Connecticut Group Wants Your Violent Videogames — To Destroy Them 449
DavidGilbert99 writes with this excerpt from IB Times: "The Sandy Hook shooting once again raised the debate about how much power violent videogames wield over teenagers. Following proclamations from the National Rifle Association and the establishment of a study by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the psychological effects of violent games on children, a group in Connecticut is now having its say Southington, a town 30 miles from where the shooting took place, is offering gift tokens in exchange for violent videogames, as well as other violent media such as DVDs or videos. The group, called SouthingtonSOS, said in a statement: 'There is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying.'" And Yes, they plan to destroy the traded-in games. (Note: Beware the obnoxious auto-playing video ad with sound; adjust volume accordingly.)
Better price than gamestop? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Better price than gamestop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you run into the same problem as people trading in broken or useless guns to the gun buyback:
By turning in your property, you effectively endorse their political cause. They get to say that "X number of people turned in this filth to get it off of our streets and out of our schools!". Personally, I'm not willing to become part of their cause and make that value of X going higher at any cost.
If you actually do find their message convincing then by all means turn in your games.
Re:Better price than gamestop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you run into the same problem as people trading in broken or useless guns to the gun buyback:
By turning in your property, you effectively endorse their political cause. They get to say that "X number of people turned in this filth to get it off of our streets and out of our schools!". Personally, I'm not willing to become part of their cause and make that value of X going higher at any cost.
If you actually do find their message convincing then by all means turn in your games.
But if you use the reward you get from the group to directly support the opposite of their agenda... did you really help them? For instance, using the gift token to buy a new FPS game.
I would like to think they would somehow arrange for the reward to not be able to be used in this way, but groups like this tend not to be terribly forward thinking.
Re:Better price than gamestop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes you do. You need to think emotionally and politically.
No one is gong to track what you spend your token on. They will just count the number of games Point at the pile and say 'See!' why won't you DOOOOOOO something!'
No different then book burning.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Better price than gamestop? (Score:4, Funny)
Lately they've been doing gift certificates to grocery stores and such, but completely forgetting that money is fungible - money I suddenly didn't have to spend on groceries is freed up for buying, well whatever else, including guns. That's the thing, though. Unless the trade-in doesn't involve money or any tangible good, it become a fungible item.
I think that the anti-gun lobbies and authorities who host these things could have benefited from consulting any divorce lawyer when it comes to the subject of all things fungible, no?
Re:Better price than gamestop? (Score:4, Funny)
Lately they've been doing gift certificates to grocery stores and such, but completely forgetting that money is fungible - money I suddenly didn't have to spend on groceries is freed up for buying, well whatever else, including guns. That's the thing, though. Unless the trade-in doesn't involve money or any tangible good, it become a fungible item.
I think that the anti-gun lobbies and authorities who host these things could have benefited from consulting any divorce lawyer when it comes to the subject of all things fungible, no?
Either that or you can simply assault someone with a banana.
Re: (Score:3)
But if you use the reward you get from the group to directly support the opposite of their agenda... did you really help them? For instance, using the gift token to buy a new FPS game.
I would like to think they would somehow arrange for the reward to not be able to be used in this way, but groups like this tend not to be terribly forward thinking.
You will get Gift cards to Build a Bear
Never been in the store, but I will suppose you cannot build violent bears?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be willing to give up some of my old titles that I no longer play if they'd give me more value than gamestop...
I would gladly give up a slew of DVDs that have violence in the films.
The one thing I can't do is get rid of the violence through the news that I've been slammed with my whole life. I can't 'undo' that one with a trade-in...
I wonder if they even care about movies, or if maybe they've watched enough movies that they think it is only video game violence that matters... I dunno. It seems stupid to think violent video games would be any more of a problem than violent media in general. I have a Twista album on
People should play more pinball (Score:4, Insightful)
People should play more pinball.
Re:People should play more pinball (Score:5, Funny)
NO! Pinball is too violent.
The little steel ball was resting comfortably when you put in the coins, then sart your abuse with hitting it out of its rest. This is followed by continuously slapping the ball with paddles and propelling it into walls! All the time, the ball is just trying to get back to the safety of its home, but NO, you keep batting it away.
The only civilized game is Canasta, because I'm not sure how to play it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure The Who would approve of that.
Get your stinking paws off me (Score:4, Insightful)
They can have my violent video games when they pry them from my cold dead hands!
