Mass shootings and the Media

[Neutraligon]

We all know the story by now, a person comes into a school, or a movie theater or some public space and starts shooting, trying to kill as many people as they can before the cops catch up to them, and the shoot themselves in the head. We all know how the media will swarm the place, making a mockery of a tragedy with 24/7 news about the shooter and they way in which they kill. We all know about how almost everyone will start blaming the shooting on whatever fits their own political agenda, from having to many guns to not having enough, from video games to violent TV shows to not enough god in school. We all watch as this turns into a circus, and yet hardly anything changes, and the real victims are lost in the crowd.

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."

[Dakini]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

[Big Jim P]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

We already have mandatory background checks.

Also note that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.

[Dakini]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

We already have mandatory background checks.

Also note that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.

Maybe that's because your country has way too many fucking guns which people bring into "gun-free zones"?

[The 502nd SS]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

Most mass shooting seem to take place in states with strict gun laws

[Dakini]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

Most mass shooting seem to take place in states with strict gun laws

Most mass shootings seem to take place in countries with insanely stupid laws allowing everyone to buy guns and without any requirements that people are trained to use them or store them safely.

Oops, sorry. Country*.

I mean, you know that the USA had more mass shootings last year than Canada has had in its entire history, right?

[Spirit of Hope]

Most mass shooting seem to take place in states with strict gun laws

Most mass shootings seem to take place in countries with insanely stupid laws allowing everyone to buy guns and without any requirements that people are trained to use them or store them safely.

Oops, sorry. Country*.

I mean, you know that the USA had more mass shootings last year than Canada has had in its entire history, right?

I would love to see a study that connects safe storage laws to less mass shootings, or really any decrease in shootings. I haven't seen that yet.

I would also love to see a study connecting training with a decrease in shootings, since I haven't seen that either.

I would love to see a study showing the United States has had more mass shootings in the last year than Canada has ever had, adjusted for the vast difference in populations considering Canada also has only about 10% of the population of the United States.

[Ifreann]

We all know the story by now, a person comes into a school, or a movie theater or some public space and starts shooting, trying to kill as many people as they can before the cops catch up to them, and the shoot themselves in the head. We all know how the media will swarm the place, making a mockery of a tragedy with 24/7 news about the shooter and they way in which they kill. We all know about how almost everyone will start blaming the shooting on whatever fits their own political agenda, from having to many guns to not having enough, from video games to violent TV shows to not enough god in school. We all watch as this turns into a circus, and yet hardly anything changes, and the real victims are lost in the crowd.

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."

The problem with trying to make the coverage of mass shootings about the victims is they or their survivors aren't always going to want to be on the news, and following people around with cameras while they're trying to deal with their trauma or loss privately is going to make you look like a huge asshole.

[Ifreann]

Most mass shootings seem to take place in countries with insanely stupid laws allowing everyone to buy guns and without any requirements that people are trained to use them or store them safely.

Oops, sorry. Country*.

I mean, you know that the USA had more mass shootings last year than Canada has had in its entire history, right?

I would love to see a study that connects safe storage laws to less mass shootings, or really any decrease in shootings. I haven't seen that yet.

I would also love to see a study connecting training with a decrease in shootings, since I haven't seen that either.

I would love to see a study showing the United States has had more mass shootings in the last year than Canada has ever had, adjusted for the vast difference in populations considering Canada also has only about 10% of the population of the United States.

Why are you asking for studies supporting claims Dakini didn't make?

[Dakini]

Most mass shootings seem to take place in countries with insanely stupid laws allowing everyone to buy guns and without any requirements that people are trained to use them or store them safely.

Oops, sorry. Country*.

I mean, you know that the USA had more mass shootings last year than Canada has had in its entire history, right?

I would love to see a study that connects safe storage laws to less mass shootings, or really any decrease in shootings. I haven't seen that yet.

I would also love to see a study connecting training with a decrease in shootings, since I haven't seen that either.

I can try poking around, but given that the NRA's lobbying has basically killed research into gun violence in the USA because that sort of goes against their interest, there is unfortunately a shortage of studies so I'm not sure if I'll find anything.

