Mass Shootings in US. News Media are the primary cause, not the lack of gun control

Mass Killings, School Shootings in US: News Media & not gun control = primary cause. Publicity (Rolling TV coverage) for terrorists and mass killers. A deadly gift which keeps on giving!

The recent mass shooting in Oregon #Oregon Shootings, has again caused much debate about the lack of gun control in the US. All the while, the primary cause of this mass shooting, and many mass shootings in the US, goes unmentioned.

#ParisAttacks As long as the TV news networks continue to treat terrorist attacks and school shootings as entertainment, the attacks will keep happening. It's time for the networks to take ownership of their critical role!

#Oregonshootings I watched on Sky news as the Sheriff / Police spokesman of the town in question addressed a news conference shortly after the shootings. To his credit he announced that he would not be mentioning the name of the killer since he wished to deprive the perpetrator of the publicity the latter had sought to gain by committing the shooting.

I was impressed.

Seconds later, however, the news conference was over and to my utter disgust Sky News lost no time in mentioning the name of the killer.

Later, during a Sky Newspaper review, someone mentioned that the killer apparently had a Facebook page from which it was clear that he wanted to follow in the footsteps of other known killers who had committed similar atrocities involving mass shootings in the US. This was no surprise. 

Then, and despite the clear evidence that the publicity given to previous such killers had motivated that latest mass shooting, the debate on Sky, as is usually the case with such incidents in the US, moved on to the question of the lack of gun control in the US.

It is clear to me that the issue of Gun Control in the US is a side issue the media prefer to highlight as a major contributing factor to these mass killing incidents. Presumably the media do so in order to deflect or avoid any blame on their part for the Media’s role as the primary cause of such mass shootings.

Mass killings at schools, mass shootings, hostage dramas and terrorist attacks and bombing incidents are becoming increasingly common news items on television news and other media throughout the world.

Whilst this article mainly focuses on mass shootings in the United States i.e. school shootings at Columbine and similar incidents, much of what I say about the media’s rolling coverage of such events can also be applied to terrorist attacks, sieges and bombings internationally.

Can one draw any parallels between the media’s rolling coverage of terrorist attacks or bombings all over the world and the mass shootings at schools etc. which occur mainly in the United States?

Critics might argue that the perpetrators of mass school killings or other mass killings cannot necessarily be lumped together with terrorists who commit mass killings, take hostages or who execute bombing attacks for political motives.

Leaving aside perpetrators whose actions are caused by serious mental illnesses, most mass killers usually do what they do out of anger or revenge whilst terrorists, on the other hand, do what they do to create terror and disruption in order to achieve or advance some political or religious cause.

I acknowledge that mass shooters and terrorists have differing motives, I contend that ultimately, that which they share in common far exceeds that which sets them apart. In particular:

  The end result of the handiwork of mass killers or terrorists is usually the same: death or injury to many innocent people. The means of achieving these deaths are usually the same i.e. guns although terrorists also use explosives and bombs.

·Mass killers and terrorists alike are criminals and their deeds constitute criminal acts.

Terrorists and mass killers have much in common as people. They are often angry, loners who do not feel that they really fit or belong in the society in which they find themselves. Both groups are motivated by a sense that they, or those they care about, have been wronged in some way by those they are targeting. Both categories of perpetrator seem to believe that their actions will bring about some much deserved revenge or as they see it, “justice”.

·  Mass killers and terrorists often include their own suicide as part of their attack. Alternatively, both resolve to continue killing or wreaking terror until they are stopped or killed by the police, the military or by someone else. At the very least, both categories of killers at the very least reconcile themselves with the fact that they will or might be killed or arrested as a consequence of their actions.

·      Rolling television coverage of past killings or attacks can encourage other people who identify with the killers, the terrorist or their motivations to do likewise.  In a sense, the coverage can serve as an advertisement motivating like-minded people to copy the actions of the killers or terrorists as the case may be.

·      Mass killers and terrorists alike are motivated by the idea that their intended actions will receive similar rolling media coverage.   The crucial difference, however, is the purpose that publicity is intended to serve.

o  In the case of terrorists, the television publicity of their violent actions is critical to succeed in their primary aim - to terrorise.  Without publicity, their actions are effectively amount to pointless crimes.

o  The publicity afforded to mass killers or school shooters works serves a different purpose however.

