"Now I'll be Famous"

Where does Reporting Stop?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315441,00.html
from JoeUser Forums

The latest episode of a man gone crazy was in Nebraska.  The story is all too familiar as it has been done several times before.  What struck me about this case (and actually ones in the past) was his last statement.  "Now I'll be famous".  And perhaps in his own demented mind, that is all he was seeking. 

But do we have to give him that fame?  The first time it happened, many many years ago, it was scandalous.  The 100th time it happens, it is still news, and it is still a tragedy, but is the person who did it news?  The circumstances are.  The reasons for it can be discussed and argued by a layman, but in the end, the name of the person is not that important.  The important facts are that "a" gunman killed 8 people, and wounded 5 others. 

So I have to wonder myself, are we contributing to this behavior by demanding to know the who (when in the finally tally that is not important)?  Should we be feeding this type of behavior by giving them what they want?  Their 15 minutes in the spotlight?  Or would it be better that we simply ignored the name of the person, and learned about the incident itself?

There are many ways to become famous.  This is probably the laziest and worst way.  But it works.  And while I cannot point a finger at reporters (although as many know I hold them in very low esteem) in this situation, the simple fact is that our (collective) desire for all the gory facts begs for the name of the person.  And thus fulfills their last wish.

This is not something that should be legislated.  That is even more scary.  But perhaps if some reason and sanity could prevail in reporting these stories, and in the publics insatiable desire for the horrid details, we could at least remove one of the legs from the people prone to such actions.  If the story would be reported without pictures, and without attribution to the murderer, that might make one or 2 pause and reconsider their need for attention.

Or perhaps not.  But at least we should consider voluntary restraint on our parts when reporting or reading about these incidents.

6,889 views 58 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, now he'll be famous, like, What's his name, who shot up Trolley Square in Salt Lake City.  Or that Asian guy, who shot people at Virginia Tech.  His name will go down in history, like um...er... yeah, that guy who shot those people in that one place that one time.

If his purpose was so the world will remember his name, he failed miserably.  Yeah, we remember Harris and Klebold, Timothy McVeigh and even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Asama Bin Laden and Yassir Arafat.  We remember them because they went bigger and more deadly than anyone in history.  On the other hand, we don't remember any of the copy cats or pathetic little whelps just out to make a name for themselves.

The kind of gun he used will end up being more memorable than he will.

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pathetic
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
But we HAVE to know about the shooter, Dr. Guy. Because society's to blame, not this individual. He was a poor, oppressed individual and we should be ashamed of ourselves for FORCING people to become murderers.

Ahhh, geez...those liberal demons keep taking over!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

If his purpose was so the world will remember his name, he failed miserably.

Fame is fleeting.  We do not remember all the names, but they do get their 15 minutes, and this one is no different.  Others will see that and his picture - and wonder.  And that is what I would like to see stopped.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Pathetic

The shooter?  The press?  Or the public?  I see it applying to all in this case.  The rubbernecking syndrome.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ahhh, geez...those liberal demons keep taking over!

I feel like that at times.  Yet in this case, I cannot point fingers without seeing some of them pointing at us (the collective us).  We need to know the facts, but the facts do not have to include notoriety of the perpetrator.  For us to know why he did it is not going to stop another from doing it (it will help the professionals).  Knowing who it is will not help anyone either.  The press protects minors when they are arrested for crimes.  Perhaps we need a set of guidelines in these situations with the same type of anonymity.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yet in this case, I cannot point fingers without seeing some of them pointing at us (the collective us).
End of quote


I can. A murderer is a murderer and there is no blame for anyone other than themselves.

OCCASIONALLY (VERY rarely), I will concede that culpability enters the picture where other parties are culpable (an example would be Andrea Yates). But there's a very significant difference between culpability and blame.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can. A murderer is a murderer and there is no blame for anyone other than themselves.

OCCASIONALLY (VERY rarely), I will concede that culpability enters the picture where other parties are culpable (an example would be Andrea Yates). But there's a very significant difference between culpability and blame.
End of quote


I am not disagreeing with you on who is responsible. We clearly know that. But I am saying that we all are to blame for granting him his last wish - fame.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
If memory serves right, they have proved that the man have been a troubled child, who spent quite some time in the juvenile prison

Personnally, I think there are 2 solution to this kind of mass-shooting:

A- Why has a man who spent quite some time in the juvenile prison have been able to buy a semi-automatic gun?

