• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

lobosrul5 said:
Wouldn't that be a clear 1st amendment violation?
Click to expand...
Maybe. It depends if we could get it past strict scrutiny
And we already embargo other content in the media. The seven words, explicit sex, certain forms of advertisement, etc.

Here's the way I see it: The government has a compelling interest in reducing the number of mass killings.

There are studies that suggest that copycatting is a factor in these incidents, and that media exposure increases the risk of copycatting. So embargoing media exposure for these incidents seems both narrowly tailored and least-intrusive, to me.

So I think it would pass strict scrutiny.

3point14 said:
It would have to be voluntary and multilateral on the part of the networks.
Click to expand...
Sort of? I mean, the networks "voluntarily" and multilaterally embargo the seven words and explicit sex... But then, the threat of hefty fines and loss of license is probably a major consideration in their "voluntary" compliance.
 
theprestige said:
An embargo on reporting the name of the killer and the details of the incident would probably have a quicker effect. And would be much cheaper to implement.
Click to expand...

3point14 said:
It would have to be voluntary and multilateral on the part of the networks.

It might have worked before facebook.
Click to expand...

Yeah, have to agree, don't think that's going to cut it. I'd like to see it, but not going to happen. In that sense (it would be circumvented even if mandated), that'd take even longer to be effective, if at all.

But I do agree that the media attention, both public and individual (i.e.-news outlets as well as internet/social media) make these things attractive to some people. The shooters get noticed. They make a difference. They're heard and paid attention to. Everyone knows what they get for ignoring/hurting/whatever the shooter.

Heck, I'd like to see more and better psychologists and counseling available in public schools, to find these people before they're left behind too far for help. The best defense is if we can figure out how to stop these before they start.

Assuming that there's a way to do that, that is. I can also see any (for example) psychology program to identify problems being overused and abused. So I dunno. I can see my perfect world in my head, just not sure how to get it out here :D
 
lobosrul5 said:
Yeah, I've never thought to disabuse anyone of the notion that 22 LR isn't capable of being deadly, or causing serious wounds. Its just less likely to be deadly than almost any other cartridge out there except .25 ACP. Had Hinkley been using 5.56mm HW Bush becomes president much earlier than historically. The 22 round stopped about an inch from Reagan's heart BTW.
Click to expand...

The gun Hinckley used is known to be one of the worst pieces of junk ever produced, the Rohm RG-14.

Reagan is alive because Hinckley, like most people using that gun, couldn't hit his target, even though the gun actually fired all six times for once.

Reagan was hit by a ricochet off the limousine.
 
Hellbound said:
Heck, I'd like to see more and better psychologists and counseling available in public schools, to find these people before they're left behind too far for help. The best defense is if we can figure out how to stop these before they start.
Click to expand...


Oh! You want to spend money.


I admit, it's a cracking idea, but I think a total ban on all firearms of any sort in the whole of the USA might actually be more likely.
 
Hellbound said:
Heck, I'd like to see more and better psychologists and counseling available in public schools, to find these people before they're left behind too far for help. The best defense is if we can figure out how to stop these before they start.

Assuming that there's a way to do that, that is. I can also see any (for example) psychology program to identify problems being overused and abused. So I dunno. I can see my perfect world in my head, just not sure how to get it out here :D
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a bad idea. That said, I don't really have a strong sense of what mental health resources were available to Cruz or other school shooters. I know Cruz was in treatment at some point but I don't know much more than that. He doesn't seem to have grown up impoverished or to have lived in some remote area where mental health providers would be scarce.
 
Civet said:
I don't think that's a bad idea. That said, I don't really have a strong sense of what mental health resources were available to Cruz or other school shooters. I know Cruz was in treatment at some point but I don't know much more than that. He doesn't seem to have grown up impoverished or to have lived in some remote area where mental health providers would be scarce.
Click to expand...

There are psychologist in schools now, but usually very few and rarely seen. As an example, my children's school has one licensed psychologist per district...that's about 10,000 students for ours (on dozens of campuses). And typically one counselor per school. It's hard for them to be available to students; they try, but they're usually so busy it's hard for the kids to get in to see them.

As for availability, that's also limited by personal funding; psychologists cost money. The school ones are part of the service, so don't; school-assigned resources are more available. Also, kids act different in schools around their peers than they do outside (whether with parents or psychologists/therapists/counselors). The idea is to have more people around who are trained to notice warning signs and intervene, rather than the current system...which seems to be along the lines of "until they ask for help or become a recurring problem".

Could be off base here, and I'm sure it's not the same everywhere...just another piece that could be looked at as part of a solution. And I do firmly think there isn't one, single solution to this...any successful approach is going to have to combine multiple things: better safety and response at the events, improved chances to stop these things before they turn into shootings, better, more rational gun control, etc. Anyone selling a magic bullet solution might as well be selling magic beans :)
 
theprestige said:
....
There are studies that suggest that copycatting is a factor in these incidents, and that media exposure increases the risk of copycatting. So embargoing media exposure for these incidents seems both narrowly tailored and least-intrusive, to me.

So I think it would pass strict scrutiny.


Sort of? I mean, the networks "voluntarily" and multilaterally embargo the seven words and explicit sex... But then, the threat of hefty fines and loss of license is probably a major consideration in their "voluntary" compliance.
Click to expand...

Broadcast media are a special case because they are licensed to use public airwaves. There could be no restraint on print media or internet communication. And telling broadcast media that they can't report what print and internet media are reporting wouldn't get very far in court or in the public eye.

The only source of an "embargo" could be the police themselves. And refusing to release accurate information would only contribute to panic and false rumors:
"Who was the shooter?" "We're not saying."
"Was there more than one?" "We're not saying?"
"More than five?" "We're not saying?"
"Was it a dozen guys with machine guns?" "We're not saying."
"Are they all in custody?" "We're not saying."
"How many people were killed?" "We're not saying."
"More than 10?" "We're not saying."
"More than 100?" "We're not saying."
Etc., etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
There are psychologist in schools now, but usually very few and rarely seen. As an example, my children's school has one licensed psychologist per district...that's about 10,000 students for ours (on dozens of campuses). And typically one counselor per school. It's hard for them to be available to students; they try, but they're usually so busy it's hard for the kids to get in to see them.

As for availability, that's also limited by personal funding; psychologists cost money. The school ones are part of the service, so don't; school-assigned resources are more available.
.....
Click to expand...

Not to digress too far, but this is another argument for universal health coverage. A kid who needed a shrink or any other doctor could see one without regard to his family's financial or insurance status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom