Discussion: Conservatives Co-Opt The 'Don't Name the Shooter' Cause

Let’s take it to its logical conclusion: Don’t report the shootings at all. That’ll show those mass shooters they won’t get what they want!

8 Likes

No doubt the Sheriff will soon say it was all a mirage orchestrated by the White House. There’s no one to be named, not even the victims.

1 Like

The GOP routinely ‘co-opts’ something in the hope we’ll be distracted and momentarily forget it’s really bad at basic governance. As long as TPM prints this crap, it’s succeeding.

Right, so the Sandy Hook “Truther” Sheriff doesn’t want to talk about the self-identified Republican shooter who took guns from his mothers “Obama’s comm’n to take 'ur guns” horde and shot up an concealed carry allowed community college? Color me skeptical that this has anything to do with not wanting to give the shooter any fame versus just not wanting to talk about the shooter, his background and actual ways to prevent this from happening again in the future.

4 Likes

The fact that the shooter referred to himself as “Republican” and “conservative” in his ‘political leanings’ had, of course, nothing to do with Conservative Republicans rushing forward saying, “We should not mention his name. Don’t need to publicize him. Forget he existed. blah…blah…blah…ad nauseum.”
This time the depraved Cons and Baggers of the GOP cult have added that meme to their usual: “We shouldn’t talk about guns. Guns are not the problem…etc.”

4 Likes

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, too… And what struck me immediately is that it distracts from the main issue–gun control.

2 Likes

Let’s give the conservatives credit: they’re willing to do anything they think will minimize gun violence—rap lyrics! video games!—as long as it doesn’t conflict with their other goals, which are minimizing gun control and maximizing gun sales. And I’m sure these passionate supporters of Constitutional rights would cheerfully tear a strip off the First Amendment if they thought it would help prop up the Second. Personally I think a voluntary effort to avoid giving the shooter a kind of twisted celebrity is worth exploring and promoting. But these people are proposing too little, too late, and too for the wrong reasons.

2 Likes

A phony issue all the way. As if a crazed killer cares whether his name will not be used. As if infamy alone is what motivates a crazed killer. No, this is entirely too simplistic.

Bottom line: the public has a right to know.

Well, most of them are dead, so it doesn’t matter if that’s what they wanted or not. Whether they are named or not, the fact remains that they killed a lot of people. That’s what attracts the loonies, not the name of the person who did it.

Or are we to keep all mass murders secret? That would get rid of all the copycats, wouldn’t it?

How stupid are we? This is just another ploy to avoid dealing with the real problem. I don’t know the name of the mother of the shooter in Ore., but I do know that she loved her guns and boasted about having two fuly loaded assault weapons in her home “in case someone drops by.” That’s the problem we need to confront, not what the names are.

People have been trying to do this with Mark David Chapman for decades (there are a couple music forums I’ve been on that don’t allow his name to be used), and it seems like tilting at windmills to me. It’s just another form of acceptance that this is normal.

Yes, it smacks of a cover up. If we permit crucial details to be omitted, then we go down that long slippery slope to total censorship.

This does nothing to avert future gun disasters.

Why not treat every young potential gun buyer like we treat every women who wants a legal abortion?

Mandatory 48 hour waiting period, parental permission, a doctor’s note verifying awareness of gun issues, and a mandatory video watching about the effects of gun violence.

1 Like

And the wingnut gun fetish crowd will get what they want as well. No attention paid to the devastation guns are causing. If we didn’t know these mass killings were happening we wouldn’t be talking about epidemic gun violence. Its a win win for the wingnuts.

1 Like

And who decides when and where such info should be made available? No. Free press is free press.

Freedom of the press, DUH!

It says right there in the article they are talking about naming the persons name once, etc. The whole point is not to glorify these people. In many cases these nuts do want to go out with headlines, or if not suicidal just make the headlines. So keep the msm from constantly showing pics, etc. But if one wants to they can access the information easily. Just not constantly see it on CNN in the docs office, airports, etc.

Free press has limits too. There are also slander laws, laws against publishing certain private info (corporate or personal), national security issues, etc. There is no absolutely free press or speech. They both clearly have limits.

?? Kids are not allowed to buy guns anyway, don’t think parental permission needs to be a requirement. But if your point is much more in depth background checks, waiting periods, etc., I agree 100%. We have computer data bases, let’s start using them. All sales should be monitored. At some point each gun was sold legally. Make the buyer responsible if they buy a gun that they no longer have but did not document the sale for. And if the gun is stolen, report it immediately. Don’t say later when the gun is used to kill, “oh, that gun was stolen from me last year”.

Is it OK to name the gun? Everyone loves the guns.

Yes, I heard the other day some buffoon try to claim a reporter shouldn’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater!!

Not naming the perp, not talking about the tragedy he caused to me is just sweeping it away. I was gonna say “under a rug” but that rug has a lotta shit under it already. I’m no conservative. I think we should get all aspects of the gun discussion out for examination. We know who did this. He’s dead. Why not name him and characterize (not in a good way) him? Even his father wants the gun laws changed.

1 Like