Children shot and killed at Connecticut school

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I don't blame the media with creating or encouraging acts of violence.

I hate to be crass about it, but if you want to get on the front page of every newspaper in the world one way to do so is to murder a bunch of children in the US.

I'm not convinced the BBC (for example) gave as much coverage to the death of Steve Jobs or Neil Armstrong as they are giving to this tragic event.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by dime21

Plenty on the far-left are.

Including precisely one person in this entire forum.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I hate to be crass about it, but if you want to get on the front page of every newspaper in the world one way to do so is to murder a bunch of children in the US.

The media is a reflection of what people are interested in.

How would you propose changing that?

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

We're allowing free access to guns. You can choose to keep the 2nd amendment as it is and decide that things like this are the price we have to pay to keep our "freedom" or we can become sane and amend the constitution to ban guns.

Well since you feel this way, Volunteer to go door to door & confiscate the owners legally registered weapons. I wish you all the best. Good luck!

[copykris]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Yeah, a knife attack, and one that didn't cause any deaths.

you're absolutely right, but the people you're saying this to aren't here for hard facts man, they're here to defend their bigoted 19th century ideals

----------

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Of course not. All I meant by that is that a ban on guns will be as effective as a ban on other things.

fine, might aswell go ahead and make everything legal then, ucfgrad taught us bans don't work

[Tsuchiya]

This story hit me hard. It's heartbreaking.

I don't know what the next step is, but there needs to be some serious consideration into the possible causes of this so that steps can be taken to avoid it happening ever again.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

If you can't be bothered to read this, I'd suggest that you have no business telling anyone that these points are "empty talking points and rhetoric" or whatever the hell you were saying earlier.

And I'll bet you won't.

I'd happily read whatever you post, but there doesn't seem to be a link presented.

I have no horse in this race, and if you think I do you are mistaken.

[Tilpots]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The media is a reflection of what people are interested in.

How would you propose changing that?

Journalistic integrity. These stories are crafted by the reporter, videographer and editor. Having worked in the news industry previously, I know that very story has an angle. There is no way to tell an all encompassing "truth." As we've learned over the past 48 hrs, even the "facts" of the stories can be wrong or misleading. When certain Tabloids ran topless pics of Kate, an editorial decision is made. When a reporter sticks a mic in a small child's face, that is an editorial decision. When the name of a rape or murder victim or a minor is withheld from a story, that is an editorial decision.

The editorial decision making in the US media is poor. It lacks couth, class and a point of view. Yes, a point of view. As I stated early, every story has an angle. These outlets and reporters need to do a better job of defining their angle and assessing what impact it has on their audience and to the story itself. The reports do not exist in a vacuum. They impact the characters and events. Too few outlets and individuals understand this and it's time they realized that their reports can contribute to the problems.

Another major problem with the media is their lack of self oversight. Rarely will you hear one major network openly criticize another. While understandable in many regards, there needs to be a more public conversation on this topic. But where will it air? That's the problem. Jon Stewart, IMHO, does a good job of keeping them honest. But his audience is too small to make a national impact. Saturday Night Live does a good job, too, but as with Stewart, comedians have a difficult time being taken seriously.

[Moyank24]

Here's an interesting op-ed from the NY Times.

He makes some interesting points and outlines some regulations that other countries have and what they've done regarding guns/gun sales.

I've never tried to buy a gun, but I have gone to gun shows with friends who have purchased them. And frankly, it just seems too easy. Ironically, we are having a Hi-Caliber gun show in Houston this weekend - I wonder what effect this tragedy had on it, if any.

I'm not sure how realistic some of his ideas are, but I feel like they are at least a starting point for discussion. Some highlights:

So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.

We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.

Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.

Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.

For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I'd happily read whatever you post, but there doesn't seem to be a link presented.

I have no horse in this race, and if you think I do you are mistaken.

That's strange, I linked it before. I noticed that it didn't create a clickable link and I tried to fix that, maybe that's where things went wrong?


http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...04/01ba.ap.pdf

[cwosigns]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

People are dead....little freaking kids.....and folks want to jump into the political side of this situation already?

Good grief people.

It's not too soon for this conversation, it's too late. Twenty kids are dead. If we'd started a serious dialog on this after Columbine, things may have been different today.

