Today has been awesome.

anarchist's picture

I've been testing out my new power amp with the sickest songs playing through the whole house. A great day to end a shitty week.

Also, is anyone else pissed about all this Connecticut stuff? I heard about it from someone at school and thought "oh how terrible; that sounds absolutely aweful". When I saw the news today it got annoying, and after two hours I pretty much wanted to go shoot everyone who mentioned it. Not only is the news incredibly biased, but they're profiting from continuously repeating the events of a tragedy and exploiting the country's ephemeral sadness. It's completely irrational to be more than slightly impacted by the deaths of people you wouldn't have cared about if they were alive. Don't interview the witnesses and, as much as people love hating, don't demonize the shooter. Deaths happen, it's innevitable, and nobody will care about this in a couple years. The only reason why people care now is because it happened in America and it was on the news. If you were actually impacted by the event, I understand that you'd be deeply upset, but if you're like me and didn't know this school even existed before today, please shut the fuck up about it.

And above all, please stop arguing about gun control. People who want to kill others will find guns whether they're legal or illegal. You can't control them.

Contrary to how this seems, I actually care about the new amplifier a lot more than the news, but I needed something to write about, and there isn't much to say about blasting Sentient by Numbernin6 and Torqux & Twist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvSZe10CHSQ) on a 300 watt system.

I feel sorry for everyone who has never been able to do that. I wish I could share my stereo with you.

Comments

radiosilence95's picture

I think what really made

I think what really made this particular shooting more emotionally gripping and more talked-about was the fact that twenty innocent little children were killed...if they had been all adults, there would still be a reaction, sure, but it's little kindergartners, for fuck's sake. I agree that the media just loves this sort of thing and exploits it to no end, but that doesn't mean I can't get a bit upset about what happened. I was pretty upset when I watched the story. That doesn't mean that I feed into the exploitation and hype. It means I'm a human being with empathy.

You said that people who want guns will get them with or without stricter gun laws. By that same flow of logic, why have laws to begin with? If a rapist wants to rape, he'll do it one way or the other, so why make laws against rape? If we maintain that attitude, we might as well just throw all protective laws into the wind.

anarchist's picture

Exactly.

People will enforce the laws they want to enforce. And most people still won't commit crimes because of morality.

But that's a different issue. An action is not the same as a material object. To control guns, we'd need to take the ones in use now. That would take a metric fuckton of cash, if it's even possible. There are tons of gun stores in the U.S.A., and there are tons and tons of guns being used by civilians that we'd never be able to track down.

And just like drugs, trying to control guns will only create smuggling cartels, which will be a much bigger problem than what it's trying to resolve.

Bosemaster42's picture

I agree,

Outlawing guns would create a black market where no regulation exists at all. Criminals and psychologically impaired people would still be able to carry out horrific crimes like this.
When I first heard about this today, in work, I could'nt believe someone would target children this young. Ugh. There's still a lot of questions.
The media hype is typical, but dicussion is necessary here. We can't just accept these types of crimes as a way of life anymore.

jeff's picture

Well...

No one is calling to outlaws all guns. Typically, the idea is to just reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Today's shooter used his mother's guns, which she owned and had legally licensed, so arguments can (and will) be made that such a ban wouldn't have mattered in this case anyway. Not to mention a ban isn't retroactive, so anyone who has such a weapon today can still keep it. But, there's very little argument as to why anyone needs such a gun for personal protection. If it's to form a militia to take over the government, well, that's even sillier in the age of drones and such.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

Bosemaster42's picture

So,

The AR-15 was his mother's gun? I didn't catch that piece of info from the news. I watched the local news last night. I kept hearing bits and pieces of info from co-workers yesterday.
I would suppose he killed his mother because she obviously would've resisted him taking her weapons. The only person likely who knew he was potentially capable of something this vile.
He also had a Glock-9 and a Sig Sauer(Popular hand guns for police).
I can't even imagine the horror of the parents upon hearing this. Newtown,Ct is a very quiet, sleepy kind of New England town. I have a few customer's I deal with down there, it's a fucking travesty for sure.

jeff's picture

Well...