Potential mass killers are now well aware that the rolling television/media coverage of past mass killing incidents such as school shootings usually includes the extensive and in-depth analysis of the lives and the motives of the now deceased perpetrators. And this is in addition to blow by blow coverage of the actual shootings. Those planning such mass killings can be rest assured that the media coverage of any copycat incident they perpetrate will be no different.

Mass killers are often social outcasts who feel ignored by others to a lesser or greater extent. The publicity which other mass school shooters have received which has the immediate effect of elevating them from relative obscurity to class of near-celebrity status or at least to a person of notoriety seems to have the powerful and alluring effect of encouraging numerous other potential mass killers to escape from their obscurity by engaging in copycat killings to attain similar celebrity or notoriety, as the case may be.

In the circumstances, the fact that these two categories of incidents are differently motivated is largely irrelevant. In both cases, many innocent people are usually killed. The fact that the cause is labelled a criminal act or a terrorist act, as the case may be, or the fact that the motive may differ does nothing to bring back the dead or to console the bereaved.

THE LACK OF GUN CONTROL IN THE US vs THE COVERAGE BY US TELEVISION NEWS NETWORKS - IS THE US “GUN LOBBY” (NRA) NOT MORE CULPABLE THAN THE US TV NEWS NETWORKS?

In the United States, there is no gun control to speak of and all manner of firearms (including automatic weapons in some states) are usually easily available.

Gun crime is a problem throughout most US States.  The debate between the National Rifle Association (NRA), the main pro-gun lobbyist, and other pro-gun enthusiasts has raged on in the US for years. Those against gun control rely on the constitutionally enshrined right of every US citizen to bear arms. They also argue that guns don’t kill people. People do.

In my view, and in the view of most civilised people throughout the rest of the western world, the NRA’s arguments don’t carry much weight.

The lack of proper gun control in a supposedly civilised society like the US which has a significantly high crime rate, much of it gun related, is something which simply astounds the majority of people in most other democratic societies worldwide.

The reality of course, is that the debate is not about right and wrong. It’s about money. And the NRA will always be prepared to throw more of it to fight their cause than their opponents. The NRA represent an industry which makes billions from the manufacture and sale of guns and ammunition. Sadly, this problem does not look like going away soon.

Given the lack of gun control in the US, it is tempting to draw a link between the ease with which people can legally acquire guns in the US and the mass shootings which keep occuring in that country.

There is no doubt in my mind that proper gun control in the US would significantly reduce gun related crime in the US. It may well even have the effect of preventing some potential mass shooters from carrying out their evil plans. However, it would be folly to imagine that such measures would eliminate gun crime or mass shootings altogether.

The fact is that mass killers and terrorists have managed to obtain guns illegally in countries where proper gun control exists. I refer to the UK where I recall that, despite strict gun control, and no gun culture to speak of,  two or three mass shooting incidents have occurred in the past fifteen years or so. Admittedly, this pales in comparison with the figures in the US where, it seems, there are at least a dozen or so such incidents per annum. 

The incidents in the UK prove the point, however that those people who are determined to commit mass killings or other gun crimes will usually find the means to achieve their aims - probably by using illegal guns.

Anyone who intends a mass school shooting or killing, and who cannot find illegal guns will surely simply move on to searching the internet for instructions on how to create explosive devices. Or they could well resort to arson, poison or a host of other alternatives to achieve equally deadly results. 

I submit that the degree to which the lack of proper gun control in the US can be regarded a primary cause of mass shootings in the US is highly exaggerated.

Granted, the lack of gun control, guns provides the MEANS to commit mass shootings.

After the Columbine School shootings, the first such incident, the television news networks who gave extensive coverage to the school killings and to the two killers, committed an infinitely worse crime:

The number of copycat killings which followed Columbine revealed that the Mass media coverage instilled something far worse in the next set of disgruntled potential adolescent killers who were trying to escape from their own obscurity i.e. the coverage instilled in them the DESIRE to achieve similar notoriety / “celebrity”.

PUBLICITY: A “GIFT” from the Media to the public which keeps on giving.

Publicity the oxygen which mass killers and terrorists seek.

Terrorists who take hostages sometimes have more than one aim. In addition to gaining publicity for their organisation or cause, they sometimes have, or claim to have, other demands which they require to be met. These demands can range from the payment of ransoms to the release of fellow terrorists held in prison.

In the case of the #SydneySeige last year, the gunman who held the employees and clients of a coffee shop hostage last year apparently demanded to speak to the Australian Prime Minister.

