would releasing crime scene photos of victims of these massacres sway public opinion on gun laws?

[orleans]

Last edited Wed Mar 24, 2021, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

i had thom hartmann's show on tuesday and, from what i heard, he was talking about this with a caller.

i thought i heard thom say that austraila had made public the crime scene photos of the victims and a year later their gun laws were changed.

i'm guessing he was talking about the port arthur killings. wiki says: "The Port Arthur massacre took place in 1996 when the gunman opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two semi-automatic rifles that left 35 people dead and 23 wounded. This mass killing horrified the Australian public and transformed gun control legislation in Australia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia#1984%E2%80%931996_multiple_killings

i think he also mentioned emmett till--the photo of him from his casket--

is putting gruesome photos on display what it would take to make a difference or at least a dent in gun laws?

if your beloved (your child, partner, parent) was killed would you want pictures of them after they were killed shown to the world? what if you knew, or thought, it would help to prevent it from happening to someone else?

personally, i don't know--what a horrible call to have to make. and if photos were released i don't think i could bring myself to look at them. but for others it might be the tipping point to make all the difference.


(a bit of an update is my post #30 below)

[Progressive Jones]

1. I believe it would have an effect on many Americans. It would change minds.

The Gun Culture will fight this tooth and nail, but I think it's a good idea.

[elleng]

2. Which sways more, 'public' opinion, or

political opinion?

(What sways manchin, opinion of west virginians, or other?)

[JI7]

3. No,Most people already support Gun Control.The problem is same as the electoral college

and how right wing types have more representation than their population.

Their opposition to gun control is about white supremacy .

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. It's all about the Senate, not the citizens.

The current split shows it only takes one Democratic senator to switch sides -- or even abstain -- and even the slightest gun legislation is DOA. Until the filibuster is eliminated, Moscow Mitch remains the Grim Reaper.

[Phoenix61]

4. Over 537,000 people dead and they won't wear a mask.

So no, pictures won’t change their minds. They are fact resistant.

[Scrivener7]

23. But there too, unless we have been hospitalized with it, most

have no ideas of the true horrors of the disease. I think pictures would make a difference.
(PS: I changed my name y'all! I used to be Squinch)

[jmbar2]

5. Hearing the medical and public health cost data might help

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

[Turbineguy]

12. Some years ago, using public data

I figured out that the true cost of a gun was around $60,000.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

6. I think it would actually. And get the approval of next of kin of course, many would say ok

I absolutely think the sanitization of these events (AND WAR OF COURSE) is a huge reason people don't take this stuff as seriously as they should.

Imagine if pics of Sandy Hook (with permission) were published back when that happened.

I think this is a great idea

The right will freak out of course, but fuck them.

[DFW]

7. I would like to see a few Democratic Senators and Reps

They should display large, detailed photos of the murder scenes, with the victims, on the chamber floor, and ask the Republicans, “How much more of this do you intend to vote for?”

Sort of like the American army forcing Germans to tour recently liberated concentration camps after the war to see what their government had done.

If people condone evil, whether actively, passively, or even unknowingly, confront them with the results of their actions (or inactions), and then force them to publicly say whether or not they support more of the same.

[keithbvadu2]

8. To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry p

To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry profits and political donations.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. No idea what an effect that would have. We have been insulated...

from real horror for so long.

It may be worth a try, though. Start with coffins lined up, people crying at funerals, prosthetics...

[Raine]

10. Invasion of privacy. I doubt many people would allow their loved ones

gory pictures on display.

[secondwind]

11. Perhaps showing photos to our legislators may be helpful.

Time and again, put those pictures up in the House and the Senate.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

13. I doubt that government reps will take action until...

Last edited Wed Mar 24, 2021, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)

... the GOP reps who support no gun regulations start getting shot to death. Or maybe if their wealthy donors start dropping like flies for the same reason.

I'm NOT condoning that sort of thing, and I'd certainly never be involved in it, but it's just what I think.

