Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

Oh I readily admit it isn't realistic. If murdered children didn't put a dent in it, nothing will in this country. But that doesn't change the fact that I think it is outdated and is allowing citizens to hurt and kill other citizens.

I know I'm an idealist in this debate, but I'd rather be that than just another person who slaps a hashtag on my Twitter account and doesn't bother to think about solutions to the problem.

 

I have no problem with people who want to go and seek the video out. What I'm saying is plastering a woman's final seconds on a nationally-syndicated newspaper's front page is over the line.
By your logic, if the shooter had focused his go-pro on her dead body for a minute and shot her dead head with seven bullets, the NYDN would have been well within their rights to plaster her bloody and mutilated face on the front page.
What about her friends and family members? Do you think they actively wanted to see her final seconds like that?
I know it's cool for us to sit here and pretend newspapers should be able to do whatever they want with no consequences but, deep down, how did these images shamingly blasted on the front page really change the story? Are people less horrified reading the story in the NYT because it was played below the fold with no death photos?
It's death porn and exploitive.

 

I don't think that the NYDN should have run the front as it ran. Too sensational and the tone was crass.

I'm sympathetic to her friends and family members, but, frankly, they are secondary considerations here. This is bigger.

There was a tidal wave of nationally prominent columnists on Twitter yesterday telling Americans not to watch the video. That is what pissed me off.

 

I don't have a problem with that. They're paid to have an opinion. That's their opinion.
It's also my opinion that people shouldn't watch but I won't begrudge anyone who does.
You want to seek it out? Great. Have at it. I watch porn when I'm home alone. It's awesome. It's not for everyone.
This sick shit isn't for everyone either but I understand why some people would want to see it. I'm just asking to respect those of us who don't want to see it and having it blasted across the front page of a major national newspaper where some people who have intentionally chosen to avoid the video may unsuspectingly come across these horrifying images without their consent is fucking wrong.

 

America is way too violent too allow people the legal right to own a gun. The 99 percent of gun owners who never commit crimes need to realize that repealing the Second Amendment will cure a violent society. Once guns are illegal, people determined to kill others will just stop being so negative and take up a hobby or something.

 

Perhaps it wouldn't cure a violent society, but it certainly would make it more difficult for those determined to kill others to do so. That is my only concern.

 

How would it do that?

 

I hate this argument. It's such a chicken shit, do nothing counter point that misses the entire reason why people are anti-gun.
"Oh, gun control isn't going to completely eliminate the problem of gun violence so it's better off that we do nothing."
Bullshit.
Yes, 99 percent of people who own guns don't go on a mass murder spree. Awesome. But some people do and any laws that would prevent that, or even make it slightly more difficult to unload a semi-automatic weapon into a group of unsuspecting people, are for the good of our country.
I'd venture to guess the vast majority of drivers don't drink and drive either but, hey, guess what, we have laws making that illegal because the small percentage of people who do put the rest of the population in danger.
You don't want gun control. Fine. You think it somehow infringes on your liberties to own a handgun capable of mowing down a small room full of people? Fine.
But don't use this argument. It's fucking stupid and you're better than that. (Or at least should be.)

 

Fewer guns = fewer shootings. I know it isn't an exact equation. More of a hypothesis, really. But I don't think it requires a great logical leap to reason that the fewer guns that are readily available to people, the fewer people will be shot by guns.

 

Stick to wrestling.

 

That was about as intelligent, well-reasoned and well-argued a reply as I expected from someone with your point of view on this topic.

 

Angry schiezainc is the best schiezainc.