• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?
 
radcen said:
Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?
Click to expand...

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.
 
 
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...

We could just leave out the mass murderer's name and photo. You and your fellow 2nd amendment opponents would still be able to exploit the mass murder to try to push for more anti-2nd amendment laws. Surely you don't need the mass murderer's name and photo to do that. You can still make a huge deal out of the mass murderer using a semiautomatic firearm with a 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazine. You could still give a soap box to anti-2nd amendment groups like the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center,Everytown for gun safety and other anti-2nd amendment groups. You could still make a huge deal out of the mass murderer having a 1000 rounds of ammo as though somehow the mass murderer would be capable of carrying 30 to 50 loaded magazines. You could still advocate for registration, purchase limits and any other thing that 2nd amendment opponents try to advocate for anytime there is a mass shooting that gets national media attention.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
We could just leave out the mass murderer's name and photo. You and your fellow 2nd amendment opponents would still be able to exploit the mass murder to try to push for more anti-2nd amendment laws. Surely you don't need the mass murderer's name and photo to do that.
Click to expand...

I am NOT a Second Amendment opponent so your post fails on a false premise fallacy.
 
I favor "No Notoriety" for these monsters, the sensationalism promotes copycats.



haymarket said:
I am NOT a Second Amendment opponent so your post fails on a false premise fallacy.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Hilarious that you think anyone would still buy this from you. You do know that your post history on this site is available for all to see right?

You hate the 2A more than anyone else on this site. You think being disarmed to the point of having no ammo for a black powder musket isn't an infringement of the 2A.
 
While I believe in a free press, I dont like the media's over sensationalizing of these mass shootings as if it were an epidemic- its not. Mass shootings remain statistical aberrations and are rare occurrences.
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT a Second Amendment opponent so your post fails on a false premise fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah and I am Bill Gate's son who is going to get billions of dollars when Bill and his wife dies, unicorns exist and Alex Jones is a respected media journalist. Your lies don't fool anyone.
 
jamesrage said:
Yeah and I am Bill Gate's son who is going to get billions of dollars when Bill and his wife dies, unicorns exist and Alex Jones is a respected media journalist. Your lies don't fool anyone.
Click to expand...

The only people who think they are "lies" are those whose interpretation of the Amendment is radical and extreme.
 
radcen said:
Is all the current media attention on school shootings encouraging false threats at other schools?
Click to expand...

I vote yes. Not just false threats but threats. School + shootings are attention getters, and the shooters are seeking attention. A bomb in the mall not so much.

Then there is the matter of a teen boy's idea of death. Basically gained from video games. You get killed, press replay and you get back up and try again. That can't help, and that's a recreation mostly participated in by teen boys. JMO.
 
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.
 
PoS said:
While I believe in a free press, I dont like the media's over sensationalizing of these mass shootings as if it were an epidemic- its not. Mass shootings remain statistical aberrations and are rare occurrences.
Click to expand...

Same here. Many have said or written that they want to be compared to previous shooters or seen as 'better and more successful' than previous shooters.

The teen that was turned in by his grandmother the same day (earlier than) the FL school shooting wrote this in the journal they confiscated, as one example.

But I believe the media should do it voluntarily...no intentional mandated infringements of the 1A.
 
PoS said:
While I believe in a free press, I dont like the media's over sensationalizing of these mass shootings as if it were an epidemic- its not. Mass shootings remain statistical aberrations and are rare occurrences.
Click to expand...

The same (bolded above) is true of airliner crashes, train wrecks and building explosions - that is precisely why they are news events.
 
Last edited:
Since 2011 a mass shooting has occurred in the USA every 64 days. That's not a rare event. Your birthday is five times as rare.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same (bolded above) is true of airliner crashes, train wrecks and building explosions - that is precisely why they are news events.
Click to expand...

Yep. Happens with a lot of things, not just here. Plane crash deaths are much more rare than car deaths, but in a plane crash many people all die at once. Even in car wrecks, single car wrecks get attention locally, but a 70 car pile-up with half a dozen deaths gets national news coverage... even if the total number for that day might have been less than average.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Since 2011 a mass shooting has occurred in the USA every 64 days. That's not a rare event. Your birthday is five times as rare.
Click to expand...