Re:Get your stinking paws off me (Score:5, Funny)
Put videogames in the schools to protect them (Score:5, Funny)
New business method available (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Create a simple violent video game
2. Buy a large set of cheap DVDs and burn it on them
3. Exchange DVDs for a set of gift tokens
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Xonotic (Score:3)
Presuming that an open-source violent video game exists
Xonotic [wikipedia.org] anyone?
hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I kill all my victims by dropping anvils on them from cliffs, or handing them a stick of lit dynamite. I learned it from violent cartoons.
Pumped Up! (Score:2)
Maybe Some Merit? (Score:2)
I have long thought attempts to do this kind of thing were stupid and intrusive.
But think, those of you with kids, how many times have you refused your kids desire to watch a program because it is too violent? If you are any kind of parent, then that happens often. Desensitization [killology.com] is a long time practice in the military and kids watching/playing violent shows/games is very similar to the process the military goes through.
I think it's time that this subject is given a hard look. Unfortunately, any solution
Don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
i really REALLY don't get this obsession with linking violent video games to violent behavior. Take yours truly:
Born in 1980, I played all the big titles: From Wolfenstein, Doom, Solider of Fortune, to whatever latest titles are out (I can't remember what all the Call of Duty flavors are called, but you get the idea). Hell, I even designed Doom and Half-Life levels based on my old high school (shit, don't tell anyone or they'll come after me next!!!)
At some point in my 20s, I joined the Marines for 4 years, so I know how to use a rifle.
Neither before nor after my service have i EVER had violent tendencies that made me go on a shooting spree. I deal with stress every day (Hello IT, working for an international liquor company that needs to be up 24/7) yet I still score normal blood pressure numbers.
I just don't get this obsession. There are always a few nuts. The rest of us are fairly well-adjusted.
Stupid media. Stupid fear-mongering. Stupid people.
done ranting now.
S/F
Re:Don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
FYI the first time Beethoven's 9th symphony was played in public it caused riots.
Symphonies inflame the emotions and should be banned.
Re:Don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell, I even designed Doom and Half-Life levels based on my old high school (shit, don't tell anyone or they'll come after me next!!!)
Heh, I did the same thing with Bungie's Marathon II and their level/physics editors 'Anvil" and "Forge".
Now I'd get expelled for talking about it. So sad.
Re: (Score:3)
i really REALLY don't get this obsession with linking violent video games to violent behavior. Take yours truly:
Born in 1980, I played all the big titles: From Wolfenstein, Doom, Solider of Fortune, to whatever latest titles are out (I can't remember what all the Call of Duty flavors are called, but you get the idea). Hell, I even designed Doom and Half-Life levels based on my old high school (shit, don't tell anyone or they'll come after me next!!!)
At some point in my 20s, I joined the Marines for 4 years, so I know how to use a rifle.
Neither before nor after my service have i EVER had violent tendencies that made me go on a shooting spree. I deal with stress every day (Hello IT, working for an international liquor company that needs to be up 24/7) yet I still score normal blood pressure numbers.
I just don't get this obsession. There are always a few nuts. The rest of us are fairly well-adjusted.
Stupid media. Stupid fear-mongering. Stupid people.
done ranting now.
S/F
You became a professional soldier but you don't see that as an expression of your violent tendencies?
Step back from yourself for a moment and think about that.
Re:Don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
You became a professional soldier but you don't see that as an expression of your violent tendencies?
Step back from yourself for a moment and think about that.
Oh, bullshit.
People join the armed forces because it's a job with a regular paycheck. They join because the military offers some sweet medical benefits. They join because they want to go to college without spending the rest of their lives in debt. They join because they had family members in the military.
And some of them join because they believe the Constitution and what it represents matters enough to risk their lives defending it.
Re:Don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get this obsession. There are always a few nuts. The rest of us are fairly well-adjusted.
THIS. A thousand times.
Look -- I think the gun control crowd basically has one legitimate point that is nearly triviailly weighed against. My bias declared up front.
But there's been school shootings for at least four centuries. Their frequency is likely easily plotted out with some basic statistical physics or similar applications. The "epidemic" is so insubstantial as to be boring to everyone but CDC types with a moral obligation to treat it as such.
But I don't even need science for this, just memory and a bit of knowledge of history.
