Of the succession of school shootings that have occurred recently, the Amish school shooting where five young girls died was surely one of the most tragic.
For Loren Coleman, author of The Copycat Effect, the Amish shooting was one of a pattern of school shootings where the murderers had been influenced by the media coverage of past shootings. He argues that the media should be more responsible in the way they report these events. For instance, he thinks they should provide contact numbers for helplines alongside news reports, and that the media shouldn't sensationalise the events.
On his website he predicted that the 11th of October was a dangerous "hot window" for more school shootings. He was scarily close- on the 9th a thirteen year old boy would probably have killed classmates if his gun hadn't jammed.
What can be done? The media following Coleman's recommendations for covering these events could help, as could greater gun control.
Greater gun control is hard to achieve in America, however, as their constitution states that individuals have the right to bear arms.
Also, many conservatives such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck defend this right strongly, arguing that perhaps it would have been useful if the Amish schoolteachers had been able to defend themselves with guns(!):
If you don't have time to watch it, this clip shows Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View debating the issue- Rosie argues for more gun control; Elisabeth argues against it on the grounds that many people use guns to defend themselves.
Personally, I'm glad I live in a country that has comparatively strict gun controls in place. I think one of the best things John Howard has done while in power has been taking a strong stance on gun control following the Port Arthur Massacre, passing legislation that "included mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, and a near-complete ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and all pump-action shotguns."
I think this had made Australia a safer place.
On the other side, however, gun control alone that will not stop people harming others. Even the Amish culture has its problems. David E. Yoder's comprehensive Amish Abuse website outlines many cases of Amish physical and sexual abuse within the culture. An ex-Amish himself, David outlines the difficulties and frustrations he has with both the Amish and the 'English' as he tries to get justice for a family of children abused by their parents.
I wish that we could eradicate all the bad from the world. That may be an impossible task, but stricter gun control and a more responsible media would be a start.
Update:
I just received an email from Loren Coleman(!), male author of The Copycat Effect.
He notes that: "It is intriguing you should mention the Port Arthur Massacre. The Port Arthur mass shooting was a copycat of the Dunblane, Scotland school shooting."
He wrote a blog about this, "Knockin' On Heaven's Door", which can be found here.
25 comments:
I too am glad I live in Canada, where we are very strict on gun control. That's not to say we don't have such incidents...look at the shootings in Montreal for example, last month.
BUT, as a culture, we do not believe in any right to bear arms, and because of this, gun-related incidents are few and far between.
As for the media...I went to Journalism school where we had to dissect the media's coverage of the Columbine shootings (as well as case studies of a whole range of different media incidents). It was a tough call and a very thin line to walk. When it comes to the media, there never seems to be a black and white, but only grey matter.
I would be permanently scared if I lived in America. It sounds funny, but I now live in one of the safest places in the world, Qatar. Which is in the heard of the Middle East. People don't shoot each other here. There is so little crime - newspapers are so boring! And of course guns are prohibited. No such thing as a civilian owning a gun. Thanks goodness.
Wanderlusting- I agree with you that there's no black and white with the media.
The public has a right to know about these events, yet there's also a good argument for limiting coverage if it spawns copycats.
Australia isn't perfect either- my biggest beef is with the way asylum seekers are treated- but I am thankful that strict gun controls are in place.
Cat- I think every society has its good parts and its bad parts.
It's fascinating to get a Middle Eastern persepctive on it.
I would imagine that the strictness of the Islamic culture would have its drawbacks, particularly for women, yet in other ways this strictness could be a good thing, in not allowing civillians to have guns, for instance.
The media certainly does have a role to play in this, and sensationalising the issue is definitely a bad thing, but the problem is the way information becomes viral and meaningful beyond its immediate context. Im thinking about this as im writing, and finding it very hard to explain what i want to say... I wonder whether journalists are asked to consider people's myth-making tendencies (as De Bono described them), and the viral potential of information...? Argh, too theoretical. I give up!
I watched that YouTube segment hoping that a fight would break out between Rosie and Elizabeth, but no such luck. As for Elizabeth's argument tho, seems to me that even when using guns defensively the possibility that someone will die in an encounter where guns are present is much higher than when a gun isnt present. I guess its ok if a 'bad person' dies. And here in Australia, we seem to be able to defend ourselves without a gun in our hand - there is no overwhelming call for greater gun liberties from victims of crime.
In Canada, I think we suffer from our proximity to the US. The big cities near the border have appaling rates of gun violence...
