Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We often hear from gun control advocates that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even under the NRA-individual right model, is not absolute. I agree with this to some extent; I would reject a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. But some gun control advocates use this even to justify an "assault weapons" ban or a ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds. That, to me is going too far. It is not, IMO, 'reasonable regulation.'
But for those who believe that it is, I have a question. What if some of the mass shootings are attributable at least in part to news coverage? A 2004 book by an academic named Loren Coleman entitled The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines covers this. Here is a fascinating 1 hr. interview of Mr. Coleman: Red Ice Radio - Loren Coleman - Hour 1 - The Copy Cat Effect & The Aurora Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Coleman
On almost an unconcious level, the media is really in cahoots with the next round of shooters, because they're projecting out there, in almost a movie-like fashion, how the next script should be written.
@(approx 12:00-1300)
The question then is: how much 'reasonable regulation' of the First Amendment would you accept in response too this. Would you accept blackout of media coverage of the shootings? Maybe a law against publishing the shooters name & photos? Would you oppose any such laws on First Amendment grounds? And if so why is the calculus regarding the First Amendment so different from that regarding the Second?
I wouldnt support these laws restricting the press. The term slippery slope gets tossed around way too often, but I cant imagine a better fit.
I agree with the principle that mentally ill people see the media coverage of these tragedies, and see an opportunity for people to finally hear them. But Im not ready to censor the media. And this is coming from someone who gags at most news reports(from either side).
Whats really needed is an influx of common sense into this country, but Im not holding my breath. These killings are horrible, and rare.
I wouldnt support these laws restricting the press. The term slippery slope gets tossed around way too often, but I cant imagine a better fit.
I agree with the principle that mentally ill people see the media coverage of these tragedies, and see an opportunity for people to finally hear them. But Im not ready to censor the media. And this is coming from someone who gags at most news reports(from either side).
Whats really needed is an influx of common sense into this country, but Im not holding my breath. These killings are horrible, and rare.
Would you support, say a ban on "high capacity" (over 10 rounds) magazines as a way to try to quell the shootings? And if your answer is yes, why is the calculus so different from 1st to 2nd?
Our rights are defined by law. What is reasonable is for the courts to decide. In this, we have had numerous decisions already. The question is: Do we want more Supreme Court decisions that further limit our rights secured by the Second Amentment?
What we need is the ability to have the discussion in the first place.
When people bring up gun control the shrieks come at high volume (about Nazi’s, tyranny, Marxism, etc) drowning out any discussion.
Look at the hearings in congress when they brought in Gayle Trotter to tell a story about how a woman was saved by having a gun...one that wouldn't be banned under the statute. When the senator questioned her about that fact she started ranting how he wasn't allowed to speak on the issue because he was a big man. Then Wayne LaPierre pretty well had a mental short circuit when confronted with him being the leading advocate for background checks not too long ago, and now is actively fighting against them.
They think they are really fighting for the cause of gun ownership, when really they look completely psychotic. It is actually hurting gun rights because every person they have put up for discussion in the pro gun rights position has acted completely insane. When making reasoned and rational decisions normal people will stop listening to crazy people and just push forward with what they would do anyways. They will stop addressing others on the issue, just like I don't get in long conversations with the woman about major life decisions who wears a Lucky Charms box on her head.
I am for regulated rights for firearms with background checks. I also own guns. I hate these idiots representing (or even claiming to) my interests in this arena because it makes me look nuts when people find out I own firearms.
What we need is the ability to have the discussion in the first place.
When people bring up gun control the shrieks come at high volume (about Nazi’s, tyranny, Marxism, etc) drowning out any discussion.
Look at the hearings in congress when they brought in Gayle Trotter to tell a story about how a woman was saved by having a gun...one that wouldn't be banned under the statute. When the senator questioned her about that fact she started ranting how he wasn't allowed to speak on the issue because he was a big man. Then Wayne LaPierre pretty well had a mental short circuit when confronted with him being the leading advocate for background checks not too long ago, and now is actively fighting against them.
