That actually was Morgan Freeman who wrote this. Got it off of a Facebook post that someone put on my Facebook account. Big time actors and actresses do say quite bright things every once in a while.

I totally agree! They don't seem to care who is damaged by their irresponsible rush to 'just get the story aired'! I think it's appalling that, as a for instance, they immediately reported that Adam Lanza's brother Ryan was the shooter! They covered their butts later by saying that maybe Adam had his brother's ID. Ryan lost his mother and brother plus they have permanently linked his name to the shooting. They don't give a rat's behind. Same with his mother; everything they are spewing in regards to her guns and how they were kept is speculation!

I guess the Loyalists during the Revolutionary War must have felt the same way.

What he said, and you reported are very true. However, (and isn't there always a however?) I try to think of what the solution might be and I can't think of one. First: what is the mainstream media? I guess I would define it as any media outlet that is on my direct TV, or cable menu. A few years ago I would have said the major networks, and maybe CNN, but now virtually everyone has access to dozens or even hundreds of news outlets on TV. So let's say they all conspired to never mention the name of, or any background about, any mass killer. Okay, I know, this would never be likely to happen, but just say it did, kind of like the FCC USED to ban profanity and sexual innuendo. Back when I grew up, in the fifties, TV output was tightly controlled and we all thought Lucille Ball, Harriett Nelson, Donna Reed, and Barbara Billingsley were the typical matrons of typical families. Actually they weren't then, and are even less so now. Now, even if the "mainstream media" were equally controlled, you have the internet. There is simply no way that I can see, of controlling content on the internet. Today, bloggers would get hold of information, or bits of information, and they would satiate the desires of all the people that wanted to know, and if you think the mainstream media lacks journalistic ethics, get a load of some of the nitwits that are out there in the wild wild world of the web. The bloggers would have no restraint from printing rumors that were not fact, and wild speculation. At least the mainstream media GENERALLY shows restraint, and try to confirm rumors or information before making it public. In this age, I just cannot fathom what it would take to truly keep information about a mass killer away from a public, many of whom would move heaven and earth to get all the juicy details. If someone has a realistic answer I am all eyeballs.

That is true. We are just shooting the messenger. The networks are a business and they lose sponsors if they don't keep the dial tuned on their station.

We are supposed to try to evaluate things ourselves and make decisions based on the experiences we have had in our life and from teachings from trusted people in our life, mostly our family.

If a person lives in a delusional world distorted by mental illness or substance abuse, then not much can keep these kinds of things from happening.

The Baltimore Catechism used to teach that by the age of seven we had the use of reason and could chose between right and wrong.

It has grown very difficult to sort out as of late to be sure.

We all just have to do the best we can.

That's true that information has a way of getting out even in places with as tight a control on the press as China.

What bugs me is the mindset of making this a competition among the deranged as to who can put up the highest body count. They almost talk about it as who won the latest World Series. Along the same line, I have heard of very uncouth business people who sell serial killer trading cards.

Morgan Freeman seemed to be condemning the need to sensationalize the CT school shootings for ratings.

While I agree with most of what Morgan Freeman said in this quote above, I think it would be even more "brilliant" to look in the mirror as a Hollywood actor and Screen Actors' Guild member, and look at how HOLLYWOOD glamorizes and sensationalizes cold-blooded, grizzly killing/torture of people on the movie screen! Two movies that come to mind are the movies "Seven" with Brad Pitt and Gwenyth Paltrow, and Pulp Fiction. Grizzly and disgusting!!!!

Hollywood feeds and feeds ON blood-bath violence......and perversion. They are just as much to blame as the "news" networks!!

They were not loyalists, they were traders to the English mainland that put them in the Americas. We are all benefiting from what they did, but they were no less than terrorists and traders to their own country. Our own laws would have them executed if they did to us what they did to England. So please call them lots of things, but not loyalists.

:throwtomatoes:

There are some movies that glamorize violence. Others show the reality and the pain that it causes. I personally did not like Seven but Pulp Fiction seemed more like a parody of action movies.

Your rambling post makes no sense. You might want to google to the term "Loyalist" and review your Revolutionary War history, I think you are a bit confused. I never called anyone a Loyalist, I only stated that your original post seems to convey an attituded similar to that shared by many Loyalists (those loyal to England) during the Revolutionary War.

"Tarantino tires of defending ultra-violent films after Sandy Hook massacre"....

