Forgive me but this is simply your ignorance speaking. I don't have thousands of rounds of ammo to fight the government. If I go to the gun range with my dad on a Saturday morning we'll easily shoot 100 or 200 rounds.schmendeler said:
Only in the world of "i buy thousands of rounds of ammo to keep at home in case I have to fight the government" is 400 rounds of rifle ammunition "not a lot of ammo".
America
20,014 Views |
410 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Zobel
AGC said:nortex97 said:
No you don't. You only care that your preferred narrative is facilitated.
Care for actual children, or law enforcement's response, is clearly disregarded in this thread. What could possibly have made law enforcement hesitant to respond forcefully to a shooter over the past 10 years? Was a social worker not available in this small town to go in and talk the shooter into surrendering?
Beyond that, this is all performative art. It's what one has to post in our society to show that they're part of it (which ironically doesn't mean inhabiting a physical place). None of the people on this forum are rushing out to volunteer locally at after school programs, to be court appointed advocates for abused children, or to foster. They're not looking to solve the problem as I said early on. They want someone else to act and do so in a manner that renders the tragedy manageable, minor, 'barely an inconvenience'. No one's going to walk their neighborhood and build relationships with their neighbors so that when something happens that can provide actual support or care. They're not going to become teachers. And we're definitely not going to address family and societal structure that abandons children to their own devices (literally and figuratively).
Does this fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Not sure which one this is. Maybe a hint of "whataboutism"?
this is pretty pathetic. You can still delete this.
Well, what is the goal? Is good policy usually made using emotional triggers? Is that usually a good or bad way to govern?Duncan Idaho said:AGC said:Duncan Idaho said:
It worked with Emmett Till. I disagree with swimmer, it was effective with later term abortions and it solidified a split in the minds of most of the public's acceptance between early stage abortion (being pretty much ok with) and late stage abortions (being overwhelmingly against)
Oh no we get it. You only care about efficacy.
We can discuss policy without traumatizing the populace.
So just to be clear.
You are also against showing any atrocities committed by Islamic terrorist? The Chinese against their people? The abortion pictures swimmer brought up? Depiction of Crucifixion? Pictures of gun violence? Pictures of drug use? Pictures of chemical warfare? Etc etc etc etc etc
I am sorry I don't believe that we should treat society like a bunch of snowflakes when discussing policy but should use the information available to have that discussion
If I was in favor of restrictions on Muslims and targeting Muslim I'd be in favor of blasting the atrocities across every website and paper in the US.
Shocking or disgusting imagery combined with a simple message is very powerful.
Duncan Idaho said:AGC said:Duncan Idaho said:
It worked with Emmett Till. I disagree with swimmer, it was effective with later term abortions and it solidified a split in the minds of most of the public's acceptance between early stage abortion (being pretty much ok with) and late stage abortions (being overwhelmingly against)
Oh no we get it. You only care about efficacy.
We can discuss policy without traumatizing the populace.
So just to be clear.
You are also against showing any atrocities committed by Islamic terrorist? The Chinese against their people? The abortion pictures swimmer brought up? Depiction of Crucifixion? Pictures of gun violence? Pictures of drug use? Pictures of chemical warfare? Etc etc etc etc etc
I am sorry I don't believe that we should treat society like a bunch of snowflakes when discussing policy but should use the information available to have that discussion
Fear is not a good motivator. Traumatizing people is not a healthy response. Neither of those statements are in doubt. Your only appeal is to emotion which doesn't invalidate or rebut what I've said.
Macarthur said:
this is pretty pathetic. You can still delete this.
Is it as pathetic as just wanting to lower the number of dead with laws instead of figuring out why kids want to kill each other?
schmendeler said:AGC said:nortex97 said:
No you don't. You only care that your preferred narrative is facilitated.
Care for actual children, or law enforcement's response, is clearly disregarded in this thread. What could possibly have made law enforcement hesitant to respond forcefully to a shooter over the past 10 years? Was a social worker not available in this small town to go in and talk the shooter into surrendering?
