Another mass shooting...

[GMDino]

Have they become so common we don't even say we can't talk about them yet?

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/billgoodykoontz/2015/10/01/shooting-coverage-routine-column/73178584/

Quote:Another day, another mass shooting.

That’s become literally true; according to the Washington Post, the tragedy today in Roseburg, Ore., brings the total of mass shootings, in which four or more people are killed or injured, to 294.

Thursday was the 274th day of the year.

Whenever something like this happened, I used to drop what I was doing and monitor media coverage, looking for some kind of meaning that would help make sense of it. In retrospect that probably wasn’t the best place to look. And not just because cable news goes into what-it-all-means mode, which quickly gives way to grandstanding and agenda pushing.

No, ultimately it was a dead end because there is no meaning to this. You can’t be inside the head of every shooter. What’s more, you can’t rationally explain why we continue to allow this to happen. We can look to social media, which has supplanted traditional news coverage as the go-to way to experience big events, for clues. But like everything else about the coverage of these events, it’s become predictable, too.

First there is the report of what happened. Details are added as the story develops, some accurate, some not. Things sort out and then the fights begin. Gun-control opponents warn that it’s not a good time to debate laws, it’s too soon to talk about the politics of it all; let’s let the families mourn. That actually worked for a while, but soon gun-control advocates began saying that there is never a good time, so we might as well jump in now.

This goes back and forth for a while, President Obama is mentioned — praised or vilified, again predictably depending on your political leanings — and … we move on.

We move on. How strange is that? At one time we might have said this was a coping mechanism. But that’s no longer true.

Now it’s just routine.

That sounds cold, heartless. But it’s true. Can you name a victim in any of the more-recent tragedies? Or even where they took place? We aren’t numb to it, not exactly. We’re numb to tragedies in the Middle East, or Africa. Here, at least, we still bother to become outraged enough to tweet a thought or two before going back to whatever else is trending.

I’m not a social scientist, but I am an observer of human behavior, and I would suggest that any possible scenario in which something like the shooting death of at least 10 people at a community college becomes routine means something is seriously wrong.

How do we fix it? Stop making it so easy for disturbed people to get access to guns is a start. But it’s hardly the only solution. Something has to give. We can’t give up on outrage and heartbreak. Not as media, and not as a society. A story like today’s still has to shock us. It still has to move us.

And it has to make us do something to stop this insanity. Events become newsworthy in part because they’re rare. They don’t happen every day.

Mass shootings do. And that’s a story that has to change.

[Au165]

Something has to be done, the question is what? The same arguments of "Round up all the guns" and "We need better mental health care" are cliche and not realistic.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2015, 09:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: Something has to be done, the question is what? The same arguments of "Round up all the guns" and "We need better mental health care" are cliche and not realistic.

Rounding up 300 million guns ain't happening, but people need to be aware of when those close to them are having serious issues.  It seems so many are raised in this 'You are special" generation, and then reality hits and they find out they are just normal people.

[GMDino]

(10-02-2015, 09:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: Something has to be done, the question is what? The same arguments of "Round up all the guns" and "We need better mental health care" are cliche and not realistic.

I personally don't believe taking away the guns in the right answer...but you are right:  Doing nothing doesn't seem to be the right answer either.

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 09:33 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Rounding up 300 million guns ain't happening, but people need to be aware of when those close to them are having serious issues.  It seems so many are raised in this 'You are special" generation, and then reality hits and they find out they are just normal people.

Rounding up 300 million guns is as likely as the idea that we can identify mass shooters before they all happen and get people help. Some people just wake up one day and snap, some people are just sick and want to kill people. Like I said I don't have the answer, and while the mental health approach is good in general it is not going to stop these things from happening.

[Belsnickel]

The sticky wicket with this is that the right to bear arms is a right. So banning firearms in the hands of the citizenry is not only implausible, but unconstitutional. However, the 2nd does have that phrase of well regulated in there, and the courts have upheld that our rights are not without limits. So I am for regulations to try to improve safety and responsibility with firearms.

The NRA and many right wing types like to point out that banning firearms will not really do any good, which is correct. It's an argument I often bring up with abortion. Making something illegal just means that there is no oversight involved and so the activity becomes more dangerous to the health and safety of the citizenry. Safety courses, state level registration (because I do have concerns about a federal firearm database), liability on owners for lost/stolen/sold firearms not reported, universal background checks, etc. Obviously there are a lot of details that would need to be hammered out, and nothing would solve the issue because there will always be people that intend to do harm with or without a firearm and if they want to use a firearm they will find a way to get one. But we can at least put up some barriers to make it more difficult.

[Au165]

One interesting thing I read that does appear to make sense....