For hostage takers, achieving either publicity for their deeds or having their demands met qualifies as success.

Mostly, terrorists just aim for and settle for the publicity for their deeds.

HOW DO WESTERN GOVERNMENTS ADDRESS HOSTAGE TAKERS’ DEMANDS?

Most Western governments have learnt that agreeing to the demands of hostage takers or terrorists will only encourage more hostage taking or terrorism. Accordingly, most of them have a policy of not negotiating with hostage takers or terrorists.


See the link to my article as to the reasons why hostage takers demands ought never to be met.
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2014/02/ban-ransoms-to-hostage-takers.html


The truth is that the terrorists and hostage takers know when they are dealing with a government which has a policy of not meeting their demands. They know too that if they take hostages from these countries they may also face an armed attempt to free the hostages which is likely to end in their deaths. But still they continue. Why?

Publicity. It's the big prize. You can't have terror if you can't terrorize.


PUBLICITY for TERRORISTS and Mass Killers - OUR GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Publicity for terrorists is not automatic however. It's a gift we in the West seem content to give to the terrorists and school shooters etc. The more publicity we grant to terrorists and mass shooters, and their wicked deeds, the more such acts it encourages and creates.


The solution

The solution is simple.

In the same way that most sensible Western governments already limit or prevent hostage takings by not paying ransoms or giving into their demands, a strategy is required to deny those who commit terrorist acts or mass shootings the oxygen of publicity .

Without publicity terrorists acts or mass shootings are not nearly as appealing to potential mass killers or terrorists. This is not to say that denying publicity to such perpetrators or to their deeds will end all terrorism or stop all mass shootings. It won’t. But if these activities thrive on publicity, it follows logically that a denial such publicity to the perpetrators will drastically reduce the number of mass shootings or terrorist incidents.

The question arises, how does a free society deny publicity to terrorists and to mass shooters?


Media self-regulation?

AS I mentioned above, the Media seemed content to ignore the wishes of that Oregon Sherriff who did not wish to reward the mass killer #OregonShootings with the publicity he sought. Despite this, Sky News and other news media fell over themselves to reveal the identity of the shooter.

Clearly, most of the television news channels and other mass media have shown little interest in any self-regulation of their coverage of such events.

The Media KNOW they are co-conspirators

The media, especially the international television news networks, feed off rolling coverage of mass shootings, and worse, they do so knowing full-well that by giving these monsters such coverage, they are not only playing into the hands of those whose deeds they cover now, but they are encouraging the next perpetrators to boot.


Look at CNN's detailed coverage of the recent #NYPD killer. Why was his name mentioned? Why was his background given the media coverage it received? We don't need to know who he is or why he did it. The publicity the media give to men such as this only encourages the next shooter. There is no shortage of disturbed or desperate people with a cause or gripe, and who would love to go out in a blaze of CNN glory!


The “glorification” of mass shooters and terrorists and the publicity afforded to all aspects of their lives by the media is a shocking disgrace. Yet, we permit news "reporters" to swan about and cover everything but the real cause of most of these events....the MEDIA itself!


Why do they do it?
Some of us can't tear ourselves away from this type of coverage. We've become addicted to reality television. Presumably, if one network decided not to turn up at a mass school shooting to cover it live, they fear they will lose viewers to the other networks who will turn up to “bless” the event with their coverage.

Clearly a significant portion of the television networks’ viewership enjoy such coverage. And the media revel in sensationalising every aspect of these events.

Those who find the rolling news coverage boring must be in the minority

Personally, the rolling coverage of bomb blasts, sieges or mass shootings bores me to tears. One school shooting’s coverage is inevitably going to be much the same as the last.  The coverage of the aftermath of a bomb blast or terrorist shooting is inevitably going to be much the same as the previous such incident.

What’s more, I don’t really care about the details of lives of the mass shooters or the terrorists involved. Once you’ve heard one of their stories, you’ve usually heard them all.

I am frequently amazed when networks interupt a real news item with a news flash about a bomb blast in a place like Afghanistan or Pakistan under the heading “breaking-news”.

For me, such incidents don’t qualify as any form of news, to say nothing of breaking news. If a year or two went by without a bomb blast in Afghanistan or Pakistan, THAT would be breaking news.

What news coverage do I propose?

