I suspect it is sort of like a “hate crime” which is somehow worse than a normal crime. These phrases are designed to alter people’s perception of certain events. If someone commits a crime with a knife they are a violent criminal. If someone commits the same crime with a gun the culprit is not the individual criminal, but easy access to guns.
Sandy Hook PSA
- Thread starter Koda94
- Start date
I suspect it is sort of like a “hate crime” which is somehow worse than a normal crime. These phrases are designed to alter people’s perception of certain events. If someone commits a crime with a knife they are a violent criminal. If someone commits the same crime with a gun the culprit is not the individual criminal, but easy access to guns.
Spot on.
Our modern law is full of special qualifiers that make certain crimes somehow "worse" due to special circumstances than the exact same crime committed in other circumstances.
A person shot to death is no less dead than someone stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death with a baseball bat, golf club, bare hands, or run down with a car.
The want us to think that the nutcase who guns down 30+ people in a nightclub is somehow WORSE than the nutcase who chains the doors shut and burns down the nightclub killing 100...and didn't use a gun????
They want us to think that "domestic violence" is somehow a worse crime than the same violence committed against someone you don't live with. (Lautenberg).
"hate crimes" is one I find particularly annoying. It never made sense to me. I mean, OK, I understand how they are defining it, but how is it right to add additional punishment to a crime because of the motive, NOT the act itself???
To me, that doesn't seem like equal treatment under the law.
I saw this not as a separate PSA, but as a news piece about the PSA, but I'm sure I saw most of it, a good portion of the news cast was devoted to it.
I'm not sure how I feel about it.
Having been a kid, and raising a few myself, I see some seriously troubled youth constantly returning to the schools after a medication adjustment.
When I was in school, there were teachers and staff outside and in the hallways whenever students weren't in class. This lowered the chance of a fight going on too long and limited bullying to some degree. Things still happened, but I think it was squashed pretty quickly.
When my kids were in school, I'd go to pick up my kids, no adults in sight. Go to the office to check out my kids for appointments, students are running the office. With a staff member in a back office somewhere.
I'm not sure how we've gotten to this point, we are not on the right path.
When my kids were in school, medicating away all the normal kid behaviors was quite popular, I'm sure it's still happening.
I'm not sure how I feel about it.
Having been a kid, and raising a few myself, I see some seriously troubled youth constantly returning to the schools after a medication adjustment.
When I was in school, there were teachers and staff outside and in the hallways whenever students weren't in class. This lowered the chance of a fight going on too long and limited bullying to some degree. Things still happened, but I think it was squashed pretty quickly.
When my kids were in school, I'd go to pick up my kids, no adults in sight. Go to the office to check out my kids for appointments, students are running the office. With a staff member in a back office somewhere.
I'm not sure how we've gotten to this point, we are not on the right path.
When my kids were in school, medicating away all the normal kid behaviors was quite popular, I'm sure it's still happening.
I agree 100% but that's not all that "PSA" showed , not even close . As for the gun related signs . I could see two , him looking at the guy shooting on his computer could be another but I don't see three . The gangster photo is a straight up red flag . Mimicking shooting people is a straight up red flag . So now you have a guy that is clearly a loner that has an attitude problem ( flipping off the girl ) , shows an interest in firearms ( mag and video ) Mimics shooting people and shows he has access to a firearm ( gangster photo ) . That's not a red flag , that's a guy in a red house on a red street , driving a red car with a red flag on the antenna .
This is a short video about a lonely, bored guy named Evan who like to write on tables in school libraries. Someone else who like to write on tables writes back to him (a boy? a girl?, who?). Evan keeps staring creepily at girls. Who is it? Evan finds out and they look like they can have some fun together. Nice story!
But wait! It's not about Evan, but about some other kid flashing by in the background of the story about bored Evan.
The narration tells me I should have been watching the other kid all the time.
"While you were watching Evan another student was showing signs of planning a shooting." It says.
"But no one noticed".
"Gun violence is preventable, when you know the signs." They say.
This is manipulative. "No one noticed" because you didn't want anyone to notice, so later we'd feel guilty about it. They want me to feel like I missed something in the story about the Evan. Like I should feel guilty that I didn't pay attention to folks in the background of the commercial they produced. Or maybe Evan should have been able to see what was going on behind him with a kid he didn't know. "We all should share the guilt for not noticing" or some such silliness.
What's the lesson they want me to learn? Maybe it's just what it looks like. They want me to be staring at folks I don't know and drawing conclusions about them based on a split second of information. Reading a gun mag, that means nothing other than that he's reading a magazine. Giving the finger to a girl. I don't know what that means.
