Umpqua, Oregon, Mass Public Killings, Oct 1st 2015.

Even assuming, @Exorcet, as amateur psychologists, that such individuals are only interested in posthumous vain-glory, history shows that such individuals now come and go - a flash in the pan.
Some end up in prison - and get a whole lot of other attention.
This thread is not about the individuals getting attention posthumously - it's about them getting attention when they are alive.

Even in that case I think it's important to consider how attractive being a mass killer is. Ultimately we want a peaceful resolution to be more attractive than killing people to those who carry out these murders. The media spreading names and motives is a part of that balance.



This thread is not about gun control.
You didn't mention gun control at all, but it was brought up. That part of my reply was not one aimed at your original post. I don't tend to think of threads as being owned by a specific person, but if you really don't want any mention of gun control at all, I can respect that.

Although I want to make it clear that what I said wasn't specifically about gun control, but about taking action. When it comes to these events we see many calling for the government to do something about it. I was pitching the idea that there might be a better way to get things done, or at least a quicker way. I was also thinking about the thread from some months ago about banning ICE vehicles, where the proponent of the idea wanted to make ICE illegal. I tried to steer things towards influencing the market without government intervention but I made no headway.

It is about the routine labelling. It is about the shoving the danger under clever, legal words, and the attendent guin talk - because it was a shooting.
It was also a killing.
Murder in broad daylight.
It was premeditated murder.
My view is that the labeling shouldn't matter. For me I don't feel that it does, but I do realize that people see things differently.
 
Probably because: A) How do you even regulate a household item? B) It's a lot harder to get away with mass killing of people using knives perpetrated by a single person than it is to mass kill people using a single gun.

The reason people go crazy over guns during these mass shootings is that guns could have been regulated better to prevent them from being in the hands of the wrong person. You just can't regulate the other items like knives and baseball bats, but you can regulate guns, and you should considering it has so much of a destructive potential over the rest.

I'm not saying guns should be banned. But better regulations should be put in place.

No it's not, I'd say it easier than getting a hold of a gun and doing it. Is it as effective, that's the question you have to ask yourself. As I've said a mass stabbing where 23 people were injured happened last year at a High School in the states and just like recent shooting an onlooker stopped the attacker. Also as I just said mass killing shouldn't be the only part of discussion since murders that aren't labeled mass attempt are far more than mass attempts.

No you can't regulate guns as easily as you put it, at least not the several of thousands that are unchecked in circulation that may fall under black market distribution. How do you possibly regulate guns that were sold second hand or stolen that have been accumulating in various areas for years? Sure you can regulate the law abiding and moderate regulation should be had, but no it's not easy. Also murder is murder no matter what method is used, there are more destructive ways to kill people. Boston showed us it's easy.
 
No it's not, I'd say it easier than getting a hold of a gun and doing it. Is it as effective, that's the question you have to ask yourself.

Isn't that basically what I just said? "It's a lot harder to kill as many people with a knife as it is with a gun." Of course getting a knife is easier than getting a gun, but it's a lot harder to kill that many people.

As I've said a mass stabbing where 23 people were injured happened last year at a High School in the states

Key word here.

No you can't regulate guns as easily as you put it, at least not the several of thousands that are unchecked in circulation that may fall under black market distribution. How do you possibly regulate guns that were sold second hand or stolen that have been accumulating in various areas for years?

You don't. You regulate the ones that were legally obtained, like you said.

Also murder is murder no matter what method is used, there are more destructive ways to kill people. Boston showed us it's easy.

It may be easy, but then again people seem to love shooting up their classmates instead.
 
Isn't that basically what I just said? "It's a lot harder to kill as many people with a knife as it is with a gun." Of course getting a knife is easier than getting a gun, but it's a lot harder to kill that many people.

Didn't read that way to me, but okay.

Key word here.

So because they weren't killed it's not an issue, sorry they didn't get added to the 1500+ figure of murders by knife that aren't done in mass. The Boston bombing didn't kill a ton of people, just injured very many and changed them for the rest of their lives...

