Gunman in Omaha kills 8, then himself

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Wezil
Offended? Hardly. I have thicker skin that that. I mention my beliefs b/c you seem to imply I favour censorship. I do not.

Whether you favour it or not is on you, I'm just pointing out that your posts are advocating a form of it.

Originally posted by Wezil You still haven't addressed my suicide point. Should the media report these names as well?

Um, yes I did. Go back and reread my posts. It's a different category. Besides the media does report suicides here in the U.S. especially by famous people. Kurt Cobain anyone? I'm sure you can name a few more.

Originally posted by Wezil Great. keep looking for those names. I'm sure your life will be better and more complete because of it.

Are the Jack the Ripper crimes any less famous for us not knowing the name of the perpetrator?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by uberloz


Whether you favour it or not is on you, I'm just pointing out that your posts are advocating a form of it.

I don't think people should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre either. Is this also censorship or just plain responsible limits on free speech?

Um, yes I did. Go back and reread my posts.

Um, no you didn't. You dismissed rather than answer.

It's a different category. Besides the media does report suicides here in the U.S. especially by famous people. Kurt Cobain anyone? I'm sure you can name a few more.

So when Joe Blow jumps off a local bridge the local media report Joe Blow's name? Where do you live? I think you are being dishonest.

Curt Cobain was a media celebrity - he (and others of his ilk) are the exception.

Are the Jack the Ripper crimes any less famous for us not knowing the name of the perpetrator?

His crimes are infamious b/c no one (except Ripper himself of course) knew the killer's identity. Not the same now is it?

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Wezil


I don't think people should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre either. Is this also censorship or just plain responsible limits on free speech?

Nice dodge. Not the same issue.

Originally posted by Wezil Um, no you didn't. You dismissed rather than answer.

You didn't like my answer that's understandable, but it was still an answer. Suicides are in a different category and you are changing the subject about mass murdering gunmen by adding them.

Originally posted by Wezil So when Joe Blow jumps off a local bridge the local media report Joe Blow's name? Where do you live? I think you are being dishonest.

Curt Cobain was a media celebrity - he (and others of his ilk) are the exception.

How convenient of you to change the rules of your own game. You never said it had to be 'joe blow', just suicides that get reported.

Originally posted by Wezil His crimes are infamious b/c no one (except Ripper himself of course) knew the killer's identity. Not the same now is it?

Maybe that's because the people that knew the name thought like you do?

How can we know either way?

At least by not censoring future names we can eliminate that possibility.

[Igloodude]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I always get a good laugh out of the Conservative, or should I say Conservanuts stupidity.

A gunmen goes on a rampage, and the Conservanut response is to blame the media and demand limits on freedom of speech.



Because we have no proof that the media creates copycat gunmen, but who cares, just blame the media. And of course god forbid the Americans do anything logical like have some type of minor gun control.

Exactly what sort of "minor gun control" would have prevented this? From what I've seen reported, the PoS stole a rifle from his father-in-law - since he wasn't able to legally purchase one himself - and brought it to a "gun-free-zone" mall and shot the place up, then shot himself. He broke a law in getting the gun, he broke a law in keeping the gun, he broke a law in bringing the gun into the mall - and then he broke a law in using the gun.

[BlackCat]

What about building halls of shame where such persons pictures was placed and public was free to urinate on them ?

[Dis]

It's funny people ask why. This isn't hard to figure out. The guy is a high school dropout with no job, no girlfriend, and can't even hold a job at mcdonald's. If I was him, I'd kill myself. I suppose I wouldn't make a good suicide hotline operator. . This doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out. And I already said why they insist on killing other people, so they can achieve notoriety.

As I said before, that isn't my thing. I will not take others on my way out. Yes you could argue morals don't matter after you die. but what good are moral values if you completely disregard them? My morals define who I am. Even though I'm at the lowest point in my life right now, I won't be offing myself in any dramatic fashion any time soon.

[Dis]

Originally posted by uberloz


I respectfully disagree.

Everyone I know that is a free thinker became so because they were tired of hearing the same old bs from the same old circles.

What you are suggesting here is that only certain members of society be allowed to know certain facts about that society and then parse them out to the rest of us.

In other words, censorship.

What does it matter 'why' people want to know about these things?

And 'at the end of the day' shouldn't the decision about what they learned be left up to them?

If the press can withold names of underage victims, surely they can withhold these guys names. It's not that hard. It's called self censorship, and that's okay.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I always get a good laugh out of the Conservative, or should I say Conservanuts stupidity.

A gunmen goes on a rampage, and the Conservanut response is to blame the media and demand limits on freedom of speech.



Because we have no proof that the media creates copycat gunmen, but who cares, just blame the media. And of course god forbid the Americans do anything logical like have some type of minor gun control.

gun control We can't stop the flow of drugs into this country, how are we going to stop the flow of guns? Get with the times dude.

We're not saying the media creates the gunmen. Where would you get a stupid idea like that? The media helps further the gunmens goals. The gunmen want fame. The media gives them this. If the media didn't give them fame, perhaps the gunmen would be less likely to kill a bunch of people and just kill themselves. I can't guarantee this would be the case, but it's worth a shot.