Beyond that, this is all performative art. It's what one has to post in our society to show that they're part of it (which ironically doesn't mean inhabiting a physical place). None of the people on this forum are rushing out to volunteer locally at after school programs, to be court appointed advocates for abused children, or to foster. They're not looking to solve the problem as I said early on. They want someone else to act and do so in a manner that renders the tragedy manageable, minor, 'barely an inconvenience'. No one's going to walk their neighborhood and build relationships with their neighbors so that when something happens that can provide actual support or care. They're not going to become teachers. And we're definitely not going to address family and societal structure that abandons children to their own devices (literally and figuratively).
Does this fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Not sure which one this is. Maybe a hint of "whataboutism"?
Tell me how you changed your life since the tragedy. What meaningful response beyond voting or posting did you take the prevent the next one? Did you travel to uvalde yet?
Zobel said:Forgive me but this is simply your ignorance speaking. I don't have thousands of rounds of ammo to fight the government. If I go to the gun range with my dad on a Saturday morning we'll easily shoot 100 or 200 rounds.schmendeler said:
Only in the world of "i buy thousands of rounds of ammo to keep at home in case I have to fight the government" is 400 rounds of rifle ammunition "not a lot of ammo".
How about this scenario.
I think someone that JUST turned 18 and buys two ARs and several hundred rounds of ammo, should raise a flag and cause someone to look at the situation.
You, as someone that I assume has owned guns and bought ammo many times, purchases ammo and/or more firearms, doesn't raise a red flag because of your age and lack of any sort of legal issues.
I think there are ways to work into the system scenarios that would cause a cursory look and some would not.
The grandfather already said he had no idea he made the purchase. Maybe a small waiting period and a family member being notified of this initial 'significant' purchase could have helped curtail this. Maybe it would not, but I don't see where this scenario is something way out of line.
AGC said:Macarthur said:
this is pretty pathetic. You can still delete this.
Is it as pathetic as just wanting to lower the number of dead with laws instead of figuring out why kids want to kill each other?
Gee, Imagine doing both...
Macarthur said:AGC said:Macarthur said:
this is pretty pathetic. You can still delete this.
Is it as pathetic as just wanting to lower the number of dead with laws instead of figuring out why kids want to kill each other?
Gee, Imagine doing both...
Cool. How'd your life change?
LOL, keep trying to have/start a civil conversation, but happily I think he/she ignored me, and I am pretty sure actual solutions, or defining when killing kids/babies is evil, matters to some, let alone honesty, irony, or self-reflection.
I think you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, and I don't think that will be a practical solution in most cases.
The vast majority of the time a kid turns eighteen and buys two ARs and 400 rounds of ammo will not result in a school shooting. I don't know how often this happens - someone in the US government does - so it's pretty hard to have a feel. But we could consider there are over 20 million AR-15s in the US right now.
What does this "someone to look at the situation" mean? Who is this someone and what are they looking for? Personal interview, criminal record? How much access will they have to you and your personal life?
As it stands today eighteen-year-olds are adults in this country. You suggest a waiting period and notifying his family - what if his family was estranged? He's an adult, is it really their business? Do we have an expectation of privacy in our purchases? Without the benefit of hindsight, what had he done that justifies treating him any differently than you?
I suppose you could make the case for a 21 year old requirement like handguns or alcohol. A similar law was recently struck down in California, I believe. If that's the angle, make the case to raise it all to 21 - voting, rifles, military age, all of it.
The vast majority of the time a kid turns eighteen and buys two ARs and 400 rounds of ammo will not result in a school shooting. I don't know how often this happens - someone in the US government does - so it's pretty hard to have a feel. But we could consider there are over 20 million AR-15s in the US right now.
Not when I turned 18. I was an unknown at that point, but I could have gone and bought a couple hundred rounds. I probably did. I don't own an AR, but I bought a rifle around then.Quote:
You, as someone that I assume has owned guns and bought ammo many times, purchases ammo and/or more firearms, doesn't raise a red flag because of your age and lack of any sort of legal issues.