Instead of rolling coverage of school shootings, sieges, bomb blasts and terrorist attacks, and instead of treating it as dramatic breaking news, all such events should be mentioned as a short newsflash report / summary of events. .

Eg. “We have received reports of a shooting incident this afternoon at Digby High School in downtown Denver. We understand that at least three pupils were killed by a fellow pupil. One pupil is apparently being held hostage. It is reported that rest of school’s pupils and teachers have managed to escape to safety. Police have cordoned of the area. We will update you on any further developments.”

There should be no pictures, no coverage about the lives of the victims, no coverage about the shooter or his reasons for doing what he did.

Social Media?

What would it help, some might ask, if the television networks stopped rolling coverage of school shootings and if all media agreed never to mention the name of a mass shooter? News of the events and the name of the killer would be leaked on social media and the details would be available online for all to see.

I agree that no matter how responsible television news networks and the print media might be in regard to mass shootings, there will be those who will use, or attempt to use social media to identify the killer or provide rolling coverage of such incidents. Two points should be made however.

Firstly, and in an ideal world, any legislative solution aimed at limiting the news networks’ rolling coverage of mass killings (& related incidents) or at prohibiting the publication of details relating to the identities or backgrounds of the killers should include sensible measures to achieve similar results on social media.

Secondly, and in the absence of any legislative solutions, if all the news media adopted the policy of not carrying rolling coverage of such incidents and of not revealing the name or the backgrounds of the perpetrators, nor any coverage of the reasons given by the perpetrators for their deeds, it would dramatically reduce the publicity the perpetrators would receive.

If the sort of three or four line report I recommend above with updates were all that the television networks carried, a minority of people might seek to find out more on social media. Many, however, would be too lazy to do so. In any event, the coverage of the event on social media would lack a great deal of the impact the sensationalism and the focus which the news networks would have. If a school shooting is treated as breaking news on various news channels, and one channel hops to find that its being treated as the main story on most news channels, the viewer is compelled to become caught up in the story. This holds true even if the coverage becomes predictable and boring.

On social media however, people can choose to follow a great variety of stories or watch videos on any subject of their choice. Of those who do choose to keep up with aspects a school shooting on U-tube or Twitter, most are unlikely to dwell on the story in the way they might do if it were treated as breaking news on television. The impact of the story and the publicity for the perpetrator would be drastically reduced without power of the rolling television news coverage, with all the drama, immediacy and sensationalism such coverage entails. Repeat incidents would garner even fewer followers or viewers on social media.

I suspect that many people’s browsing habits on Twitter or U-Tube is influenced by something they have seen on television or something posted or shared by one of their friends. If school shootings are treated by television news as short run of the mill reports without pictures or any fuss, the chances are that the social media searches about such incidents will be dramatically reduced.

If the type of restrictions I favour in regard to the media’s coverage of incidents like school shootings were introduced by television stations, it is possible that future potential perpetrators of such incidents who are desperate for publicity might resort to using social media more creatively e.g. creating and publishing their own graphic material online depicting their deeds in the hope that it would become viral. e.g. like the online videos of ISIS showing beheadings. 

The fact that measures to remove or restrict the mass media’s coverage of the perpetrators of mass killings in order to limit the publicity it generates for these killers might force them to seek publicity through other channels such as social media is no reason not to take such measures.

If society finds that some people, or indeed mass killers themselves, are using social media to publicise blow by blow details of mass shootings or to publish stories about the mass shooters backgrounds or their reasons etc., society would have to find ways to combat the online publication of material which serves mainly to afford publicity to mass shooters or to terrorists.

  

PROPOSED LEGAL PROHIBITION
I believe the Western leaders need to meet to agree upon a law to be promoted and promulgated in their respective countries.


The Law would have some or all of the following provisions for the states involved:

1.   No live or recorded pictures, or images of any terrorist event, siege, school shooting, or hostage situation (prohibited events) or their aftermath may be taken by any news media within the borders of the state. Doing so would amount to a criminal offence with heavy jail terms.

2.   Broadcasting of any live or recorded images of any such events from any media organisation located or broadcasting within the state would also be a criminal offence, irrespective of whether the coverage emanated from a local country or from another country.

3.   Permitted would be a simple announcement such as: "We have a report that an unidentified armed man has taken ten hostages in a café in downtown Sydney. The police are at the scene and have cordoned off the area. We will update this report every thirty minutes, or less if there are any developments."