B- In canada, all mass-killing weapon (automatic and semi-automatic) that are allowed on public sale must be refited to a downgraded magasine. The Dawson College shooting (last year) only had 1 fatal victim because the gun used by the killer had a limited magasine. If you allow a AK-47 on sale, why not outlaw magasines with more than 10 bullets?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
B- In canada, all mass-killing weapon (automatic and semi-automatic) that are allowed on public sale must be refited to a downgraded magasine. The Dawson College shooting (last year) only had 1 fatal victim because the gun used by the killer had a limited magasine. If you allow a AK-47 on sale, why not outlaw magasines with more than 10 bullets?
End of quote


Yawn!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yawn!
End of quote


what do you mean?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
A- Why has a man who spent quite some time in the juvenile prison have been able to buy a semi-automatic gun?
End of quote


Agreed, assuming it was bought in his name. I'm not a fan of most gun control laws, but I do agree that it only makes sense to keep them out of the hands of people with a proven predisposition to violent behaviour. But again, that's assuming it was bought in his name.

B- In canada, all mass-killing weapon (automatic and semi-automatic) that are allowed on public sale must be refited to a downgraded magasine. The Dawson College shooting (last year) only had 1 fatal victim because the gun used by the killer had a limited magasine. If you allow a AK-47 on sale, why not outlaw magasines with more than 10 bullets?
End of quote


how long does it take to change a magazine? Not very long, actually. All laws like this would do is make him buy more magazines, IMO.

And then there's the fact that it will always be less complicated to buy a large magazine on the black market than it is to purchase a whole gun.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree Doc. I'm not sure about the gun laws in the USA but shouldn't they be tightened up?

In South Africa, you go into a gunshop and pay a deposit. Then the application goes to the police. The police look at your proficiency and the number of arms you have--then they decide on the licence. If you are a first timer, they may ask to test your ability to use a firearm.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
And then there's the fact that it will always be less complicated to buy a large magazine on the black market than it is to purchase a whole gun.
End of quote


now, there's a question..

Illegal guns in Canada come from the USA.

But where do illegal guns in the USA come from? Off course, if you impliment a law NOW that outlaw weapon device X, there will be some time before police work and restrictions eventually dry out the availability on the black market.

But if they are still available, where do they come from? Are gun-making companies "loose" shipments from time to time?

how long does it take to change a magazine? Not very long, actually. All laws like this would do is make him buy more magazines, IMO.
End of quote


Aye, but the guy who made the Dawson shooting had to carry a lot of them, and change them often. Overall, that quite lowered his kill efficiency. You don't send a soldier on the battlefield with 40 magasines, or 7 pre-loaded weapons, because of the weight involved.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
what do you mean?
End of quote


What I mean is, the gun was not the culprit, the purpose, or the motivation of this crime. It had as much to do with this crime as the car ol' Whatshisname drove to the mall.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Pathetic


The shooter?  The press?  Or the public? 


End of quote


Yes.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
It had as much to do with this crime as the car ol' Whatshisname drove to the mall.
End of quote


if they invent a car with a bladed-bumper to make road-kill more efficient, I'll believe there should be restriction about the use of such car, if not outright banning.

What I mean is, the gun was not the culprit, the purpose, or the motivation of this crime.
End of quote


But it was the mean. Mass-killing of such a scale by a lone person would not have been possible if large-magasine automatic/semi-automatic weapons were in sale to the public in the first place.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
But where do illegal guns in the USA come from? Off course, if you impliment a law NOW that outlaw weapon device X, there will be some time before police work and restrictions eventually dry out the availability on the black market.
End of quote


It's not that simple, cikomyr, because of the second amendment (an amendment that I personally happen to favor). There is a process to change the Constitution, but it's long, involved, and in the case of guns, highly unlikely to happen, simply because the Bill of Rights are to many of us as Americans, the most cherished of amendments, and doing away with one means they could all be erased.

The problem isn't the weapons, cikomyr, despite what you may have been led to believe. I've been in communities where gun ownership exceeds 50% of the population, and the fact is, they are actually often LESS violent than areas where fewer people own guns. A good case in point is the state of Nevada. In most state, gun ownership laws are very loose, and, in fact, it is not uncommon to see citizens in city council meetings with guns strapped to their hips. Violent crime is extremely rare in these areas. In Clark County, though (much of Las Vegas is in Clark County), there are very stringent gun laws. The violent crime rate is exponentially higher than in other parts of the state.

Gun control laws are a good example of lkaws that mean well but seldom do what they set out to do.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
But it was the mean. Mass-killing of such a scale by a lone person would not have been possible if large-magasine automatic/semi-automatic weapons were in sale to the public in the first place.
End of quote


And so was the car. And this kind of rhetoric may be the means of robbing me and other law abiding citiznes of our rights ot own a gun that has never killed, or hurt anyone.