What does this "someone to look at the situation" mean? Who is this someone and what are they looking for? Personal interview, criminal record? How much access will they have to you and your personal life?
As it stands today eighteen-year-olds are adults in this country. You suggest a waiting period and notifying his family - what if his family was estranged? He's an adult, is it really their business? Do we have an expectation of privacy in our purchases? Without the benefit of hindsight, what had he done that justifies treating him any differently than you?
I suppose you could make the case for a 21 year old requirement like handguns or alcohol. A similar law was recently struck down in California, I believe. If that's the angle, make the case to raise it all to 21 - voting, rifles, military age, all of it.
Part of the issue is we need to stop infantilizing young adults, period. Discipline and negative consequences and morality should be taught well before someone hits 18.
The societal failure to do so, broadly, within a large segment of the population today, doesn't mean society writ large should be scrapped (rights/ability to defend against tyranny). All of these things are topics that mattered to folks during foundational events including the bill of rights, scottish enlightenment, etc.
The societal failure to do so, broadly, within a large segment of the population today, doesn't mean society writ large should be scrapped (rights/ability to defend against tyranny). All of these things are topics that mattered to folks during foundational events including the bill of rights, scottish enlightenment, etc.
I tend to agree, but whether it is a consequence of modern society or a realization, it seems that young adults don't fully mature mentally until their twenties or later. Men especially seem to shed their proclivity to risky behavior in groups in their twenties. That's part of the reason why I think seeing the school shooting trend as a riot - a socialized act in which each even increases the likelihood of the next escalation - as so important.
My reply which was deleted noted that yes we should punish a parent if their teenager drives their car and kills someone in certain circumstances:
Like if the child was 13. Or if the child was drunk in the parents presence and they let them drive.
We deem cars to be inherently unsafe for this under 16, without licenses or impaired. Holding parents accountable for minor children isn't out of line here and doesn't constitute group or familial punishment Anymife than any other accessory to a crime.
We don't have licenses for guns except CC. But I am arguing we deem them unsafe for all people under 21 and 25 for guns with greater capacity to cause extreme death. And yes I'm ok considering a parent an accessory in all the instances above.
Like if the child was 13. Or if the child was drunk in the parents presence and they let them drive.
We deem cars to be inherently unsafe for this under 16, without licenses or impaired. Holding parents accountable for minor children isn't out of line here and doesn't constitute group or familial punishment Anymife than any other accessory to a crime.
We don't have licenses for guns except CC. But I am arguing we deem them unsafe for all people under 21 and 25 for guns with greater capacity to cause extreme death. And yes I'm ok considering a parent an accessory in all the instances above.
LOL, but what is "extreme death?"
Respectfully, of course.
17 and 18 year olds in the Army/USMC are routinely taught how to dish out death with great efficiency, yet this isn't a common problem in the barracks etc. But a common civilian armament manufacturer advocating safe instruction was demagogued in this thread, ahem, up a ways, with no reason given. Why? Why is it we need to keep infantilizing young adults outside of the military specifically?
For reference, the majority of continental army soldiers were 17 or 18, with 15 being the limit with parental consent.
Respectfully, of course.
17 and 18 year olds in the Army/USMC are routinely taught how to dish out death with great efficiency, yet this isn't a common problem in the barracks etc. But a common civilian armament manufacturer advocating safe instruction was demagogued in this thread, ahem, up a ways, with no reason given. Why? Why is it we need to keep infantilizing young adults outside of the military specifically?
For reference, the majority of continental army soldiers were 17 or 18, with 15 being the limit with parental consent.
Zobel said:
I think you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, and I don't think that will be a practical solution in most cases.
The vast majority of the time a kid turns eighteen and buys two ARs and 400 rounds of ammo will not result in a school shooting. I don't know how often this happens - someone in the US government does - so it's pretty hard to have a feel. But we could consider there are over 20 million AR-15s in the US right now.
I agree that there's a degree of hindsight here, but I still think it can be helpful. Of course the vast majority of these purchases are not going to result in this type of incident.
