18 Shot at Northern Illinois U., DeKalb Campus

[Dreamin']

This is probably a controversial idea, but I believe that higher journalistic ethics re: reporting the Virginia Tech story may have reduced the contagion effect a little. It's the journalist's job to tell the story, but the way the story is told can have a big impact. The big US networks have really lowered the bar, IMO.

 

Your thoughts, bjorn?

[bjorn_skurj]

How does one exactly soft-pedal mass murder?

[bobbob1313]

This is probably a controversial idea, but I believe that higher journalistic ethics re: reporting the Virginia Tech story may have reduced the contagion effect a little. It's the journalist's job to tell the story, but the way the story is told can have a big impact. The big US networks have really lowered the bar, IMO.

 

Your thoughts, bjorn?

 

I would like to think that the coverage of NIU reflects a bit more self restrained media, but to be honest it just seems like people aren't as interested in this as a story compared to VT. Like it or not, media coverage is based on ads and ratings, and I think there has been less coverage because it isn't "worth it" in their eyes.

[Dreamin']

How does one exactly soft-pedal mass murder?

Well, refusing to broadcast the V Tech shooter's "call to arms" would have been a good start. The major US networks ignored the threat to public safety in favour of ratings and actually helped him carry out his crime by broadcasting that video, IMO. The guy obviously hoped that a lot of people would see it, identify with him, and follow in his footsteps. Media collusion was an important part of his twisted plan. The killer wanted the body count to continue long after he was gone... and it will.

 

Here's what I said then.

[bjorn_skurj]

Well, refusing to broadcast the V Tech shooter's "call to arms" would have been a good start. The major US networks ignored the threat to public safety in favour of ratings and actually helped him carry out his crime by broadcasting that video, IMO. The guy obviously hoped that a lot of people would see it, identify with him, and follow in his footsteps. Media collusion was an important part of his twisted plan. The killer wanted the body count to continue long after he was gone... and it will.

 

Here's what I said then.

You're right - it was not an ethical thing to run that video. I wouldn't have done it, but I don't run a major television news operation. In journalism, once the competition runs something or takes a story someplace questionable, there is tremendous pressure to follow. (It can work the other way, too - the media in this country was almost uniformly paralyzed into not challenging the looming Iraq war in 2001-02, for instance.)

[Lammycat]

I think one problem with media, in general, comes with the immediacy and availability of the internet. There are so many sources capable of breaking new/updated accounts that it seems like a mad scramble to put out details that may inevitably have been better left out. Yet competition for ratings feeds the greater need for urgency.

 

There's been more competition for ratings in the last 15-20 years then previously (before the internet really came into the picture as a heavy-hitter). It seems like the mind-set is to get every detail out to the public before the next person/site/station scoops it and sometimes things are printed or shown on cnn or on-line that may not be in the best interest of mass consumption.

 

If there is less interest in this story, I chalk it up to that less lives were taken than at the VT rampage. This isn't meant in a callous way at all or that the import is not as great for the recent events, but that it's already been covered (in the eyes of the media) to a lesser degree.

[Papillon Parade]

If there is less interest in this story, I chalk it up to that less lives were taken than at the VT rampage. This isn't meant in a callous way at all or that the import is not as great for the recent events, but that it's already been covered (in the eyes of the media) to a lesser degree.

 

Sadly, I agree. It seems as though the media is almost bored with covering these school shootings, and I by no means say this to curtail what has happened. What I really wish the media would stop with is sensationalizing the KILLER. Stop showing videos and photos of them. They are no longer a threat as most of them commit suicide afterwards, so what's the point of splattering their face all over the place? I'm sure if it was one of my family members that had been involved I would definitely NOT want to see that. It seems to me that seeing someone else get so much media coverage could spur on another potential killer. Many of these guys leave ramblings behind of how they want to die "famous", and this is how they do it...because they've seen others do it.

