Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres 1006
An anonymous reader writes "While much of the scrutiny following the lone gunman-perpetrated massacres at Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT has fallen on the National Rifle Association and its lobbying efforts against gun control, the shooters in both of the aforementioned incidents seemed to have been encouraged by violence in movies and video games. The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used. A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'. In response, the Entertainment Software Association and other lobbyists representing the video game industry have ramped up their Washington lobbying efforts. While still tiny in dollar terms next to the NRA's warchest, this effort seemed to help derail a proposal to fund a Justice Department study of the effects of video games on gun violence, offered as an amendment on the gun control bill by a Republican senator. A spokesman summarized the ESA's position: 'Extensive research has already been conducted and found no connection between media and real-life violence.'"
The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used.
Okay, so far none of this has anything to do with video games -- does it? Anyone with their mind set and with extreme determination to accomplish the goal would do the above. Hell, this sounds more like the fantasy football people at my office than the gamers.
A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'
So we should ban doctoral theses? We should halt all research? Yeah, if someone is incredibly determined to do something, they're going to make a science out of it and conduct super extensive research. This is true of anything from baseball card collecting to weightlifting to money management to drug dealing. Name a thing. Anything. Now imagine what someone would do if they took it to an extreme level. Yeah, that's what's going on here.
'[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.
You lost me. This is absolute bullshit. Statements that have more to do with a single person's determination suddenly linked to video games in what should be viewed as illogical stupidity. Oddly this statement can work for anything, weightlifters view their personal records and recorded journals as score sheets. Baseball card collectors view their completed sets and insert sets as score sheets. Farmers that are trying to get the most out of their fields look at their yields like score sheets. I mean, what about sports where you have actual score sheets and stats? Why are we not saying this was the work of an NFL running back or a second degree Taekwondo black-belt?
He did outside research to carry out an incredibly difficult task? Sounds more like your average software documentation than your average video gamer -- time to protect people from research and documentation.
Christ if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime. Where is the logic that violent video games were instrumental in this horrible attack? Where is the link between his research and video games? Because it's a score sheet? Ridiculous!
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
"if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."
Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.
How about we just blame the person?
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we could, you know, recognize that firearms are a significant force multiplier that make pulling off massacres like this far more trivial than they would be without these weapons.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a load of crap. The original argument stands. The risks involved in a "mass shooting" are small compared to the legal uses of such tools. If someone wants to commit harm, they will. Bombs, fire, etc. You can't legislate away crazy.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.
Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.
The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy. The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting [wikipedia.org]
next...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those crimes were 11 and 13 years ago respectively, meanwhile, it's been what, a few months since our last mass murder. Yes, I apparently misspoke, but only a RWNJ would consider a 11 year track record to not illustrate the point that firearm regulations don't work.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's stupid rhetoric that serves no purpose. The "Reasonable" background checks are a registry to be kept for indeterminate periods of time, and as the confiscations in New Orleans showed during the aftermath of Katrina, our rights are in danger when there is a registry. How would you like to have a "Reasonable" set of privacy on the internet, where everything you do is cataloged and kept with your username which also happens to be your real name with home address for anyone to search?
Australia also did not have as many guns, the density, the crime, the drug issue that we in the US have. Why not talk about Mexico and their "Reasonable" restrictions on civilian ownership. Boy, that is a paradise...
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you know a lot of the drugs in this country are illegally brought over from Mexico and other countries? How you ask? Because laws only stop those who obey them.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if we took reasonable precautions
That word doesn't mean what you think it means; "reasonable" is a purely subjective term, and thus what's reasonable to one person may be outright insane to another. Therefore, making laws based on "what's reasonable" makes about as much sense as laws based on popular opinion (i.e., none whatsoever)
...like background checks
OK, they already do background checks. What's not reasonable about the current process? What changes to the current process are you referring to as "reasonable?" "Like background checks" doesn't tell me shit about what you intend, and seems intentionally vague - thus, an unreasonable proposition by itself.
limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds
Again, what's reasonable about that, or rather, what's unreasonable about larger magazines? Can you provide research that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that infringing the right of the citizens in this manner will have a measurably positive effect on society? What about the military and law enforcement, will they be held to the 10 round standard as well? As the recent episode with Chris Dorner taught us, even the venerable LEOs can be capable of going on killing rampages, so wouldn't it stand to reason their magazine capacity be curtailed as well? Again, your suggestion is far too vague in scope to be considered within "reasonable" spec.