Quote:
You, as someone that I assume has owned guns and bought ammo many times, purchases ammo and/or more firearms, doesn't raise a red flag because of your age and lack of any sort of legal issues.
Not when I turned 18. I was an unknown at that point, but I could have gone and bought a couple hundred rounds. I probably did. I don't own an AR, but I bought a rifle around then.
Sure, and that's were some cursory look into the circumstances would be beneficial.
Quote:
What does this "someone to look at the situation" mean? Who is this someone and what are they looking for? Personal interview, criminal record? How much access will they have to you and your personal life?
Obviously, none of this is known now. And any reasonable person would agree that this will require some major planning and there most certainly will be some trial and error.
Quote:
As it stands today eighteen-year-olds are adults in this country. You suggest a waiting period and notifying his family - what if his family was estranged? He's an adult, is it really their business? Do we have an expectation of privacy in our purchases? Without the benefit of hindsight, what had he done that justifies treating him any differently than you?
Yeah, all of this strikes me as taking a position of 'this is hard so we can't really do anything'. I, and I think many Americans today, are not willing to accept the answer of 'it's just too hard'.
Quote:
I suppose you could make the case for a 21 year old requirement like handguns or alcohol. A similar law was recently struck down in California, I believe. If that's the angle, make the case to raise it all to 21 - voting, rifles, military age, all of it.
I def agree that the age thing has to be looked at hard. There is solid medical evidence of the frontal lobe not being fully developed until 24 or 25 years old, so that makes a ton of sense.
This is literally the first time you've said youre open to something. its also fine that we don't know how effective it will be...but that should be what stops us. Is any effect worth looking into? What burden do you think is appropriate for a "low effect, but we believe that someones life will be saved"?Quote:
I'm not sure why posts were deleted, but the guy said we should limit the purchase of long guns and shotguns to a certain age. I am open to this, but I am not certain of how effective it would be, because in several (most?) cases the weapons were purchased by adults. How many school shootings would have been prevented by this approach? None? All? And what is the burden associated with it? Pointing out two examples I knew off the top of my head is not dismissal, it's discussion.
Maybe others will disagree, but you didn't word it in such a way that invited discussion - it was simply "well, it wouldnt have stopped 2 off the top of my head" and left it at that. That sounds way more like dismissal than discussion.
Sometimes its reasonable to further identify specific areas, even if we believe they are covered under other laws...ie, like having speed limits yet still having manslaughter laws on the books.Quote:
The second he suggested was to hold parents accountable for their children's crimes, or create additional burdens on parents for securing guns. In the discussion of this, I'm looking at it from a general principle perspective. The reason for this approach is we already have laws that follow this principle - criminal negligence. I would like to know if these laws are insufficient, or if they're not applied. If we don't think they're sufficient, i.e., we are not only interested in punishing unacceptable inaction, but we also want to make some additional positive requirements, we should be clear on that. For example, why horrible but nevertheless infrequent (statistically) school shootings rise to this level, but less shocking but equally horrible texting and alcohol related deaths do not. You may remember the original premise here was being tolerant of death.
But even further, I'm not sure that doesn't start to look like familial or kin punishment, sippenhaft, or a kind of collective punishment. Collective punishment is not legal, criminal responsibility in this country is attributed to individuals. When you start suggesting idea that skirt the borders of things we have a firm tradition rejecting, you should take that as a caution that you may be on the wrong track. That's why I asked if that's what he meant.
Quote:
If you see my responses as all or nothing I can't help you. Again, the only using binary language between us here is you.
I will refer back to first statement - now is first time you've not just left it at "not effective".
disparity in age laws are a big annoyance of mine, but it certainly seems ridiculous to consider raising the firearms age and keeping the draft/enlistment age the same.
Ok? Your position strikes me as "i thought about this for less than thirty seconds and im prepared to waive a bunch of your rights because it doesn't affect me even though this probably won't do anything."Quote:
Yeah, all of this strikes me as taking a position of 'this is hard so we can't really do anything'. I, and I think many Americans today, are not willing to accept the answer of 'it's just too hard'.
