8 ms·

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone look

I think a good first step everyone can agree on to stop gun violence is: stop it's gamification. Almost every mass shooting in the last decade was someone looking for media attention and high score. And yet, every shooting is followed by detailed biography and a tally of bodies. Something as simple as a one month moratorium on information for anyone outside the community would probably work wonders, as the public eye will have moved on by then.

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
In some countries, criminals faces are blurred when shown on TV. American media’s obsession with tragedy and its wider reach is culprit number one in my book.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  It’s not the media’s obsession. Negative news sells. If positive news sold more than negative then we wouldn’t hear so much about it.
pc86 4y ago
Enforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it? This is just not realistic suggestion.
- krisoft 4y ago
  There are norms the media choose to follow on their own accord. Think for example how suicides are generally covered. Reputable organisations don't publish the details of the precise method, and they include a link/phone number to a help line for those who struggle themselves. > What is the punishment if you break it? The same as with most norms: Professional embarrassment, and loss of reputation among your peers.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  There are already plenty of laws blocking certain kind of information from news. Minors that are crime victims for instance. It's so realistic that it's already a real thing.
- renata 4y ago
  Self-enforced, the same way the media no longer glorifies teen suicide because of the risk of suicide contagion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Journalism_codes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Journalism_cod....
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Enforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it? The government. We need a comprehensive set of media safety laws that prevent publication of these dangerous reports so they won't fall into the wrong hands.
  - richiebful1 4y ago
    In the United States, I highly doubt this would hold up in court. Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press So? Shouldn't all options be on the table to solve this problem?
      - NateEag 4y ago
        Almost the fundamental proposition of the USA's governmental system is that some options should never be on the table.
      - pc86 4y ago
        No, of course not. If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table.
        tablespoon 4y ago
        > If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table. Of course it is on the table. Just pass a media safety law, and if the Supreme Court dares to get in the way, pack it with supporters of the law. Or just ignore the court, too. Didn't it basically grant itself the power to veto laws?
- bko 4y ago
  Someone responsible for a news organization can choose to set the policy. Maybe everyone can stop retweeting this stuff and engaging in a flame war online. Or stop consuming articles and videos about this incident. Not every problem can be solved by the state.
oakesm9 4y ago
Only 10% of the domestic news reports on the mosque shootings in Christchurch, NZ in 2019 even mentioned the shooter by name[0]. News reports in other countires didn't follow suit, but there's at least one example where an effort was made to deny the shooter a platform. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547820/
stewx 4y ago
How would you contain the spread of information? Maybe you could do so 30 years ago, but I think that ship has sailed. It is very difficult to contain information these days.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  It's not about stopping it so much as not promoting it. Most people aren't going to spend time digging up information about rumored mas shootings. That alone would kill the fame and name recognition component. I've had to dismiss and block more than one news organization from my feeds to avoid knowing the name of the most recent shooter. I'd settle for their information just not being shoved down my throat.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Sure, one can try this - but I suspect that 4chan will only get more powerful as a place to "get information that is being surpressed". Qanon started on pol, and making pol the best place to go to find the sweet details on the shooter is going to blow up in your face.
- oldcigarette 4y ago
  Yeah you can go and read what was in the buffalo shooters head though which is a thing. He's pretty much a schizo christchurch copy cat. Amusingly he seems mostly in favor of shootings since it intensifies the gun control debate and accelerate the schism in the united states. Gun control is not going to fix this kind of radicalism or its impact. The dude was a straight up terrorist and IMO he made the correct observation that this sort of terrorism will be successful in driving the divide and creating more extremism.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
I wonder if John Carmack feels any compunction about first person shooters and their proliferation.
- coldtea 4y ago
  The same as the inventor of Pacman feels for teenagers popping little white pills while listening to repeatitive computer music. The fact that first person shooters are played by hundreds of millions all over the world, but mass shootings are 99% a US thing (which much predated first person shooters, e.g. "I don't like Mondays") should answer the question...
- pc86 4y ago
  Almost certainly not, I'd hope he's too smart to see a link between FPS games and these events.
quickthrower2 4y ago
The horse bolted on that in about 2006 when Facebook become pretty popular.
lliamander 4y ago
I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.
- coinbasetwwa 4y ago
  This is the solution people should get behind. You can’t wave a magic wand and make 320 million guns disappear, the alternative is much simpler.
  - mahastore 4y ago
- mahastore 4y ago
  - lliamander 4y ago
    > It will not deter the person who is hell bent on killing others and have no regards for life including his own self. It absolutely will. The vast majority of mass shooters target gun free zones, for obvious reasons. Just because they expect to die eventually doesn't mean they want to die right away. They want to be famous and feel powerful by killing as many people as possible. That is denied them if they are killed or wounded straight away. > The best thing is to stop EASY PEASY access to guns that shoot more than one round at a time. The only guns licensed folks should be able to carry are ones that shoot one round and need to be reloaded again manually. Other guns should be simply banned for the GENERAL public. - There is virtually zero chance of this happening - There is zero evidence that policies which constrain the ammo capacities of guns used by law-abiding citizens has any effect on homicide rates - Enacting such a policy would make guns significantly less effective for self-defense. > This solution that has been proposed for years i.e for teachers and volunteers to carry concealed firearms is THE M0ST stupid solution that humanity has ever come up with. If you could demonstrate some actual knowledge of the subject at hand, your opinion of whether some policy is "stupid" might actually matter to me. There are gun control advocates in this discussion who have demonstrated some knowledge of this issue, and I respect their opinions more for it. > It seems that some sections of our humanity aspire to live in a world where your right to LIVE depends upon how quick you are with your reflexes or how BIG of a gun you have. It's really quite comical what you think is going on in the heads of other people.

