r/TooAfraidToAsk May 25 '22

Do you think showing images of the carnage of a mass shooting, especially involving children, would have an impact on the possibility of gun control laws being passed? Ethics & Morality

I'm a father of 2 and I'm so tired of hearing sirens near my children's schools and wondering if there was a school shooting. I'm also a teacher. Every time a school shooting happens, my colleagues and I are on edge for the next week or so, hoping we don't encounter a copycat shooting at our school.

After every shooting, the media shows beautiful pictures of the people lost. It's heartbreaking to see, but it's reassuring to see they were loved while they were with us.

I sometimes wonder, if we took the same approach as Emmitt Till's mother, would it be a more effective catalyst for change in our gun laws.

I know it would be horrific, but how is having a mass shooting every couple of days not equally horrific?

2.0k Upvotes

1.7k

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22 edited May 25 '22 Silver Gold Helpful Wholesome

This is actually a good question, but I don’t have the answer. I am however versed on the psychodynamics of mass murder and I’m active on r/masskillers

Here’s some food for thought to go along with your question, op.

It’s been proven, it is not up for debate, that the media plays a huge role in these mass shootings. The psychiatric professional communities have been screaming for reform on a few topics. The media should never broadcast the shooters name, picture, or personal details, the media coverage should be limited to ONLY the affected area, the body count should be kept to a minimum or not even broadcasted at all, and under no circumstances should there be nationwide media coverage. There’s a man named Dr. Park Dietz, most well known for his work as the psychiatrist for Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kaczynski, Will Bonin, Jared Lee Loughtner, Arthur Shawcross, John Hinkley, and his work on the DC Sniper attacks. But another thing he did was advised on the product tampering poisoning cases during the 80’s, specifically multiple influx’s of Tylenol poisoning. He advised the media to do all of the things listed above, and well, when was the last time you heard about product tampering poising cases? There was a massive influx of product tampering, the media stopped reporting them outside the affected area, and we now rarely have them. Point blank, the media impacts these crimes, they feed the killers ego, they give ideas to future killers, and they cause these crimes to keep continuing. Obviously they aren’t the full cause, but a huge component nonetheless.

622

u/AbuYates May 25 '22

Your solution requires the media to acknowledge fault in an age of liability, political influence in media, social diviaion, and corporate media pursuit of ratings.

281

u/leonardoOrange May 25 '22

since columbine, the news has been a contributing cause to most of these in my unqualified opinion.

130

u/Ghstfce May 25 '22

Well your unqualified opinion matches those of some of the most qualified people.

→ More replies

87

u/Eddiev1988 May 25 '22

I agree. Columbine is remembered so vividly by those of us who were around, because it was an anomaly. These shootings didn't happen every week or month back then.

With the national coverage that shooting got, it no doubt inspired copycats, who then inspired more, until we get to today. If the media would drop their political agendas, and just report news, without sensationalizing what happens, there would be fewer mass casualty events.

As for gun laws, I know I'll get down voted for this one, straight to hell, but no matter what laws are passed, criminals will still get guns. People with nefarious intentions will still get guns. We don't need laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns if they want. We need to keep them away from the criminals.

82

u/less___than___zero May 25 '22

As for gun laws, I know I'll get down voted for this one, straight to hell, but no matter what laws are passed, criminals will still get guns.

The entire rest of the civilized world outside of the U.S. disproves this. There's a reason we're the only country that has this problem.

17

u/Tothyll May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

Mexico and Central America all have strict gun laws and outrageous level of gun violence. Mexico even amended their constitution to limit the right to bear arms. It didn’t do much.

63

u/orgastyc May 26 '22

Gun violence in those countries is through cartel/organized crime. Criminals who purchase guns illegally. Not teenagers or young adults with no criminal history or association that buys guns legally with minimal paper work and shoot up a school. Look up school shootings outside of the US, you can’t find that many, including developing countries where gun violence is also high and the population is much larger than in the US.

→ More replies

37

u/QuickPractice2003 May 26 '22

But we are not mexico. Cartels do cartel things. Gangland does gangland things. And there is a certain level of expectation with that.

School shooters should not have ease of access to do school shooter things because they appear to be as swift a decision as suicide.

That is preventable by restricted access to guns

→ More replies

5

u/Lord-Legatus May 26 '22

the fact you have to compare the US with Latin America and Mexico proves the whole point. highly unstable countries with corruption through the roof,lacking stability and adequate efficient authority.
ypu should be comparing yourself to western modern stable societies like entire westenr europe, australia, canada

→ More replies

-4

u/MRGameAndShow May 26 '22

Yep, as long as society doesn't heal, gun laws won't do absolutely anything. The solution has to be smarter than just "ban guns", that's just surface level. Issue goes much deeper than that.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/leonardoOrange May 25 '22

Yup. There are solutions, but until someone figures out a way to make money off it, they will never happen.

We don't need laws to make it harder for those of us who follow the rules but we need to figure out something, somehow.

I do think giving the batf more money to link the nics system with all law enforcement sysyems and fully updating the rest of the batf systems to be fully electronic, so I don't have to wait another 5months for my form 4 to get processed.

Oh and make strawman purchases way more punishable.

9

u/A_Topical_Username May 26 '22

The thing about gun laws Is they are too easy to get even for bad people. Putting a few more layers will not keep law abiding citizens from getting them. So why not? There is literally no rational argument against more protection. It's possible to do multiple things at once. Making it less easy to get a gun is just one thread in the tapestry of a safer society.

19

u/sally_tee May 26 '22

Absolutely. I saw a response a while back to the idea that mass killers will still find a way even if we make it harder of, like… good! Make it harder! Make them work for it. Let them try to kill dozens of people with a knife before someone takes them down. All our lack of regulation does is make it easy for them.

10

u/A_Topical_Username May 26 '22

Yeah doing nothing is just enabling

2

u/nighthawk_something May 26 '22

"BuT ThEy'Ll JuSt UsE KnIvEs"

To which we should ask them to fill in the blanks.

Like taking a ________ to a ______ fight.

→ More replies

3

u/leonardoOrange May 26 '22

Putting a few more layers will not keep law abiding citizens from getting them. So why not

what layers? These vague statements are what's frustrating. There are already layers in place.

4

u/JanPike May 26 '22

If your position is true, that criminals are solely to blame for school shootings and other murders, and not easily accessible guns, can you explain why developped countries like Canada and Australia have far, far less gun violence (per capita) than the USA?

2

u/Astromoof May 26 '22

I’m an aussie, as you know we have very strict gun laws and it’s fantastic. We pretty much never have mass shootings. It is very rare for us to have any shooting, if we do it is more often than not a gangland figure shooting another gangland figure. In aus if there is a shooting reported on the news, that’s huge, even if officers discharge a round, that’s big news. We see the US mass shootings on our news and it’s just crazy to us. Americans says it’s their right to have guns, but giving up that right would not be a bad thing.