4.   Publishing the identity of the perpetrator (s) their backgrounds or any details regarding their demands or their causes would be illegal. Thus the background histories of school shooters, their web pages, their videos diaries, notes etc. would all be illegal material, prohibited from broadcast. The prohibition would also have to apply to publication by individuals on social media. All internet companies and platforms such as U-Tube or Twitter would also be under obligation to remove any infringing material from their sites.

5.   The authorities would be permitted to reveal any of the above information only if it was in the public interest or a matter of public safety to do so. E.g. for public assistance in capturing co-conspirators, or, for public assistance in a man-hunt etc., the names of those sought could be released and published.

6.   After these events have been resolved or have ended, the police news conference may not name the perpetrator nor can they mention the cause, unless it is in the public interest to do mention either or both. Eg. if someone took hostages to draw attention of authorities to the failure of a town council to deal with polluted water etc., the police could mention the reason for the hostage taking but not necessarily the name of the taker.

7.   Nothing in these rules would prohibit the media from publishing any prohibited information necessary to expose or  reasonably intended to expose any police or state cover-up or any other illegal act by the state.

8.   Rules as to how information relating to these incidents, could be released into the public domain in the fullness of time without mentioning the names of the perpetrators or their causes, e.g. in an annual published law enforcement report or review would also be necessary. This would allow for academics to study the critical information relating to these events, and to allow for investigative journalists to pour through the information to see whether the lack of media coverage allowed for mistakes by authorities to be covered up etc.

Any proposed law should protect, not violate rights

Whether the rules I have just come up with are fit for purpose or not can be debated. Perhaps better rules could be suggested by others. I welcome any constructive suggestions below.


The aim of the law I propose must be to deny the perpetrators of such events as much publicity as possible without preventing the fact of what has happened from being reported at all. Also, the law must not prevent investigative reporting into how the authorities are dealing, or failing to deal with these events. Nor must it prevent the information arising from these events which could be necessary for the study of these events by academics or anyone else. The studying of trends etc. by specialists often yields information necessary to understand and to further prevent such atrocities.


The law would have to strike a balance between the public's right to be informed, the media's right to free speech, and the need to deny terrorists, school shooters, etc. the publicity they crave and which if given, only encourages the next event.



Would we be poorer without sensational rolling media coverage? What about freedom of expression and the right to a free press?

If we did not have to view rolling coverage of mass school shooting incidents, would any of us be the poorer? I mean, really worse off?  No we would not. A short news report read by a reporter would serve our right to know equally as well, and it would do so without adding to the hysteria, hype and the sensationalism i.e. without serving the purposes of the perpetrators.

Consider last year’s Sydney Seige.  The television news networks carried pictures of hostages who were being forced to stand up against the windows of the coffee shop with their hands raised. Each victim was required to do this for two hours at a time.

When one of the television reporters mentioned how he could see a woman with her hands up in tears, my anger was not directed at the hostage taker. It was at the reporter, his network and the other networks who were showing pictures of these victims. The hostage taker clearly had the hostages standing against the windows for effect. He realised that the television networks would not be able to resist filming this and that these dramatic pictures of the hostages would circulate around the world. I doubt that any of the hostages would have been required to undergo that ordeal if the television news channels were not showing rolling coverage of the Seige.

What about the backgrounds or the motives of school shooters or terrorists? Do we really need to know the history of these individuals? Won’t it always be the case that these people are either mentally disturbed, or that they are angry social outcasts out for revenge or out to advance some misguided cause?   No!

Do we need to be subjected to the posthumous gloating of the perpetrators in the form of their videos or their misguided final blogs or messages? No


Ultimately, the shooters, whether they are terrorists, school shooters, a lone disturbed or angry person with a cause, all have the same wish, PUBLICITY. Ultimately, it matters not whether the perpetrator does it for Allah, for his revenge on the part of his community, or because he wishes to punish people for all the wrongs he thinks have been done to him, his motive becomes irrelevant and the deaths of the innocent victims follow all the same.

Do we really need to hear about the lives of the unfortunate people who have been killed in these events? With the greatest of respect to such victims, I believe the answer is no. If seven people have been killed in a mass shooting, that’s all the info I require or care to know. As to the histories of the victims, my respectful view is if they were not news worthy prior to being killed, they are not suddenly rendered newsworthy simply because they happen to have been killed by a mass shooter. Some people may be curious to know the life stories and aspirations of the victims and of the grief inflicted upon their families and friends, but I do not. To me, there is a difference between news and voyeurism. I don’t consider stories about the details of any victims of a bomb blast or mass shooting to be news.

