In mass murders like the one in Arizona, remove the suspect's name to eliminate notoriety
Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, said: “They can gas me, but I am famous. I have achieved in one day what it took Robert Kennedy all his life to do.”
Was something like this in the mind of the man in Tucson, Arizona — I will not use his name — who shot 20 innocent people, attempted to assassinate U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killed U.S. Federal Judge John Roll and five other individuals, including a beautiful 9-year-old girl named Christina Taylor Green?
We may never know, but based on his mug shot — which looks like a high school senior picture of Uncle Fester of Addams Family fame — I would guess we will not be able to shut this guy up. He is enjoying his celebrity because it came quicker than even that of Paris Hilton or Snooki.
Perhaps I am journalistically naïve, but I know criminals. Shooters like the one in Tucson thrive on the media attention. They have been a “nobody” all of their lives, and suddenly after committing such a despicable act, they are rock stars without having to work for it. My fear is their fame may inspire others to try to emulate them.
Perhaps it is human nature that we must put a face on our most evil citizens, but does that encourage the next mentally or emotionally disturbed “lone wolf” shooter? Is it possible that the media attention lavished on the Tucson shooter may inspire another person out there sitting on the fence wondering, “Should I? Shouldn’t I?” Wouldn’t it be nice if the American public got together and asked the media to stop naming these shooters and quit plastering their pictures on front pages and teasers for the evening news?
Blur the faces of suspects to take away their power, Rich Kinsey argues.
This is a tall order of business to change the way the media portrays these criminals. The images of these monsters sell papers, create viewers or readers, which sell advertisements that fund our media. I understand this, but does the media portrayal add to the problem?
Several years ago, I attended a great seminar at the University of Michigan Police Department where Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman, the author of "On Killing and Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill: A Call To Action Against TV, Movie And Video Game Violence" was the speaker. He gave statistics about how murder rates rose considerably after a country was exposed to television. Grossman’s theory was that even the very tame violence and killing in 1950s and '60s American television shows how viewers desensitized to killing and violence influenced murder rates.
Think about today’s video games, which are so realistic they're like combat simulators. Doesn’t it make sense that these games desensitize some of the players and blur reality and fantasy in some of the less mature or rational gamers? Isn’t the object of most of the combat games to rack up a large body count to get to the next level of the game? Haven’t we heard enough of the “lone wolf” shooters in pre-incident videos making references to becoming famous for the audacity of their crime and the body counts they hoped to attain?
Enough is enough. Let’s try to save that person who is on the edge from acting out. Let’s contact media outlets to request that the name and faces of “lone wolf” shooters not be released. Let’s keep these deranged individuals anonymous.
The police should still release the name to the media so journalists can do their research. The media could still report the crime. Neighbors of the disturbed individual could still be contacted for their comments about how they never dreamed anyone like that lived in their neighborhood. The suspect’s house could still be photographed with investigators taking evidence out in brown paper bags. News choppers could still fly over the shooter’s home.
The gun shop owner who sold the gun could still be interviewed, and the type of weapon used could still be demonstrated by that shop owner. Experts could still pontificate on motives and the abnormal psychology of the shooter. The shooter’s parents could still be interviewed. Just eliminate the shooter’s name and face from media reports.
In all reporting, keep the person involved in such a horrific crime anonymous. These are bad people. Describe them in terms with bad connotations — do not use their name and blur their image. These types of criminals derive power from their celebrity and empower those who wish to follow in their footsteps. Take away their name and face in the media, and they remain the nameless, faceless losers as they have been in life.
Lock it up, don’t leave it unattended, be aware and watch out for your neighbor.
Rich Kinsey is a retired Ann Arbor police detective sergeant who now blogs about crime and safety for AnnArbor.com.
Comments
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 4:04 a.m.
@janeqdoe: Your ironic humor is much appreciated! But it wasn't Simpson's attorneys' use / manipulation of the media which got Simpson a "not guilty" verdict. I WAS their proper use of FBI investigatory proof that the blood spattered on Simpson's socks was planted by one specific LA detective. That led the jury to doubt the "bloody glove" evidence as well. I know this because I'm a personal friend of one of the forensic experts who contributed to the FBI effort.