You don't. You regulate the ones that were legally obtained, like you said.

Which solves nothing, other than more restrictions of law abiding citizens.

It may be easy, but then again people seem to love shooting up their classmates instead.

Yes an outsider looking in perspective, the fact remains that the likelihood of you getting killed on a school ground is still very unlikely. Also look at places like China who are highly regulated with guns and they have many school shootings as well. So if it was as easy as restrictions then why does this happen in two places of opposite attitude on the subject.
 
Because the limits placed on your freedoms vs. the limits placed on other people's freedoms meets or exceeds your personal standards for freedom or the maximum you're willing to compromise on freedom.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how free you actually are.
Let me ask you this, Captain Obvious: have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? (Hint: that was not a rhetorical question.)
 
So because they weren't killed it's not an issue, sorry they didn't get added to the 1500+ figure of murders by knife that aren't done in mass.

What part of "mass shooting is bad" didn't you read in this thread? The entire conversation revolves around mass killing of people. There's no point in discussing knives, because as I said, you can't regulate knife, and it is very easy to kill an individual, but not so much killing a whole lot of them in a small amount of time, which guns CAN do.

Which solves nothing, other than more restrictions of law abiding citizens.

And on potentially crazy people who shouldn't have got their guns in the first place (provided they were sort of crazy).

Yes an outsider looking in perspective, the fact remains that the likelihood of you getting killed on a school ground is still very unlikely. Also look at places like China who are highly regulated with guns and they have many school shootings as well. So if it was as easy as restrictions then why does this happen in two places of opposite attitude on the subject.

I don't know what school shootings in China you are speaking of, and whether the murderer obtained his guns legally, and whether he was a teenager to begin with.

Worth mentioning is that not only guns have to be obtained legally, but people who own them should take care of them very carefully. I could legally obtain a gun only for my crazy son to steal it from me and shoot up his friends.



The harder it becomes to me to understand how could somebody compare a gun to a knife, the easier it becomes to understand why these things keep happening.
 
Last edited:
Worth mentioning is that not only guns have to be obtained legally, but people who own them should take care of them very carefully.
Yes, they have to be, but in most cases (not including mass events) are they.

And the thought of someone who is going to take care of a weapon while planning to murder countless people is stupid. They are not buying/obtaining it to treasure it as I do with my rifles, but rather use it as a tool. It's no different than people purchasing a car because the need one, rather than people purchasing a car because the want one. One hand, the person doesn't care the results of driving it and all consequences following, and the other will actually care for it.

I'm sure the shooter is in the "need" category to satisfy their mental instability in their actions.
 
What part of "mass shooting is bad" didn't you read in this thread? The entire conversation revolves around mass killing of people. There's no point in discussing knives, because as I said, you can't regulate knife, and it is very easy to kill an individual, but not so much killing a whole lot of them in a small amount of time, which guns CAN do.

I read it just fine, what you seem to have trouble connecting thought with is that you can't cherry pick weapons. I know very well what a gun can do, I own plenty. I also know that the type of regulation you think will put these in some wondrous area of where people suddenly stop shooting up schools or more importantly stop murdering each other in inner cities (a far bigger issue as well as mental health) isn't likely.


And on potentially crazy people who shouldn't have got their guns in the first place (provided they were sort of crazy).

How, you just saying "well if we do solution A, that will automatically fix the problem" when you haven't even begun to dissect how it will in fact be beneficial. You taking what you hear via American media to where you live isn't going to help people here figure out a solution. Hell many people outside of the region seem to only take what media says and run with it, very few times do I say an @Famine or @Imari types who don't live in the U.S. actually try to understand the situation. Then again I really wouldn't expect people from outside the region to understand since it isn't their domestic problem.

I don't know what school shootings in China you are speaking of, and whether the murderer obtained his guns legally, and whether he was a teenager to begin with.