Posts like this are why there should be a set definition of "mass shooting". Just making a statement like this, without background, could be misleading, but we don't know. No context was provided.
 
jamesrage said:
We could just leave out the mass murderer's name and photo. You and your fellow 2nd amendment opponents would still be able to exploit the mass murder to try to push for more anti-2nd amendment laws. Surely you don't need the mass murderer's name and photo to do that. You can still make a huge deal out of the mass murderer using a semiautomatic firearm with a 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazine. You could still give a soap box to anti-2nd amendment groups like the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center,Everytown for gun safety and other anti-2nd amendment groups. You could still make a huge deal out of the mass murderer having a 1000 rounds of ammo as though somehow the mass murderer would be capable of carrying 30 to 50 loaded magazines. You could still advocate for registration, purchase limits and any other thing that 2nd amendment opponents try to advocate for anytime there is a mass shooting that gets national media attention.
Click to expand...

In the interest of transparency and honesty in reporting we have to know the names, but we don't have to keep harping on it constantly. If we left names out there would be too much of an incentive for dishonest reporters to make stuff up, and we have too much bias as it is.

When a shooting happens, media coverage of the shooter should go something like this...
- Mention the name the first day, once at the beginning of a news broadcast and once in the beginning of a written article. After that, just say "Las Vegas shooter", or whatever, and we'll know who.

As it is now, the name is thrown at us constantly. The first day of coverage will be half-and-half. By the third day newscasts are 90% shooter, who they are, where they came from, what they had for breakfast, was their illness cause by high fructose corn syrup?, and on and on and on. Hell, even local news hypes the fact that the shooter lived in your state for a few months 40 years earlier as a kid (really did happen here with the Vegas shooter). That's the stuff we need to stop. Report credibly, but don't glorify.
 
Punk bitch

haymarket said:
The only people who think they are "lies" are those whose interpretation of the Amendment is radical and extreme.
Click to expand...

Reactionary is not radical. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Your EXTREME willingness to give up rights is no virtue; If you even acknowledged rights.

Edit: Also, your Alinsky tactics of calling everything you disagree with as "extreme" doesn't work on anyone.
 
Re: Punk bitch

Spartacus FPV said:
Reactionary is not radical. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Your EXTREME willingness to give up rights is no virtue; If you even acknowledged rights.

Edit: Also, your Alinsky tactics of calling everything you disagree with as "extreme" doesn't work on anyone.
Click to expand...

wrong - as I have never advocated giving up any rights.
 
Re: Punk bitch

short answer; yes
 
haymarket said:
The only people who think they are "lies" are those whose interpretation of the Amendment is radical and extreme.
Click to expand...

There is nothing extreme and radical about citizens having the right to keep and bear arms without infringements. What is radical and extreme is the notion that its okay to require permits/licenses, waiting periods, bans on firearms and other infringments on the 2nd amendment. You are anti-2nd amendment.
 
radcen said:
In the interest of transparency and honesty in reporting we have to know the names, but we don't have to keep harping on it constantly. If we left names out there would be too much of an incentive for dishonest reporters to make stuff up, and we have too much bias as it is.

When a shooting happens, media coverage of the shooter should go something like this...
- Mention the name the first day, once at the beginning of a news broadcast and once in the beginning of a written article. After that, just say "Las Vegas shooter", or whatever, and we'll know who.

As it is now, the name is thrown at us constantly. The first day of coverage will be half-and-half. By the third day newscasts are 90% shooter, who they are, where they came from, what they had for breakfast, was their illness cause by high fructose corn syrup?, and on and on and on. Hell, even local news hypes the fact that the shooter lived in your state for a few months 40 years earlier as a kid (really did happen here with the Vegas shooter). That's the stuff we need to stop. Report credibly, but don't glorify.
Click to expand...

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
 
jamesrage said:
There is nothing extreme and radical about citizens having the right to keep and bear arms without infringements. What is radical and extreme is the notion that its okay to require permits/licenses, waiting periods, bans on firearms and other infringments on the 2nd amendment. You are anti-2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom