Originally Posted by panerd
Can we all agree that something also has to change with the media coverage? “Third highest ever” “let’s learn more about the asshole who just gunned down 17 people...” “here’s how he did it” These nut jobs almost always end up idolizing previous shooters and want to refine and top their body count. There has to be a better way to cover this doesn’t there?
This actually leads to an interesting question. I am probably as reluctant to restrict the first amendment anymore that we currently do as gun rights activists are of to restricting the second amendment. Am I willing to give up the good information that comes from the current media coverage in order to reduce the glorification of the event? It is easy for me to say yes today. I am not sure what my reaction would be when present with the actual restrictions tomorrow. I would hope that learning more about the asshole will lead someone, some group to do something that might prevent the next massacre and help the troubled persons who may do it. I also know that a restriction here will lead to attempts to more restrictions further down the line to censorship. Am I willing allow the first restriction?
If you ask me if I am willing to sacrifice all the AR-15's in the country to prevent another massacre, the answer is a resounding yes. BTW, I don't own an AR-15, have no desire to own one and getting no joy from shooting one. I lost nothing from not having an AR-15 specifically The more important question for me is what is my "AR-15"and I am willing to sacrifice it, in order to prevent these tragedies from happening? I don't have a quick answer to that one. I don't think I am the only one without an answer.