The Truth About School Shootings

[Phi1]

So by this logic is 45 just doing a bunch of dumb stuff because he sees the Prez do it on TV?

Maybe we can start naming school shooters like tropical storms since they seem to happen with the same frequency.

 

[obslop]

It's comforting (albeit unrealistic) to believe that the school shooter phenomenon can be easily fixed. It's a symptom of a society in decay.

 

[Mike_Jones]

It’s still censorship, whether it’s government sanctioned or agreed upon by media corporations.

Wrong dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

I don’t think protecting the identity of criminals is any kind of solution. The truth about school shootings/mass shootings/gun related crimes is it’s a risng issue and scapegoating the media does nothing to decrease those rates. It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings. There is no law against publicizing the names of underage child abuse victims. Please cite an instance, any instance, of a child abuse victim's name being published by a major news outlet. I'll be waiting.

"But squidley, concealing the identities of mass shooters is wrong."

Why?

The reason why news outlets conceal the names of child abuse victims is simple, public opinion. The public would be outraged. That's how it should work for mass shooters. It does for me.
.

 

[Woke AF]

It’s still censorship, whether it’s government sanctioned or agreed upon by media corporations.

Wrong dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

I don’t think protecting the identity of criminals is any kind of solution. The truth about school shootings/mass shootings/gun related crimes is it’s a risng issue and scapegoating the media does nothing to decrease those rates. It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings. There is no law against publicizing the names of underage child abuse victims. Please cite an instance, any instance, of a child abuse victim's name being published by a major news outlet. I'll be waiting.

"But squidley, concealing the identities of mass shooters is wrong."

Why?

The reason why news outlets conceal the names of child abuse victims is simple, public opinion. The public would be outraged. That's how it should work for mass shooters. It does for me.
.

They are very different crimes. Both horrific but sometimes an accused child molester is innocent. If s/he is thrown to the masses their life is over, even though they maybe innocent. Throwing a mass shooter to the masses is not ideal either, since we are all innocent 'til proven guilty, but their guilt is usually obvious.

Your taste for blood is vulgar.

 

[Phi1]

It’s still censorship, whether it’s government sanctioned or agreed upon by media corporations.

Wrong dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

I don’t think protecting the identity of criminals is any kind of solution. The truth about school shootings/mass shootings/gun related crimes is it’s a risng issue and scapegoating the media does nothing to decrease those rates. It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings.

I assume mass shootings that take place in the US make the news in other countries, yet they don't seem to have the problem at the same frequency.

Canadians can own many of the same weapons used in mass shootings.

 

[Mike_Jones]

It’s still censorship, whether it’s government sanctioned or agreed upon by media corporations.

Wrong dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

I don’t think protecting the identity of criminals is any kind of solution. The truth about school shootings/mass shootings/gun related crimes is it’s a risng issue and scapegoating the media does nothing to decrease those rates. It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings.

I assume mass shootings that take place in the US make the news in other countries, yet they don't seem to have the problem at the same frequency.

Canadians can own many of the same weapons used in mass shootings.

The U.S. mainstream media is leftist, over-the-top, and out of control. If they can cause chaos and murder, they will do it by any means necessary.

Not so in other countries.
.

 

[Phi1]

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings. There is no law against publicizing the names of underage child abuse victims. Please cite an instance, any instance, of a child abuse victim's name being published by a major news outlet. I'll be waiting.

"But squidley, concealing the identities of mass shooters is wrong."

Why?

The reason why news outlets conceal the names of child abuse victims is simple, public opinion. The public would be outraged. That's how it should work for mass shooters. It does for me.
.

I don't know why I bother as you must be trolling.

The media doesn't release the names of child abuse victims because 1) they are or were minors. 2) they don't want to re-victimize the victims and publish horrific and personal information.

Where are you going with this?

If the media released the name of child abuse victims do you think we'd see a spike in copy-cat kiddie fiddlers?
Jeebus you're dumb.

 

[manbearpig]

It’s still censorship, whether it’s government sanctioned or agreed upon by media corporations.

Wrong dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

I don’t think protecting the identity of criminals is any kind of solution. The truth about school shootings/mass shootings/gun related crimes is it’s a risng issue and scapegoating the media does nothing to decrease those rates. It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings. There is no law against publicizing the names of underage child abuse victims. Please cite an instance, any instance, of a child abuse victim's name being published by a major news outlet. I'll be waiting.

"But squidley, concealing the identities of mass shooters is wrong."

Why?

The reason why news outlets conceal the names of child abuse victims is simple, public opinion. The public would be outraged. That's how it should work for mass shooters. It does for me.
.

Lmao that’s not the definition of censorship, that’s a Wikipedia page discussing various forms including censorship by the media. Dumbass.