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Jan 22, 2011 : 3:45 a.m.
A well reasoned argument, Mr. Kinsey, but for once I disagree. While it's obvious that our mass exposure to violence and killing desensitizes us, it's not the desensitization but the individual motivated by other things in addition. You mention several famous killers: you omit that none of them had access to violent computer games and in some cases: there's little evidence they were frequent viewers of violent TV programs. The same line of reasoning is used to call for banning private ownership of firearms: hunters are "desensitized to killing" too, you know. Western movies and "cop shows" make shooting someone look heroic and skilled. The most obvious omission in this idea is that, as a proportion of all "users" - these killers represent "one in a million." We've now got millions of people legally carrying Glock (and other brands) pistols: the criminal violence output from this demographic is (amazingly) tiny. ONE GUY shoots a Congressperson and a federal judge: all hell breaks loose. That's the other side of the coin you describe. Did this killer play a lot of video games? Did he watch a lot of violent movies? Or is it that he had a well-defined, well-known mental illness? Our "acceptance" of such individuals' irrational behavior is more dangerous.
Anna
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:23 p.m.
snapshot - I completely agree with you. While in no way do I condone what Jared Loughner (if you won't say it, I will. He, too, is a human being, after all.) did; his mental illness and psychosis was, in part, (perhaps a large part) due to his environment. Why did school administrators and authorities only threaten and excommunicate him prior to this event? Why did they npt sincerely offer him counseling or reassurance that he could be treated and helped? It's a shame he has to be the victim of a broken [mental] health care system. And tragic other peoples lives had to suffer the consequence.
snapshot
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
what I got from Mr. Kinsey's column was his "appearance bias" and "behavior assumptions" that affect his ability to remain objective. Just because someone "looks" like Uncle Fester doesn't mean he's a cold blooded killer or dangerous in any way. "Look" at Ted Bundy Mr. Kinsey. "Lone wolf" labeling means what? To what degree and to whose standards do we determine this "lone wolf" to be dangerous? Thomas Jefferson was an introvert who spent most of his time alone at Monticello any time he could to avoid personal contact. Jefferson even pondered as to how "healthy" his voluntary isolation was, which led him to start socializing again. How about the poor overweight security guard who found the backpack of explosives that went off in Century Park during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Cops using these "labels" as Mr. Kinsey dispays in this article caused him irreputable damage when they determined him to be a "suspect" when, in fact, he was a good guy who saved lives with his due dillegence. This "shooter" did what he did because he was mentally unstable, a "fact" Mr. Kinsey omits, not because he "looked" like Uncle Fester or was some undefined, undetermined, unverifiable, definition of a "lone wolf", or even "evil" as Mr. Kinsey suggests. He was mentally unstable enough to be scary to those who came in contact with him. Does Mr. Kinsey really think that behavior is related to being ugly or voluntarily limiting ones social contacts?
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
as someone who reads kinseys columns whenever they appear I usually agree with him, however today I don't the people we are talking about are dilussional, where are they now? prison or dead, they didn't benefit from being fame whores and will always be thought of as CRAZY.
janeqdoe
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
@johnnyA2: On the other hand, if there hadn't been so much media hype over the OJ trial, he might not have been set free to roam the golf courses of the world, looking for the "real" killer. The defense attorneys really played the media and manipulated the trial, IMHO.
robyn
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.
This is a knee jerk reaction. Understandable - but not logical at all. These types of murders are not alone in the 'Bizarro Fame Game' - serial murders have 'fan clubs' and groupies. Now who would want to be one of their fans or groupies is beyond my realm of reasoning, but they exist. Many times - once the name of a person like this has been release, other people come forward with more information about the murderer. This new information can and does lead to more avenues of investigation - both criminally and psychologically. Not only that - but humans are compelled to seek information - especially when it involves something they do not understand. The more information we have - the better we are at recognizing those types of behaviors when we see someone else acting out in those ways. Sometimes it's not just about the 'right' to know - it's about the 'need' to know.
robyn
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.
