Valve Slammed Over 'Horrendous' Steam School-Shooting Game (eurogamer.net) 351
Several readers have shared an EuroGamer report: Just a week after the Santa Fe High School shooting in Texas that saw 10 people fatally shot and 13 others were wounded, Valve has come under fire for a Steam school-shooting game that encourages you to "hunt and destroy" children. Active Shooter, which at the time of publication is live on Steam and due for release on 6th June, is described by its developer as "a dynamic S.W.A.T. simulator." The idea is you're sent in to deal with a shooter at a school, but you can also play as the actual shooter, gunning down school children.
Now, an anti-gun violence charity has called on Valve to pull the game from Steam. The developer of Active Shooter is called Revived Games, the publisher Acid. Revived Games' credits include White Power: Pure Voltage and Dab, Dance & Twerk. "Acid", who plans to add a survival mode in which you play as a civilian and have to "escape or perform a heroic action such as fight against the shooter itself," took to Active Shooter's Steam page to defend the game. "First of all, this game does not promote any sort of violence, especially any soft [sic] of a mass shooting," Acid said.
Now, an anti-gun violence charity has called on Valve to pull the game from Steam. The developer of Active Shooter is called Revived Games, the publisher Acid. Revived Games' credits include White Power: Pure Voltage and Dab, Dance & Twerk. "Acid", who plans to add a survival mode in which you play as a civilian and have to "escape or perform a heroic action such as fight against the shooter itself," took to Active Shooter's Steam page to defend the game. "First of all, this game does not promote any sort of violence, especially any soft [sic] of a mass shooting," Acid said.
Rinse. Repeat. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone remember when Postal came out?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone remember when Postal came out?
Postal? I still haven't even gotten over that 1989 Prince of Persia when Jaffar killed the princess
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rinse. Repeat. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Postal? Pfft. Anyone remember when Missile Command came out?!
Stop picking on poor Valve (Score:3)
Yeah, and don't forget Bully, NightTrap and the whole host of other controversial games that have been released over the years. The best was Doom, slammed for satanic and violent content when it was new. I'm sure that John Carmac is still crying in his Cheerios over all the money he lost out on because he made a game that was controversial.
This sort of thing is always an exercise in futility. I am all for reducing gun violence, but censorship isn't the answer. This
Re: Stop picking on poor Valve (Score:2)
the current epidemic of gun violence
I think you mean the current hysteria over gun violence. Either that or you don't remember the 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
censorship isn't the answer.
Valve should just rebrand it to 'America Simulator'. Make the health packs DLCs and add more bibles.
Re: (Score:3)
What about Super Columbine Massacre?
Re: (Score:2)
Or Hatred, more recently.
https://store.steampowered.com... [steampowered.com]
All you can shoot buffet for just 2 EUR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rinse. Repeat. (Score:2)
Ok. The censorship here is way too much. But it eased over the last couple of years. The only thing that I miss now is the ability to play against real nazis as no publisher tries to challenge that unconstitutional ban. The self-censor-committee of the gaming industry recently admitted that the old ruling for wolfenstein 3d would not stand once challenged, as the reality has sunk in that games and movies are comparable now and that the art exception could no longer withheld from computer games.
The antifa is
Not against (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not against (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the game mocking mass shootings, or glorifying them, or something in between?
Whatever it's doing, it sure looks clumsy and tasteless from here.
I suspect it's the product of some naive, young, male programmers, who have spent too much time alone, dealing with other people only as vague online constructs, and thus never developed much empathy or understanding regarding how their words and actions can affect other people. When everything and everyone is nothing more than pixels on a screen, nothing matters, so why not make a game about mass shootings?
Re:Not against (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the game mocking mass shootings, or glorifying them, or something in between?
Whatever it's doing, it sure looks clumsy and tasteless from here.
You think? What about the complete disparity between people getting angry about a game involving school shootings, while also having absolutely no willpower to actually do anything about real school shootings?
Re:Not against (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the game mocking mass shootings, or glorifying them, or something in between?
Whatever it's doing, it sure looks clumsy and tasteless from here.
