Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging...

haymarket said:

The radicals and extremists are the ones who have hijacked the Second amendment and twisted and perverted it beyond all meaning that the Founders created.

Click to expand...

We know the Founders thought the citizens should be armed, not just for self-defense, but also against a tyrannical government. That thought seems foreign to us now, but they'd just come out of a revolution against a domineering government and wanted to make sure that never happened again. Even if it's difficult to see that meaning in the 2nd amendment, we can easily see it in their extraneous writings -- it's what they wanted and what they felt was necessary for a truly free nation.

HowardBThiname said:

We know the Founders thought the citizens should be armed, not just for self-defense, but also against a tyrannical government. That thought seems foreign to us now, but they'd just come out of a revolution against a domineering government and wanted to make sure that never happened again. Even if it's difficult to see that meaning in the 2nd amendment, we can easily see it in their extraneous writings -- it's what they wanted and what they felt was necessary for a truly free nation.

Click to expand...

If anybody believes their personal firearm is going to protect them from a government that is going to make war on them - that is pure delusional nonsense.

Just like the militia - that reason has gone by the boards in the real world.

haymarket said:

If anybody believes their personal firearm is going to protect them from a government that is going to make war on them - that is pure delusional nonsense.

Just like the militia - that reason has gone by the boards in the real world.

Click to expand...

The Founders' opinions were based on their experiences. While one man with a gun certainly would not hold off government forces, tens of thousands of men with guns would create a force that very few governments would want to take on. Heck, just those ranchers in NV were able to deter federal agents by being armed. There's still some truth to that ideal.

No one believes a gun will stand up to an F-16 or a tank, but that's not the point. The point is that power lies in sheer numbers, which is why the Founders wanted the citizens armed.

HowardBThiname said:

The Founders' opinions were based on their experiences. While one man with a gun certainly would not hold off government forces, tens of thousands of men with guns would create a force that very few governments would want to take on. Heck, just those ranchers in NV were able to deter federal agents by being armed. There's still some truth to that ideal.

No one believes a gun will stand up to an F-16 or a tank, but that's not the point. The point is that power lies in sheer numbers, which is why the Founders wanted the citizens armed.

Click to expand...

Those criminal ranchers in Nevada should have been squashed like the infected vermin they are. I fault law enforcement and those making the decisions at the top for that.

And the extreme right wing who might take up arms against the government does NOT have the sheer numbers to stand up the the government with any effectiveness so lets flush that delusion fast.

haymarket said:

Possibly. Perhaps we can solve that problem by all media simply agreeing to never cover any school shootings in any way or form and pretend they do not exist or are not a problem?

We can call it the NRA approach.

Click to expand...

Well being that they went the complete opposite direction from your suggestion maybe the answer is something a little less sensationalist in nature, you know where people that know the issue and it's root causes actually discuss the issue in a rational and informed way. One observation I made and watched for was the overwhelming focus on Guns and little focus on the root causes and possible breakdown of the system to identify and help or deal with people that far too often show that they are serious need of attention.
When you have two extremes shooting at each other and an industry driven by ratings, the sane and calmer voices are drowned out, and if that remains the norm we as a Nation will not survive, it is just as simple as that and I would think You would know that, Haymarket.

haymarket said:

Those criminal ranchers in Nevada should have been squashed like the infected vermin they are. I fault law enforcement and those making the decisions at the top for that.

And the extreme right wing who might take up arms against the government does NOT have the sheer numbers to stand up the the government with any effectiveness so lets flush that delusion fast.

Click to expand...

Squashed how? You do not like that the LEO's were able to end it peacefully?

It is not the extreme right that should concern one, but when those closer to the middle join them then the balance gets shifted and no Nation can survive with too much division. So we either stop with all the rhetoric and talk as fellow citizens, or we simply admit that the Grand Experiment has run its course and it is time for a different solution. I prefer the first but if push comes to shove I will no choice but to support the later.

haymarket said:

Those criminal ranchers in Nevada should have been squashed like the infected vermin they are. I fault law enforcement and those making the decisions at the top for that.

And the extreme right wing who might take up arms against the government does NOT have the sheer numbers to stand up the the government with any effectiveness so lets flush that delusion fast.

Click to expand...

I'm just making a point -- the armed ranchers were effective. And, from what I understand -- all the charges brought against them were dropped.

I don't support what they did - but you can see how it worked to their advantage. Had they not been armed, the feds would have continued taking the cattle.

Now, multiply that by ten thousand, and you can see where the government would be concerned -- likely to the point of backing down.

HowardBThiname said:

I'm just making a point -- the armed ranchers were effective. And, from what I understand -- all the charges brought against them were dropped.

I don't support what they did - but you can see how it worked to their advantage. Had they not been armed, the feds would have continued taking the cattle.

