Cypress Sam, SASS #10915 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 In reading "experts" opinions on the reasons that some deranged individuals go on shooting rampages in schools, one common thread seems to be a desire to make history or make a name for themselves with a high "body count." The press and many politicians are screaming for more "common sense" "gun safety" laws. (Read that as gun control.) In my opinion, gun bans are a violation of our second amendment rights. The press doesn't seem to care about violating the Constitution though. Maybe a better solution would be to ban the press' right to publish any information about school shootings. Pass a "common sense" law restricting what can be published in the case of any school or other mass shooting, including names of the shooters and victims, as well as any details of the shootings. Since the press doesn't mind violating the second amendment, let's see what they think about the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Doc Martin, SASS #21774 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Maybe a better solution would be to ban the press' right to publish any information about school shootings. Pass a "common sense" law restricting what can be published in the case of any school or other mass shooting, including names of the shooters and victims, as well as any details of the shootings. Actually, I think the press causes a lot of copy-cat shootings from the sensationalism they make of it. If it didn't hit the national news and stay there for months on end there would be less of it. Of course the members of the press throw up their arms and say they are only reporting the news. BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al OVERA, SASS#26238 Life Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Actually, I think the press causes a lot of copy-cat shootings from the sensationalism they make of it. If it didn't hit the national news and stay there for months on end there would be less of it. Of course the members of the press throw up their arms and say they are only reporting the news. BS! :angry:/> ++++, I agree 100%. The news are still, very adamantly, mentioning the "20 students and 6 adults" from Newtown at EVERY opportinity. This only makes the sickos' out there want to "better" that count. Meanwhile, any "control" won't remove those nutsos' from their ungodly plans, or our midst. Only folks affected will be the Law Abiding citizens, as usual. MHO Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoneburner Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I understand the argument, though I'm hesitant to endorse curtailing ANY part of the Bill of Rights. But to support your idea, we had a training at the high school where I teach a couple of weeks ago led by a retired police officer from Cincinnati who studies mass shootings. He maintains that the press are giving new shooters ideas about what to do differently. For example, in one shooting potential victims played dead and were able to survive, but in the next one (Virginia Tech) the shooter walked up and down the classrooms shooting everyone on the ground multiple times to be sure they were dead. I don't know what the answer is, but it weighs on me and my family. My wife said the other day, "I hope you never have to be a hero." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Slim Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I believe the problem is side effects of prescription drugs. It is the common thread of all of these mass shootings. These side effects can be much worse than the condition being treated, and can persist after the drug is no longer being taken, and no longer shows up in blood teats. There is a TV commercial for a sleeping pill. Next time you see it, listen to the list of side effects. Many other psychactive drugs have similar problems. Drug companies have settled many lawsuits out of court, and had the records sealed, to protect their multibillion $ sales of these drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awful Close Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 My grandkids live in a suburb of Birmingham, Al. Within 30 minutes of the news of the Connecticut shooting, the police chief had ARMED policemen in EVERY school. They have not been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubious Don #56333 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Naw, I got me a better idee....ban schools. Make parents HOME SCHOOL their little ones, K thru college. Let the buggers go house to house. One it's take too long, most would give up and two, there'd be a good chance the first, second or third house would have a firearm and someone who knew how to use it...problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I agree the only press the shooter should get, is his hanging in the town square broadcast live. Of course we would use the strangulation method of hanging and not the drop 6 feet and die instantaneously method. Call me medieval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Duncan Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Remember when streakers would run across stadiums covered by TV? TV stopped broadcasting them and the Streekers stpped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Kiowa Jones #6765 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I understand the argument, though I'm hesitant to endorse curtailing ANY part of the Bill of Rights. But to support your idea, we had a training at the high school where I teach a couple of weeks ago led by a retired police officer from Cincinnati who studies mass shootings. He maintains that the press are giving new shooters ideas about what to do differently. For example, in one shooting potential victims played dead and were able to survive, but in the next one (Virginia Tech) the shooter walked up and down the classrooms shooting everyone on the ground multiple times to be sure they were dead. I don't know what the answer is, but it weighs on me and my family. My wife said the other day, "I hope you never have to be a hero." I tend to agree. But, think about this. The 2A is the insurance that guaranties all the other rights. Without the means to demand your rights