Caution: VERY Disturbing Video

I subscribe to an email newsletter from NPR. In today’s issue was the following blurb:

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s carefully cultivated image as a hunter and outdoorsman is taking a hit this week after a leaked video showed his clumsy marksmanship.

Since I have fairly strong negative feelings about LaPierre, I was interested to see what the video showed so I clicked on the link.

–MY MISTAKE–

The headline on the linked page was: “Video Leaks of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Missing His Mark on Elephant Hunt.” Sadly … disgustingly …  the headline was correct. He definitely missed the mark. The video shows him taking FOUR shots at the elephant … and it still wasn’t dead. The final –and deadly– shot was made by another member of the hunting party. NOT LaPierre.

What was even more sickening was the “praise” by the individuals accompanying LaPierre on the hunt – “Well done. Great shooting. Good stuff.”

(After LaPierre’s messed-up shots, the video also includes images of his wife shooting an elephant. Although she achieved her goal much quicker than her husband, the video images are even more disturbing.)

As I have expressed on numerous occasions, I’m not totally against guns, per se. I personally don’t like them, but I know there are many who enjoy and use them for non-nefarious reasons (such as target shooting or collecting various models, usually older ones). I do, however, condemn those who have them strictly for bragging rights. Or to mock the Second Amendment.

Or to conduct mass shootings.

But above and beyond that — I DEFINITELY do NOT support using guns for “Big Game” hunting! Especially elephants, which have been proven to be very intelligent animals.

Although the article blurb indicates LaPierre is “taking a hit,” I truly wonder how many will see it this way since he has achieved a “god-like” reputation within the NRA.

***********************
If you have the stomach for it, here is the link to this VERY disturbing video/article.

Remember The Victims

I wrote this as a comment on one of my other blog posts, but decided it needed a post of its own.

From a news report on recent shooting in Texas (8/31/19) —

“Details on the victims have yet to be released. The wounded include three law enforcement officers.”

“The gunman was identified as Seth Ator”.

I understand “privacy” as related to friends and relatives of the victims, but IMO, knowing who these human beings were and the roles they played while alive is FAR more important than knowing who killed them. To this end, I don’t think the shooter’s name should be released until AFTER the victims are identified.

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

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