Newtown School Shootings

[Montmorency]

The US government has difficulty even preventing some channels of news media from publishing classified documents.

What would it mean for other areas of government-media relationship if the government could here, in the name of public safety, legislate a particular format for reporting on specific acts, and penalize deviation?

Could not this same pretext be used for every other category or aspect of reporting on crime, or reporting on anything at all? Would it not become obligatory? Shouldn't it, even?

It's perhaps an overly onerous burden to place on a Western state in its current manifestation.

You might refer to the successful promulgation of anti Holocaust-denial laws in parts of Europe, but these are aimed at preventing a very specific sort of expression entirely and not tightly regulating overall discourse. Further, all it requires from a government is to grant authority to law enforcement to target instances of the forbidden speech, not to design a specially conceived format prescribed to an institution. Of course, reporting on killings at all could always be forbidden wholesale. That would have interesting consequences...

But I'm afraid I'm not making myself clear. The one-liner is probably a better summary and guide for your imagination.

[Sir Moody]

I wasn't suggesting the Government do the "reining in" - it is best for the Government to stay out of free speech and the media - it would be better if the Media reined itself in via self regulation (or better a independent body)

as to how the reining should be handled - the youtube clips summed it up perfectly - keep it low key - focus on the tragedy and the victims - don't put pictures of the killer up at all in fact make him a foot note

the problem is the "cult" of the killer the media creates - we focus entirely on the story of the killer trying to find out why - all the time putting his face on TV which builds the "Hero complex" - which in a lot of cases is EXACTLY what the killer wanted

I am under no illusions - the chances of the Media reining itself in is small - there is too much money in it

[ICantSpellDawg]

This just made my decision to buy the S&W chambered in .223 a whole lot easier. I urge everyone who has ever wanted to own a gun to go out and buy one now if you ever plan to. Sometimes I feel like Barack Obama is the most effective gun salesman I've ever seen.

Everyone who is over the age of 21 should carry, 24/7, barring those with serious mental illness, violent criminal history or credibly threatening behavior.

[Goofball]

This just made my decision to buy the S&W chambered in .223 a whole lot easier. I urge everyone who has ever wanted to own a gun to go out and buy one now if you ever plan to. Sometimes I feel like Barack Obama is the most effective gun salesman I've ever seen.

LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):

Here's one more such paradox: Obama has done literally nothing to restrict the (large and growing) rights of gun owners. President Bill Clinton signed two important pieces of gun control legislation and issued many restrictive executive orders; Obama has not so much as introduced even one.Yet the election of Obama has triggered an angry reaction among gun owners fiercer than anything seen under Clinton. Between 1960 and the late 1990s, there occurred a gradual decline in the percentage of American homes that contain a gun, from about one-half to about one-third.

(This trend is at least partly explained by the decline of hunting as a sport. In 2011, about 6% of Americans aged 16 or over went hunting even once in the year. )
In 2009, however, that trend away from guns abruptly went into reverse. Gun buying spiked in the Obama administration, pushing the share of households with a gun all the way back up to 47%, near the 1960 peak, even as crime rates tumbled to the lowest levels ever recorded, making guns less necessary than ever to self-defense. Black Friday 2012 set a one-day record for gun sales.

As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

[ICantSpellDawg]

LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):



As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

Well, based on prior legislation, they tend to exclude weapons purchased or manufactured before the bill is signed into law. I was going to buy another one anyway, but this just made the $700 look less precious.

I can do entry level now in.223 and then, if the civilian version of the HK AR build the H&K556 with a perm-pinned stock no flash supress is released, I can upgrade. Just as long as the ban doesn't include too many new restrictions. If they target all scary looking builds I'll just get a ruger mini-14 in .223. I live in NY, so we've got years of practice living under the old assault weapons ban on a state level. 10 round mag limit here and I'm one handgun in already.

[Crazed Rabbit]

As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership,

Wrong: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...16_103154.html

She noted that the U.S. government, however, rejected Seoul’s proposal to export some 600,000 M1 Carbines, which were also used in the Korean War, as they come with a magazine that can carry multiple rounds unlike the Garands.

“We plan to announce a bid later this month or in February for the selection of agencies to sell the M1 rifles to Americans,” Kim said. “The U.S. has been reviewing legal procedures for the approval of a third party transfer.”

The official said Korea plans to purchase locally developed K2 rifles with the money raised by selling the M1s.

The Obama administration blocked the purchase of 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines in 2010, saying the American-made antique rifles could “potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

We do not have that view.

It is extremely rational not to base legislation, and wholesale curtailing of rights, on extremely rare events. Especially when the root of the problem is mentally ill people wanting to kill a lot of people. No gun ban deals with that, which is the core issue.

It's like the TSA and their asinine policies on liquids and shoes.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

Well they have, generally, bad eyesight and worse guns. Americans have fancy optics and glasses or laser eye surgery.

CR