Author Topic: the media.. shootings.. (Read 1601 times)

lazs2 · « **on:** December 12, 2007, 08:52:33 AM »

How has the media handled school shootings and other mass shootings by whackjobs?

We live in a nation of fame starved.. everyone wants to be famous.. their 15 minutes.. we are a nation of fad followers and parrots and idiot tv show watchers with empty headed big hair anchors with soothing voices and the ability to look happy or pained on cue.

When asked.. 76% of those involved in the media say that they lean left socialist.

when their is one of these shootings.. they tend to focus first.. on the suffering of the victims.. even if they were not even victims.. then.. the suffering of the poor guy (and his life story) who did the shooting... just what he wanted.

In fully on quarter of school shootings a civilian with a gun stopped the shooter before police arrived.. why didn't you know that?

In this one... at the co. church.. the first reports never even mentioned the woman with a concealed weapon who killed the guy.. latter.. they said that the guy wasn't really killed by her... he committed suicide.

They are now talking about how mean she was at her last job.. It is crazy.

Wouldn't you think that being a nation of fad followers.. that it would be better (and more newsworthy) to focus on how a tiny little woman with a gun stopped the big bad angry man from his cowardly mission to kill? instead of making him some dark avenger?

Wouldn't it be better if people imitated her instead of him? Shouldn't he be ignored in the news and her praised and made into a national hero?

Wouldn't how she stopped him be a lot more interesting (in a nation of action flicks) than what kind of underwear and music they found at the dark avengers home in his moms basement?

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2007, 09:42:56 AM »

I agree, there are 2 folks there who placed themselves at risk to defend others. While I have seen a lot of footage dedicated to the shooter there is substantially less dedicated to the heroes. It all comes down to what is most sensational, the bad guy is worth more print and air time since he caused the problem, the ones who solved it are less worthy in the sensational biased media.

Continuing to play up to the need for attention the shooter has only encourages more copycats.

Yeager · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:00:36 AM »

Im just glad she shot the bastard. I first I thot she was sorta hot, but she really looks kinda odd. Anyway, the guy got dropped by her, if he finished himself off? hell, who cares. She stopped the SOB and he is dead. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Im carrying concealed everywhere I go, I sense this lunacy is just going to worsen as we near the end times, and I want to "do my part" when the need arises

SkyRock · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:17:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
as we near the end times, B]

Curval · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:29:31 AM »

You guys realise that there were two church shootings recently right?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316263,00.html

Funny how the other one has been completely disregarded by...the O'Club. Wonder why?

Lazs....I don't want to get in a big debate about it but can you please provide a source for the one quarter of school shootings being dealt with by civilians?

Maverick · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:40:10 AM »

Curv,

You do know the same guy is responsible for both shootings don't you? The second incident is more noteworthy only because the shooter was taken out not because the victims were more worthy of concern. That's the crux of the discussion here. A potential victim (2 actually) stood up and fought back.

Tigeress · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:42:23 AM »

Lazs,

People on the left and right are getting railroaded by a biased media, imv.
It is a bi-partisan problem, I think.

I haven't seen the righty media doing any less than the lefty media with regards to all this. They both spin against the real facts and hide facts from public viewing on cable TV.

Instead of being the unbiased government watchdog for the country they appear to be partisan and government pawns.

I agree with you that media not reporting relevant news and news twisting needs to stop.

If the sum, or near total sum, of mainstream American TV Media is in bed with both political parties (depending on the channel) and the government, and I believe it is, it needs to stop.

There are A LOT of things that go unreported.

When was the last time you saw a cable news piece on the rampant inflation that is racking the country?

I remember when the inflation index at any given point in time was on everyone's lips and that was before cable TV.

What about this? --> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=rape+us+servicewomen+iraq&btnG=Search

What's ironic about this woman and her co-defender and their mutual takedown of this maniac is... it can't be spun away and shoved under a carpet.

BTW, it is reported she got fired from the police force for lying about chewing out a bus driver.