Before I was born there were witch trials, pogroms, purges, mccarthyism.... and all of these were in reaction to *shit happening* (although not necessarily caused by the victims of these activities)
In my relatively short lifetime there's been panic over D&D/satanism, rock & rap music (remember tipper gore?), trenchcoats (after columbine), pedos, terrorism, and I would claim drug use. Every five years or so we need a new internal societal threat.
These might all have a legit correlation with some form of violence. I really don't know (or care -- if they are or aren't correlated is immaterial to me, they mostly fall under the guise of the 0th freedom of thought).
But people want to find a way to understand bad things happening. They will latch on and clasp desperately to God, to an outlier, to anything to explain the 'senseless' violence they see rather than admit we are big dangerous apes with a thin veneer of civilization.
To point out anything not them that they can collectively engage in risk-free destruction of in part of the big orgy of lynchmobbery -- ideally through the tyranny of the majority driven through by the rifles of the government and their easy taxy dollars. Because this is how civilized white people destroy things -- with a pen stroke instead of a rioting mob.
And that is really all that well-adjusted means.
BRB, gonnna watch some CNN and Fox....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for starters, exposure to anything desensitizes. It's why the military uses the same games to train soldiers these days - because they know the first kill is hard (many get ill or sick), but by desensitizing them to the violence and reducing the value of life to a mere statistic, when ordered to shoot and kill, they most likely will.
That's the most tenable and demonstratable link to violence in videogames to
Re:Don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It proves that the military believe this link exists.
Actually, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that the military believes the games are useful for training in some way--which might be making trainees more willing to kill, or it might be improving their reflexes or their tactical awareness, or it might just be as a morale-boosting tool for a generation of recruits who grew up playing the games. Personally, having served as both an infantryman and a medic, and having become very familiar in the latter capacity with what the consequences of real-world violence look like, I'm deeply skeptical that even the most realistic modern video games will do much to "desensitize" anyone to actual killing.
Re:Don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
You might want to read some of the criticisms [wikipedia.org] of the author of that article. His motives are deeply suspect, and there's so much literature on the subject that it's easy to cherry-pick. (Note to anyone dragging out the "ad hominem" card: this is entirely relevant to the subject at hand, and casts serious doubt on anything he has to say about the subject.) Here [tamiu.edu] (PDF link) is a rebuttal to his primary claims--which, unlike the link you provided, actually goes into some detail about the methods of analysis.
Battle Toads (Score:2)
Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
Someone needs to set up and publicize an NRA-branded parody site offering a guns-for-games exchange where the site offers free firearms in exchange for violent video games.
Used to be Rock and Roll, now video games. (Score:2, Informative)
Whatever the generation in power didn't grow up with becomes the Bogeyman. In the 60s through the 80s it was that Devil music Rock And Roll. In the 90s it was Rap. Now it's Violent video games. After violent video games I'm sure it'll be something else to blame for the problems in society.
People just have bad memories and think when They Grew Up, it was some golden age. Nope.. no societal problems in the 50s or 60s. No Sirrr-ee.
Connecticut group can kiss my ass. (Score:2)
Do video games burn as well as books? (Score:3)
Maybe the temperature needs to be a bit higher than 451.
Something they all have in common w/ the shooter.. (Score:2)
They're all fucking mentally deranged morons. And since they are against entertainment media (and basically freedom of speech and expression) while apparently the killer wasn't, I conclude that violent video games are not the common correlation here. It's dumbasses. I'd rather see the country rid itself of them, send them away for "disposal," but that will of course never happen.
unacceptable (Score:2)
The "or" means it could contribute only to a single one of them and the entire statement would still be true, but totally meaningless. Furthermor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I find it hilarious they think children are desensitized to bullying.
That's hilariously stupid on so many levels. For one thing, if kids were desensitized to bullying, it wouldn't be bullying! Secondly, it's the goddamn adults who refuse to pay any attention to bullying, at least until the person being bullied snaps.
So wait.... (Score:2)
All the crappy FPS shooters and worthless ancient violent games that I have filling up my bookcase since 1992, I can give to these guys and I'll get CREDIT that I can use toward some other game that I might actually want??
(No I didn't read TFA, I'm not going to that site, thanks.)
LOL, let the great shovelware crap-pile commence!
I Like the Idea, but... (Score:2)
I can destroy any such games myself - eg, while videoing the happy process - without paying any postage.
