There is no mystery about school killings. The real causes are staring us in the face; criminological research demonstrates that these are copycat crimes.
Notice how they echo and change the storylines of past crimes: locations were in the 1980s post offices, then became gun-free schools and malls; perpetrators were first PLO terrorists, then aging males with relationship issues and in recent years mentally unstable young men.
Research in the USA showed that the mainstream news media provide training manuals for copycats, with their inset boxes listing weapons in 'arsenals'; they refer to the killers' 'meticulous planning' while laying out easy bullet-point lists of actions leading up to the crimes. The killers he researched kept articles from Time and Newsweek, and obsessively watched news and current affairs reports on how they could easily get guns to commit massacres. Now they turn to NBC, CNN and ABC and the online media. The news shows, not computer games or violent movies, are the most effective teachers of mass killing.
We understand now that people build maps or scripts of how to act from what they see others around them doing. The more alike someone seems, the more their situation can be applied to yours, the more likely it is you will act like them. This applies to choice of fashions and musical tastes, choosing education options - and to committing crimes. News people know this and enforce internal guidelines to help prevent suicide and crime copycats. But for a mass shooting, the urgent opportunity to boost audiences and present copy overwhelms their ethical hesitation, and they convince themselves their carefully-preened moral outrage is a force for good.
But they don't stop there. The responsible news media provide billions of dollars in name recognition, photo publicity and hours of discussion about the significance of the killings and their perpetrators. They partner with political activists, fomenting hatred of the journalists' political enemies and creating moral campaigns to punish them. Their actions invest the killers with a huge social significance, that these mentally unstable, morally deficient losers would never otherwise achieve.
Detailed news 'instruction' has taught even the mentally handicapped how; and enormous social significance is guaranteed if they act. Our news services created the string of mass murders, and made an engine to keep it going.
I've always thought we should retire the full names of the perps from the English language, never to be spoken of again. No description, no history, no wikipedia page, no burial site, no memorial, just an anonymous donation of a body to the local medical school for use in anatomy class.
The press can fix this. They managed to not reveal the victims during the Sandusky trial, they hold back predictions during the elections until polls close.
I've always thought we should retire the full names of the perps from the English language, never to be spoken of again. No description, no history, no wikipedia page, no burial site, no memorial, just an anonymous donation of a body to the local medical school for use in anatomy class.
The press can fix this. They managed to not reveal the victims during the Sandusky trial, they hold back predictions during the elections until polls close.
This is a willful self regulation of free speech and it's a damn good idea.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> To every posting in this thread thus far.
And I blame the press for screaming about this and screaming about guns and marginalizing people who actually go by what the Constitution say while hardly whispering the real facts and states about crimes commited with firearms and crimes prevented or mitigated by people with guns.
I also can't say a single mom who let's her fucked up "special kid" sit in a basement all day playing murder simulators and waits till he is 20 before considering doing something about it and runs here mouth, given him a warnning of what's comming down the pike. Is blameless. But she paid for it.
Seeing as 51% of murders are commited by members of 13% (Whos average IQ is in the 80's range) of our population and we are not the kind of country that would do something like eleiminate that 13% in the intrest of the rest of us. And we should not be that kind either, because it's evil (Even I would fight that.) then the obvious solution to that is more non felonious citizens should be armed for when the worse of that 13% act up. As well as the legions of white and brown trash amongst us all. (Whity don;t get a pass here for his paint job either.)
That's the elephant in the room when Europeans or Libs go on about the differences in gun violence between Europe and us. They don't have the same number of those 13%er's that we have.
And those 13% is not because they have African ancestory since for much as they had about 300 years of selective breeding. You don't encourage the breeding of the smart ones when your using them as farm equipment. You dont want smart people who think of the future or long term consequences of their situation. You just want them big, strong and affraid of the whip and the gun.
Most of Europe's Africans are direct immagrants or the decsendents of.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
I want to be crystal clear here, because I know what is coming and we have alot of missunderstandings due to my poor spelling, grammer and the poor or selective reading comprehension of some of our crew.
I am not advocationg any policy based on race. American citizens and our legal guest and immagrents always deserve a chance to prove themselves as we are suppossed to be a merticracy.
Even if statisitcs proved 90% of a given group was no fucking good, I still would want nothing premeptivly done to them. You wait untill individuals attemp to fuck up or fuck up before doing anything to that individual. (This is why on a non Constitutional level guns should not be restricted for non felonious citizens.)
