arma virumque cano (et alia)
Your consumption of this violent media causes mass shootings. The blood of Newtown's children is on your hands. It doesn't matter that you personally didn't pull the trigger; you are part of a sick culture that glorifies violence. The US government must ban the display of firearms to one instance per episode, which would be a constitutional regulation of the First Amendment since it's not a total ban of displaying firearms on TV. If it might only one life, we must try. Whether or not you agree with this particular measure, we must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.
This Anonymous is like a dumber version of E.N.It can be said that the media bears some of the blame for the frequency of the use of firearms in mass killings. The perpetrators of mass killings often seek to "coppycat" others like themselves, and the reporting of the use of firearms (as opposed to other forms of weaponry) may cause potential killers to equip themselves with such weapons. I think most forensic pathologists would agree.The argument that because there exists a need for solution to a problem, then "we" must do something, and therefore a particular policy is necessary (because such a policy satisfies a "need" to "do something") is a ridiculous notion. Such would be equivalent to stating that because obesity is a problem, we must therefore discourage the televised display of a "hamburger". Action is taken to receive results in return for one's efforts, one is foolish to take upon a task for the sole purpose of doing "something".