questionsdo you think they should stop making shooters and…


Normally I wouldn't ask something like this, but this is something I've been thinking about quite a bit..

I feel like the media attention these shooters gets helps motivate them.. I'm definitely not saying it's the sole motivation, but I think we would be better off if we didn't acknowledge the shooter themselves. With that said though, I've asked the same questions as everyone else: "Who was the guy? Why did he do it?"
But personally I would be willing to be kept in the dark if it meant decreasing the chances a minuscule amount.

I'm just curious how everybody else feels about it?

And I'm not trying to offend anybody - I know these things can be sensitive.. so if I did, I apologize. Not my intent.


My answer is to ask you this:

Do you remember the name of any of the "shooters" in any tragedy in the last 10 years?
Who were the Columbine shooters? The DC sniper? The Virginia Tech shooter?

I don't. I don't think these people are made famous for any more than a few weeks. I do believe that everyone who saw this story break wants to know why. Why did someone do this? So, the news stations try to answer that question for us. Because people need to try to understand violence, so that they get past it. So they can live their life without being afraid of their neighbor.


@thumperchick: Nice reply, but always keep in mind "fifteen minutes of fame".


@thumperchick: While I don't remember their names, perhaps not allowing their "15 minutes of fame" might help.


I don't see how the "15 minutes of fame" can be avoided (people are going to want to know at least some of the details, if not the shooter's name).

Also, I seriously doubt that we will discover later that this guy did this for fame, 15 minutes of it or not. He clearly had some extremely serious emotional issues and I believe we will learn more about this in the coming days. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will ever be a satisfying explanation of why he did this.


I know I'm late answering this, but I'll offer up my $.02 any ways. I for one don't think that the shooters are doing this to make history, I think they are doing it generally to hurt one person in particular (beyond themselves). Most of the time these shooters kill themselves in the end, so the notoriety is not worth much to them after they're dead.

So, while making them "famous" does us no good, I don't think we are usefully served by not knowing their names at all.

And in continuation along a similar line to one offered earlier, can you think of a famous shooter other than John Wilkes Boothe or Lee Harvey Oswald? Hence if the more recent shooters really did try for notoriety, they more or less failed.


@thumperchick: I don't need to know their names to know of them.

If they are only famous for 1 week, that's quite enough to become infamous. In LA after multiple fatalities and mid air crashes, the news stopped putting high speed chases on the "breaking news". What happened? High speed chases dropped significantly after


@lparsons42: Famous shooters? Two nights ago I was actually talking to my teenaged daughters about John Hinckley Jr. and Mark David Chapman.


So there have been (I think) 3 shootings since the initial shooting at Clackamas mall.. it COULD be a coincidence (Christmas time and all) but at a glance it appears they were motivated by the other recently 'famous' shootings by the way they're all so close together.


Sure-but only if every mention of their name's followed by what the conservative Australian leader of 1996 did after their Sandy Hook which was to ban nut job weaponry. They have not had a massacre since.:

No such luck here.... in America, leadership's promised during campaigns but never acted upon once elected.