There are millions of decent, non criminal black people in America and among them are some of the nicest, smartest people among us. They should not have to pay for niggers anymore than they allready do.
But our ability to double tap or even burst fire any who fuck with us should not be restricted.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
1). Who are Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?
2). Who is Dave Sanders?
You received a 50%. The answer to the question you missed was a teacher and coach who helped over 100 kids get out of Columbine, getting killed for his efforts.
See, you are part of the problem as much as I am.
The media is a reflection of the people. Since deregulation and the advent of cable news, stations have reported precisely what people want to read and hear, people tune in and sponsors line up. I don't think that this will ever change because every single person will need to change.
I do like the idea of banning a person's name from being uttered again - I would also like a boycott of any publication that puts killers in such events on their cover. However, this needs to come from the grassroots level unless you want to be like China, who banned coverage of school stabbings a few years back to "prevent copycats" from happening.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
Terry B. wrote:The media is a reflection of the people. Since deregulation and the advent of cable news, stations have reported precisely what people want to read and hear, people tune in and sponsors line up.
Then their ratings shoot up following a crisis like the school shooting?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Terry B. wrote:The media is a reflection of the people. Since deregulation and the advent of cable news, stations have reported precisely what people want to read and hear, people tune in and sponsors line up.
Then their ratings shoot up following a crisis like the school shooting?
School shootings aren't as exciting as Michael Jackson dying or a terrorist attack but people want to know.
News reports for their demographic, not to their demographic. FOX figured this out a decade ago and others are playing catch up.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
Terry B. wrote:The media is a reflection of the people. Since deregulation and the advent of cable news, stations have reported precisely what people want to read and hear, people tune in and sponsors line up.
Then their ratings shoot up following a crisis like the school shooting?
School shootings aren't as exciting as Michael Jackson dying or a terrorist attack but people want to know.
News reports for their demographic, not to their demographic. FOX figured this out a decade ago and others are playing catch up.
So you're suggesting that the more odious tactics of the media-- immediately interviewing a parent who has lost their kindergartner in a senseless tragedy for example-- are critical to maintaining their ratings? I don't buy it.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Having some journalistic and civil integrity might be a good move for Olde Media to compete with blogmedia...
It would be pretty revolutionary in the newsbased advertainment industry.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Terry B. wrote:The media is a reflection of the people. Since deregulation and the advent of cable news, stations have reported precisely what people want to read and hear, people tune in and sponsors line up.
Then their ratings shoot up following a crisis like the school shooting?
School shootings aren't as exciting as Michael Jackson dying or a terrorist attack but people want to know.
News reports for their demographic, not to their demographic. FOX figured this out a decade ago and others are playing catch up.
So you're suggesting that the more odious tactics of the media-- immediately interviewing a parent who has lost their kindergartner in a senseless tragedy for example-- are critical to maintaining their ratings? I don't buy it.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH BARBER OF SHOOTER @ 11!
Of course, I am not saying that is the only way to maintain their ratings. What I am saying is that if people didn't tune in, the media would adjust their approach. Being first is more important to ratings than being correct. News organizations know precisely what their viewers want to see and develop programmes to meet those expectations.
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Having some journalistic and civil integrity might be a good move for Olde Media to compete with blogmedia...
It would be pretty revolutionary in the newsbased advertainment industry.
No shit! Like there used to be.
The old generation like Murrow remembered they were Americans and a part of the community, so they did not try to fuck the war effort inWW2 but they also expossed bullshit the goverment was pulling in peace time.
Many had their own politicol veiws but they put journalism first. I missed the old "Just the facts" kind of investigative journalist that went for the truth even when it shattered their personal views.
Not that there have not allways been whorish or in the pocket currupt jounalist back in the day but now it's a fucking whorehouse and all the bitches have STD's.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
What I think is "funny" is how old media is always in such a huff over internet "journalism", as if the internet is what brought down the credibility of media in this country.
"Gentle in what you do, Firm in how you do it"
- Buck Brannaman
baffled wrote:What I think is "funny" is how old media is always in such a huff over internet "journalism", as if the internet is what brought down the credibility of media in this country.
Whores are always quick to blame someone else for their cocksuckery.
"God forbid we tell the savages to go fuck themselves." Batboy