They're a little like the slave plantation owners from years ago. The ultimate responsible is theirs, but they mostly stay out of sight and let lowly-paid overseers* deal with the day-to-day Hell of their operations.

* An occupation that was generally viewed as the lowest-of-the-low during slavery, and generally filled by the economically desperate. (Surely some psychopaths too.)

[DSandra]

14. Americans have to stop censoring themselves and see things for what they really are

Anyone who censors these tragedies are really enabling them.

[hlthe2b]

16. I doubt it. Americans regularly flock to its most violent and graphic movies & video games.

I think many are so desensitized and others will claim it is a "hoax."

[ms liberty]

17. If the crime scene photos from Sandy Hook had been shown

We'd have had gun control pretty quickly. I can guarantee that the photos of dead first and second graders cut in half by gunfire would have done it. Women would have been over the gun thing.

[superpatriotman]

18. It worked on cigarette packaging

Why not put it on guns and ammo ?

[Maxheader]

19. no..

Not a tear 😢..shed...

[Vinca]

20. I think public opinion is, for the most part, in support of doing something about our gun laws.

It's the fools in Congress who are beholden to special interest money and a minority of rabid gun humpers who are the problem. That said, I've always thought the public shouldn't be shielded from the outcome of the shootings. Show the little kid with his arm blown off. Show the pregnant woman in the coffin. Don't hide it. This is who we are unless Congress grows a set and decides lives are more important than their bank accounts.

[SmartVoter22]

21. The brains & caved in skull of a 6 yr old?

The damage a bullet does to a human skull is remarkable.
The skull shatters into pieces. The result is exposed brains, eyes out of sockets and lots of head shape distortions.

It is a horric sight. The unforgettable kind of image.
Showing America what this looks like when, say a 6-10 yr old child's head has exploded (partial skull gone, brain exposed, eye out of socket, skull more flat than the oval, lots of blood... & etc) there will be outrage and the public will react.
Most of America does not own a gun. Only 44% have a gun in the house. 56% do not. How fillibusterly is that?
It's a majority. Remove the farmers, actual sportsmen who wouldn't mind an annual set of fees & licensing and the pro-gun groups shrinks.

America would be shocked, and that may all it will take to bring gun control. If all broadcasters coordinated showing a 90 sec PSA, at the same time (top ratings) on the same day... the nation would not be able to avoid this gruesome fact of gun violence.

Stand up to the gun lobby and use the 2nd's first four words to set gun controls. "A well-regulated militia".
Who is regulating what here...but we can regulate gun ownership? Like registering and licensing a car?
How is that militia regulated in the first place? Is that letting the NRA set the dialogue?

My point is gun violence costs, us non-gun owners, billions in long term health care, initial medical costs and other supportive services in nearly every county in America.

We can, and should require guns to be seen the same way a car is. Cars support road repairs, let's start having guns pay for the avoidable medical costs... by creating that well-regulated militia and enforcing it.

[Liberal In Texas]

22. Yes. Showing the horror of the Viet Nam war on video almost every night on

the nightly newscasts had a big part in changing the minds of Americans about supporting the war or just having no opinion about it.

We hear about the number of people killed and it seems horrible, but the real horror that people should see is the damage these military weapons do to the victims.

[SYFROYH]

24. I doubt it would change much. And it would place anti-gun folks alongside anti-abortionists who use

gruesome pictures to make a political point.

[genxlib]

25. Here's the thing

Yes it might help move public opinion. It certainly couldn't make it any worse and might change the minds of some significant fraction

BUT

This isn't fair to the victims and their families. It's more than a violation of privacy. It is opening up additional wounds to have those images out in the public that you would then see. It would prolong the trauma to the families.

But most of all, this puts the responsibility on the victims to make the corrective action..."if only you would allow the world to really see your grief then things could change". It should not be the responsibility of the families to endure more trauma in order to correct the ills of society. Great if they want to. It might even be a source of healing for them. But I don't want to make it their responsibility to have to make that decision during what would be the worst moment of their lives.

