• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

BANGS
Member
(11-13-2017, 05:36 PM)
BANGS's Avatar
Doesn't have anything to do with the amount of guns. It only takes one to kill people...

My best guess would be access to guns for questionable people, and the constant glorifying of violence in our culture. Wanna be talked about for a week straight by the whole nation? Just kill a few people...
luxsol
Member
(11-13-2017, 09:26 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

claiming news media in europe handles news the same way as the US.
uses US news media to prove european news handles news the same way

Disingenuous as fuck.

Nevermind the fact that interrupting a show watched by tens of millions is far different from watching a channel watched by a few hundred thousands.
Nevermind that the AMOUNT OF TIME does matter. The scope of spreading these events impresses a far larger amount of people by the sheer amount of time that is spent reporting it.
Nevermind the sheer amount of channels it is reported by.

But no, you want to pretend that the media spending hours, days, and weeks doesn't matter.
It's like pretending that a product that only gets a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl reaches and affects the same amount of people as a 2 minute long commercial during the Super Bowl, with ads playing on 20 different channels for one month straight and hundreds in print.

I'd ignore you, because you're just arguing in bad faith, but it's just too ridiculous to not read.

Nevermind that the more posts and time i spend spreads my message to more people. This thread went from a few hundred viewing it to over 11,000 views, because it has been in continuous use and on the front page for 6 days straight.
Do you not see the irony?

From a perspective of "everyone should be able to have a gun, with a small selection who should not", weeding through the selection who should not is a huge drain of resources, bureaucracy and red tape.

Hilarious.
You really don't care about real answers of how shit can be made safer, as already existing laws and easy solutions would make a difference, but you willfully ignore and argue against them because of a poor theory.

LordRaptor
Member
(11-13-2017, 09:36 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

Disingenuous as fuck.

I'll take that to mean that you have no way of reconciling the fact that the exact same programming shown to two different groups of people makes one go guncrazy and has no effect on the other then?

Because that is literally the claim you are making.
luxsol
Member
(11-13-2017, 10:31 PM)
What do you get from clearly ignoring my point, research, and expert claims?

We both know what you're doing, so why?
LordRaptor
Member
(11-13-2017, 11:03 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

What do you get from clearly ignoring my point, research, and expert claims?

I mean, I've literally asked you the same question 3 or 4 times on the last page and you continue to be evasive about it and just sya "media tottally different, it just is, even if its the same media" so I'm not sure why you're now flinging the "disingenous" and "ignoring point" cards around (and still not answering the question how the literal exact same piece of media A B tested in two different countries has markedly different results if the media is the cause)
luxsol
Member
(11-13-2017, 11:28 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

I mean, I've literally asked you the same question 3 or 4 times on the last page and you continue to be evasive about it and just sya "media tottally different, it just is, even if its the same media" so I'm not sure why you're now flinging the "disingenous" and "ignoring point" cards around (and still not answering the question how the literal exact same piece of media A B tested in two different countries has markedly different results if the media is the cause)

Which questions?

And "it just is" is bullsht.
I've given multiple examples of how it's different, yet the ONLY example you've ever given me is how the US news channel CNBC is shown there too. This in no way even begins to come close to how alike the news media in Europe handles these events.
Yet you ignore this point.

You made assumptions about the US, so i had to explain WHY it's different, like with gangs, yet you think that came out of left field? that it's not relevant, despite your claims that SOMETHING must be wrong for the US to be as violent as it is.

You've done nothing but ignore the evidence and skew my point, just to fit your narrow view.
If that isn't disingenuous, what is?

Nevermind all the misrepresentation of the facts. My favorite is how you claimed there's more gun crime, despite gun crime decreasing? That's comedy, and only proof of how the media has increased its reporting of gun violence, skewing your view on this matter.

So what do you get from making shit up and ignoring my points? Are you even aware that you're doing it or is your cognitive dissonance really that powerful?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
(11-14-2017, 12:13 AM)
blu's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

Point is that gun crime INCREASED afterward and any one of those incidents could have turned out to be tragic.
Also note how gun crime has increased in recent years, including homicides.

The plot you linked to shows the last spike of firearms casualties in 1996 - the year of the last mass shooting in Australia. No year past 2000 has had as much as 50% of the mass-shooting year. Seems to me like that legislation achieved its goal.
Blood Borne
Junior Member
(11-14-2017, 12:19 AM)
My conclusion is that it is imperative that everyone has a gun, therefore each crime is pretty much a suicide mission.

People attack people because they know their victims most likely doesn't have a gun, but if everyone has a gun, it will heavily deter criminals.
luxsol
Member
(11-14-2017, 04:07 AM)

Originally Posted by blu

The plot you linked to shows the last spike of firearms casualties in 1996 - the year of the last mass shooting in Australia. No year past 2000 has had as much as 50% of the mass-shooting year. Seems to me like that legislation achieved its goal.

Like i said, gun violence went up and any of those could have been worse than they were.

And despite the gun ban, violence in general went up, including homicide. Just goes to show that people are pretty flexible and creative in how they can accomplish their goals.
See also this on mass killings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia
20 years after the banning and 20 years before the banning, the mass killings are practically identical in number of events and death toll.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-14-2017, 04:43 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

Which questions?