Now, multiply that by ten thousand, and you can see where the government would be concerned -- likely to the point of backing down.

Click to expand...

The event you described was one of the sorriest and most disgraceful bits of cowardice ever demonstrated by the federal government. It only emboldens right wing fanatics who think they won something. They should have been squashed like bugs on a windshield.

And lets hope next time they will be.

haymarket said:

The event you described was one of the sorriest and most disgraceful bits of cowardice ever demonstrated by the federal government. It only emboldens right wing fanatics who think they won something. They should have been squashed like bugs on a windshield.

And lets hope next time they will be.

Click to expand...

It'll have the same chance of succeeding next time that it did last time. It's unlikely that we'll see another Waco or Ruby Ridge anytime soon. The citizens won't stand for it anymore. Whether you agree or disagree with the next group that opposes government strong-arming isn't relevant -- Americans have indicated that they don't want to see government violence against groups. They want things handled in the courts. No, I don't hope the next group is squashed like bugs on the windshield -- that would be a mistake of immense proportions, which would likely trigger a bigger resistance.

jamesrage said:

I think once the cat is out of the bag it won't matter afterwards .Because you can just do a google or Wikipedia search on the mass murderer's name

Click to expand...

Yes, they can, but let's be real... how many really will?

"I want to be like that guy that people have to look up."

radcen said:

Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?

Click to expand...

Any time you have a culture that encourages some groups to demonize, scorn, malign, disparage, and/or punish other people or groups for no other reason than the other people/groups think/believe/express politically incorrect opinions. . .

Any time you have a culture that glorifies violence in video games, in books, on television, in movies etc. and makes sympathetic characters out of those who do violence/bad things and/or make very real and plausible violence necessary to win. . .

Any time you have a culture that diminishes or scorns and/or discourages the traditional two parent home, religious faith, reverence for life, respect for rightful authority, pride in country and the flag that represents it. . .

. . .you are going to have a fragmented, divided, judgmental, people in which hate and anger and "we are better than you" are the strongest factors. Bad behavior is not only tolerated but praised/justified. And you are going to create more people who see violent acts as the way to be noticed, to be appreciated, to be famous. And some will be sociopathic enough to act on that. Or to make these senseless threats.

And yes, I think all the non stop media publicity reinforces that, most especially when it does not condemn the mass murderer in the strongest terms but looks for something politically incorrect to blame for what he did.

haymarket said:

The event you described was one of the sorriest and most disgraceful bits of cowardice ever demonstrated by the federal government. It only emboldens right wing fanatics who think they won something. They should have been squashed like bugs on a windshield.

And lets hope next time they will be.

Click to expand...

Feds have done worse.

HowardBThiname said:

It'll have the same chance of succeeding next time that it did last time. It's unlikely that we'll see another Waco or Ruby Ridge anytime soon. The citizens won't stand for it anymore. Whether you agree or disagree with the next group that opposes government strong-arming isn't relevant -- Americans have indicated that they don't want to see government violence against groups. They want things handled in the courts. No, I don't hope the next group is squashed like bugs on the windshield -- that would be a mistake of immense proportions, which would likely trigger a bigger resistance.

Click to expand...

What evidence can you point to in support of your opinion?

No, but it's encouraging disproportionate attention to an issue which kills very few people. According to data from the mass shooting tracker, there were 427 mass shootings. That may seem like a lot until you realize that the death toll was only 590. The tracker defines a mass shooting as an event where 4 or more people are deliberately killed or injured by a gun.
https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data/2017

If the tracker's data is accurate, the death rate from mass shootings is only 0.13 per 100,000 (divided the number of mass shooting deaths by the US population then multiplied it by 100,000). If all of America's murders came from mass shootings, then Singapore (0.25), Norway (0.25), Netherlands (0.61), Japan (0.31), Ireland (0.64), Switzerland (0.69), Germany (0.85), and the UK (0.92) would all have a higher murder rate than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

However, America's actual murder rate is 5 per 100,000. That means that on average, people in the United States have a 1 in 20,000 chance of being murdered each year. Divided by 79 (life expectancy in the US), each American, on average, has a 1 in 253 chance of being murdered before turning 79 (though Americans already have a 50% chance of dying by other means before then). Of course, there are higher risk groups such as those of low income but that only further lowers it for the average American.

So it seems like the likelihood of being murdered is negligible enough to be ignored. Even if it was a big deal, mass shootings are the wrong point to focus on. The best way to prevent murders is to lower the risk for the high risk groups, not increase restrictions on gun use.

haymarket said:

The radicals and extremists are the ones who have hijacked the Second amendment and twisted and perverted it beyond all meaning that the Founders created.

Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment is clear.The right of the people that means you and me have the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing radical or extreme about that.The only people claiming that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms are 2nd amendment opponents who wish to impose all sorts of anti-2nd amendment laws.Almost everyone on this forum knows that loathe the 2nd amendment. So don't sit and pretend you give a **** about it.

radcen said:

Yes, they can, but let's be real... how many really will?

"I want to be like that guy that people have to look up."

Click to expand...

Under your solution they mention the mass murderer's name and show his picture and then afterwards literally spend weeks talking about him, ponder why he did it and what he did. Everyone still knows who you are talking about. Because the mass murderer's name and picture were aired. And even if someone missed the first day they can still go to wikipedia or even some online news article about the mass murder.

Under my solution of the media not airing the mass murderer's name and picture period. No one knows who did it except the police and survivors. So other than those people no one knows who the media is talking about. Can't really be famous if no one knows what you did.

I don't know. Fear, grief, media attention, may be all the above? Even small town schools seem to have a problem.

jamesrage said:

Under your solution they mention the mass murderer's name and show his picture and then afterwards literally spend weeks talking about him, ponder why he did it and what he did. Everyone still knows who you are talking about. Because the mass murderer's name and picture were aired. And even if someone missed the first day they can still go to wikipedia or even some online news article about the mass murder.

Under my solution of the media not airing the mass murderer's name and picture period. No one knows who did it except the police and survivors. So other than those people no one knows who the media is talking about. Can't really be famous if no one knows what you did.

Click to expand...

Nice sentiment, but it won't work. Cell phones....sadly, it will spread like wildfire, like it or not.

radcen said:

Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?

Click to expand...

What the media are doing is encouraging more than false threats. They are encouraging copycat shootings.
After Virginia Tech, the media seemed to be in solidarity, not showing the shooters picture or uttering his name. To this day, I don't recall the guy's name. He's Asian. That's all I recall.
After Parkland, Nikolas Cruz's name is mentioned all day, every day, and his photo is seared into the minds of any American who watches the news on a daily basis.
Many disturbed individuals will see this as glorification and infamy, and will be tempted to act so they to can become famous.

The worst offender, of course, has to be Rolling Stone, who put one of the Boston bomber brothers on their cover, like some hunk-of-the-month rock star.

radcen said:

Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?

Click to expand...

nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd .................. if it walks like a duck .................. etc. ..................

jamesrage said:

The 2nd amendment is clear.The right of the people that means you and me have the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing radical or extreme about that.The only people claiming that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms are 2nd amendment opponents who wish to impose all sorts of anti-2nd amendment laws.Almost everyone on this forum knows that loathe the 2nd amendment. So don't sit and pretend you give a **** about it.

Click to expand...

Why do you harbor such open hostility for fellow Americans who simply interpret an amendment a bit differently that you do?

radcen said:

Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?

Click to expand...

I believe there is some small precedence to criminal imitation. I am sure that people who have a desire to behave any certain way, can and will be influenced by information they ingest regardless of the medium. I do not think that media creates criminals, but I do believe that media offers new ideas that criminally minded people will want to try. I don't think that is the medias fault for the crimes. The media should not be held responsible for another persons behavior unless the author was undeniably requesting that crimes be committed.
I think the media attention about school shootings may help increase the amount of school shootings. But I believe that the shooter was probably going to act criminally anyway and the media that gained the shooters attention was their most agreeable method of execution. So regardless of the media, that shooter would have either made their own plan to kill a bunch of people or they would follow a plan that already worked.

It has.

And locally, these kids are being charged with making a terrorist threat.

The officials are not screwing around on this anymore, and I think that's a good thing. It's not a joke, it's not 'only kidding'. Also, more kids are reporting threats they hear other kids make. They certainly don't want to end up being targets.

lefty louie said:

Read with sarcasm, I don't know how you can say shooters would be influenced by the media, there has never been a study to prove it's true so therefore it can't be.

Just like video games, certain song lyrics and friends can't point you in a direction.

Click to expand...

Bam........mic drop

jamesrage said:

Under your solution they mention the mass murderer's name and show his picture and then afterwards literally spend weeks talking about him, ponder why he did it and what he did. Everyone still knows who you are talking about. Because the mass murderer's name and picture were aired. And even if someone missed the first day they can still go to wikipedia or even some online news article about the mass murder.

Under my solution of the media not airing the mass murderer's name and picture period. No one knows who did it except the police and survivors. So other than those people no one knows who the media is talking about. Can't really be famous if no one knows what you did.

Click to expand...

Under your solution dishonesty is fostered, even encouraged. Parts or even entire stories could simply be made up. An agendized media can easily concoct narratives where all shooters are strangely similar and bang a drum for virtually any change in law or even the Constitution. Who's going to know? Sounds like a scenario out of 1984.

Openness, tempered with forethought of responsibility, is the better option, as it discourages and minimizes lying.