[Lammycat]

What I really wish the media would stop with is sensationalizing the KILLER. Stop showing videos and photos of them. They are no longer a threat as most of them commit suicide afterwards, so what's the point of splattering their face all over the place? I'm sure if it was one of my family members that had been involved I would definitely NOT want to see that. It seems to me that seeing someone else get so much media coverage could spur on another potential killer. Many of these guys leave ramblings behind of how they want to die "famous", and this is how they do it...because they've seen others do it.

Not to minimize your point with a seemingly trivial comparison, but it seems as if idiot fans running onto the field during MLB games has decreased since networks collectively stopped showing the disruptions. I have no evidence to back this up; just a fan's perspective.

 

While I think it's important and obviously a big part of the "story" to reveal who is responsible (and if possible "why"), it's catering to the wishes (in some cases) of the perpetrator in having a biography on them as the lead to the story. Does the coverage or expected/anticipated coverage encourage an already confused mind? Good question.

[caliber66]

Not to minimize your point with a seemingly trivial comparison, but it seems as if idiot fans running onto the field during MLB games has decreased since networks collectively stopped showing the disruptions. I have no evidence to back this up; just a fan's perspective.

I swear, I entered this thread intending to make the same comparison. It would never work, though.

[Dreamin']

I really wish the media would stop with is sensationalizing the KILLER. Stop showing videos and photos of them. They are no longer a threat as most of them commit suicide afterwards, so what's the point of splattering their face all over the place? I'm sure if it was one of my family members that had been involved I would definitely NOT want to see that. It seems to me that seeing someone else get so much media coverage could spur on another potential killer. Many of these guys leave ramblings behind of how they want to die "famous", and this is how they do it...because they've seen others do it.

There's actually quite a lot of research that supports this.

 

link

 

 

Research finds an increase in suicide by readers or viewers when:

 

• The number of stories about individual suicides increases
  
• A particular death is reported at length or in many stories
  
• The story of an individual death by suicide is placed on the front page or at the beginning of a broadcast
  
• The headlines about specific suicide deaths are dramatic
  

 

Certain ways of describing suicide in the news contribute to what behavioral scientists call "suicide contagion" or "copycat" suicides.

 

• Exposure to suicide method through media reports can encourage vulnerable individuals to imitate it.
  
• Research indicates that detailed descriptions or pictures of the location or site of a suicide encourage imitation.
  
• Presenting suicide as the inexplicable act of an otherwise healthy or high-achieving person may encourage identification with the victim.
  

 

In covering murder-suicides be aware that the tragedy of the homicide can mask the suicidal aspect of the act. Feelings of depression and hopelessness present before the homicide and suicide are often the impetus for both.

[darkstar]

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of shit for this but here goes. The fact of the matter is that nothing could have prevented this. If someone really has a grudge or a suicidal wish to kill and then commit suicide or whatever they will do so. I whole heartedly agree with 2 Bob's previous post about the only thing stopping this would have been an armed citizen. You can have all the gun laws you want. These laws do nothing to stop criminals or other people who can not legally purchase weapons. Why? Because such people do not legally purchase guns at stores they get them off the street. Yes this individual legally purchased firearms, when you buy a weapon you fill out a form called a form 4473, on that form you must answer questions regarding your legal ability to purchase a firearm. One of the questions is if you have been judged mentally incompetent, defective, or have been committed to a mental facility. Due to confidentiality laws if you have sought mental treatment but were not committed or otherwise involuntarily placed there will likely be no record of that. Obviously this guy had nothing on his record, or either there was missing info.

 

This guy, for whatever reason choise to kill people then take his own life. I would argue that had an individual at the scene been carrying it could have either been stopped or there could have been less of a loss of life. There are a lot of violent people out there who simply do not care about you or your loved ones. It's up to you to protect yourself. I don't have the case name or the official name of the decision but the Supreme Court has ruled on this. The police are under no obligation to protect you. They can not be held liable for their failure to respond to a situation. Dialing 911 takes seconds, response may take minutes. You are on your own. Gun free zones and other laws of the like do nothing but let bad people know where the easy targets are. Anytime there is a mass shooting look at where they happen. Most of the time they take place in "gun free zones" you rarely read about mass shootings in gun stores, or other areas where the liklihood of people carrying firearms is high.

