President Trump: 'We Have To Do Something' About Violent Video Games, Movies (arstechnica.com) 866
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In a White House meeting held with lawmakers on the theme of school safety, President Donald Trump offered both a direct and vague call to action against violence in media by calling out video games and movies. "We have to do something about what [kids are] seeing and how they're seeing it," Trump said during the meeting. "And also video games. I'm hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is shaping more and more people's thoughts." Trump followed this statement by referencing "movies [that] come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else." He made a suggestion for keeping children from watching violent films: "Maybe they have to put a rating system for that." The MPAA's ratings board began adding specific disclaimers about sexual, drug, and violent content in all rated films in the year 2000, which can be found in small text in every MPAA rating box.
Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
How about appropriately blaming the Police and FBI that ignored multiple blatant opportunities to catch that nutjob. Heck, he used his real name to threaten school shootings online, and one of his relatives called the FBI tip line in January.
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, now... I doubt that anyone in Washington actually wants to fix the problem. They just want move it from an anti-gun story (that Republicans hate) to an anti-Hollywood story (that Democrats hate).
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, now... I doubt that anyone in Washington actually wants to fix the problem.
Every time "the problem" rears its ugly head, Washington does everything it can to expand its own power.
Doesn't sound like it's a problem for Washington. Kinda the opposite.
Re:Repeal the 2nd amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment what happens next?
1) You need to get gun control through both houses. Good luck with that, given that 15 Democrats voted against Obama's Federal Assault Weapons Ban
http://articles.latimes.com/20... [latimes.com]
Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.
No problem you say, we'll fill CNN with crying children and bring on Jimmy Kimmel, also crying, to emotionally blackmail anyone who is going to vote against the bill so it passes. Well Republicans don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or CNN so you'll have to concentrate of the Democ
Re: (Score:3)
If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO
The nuclear bombs that would be falling on Moscow and St. Petersburg within 10 minutes of them crossing the border
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem wit solid scientific results is that they universally say this effect does not exist or that there is an effect to the contrary (people pouring their aggression into a game and being less aggressive as a result), and that does not fit the political narrative (vulgo: "lie") they want to promote. Otherwise it would become very obvious that they are actively and fully knowing do nothing about the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI not taking obvious tips and especially blatant threats seriously would seem likely to have a strong correlation.
At what point do you swat the young guy and remove his weapons?
Is removing weapons from a person that has committed no crime a violation of his or her second amendment rights.
What is the metric?
This only looks simple to people who forget they are looking in reverse, which is acutely sharp and unerringly accurate.
Ever see the shit young people write? Damn, should we institutionalize every student who says "I could just kill myself" or tells another they'd be sorry is they did something?
I know of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The folks calling for higher restrictions, or bans on firearms seem to fall into 2 categories. The first is that we punish everyone for the actions of a few which is not a way to keep a healthy vision of freedom. Or 2, they want the ability to arrest and take away a single persons rights based on circumstantial evidence of what he "MAY" do in the future but hasn't yet. If you take out the emotional "ZOMG! It's a GUN", and think about this in relation to other things as well, and it's easier to see that the ethic's in this are fuzzy at best.
Look, this is the type of world the 2nd amendment was created in:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
This is from a law passed by Congress in 1792, which tried to regulate militias (those referred to in the 2nd amendment). The militias were to be established for the purpose of national defense - which tells you that a "good musket or firelock" was the state-of-the-art military equipment at the time.
Let me repeat that: a good musket or firelock.
It's kind of obvious that you can't do mass shootings with a musket or firelock. Not if you're one p
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
To figure out how blatant the opportunities were, we need to ask how many online threats and how many "my relative is..." tips the FBI gets. (Keep in mind the Orlando shooter had also been reported to the FBI by relatives.) There is a huge difference between "these reports were two in several million, and therefore only valuable in hindsight" and "these reports were among the three dozen that they investigated that year".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally, with the FBI, you have to ask if they would be able to investigate at all. A guy threatening to kill another guy isn't the FBI's job unless its on federal land or crossing state lines, or somehting else the FBI actually investigates. Phoning in a valuable tips about a school shootings into the Secret Service or the Army probably doesn't work out well also. Reporting is great, but take the time to report it to the right people who can act on it.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy was in a white supremacist group. The FBI does keep track of them.
Not anymore they don't (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about appropriately supporting parents and teaching them how to raise their children?
That would sure beat the currently screwed-up system where both parents have to work, put their kids into day care as soon as they possibly can and expect/rely on staff and teachers to raise their children for them.