And "it just is" is bullsht.
I've given multiple examples of how it's different

No dude, you just keeping making unfounded assertions then denying reality when confronted.
You say other countries don't interrupt programming with news reports - they do.
You say other countries don't devote bulk airtime to news programming - they do.
You say other countries don't have "regional" news - they do.

Like.... you keep fishing for some disparity where none exists, and evading responses telling you otherwise. Its pretty sketchy.
Where are you going to go with this now?
Other countries don't have people of colour newsreaders? (pre-emptive they do)
Other countries don't have capitalist freedom news reports, only bolshevik state censorship? (pre-emptive they do)
Some other insane reach to make your hypothesis about the media fit in spite of the facts not because of them? (pre-emptive they do because you are so fucking desperate to pin this on the US media)

I've lived in a bunch of different countries around the world, including the US, and the way the news is reported is exactly the same around most of the world, production values not withstanding.

In fact - to ask this fucking question again, and watch you ignore it again - you literally get US media in a lot of countries around the world.

So if you claim media is the cause of gun violence, why do two geographically separate groups watching the exact literal same broadcast have one group then commit a crime and the other not?


Originally Posted by luxsol

You've done nothing but ignore the evidence and skew my point, just to fit your narrow view.
If that isn't disingenuous, what is?

Hum.

You claimed gun violence in the US has been falling since the 80s - it reached a record high in 1993.

You claim Australias legislation had no impact;
- There have been zero (0) mass shootings since it was introduced.
- Firearm homicides have decreased
- Homicide rates in general have declined
sources:
https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun...ralia-updated/
American Medical Association

You claim that media in countries outside the US behaves - in some intangible way that you cannot define, or in the demonstrably false ways you have tried to define so far - so differently to other media, that it actually causes spree killings.
But only to US citizens living in the US who watch it.
Because when that literal identical media is shown elsewhere, it does not create spree killings.

You also seem pleased at the viewcount this topic is getting, and brag about how "your message" is being seen, while repeatedly posting some basic ass meme picture that just makes me think "If you see this image you have been visited by the spirit of spurious logic, respond with #thoughtsandprayers to be visited by fallacious correlations!".
It really doesn't seem like I'm being disingenous or have ulterior motivations with regard to posting in this topic beyond simple debate.
Bleepey
Member
(11-14-2017, 06:23 PM)
Bleepey's Avatar
The annoying thing about the doctor quote, I haven't bothered to check if it's real or fake, is that one doctor's opinion when it comes to medical research ranks fairly low. A systematic literature review/meta analysis, clinical trial, peer reviewed publication have way more weight than one guy's opinion. Like it's right at the bottom.

luxsol
Member
(11-15-2017, 02:30 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

No dude, you just keeping making unfounded assertions then denying reality when confronted.
You say other countries don't interrupt programming with news reports - they do.
You say other countries don't devote bulk airtime to news programming - they do.
You say other countries don't have "regional" news - they do.

I never said any of this.
I've been WAITING FOR YOU or ANYONE ELSE to provide info on how the news is done.
In my own posts I even mentioned how regional seems to work in other countries and i was surprised at how little YOUR country has.
All I ever got from you was "but we do too" and "but we run your news too!", without any mention of how much is actually shown.
It seems like you're not bothering to read my posts, so why do you even bother to argue?
You're just creating a shitty strawman to pretend I'm wrong, instead of actually responding to what I've said.

Like.... you keep fishing for some disparity where none exists, and evading responses telling you otherwise. Its pretty sketchy.
Where are you going to go with this now?
Other countries don't have people of colour newsreaders? (pre-emptive they do)
Other countries don't have capitalist freedom news reports, only bolshevik state censorship? (pre-emptive they do)
Some other insane reach to make your hypothesis about the media fit in spite of the facts not because of them? (pre-emptive they do because you are so fucking desperate to pin this on the US media)

I've lived in a bunch of different countries around the world, including the US, and the way the news is reported is exactly the same around most of the world, production values not withstanding.

That's great and all, so how come you have failed to even describe it, instead trying to point toward a US channel running in your country to try and prove foreign news also shows over a million hours across a hundred different channels showing live killstreaks like the US does?
You've spent most of the time avoiding my questions and examples. You claim your country has extensive country, but i wondered how much, hence my examples how the US will interrupt prime time shows watched by dozens of millions on the most watched stations in the US. You just kept mentioning the 24/7 news channels, but not how they do it. You say there's two regional stations, which is far below what you get in most markets in the US. Pointing toward that one or three US stations that are carried affair is still small compared to what we actually geti n the US. A fraction of the drama.

If you want to make the claim that the media is alike, how about actually stating how? Nevermind it's unlikely it can be if you have so few regional channels all screaming at you for your attention like n the US, especially when you keep saying how tiny the UK is.

So if you claim media is the cause of gun violence, why do two geographically separate groups watching the exact literal same broadcast have one group then commit a crime and the other not?

This is what I'm wondering, hence my questions and wanting comparisons made about your media.


The rest of your post is a load of horseshit, where you keep misrepresenting what I've said, because you don't want to fucking read.

