"Now I'll be Famous"

Where does Reporting Stop?

Published on December 6, 2007 By Dr Guy In Current Events

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.

Comments (Page 2)

MasonM

on Dec 06, 2007

Pathetic

The shooter? The press? Or the public?

Yes.

Cikomyr

on Dec 06, 2007

It had as much to do with this crime as the car ol' Whatshisname drove to the mall.

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.

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.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

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.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

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.

Cikomyr

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 06, 2007

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?

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

Exactly, laws didn't prevent this from happening yesterday, and no amount of laws will prevent it from happening again.

MasonM

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

Cikomyr

on Dec 06, 2007

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

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.

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.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 06, 2007

There are ways to fabricate magasines that will simply be impossible to modify.

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.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

Yeah, like banning Marijuana has made it hard to get.

Cikomyr

on Dec 06, 2007

A pipe bomb would not have killed/injured so many people, the kill efficiency is quite low, when you don't have the advantage of surprise.

same with a truckload of fertilizer, he would not have been able to kill as many people, and you have to say, it would have been much harder (and more expensive) to him to obtain such device.

5 guns with 5 rounds each would have lowered his kill efficiency, sir. Think of it, he would have to find a way to be able to carry them all, while still having his full aiming capability, and not be slowed by the overweight, and the unbalance. He would still have to draw a weapon every 10 seconds, (if he shoots once every 2 seconds), which, if he managed to bring 5 guns and not by unbalanced, would not be *that* quick.

Am I not talking about outlawing guns so people cannot defend themselves.
I am talking about making gun less effective for a target-rich environnement. If you ever have to use a gun to defend yourself, it will be against a single-target, so every measures made to prevent mass-killing would not affect your efficiency...

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

There are few illegal aliens, because it's against the law.

Cikomyr

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

More expensive mean less in circulation. isn't that the basis of economics?

Entropy would have lowered the number of assault weapon (and continuing increasing the price) with time, if the ban would have been continued.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

Cikomyr, why should my property be seized as a result of Ol' Whatshisname's crime?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!