Just because you're an idiot...
Attempts at marginalization via childish insults do nothing to assist your efforts, and in fact retard them. Keep that in mind.
doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations.
Define "moderate regulations." Specifically.
the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.
Funny, you must get your news from somewhere other than, you know, news sources:
In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)
And that's not even mentioning the other issues Aussies have had to deal with since the gun ban:
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Rape cases increased 29.9 percent.
- Some dickhead broke into a girls house and strapped a (turned out to be fake) bomb around her neck. [nbcnews.com]
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent since the ban was enacted.
So yea, less "mass killings," but shitloads more rape, robbery, and assault. Doesn't seem like that one belongs in the "win" column, now does it?
The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy.
Perhaps... but equally-if-not-more stupid is the idea that we must place further restrictions on the Constitutional rights of citizens because a certain subset of those citizens who are ignorant pussies, scared of their own shadows, scream "OMG, Something(TM) must be done!" Bonus points if you shrill some nonsense about doing it "For The Children(TM)."
The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.
A better argument for the dissolution of the First Amendment, I have not heard.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you an idiot?
If somebody is so good of a shot that they're able to kill 10 people with 10 rounds, then clearly the government needs to do a better job of treating it's own special forces when they're let out of the service. More likely, you're looking at 2 maybe 3 casualties with 10 rounds, and a substantially smaller number than with the sizes that are legally permissible at the present.
Ah yes, and criminals will break the law, so no point in introducing any regulations. That line never gets old. Whether you care to admit it or not, these people get their weapons and gear from somebody. Either they buy it legally, as they do now, or they would have to try and get it past customs. Stealing doesn't work if people don't have them, and trying to get them past customs increases the risk that the authorities will figure it out.
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably pretty easy when they aren't shooting back and simply cowering under their desks like good little citizens.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Australia.
Guns are amazingly hard to obtain. Organized crime generally uses guns to shoot each other, but it's very rare. There have been precisely 0 bombing.
Isn't that fascinating? That despite the fact that guns are actually a progressively rarer illegal commodity, no one has bothered trying to blow people up?
I've seen this "oh they'll just use a bomb, look how well dairy creamer works" comes up all the damn time as though it's obviously that easy to make explosives. Hint: it's not. Bombs are heavy, and indirect. They require being placed in advance, being not-noticed, and then actually working not to mention acquiring the materials without getting a friendly visit from the Feds to ask what's up with the multiple credit cards and fertilizer. You might notice that the attempted terrorist attacks using bombs in the US have all been thwarted usually by someone calling in and saying "hey, I noticed a weird package".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you quantify the crime that doesn't occur due to fear of being shot upon entry? I don't see how anyone could figure this out but if legal weapons are removed we'll find out our answers the hard way.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
By comparing against countries that do have guns but also have gun laws?
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother comparing other countries, when you've got 50 different states right here in this country to compare? Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have high levels of gun ownership and very liberal gun laws—that's "liberal" in the sense of free—and yet are among the safest states in the U.S. in which to live. The picture is far more complicated than "guns, bad."
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
We should outlaw everything that has no "purpose" and only dangers. Let's start with extreme sports, there's exactly zero reason why you should freeclimb that mountain because there's a road up there, ya know?
There's a big difference between leisure activities that endanger the person pursuing them, and ones that endanger others.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
Countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths than those who don't.
... but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates. According to recorded statistics, [wikipedia.org] if we assume accuracy, the US is well below the global average homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000 people, at 4.8. One thing I noted from the aforementioned chart, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between presence/absence of strict gun laws and homicide rates.
Citing "less gun deaths" in countries with strict gun laws is like citing "low auto-accident rates" in Nambia - complete non sequitur.
I want fewer gun deaths.
That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."
Personally, I'd be happy with fewer intentional homicides, regardless of the method.
I don't give a shit about your right[s]
Aaand we come to the crux of the issue, and why nobody with a lick of sense gives a fuck what you gun grabbers have to say.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Informative)
Nor do you need a PC nor cell phone to talk with other people.
I hate to break it to you... but it's called the "Bill of Rights"... not the "Bill of Needs"
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
Mycroft
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns primary purpose is to kill people.
The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets. Am I using them for something other than their intended purpose? No. My grandfather used to go hunting. He killed deer. Was he misusing it because he was not killing people, even though you claim that is their purpose? No. People that say guns are designed for killing people are often the people that do not have any interest in them and do not know much about the other aspects of their uses. If you aren't interested in guns and don't know much about them, fine... but don't make claims about them when your only knowledge of them comes from the skewed statistics from political groups and the media... which is often very inaccurate.