No one is saying the goverment should censor the media. If the media can withhold the name of a rape victim, why can't they withhold the name of the shooter?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by uberloz


Nice dodge. Not the same issue.





You didn't like my answer that's understandable, but it was still an answer. Suicides are in a different category and you are changing the subject about mass murdering gunmen by adding them.



How convenient of you to change the rules of your own game. You never said it had to be 'joe blow', just suicides that get reported.





Maybe that's because the people that knew the name thought like you do?

How can we know either way?

At least by not censoring future names we can eliminate that possibility.

You are getting silly and boring.

It is the same issue - the issue is responsible journalism. Sorry you can't see that.

The rest is drivel.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Wezil


You are getting silly and boring.

It is the same issue - the issue is responsible journalism. Sorry you can't see that.

The rest is drivel.

I can see that you get your name honestly enough. You can weasel through an argument fairly consistantly.

It isn't just a matter of responsible journalism.

It's a matter of freedom of information.

Will the name of the shooter be withheld from the victims families or do they not deserve to know?

What if the shooter survives his self inflicted gunshots, do the doctors deserve to know who they are treating?

If the shooter recovers from those wounds do we hold secret trials where the jurors don't deserve to know the name of the accused?

Or do we swear all of the above to secrecy?

And under what penalty do we hold them to their silence?

Incarceration, caning, death?

I'm sorry weasel but I prefer that criminals and their crimes be kept as public information.

[Wezil]

Last try Uber. If you still don't get it I will abandon the effort.

Originally posted by uberloz


I can see that you get your name honestly enough. You can weasel through an argument fairly consistantly.

Read the thread. I have been quite consistant throughout.

It isn't just a matter of responsible journalism.

It's a matter of freedom of information.

No, it is a) not b). It has been since my 1st post in the thread despite your inability to grasp it.

Will the name of the shooter be withheld from the victims families or do they not deserve to know?

Why should they not know? They can have this info w/o a mass broadcast. You are being obtuse.

What if the shooter survives his self inflicted gunshots, do the doctors deserve to know who they are treating?

"Deserve"? Doesn't matter one way or another if they know his name (but I'm sure they would know as well.

If the shooter recovers from those wounds do we hold secret trials where the jurors don't deserve to know the name of the accused?

The court will know who he is. Just as they now know the names of rapists and their "victims". We're talking about media here, not courts.

Or do we swear all of the above to secrecy?

Nope, we rely on professional responsible media to not glorify these idiots. Doctors, lawyers, and juries aren't media.

And under what penalty do we hold them to their silence?

Incarceration, caning, death?

I'm sorry weasel but I prefer that criminals and their crimes be kept as public information.

You've yet to tell me how knowing someones name helps you understand absolutely anything about the crime.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Wezil
Last try Uber. If you still don't get it I will abandon the effort.

I can agree to disagree. You want increased censorship of public information, I do not.

That's all it really boils down to.

Originally posted by Wezil You've yet to tell me how knowing someones name helps you understand absolutely anything about the crime.

You are really stuck on this whole concept that; "people don't need freedom of information unless that information can provide them understanding".


Oh well, we must then agree to disagree. I have no hard feelings about it though!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dis
We're not saying the media creates the gunmen. Where would you get a stupid idea like that? The media helps further the gunmens goals. The gunmen want fame. The media gives them this. If the media didn't give them fame, perhaps the gunmen would be less likely to kill a bunch of people and just kill themselves. I can't guarantee this would be the case, but it's worth a shot.

Yup, Blame the media, and while you're at it, blame Canada.

You have no proof that censorship would work, but you want the media to censor itself.

You say the gunman only wanted fame, but how do you know that is true?

And you are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech in the vain hope that you might stop one of these nutcases.

Yup, censor the press, but god forbid, you control gun sales.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Igloodude
Exactly what sort of "minor gun control" would have prevented this? From what I've seen reported, the PoS stole a rifle from his father-in-law - since he wasn't able to legally purchase one himself - and brought it to a "gun-free-zone" mall and shot the place up, then shot himself. He broke a law in getting the gun, he broke a law in keeping the gun, he broke a law in bringing the gun into the mall - and then he broke a law in using the gun.

In the U.S., anyone can get a gun. So maybe you should ask why did the father-in-law have a gun? If buddy doesn't have a gun, the nutcase can't go on a rampage.

Is it really worthwhile to live in a society where your idiot neighbors can buy as many guns as they want? Is it really necessary to let crazy people buy guns.

You yanks won't do anything to control the sales of guns, but you do want to censor the press even though you have no indication that the press had any connection to this crime.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wezil
So when Joe Blow jumps off a local bridge the local media report Joe Blow's name?

Like a typical conserva-nut, you don't know what you are talking about.

There are some studies that suggest a link between newspaper coverage of suicides and copycat suicides, but other studies disagree.

Mental health experts now say that the media should report suicides, and provide guidelines about how to do it.

Besides, someone killing themself is a hell of a lot different then someone going on a killing spree.