You think? What about the complete disparity between people getting angry about a game involving school shootings, while also having absolutely no willpower to actually do anything about real school shootings?
Ih, there's plenty of will power to do "something" ... the problem is that none of the "something's proposed would actually do anything useful.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the complete disparity between people getting angry about a game involving school shootings, while also having absolutely no willpower to actually do anything about real school shootings?
What do you propose they do about "real school shootings"? They can't ban or restrict guns because there is insufficient political support for that. They can't increase spending on mental health because there is no political support for that either. Armed guards in every school is a stupid idea for many reasons. So what do you propose?
Re:Not against (Score:5, Informative)
"there is insufficient political support for that"
That would be the no willpower to actually do anything problem.
In actual fact, there's lots of will, including political support to do it. Polls in the US show a majority of voters favour increased gun control. Problem is, there's a very vocal minority making everyone believe there's no will.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the no willpower to actually do anything problem.
The people complaining about this game, and the people opposed to further restrictions on guns are mostly DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Polls in the US show a majority of voters favour increased gun control.
Politics doesn't work that way. How many people favoring more restrictions are willing to change their vote because of that single issue? Historically, it has been very few. How many people opposed to further restrictions are willing to change their vote? Historically, it was enough for Republican landslide victories in 1994, and 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter what the majority of people believe, it matters what the majority of gun owners believe, since that what it will come down to. It's worth remembering that the American Revolution began with an attempt by the British governor to seize guns from civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should work okay for gun control then. The majority of Americans are not gun owners.
Re: (Score:2)
And majority of gun owners are not NRA members.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you list a few of those "many"?
Sure:
1. Some of the school shootings DID have armed guards, and the guards (obviously) didn't prevent the shooting. At Parkland, the guard didn't intervene at all.
2. Most the the kids killed are shot within the first few seconds. Nearly all are shot with two minutes of the shooter opening fire. So a guard is likely to intervene too late to do much good.
3. Putting armed guards and metal detectors may make school violence WORSE, by creating a siege mentality, and sucking kids into the criminal justice s
Re: (Score:2)
what make school shootings any different than any other shooting? Is it because in a school shooting mostly white kids are shot? In the grand scope, the number of people killed outside a mass-shooting situation, in a single year, will dwarf every school shooting since the beginning of time. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of shootings in the US are black-on-black crime. This often goes understated. Its an epidemic that deserves just as much attention as any other incident like a school shooting. But
Re:Not against (Score:5, Insightful)
i am sorry, this is not the right time to talk about gun control in games. lets wait till the game has been out of news for a while for our tender sensibilities, and then we can not talk about it.
Re:Not against (Score:5, Informative)
The game itself doesn't look very original or good. Especially the shown perspective of the shooter makes it look like an easy mode with no challenge as you're killing unarmed civilians and SWATs that are more harmless than your generic Stormtrooper (of course except when killing Luke's uncle and aunt). It comes with dated graphics and nothing that isn't already out there somewhere. I guess the attention the game getting now is better exposure to potential buyers than they could ever hoped for otherwise. You can expect people who wouldn't have considered buying such a shitty game spending some bucks on it, just act in spite of those who are offended by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the game mocking mass shootings, or glorifying them, or something in between?
Whatever it's doing, it sure looks clumsy and tasteless from here.
I suspect it's the product of some naive, young, male programmers, who have spent too much time alone, dealing with other people only as vague online constructs, and thus never developed much empathy or understanding regarding how their words and actions can affect other people. When everything and everyone is nothing more than pixels on a screen, nothing matters, so why not make a game about mass shootings?
Either that, or they are masters of the Streisand effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, because it couldn't be some naive, young, female programmers. Girls can't do anything wrong, after all.
Of course it could be -- anything is theoretically possible -- but in practice, it never is, is it?
The real problem is having an open discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
A better question is why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to gun laws. You don't see the Auto makers campaigning against driver's licenses and insurance. My guess is they're worried stronger laws would bite into impulse buys. A coworker the other day went to buy a pistol for target shooting and home defense and go excited and walked out with an AR-15 and several boxes of ammo. His wife was pissed. If he'd had 7 days to think it over he'd have cancelled the order and settled for the $400 pistol over the $1000 AR-15.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't have you playing the shooter because you might see how trivial it is to mow down dozens of unarmed people in a matter of few minutes no matter what the police or anyone else does.