 

I'm a firm believer in carrying a gun for personal protection. I have taken the time to get the proper training, gone through the extensive background checks needed (where I live in Tennesse the state checks you, and the FBI checks you), and choose to carry a loaded pistol everywhere it is legal for me to do so. I would urge anyone else that is interested to do the same. Learn how to operate a firearm safely, take the necessary permit classes, continue with additional training, and be able to protect you and your loved ones because no one else is going to do it for you.

 

Sorry for the lengthy post but I feel very strongly about this issue. To those who don't like the idea of people carrying, or who don't like guns I respect your opinions, I simply do not share them. If anyone is interested you can PM me and I can provide you with all sorts of links to various sites that will provide info on how to obtain a carry permit, where to find training, etc. If you live in Wisconsin or Illinois...sorry your states will not issue you a permit, they don't believe in your right to protect yourself. Some other states are also very very restrictive about this as well notably NY and Mass.

[chitaper]

I haven't read any of this thread, but as an NIU grad ('90) my heartfelt condolences to anyone reading this who has suffered from this senseless tragedy.

[bjorn_skurj]

In my county in New York, the old retired sheriff used to issue pistol permits to pretty much anybody who could complete the paperwork, because he believed people should be allowed to have guns, in general. Now we have a new person issuing them, and he is apparently not so inclined. And since jail time is mandatory in N.Y. if they catch you with an unlicensed handgun, carrying one anyway ("better to be judged by 12 than carried by six") is not something to be done casually.

What darkstar wrote above is the second half of my "genie out of the bottle" point. With guns pretty much ubiquitous in this country, you can make an argument that getting guns in the hands of responsible, trained people may, and I stress may, save some lives. Each of these mass shooting events is unique, and there can be all sorts of outcomes, good and bad, once the bullets start flying.

[Good Old Neon]

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of shit for this but here goes. The fact of the matter is that nothing could have prevented this. If someone really has a grudge or a suicidal wish to kill and then commit suicide or whatever they will do so. I whole heartedly agree with 2 Bob's previous post about the only thing stopping this would have been an armed citizen. You can have all the gun laws you want. These laws do nothing to stop criminals or other people who can not legally purchase weapons. Why? Because such people do not legally purchase guns at stores they get them off the street. Yes this individual legally purchased firearms, when you buy a weapon you fill out a form called a form 4473, on that form you must answer questions regarding your legal ability to purchase a firearm. One of the questions is if you have been judged mentally incompetent, defective, or have been committed to a mental facility. Due to confidentiality laws if you have sought mental treatment but were not committed or otherwise involuntarily placed there will likely be no record of that. Obviously this guy had nothing on his record, or either there was missing info.

 

This guy, for whatever reason choise to kill people then take his own life. I would argue that had an individual at the scene been carrying it could have either been stopped or there could have been less of a loss of life. There are a lot of violent people out there who simply do not care about you or your loved ones. It's up to you to protect yourself. I don't have the case name or the official name of the decision but the Supreme Court has ruled on this. The police are under no obligation to protect you. They can not be held liable for their failure to respond to a situation. Dialing 911 takes seconds, response may take minutes. You are on your own. Gun free zones and other laws of the like do nothing but let bad people know where the easy targets are. Anytime there is a mass shooting look at where they happen. Most of the time they take place in "gun free zones" you rarely read about mass shootings in gun stores, or other areas where the liklihood of people carrying firearms is high.

 

I'm a firm believer in carrying a gun for personal protection. I have taken the time to get the proper training, gone through the extensive background checks needed (where I live in Tennesse the state checks you, and the FBI checks you), and choose to carry a loaded pistol everywhere it is legal for me to do so. I would urge anyone else that is interested to do the same. Learn how to operate a firearm safely, take the necessary permit classes, continue with additional training, and be able to protect you and your loved ones because no one else is going to do it for you.