The government should see this as an investment in their future - they want kids to grow up healthy and well-adjusted so that they're not a burden on the health care and correctional systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, and even good parents can end up with a child that goes bad. BUT, when both parents end up working full time and still have trouble making ends meet, they are less effective than they would have been back when one income was enough.
If parents see a potential mental health problem with their child, they need to have affordable mental health care available. Otherwise, all they can do is worry and pray.
Given that relatives reported him to the FBI before the shooting, the point about mental health care is
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
The government should see this as an investment in their future - they want kids to grow up healthy and well-adjusted so that they're not a burden on the health care and correctional systems.
Except they don't. Private health care and private prisons are big money.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why don't we go back and find out why two different FBI field agents were told to stop their investigation of reports of people learning to fly jets but not take off or land.
Also, the 9/11 hijack leaders were in this country under their names, names which were on the "Do Not Enter" list but who also overstayed their visas.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to uncharacteristically praise Trump here. Sure, it borders on actual, identifiable retardation, but at least he is trying to suggest something PROACTIVE. Something that in his fevered imaginings might PREVENT this from happening again. You just seem to be content to point the finger and wait for the next shooting. Don't worry, I am sure you will find someone else to nail to the cross then as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it does count as "do something" that we hear so much demand for.
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Interesting)
Well yes. Beware the politician's syllogism.
Something must be done.
Here is something.
Therefore we must do it.
Having said that, this is indeed a start. The willingness to do something is actually better than the refusal to do anything because you probably still live in a democracy and this opens the conversation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Interesting)
What are they going to do, take away his guns? But that would require gun regulations... I don't think this is about laziness. Our criminal justice system has become so broken going after non-violent offenders, that actual threats, which should be treated as a crime, just get ignored. This guy should have been charged with making a substantial threat multiple times, and his access to firearms removed as a result. (i.e. not only could he not buy them, he could not possess them.) But that would require a working, effective criminal justice system and some sort of firearm ownership regulations. Neither of which we have in the U.S.
No, Broken Society. (Score:5, Interesting)
How about appropriately blaming a society where:
a) There are guns everywhere.
b) There is very little social responsibility (its always someone ELSES fault).
c) Being the Alpha is what matters, be it through money, force, or fame.
d) Not 'fitting in' is punished by being socially ostracised, and told there is something wrong with you.
e) A Police force that will thunder through the door guns blazing in response to a phone call.
f) Living in a constant media and social deluge reinforcing all of the above.
Disenfrancise enough people and this is the outcome. Congratulations America, I guess this is 'The Dream'.
But dont worry, just arm more people, because escalation works.
(btw, no, video games wont work - many countries, especially Asian boys, LOVE violent video games, and have very very very very low rates of these crimes)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. In fact, the NRA actually funded the rifle training of the shooter.
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/... [vox.com]
When you think about it, it makes sense. The only group that benefits from mass shootings is the NRA, the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
The NRA gives grants to JROTC programs across the US, as does the US Government. The same JROTC program that trained several of the students touted as heroes during this terrible event.
Trying to blame the NRA for the fact this screwed up teenager was in the JROTC program for a little while is just like blaming the drivers ed program at the school when a drunk driver kills someone.
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
The NRA trains school shooters. The NRA supports school shootings.
Their heroism had nothing to do with them having weapons.
I've owned guns since the 1970s. The arguments of the gun fetishists are just not working as well this time around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns do make people safer, from oppression.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Enough bullshit to fertilise every farm and every vegetable patch in the world for a year. Guns will help you put up a fight against oppression (and if your organisation is organised enough, you might even win against it), but it won't prevent it, and it won't make you any safer during it. No would-be oppressor ever said "better not, they've got weapons"; they always do everything they can to get more soldiers, more weapons, bigger weapons, better weapons, strike first, divide and conquer.
And even if somehow guns did actually make people safer from oppression, it still wouldn't be worth the likelihood of some idiot neighbour or stupid high school kid being an irresponsible dickhead and shooting a bunch of innocent people.
People who don't think that small arms can be used to resist the US military haven't paid any attention to Afghanistan.
Frankly, that's more damning of the US military than it is a sign of small arms meaning much.
The police are murdering more people than mass shooters are. Take the guns away from the police, then we can talk about taking them away from ordinary citizens
Many of the problems with police in America murdering people ultimately come down to the fact that they're expecting to be shot and therefore get a bit more likely to pull the trigger. Police in parts of the world where guns aren't so readily available are nowhere near as trigger happy. This isn't to say police are all saints, because they certainly fucking aren't, but being so ready and eager to shoot at them isn't going to make them less likely to shoot you.
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Police in parts of the world where guns aren't so readily available are nowhere near as trigger happy.