Some people want guns to be more regulated. I can understand why they would want that... but why don't they focus on enforcing the existing laws as well? I watched one of Feinstein's hearings (she is the CA senator pushing the new gun control laws) in which she had a police commissioner come in and support her bill by answering questions. He pointed out that the background checks stopped thousands ( I think it was roughly 10,000) of people from illegally acquiring guns. That is probably true. However, an opposing senator asked how many of those were actually prosecuted for trying to illegally obtain these guns and the commissioner didn't have any idea. The actual records show that only 18 were taken to court. They would have had to commit a felony by lying on forms that must be completed before a gun shop would even call in a background check. The commissioner responded by stating the police department didn't have time to go after those 'minor offenses' because they were spending their time going after the important ones, such as the murders and robberies caused by guns. I understand that they may not have the resources to go after all of them, but what good are more laws going to be when they won't prosecute the 10,000 obvious felons that were trying to illegally obtain guns? How many of these felons went on illegally obtain the guns through other means to commit the crimes that the commissioner is focusing on? I know there are other mean in which people can try to obtain guns illegally and that people want more laws to try and prevent that. But will making more guns illegal when criminals are not prosecuted with the existing laws in some of the most obvious open & shut cases you can get? I feel that sometimes the 'gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens' argument is overused.... but with examples like this, can you really say that claim doesn't have some validity?
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Interesting)
The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets.
Right. And the primary purpose of an nuclear missile is to propel a warhead to hit what the firer wants. It is designed to be ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. The UK has many nuclear weapons, and guess what? The only thing we have ever blown up is targets.
Your argument is totally specious.
Now, guns can be used to kill animals as well as people, granted. Hunting is a legitimate use, and can quite easily be controlled by only giving hunting licenses to people who need them, have training and aren't insane.
But to say that is a basic human right to have guns so you can go target shooting is just ridiculous.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
Compared with the number of deaths from firearms in the US, the number of deaths from IEDs might as well be zero. There have been rather substantial attacks, but since regulations were put into place to track the people buying those chemicals, we haven't had another WTC bombing or Oklahoma City Bombing in the meantime.
The point is that firearms are largely unregulated, it's easy to legally buy firearms without a background check. Whereas with explosives, there are specific licensing requirements and the supply of the components is tracked and monitored much more closely. Yes, one can make ones own explosives, but a lot of those folks just blow themselves up as making them outside of industrial facilities with specific safety equipment is very risky. I know the chemistry involved and there's no way in hell I'd be doing that.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Interesting)
You honestly think availability of weapon does not matter at all in these killings? That's rich. I guess we should legalize pipe bombs, machine guns and antipersonnel mines, because people wanting to use them, will use them anyway. Now, like, only criminals have them!
It's really not that simple. Some measure of gun control is a good thing.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does not guarantee unrestricted access to small arms, and thus allows for reasonable restrictions on their ownership.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, OK, we'll protect the first amendment by gutting the second.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Interesting)
None of it was enough to stop the 28-year-old from entering the grounds of a private school in Charleston called Ashley Hall last month and trying to shoot staffers.
Boland bought her .22-caliber handgun from a dealer in Walterboro SC. A background check failed to identify her as a mental patient possibly because of a rule that allowed the government to drop charges after her guilty plea.
And we have the right to a speedy and public trial, but some states are not reporting metal health judgements citing HIPA and privacy laws. Well, kids, if the trial is public so is the verdict.
Me thinks the politicians love laws that aren't enforced so they can pass more and more draconian laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether or not I'm a gun owner does not affect whether or not I might be murdered by a gun owner in the future. If you have some recommendations on making it so that gun owners can only kill each other, then the issue of who does and doesn't own a firearm would become relevant.
Also, for the love of god, learn how to aim, if you need 17 rounds, you're clearly not somebody whose gun skills are very good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you not see the danger of just deciding one day that we no longer need to follow a provision of the constitution?
What if the government decides that freedom of the press is likewise dangerous and outdated; do they have your approval to simply ignore it?
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
It says a lot of things about individuals being guaranteed a right to bear arms, specifically for military purpose.
You could argue that "they didnt say anything about ammo", but any reasonable reading of the amendment makes it clear that the "arms" were intended to be usable.
