Skip to main content

View Diary: We should all be forced to look at (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  let me clarify (39+ / 0-)

    1.  it should be part of the coverage, with appropriate warnings about the graphic nature of the image - hell, we do spoiler alerts on the results of Olympic contests

    2. it should be required for those arguing against the appropriate regulations - if they want to oppose, have them deal with the real results of what these weapons do

    3.  it certainly should be required for our elected representatives.  They should be informed about the real world impact

    4.  it should be available to all adults who want to see in some format

    War is Hell - so said Sherman, who created enough of it in his March to the Sea

    these are weapons of war

    the Hell they create can be seen in the bodies of the children who took up to 11 rounds when 1 is sufficient to kill a full-sized adult

    allowing these weapons in civilian hands is the equivalent of acquiescing in the waging of war with its concomitant human cost in our cities, villages, and countryside

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:14:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Required by what or whom? (7+ / 0-)
      2. it should be required for those arguing against the appropriate regulations - if they want to oppose, have them deal with the real results of what these weapons do
      Who would impose this requirement, and how would that requirement be enforced? Would you impose this requirement on anyone who opposes any gun control measure, or just those who oppose the gun control measures you favor?

      Further, this line of reasoning still runs into the problem I identify below; if you're going to argue that those who oppose gun safety regulations should be "required" to view pictures of the carnage caused by guns, then what answer do you have for the abortion-criminalizer who thinks that those who favor reproductive rights should be "required" to view gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses?

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:24:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who would impose the requirement? (6+ / 0-)

        Anyone selling guns.

        You want to buy a gun? You need to look at the pictures of what it can do to a flesh and blood person.
         

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:17:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And how is that any different... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian, mmacdDE

          ...from laws requiring a woman to view an ultrasound or a "here's why abortion is bad" fearmongering speech from a doctor before exercising her right to an abortion?

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:28:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  only the same if you give personhood to fetus (8+ / 0-)

            an abortion is something a woman does to herself

            what a gun does is to someone else

            "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

            by teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:35:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And those who want to criminalize abortion... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JohnnySacks, dov12348

              ...do think that fetuses are full-fledged human beings.

              Thus, they believe that a woman seeking an abortion should be forced to confront what they characterize as the consequences of her actions.

              What makes the idea that people trying to buy guns should be forced to look at pictures of dead children any different from that?

              In fact, I'd suggest that the case for forcing prospective gun owners to look at pictures of dead children is somewhat worse—since the death of the fetus is a result of every successful abortion, whereas dead children result from an extremely small percentage of gun purchases.

              For the record, I'm pro-choice and oppose state restrictions like forcing women to undergo ultrasounds or speeches. I also oppose the idea of forcing all prospective gun owners to look at pictures of dead children. I'm not seeing where an argument for the latter doesn't open up an argument for the former as well.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:04:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  still differences that you ignore (4+ / 0-)

                pictures of aborted fetuses already readily available for anyone who wants to see them

                to date, there is no jurisdiction in the United States where the fetus is a person - even MS voted down a personhood amendment

                as of right now a woman in the 1st trimester has an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy

                even Scalia in his opinion in Heller acknowledged the government has the right to regulate gun ownership

                so the situations are not currently parallel

                and since neither of us is going to convince the other this will be my last response to you on this thread, not because of irritation - you offer cogent arguments for your position.  I simply have a limited amount of time for writing and for being online right now.  I appreciate your tone even though we strongly disagree.

                "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

                by teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:11:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Who said it had to be different? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NancyWH

            At any rate, teacherken explains to you why it's different.

            What was your point, again?

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:42:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point is... (0+ / 0-)

              ...that if you're arguing that every decision a person makes should be accompanied by their being forced to view the most gruesome and horrific possible consequence of that decision, then that logic must hold for women exercising their right to an abortion as well as for people exercising their right to purchase a gun.

              What those arguing for forcing gun-buyers to view pictures haven't done thus far is show how the two situations aren't analogous without referencing your own opinions on the two issues—in other words, the argument hasn't really gone beyond "forcing gun owners to see pictures is right but forcing women seeking abortions to see pictures is wrong, because I oppose gun ownership and support abortion rights."

              I'm not seeing how consistency doesn't require that if you're arguing that prospective gun owners be forced to view gruesome pictures of dead children, you don't have an argument against the idea of women seeking abortions being forced to view gruesome abortion pictures or ultrasounds, or to hear a "you're killing your baby" speech from the doctor.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:11:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am pretty sure (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                1BQ

                it was deemed constitutional for said abortion clinics to shove said ugly photos in my face if I happen to walk by as long as they don't block the sidewalk (and stay a certain distance away from the entrance of a clinic).