If they want me to help out folks who may be in trouble of suicide, or planning a mass shooting I can only do that with people I know or work with based on what I see over a period of time. I've done that personally. So tell me and others how to do that better. But they don't.
It becomes an anti-gun piece. Not something that can help anyone.
tipoc
But wait! It's not about Evan, but about some other kid flashing by in the background of the story about bored Evan.
The narration tells me I should have been watching the other kid all the time.
"While you were watching Evan another student was showing signs of planning a shooting." It says.
"But no one noticed".
"Gun violence is preventable, when you know the signs." They say.
This is manipulative. "No one noticed" because you didn't want anyone to notice, so later we'd feel guilty about it. They want me to feel like I missed something in the story about the Evan. Like I should feel guilty that I didn't pay attention to folks in the background of the commercial they produced. Or maybe Evan should have been able to see what was going on behind him with a kid he didn't know. "We all should share the guilt for not noticing" or some such silliness.
What's the lesson they want me to learn? Maybe it's just what it looks like. They want me to be staring at folks I don't know and drawing conclusions about them based on a split second of information. Reading a gun mag, that means nothing other than that he's reading a magazine. Giving the finger to a girl. I don't know what that means.
If they want me to help out folks who may be in trouble of suicide, or planning a mass shooting I can only do that with people I know or work with based on what I see over a period of time. I've done that personally. So tell me and others how to do that better. But they don't.
It becomes an anti-gun piece. Not something that can help anyone.
tipoc
Last edited:
I read back through this thread. The video was made by "Sandy Hook Promise" which is an organization made up of parents from the Sandy Hook school. It was not made by CNN. CNN played it as a news story. A couple of folks here thought it was made by CNN. So they didn't notice that! Bad situational awareness!
I would have an issue with it.
tipoc
I would have an issue with it.
tipoc
Another thing the video does is attempt to leave you with the feeling that somehow YOU'RE at fault for what happened because YOU didn't see the kid in the background. You are so self-involved with things in front of your face that somehow you personally caused that kid to go crazy, and you need to do something about it.
In other words, it's your fault, and you need to not only be on the lookout for the signs, but you need to do everything you can to support gun control, etc...
In other words, it's your fault, and you need to not only be on the lookout for the signs, but you need to do everything you can to support gun control, etc...
Tipoc : You write that whole post then at the end say this
How is that not the exact same thing the video conveys ? Change it from work to school and I see no difference .
Also you would take issue of a similar video about terrorism ??? Would it be reasonable to say you think it's wrong for anyone to say we should be aware of what's going on around us and report suspicious activity ??? Again I see no difference in that and releasing a short video show what some of those suspicious activities "may" look like .
Again I do in fact believe this was more likely then not a anti gun propaganda video . How ever like all of us here you must be a strong enough minded to see through that .
How is that not the exact same thing the video conveys ? Change it from work to school and I see no difference .
Also you would take issue of a similar video about terrorism ??? Would it be reasonable to say you think it's wrong for anyone to say we should be aware of what's going on around us and report suspicious activity ??? Again I see no difference in that and releasing a short video show what some of those suspicious activities "may" look like .
Again I do in fact believe this was more likely then not a anti gun propaganda video . How ever like all of us here you must be a strong enough minded to see through that .
Metal God,
Myself and a number of people here did not see the video as helpful.
Had the video, with a twist of the story, been about Evan being troubled and him ending up the shooter it may have been more valuable. But the vid makers did not do that.
Had the character of Evan interacted in any way with the kid who became the shooter it may also have been helpful. But they didn't do that either. The only thing Evan saw was the kid's facebook pic with the gun. Apparently, to Evan the kid was a stranger.
The video spoke down to us. It used an okey-doke, fake one way and go the other, to get our attention. The fake was the love story about Evan that we were supposed to watch. The vid makers did not want us to notice the other kid in the background, and that's why we didn't.
But even if we noted all the brief shots of the kid. What were those shots? The only ones that stood out were the gun pics. The other shots meant nothing unless we know more. They only mean something if you know something about the kid and see him regularly, talk to him, etc.
The vid didn't teach us about situational awareness. It didn't teach us to differentiate between things that mean nothing and things that mean something. It sorta implied to keep an eye on people who like guns, or to watch with suspicion the random actions of strangers.
I think they could have done better.
You mention that we should be strong enough minded to see through the anti-gun propaganda here. Remember "we" are not the target audience. The vid makers did not make this for gunnies but fo rthose who don't know yet.
tipoc
Myself and a number of people here did not see the video as helpful.
Had the video, with a twist of the story, been about Evan being troubled and him ending up the shooter it may have been more valuable. But the vid makers did not do that.