You seem to be confusing what the news is with what you want from the news.

I'll preface this by saying I don't watch breaking news, typically. I only know what I know about today's shooting based on my Facebook wall. I'll probably read one story about it before bed, since now, there will be some consensus and a narrative will have formed. Even on election night, I went to the movies. I'm fine knowing what happened, but when news is occurring, we are often finding out too little information across too great a time, and repeating the bits we do know ad nauseum.

I'm not sure what is biased about the news when it comes to a shooting? Biased in that it demonizes the shooter, and empathizes with the victims? That seems human, and as objective as one might expect. Not sure what other bias would occur.

I imagine your big mistake is watching for two hours, at a time when they were still not sure what was happening. Also, the news divisions of most networks lose money, and when they break into coverage like that, they typically don't run commercials, so they actually lose more money than if they hadn't broken in (unless you mean FOX, CNN, etc., who do news 24/7).

I don't think people are treating this as a personal sadness, but because it is random means it could have happened anywhere. So, you don't have to try too hard to think it this happened there, it could happen where my kids or my relatives go to school, etc. And, it is also natural to empathize with the people directly impacted by this tragedy, who just sent their kids to school, and this happens, and putting yourself in their place. You can get a clear sense of that from Obama's speech:

I'm not certain why the journalists wouldn't interview the witnesses, although I've seen people questioning why they are interviewing the children about it. That is pretty Journalism 101, though. People want to know what happened, and why it happened. Even the reference on the front page I made to Brandon dying recently... today, I received a card from his memorial that his father sent me. And no one knows to this day why he is dead. Now, is he dead? Yes. Will knowing bring him back or prevent other people from dying the same way? No. But there is still some human part of me that wants to know more information, even though I can equally rationalize that such knowledge will only lead to where I am already.

Of course, stories like this highlight the bigger whys: gun control laws, social issues, mental health. Even today, across the globe, a similar event happened in China. So, these can also be important things to question.

Also, these children didn't die, they were murdered. So, death may be inevitable, but that doesn't line up with murdering young children. Mass murder isn't typically considered inevitable.

So, I really don't see how you could watch this for two hours feeling the way you do. Your feelings would merit a 45 second, "Oh, some kids died" and you'd either change the channel or shut off the TV. So, there is some disconnect between your thoughts and actions there.

I dislike breaking news for other reasons, so when I knew it was happening, I just didn't watch.

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

lonewolf678's picture

Well then.

"Also, is anyone else pissed about all this Connecticut stuff? I heard about it from someone at school and thought "oh how terrible; that sounds absolutely aweful". When I saw the news today it got annoying, and after two hours I pretty much wanted to go shoot everyone who mentioned it. Not only is the news incredibly biased, but they're profiting from continuously repeating the events of a tragedy and exploiting the country's ephemeral sadness. It's completely irrational to be more than slightly impacted by the deaths of people you wouldn't have cared about if they were alive. Don't interview the witnesses and, as much as people love hating, don't demonize the shooter. Deaths happen, it's innevitable, and nobody will care about this in a couple years. The only reason why people care now is because it happened in America and it was on the news. If you were actually impacted by the event, I understand that you'd be deeply upset, but if you're like me and didn't know this school even existed before today, please shut the fuck up about it."

How very insensitive, especially what I bolded for emphasis. Innocent children died, anyone person (especially any parent in the world) cares and feels empathy.

There is no nationalistic theme anywhere to be found unless you take into account how the gun debates will divide the country yet again and perhaps more countries. Because we all know there is something very wrong when things like this happen in any country.

anarchist's picture

Really?

Then why do people here only talk about shootings that happen in the U.S.A. or that involve American victims?

Oh, and it isn't insensitive. I don't even have reason to believe that the shooting happened, so why get emotional about it?