 

Sorry for the lengthy post but I feel very strongly about this issue. To those who don't like the idea of people carrying, or who don't like guns I respect your opinions, I simply do not share them. If anyone is interested you can PM me and I can provide you with all sorts of links to various sites that will provide info on how to obtain a carry permit, where to find training, etc. If you live in Wisconsin or Illinois...sorry your states will not issue you a permit, they don't believe in your right to protect yourself. Some other states are also very very restrictive about this as well notably NY and Mass.

 

One could also argue that an armed, firearm packing citizenry would result in exponentially more

[caliber66]

I agree that these sorts of shootings are nearly impossible to prevent, but, for the most part, they only occur in this country. Which leads me to the conclusion that they are, to some degree avoidable or preventable. Canada, our neighbors to the north, are just as armed, yet, these sorts of shootings are nearly unheard of – the million dollar question is, why?

Well, for starters, Canada has a land area of ~3.9 million square miles and a population of ~33 million, whereas the US has an area slightly less than Canada's and a population nearly ten times greater. There's a lot more opportunity for these kinds of things to happen.

[JUDE]

I would certainly not frequent a bar or any other venue where alcohol is served and the majority of its imbibers armed.

 

I think if you would actually do some research into permit requirements you will find that it is forbidden to carry in any establishment that serves alcohol. Also if you attend the classes (Final Option, etc.) you are beaten over the head with the legal ramifications of having violated any of the permit requirements or actually having to shoot someone. If you are licensed to carry you are legally held to a higher standard (you should understand standard of care).

 

In addition, most classes have a "live fire" scenario training portion, believe me, when people are done with these programs they are not a bunch of cowboy's out looking to shoot someone, they are the opposite in my opinion.

[Good Old Neon]

Well, for starters, Canada has a land area of ~3.9 million square miles and a population of ~33 million, whereas the US has an area slightly less than Canada's and a population nearly ten times greater. There's a lot more opportunity for these kinds of things to happen.

 

True, but I don

[caliber66]

True, but I don

[Edie]

I noticed that NIU and the police seemed to specifically not release many details about the killer in the immediate aftermath, hoping to have the media frenzy around it delayed a little bit. But two days later the local media was all over his story anyway.

[Good Old Neon]

Well, since 1975 (according to wikipedia - grain of salt), there have been about 45 school shootings in the U.S., and about 20 in the rest of the world, so it's not exactly unique to the United States. Of the incidents listed at wikipedia in which more than ten people have been killed, three have been in the U.S. (Columbine, Va Tech and Charles Whitman @ the University of Texas) and three have been elsewhere in the world (Scotland, Canada and Germany).

 

Ok

[darkstar]

[quote name='JUDE

[JUDE]

Actually in some states it is legal to carry in an establishment which derives less than 51% of it's revenue from on location consumption ( and you are not consuming alcohol). And you are very correct about the legal warnings they pound into you. In Tennessee the law states you must be in imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm. End of story. You are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun. The vast amount of time in the permit class was related to legal issues of carrying. I have never had to pull my gun, not once. I avoid dangerous situations...i.e going to the atm at 3 in the morning etc. But as recent events have shown you never know when some individual is going to do something. Sadly it's a reality of our society these days.

 

I can only speak for Minnesota requirements that I have experience with.

I would imagine that they strongly discourage people from carrying firearms into bars, albeit legal in some states, in the majority of classes. Once again, back to the legal ramifications and responsibilities of the licensee.

[ikol]

And, though this is pure speculation, it is possible that those that have taken place outside the US were inspired by events within the US. The increased incidence of school shootings outside the US appears to coincide with the increased frequency with which these shootings occur within our borders.

 

I agree. This is pure speculation.

[caliber66]

Ok

[Good Old Neon]

[quote name='JUDE