I saw a documentary one day where they had an American police officer tail a Swedish police officer for a few days. They discussed how each of them approach various situations in the day to day lives. The American couldn't believe that simply removing the gun from the glovebox in the police car would incur an incredible amount of paperwork, regardless if the gun was used.
They did at one point have a hostage situation where the perpetrator did have a gun. The Swedish officer went up and talked to the guy for about 10min after which the victim was let go and kept talking to the guy who was at that point at risk of self harming. Post action interview the American said his default would be to take cover somewhere within range of the situation with his gun drawn.
Was it sensationalised? Probably. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle on these kinds of things, but even the middleground is still a stark contrast to policing in America.
Re: (Score:3)
What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.
By the way, congratulations on your first week on Slashdot. I like to give special attention to the new kids. You know, help them along. If you ever want to talk, I'm here for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
False equivalence - the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to travel at any speed you wish.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously. 18 USC 926(a) does give this anonymity from the federal government, but that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with the government. Most CERTAINLY nothing to do with the Federal government. Perhaps local or at most State government.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously. 18 USC 926(a) does give this anonymity from the federal government, but that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
You missed out the part about being "part of a well-regulated militia".
It's funny how rarely people who espouse the 2nd amendment (not necessarily you) include that.
You missed the part where that doesn't matter.
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.
1: A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
This is a statement of fact. You can disagree, but it doesn't matter.
2: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This explicitly defines keeping and bearing arms to be a right reserved for the people.
Part 2 does not depend on part 1, or your opinion of it.
The US Constitution defines powers and duties the federal government has. Everything else is reserved for t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem isn't so much gun nuts as is it constitution nuts.
https://www.theonion.com/area-... [theonion.com]
Re:Lazy cops and FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
uh (Score:5, Insightful)
There are violent movies and video games in other countries and they don't have the same issues with gun violence.
Re:uh (Score:5, Insightful)
There are violent movies and video games in other countries and they don't have the same issues with gun violence.
This. Trump, and others, are once again trying to blame gun violence on everything but guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think there should be limits on your self defense from any would be assailant by the government?
A gun is an equalizer and a deterrent. Grandma can defend herself from Bubba. Bubba has to think twice about an armed would-be victim. That will not happen with a knife or a phone call.
A gun is a tool. A tool which is violent by nature because we live in a violent world not a world of angels. Violence can come from many different places or people or institutions. Violence from the government [wikipedia.org]. Violence from [democracynow.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like look at what schools are doing to kids' minds at the behest of those who set the 'education' guidelines.
Re: (Score:3)
ugg... I hate commenting to ACs because Im half convinced its a bot anymore. That said, yes Switzerland even makes the ex-soldiers keep their real assault rifles they were issued. Or maybe that was another Scandinavian country. Here is some demographics to ponder...
statistically speaking most school shooters (not other mass shooters but at least the school ones) have all been young white males.
at the same time the number of incidents are increasing, we also read about things like 'white privilege', and 'to
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that they still wouldn't look at gun laws. They'd either say games and movies are still too violent or they'd build up another strawman to blame.
The only way congress will change their minds about gun laws is if anti-gun lobbying starts outspending the NRA.
Re:uh (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't the money that NRA tosses around that is the major problem. It is - comparatively - only a small part of Republican party funding: in 2014, only 1% of the money raised in 2014 came from the NRA [vox.com].
No, the NRA's real power is how quickly - and repeatedly - they can mobilize their supporters. As importantly, NRA supporters don't forget about the issue in a month or two; gun-control is /the/ major issue for them. It trumps issues like abortion, taxes, immigration, and all the other hot-button topics that divide this nation. And they vote.
The NRA wields a huge club because they can get a huge number of voters behind (or against) a particular candidate depending on his stance on gun-control. Although many other issues result in vocal support (or disagreement), very few groups have a the same ability to guarantee actual votes on the topic. The NRA does. That's why they don't need to push so much money at the candidates (that money, after all, is mostly used for advertising to convince voters to their side; with the NRA, the issue is already decided). So rather than risk alienating them most politicians try to either placate the NRA or avoid the issue entirely.
Oh FFS here we go again.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind that numerous studies...
What makes you think that people that ignored numerous studies on climate, economics, and many other areas are going to act differently in this situation?
Re: (Score:2)
normal, well-adjusted people aren't really the problem when it comes to mass shootings.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
That violent population is one problem, and it's probably got more to do with economics and culture than it does with violent movies and vid
Re: (Score:3)
Fact 1: Roughly half the US murder rate is attributable to big cities comprising about 20% of the total population. The rest of the country is about as safe as Europe in terms of murder rate per capita.