So is there an agreement that child abusers names are withheld? Because quite a few names of child abusers have been disclosed. Ever hear of Michael Jackson?

Fact is there’s ZERO proof that the media feeds this issue. The right is just using it as another way to scapegoat the media and prance around the actual issue.

 

[GromsDad]

You should start a thread about censorship.

 

[$kully]

But should we identify them if they're ISIS members?

 

[manbearpig]

You should start a thread about censorship.

You brought it up in your own thread dummy. Clearly you’re not liking the way it is going.

 

[Mike_Jones]

It’s still censorship, whether it’s government sanctioned or agreed upon by media corporations.

Wrong dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities.

I don’t think protecting the identity of criminals is any kind of solution. The truth about school shootings/mass shootings/gun related crimes is it’s a risng issue and scapegoating the media does nothing to decrease those rates. It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Publicizing mass shooter names is contributing to more mass shootings. There is no law against publicizing the names of underage child abuse victims. Please cite an instance, any instance, of a child abuse victim's name being published by a major news outlet. I'll be waiting.

"But squidley, concealing the identities of mass shooters is wrong."

Why?

The reason why news outlets conceal the names of child abuse victims is simple, public opinion. The public would be outraged. That's how it should work for mass shooters. It does for me.
.

Lmao that’s not the definition of censorship, that’s a Wikipedia page discussing various forms including censorship by the media. Dumbass.

So is there an agreement that child abusers names are withheld? Because quite a few names of child abusers have been disclosed. Ever hear of Michael Jackson?

Fact is there’s ZERO proof that the media feeds this issue. The right is just using it as another way to scapegoat the media and prance around the actual issue.

Yes, the term "censorship" can be applied to non-governmental censorship, like when universities censor what they deem to be hate speech. However, broadening the term removes the legal constraints against non-governmental censorship, and renders your argument that censoring the names of mass murders worthless.

Please cite an instance of one of Michael Jckson's abuse victims, published while the victim was still a minor.

"censorship"?

I'll be waiting.
.

 

[manbearpig]

fuck yeah squidward going full retard and changing his argument when his own link proves him wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson

Squidward you’re struggling big time on this spin.

 

[grapedrink]

It’s just a baseless attempt by the right to put the blame on something and take focus away from the real issue; freedom of press being their go to scapegoat.

Yes, I agree with that. Anything that takes the publics attention away from placing limitations on the availability of firearms and their destructive power is a welcomed distraction.

 

[Mike_Jones]

fuck yeah squidward going full retard and changing his argument when his own link proves him wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson

Squidward you’re struggling big time on this spin.

I didn't think you could.
.

 

[grapedrink]

https://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/10/web-posting-replicates-columbine-shooters-manifesto/

it's weird how the Columbine manifesto doesn't say anything about doing it for fame or notoriety.

do we have evidence that school shooters do it to get their names in headlines?

I'm not sure we can make any generalizations about the motives of all school shooters. Although it is now guaranteed that virtually the entire country will know and remember your name if you commit a mass shooting. That is a problem in and of itself.

FTR, I did not watch the video.

 

[test_article]

[video:youtube]gA-4QNVkH2g[/video]

Under a free market self government, there's no institutional solution to this NRA squawk. No news outlet will forgo a mass shooting story. That's because the people want to know and they thrill in speculating why. Maybe the NRA needs to change to a culture of reality that is closer to actuality.

 

[afoaf]

The U.S. mainstream media is leftist, over-the-top, and out of control. If they can cause chaos and murder, they will do it by any means necessary.

Not so in other countries.

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

you're implying coverage propagates the act.

yet somehow the media (in other more *leftist* countries) which all play
the same clickbait game cover it in such a way that it does not cause
the continuance of the crime within their borders?

no.

 

[Phi1]

The U.S. mainstream media is leftist, over-the-top, and out of control. If they can cause chaos and murder, they will do it by any means necessary.

Not so in other countries.

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

you're implying coverage propagates the act.

yet somehow the media (in other more *leftist* countries) which all play
the same clickbait game cover it in such a way that it does not cause
the continuance of the crime within their borders?

no.

Whaaaaat? It makes perfect sense that media coverage of violence creates more violence.

In a country that likely has enough guns in private circulation to arm every citizen. In a country that spends more on its military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan COMBINED.

It's our paranoia that's killing us, because guns don't kill, people do. But people with guns can do so with way more efficiency so you gotta have something bigger, better, faster than "the animals of MS13"!

 

[Autoprax]

You should start a thread about censorship.

You brought it up in your own thread dummy. Clearly you’re not liking the way it is going.

Would it be ironic if a thread on censorship got censored?