Re: (Score:3)
CDC can't, by law, do any research on gun violence.
That is a lie. The CDC can't spend money to "advocate or promote gun control". If they couldn't "research gun violence". How is it we know how many gun related deaths there are from the CDC year after year? [cdc.gov]
What is wrong with saying a government research agency cannot push an agenda in their research?
Collecting statistics (Score:3)
Re:Collecting statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read your own link? The Dickey Amendment hasn't been repealed and is still law the CDC must follow.
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:
This is the amendment you are talking about that "bans gun research". This is the exact wording. It doesn't ban "collecting statistics" or any kind of research. We know how many people die by guns each year because the CDC can collect those statistics. We have statistics on gun deaths in the US because the CDC can research gun violence! What the CDC can't do is advocate or promote gun control.That is still the law the CDC must follow. What you link to doesn't change that. The last omnibus spending bill did not repeal the Dickey Amendment.
Researching the causes of gun violence has never been banned for the CDC.
Re: (Score:3)
. So the ban is still in effect.
You admit you were wrong yet still claim you are right. No. There was never a ban and you are lying. The "ban" is that the CDC cannot advocate against the rights of citizens. Should any other government agency advocate the removal of your rights? Can the FCC use its funds to promote and advocate regulating an ISP under Title 2? Can the FCC, if successful, advocate for restricting obscene content on the internet because ISP is regulated under Title 2? Should the FBI use its funds to promote an end to encrypt
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/... [gpo.gov]
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:
Where in the above quote does it say the CDC cannot research gun violence? How would any of that text describe a ban on "research on gun violence". Note, the same kind of restriction is put on other hot-button topics, like abortion.
That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A better question is why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to gun laws. You don't see the Auto makers campaigning against driver's licenses and insurance.
Maybe you don't see it because those are state level issues, while lots of firearm-related legistlation is national. Even state-level firearm-related legislation receives media attention because it is a political hot-button. What you do see folks like the NRA advocating for is the enforcement of current laws. The church shooter in Texas from some months ago comes to mind. The Air Force failed to report his convinction to the FBI, so he was never stopped from purchasing a gun. In fact, most new proposed le
The NRA fights it at the state level 2 (Score:2)
And you better believe they're out there hoping for impulse buys. Nobody _needs_ an AR-15. You _want_ one.
Re: (Score:2)
And you better believe they're out there hoping for impulse buys. Nobody _needs_ an AR-15. You _want_ one.
What does that have to do with impulse buys? Whether or not you "need" something has nothing to do with whether you planned the purchase in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody needs a car that goes over 55 but hey they do. NTSB found that restricting the speed limit to 55 would have saved over 15000 people.
AR15 is the pitbull of the gun world. Why do people like it? It works, it's cheap and it's modular for what you want to do with it. You don't see anyone spouting banning the Ruger Mini-14 which is just as effective a firearm as the AR minus the modularity (it's semi auto with a detachable magazine).
Re: (Score:3)
Coming from a country with a high percentage of guns per capita, but with a very low homicide rate, I can give you a hint: We have rifles, not handguns. And that is true for most of the countries with similar profiles: Canada, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Germany, New Zealand, Finland.
This might not be the reason for less homicides, but there is probably some underlying factor influencing both, homicides and handgun proliferation.
So you might really want to start looking into that: Why do
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there ya go. Perhaps can use this game to simulate if arming teachers actually lowers the death count of a mass school shooting.
Personally, I think that it would, but only IF the teacher knew what they were doing with the firearm. Someone who isn't trained correctly would probably just up the body count by shooting through walls and hitting innocent bystanders.
Unfortunately, arming teachers would probably also increase the number of accidental shootings from kids finding a gun in a classroom that wasn
DOOM (Score:5, Interesting)
A buddy of mine used a WAD maker/editor to make a very good rendition of our high school in the 90's. Of course, DOOM was made of monsters and folks enjoyed it and took it for what it was. (this was in the 90's). I shudder to think of what would happen to us now if we were in high school and did this. Probably end up in federal....prison.
