Shooting in CO--and even here we allow that to distract us

[pinboy3niner]

I'm as guilty as anyone, but at some point you just have to ask, ?

[KurtNYC]

1. Distract us from what?

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I've been afraid to write it

And until we get solid answers on who this guy is, what his motive was . . . I'm not falling for any of the knee-jerk news reports we are getting today.

Just like I'm not falling for Mrs. Romney's assery running its course. She's an ass - and I want those god damned tax returns.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Not distraction

It's a real-time incident that does bring up serious policy issues.

[Kaleva]

8. Aren't discussions on gun policy retricted to the gungeon?

[hlthe2b]

4. I think spending a day on such a horrific event is not unusual--even the POTUS (and ROmney) have

diverted their schedules to focus/allow for it.

And given I live here where all four network channels are going with it 24/7 live, it is certainly going to have my focus.

[pinboy3niner]

5. No,not unusual at all

Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims of this senseless tragedy. But it's just one more incident of senseless gun violence, and the result will be that nothing will happen.

[hlthe2b]

6. As we've seen with the Giffords Tucson tragedy, that is likely to be the case.

It baffles the mind....

[pinboy3niner]

7. Bafflement seems to be our lot...

...for now...

[GaYellowDawg]

9. Well, holy fucking shit, dude.

Some things distract us because they are major news events and, you know, are worthy of attention.

[pinboy3niner]

10. How many threads does it normally take to do news & updates?

It seems that part of what's driving this is the gun debate--something in which this event certainly will not be decisive.

We've shifted from Romney and his current problems to this no-longer-breaking news.

It's understandable that our news channels will continue to folow and update this story. It's less understandable that DUers would continue to follow up with endless breathless threads.

[GaYellowDawg]

11. Because it's upsetting.

Because it strikes home. This could have happened to any of us, or anyone we love, at any movie theater. And why the hell do we need a shock patrol? "Ok, you've had less than 12 hours to be shocked by 70 people getting shot in a movie theater, back to Romney's issues. Nothing to see here, you've had time to react, move along." Don't be ridiculous. If you want limited discussion of topics other than politics, get onto the Politics 2012 forum and stay there. It's called General Discussion for a reason. Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to tell others how they should react to a tragedy?

[pinboy3niner]

12. And yet our local movie theater tragedy was hardly even noticed

Published March 09, 2010
AP


Man Stabbed With Meat Thermometer in California Movie Theater

LANCASTER, Calif. – Authorities say a man was stabbed in the neck with a meat thermometer after asking a woman to silence her cell phone during a screening of the film "Shutter Island" at a Southern California movie theater.

Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore says the stabbing happened Feb. 27 during a screening of the Martin Scorsese film in Lancaster. He says the two suspects remain at large.

...


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/09/man-stabbed-meat-thermometer-california-movie-theater/

[GaYellowDawg]

16. That's really poor argumentation.

Your original objection was that the story continues to be talked about after 12 hours and has fomented pointless gun debates all over again. Had nothing to do with one person getting stabbed at a theater. This reply is just about useless, because it does nothing to buttress your original point - or is your objection that the tragedy wasn't big enough to warrant the ongoing discussion? So perhaps you can tell me how you divide stories like this that are worthy of discussion less than 24 hours after the incident vs. those that aren't. For a 24 hour discussion:

- how many bodies do you require?
- how many injuries do you require?

Maybe I can help. I'm assuming that since your original objection came approximately 12 hours after a mass shooting in which 12 people died, your limit for discussing the shooting is an hour per victim. Now, if we extrapolate that to other tragedies, then you would have had us

- stop discussing the Columbine massacre after 13 hours
- stop discussing the Virginia Tech massacre after 1 day and 8 hours
- stop discussing the Oklahoma City bombings after 1 week
- stop discussing 9/11 on January 13, 2002

Please. I hope you can see just how ridiculous this objection to people discussing a tragedy actually is. "Keep your eye on the ball, people, stuff like this happens, and we've gotta get Romney!" Some of us do not limit our conversations or our outrage to the latest Republican politician.

[pinboy3niner]

19. You raise good questions...

aobut how many bodies and how many injuries are required to make the news.

Obviously, these kinds of events events ARE news. But the politics of the perpetrator are not my first thought.

[Posteritatis]

18. "Waaah! People are discussing something other than what I want!" (nt)

[pinboy3niner]

20. Touché

But I'll bet even you get fed up when the crap overwhelms the real news.

[senseandsensibility]

13. I have no problem with the story receiving a lot of coverage,

perhaps even more than half of the total air time. But I disagree with it pre-empting ALL discussion of anything else.

[pinboy3niner]

14. That's where we agree

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Pinboy, I think this story holds such morbid fascination in part because of its

iconic quality. The incident taps into deep archetypes (violence as a solution to problems) that underlie the American character and simultaneously reveals many of the fault lines that stress our society (inadequate access to mental healthcare, too ready access to firearms, and so on).

Add to that the suliminal fears of gathering together communally -- it's not just airplanes aloft that are a target any more -- and I think the proliferation of threads and posts becomes understandable.

[pinboy3niner]

17. Yes and no

A killer "taking down" multiple victims in a public place is news--again.

Then comes the endless speculation about the perpetrator's politics.

And our crucical presidential campaign finds itself taking a back seat to the headline news of the day--and even moreso, to the idle speculation.