Mass shootings and the Media

[Big Jim P]

I have done all of those.

300 million guns in the United States. ~100,000 deaths and injuries due to guns in any year. So about .03% of guns injure or kill a person in a year. Including suicides, murders, and accidents. Source.

.03% in any year, so over 10 years, that's 0.3%, over 20 years, that's 0.6%, over 30 years, that's 0.9%, over 40 years, that's 1.2%...

Plus if you actually add the numbers for gun deaths and injuries instead of rounding down as you seem to have done, you actually get closer to 0.04% each year and if you use the lower estimate for the number of guns (because apparently nobody actually knows how many guns are in your country, which is insane), you're on the other side of 0.04%.

Which is still negligible compared to the benefits of gun ownership.

[Big Jim P]

Prove that the negative aspects of gun ownership outweigh the positive.

Don't wuss out like that. You made the claim. You prove it.

You've also made a claim. Prove it.

[Ifreann]

Teachers killing children sounds like a problem to me, not a solution.

Not what I meant. But lol.

What did you mean, then?

[Galiantus II]

So back to the OP....

So here is my question, what can actually be done to help prevent these mass shootings. What can be done to stop the circus that the media creates every time there is another mass shooting? What are the best ways to make sure the killer doesn't become an anti-hero?

In truth I have no idea what to do, but I think one of the first things that can change is how the media responds to these types of shootings. Instead of making the shooting about the shooter, instead of focusing on the shooter, I think they should focus on the victims. Instead of the 24/7 coverage, for one night I think the TV stations should simply mention the shooting, and then focus on the people who were shot. If we don't make the story about the shooter, then the shooter cannot become the "protagonist."

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the media covers stories the way they do. We should be hiding the success of mass-shooters rather than parading it around for all prospective mass-shooters to see. However, when it comes to focusing on the victims, I am not so sure. Perhaps we should focus on the people who did good in the difficult situation. It might also be good to do essentially the same thing they currently do, but for only one or two days, without the 24/7 coverage for a month on end, like we typically see.

[Big Jim P]

Teachers carrying guns?

Sounds like a solution to a lot of problems.

Teachers killing children sounds like a problem to me, not a solution.

Would they be killing students, or protecting them from real killers?

[Brickistan]

School shootings are far rarer than shootings in cities. As it stands, most of them are influenced by the perpetrator's personal life and not gun culture. We need to address underplaying economic issues with private and public efforts rather than curtailing the right to bear arms.

I both agree and disagree.

I agree in that you need to look at the underlying issues. The extreme wealth gap, the poverty, the working poor... There's a lot of tension, one might even say desperation, in America right now.

I disagree though, in that it's not the gun culture. America seems to fetichise guns and violence to a rather disturbing degree. It's in the news, the movies, the political debates... It's everywhere. No wonder then, that when Americans are put under pressure they revert to stereotypes they've seen on TV - the big burly manly man, armed and dangerous, and willing to go to any length to protect himself and his family.

It is the ability to protect myself from someone deranged enough to try and kill me, or anyone else for that matter.

So living in fear is freedom?

That seems to be a major part of America culture, yes. Always going on about threats and the need to protect yourself. Always prepping for the coming disaster. Sometimes I honestly wonder how Americans even get out of bed, considering how threatening the world is.

Being allowed to prepare for the worst is freedom.

So living in perpetual fear and vigilance is the way to be free? That's what you're saying?

And here I thought freedom was being able to walk to the store in the middle of the night without worrying or being armed to the teeth because I know I live somewhere that's safe.

Yeah, me too...

So living in fear is freedom?

They made no mention of living in fear.

Yes he did, though perhaps indirectly.

The very idea of feeling the need to defend yourself shows that you're living in fear, with the conviction that someone is out to get you and you need to prevent that.

[Saiwania]

Literally nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with what we're discussing, what would you plan to do about someone rushing at you with a knife? Only one stab in a vital artery will kill you and a firearm like it or not- puts range between you and anyone wanting to get up close. If you're limited to a melee weapon you risk having to get close enough to get injured and you're at even more of a disadvantage if you're completely unarmed. You can run away or put furniture between you and a knife wielder but ultimately if they get too close and slash or stab you, you're dead unless you can avoid or disarm someone with a blade.

[Ifreann]

Teachers killing children sounds like a problem to me, not a solution.

Would they be killing students, or protecting them from real killers?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Prove that the negative aspects of gun ownership outweigh the positive.

Don't wuss out like that. You made the claim. You prove it.

200 million+ guns owned, 11,000 gun homicides, 21,000 suicides.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_o ... by_country
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Granted, these are from 2013 and 2011 respectively, but I doubt the number increased by 100x in two years. I think the question of positive aspects is moot when negative aspects are so tiny.

