Can we talk about this now?

[jimpeel]

In reference to the man who shot two reporters, on air, the man who attacked an Oregon college stated the following about the other:

"A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."

This flies in the face of those who state that publicity about mass shootings does not engender further shootings by those who seek infamy. This man posted that desire in no uncertain terms prior to his act.

We, in the pro-firearms community, have been saying for years that over-the-top reporting about these criminals causes copycats; and the anti-firearms community has told us time after time that we are wrong.

Time eventually erases the names of those who seek such fame. Very few people know the name of the man who blew up the Bath, Maine schoolhouse in the 1920's. There will always be those from whose lips will flow the names of these cowards; but that number will wane over time.

Let this man, and his predecessors, never be mentioned by name again.

 

[Skans]

I agree with the OP's post 100%.

 

[chadio]

Yes, I agree 100% !!

 

[doofus47]

So going to get closed....
Yes, that might be part of it, an incentive, but the path to de-humanizing your victims and inspiring yourself to act against them is the larger part, the part that allows the shooter to skip the part of mental checklist that says "wait, these are my fellow citizens (or just plain old human beings whom I don't know) and I should be looking out for their welfare, not trying to hurt them."

It's probably a bit more complicated than any of us would like it to be. Antis believe that the guns are the biggest part of the equation; some of us like to think that the media or video games are to blame, but basically, these actors have all drifted off into some a-social world that allows them to interact with the rest of us while scheming to do ill to their fellow citizens at a later date. It probably is a long slide to that point with many contributing factors.

What have each of us done lately to reach out to those in our own families to make everyone feel accepted and to stress acceptance?

 

[Tom Servo]

So going to get closed...

I don't see why. Jim's got a great point.

We all suffer when coercion and violence are rewarded. If infamy or validation is what these people seek, we do best by denying it to them.

 

[osbornk]

I like the approach some of the news channels have taken on the mass murder in Oregon. They talk about the event because it is news but they won't show a picture of the killer or mention his name.

 

[jimpeel]

As it should be.

 

[9x18_Walther]

100% agree.

Guns haven't changed.
People haven't changed.

Why the increase in shootings? I can almost certainly blame the media.

Nobody talks about the Bath incident which occurred in 1927 in which the sole firearm was a Winchester Model 54.

 

[Kosh75287]

I think minimizing the notoriety of the person perpetrating the atrocity would go a long way toward reducing the frequency of these awful things. But getting the news media to go along with that would be tantamount to making water run up-hill. At some point, we're just fooling ourselves.

Maybe release the info many years later, when the inflammatory atmosphere of the incident has largely died away.

 

[jmhyer]

Don't forget the influence of social media on the sensationalization of just about everything.

 

[jimpeel]

Nobody talks about the Bath incident which occurred in 1927 in which the sole firearm was a Winchester Model 54.

That firearm was only used to kill his farm animals and shoot a case of dynamite. No humans were killed by firearm that day.

Despite the amount of publicity that incident gleaned, there is no evidence that this incident caused copycat incidents. What changed between 1927 and 1999?

 

[Pond James Pond]

People haven't changed.

Aspects of society have, though.

Certainly the media is one, with its vacuous obsession with celebrity culture and constant "twitter-feed" sound-bites on this and that and anyone jumping at the chance to be featured.

The media is not the only aspect to have changed, however and typically only serves as a mirror of the society it caters for.

 

[jimpeel]

We have become a media w--re society with various "celebrities" seeming to one-up each other in the method of getting the most press for the raunchiest act. TMZ has an entire TV program based on following these people around trying to catch them in some act of depravity or other acts.

Is it any wonder that those who desire to have their fifteen minutes of fame will copy others who have gained notoriety through aberrant means?

 

[44 AMP]

I saw the report of the Roseberg shooting on my local news the night it happened. They did NOT give the name of the shooter, or a picture. They did say he was 20. I thought this an odd, but actually good change from the usual practice.

It seemed clear to me they had to know his name, (how else could they have an age??) and were simply not saying it. I might be wrong, but that's what I thought, and thought it a good thing.

The next day, the NATIONAL media had his name & photo everywhere, as usual. (at least THIS time, they didn't use the shooter's 8th grade school pic)

These spree killers may not all be doing it for their own idea of fame, but some of them have written about it, so it IS a factor in their plans.

 

[jimbob86]

Reporters of the time referred to the perpetrator of the Bath, Maine School bombing as a "maniac" and a "monster" ....... now perps are "disaffected" or "troubled"...... Society refuses to name Evil as just that...... and we have copycats....

 

[Tom Servo]

I saw the report of the Roseberg shooting on my local news the night it happened. They did NOT give the name of the shooter, or a picture.

At first, they named the wrong guy, based on some post from 4chan.

The next afternoon, CNN ran a clip in which the county sheriff refused to say the shooter's name and asked the media to show similar restraint. The newscaster immediately cut from that clip to a picture and name of the shooter.

 

[jimpeel]

The initial reports stated that he was 20 years old; but that turned out to be false. The howls immediately went up that Oregon has a law that you can't have a firearm until you're 21.

"His guns were illegal!", they cried. Then it turned out he was 26 and all of them were legally obtained. Imagine their disappointment at that revelation.

 

[bikerbill]

The authorities declined to use the Oregon killer's name at news conferences, except to identify him at one point. These maniacs thrive on publicity or the hope of it; deny it and they lose one reason for their actions.