Ok. That’s enough from all of you.
Next personal shot of any sort earns a warning. That goes for everyone.
Enough.
You mean other than the first sentence if your OP: “As noted sociologists and other experts have proved- it’s not the guns, it’s the media.”
Your rhetoric is escalating and it’s going to go poorly for you. Dial it back.
Same here. This isn’t the Pit. Dial it back.
[/moderating]
Guns are not the main problem. The problem isnt simplistic. But if we could- as the experts and scientists here suggest- get the mass killing numbers back to what they were before 2000 - by simply not naming the killer- why wouldnt you want that? Why would you not want a near tenfold decrease? And without amending the Bill of Rights even. Just the FCC asking the broadcast media and the Justice Dept asking the police.
Why are you against such simple measures that would save thousands of lives?
The El Paso shooter drove down there to specifically to shoot hispancs because he had been programmed to hate all immigrants by Trump and right wing media. Can we make that kind of stochastic terrorism go away too?
You really think that the media simply not reporting the names of the mass killers will stop all of these potential murderers? El Paso was driven to do it by the constant spewing of hate from the right. How would your “solution” change that?
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
You have handpicked voices that you think agree with your overly simple solution, ignoring the fact that not all are scientists in the field necessary to make such judgments, ignoring the fact that some of your picks aren’t as clearly in your camp as you think they are, and ignoring the fact that for every voice you choose to point out there are at least ten that disagree with you, and then you try to persuade us that science and scientists as a whole agree with your premise.
Not good enough.
I am not against simple measures. I am against simple conclusions.
If you consider the studies you cited, many of them explicitly mention that violence in video games was another popular hypothesis, which is now widely acknowledged to have a rather minor contributing factor to increased aggression.
The observational evidence for this conclusion is supported by the fact that violent video games are available around the world and no significant increase in violence has been attributed to their exposure as a result.
Would you agree with these conclusions by the studies and scientists?
Would you also agree to the similarity of exposure to media and reporting around the world with respect to violent acts, particularly mass shootings?
If so, why is it your continued position to dismiss or trivialize the conclusions, within some of the very same studies you cite, that availability of guns is the significant contributing factor linked the rise of violence in America in contrast to other countries around the world?
This is not to suggest that modifying how media reports these events should be taken off the table. Merely to point out that it’s unlikely to have the ten-fold reduction effect you seem to think it will.
I’m fully in favor of the media not reporting names as good journalistic policy. But, I see what you are proposing here as being exactly the same legal issue as strict gun control: the Constitution just doesn’t allow it. Ultimately, you would have to amend the First Amendment to accomplish what you’re driving at, just like ultimately gun control advocates have to contend with the Second Amendment.
But, I don’t think it will actually do anything, because the nature of media has changed so much in the last 20 years. Only geezers get their news from the media outlets you’re focused on. The nutbars of society have isolated themselves in social media, chat rooms, message boards, etc. There’s no damn way that all those sources of media can be censored. It’s hopeless, unless one erects the same type of free speech restrictions that China does.
In that vein, IMHO it is likely more practical for the government to seize a some significant portion of 400 million firearms (if they were allowed to) than to censor billions of internet users around the world (if they were allowed to). But both are gargantuan tasks.
Even if you totally screwed over the First Amendment and managed to get every single American media outlet to accede to this overreaching demand, how do propose to regulate the media from every other country on Earth?
He already asserted that the media is somehow different in other countries. That our country’s media is unique and therefore all we have to do is control our own media and then we won’t have any more mass shootings.
At least I think that is the argument. How our media is supposed to be unique I have no idea. That has not been explained yet as far as I know.
When this “obvious” solution was tried elsewhere, how did it work out?
For the government to enforce this “simple measure”, that would require an amendment change. So, not so simple.
And while I’ve already said I’d be okay with the media voluntarily choosing to call all shooters “white male republican racist who was handed his gun by republican gun lovers who are trying to kill your children”, I don’t think it would do a lick of good. I think it’s quite clear that names would still get out, that killers would still be praised by the communities that spawned them, and that shooters would still believe that fame and validation were awaiting them.
I mean, come on, you’re talking about muzzling traditional news media, but traditional news media is old. If traditional news media was the cause of the recent explosion in spree shooters, the explosion wouldn’t have been recent. While it’s quite clear that the internet, social media, and fame-seeking have played a major part in convincing shooters to go big or go home, it’s not at ALL clear that traditional media is a necessary component of the process.
No, you dont have to change the 1st at all, and the fact you are saying so mean you havent even bothered to read this thread.
The FCC has control over what is broadcast. They have banned nudity, swear words, and tobacco advertising- all 100% perfectly legal under the 1st Ad. The FCC can ask the broadcast media to not use the names, just like they asked the media to not give the names of rape victims. (The media fell in quickly, and pretended it was their idea all along and in fact- just like with not naming the shooters- several media outlets had already started to do so).
The Justice dept can ask the police dept to not give out the names of the shooters.
Now once the broadcast media and polices agencies comply, it will be difficult for other media to even know the names.
But sure, you cant stop “billions of internet users around the world”. So tell me- have those “billions of internet users around the world” been listing the names of rape victims in a significant form? No. They were shamed into complying and the same would go for this.
Obviously, you, like Ravenman, have not bothered to read the thread. :rolleyes:
Read my reply to him, above.
You still have no comprehension as to what “broadcast media” is, do you?
I have said nothing of the sort. The hope is to cut back the number of mass events to the numbers before 2000.
But for some reason, your NEED to know the names of the shooters is more important than trying to stop thousands of victims from dying.
:rolleyes:
Of course I do, the broadcast media is that regulated by the FCC, the media that goes over the public airways.
:rolleyes:
Why are you against a idea that could save thousands of lives?
Ok. Then explain how the media in other countries around the world is different than America. You made some assertions in this thread for sure, that being one of them, but to then point people back your assertions as if that equals a cite is, let’s say less than persuasive.
My post is my cite is not how a great debate is won. How is American media different? Let’s start there.
I have no need to know the names of the shooters. In fact I have no idea what the names of any of the recent shooters are. Why do you keep insisting that this is some need that some of us have? What we need is a free press to protect our democracy from dictators and authoritarians. You seem to think we don’t need that.
You’re attempt to put words in other people’s mouths is transparent and growing tiresome in its repetition.
Most people have already conceded that having media report names and photos of mass shooters is neither “NEEDED” or wanted. We’ll all sign your petition. Okay?
Please move on to address the more salient parts of the questions you are being asked with respect to the findings of the studies you cited that have to do with easy accessibility to guns in America and the connection to mass shootings.
Create the news hole, and that hole will be filled by those who see profit in it. I don’t know where you got the idea that they have been “shamed” into anything.