[BK117B2]

School shootings are far rarer than shootings in cities. As it stands, most of them are influenced by the perpetrator's personal life and not gun culture. We need to address underplaying economic issues with private and public efforts rather than curtailing the right to bear arms.

I both agree and disagree.

I agree in that you need to look at the underlying issues. The extreme wealth gap, the poverty, the working poor... There's a lot of tension, one might even say desperation, in America right now.

I disagree though, in that it's not the gun culture. America seems to fetichise guns and violence to a rather disturbing degree. It's in the news, the movies, the political debates... It's everywhere. No wonder then, that when Americans are put under pressure they revert to stereotypes they've seen on TV - the big burly manly man, armed and dangerous, and willing to go to any length to protect himself and his family.

So living in fear is freedom?

That seems to be a major part of America culture, yes. Always going on about threats and the need to protect yourself. Always prepping for the coming disaster. Sometimes I honestly wonder how Americans even get out of bed, considering how threatening the world is.

So living in perpetual fear and vigilance is the way to be free? That's what you're saying?

And here I thought freedom was being able to walk to the store in the middle of the night without worrying or being armed to the teeth because I know I live somewhere that's safe.

Yeah, me too...

They made no mention of living in fear.

Yes he did, though perhaps indirectly.

The very idea of feeling the need to defend yourself shows that you're living in fear, with the conviction that someone is out to get you and you need to prevent that.

Your statement is obviously incorrect. Being prepared for a situation does not mean that someone feels fear. Do you have health insurance? Do you ever wear a seatbelt?

[Ifreann]

Literally nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with what we're discussing, what would you plan to do about someone rushing at you with a knife? Only one stab in a vital artery will kill you and a firearm like it or not- puts range between you and anyone wanting to get up close. If you're limited to a melee weapon you risk having to get close enough to get injured and you're at even more of a disadvantage if you're completely unarmed. You can run away or put furniture between you and a knife wielder but ultimately if they get too close and slash or stab you, you're dead unless you can avoid or disarm someone with a blade.

You said that instead of mass shootings, Canada has mass stabbings. You supported this with one instance of three people being stabbed to death by their daughter and her boyfriend. That is insufficient evidence. If you want to keep distracting from that instead of providing more and better evidence, or acknowledge that you don't have such evidence, then that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to take your attempts at distraction seriously.

[Saiwania]

You said that instead of mass shootings, Canada has mass stabbings. You supported this with one instance of three people being stabbed to death by their daughter and her boyfriend. That is insufficient evidence. If you want to keep distracting from that instead of providing more and better evidence, or acknowledge that you don't have such evidence, then that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to take your attempts at distraction seriously.

Do you have any intention to answer my question or not? What do you propose as an alternative to firearms in situations such as this? While a taser is less than lethal, you can kill someone with it anyways if their heart stops.

[Juristonia]

.03% in any year, so over 10 years, that's 0.3%, over 20 years, that's 0.6%, over 30 years, that's 0.9%, over 40 years, that's 1.2%...

Plus if you actually add the numbers for gun deaths and injuries instead of rounding down as you seem to have done, you actually get closer to 0.04% each year and if you use the lower estimate for the number of guns (because apparently nobody actually knows how many guns are in your country, which is insane), you're on the other side of 0.04%.

Which is still negligible compared to the benefits of gun ownership.

So just how many people would you like to see dead or injured before it stops being worth it exactly?
What's the magic unacceptable percentage there?

[Ifreann]

You said that instead of mass shootings, Canada has mass stabbings. You supported this with one instance of three people being stabbed to death by their daughter and her boyfriend. That is insufficient evidence. If you want to keep distracting from that instead of providing more and better evidence, or acknowledge that you don't have such evidence, then that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to take your attempts at distraction seriously.

Do you have any intention to answer my question or not? What do you propose as an alternative? While a taser is less than lethal, you can kill someone with it anyways if their heart stops.

Answering your question would entail taking your attempts at distraction seriously, so no, I do not have any intention to do that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Which is still negligible compared to the benefits of gun ownership.

So just how many people would you like to see dead or injured before it stops being worth it exactly?
What's the magic unacceptable percentage there?

1% of guns ownership resulting in death.

[Brickistan]

I both agree and disagree.

I agree in that you need to look at the underlying issues. The extreme wealth gap, the poverty, the working poor... There's a lot of tension, one might even say desperation, in America right now.

I disagree though, in that it's not the gun culture. America seems to fetichise guns and violence to a rather disturbing degree. It's in the news, the movies, the political debates... It's everywhere. No wonder then, that when Americans are put under pressure they revert to stereotypes they've seen on TV - the big burly manly man, armed and dangerous, and willing to go to any length to protect himself and his family.



That seems to be a major part of America culture, yes. Always going on about threats and the need to protect yourself. Always prepping for the coming disaster. Sometimes I honestly wonder how Americans even get out of bed, considering how threatening the world is.



