Are shootings getting more publicity than usual

Created by MoonDancing on Jan 11, 2013

89 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes, it's getting sick

because the world is SICKER

because it sells...

for an agenda

do watch the news because of it

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#81 Jan 12, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>You can't stop shooting but an armed people can reduce the number of people killed. These crazy people want to die and they want the publicity they will get. I am all for killing them as quick as you can before they take more innocent with them. The gun free zones are at the heart of the problem As I have said before you will never see a headline that says mass shooting at gun show :)
Probably because they don't let you carry in there. That might be it.
crazy idea

Memphis, TN

#82 Jan 12, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Probably because they don't let you carry in there. That might be it.
what and they let you care in schools? thoughgt that why they are gun free zones?

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#83 Jan 12, 2013
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."

&bp ctr=1358013700
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#84 Jan 12, 2013
Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>You can't stop shooting but an armed people can reduce the number of people killed. These crazy people want to die and they want the publicity they will get. I am all for killing them as quick as you can before they take more innocent with them. The gun free zones are at the heart of the problem As I have said before you will never see a headline that says mass shooting at gun show :)
I thought about the horror of being in a situation where I'd have no choice but to defend myself. If I had been in that school that day and I had access to a gun, I would have used it on Lanza without hesitation. Of course, I'm not the segment of society you have to worry about. I'm much more concerned about access to guns for those who should never ever have them. We are a an imperfect race of people, capable of much violence. All I know is that guns are responsible for many of the killings we see today. A firearm can possibly save someone's life, but whose? An innocent, or a criminal? It's usually the innocent that fall prey to a gunman's bullets. I can be somewhat of a flip flopper on this issue of guns, but generally, I don't like them. You probably have read the book or seen the movie - In Cold Blood, about a mid west family in the 50s who were all shot dead by 2 criminals who thought that there was a safe with money inside the home. I'm not sure if the home owner had a gun or not, but but he certainly didn't have it that night. Makes me wonder if that scene would have turned out much different if he had.

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#85 Jan 12, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Probably because they don't let you carry in there. That might be it.
I have only seen one show that restricted carry.

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#86 Jan 12, 2013
60s chic wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought about the horror of being in a situation where I'd have no choice but to defend myself. If I had been in that school that day and I had access to a gun, I would have used it on Lanza without hesitation. Of course, I'm not the segment of society you have to worry about. I'm much more concerned about access to guns for those who should never ever have them. We are a an imperfect race of people, capable of much violence. All I know is that guns are responsible for many of the killings we see today. A firearm can possibly save someone's life, but whose? An innocent, or a criminal? It's usually the innocent that fall prey to a gunman's bullets. I can be somewhat of a flip flopper on this issue of guns, but generally, I don't like them. You probably have read the book or seen the movie - In Cold Blood, about a mid west family in the 50s who were all shot dead by 2 criminals who thought that there was a safe with money inside the home. I'm not sure if the home owner had a gun or not, but but he certainly didn't have it that night. Makes me wonder if that scene would have turned out much different if he had.
I have carried a gun every day for about 15 years. I have never drawn it and hope I never will. I just want a fighting chance if necessary. We have 500,000 people with carry permits in Texas. Crime rates fall everywhere carry becomes legal. In Florida tourist are targeted because crooks know they are not armed. They watch the rental cars at the airport

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#87 Jan 12, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely! All media is money driven now. It quit being "news" when Cronkite retired.
What we get is slant rather than truth. Take the topical BS about Obama signing lifetime Secret Service protection for himself and Bush. Fox (and others) paint it as Obama's "elitism" when actually, since 9/11 it's an extension of the previous 10 year post-presidency coverage because of the obvious security needs.
So "news" is now more opinion, loosely based on facts than ever before. All news programs must make money now. They are no longer a service to the community.
I alway's think of the Shirley MaClain movie, Guarding Tess?....Seem's to me, the Secret Service has been around the familys alot more than people think....Worked with an ex-Secret Service guy once, he had worked on the Caroline Kennedy detail....Said it was killing his marriage, because anytime Caroline decided to just up and go skiing, they had to drop everything and follow.....About the slant of current network and cable news...i find Fox and MSNBC the worst, along with Nancy Grace and her shills at CNN.....NBC,CBS and ABC all promote a prominority, political correctness agenda, that is offensive.....i trust BBC the most.....

