How about we try to find scientists that have a bit more expertise in the field they are writing about?
Hell, how about we compare what his “scientists” are saying to real life?
If he were correct, then there would be a proportional number of mass shootings in Australia - roughly 1/15th as many as in the States, allowing for the population difference.
There is quite as much media, social media, video games playing, and rates of mental illness as there is in the US.
As of this particular moment, there have been 302 mass shootings in the US so far in 2019; therefore, there should have been about 20 in Australia, if his premise is correct.
There have been three mass shootings in Australia. From the year 2000 on.
drdeth, your premise is completely faulty.
What the scientists “say” is inconclusive. What the scientists also say is that more studies need to be conducted to determine what level of effect media actually contributes. So by all means, let them go forth and continue to evaluate the data.
You answered my question with a question to avoid answering my question. This isn’t getting us anywhere. As is typical of these discussions.
I’d be cool with the media shaming each other into that.
But look at that recent case in Australia with the bishop. There was a gag order there too, but we all knew about it.
Hard to keep things under wraps in today’s day and age.
I quoted now like eight articles. Quit focusing on the one you can feel superior over, even tho you know not even a tenth of what she does.
No, because the media and social media isnt the same down there.
And it’s not my premise it is the premise of* scientists.
This is just like climate change deniers-as total laymen they think they have found a gap in a scholarly article and then post it, thus “proving” all the scientists wrong.
No, bucko, you havent. You arent a expert.
In your opinion, those are eight cites of good quality? And they speak to the scientific consensus on the matter?
Face it, you’re just repeating what you want to hear.
Because you asked a non sequitur question that doesnt lead from anything I said. So, we did YOU suggest that?
Yes.
Face it, you’re just repeating what you want to hear.
It’s clear now, that you gun grabbers dont give a fuck about ending mass shootings. All you want to do is ban the hated guns. Even such a easy fix as “Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else"” which for the broadcast media is a simple fix that doesn’t violate the 1st Ad, and the rest of the media can be shamed into it, like they were for rape victims.
But you dont care. You just want to ban guns because you are afraid of them.
You know some people have surmised that gun grabbers Like to see mass shootings as they can use them as a excuse to ban guns. I am starting to think they are correct.
If I found a high school term paper that advocated banning all guns, could I say that a scientist wrote it?
I gave you eight links, none by a high school student. :rolleyes:
brad Bushman, Ohio State University 54 published articles.
Adam Lankford, The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, dozens of published article, and so forth.
Gee, how exciting, you found one article by a grad student and of course- even tho you know nothing at all about the science, you assume that you know more that she does. :rolleyes:
Ad hominems now? You’re clearly getting annoyed that we’ve all noticed that your sources are shitty. It’s very unfortunate for you that reality doesn’t agree with your beliefs.
I’ve noticed you’ve conspicuously failed to respond to my post explaining very clearly why I think it’s impossible to rob shooters of their fame and validation no matter how much you limit formal reporting. I assume that the reason you haven’t responded to it is because you can’t find fault with my logic, you agree that your position is shit, and you’re frustrated that the only way you and other gun grippers can pretend to give a fuck about ending mass shootings is by pretending that ineffective approaches are effective because the truly effective approach is one you don’t like.
I think a fairly large percentage of these shooters do so to kill as many people as they can. Six o’clock news be damned. Their prime objective is to murder people. No other motive than that. The abundance and ease of ownership of guns and high capacity magazines just makes the ‘task’ easier.
Reminds me of Richard Pryor describing his conversation with a prison inmate:
“Why’d you kill everyone in the house?”
“They was home.”
I’m testing the bounds of what you call a scientist.
You mean this Brad Bushman? The same Dr. Bushman who disagree with your “guns have nothing to do with mass shootings” theory?
Honestly, looking at all your cites is a waste of time, because you don’t even know what’s in them.
[“Many people play violent video games all over the world, and hardly any of them become mass shooters,” Bushman explained on Tuesday.** “What’s different in the U.S. is that people can easily access weapons to carry out those (violent) fantasies.”**
Bushman was referring to handguns, rifles, high-capacity magazines and the other firearms or accessories, all of which are guaranteed by Constitutional right to millions of Americans in states like Ohio. In Dayton on Sunday, a mass shooter used a .223 semi-automatic rifle with a pair of 50-round magazines to fire dozens of shots into a crowded bar district, killing nine people and wounding 27 more.](“Many people play violent video games all over the world, and hardly any of them become mass shooters,” Bushman explained on Tuesday. “What’s different in the U.S. is that people can easily access weapons to carry out those (violent) fantasies.”
Bushman was referring to handguns, rifles, high-capacity magazines and the other firearms or accessories, all of which are guaranteed by Constitutional right to millions of Americans in states like Ohio. In Dayton on Sunday, a mass shooter used a .223 semi-automatic rifle with a pair of 50-round magazines to fire dozens of shots into a crowded bar district, killing nine people and wounding 27 more.) (Emphasis mine.)