If you think the amendment is bad, then lets go down the path of amending it proper, rather than trying to cripple it peacemeal and hoping that noone notices whats happening. "I dont like the amendment" doesnt mean you or legislators get to ignore it, or the process of repealing it.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.
Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.
The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".
We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?
Oh I don't know, roughly a dozen years or so, give or take. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Informative)
And the reason they're lasting for that long is because they do not engage the military in battle. Every time the Taliban have openly engaged the troops in anything resembling large-scale combat, they lost. They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle, and the only reason we're getting out of there is because we have no reason to be there.
If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.
Attrition... (Score:4, Interesting)
A US based militia in a conflict against the government could last as long as Afghanistan or Iraq wars. These wars were/are wars of attrition. They last until the aggressor decides to leave.
How long would an individual last? Hard to say, not very long in direct combat. But our wars are no longer direct with large armies meeting on the field.
How long would such a war last? Until the government decides to stop it.
The key question: Have we killed all of the insurgents and terrorists? No. It's a war of attrition, it goes on forever until one side decides to give up (people who live in the war zone will never give up, something the US has a problem understanding in my opinion).
Winning isn't possible, other than "The only winning move is not to play" (Wargames).
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting how you focus on only one part of the second amendment... or did you forget about the whole second half? You know, the part that says:
Or does 'the people' only refer to the militia and/or government? If so... a couple recent SCOTUS rulings would disagree (see Heller & McDonald).
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Second Amendment isn't for a militia. The government doesn't need permission to arm any military unit.
The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the people shall not be infringed. Why? Because the people who formed the government experienced a government that took away their firearms. The colonies were under the rule of King George and when the peasants were getting uppity, the first thing they did was to disarm them. It is easier to 'govern' an unarmed population. In fact look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). Each one is a reaction to the over step of government under King George. Citizens starting to revolt? Ban their publications (1st), take their weapons (2nd), place soldiers in the homes of bigger trouble makers (3rd), Search people if you think they may be part of the trouble makers (4th), Skip trials for trouble makers (5th)... All of these things were fresh in the minds of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, to ensure their new government would never be come as oppressive as the one they just left.
So the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the arming a government militia, but to arm people against a possible corrupt militia, or against any other tyrant that may come by (burglar, gang leader, ex-boyfriend that wants to 'teach her a lesson'... etc).
And while people love to compare gun crime in the US vs gun crime in countries with strong gun control... but also look at crimes without guns. How is breaking and entry, theft, rape, all compare? There was an article I read a while back that discussed why burglaries were higher in (I think the UK) vs the US and the research showed that burglars were afraid of running into a home owner with a gun. (don't have the article handy, was well over a year ago I saw that).
Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.
Guns have the same reaction as aircraft. 99.9% of the firearms in the US aren't used in crime. We have well over 280 million. Enough so if we distribute them 88% of the US would be armed. Statistically, you more likely to be beaten to death (or just wounded) by a bat, fists, or knives. But now and then we have the big airline crash that causes people to say "Hey! this is unsafe! who cares about the number, look at the death count at this one incident"
and for a disclaimer: I do not own a gun. Never have. My father had a couple of hunting rifles, but we only went target shooting. I don't see a need to change the first amendment (ban video games), or the second due to the actions of a very few (statistically speaking). I'd rather punish those few harshly.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.
What it is is a bunch of rules that a few men in the 1780s thought were good ideas. Written for the experience that they had of the world in the 1780s. (The American Revolution, the emergence from being a colony, primitive policing, and no standing army.)
Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters
Re: (Score:3)
If we are going to put "force multiplier" into the equation, then we must also account for "force division".
Why do we have gun free zones again? Why do we go to such lengths to ensure that no law abiding citizen in a gun free zone can possibly fight back when confronted by a gun man? It's almost like we are cooperating with the gun men.
"You want to shoot up a bunch of people? That's bad, but hey! If you're intent on killing people, we'll just get hundreds of people massed together, where they can't defe
I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself (Score:4, Insightful)
"if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."
Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.
How about we just blame the person?
Wrong. It's about banning speech. If you could show me that the game disc it was printed on had cadmium [wikipedia.org] on it and that it flaked off and was dangerous to human health, I would advocate banning that particular game disc. If you can prove an inanimate object is the reason people are dying, I'll go along with your ideas on restricting it. What I will not agree to is banning books, movies, music, software or anything that represents an "idea" just because you're afraid of those ideas. If I buy a game and download it online, there is no inanimate object. It's information.