----------

Originally Posted by Reason077

Terrible, awful, sickening tragedy.

But I'm gonna come right out and say it: If the teachers at that school had been armed, it is very likely that this could have been contained and would not have been as bad as it was.

To make it a safer place, we need more responsible Americans to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

You gotta be effin' kidding me. This thought really popped into your head?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Tilpots

Journalistic integrity.

Yes. Mass media news can improve. I'm not questioning that.

I disagreed that covering incidents like this are the cause of more mass shootings or are in themselves "disgusting".

People throughout history have been drawn to news of murder and mayhem.

Mass media is a reflection of our morbid curiosity.

[cwosigns]

Originally Posted by chrf097

Don't forget what happened in China too.

Oh THAT'S your retort? Notice all of those kids LIVED? You're proving the merit of gun control, not the point you think you're making.

----------

Originally Posted by WestonHarvey1

I get that you don't want to live in a world where teachers are armed. Who does? But the alternative is what we have now: We're all shouting from the rooftops: "Hey, crazy people, come shoot up our schools, we promise we will do absolutely nothing to stop you. You're in control."

You offer this up as if it's the ONLY option we have. We have another option: GET RID OF GUNS.

[Tilpots]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Yes. Mass media news can improve.

-----

Mass media is a reflection of our morbid curiosity.

I wasn't aiming that at you. And I agree that the viewer is as much at fault as the media. Sorry for the confusion.

[Iscariot]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

That's strange, I linked it before. I noticed that it didn't create a clickable link and I tried to fix that, maybe that's where things went wrong?


http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...04/01ba.ap.pdf

That's a well-sourced study, and from reading it, I'd like to know why The New York Times wouldn't publish a rebuttal or retraction after hearing from Huesmann and Eron. I think there are a few conclusions in the study that are of great value not only on the subject but to the scientific community at large, especially the recognition that advocating and disseminating information, especially in public education, ought to be a part of a researchers job.

Nonetheless, I'm not trying to deny a link between violent media and violence, nor was "empty-headed" directed at zioxide, but rather the author of the USA Today article and the platitudes plucked from within. There is a difference between a thought-out link between media and violence and unsourced statements about being "too far gone," references to "so many acts" and "so many killers," claims of creating a " fertile breeding ground for violence," completely without facts or sources. This is the kind of junk journalism where the author hasn't actually done any homework; the very kind that Huesmann and Eron would likely take umbrage to.

Now would be a great time for someone to present a well-researched case for the link between violence and X, wherein X could be any number of potentially valid variables including videogames. E.G. "On the basis of the research in the TV literature as well as the video game literature, I believe that exposure to violent video games can cause increases in aggression and that this effect is serious enough to lead me to prevent my own children from playing such games." But handwringing about the children and vaguely pointing to Call of Duty or mean emails to a sports writer while pining for bygone days of civility doesn't get us anywhere, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Phrygian]

This article sums up my feelings about the whole debate going on... but instead of debating it i'll let you read about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/...html?hpt=hp_c2

For those who don't want to click, literally Hours prior to this tragedy, another tragedy happened in china, where a deranged man violently cut down 21 young children students in a school before he was restrained.

However in Hong Kong, gun laws are quite strict. This man only had a knife. Every child who was attacked and/or stabbed survived.

[ChristianJapan]

Please just take a break and think about the victims

Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7.
Olivia Engel, 6.
Josephine Gay, 7.
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6.
Dylan Hockley, 6.
Madeleine F. Hsu, 6.
Catherine V. Hubbard, 6.
Chase Kowalski, 7.
Jesse Lewis, 6.
James Mattioli, 6.
Grace McDonnell, 7.
Emilie Parker, 6.
Jack Pinto, 6.
Noah Pozner, 6.
Caroline Previdi, 6.
Jessica Rekos, 6.
Avielle Richman, 6.
Benjamin Wheeler, 6.
Allison N. Wyatt, 6.

Rachel Davino, 29.
Dawn Hochsprung, 47.
Anne Marie Murphy, 52.
Lauren Rousseau, 30.
Mary Sherlach, 56.
Victoria Soto, 27.