Also, that's hilarious that you want to call an expert giving NEEDED advice a meme, equating it to stupid shit sayings.
luxsol
Member
(11-15-2017, 02:59 AM)

Originally Posted by Bleepey

The annoying thing about the doctor quote, I haven't bothered to check if it's real or fake, is that one doctor's opinion when it comes to medical research ranks fairly low. A systematic literature review/meta analysis, clinical trial, peer reviewed publication have way more weight than one guy's opinion. Like it's right at the bottom.

There's a reason why i kept referring to a paper written (Kids and Guns) about this, because it lists all its sources.
I assumed someone would bother going through it, but if you need help: https://www.google.com/search?ei=zps....0.fkL1Qv_LdR0
https://books.google.com/books?id=lp...murder&f=false
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4178222/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...es-how/266439/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ters-copycats/

I guess no one bothers to ever look, because it's not on TV and the media buries it under the deathtolls and the weather. It's so unsexy and boring. =P

Here's one about terrorism, which i never really thought about: https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/p...nd-mass-murder

I've included image to make my post more entertaining.
Bleepey
Member
(11-15-2017, 08:09 AM)
Bleepey's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

There's a reason why i kept referring to a paper written (Kids and Guns) about this, because it lists all its sources.
I assumed someone would bother going through it, but if you need help: https://www.google.com/search?ei=zps....0.fkL1Qv_LdR0
https://books.google.com/books?id=lp...murder&f=false
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4178222/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...es-how/266439/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ters-copycats/

I guess no one bothers to ever look, because it's not on TV and the media buries it under the deathtolls and the weather. It's so unsexy and boring. =P

Here's one about terrorism, which i never really thought about: https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/p...nd-mass-murder

I've included image to make my post more entertaining.

I saw your articles and the thing is the media reporting these things isn't the main reason for these shooting sprees. I am sorry 10+ kids being shot up should be front page news and probably for days. That was the case in the UK, when Port Arthur happened I am pretty damn sure received wall to wall coverage, the only difference is that in the UK or Australia comprehensive gun control was implemented. You've tried thoughts and prayers for how many decades and where has it got you? If another Las Vegas happened would you want the media to not cover it? I saw the literature review and I am not sure what it has to do with comprehensive gun policy. Searching systematic literature review and linking to the first thing you see doesn't support your argument or rebut mine. Here is a more pertinent study.

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/arti.../1/140/2754868
luxsol
Member
(11-15-2017, 10:30 AM)

Originally Posted by Bleepey

I saw your articles and the thing is the media reporting these things isn't the main reason for these shooting sprees.

OF course they're not the main reason.
Getting fired, arguments about video games, GF/wives leaving, no GF forever, wanting to enter the next world faster, etc is usually the cause of wanting to do something stupid.
Their method of solving their problem is what makes them copycats though. They think it's a suitable way of solving their problem, hence so many professionals and experts telling the media to stop feeding the thirst for blood.

I am sorry 10+ kids being shot up should be front page news and probably for days.

Why are you so blood thirsty?
For the sake of saving more lives, it shouldn't be. It can still appear SOMEWHERE, but why give the death of whomever full 24/7 media coverage with a disembodied voice needing to make shit up for every second, or else lose people's interest? Like i said before, people are murdered, suicide, and die every single day and hour. What makes certain deaths matter so much when you already don't give a shit about other multi-kill streaks like with gang members? Even local media won't report on local issues like that unless some white person got involved or the cops were shot at too.
Are you too young to remember what it was like before the news started sensationalize everything, hence believing shit like that needs to be front page news damn the costs?

Here is a more pertinent study.

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/arti.../1/140/2754868
I like this part

We found similar findings in other studies examining legislation targeting multiple elements of regulations in other countries (122–126), ... findings have not been replicated. (about Australia's ban)

Also, almost every law that banned guns increased violence/murders. Laws that made punishments more severe for infractions or actually preventing those that shouldn't own guns (crimnals, domestic abuses, etc) actually did reduce violence/deaths.
about DC ban

found that the law was not associated with abrupt or gradual changes in homicide rates (no estimates for the law-suicide rates association were reported)

1968 Gun Control act

Magaddino and Medoff (96), using data for the period 1947–1977 in structural models adjusted by state characteristics, found that the law was not associated with changes in homicide rates.

About gun buy backs (reducing number of guns in various areas/countries)

found no association between the program and firearm homicides but a reduction in suicide rates associated with the number of firearms that were bought back.

About increasing punishments for gun infractions (depending on the city/state tho):

Rosenfeld et al. (92) added more years (1992–2001) and used adjusted multilevel models, and they observed a 22% yearly reduction in firearm homicides

About US assault weapon ban:

Koper and Roth (76) using UCR data (1980–1995) found no association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states after adjusting for the presence of other firearm laws and crime laws in New York and California. A recent study by Gius (48) showed that the federal assault weapons ban was associated with higher rates of firearm homicides.

Also, read up on on the Aussieland 1996 ban. It becomes a mixed result (the law having an affect on homicide rates OR not having an affect) if you go through the results historically.

I am not sure what it has to do with comprehensive gun policy.

It doesn't. All I've really done is dismiss OP's theory, because it doesn't explain shit, especially when other comprehensive studies show a more direct correlation between mass killings and the news media. The correlation is so strong that they can predict the future:

In fact, the authors did discover a temporal contagion among
all datasets (USA today 4 or more deaths, Brady Bill 4 or more deaths, and Brady Bill school
shootings) except one (Brady Bill 3 or fewer deaths). Moreover, the rate of mass shootings has
escalated to, on average, one every 12.5 days in the United States, and one school shooting
happens on average every 31.6 days. The most disturbing finding is that for every three
incidents, at least one new incident is guaranteed, or copied, within 13 days.