2

u/Lahbeef69 May 26 '22

about the gun law thing they always bring up the kind of weapon used but the thing is even if you banned those weapons people could cause the same amount of damage to a classroom of children with any gun. are we gonna ban hunting shotguns too cause how deadly they are at close range? what about hunting rifles for being on average 2 or 3 times more powerful per bullet than an ar-15 with loads more penetration.

→ More replies

2

u/Justinterestingenouf May 26 '22

I completely agree, as another completely unqualified opinion. I hope, and slightly see, a trend where the the media does not say the name of the assailant. Good. You're not a fuck8ng mercenary of your cause . You will not be remembered.

13

u/913Welder May 25 '22

Not to mention with news being a 24-hour commodity that can hide behind the 1st Amendment

3

u/LW7694 May 26 '22

Let’s not start talking about hiding behind amendments or anything….

→ More replies

72

u/RepresentativeAd7851 May 25 '22

Mass shootings are just good business for the media.

They wouldn't care if they caused a mass genocide. As long as they can report on it, they'll be there

21

u/cannotbefaded May 25 '22

"if it bleeds, it leads"

→ More replies

103

u/Special-bird May 25 '22

I told my husband that this morning. They shouldn’t broadcast his name, shouldn’t talk about him at all. Reference him only as the pathetic coward who shot children. He doesn’t not need to be made infamous over this.

52

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22 edited May 25 '22

See, you told you husband that, you get it. But unfortunately nobody else does. His name, which I won’t fucking say, is all over the media, his age is, his photo, and now I’m reading about his sexual orientation, how he dropped out of high school, and even some story about him fighting with his mother over the use of Wi-Fi. These are details that we shouldn’t subject the public to. I’m going to call it, in 24-more hours we will know his favorite video game, his ex partner(s), and his music taste. There will be articles publishing details that are only important to law enforcement (for the sake of motive), but instead feeding them to the public as factual or not. Within 48 more hours we will have a full speculated picture of his life, and within 30 days we will have another mass shooting which will take the media coverage away from this shooter. Actually we’ll probably have another one within 14 days.

9

u/Aledeyis May 26 '22

Doesn't this give hooks for other potential killers to latch onto as well?

"Oh he likes my favorite video game too.""Oh, his mom was mean and locked the wifi too. Huh, I'm a lot like this guy.""No way, he liked prog? Same here."

I've heard a lot of mass-shooters credited Columbine. It makes me wonder whether those people would have done what they did if they had no information about the tragedy other than some disgusting wastes of meat shot people.

7

u/philosifer May 25 '22

I do wonder if there is value to the general public in figuring out motive so that we can urge our lawmakers to address the components. Obviously guns is one hotbutton issue, but if we find out that all of these individuals had suffered from the same type of trauma in their home life, we could more strongly push for laws to remedy that

18

u/Ghstfce May 25 '22

It's ratings. The only reason they dig so deep into the shooter's life is because these things pull in big ratings. Ratings = $$$ for news agencies and is literally what they care about. A week of good ratings is striking gold for them. It's disgusting.

31

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22 edited May 25 '22

There’s not, I promise. As I said in my initial comment, I’m active on r/masskillers and I’m extremely versed on this topic. This is one of the few topics I can say I know more about than 99% of people. For a decade I’ve been studying this specific type of offense as a morbid hobby. The way you know people who play video games daily, well I do that with reading biographies and case studies on mass murderers. I’ve also studied criminology extensively. I’m qualified to comment on the actual killers themselves, their mindset, their backgrounds, and their perspectives.

With that being said, there is absolutely nothing in any US mass murderers background that the public needs to be aware of for the sake of regulation. Conservatives blame our mental health system on the killings, but they don’t know the background of each fucking killer. Our mental health system is bad, yes, but it’s only truly failed a few people which resulted in mass murder. These killers don’t care about mental health treatment in the first place and you cannot treat someone who isn’t willing. We need to stop putting a blanket statement on these killers, they are not all mentally ill, and each has a unique story. These mass murders are a direct result of a multitude of things, but I would not put “lack of adequate mental health treatment” at the top of the list. We need to look at our culture and media way fucking more before mental health treatment in relation to mass murder. ***Keep in mind this is strictly talking about mass murder only. Not any other crime. Cannot speak on mental health with anything other than mass murder and serial sexual homicide.

13

u/ciociosanvstar May 25 '22

I do wonder about the meta-media narrative around deciding how much to publish about a mass shooter. For instance, with the shooting in Buffalo, there was a lot of media coverage along the lines of "he published a xx-page manifesto that said ______________" but no link to that publically posted document.

It's easy to spin a narrative based on that that "the media" is controlling access to information and editorializing how the killer presented himself.

My takeaway from what you're saying would be that responsible news outlets should run something along the lines of "There has been a shooting today in ________. Our editorial guidelines prevent us from covering mass atrocities outside of local context, as there is good evidence to suggest that doing so encourages the commission of further atrocities. You can read more about this policy on our website. If you believe you may be personally affected by this tragedy, you can find more in depth coverage from the [local news organization]."

11

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22

I like that, as long it’s local news only. We should never have CNN or Fox News picking up the story of a mass murder, unless it’s a foreign attack. Local news only, because they are theoretically the only ones affected by the attack. Then the local news could put forth something just like you typed.

As for the manifesto in Buffalo, it’s absolutely disgusting that the media is even allowed to put that out there to the public. Guess what’s about to be added to the current trend of mass murder? A goddamn manifesto being left behind by mass killers going forward. Theodore Kaczynski made a manifesto, but the general public have yet to equate a mass shooter with leaving behind a detailed manifesto. It’s just simply not a trend with mass shooters, yet. But it’s about to be in the next coming shooters, guaranteed. The word “manifesto” shouldn’t even have been used. They should have just said “he left behind a self-written paper with gross misspellings and a terrible dialogue that couldn’t keep investigators interested in reading to the end, so they threw it away. We will never know what point the lunatic was trying to make”.

→ More replies

3

u/lazyant May 26 '22

Quick honest question, is the US media that different from otea he countries, regarding these type of news? I’ve lived in several countries and it does look more sensationalized in the US but not that different than in other countries (they don’t have these events to compare but thinking of similar tragedies) although I don’t know really.

4

u/WindDancer111 May 26 '22

How much coverage did the instances of people trying to drive vehicles through crowds, knife attacks, or Paris shootings get?

Do you remember hearing about the Boston Marathon Bombing probably 10 years ago now? Just about everyone in the US could’ve told you the names of those brothers that week, and some probably still can. On every major anniversary of that date, with any development of the trial or sentencing images from the day in question will be shown on national news, a brief recap - featuring photos of the perpetrators - will be shown, and on anniversaries a heroic member of the public will come forward to share what they remember of their personal experience. That is news coverage of tragedy in America.

→ More replies

2

u/OneAdvertising9821 May 26 '22

As I said in my initial comment, I’m active on r/masskillers and I’m extremely versed on this topic.

I’m qualified to comment on the actual killers themselves, their mindset, their backgrounds, and their perspectives.