If we aren’t any worse off for not having detailed rolling television news coverage of incidents like school shootings or terrorist bombings, and if there are good reasons to deny the perpetrators the publicity they seek,  then there cannot be any legitimate complaint that the media’s right to freedom of expression has been curtailed.

Is my proposed solution the way to solve the problem?

I am open to any other suggestions as to how else one can deny the perpetrators of such deeds the publicity they seek.  What is crucial, however, is that we ensure that that the media are not allowed to respond to tragedies such as school shootings in the US by simply raining the gun control debate over and over again. It’s time for the news media to take ownership of the consequences of the gratuitous publicity they grant to the perpetrators, their crimes, their alleged motives and their backgrounds.

See the following articles which support the views I express above.

“What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them
Rampage shooters crave the spotlight, and we should do everything possible to deprive them of it.”       
By

Ari N. Schulman

Nov. 8, 2013 7:32 p.m. ET

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579181702252120052


& a similar article by 
 ANSEL HERZ 
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/does-media-coverage-of-school-shootings-lead-to-more-school-shootings/Content?oid=20329038


What is not up for debate is that until the news networks, especially the television news, change the way they provide publicity to terrorists and mass killers their ilk, these incidents will continue.


On the other hand, if the coverage were to be limited to the bare minimum, as I suggest, that it would frustrate the terrorists no end. There would be no point to a lone wolf attack if he knew in advance his sacrifice would be meaningless because of the lack of coverage for his cause and because he knew in advance his demands, if any, would not be met.


http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/JMME2.htm - this article contains research proving the links of which I speak....


http://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/news-orgs-should-deny-mass-killers-the-attention-they-crave/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephgrenny/2012/12/13/the-media-is-an-accomplice-in-public-shootings-a-call-for-a-stephen-king-law/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimann-schultz/open-letter-to-media_b_5396659.html  

CLASS ACTION?
There is of course one other way to make the news media pay for their role in the mass shootings and school killings...

In a case where a mass school shooting has occurred and where the killer refers in his blog or Facebook page to other similar incidents, there may be room for a class action against those networks who carried rolling coverage of the most recent of such incidents, especially where the killer was identified and his motives and his history was covered by such network, I beleive that the victims or the families of the victims of the latest shootings might have a class action against those networks for damages for the role they play in creating the desire on the part of the latest perpetrator to commit copy-cat killings in order to gain notoriety

From a trial lawyer’s perspective, the most of the pre-requisites to win an action in delict/tort ought not to be too onerous. Foreseeability and causation ought not to be too difficult to prove. A jury will easily find that the publicity the news networks grant to mass killers was the major or a major cause of the desire to commit copycat killings.  A jury should also find that the networks conduct was foreseeable. If foreseeability and causation are considered to be a given, the next question, however, would be whether the news networks conduct in persisting to grant such killers the coverage they do can be classed as wrongful or unlawful in the circumstances. The latter question is the hurdle which the plaintiff’s will find more difficult to overcome. Whether the conduct is wrongful in the circumstances will depend inter alia upon the legal convictions of the community.

If their conduct is held to be wrongful by a jury, the media would struggle to hide behind press freedom or the freedom of expression as a justification ground. This is because they would then struggle to convince the court that they could not fulfil their role or function equally as well without naming the killer, quoting from his web site, or doing a full expose on his life.


For example, take the second Texas shooting at the same military base. The television reporters fell over each other, all in apparent and blissful ignorance of the blood dripping from their hands, as they sensationally declared that this was the second such event at that base. .....   They asked all manner of INANE questions about the cause of the second event, but the most likely, obvious cause was NEVER canvassed at all.


“What inspired Texas soldier number two to do what he did?”

“Was it the rolling coverage of the first shooting on that Texas military base and extensive publicity the first perpetrator was afforded?”

Until our leaders stop the media from granting the perpetrators of mass shootings and school killings the extensive and gratuitous publicity they presently do, these events will continue to occur again and again. Publicity to killers or terrorists is a gift which keeps on giving!

Siegfried Walther 2015

See also: My article on euthanasia /assisted suicide :
http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2014/12/euthanasia-case-for-it-and-proposed.html

+No More Mass Shootings 

+School Shooting The musical 

#OregonShooting +Oregonshooting