They got obama elected, so who cares? Let them have their sick perversions, as long as the important things are getting done.

Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes

If this is true, why has violence been going down in America steadily over the last 20 years?

This is why IMHO that we shouldn't be allowing criminals to get publicity. instead of knowing their names the Media should just report them as the crimes they are charged with "Mass murderer 1.. 2... 3" and all the information would be available online or with Freedom of information requests.

letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes

So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.

The killer has one name, the victims 27. It's a lot easier to remember one name than 27. Just sayin'.

On a serious note, I don't think the media is the problem. They're just reporting what we want to see/hear. The problem is us, not the media.

"We remember the killers' names, but not the names of the victims. We know the gory details. Media bloodlust is killing us as a society"

This is an idiotic point for several reasons.

1) In mass shootings, there are multiple victims, but only one killer.

2) The identities of the shooters are important, newsworthy public information. Except in general terms, the identities of the victims are not. This is not because of any moral judgment positive or negative of either the shooters or the victims. It is simply because the shooter did something newsworthy, while the victims really did not.

3) Publicizing the identities of the shooters involves fewer privacy issues for victims and families than publicizing the identities of the victims. I feel for the families of the shooters, I really do. But there is no question that the newsworthiness of the shooters' identities outweighs their privacy concerns. For the victims, this is less clear.

I mean, why do we remember Hitler's name, but not the names of his millions of innocent victims? Historians' blood lust is killing our world, because there is clearly causation between mass homicidal tyranny and what gets written about in the history books.

That argument is only marginally dumber than the the argument offered in the headline.

Like in the past, when we forgot the names of people like Jack the Ripper and remembered only the names of their victims? Bloodlust is part of our makeup as humans; media amplifies it, but was astonishingly even more gory in the past.

iollow: If this is true, why has violence been going down in America steadily over the last 20 years?

Glaucoma's steady march in the greatest generation is affecting aim.

We also tend to focus a bit too much on the weapon of choice while conveniently ignoring what might have driven the killer to that point.

Can we start talking about mental health yet?

mittromneysdog:

That argument is only marginally dumber than the the argument offered in the headline.

And yet treating it as a valid discussion point will divert attention from a functional solution just that little bit longer.

You know who has cold, dead hands? Heaps of children.

Of course they are vultures. They wait for a horrible tragedy, such as the last school shooting where 20 kids were killed, and then they swoop down and shove microphones in the suffering peoples faces to catch all the drama to up their ratings. It's all about ratings folks. The more blood, bodies, horror, they can show "while telling you not to watch if you're squeamish, guaranteeing that you WILL watch" the higher the ratings, the more advertisers are willing to pay to put their shiat up on commercials. I remember questions were beyond inhuman being asked of the people at the last shooting, and of the coroner.

How many times was each child shot?
Were they executed?
Did they suffer, or did they die right away?
What were they wearing?
Could you tell if they were cowering in the corner in terror while the gunman killed them?
How many shots did they take before they died?
How long did they lay there before they died?
Did they look upset?
(yes, someone actually asked those) to the coroner.

And to the random kid that was lucky enough to be in another classroom, they were caught by reporters while being walked from the school with their parents.

"Aw... Timmy, were you scared? What did you hear? Did you hear screaming? How many shots did you hear? Was your teacher upset? Did you cry? Are you scared to go back to school?

Then they would act like they had empathy, and puke up some bullshiat to make it look like they were actually human and had some morality and sense of right and wrong, once they got all they could out of the poor traumatized child. Then they would move on to the next. Not to mention, calling the parents of the dead children ON THE SAME DAY and firing questions and hoping for a good soggy sound bite to air, thus boosting their ratings again. So yes, the media are vultures, and they prey on tragedy and pain, and use the victims as tools to up their ratings, and thus their cash. They make me want to vomit. There were a few reporters who had class, and just REPORTED what happened, without ass farking the survivors for their tasty money making sound bites and clips, but in general, yes, they are assholes.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Like in the past, when we forgot the names of people like Jack the Ripper and remembered only the names of their victims? Bloodlust is part of our makeup as humans; media amplifies it, but was astonishingly even more gory in the past.

I don't even see why remembering the killers' names implies "bloodlust." Like it or lump it, these people did something memorable. Of course it makes sense to remember their names.

So self-absorbed. Someone in the media blames the media. Look within yourself, dumbass.

I'm always rooting for a higher kill score. Twenty-seven was impressive, but we can do better.

HotWingConspiracy: letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes

So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.

Gawd, that's the same post he's been putting here on Fark for
AT LEAST A MONTH.


/but I like your answer, anyway

kkinnison: This is why IMHO that we shouldn't be allowing criminals to get publicity. instead of knowing their names the Media should just report them as the crimes they are charged with "Mass murderer 1.. 2... 3" and all the information would be available online or with Freedom of information requests.