Had the character of Evan interacted in any way with the kid who became the shooter it may also have been helpful. But they didn't do that either. The only thing Evan saw was the kid's facebook pic with the gun. Apparently, to Evan the kid was a stranger.
The video spoke down to us. It used an okey-doke, fake one way and go the other, to get our attention. The fake was the love story about Evan that we were supposed to watch. The vid makers did not want us to notice the other kid in the background, and that's why we didn't.
But even if we noted all the brief shots of the kid. What were those shots? The only ones that stood out were the gun pics. The other shots meant nothing unless we know more. They only mean something if you know something about the kid and see him regularly, talk to him, etc.
The vid didn't teach us about situational awareness. It didn't teach us to differentiate between things that mean nothing and things that mean something. It sorta implied to keep an eye on people who like guns, or to watch with suspicion the random actions of strangers.
I think they could have done better.
You mention that we should be strong enough minded to see through the anti-gun propaganda here. Remember "we" are not the target audience. The vid makers did not make this for gunnies but fo rthose who don't know yet.
tipoc
I agree with tipoc...
the video was well done, for a gun control video.
The bait and switch storyline might even been useful if they really wanted to educate others on identifying issues with troubled people... but it was about stigmatizing guns as the problem. They would have never made this same video to expose other other ways of violence, like pressure cooker bombs, knives, cars... all of which have been used here in the US.
This was a gun control video straight up.
the video was well done, for a gun control video.
The bait and switch storyline might even been useful if they really wanted to educate others on identifying issues with troubled people... but it was about stigmatizing guns as the problem. They would have never made this same video to expose other other ways of violence, like pressure cooker bombs, knives, cars... all of which have been used here in the US.
This was a gun control video straight up.
LOL!
You know what the ultimate irony of that video is?
Right up until the time the kid pulls the trigger, he's innocent.
The two delinquents defacing school property on the other hand......
Maybe someone should relay the fact that those two kids are guilty of "pen graffiti" and we should pass stricter laws against "pen graffiti".
You know what the ultimate irony of that video is?
Right up until the time the kid pulls the trigger, he's innocent.
The two delinquents defacing school property on the other hand......
Maybe someone should relay the fact that those two kids are guilty of "pen graffiti" and we should pass stricter laws against "pen graffiti".
Consider this, they are telling us the kid in the background looking at a GUN magazine 
is the problem. (ok, potential problem)
So,
#1) they are telling us to judge a book by its cover
#2) they are telling what the "cover" means. And that what it means is the kid is a ticking time bomb, just waiting on some trigger event to erupt in lethal "gun violence". This is what my dear mother would have called a crock of spit. Except she wouldn't have said "spit"....
All without a single shred of proof or any evidence, other than a gun book.
If the kid had been reading a Koran (Quaran?) would they tell us to keep an eye on him, he's a potential terrorist??
isn't the video an example of the "bad" profiling that they say we're NOT supposed to do??
is the problem. (ok, potential problem)So,
#1) they are telling us to judge a book by its cover
#2) they are telling what the "cover" means. And that what it means is the kid is a ticking time bomb, just waiting on some trigger event to erupt in lethal "gun violence". This is what my dear mother would have called a crock of spit. Except she wouldn't have said "spit"....
All without a single shred of proof or any evidence, other than a gun book.
If the kid had been reading a Koran (Quaran?) would they tell us to keep an eye on him, he's a potential terrorist??
isn't the video an example of the "bad" profiling that they say we're NOT supposed to do??
Sweet Shooter
New member
Absolutely agree. It's shamelessly manipulative and disrespectful.
Ok this might be my last try here 
Would you guys have the same opinion of the video if the title just said something like a violent act and all "gun signs" were replaced with a knife . So instead of a gun mag , he was looking at a Buck knife catalog . The video was of a guy butchering an animal . The Instagram photo was him pointing the knife at the camera and instead of him acting like he was shooting the teacher he drug his fingers across his neck while looking at them .
Would you still have the opinion this kid is just a normal guy that is being wrongly profiled just because he has a Buck knife catalog ? Oh lets not forget about his attitude issues , being bullied and he's a loner .
I said 6 signs earlier it's actually 7
Loner
Randomly displaying weapon with no reasonable context to do so
Is being bullied
Is looking at a catalog for knifes
Mimics slicing his teaches throat
Watches Knife demonstration videos
Has a bad attitude .
Does that sound like a nice stable young man we should just leave alone because there's just nothing indicating there may be an issue with him ?
Would you guys have the same opinion of the video if the title just said something like a violent act and all "gun signs" were replaced with a knife . So instead of a gun mag , he was looking at a Buck knife catalog . The video was of a guy butchering an animal . The Instagram photo was him pointing the knife at the camera and instead of him acting like he was shooting the teacher he drug his fingers across his neck while looking at them .
