Music Banter - Children killed in Connecticut school shooting (likely 27 dead,including 18 children)

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - Children killed in Connecticut school shooting (likely 27 dead,including 18 children) (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/66643-children-killed-connecticut-school-shooting-likely-27-dead-including-18-children.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloozcrooz (Post 1263913)

Did you watch any of the clips I posted in my last post? It speaks rather loudly as to who will control gun traded no matter what the law says.

Does it? Would you buy guns from the crips?

I figured I'd check out 4chan to see what they thought about the whole thing. I saw pretty much what I'd expect from them.

I saw this Ebert quote on Facebook and I think it's dead-on:

Quote:

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.” In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

^I definitely agree with that as well.

Ebert knows more than movies, it looks like. I completely agree with him.

I'd agree with the post Tuna, I think the issue is generally emotional failings. They want people to like them, they want to feel included. When everyone is trying to "figure you out", maybe it adds some sense of value to them (they think). I'd love to see an interview with these people 20 years on, but obviously we love to have the death penalty so thats probably not going to happen.

In thinking about it, maybe I wouldn't. I'm sure they'd just find God and be boring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down (Post 1263915)

I don't see anything wrong with that either. But it becomes a problem when the gun gets into the wrong hands. A child, a crazy mental person, etc.

What I really want to know is why this guy's mother, a ****ing kindergarten teacher, had an assault rifle in her house. You don't need an assault rifle for self protection, if that's why she owned it.

Assault rifles like that should only be reserved for military personnel and police SWAT teams. Civilians should never be able to get their hands on one.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought assault rifles were illegal in some areas.

Ebert hit the nail on the head. I think something should be done to keep the identity of these people hidden. Do not give them any attention at all. But I'm sure that wouldn't be possible

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10 (Post 1263936)

I'm not going to argue with you on that. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought assault rifles were illegal in some areas

Apparently not in Connecticut. The rifle was legally purchased and registered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1263919)

Does it? Would you buy guns from the crips?

No. Im also not a disturbed or disgruntled sicko out to make a name for himself or who's flipped his wig. The point I think nobody is wanting to see here is that guns aren't going anywhere and trying to police them will not be as efffective as you think. I don't know why that is so hard to fathom for some. I say go ahead and place a tighter leash on gun laws and put it into affect and leave it for ten years. Then after the changes that were expected never occur then change them back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloozcrooz (Post 1263944)

No. Im also not a disturbed or disgruntled sicko out to make a name for himself or who's flipped his wig.

Right, but you were saying that the Crips or other gangs control the gun trade whether they're legal or not. If they control it, I assume they'd have to be selling to a much larger niche than just disgruntled sickos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloozcrooz (Post 1263944)

The point I think nobody is wanting to see here is that guns aren't going anywhere and trying to police them will not be as efffective as you think. I don't know why that is so hard to fathom for some. I say go ahead and place a tighter leash on gun laws and put it into affect and leave it for ten years. Then after the changes that were expected never occur then change them back.

And what if the changes DO occur? Would you be okay with keeping the stricter gun laws in effect?