Worth mentioning is that not only guns have to be obtained legally, but people who own them should take care of them very carefully. I could legally obtain a gun only for my crazy son to steal it from me and shoot up his friends.

Well since you can't own a gun in China legally unless you are part of some military/law enforcement agency, without me telling you and just knowing that alone...one could surmise it was illegal. Also there have been shootings in China in the past 7 years which can easily be looked up, and many stabbings of mass in China because of lack of access to guns. The fact I've given you a quagmire to the entire thought process you came in with seems to be stopping you from further researching the fact that two different regions with two different takes on gun ownership, have a problem that is the same.



The harder it becomes to me to understand how could somebody compare a gun to a knife, the easier it becomes to understand why these things keep happening.

Who compared a gun to a knife? I simply said, that people wanting to restrict guns due to very limited incidents of mass violence don't ever pay attention to the reality. That if you really wanted to stop violence, you wouldn't simply say "yep moderating the guns to a much more restrictive level is the way to go" (paraphrasing). Rather, you'd look at all violence and say "well knives, handguns and blunt objects create about 10,000 murders while rifles and shotguns create about 600+... Seems there is some perhaps social-economic issue at hand and perhaps mental health". All I said and based on the comic posted is that it seems to highlight an issue that people all the time are killed in various ways that aren't gun related and no one bats an eye.

However why analyze into that great of a magnitude, when you can simply trust media and say...yeah strict gun control will fix it all even the murders that don't fall under that scope. Point, don't cherry pick what you want if you're not willing to face the entire issue head on.
 
Last edited:
And the thought of someone who is going to take care of a weapon while planning to murder countless people is stupid. They are not buying/obtaining it to treasure it as I do with my rifles, but rather use it as a tool.

I'm not talking about the shooters on that part, but rather, people like their parents who have their guns in a readily accessible place for the sons to grab and maybe shoot up their friends.

I read it just fine, what you seem to have trouble connecting thought with is that you can't cherry pick weapons.

I'm not cherry picking weapons, to be honest.

We got guns, bombs, and... what else? I can't think of anything at the moment. And the most readily available to the public, and the one used the most, are guns.

I know very well what a gun can do, I own plenty. I also know that the type of regulation you think will put these in some wondrous area of where people suddenly stop shooting up schools or more importantly stop murdering each other in inner cities (a far bigger issue as well as mental health) isn't likely.

I never said it will stop it. But it will certainly help. The people who deserve to have a gun will still get them. The ones that don't, they will have a harder time, and in some cases, that is enough to deter them from actually attempting to murder their classmates.

How, you just saying "well if we do solution A, that will automatically fix the problem" when you haven't even begin to dissect how it will in fact be beneficial.

There are a lot of regulations in place which aren't really beneficial, if we go by your school of thought. I think it's reasonable to say stricter gun regulations (but fair) are a step in the right direction. Like I said: if you can't pass the regulations, then you clearly don't deserve to own a gun.

Well since you can't own a gun in china legally unless you are part of some military/law enforcement agency, without me telling you and just knowing that alone...once could surmise it was illegal. Also there have been many shootings in China in the past 7 years which can easily be looked up. The fact I've given you a quagmire to the entire thought process you came in with seems to be stopping you from further researching the fact that two different regions with two different takes on gun ownership, have a problem that is the same.

People can obtain guns illegally, that's no news. But you don't really think it helps, at least in a very minimal way, to have better gun regulations? At all? I didn't claim it was a "end to all" solution, but it is a step in the right direction IMO, that needs to be done alongside other steps that, sadly, fall to the users and the government can do nothing about them.

Who compared a gun to a knife?

Basically, you. You brought a knife to a gun discussion.

I simply said, that people wanting to restrict guns due to very limited incidents of mass violence don't ever pay attention to the reality. That if you really wanted to stop violence, you wouldn't simply say "yep moderating the guns to a much more restrictive level is the way to go" (paraphrasing).

That's not what paraphrasing is. Once again: better gun regulations isn't the end to all solution. It's impossible to stop violence, it's in our nature.

