Buffalo, New York. Uvalde, Texas. Tulsa, Oklahoma. A month ago, none of these towns would have been in the news for anything remarkable, but now, they have all shared headlines for the same reason: each has had a mass shooting, all within the last month. And each time, we never actually see what the carnage looks like. Is now the time to change that practice?
It is very, very rare in the United States to see photographs of victims of gun violence. You'll often see it in wire service images from other countries, but not in the United States, and the reason for that is twofold. For one, access to crime scenes is often quickly limited, so journalists can't often get in. When they can get in, photos like these don't often pass what my college journalism professor called the "Cheerios test." It's a question that an editor choosing to run a photo will ask themselves: Will the person eating their cereal at breakfast throw up after seeing such a photo? In most cases, the answer is yes, they will, and so, the photos usually don't run.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. The one I remember most vividly is a 2012 photo that The New York Times ran of a man who was shot near the Empire State Building. You could clearly see his face and a stream of blood pouring from his head into the street. It was a stark, visceral reminder of what a gun can do to a human being.
And it's with the latest spate of mass shootings that it's time to raise the question again: should these photos be released? Would seeing the bodies of children ravaged by an assault rifle change the conversation? Would it be enough to send a message to government officials that inaction, this time, is not the solution?
This photo-editing issue is dissected by The New York Times' Elizabeth Williamson, where she interviews experts and most notably the father of a child victim of the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut in 2012 about this very idea, of releasing photos of the bodies of children that were gunned down while going about an ordinary school day.
Perhaps it's the jaded journalist in me, but I rarely cry about news stories. The last time I remember doing that for a news story was one of the incidents that Williamson references in her piece, where a dead Syrian refugee, a three-year-old boy, washed ashore in Turkey in 2015.
I cried again listening to the accounts from Uvalde of children who are my son's age smearing their murdered friends' blood on themselves to appear dead to the shooter as they repeatedly called 911, begging for help for the better part of an hour. Perhaps it's no coincidence that in both of these stories, the victims were brown children of roughly the same age as my own. It shouldn't take being a parent to have empathy, to do something in light of these heinous acts, but apparently, that hasn't been enough in the past to spur people and elected officials to action.
Perhaps seeing the photos of bullet-riddled bodies of children will be enough? Perhaps not.
Take a read of Williamson's piece above for a nuanced take on this idea.
Gun free zones mainly relate to mass shootings where they almost exclusively take place in gun free zones.
The 4 to 5% that take place outside of gun free zones, are almost exclusively in jurisdiction where the average citizen is banned from being able to conceal carry, and.
FBI standard for mass shootings has them as something that is still quite rare. The time when you see inflated figures are from anti 2A groups that include gang violence. In those cases, you will end up with dozens per week due to cities like Chicago, Washington DC, NYC, st. Louis, Baltimore, etc. Where it is common for 40 to 100+ people shot over the weekend (in cities with the most restrictive gun laws). Something about the average citizen being rendered defenseless, is highly attractive to gangs and career criminals who like to prey upon productive people. Remember, violent criminal gangs are not productive, they sustain their operation by being violently parasitic on a population of productive people.
Keep your guns then, and keep watching your children and 45000 other people die every year… we in the UK couldn’t care less. You sound so desperate to own an item that is purely designed for killing people it’s actually quite sad.
Just don’t come and tell us you live in a supposed civilised society, and stop playing god for other countries you deem not to be civilised, when you can’t even get your own house in order.
“The land of the free”
Where there are 120 guns per 100 people in circulation.
"What has changed? Certainly, not the availability of guns"
Pump your brakes...The assault weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004. Since then, the number of mass shootings has tripled.
The National Library of Medicine: 2019 Jan;86(1):11-19. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002060
"Conclusion: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004."
There were semi auto rifles available in the 50s...lots of them after the war. You can refuse to believe that there has been a societal change that is driving this, I don't. We have a people problem. 2020; 455 deaths by rifle, tragic, disgusting, shouldn't happen. 2020 662 deaths by hand, feet, fists, etc. Tragic, sad, shouldn't happen. But, there's little outrage about those 662 deaths.
.
Most handguns and even many revolvers are semi auto and they carry more than one round.
Cool... Are you saying assault style weapons and handguns are pretty much the same because they all carry more than one round?
.
In the 1950s, while by then full auto firearms were pretty much unavailable to the general public due to the 1934 restrictions, semi-auto firearms could be freely purchased with no background check needed. Many companies even offered home delivery. They were also readily sold even in various hardware stores.
Outside of a tiny few localized areas, there were no blanket gun free zone laws.
While MSRs weren't available yet, there were still some decent civilian focused rifles at the time, though some got restricted in the late 60's with more gun control laws.