For any legislation about anything we should consider the cost or burden as well as the benefit.
Frankly, I think these events are probably along the lines of serial killings in terms of difficulty of prevention. Meaning, incredibly difficult. So the burden for any proposal should be demonstrating efficacy, otherwise it's just a burden.
Zobel said:
I tend to agree, but whether it is a consequence of modern society or a realization, it seems that young adults don't fully mature mentally until their twenties or later. Men especially seem to shed their proclivity to risky behavior in groups in their twenties. That's part of the reason why I think seeing the school shooting trend as a riot - a socialized act in which each even increases the likelihood of the next escalation - as so important.
Probably a function of modern society. They've been walled off into age banded groups for all their life and they break out of it at that phase of life.
Zobel said:Ok? Your position strikes me as "i thought about this for less than thirty seconds and im prepared to waive a bunch of your rights because it doesn't affect me even though this probably won't do anything."Quote:
Yeah, all of this strikes me as taking a position of 'this is hard so we can't really do anything'. I, and I think many Americans today, are not willing to accept the answer of 'it's just too hard'.
For any legislation about anything we should consider the cost or burden as well as the benefit.
Frankly, I think these events are probably along the lines of serial killings in terms of difficulty of prevention. Meaning, incredibly difficult. So the burden for any proposal should be demonstrating efficacy, otherwise it's just a burden.
Making you wait a bit or causing inconvenince in getting what you want is not limiting your rights. Come on, that's not cool...
Dude, me saying "off the top of my head this would not have prevented columbine or sandy hook" doesn't end a discussion. The next step is, ok, which ones would it have prevented not off the top of your head? then we can say, yeah, this seems like it would be effective or you know what you're right on second thought it wouldn't have done anything. i'm not obliged to argue both sides.
"We believe someone's life will be saved" is a really vague standard. based on what? what is the mechanism? At any rate i don't accept that as a goal, because that's carte blanche to outlaw just about anything. you can't eliminate risk.
If we're looking around for things like this, being completely frank school shootings would be low on my to-do list. The shock and emotional nature of these events causes people to confuse salience with importance. If reducing deaths by firearms is truly your concern, rifles should be the very lowest priority, school shootings an even lower portion of that.Quote:
What burden do you think is appropriate for a "low effect, but we believe that someones life will be saved"?
"We believe someone's life will be saved" is a really vague standard. based on what? what is the mechanism? At any rate i don't accept that as a goal, because that's carte blanche to outlaw just about anything. you can't eliminate risk.
no, that's really not how it works. that's how you get a bunch of bad, stupid, ineffective laws. if this is a question of negligence, why is negligence as currently understood not effective? if this is a question of creating additional responsibilities, that should be understood as well. again - you just can't have this discussion without at least a little bit of specificity.Quote:
Sometimes its reasonable to further identify specific areas, even if we believe they are covered under other laws...ie, like having speed limits yet still having manslaughter laws on the books.
give me a breakQuote:
I will refer back to first statement - now is first time you've not just left it at "not effective".
man abortion is such a low hanging fruit here. notification requirements for parents? mandatory delay before providing abortions?Quote:
Making you wait a bit or causing inconvenince in getting what you want is not limiting your rights. Come on, that's not cool...
but all that aside, the USSC has outlined that we do have a right to privacy. it comes back to the competing interest. you have a presumed right to privacy that has to be justified to be broken. for a person who has done nothing wrong, is following the law, has no criminal record, why does the government have a right to investigate their personal life and notify relatives that they purchased <<something>>? The fact that you don't purchase <<something>> means you don't care because it doesn't affect you.
Quote:
give me a break
Consider it done.
Also just because I was curious.
The US has a similar outlier structure in serial killings. 3x more per capita, almost 70% of known serial killers ever in the world. This could simply mean we're better at identifying them, or reporting them, but it even holds versus developed countries like Canada or Australia.
Mass shootings not related to drugs, gang violence, or domestic violence come out to something like 23 deaths per year. That's about five times less frequent than serial killer victims each year.