Would you still have the opinion this kid is just a normal guy that is being wrongly profiled just because he has a Buck knife catalog ? Oh lets not forget about his attitude issues , being bullied and he's a loner .
I said 6 signs earlier it's actually 7
Loner
Randomly displaying weapon with no reasonable context to do so
Is being bullied
Is looking at a catalog for knifes
Mimics slicing his teaches throat
Watches Knife demonstration videos
Has a bad attitude .
Does that sound like a nice stable young man we should just leave alone because there's just nothing indicating there may be an issue with him ?
The piece on this from the NRA:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...est-in-guns-music-signals-intention-to-murder
tipoc
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...est-in-guns-music-signals-intention-to-murder
tipoc
Metal god said:
how long would it take anyone to piece all that together? It would virtually be like stalking someone. I don't think anyone here is saying to ignore anyone they feel is having issues, the problem here is this PSA is suggesting everyone start profiling strangers.
What about getting to know these people? The troubled teen in the PSA, where were his friends, his family.... ? Because thats who will know, these are the only people qualified to say his sudden interest in guns is troubling. Weve been thru enough shootings in America already and every single one of them had family and/or friends that said nothing in the face of all the signs, they are just as much the problem as the bullies in the hall. And yet gun control advocates continue to ignore this and barrage us instead with media focusing on the gun as a "sign" of violence, like in this PSA.
Again, playing devil's advocate,
To me, it sounds like someone we should know more about before passing judgment. I knew several people who fit about everything on that list (though not specifically knives) to one degree or another. The one who was a dedicated amateur chemist, (and made some dandy EXPLOSIVES) wound up with a full ride scholarship to MIT, and later became a lab tech working at Walter Reed hospital. Another became a cop, another a registered (male) nurse, another an ordained minister. Another went bad and went to jail for a long time, and yet another got in trouble with dope, saw the light, reformed and became a drug counselor.
The point here is that what someone LOOKS like (acts like) MAY or MAY NOT mean they are going to turn out bad. And there is a difference between someone who fits a certain profile at a glance, and what they actually are.
It's a common human trait, I have to agree, lumping everyone into categories, but we really shouldn't use it for the basis of judgment (and actions), unless/until the individual actual does something unequivocal.
Does ever sports fan who ever shouted "kill 'em!" really mean they want the other team dead?? Not hardly.
OK, the weird loner might be a ticking time bomb. Or he just might be a weird loner. Making a snap judgment (especially based on a scripted video) isn't fair to him, or to you and I.
(yes, there's always something wrong with someone who doesn't run with the pack, follow the herd, or obey all current social conventions, isn't there???- or so they would have us think)
(perhaps, but an observer may not be privy to the context, so it might not be random, or without reasonable context to the person doing it.)
(is there anyone among us who has never been bullied?? If so, then congratulations. For most of us it's a fact of life, somewhere, sometime, to some degree. I don't see being bullied as a general causative factor. It might have an added effect, or be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but I think being bullied in and of itself doesn't matter as much as how one deals with it. And tis other factors that shape that.)
(which is why they are printed, for people to look at...)
(ok, this is a bit disturbing, but kids "play act" all kinds of things without any serious intent, all the time. Might mean something in a specific individual case, but as a general "warning sign" context matters hugely in making a correct interpretation.)
(again, that's why people make them. Maybe its a sign, but maybe not.)
(ok, this is a bit worrisome, but again lots of "rebel teens" turn out ok. Some don't, sure, but many do. So this alone, again, can be an indication for an individual, but its not guaranteed proof.
To me, it sounds like someone we should know more about before passing judgment. I knew several people who fit about everything on that list (though not specifically knives) to one degree or another. The one who was a dedicated amateur chemist, (and made some dandy EXPLOSIVES) wound up with a full ride scholarship to MIT, and later became a lab tech working at Walter Reed hospital. Another became a cop, another a registered (male) nurse, another an ordained minister. Another went bad and went to jail for a long time, and yet another got in trouble with dope, saw the light, reformed and became a drug counselor.
The point here is that what someone LOOKS like (acts like) MAY or MAY NOT mean they are going to turn out bad. And there is a difference between someone who fits a certain profile at a glance, and what they actually are.
It's a common human trait, I have to agree, lumping everyone into categories, but we really shouldn't use it for the basis of judgment (and actions), unless/until the individual actual does something unequivocal.
Does ever sports fan who ever shouted "kill 'em!" really mean they want the other team dead?? Not hardly.
OK, the weird loner might be a ticking time bomb. Or he just might be a weird loner. Making a snap judgment (especially based on a scripted video) isn't fair to him, or to you and I.