[Zavdpacq]

they should withhold his identity. They shouldn't give these guys fame, only causes copycats. I think you would see shooting go down if the press didn't give coverage and say the guys name.

[nerrttrw]

See what a visit by Bush will do to people. Wezil

Very sad event.

[NanoGordeno]

Well... The name appears to be out. I wish they wouldn't do that, they really achieve notoriety they can't achieve living, that's why they do it. Sometimes I think about going out in style, as it's the only way my name would ever get in the papers. Though I wouldn't kill other people, I find that morally wrong. I thought about killing myself in the most dramatic fashion, however. I'm not talking about bridge jumping, I'm talking much more fun than that.

Anyways the guy wears glasses. Who wants to bet this guy is a virgin? Guys like that give guys who wear glasses a bad name . One thing different though, is this guy isn't in his 30's like most of the psycho shoooters. He's 20 years old. Way too young to be that hateful and bitter.

[Attaniuri]

oh and it says he was an introvert. No surprise there.

[engideNedmupe]

I can't stay mad at you...

[Anfester]

No wonder he did that. I'd kill myself too if I looked like a girl.

[paydayloanfasters]

Sad indeed. But this wouldn't have happened if they only banned malls and x-mas shopping sooner.

[brilkyPlayday]

“The person who we believe to be the shooter has died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds,” so he didnt commit suicide?

[BeksTeene]

Originally posted by Dis
Well... The name appears to be out. I wish they wouldn't do that, they really achieve notoriety they can't achieve living, that's why they do it. His suicide note: "Now I'll be famous".

[diseeKeythilt]

Originally posted by Kuken




His suicide note: "Now I'll be famous". Yep, and we'll help him do it. I still hear the name of the Montreal shooter almost two decades later (heard it again morning).

[kneexyFreedly]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'm not a big fan of media pandering to sensationalism. The have a social responsibility.

Do you think the media should broadcast details of suicides as well? After all "people" want to know. I'm not a big fan of the media, period.

But what would you say if for instance the only news you heard about this shooting was, "The details are going to be withheld because we here in the media honestly believe you don't really need to know!"

What would your reaction be?

Mine would be outrage and an immediate demand to know all the facts.

Suicides are not always hand in hand with homicides like this one was and therefore in a different category.

But if someone really wanted to dig into people's suicides I bet there are public records available for people with a penchant for such ghoulism.

But that's their scene, it's just not how I roll.

[WaydayFep]

Originally posted by Wezil If you think I'm a fan of censorship you are sadly mistaken. I'm libertarian. People here get offended so easily.

I never implied you were a fan of censorship. I only said that what you were proposing was censorship.

I guess I'll note your political affiliation 'coming out' post although I honestly don't see why you felt it was necessary.

[SIZE=1] I don't have an issue with reporting the crime but I do have an issue with giving the named individual notoriety. Will your knowledge of the "facts" be impaired b/c you don't know his name? How does this tidbit help you "understand"?

Name the victims, let the shooter remain now and forever - anonymous. Who said I sought "understanding"?

Even if that's what I wanted why should that be anyone's business but mine?

The shooter's name is one of the facts of the case. Not reporting it is still censorship.

[bestbyV]

Great. The guy that is always dead wrong disagrees with me.

I know I'm right now.

[soprofaxel]

Your reputation precedes you.

[soipguibbom]

Originally posted by uberloz


Whether you favour it or not is on you, I'm just pointing out that your posts are advocating a form of it. I don't think people should be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre either. Is this also censorship or just plain responsible limits on free speech?

Um, yes I did. Go back and reread my posts.

Um, no you didn't. You dismissed rather than answer.

It's a different category. Besides the media does report suicides here in the U.S. especially by famous people. Kurt Cobain anyone? I'm sure you can name a few more.

So when Joe Blow jumps off a local bridge the local media report Joe Blow's name? Where do you live? I think you are being dishonest.

Curt Cobain was a media celebrity - he (and others of his ilk) are the exception.

Are the Jack the Ripper crimes any less famous for us not knowing the name of the perpetrator? His crimes are infamious b/c no one (except Ripper himself of course) knew the killer's identity. Not the same now is it?

[freflellalafe]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I always get a good laugh out of the Conservative, or should I say Conservanuts stupidity.

A gunmen goes on a rampage, and the Conservanut response is to blame the media and demand limits on freedom of speech.



Because we have no proof that the media creates copycat gunmen, but who cares, just blame the media. And of course god forbid the Americans do anything logical like have some type of minor gun control. Exactly what sort of "minor gun control" would have prevented this? From what I've seen reported, the PoS stole a rifle from his father-in-law - since he wasn't able to legally purchase one himself - and brought it to a "gun-free-zone" mall and shot the place up, then shot himself. He broke a law in getting the gun, he broke a law in keeping the gun, he broke a law in bringing the gun into the mall - and then he broke a law in using the gun.

[Sopzoozyren]

It's funny people ask why. This isn't hard to figure out. The guy is a high school dropout with no job, no girlfriend, and can't even hold a job at mcdonald's. If I was him, I'd kill myself. I suppose I wouldn't make a good suicide hotline operator. . This doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out. And I already said why they insist on killing other people, so they can achieve notoriety.

As I said before, that isn't my thing. I will not take others on my way out. Yes you could argue morals don't matter after you die. but what good are moral values if you completely disregard them? My morals define who I am. Even though I'm at the lowest point in my life right now, I won't be offing myself in any dramatic fashion any time soon.

[Kilsimpaile]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I always get a good laugh out of the Conservative, or should I say Conservanuts stupidity.

A gunmen goes on a rampage, and the Conservanut response is to blame the media and demand limits on freedom of speech.



Because we have no proof that the media creates copycat gunmen, but who cares, just blame the media. And of course god forbid the Americans do anything logical like have some type of minor gun control. gun control We can't stop the flow of drugs into this country, how are we going to stop the flow of guns? Get with the times dude.

We're not saying the media creates the gunmen. Where would you get a stupid idea like that? The media helps further the gunmens goals. The gunmen want fame. The media gives them this. If the media didn't give them fame, perhaps the gunmen would be less likely to kill a bunch of people and just kill themselves. I can't guarantee this would be the case, but it's worth a shot.

No one is saying the goverment should censor the media. If the media can withhold the name of a rape victim, why can't they withhold the name of the shooter?

[fudelholf]

Originally posted by Wezil


You are getting silly and boring.

It is the same issue - the issue is responsible journalism. Sorry you can't see that.

The rest is drivel. I can see that you get your name honestly enough. You can weasel through an argument fairly consistantly.

It isn't just a matter of responsible journalism.

It's a matter of freedom of information.

Will the name of the shooter be withheld from the victims families or do they not deserve to know?

What if the shooter survives his self inflicted gunshots, do the doctors deserve to know who they are treating?

If the shooter recovers from those wounds do we hold secret trials where the jurors don't deserve to know the name of the accused?

Or do we swear all of the above to secrecy?

And under what penalty do we hold them to their silence?

Incarceration, caning, death?

I'm sorry weasel but I prefer that criminals and their crimes be kept as public information.

[Blelidupgerie]

Originally posted by Wezil
Last try Uber. If you still don't get it I will abandon the effort. I can agree to disagree. You want increased censorship of public information, I do not.

That's all it really boils down to.


Originally posted by Wezil You've yet to tell me how knowing someones name helps you understand absolutely anything about the crime. You are really stuck on this whole concept that; "people don't need freedom of information unless that information can provide them understanding".


Oh well, we must then agree to disagree. I have no hard feelings about it though!