Rather, you'd look at all violence and say "well knives, handguns and blunt objects create about 10,000 murders while rifles and shotguns create about 600+... Seems there is some perhaps social-economic issue at hand and perhaps mental health". All I said and based on the comic posted is that it seems to highlight an issue that people all the time are killed in various ways that aren't gun related and no one bats an eye

I wait for your suggestion on how to stop completely stop, or at the very least, reduce knife killings, or even make it harder for people to kill others with knives. Especially considering EVERYONE and their mother has access to a knife in their house, and I could very well murder my entire family (or at least the ones in my kitchen) if I wanted to...
 
I'm not talking about the shooters on that part, but rather, people like their parents who have their guns in a readily accessible place for the sons to grab and maybe shoot up their friends.
And so it's the gov'ts fault and their responsibility to tell parents how to arrange their homes?

That's ridiculous. Might as well tell them where to hide the cookies at.
 
And so it's the gov'ts fault and their responsibility to tell parents how to arrange their homes?

That's ridiculous. Might as well tell them where to hide the cookies at.

I didn't claim it was a "end to all" solution, but it is a step in the right direction IMO, that needs to be done alongside other steps that, sadly, fall to the users and the government can do nothing about them.

Just above your post.
 
I think it's reasonable to say stricter gun regulations (but fair) are a step in the right direction.
No, this is what you're saying. It's no business for the government to tell its 'users' how to operate inside their own homes, unless it is done so via law, or if it regards the Internet.

In your case, it's neither.
 
Like I said: if you can't pass the regulations, then you clearly don't deserve to own a gun.

If you don't pass [arbitrary test], the state should strip one of the fundamental rights it has guaranteed you in its founding documents.

^ That's how your statement reads (or should read) to Americans.
 
I'm not cherry picking weapons, to be honest.

We got guns, bombs, and... what else? I can't think of anything at the moment. And the most readily available to the public, and the one used the most, are guns.

Back 2012 a Chinese man killed multiple students via arson. Also what public are you talking about? In the U.S. I will agree guns are one of the easiest, knives are the easiest. And I'd say with planning a bomb would be the most deadly option. It all depends on the person.

I never said it will stop it. But it will certainly help. The people who deserve to have a gun will still get them. The ones that don't, they will have a harder time, and in some cases, that is enough to deter them from actually attempting to murder their classmates.

...How? You clearly don't know the subject matter, back ground checks exist for the very reason you speak. So again how?

There are a lot of regulations in place which aren't really beneficial, if we go by your school of thought. I think it's reasonable to say stricter gun regulations (but fair) are a step in the right direction. Like I said: if you can't pass the regulations, then you clearly don't deserve to own a gun.

What regulation, once again back ground checks exist. Thus there is clearly other things that are at the heart of the issue not being addressed. I apologize.

People can obtain guns illegally, that's no news. But you don't really think it helps, at least in a very minimal way, to have better gun regulations? At all? I didn't claim it was a "end to all" solution, but it is a step in the right direction IMO, that needs to be done alongside other steps that, sadly, fall to the users and the government can do nothing about them.

I'm thinking of two words...one is background, the other is check. Put them together and the phrase background check comes to mind. Other than that what other regulations can you add to that, instead of just saying more regulations actually give something.



Basically, you. You brought a knife to a gun discussion.

It's not a gun discussion, if it were it'd be posted in the proper thread. What it is, is a discussion about mass killing in general and on point this mass killing which happened to take place with a gun. The fact that people want to limit the scope to the tool used and not the person is far more of an issue. If you look back at what I said and explained to you is, that the fact you want to just talk about guns is the problem, so I used example of knives and even blunt objects (though to less effect) to show they're just as dangerous given the mindset.

*just want to make note that I did misuse how many shootings in China happen since it really isn't a lot, what I meant to say was there are many mass massacres but primarily by knife.

That's not what paraphrasing is. Once again: better gun regulations isn't the end to all solution. It's impossible to stop violence, it's in our nature.

