sources you cited don’t provide quantitative evidence for claims. They provide speculative conclusions. Much like the speculative conclusions made in the violent games hypothesis that was later proven to be far less significant. If I’ve missed the actual science with quantified data, please correct me.
I don’t expect I’ll get an answer from you as to my premortem question. I mean, other than some nonsense about CO2.
It’s clear that he is trying to draw parallels to those people who ask “Why do you NEED an AR-15?”
Well, do the other media spread the names of rape victims? No. Why because they followed the lead of other media and were shamed into it.
And if the Police dont transmit the names and the broadcast media dont either , how will twitter find out?
It wasnt quicksilver: Originally Posted by **ElvisL1ves **
We NEED to understand what causes them to do what they do, and that means we NEED to know their backgrounds so we can identify causal factors. *
Since those items involve the repealing of the 2nd AD, something that will never happen, how about we try what the scientists say will work?
Good, then lets try that, what the scientists say will work, instead of what hasnt worked.
Why on earth would you suggest that? 
I am baffled by this statement.
Of course it’s the guns - without a gun, you don’t have a shooter.
Here is why there have been just 3 mass shootings in Great Britain since 1850.
It’s nothing to do with the media (we have 24 hour news from the BBC + ITV, plus many online newspapers etc.)
From the article above:
“A teenager who was found guilty of planning a mass shooting has been jailed for 16 years.
Kyle Davies, 19, from Gloucester, tried to buy a handgun and ammunition for £1,000 from a dealer on the dark web…”
He couldn’t get hold of a gun - because we have real gun control here.
(Even our policemen on the beat don’t have guns.)
As for the media:
“the Columbine School massacre gunmen and Norwegian extremist killer Anders Breivik were “poster boys” for Davies.”
So the teenager knew all about previous mass shootings - but he still didn’t kill anyone.
Because he couldn’t get a gun.