[Ferryboat]

26. The Vietnam war was broadcast on tv in all its

Gory details.

Larry Flynn in the middle of his obscenity trial for Hustler magazine decided to show what was really obscene in which a portion of his magazine was devoted to photos of American soldiers who had died.

These photos are both horrifying and stomach wrenching. They should be posted somewhere in areas restricted to members of congress. The tunnels, their personal subway system, in their private gym or cafeteria? Somewhere where they have to face the horrors.

We no longer live in a time where everyone watches the same 3 channels. Hence to easy to avoid the discomfort of facing the carnage.

[uponit7771]

27. ***YES!!!*** It worked for Nam

[Beringia]

29. Yes, very true

[Beringia]

28. I just read about the open casket of Emmett Till in Dick Gregory's book

[orleans]

30. thom is talking about this now

saying news outlets need to get together immediately and decide on the photo that would be, in essence, the napalm girl, or emmett till

(and with a guardian who gives permission)

he's referencing the australia tasmania massacre and how they passed meaningful gun legislation within 9 months

"america needs to see what these weapons do"
with a warning that says the picture will be shown in 30 seconds or something to that effect

in a way that is thoughtful & responsible
"we did this with tobacco, we did this with drunk driving"

[Duppers]

31. 👍

Good points! Thank you.

[crickets]

33. THIS +1000000

[leftyladyfrommo]

32. That would be absolutely devestating for their families

and friends.

[crickets]

34. The photo of Gerri Santoro was mishandled.

She was treated as an anonymous victim; no one really thought at the time of the toll it could take on her loved ones. It should not have been published without the family's permission, yet it likely would never have been published if permission had been sought then. Times have changed, and the family has since altered their stance about the photograph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerri_Santoro (warning-graphic)

https://www.wbur.org/artery/2019/12/03/leonas-sister-gerri-storytelling-abortion-debate

Over the years, Joannie and Leona came to see the image as a necessary tool in the fight for equality and bodily autonomy. Gillooly said that every woman involved in the film told her about their own abortion stories. She chose to keep the focus on Gerri with one exception. Gerri’s oldest daughter, Judy Blare, who had an abortion as a teenager and now regrets it. In the film she said she says she’s a pro-life Christian who doesn’t agree with abortion anymore, but that others should still have a choice.

“We have a God given right for lack of anything better to call it, that’s why we’re given a brain,” Blare says in the film. “Certainly I would never want someone to tell me what I could or couldn’t do.”

My point in going over all of this is to illustrate how powerful a photograph can be in showing the public the reality of a situation. If properly handled with consent of the families, photos of the aftermath of a shooting could go a very long way toward showing people just what kind of real life, not part of a screenplay butchery guns are capable of.

There's a reason every war since Vietnam has been sanitized on the news. I grew up seeing the photos, the magazine covers, and the news clips as a child. It's no wonder that the majority of the US citizenry had no stomach for that war after seeing, night after night on the news, what their young men were going through.

With permission from families, and given the stakes involved, I'm pretty sure you can find some who are willing to allow the photos to be shown. Show them. Show them in vivid color. Those cut down in mass shootings deserve for everyone to understand just how they were murdered in cold blood, and how their deaths might have been prevented with better gun legislation. Yes, gun legislation can work to stem violence.


https://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/23/mass-shootings-response-other-countries-gun-laws/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-shooting-australia-no-mass-shootings-since-1996/1934798002/


I know that other countries are not the same as the US, are not so steeped in gun culture, but the point is that the effort does work given proper programs put in place, and given time. There is a strong will for change in this country regarding gun laws, in spite of the small but loud minority who continue to resist, and in spite of many in Congress beholden to the NRA. Regardless of the "nothing will happen" crowd who crop up every time to pooh-pooh, it is possible to do something about this. We just have to DO IT.