I mean, you can look at Australia, which totally changed its gun laws in response to a mass shooting and its gun-related homicide rate decreased dramatically. Granted, Australia's gun laws didn't involve training and storage, but background checks (including background checks of the applicant's family or anyone who would possibly have access to the gun) and mandatory 28 day waiting periods as well as the banning of certain classes of guns.

I would love to see a study showing the United States has had more mass shootings in the last year than Canada has ever had, adjusted for the vast difference in populations considering Canada also has only about 10% of the population of the United States.

Yeah, see, that would work if I said that Canada had fewer mass shootings last year than the USA or if Canada was a country for 10 or fewer years, but that is not the case.

[Wanderjar]

I mean, you know that the USA had more mass shootings last year than Canada has had in its entire history, right?

Yeah, see, that would work if I said that Canada had fewer mass shootings last year than the USA or if Canada was a country for 10 or fewer years, but that is not the case.

...Except that's exactly what you said...

[Spirit of Hope]

I would love to see a study that connects safe storage laws to less mass shootings, or really any decrease in shootings. I haven't seen that yet.

I would also love to see a study connecting training with a decrease in shootings, since I haven't seen that either.

I can try poking around, but given that the NRA's lobbying has basically killed research into gun violence in the USA because that sort of goes against their interest, there is unfortunately a shortage of studies so I'm not sure if I'll find anything.

Maybe then don't make accusations you can't back up with evidence.

I mean, you can look at Australia, which totally changed its gun laws in response to a mass shooting and its gun-related homicide rate decreased dramatically. Granted, Australia's gun laws didn't involve training and storage, but background checks (including background checks of the applicant's family or anyone who would possibly have access to the gun) and mandatory 28 day waiting periods as well as the banning of certain classes of guns.

“[t]here is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”
Jeanine Baker & Samara McPhedran, Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?

“[u]sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides."
Wang-Sheng Lee & Sandy Suardi, The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths

See the nice thing is that as far as I can tell the general homicide death in Australia fell at around the same rate that the gun homicide rate fell after the ban. That means that the fall in gun homicides is likely to be because of other factors, not because of the legislation. The homicide rate was already falling when the legislation was passed.

Also a look at the UK's historical crime data shows an increase in homicides after they effect very stringent gun laws. Not enough for me to say anything, but data I find interesting.

I would love to see a study showing the United States has had more mass shootings in the last year than Canada has ever had, adjusted for the vast difference in populations considering Canada also has only about 10% of the population of the United States.

Yeah, see, that would work if I said that Canada had fewer mass shootings last year than the USA or if Canada was a country for 10 or fewer years, but that is not the case.

Evidence? See you didn't post any, so I don't know if that is true or not.

[Neutraligon]

We all know the story by now, a person comes into a school, or a movie theater or some public space and starts shooting, trying to kill as many people as they can before the cops catch up to them, and the shoot themselves in the head. We all know how the media will swarm the place, making a mockery of a tragedy with 24/7 news about the shooter and they way in which they kill. We all know about how almost everyone will start blaming the shooting on whatever fits their own political agenda, from having to many guns to not having enough, from video games to violent TV shows to not enough god in school. We all watch as this turns into a circus, and yet hardly anything changes, and the real victims are lost in the crowd.

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."

The problem with trying to make the coverage of mass shootings about the victims is they or their survivors aren't always going to want to be on the news, and following people around with cameras while they're trying to deal with their trauma or loss privately is going to make you look like a huge asshole.

THe news already tries to get those stories from people, mostly to make sob stories about their experiences, meanwhile showing little to no compassion to thoe people they are interviewing.

[Ifreann]

The problem with trying to make the coverage of mass shootings about the victims is they or their survivors aren't always going to want to be on the news, and following people around with cameras while they're trying to deal with their trauma or loss privately is going to make you look like a huge asshole.

THe news already tries to get those stories from people, mostly to make sob stories about their experiences, meanwhile showing little to no compassion to thoe people they are interviewing.

Well, some people will want to tell their stories, or will be convinced to tell their stories. But if reporters can't report on the perpetrator, then hassling the victims will be all they'll have.

[BK117B2]

Reducing media coverage of shooters is extremely easy: people just stop watching such coverage. Stations don't care what you want to watch, as long as they can get you to watch it on THEIR station. It's about ratings.