Yeah if all game discs could explode and send a piece of metal or lead into someone's chest, I would be interested in heavily restricting the sale of it. Your apples to oranges comparison of "inanimate objects" could also apply to nuclear weapons, C4, ricin, etc. Have fun living in that society! Comparing guns to information just shows that people don't understand the first amendment's importance as being a civil right and are all for only the second amendment that was written when guns were muskets. You can have all the muskets you want at the level of technology that was present when the second amendment came into effect.
Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself (Score:4, Insightful)
oh the good old musket argument... well lets be sure to hold the 1st amendment to the same standard ... technology available at the time of the writing of the 1st amendment Typewriters? Nope! Video games? Nope! Movies? Nope! Internet? Nope! Recorded voice/music? Nope! Television? Nope! Telephone? Nope! By your lame argument, the founding fathers never could have foreseen a world with that kind of technology so it is not protected under the 1st amendment either.
Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
you don't have he right to protect yourself?
who's going to protect your precious 1st amendment rights?
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Funny)
When someone goes into a school and kills 20 children with copies of "Grand Theft Auto," call me.
Or how about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
The individual who committed the crime is definitely where the blame ultimately lies. What people are looking for isn't merely the blame but some cause that can then be legislated away so that this type of thing can be prevented in the future. I don't believe it'll ever be effectively done but I think that is the ultimate motivation. Our society tends to like to find "things" to blame (guns, music, games, etc) rather than addressing some of the social, family and personal issues that lead to horrible actions like this. Banning things is an easier task and creates the illusion of "doing something" about it.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has ever suggested putting his gun on trial. Nobody has ever suggested imprisoning his gun.
The culpability for the shooting has always been on "the person".
What some people, like myself, have noticed is that there are other people out there who are like "the person". They have similar mental disorders and they also have access to si
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about guns and violence. It's a thinly veiled attempt at widening censorship in general and making it acceptable. Seeing that such propaganda itself is so effective, it's hard to doubt that video games do have an effect on people from that standpoint. The solution is to strengthen resistance to propaganda, something that needs to be done from infancy onward.
Censor what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
"A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'"
Has Officer Donut ever seen a doctoral thesis? You'd have to be going to a pretty shitty school if you can get a PhD for going all OCD on the media clippings file and copying down a spreadsheet full of kill stats...
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really quite a stretch to observe that Lanza entered data in a spreadsheet and conclude that videos games are even partially to blame for the mass shooting. The only link between a spreadsheet and a video game is that they are both applications that run on a computer.
Makes you wonder what is really going on here; whose agenda is being furthered by making such a connection and calling it "news."
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Insightful)
the reason is the same as it's always been. Video Games are basically an innocent cause here but now that the NRA has thrown them under a bus to attempt to save their own skin, politicians are just following along. It's just politics at the expense of everything else everywhere. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, but that's exactly why they do it.
Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! (Score:4, Informative)
First, since when is a cop qualified to make such and unsubstantiated psychological conclusion and it be seriously considered?
Second, video gamers, hard core or otherwise, don't make spreadsheets of kills with weapons. That's far more like something a dev does to fine tune popularity and effectiveness of their games arsenal. Sure, there's a few ocd types that'll do something as pointless and unfun as that, but then again, I bet you'll find more government employees making those exact same things right now.
Re: (Score:3)
But, the video games (and movies) probably help to encourage the freaks who are already prone to doing such things.
Even if it did, so what? What would you do about it, if anything?
If/when you can definitively prove that violent entertainment DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE to these incidents, then I'll listen to your arguments, and your scoffing.
I think something similar, only I ask people to prove the opposite. But again, it's not like proving it would make me consider censorship.
Meanwhile, I'll point to the Hitler Youth as evidence that indoctrination can make unacceptable acts acceptable.
Fantasy and reality are two different things, and other human beings restricting your freedom and trying to indoctrinate you is rather different than someone playing a video game.
Guns don't kill people ... (Score:5, Funny)
... spreadsheets kill people.
Ban Excel!
that is going to far (Score:5, Funny)
I propose a 7 macro limit.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to get a background check to write VBA code
Considering some of the Office macros I've run up against, this would be a fantastically good idea.
Well, a background check plus a serious licensing requirement at the level of a multi-engine aircraft pilot's test.
We need a mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't keep my kids from being killed by guns... (Score:3, Funny)
...but at least I can keep them from being virtually killed by virtual guns.
