Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2102251)

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2102258)

Thank you. That was very insightful.

I will take issue partially with the media is doing the social engineering. The media, in my opinion, is simply focused on running stories that will make them money. Sadly, they have to fill 24x7 streaming. Used to only have to fill 3 or 4 hours a day, now they have to come up with 168 hours of "news". sigh. So, they put out snippets with inflammatory headlines - all trying to get your attention to click. They get paid by the click and how long you stay to watch. They appear to have little regard for the consequences of their streaming, as long as they make money.

Keep in mind that to maximize profit, they need to focus their articles on THEIR base. Sort of like politicians. The Media picked a base to market to and have to feed that base articles the base will click to see and watch. It is a vicious cycle. I expect CNN has no business plan to try to take Fox watchers, and Fox has no plan to try and take CNN watchers. Each focuses on doing everything possible to capture their views attention.

That said, I feel it is a safe bet that some articles are "encouraged" by various outside (not part of the media company) interests. This is true of all media Fox and CNN. I am fairly sure it is a safe bet that some politicians have contacts that they "suggest" stories to, and the media runs with them so they can get "insider" stories in return.

In addition, even back in the day when Howard K Smith et al, actually had NEWS shows, that told the NEWS. politicians "played" the media - things like releasing bad news on Fridays. etc.

I get a lot of my new from BBC and other world news sources, for exactly those reasons.

Now, is social engineering being pushed. I don't know, could be. But, I doubt seriously that any of the major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, OAN, NewsMax, et all) would put a social engineering piece over profit. But, I am also sure they will "fill" in that extra 144 hours they have to fill with social engineering that their particular audience wants to hear.

Originally Posted by Kenswing (Post 2102134)

Next they’ll want to ban the knife and fork in order to stop obesity.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2102212)

Actually, I don't think I have seen the Texas school shooters face on TV. Maybe, once, but I am not sure. I see. LOT of the children that died faces.

I guess we watch different media.

So, what do you suggest to solve it? Do we put more regulations on the media? How does that fit with the constitution?

Not arguing, I am interested in your thoughts on those.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2102249)

Agreed, lots of lies...........on the media that I don't watch.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2102255)

Australia banned a certain class of weapon....semi-autos and it worked for them. And they are a democracy much like the US

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2102276)

Using Australia as the example is a bad idea. Their social system is different from ours, as is their culture. Americans suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome - where we are taught that standing out in a crowd is a good thing. Attention-seeking is celebrated. In Australia, people want to just be, and not focus their energy on being noticed.

Australians are more likely to experience first-hand other parts of the globe. Americans generally don't leave their own hemisphere. Only 1/6 of Americans have ever travelled abroad. 1/3 of Australians have.

Australian culture embraces the concept of fair play, while Americans will likely "do whatever it takes" to get a jump on their competition.

These cultural differences are significant enough to have an impact on the acceptability of stricter gun control measures.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2102298)

Well, as H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public". That also goes for American media. Especially for American media. The days of Howard K. Smith and Uncle Walter (the most trusted man in America) Cronkite are ancient history. News "reporting" today is more on the level of National Enquirer bilge than it is responsible reporting.

My own personal opinion is that media inevitably reflect the politics of the medium in question. You can see that in the reporting, especially in how words are used. Two mediums might be reporting the same story in virtually the same manner. Let's say that, for the sake of example, the story is about a person nearing the end of his career in the public eye. One story refers to the person as a "venerable statesman", the other as an "aging politician". Those are the ONLY two words that are different. I don't know about you but the first gives me the impression of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. We both have the same information, but our emotional reaction may be decidedly different based on those words.

There are numerous other examples of how our emotions are channeled. Media is dangerously expert at it. There are a lot of obvious ones. The ones that are really scary though are the ones that we CAN'T spot. It is why, like you, I get most of my news from foreign sources.

...or just shut news out altogether.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102324)

It is a pretty well established fact that criminals don't get their guns legally. There are criminal enterprises that provide guns to criminals in this country and in probably every other country in the world. Criminals know who these suppliers are because a gun is a tool of their trade. They have no problem obtaining a gun.

