Should media publicly show the recent mass shooter being killed?
They have the body cam footage…
Would it give some form of comfort, to anyone?
Would it maybe prevent some people from being the next mass killer?
Would it simply make violence like this, more numbing?
What if we saw where the footage stopped?
What if the world sees a shooter mortally wounded, and dying in an agonizing, horrific display?
Thoughts?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
17 Answers
I don’t think turning mass shooters into martyrs is effective in deterring mass shootings… Deterrence is usually only effective for property crimes, and even then it’s about the likelihood of failure way more than the severity of the consequences. In other words, a 99% chance of getting caught and paying a $100 fine is way more effective at deterring theft than a 1% chance of getting caught and having your hand amputated as punishment.
Within context of the stuff people see everyday elsewhere, it seems like a non-issue.
News viewership has expectedly dropped off dramatically over the years because everyone knows how worthless they are.
I saw the video on youtube.
No, and I’m not even sure it was necessary to kill the shooter in this case.
NO. In fact, I’m opposed to naming the shooters or even publicly advertising things like their motive and means and situation. All of that info should be available to those who are doing academic research, but it should not be widely advertised.
There have been studies that these mass shooter events are at least partly MOTIVATED by the publicity and infamy they bring. These are disturbed individuals who feel downtrodden and anonymous. They see the fame accorded to other shooters and it’s at least PART of the motivation for why they do this.
The study I saw hypothesized that alot of these kids are the ones that would have been suicide risks 50 years ago, but now they are mass shooters because the media attention is seen as desirable to them. It’s the attention and vindication that the suicide used to represent.
The media should report the incident happened of course. But it should not dwell on it, and the shooter’s info in particular should not be broadcast. It will take time to roll back the preception that this is how you can get famous…but we really need to stop feeding the fire.
Unfortunately, as the saying goes – “if it bleeds, it leads”. The media can’t help itself. That’s why it continues to give constant free campaign donations to Trump in the form of coverage and attention despite the media universally hating him.
Maybe. I can see arguments both ways.
I heard parents of a child who was short at Sandy Hook and parents of a child who was shot at Tillman have authorized the release of the photos of their children’s autopsy. I think all people who don’t want to outlaw assault rifles, and who guns don’t kill, people kill, should look at those photos and imagine their children being that child.
Yes, since they show everything else. Sometimes I think no coverage should be allowed at all for shootings.
Yes, because it shows what will happen to these monsters that do horrendous things like this. I don’t think they should broadcast the names of these monsters, don’t give them any kind of infamy or martyrdom. Show everyone what kind of consequences come from assault weapons. Since the rich and powerful that can do something about these atrocities seem to have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to these weapons of mass destruction.
Let someone shoot up their own ivy league college and kill their Summa Cum Laude kid and see what happens over night!
I don’t think giving these shooters any press is good. It feeds into other disturbed people that see how famous this person is (infamy is still fame) and they think that might be a way for them to become significant.
@seawulf575 “I don’t think giving these shooters any press is good. It feeds into other disturbed people that see how famous this person is (infamy is still fame) and they think that might be a way for them to become significant.”
+1. Well said.
Pretending these shootings never happened isn’t going to help anyone. The shooter will be infamous whatever we do particularly in the communities they target. Better than denying them press coverage would be to deny them guns in the first place.
@flutherother yes, the shooter will be infamous whatever we do at least locally. But you can focus on the events without naming the shooter. I suspect many of these fools are looking for someone to notice them and they figure this is a great way. If they are not named, they get no fame. It stops being a way to get noticed.
You can show him or her being shot and blur the face.
No, absolutely not. Public executions numb humans to violence and erode compassion. In North Korea, little kids watch bloody shootings and cheer. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that and how it damages society, please examine if you, yourself, are desensitized already.
Also remember that most of these mass shooters are suicidal. Threatening death to a suicidal person is like threatening a starving person with pizza.
I personally find no value in releasing this to the public. I also feel it plays into the “suicide by Cop” mentality of some people.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