You may or may not be qualified, but you are an amateur with self-proclaimed authority. We, and you, are unlikely to know if you are qualified. Self-evaluations are not a great source.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/SMBXxer May 26 '22

!remindme 13 days

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/uss_salmon May 26 '22

They should just give mass shooters the Mussolini treatment tbh

30

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

I was pissed when the first thing I saw in the news on this was the thumbnail for the video.

What was shone? The school? The families?

NOPE

THE FUCKING SHOOTERS FACE

ugh....

9

u/psychord-alpha May 25 '22

Every day I dream of being a billionaire so I could buy the msm and force them to stop their bullshit

35

u/OriginalCTrain May 25 '22

Not a joke… I honestly think we should start passing laws that allow us to legally change the guilty’s names to a serial number… and require all media and anyone else to only be allowed to use this to report on…. then in history books it will always be some random number that no one will ever care about…

20

u/sugarplumbuttfluck May 25 '22

I don't think it would be as impactful as you would hope. When you link the crime to any sort of title, you create an achievement to be won. Even if you'll only be known as "Murderer X107J6", there will still be a degree of infamy and prestige attached. Those who want to join the ranks will still find it appealing.

8

u/L3thal_Inj3ction May 25 '22

Also it’s not like Wikipedia page wouldn’t just say their previous name.

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

2

u/AntonBrakhage May 26 '22

I get the sentiment, but reducing people to a number has a really bad historical precedent.

Also, requiring the media not to report someone's name would be an appalling violation of freedom of the press, and whenever you think you're restricting something like freedom of the press for a good reason, remember that once you set that precedent the other side will be able to use it too. And how do you enforce it? Go back somehow through every record the person was ever mentioned in and scrub their identity? Throw the criminal's family in prison if they used their relative's name? Even were that possible to enforce, the infrastructure you'd need to develop to do something like that... its some serious Orwellian shit.

Let's keep our suggested solutions in the realm of the a) doable, and b) not horrifyingly tyrannical.

→ More replies

7

u/squarelocked May 25 '22

I'm so glad there's support for this, I've always hated the way we turn tragedies and murderers into... idk, Pokemon cards.

7

u/ItsRealityMaybe May 25 '22

I feel like the “media” makes most of our problems in America way worse with there constant fear mongering, pushing the extremes to generate hate views/clicks, making minor retractions that don’t get a fraction of the views as the initial lie they knowingly spread, and I’m sure a lot fucking more. The news is to important to us as a nation to tolerate the obvious level of incompetence and probable corruption the media shows today.

→ More replies

7

u/Gurpila May 26 '22

Unfortunately in the US, the first amendment (ie freedom of the press) is an even tougher constitutional nut to crack than the 2nd. The media can simply sue against many proposed regulations, saying it’s their right.

6

u/subhumanprimate May 26 '22

They have the same media in the UK yet it doesn't seem to cause mass shootings... Wierd.

→ More replies

4

u/thegreekgamer42 May 26 '22

It’s been proven, it is not up for debate, that the media plays a huge role in these mass shootings.

Another thing is that for years now the media, politicians and various anti rights groups have more or less blatantly said that the AR15 is the perfect and ideal tool for mass murder. Nothing has sold the idea that using this firearm is the best way to achieve maximum carnage more than the media itself.

2

u/Big_Nefariousness_24 May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

Not because it's the easiest to get? Like all the generic models, and the least paperwork to buy, it's even easier to get than a pistol.

Edit: I meant easiest, but typed easier before. Re-edit: I only deleted once, a reply I posted under wrong place. I posted 2 news links. But all gone now. Is it that I am banned on this thread or something? I cannot see my new replies to you.

Anyway, according to CBS He turned 18 so he could buy AR-15 style rifles and he bought 2. He had to be 21 to buy handguns.

And from Business Insider Texas Republicans made it easier to buy and carry guns months before 19 kids were shot and killed at an elementary school

And if you google "easier to get ar than handguns" you can see the results yourself.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/Comfortable-Panda130 May 26 '22

I hear you but it seems like shooting happen every day and I don’t hear about them or read about them much anymore…this one not withstanding..

At this point we gotta do something though so totally willing to try it

3

u/Assaltwaffle May 26 '22

The absolute vast majority of "mass shootings" are not like what we saw the other day. You're probably referencing the "more than one mass shooting a day" statistic, which only works if you include any instance of a shooting with 3 or more people shot. Most of them don't even include a single death and the average is around 1.

Furthermore, they aren't done for the same reasons as the Uvalde and Buffalo shootings. The majority of these shooters are inner city gang wars or a family slaughter, not some evil or psychotic person slaughtering uninvolved civilians for some twisted goal of hitting the body count leaderboards.

9

u/yogibeer73 May 25 '22

Columbine murderers made the cover of Time magazine. What inspiration for anyone else wishing to become infamous.

11

u/disgruntledpailican May 25 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

We’ll, yeah, that makes sense. But if the media doesn’t make a circus out of these shootings, then how else will politicians drive a wedge between citizens? Fighting about gun control keeps the 99% from uniting and turning against the 1%.

21

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Thanks for the response! The media outlets seem to use these incidents to drive up viewership numbers.

9

u/AdChemical7568 May 25 '22

It’s sad to say we are in a perfect storm of ad supported media, multiple outlets, and having to only care about getting the eye balls, and social media with the lack of mental health attention and peoples love of being famous. It’s massive rubbernecking that gets viewers. It’s disgusting. But I agree that we should never publish the killers name ever, or a “manifesto” they do this for that exact attention on top of all their mental health issues.

12

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Mental health is always referenced as a contributing factor to all mass shootings. Why do you think congress is reluctant to attack the problem by investing in more mental health resources?

12

u/AdChemical7568 May 25 '22

For me it means re-evaluating our whole system. Moving resources from being punitive to be being preventative. It’s expensive, it’s time consuming, and most politicians are concerned with the next election cycle. Also unfortunately there are those that see mental health as a shameful, if not, embarrassing thing to discuss. To me everything starts with mental health and being able to re-integrate and find a productive place in this world. If we built a society more adept at redemption early in a persons life then we might have a chance at least at reducing some of our current ills.

5

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22

Exactly. So, we have to ask ourselves, how long do we allow this to go on before we force the media to follow professional advice? I understand we have freedom of press, but things are changing. In the 80’s during the product tampering cases the media wasn’t online, it was paper. The newspaper publishers were willing to work with law enforcement, to take advice, but with the rise of the internet today they take zero advice. We have got to look to the media and set higher standards. We absolutely need to stop the spread of what Dr. Dietz calls, “an epidemic of copycatting”. It worked with the product tampering cases of the 80’s and it can work now. Obviously other steps need to be taken, but this is the first one. We can’t fucking agree on gun control, so let’s take some constructive steps in other ways. Set standards which force the media to limit exposure.

