gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.
So cell phones and the internet cause these sorts of mass shootings? That's a great theory, except that while such shootings were much more rare prior to the late 90s, they did happen.
Not at all. The public media explosion does contribute significantly to the problem, however. When the perpetrator is given celebrity status the way these guys are, it makes the idea more appealing to certain individuals. There's a whole side-debate going on regarding the extent to which public media response to these events contributes to the problem and whether this potential celebrity status might be a larger part of the problem.
Fine. Now address the more important part of my response. If it makes things easier, let's also assume that the 1st amendment isn't going away anytime soon either. So given those assumptions, how do you minimize the number of kids killed by such events?
Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.