*Facepalm* (Score:2)
Game companies like this because it takes traded in games off the market and so they'll sell more new games. This only serves as an inducement to make more violent games.
So, giant failure.
Even bigger failure is that there is no correlation between video games and violence. There are countless studies, but I like this fact: Japan has 0.6% as many gun deaths as the US.* I wonder if they play video games over there?
* 10.2 per 100,000 per year in the US vs 0.07 for Japan according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Evidence? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, it doesn't matter. Video games are so prevelant... it's hard to find anyone 35 or under that both (A) does NOT have a violent video game in the house and (B) hasn't played violent video games in the past. You might as well blame bottled water: chances are you either have a bottle somewhere in your house or you've at least drank some in the last X years.
It's like when Jack Thomson proclaimed during hours one of the school shooting a few years ago before the police released any details or went to
They did this before with D&D (Score:3)
I will just point out that I've been through this before with the scares in the 1980's around "Dungeons and Dragons". Which was considered then a clearly dangerous game - after all, children who liked to pretend that they lived as heroes in a violent universe killing monsters would clearly grow up to be violent maniacs. As we now know, D&D is mostly dangerous in terms of "if you let it slip that you like D&D, the jocks will beat you up." and the theories that D&D would teach the children to be violent have been (largely) refuted.
-Peter
Whiplash effect (Score:2)
So F2Ps then? (Score:2)
Will they be happy if I send them 300 copies of Planetside2? There's a lot of shooting in that one.
3 types of gun owners (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Hunters. I am not worried about them. I've confronted armed hunters in the woods. They have actually killed and eaten living things and understand death.
2. Video-gamers. They point and click and pretend-kill things. I am not worried about them even if they own a gun because real life shooting is not anything like gaming. (I suspect most don't own a gun at all which is why I don't count them in this list)
3. Sport shooters who frequent ranges. These assholes scare the shit out of me. They have never killed anything at all so aren't actually familiar with the destructive capability of their weapon. In addition, they are intimately trained in its use and they _like_ to shoot.
4. Scared citizens who buy a gun for protection. These guys aren't too bad but do cause most of the gun destruction in the US, either simply by having a gun int he house to make it easy for suicide and accident or by having it in reach of some angry guy whose girlfriend just broke up with him and now he's gonna make her pay along with anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity.
As far as the NRA proposal, if we suggested putting an armed guard at every single school in Afghanistan, would that be a sign we are winning the war there or losing it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd trust some football-playing hothead who says what's on his mind and cools down minutes after a rage much more than some silent, coddled, brooding nerd-loser who chooses to mass-murder out of anger at their own weakness and defeatism.
The problem is the mental wiring. A nerd-loser isn't wired to like sports, in the same way a jock isn't wired to like Dungeons and Dragons. A jock *enjoys* sports, a nerd-loser doesn't - So it's much harder to get them into it.
Re:Haw (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure about student athletes, but there was the recent case of Jovan Belcher, a professional football player who killed his girlfriend, drove to the team headquarters, and killed himself in front of his head coach and GM. Also relevant is that the jocks are much more likely to be involved in assaults, rapes, vehicular homicides, and other violent acts other than shooting up a school.
George Carlin had this one right: ""They say it's the quiet ones you have to watch. Yeah, and while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will kill ya!"
Re:Haw (Score:5, Interesting)
I played hockey since I was 5, and also played for my high school for a year. But I had to quit - because of all the idiot jocks and their homophobia, misogyny, and general distaste for anything they couldn't understand or was slightly different from them. You should have heard the shit that was talked about in the locker room. Yeah, those dumb louts sure had a firm grip on their emotions all right.
Re:Haw (Score:5, Insightful)
Jocks go on to become executives, lawyers, and politicians. Social outcasts might shoot up a movie theater every year or so, but it was jocks who got us into Iraq and caused civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
Re:Haw (Score:5, Informative)
When's the last time you saw somebody who was a student athlete shoot up a school or movie theater?
Sports are charged with testosterone, true, but they also teach people how to lose gracefully and that losing is a part of life. I'd trust some football-playing hothead who says what's on his mind and cools down minutes after a rage much more than some silent, coddled, brooding nerd-loser who chooses to mass-murder out of anger at their own weakness and defeatism.
So in short, you accuse athletes of being bullies and brutes, but it turns out that the dumb louts actually manage their emotions better than you do.