There are smugglers that routinely smuggle illegal firearms into Mexico, and Central and South America, many of which are full automatic firearms. China is one of the biggest sources for these firearms per the ATF and FBI. You can ban the AR15 or any other gun there is and criminal organizations will provide them to who ever has the money to buy them. The latest cowardly child murderer legally bought two high end AR15 rifles that retail for over $2,000 each so he could have easily paid the inflated price a smuggler would charge.
So how would a ban on certain guns or universal background checks prevent this cowardly child murderer from getting what he needed? Just like in any podunk farm town in the most remote areas of fly-over country, you can get any illegal drug your addiction desires and the junkies know where to get them. The same will be with guns.

We have a violence problem in this country that we better acknowledge and do the things necessary to change that instead of useless emotion based knee jerk reactions.

Did you notice I didn't call the murderer a "shooter" like the "if it bleeds it leads" sensationalism oriented media label them. I called him a cowardly child murderer because Shooter gives the connotation of a skilled assassin like in violent video games. The crime he committed should be called what it is, the act of a deranged coward. The medial feeds these evil people's need for recognition and in my opinion should be condemned as well as the killer.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102315)

The United States government is a representative republic, not a democracy. Your civics class should have covered this. Believe me you wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy where majority rule decided everything.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102311)

You are advocating restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, how does that fit with the constitution? In case everyone has forgotten the right to bear arms is a "Right" just like the 1st and the others.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2102330)

Uh, better check you sources. A representative republic IS a democracy.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102311)

You are advocating restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, how does that fit with the constitution? In case everyone has forgotten the right to bear arms is a "Right" just like the 1st and the others.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2102329)

Pretty much agree with you, but most mass shootings are not by criminals… I don’t think, the one in Texas obviously wasn’t.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2102335)

This has been debunked many times. There is NO pure democracy, had

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102332)

No it isn't.

Citizensfb.com

"Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy
Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”[/QUOTE

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102336)

Doesn't change the fact that if someone needs a gun to commit an act of violence and can't get it legally, they will be able to get from an illegal source.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102337)

Then why are you using the term "Democracy"? The definition is pretty well defined by dictionaries and other sources as to what that form of government entails.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102337)

Then why are you using the term "Democracy"? The definition is pretty well defined by dictionaries and other sources as to what that form of government entails.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2102340)

I agree completely, but this thread is about mass murders and school shootings. Few if any of those obtain the guns illegally. Some, but few.

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki (Post 2102383)

Don’t school shooting ALWAYS occur in a “GUN FREE ZONE”?
And murder is illegal.

So, without talking about illegally obtaining the weapon or prohibited possessors, the shooter already commits two felonies, but they will follow new gun laws?
Totally makes sense.

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2101761)

:boom:

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2102251)

I think the problem is that media is being used for social engineering purposes, which is flat-out wrong. Kids being shot and killed in school, insofar as overall gun deaths go, aren't even a blip on the radar. America averages something like 33,000 gun deaths each year from all causes. This year 24 kids have been killed by gunfire at school and this year is a sad exception--numbers year by year since the late 1990's are usually far lower, often in the single digits. It is a fact that a school kid is statistically in more danger of being killed by lightning than killed at school. By far the greatest number of gun deaths, 58% on average per year, is suicide. Homicides are at 37.2% per year (numbers provided by Brittanica ProCon) and it is a safe bet to assume that the overwhelming number of those are criminal-related, drug and gang disputes mainly. Legal intervention and unintentional deaths come in at 1.2% and 1.3%.

Every student killed is a tragedy. I get that. But what we are seeing is shameless. It is my belief (borne out by several studies) that media overhype is the primary cause of copycat killings, and it is anyone's guess just how many of these dead kids would still be alive if it wasn't for what media is doing.

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

What can be done? Nothing, until we can be honest with ourselves. The gun "debate" solves nothing: people are entrenched on one side or the other and no statistic, or argument, is going to change that. On a personal level I try to avoid media that pushes the emotional hyperbole but that is nearly impossible: we are saturated with it. The irony is that school deaths by gunfire are actually DOWN since the 1990s, but you'd never know that from what we see, hear and read today.

We can all start by being honest, with ourselves at least. Far too few of us are.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2102241)

Teachers are not being paid to shoot intruders. It's not their job. If you want them to serve as bodyguards to their students then you need to pay them accordingly. Your taxes will go up, also accordingly. Maybe even enough that the state will need to impose a state income tax. Which of course will mean janitors and nurses and other non-teacher employees in those schools will also need a raise, because now some of their income is being sucked into taxes.