This is a knee jerk reaction. Understandable - but not logical at all. These types of murders are not alone in the 'Bizarro Fame Game' - serial murders have 'fan clubs' and groupies. Now who would want to be one of their fans or groupies is beyond my realm of reasoning, but they exist. Many times - once the name of a person like this has been release, other people come forward with more information about the murderer. This new information can and does lead to more avenues of investigation - both criminally and psychologically. Not only that - but humans are compelled to seek information - especially when it involves something they do not understand. The more information we have - the better we are at recognizing those types of behaviors when we see someone else acting out in those ways. Sometimes it's not just about the 'right' to know - it's about the 'need' to know.
Wystan Stevens
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.
Top Cat asks "who remembers?" the names of the assassins of Garfield and McKinley. That task may be easier for us Michiganders than for others. Leon Czolgosz [shoal-gosh], who shot McKinley, was born in Alpena, Michigan, and at age five moved with his family to Detroit, where he spent five formative years. Charles Julius Guiteau, who shot Garfield, was born in Illinois, and later moved to Ann Arbor, where he hoped to attend the University of Michigan. But he was refused admission because of deficits in some subjects, so enrolled instead in the Ann Arbor High School, where he struggled with Latin and algebra, then dropped out to join the Utopian free-love community in Oneida, New York. (Guiteau's uncle, through marriage, was William S. Maynard, 3-times Mayor of Ann Arbor and the city's wealthiest citizen.) Guiteau was hanged in 1882, nine months after the death of Garfield. He holds the post-crime longevity record for Presidential assassins. Czolgosz, who shot McKinley in September, 1901, was immediately tried and convicted, and electrocuted at Auburn prison in New York, on October 29 -- little more than a month after performing his evil deed.
Wystan Stevens
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.
Top Cat asks "who remembers?" the names of the assassins of Garfield and McKinley. That task may be easier for us Michiganders than for others. Leon Czolgosz [shoal-gosh], who shot McKinley, was born in Alpena, Michigan, and at age five moved with his family to Detroit, where he spent five formative years. Charles Julius Guiteau, who shot Garfield, was born in Illinois, and later moved to Ann Arbor, where he hoped to attend the University of Michigan. But he was refused admission because of deficits in some subjects, so enrolled instead in the Ann Arbor High School, where he struggled with Latin and algebra, then dropped out to join the Utopian free-love community in Oneida, New York. (Guiteau's uncle, through marriage, was William S. Maynard, 3-times Mayor of Ann Arbor and the city's wealthiest citizen.) Guiteau was hanged in 1882, nine months after the death of Garfield. He holds the post-crime longevity record for Presidential assassins. Czolgosz, who shot McKinley in September, 1901, was immediately tried and convicted, and electrocuted at Auburn prison in New York, on October 29 -- little more than a month after performing his evil deed.
Hunterjim
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
I do not believe Mr. Kinsey was trying to trample the first amendment, rather pointing out that many media outlets sensationalize their reports on these suspects..selling "Their" story over competitors. Digging for the truth is not the same as putting a mic in the face of a grieving family member, or trying to dig up all the dirt on a suspect even when it has nothing to do with the case, just to try and scoop other news outlets. It seems to me that the news media in general forgot how to report the news rather than make up the news to sell airtime. This sensationlism is the part that gives these animals the attention they crave, and I believe that is what the point of the article was...get back to true crime reporting!
Hunterjim
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
I do not believe Mr. Kinsey was trying to trample the first amendment, rather pointing out that many media outlets sensationalize their reports on these suspects..selling "Their" story over competitors. Digging for the truth is not the same as putting a mic in the face of a grieving family member, or trying to dig up all the dirt on a suspect even when it has nothing to do with the case, just to try and scoop other news outlets. It seems to me that the news media in general forgot how to report the news rather than make up the news to sell airtime. This sensationlism is the part that gives these animals the attention they crave, and I believe that is what the point of the article was...get back to true crime reporting!
johnnya2
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.
I know OJ Simpson would have been thrilled if that were the case when he murdered his ex wife and the waiter. In fact, if the public didnt know about it, he would probably be broadcasting a game this weekend.
johnnya2
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.