3

u/Chibichanusa May 25 '22

I agree with you 100% but I don't see how we could still stop the flow of information coming out of the media since social media is a thing. You can limit the details of a situation to local news, but there's nothing to stop local twitter guy from tweeting those details and then stuff gets spread or goes viral. And then truth would likely get distorted, like a shitty game of telephone. However, at least doing things you suggested like not naming the perpetrator or the body count and things like that would at least be a start.

3

u/CaughttheDarkness May 25 '22
  1. This is impossible in the age of social media and garbage news outlets.
  2. While this may be true, I feel like ignoring this undoubtable trend would also cause problems. People need to know about the rising tide of domestic terrorism that is plainly visible. That's the strongest connecting factor between these shooters.
→ More replies

5

u/CaughttheDarkness May 25 '22

Ex-journalist.

What we do, we do because we believe in the free flow of information.

12

u/Docile_Doggo May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

I’m also a former journalist. To add to this, I think it would be wrong for journalists to just sweep these incidents under the rug, nothing to see here. It’s important that the American public realize this isn’t normal, internationally speaking. No other nation has these mass shootings with the same frequency as the U.S.

If journalists stopped covering mass shootings, they would be misinforming the public by omission. People can’t change what they don’t realize is a nationwide problem, rather than a merely local issue.

But I realize my comment will either get downvoted or fall on deaf ears, judging by what is getting upvoted in this thread.

3

u/CaughttheDarkness May 26 '22

Isn’t it great how everyone is so eager to talk about how horribly fucked the news media is and how everything it prints is sloppily researched and journalists are only in it for the money when they wouldn’t know an AP Stylebook if it bit them in the ass?

5

u/Docile_Doggo May 26 '22

Personally, my biggest pet peeve is when people throw “the media” into a single basket for uniform criticism. As if there is no difference between the journalistic quality of the Washington Post and Fox News. It’s just a lazy dismissal, but I see it everywhere.

3

u/CaughttheDarkness May 26 '22

I know!

I’ve lately taken to calling that fallacy the news hydra approach. As in “You can’t just treat a complex ecosystem like it’s some kind of multi-headed news hydra.”

And yet you never run out of armchair reporters happy to tell you how little journalists do and then instantly go blank when you ask them to define FOIA.

2

u/spiderMechanic May 26 '22

I mean it's reasonable to inform about the events. Killer A shot X people in B today, something like that. Like you said, omitting this would be witholding the information.

Then again, when the media starts covering what relationship with his mother the killer had, what kind of computer games did he play or what he ate before the attack, that's something else entirely. From that point on it's just preying on the misery.

3

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Fair enough. I could do without the graphics and constant replaying of grieving families. I think this is where the media is coming up short in the journalism department.

→ More replies

3

u/arielfromrosieshubby May 26 '22

To expound on this,,,,,,I have one thing to say, and we are here doing it.

SOCIAL MEDIA. Instant fame.

2

u/Mustang46L May 25 '22

I also have a personal opinion that these idiots don't think the cost (life in prison) is so bad to not commit these atrocities. I don't believe in the death penalty, in a general sense, but some people deserve the worst we can throw at them.

2

u/StarWarder May 26 '22

“It’s been proven” is there research on this? Can you link it?

2

u/For-The-Cats-99 May 26 '22

I agree completely. Your comment made me think slightly laterally about suicides and media reporting. Here in Canada, the media does not usually report when suicides occur. By not reporting them it helps discourage copycats. The same goes for obituaries - they don't mention suicide specifically, I suspect to discourage copycats (and because of course, it's a terrible tragedy, of course.)

2

u/Tomusina May 26 '22

Product tampering can affect a company’s bottom line. Dead six year olds affects medias bottom line…in a positive way.

We live in a capitalist hellscape.

2

u/Wants-NotNeeds May 26 '22

Time to start during the media then!!! Seriously.

2

u/LOAHS May 26 '22

The guy who burn down the temple of Artemis did so because he wanted to be famous.

2

u/Fun-Attention1468 May 26 '22

Common sense? No sorry we're all too busy with political slap fights

2

u/stewiecookie May 26 '22

I really thought I was crazy for thinking this and anytime I’ve mentioned it people take it as “so we’re just not supposed to care?”

Everytime there is a shooting of any kind news agencies report anything and everything related to that for the next couple weeks before moving on to something else. I remember thinking a short while back seeing a shooting of something local not a national headline and thinking, oh yeah we’re about due for some mass shooting stories and about a week or so later the supermarket shooting now this happens. It’s literally gotten to the point where I just see patterns of media news cycles and can’t even be bothered to read any of them since it feels like it’s just scheduled to keep me interested.

2

u/PunkToTheFuture May 26 '22

I've been thinking this for years. Usually I don't say it to Reddit because because people argue with me about things I didn't even say. Last time I suggested Hooding the perpetrator to keep their identity secret from the public (not the investigators). I got "human rights violations!" and "the police will grab anyone they want if there is a hood". Like i know there are a lot of mass shootings but I can't see crooked cops rushing to a mass shooting to grab the wrong guy they want to pin it on and letting the real killer walk. I just don't see that as a possibility worth considering.

Putting a shooters face, name and personal best scores all over the news is the stupidest thing we have continued to do for decades

2

u/General-Permission-5 May 26 '22

The media plays a huge role? That's an understatement. The media is the single and only reason these shootings happen to begin with.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '22

This should be law

2

u/spankydeluxe69 May 26 '22

I was just talking to my friends about this. I think we should have any politician who is in the way of fixing the epidemic of gun violence, being REQUIRED BY LAW to go see the victims and mop up the blood and guts. And to look into the eyes of their loved ones and admit what they’ve done or failed to do legislatively

2

u/darugal123 May 26 '22

I understand completely your post, I just have a question, could any of this be considered censorship? It’s been clear that the news inspire people to continue doing this horrible acts but by telling the media what to or what not to report could it lead to censorship? I get that if they don’t report it in the first place then in time school shooting would become a thing of the past but then who decides what the media can and can not report on based on copycats. So only happy news?

→ More replies

5

u/Nick-Bemo May 25 '22

If that’s the case then why is it that other countries don’t have kids doing the same thing. Everyone hears about the US mass shooter problems yet the US continues to be the only place that it happens.

12

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22

Because other countries don’t have A) a media campaign which pushes violence on it’s citizens the way America does, B) other countries aren’t rooted in a gun culture, C) other countries were proactive to enforce gun control when shootings started, D) other countries haven’t been engrained with mass murder via the media, E) actually, hold on…..Do I really need to keep listing all the reasons why this is an American problem? It’s common sense man. I could take this A-Z and then start with numbers.

6

u/Nick-Bemo May 25 '22

I agree that it’s an American problem, I just don’t agree with the point that if the media stopped giving these kids attention then it would all go away. The problem only stops when the United States stops accepting so much money from the NRA in order to keep their guns in the hands of everyone who wants one.

