In the aftermath of a mass shooting, why does the corporate media focus on the "why"?

[guillaumeb]

They always ask: "what led the shooter to kill all of these people"? As if knowing why any random individual was motivated to kill numerous people can in any way be predictive.

What should be the focus, but rarely is, is the unavoidable fact:
1) that in a nation where it is so easy to purchase weapons, and
2) where social stress is so high as a result of income inequality and other factors, and
3) where any attempt at regulation is seen as an attack on "core values", and
4) where state sanctioned violence in the form of war and the actual history of the country is literally endless,

the likelihood of more mass shootings is guaranteed.

The only commonality linking all of these mass shooting is the obvious one, that easy access to weapons makes mass shootings easy.

[sarah FAILIN]

1. People want to know to give them all the knowledge possible and closure

I think it's a good thing to know why. That way if you see someone exhibiting the same characteristics, you can be more aware of what could happen

[guillaumeb]

3. But it never leads to anything.

It is an endless fascination with details that ignore the "how" of the killings. And the "how" is with guns. Could it be because the war industry owns some of the media channels?

[sarah FAILIN]

5. You think?

I think knowledge of how people likely to do this sort of thing act may be helping identify people before they get a chance to act. Before Columbine, we never would have thought that sort of thing was possible, but now we are more vigilant.

[guillaumeb]

7. But they mass shootings are not stopped.

Everyone interviewed will nearly always state that the shooter of the moment was just an average person, and they are.

Until they start shooting. And the common element is generally guns.

[billh58]

13. No two mass shooters

exhibit the same identical characteristics, motivations, or methods. The one commonality in all mass shootings however, is the ease in which the shooter obtained the weapon(s).

[Phoenix61]

22. Exactly!

and until we address this they will continue to happen.

[malaise]

2. They know why

Easy access to guns

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed. But they must ignore the "how" because it brings up the question of why nothing is ever done

Madness that one industry can control politicians from both parties with money so that these mass killings will continue in the name of profit.

[RobinA]

11. Talking About "Why"

doesn't mean we can't also talk about "how." The talk should be about both.

[guillaumeb]

14. It should be, but it is not.

It is always framed as random violent behavior. Thus not preventable. But it could be prevented.

[RobinA]

6. I Can't Imagine

NOT wanting to know why. The fact is, the factors you list are common to, if not all of us, most of us. But we're not all shooting up nightclubs and out of hotel windows. Why may not be a combination of things we can do anything about in the short run, but it does shed light on how human beings work.

[guillaumeb]

10. So do we ignore the how, (guns) as the media does?

And if so, why do we ignore the how?

[WinkyDink]

8. Because it is HUMAN NATURE.

[mainer]

9. It seems the "why" is usually speculative. But the "how" is obvious

and easily prevented: weapons with superior kill efficiency.

We can't prevent the "why" part of it. People are unbalanced or go into an uncontrollable rage.
But we can prevent the "how" part of it.

[guillaumeb]

12. Which might be why the corporate media ignores the how.

And invariably frames the issue as random violence that just happens to involve a gun, or many guns.

[RobinA]

16. Well...

I'm not so sure preventing "how" is obvious. I'm no gun lover, but the Pandora's box of guns is open. I'm not quite sure how we get guns off the street. I'm hard pressed to believe that even draconian measures at this point will make a big difference. Maybe this guy would have had a few less guns, but I fear the damage is done when it comes to available weaponry.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Because there's a strong likelihood it isn't random.

Guns are the means by which mass murderers achieve their goals, and it stands to reason taking sophisticated weaponry off the market might mitigate the damage done by mass murderers. I'm right there on board with you on that one. We need more firearms regulations than we currently have.

But guns aren't the motivation driving these murderers to realize their goals. If we're at all interested in eliminating the phenomena of mass murder -- just not mitigating its effects -- then we need to investigate the psychology of the perpetrators.

One explanation that seems to have strong evidential support is that these people have a pathological need for validation. Mass murder is an expedient and relatively effortless means of satisfying this need for attention, if you don't mind dying in the process. You don't need to learn to act, play an instrument, or write a novel. Just buy a gun and shoot a dozen people in a crowded theater. You'll get your name in the papers and 24/7 coverage on every major news outlet. People will write wikipedia pages about you. Ten years down the line, the History channel will run your made-for-TV specials between military porn and stock footage of Hitler's Top 10 Brunches.

So, no. I don't think exploring the why is a problem. Plastering the killers' names and faces all over the news for a month straight? That's in part what is feeing this, and if the major outlets had any sense of civic responsibility they'd stop doing it.

[guillaumeb]

19. The "why" itself is not a problem, but the "how" is rarely discussed.

It might interrupt the flow of advertising dollars.

[GeorgeGist]

17. Because the corporatists don't want them to talk about the H O W.

[guillaumeb]

20. Exactly. Gun sales mean big dollars to corporations that donate to both parties.

And gun mythology promotes gun ownership as a uniquely American trait.

[billh58]

18. For some perspective

The incident marked the 273rd mass shooting in 2017, according to the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, which tracks shootings in the US. To put this into perspective, we are 275 days into the year, which means the US has had nearly as many mass shootings as days in 2017.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-mass-shootings-in-america-las-vegas-shooting-2017-10

Do we know the "why" of all of these shootings? Most likely not, as they were all individuals with different motives. We do know, however, that none of them had any problems obtaining a gun.

[guillaumeb]

21. On point, as usual.

Handguns and long guns are ridiculously easy to obtain, making them the preferred weapons for non-state mass killers in the US.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. A shooting like that is a statistical certainty

given the proliferation of high powered firearms and lax regulations.

The details of this particular individual are pretty much immaterial. It won't help in any way with predicting who will go off next, or with preventing it.

It's just a way to engage in verbal masturbation without actually discussing the relevant issues.

[guillaumeb]

24. And the only actual relevant issue is the easy access to firearms.

The corporate media prefers to focus on media-created celebrities, like the Kardashian family, or the Trump family, and this latest killer is another type of celebrity. All to sell advertising.