I know OJ Simpson would have been thrilled if that were the case when he murdered his ex wife and the waiter. In fact, if the public didnt know about it, he would probably be broadcasting a game this weekend.
janeqdoe
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:52 p.m.
I have found that I could really care less if the perpetrator of a violent crime is named Jared, Bozo or Harry, because I rarely have known anyone involved in a highly-publicized crime. Regardless of whether the suspects name is made-known immediately, the media will not stop reporting that a crime happened in the first place. My $0.02 worth: Why not wait until a suspect is arrainged before releasing his/her name? I can think of a few other benefits, besides the one mentioned in this article. This would provide relatives with the opportunity to get their affairs in order before the media onslaught, and the inevitable shoving of cameras and microphones in their faces. Of course, this will never happen, as the media loves to capitalize on the emotions and sensationalism of the fresh event. To me, this would be a simple gesture of kindness to an otherwise unsuspecting and bewildered family. It would also prevent defense attorneys from claiming that there was unnecessary attention focused on their client, resulting in an unfair trial. Most people arrested for highly-publicized crimes are already tried, convicted and executed in the court of public opinion before any real facts can be established.
janeqdoe
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:52 p.m.
I have found that I could really care less if the perpetrator of a violent crime is named Jared, Bozo or Harry, because I rarely have known anyone involved in a highly-publicized crime. Regardless of whether the suspects name is made-known immediately, the media will not stop reporting that a crime happened in the first place. My $0.02 worth: Why not wait until a suspect is arrainged before releasing his/her name? I can think of a few other benefits, besides the one mentioned in this article. This would provide relatives with the opportunity to get their affairs in order before the media onslaught, and the inevitable shoving of cameras and microphones in their faces. Of course, this will never happen, as the media loves to capitalize on the emotions and sensationalism of the fresh event. To me, this would be a simple gesture of kindness to an otherwise unsuspecting and bewildered family. It would also prevent defense attorneys from claiming that there was unnecessary attention focused on their client, resulting in an unfair trial. Most people arrested for highly-publicized crimes are already tried, convicted and executed in the court of public opinion before any real facts can be established.
abc
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
One month ago Mr. Kinseys article contained, among other things, these thoughts: Information is the currency that criminal investigators deal in. Information is needed to solve crimes and lock up criminals. The best information comes from honest citizens providing the truth to the police to make their community a safer place. This information comes from victims of crimes and alert witnesses of crimes or suspicious behavior. Informants are another source of information. Informants can make an investigator look like a hero when they provide good information. Informants come from all walks of life. In evaluating an informant, the wise investigator must first try to understand what is motivating a person to become an informant. The best and most altruistic informants are trying to clean up their neighborhood or workplace or just want a bad person off the street. Mr. Kinsey, right now in Tucson the police are canvassing to piece together some explanation as to why this person did what he did. Do you not think that maybe some of the people they have spoken to came forward with information because they heard this mans name, or saw his photo, and realized that they could help?
abc
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
One month ago Mr. Kinseys article contained, among other things, these thoughts: Information is the currency that criminal investigators deal in. Information is needed to solve crimes and lock up criminals. The best information comes from honest citizens providing the truth to the police to make their community a safer place. This information comes from victims of crimes and alert witnesses of crimes or suspicious behavior. Informants are another source of information. Informants can make an investigator look like a hero when they provide good information. Informants come from all walks of life. In evaluating an informant, the wise investigator must first try to understand what is motivating a person to become an informant. The best and most altruistic informants are trying to clean up their neighborhood or workplace or just want a bad person off the street. Mr. Kinsey, right now in Tucson the police are canvassing to piece together some explanation as to why this person did what he did. Do you not think that maybe some of the people they have spoken to came forward with information because they heard this mans name, or saw his photo, and realized that they could help?
Atticus F.
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
Sounds like another case of a law enforcment officer condoning the loss of our constitutional rights in the name of punishing a law breaker. More spacificly, taking away freedom of the press in an attemp to punish a killer. And the form of punishment "taking away his power".
