This whole problem is a law of large numbers. Let’s say an extreme psychopath pops out for every 10,000 normal people
As population grows, you naturally get more of these psychopaths. There’s no way of telling who these people are until something happens (usually with some terrible event)
If you make guns easy to be bought (thanks to our constitution), you give psychos a way to do something, and naturally increase the chances of a tragedy .
Since there’s no way to pre-determine when someone goes nuts, the only logical way may be to take the guns away. I’m not a fan of this either, but how would you feel if that was your kid that was killed ?
There’s only so much damage he can do with a knife. The proportion of the population who are nuts is no different in the US than in other parts of the world. The only difference is that they carry automatic weapons. There have been similar incidents in Malaysia as well (usually with a parang), and, I’m sure, most other countries. But they do limited damage & don’t get exclusive press coverage. During the 90 mins I was at the gym yesterday, CNN coverage was focused entirely on this incident.
you dont hear about such incidents in other large countries like brazil,russia and even japan.you also have the largest incarcerated population in the developed world.got to be some deeper factors
I remember someone from the NRA said in Micheal Moore’s documentary that the fact that the US has so many cultures causes tension and that most crimes is one race vs another.
there are many countries with a much greater racial/cultural mix than the usa and they don’t face these sort of problems.again brazil-they have a racial mix that matches america’s in addition to poverty,unemployment and corruption.they don’t have people randomly walking into public places and shooting them down for no logical reason.
I think Obama should ask the main media outlets to voluntary not report these things when they happen. Or if they do, they should do so without a) headlines b) pictures of swat teams c) printing manifestos d) naming the killer or showing his photograph.
I think if you take away the fame element you remove a lot of the incentive for these type of attacks to happen int he future.
The guy was a bug, he couldve did it because he believed the neighbours dog told him to. I don’t buy this argument that fame compells isolated mentally ill and deranged people massacre children. People do this because they are isolated and mentally ill.
Maybe there should be better treatment and prevention of mental illness.
Perhaps it wouldnt have stopped this guy but where did the seed for this guy get planted? He’s autistic and I do not think they are known for their creativity. Where do you think he got the idea from? CNN. Monkey See Monkey Do. Or Bug See, Bug Do.
some form of stricter gun control at the federal level is coming. in spite of this, there will be another mass shooting at a public place or a school. the next step will be mandated body scanners and pat downs at all public schools and large gathering places. free gropings for all your kids!
the latest situation is actually a perfect excuse to use body scanners instead of just more gun control. if it’s something exogenous (like mental illness), then you can easily sell the fact that more gun control will not help and that the only way to fix it is to secure the point of attack. the desire to completely eliminate risk is just a noose that will continue to tighten. it won’t end with daily gropings every time you go to the grocery store.
Most likely Obama wants the exact opposite of what you just suggested. He wants the pain and horror and gun on the headlines, bec it fuels public opinion to ban guns. Politics remember?
Haha, even I find that cynical, although its true. It does help his party. Scanners and metal detectors are a waste of time. Just like TSA is waste of time and energy. The way you stop this stuff is to just not allow it to terrorise the public in the first place. If you take away the ability to terrorise people en these guys won’t do it.
Asking news outlets to not sensationalize news is like asking them to not make money. Plus, I’m sure some people will make a “freedom of speech” type argument. Many countries do suppress news that they think will have a “destabilizing” effect, and it probably has some positive effect (in exchange for some other negative effect). However, different social values in the US probably make this unpractical here.
People have argued that al-Qaeda has accomplished its goal by causing all this TSA stuff. Osama wanted to destroy the US economic system. While the US economy is still intact, we now waste hundreds of millions of dollars on arguably ineffective airport security, and this will continue far into the future. Furthermore, millions of US people now waste hours on airport security procedures. Once you add up all this time, it amounts to wasting many many lives.
Oh I agree, Ohai. But the public could petition them not to do it. If enough people wrote to the major news sources saying, “We think your doing more harm than good on these things.” They would oblige. Journos are moralists and suckers for public opinion.
The news reports the way it does because it makes them money. If sensationalism fell on deaf ears, they wouldn’t report that way. Anyone want to know why I think this type of reporting sells? Didn’t think so.
I think what will happen is people will say “oh this is bad”, and then sign the petition. However, Yahoo News will just post a sensationalist headline, and everyone will be like “OMG I MUST CLICK THIS”.
They do this already with people like rape victims to protect their identies, even when the rape victims turn out to be lying. Sure, you can dig deep enough on the web and find out about just about anything. But this would do a lot towards stopping other pyschos from reading about these things, getting the same idea, and doing it. Anybody who does one of these things is trying to make a big media impact, even if they plan on dying.
Agree with Ohai here. This is the reason why trash (sensationalist articles, no-talent celebrities… etc ) keeps making headlines, because the news sites knows it attracts a lot of clicks and views and brings in more ad revenue.
Are people most likely to click on: Senator proposes initiative to ____ ? or click on: NEW Kardiashian shocking sex tape?
It’s also the same reason why when there’s a huge highway crash on 1 side of the highway, BOTH sides of the highway starts to jam. Bec. everyone on the all clear side slow down to watch the other side.
It’s the innate human nature attracted to what is new and shocking, despite how terrible and tragic it is. Maybe it’s the mundane existence most people lead.