No one said it is, but then again you've emphasized (poorly) on some regulation (you still have yet to explain) that would seem to curve gun violence or violence in general by some magnitude. The fact you cant expand on this is why I take issue. If you could and it made sense I'd jump on board but that isn't the case. Also that is paraphrasing, I'm using what you said in a more clear manner without directly quoting you, as to inform others that the wording I use is of my own volition and not something that you said verbatim. Also before we got caught up on some English debate...let's not. Look up paraphrasing and read what I did, and you'll see instead of quoting you directly I used my own words to phrase what you said for a more clarity.


I wait for your suggestion on how to stop completely stop, or at the very least, reduce knife killings, or even make it harder for people to kill others with knives. Especially considering EVERYONE and their mother has access to a knife in their house, and I could very well murder my entire family (or at least the ones in my kitchen) if I wanted to...

Why, I don't have nor ever implied any regulation. I gave you the thought that just cause you stop one tool doesn't mean you stop others or hinder people from perpetrating what they already wish to. There is a mental and social-economic problem in many places that cause people to act out and do violent acts. Why not try and figure that out instead of the band-aid known as regulation. I've said this from the start of our debate, so why you would expect me to give some advice on knife or gun regulation is beyond me, since that isn't my my solution to any of these problems.
 
No, this is what you're saying. It's no business for the government to tell its 'users' how to operate inside their own homes, unless it is done so via law, or if it regards the Internet.

No one said it was. I literally said that there are some things the government can't regulate. Everything from "don't let your kids be near pointy objects" to "don't leave a gun where you son can take it away easily" falls under that statement.

If you don't pass [arbitrary test], the state should strip one of the fundamental rights it has guaranteed you in its founding documents.

^ That's how your statement reads (or should read) to Americans.

Which doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Slavery was legal in the US, once upon a time...

Back 2012 a Chinese man killed multiple students via arson. Also what public are you talking about?

Everyone. Except babies, maybe.

...How? You clearly don't know the subject matter, back ground checks exist for the very reason you speak. So again how?

I hate to bring up someone else's words in a discussion, but I feel it is necessary since I don't live in American and own a gun myself, so I must take his word for granted:

While there's no easy solution to gun violence, I do think it's way to easy to get a gun in the US. I own a few rifles that were very easy to buy and required almost no hassle by anyone, I only use them for target shooting and hunting but still I don't think it should be that easy. I do think if anyone wants to legally own a gun they should have to pass a background check and go through a training course that teaches you responsible ownership, safety, laws surrounding firearms, and how to actually shoot with range time. I've been through a couple of training courses just because I feel it's important and relatively soon my wife and I will be taking the course to get our CPL, however I know many gun owners don't do this.

It's not a gun discussion, if it were it'd be posted in the proper thread. What it is, is a discussion about mass killing in general and on point this mass killing which happened to take place with a gun. The fact that people want to limit the scope to the tool used and not the person is far more of an issue. If you look back at what I said and explained to you is, that the fact you want to just talk about guns is the problem, so I used example of knives and even blunt objects (though to less effect) to show they're just as dangerous given the mindset.

The problem is, it turned into a gun discussion (or at least to me) the moment that comic was posted, as the author evidently got everything wrong, comparing people using guns to murder people to people using knives or bats. The image would have been much more correct if instead of a single body, the gun section had at least 10...

Also that is paraphrasing, I'm using what you said in a more clear manner without directly quoting you, as to inform others that the wording I use is of my own volition and not something that you said verbatim. Also before we got caught up on some English debate...let's not. Look up paraphrasing and read what I did, and you'll see instead of quoting you directly I used my own words to phrase what you said for a more clarity.

Actually, I did look up in the dictionary what paraphrasing was, and no, what you did isn't paraphrasing, since I never said that having guns under stricter regulations was the solution to all murders. Which is exactly what you said ("in your own words") I said. And it's simply not true. I would have to be very naive, and would be basically calling every American stupid (because if the solution is so simple, why didn't they carry it out?).