Yeah, me too...



Yes he did, though perhaps indirectly.

The very idea of feeling the need to defend yourself shows that you're living in fear, with the conviction that someone is out to get you and you need to prevent that.

Your statement is obviously incorrect. Being prepared for a situation does not mean that someone feels fear. Do you have health insurance? Do you ever wear a seatbelt?

Health insurance? No, I'm pretty well covered by Denmark's universal health care.
Seat belts? Sure, 'cause getting spotted by the cops without one is going to be pretty expensive.

I can see what you're aiming at. However, I'd argue that there's a very big difference between "wearing a seatbelt will help me should I get involved in an unfortunate accident" and "I need to carry a gun, in case some madman rushes me with a knife". One is simple acceptance that shit might happen, the other is a conviction that "they" are out to get you.

[Saiwania]

Answering your question would entail taking your attempts at distraction seriously, so no, I do not have any intention to do that.

I am going to have to assume then, that you would not stand any chance against someone with a knife if they broke into your home. People who do want to survive that encounter however, will ensure that they have a firearm and not hesitate to shoot if they absolutely need to.

[Galiantus II]

1. And you are acting like people can be controlled.

No, I'm acting like people can be arrested. Cos, you know, they can be.

2. There are plenty of instances where people have successfully defended themselves with guns.

I'm aware.

Shooting things is one way to defend yourself

Give them the benefit of the doubt. You are assuming that most mass-shooters are better shots than the top 20% of gun owners, and that is simply not true.

I'm not assuming that at all. I am acknowledging the fact that having a gun does not make one an action hero.

3. The latter also happens to be the situation that deters criminals from breaking the law.

No it doesn't.

4. So you can read my mind. I see.... I actually DO support gun ownership for the reasons I listed.

What I meant is that you don't need to have an armed populace to look scary and thus deter invaders.

5. Hammers are a tool for hitting things. Like people's heads.

And guns shoot things. Like I said.

Are you actually reading my posts, or just picking out a few words to respond to?

Now tell me: how are you going to distinguish between a gun and a hammer, when they both do the exact same thing - impel things.

Well they tend to look quite different, for one. For another they don't both do the exact same thing. Guns fire various kinds of projectiles. Hammers, as you put it, hit things. I suppose you could hit things with a gun, but most guns probably aren't designed for that kind of thing and you'll just damage them.

Why are you even asking me this? Do you think that because I support restricting access to firearms I must want to restrict access to anything that could conceivable be used as a weapon?

The real issue here is:
Guns = Power

Guns are tools, originally invented for self-defense and hunting for food. However, people tend to use them to manipulate and control, and commit. This is why guns are so connected with government. They are the most effective way to enforce laws. Guns give the holder the ability to apply force very easily. Napoleon Bonaparte said, in essence, that one man with a gun can control a hundred men without guns.

Guns are also a great leveler of power. Three hundred years ago, if a strong, well-trained man, got a hold of a sword, he had a lot of power. With guns, a 90-pound ten-year-old has the potential to defend himself from being killed by a 300-pound martial artist - even if the martial artist also has a gun with similar qualities.

I am opposed to the centralization of power in one person or relatively small group of individuals. Taking guns away from the populace does nothing to improve safety, and only magnifies the power of those already with power. I would rather have guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens AND all the criminals than I would that law-abiding citizens are rendered defenseless in the face of a few law-breaking citizens.

If you want a democratic form of government, that's fine. But it would be awfully contradictory to argue for more power to the people, when the real source of power is in the hands of the state.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I find the Yank authorities are shooting themselves in the leg by not imposing media blackouts on such shooting sprees. Not only does sensationalized reporting of such incidents lead to copycat cases, deranged individuals coming to see mass murder as an effective way of gaining publicity, it also leads people to become more paranoid. All this gun control debate, all the zero-sense safety measures in schools and other establishments where shooting incidents tend to take place... You get the idea...

But I suppose that's kind of the point - a frightened populace is a compliant populace. The authorities apparently find it more expedient to keep the rabble terrified and pliable by constant dramatized reports of crime and violence, than to invest effort and resources in addressing the issues leading to these phenomena.

[Galiantus II]

Which is still negligible compared to the benefits of gun ownership.

So just how many people would you like to see dead or injured before it stops being worth it exactly?
What's the magic unacceptable percentage there?

The answer will not be found in percentages. The answer will be found in understanding right moral code.

[Ifreann]

Don't wuss out like that. You made the claim. You prove it.

200 million+ guns owned, 11,000 gun homicides, 21,000 suicides.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_o ... by_country
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Granted, these are from 2013 and 2011 respectively, but I doubt the number increased by 100x in two years. I think the question of positive aspects is moot when negative aspects are so tiny.