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago

In some countries, criminals faces are blurred when shown on TV. American media’s obsession with tragedy and its wider reach is culprit number one in my book.

philliphaydon 4y ago
It’s not the media’s obsession. Negative news sells. If positive news sold more than negative then we wouldn’t hear so much about it.

pc86 4y ago

Enforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it? This is just not realistic suggestion.

krisoft 4y ago
There are norms the media choose to follow on their own accord. Think for example how suicides are generally covered. Reputable organisations don't publish the details of the precise method, and they include a link/phone number to a help line for those who struggle themselves. > What is the punishment if you break it? The same as with most norms: Professional embarrassment, and loss of reputation among your peers.
BobbyJo 4y ago
There are already plenty of laws blocking certain kind of information from news. Minors that are crime victims for instance. It's so realistic that it's already a real thing.
renata 4y ago
Self-enforced, the same way the media no longer glorifies teen suicide because of the risk of suicide contagion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Journalism_codes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Journalism_cod....
tablespoon 4y ago
> Enforced by whom? What is the punishment if you break it? The government. We need a comprehensive set of media safety laws that prevent publication of these dangerous reports so they won't fall into the wrong hands.
- richiebful1 4y ago
  In the United States, I highly doubt this would hold up in court. Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press So? Shouldn't all options be on the table to solve this problem?
    - NateEag 4y ago
      Almost the fundamental proposition of the USA's governmental system is that some options should never be on the table.
    - pc86 4y ago
      No, of course not. If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table. Of course it is on the table. Just pass a media safety law, and if the Supreme Court dares to get in the way, pack it with supporters of the law. Or just ignore the court, too. Didn't it basically grant itself the power to veto laws?
bko 4y ago
Someone responsible for a news organization can choose to set the policy. Maybe everyone can stop retweeting this stuff and engaging in a flame war online. Or stop consuming articles and videos about this incident. Not every problem can be solved by the state.

oakesm9 4y ago

Only 10% of the domestic news reports on the mosque shootings in Christchurch, NZ in 2019 even mentioned the shooter by name[0]. News reports in other countires didn't follow suit, but there's at least one example where an effort was made to deny the shooter a platform. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547820/

stewx 4y ago

How would you contain the spread of information? Maybe you could do so 30 years ago, but I think that ship has sailed. It is very difficult to contain information these days.

BobbyJo 4y ago
It's not about stopping it so much as not promoting it. Most people aren't going to spend time digging up information about rumored mas shootings. That alone would kill the fame and name recognition component. I've had to dismiss and block more than one news organization from my feeds to avoid knowing the name of the most recent shooter. I'd settle for their information just not being shoved down my throat.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

Sure, one can try this - but I suspect that 4chan will only get more powerful as a place to "get information that is being surpressed". Qanon started on pol, and making pol the best place to go to find the sweet details on the shooter is going to blow up in your face.

oldcigarette 4y ago
Yeah you can go and read what was in the buffalo shooters head though which is a thing. He's pretty much a schizo christchurch copy cat. Amusingly he seems mostly in favor of shootings since it intensifies the gun control debate and accelerate the schism in the united states. Gun control is not going to fix this kind of radicalism or its impact. The dude was a straight up terrorist and IMO he made the correct observation that this sort of terrorism will be successful in driving the divide and creating more extremism.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

I wonder if John Carmack feels any compunction about first person shooters and their proliferation.

coldtea 4y ago
The same as the inventor of Pacman feels for teenagers popping little white pills while listening to repeatitive computer music. The fact that first person shooters are played by hundreds of millions all over the world, but mass shootings are 99% a US thing (which much predated first person shooters, e.g. "I don't like Mondays") should answer the question...
pc86 4y ago
Almost certainly not, I'd hope he's too smart to see a link between FPS games and these events.

quickthrower2 4y ago

The horse bolted on that in about 2006 when Facebook become pretty popular.

lliamander 4y ago

I agree, but I also think a more controversial step is needed: eliminate gun free zones. If the expected outcome of an attempted mass shooting is a quick and ignominious death it will be a major deterrent. Teachers and administrators have been voluntarily carrying concealed firearms in Utah for roughly a decade.

coinbasetwwa 4y ago
This is the solution people should get behind. You can’t wave a magic wand and make 320 million guns disappear, the alternative is much simpler.
- mahastore 4y ago
mahastore 4y ago
- lliamander 4y ago
  > It will not deter the person who is hell bent on killing others and have no regards for life including his own self. It absolutely will. The vast majority of mass shooters target gun free zones, for obvious reasons. Just because they expect to die eventually doesn't mean they want to die right away. They want to be famous and feel powerful by killing as many people as possible. That is denied them if they are killed or wounded straight away. > The best thing is to stop EASY PEASY access to guns that shoot more than one round at a time. The only guns licensed folks should be able to carry are ones that shoot one round and need to be reloaded again manually. Other guns should be simply banned for the GENERAL public. - There is virtually zero chance of this happening - There is zero evidence that policies which constrain the ammo capacities of guns used by law-abiding citizens has any effect on homicide rates - Enacting such a policy would make guns significantly less effective for self-defense. > This solution that has been proposed for years i.e for teachers and volunteers to carry concealed firearms is THE M0ST stupid solution that humanity has ever come up with. If you could demonstrate some actual knowledge of the subject at hand, your opinion of whether some policy is "stupid" might actually matter to me. There are gun control advocates in this discussion who have demonstrated some knowledge of this issue, and I respect their opinions more for it. > It seems that some sections of our humanity aspire to live in a world where your right to LIVE depends upon how quick you are with your reflexes or how BIG of a gun you have. It's really quite comical what you think is going on in the heads of other people.