Stopping Mass Shootings in America: The Role of the 1st and 2nd Amendments

It seems to me that the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms)
killed no one in San Bernardino. 
Neither did the 1st (freedom of the press). 
But consequences of both cost lives and injury that day. 

So, I have two questions: 

1) Why do some politicians quickly attack American gun ownership, while pretending not to see how sensational media coverage contributes to each new tragedy? 

2) Is it not hypocrisy when the media excoriates gun ownership after each new tragedy, but does not criticize its own contribution to our national grief?

Here are some additional thoughts on these two questions:

The first amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.  It's an important addition to the constitution.  In addition to providing basic news coverage, the press -- and by extension, other media -- have the potential to keep governments and other institutions honest.  The media also has the potential to pursue its own agenda and vision for what America should become.  We have seen all of this.

In the days when the American Bill of Rights was being crafted, freedom of the press mainly meant "the press" -- newspapers and other circulars printed on a "press".  Circulation of these papers was mainly local, and distribution beyond the cities of publication was slow and non-local readership of the news small.  Non-local news was not quickly available for republication.

Today, of course, news of mass murder tragedies such as we have seen in America and abroad are covered quickly and can be known by majorities within the nation, and by large audiences around the world. Television, radio and the Internet provide almost realtime reporting. 

And this realtime reporting is often in gory detail. Rival media jockey for juicy tidbits. Those with the best tidbits and most viewers are rewarded well by advertisers.  Sensational news makes money for news organizations and investors.  Reporters learn early the old maxim, "if it bleeds, it leads".  News gathering and dissemination is mainly a profit-making enterprise.

Sensational news coverage provides a stage for killers to play out their evil.  In the case of terrorists, it's part of the feedback mechanism that keeps them on point.  The more sensational the reporting, the better was the attack.  

Bluntly, sensational reporting contributes to more injury and death.  Whether mass murder is at the hands of a looney, a local with a score to settle, or Islamic jihadis, sensational reporting paves the road to the next murder.   

That is the basis of my first question: Why do some politicians quickly attack American gun ownership, while pretending not to see how sensational media coverage contributes to each new tragedy?

Whatever the reasons for the dead air on this from some political leaders, it feels as if some coldly ignore the obvious problem of sensational reporting in pursuit of their own anti-gun agendas.  

There is no easy solution for this problem.  Must we infringe first amendment rights to solve this problem just as second amendment rights have already been infringed?  

Why aren't we talking about this right now?  Why isn't the media uniting to establish a set of best practices to solve this?

And that raises my second question: Is it not hypocrisy when the media excoriates gun ownership after each new tragedy, but does not criticize its own contribution to our national grief?

After each new set of murders, the media generally call for greater control of guns.  Pursuit of solutions is noble, but failure to examine its own culpability is irresponsibility and hypocrisy at best, and cold blame shifting at worst.

While I have read some good thinking on this subject by the media (see this guest article in the Wall Street Journal, for example), the coverage is microscopic in comparison to the the full-court press on guns.

It feels like hypocrisy.

Finally, I do believe there are ways to reduce the number of guns legally being sold to those who should just not ever have them.  Even if we only keep loonies and jihadis from easily purchasing firearms, lives will be saved.

But will massive gun control solve the larger problem?  One need only examine the much more stringent and largely useless French gun control in the Paris attacks.  It didn't seem to help.  How could it?  Gun control is a symptom...evil in men's hearts is the problem.

We need a more comprehensive solution of which the media must be a part.  And, like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is still a fundamental right of Americans.

What do you think?  I'm interested in your thoughts on this.  Please leave a comment below!