-- Ethanol-fueled
No, student athletes don't shoot up movie theaters, they just rape girls and brag about it to their friends [huff.to]. Then the school community covers it up for them because in redneck America highschool football "stars" are the darlings of town.
Re: (Score:2)
The student athlete would be protected by the community, after all he is a good kid who made a few mistakes, besides he just could make it into the big leagues. While the straight A student caught with Aspirin is kicked out of school because he worthless druggy. We need more Baby Ruths not Einsteins.
Re:Before people fly off the hook here.. (Score:5, Informative)
Prohibition started with old biddies moral panicing about alcohol. You sound like an old biddy trying to reframe criticism of their behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Old biddies and their moral panics cause more problems than anything old biddies panic over.
Mind control (Score:3)
the solid, obvious line between voluntary association and coercion
Apparently, this line between voluntary mind control [wikipedia.org] and coercive mind control is not obvious to everyone. For example, on which side do religious movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses fall, especially considering their practice of shunning those who have left their religion?
One Little Problem with "Increasing" Crime Idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Folks might want to check the crime stats before making blanket statements about "increasing" levels of violent crime due to video games or access to computers. The Internet era has turned into the safest era since violent crimes shot up in the mid-70's, and rates of homicides and property crimes are at their lowest point since the 60's.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting correlation to that drop in violent crime...
Leaded gas, known to mess with development, was banned in 1978. Roughly 20 years later, about the time it takes for a new born to fully mature, violent crime begins to suddenly drop.
Not saying it's the cause, but it might be a factor.
That's probably true. (Score:2)
I'm not "conflating" anything. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One Little Problem with "Increasing" Crime Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if people criticize video games - I'm opposed to people demonizing video games, when the facts seem to say otherwise. In regards to video game related crime, from http://www.theeca.com/video_games_violence [theeca.com] website:
Incidentally, something like 2 days later a guy kills a couple of firemen with the same gun (a Bushmaster .223) and the guy is obviously not a video game player, but we won't mention that anywhere. Another guy shoots up a shopping mall and also is not known to be a video game player, so no talk of what caused his craziness. Suddenly the media hears "the shooter is a video game player" and Jesus is on the fucking cross and video games are to blame.
It's a coincidental relationship. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to achieve by force or threat
So #2 does not require force or threats, and one can be coerced without threats or physical force.
As a wise man on the internet once said "You don't get to change the meaning to suit your world view."
Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, they are asking people to voluntarily turn in their video games which people are free to do -- or not. This stands in stark contrast to those who would ban violent video games entirely and who would most likely support video game confiscation and for those who really want to play violent video games, background checks and registration. By requiring registration, it ensures that some newspaper will publish a map as to who owns violent video games or not so that violent video game owner's friends and neighbors may demonize them.
Meanwhile, I'll burn a stack of CD's that I can turn in for a stack of coupons.
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the sandy bridge shooter didn't play violent video games... He played star craft.. His brother was the one who did, so the media thought he did the shooting. They blamed the shooting on the wrong person because the media is retarded.
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:4, Interesting)
As the AC mentioned, Starcraft isn't a first/third person shooter - it's not a 'trainer' for shooting people like you could say for games like counterstrike.
On the topic of violent video games in general, I remember the graph of youth violence up against major console releases - youth violence has experienced a drop after each release. As far as I know, the 'ample research' on violent media and it's effects on kids consists of some poorly constructed double blind studies involving pre-teen children and did things like conclude 'cartoons increase violent behavior' where they included live action shows like power rangers in the cartoon category. The increased violence was for a short period while the kids were allowed to run rampant without adult supervision, where they demonstrated imitative behavior for the *live action* shows.
Teenagers who play video games are actually less likely to be violent - maybe they're venting their anger/violence in a safe manner? Maybe they're just too unfit as a result to get into much trouble?
I've mowed down tens of thousands in just first person shooters alone. I haven't been tempted to shoot anybody in real life, and we had plenty of people commit horrible shoots before TV even existed, much less video games.
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:5, Funny)
"Citizen! If you surrender your violent games and media, no one will be hurt!"
After waiting an intolerable
The game playing "perp" remains safe in the basement as no one has fixed the ED-209 "stair problem" yet...
Re: (Score:3)
The game playing "perp" remains safe in the basement as no one has fixed the ED-209 "stair problem" yet...