The gun isn't to blame, the person who did the shooting is. But that isn't good enough or you, you want to see all gun owners punished for this guy's crime.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not that simple, cikomyr, because of the second amendment (an amendment that I personally happen to favor). There is a process to change the Constitution, but it's long, involved, and in the case of guns, highly unlikely to happen, simply because the Bill of Rights are to many of us as Americans, the most cherished of amendments, and doing away with one means they could all be erased.
End of quote


I am not talking about outlawing guns, but lowering gun effeciency, like lowering the number of bullet in a magasine.

If you outlaw to sell (or produce) magasines with more than 5 bullets in them, for example. I don't think this is covered by the constitution.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not talking about outlawing guns, but lowering gun effeciency, like lowering the number of bullet in a magasine.

If you outlaw to sell (or produce) magasines with more than 5 bullets in them, for example. I don't think this is covered by the constitution.
End of quote


The problem, cikomyr, is that this only works assuming the gun users are law abiding. Mass murderers are, by definition, NOT.

With the little knowledge I have, I am reasonably certain that I could modify a magazine with tools that are commercially available to increase capacity. It would probably not be the prettiest modification, but all it needs to do is work for a short time, right?

I believe you have at least a reasonable approach in your suggestions, but the only people impacted by legislation like this are the people who are least likely to do harm. While I wouldn't be in a rush to claim that the legislation you're proposing is an outrage, I will say that I believe it would be superfluous and ineffective. All it would do is add another bunch of laws that would require expense to enforce.

You rightly point out that there are already laws that should have prevented the shooter from his actions. If he obtained the weapon from someone illicitly, then someone broke the law to get it to him. If he purchased it, then laws preventing the mentally ill and convicted criminals from ownership of certain weapons were not properly enforced. If existing laws aren't effective in preventing these actions, what gives us reasons to believe new ones will be any more so?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
You rightly point out that there are already laws that should have prevented the shooter from his actions. If he obtained the weapon from someone illicitly, then someone broke the law to get it to him.
End of quote


Exactly, laws didn't prevent this from happening yesterday, and no amount of laws will prevent it from happening again.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's easy to blame the guns, magazine capacities, or whatever else you care to blame, but the simple truth of the matter is that if a person is determined to do something like this they will find a way to do it. Would it make some people feel better if he had done this with home-made pipe bombs instead of a gun? How about a truckload of fertilizer? How about 5 guns with 5 rounds each instead of a single gun?

Laws do not stop this sort of thing. Last time I checked his actions are already against the law. The means of carrying it out is irrelevant. We've had broken people for as long as there have been people, and probably always will.

A well practiced person with a quick cocking crossbow fitted with a laser sight and plenty of bolts could carry out the exact same carnage in pretty close to the same time period. You'd be surprised at how quickly those things can be cocked, loaded, and fired.

Now, had most of the patrons of the place also been armed I'm willing to bet he would have been shot dead very quickly and far fewer people would have died.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem, cikomyr, is that this only works assuming the gun users are law abiding. Mass murderers are, by definition, NOT.
End of quote


Mass murderers usually aren't your common criminal. They don't have access to a wide black market, except if such black market is so flooded with weapons that it is common access.

Off course, flooding of weapons into a black market is the consequence of no gun restriction to the population. The weapons in sale into the black market has to come from somewhere, either directly by gun-making companies, or people who simply buy tons of personal weapons and re-sell them. A national gun registration (as we had in Canada, before the gun-nut conservative governement shot it down) would allow people to know who own which gun, and trace peoples who's gun always seem to "disapear"

I believe you have at least a reasonable approach in your suggestions, but the only people impacted by legislation like this are the people who are least likely to do harm.
End of quote


that is quite not true. I still cite as example the Dawson College killer. His magasine HAVE been illegally modified, but it was still physically impossible to fit the full 30-round magasine.

There are ways to fabricate magasines that will simply be impossible to modify. The companies just aren't putting their heart into finding them.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are ways to fabricate magasines that will simply be impossible to modify.
End of quote


I disagree. Just as it is impossible to create a completely hacker proof computer network, it is highly improbable that a completely mod-proof magazine could be created. Yes, you could make it difficult, but it's not likely to make it impossible. And let's say for the sake of argument that you could. How are you going to seize all of the high capacity magazines currently in existence?

When our own assault weapon ban was put into play, all it did was make pre-ban weapons more expensive. And I am sure a ban on high capacity magazines would have a similar effect.