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#88 Jan 12, 2013
60s chic wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought about the horror of being in a situation where I'd have no choice but to defend myself. If I had been in that school that day and I had access to a gun, I would have used it on Lanza without hesitation. Of course, I'm not the segment of society you have to worry about. I'm much more concerned about access to guns for those who should never ever have them. We are a an imperfect race of people, capable of much violence. All I know is that guns are responsible for many of the killings we see today. A firearm can possibly save someone's life, but whose? An innocent, or a criminal? It's usually the innocent that fall prey to a gunman's bullets. I can be somewhat of a flip flopper on this issue of guns, but generally, I don't like them. You probably have read the book or seen the movie - In Cold Blood, about a mid west family in the 50s who were all shot dead by 2 criminals who thought that there was a safe with money inside the home. I'm not sure if the home owner had a gun or not, but but he certainly didn't have it that night. Makes me wonder if that scene would have turned out much different if he had.
Why do people try to personify inanimate objects..a gun can not be responsible. People are responsible for the killings we see today.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#89 Jan 12, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> I alway's think of the Shirley MaClain movie, Guarding Tess?....Seem's to me, the Secret Service has been around the familys alot more than people think....Worked with an ex-Secret Service guy once, he had worked on the Caroline Kennedy detail....Said it was killing his marriage, because anytime Caroline decided to just up and go skiing, they had to drop everything and follow.....About the slant of current network and cable news...i find Fox and MSNBC the worst, along with Nancy Grace and her shills at CNN.....NBC,CBS and ABC all promote a prominority, political correctness agenda, that is offensive.....i trust BBC the most.....
I think pre 9/11 a president had 10 years of SS coverage after he left office and children were covered up to age 16. Obviously, given that event and the hatred for Obama that our most sinister citizens have, that protection must be extended. Al Queda isn't much of a threat anymore (thanks to Obama) but our domestic terrorists are picking up that slack.

I like the BBC too. They're more objective. It's ironic that Rupert Murdoch (Australian) and a Saudi King own Fox. Al Jezeera just bought Current TV. If we're going to get our news from foreigners, I'll stick with the BBC!

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#90 Jan 12, 2013
justaguess wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people try to personify inanimate objects..a gun can not be responsible. People are responsible for the killings we see today.
And you're not personifying inanimate objects, sticking up for guns as if they were people?

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#91 Jan 12, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
Again- why even try? Let everybody do whatever they want. The ones that don't get killed, get green baloney sandwiches in a tent in the desert.
This whole America thing just didn't work out. Why did we even try?
Don't despair, Ferre.

Public safety < ---- > gun safety < ---- > public safety

The crux of the issues includes what it takes to drastically reduce the number (and likelihood) of guns in the possession of criminals and deranged people as well as those who get "that tingly feeling down their leg" when playing with weapons unnecessary in defending themselves.

While the 'realists' are right in that there will always be criminals, they will not support what it takes to take away "ease of mass destruction" weapons and accessories which BTW includes body armor for the masses (not those in armored security professions of course).

The spectrum that addresses the humans AND the conveyance could be done. Laws are almost always for "people problems" for a society to function. Anarchy doesn't work well.
60s chic

Bethlehem, PA

#92 Jan 12, 2013
justaguess wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people try to personify inanimate objects..a gun can not be responsible. People are responsible for the killings we see today.
It becomes personal when crazy people have a gun in their hands. How would you feel if someone in your family were shot dead by a crazed mentally disturbed person? I imagine like most, you would want to get even and do the same, although little Emily Parker's dad claimed he does not harbor any hatred for Lanza. Could be that it's because Lanza is dead and can no longer harm anyone else, which is probably somewhat of a relief for him. Mr. Parker stated he believes something must be done about firearms in this country. Perhaps he wouldn't have cared quite as much about the issue of firearms if this horror had never happened. It's only when something terrible happens to us, that we take a personal stance. Children are the most innocent of our society and anyone who deliberately harms a child that results in their death, is incomprehensible. We want to lash out at the person responsible. Should it be easy for crazed mentally disturbed individuals to have access to firearms. I don't believe so. It may not stop all murders, but it could help as far as mass shootings are concerned.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#93 Jan 12, 2013
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't despair, Ferre.
Public safety < ---- > gun safety < ---- > public safety
The crux of the issues includes what it takes to drastically reduce the number (and likelihood) of guns in the possession of criminals and deranged people as well as those who get "that tingly feeling down their leg" when playing with weapons unnecessary in defending themselves.
While the 'realists' are right in that there will always be criminals, they will not support what it takes to take away "ease of mass destruction" weapons and accessories which BTW includes body armor for the masses (not those in armored security professions of course).
The spectrum that addresses the humans AND the conveyance could be done. Laws are almost always for "people problems" for a society to function. Anarchy doesn't work well.
Yesterday I was reading about the NRA and their support for silenced weapons. Ironically, their support is 'for the tender ears of little children'. Yep, guns are loud and they don't want the kids to be afraid of guns because they are loud....

So, I guess it's not the NRA's fault that silenced or suppressed weapons might enable a gunman to kill far more people before being stopped even by a hero with a gun as Jesus and the founders intended. The NRA is only concerned about little ears...

Yep, it's not like there isn't affordable ear protection for all. Let's incorporate that into weapons for $XXX's....