Well, little Billy, when an AT-AT and a Dalek love each other very, very much...
Re: (Score:3)
for the shooting, and, btw buy more guns because that will solve the problem.
The use FUD, lies to spread an emotional argument. Couple that with the fact people don't want to question what they are emotional attached with. Guns and getting socialized health care are cast aside to go after video games. It easy target because these people are already emotional attached to the idea that video games are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
pubs HATE helping people
I strongly disagree with that: My local pub happily helps me get beer!
The NRA is correct wrt firearms ... (Score:5, Informative)
The NRA is full of memeber who ahve no wish to actual confront this issue.
With respect to firearms you have things absolutely backwards. Unlike with video games, the NRA is well informed and has the facts on their side regarding firearms.
... and a serious look at the that data about gun control. Something they stop wanting about 15 years ago when the data very clearly shows a decrease in killing when guns are severly restricted.
You are mistaken. The data actually shows no correlation. There are regions in the US with severe restrictions where the murder rate is low and there are regions with lax firearms regulations where the murder rate is low. Its not the presence or absence of firearms itself that leads to a low murder rate, there are some other factors that do so. More likely it has something to do with education and poverty. Lets look at Switzerland where many households have real assault rifles (fully automatic), high capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition in their home. One difference between the Swiss and the US is that the Swiss did receive proper training and keep the weapon and ammunition locked up.
.22 calibre, basically anything with a full or partial copper jacket. The NRA helped rewrite the legislation so it applied only to the teflon coated ammunition notorious for penetrating body armor. Again naive gun control types got all hysterical over plastic guns and drafted legislation to outlaw everything without some number of ounces of steel. The problem here is that many firearms that are perfectly detectable in metal detectors are using metal alloys that are not technically steel. The NRA helped rewrite this legislation so that it only banned firearms that were not detectable in the metal detectors of the day.
You want more real data? Hunting related accidents dropped dramatically after hunter safety classes became required in the US in order to get a hunting license. Anyone who has had such a class can testify that the majority of the class is basic firearms safety. 1/3 of firearms deaths are accidents. Many of these deaths could probably be prevented by requiring firearms owners to take a safety class before they get their first gun, much like hunters are required to take their safety class before they get their first license.
As far as the NRA goes with respect to reasonable legislation. They have helped write some. When naive gun control types got all hysterical over cop-killer bullets these folks drafted legislation that would outlaw all ammunition with some sort of coating. This would have outlawed nearly all ammunition over
Similarly the "assault weapon" bans are also largely hysteria. There is no difference in capability between the so called "assault weapons" and normal semiauto hunting rifles. Both fire the same ammunition and when a hunting magazine (5 round max) is inserted into the "assault weapon" it fire no more rounds and no faster than the hunting rifle. On the flip side when a military magazine (say 30 round capacity) is put into the hunting rifle it has the same capability as the "assault weapon" with such a magazine. The only differences between the "assault weapon" and the semiauto hunting rifle are cosmetic, appearance not function.
NRA members and many firearms owners understand this. That is why the last time an "assault weapon" ban was passed firearms owning republicans, democrats and independents who had no interest in buying an "assault weapon" threw out many of the politicians who voted for the ban. They rightfully feared that their regular semiauto hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns were in danger of being banned next. It happened in various European countries. The original "assault weapon" ban legislation in the US specifically listed certain firearms designs that did not include regular hunting and sporting firearms but this legislation also allowed the Secretary of the Treasury (oversees Alcohol Tobacco
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:5, Insightful)
End Totals:
Sandy Hook: 30 dead + gunman
NRA: 2 dead +gunman
On the other hand could end up with the world's largest bloodbath as people miss, hit the wrong people, people have no idea who the original shooter was, and they all just fire at anything remotely threatening (i.e. everyone else).
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:4, Insightful)
You wouldn't need a gun, just a firecracker and a turban on your head.
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:4, Insightful)
While a misunderstanding could lead to a bloodbath, the reality is that almost everyone who doesn't hightail it out of there will hit the deck, find cover, draw their weapons and threaten to shoot anyone they don't know who moves towards them. It would be the biggest Mexican standoff ever recorded, but if no one went literally nuts, it would probably be stable until the police arrive to disarm everyone.