I'm pretty sure that Europe has big cities too. What do their rates look like if you remove the cities comprising the most murderous 20% of Europeans.
Old NRA distractions... AGAIN. (Score:2)
MENTAL ILLNESS is completely mishandled and misunderstood by Americans it would be embarrassing if more people were educated.
Movies, Video Games, Speeches, and BOOKS can get crazy people to do crazy things. Crazy children usually grow up into crazy adults... we don't really care about children in this country, it's just lip service. If people actually cared they'd do something more than just get ribbon stickers and bracelets... like actually THINK and not just emote the same old rehash.
We should put psycho
Something changed, it wasn't the guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no!
The same can be said for guns. Mental illness seems to be a recurring theme in these mass shootings, well the ones that are not terrorism related.
If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too?
Ignoring science in this debate is common on both sides. For example the AR-15 being no more lethal than other semiautomatic rifles that are not part of anyone's "assault weapon" list. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR-15 and how is it different from the semiautomatic hunting rifles? Both sides are picking the respective scapegoats.
The real problem is likely in US social policy. We've had magazine fed semiautomatics for nearly a century. The civilian AR-15 for 50 years or so. Something changed, it wasn't the guns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about fixing the problem, it's and trying to distract you from the issue they won't deal with.
Re: Oh FFS here we go again.. (Score:2)
Oh here we go again is right: studies say ...
You ever hear of publication bias?
There ain't no money in showing violent media is correlated to violent behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it you think that movies and video games created and deployed with the same techniques in the same media have no effect?
Re:Oh FFS here we go again.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Crime in New York is at a 60-year low, including shootings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]
2) There are 24 cities in the US with worse rates of murder and gun crime than Chicago
1st amendment issues with any kind of censorship (Score:2)
1st amendment issues with any kind of censorship and then there is the 2th amendment issues after that.
It's called Parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
"Maybe they have to put a rating system for that."
Uh, they have a rating system. Been in place for a long damn time now, not quite show how the hell Trump could have not known this.
If he's looking for more than that, there's an easy answer. It's called Parenting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how he would know. His kids are too old (and he probably wasn't involved in helping choose their movies/games) for him to have personally seen it. Heck, I had no clue about the MPAA adding subratings, even though I've sat through that screen, because ratings have no information that I need to make decisions (at least right now). I know TV did, but only because they verbally announce the rating.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how he would know. His kids are too old...
Too old? MPAA subratings have been around for almost 20 years, 4 out of his 5 children were under the age of 18 when they came out, and Trump has a young son born in 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
Parenting is so 50s
What else are we going to do about gun violence? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one. We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting. If
Re: (Score:2)
When you read that 97% of Americans support background checks nobody realizes there's a lot of variations in what a "background check" entails...
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they allowed to roam the streets? If someone has served their sentence for committing a crime, shouldn't they have their rights restored to them after that?
Re:What else are we going to do about gun violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Because binary "you are being punished" or "you are not being punished" is coarse, stupid and was done away with a while ago. We recognize that serial DUI drivers don't ever deserve the freedom to not have an interlock that technically prevents (or at least inconvenience) drunk driving. We recognize that wife beaters should be forbidden from making contact with their wife after they get out. We recognize a need for a parole system that manages behavior while still allowing for some freedom.
I'm not saying every crime needs to have an inability to own a gun, but there are definitely some where that right should be forfeit forever.
Re:What else are we going to do about gun violence (Score:4, Insightful)
How about their voting rights? In Florida, there are 1.5 million people who are denied voting rights because they were convicted of felonies, even after they've served their sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:What else are we going to do about gun violence (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how things work in the US but most countries already have a system in place for doing assessments: driving tests, welfare assessments, social services, etc.
One thing that might be a start is that if you don't have a conviction but you do have lower-level things (e.g. violence on your school record, DVO/ASBO/whatever, maybe even "police were called" one too many times) you are on probation for N years and can't get a firearm, or perhaps can't get a firearm over a certain level of "power" (e.g. centrefire rifle, anything that holds more than two rounds/shells). The probation can be lifted by having an assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
How about having to prove you are responsible and stable enough to own a gun? People are required to prove they can drive safely before being allowed to get behind the wheel without an instructor.
Re: (Score:2)
While most don't have a criminal conviction, they do usually have a record of interaction with the police.
I thought, to encourage people to get help, their records were sealed and unopenable without their explicit consent. Or are there records of involuntary commitments that you are referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one.
That why people are suggesting raising the minimum age to 21. So there is some time on the clock for that adult criminal and mental history check.
We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting.
