"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 3)

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 06, 2007

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

Again, assuming criminals use legal channels to obtain their weapons.

I think we're at the point on this subject of arguing in circles, so I won't continue making most of the points I've been making, but I do appreciate the discourse. One of the things I appreciate about your approach, cikomyr, is that when we disagree (which is frequent), I know that you and I can have a rational, civil debate on the matter. I do want to thank you for that much. These things are good to discuss, regardless of your perspective.

Zoologist03

on Dec 06, 2007

Eh, I wish these people would put, "Shoot myself in the head" as the first thing on their list...that'd stop problem at its source...then perhaps someone would feel sorry for them.

~Zoo

Jythier

on Dec 06, 2007

If you want to kill a lot of people to become famous, you're going to get ahold of the weapon you need to do so, even if it's not circulated heavily.

Zoologist03

on Dec 06, 2007

If you want to kill a lot of people to become famous, you're going to get ahold of the weapon you need to do so, even if it's not circulated heavily.

Either that or you could go serial killer and kill many many people with your bare hands or common household items. It's not really the weapon so much as the desire and intent.

~Zoo

Cikomyr

on Dec 06, 2007

Either that or you could go serial killer and kill many many people with your bare hands or common household items. It's not really the weapon so much as the desire and intent.

you will end up killing 1-2-3 peoples instead of in the twenties.

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

Because your property has only 1 aim: mass killing?

I mean.. I knife is supposed to cut meat, but it can be used as a weapon.
A handgun is a weapon, but it's payload is limited. The idea behind the design is protection of the owner against a few targets.
A rifle is a hunting weapon, again, the idea is to be able to kill a single animal, while the other flee.
Any automatic weapon is meant to kill as many people in the smallest time possible, usually in the context of a battlefield.

Automatic/semi-automatic do not have any other purpose than to cause great pain on a lot of people. That is why they don't belong in anyone's hand, outside of war.

Jythier

on Dec 06, 2007

Woah woah woah.

Automatic weapons have other purposes for sure.

They are also used to suppress the enemy. When you hear one bullet going by, you're more likely to shoot back. But an endless stream of fire makes you think again.

Dr Guy

on Dec 06, 2007

If memory serves right, they have proved that the man have been a troubled child, who spent quite some time in the juvenile prison

He may been ordered to do this by God for all we know, and frankly in the context of this article, I dont care. I was only commenting on his last words - and perhaps how we feed the dementia of some of these people by catering to their desires.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

Because your property has only 1 aim: mass killing?

And yet I've never killed anyone with my property. But then again, I have killed people with medicine... should that be banned, after all, more people are killed with medicine than with all the guns in America put together.

Banning a type of magazine becuase it was used to kill someone makes about as much sense as banning cars because they are used to kill.

8 Americans were killed yesterday by a guy with a gun. 125 Americans were killed yesterday by people with cars. You cry for the 8, but couldn't care less about the 125. You call for cops to come into my home and steal my property, but then hop in a car and take the chance of killing someone yourself.

That is why none of this makes sense. It has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with stroking your prejudices and making you feel better.

Zoologist03

on Dec 06, 2007

you will end up killing 1-2-3 peoples instead of in the twenties.

Check this out:List of serial killers by number of victims ...some of these people got quite a few under their belts.

~Zoo

Dr Guy

on Dec 06, 2007

I agree Doc. I'm not sure about the gun laws in the USA but shouldn't they be tightened up?

This is a side bar to the whole issue, but a good one, and one that also unfortunately does not have an easy answer. The shooter at Tech had a history of mental problems (one cannot really say illness as he was never diagnosed that way), but due to confidentiality laws, neither the gun sellers, the School, Law Enforcement or his classmates were made aware of it. Indeed, the therapists would have been arrested and possibly stripped of their licenses had they tried to make public, or at least a matter of public record, his past issues with mental problems.

It really was not a failure of Gun laws in the tech case (nor here I believe), but of the constitutional right to privacy (in many but not all cases) that this country holds as a fundamental right.

MasonM

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

This tells me that you have little to no personal experience with handguns. Everything you wrote here is simply wrong. Just how much do you think a handgun weighs anyway? A properly holstered handgun can be drawn in less than a second.

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.

In the middle of a crowded mall? Are you kidding me?

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.

Tell that to the folks in Oklahoma City.

Your arguments are feeble at best. The simple truth is that banning certain types of guns or magazines in no way affects the person who is bent on committing such an act. If they really want to do it, they will find a way.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 06, 2007

Cikomyr: Right now, you have the makings of several weapons of mass distruction in your home. Which of them should we send cops in to confiscate first?

Dr Guy

on Dec 06, 2007

Pathetic

The shooter? The press? Or the public?

Yes.

I agree on all counts.

Dr Guy

on Dec 06, 2007

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?

See, that is where my previous answer comes back to haunt. It could be that all laws were followed, but due to privacy, no one else in the chain knew about his mental conditions. And that is something that will be almost as hard to change - both legally and from the standpoint of stigmatism - as any law specifically addressing guns.

Dr Guy

on Dec 06, 2007

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.

The relatives of the Murrah building victims would vehemently disagree with you.

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!