                 I, personally, don't like either of these things--but it appears one of them is ok with the law.

                Why not the other?

                I keep waiting for you to answer that, but you just seem to be making argument just for the sake of doing so.

                It is time to #Occupy Media.

                by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:45:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not saying it should be illegal. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zett
                  I am pretty sure it was deemed constitutional for said abortion clinics to shove said ugly photos in my face if I happen to walk by as long as they don't block the sidewalk (and stay a certain distance away from the entrance of a clinic).
                  First, I think you mean "abortion opponents," not "abortion clinics."

                  Second, you're right that it is constitutional for them to do that. It's disgusting, but it's constitutional, so long as they're not violating your rights, physically harming you, or blocking access to an abortion clinic.

                  I, personally, don't like either of these things--but it appears one of them is ok with the law.

                  Why not the other?

                  I'm not arguing that it should be illegal to show people gruesome pictures of dead children. As long as the child's parents approve of the release of their child's picture, I think it should be perfectly legal to display it under most conditions. (I think we should treat such pictures like other material intended for mature audiences, restricting their display in places where children could conceivably see them without their parents having approved of it first.)

                  However, you took it a step further and argued that it should not only be legal to display such pictures, but that those who want to exercise their legal right to buy a firearm should be forced to look at those pictures.

                  And aside from your agreeing with gun safety regulations and disagreeing with the criminalization of abortion, I'm not seeing how you can say that gun-buyers should be forced to view pictures of dead children while not also defusing any argument you have against right-wingers' desire to force women seeking abortions to view gruesome pictures or ultrasounds.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:06:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  ken - it can't be "required" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:51:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, but the key word is "adults" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett

      It is hard to shield images in the mass media from children, who would be traumatized by them.  Not sure how to square the circle.

    •  I have a different solution. "Coverage" of these (9+ / 0-)

      events should include the words "MURDER" and "CRIMINAL" in EVERY reference to the shooter(s) -- NO EXCEPTIONS.

      NO more glamor. NONE. ZE-RO.

      Stop turning these crimes into sensations.

      Stop inciting copycats to try to top the last big mass murder.

      Stop giving the entire nation's entire emotional and intellectual effort to some twisted celebration of these cowards' mayhem.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:43:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And they should be labeled "cowardly" (10+ / 0-)

        acts.   Because that's what they are.

        Those who are too cowardly to face up to a lifetime of work to make the world better.  Perhaps they cannot envision walking along picking up trash to make the world better, because they aren't brave enough to face the disdain for that "lowly" deed.  So they purchase "power" and would rather kill others.  Better to die quickly with "power" than to have the guts to spend a lifetime humbly working to make things better.  

        I've always felt that if murderers were labeled as cowards, it would make a difference in how many people died each year.

        "Because inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened." -Terry Pratchett

        by revsue on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:02:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The problem with showing it (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      revsue, SadieSue, Neuroptimalian, VClib, zett

      is too many young kids unable to process it and deal with it would end up seeing it by accident, even with warnings and time to turn away. How many traumatized children afraid to go to school would we have as a result, especially in elementary grades? Yes, responsible parents could possibly prevent it, but what if the kid were watching the news in their room? What if the parent missed the warning because they're trying to cook dinner while listening to the news? And if we did this for all gun violence wouldn't it have a desensitizing effect like they are already complaining video games and movies are having?

      "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

      by FloridaSNMOM on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:47:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not if it was limited (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fumie, SilentBrook, NancyWH

        to those who want to purchase firearms.

        That is, the "forcing to look at" part. Otherwise, it's not enforceable. If you want to purchase a gun, legally--then as part of a required gun safety course, you should absolutely be required--forced, even--to see such pictures.

        If media wants to print or broadcast such things, then the usual warnings should suffice. If children see it by accident and are upset by it, that sucks, but what do you do when they see other things they shouldn't? You deal with it and then you move on.

        Our society is at stake here.
         

        It is time to #Occupy Media.

        by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:22:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  part of the licensing process... (4+ / 0-)

          that includes minimum @ hours of gun training, background check, demonstration of insurance and locked cabinet, legal purchase receipt, and whatever else is needed to demonstrate responsibility.

          "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

          by fhcec on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:33:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NancyWH

            The drivers-ed analogy--having to see what car accidents can do to the human body--is a really good one. You want that license, you get to know the good and the bad.

