Kinja reply list

Read More
TraceSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:11pm
And the feelings of the family, knowing their daughter’s brutal last moments are being used to sell papers and gain clicks on websites? YOUR VERY WEBSITE posted an article yesterday with the father being horrified at the fact he took a video and compared it to ISIS (which, fyi, I remember VERY WELL you guys condemning the NY Post for posting a picture of the actual beheading carnage)

For fuck’s sake, there is a way to make people feel it without toeing the line of being disrespectful. Even if it was just that first picture of the gun pointing at her would’ve been effective.

Funny you should mention 9/11, because I was a teenager and still wish the images of people fucking JUMPING FROM THE BUILDING TO THEIR DEATH wasn’t forced on me by the media - I can’t imagine how I’d have been seeing that if I was much younger. I understood very well people were dying without actually needing to stare at the graphic portions of it.
Reply
- Read More
  Sam BiddleTrace
  8/27/15 6:16pm
  The world is an ugly and upsetting place. I wish that weren’t the case.
  Reply
- Read More
  BobbySeriousTrace
  8/27/15 6:20pm
  I’d say you both have valid points. Surely you must have had moments in your life where SEEING something with your own eyes had a profound effect, maybe even an eye opening effect, that just reading about it wouldn’t have.
  
  As for the family, the dad is saying he’s going all out to fight for gun control. I’m not so sure he’d be against this.
  Reply
Read More
ArnheimSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:10pm
Addressing -only- the objections to the headline image: Good.

Good. It’s good that your children see this. It is -good- that they see what you’re trying to hide from them to such a degree that you hide it -from yourself-.

Dealing with concerns like violence and death has to be fraught for any parent, but for fuck’s sake, teaching our children that, “Well, these things (guns) are okay because -we- are good people,” clearly isn’t working.

I have no objection to individual firearm ownership. People in my family and my wife’s family own firearms. They are conscientious, consistently careful, and always responsible with their weapons. They’re not the issue.

What I -do- take extreme issue with is the ease with which a firearm (or, really, any deadly weapon) can be purchased in this country (the US). We need tighter controls on acquisition, and we need regular checks on registered owners.

A psychological evaluation does not = “we’re gon’ take yer guns!”

A simple sweep to be certain that a firearm is not in the possession of a registered—but released—felon is not fucking hard.

None of the shit we -could- do to protect basic firearm ownership (I have serious problems with automatic weapons, for the record) interferes with our ability to protect the public—aside from our insistence that checking records, asking questions, and being certain that the person on the other side of the counter has no -prior- record of sociopathic behavior is somehow a violation of anyone’s fucking rights.

Note: I am aware that a person with no prior criminal convictions may well be the same person who shoots others—but for fuck’s sake, at some point, an established pattern of bullshit behavior has to be a red fucking flag.
Reply
- Read More
  HypnoCatArnheim
  8/27/15 6:21pm
  People in my family and my wife’s family own firearms. They are conscientious, consistently careful, and always responsible with their weapons. They’re not the issue.
  
  They kind of are, actually. If they bought those weapons and any attendant ammo, they are directly supporting the industrial military complex that is profiting from all these loose to non-existent gun-laws.
  
  But more importantly, why do they need or want firearms in the first place?
  Reply
- Read More
  zerovashstyle8HypnoCat
  8/27/15 6:33pm
  For protection? That is the most logical reason why most law-abiding citizens would have a firearm in the first place, considering people are getting more and more crazy with how they do things.
  
  Should everyone own a gun? There are some people that should, especially fi they live in a high crime area, and there are some people that shouldn’t, obviously.
  
  Should a person be held responsible if their firearm is used in a way that it wasn’t intended for when it was purchased, I.E. being taken out of a parent’s room and used at a school? Absolutely YES.
  
  Please don’t go around asking questions like the one above like it’s a rhetorical question.
  Reply
Read More
boobsmcgee223Sam Biddle
8/27/15 6:04pm
Thanks for blowing those horrible photos up and sharing them with your entire readership, some of whom tried to go out of their way to avoid seeing video and images from this horrific incident!!!!!!!!!
Reply
- Read More
  김치전!boobsmcgee223
  8/27/15 6:06pm
  If learning about the news upsets you, perhaps you are too delicate for a news blog.
  Reply
- Read More
  boobsmcgee223김치전!
  8/27/15 6:08pm
  There’s a big difference between reading an article about what happened and seeing actual images of a woman being murdered. The latter is infinitely more disturbing and should ideally be easy to avoid.
  Reply
Read More
╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:06pm
I think those protesting this are right. We should protect our young kids from seeing images of gun violence, but not, you know, actual gun violence. That would be anti-American.
Reply
- Read More
  NoButWait Hates Your GoT Fan Theories╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
  8/27/15 6:07pm
  Perfect.
  Reply
- Read More
  Masshole James╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
  8/27/15 6:09pm
  Kids are watching graphic shootings and assaults on World Star Hip-Hop every single day, not to mention ISIS beheadings and drownings and other assorted horrors. The front page of NYDN is nothing compared to what this generation is growing up with online.
  Reply
Read More
PeteRRSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:27pm
He gave himself what he wanted, with the help of insanely lax gun laws that permitted a disturbed man to get a gun in the first place.

Pick the strictest firearm’s law in place in the this country or the longest waiting time, and he would have still been able to buy. The gun laws didn’t allow the crime to happen.
Reply
- Read More
  1029393917483PeteRR
  8/27/15 6:35pm
  You can also just cross state lines and, y’know, buy a goddamn gun.
  