Ok, maybe i was on topic earlier when I said WHY DID MASS SHOOTINGS BECOME SO PREVALENT NOW? Everything about obtaining firearms, buying fully automatic rifles and machine guns, and NO BACKGROUND checks would have made it far easier to enact mass killings pre-90s/80s. Nevermind the fact that there's far less violence today than most other decades.
The only explanation is the fact that the news media has increased their coverage and has increased the amount of time that they can cover those violence crimes.
I blame princess Diana's death. Around the clock news really did not begin until then. OJ helped too.
PabloBolivar
Banned
(11-15-2017, 01:16 PM)
Nice post luxol.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-15-2017, 02:59 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

I've been WAITING FOR YOU or ANYONE ELSE to provide info on how the news is done.

And people have. And you ignored it.
Its real fucking easy in the information age to research any given topic - feel free to go and look up regional ITV and BBC variants.
Feel free to go look up TV listings.
Feel free to go and spend time in another country and see how people outside of the US live.


Originally Posted by luxsol

The rest of your post is a load of horseshit, where you keep misrepresenting what I've said, because you don't want to fucking read.

Hum.
Shocked not that shocked direct refutation of your repeated claims that Australian violence - gun or otherwise - has gone up since legislation was passed gets handwaved.


Here's the thing.
Literally yesterday, mere hours after my last post, there was another spree killing with a gun where victims included children.

Even taking your infographics at face value, as wholly true, and with no qualifiers - its talking about 10 fucking shootings ever since Columbine.
The US is averaging more than 16 mass shootings per year.

And spree killings are by no means the biggest percentage of gun related homicides.

People are literally dying to support one specific interpretation of the right to bear arms.



Your country has a problem.


Other countries that had that problem managed to resolve that problem.
But groups literally do not want to hear the solution others found. That demonstrably worked.


You cannot solve your problem until you acknowledge what it actually is.
Its like a junkie repeatedly saying how they can handle it, its not the drugs fault things are going to turn to shit, they don't need rehab, okay, maybe they can slow down a bit but basically everythings okay.

You need to stop rationalising ways to avoid looking at the actual issue.
Or just continue having what should have been preventable deaths. #thoughtsandprayers.
luxsol
Member
(11-15-2017, 06:00 PM)
I ignored nothing.

Again, I looked up how TV does news over in England and by your or some other brit's admission, it's too small to get enough news media... despite the fact that southern CA is small too yet has more local and independent TV stations than you can shake a stick at. Again, most of them have their own news crews because of how cheap it is to produce and run news programming to rake in viewers and advertisers 5-10 hours a day.

The Australian thing i posted earlier. you can click the little chart to show homicides with guns, knives, and hands, and whatever, and the homicide rate went up after the ban. Same with gun crimes.

Of course, here you are ignoring that the ban probably maybe didn't have anything to do with the homicide rate going down and the fact that mass killings continue at almost the same rate and number as they did before that really bad mass killing.

Despite all these studies, you continue to repeat and believe a very flawed report because you like that answer more... even though in that one top tier study review that Bleepey posted, it says that gun buy backs, which reduces the number of guns in various cities/states, did nothing for the homicide rates, thus goes against that flawed report's shitty assumption that more guns = more killings, huh?
Nevermind that the homicide rate has gone down despite the buying of more guns since the 80s/90s.

You just plug your ears against studies and advice that can make a difference, despite all your lamentations over the newest killing which was predicted by some guy (and many other professionals and experts) you claim is a memer, because it isn't the answer YOU like.
It's also great how you've created a nice strawman that kinda looks like me because of the same reason.
It's incredibly petty of you.

If you were American, I'd say you don't actually care about people dying, because you could be complaining and sending angry letters to news channels about how they handle reporting on violence and deaths. Way easier and quicker method of reducing deaths.
But you're British, so even with all your blaming and condescending ignorance that would be directed to gun owners and politicians here, it accomplishes nothing just the same.

#cureignorance
LordRaptor
Member
(11-15-2017, 06:23 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar
No dude, you clearly haven't researched shit because you keep ignoring the corrections I have told you about global media, the links I provided, or just, you know, actual researchable fucking facts from apolitical non-partisan sources.

Your premise for all the data you look at is that guns are definitely not the problem so you exclude the data that contradicts that premise and focus on alternate data instead.

I know you're not doing independent research, because you're recycling long term fucking debunked spurious claims about Australia, because it is a literal fucking modern case study of fewer guns resulting in less gun violence.

Like... take a step back.

Your motivation is - obviously - that you want freely available guns.
What is the motivation of pretty much the rest of the world in saying that more guns results in more gun violence?

Pretend that I don't give a shit about unnecessry deaths on a purely humanistic level - what's my deal? Why am I and others falsifying data? Whats to gain?
Why would anyone even bother suggesting that the fundamental cause of gun violence is having lots of guns if thats not true?
There are a lot of vested interests in the US that want guns easily available for sale, and people scared that they better get their own guns, because - despite the hundreds of thousands of fatalities suggesting otherwise - more guns in 'the right hands' is gonna fix things somehow.