            Why in the hell do people want to argue against this? It's common sense.

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:45:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Driving isn't a constitutionally-protected right. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              Every American doesn't have the right to a driver's license.

              With reasonable restrictions from the state, every American does have the Constitutionally-protected right to own a firearm.

              Every American also has the Constitutionally-protected right to an abortion.

              What argument can you make for forcing those seeking to exercise their right to own a firearm to "get to know the good and the bad" by showing them gruesome pictures, that can't also be made for forcing those seeking to exercise their right to an abortion to "get to know the good and the bad" by showing them gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses?

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:16:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh, (0+ / 0-)

                for fuck's sake. When will you just post without arguing, period?
                 

                It is time to #Occupy Media.

                by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:47:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  ummm... when we stop disagreeing? (0+ / 0-)

                  Or do you think that now that you have expressed your opinion, I am somehow obligated to acquiesce to it rather than continuing to make my case?

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:14:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I CAN have a gun (6+ / 0-)

                I'm not REQUIRED to have a gun.

                If I decide I want one, I should at the least be totally cognizant of the power of the weapon and what it can do.

                Nobody MAKES me buy a gun. Just like nobody MAKES me drive a car.

                •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)


                   

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

                  by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:57:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's a bit of a non-sequitur. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy

                  I'm not required to exercise my religion, speak out on political issues, or assemble with like-minded people—but that doesn't change the fact that those are Constitutionally-protected rights.

                  That nobody is required to own a gun or get an abortion, but that people can choose to do those things if they want to, also does not change the fact that those are Constitutionally-protected rights.

                  Driving is not considered a Constitutionally-protected right, and thus the state can require that drivers be licensed and set up processes for requiring drivers' education first.

                  The state cannot require that those who wish to join a church be licensed and undergo a religious-education process prior to being allowed to join a church, because the free exercise of religion is a right.

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:12:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And if your religion mandates (6+ / 0-)

                    You sacrifice children, or smoke weed, think you'll be allowed to exercise your right?

                    I think not.

                    You can't slander people, or start a riot, either. So much for free speech. And just try having a parade or a protest without a permit. So much for the right to peaceably assemble.

                    No right is absolute. Not speech, not religion, and certainly not the right to own weapons.

                    •  Of course gun ownership isn't an absolute right... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...and you'll note that I don't argue anywhere that it is an absolute right.

                      What I do argue is that gun ownership is a Constitutionally-protected right, on the same level as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. As with speech and religion, the right to gun ownership is protected by the Constitution regardless of whether or not one decides to exercise that right.

                      A driver's license isn't understood to be a Constitutionally-protected right. Thus, there's a much higher legal bar to clear to implement new regulations on speech, religion, and gun ownership than there is for regulating automobile operation.

                      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                      by JamesGG on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 07:22:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have a problem with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie

            it being part of the licensing process, I must have misunderstood, I thought we were talking about showing it on TV. THAT I have a problem with, there are a lot of people out there with triggers, add in small kids, and you could be causing more harm than doing good.

            "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

            by FloridaSNMOM on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 01:56:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, you didn't misunderstand (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FloridaSNMOM

              I think I got kind of caught up in the moment of "should it be on tv or in print media" and was compelled to suggest it be done during licensing instead :)

              It is time to #Occupy Media.

              by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:00:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you for the clarification (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie, VClib

                Then I stand by my statements. Required for licensing, yes. Put on TV where people who are not able to handle it could be confronted with it: no.

                "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

                by FloridaSNMOM on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:21:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I like the idea of it (0+ / 0-)

                  being on the telly--because really, it should be seen. But it's unworkable as a concept of deterrence because you can't force someone to watch it there.  It's pointless to do that at all if it's not required viewing.
                   

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

                  by lunachickie on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:28:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  for some people it is the only means to access (0+ / 0-)

                  and for point of comparison there were people who objected to pictures of the violence unleashed against civil rights protestors in he 50s and 60s on the grounds that it upset them

                  again, TV often gives a warning when about to show something graphic.  I believe that would be appropriate and sufficient in this case.

                  "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

                  by teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:13:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  FloridaSNMOM - very good point that I had (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FloridaSNMOM

        not thought of. Thanks.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 02:41:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  sounds right - (0+ / 0-)

      after all they're trying to force women to view transvaginal ultrasounds - whether or not they want to - if they're contemplating abortion.  Why not require those die hard assault weapon advocates to view what an assault weapon can do and does do when it is so freely available?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site