5

u/Quit_your_dayjob May 25 '22

I didn’t say that was the only thing we needed to do. It’s not going to entirely stop just because the media won’t report it, but it would play a huge impact if they did. We’re too far gone to be able to nip this now with the media, like we did with product tampering of the 80’s. But if it was a known fact that mass murderers weren’t put on the news, like common knowledge, that alone would dropped the frequency of these killings.

2

u/MsMcSlothyFace May 25 '22

Wish i could upvote this 200x

→ More replies

2

u/omgFWTbear May 25 '22

body count

The basic competitive incitement one sees in people doing unusual things - whether it’s something banal like runs batted in, in baseball, something positive but challenging like successful surgeries by one surgeon… or more awful things … it seems fairly self evident from just a moment’s reflection that suppressing body count reporting would also suppress body counts.

→ More replies

190

u/Various_Succotash_79 May 25 '22

You have to be careful with gore. Too much, and people get desensitized. Just think about how it would be if every other Facebook post showed that classroom. Using it very carefully in controlled doses can help though.

48

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Good point. I feel like that's what has happened with the headline, "Mass Shooting in...", fill in the blank. I wondered if we needed a more extreme jolt to get things moving in a more sane direction in regards to gun control.

50

u/MsMcSlothyFace May 25 '22

I think any politician who votes against stricter gun laws should have to walk thru the crime scene before the bodies are removed of every mass shooting. Make them face what they're enabling. I also believe we should treat guns like cars. You must take a test and be licensed to operate/own a gun. If you're caught poaching animals, leave a gun unattended around children, etc then you have your license suspended. Insurance should be required also. I guarantee you if insurance companies had to pay out the lobbyists would be fighting hard for stricter laws. Anyway, thats my 2cents

13

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Sounds incredibly reasonable to me. Thanks for the response.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/lovelynutz May 25 '22

Or it could wind up encouraging other idiots to do the same. The police would go into their homes after their shooting and have a wall of gore from previous shooters.

→ More replies

215

u/Chronus88 May 25 '22

No. The attention is what the shooter wants. It's their entire goal - renown. Fame even if infamy.

I believe it should be illegal and highly punished for any publication to produce the name or image of a mass shooter. We should not be fulfilling their goals.

32

u/peanutbj May 26 '22

Im not disagreeing but genuinely asking; Ive seen lots of people claim that these shooters want fame, but what evidence do we have of that? Of course some of them may have expressed the desire for fame in some kind of manifesto, but the claim of many Redditors seems to be that most - if not all - of these shooters do want fame and I was wondering what the evidence was

12

u/Haunting-Pop-5660 May 26 '22

Refer to the Zodiac Killer for an example of someone who craved the attention that came from their actions. Not to say that everyone will behave in this manner, and if anything I'd say that any serial killer worth their salt would attempt to avoid bringing too much attention to themselves, but calling cards are not uncommon.

In terms of mass shooters, I think it's a combination of misdirected anger and a desire to be recognized.

18

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

[deleted]

16

u/afaber003 May 26 '22

The problem is that they (the killer) want the shock value. It’s often done for the attention. Horrifying people is the entire point of why they do it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

53

u/Shallow-Thought May 25 '22

No. Didn't do much to improve driving habits with the old shock and awe approach to drivers' ed.

27

u/kelseysays26 May 25 '22

I don’t actually think OP’s suggestion would work but completely unrelated, in my country we have famously graphic road safety adverts and statistically they have worked! We are all traumatised and can no longer listen to any of the songs they chose in the ads without thinking about them lol

11

u/OmegaStealthJam May 25 '22

You Irish? Body to body will be etched in my mind forever

9

u/kelseysays26 May 25 '22

Yes, scarred for life

→ More replies

58

u/DaniCapsFan May 25 '22

The thing is, Emmett Till's mother demanded an open casket for her son and demanded that people see the ugly truth about lynching. She was willing to use her son's mutilated body to force people to confront the ugliness of racism.

I wouldn't want to ask grieving parents to ask that their children's shattered bodies be used to try to effect change. I fear it wouldn't help anyway. Too many politicians are deep in the pockets of the NRA, and for some, their Second Amendment rights are more important than the lives of schoolchildren. Oh, GOP pols are already shedding crocodile tears, but they won't do a damn thing.

24

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

I have no idea how I would react to my children being a part of such a horrible event, other than being inconsolable. I've always admired Emmitt Till's mother for her courage and her unwavering commitment to exposing the horror of her son's lynching. She is an American hero to me.

8

u/Li_alvart May 26 '22

if you were a parent of said kids would you like to see your dead child on the news and have it reposted every time? Open a news article/video and then there’s the picture of your kid but it’s just a corpse. What about a sibling? Having to deal with those pictures.

I doubt many parents would be ok with that.

7

u/DaniCapsFan May 26 '22

That is why Mrs. Till is a hero. She not only was willing, she was insistent her child's mutilated body be a symbol for the horror of Jim Crow and the truth about lynching.

But then in 1955, there wasn't 24-hour news coverage. There wasn't the internet. The horror of what was done to her son had limited reach, as compared to today. So I can see why a parent wouldn't want to see their child's mutilated body all over the news and all over social media.

2

u/Li_alvart May 26 '22

I remember this case of a girl that died on a car accident and the pictures were pretty gruesome. They ended up online and her siblings got tormented in school because asshole students would shown them those pics.

→ More replies

33

u/slybird May 25 '22 edited May 25 '22

Anecdotally I'd say no. I've seen more than my fair share of videos and photos of killings, accidents, and carnage.

On the positive side it has made me far more cautious and aware of my surroundings and more appreciative of life.

On the negative side it has desensitized me to the sight of death and gore.

My political leanings on gun control have remained unchanged.

10

u/thegreekgamer42 May 26 '22

On the positive side it has made me far more cautious and aware of my surroundings and more appreciative of life.

Big agree, I'll never look at a lathe the same way ever again

6

u/slybird May 26 '22

For sure on that. I have never been near a lathe, but I will never reach over a spinning lathe, wear baggy clothing around a lathe, or let anyone with long dangling hair near a lathe.

4

u/Straxicus2 May 26 '22

Escalators, man. They’re terrifying too.

7

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Interesting. Part of my reason for posting, was I wondered what the impact of the availability of images of death and gore has already had in the desensitization of the American public. I've seen some crazy stuff on Reddit that I wish I could scrub from my brain. I'm not sure the impact it's had on me...I'm still here posting! Thanks for the response.

→ More replies

6

u/jgilly00 May 26 '22

Are you suggesting that we take pictures of dead children and releasing them to the public so some people can get what they want politically? Because if so, that’s incredibly fucked up and completely immoral

20

u/Cokej01 May 25 '22

All future shooters should have their name changed to John Doe. Press should immediately refer to a shooter as John Doe only. This is meant to mitigate the allure of earning a place in history.

→ More replies

6

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

You're probably right. I feel like the American public/congress gets off a little too easy sometimes by not really seeing the actual damage being visited upon children. I can't imagine being a child/teacher who sees and survives a mass shooting.