Cui fucking bono?
Dude Abides
Member
(11-16-2017, 12:51 AM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

If you were American, I'd say you don't actually care about people dying, because you could be complaining and sending angry letters to news channels about how they handle reporting on violence and deaths. Way easier and quicker method of reducing deaths.
But you're British, so even with all your blaming and condescending ignorance that would be directed to gun owners and politicians here, it accomplishes nothing just the same.

#cureignorance

Are you trolling? Even if your NRA propaganda attempt to blame the media were true, what are angry letters going to accomplish? The media reports on violence because that’s what people want to hear about. They aren’t going to change their business model because some apoplectic gun-strokers say mean things to them.
luxsol
Member
(11-16-2017, 03:32 AM)
Wow, this is just getting crazy.

Despite direct evidence, even from a review linked by a guy who was trying to argue that guns are the problem, I'm now part of a NRA conspiracy?

You guys are fucking desperate to try and deny the reality of something that goes beyond just guns, that has been noticed and ACCEPTED by law enforcement, mental health groups, and the fucking news media itself.
And obviously, the predictions these studies have made, like knowing there will be another shooting thanks to copycats if there's intense media coverage are obviously just NRA... what's that word where a group manufactures an event to pass a law? Like that Sandy Hook conspiracy to gun grab all M16s? Fucking nuts.

It's one thing to argue with someone who's going to create a strawman to try and be right, but to get into paranoia and denial of reality? How can i even begin to get my message through?

Oh and sending ANY feedback does work. You just need enough of it to make a difference, but you guys just don't care or believe it's all NRA lies.


Bleepie, how does it feel that you're just an NRA plant?
Dude Abides
Member
(11-16-2017, 04:38 AM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

Wow, this is just getting crazy.

Despite direct evidence, even from a review linked by a guy who was trying to argue that guns are the problem, I'm now part of a NRA conspiracy?

You guys are fucking desperate to try and deny the reality of something that goes beyond just guns, that has been noticed and ACCEPTED by law enforcement, mental health groups, and the fucking news media itself.
And obviously, the predictions these studies have made, like knowing there will be another shooting thanks to copycats if there's intense media coverage are obviously just NRA... what's that word where a group manufactures an event to pass a law? Like that Sandy Hook conspiracy to gun grab all M16s? Fucking nuts.

It's one thing to argue with someone who's going to create a strawman to try and be right, but to get into paranoia and denial of reality? How can i even begin to get my message through?

Oh and sending ANY feedback does work. You just need enough of it to make a difference, but you guys just don't care or believe it's all NRA lies.


Bleepie, how does it feel that you're just an NRA plant?

I didn’t say you were part of any conspiracy, just that your pushing NRA talking points, which you are.

That was an aside. My larger point was that your “solution” of writing angry letters to TV stations is really stupid. Media outlets aren’t going to do things to reduce viewership just because a bunch of goons (albeit goons with guns) tell them to. Putting “any” in all caps doesn’t make that idea any less asinine.
RefigeKru
Member
(11-16-2017, 05:31 AM)
RefigeKru's Avatar

Originally Posted by Martinski43

Well when the Breivik thing happened in Norway it was a big deal for more than a year, in Sweden.

^
in the UK Breivik was on the news for year straight? You know why? Because this isn't the norm in Europe.


Also, it's easy to fall back on XYZ studies when your own fucking government can't produce studies because the NRA lobbied hard enough against it. If you start at the wrong place, you'll never come to a proper conclusion - since Luxsol assumes all these shootings are because of the media - not the guns used in the shootings - he'll never be satisfied. Nothing will change.
prag16
Member
(11-16-2017, 06:28 AM)
prag16's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

And obviously, the predictions these studies have made, like knowing there will be another shooting thanks to copycats if there's intense media coverage are obviously just NRA... what's that word where a group manufactures an event to pass a law? Like that Sandy Hook conspiracy to gun grab all M16s? Fucking nuts.

I'm with you, that blaming the amount of guns misses the forest for the trees and disregard numerous other important considerations.

But the bolded. You're talking about a false flag event?

You think Sandy Hook was a false flag?
luxsol
Member
(11-16-2017, 09:40 AM)

Originally Posted by prag16

I'm with you, that blaming the amount of guns misses the forest for the trees and disregard numerous other important considerations.

But the bolded. You're talking about a false flag event?

I'm saying these guys that deny the fact these events happen just as predicted based on multiple studies and reviewed god knows how many times are basically nutters. If the model isn't correct you might as well claim it's a false flag, put up by the NRA, planting papers and internet history on an actor (who will be killed after the operation is over) to prove he was a copycat.

And who fucking cares if the NRA uses real facts. If it's true, it's true.

But no, association with groups you don't like = automatically bad
some article agreeing with your own view, no matter how many other studies point toward it being false or inconclusive = truth.
Disagree? Fake, strawmanned, ignored.


Anyway, the media does listen. Again, they already don't report on god knows how many suicides. They withhold names and events because it would harm law enforcement's ability to do investigations or protect victims/witnesses from retaliations,etc.