"Some researchers believe these mass killings can be contagious: One killing or shooting increases the chances that others will occur within about two weeks, an "infection" that lasts about 13 days, researchers found in another study this year. "

In the Virginia shooting recently the guy said he was inspired by those in Columbine and VTech. This recent guy supposedly made some blog posts he was inspired by the Virginia guy. We need to make a conscious effort to not publicize the murderer. These people who, often times are social outcasts, see these shootings as a way to leave their mark on the world. When a shooting occurs, only talk about the victims and let the murderer rot with no recognition.

[Au165]

Makes you wonder.....

[Westwood Bengal]

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-02-2015, 10:21 AM)Westwood Bengal Wrote:

What are we going to legislate?

[GMDino]

(10-02-2015, 10:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: Makes you wonder.....

And that's why we have to fight them there so we don't fight them here. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 09:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: One interesting thing I read that does appear to make sense....

"Some researchers believe these mass killings can be contagious: One killing or shooting increases the chances that others will occur within about two weeks, an "infection" that lasts about 13 days, researchers found in another study this year. "

In the Virginia shooting recently the guy said he was inspired by those in Columbine and VTech. This recent guy supposedly made some blog posts he was inspired by the Virginia guy. We need to make a conscious effort to not publicize the murderer. These people who, often times are social outcasts, see these shootings as a way to leave their mark on the world.  When a shooting occurs, only talk about the victims and let the murderer rot with no recognition.

I think the way our media covers it all has a lot to do with it, for sure. They perpetuate the problem to no end.

(10-02-2015, 10:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: Makes you wonder.....

Yeah, I saw something about this, too. Of course, one could argue that some of the mass shootings were acts of domestic terrorism.

[Ryuko]

(10-02-2015, 09:30 AM)Au165 Wrote: Something has to be done, the question is what? The same arguments of "Round up all the guns" and "We need better mental health care" are cliche and not realistic.

In a country where one person mandated that everyone buy health insurance or be fined, how is funding mental health institutions "not realistic"? I'd rather see my tax dollars go to helping the crazies than to the other failed federal programs creating dependents.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2015, 10:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: Makes you wonder.....

One thing that gun control types always do, which I am not accusing you of btw, is lumping suicides involving a firearm in the total of deaths caused by firearms.  Removing them almost cuts the number in half iirc.  While you certainly can't argue that the person wasn't "killed" by a firearm they certainly aren't an example of "gun violence."

[StLucieBengal]

I don't see the point of having any gun free zones. It's a nice thought until someone brings a gun ready to kill.

I still think firearm basics and education being a mandatory class with additional electives in schools is the best course of action.

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One thing that gun control types always do, which I am not accusing you of btw, is lumping suicides involving a firearm in the total of deaths caused by firearms.  Removing them almost cuts the number in half iirc.  While you certainly can't argue that the person wasn't "killed" by a firearm they certainly aren't an example of "gun violence."

So this does have suicides in it after re reading it. That number even cut in half is absolutely absurd though. Also someone else mentioned domestic terrorism, there were foot notes to it in the article that mentioned they were included in this, things like Boston bombing, church shooting,etc.

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 10:46 AM)Ryuko Wrote: In a country where one person mandated that everyone buy health insurance or be fined, how is funding mental health institutions "not realistic"? I'd rather see my tax dollars go to helping the crazies than to the other failed federal programs creating dependents.

Mental health institutions are great, and we should have more, but that won't stop people who show no outward signs or don't have people who can get them to go to these institutions. Thats was kind of my point from earlier, it needs to be a thought out plan attacking the issue from multiple fronts, not just the usual one size fits all approach people want to bang on after these things happen.

[Ryuko]

(10-02-2015, 10:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: Makes you wonder.....

Also from the CDC... 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. Weird that I never see anyone getting on their soapbox to rally for prohibition... And heart disease is the #1 killer in America. Where are the protesters outside McDonalds? "Fast food is child abuse!" makes for a pretty catchy picket sign. 

No takers? Ok. Back to your regularly scheduled programming of people who believe that outlawing guns means people won't have them. That's why no one in the US had pot before 2012, and why cocaine doesn't exist within our borders. Strange no one has thought to outlaw murder... Then no one would kill anybody with anything, right?

[GodHatesBengals]

It's a complex problem, sure.

But uh... Isn't that why we have elected officials? I love how the people make excuses for our inept Congress by simply saying "Well I don't know if x and y would work, so I guess Congress doesn't have to do anything." These people are paid to figure out solutions. If they can't figure out how to stop being the most gun violent country in the Western world, then they aren't cut out for their job.

A full scale investigation--a real one, not a political dog and pony show--is needed. All options should be looked at, starting with what has worked in other countries.