I was excited when FOX NEWS came on line to set the left Media on it heels... now FOX is as bad, imv, just in a different direction, and not for the better.

TIGERESS

Curval · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:46:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Curv,

You do know the same guy is responsible for both shootings don't you? The second incident is more noteworthy only because the shooter was taken out not because the victims were more worthy of concern. That's the crux of the discussion here. A potential victim (2 actually) stood up and fought back.

Nope, I didn't know that...thanks.

Any info on lazs' stats?

Charon · « **Reply #8 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:52:24 AM »

During the same period of time they also arrested a serial killer likely linked to 15 murders dating back to the 1970s who did not use a gun. I recall at least one arson story in the local news that got minimal coverage where 2-3 people were killed -- no media circus. I have also seen several links to local stories where a homeowner or CCW used a firearm to defend himself. Only made the local news, of course.

The serial killer may get some news traction but really, firearm crime is handled far differently by the media compared to other crime where a murder kills someone using their hands, or a knife or gasoline or a car or a few too many Martinis.

I think that largely explains why many Europeans have a different view of what daily life in "war zone America" is like compared to those of us who actually live here.

You will see far more attention paid to the shooter than the savior on this one though. The Church killer probably was acting out of more personal motivation on this one, given his background, but the mall shooter certainly had media stars in his eyes. Like Cho at VT, he sought out a gun strictly for the purpose of becoming Infamous. And, exactly as he expected, he achieved his goal.

So, is it time to discuss some sensible restrictions on the First Amendment? Stuff like referencing the criminal as simply "the shooter" not showing his face and only providing minimal details about his background or "manifesto?" The current mass media machine, where news travels around the globe almost instantly on dozens of channels, thousands of newspapers and hundreds of thousands of Web sites was certainly not the "press" known to the framers.

Personally, I think these events, as I have noted many times, are far too rare in our population of 300,000,000, even in a bad year like this one, to particularly factor into any rights debate whether it's the 1st or 2nd. However, I do think a change in media policy would be about 100 percent effective on the selfish "make me a star" killers. So, if sensible restrictions are fine with the 2nd, then why not the 1st?

And what about Hollywood, that publicly hates guns but makes millions off of the unrealistic, almost pornographic, portrayal of gun related violence? Time to reign them in? Video games?

Charon

Tigeress · « **Reply #9 on:** December 12, 2007, 11:00:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
During the same period of time they also arrested a serial killer likely linked to 15 murders dating back to the 1970s who did not use a gun. I recall at least one arson story in the local news that got minimal coverage where 2-3 people were killed -- no media circus. I have also seen several links to local stories where a homeowner or CCW used a firearm to defend himself. Only made the local news, of course.

The serial killer may get some news traction but really, firearm crime is handled far differently by the media compared to other crime where a murder kills someone using their hands, or a knife or gasoline or a car or a few too many Martinis.

I think that largely explains why many Europeans have a different view of what daily life in "war zone America" is like compared to those of us who actually live here.

You will see far more attention paid to the shooter than the savior on this one though. The Church killer probably was acting out of more personal motivation on this one, given his background, but the mall shooter certainly had media stars in his eyes. Like Cho at VT, he sought out a gun strictly for the purpose of becoming Infamous. And, exactly as he expected, he achieved his goal.

So, is it time to discuss some sensible restrictions on the First Amendment? Stuff like referencing the criminal as simply "the shooter" not showing his face and only providing minimal details about his background or "manifesto?" The current mass media machine, where news travels around the globe almost instantly on dozens of channels, thousands of newspapers and hundreds of thousands of Web sites was certainly not the "press" known to the framers.

Personally, I think these events, as I have noted many times, are far too rare in our population of 300,000,000, even in a bad year like this one, to particularly factor into any rights debate whether it's the 1st or 2nd. However, I do think a change in media policy would be about 100 percent effective on the selfish "make me a star" killers. So, if sensible restrictions are fine with the 2nd, then why not the 1st?