I've said this from the start of our debate, so why you would expect me to give some advice on knife or gun regulation is beyond me, since that isn't my my solution to any of these problems.

What was discussed was the subject of guns. I've already said, very early in the thread, that a lot of things contribute to these events. And as a society, it is our duty to prevent these things from happening, starting with something as simple as not bullying someone just because "we" think he/she is a loser and deserves to be bullied.



If Joey D's statements about getting a gun are true, that either means you can't see the truth, or you just don't care about it. If what you say is true, and no further regulations are needed on guns, then I apologize for this large, innecessary discussion.

One way or another, there's little point in discussing this. I'm over here, and you are over there. When I get to the US and get a gun, I'll be able to see whether gun regulations are good enough, or bad. That came out wrong.



Out of curiosity though, what's the standard procedure to getting a gun legally?
 
Slavery was never a right in the constitution, and is not a right regardless. Self-defense on the otherhand...

Self-defense is a right, I'm okay with that. I just find it funny that the constitution says self-defense with firearms, and not just "self-defense".
 
Self-defense is a right, I'm okay with that. I just find it funny that the constitution says self-defense with firearms, and not just "self-defense".

It doesn't say fire arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

beararms_2_by_uhd4k-d8mtvu6.png
 
You didn't mention gun control at all, but it was brought up. That part of my reply was not one aimed at your original post. I don't tend to think of threads as being owned by a specific person, but if you really don't want any mention of gun control at all, I can respect that.

Thank you for that respect, @Exorcet - I've told you before it is always a pleasure to converse with you 👍 - but no, 'ownership' of the vapour-trail I leave on the internet, is as the trail of a snail on a leaf to me - here today, gone tomorrow. :)

I have, on record, initiated many discussions immediately, for some of these events - and there have been many not covered - after all, there have been dozens of such mass killings in the last two years.
The most obvious purpose would be to alert members about the incident, especially Americans, and especially Americans who may be in that area. It also opens the discussion to various aspects regarding the incident - the Who, What, Why, When and Where about it.
One benefit of this is that we learn from this - or hope to.

The discussion of course will also revolve sometimes around the means used towards these ends - but, IMO, should beware of becoming a rotation of debated arguments that take the discussion further and further into details of the means and to whether such means should exist or not.

If if we take away the means there will be a new means sourced - maybe a more lethal one. Drones with explosives? Only imagination limits these people.
Clancy wrote Debt of Honor shortly before 9/11. That was imagination. Manifested later on by clever, but socially-imbalanced humans.
So looking at the means is not merely shadow-boxing, it's the biggest strawman ever created to cover up the real problem.
America's 'gun problem' is a separate problem. Heaven forbid that there is ever another civil war - and not just the one now between cops and unsung heroes against random well-armed attackers of society.
I have had my own say in the various gun threads - what's the point of retelling that story?
And we all know that while 'using guns' is a pattern, there have been many incidents involving other means.
And there have been other venues, not just schools,

The predominant pattern is that the American Public is not safe - and for anybody in any position of authority to admit that is basically to shoot themselves in the head - metaphorically speaking.
That leaves us in a most untenable position.

Talking about the pros and cons of the means used is useful, but shouldn't be the heart of the topic.

What is different this time is that we are going to change the routine- in fact, take a long hard look at routines involved in these mass public killings.

Although I want to make it clear that what I said wasn't specifically about gun control, but about taking action. When it comes to these events we see many calling for the government to do something about it. I was pitching the idea that there might be a better way to get things done, or at least a quicker way. I was also thinking about the thread from some months ago about banning ICE vehicles, where the proponent of the idea wanted to make ICE illegal. I tried to steer things towards influencing the market without government intervention but I made no headway.

Making no headway with everybody, Exorcet, is also routine. Here today, gone tomorrow.
But can we change one person for the better?
Could that person have turned out to be a bad egg but because of what you said hasn't gone on a rampage yet?
Then that's all that matters, my friend.

