A Potential Solution to Fight Mass Killings

I recently referenced an article written by Megan McArdle in which she discussed mass shootings and suggested some ways to prevent them, along with the negatives of each potential solution.

I just came across her most recent article in which she elaborates on one of the points she suggested in her original write-up (banning extensive coverage of mass shootings) and discusses why she feels it could play an important role.

I’m going to quote the relevant portion of the article and provide the source at the end. I can’t guarantee you will be able to access her full remarks as online media is getting very selfish about sharing unless you PAY a subscription fee.

As for government restrictions on news coverage, the political and practical hurdles would be at least as daunting. Who decides what constitutes a violation? Do you trust anyone with that kind of power?

But while government censorship is dangerous, curbing one’s own speech is often just good judgment. News organizations should perform an experiment: Make it a tenet of journalistic ethics not to print the names or manifestos of mass shooters, or details of their lives, or even details of their attacks. Mass shooters seek notoriety; deny it to them.

Ending the wall-to-wall coverage would mean, yes, losing readers and viewers. The public would lose some information. Gun-control advocates would lose a campaigning tool. But the public policy aspects of mass shootings can be covered with aggregate statistics. The visceral details may make for a better story, a better PR campaign. But as long as there’s reason to think that they also make for more murders, we have a moral obligation to avoid them.

Source: The Herald Dispatch

So it would seem she advocates the news media reduce the sensationalism that seems to accompany each violent attack. Would such an action work? Maybe. Obviously it wouldn’t stop the killings, but perhaps it could/would serve as a deterrent.

Your thoughts?

*******************************
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

The Plastic Crisis

Most of us are aware that plastic is taking over our rivers, streams, and oceans. But sometimes, the problem is presented in such a large scale that we don’t realize how localized it can be.

In the following article, not only is the problem highlighted, but there are also several pictures that vividly demonstrate what plastic bags are doing to Islamabad, a community in Pakistan. (One bright note — in July, the coalition government of Prime Minister Imran Khan announced a ban on disposable plastic bags in Islamabad and surrounding areas.)

How Bad Is Pakistan’s Plastic Bag Problem? See For Yourself

Of course none of this matters because it’s just Pakistan. Right? It has nothing to do with the United States. Right? Or so says our illustrious leader who insists the plastic crisis isn’t OUR fault …

“Well, we have tremendous plastics coming over from Asia, from China, and various others,” he said. “It’s not our plastic. It’s plastic that’s floating over in the ocean and the various oceans from other places. No, plastics are fine, but you have to know what to do with them. But other countries are not taking care of their plastic use and they haven’t for a long time. And the plastic that we’re getting is floating across the ocean from other places, including China.”

Sidenote: Trump took personal credit Tuesday for a new plastic manufacturing plant being built by Royal Dutch Shell in Pennsylvania.

*********************************
Image by H. Hach from Pixabay

Fighting Mass Killings

In a recent edition of our local newspaper there was an article by Megan McArdle, a Washington Post columnist, in which she addressed some familiar “solutions” related to gun control in the U.S.  The entire article can be found at the Washington Post website under the title of “How to Fight Mass Killings.” However, be warned. WP restricts people to a limited number of visits, so you may have to find alternate ways to access the article.

In any case, following are some highlights.

Ms. McArdle asks, Why are so many mass shootings happening now? Why not decades ago, when the United States had plenty of guns, alienated youth, dysfunctional families, economically distressed communities, sexism and almost every other factor commonly blamed for these tragedies?

Surprisingly, mass public shootings used to be rare, freak events. They spiked in the late 1990s,  then abruptly fell in 2000 and stayed low for years. What changed? She points out that in 2000-2004, the dot-com bubble burst. Then there was a hotly contested election, followed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq War. All these events distracted the media and this, in turn, had an effect on those who follow wall-to-wall coverage of massacres.

In her opinion, mass shootings seem to be a “social contagion, a behavioral epidemic.” In fact, she feels they are almost like a disease triggered by media coverage.

Preventing Mass Killings

As we all know, much discussion has taken place on how to stop mass killings. Ms. McArdle provides what she calls two “obvious” policies:

• Ban private gun ownership
• Ban extensive coverage of mass shootings

Unfortunately, both violate the Constitution … even though they could radically reduce (if not entirely eliminate) mass killing sprees.

She goes on to say that mental health treatment isn’t the answer since not all shooters have shown any signs of mental unbalance before they strike. She also dismisses violent video games and entertainment. And background checks won’t work because many mass shooters buy guns legally. Or they borrow. Or steal what they can’t borrow.

She points out that a high capacity magazine ban enacted in 1994 proved useless because it’s the high velocity power of the gun that’s the problem, not how many bullets it can hold.

She then asks: “What part of the Bill of Rights do we want to amend, read out of the Constitution or simply violate outright? The First Amendment or the Second?”

She ends her commentary by indicating she will point out a better way in her next column. I hope to be able to access it and report accordingly. However, if it’s not provided by our local newspaper, I encourage readers to research on their own and share her solutions via comments on this post.

*************************************
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Wanna’ Move?

Thousands Of Guns Turned Over To New Zealand Police In Buyback Program

 

 

Heaven Forbid! Trump is Upsetting the Evangelicals

A Trump-supporting West Virginia state senator who represents many evangelicals got three phone calls from constituents complaining about Trump’s profanity after a recent rally.

Oh my! It seems the residents of this senator’s district are upset that Trump was “using the Lord’s name in vain” when he …

• Bragged about bombing Islamic State militants: “they’ll be hit so goddamn hard.”
• Warned a wealthy businessman: “If you don’t support me, you’re going to be so goddamn poor.”

While it’s not uncommon for Trump to use numerous profanities in his speeches, it seems some of his supporters are more fixated on the off-limits and casual use of the word “goddamn.” 😲

As many of us know, Evangelicals played a key role in Trump’s 2016 win, yet it now seems some of them are growing fatigued with the irreverent language that often seeps into his rallies and official events. Some believers have even threatened to stay home during the 2020 elections rather than vote if Trump “doesn’t tone down the rhetoric.”

Interestingly, although Trump has …

• Been divorced twice
• Faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs
• Previously supported abortion rights
• Stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion (once saying “two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians”)

… he has maintained broad support from evangelicals, including the unwavering backing of prominent conservative Christian leaders. Even Jerry Falwell, Liberty University President, says he wishes Trump would be a little more careful with his language, “but it’s not anything that’s a dealbreaker and it’s not something we’re going to get morally indignant about.”

Wow.

Although Evangelicals tend to agree with Trump’s social policies, praise his appointment of conservative judges, and extol his commitment to Israel — when it comes to “using the Lord’s name in vain” … gasp! … many draw the line.

They’re also not too happy with his use of “bullshit.” Or saying we should keep radical Islamic terrorists the “hell out of our country,” and that we should throw undocumented immigrants “the hell out.”

And yet … and yet … even though many are appalled at Trump’s irreverence, they continue to support him and are “inclined to extend grace to him” when he swears or makes inappropriate comments.

One can’t help but wonder … where do Evangelicals and other God-fearing individuals draw the line? Are they so certain that Trump is going to usher in a Christian Nation* that it’s O.K. to put aside the standards of their beloved religion for a future utopia?

Then again, as many of us know, Christians have been known to ignore/overlook the teachings of their Leader when it’s convenient for them to do so. Why should it be different this time?

 

*****************************
(Material and excerpts for this post came from here.)

*A country that recognizes a form of Christianity as its official religion and often has a state church which is a Christian denomination that supports the government and is supported by the government.