Derpibooru Community Collab is back! Join our annual collaborative mega-picture featuring your characters. Learn more here.

Viewing last 25 versions of post by Background Pony #1D40 in topic Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

Background Pony #1D40
1. Because terrorists' goal is terror/infamy. Attacks on children are more terrifying/infamous.
2. They want media attention because it greatly helps them achieve the above. Attacks on children get more media attention.
3. School shootings are a cultural meme, so we see more of them. If arson or running people over with a vehicle were more widespread memes, we'd see more of them. (Meme in the original sense, not the funny image sense.)
4. Schools are easy targets, known as "soft targets". This is also why church, mall or club shootings are a thing. Basically a lot of defenseless people in one place, easy entry and not a lot of armed resistance such as guards.

> One study of the deadliest 31 mass shootings since 1966 found that **87% of mass shooters expressed an explicit or circumstantial desire for fame and attention**. Another study found that many mass shooters used previous mass shooters as inspiration, role models and idols, fueled by reporting on their backgrounds.
> -----
> A review of mass-shooting coverage by the media also revealed disproportionate attention paid to the shooter — **16 times more images of shooters are published than are those of their victims** — according to a recent study. -

> Findings indicate that the **mass killers received approximately $75 million in media coverage value**, and that for extended periods following their attacks they received more coverage than professional athletes and only slightly less than television and film stars. In addition, during their attack months, **some mass killers received more highly valued coverage than some of the most famous American celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Jennifer Aniston**. Finally, most mass killers received more coverage from newspapers and broadcast/cable news than the public interest they generated through online searches and Twitter seems to warrant. Unfortunately, this media attention constitutes free advertising for mass killers that may increase the likelihood of copycats. -

> Researchers at Arizona State University analyzed news reports of gun-related incidents from 1997 to 2013. They hypothesized that the rampages did not occur randomly over time but instead were clustered in patterns. The investigators applied a mathematical model and found that **shootings that resulted in at least four deaths launched a period of contagion, marked by a heightened likelihood of more bloodshed, lasting an average of 13 days**. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of all such violence took place in these windows. -

> If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce, or re-tweet the names, faces, detailed histories, or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in the span of one to two years. Even conservatively, if the calculations of contagion modelers are correct, we should see at least a one third reduction in shootings if the contagion is removed. Given the profile of mass shooters, we believe levels of mass murder could return to a pre-1970s rate, where it becomes a truly aberrant event that although not eradicated, is no longer a common option that goes through the mind of every bullied, depressed, isolated, somewhat narcissistic man. -

Even the lists of mass shootings look like video game scoreboards:
![medium](,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/ ![medium](,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/
No reason given
Edited by Background Pony #1D40