I really hope someone tries to fucking sue them for aiding in the increase of mass shootings, especially when there's far clearer evidence of that than when people have tried to sue gun manufacturers.
Obviously, they'll scream about the first amendment, but it's not about their reporting that makes these things happen. It's the implied prevalence and exaggeration that should open them up to a lawsuit.
And no, i didn't say all mass killings are caused because of the amount of time spent on reporting them. It's what has lead to the increase of these events since the 90s.
Palpable
Member
(11-16-2017, 09:52 AM)
Palpable's Avatar

Originally Posted by Neo C.

A mass shooting stays on the news for a very long time. Perhaps it's not as in your face as in the US, but I don't think you'll find the answer here.




The experts are right, it's the gun control, or the lack of.

Tell that to the two guys in Texas that stopped the shooter with their legally owned guns.
Bleepey
Member
(11-16-2017, 09:59 AM)
Bleepey's Avatar

Originally Posted by Palpable

Tell that to the two guys in Texas that stopped the shooter with their legally owned guns.

Ever hear the phrase an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure? An ounce of gun prevention is better than a pound of cure.

also Luxsol who do you think are more likely to manufacture a mass shooting. The govt in hopes to prevent more shootings or protect themselves from tyranny depending on who you ask, or arms manufacturers who everytime there is a shooting their sales and stock price increase. Investing in arms stock is a reliably safe investment.
Dude Abides
Member
(11-16-2017, 10:08 AM)
Dude Abides's Avatar
Luxsol, we can tell you’re full of shit because you jumped into this thread wondering if there were differences between US media coverage and other places, and now you’ve decided there must be because reasons.

The media does in fact report on suicides so who knows what you’re even talking about. They don’t report on every single one because nobody cares if John Doe in Bumfuck offed himself. If someone people care about kills himself, like a celebrity, they sure as hell do report on it extensively.

Now you’re hoping people sue the media for reporting the news? Strange how Second Amendment obsessives have such contempt for the First.
luxsol
Member
(11-16-2017, 10:29 AM)

Originally Posted by NRA Plant Hinting at Blowing the Mass Conspiracy Open

also Luxsol who do you think are more likely to manufacture a mass shooting. The govt in hopes to prevent more shootings or protect themselves from tyranny depending on who you ask, or arms manufacturers who everytime there is a shooting their sales and stock price increase. Investing in arms stock is a reliably safe investment.

Oh shit, this is getting exciting now!

And i think it depends on the manufacturer. How many have enough special forces dudes to make such an operation possible? That Las Vegas guy was obviously a sleeper agent, since he had such close ties with the government and the military industry complex. His handlers obviously had to have been former black OP dudes, since the shooter went rogue and knew to watch his back to prevent Lockheed's assasssins from stopping him too early.

and thisassumes thegun manufacturers andgovernment aren't in on it togetherwhere theyre using these false flags toincrease sales sothat when the daythe unitedstatesofamericagovernment finally turns on itscitizens forthe New [b]W[/]orld Order all the citizens who wouldmost likely put upa fight are known based on saleswhich the usgovernment and gun stores havebeen secretly compilinga registeration list to identify allgunowners
luxsol
Member
(11-16-2017, 11:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

Luxsol, we can tell you’re full of shit because you jumped into this thread wondering if there were differences between US media coverage and other places, and now you’ve decided there must be because reasons.

The media does in fact report on suicides so who knows what you’re even talking about. They don’t report on every single one because nobody cares if John Doe in Bumfuck offed himself. If someone people care about kills himself, like a celebrity, they sure as hell do report on it extensively.

Now you’re hoping people sue the media for reporting the news? Strange how Second Amendment obsessives have such contempt for the First.

So much wrong.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...de-contagion1/

In Vienna of the 1980’s, a spate of subway suicides was combatted by the city’s main newspapers’ decision to substantially curtail the publicity surrounding these deaths. After a certain date, these suicides were no longer mentioned. This coincided with a progressive fall in the number of subway suicides illustrating the power for good of the media.

Lots and lots of examples for the media already keeping shit on the down low and/or not on the front page.

As for the media stuff, Lord Raptor pretty much filled me in on what he considers to be "a lot"
>The UK - which is a tiny country - has 2 domestic rolling 24 hour news networks and upwards of 2 hours of news programming a day on our "network" channels, including regional news - and regional news is regional, in true adherence to Reithian values.
Compare that to southern California, it's like owning cable vs rabbit ears.
The Bleepey said
>Sky news is not allowed to be as shitty as Fox News and unlike the tabloids there is a lot more objective reporting.
and Lord Raptor said as much as well, which again shows how by their own admission England is "not as bad".. but i guess since Bleepie is an NRA Plant, everything he said shouldn't be believed, huh?
Lord Raptor kept on pointing at US media like CNBC being shown in his country to prove European media is just as bad as the US media... ....
I've pointed toward documents that list how much reported violence has increased in the US, yet i don't get anything like that about any foreign countries.
I list how much local channels will report on the news everyday and the only comparison i got for that is BBC1. Yet local stations are usually the 4 big networks plus indies.
I point out how any of these stations will get their hot prime time sitcoms and dramas interuptted if a violent event is especially violent. which BBC1 totally does too.
Seriously, it's like comparing a Maine Coon to a Tiger and you wonder why I'm not really satisfied with their answers? They want to claim the media is the same, but they're not coming close to proving that.