“I’m not yelling!” There’s an obsession in politics today, particularly in the U.S., where ideological groups, predominantly the Right, demand “balance” … balance being the antithesis of justice. If people give in to the notion of a “middle ground” just for the sake of appeasing both sides, Conservatives will simply pose a more extreme demand and shift this “middle ground” further to the Right.
I would also argue that it is better to inform people of the real nature of our society, than to suppress elements of it in the hope problems will go away. Problems only go away if they are solved, and the first thing you need to solve a problem is knowledge of its existence. On his website, Loren Coleman, author of such penetrating scientific tracts as Bigfoot! The true story of apes in America, (2003), makes what I think is a rather ghoulish prediction of another shooting (which, in America, is like predicting the sun rising tomorrow); after viewing his site, I tend to think his belief that “the media” has some power over people has more to do with an interest in “the media” as a celebrity vehicle. I was also rather disgusted that Goethe’s “The Sorrows of Young Werther” was dragged into it, as any student of literature knows that the stories of mass suicides after its publication were poppycock.
The truth of the matter is that we take what we want from the media. And what it doesn’t give us we get from elsewhere.
As for gun control, I should add that the typical English police constable does not carry a gun (and according to surveys does not wish to).
Oh yes, and apologies for the long comment.
we really are in the lucky country. Not to say i don't clutch my bag tighter when walking down a few street but thats the way it is in most cities anyway.
"From My Cold Dead Hands"
It's amazing how virulently these silly Americans will fight for their right to keep weapons. There's truth in the statement that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' but there has to be a time when Americans look at the figures and recognise the irony of owning guns as a means of defence for what it is.
And Susanne, I absolutely agree with you on the point about Howard's stance on guns. If there's only one thing that Howard is 100% right about, it's that following the US down the path of laissez faire gun ownership is a bad move.
Great post, by the way.
Jacob.
PS. Any blog that discusses leggings in one post and then US politics in the next is a fabulous blog indeed.
tagged
J-ster- It's hard to know what to do about people's myth-making tendencies. Think about Ned Kelly. He did kill people, yet in Australia the mythology surrounding him is that of a Robin Hood folk hero and a national legend.
I can definitely see how adolescent teenagers could idolise say, the Columbine murderers, if they too are feeling disenfranchised and like they don't fit in. So there's a case for putting out as little details about the killers as possible.
On the other side of that though, I don't think that news should be censored. I'm not sure what the answer is.
As for Hasselbeck, I find her argument quite misguided, because so many innocent people die accidentally in America from guns- a kid finds one in his parent's room and shoots himself, etc. I don't think that 'self-defence' is a good enough reason to have guns.
I think I would feel less safe is there was a loaded gun lying around my house, not safer.
Cibby- There's a big Canada vs. America thing in Bowling for Columbine isn't there in terms of gun culture? You guys come off looking pretty good compared to the yanks.
SNF- Hehe, I think the people on Gawker described her as a Chihauaha. Pretty apt description. I couldn't believe she claimed to be arguing for a 'middle ground'.
For Hasselbeck, her 'middle ground' would be a place where everyone, including Amish schoolteachers, toted guns around. That's not a middle ground.
Good point about informing society. Oh, Loren's a guy? I'll change that. :)
Your comment was great, not too long at all.
The truth of the matter is that we take what we want from the media. And what it doesn’t give us we get from elsewhere.
I agree. I suppose the most important thing for us as media consumers is to be aware of how these issues are portrayed by the media, and to be somewhat cynical about their claims. Reading a variety of news sources is important too. (Well, until the new media laws come in anyway, and everything is run by Rupert Murdoch).
Natalie- I do feel quite safe in Melbourne, even at night. I'm grateful for that.
Jacob- Thankyou kindly. It'd be nice if this blog had some kind of definite focus- if it was a 'style' blog, or a 'relationships' blog, but it's really just what I'm interested in that particular day.
Also, while I didn't put this in the actual post, I'm hardly a fan of little Johnny- quite the opposite actually- but I'll give credit where credit is due.
3annoda- I'll check your blog now.
Thank God for our gun laws.
I would be constantly in fear if i lived in America and knew that my neighbours were probably 'packing heat'.
You wouldn't want to get in too many neighbourhood disputes.
Hrmmm... I'm going to have to stir the pot a bit!
Did you know that Switzerland has the second highest gun ownership rate in the world (2nd to the US of course), and they still have a remarkably low murder rate.
So, I guess you have to ask yourself, is it the gun, or just the fuck-knuckle with the finger on the trigger?
That said, I'm still yet to convinced that John Howard has done anything good for this country.
I have spent the past thirty minutes sifting through your blog, and I adore it! :)
Steph- Me too.
