Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 28206
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueTX said:
I'm sure you remember the OKC Federal Building bombing and I'd guess you remember the name of the fella who drove the truck. Nonstop media coverage at the time, during his trial and even leading up to his execution. Loads of white nationalist nutters in this country revere him to this day.

Twenty-five years later, why no copycat bombings using mass quantities of ammonium nitrate in the US since that time?
Click to expand...

Bit different being able to make a bomb and fire a gun.

Even in the UK the chances of a Cumbria type shooting is much more likely than a bomb on that scale and we have tight firearm laws here.

Again you're missing the point - in this debate alot think guns/2nd amendment are the only factor at play and its naive in the extreme.
 
Tir Eoghain Blue said:
Banning guns, restricting gun ownership will not make one iota of difference as most of the shooters already have criminal records, and access to firearms that are on the street illegally
Click to expand...
That's the case now because even if you're in a city or state with comparatively strict gun control laws, you still may well be able to cross the border to the next state and buy a bunch of guns at a sporting goods store or (until recently) a Walmart. By contrast, banning guns would in fairly short order drive the price of black market guns way, way, way up, well beyond the ability of your garden variety criminal to afford one.

Simple market forces, pilgrim.
 
Tir Eoghain Blue said:
Unfortunately the founding fathers had good intentions when they initially added the second amendment for affording citizens the right to bear arms.

There are definitely way to many guns out there. However I have no idea how they would implement a scale back, as only law abiding folks would abide by any changes and there would not be a decrease in gun crime.
Click to expand...
One primary aspect of the Second Amendment's intent that no one remembers is that it was hoped that militias might serve as a longterm substitute for the maintenance of a professional military, as armies were and are very expensive and Americans of the Revolutionary era (like many of their current counterparts) hated paying taxes. As it turned out, in most parts of the country the local militia system itself didn't really survive beyond the early decades of the nineteenth century because lots of Americans were disinclined to have to turn out for muster and drill all the time.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
Bit different being able to make a bomb and fire a gun.

Even in the UK the chances of a Cumbria type shooting is much more likely than a bomb on that scale and we have tight firearm laws here.

Again you're missing the point - in this debate alot think guns/2nd amendment are the only factor at play and its naive in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Yet they were able to build a bomb completely undetected. Why? Because access to ammonium nitrate was virtually unregulated. Easy access, more opportunity. It took a ridiculous amount of time but the Feds passed a law to regulate the sale, possession and even loss of the substance. Some states went even further. But I remember from the time OKC happened to the time the law passed that sellers of the compound in my neck of the woods were very cautious in selling the stuff to folks they did not know (largely farmers). Many wouldn't.

The ease of access to and proliferation of firearms is primarily the cause of the high instance of firearm death and injury in the US. Production in the last dozen years is 3-4 times what it was in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. Blaming the media is a distraction. That is my point.
 
BlueTX said:
Yet they were able to build a bomb completely undetected. Why? Because access to ammonium nitrate was virtually unregulated. Easy access, more opportunity. It took a ridiculous amount of time but the Feds passed a law to regulate the sale, possession and even loss of the substance. Some states went even further. But I remember from the time OKC happened to the time the law passed that sellers of the compound in my neck of the woods were very cautious in selling the stuff to folks they did not know (largely farmers). Many wouldn't.

The ease of access to and proliferation of firearms is primarily the cause of the high instance of firearm death and injury in the US. Production in the last dozen years is 3-4 times what it was in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s. Blaming the media is a distraction. That is my point.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with that - but my point was in addition to law reforms if the US media reported mass shootings differently for me that also would help reduce the frequency of these incidents.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
I dont disagree with that - but my point was in addition to law reforms if the US media reported mass shootings differently for me that also would help reduce the frequency of these incidents.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what it is about news coverage that you see as glamorizing mass shootings. I don't see it that way.

I'd say the standard media response is heavy coverage which, depending on the political tilt of the news organization, either centers on a "Surely this tragedy will finally result in strict gun laws" or a "Surely this tragedy will finally result in arming our teachers (or students)" narrative.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
I dont disagree with that - but my point was in addition to law reforms if the US media reported mass shootings differently for me that also would help reduce the frequency of these incidents.
Click to expand...
OK. Perhaps I missed *how* you wish media to report mass shootings and what your expectation is if they do so.

Genuinely curious. Have a few good friends in TV media (on-air and behind scenes) so would share your thoughts and, in return, share their views. If interested, of course,
 
BlueTX said:
OK. Perhaps I missed *how* you wish media to report mass shootings and what your expectation is if they do so.

Genuinely curious. Have a few good friends in TV media (on-air and behind scenes) so would share your thoughts and, in return, share their views. If interested, of course,
Click to expand...

Basically stop turning the shooters into martyrs.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
in this debate alot think guns/2nd amendment are the only factor at play and its naive in the extreme.
Click to expand...



They don't really though, you kind of just made that up. Everyone accepts there are a lot social and cultural factors, but the fact that there are a bajillion guns in the country is an enormous part of it. The types of mass shooting where some socially inept dweeb walks into a school and kills a load of kids are only a fraction of the mass shootings that actually happen, most of which aren't glamourised or even covered by the media. US media certainly has a problem with dishonesty sensationalism, but it's only a tiny component of a much larger picture. Americans are culturally wedded to guns and have millions of them. Changing media coverage, if that were even possible, would be a drop in the ocean
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
I dont disagree with that - but my point was in addition to law reforms if the US media reported mass shootings differently for me that also would help reduce the frequency of these incidents.
Click to expand...

it’s been mentioned before in various threads but I recommend you google Charlie brooker school shootings, it might be under Charlie brooker mass shooting. Brooker on his newswipe addresses this issue and does it well .

you may dismiss his as a lefty snowflake but ir address the same point as you .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top