4

u/surgeryboy7 May 25 '22

I heard somebody on the news this morning that said the politicians, like Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, etc that are against some gun control should be forced to go into this crime scene with the forensics teams that are gathering evidence and documenting the dead kids, so they can see exactly what high powered guns like this do to the bodies of little kids, and then see how tough they act.

6

u/ReverendChucklefuk May 25 '22

My son is five. If this happened to him, I would never recover; I just know it is not something I could come back from. But I would get the crime scene photos and release them everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. To the point where nobody hasn't seen them many, many times. You would not be able to drive 5 miles on the interstate without seeing them.

5

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Honestly, feel like this would be my reaction as well. Thanks for your response.

52

u/AbuYates May 25 '22

Showing images of murder children will not do anything to curb the violence. I believe it might actually increase incentive for those who are sick to try to achieve that.

I know this sounds disgusting, I think it's tantamount to forcing mass castration legislation legislation by showing more images of raped women.

To be frank, showing images of either horrific crime is equally as morally deplorable as the other. And I do think it would actually incentivize more of the same awful behavior from those who are sick. Because with both crimes, it's not an availability of tools used in the crime problem, it's a behavior problem.

14

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

It seems many people link mass shootings to mental health. Why do you think our country is so reluctant to invest in remedies to aid those in need of assistance with their mental health? We have 3 guidance counselors for 1500 students at my school. Not a very effective ratio.

12

u/Bluewoods22 May 25 '22

mental health is 100% the root. and because they want us to be sick and poor, they benefit from that. why would they try to stop it?

13

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 25 '22

I think my school had 1 for about 1200 students in Australia. You can link shootings to mental health, and that would be valid, but that doesn't mean it isn't also linked to access to guns. I'm sure mental health is being neglected here just as badly, but the fact that people don't have access to these guns also goes a long way in preventing shootings.

I see no reason why America shouldn't invest in both.

8

u/FionaTheFierce May 25 '22

Guidance counselors help with educational planning. They are not therapists and not trained clinicians.

Likely your school has zero, or very close to zero school therapists.

2

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Actually, in our school the main function of our guidance counselors is to provide counseling. It's just an impossible task with their ratios.

2

u/AbuYates May 25 '22

I agree with you. It's substandard. Do you think there's a correlation between limited mental health resources and the push for university education without guidance on what areas should be studied (lots of arts degrees, few STEM)?

2

u/Agile_Stand8322 May 26 '22

Because there's part of obstructionists and contrarians trying to take the US into a christ-fascist state instead of helping people. The Republican party, in it's current form, is to blame.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 25 '22

it's not an availability of tools used in the crime problem, it's a behavior problem

Why cant it be both? There's no denying that gun control had worked in almost every country that's tried it, why dies there have to be only one solution to a problem?

4

u/One_Idea_239 May 25 '22

Would rather have someone trying to attack a school with a knife than someone with an ar. I can't imagine the death took would be anywhere near what this has been

→ More replies

2

u/Chemical_Doughnut248 May 25 '22

I don’t agree. Mass murder isn’t a “private” matter, it’s a political and societal issue that people need to viscerally understand.
Isn’t it funny how US media collectively stopped airing videos and images of US deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and it ended up being our longest war

2

u/One_Idea_239 May 25 '22

If the killer didn't have guns do you really think that he would have been able to knife 22 people to death? Plus self defence against a knife is a whole lot more likely than whatever self defence someone could imagine against someone with an ar.

2

u/Tothyll May 26 '22

Great! How do you get rid of all the guns?

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/lburton273 May 25 '22

I think it would definitely have an impact

I have no idea how much but I don't think everyone's fully dead inside for it to have no impact, not yet

4

u/Salty_Lego May 25 '22

It worked somewhat during the civil rights movement and during the Vietnam war.

Violence flashing across the screens on the nightly news helped to shape public opinion.

It’s possible.

4

u/morphineseason May 25 '22

I can't really speak to that, but I can tell you that I am a concealed weapons instructor, and in most of my classes the thing that sparked interest was either an event that happened to them for a friend/family and stumbling across violent footage. I had a 30% uptick in requests for classes after the Kyle Rittenhouse photo's were released. I think it would likely make the issue worse, but again, this is just my personal experience. It would just give people a hero complex, that somehow they are going to grow wings and magically fly to no-gun zones to save children.

2

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Thanks for the insight! I think we, as Americans, are raised to see heroics as something which comes from being victorious in battle. Sometimes it's making a smart decision and a little sacrifice for the greater good.

4

u/ctzun May 25 '22

Call out the reporters and news agencies on social media for sensationalising these stories. Try using social media feedback and outrage to make a positive change. Cancel networks and reporters who can't be bothered to be decent humans just like the masses have been doing to other offenders. Make the world someplace we want to live in instead of the flaming ball of refuse its becoming.

3

u/HotMinimum26 May 25 '22

The GQP does it with fetuses to call everyone monsters. Let's add some shock value ourselves.

4

u/Kiyohara May 25 '22

Every time we have, as a nation, viewed imagery of terrible events: dead soldiers, combat action, attacks on civilians (esp vis a vis Civil Rights movement), there has been a strong reaction to correct such things.

The Civil War was the first photographed war and images of the Battle of Antietam started off a major anti-war movement. Images from early WW1 helped reinforce our isolationist stance. Images of burning battleships helped motivate Americans to go to WW2. Images of the Nanking massacre lead the US to pass legislation reupdating Japan. Images of Korea and Vietnam lead to anti-war movements. Images of police siccing dogs or water hosing on peaceful protestors helped shape and pass the Civil Rights laws. The images of the burning twin towers and people leaping to their deaths to avoid burning to death lead to the Patriot Act and the eventual invasions in the Middle east.

I feel 100% a image of dead children and bloody school floors will incite the US public to pass gun control laws, however there is a massive industry with a vested interest in preventing that, and they have a lot more money to spend lobbying and denying those images to be released to the public.

4

u/hunterseekercat May 25 '22

No. Abbott, Cruz, Paxton and Patrick should have to be forced to pick up those dead bodies of the kids. They don't care though. Abbott actually said it could have been WORSE.

3

u/Joshs-68 May 26 '22

If yes, would you be fine with pictures of aborted fetuses being shown to support the anti abortion viewpoint? Personally, I think dead kids is a bit much, as are dead fetuses. I get the shock of the image, but unsure it’s the right way to go.

→ More replies

28

u/Kindredmen May 25 '22

Absolutely not. What it would take is for the politicians to lose a child or grandchild that way. That's the only way they'd care.

30

u/RiotNrrd2001 May 25 '22

Yeah. Except that they'd probably each have to lose a child or grandchild. Because the ones that didn't would still be mouthing "thoughts and prayers" like it's a magic spell that wards off the need to do anything else.

11

u/Kindredmen May 25 '22

Exactly. It's not their kids being murdered. Their kids don't go to public schools. Have a few mass shootings at the private schools their family members attend, then things will change.