Even in that case I think it's important to consider how attractive being a mass killer is. Ultimately we want a peaceful resolution to be more attractive than killing people to those who carry out these murders. The media spreading names and motives is a part of that balance.

There is irony to this, Exorcet.
Good Attention, Bad Attention, No Attention.

I tried to approach this concept and how it affects humans from a whole new angle in another discussion, and maybe it's time to restart that.
And yet - any time someone not getting attention goes out and gets attention (even short-lived) like this, that discussion is apt.
Suffice to say - here was another person who felt society had rejected them.
We have to ask ourselves - 'Did society reject this person?' and if so - 'when?'
Is now the time appropriate to 'reject' this person - or are we merely continuing with the rejection?
How does one get help without attention - when one is desperate for any attention, good or bad?
Because either is better that none at all?

No attention congeals the brain - turning it from starry clarity to lifeless clay.
If we are to learn from this, if we are to change the routines, then we must learn to give each other more attention.
This means studying those who failed to be sociable enough to not randomly kill the public.
There are many patterns that are surfacing now that we have multiple incidents to study.

As well, more and more, we see that the American public has learned well enough some of the more successful routines, both Police and the assaulted - to call 911, to take preventive measures immediately, and many other routines that save lives in these situations - and that is what we should focus on this time - we should unearth as many details as possible about these heroes - we should glorify them if only in passing words - and we should pick up on the routines that save lives.

One of those routines may very well be being nice to your neighbor. Or classmate. Or that lonely guy that nobody gives attention to. Because any attention may be better than none and may save a life.

The only attention we can give this killer now is no different to the attention we would give any virus - a close hard look towards further containment or eradication.


My view is that the labeling shouldn't matter. For me I don't feel that it does, but I do realize that people see things differently.

This depends on the level of kyriolexy.
And there are nasty words that society avoids. And there is sugar-coating. And brain-washing. And neuron-numbing.

The definition given all the time - 'mass shooting' - splayed across the news media - means the journalists have lost their handbooks or else are too busy snacking to clear their perspective.

This is more than 'mass shootings'.

I'll give them some words to chew on before I throw the dictionary at them - this is a 'phenomenon that takes multiple lives in public randomly and routinely by any means available.'

Find a new label. One closer to the truth, one where the connotations are unmistakable.
 
I'm just wondering why the title was changed to what seems like a sensationalist click-baity title.
I can't figure out which way he wants the thread to go. I believe this is the third title.
"School shooting at Umpqua, Or. Community College 10/1/2015" would be a clear title.
 
I'm just wondering why the title was changed to what seems like a sensationalist click-baity title.

I'm guessing that he wanted to take the focus off of the shooter and make it a more positive story, to do his own part to refuse to sensationalize (and thereby encourage) the attack.
 
So, who are the heroes?

Read.

From what I've read there's only one...

Read more.

Agreed, seems shouty, over-excitable and unneeded.

Read over and over. Also: give me a title approved by your perception.

I can't figure out which way he wants the thread to go. I believe this is the third title.
"School shooting at Umpqua, Or. Community College 10/1/2015" would be a clear title.

The staff know how the headlines changed as the story developed.

Give me a title that would be more clear to you, and that would synopsise the content in the OP.

Sorry to use this thread but I don't want to make one. Another school shooting, this time in Arizona.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/deadly-shooting-reported-arizona-college-campus/nnyZL/

This is about the Heroes at Umpqua. Now you locate the heroes in this new attack. Make them known. Create a discussion, create a title, manage a thread.



I'm guessing that he wanted to take the focus off of the shooter and make it a more positive story, to do his own part to refuse to sensationalize (and thereby encourage) the attack.

Thank you, @Danoff. 👍

_______________________


Now let's see how fast heroes are sensationalised. Any one know the names, yet?
Who set off the fire alarm? Who stopped a friend's bleeding and saved their life?
Who called 911?
 
Last edited:
Back