  This is why the chicago argument is just the dumbest fucking thing.
  Reply
- Read More
  theunseenonePeteRR
  8/27/15 6:35pm
  Unfortunately, that is just leading to more people support blanket bans, which is laughably stupid.
  Reply
Read More
Shut Up!Sam Biddle
8/27/15 6:13pm
I guess people don’t want their kids to know the truth.

Reply
- Read More
  theunseenoneShut Up!
  8/27/15 6:31pm
  Apparently the solution is to ban guns according to the comments though.
  Reply
- Read More
  Shut Up!theunseenone
  8/27/15 6:37pm
  Apparantly, the answer is to flood the nation with guns according to the NRA and their psycophants. Good plan. How’s that working out?
  Reply
Read More
JohninLASam Biddle
8/27/15 6:30pm
Wholly agreed. Running from the images is symptomatic of running from the issue (and any reform thereof) itself.

Sure, if Sandy Hook didn’t result in meaningful reform, it’s hard to fathom what will – likely not yesterday’s events. But sweeping the horror under the rug is cowardly. It is tantamount to sticking our fingers in our ears until happier news retakes the headlines.

Until we force politicians to stand up to the gun lobby and the gun nuts among us, we should be confronted with the horror we, by standing by and letting the NRA run roughshod over common sense, are a party to through our collective inaction.
Reply
- Read More
  shadowmattJohninLA
  8/27/15 6:36pm
  Do you need to look at child porn to understand that it is bad?
  Reply
- Read More
  JohninLAshadowmatt
  8/27/15 6:39pm
  That’s a good point Shadowmatt since the child porn lobby has long succeeded in keeping child porn legal.
  Reply
Read More
UncleCCClaudiusSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:09pm
I always thought the gore porn in the comments was being posted from inside the house...
Reply
- Read More
  sowhatiswhat2UncleCCClaudius
  8/27/15 6:40pm
  That’s actually the salient point for the problem with the NYDN and Sam Biddle’s posting of this. It isn’t to educate or persuade. It is for the visceral thrill that comes from seeing someone in their horrifying last moments. It is a pornographic image in many ways that is not being used to spur an actual discussion on gun violence. Also, for what it is worth, Gawker ran several articles I remember against the NYPost cover with the man clinging to the edge of a subway platform right before a train hit him (after being pushed off the platform).
  
  Also, while Biddle used the 9-11 comparison, he neglected to remember (or willfully excluded) the intense debate on the usage of certain photos and film that showed individuals and such.
  Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.sowhatiswhat2
  8/27/15 7:05pm
  Amusingly, he also chose to include images of the 9/11 attacks that aren’t actually analogous to the third image in the Daily News’ triptych. None of the 9/11 images he included are of the planes hitting the towers.
  Reply
Read More
pbumpSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:25pm
Hey, look, it’s one of my tweets.

The reason “think of the children moralizing” exists is because a lot of people are interested in defining the boundaries of what their children are exposed to. A lot of the time, those boundaries are pretty objectively ridiculous. Sometimes they aren’t. I think it’s fucked up that the Daily News (and Post) ran the photos in part because not everyone shares the same acceptability boundaries as Gawker — and this takes it out of their hands.

Nor was that my only objection. The cover of those newspapers is an ad for the newspaper. It serves a different function than news reports at other outlets which did or didn’t use the image. I think that there is a unique grotesqueness to the killer recording his act that makes using his footage more repugnant. I realize that’s subjective, but it’s what I think.

The analogy to 9/11 is stupid. If you were buying the Daily News on September 12, 2001, I’m pretty sure you know what it looked like when the World Trade Center was on fire. Even if you weren’t in the city, the difference in motivation, scale, political importance, and intimacy between that attack and what happened yesterday is vast. A better analogy might be the image of the falling man — which a lot of outlets chose not to run.

The video posted by the the shooter yesterday is one of the worst things I’ve ever seen online, and I — like you, I’m gonna assume — have seen a lot of horrible shit on the web. Thinking that a newspaper’s decision to use that image to sell papers is out of line, and thinking that I’d rather not have my kids (if I had any) see it is where I landed.

As for your argument that ensuring people see the image will somehow curtail gun violence, I’ll just assume that you also think showing pictures of 9/11 will deter terrorists.
Reply
- Read More
  1029393917483pbump
  8/27/15 6:31pm
  this is good kinja
  Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.pbump
  8/27/15 7:08pm
  The analogy doesn’t even work as an analogy because he chose to compare a newspaper front page of a bullet entering a woman’s body to newspaper front pages that declined to include images of the planes actually hitting the towers.
  Reply
Read More
MulderLovesMeSam Biddle
8/27/15 6:23pm
Fuck “protect our kids”. If you want to protect your kids, work for a change in gun laws!!!!!!
Reply
- Read More
  shadowmattMulderLovesMe
  8/27/15 6:38pm
  Well some guy got paid to get out of bed and write one article of complete nonsense so at least the economy is picking up.
  Reply
- Read More
  MulderLovesMeshadowmatt
  8/27/15 6:40pm
  Yeah! It’s complete nonsense that someone is reporting that people are dying by gun violence every day. Oh wait. It’s not. Maybe it’s complete nonsense that someone should show it so people understand it!?! No. It’s not. You know what’s complete nonsense here? Your comment.
  Reply