4

u/RiotNrrd2001 May 25 '22 edited May 25 '22

Definitely not the sort of thing we should hope for. "Making it so bad it has to change" is never the solution to a bad situation. There are always alternatives, and we for sure don't need more dead kids.

10

u/GruntledEx May 25 '22

Steve Scalise, a Republican politician, was actually shot and still didn't change his opinion. In fact, he doubled down on his pro-gun rhetoric.

3

u/TheTurtleCub May 25 '22

Maybe make congress go clean up the place and remove the corpses?

3

u/UtterNylon May 25 '22

Anything would be better than what we have now

3

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

I have thought that before, too. I do think it might help. This overblown second amendment issue has left the realm of politics and is now a civil war. A war that includes surprise attacks by soldiers from one side inflicted on the children of the other side. There are far too many non-insane people on that side with the insane people. They need to be gotten through to.

3

u/Muted-Leave May 25 '22

I think so. Anyone who supports guns should have to clean up the mess that results from gun violence

3

u/2020isnotperfect May 25 '22

No. NRA and plutocrats would care nothing. The brainwashed will keep on pushing their 2nd Amendment shit.

3

u/supertoilet99 May 25 '22

Not in the slightest. The people in power have no hearts. No sympathy. Even if it were their own children. All they care about is their own power. Nothing more.

3

u/weirdbunni-chan May 25 '22

I'd say lay out those tiny little caskets in front of Congress. Open casket if they choose. Emmett Till's mother did that to show the world what they did to her child. And it sparked the civil rights movement.

3

u/TheNuclearNacho May 25 '22

No, nothing will change their mind. They don't care about childrens lives being taken

3

u/cohrt May 25 '22

Would definitely cut down the amount of “false flag “ people.

3

u/zebjr May 25 '22

No. Start by reforming lobbyist/campaign reform and term limits. Dont drain the swamp eliminate it. Winning an election should not be based on spending more money.

3

u/dinklesmith7 May 25 '22

I don't think it will. Conservatives are dead set against gun reform. I personally believe they fear that immigrants and minorities will take control of the government as our country becomes more diverse, so they want to stay armed just in case and it doesn't matter how many people will die.

As someone raised in a household of toxic masculinity, it's all about control. The best case for them is to be a majority. But they fear immigrants will make whites a minority (also why they are banning abortion). Without majority control, they then will support authoritarian leaders like Trump to maintain control. If that fails, they have their guns

To someone like that, you'll never get them to give up their guns and pass reform

3

u/ItsRealityMaybe May 25 '22

It’s truly horrific and yeah maybe people should see the carnage that comes along with gun violence. Even though I would hope that we could ALL see the importance of stopping school/mass shootings without having to see the actual carnage. I would hope we could all work together to find a real solution to this problem whether it’s making more gun laws, properly enforcing the ones we have, or really tackling our mental health crisis. We can’t fix this shit alone we all have to work together. We ALL have so many common goals we can’t achieve because we fight over our small differences. I feel like empathy, love, and willingness to do better is needed for problems of that magnitude.

3

u/ClosetedGothAdult May 26 '22

I honestly think if nothing changed after Sandy hook, nothings ever going to change

2

u/OGwalkingman May 25 '22

No. Republicans just don't care. They will never care

2

u/loocinatheworld May 25 '22

probably not. the people who are making money off of it won't care any more than they already do just because they can suddenly watch what's earning them so much

2

u/stevebobeeve May 25 '22

It worked for Vietnam

2

u/Gongaloon May 25 '22

Emmitt Till. Jesus, that picture was horrific. It's burned into the back of my retinas. If pictures of the aftermath of school shootings have half the effect on lawmakwrs that that picture did on me there'd never be another shooting again. But they probably won't, because positions of power have a long track record of attracting charismatic sociopaths and the country's population is split between people shrieking at everyone for no gun control and people whispering among themselves about maybe someday having more. It's a good idea in theory, and in a country where politics isn't a popularity contest it would probably work, but this isn't one of those countries.

3

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Agreed. Emmitt Till's photo still haunts me. He's mother was an American hero for forcing the public to see the pain and horror of her son's lynching.

→ More replies

2

u/ToastTurtle May 25 '22

Honestly, I think they would only help if you forced the elected officials to actually look at them and realize their inaction or actions directly caused it. Then maybe there would be value in it.

2

u/thepurplethorn May 25 '22

I am a mother, I am heartbroken, angry but I feel so helpless… it will be easier to uproot my family and move to another country than this country doing anything about guns. It’s just not going to happen because we have sick sick motherfuckers running this country

2

u/isitliveormemorex2 May 25 '22

While I do think this is a very worthy question, I think we can see that the more something is publicized, the more 'contagion' effect we see.

I think that is why they come in rashes - there will be one shooting, and then in the media wake that immediately follows we have multiple others, and often at increased levels of violence/carnage.

I wish the media would refuse to report on all of them, completely, because it would sever the artery of 'notoriety' so many of these weak people seek.

2

u/gimlimclean May 26 '22

Unlikely. The biggest problem is the proliferation of the gun control lobby in politics, especially on the conservative side. Remove the influence and political donations of pro-gun groups, and then you can finally start to see passage of gun control legislation.

2

u/HungryHobbits May 26 '22

I had that same thought yesterday. As gruesome and awful as it would be… it may help the reality become less “abstract”

2

u/NotToday96 May 26 '22

To be honest, I think the only thing that would make any politicians change gun control laws is if gun violence affects them. It’s hard to shrug away horrible things when it’s personal.

2

u/mustang6172 May 26 '22

No, at this point I think the average gun owner values their guns more than other people's children.

Be fun to watch though.

2

u/Useful-Pattern-5076 May 26 '22

Congress should be forced to view the crime scene first hand after a tragedy like this. They need to see these horrors to understand the results of their inaction. Maybe they’d remember those images the next time they’re thinking about taking lobby money over the lives of innocent children.. it’s way past time that they step up and do what’s right. Frankly the choices they’re making are disgusting and the children of this country deserve better

2

u/Loud-Distance-1456 May 26 '22

I have no answers, but I feel sorry for you, man. I go to America a few times every year because I love the place, but this stuff is just insane. I don’t know what to say that hasn’t been said before. I wish you and your family all the best, chum.

2

u/RBH1377 May 26 '22

Appreciate the sentiment!

→ More replies

2

u/vbcbandr May 26 '22

I was wondering about Emmitt Till today regarding how mass shootings have become a way of life in this nation. Would this sort of action change something???

2

u/PickleEmergency7918 May 26 '22

Dit was effective in the case of Emmett Till. I greatly admire his mother for her strength.

2

u/PickleEmergency7918 May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

It was effective in the case of Emmett Till. I greatly admire his mother for her strength. I don't know if sharing graphic images would be a good move in cases of shootings though because it appears that media coverage and clout motivates shooters. But, I wonder if it would be enough to sway public and lawmaker. opinion

3

u/RBH1377 May 26 '22

His mother was an American hero for what she did to bring attention to the horror of his lynching.