Agreed -- I know that the local media at least make a policy of not reporting bridge jumpers, because they've found that such suicides being reported makes more of them happen (the copycat-suicide effect is mentioned in the article as well). Couldn't something similar be applied to these stories? I don't mean not reporting them altogether, but keeping the killer's name or any kind of "let's explore his motives to the point of interviewing the guy who cut his hair when he was 5" type of "coverage" under wraps. If people want posthumous fame, make sure that's what they absolutely won't get -- not even negative fame deriving from mockery, just no description whatsoever, kind of like how the Romans used to destroy busts and writings about people who had been condemned, so they would be completely forgotten. You'll never get rid of mass killings altogether, obviously, but this particular kind might be dampened considerably if we stopped making each one into a circus with the killer as the (usually posthumous) star.

panem et circenses.

Seriously.

If you are not familiar with the expression; it means bread and circuses; or in this case, it means bead and games.

The phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirist and poet Juvenal.

Basically; the roman senate/emperors would provide food and gladiator matches to keep the people from realizing how royally they were getting screwed.

Instead of gladiators and crusty bread; we get fast food and 24 hour news. While we argue about whatever is having its 15 minutes; politicians and special interest groups are robbing us blind.

Both sides are responsible.

/ I know, I know; you know of some mitigating factor for your side. I ask you, is it really a mitigating factor if it isn't 100% likely to get us out of our present circumstances? I know, I know; the other side is worse. They have been saying that about those bastards for years.

Matthew Keene: I'm always rooting for a higher kill score. Twenty-seven was impressive, but we can do better.

/oh you...didn't your mommy give you enough attention when you were a child? Or..perhaps....too much. OO.
Go troll somewhere else, grown ups are speaking here.

What a bunch of crock. Of course we can remember all the names, like I remember the name of John Wilkes Booth and the guy he killed with the beard and the stovepipe hat.

If we're going to blame "the media" for influencing crazy people and giving them ideas, then I guess we also have to blame TV and video games for the same thing. Right? Since they both glorify violence.

Or we could say that crazy people do crazy things, and are influenced by all kinds of things, some of which make no sense.

Weaver95: we're turning inwards, becoming more self absorbed. less concerned with knowledge, wisdom and freedom. we're more concerned with control, greed and lust. I think we are our own worst enemies.

Thank you Weaver. I have a whole treatise worked out about how consumerism has destroyed us and made everyone concerned with nothing but money, and themselves (because we're worth it). I don't give a fark what anyone says, I think the consumer society is one of the greatest evils, and the biggest mind control experiment ever unleashed on society. We have bought into it completely, and we are paying big-time for it.

I still don't know who killed JFK>

Quotes like that always bother me because it just seems ignorant of the way people think.

The reason we don't remember the names of the victims is that unless they were already famous they didn't do anything to garner recognition. We are horrified by the killers and remember their names because of it. It's easier to remember 1 name of the killer in Newtown than the names of 26 children.

Anyone can understand a crime of passion between family member. We understand that a wife killed a husband or vice versa. We don't think it's right but we can understand that someone snapped against one or two other people

We can't understand why someone would go into a movie theater and mow down dozens, or a pre-school. We want to understand why it happens. We want to understand it because it makes no sense. Mass murders like Newtown spark cognitive dissonance which we want to resolve. This is why we "remember the names of the killers."

TL;DR: We remember the named of the killers because they're farkING CRAZY.

HotWingConspiracy: So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.

Guns have always been there. Government used to be much smaller. Conservatives resist change to the status quo.

Yet the video-game emulation sort of killing spree is indubitably a new phenomenon.

How about no.

The media farking disgusts me. They abuse tragedy so mundane people can masturbate to the drama and feel excitement in their lives. Its farking pathetic.

/Why yes, I am better than you

I remember Hitlers name but, gun to my head, couldn't tell you 5 people he killed.

reporters are just doing their jobs, you blame the media, but all they do is serve the market.

The media one two things.

1) The vast majority of people want to know about the killer.

Is a bloodlust? Or maybe it's a survival instinct. While our high-minded selves are saying think of the victim, part of our minds are rightly asking the questions about the killer. Because we want to be able to identify the threats. How do you tell when the next one is coming and how do we stop it?

2) The vast number of people want to feel morally superior to the media, and will watch a lot of media to make themselves feell superior

Let's be honest, there are a lot of us here who only click links like this to feel better about ourselves. By sharing this story we feel like we're doing something for the dead children by honoring their memory. We breach on about how the media coverage makes these killers, with less evidence to back that up as the old fart Senators blaming video games and the old fart liberals blaming guns.

A killer story.

letrole: HotWingConspiracy: So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.

Guns have always been there. Government used to be much smaller.

Tell me exactly how. Quantify it for me.

Yet the video-game emulation sort of killing spree is indubitably a new phenomenon.

You're just inventing shiat now and can't hope to establish a link between any of the massacres and video games. I can't draw a strait line to availability of guns though.

