ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR

“THEY HAVE become so frequent as to be almost normal.”

So says Heckler Koch, a research analyst at OK Corral Investments, a New York hedge fund with several long positions in the weapons and firearms sector.

“And once a thing attains normality, it is ripe for commercial exploitation. Witness sex, relationships, prisons, courtrooms, Arctic Truckers, even pointless celebrities and useless wannabee singers. The list is endless. And commercial exploitation in this sphere inevitably involves broadcasting. We expect – indeed we know – that Mass Shootings are close to the point where they will attract TV companies and with that commercial sponsorship and all that goes with it. And we’re not talking explanatory documentary, we’re talking real time mass shooting. As an event. The Kardashians with AK47s, if you like.”

Maxine Languishe of The Right To Fight, a for a lot of profit lobby group seeking to have Mass Shootings legitimized as an expression of genuine homicidal anger under both First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution, says that the sheer number of shootings, and the wide spread of people who perpetrate them, means there is a public demand for them to be accepted as a method of communication, or, failing that, an artistic endeavour. “It doesn’t really matter,” she says. “The point is, they have all the bells and whistles for what is grassroots community articulation. Broadcasters have been quietly chomping at the bit for full contractual access. You have all the basics for hit reality TV – villains, victims, an underlying senselessness, and, of course, the odd hero. It’s a no-brainer. The only thing missing is official acceptance – by the White House, by Congress, by other institutions like the churches, and of course the National Rifle Association. Believe me, we are working hard there. And the vibes are good. Naturally, in this day and age inclusivity is essential. No minority left behind.”

Lawyer Tom Hagan of Consiglieri Consiglieri and Consiglieri, a firm that specializes in activities which push the boundaries of criminality to their limits and occasionally beyond, says that the ground rules need to be established before any ongoing coverage can be considered. “Our clients would have to know when law enforcement might consider intervention. I mean, if a camera crew were forewarned of a mass shooting, then would their subsequent coverage be considered a crime? Would they be obliged to tell law enforcement of a proposed mass shooting? Would they be obliged to intervene in a mass shooting or could they arrange for a civilian or a member of law enforcement to intervene? It’s a minefield. Then there’s payment. How could, and indeed should, mass shooting perps – assuming they survived – be paid for their contribution? And what happens if they receive the death penalty when they are convicted? Would payment in advance constitute a felony? Could the shooters benefit financially anyway from their crimes? Does a contract end in the death chamber? Does the whole court procedure come under any contract for coverage of a mass shooting? And what about corporate sponsorship and advertising? That whole area could be enormous. Perfume and clothes lines, speaking engagements. There’s no end to it. It’s very exciting but fraught with difficulties. And what if mass shootings just stop? What would that do to contracts? I mean who hears of serial killers these days?”