More guns could cause problems in a crowded area, but a great deal of people who might be at those conventions are probably trained and experienced in the use of firearms and they wouldn't necessarily be unable to do threat identification. Not to mention you'll probably get at least one off-duty cop in the mix.
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny part is, no banning or restriction of any one thing, or even combination thereof, will curtail mass violence.
Removing every firearm from the planet won't prevent future mass violence. Removing every violent cultural item (video, music, books, etc) won't prevent it either.
Long story short... it's going to require a massive cultural shift. Problem is, too many people stand to make too much profit off of not doing that. News media will blame the viewers without stopping to think that they themselves created the viewership. Hollywood will do the same, and so one down the line, all forgetting that they all participated in building that lowest-common-denominator which we have today. The NRA will of course defensively want to keep every type of firearm legal, as they're too busy staring at the slippery slope of rights-curtailment and not liking what they see, but neglecting to see that sometimes maybe some folks don't need the things. Overly-busy parents aren't going to want to curtail their lifestyle and actually pay close attention to WTF their kid is watching, playing, and reading - especially if those kids are teenagers. Sometimes those parents can't slow down (e.g. the single working parent) - overall, this is going to require a strengthening of marriage (though not by law, but by culture).
As you can see, there are too many people won either like the status quo, or hate it but fear changing it (especially if that change introduces responsibility). So I fully expect a whole lot of nothing to be done at the least, or a lot of the wrong things done at the worst.
Meanwhile, some as-yet-anonymous sad loser of a kid quietly designs a bomb that will utilize the school's natural gas line...
Re: (Score:3)
Having more than one parent in the home doesn't require marriage. Plenty of people live together without marrying.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this bewildering? No one in power actually wants to do anything that would have any effect on future shootings, so people who care do something meaningless to make them feel better.
paging Jack Thompson... (Score:3)
Disco still SUCKS! [wikipedia.org]
Re:Get used to it (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, the customer of that game is forced to buy, at full price and royalties to author, another full licensed version, instead of buying the recycled one, from which only the reseller, not the author, profits.
How much are they giving per game? Because if it works like some gun-buybacks, you'll get people bringing in old copies of Daikatana and using the resulting certificates to buy the latest call of duty...
I've seen it multiple times - a gunnie will collect 'scrap metal' guns worth maybe $20 for the metal in them, then go to Chicago for a gun buyback and get $100 gift certificates for them. Most of the guns don't even work, or would be unsafe to fire if they did. They then proceed to buy a nice NEW gun for their collection.
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course there is the effigy element of it. Even if other locals do not give up their media, knowing that a group is going around collecting for destruction something you consider important can be a bit unnerving... esp if they start using actual bonfires.
Thus, stuff like this in isolation seems harmless, but can tie in to a larger pattern or even become bigger themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Give them a bit of credit .... (Score:4)
The US has a long history of 'voluntary' destruction of scapegoat media which...
You're being rather unfair to the US, just about every country in the world has a destruction or demonizing of some type of scapegoat.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the best way to do it, really. Take advantage of their lack of logic by at least making a profit.
Now if only people would trade in their violent video games for guns and go shooting this southingonSOS folks, it might be on an equal level of logic to what they're doing. Nothing like the equivalent of "Voluntary" book burning, because clearly that's worked out so well in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they are using an incorrect assumptions 'evidences' and this sort of thing add to the weight of their incorrect argument. It's not much of a leap from and emotional argument to have a volunteer system to 'See all these people agree, clearly we need a law.'
Re: (Score:3)
is it really that far off?
So, when they ask for video games, it's ok?
What about when they start asking for people's copies of "Misery" by Steven King, or "American Psycho" by Brett Easton Ellis, or "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz?
Will it still be ok then?
As for evidence, there is some evidence that sustained exposure to violence in media at an early age can lead to an increase in aggression, It's up to parents to not expose their children to that.
I love "Postal 2". I think it's hilarious. There's no way in he
Re:"Ample Evidence" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Ample Evidence" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to question the neutrality of any article that includes something like this line: Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of strippers.
Really? Do they? And is the author trying to make a point about the violence of games in some sort of actual scientific manner, or is just trying to convince people games are 'bad' so threw in a line about strippers, which has nothing at all to do with violence?
And then there's this hilarious paragraph, speaki
Re: (Score:2)
more boobs plz
Amusingly enough the one thing these people typically find more taboo than violence, is sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
society has poisoned TV, movies and video games.