Your cite, again, directly contradicts the point you’re trying to make.
Yes, Ad hominems, the Ad hominem attacks on a grad student because some layman thinks he knows more that she does.
Well, few killers blog their manifestos, since not surprisingly, those things get reported and the police come out for a little visit.
I didnt respond as i couldn’t imagine you were serious.
And it’s not MY position, it’s the position of about 20 respected scientists.
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.
So, yeah, I have seen that several of my cites think that access to guns is part of the problem. But they all say that the media is the BIG problem, the problem that has caused the ten-fold or more increase in mass shootings since 2000. There were a few mass shooting before that so, yes, guns, mental health, no decent red flag laws, etc all are a small part of the problem.
Okay, you and I both know that I was talking about YOUR ad hominems, and your dumbass attempt to deflect that was a deplorable show of debate excrement. If you don’t like being called out for your ad hominems, don’t make ad hominems.
And respected now! And twenty of them! Oh my gosh, they’re going to stampede me with their sheer respected numbers. Or, no, wait, the criticisms of them are still legitimate and your cites still say the opposite of what you think they do.
On a different subject, it’s my understanding that these little communities are as we speak happily exchanging comments reaffirming their hatred of the Other and how proud they are of the mass shooters who have come before them. Have no doubt that information would be disseminated there - they aren’t bound by media shaming, and they aren’t going to stop showing each other that doing mass shootings of whoever their group hates will earn unending posthumous praise.
Which of course means that if one ACTUALLY opposes mass shootings, you stop letting these guys get their hands on guns.
For the record, this is not how problems work. Problems work more like cake. Without sugar, you won’t make a cake. Prior to the addition of sugar cakes were sorry things indeed; there was a tenfold or more increase in cakes once sugar became a thing.
But that doesn’t mean that the flour is a ‘small’ part of the mix.
Yes, Bushman was briefly quoted in a article that was making the point that Video games arent the culprit, to counter act what Trump said. Bushman was quoted as saying *" After spending decades researching the topic of human aggression, Dr. Brad Bushman at The Ohio State University can say there are many complex causes of violent behavior among people — and that includes the predominantly white male shooters who carry out mass killings in the United States.
Bushman, once consulted for an Obama administration panel on youth violence, is also part of a research group that sent a youth violence report to the Trump administration in 2018. From his extensive research, Bushman has determined that violent video games and certain personality traits are important factors in violent human behavior — but they are not the root cause of our nation’s mass shootings.
“Many people play violent video games all over the world, and hardly any of them become mass shooters,” Bushman explained on Tuesday. “What’s different in the U.S. is that people can easily access weapons to carry out those (violent) fantasies.”*
However, in his PUBLISHED paper in a scientific journal he said
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764217739660
*Given the potential consequences, this would seem like the worst possible time for the media to incentivize narcissistic behavior. For comparison, if pyromaniac tendencies were becoming more common among young people, how dangerous would it be if society started incentivizing and rewarding fire building, arson, and bomb making? The risk is that there appears to be a direct link between the attention-seeking desires of many narcissists and the attention-granting rewards offered by media coverage of their behavior. Narcissists deeply crave attention and admiration from others, and some of the items on the NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988) specifically assess this tendency, which is often called exhibitionism, with items such as “I like to start new fads and fashion” and “I really like to be the center of attention.” Although narcissists may have the desire to seek many types of attention, the temptation of widespread fame is likely to attract them the most.
Unfortunately, the media provide a stage for narcissistic individuals to become “stars” through extreme acts of violence, such as mass shootings. In an interview following the Newtown school shooting, Harvard Professor Steven Pinker said, “[If] you want to do something that guarantees that your name will be on the lips of everyone in the country, what are your options? There’s only one, and that is kill a lot of innocent people” (NOVA, 2012). As another scholar noted, “mass shootings also generate incredible media attention. Perhaps some perpetrators are not as preoccupied with killing as with fame, with murder serving as the vehicle of their own elevation to what seems to them like celebrity status” (Langman, 2016, p. 1).
These observations are consistent with statements from some of the mass shooters with narcissistic tendencies discussed previously. For example, one of the Columbine killers said “I want to leave a lasting impression on the world” (Associated Press, 2006) and thought directors such as Tarantino and Spielberg would be fighting over the rights to make a movie about their massacre. The Virginia Tech gunman said “The vendetta you have witnessed today will reverberate throughout every home and every soul in America” (Langman, 2014a, p. 15). The Norwegian gunman practiced extensively for the possible interviews he might do following the attacks (Pantucci, 2011). He even hired an organization to cleanse the online profiles of him after the mass shooting, so that his grandiose image would be preserved.*
So, I have no doubt he also thinks that availability of guns is a cause- but he hasnt published that in any scientific journals, so that is a off the cuff personal opinion. His papers only show that it’s NOT video games or violence in movies but it IS caused by the media bending to the shooters narcissistic tendencies.
You have to set aside a professionals personal opinion vs what their science have actually verified.