Which is the greater problem to be faced?
The US has a similar outlier structure in serial killings. 3x more per capita, almost 70% of known serial killers ever in the world. This could simply mean we're better at identifying them, or reporting them, but it even holds versus developed countries like Canada or Australia.
Mass shootings not related to drugs, gang violence, or domestic violence come out to something like 23 deaths per year. That's about five times less frequent than serial killer victims each year.
Which is the greater problem to be faced?
Zobel said:
Also just because I was curious.
The US has a similar outlier structure in serial killings. 3x more per capita, almost 70% of known serial killers ever in the world. This could simply mean we're better at identifying them, or reporting them, but it even holds versus developed countries like Canada or Australia.
Mass shootings not related to drugs, gang violence, or domestic violence come out to something like 23 deaths per year. That's about five times less frequent than serial killer victims each year.
Which is the greater problem to be faced?
Can you provide what you are looking at for this?
Even granting the point, if you want to argue serial killers are a bigger problem. Fine. I'm all for some measures to help identify these folks before it happens.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013
This one excludes:
- Conflicts arising from self-defense;
- Gang violence;
- Contained residential or domestic disputes;
- Controlled barricade/hostage situations;
- Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act; or
- Drug violence.
In the period from 2000 to 2013 the average was 37.3 deaths per year.
25 of the events were at schools, resulting in 57 deaths, or 4.4 deaths per year.
further analysis plus more here
https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent
/////////
My point is not to minimize these events. It is to frame them in context of risks we take every day without even thinking. This is important.
Zobel said:
The best description I've seen is that school shootings are something like a slow moving riot. The propensity to riot is probably distributed like a bell curve. In normal life the majority of people will not pick up a rock, throw it through a window, and loot a store. There are some that will do it for any reason or no reason. Then there are people on the other side who simply will never riot no matter what. Then distributed on that curve are people who will riot in different circumstances, who require more or less of a push.
The problem is part of the equation of whether a person riots or not depends on if others around them are rioting. So the more people riot, the more people who normally would not riot begin to riot.
This is the thrust of the "media coverage" angle. By showing someone "rioting" you're taking a person who would not, and giving them impetus. Especially when the notoriety factors in.
I understand this position and I understand the concern about coverage of a problem adding to the problem, but the way you stated it is obviously only one sided. I think we would all be concerned if all media outlets failed to provide any coverage on riots, mass killings, murders, thefts, basically anything 'bad' that might give someone else ideas or potentially push them toward an action. What is the expectation of what the media 'should' do? Not have any coverage? Or just moderate how much coverage you provide? Cover it as thought the murder of 19 children were equivalent to a weather event?
This isn't a defense of any particular media coverage. The above just doesn't go into detail about what the media coverage angle subscribers believe would be appropriate for the media to do.
Right - that's an interesting question.