They think they are really fighting for the cause of gun ownership, when really they look completely psychotic. It is actually hurting gun rights because every person they have put up for discussion in the pro gun rights position has acted completely insane. When making reasoned and rational decisions normal people will stop listening to crazy people and just push forward with what they would do anyways. They will stop addressing others on the issue, just like I don't get in long conversations with the woman about major life decisions who wears a Lucky Charms box on her head.
I am for regulated rights for firearms with background checks. I also own guns. I hate these idiots representing (or even claiming to) my interests in this arena because it makes me look nuts when people find out I own firearms.
That might be all interesting, but I'm not sure how it answers the question that I posed.
What we need is the ability to have the discussion in the first place.
When people bring up gun control the shrieks come at high volume (about Nazi’s, tyranny, Marxism, etc) drowning out any discussion.
Look at the hearings in congress when they brought in Gayle Trotter to tell a story about how a woman was saved by having a gun...one that wouldn't be banned under the statute. When the senator questioned her about that fact she started ranting how he wasn't allowed to speak on the issue because he was a big man. Then Wayne LaPierre pretty well had a mental short circuit when confronted with him being the leading advocate for background checks not too long ago, and now is actively fighting against them.
They think they are really fighting for the cause of gun ownership, when really they look completely psychotic. It is actually hurting gun rights because every person they have put up for discussion in the pro gun rights position has acted completely insane. When making reasoned and rational decisions normal people will stop listening to crazy people and just push forward with what they would do anyways. They will stop addressing others on the issue, just like I don't get in long conversations with the woman about major life decisions who wears a Lucky Charms box on her head.
I am for regulated rights for firearms with background checks. I also own guns. I hate these idiots representing (or even claiming to) my interests in this arena because it makes me look nuts when people find out I own firearms.
It's funny that you rant about what the NRA said, but you and every other media outlet has ignored what that ass Mark Kelly said. He actually said that if Loughner had went through the background check system he would have been denied a gun. Kelly is an ass and doesn't even know the facts surrounding his own wife's shooting. Loughner DID pass a background check because dumbassed Sheriff Dupnik helped keep Loughner OUT of the database by not arresting him for the multiple dangerous threats he's made to various organizations all the while knowing full well that he had mental issues.
We often hear from gun control advocates that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even under the NRA-individual right model, is not absolute. I agree with this to some extent; I would reject a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. But some gun control advocates use this even to justify an "assault weapons" ban or a ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds. That, to me is going too far. It is not, IMO, 'reasonable regulation.'
...
The question then is: how much 'reasonable regulation' of the First Amendment would you accept in response too this. Would you accept blackout of media coverage of the shootings? Maybe a law against publishing the shooters name & photos? Would you oppose any such laws on First Amendment grounds? And if so why is the calculus regarding the First Amendment so different from that regarding the Second?
Your regulation proposals are not an apples-to-apples comparison. The regulations on the Second Amendment apply to inanimate objects, while those on the First Amendment are for actions. There are already many actions involving firearms that are illegal and do not violate the Second Amendment, e.g. violent crimes, brandishing, threats, etc. A similar restriction on the First Amendment for the media would involve limiting access to the internet, or you can have a typewriter but not a word processor, etc.
I have yet to see a gun control advocate even try to take on my basic question: how do we decide what are "reasonable controls" on First and Second Amendment rights, especially in connection with school shootings, and why does the calculus of how/where to draw the lines seem to differ so much? At least on the left side of the aisle. It seems that most on the right are fairly consistent. We have a strong bias towards individual liberty in both cases. But the left side of the aisle seems to be inconsistent here. They seem to want extensive "reasonable controls" in one case, but not the other.
I know there are a bunch of pro-gun-control people here on CD. Why no response; is this just too complicated for you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