Thanks for posting the ads. This was common then. That's the point that I was making. A lot has changed since then, some for the better, some for the worse. And may I add that 1739 people were killed by knives in 2020. And no, I'm not trying to make it look like rifle deaths aren't as bad. All I'm pointing out is how one weapon has been given its own agenda and others aren't.
I do not believe that exposing the general public to graphic evidence of this heinous behavior would change the situation, as the author suggests. I think those appalled by the actions of these vermin (the actions committed by gun-violence perpetrators, ranging from mass shooters to gang killers) would not be "more" appalled if exposed to images. I see no point.
As one poster stated, at these times the politicians will "make hay." They're generally just another species of vermin.
The outrage demonstrated by the masses is an emotional response, and is understandable.
The "criminals" being discussed are not motivated by conscience or the social construct of a civil society.
This nation is a Constitutional Republic and is ruled by that document - which can be/is interpreted when deciding the law if a law appears unclear in a particular situation, but it is designed to remain unaffected by any emotional or political pressure. With good reason. The Founders were sufficiently aware of human nature to codify it appropriately.
Again, I see no point. And yes, I am outraged by the behavior...
One other thought; when a terrorist kills a bunch of innocent people with a bomb, it's not called 'bomb violence'. When a terrorist runs through a crowd with a truck, it's not called 'truck violence'. When a drunk driver kills a family, it's not called 'alcohol violence'. Rhetorical question because we all know the answer, why is it when someone is killed with a firearm, it's gun violence?
I forget the year, I think it was 2016, 141 children were killed due to accidental firearm discharge. Terrible, awful. I have kids and grandkids and can't imagine. But, in that same time frame, over 9000 children died from accidental poisoning. Again, something to think about.
It is however referred to as 'knife crime' when its involving a knife... i think the theme is carrying a weapon on your person with an intent on using it. Those other examples are not weapons before the incident occurs, a gun or knife clearly is.
I don't know if you're a carnivore or not, but I use a knife on a steak. It is an eating utensil. Most knives were never intended as weapons. How someone uses a tool is what makes all the difference because the problem is not the inanimate object. It is the person wielding the inanimate object.
But a knife is still a ‘lethal weapon’, and if a person enters into a situation whilst carrying one, it’s safe to assume they were wielding it to cause harm.
Comparing this situation to an eating utensil is being deliberately obtrusive and avoiding the real point of the discussion.
So you're saying that only the wealthy should be able to protect themselves?
Just in.... Knives are just as dangerous as Guns.
In close combat, a knife could be more dangerous than a gun. Depends on the gun, the knife, and the person wielding said weapon. The thing is that you can't know if that person is a deadly knife wielding sociopath. Which would be easier to carry for self defense; a Glock or a cop?
Stuart, if I remember correctly, you're in England? I apologize if I got that wrong. Here in North America, I can honestly say that I've never heard a stabbing called 'knife crime'. But I seem to remember a lot of press in England about knife attacks. I may have read more into what I saw in print, however.
Yeah it became a 'knife crime' problem when there was a spike. Its irrelevant to us in the North of England or pretty much anyone outside of inner cities as the problems centred around inner city youths.
It snowballed when more kids started carrying out of fear of others carrying, the end result was more people dead... my view is the same can apply to guns, everyone having them just means more opportunity to kill.
There is no 2nd Amendment in England. If you want to ban guns in the US, passing a law in the Congress is not going to get the job done. You would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The gun "control" lobby in the US knows that there is no public support for repealing the 2nd Amendment which is why you don't hear them constantly beating that drum. Generally speaking, the public is pro-2nd Amendment. That is why you only hear much about this until there is a lunatic who goes on a rampage. Then you have the appeals to emotion which is what we are seeing here. Never in the history of crime and punishment has the answer to crime been the restriction of the rights and freedoms of the law abiding.
Point of note, articles that cover politics on a photography site get far more attention than articles that cover photography.
I'm talking about photo editing decisions to show photos or not ...
The images should continue to be displayed very sparingly. People get desensitized to things they see frequently and this will be no exception. The only thing worse than people not understanding reality is people not caring about it.
But sadly nobody cares about those places...
I don't know about the public seeing victim pictures but I do believe that legislators and the gun manufactures should be required to view these images.
If not the public, I was thinking about this the other day about how you might be able to show these photos to the people in charge without compromising the sensitive nature of images of peoples children immediately after having their life stripped away... I think you could present photos of the dead children on a slide show in an auditorium where the attendees have not been able to carry their phones/cameras in. If folks like Ted Cruz cannot made decisions based on numbers, then show them the visceral images that come with the reality of mass shootings. We OBVIOUSLY need to make some policy changes here. Show them the photos. Yes, we need to make some emotional decisions here. As an American, I'm heartbroken and disgusted we keep throwing our hands up like "there's nothing we can do!"
How are your earnings so far on this little piece that you slapped together Wasim?