Quote (thesnipa @ May 18 2018 11:36am)
of course it has to do with the first amendment. in terms of prevention. if the govt wanted to try and stem the flow, by prohibiting media outlets from reporting the name/picture of the shooter, they could. and in all likelihood, especially in the short run, it would cut down the exposure. many people still get their news from traditional outlets. the approach would just be terribly antiquated, because of the internet. 30 years ago it would have worked like a fucking charm, when 99% of people got their news from a paper, radio, or news station. now with the rise in exposure to international press (whom the govt cant stop) and independent news (whom the govt cant control with the FCC) it wouldnt work.
this may seem self evident, and it is, but apply the same logic of the govt fruitlessly trying to plug all the holes in a pasta strainer with only 10 fingers to the number of illegal guns readily available for purchase. point of legal purchase changes are a grand idea, i sell guns and im still all for it. i just dont expect the number of dead kids to be effected. i actually see a lot of arguments for it going up overall. arent we all for keeping kids alive? or is this just about lobbing insults at the NRA? hard to tell these days my friend.
But you're making it about the 1st Amendment when nobody, aside from yourself, is.