2

u/Confidence_Dense May 26 '22

That depends on what you want, if you want ridiculously strict gun control that guarantees that only criminals and police can have guns than show me as many pictures as you want because those tactics don’t work on me.

However having a logical argument and reasonable demands would make a difference, I wouldn’t mind the loopholes on background checks being removed but anything past that is gonna take a solid argument.

Using pictures of dead children is disrespectful to the dead if you ask me, using dead kids for your own political gain is wrong even if it’s to do what you think is the right thing.

2

u/Rivsmama May 26 '22

No because what people like you don't seem to be able to get through your head is that people who support gun rights are ALSO horrified by mass shootings. We are ALSO against the murder of children. We don't think taking away our guns is the solution to the problem. Unless you attempt to implement a full scale gun confiscation, which will never happen (there are more guns than people in this country), gun laws are already on the books in every state. The shooter from yesterday broke several.

→ More replies

2

u/majcotrue May 29 '22

Capitalists manipulate laws how they want, they won´t lose money because some people died.

4

u/BeegCheil May 25 '22

No.

It would be effective, but sadly short lived. The problem here isn't the horrific nature of these acts, but the "freedoms" that exist in the US that allow this to happen.

This point means the narrative always shifts, and does so remarkable quickly, to one of what many Americans believe to be "freedom". The right to bear arms. The assumed right that one day you may need to rely on domestic terrorism to enforce a change of government.

Some people in your country tried that theory out in last year. People died. Americans died.

If you were anywhere else in the world, you'd have been "liberated" by now.

Its odd that you cant seem to do this for yourself.

The irony of all of this, is that the very thing many American voters fear, is exactly what is holding them hostage in the greatest democratic gaslighting event of all time.

Apparently you voted for this. Granted, not everyone, but more than enough. You have told your political representatives, in a secret ballot where everyone has plausible deniability, that you are essentially ok with allowing this to continue.

You are the least free democratic nation on earth.

You, the American voter have the right to change this, but you wont achieve it. You all know you wont, and the whole world already has resigned itself to reading more news stories like this come out of your country every month or so. Its fucking awful to watch happen.

This answer will be heavily downvoted by those who seek out disagreement. But the very nature of belief that you as a citizen of a democratically free country requiring a killing tool to feel free is insane. If you were ever truly under attack, at risk of invasion, your government has the resources to defend you better than you can ever defend yourself. What exactly is it everyone is so afraid of? Each other? If so, learn how to have a fucking conversation with each other for fuck sake.

But, enough people will ensure that this right in enshrined. And the chaos will continue, because history repeats and people fear change more than anything else on earth.

And this makes me desperately sad. Because, despite its madness, America is also one of the most politically, economically and spiritually influential land masses on this planet.

What a planet we've built.

→ More replies

5

u/Leucippus1 May 25 '22

I have said it after Newtown and I still think it is true, release the pictures. People have to see what a 5.56 or 7.62 mm rifle bullet does to a human body and its organs. This isn't a joke, these are serious machines we allow people to own.

I am not making a specific policy proposal, I just want to see our gun culture fever broken. These are weapons for war; they aren't a symbol of freedom, they aren't a stand in for your phallus, they aren't for your amusement. They are weapons whose sole design and purpose is to kill mammals. They are death and injury machines. Sure, you can use car for death and injury, but its design and purpose is for transportation, using it as a weapon is a perversion. We have gotten to the point in this country where the romance and fantasy of the gun has overwhelmed our good senses. We actually think a gun is a reasonable solution to problems we are likely to encounter.

→ More replies

5

u/Republixcan May 25 '22

For a start, the media needs to stop "glamorizing" mass shootings, every time there's a mass shooting, we get the name of the killer, if they have a manifesto it becomes easily accessible. Perhaps, like with racism, if we stop talking about it so much frequency might be greatly reduced.

→ More replies

7

u/BigSwedeIndeed May 25 '22

No we already have hundreds of gun control laws. Criminals don’t care about another law.

If I remember correctly at Columbine the shooters broke something like 80 guns laws. I just don’t get the disconnect with people thinking a psychopath is going to say to themselves “oh wait I don’t want to break law #10 on the way to MURDERING people”.

10

u/Perse_phoney May 25 '22

While you're technically correct, it's much more nuanced. Laws aren't just things restricting an individual, they can be part of policies and (as most people do care about the law) the behaviour of the public. Laws can make it much harder for potential shooters to get a gun and thereby avoiding a shooting. If someone isn't able get a gun, they aren't going to shoot people with it. It's of course impossible to get rid of every gun in the country, but you can hardly convince me availability of the weapon doesn't play a role.

And that's one of the aspects the current laws are clearly lacking in. A push towards more regulated gun control would decrease the ease of access and likely the number of shooters.

→ More replies

2

u/RBH1377 May 25 '22

Do you think limiting future gun ownership numbers would have an impact? It seems many of the guns used in mass shootings were purchased legally.

7

u/BigSwedeIndeed May 25 '22

No there’s already almost 400 million guns already in the U.S. For comparison Australia had about 1 million when their buyback happened and it was a major economical blow to the country.

We need to quit sending billions of dollars around the world and start spending the money here to help our mentally ill among other avenues that need help.

2

u/picklerants May 25 '22

Doesn't sound reasonable. How are you going to limit future gun ownership? The harder/expensive you make owning a gun legally than more people will purchase them illegally. Also as others have said what are you going to do with the 400 million guns already in circulation.

Also if you believe cops and politicians are corrupt are you sure you want them being in charge of who gets to carry guns and get doesnt? There needs to be checks and balances and honestly there isnt really a straight forward answer on how to solve this problem.

→ More replies

2

u/SkorRalkeen May 25 '22

Broadcast to the general public?

No.

Sent to the politicians who are voting down gun control laws and accepting kickbacks from the gun lobby?

Yes.

The policy makers need to be face to face with the carnage that they are creating.

2

u/Made-a-blade May 25 '22

By now the gun lobbyist and lawmakers should be forced to clean up after the shooting.

2

u/palfreygames May 25 '22

100% yes Also the reason covid went so bad, Also the reason the pox vaccine went so well.

Showing the reality means it's a lot harder to deny the truth.

We need to stop the coddling of "it's too violent to see" which leads to, omg now it's happening here, if only we knew before it got here.

1

u/VexBoxx May 25 '22

Nope. The money politicians get from the NRA usurps any horror they may have. (Looking at you, Ted fucking Cruz.)

2

u/Bpro_m8 May 25 '22

You could approach it like they do cigarettes. By that i mean using horrifying pictures in gun stores or on the internet with the caption this could be your child. I know it is very scary but its supposed to be scary in order for america to get normal gun laws and stop fetishizing weapons

4

u/Weisdog May 25 '22

Wouldn’t that make people want to buy a gun though, knowing what someone else with a gun could do to their child?

3

u/watch_over_me May 25 '22

Aren't cigs still a billion dollars industry?

2

u/Bpro_m8 May 25 '22

Yes, but they greatly decreased in popularity