Here's either the article I read that talked about that theory or a similar one
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27184614/columbine-20-year-anniversary-media-coverage/
Here's a scientific article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/
It suggests:
- presenting the actions in a negative light, as shameful or cowardly
- avoiding in-depth descriptions of the shooter's rationale
- reduce overall duration of news coverage
- limit live press events
- limit reporting to facts vs dramatic or entertaining media
- avoid providing detailed accounts of the actions before, during, or after
Here's some others
https://www.reportingonmassshootings.org/
https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_guidelines_mass_shootings
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2113&context=law_journal_law_policy
scattershooting as I scan:
- be careful how you frame the report in terms and descriptors
- don't sensationalize the incident (i.e., the deadliest since..) or use superlatives to describe it
- minimize reporting on the perpetrator
- minimize the use of the perpetrator's photo and dont put it next to a victim's
- dont oversimplify causality
- don't romanticize the shooter as a victim or tortured soul
- don't use the shooter's name if at all possible
- limit speculation
- don't show graphic images of the crime scene
- don't speculate on motives with family or law enforcement
- don't show images of the shooter wearing military clothing or weapons
- limit reporting on manifestos
- validate witnesses carefully
- limit reporting of numbers for effect
- don't dwell on the horror when telling victim's story
- use extreme caution talking to victims during or immediately after event
- avoid speculating on role of mental illness
- avoid prominent placement of the story
- don't report on suicide or methods if at all possible
- don't share social media, texts, emails, notes from the shooter
- avoid minimizing the perpetrator's actions (e.g, justifying it indirectly because they were bullied)
- avoid describing it as part of a trend
Here's either the article I read that talked about that theory or a similar one
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27184614/columbine-20-year-anniversary-media-coverage/
Here's a scientific article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/
It suggests:
- presenting the actions in a negative light, as shameful or cowardly
- avoiding in-depth descriptions of the shooter's rationale
- reduce overall duration of news coverage
- limit live press events
- limit reporting to facts vs dramatic or entertaining media
- avoid providing detailed accounts of the actions before, during, or after
Here's some others
https://www.reportingonmassshootings.org/
https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_guidelines_mass_shootings
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2113&context=law_journal_law_policy
scattershooting as I scan:
- be careful how you frame the report in terms and descriptors
- don't sensationalize the incident (i.e., the deadliest since..) or use superlatives to describe it
- minimize reporting on the perpetrator
- minimize the use of the perpetrator's photo and dont put it next to a victim's
- dont oversimplify causality
- don't romanticize the shooter as a victim or tortured soul
- don't use the shooter's name if at all possible
- limit speculation
- don't show graphic images of the crime scene
- don't speculate on motives with family or law enforcement
- don't show images of the shooter wearing military clothing or weapons
- limit reporting on manifestos
- validate witnesses carefully
- limit reporting of numbers for effect
- don't dwell on the horror when telling victim's story
- use extreme caution talking to victims during or immediately after event
- avoid speculating on role of mental illness
- avoid prominent placement of the story
- don't report on suicide or methods if at all possible
- don't share social media, texts, emails, notes from the shooter
- avoid minimizing the perpetrator's actions (e.g, justifying it indirectly because they were bullied)
- avoid describing it as part of a trend
Understood. And I don't think anyone has a reasonable expectation that we can avoid all risk.
I would, however, be interested in updated data due to some of that being almost a decade old.
I would, however, be interested in updated data due to some of that being almost a decade old.
Quote:
What is the expectation of what the media 'should' do? Not have any coverage? Or just moderate how much coverage you provide? Cover it as thought the murder of 19 children were equivalent to a weather event?
Ill comment as I am one of ones who hold that position:
As crass as it sounds, probably more like the weather. Unfortunately, we know now what are probably the wrong things: focusing on the killer, rolling out every single affected family member, leaning into the political debate that happens to drive clicks, quickly pivot from another non-school shooting to a school shooting with even more grandstanding, etc.
All this does is continue driving into the collective consciousness that what we do is shoot up schools.
The other article went through 2018 which is where 23 came from. But that wasn't at schools, just all excluding gangs, drugs, etc.
I guess my point is it may be worth asking why you're seriously concerned about school shootings, but maybe not about serial killings. It may well be possible that both of these have the same or very similar root causes. I think focusing on guns is simply not the right angle.
I guess my point is it may be worth asking why you're seriously concerned about school shootings, but maybe not about serial killings. It may well be possible that both of these have the same or very similar root causes. I think focusing on guns is simply not the right angle.
Reducing all gun violence would be the goal, imo. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, Europe doesn't have this problem.
Right, but as I said at the beginning of the thread, if you hold demographics equal then 85% of the "homicide gap" with Europe disappears.schmendeler said:
Reducing all gun violence would be the goal, imo. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, Europe doesn't have this problem.
It's like comparing the test scores of a school in South Dallas to one in Highland Park and concluding that Highland Park has better test scores, therefore they must have better curricula.
Featured Stories
See All
13:22
1d ago
6.9k
REGISTER NOW: Preseason Kickoff 2024 with Coach Mike Elko
by Brandon Jones
9:28
15h ago
1.7k
33:05
13h ago
1.5k