Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Seung-Hui
Cho, Ted Bundy, and Charlie Manson.
These are names that almost everyone in the
US knows, but for the wrong reason. These are the names of mass murderers that
we in the US have turned into celebrities and fueled their lust for blood by giving
them just what they want: Fame.
In the commentary I reviewed from the National Review titled “What
Motivates Mass Murders” the author John Lott Jr. states that the blame isn’t
on the weapons, or their bad childhoods, but rather the blame is tied closely
to us: We The Sheeple.
We provide that which these depraved people yearn for,
recognition and attention. Even though the majority of them die before getting
into custody (approximately 75%) they live on for years to come in news casts,
articles, editorials or as weapons themselves meant to strike guilt into the
hearts of America whenever the media or our elected officials feels the need to
make an emotional decision.
By their own admission many of them say that their
motivation is based on being more famous than those that came before them.
When we try and stifle the media and prevent them from
giving them air time the First Amendment is put up as a defensive shield, but there
are no such problems, as Lott points out, to stifle discussions about Second
Amendment rights or to increase the amount of regulations and rules around that
aspect of these crimes, even though they aren’t the cause but rather the
instrument used.
I enjoyed reading this article as it plainly states
something that the mainstream media chooses not to cover:
We should be trying to deprive
these killers of what they crave: attention and easy targets. Instead, we
ignore measures that might keep them from getting attention and pass laws that
give them defenseless victims.
Although We the Sheeple can identify the wolf-in-sheep’s
clothing's motive/arsenal/family life/teenage years/breakfast, we can’t identify even the names of the victims. That my complacent colleague
is a problem bigger than then slop our media farmer serves us.
This is a very important article and an idea that needs to be spread. I agree that the attention and fame given to mass murders is way out of place. I appreciated that the author of the commentary, John R. Lot Jr. refrained from using any names in his article. It is a tragedy that the names of the murderers are more recognized than their victims. Think of the hour long documentaries on various channels that chronicle the lives and horrible murders of these people. It is certainly a point the media should consider.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, however, that the freedom of the press should be upheld. Any attempts to regulate what is newsworthy and what is not puts our country onto a precarious path. I believe this about the first amendment, however when it comes to the second amendment, I do lean toward wanting tighter rules and legislation concerning the type of guns citizens may own and how they go about requiring them. It seems to me that while I understand that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", if assault rifles like the ones used in these latest shootings were not available, would we be spared such horrible tragedies? If a gun was not kept in the home, how many fewer suicides would occur because the means to carry through with a split second decision would not be there?
My first instinct with regards to regulating gun ownership is to think it is a reasonable proposal. This article has got me thinking though. I can see supporters of no gun control using the same "slippery slope" argument and I can agree that they have a point. I appreciate articles like these that challenge my thoughts. It's certainly an important debate and far from black and white. This article and my colleges comments have been helpful in providing more food for thought.