That murders committed with guns is 150% the number of murders committed without doesn't help your argument.
I'm not going to sugar coat numbers in an effort to try and make my case. A lot of people die from guns, and again the vast majority of these are drug related. 2 out of every 3 gun deaths are drug or suicide related. As far back as 1994 the Department of Justice found that nearly half of all homicides are directly linked to drugs. These facts don't change the undeniable evidence that media coverage helps to perpetuate these mass killings.
And that still doesn't help your argument. The one issue that I have yet to hear you, the NRA or anyone else who opposes more regulations of guns is why are they used so much to commit violence? I mean if there are other ways to commit murder and mayhem why by your own statistics does it show that guns are far and away the most widely used method. And you don't see even a little hypocrisy that you are blaming the media while discounting the influence of the media in the original topic of this thread?
People who murder will generally do so regardless of weapon. If they want to kill someone, they will. It isn't a secret that guns are the most efficient killing machine... it is the reason the military use them after all. The fact that they are efficient means they are also the best choice for self defense. You can't say that it is idiotic for the NRA to blame video games in one breath and then say it is okay for this jackass to blame Fox News in another breath. This topic isn't about the need for stricter gun laws, this topic is about a guy claiming that Fox News motivated him to burn down a mosque. The gun debate has been beat to death over and over again in the other thread. Again, they are two completely different scenarios. Media coverage makes the killers infamous, which is their end goal. Music, movies and games don't flip a switch in people's heads and turn them in to murders or criminals. FAME is what the killers are seeking, and the only way they can achieve fame is if the media gives it to them... which they are all to willing to do because the general public eats it up.
And I am glad you recognize that which is why we need to consider how to limit the availability and access to these killing machines. I will disagree though that guns are the best choice for self-defense. In a lot of situations they are and in some they are not. The problem with guns like any other weapons are that they can be taken away from you and used against you and are not 100% reliable. One of the things I push teaching self-defense is that guns are not a panacea for self-defense. And if you read my earlier post in this thread and in fact am doing the opposite. I am not blaming Fox News but you have brought up repeatedly that the it is the media's fault for these mass killings while arguing against the idea that the media might somehow be culpable in this case. If you think the media can influence people to commit horrific acts then it would be logical that it might have influence in an act like this. I personally question how much influence it does but you have made that argument. And you don't see how hateful paranoid rhetoric might not do the same thing? That seems like a very selective reading. And you don't think hearing a lot of hateful paranoid rhetoric might not possibly be a route to fame if someone acts on it? You are making a very fine distinction to selectively argue these situations.
