The Pennsylvania Shootings. - Writers Forum

shadowseer · 10-11-2006, 04:55 PM

I turned on the local news every now and then (for a reason unbeknownst to me) When I do, all I hear about are three things. Violence, sports, and the weather. But mostly violence.

I heard about a boy who borrowed his neighbor's lawn mower so he could make the lawn look nice for him mom on Mother's Day. His neighbor killed him with a shoutgun to the back.

Every time I turn it on, I hear about shootings, rapings, killings, fires, car accidents, hit and runs, arsons, and everything in the violent schmorgeshborg.
So here's my question.
9 Amish girls were shot in Pennsylvania. A tragedy. Senseless killing.
But why should we be any more enraged about this then one boy getting shot in the back? Were those nine lives more valuable than his one?

Oh, well, I guess a bunch of people get shot everyday, but it's spread out, so it's not so bad. No one that I know about. So why worry? But a LOT of killing, by one person, in one area!? TO ARMS CITIZENS!!! TO ARMS!!!.

The shootings in Pennsylvania were awful, of course. And I feel awful for those girl's families. So nobody DARE tell me that I like violence or that I don't care about those families. If you do...I swear I will retort with an anger that would instill fear in Satan himself.

-Shadowseer

10-11-2006, 05:01 PM

every killing is a tragedy regardless.

obviously this one made headlines because they were Amish.

Ilan Bouchard · 10-11-2006, 05:04 PM

I look at these things mathematically. If one life is worth less than two lives, then yes, nine lives lost is worse than one life lost. If one life is worth as much as two lives, then x = 2x, and thus x = ∞x, and thus that one child's life was just as bad as any genocide in history.

Anyway, I don't understand what you're asking. Are you why this was reported more than lawnmower-man? It's because everyone has a school nearby, and thus could relate to this situation, but not everyone has a crazy neighbor.

Foxee · 10-11-2006, 05:31 PM

shadowseer, I don't turn the tv news on much either for a lot of the same reasons you stated.

All in all, I think your question has more to do with how the news is manufactured than whether one life (or death) is more important than another. There is a book by Frank Peretti called "Prophet" that, whether you agree with the gist of the story or not, is researched really well when it comes to showing how the evening news is chosen.

Sensationalism is paramount, especially when it comes to a visual medium. Viewers don't just want to know what happened, they want to see for themselves. The families of the Amish victims had media reporters just walking into their homes and taking pictures without permission. Life Flight had difficulty landing because of the news helicopters in the way.

Everyone's after the great scoop with the prizewinning visuals and a heartwrenching story. This one is so laden with mental imagery that you didn't need to see a photo for it to be sensational anyway.

There is always the possibility that the lawnmower boy's story wasn't told because permission was withheld by family members, too. That probably wouldn't block the whole story from being written and presented but permission would probably be needed to air the visuals...causing the story to get bumped by a raging fire or a dramatic car crash.

It ain't fair, I know. And for what it's worth, the Amish families would much rather have had someone ELSE on tv, you know?

Crash_Tomas · 10-11-2006, 08:33 PM

Hmm...I think everyne will feel bad that people die. Especially Amish. They don't do anything to hurt anybody. They keep to themselves, but some people are just insane, so they decide to kill the nice people.

I don't really get the Amish culture, but I respect it. I like technology as good as everybody else. It makes life easy, but sometimes you need to do things the hard way.

It's just the way it is.

Hound · 10-11-2006, 10:32 PM

Wow... all these threads are related!

This sooo ties into the humanity as a failed experiment thread.

Humans suck, which is why we kill other innocent humans for no reason.

What we need to do is get rid of courts and all that hogwash when it comes to murders and just shoot the guy in the head as soon as the cops get their. Now, some discression should be made as to the fact that you are shooting the right person, but often times it is clear, and if not... kill enough people and they will stop anyway.

Then all you need to worry about is the truly crazy people, and then just hope they kill themselves instead of others.

~Dave

Ilan Bouchard · 10-11-2006, 10:40 PM

I was going to respond to the above but I don't believe it's actually serious... and if it is no argument can be made that will have any effect.

Hound · 10-11-2006, 10:45 PM

It held a nugget or two of meaning... I just stretched it as far as I could. =)

For example, we need to use capitol punishment A LOT more, and actually USE it when we say we will. This is, of course, opposed to saying they are on death row, which in actuality means they are in prison for like 25 years before finally killed.

I also liked the electric chair better than what people are using these days. Texas needs to pave the way in getting that bad boy used by all the states. That things sends a message... not like a machine that shoves a liquid or two into you.

Where is the example in THAT?

~Dave

Ilan Bouchard · 10-11-2006, 10:50 PM

Most criminals are not deterred from committing a felony by the fear of the death penalty. Most times people who resort to that are on the brink of death or have nothing to live for.

Hound · 10-11-2006, 11:00 PM

I meantioned that there would be some loons in one of my previous posts I believe.

Whether it helps or not, I will still champion the cause. It is called the death penalty for a reason. Or at least SHOULD be called it for a reason; the reason being that the people DIE, when convicted and not when they are the verge of old freakin' age.

It does deter people, moreso than what we have working, or rather not working, now. Certainly there would still be murders, plenty of them actually.

But anything that helps should be welcomed.

There is no way to stop everyone... until we get the gene tests on babies working well enough that we can tell which ones will be loons and such. But then we get the problem of what to do with those icky babies...

I dunno...we can't win.

Mass suicide is the only answer.

~Dave

amgitti9 · 10-11-2006, 11:24 PM

This is a perfect example of why I no longer watch the news.
Personally, I think that the death penelty is to easy for the person being penalized. They don't have to spend thier who life in jail meditating upon what they did wrong, althougth it does take quite some time before they are actually given the death penelty. But if there was a death penelty, I think that they should just drop them off on the polar icecaps and let the polar bears take care of them. That way, two birds are killed with one stone. We knock out the bad guys and we help the enviroment!

Ilan Bouchard · 10-11-2006, 11:42 PM

The death penalty does not reduce crime rates. However, it does provide revenge to the families that were hurt by the criminal, and there are plenty of people that feel that alone is good enough of a reason.

If anyone killed a member of my own family and were sentenced to life without parole for it, I would feel 'justice' had been served. (At least, I do in a clear state of mind; if I were mourning my emotions would affect my judgement.) My point being that the death penalty is useless in terms of practicality, but does serve the redeeming value of letting anyone affected by the felony vent their rage on a person until he dies. The whole idea of torturing the criminal before killing him falls under the same reason.

There is also the economic benefit of no longer having to feed and house a criminal, so I suppose that's something.

Soccah · 10-12-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilan Bouchard

There is also the economic benefit of no longer having to feed and house a criminal, so I suppose that's something.

The upkeep costs more for a person on death row than for a "regular" inmate sentenced to life.

bob rulz · 10-12-2006, 03:13 AM

Someone I knew once had this idea where we should just round up all of the gangs in the country, drop them in the middle of the desert, and make them all have a huge shootout. And if they come too close to our cities, just shoot them.

I thought it was a quite brilliant idea. We should just try that some day.

Hound · 10-12-2006, 10:26 AM

Well not just if they come too close, but once one of the gangs win... shoot them too.

I used to think stoning people who were guilty of murder was a good idea... I still think it would be good actually...

And whereas, yes, it costs a lot to kill someone nowadays on deathrow, if we just shoot them in the head the day after they are found guilty, I don't see how THAT can cost more. And that is how it should be done.

~Dave