Media coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
You're partially right (Score:5, Insightful)
Lanza killed a lot of young children. It's the sort of thing the news media eats up because 1) it involves children which immediately gets the attention of every parent int he country and 2) Lanza had serious emotional issues (and psychological ones too).
It's the type of story no one can ignore and let's face a sad reality. Most people are fucking drama queens. That's why Oprah is successful, why Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch have TV shows. That's why The Young and the Restless has been on TV for 40 friggin years and produced over 10,000 episodes. People or nosey pricks that need to get involved in everything.
Kids see this and realize "Hey, I can get tons of attention by doing the same thing!" Video games aren't directly to blame. Bad, no, piss poor parenting is to blame. Video games have just made kids a hell of a lot better at it. They now know how to frag large groups of people because they do it on CoD and Halo. It's like free training for emotional disturbed people.
The solution isn't easy. You have to first make sure that these kids are being found and helped before they become killers. In almost every case people describe the killers as sweet kids pushed too far by home, school and life stresses. If you know a kid like this fucking help them! In addition to this, start cracking down hard on the little fuckers that are bullying in school. I knew plenty of these assholes growing up. Most of them are now rich and successful because they learned bullying pays off. They climbed the corporate ladder being the pricks their parents raised them to be.
The problems are societal. It's not the guns killing people. It's society eating itself. People blaming it on any one thing need to go fuck themselves. They are part of the problem.
It isn't training. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't rocket jump in real life. Video games are not realistic. Firing a gun in a video game is nothing like firing a gun in real life. Guns are crude, noisy, horrible, low-tech devices. No matter how much you play a video game, it isn't going to do much for your real-life accuracy. At most, video games can be a form of mental preparation, desensitization or even glorification, but very rarely an actual teaching tool.
Blame something! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is another knee jerk reaction to these recent mass shootings.
NONE of these shooting would have been prevented with ANY of the legislation that is being proposed by lawmakers. Assault weapons ban, large magazine capacity, even extending background checks to cover the mentally ill. Take a look at every mass shooting we've had recently, and then take a look at all the proposed legislation. Ask yourself: What in these bills would have prevented any of these from happening?
Assault weapons ban: Wouldn't have stopped any of them as all the proposed legislation would grandfather in existing owners.
Large magazine ban: Would also grandfather them in.
Mental health checks: These weapons were stolen from legitimate users or bought legally. You MIGHT have gotten Aurora stopped. But even then, there's a whole lot of "what if's" in that scenario.
No gun control advocate wants to face the harsh reality: In a free and open society, sometimes bad people do bad things, and there's nothing you can do to stop them until it's too late.
More laws is not the answe (Score:5, Insightful)
How many laws did Lanza break before even firing a shot in Sandyhook?
he murdered his mother, stole her guns, used guns in the commission of a crime, premeditated the murder, had guns on school property, and broke into school property, yet he was not apprehended for any of those crimes.
Re:More laws is not the answe (Score:5, Informative)
its not the NRAs job to enforce the laws on the books, that's the justice departments job... Chicago has the highest gun crime rates in the USA, they have some of the tightest restrictions and of 90 cities they rank 90th in gun law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
The NRA is constantly lobbying for the EXISTING gun control laws we already have to be enforced. One of the first things that eliminated in a plea bargain are felon-in-possession violations or laws that make it a crime to commit a crime with a firearm. Seldom or never are felons convicted of a crime involving a gun ever indicted or prosecuted in federal court on the federal versions of these crimes.
Many of the newer gun control laws suggested, even the so-called compromise laws, are overbroad and rely gr
Re: (Score:3)
But some laws might make sense. Universal background checks and keeping tracks of arsenals might have helped. Maybe if the FBI had the ability to keep track of sales and went by the house and asked the mom why she needed an arsenal it might have lead to helping her paranoia or victim mentality. Helping her might have helped the kid. But we can't keep track of who owns a gun because of second amendment issues.
The BATFE knows exactly who has bought any weapon from a FFL'd dealer via the required 4473 form. Note that this does not include private sales in some states (yet). They are, by law, to keep these records for no more than 48 hours or something like that, but have admitted to keeping them indefinitely for "statistical" purposes.
Add the whole gun round up after Katrina, our government's multiple abuses of Census data (that was also supposedly protected) and now I can't see why anyone would not have some symp
Looking at methods, not motivations. (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't know the cause of school shootings, so they're trying to chip away at the methods used to achieve them. Banning guns, video games, heavy metal, etc. all fit into this in that people perceive these as being contributing factors to why people shoot up schools.