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.
And the flip side of all this censorship? People with rose colored glasses continue on with their lives secure in the knowledge that nothing bad happens and even if it should the authorities will be there to prevent it. Therefore there is no need to learn, be vigilant and prepare to protect themselves... Oh wait, we already have that... Yep better to change everything for everyone rather than just the outliers in society. Oh wait Homeland Security and the TSA have that covered too.
pegret
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Rich Kinsey on this one, using the suspected criminal's name as little as possible, and blurring out the face...especially if the person is already in custody. Unfortunately, the names and images of these killers aren't usually forgotten...and even if they do fade from memory, there are cable channels entirely devoted to rehashing old crimes & criminals. In how many of these stories do people other than loved ones, even remember the victims' names? Another thing I find disgusting is when police or the media assign catchy or cool-sounding nicknames to notorious killers. How about instead of "Night Stalker" or "Coed Killer", or even the ever-popular 3-word given name, we refer to them only as "Illinois Loser #4" or "Michigan Dirtbag #9"?
J Dawkins
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 11:51 a.m.
Suppressing the identities of criminal offenders would not work from a practical societal standpoint: it's important that the public know the names & faces of dangerous persons so that we can use appropriate action if those persons are somehow released back into society (out on a technicality, plea bargain, e&). If a killer is back on the street for any reason, I would want to at least be familiar with his or her picture so that I may avoid that person. Also, if the only criminals we "blur" are murderers, that's kind of a backhanded incentive. That person gets to commit a heinous act & not get called out on it by the community. Meanwhile, a petty thief has his or her name printed in the local newspaper. No, let's not create journalistic tiers of discrimination. If a person is charged with a crime, the community-at-large has a right & a need to know the identity of that person.
Charles
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 10:36 a.m.
Congratulations! You found a way to put the news media out of business, and put everyone in the dark.
Tom Teague
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 10:31 a.m.
Rich - Respectful disagreement here based on my own experience. I think you may have touched on AN aspect of mass-murderer psychology, but certainly not the only one. It has constitutional implications. And, I think that your recommendation -- that I think you made with good intentions -- may just drive a change in behavior as an unforeseen result. My brother was killed in a similar shooting just under two years ago. Three victims died and some bystanders were wounded. It was distinguished from the Arizona incident by the facts that it may have grown out of a domestic problem between the shooter and one of the other victims, and that the shooter fled. For two weeks we read accounts in the paper about the manhunt and saw the shooter's photo on Crime Stopper billboards and in the paper. It was galling to the family but totally necessary given that the shooter was at large. I worry that if mass murderers are driven in part by a need for fame that they will adopt escape as the path to achieve it. That will complicate everyone's lives, including law enforcement's. As a quick note, after dropping his children off with a neighbor, the shooter committed suicide in a hidden location that took some time to find. @Barb's Mom - My heart goes out to you. We were also hounded by reporters and I ended up serving as family spokesperson (none of the reporters were local, by the way, since this happened in Athens, GA). One of them fixated on my brother's political beliefs and another got mad and lectured me about grief when I wouldn't say the words "This brings closure." Even a national show which I won't name (but will note that the hostess's last name rhymes with 'mace') included speculation on what my brother might have done to get shot. Some comments on websites were practically subhuman in that many of them seemed to intentionally aim to inflict pain on the victims' families. It's endless and it's maddening and I wonder what part of many people's psyche is fed by it. A bit of advice if I may: If you have the strength, write up a short statement and give it to reporters, including the one who is harassing you. Or ask a family friend to do that. The reporter in question may continue to act heinously but you will always know that you met that behavior with dignity. God bless you.
Joe Citizen
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 10:22 a.m.
I agree with Rich to a point. It might help remove the FAME aspect of the shooters motivation to blur their face and not give a name. Perhaps it would not matter whether their name was used if news report always ended with a short clip of the shooter being thrown into a wood chipper a few short hours after the incident. I am still shocked that no changes have been made to the "fair trial" amendment in light of new technology like cameras. If the perp is caught in the act of an incident like this I think it would do some public good to fire up the chipper.