Nu uh, its all evil gun manufacturers fault! They should all be sued to oblivion so as to not spread their evil to everyone!

letrole: 4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,

I would word these two points a bit differently, but I think that they illustrate the real problem with our society. An increasing number of people no longer feel ashamed for doing things that are illegal or at least clearly unethical as long as they feel they can get away with it. They feel that pretty much any position they take or anything they choose to do is defensible. Bad behavior has always been around, and it always will be. But the problem is that it's accepted or even encouraged by growing segments of our population. We're in a race to the bottom.

His name was Robert Paulson.

HotWingConspiracy: letrole: HotWingConspiracy: So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.

Guns have always been there. Government used to be much smaller.

Tell me exactly how. Quantify it for me.

Yet the video-game emulation sort of killing spree is indubitably a new phenomenon.

You're just inventing shiat now and can't hope to establish a link between any of the massacres and video games. I can't can draw a strait line to availability of guns though.

oops

kkinnison: This is why IMHO that we shouldn't be allowing criminals to get publicity. instead of knowing their names the Media should just report them as the crimes they are charged with "Mass murderer 1.. 2... 3" and all the information would be available online or with Freedom of information requests.

Actually there should be a unified effort on the part of the media to vilify daily those in society that commit unspeakable acts.
A "loser of the month" award should be given and consistently publicized.

Weaver95:   what DOES America stand for these days?  Truth?  not after the lies Romney told during this last election cycle.  Justice?  can any country that created/funded and runs secret CIA torture prisons be considered 'just'?  I think not.

you whine about Romney's campaign lies but say nothing about 0bama's campaign lies.
then you whine about CIA torture prisons but you say nothing about 0bama killing US Citizens without benefit of trial via drones, much less how he runs the Justice Department or Homeland security.

So what DOES your America stand for these days?  Based on your post, it stands for partisan hackery.

The My Little Pony Killer: We also tend to focus a bit too much on the weapon of choice while conveniently ignoring what might have driven the killer to that point.

Can we start talking about mental health yet?

NO! There are tiny penises to be fantasized about and the adult kids who possess them.

Humm, gun control nuts are repressed paedobears. I guess Freud was right.

kkinnison: This is why IMHO that we shouldn't be allowing criminals to get publicity. instead of knowing their names the Media should just report them as the crimes they are charged with "Mass murderer 1.. 2... 3" and all the information would be available online or with Freedom of information requests.

Then they won't be known by name - they will be known by code name. But that will not change the fact that people will remember the code names for those murderers and not remember the names of the victims.

Because...

mittromneysdog: I don't even see why remembering the killers' names implies "bloodlust." Like it or lump it, these people did something memorable. Of course it makes sense to remember their names.

This.

Insensitive as it might be to say it, the victims of these incidents were ordinary people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were students just going about their day, regular people out to see a movie, shoppers.

But the killers are interesting because they are/were not ordinary. They did something out of the ordinary, something horrifying, they were "broken" in an interesting way and it's only natural curiosity that makes other humans want to know just what exactly was going with them, to just wonder what can make a person do something so terrible.

I'm certainly no fan of endless interviews with surviving victims (haven't they been through enough?) - if someone decides the public should know some details of what went on to satisfy some of the curiosity, let some of the first responders give a press conference with details in it about the condition they found stuff in, or let them relay some anonymized points or timeline they got in their own investigating interviews about "the guy came in through the front door and people were hiding in the closet" or whatever it is.

I can say though that in Japan they do give code names to the killers (at least in the beginning, and particularly if they're juvenile) and yet all the talk is still always about "wow can you believe it" about the killer's horrible crime and not the victims because... that's the one that's out of the ordinary. Sakakibara, etc. I think it's just human nature.

steamingpile: Nu uh, its all evil gun manufacturers fault! They should all be sued to oblivion so as to not spread their evil to everyone!

They really should be, but they wisely paid for indulgences and their employees in our federal government granted them special dispensation.

letrole: HotWingConspiracy: So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.

Guns have always been there. Government used to be much smaller. Conservatives resist change to the status quo.

Yet the video-game emulation sort of killing spree is indubitably a new phenomenon.

How about no.

Semi-automatic high capacity guns useful for a killing spree are indubitably a new phenomenon

I tend to agree with the headline. Part of what drives these mass killings is the attention they garner. I don't think that is a controversial statement.

Ed Willy: Semi-automatic high capacity guns useful for a killing spree are indubitably a new phenomenon.


No.

tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95:   what DOES America stand for these days?  Truth?  not after the lies Romney told during this last election cycle.  Justice?  can any country that created/funded and runs secret CIA torture prisons be considered 'just'?  I think not.

you whine about Romney's campaign lies but say nothing about 0bama's campaign lies.
then you whine about CIA torture prisons but you say nothing about 0bama killing US Citizens without benefit of trial via drones, much less how he runs the Justice Department or Homeland security.

So what DOES your America stand for these days?  Based on your post, it stands for partisan hackery.

It stands for jingo spouting assholes like you. You should be thrilled.