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#94 Jan 12, 2013
Let Mr tell ya..I rather be informed of the lunatic gun toting peddlers..THAT are BOLD enough to kill innocent lives.. WITHOUT any FEAR of their demise.. There will never be Peace in the Valley.
If we the public are not aware of the misbehaving individuals WHO dare to upset the Still of the night...THEN we may as well become NOMADS..with our homes strapped within our backpacks. Bring in the know, helped those take caution to the wind..

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#95 Jan 12, 2013
YIKES..ME..Not Mr.

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#96 Jan 12, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>And you're not personifying inanimate objects, sticking up for guns as if they were people?
Jeeze your dumb, explain where I stood up for a gun at all..??..

Personal responsibility..that is what I was talking about...you are sooooo ready to fight it makes ya deaf, dumb & blind...perhaps a nice game of pinball would settle ya down...

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#97 Jan 12, 2013
60s chic wrote:
<quoted text>
It becomes personal when crazy people have a gun in their hands. How would you feel if someone in your family were shot dead by a crazed mentally disturbed person? I imagine like most, you would want to get even and do the same, although little Emily Parker's dad claimed he does not harbor any hatred for Lanza. Could be that it's because Lanza is dead and can no longer harm anyone else, which is probably somewhat of a relief for him. Mr. Parker stated he believes something must be done about firearms in this country. Perhaps he wouldn't have cared quite as much about the issue of firearms if this horror had never happened. It's only when something terrible happens to us, that we take a personal stance. Children are the most innocent of our society and anyone who deliberately harms a child that results in their death, is incomprehensible. We want to lash out at the person responsible. Should it be easy for crazed mentally disturbed individuals to have access to firearms. I don't believe so. It may not stop all murders, but it could help as far as mass shootings are concerned.
I would feel exactly the same as if someone I loved was run down by a drunk driver, but I wouldn't place blame on the car..that is all I am saying..everyone wants to treat the object as if it had some sort of say in the matter...
I do understand your message here, I just don't believe that any part of the blame should go on the tool used for the job. The way the govt tries to spin this is that it will all go away if the 'We The People' give up just one more of our rights, then when it doesn't go away they'll come for another piece until all the pieces are gone, and the problem will still be there.

I respect your opinion.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#98 Jan 12, 2013
justaguess wrote:
<quoted text>
I would feel exactly the same as if someone I loved was run down by a drunk driver, but I wouldn't place blame on the car..that is all I am saying..everyone wants to treat the object as if it had some sort of say in the matter...
I do understand your message here, I just don't believe that any part of the blame should go on the tool used for the job. The way the govt tries to spin this is that it will all go away if the 'We The People' give up just one more of our rights, then when it doesn't go away they'll come for another piece until all the pieces are gone, and the problem will still be there.
I respect your opinion.
Sounds like more personifying of inanimate objects on your part. I bet you think corporations are people too...

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#99 Jan 12, 2013
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>I think pre 9/11 a president had 10 years of SS coverage after he left office and children were covered up to age 16. Obviously, given that event and the hatred for Obama that our most sinister citizens have, that protection must be extended. Al Queda isn't much of a threat anymore (thanks to Obama) but our domestic terrorists are picking up that slack.
I like the BBC too. They're more objective. It's ironic that Rupert Murdoch (Australian) and a Saudi King own Fox. Al Jezeera just bought Current TV. If we're going to get our news from foreigners, I'll stick with the BBC!
Tell the dead ambassador Al Queda isn't a threat thanks to Obama

“Grab all the good”

Level 5

Since: Jul 10

Rowlett Tx

#100 Jan 12, 2013
60s chic wrote:
<quoted text>
It becomes personal when crazy people have a gun in their hands. How would you feel if someone in your family were shot dead by a crazed mentally disturbed person? I imagine like most, you would want to get even and do the same, although little Emily Parker's dad claimed he does not harbor any hatred for Lanza. Could be that it's because Lanza is dead and can no longer harm anyone else, which is probably somewhat of a relief for him. Mr. Parker stated he believes something must be done about firearms in this country. Perhaps he wouldn't have cared quite as much about the issue of firearms if this horror had never happened. It's only when something terrible happens to us, that we take a personal stance. Children are the most innocent of our society and anyone who deliberately harms a child that results in their death, is incomprehensible. We want to lash out at the person responsible. Should it be easy for crazed mentally disturbed individuals to have access to firearms. I don't believe so. It may not stop all murders, but it could help as far as mass shootings are concerned.
Only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 min VeezyBreezy 39,508
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 23 min Camilla 2,335
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min Igor Trip 149,950
Word Association (Jun '10) 29 min whatimeisit 26,725
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 45 min wichita-rick 158,204
Its a SOCK WAR!!!! 54 min Sock 1
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) 1 hr whatimeisit 245
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 hr whatimeisit 27,627
Rest in Peace, Spock 4 hr -Lea- 370
And your favorite Bree_Z sock is? 4 hr Bree_Z 23
More from around the web