"I have more sugar than salt"
"Prove it"
"I have 32 grams, so the question of how much sugar I have is moot"

[BK117B2]

Your statement is obviously incorrect. Being prepared for a situation does not mean that someone feels fear. Do you have health insurance? Do you ever wear a seatbelt?

Health insurance? No, I'm pretty well covered by Denmark's universal health care.
Seat belts? Sure, 'cause getting spotted by the cops without one is going to be pretty expensive.

I can see what you're aiming at. However, I'd argue that there's a very big difference between "wearing a seatbelt will help me should I get involved in an unfortunate accident" and "I need to carry a gun, in case some madman rushes me with a knife". One is simple acceptance that shit might happen, the other is a conviction that "they" are out to get you.

So, by your rationale, you reside in a fearful country.

Wearing a seatbelt will likely help you if you have the misfortune of being in an auto accident. Carrying and knowing how to use a firearm will likely help you if you have the misfortune to encounter someone who wants to hurt you.

The simple fact is that being prepared for a situation does not mean fear is involved. You were very obviously mistaken

[Farnhamia]

No, I'm acting like people can be arrested. Cos, you know, they can be.


I'm aware.


I'm not assuming that at all. I am acknowledging the fact that having a gun does not make one an action hero.


No it doesn't.


What I meant is that you don't need to have an armed populace to look scary and thus deter invaders.


And guns shoot things. Like I said.

Are you actually reading my posts, or just picking out a few words to respond to?

Well they tend to look quite different, for one. For another they don't both do the exact same thing. Guns fire various kinds of projectiles. Hammers, as you put it, hit things. I suppose you could hit things with a gun, but most guns probably aren't designed for that kind of thing and you'll just damage them.

Why are you even asking me this? Do you think that because I support restricting access to firearms I must want to restrict access to anything that could conceivable be used as a weapon?

The real issue here is:
Guns = Power

Guns are tools, originally invented for self-defense and hunting for food. However, people tend to use them to manipulate and control, and commit. This is why guns are so connected with government. They are the most effective way to enforce laws. Guns give the holder the ability to apply force very easily. Napoleon Bonaparte said, in essence, that one man with a gun can control a hundred men without guns.

Guns are also a great leveler of power. Three hundred years ago, if a strong, well-trained man, got a hold of a sword, he had a lot of power. With guns, a 90-pound ten-year-old has the potential to defend himself from being killed by a 300-pound martial artist - even if the martial artist also has a gun with similar qualities.

I am opposed to the centralization of power in one person or relatively small group of individuals. Taking guns away from the populace does nothing to improve safety, and only magnifies the power of those already with power. I would rather have guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens AND all the criminals than I would that law-abiding citizens are rendered defenseless in the face of a few law-breaking citizens.

If you want a democratic form of government, that's fine. But it would be awfully contradictory to argue for more power to the people, when the real source of power is in the hands of the state.

Guns are power, yes, but they were invented as weapons of war, not originally for personal self-defense and hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Guns are tools, originally invented for self-defense and hunting for food.

As an Alabamian, I'm gonna stop you right there.

200 million+ guns owned, 11,000 gun homicides, 21,000 suicides.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_o ... by_country
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Granted, these are from 2013 and 2011 respectively, but I doubt the number increased by 100x in two years. I think the question of positive aspects is moot when negative aspects are so tiny.

"I have more sugar than salt"
"Prove it"
"I have 32 grams, so the question of how much sugar I have is moot"

I feel like this is payback for my own fallacious logic in another thread, but it doesn't that your example is made of straw. It should be:

Him: The amount of sugar in the cake is more than the radium.
You: Prove it.
Me: Actually, the amount of radium in the cake is incredibly tiny, so have your cake and eat it too.

[Galiantus II]

Health insurance? No, I'm pretty well covered by Denmark's universal health care.
Seat belts? Sure, 'cause getting spotted by the cops without one is going to be pretty expensive.

I can see what you're aiming at. However, I'd argue that there's a very big difference between "wearing a seatbelt will help me should I get involved in an unfortunate accident" and "I need to carry a gun, in case some madman rushes me with a knife". One is simple acceptance that shit might happen, the other is a conviction that "they" are out to get you.

So, by your rationale, you reside in a fearful country.

Wearing a seatbelt will likely help you if you have the misfortune of being in an auto accident. Carrying and knowing how to use a firearm will likely help you if you have the misfortune to encounter someone who wants to hurt you.

The simple fact is that being prepared for a situation does not mean fear is involved. You were very obviously mistaken

A point I would also like to add: why do nations have militias? Are they just shriveling in fear that some foreign force is going to invade them? Having a military provides security from outside forces, but the fact this could be construed to mean they are fearful of one another is not just cause to abolish military force.