That being said, it won't change....people DO want tons of coverage of the shooter.

[Ifreann]

Reducing media coverage of shooters is extremely easy: people just stop watching such coverage. Stations don't care what you want to watch, as long as they can get you to watch it on THEIR station. It's about ratings.

That being said, it won't change....people DO want tons of coverage of the shooter.

So it's not actually easy.

[Dakini]

I mean, you know that the USA had more mass shootings last year than Canada has had in its entire history, right?

Yeah, see, that would work if I said that Canada had fewer mass shootings last year than the USA or if Canada was a country for 10 or fewer years, but that is not the case.

...Except that's exactly what you said...

Can you read English?

I bolded a key portion you seem to have missed.

[Dakini]

I can try poking around, but given that the NRA's lobbying has basically killed research into gun violence in the USA because that sort of goes against their interest, there is unfortunately a shortage of studies so I'm not sure if I'll find anything.

Maybe then don't make accusations you can't back up with evidence.

Didn't make accusations. You can look at other countries where training and proper storage of guns (e.g. in locked areas with the ammunition stored separately) is required for gun ownership and see that they have much lower rates of gun violence than the USA. You can also look at the fact that the USA has so many more mass killings than other countries, it takes 36 other countries with a combined population 10 times higher than that of the USA to come close to its total number.

I mean, you can look at Australia, which totally changed its gun laws in response to a mass shooting and its gun-related homicide rate decreased dramatically. Granted, Australia's gun laws didn't involve training and storage, but background checks (including background checks of the applicant's family or anyone who would possibly have access to the gun) and mandatory 28 day waiting periods as well as the banning of certain classes of guns.

“[t]here is insufficient evidence to support the simple premise that reducing the stockpile of licitly held civilian firearms will result in a reduction in either firearm or overall sudden death rates.”
Jeanine Baker & Samara McPhedran, Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?

“[u]sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides."
Wang-Sheng Lee & Sandy Suardi, The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths

See the nice thing is that as far as I can tell the general homicide death in Australia fell at around the same rate that the gun homicide rate fell after the ban. That means that the fall in gun homicides is likely to be because of other factors, not because of the legislation. The homicide rate was already falling when the legislation was passed.

Another study found the ones you cited "deeply flawed".

Yeah, see, that would work if I said that Canada had fewer mass shootings last year than the USA or if Canada was a country for 10 or fewer years, but that is not the case.

Evidence? See you didn't post any, so I don't know if that is true or not.

Here's a list of all the school shootings in Canada throughout its history, here's a list of such shootings in the USA. You can count, right?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

That reason being?

...Except that's exactly what you said...

Can you read English?

I bolded a key portion you seem to have missed.

Do you have evidence for that?

NM, you posted just before I did.

[Kelinfort]

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.

[Dakini]

You could make laws requiring guns to be stored in such a way that people who are not the owners of the guns cannot access them. Also, mandatory background checks and waiting periods for purchase of firearms would be a good idea. People can't go on shooting sprees if they don't have a gun in the first place.

I mean, there's a reason there are fewer mass shootings in places where gun ownership isn't basically a free-for-all.

That reason being?

Gee... maybe when you have fewer guns in a country, fewer people get shot.



Just a thought.

Can you read English?

I bolded a key portion you seem to have missed.

Do you have evidence for that?

Posted last post.

[Dakini]

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.

What the fuck good has the right to bear arms done?

[Galiantus II]

That reason being?

Gee... maybe when you have fewer guns in a country, fewer people get shot.



Just a thought.

Do you have evidence for that?

Posted last post.

Anyone mentally deranged enough to take a gun and start shooting people for no reason is also crazy enough to break whatever laws are put in place to try and keep him from getting a hold of a gun.

[Dakini]

Gee... maybe when you have fewer guns in a country, fewer people get shot.



Just a thought.


Posted last post.

Anyone mentally deranged enough to take a gun and start shooting people for no reason is also crazy enough to break whatever laws are put in place to try and keep him from getting a hold of a gun.

It's a little hard to get a gun if you have stringent background checks, long wait periods and if lawful gun owners are required to lock their guns away, isn't it?

[Ifreann]

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.

So in the years it would take for any such efforts to bear fruit, we do what?