Kat- Wow, that's really interesting, I had no idea. I suppose that holds up the 'gun's don't kill people, people kill people' argument, and as the article says, "Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society."
I wonder why it is so different in the two countries?
Beth- Wow, thanks! You're too kind. :)
Ah, so the evidence seems to suggest that guns don't kill people, Americans kill people. (Tongue firmly in cheek. I have many American friends who live outside America who would agree with me tho.) But yeah, i feel safer when there arent guns or knives around. I would have a good chance of defending myself without those two present.
"The truth of the matter is that we take what we want from the media. And what it doesn’t give us we get from elsewhere." I totally agree. The problem is the extent to which journalists take what they want (or are allowed to report) from the stories they cover.
J-ster- I suppose America and Switzerland are quite different countries.
It's easy to blame America for things isn't it?
Which doesn't mean we necessarily should, it's just quite easy too.
I think journalists have a really important role as they interpret the events for us. It's incredibly important that they do their job ethically.
*to
My gentleman friend told me that the laws in America that decree you can shoot people who break into your house are officially known as the "Make My Day" laws, which just about says everything I think.
When I was in Japan I spent a lot of time around the American military. I remember distinctly meeting one young buck who vehemently and almost hysterically defended to me his right to bear arms. I believe his exact phrasing was:
"I don't care, if you break into my house I will take my gun and I will shoot you once in the fucking head and once in the fucking heart!"
I think the problem is that a lot of Americans are trigger happy and madly attached to the idea of property, ownership and the abhorrence of the violation of these things.
Audrey- Wow, I just googled 'Make My Day laws' 'cause I wasn't sure whether or not to believe you.
Apparently it's cut the number of burglaries in Oklahoma in half.
But surely at a hell of a cost.
I don't think that someone deserves to die for stealing someone's car or television or whatever.
I think you have to look at the underlying reasons why these people are resorting to burglaries anyway- unemployment, poverty, drugs- and try and fix that, not try and solve everything with firearms.
I normally read all the comments before I post, but I'm tired! So apologies if I havn't taken someones point of view into account. Personally, I am GLAD I live in a country where guns are illegal (but for special liscences) and I also think Fireworks should be controlled-in that only liscensed public displays should have any access to them. I have always hated guns, and the American idea that people should have the right to firearms, well, you make the weapon easy to access, yeh, you do need equal power to defend yourself. SO MAKE GUNS HARDER TO GET FOR EVERYONE! Of course there are still psychos, they can have knives/guns/acid/whatever, the fact is that some people are out there to harm, but if everyone has a gun in their pocket, then 'accidents' and trigger happy shootings are more likely to happen. And the press, it doesn't make people harm or kill, even if it may influence the WAY it's done, those people are killing because there is something wrong in THEM, the media cannot make a killer out of a normal human being.
I'll go back and read the rest of the comments now I got that off my chest! ;)
I passed Dunblane on a trip to Scotland this year. It is something that I will always think of when I think of shootings/Dumblane etc, there is a floral tribute to those that died placed in my hometown. It was tragic, and here where firearms are better controlled it was a huge shock, but there were signs that even though he was a liscenced gun-owner he wasn't stable. I believe the laws on who can carry guns/explosives (yes I'm back to fireworks too) should be stricter even here in the UK where they are already stricter than America. And as I said in the post before, if someone has it in them to kill, they will kill, whatever the method they 'copy' they will still have been killers, no matter what had gone before them.
Jade- I agree with you. Like you say, there will always be psychos in the world, and they don't need guns to kill people. But the argument that 'we need to defend ourselves' just doesn't stand up against how many 'accidents' occur because people have guns in their homes.
It's a bit much giving John Howard credit for making Australia safe from guns when he and the Australian government was behind the massacre in Port Arthur in the first place. The massacre was a government conspiracy and
Martin Bryant was framed.
I've written an e-book on the framing of
Martin Bryant, What's Going On?: A Critical Analysis of the Port Arthur Massacre. I've posted a pdf version to the following location on the Web. You should be able to download it from there. Please let me know if you have any trouble.
http://www.badongo.com/file/3651332
The following link should also work:
http://www.archive.org/download
/WhatsGoingOnACriticalAnalysisOfThe
PortArthurMassacre/pam.pdf
Please bear in mind that the book is incomplete, for reasons too complicated to expain here,
If you can't download the e-book, a large proportion of the information was made available in my three-part article on the massacre published by Nexus Magazine last year. It can be read online at this location:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/MartinBryant1.html
Carl Wernerhoff.
Post a Comment