And what about Hollywood, that publicly hates guns but makes millions off of the unrealistic, almost pornographic, portrayal of gun related violence? Time to reign them in? Video games?

Charon

Careful you dont throw the baby out with the bath water when thinking of tinkering with the 1st amendment... it's a slippery slope once one is on it.

Homicidial maniacs will always spawn and no law can prevent it.

But I certianly understand your point of view.

TIGERESS

Charon · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2007, 12:49:18 PM »

I agree Tigress. I am a strong supporter of the entire BOR, regardless of how messy freedoms can be on occasion. As I have pointed out a number of times in the past, your chance of being killed by some nutter with a gun in one of these high-profile incidents is less than you chance of getting hit by lightning, regardless of the media circus these events create.

Same with semi-automatic rifles (so called assault rifles) where they are used in 1-2 percent of all firearm homicides, about the same as a baseball bat as a murder weapon. Not worth the assault on out liberty, IMO.

However, unlike the typical call for ban this or ban that, in a practical sense denying these creatures the media stage would, effectively, eliminate this specific problem, again IMO. So, for those so willing to further restrict firearm ownership.... what say ye? Why is the 1st a sacred cow and the 2nd a doormat where "sensible" restrictions are concerned?

Charon

Tigeress · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2007, 01:02:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
I agree Tigress. I am a strong supporter of the entire BOR, regardless of how messy freedoms can be on occasion. As I have pointed out a number of times in the past, your chance of being killed by some nutter with a gun in one of these high-profile incidents is less than you chance of getting hit by lightning, regardless of the media circus these events create.

Same with semi-automatic rifles (so called assault rifles) where they are used in 1-2 percent of all firearm homicides, about the same as a baseball bat as a murder weapon. Not worth the assault on out liberty, IMO.

However, unlike the typical call for ban this or ban that, in a practical sense denying these creatures the media stage would, effectively, eliminate this specific problem, again IMO. So, for those so willing to further restrict firearm ownership.... what say ye? Why is the 1st a sacred cow and the 2nd a doormat where "sensible" restrictions are concerned?

Charon

I feel as protective of the 2nd amendment as I do the 1st amendment.

See my recent post on pro-gun Democrats who support gun ownership and anti-gun Republicans who want to limit or end it. --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2671602#post2671602

This is why, in the main, I don't trust politicians, left or right.

I will, instead, pick and choose, ala carte, who I vote for based on my views as to how things should go and not get into the partisan shell game between the left and right.

TIGERESS

Engine · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2007, 01:03:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
Why is the 1st a sacred cow and the 2nd a doormat where "sensible" restrictions are concerned?

Because the 1st is an abstract ideal, and all Americans can get behind it. The 2nd deals with guns, and guns are designed only to kill, so they must be bad... right?

There's such resistance to the idea that occasionally... killing can be justified, and even laudable. That's the core of it.

Charon · « **Reply #13 on:** December 12, 2007, 02:20:05 PM »

Quote

See my recent post on pro-gun Democrats who support gun ownership and anti-gun Republicans who want to limit or end it. --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/f...602#post2671602

This is why, in the main, I don't trust politicians, left or right.

Preaching to the Choir

I lost faith in either party some time ago. After much arguing with Lazs over why Ron Paul makes sense, I may vote Republican strictly, and I mean strictly, over the issue of supreme court nominations. Not that I have any great deal of trust in Rudy McRomney al' Huckabee on that or any constitutionalist issue. If that wasn't an issue neither party would receive my presidential endorsement, just like neither did last election.

Charon

lazs2 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2007, 02:27:24 PM »

curval... you can go to the John Lott site for the number.. I know how much you like him but it should be even more true since your people spent so much time trying to find one fact in the thousands he used in his book that.. it pretty much gives it a "peer reviewed" quality.. if you want to see the footnotes on source you will have to buy the book I suppose. I am too lazy to look it up in mine.

His site does say it tho.. as does this national review article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200503230744.asp

lazs