But what makes them want to shoot up schools? I'd say there are two issues here:
1. Mental health, especially undiagnosed mental health issues. In this society, all you can do if someone has issues is either pay for them to get treatment, or start a process that's going to get them confined in mental institutions.
2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.
In this society we have an ugly tendency to assume that methods and not inner motivations, including ability and mental health, are important. We think that memorizing facts is more important than having mental ability; we look at whether people are obedient to social norms rather than whether what they're doing is right.
These types of situations suggest our society has some pathological need to avoid looking at our motivations. Perhaps we're afraid we'll find nothing but making money, watching TV, and eating Taco Bell.
I hope not.
Re: (Score:3)
> 2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.
The media has no one to blame but themselves because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz; they would rather profit from sensationalism instead of acting with integrity.
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 [youtube.com]
I don't see it as being quite that bleak. (Score:4, Interesting)
That reminds me of this essay:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/sorry-but-your-soul-just-died-1276509.html [independent.co.uk]
However, I'd say there's a few counter-arguments.
1. We can become less trivial. Our culture encourages triviality through consumerism, or individualism, or egoism or something like that. Narcissism? It's an -ism, and it means we're basically "amusing ourselves to death" as Neil Postman says. We could fix that.
2. Compassion. I imagine most people think dogs are trivial. I love dogs. They are pure-hearted. Compassion encourages us to not worry so much about triviality.
3. Discover new worlds. There are other planets, new challenges, possibly other dimensions to explore. Maybe we're just bored and underchallenged, like students at public high schools?
Maybe not as impressive as I hoped it would be when I first thought of this message, but there it is.
work of a video gamer (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you. Your detective work is the work of an imbecile.
Smart cop? (Score:5, Funny)
I think I have a problem with a cop's ability to judge the quality of research as "PhD quality."
Re: (Score:3)
We keep hearing the mental health is a problem - seems intuitive, but intuition tells you the world is flat.
Would background checks make a difference, or are they just extra bureaucracy?
If you don't like the CDC doing the research, pick AND FUND and organization that will. Without real information it's impossible to know what solutions might exist. If you're confident of your position, as the NRA appears to be, then the resear
Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . and somehow, they didn't go around tearing hair out, gouging eyes or putting someone's head in a vice.
Because they knew that was TV, and it wasn't a grand idea to try it out on your kid sister.
If video games cause a kid to go postal, there is something else wrong with the kid.
Welcome the diversionary tactics! (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't want to do anything that may jeopardize our political career by limiting access to firearms, so let's start blaming video games and violent movies. Never mind the fact that this media is available globally and the US seems the be the only country having a sizable problem with firearm related violence or that the firearms flowed freely for so long that we will never be able to "put the toothpaste back into the tube".
Nothing like pretending we are going to solve all our problems legislatively to keep us in office.
Re: (Score:3)
You're saying this as if it would be a good thing to prevent people from building or owning certain things.
They did this with Dungeons & Dragons (Score:3, Insightful)
It blows my mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If the only tool you have is a hammer [gun], everything starts to look like a nail [something you should shoot].
Re: (Score:3)
I do not blame the gaming industry... but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't *blame* the gaming industry any more than the gun industry or the entertainment industry for these shootings.
If it wasn't an AR-15 it would have been a rifle or shotgun or something else. If there were no guns, obviously shootings wouldn't happen but violence would still exist. But that isn't the world we live in, and we make violence "easy". And before that little switch in your brain flips and you think for a second that I am saying we should ban or take away ANYTHING (guns, video games, movies) then you are 100% wrong. More laws are not the answer and are far from it.
What I think needs to change is our attitudes towards violence. OUR attitude. EVERYONE has a part to play in this, and it has to be voluntary. The NRA needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that providing access to any type of firearm with no restrictions or checks will make it much easier for everyone to have guns - and that includes people who really shouldn't have them. (and yes, I know that determining WHO that is would be nearly impossible). But we have to try. Movies/TV/Entertainment companies (including video gaming industry) needs to understand that they DO glorify violence. We are inundated with violence, from FPS games to movies to TV shows. I don't watch any of them, but there are entire series of TV shows around horribly violent acts (CSI, etc). If you can step back for a second and look at it all holistically - it is very saddening.