RIP

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

We're allowing free access to guns. You can choose to keep the 2nd amendment as it is and decide that things like this are the price we have to pay to keep our "freedom" or we can become sane and amend the constitution to ban guns.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Well since you feel this way, Volunteer to go door to door & confiscate the owners legally registered weapons. I wish you all the best. Good luck!

Ice, what did your response have to do with mrkramer's statement in any way? He suggested Constitutional Amendment, and you offer that he go an try to confiscate legal guns? This makes no sense.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by ChristianJapan

Please just take a break and think about the victims

Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7.
Olivia Engel, 6.
Josephine Gay, 7.
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6.
Dylan Hockley, 6.
Madeleine F. Hsu, 6.
Catherine V. Hubbard, 6.
Chase Kowalski, 7.
Jesse Lewis, 6.
James Mattioli, 6.
Grace McDonnell, 7.
Emilie Parker, 6.
Jack Pinto, 6.
Noah Pozner, 6.
Caroline Previdi, 6.
Jessica Rekos, 6.
Avielle Richman, 6.
Benjamin Wheeler, 6.
Allison N. Wyatt, 6.

Rachel Davino, 29.
Dawn Hochsprung, 47.
Anne Marie Murphy, 52.
Lauren Rousseau, 30.
Mary Sherlach, 56.
Victoria Soto, 27.

RIP

Unfortunately the NRA apologists aren't interested in the victims, only in furthering their murderous policies.

As I stated earlier, dozens of children will have to be gunned down in a single event before the NRA comes to its senses. It's a shame so many have and so many will continue to die all for some Wild West wannabes.

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by Ugg

Unfortunately the NRA apologists aren't interested in the victims, only in furthering their murderous policies.

As I stated earlier, dozens of children will have to be gunned down in a single event before the NRA comes to its senses. It's a shame so many have and so many will continue to die all for some Wild West wannabes.

But that *just* happened two days ago. Piers Morgan said it right, how many more children need to be killed for them to wake up and realize there has to be a drastic change. The guy he was talking to didn't even bat an eye and nonchalantly continued to explain that more guns could've save some of these children... It was like watching a Fellini film.

I'm going to ask again what Thomas Veil has done a few pages ago; what did Adam's mother, a woman closely tied to an elementary school, need a Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle for? It was said she was a collector and enthusiast and she liked to get focus on the shooting range. I get that, but in that case, keep your gun safely at the shooting range and not at home where your already troubled son has access too.

A singular pistol in the nightstand for self-protection is fine but semi- or fully-automatic assault rifles should be prohibited for civilians. Nobody needs them unless they want to re-enact the Gulf war, and to my knowledge there was always a rifle used in a mass shooting, otherwise there would have been a lower body count each time.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by cwosigns

what did Adam's mother, a woman closely tied to an elementary school, need a Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle for? It was said she was a collector and enthusiast and she liked to get focus on the shooting range. I get that, but in that case, keep your gun safely at the shooting range and not at home where your already troubled son has access too.

A singular pistol in the nightstand for self-protection is fine

Given her son was troubled, I think having any guns in the house was pretty irresponsible.

[Dagless]

Only just heard about this one - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2307505.html

When is the time to talk about gun control? Does dialogue immediately need to cease should a mass shooting take place during discussions? How long should the pause last?

[firestarter]

Originally Posted by Dagless

When is the time to talk about gun control?

Whenever the public sentiment is calm, and the case can be made for citizens to keep deadly weapons in their home and on their person.

Does dialogue immediately need to cease should a mass shooting take place during discussions?

Yes, otherwise people might start to reflect on how insane mass gun ownership is.

How long should the pause last?

Until everyone has forgotten about the last batch of school kids taken out by a gun fetishist.

[r.j.s]

Originally Posted by firestarter

Whenever the public sentiment is calm, and the case can be made for citizens to keep deadly weapons in their home and on their person.


Yes, otherwise people might start to reflect on how insane mass gun ownership is.


Until everyone has forgotten about the last batch of school kids taken out by a gun fetishist.

Your sarcasm does absolutely nothing to further any kind of discussion.

[firestarter]

Originally Posted by r.j.s

Your sarcasm does absolutely nothing to further any kind of discussion.

Gun fetishists have these kid's blood on their hands.

I'm not suprised you want to defer the debate.