Not all people who come into contact with the mental health system are doing so voluntarily. Are the extreme anti-social and/or violent going in voluntarily, or is it the suicidal going in voluntarily. Harm others vs harm self may come to the attention of the system in different ways. We need to update the privacy laws.
If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check?
Not all judicial proceedings get a jury. But
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
Unless you add in that it's a lot harder to earn enough money to buy a car than to earn enough money to buy a gun. But that's true of almost anything you compare to a car, except for other vehicles and real estate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot harder to get alcohol than a gun if you are 18.
Opposite Man (Score:2)
He said he's going to do it, so that means he's NOT going to do it, right?
Build the wall, Mexico will pay - No wall built, Mexico not paying.
Lock her up - Hasn't locked her up.
Drain the swamp - Created more swamp.
"No Collusion" - There was definite collusion.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness,you are at least half wrong. If there's no wall, then you can validly say that Mexico paid for it (or Greece, or you personally).
Youth Gaming Up, Youth Violence Down (Score:2)
Now I'm not saying that one necessarily has to do with the other directly but the rise in youth gaming culture directly parallels a long term decline in youth violence. At the very least, violent video games can't be hurting things too much, if not at all.
Sound's like Trump is just scape-goating to appease his base.
I know it's not popular but (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's face it. You can blame guns for the violence but guns have been part of America's fabric for as long as it has existed. There's something unique to this era happening with the massive uptick in mass shootings. The FBI, Homeland Security and every other policing agency at the federal level should be studying this phenom and trying to figure out why and how to address it.
The last assault weapons ban established by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, and which lasted for a decade, was widely studies and found to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The last assault weapons ban established by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, and which lasted for a decade, was widely studied and, based on studies funded and directed by conservative think tanks, was found to have zero effect on gun violence.
ftfy
Take a look at this chart. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Such a bunch of hypocrites (Score:5, Interesting)
How to stop people killing people. (Score:5, Insightful)
We absolutely must end the ability of people to pretend to kill others, whilst doing nothing to stop people being able to kill each other.
This guy doesn't sound American (Score:2)
I'm hearing more and more people... (Score:3)
"I'm hearing more and more people say Trump is an idiot."
"We should do something about that."
Politifact has a rating for Presidents' lies. It's been around since about 2000 also.
Violent video games SAVE LIVES!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
It paid off, I make a good living, and have a great life now. But on many days going home and playing violent video games saved me from doing something I would now regret. (Not that they didn't have it coming, but jail would not have been a happy environment for me.)
Don't Worry (Score:5, Insightful)
He probably just had a meeting with Pence or some other social conservative who wants government censorship of immoral content in games.
Sooner or later he'll get another meeting with an alt-righter concerned that the alt-right will be vulnerable to censorship and the idea will be forgotten.
The only policies that Trump follows through on are things that enrich him personally (pass through tax rate) and anti-immigrant measures. Everywhere else he does what the party wants, the best model is an establishment conservative without accountability.
The 90's want their scapegoat back. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are you guys sheltered or what? apk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Going to go full disagreement with you on this one.
While illegal as hell and very much sitting in the banned category, I can rattle off a list of drugs as long as my arm that are far too easy for folks to obtain on a moments notice.
Guns will fall into the same category. You ban or limit them, folks will just obtain them from unofficial sources and the black-market will love you
for it. Or folks will just turn to other methods to deal pain and death to one another. We've been killing each other for thousan
Re:Are you guys sheltered or what? apk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, and in response to parent, I read his article, and was actually starting to change my long term belief because it was mostly credible. Then I got to this (search for 'and concluded'):
Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3)
So one of the article's most important argument legs is that you can't statistically prove Australia's buyback program had any impact. But:
before the buyback, mass shootings: 2 out of every 3 years
after the buyback, mass shootings: 0 in 20 years
You can't draw a statistical conclusion from that? Cmon, man.
Re: (Score:3)
Going to go full disagreement with you on this one.
And you'd be wrong. One of the good things about living in the UK is the fact that the most dangerous thing a criminal can threaten me with is a knife but most wont even have one of those. Our criminals are cowards and we have a much lower rate of violent crime as a result.
The problem with the US is, and you are part of that problem, that it refuses to admit it's society has a problem. America with Guns is like an alcoholic with a bottle of scotch, they don't believe they have an issue even when they're
Re: (Score:3)
I don't shoot people. Just aliens and zombies. Maybe the occasional historical figure but I mostly stab them.
But you raise a good point. The underlying problem isn't guns, it's gun culture. And gun culture pervades everything.
Everything in American media and a lot of American politics teaches you that guns and warfare are the answer to problems. Social problems aren't issues to manage, they are enemies that you declare war on. That's even the narrative around mass shootings: guns would fix that problem too.