the government will tell you what you can print and who you will pray to. Israel’s history is our future. This is how they solved the same problem. ISREALI TEACHER GUARDING HER FLOCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dapper Dynamite Dick Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Actually, I think the press causes a lot of copy-cat shootings from the sensationalism they make of it. If it didn't hit the national news and stay there for months on end there would be less of it. Of course the members of the press throw up their arms and say they are only reporting the news. BS! :angry:/> Bingo, but just try to keep an ambulance chaser away from any tragedy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt Blade, #25657 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Just imagine the howls of “First Amendment! First Amendment!” if the proposed laws were: • A ten page limit on magazines and other periodicals. • A ten book limit on home bookshelves. • Registration of all reporters and writers. • Licensing of large collections of books. • Background checks before publishing any public document. • Ten person limit on audiences. • Prohibition of “assault journalism” defined as scary looking/sounding, rapid delivered, or mass-market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Just imagine the howls of “First Amendment! First Amendment!” if the proposed laws were: • A ten page limit on magazines and other periodicals. • A ten book limit on home bookshelves. • Registration of all reporters and writers. • Licensing of large collections of books. • Background checks before publishing any public document. • Ten person limit on audiences. • Prohibition of “assault journalism” defined as scary looking/sounding, rapid delivered, or mass-market. Add one more... no public use of a photo or film without the consent of the person in the photo or film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazy Ace Bob, #38620 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Cypress Sam - LOVE THIS!!!! You have just given me the perfect topic for my next speech to the legislature here in CT. Imagine the sensible points that can be made by arguing for something that would amount to just a tiny infringement on the freedom of the press. Make it a felony for any member of the press or press organization to report ANY details on any shooting that involves more than 2 persons. When compared to the vast amount of stories that are reported by the press, this restriction is only on a minuscule percentage of their reporting. It doesn't impact the other "uses" of the 1st amendment such as reporting on politics or the economy (similar to hunting for the 2nd amendment). It has been clear from documents left by past assailants that MOST of these mass shootings ARE in fact motivated by the killer attempting to gain notoriety. That was the stated goal for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan as well as the assailants at Columbine and Va Tech. Once that possibility is removed, then the entire motive for the mass killing is gone. This small infringement on the 1st Amendment freedom of the press CLEARLY outweighs the concerns that those members of the press would have since it is obviously in the best interest of the health and safety of the public. There are roughly 1500 newspapers, 1700 TV stations and less than 15,000 radio stations in the country that would be impacted. Small numbers like this are insignificant when compared to 80,000,000 gun owners. After all, the Supreme Court has stated that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are NOT unlimited rights. For example, no one can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Isn't the printing of inflammatory reports of mass shootings just an extension of that limitation? There is no doubt that banning the press from reporting on mass shootings will not stop ALL mass shootings. But after all, in the words of the immortal Joe Biden, "If it save just ONE life, then it's worth it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Cypress Sam - LOVE THS!!!! You have just given me the perfect topic for my next speech to the legislature here in CT. Imagine the sensible points that can be made by arguing for something that would amount to just a tiny infringement on the freedom of the press. Make it a felony for any member of the press or press organization to report ANY details on any shooting that involves more than 2 persons. When compared to the vast amount of stories that are reported by the press, this restriction is only on a minuscule percentage of their reporting. It doesn't impact the other "uses" of the 1st amendment such as reporting on politics or the economy (similar to hunting for the 2nd amendment). It has been clear from documents left by past assailants that MOST of these mass shootings ARE in fact motivated by the killer attempting to gain notoriety. That was the stated goal for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan as well as the assailants at Columbine and Va Tech. Once that possibility is removed, then the entire motive for the mass killing is gone. This small infringement on the 1st Amendment freedom of the press CLEARLY outweighs the concerns that those members of the press would have since it is obviously in the best interest of the health and safety of the public. There are roughly 1500 newspapers, 1700 TV stations and less than 15,000 radio stations in the country that would be impacted. Small numbers like this are insignificant when compared to 80,000,000 gun owners. After all, the Supreme Court has stated that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are NOT unlimited rights. For example, no one can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Isn't the printing of inflammatory reports of mass shootings just an extension of that limitation? There is no doubt that banning the press from reporting on mass shootings will not stop ALL mass shootings. But after all, in the words of the immortal Joe Biden, "If it save just ONE life, then it's worth it." And if it will save just one child's life its worth it. I am sure there are other such comments to stir the soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.