[QUOTE]If someone people care about kills himself, like a celebrity, they sure as hell do report on it extensively.[\QUOTE]
Yeah, and suicides rise after that. News media needs the ratings, consequences be damned.

Also, that's great how you call me a 2nd Amendment Obsessive. Why?
For pointing out how dumb it is to put the blame on something that that has been proven to be false or inconclusive? That ANOTHER model actually has a far greater influence on what's going on, rather than a flawed article?
Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I'm anti-everythingyoustandfor or whatever makes you feel better about me disagreeing with you, where you can rationalize every source i bring up away as NRA propoganda.
Woo-Fu
incest on the subway
(11-16-2017, 11:39 AM)
Woo-Fu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bleepey

So fewer guns, more gun control has lead to fewer shootings overall but increased media coverage have made mass shootings more common?

It is certainly an additional motivator for at least some of the mentally unstable people who commit these crimes, and I'd perhaps go so far as it putting the idea in the heads of some of them in the first place.

The problem is and always has been crazy people. The questions we should be asking are why are there more of these people, and why are they choosing this form of expression? The problem isn't that they're using guns to commit these crimes, the problem is that they want to commit these crimes in the first place. If you somehow magically removed the guns you'd still have a bunch of crazy people who want to kill lots of their fellow citizens and presumably would find ways to do so.

People like to focus on gun control because it appears to be the easiest/quickest solution to them. Unfortunately they're sadly uninformed/misinformed, unrealistic, and in most cases unwilling to believe any data that shows gun control alone isn't the answer. The sad fact of the matter is that attempting to implement and maintain sufficient gun control in the US such that it would prevent anybody who would commit a crime like this from acquiring the firearms to do so would probably cause more deaths overall than the crimes themselves.

Now people will read what I've said and say I'm a gun-nut against gun control when that is not the case at all. I wouldn't have a problem with restricting handguns exclusively to people who require them for their occupation. I'd also be fine with limiting semi-auto rifles to range use only. Bolt-action is sufficient for hunting/livestock protection/pest removal.

DISCLAIMER: I personally do not own any guns, there aren't any guns in my household and it has been over 30 years since I last hunted. If I were to take up hunting again it would probably be bow or crossbow since I no longer need to hunt simply to put meat on the table.
Camp Freddie
Member
(11-16-2017, 12:04 PM)
Camp Freddie's Avatar
Luxsol, while it's true that UK broadcast news is different from US broadcast news, that's some crazy backwards logic you're using to blame the media.

It's like saying that the UK's high level of World Cup Soccer qualification is because the UK news media report and comment on the soccer results constantly, whereas it barely gets mentioned on CNBC and Fox News.
The reason our news has a lot of soccer is because we play a lot of soccer and the nation prides itself on being good at soccer.
The reason we have a good* soccer team is because UK citizens tend to own a lot of soccer balls (I own more soccer balls than there are people in my household!) and play with them regularly.

Likewise, the reason the US media have a lot of coverage of gun massacres is because you have a lot of them, because you own a lot of guns, and because using guns is a popular American hobby.
When the Dunblane massacre happened, we had wall-to-wall commentary and coverage. We banned handguns. We haven't had any more massacres with handguns.
If you want crazy over-the-top UK gun death news coverage, then there was the Raoul Moat shooting spree too (and here my analogy is apt because the UK news often focused on his friendship with soccer star Paul Gascoigne, who insisted that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun was for a good man to take him out for a curry and a few beers).

The media undoubtedly magnify the problem and promote copycat killings in a feedback loop, but they aren't the cause.

*relative to the USA at least
LordRaptor
Member
(11-16-2017, 01:55 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

what's that word where a group manufactures an event to pass a law? Like that Sandy Hook conspiracy



e:

Originally Posted by Woo-Fu

People like to focus on gun control because it appears to be the easiest/quickest solution to them. Unfortunately they're sadly uninformed/misinformed, unrealistic, and in most cases unwilling to believe any data that shows gun control alone isn't the answer. The sad fact of the matter is that attempting to implement and maintain sufficient gun control in the US such that it would prevent anybody who would commit a crime like this from acquiring the firearms to do so would probably cause more deaths overall than the crimes themselves.

I mean, you might consider it to be overly simplistic as a solution, but... the problem there is that it has demonstrably worked in other countries.
No, people that want to go and hurt a bunch of other people still have methods to do so - see the rise in vehicular attacks in countries with strict gun legislation recently.

But we're only time and technology away from saying most people don't actually need their own vehicles, and restricting access to cars in favour of public automated vehicles to reduce deaths and environmental impact.
And that's going to pass easier in the US, because there is no constitutional "Right of individual passage" clause or similar that BMW + Ford + GM can latch onto to block legislation and keep their businesses profitable.
luxsol
Member
(11-16-2017, 02:58 PM)

Originally Posted by Camp Freddie

that's some crazy backwards logic you're using to blame the media.