Giving teachers guns and requiring that they teach less, protect more, is not the answer.

The answer is not simple. But the solution would be to reduce the risk. To reduce the risk of a teacher ever having to decide whether or not to draw their gun on someone. A teacher shouldn't ever be held responsible for that. So how about reducing the risk that they would be.

The police, trained to do their jobs and protect the public, weren't able to prevent these shootings. Teachers should not be responsible to do what the police weren't able to do.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2102276)

Using Australia as the example is a bad idea. Their social system is different from ours, as is their culture. Americans suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome - where we are taught that standing out in a crowd is a good thing. Attention-seeking is celebrated. In Australia, people want to just be, and not focus their energy on being noticed.

Australians are more likely to experience first-hand other parts of the globe. Americans generally don't leave their own hemisphere. Only 1/6 of Americans have ever travelled abroad. 1/3 of Australians have.

Australian culture embraces the concept of fair play, while Americans will likely "do whatever it takes" to get a jump on their competition.

These cultural differences are significant enough to have an impact on the acceptability of stricter gun control measures.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2102298)

Well, as H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public". That also goes for American media. Especially for American media. The days of Howard K. Smith and Uncle Walter (the most trusted man in America) Cronkite are ancient history. News "reporting" today is more on the level of National Enquirer bilge than it is responsible reporting.

My own personal opinion is that media inevitably reflect the politics of the medium in question. You can see that in the reporting, especially in how words are used. Two mediums might be reporting the same story in virtually the same manner. Let's say that, for the sake of example, the story is about a person nearing the end of his career in the public eye. One story refers to the person as a "venerable statesman", the other as an "aging politician". Those are the ONLY two words that are different. I don't know about you but the first gives me the impression of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. We both have the same information, but our emotional reaction may be decidedly different based on those words.

There are numerous other examples of how our emotions are channeled. Media is dangerously expert at it. There are a lot of obvious ones. The ones that are really scary though are the ones that we CAN'T spot. It is why, like you, I get most of my news from foreign sources.

...or just shut news out altogether.

Originally Posted by Tvflguy (Post 2102471)

Would YOU put a sign on your front door. “Gun/free Zone”. Hmm.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2102544)

I feel that Facebook is FAR more dangerous than any TV channel. Even a TV channel that I avoid.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2102544)

I feel that Facebook is FAR more dangerous than any TV channel. Even a TV channel that I avoid.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102336)

Doesn't change the fact that if someone needs a gun to commit an act of violence and can't get it legally, they will be able to get from an illegal source.

We have a higher rate of gun deaths vs other industrialized countries, but we also have a higher rate of deaths by other means. Why is that? As I have stated numerous times on these threads about guns, we have a violence problem and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or even the IQ of a stupid chimpanzee to see that. Yet this country won't address that fact or make any attempt to fix the problem.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102311)

You are advocating restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, how does that fit with the constitution? In case everyone has forgotten the right to bear arms is a "Right" just like the 1st and the others.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2102462)

Using that logic, we should remove stop lights at intersections, and speed limits on interstates. And let's get rid of property lines, all they do is dare people to trespass.

Legalize (not just decriminalize) all drugs. No more prescriptions needed. If you want antibiotics, go ahead and buy some. If you want opioids, they're yours for the taking.

Minimal government right? That's the American way. So let's do this. Or are y'all just pretending because you have your mind set on one specific thing and can't let go? Have you doubled down SO hard, that your ego won't allow you to say "y'know what - maybe it's time for a change since the way it's been happening for the past 20 years isn't working all that great afterall?"

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2102553)

Actually, the 2nd Amendment said that STATE militiamen were entitled to "bear" their arms. Their arms were black powder muskets that were single shot and required a long time to reload and malfunctioned often. They had an accuracy range of about 50 meters. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment said that "individuals" should "bear arms". That is just the NRA's convenient interpretation.
..........Today's arms shoot with each trigger pull for a possible rate of fire of 45 shots per minute with little recoil and accuracy out to about 500 meters.
............The 2nd Amendment was purposely written ambiguously for its long-ago time. It did NOT come down from GOD and written in stone, like MANY WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE.

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2102315)

The United States government is a representative republic, not a democracy. Your civics class should have covered this. Believe me you wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy where majority rule decided everything.