that's an interesting idea. but i also feel like it could make soon-to-be shooters more violent, and 'creative,' in the sense of trying to do a massacre so lethal it would be hard or impossible for the public to mock
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
this is really fair but i think if what im saying acc happened it wld go twofold
1. an entire societal shift in beliefs. it wouldn’t be about the lethality (everyone will always mourn the dead and be afraid of crime) but the root of the thing they’re doing. the act of carrying out a mass shooting—
itself is the part that /makes/ you a loser. first this changes the reward incentive for shooters— infamy, a chance to get revenge, be heard, & revered as a villain. suddenly everyone thinks you doing this is actually taking the easy way out “kid was so weak he couldn’t make it thru 4 years of hs”—
some ppl will always idolize them, but even so if u point out the try-hard edginess & “character” many shooters play suddenly the allure isn’t as strong less ppl will buy into idolizing them at all. potential shooters wld be less likely to fantasize & romanticize it so much they plan & take action—
2. probably a similar policy as NZ where shooters information don’t get publicized in the media and social media would be more inclined to censor spreading their info/names.
the avg public is less likely to dig into shooters bgs like they would serial killers (sk seem vintage, like—
boogeymen, ms are too visceral, contemporary & is always a looming threat) and would see digging into their psychology as unnecessary b/c satirizing removes the mystique and a lot of that appeal.
Comments
1. an entire societal shift in beliefs. it wouldn’t be about the lethality (everyone will always mourn the dead and be afraid of crime) but the root of the thing they’re doing. the act of carrying out a mass shooting—
the avg public is less likely to dig into shooters bgs like they would serial killers (sk seem vintage, like—