Terrin
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:46 a.m.
So it is OK to put people's names like Kobe Bryant who are excused of crimes like rape essentially ruining their reputations before they are even found guilty of anything; shield the names of those excusing such people (even if it later turns out these people lied); and now we are supposed to hide the name of people excused of committing mass murder. Either hide everybody's name or hide nobody's name. For now I will go with saying the name of people like Jared Lee Loughner.
Top Cat
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:20 a.m.
The assassins of Presidents Garfield and McKinley were tried, found guilty and executed within months of their crime. Who remembers their names? Speedy justice minimizes notoriety.
Hunterjim
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:14 a.m.
The evil man who committed this crime is not a "Domestic terrorist" he is a common murderer and should be tried as such. Arizona has the death penalty and is approperiate in this case. If the federal gov't decides to try him as a "D.T." they are making it a political event rather than criminal act.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:14 a.m.
Eyeheart - you're joking, Right?. The perpetrators friend stated on Good Morning America that the gunman did not listen to talk radio ever, did not watch the news and was not politically sided, was registered independent but did not even vote in the last election. The Sheriff is a registered Democrat - and does toot for Dems at every chance.
Hunterjim
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:07 a.m.
Eyeheart...Your almost right...but the "gun" did it, it was just in the guys hand and the gun jumped up and shot all those people...Blame the politics, blame the gun...blame the gun store owner...blame the law...but god forbid don't blame the evil man who did this...he is a victim too.
Barb's Mom
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 8:56 a.m.
My daughter was murdered nearly 2 months ago. A reporter harassed us in our time of grief and because we didn't comment, trashed our daughter, the victim, and made the murderer seem like he was the victim. So how are going to have responsible journalism with people like that reporting the news?
stunhsif
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 8:22 a.m.
Understand writers reasoning but don't agree with it. I think criminals of this magnitude should be shot by a firing squad and it should be televised live throughout the entire country.
WalkingJoe
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 7:51 a.m.
I agree with the previous comments. While we're at let's not mention the victims because it's too painful. And let's just pretend these things don't happen then we won't need the news media at all! Like the president said last night it's says in the bible that there is evil out there. Trying to cover it up or sanitizing it won't stop it.
Waterdipper
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 7:51 a.m.
I understand Mr. Kinsey's suggestion, but of course it would never work (just from a practical consideration, legal implications notwithstanding). However, I can agree with his underlying premise that society often gives celebrity-like attention to perpetrators of high-profile crimes, and we are more likely to remember their names and faces far longer than we remember the victims. Yes, it would be nice if we could somehow take away the bad guys' "15 minutes of fame" (or maybe just limit it to 15 minutes), but in the long run, most criminals do eventually fade into the background in a society that has moved beyond their deed to deal with the next one and the next one and the next one.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 7:49 a.m.
Perhaps the media does glorify lone shooter type killings - they make money on this type of 24/7 gushing. And sadly - other mentally unstable perp's will be attracted to these events. Two girls from Australia recently committed suicide together after flying to Colorado - they were both consumed by Columbine.. But there is another training arena that bends a weak mind... Shooter's somehow are seeking some sort of glory - public or just personal. When the mentally unstable see shooting and killing glorified from Hollywood Movies, TV, and Video games - a great amount of de-sensitation occurs. They then want to be the shooter - movies like the Matrix (which I think is a great flick) truly glorify shooting like no other. Entire TV shows like CSI etc. all revolve around 'bullet travel' or how violent a perp can be be in slow motion. Video games are non-stop 'head shots' played for hours if not days on end. This is a real classroom for mentally unstable mass shooter. It is not like being unstable causes you to violent - they 'learn' violence every day, over and over and over via these outlets. Hollywood/gaming just point them down the road.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 7:09 a.m.
Oh yes another knee jerk reaction calling for behavior modification and infringement of regular law abiding citizens due to th actions of the criminal or the insane. Take this premise to its logical conclusion and what do you get? Far worse than history books with names Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc striped from them...
AlphaAlpha
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:18 a.m.
Do we need the first amendment?