'Give me a break' - Tarantino tires of defending ultra-violent films after Sandy Hook massacre - News - Films - The Independent

I really do not buy this argument. Some of the world's best read and loved books are extremely violent and the stories told in them would make Tarantino's movies look tame if they were made into movies with the same level of gore. Actually, some of them have been made into movies. The Iliad's Troy. The Bible's The Last Temptation of Christ. The Iliad as well as The Odyssey are full of murders as is The Bible.

There is probably a good argument against some films that greatly overlook the cause and effect of violence and its lifetime's influence on the people who go through it. There are many exellent movies that tell this in very realistic terms. Unforgiven for instance is great in how in describes the battle between good and evil (and the shades of both) and the very real scars created in the bodies and souls of those in that struggle. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1041911-unforgiven/#

in my opinion it is not the occassional read that most of today's youth (3-25) wouldn't pick up or have the slightest interest in the first place.

The problem is the steady, complete immersion and exposure of our youth to violent games far too many of which are based on mass killing, using automatic weapons....movies that show the same as well as beheading, dismembering, torture, you name it.....television that is not far behind movies in the violence and manner of presentation.....the language and attitude that has eveolved from these exposures as well as the permissive attitudes of younger parents.....

Violence has been an accepted mode of entertainment for the last 20 (or more years). If exposure is a learning methodology why do some think our youth can be surrounded day in and day out with violence as the underlying theme, learning how to kill/murder, showing no remorse to only go on to the next killing.....then why is it a surprise when members of that same youth turn around and do it in real life?

It is not a surprise. And why doesn't anything get done about it? Because prior generations that also grew up in that same environment are now the parents, managers at work, politicians, etc. They will not take steps to eliminate what they too have become accustomed to and have an investment in it to be continued.

How about an example.....you have heard of MADD...mothers against drunk driving....credited with one of the most successful campaigns against drinking.....a situation that would and could kill any of us.

Have you ever heard of any similar group against cell phone use or texting while driving?? Of course not. Why? Because the mothers did not have an investment or participation in drunkenness. Cell phones are a very different story. Every mother of today is invested in and participation in using a cell phone or texting while driving. And they sure as hell are not going to promote taking away that which they themselves seem to need to have.......even though the statistics on accidents and deaths due to cell phone use and texting are staggering.

For the very same logic, the ongoing violence exposure and permissive toleration of it in our society, poisoning our youth is too important to them personally, hence nothing gets done. Just imagine what the next couple of generations will spawn as this violence exposure continues as an ACCEPTED element of society.

There is no mystery to the number of acts of violence that take place every single day. And those who waffle around trying to blame it on guns or mental health are looking right past the real reason. Because they too are hooked on what they grew up with.

Gun control will have zero effect....when the day to day "training" of death, murder and kill continues to flood their daily lives.

btk

"Gun control will have zero effect....when the day to day "training" of death, murder and kill continues to flood their daily lives."

The above posting is incorrect. IF the assault type weapons such as AK-47's, AR-15's, streetsweeper shotguns, high capacity magazines, etc. were NOT AVAILABLE for civilian purchase, the limited gun control MIGHT work to some degree. Less damage can be done with a 5 shot shotgun than with a 60 shot drum magazine shotgun and less damage can be done with a 7 round magazine on a rifle than a pair of 60 round banana magazines taped back to back.

The violent movies and video games are to blame to some degree but more so is the easy access to the high capacity weapons.

I was attempting to be at the general level. On your specific, OK ban all the what ever makes y'all happy...assault, semi automatic, high capacty, etc, etc, etc. accomplish them all or at least what ever it is that will make gun control advocates happy. And let's assume y'all get all ye seek.

My point was the violence exposure will be the same. The results will be the same.....when we allow training (my preferred wording) of youth in the manner of and lack of emotion of killing, murdering, dis-membering, etc......all the changed gun laws are not going to affect the incidence of tragedy. What will be accomplished is removal of one means of doing the deed.

We are talking about a very small percent of even the "trained" to accept killing crowd....the facts of the matter is the more that are trained that small percent = many more incidents.

Call it what you will....we are letting the behavior of our youth be arranged and conditioned to accept the presentation of murdering, killing and mayhem. Repetitive exposure results in learned conditioning.
One only needs to look at the games, the television and movie content, the language, the lack of respect and for too many, no fear of the law.

Guns are only a piece of a very complex puzzle of life and in my opinion too many try to make the puzzle about guns!!!

btk