If you're going to skip all posts, read this at least.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...es-how/266439/

Or this
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ters-copycats/

And there's hundreds more where that came from, because this shit has been studied for decades and many solutions have been created, but no one really does anything because people don't care because it's not the answer they like and the media gets high ratings from violence, because people like watching violence.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-16-2017, 03:38 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar
So if Motherjones is a legitimate source:




But what is the solution that does not involve any additional legislation on guns?
How can I eat everything I want and never go on a diet?
How do I get the body of my dreams without exercise?
How do I get rich quick and not have to work at it?
How can I buy everything I want but not have to save up any money?
mxabe
Junior Member
(11-16-2017, 06:34 PM)
Following that logic, should we ban cigar as well?
LordRaptor
Member
(11-16-2017, 07:48 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by mxabe

Following that logic, should we ban cigar as well?

Tobacco use is highly legislated, highly taxed, and additional legislation is introduced regularly where existing legislation is failing to meet results.
Just recently in the UK all tobacco products have been hidden from public display, and all packaging has been changed to a generic box with prominent health warnings.
This is in addition to bans on smoking in designated public places such as bars.

I'm sure the tobacco companies would be thrilled if somebody took a piece of the US constitution to be referring to "smoking" and block all attempts at ongoing or additional legislation under issues of constitutional freedoms.

Also, thats the comparison you want to draw? Owning firearms is like being a smoker?
luxsol
Member
(11-18-2017, 12:26 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

thats the comparison you want to draw? Owning firearms is like being a smoker?

When you're treating it as just an object, you can compare it to anything you'd like. Cars, tobacco, pools, knives, hammers, bones, whatever.

It's all about intent, and when intent is involved, guess what the causes are?
If you want to solve actual problems, you handle the actual cause. As Australia proved, there's still mass killings and the frequency and numbers killed are pretty much the same as before the gun ban.

Go refer to that academic review Bloopey posted and you can see how laws made to regulate use and punishments for misusing them caused a direct effect in how guns are used. Whereas bans and buy backs did shit, or increased the problem.
hunchback
Member
(11-18-2017, 04:42 AM)
hunchback's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

Oh shit, this is getting exciting now!

And i think it depends on the manufacturer. How many have enough special forces dudes to make such an operation possible? That Las Vegas guy was obviously a sleeper agent, since he had such close ties with the government and the military industry complex. His handlers obviously had to have been former black OP dudes, since the shooter went rogue and knew to watch his back to prevent Lockheed's assasssins from stopping him too early.

and thisassumes thegun manufacturers andgovernment aren't in on it togetherwhere theyre using these false flags toincrease sales sothat when the daythe unitedstatesofamericagovernment finally turns on itscitizens forthe New [b]W[/]orld Order all the citizens who wouldmost likely put upa fight are known based on saleswhich the usgovernment and gun stores havebeen secretly compilinga registeration list to identify allgunowners

That right there is some great fiction. Please tell me you have a book deal. Bless your heart.
Durask
Member
(11-18-2017, 05:22 AM)
Durask's Avatar
There is definitely a copycat effect.

A good article to read:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ds-of-violence

Now we know that there is a definite and well known effect of media coverage influencing suicides.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253889/

http://www.who.int/mental_health/pre...urce_media.pdf

Evidence for imitation
Over 50 investigations into imitative suicides have been
conducted. Systematic reviews of these studies have consistently
drawn the same conclusion: media reporting of suicide can lead to
imitative suicidal behaviours. These reviews have also observed that
imitation is more evident under some circumstances than others. It
varies as a function of time, peaking within the first three days and
levelling off by about two weeks, but sometimes lasting longer. It is
related to the amount and prominence of coverage, with repeated
coverage and ‘high impact’ stories being most strongly associated with
imitative behaviours. It is accentuated when the person described in the
story and the reader or viewer are similar in some way, or when the
person described in the story is a celebrity and is held in high regard by
the reader or viewer. Particular subgroups in the population (e.g.,
young people, people suffering from depression) may be especially
vulnerable to engaging in imitative suicidal behaviours. Finally, and
probably most importantly, overt description of suicide by a particular
method may lead to increases in suicidal behaviour employing that
method.

Media certainly manages to exercise a lot of restraint when covering suicides especially celebrity suicides.

Responsible reporting ........................................................................... ............7
Take the opportunity to educate the public about suicide...........................7
Avoid language which sensationalizes or normalizes suicide, or presents
it as a solution to problems................................................................... ...7
Avoid prominent placement and undue repetition of stories about suicide ..8
Avoid explicit description of the method used in a completed or
attempted suicide ........................................................................... ........8
Avoid providing detailed information about the site of a completed or
attempted suicide ........................................................................... ........9
Word headlines carefully ........................................................................9
Exercise caution in using photographs or video footage ............................9
Take particular care in reporting celebrity suicides .................................10
Show due consideration for people bereaved by suicide ..........................10
Provide information about where to seek help ........................................10
Recognize that media professionals themselves may be affected
by stories about suicide...............................

Use the same criteria for reporting on mass shootings. Get as close to a media blackout as you can. Let the crazy focus their craziness somewhere else.
Durask
Member
(11-18-2017, 05:29 AM)
Durask's Avatar
Question:

Suppose all guns magically disappeared or stopped working, whatever.



Now, what will happen to non-gun suicides and homicides? Certainly we cannot expect that none of the murders and suicides committed with guns will not happen if the guns did not exist, right? Criminals will still kill each other, abusers will still kill their spouses, etc.

Question is - by how much do you expect the murders and sucides to drop? None of the current data can give you a good answer.

(Australia's murder rates were low to begin with and as such their data is useless IMHO).

Thread Tools