I think that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show said it well when they said we have to change our attitude and culture around guns. They likened it to smoking. The message has to change, the overall general attitude towards things. Think about these trials that occur, like the Jodi Arias trial. It was a horrible murder, but let's be honest - in this country and world it happens a lot. But there are shows that are dedicated to follow the trial, to examine it, to discuss it in such desensitizing detail that it is sickening. I really don't get the whole obsession that people have with violence. It's why I quit watching the local news. Over time, I think that it really starts to alter your way of thinking about the world. If any of you have kids, especially boys, then there are nerf guns and foam swords and killing this and that, good guys vs bad guys... again, nothing new. But that can't be our only message that they see, and it is harder and harder to shield them from that. My own kids had to go through a "shooter" drill at school, and that is how they learned about the Newtown shootings. They are in K and 2nd grade!
What I would really like to see is the video gaming industry to take some kind of responsibility for this - not because they are at fault, but because it is the right thing to do. And not by slapping ratings on games, or limiting sales to minors, or anything like that. But by really taking an internal look at what they are producing and self-regulate it. They have the power to influence through what they do, and I think the message being sent is a very harmful one.
spread sheet (Score:3)
"They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer."
What? No; gamers use unlockable achievements. You know who uses spreadsheets? Accountants. This was the work of an accountant.
The elephant in the room (Score:4, Interesting)
Its always about video games. Video games this, video games that. But what about TV?
I have kids, and honestly, the content of most young programs are just shocking, when you think twice about it. They have removed all sexual innuendo because that would make fundamentalist Christians choke on their breakfast, but the thing is full of ninjas slicing one another with blades of all sort, beating up, etc. Violence is always the solution to pretty much every problem thrown at the characters.
And if we just consider Hollywood production and its love affair with gun and explosions...
But then, it must be the video games fault. Mmmkay.
Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) (Score:5, Insightful)
I have, one of the first things I saw the NRA do after the last school shooting was to blame video games, and mental health.
Between blaming video games, and lobbying to block laws that impose greater background checks on gun sales (what? didn't they just blame people with mental health problems for these massacres?) it seems obvious the NRA has one interest - ensuring the gun lobby can sell more guns, even to crazy people.
Whatever the reason for people getting to the point where they carry out these massacres whether it's guns, games, mental health, alien mind implants or whatever other theory you have, one things is clear and that's that the NRA is an evil and hypocritical organisation who on one hand blames mental health, and on the other tries to block laws that would go some way to blocking sales of guns to people with a history of mental health problems whilst also trying to deflect attention onto the video games industry.
The first thing tells me they don't really care what the real cause is, they just want to sell more guns.
The second thing tells me that they've got something to hide.
Neither of these things paints a picture of an organisation that has anything of value to say on the subject, yet if US politicians continue to listen to them, video game players will be the next victim of their extensive lobbying - in this respect, the NRA is a pro-censorship group, whatever they might scream about the constitution when it suits them.
Re: (Score:3)
"ow to go from a spreadsheet to gamer?"
EVE Online.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And a connection would matter why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly you aren't going to change much by banning the weapons that are the least likely to be used in the bulk of actual murders. Although the dirty little secret there is that nobody cares about poor minorities killing each other. That's where most of the gun crime is. It's tied up in criminal turf wars far away from view. This particular incident is notable in how visible it was and how it involved the children of rich people who have the means to flee the places where most gun crimes occur.
As soon as people go back to associating gun crime with poverty, the righteous indignation will cease.
Re:The work of a video gamer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cars are dangerous objects in the hands of the incompetent. This is why anybody who drives a car has to demonstrate a level of competence before they are allowed to use one on the public road. Is it too much to ask the same for gun owners (where use = carry)? Also, do gun owners in the US need to carry insurance? Because I think they should be required to.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people partake in gamification, in which they turn everything into contests. They look to score points in any ways they can. Inspiration for gamification can come from sports, gambling, video games, board games, or whatever. Some people just have really competitive personalities.
When someone is so mentally ill that they're willing to kill random children, that is a problem. Combine that with gamification, and you're got a really big problem. But both of these are problems that should be addressed on th
Re: (Score:3)
I strongly agree. If you read the linked article (I saw it last week), one of the cops even said that we should stop referring to these people as "Mass Murderers" and start calling them "Glory Killers". Too bad that the media companies wouldn't agree to limit their coverage. Maybe use the name and the picture once or twice. Then, a policy of no more pictures and referring to him only as "the killer" or "the (child) murderer".
No. Instead, the name gets used hundreds of times on national TV, the picture