Re:DOOM (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. I did my university... quake2 iirc
I mean, seriously... great level subject. Long underground hallways with pipes carrying water, electrical, and even steam (!!) connecting buildings ... labyrinthine wings, most rooms with multiple exits, lots of interior and exterior windows, rooms within rooms, hub-spoke layouts, theaters, open stair cases, interior balconies, the science wing had bona fide radioactive storage, biohazard storage, greenhouses, centrifuges, lasers, loading areas for trucks, etc, etc... the grounds had courtyards, reflecting pools...
It practically begged to be a death match level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember doing something similar with the Quake third party level editor Qoole. I wasn't sure what to make, so I went with what I knew - my house. Of course, after completing it it quickly became apparent that a level based on an average house is very quick and not very fun. So I scaled the entire house up and made the level about being a tiny person fighting tiny enemies in huge rooms.
It was a fun project, and it gave me a newfound respect for good level design and how hard it is to get all the detail
Controls needed? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone for "common sense" speech controls? You're not against "common sense" are you?
What kind of speech-nuts or speech-extremists would argue against common sense limitations on a Constitutional right? They didn't have computers when the US Constitution was written, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the kind that realize that "common sense" means something different to each person?
If that's supposed to be sarcasm, you completely lost me by the end.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We already have common sense speech controls, For example, libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words, and commercial speech have never been protected by the First Amendment, and we have various laws against all of those. There is not a single "natural right" that has not historically come with "common sense controls". Not one.
Re: (Score:2)
"Natural rights" is a specific term of art. It's not a list of things you pull out of your ass (although you have the natural right to pull them out
Re: (Score:2)
youre exactly my kind of cynic. love it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious?
Not really. Some other people want to impose oppressive "controls" on innocent people. I don't. I support the entire Bill of Rights, rather than supporting some fashionable parts and opposing other parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an article on that "fire in a crowded theatre" cliche:
https://www.theatlantic.com/na... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why people bother with that one when there are a bunch of common sense exceptions to US freedom of speech:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Including the ultimate "I know it when I see it" one regarding obscenity.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the quote is misused. It's still fucking true.
But when the cliche is used, it's mostly used to say "free speech isn't absolute, so we can impose controls on speech and censor some kinds of speech". In fact, no, you probably can't.
Government can almost never censor speech. And, while almost never isn't exactly never, almost never is a lot closer to never than it is to the average scheme of people who use the "fire in a crowded theatre" cliche.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, "common sense" is awesome because it can be used to argue for or against anything. Or both -- if you're vague enough, both sides will assume you agree with them because they see themselves as being sensible, so their preferences must be the "common sense" ones.
Scoring question. (Score:5, Funny)
The idea is you're sent in to deal with a shooter at a school, ...
How many points do you get for staying outside and hiding behind a dumpster?
Re:Scoring question. (Score:5, Funny)
6-figure government pension unlocked!
Cops and robbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's play cops and robbers! But everyone has to be cops because robbers are bad!
Link to actual game - decide for yourself (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks pretty bad. Honestly, any attention is good attention for this level of project.
That Counterstrike game I tell ya... (Score:2)
...lets the Terrorists Win don't'cha know
Simulation... (Score:3)
The whole point of simulation is to imagine the full scenario, explore all the angles that can be systematically imagined.
If you're playing Sim City - while imagining power grids, water flow models, traffic patterns, and industrial/commercial is all fascinating to see it all play out as a model - most folks will end up throwing in a horrible disaster or two, just to see how those systems will react, falter, fail, and sometimes recover.
And it does help to see those things play out - to see these enormously important things break - to know that they are big, but still fragile in their own ways, when they're seen in a neutral mathematical and simulation background.
That said - that's not really how lots of these games really play around with those subjects. Yeah - when the games are just trying to push the buttons of the players and audience, rile up a reaction - then it's just bad writing.
Even that said though - the game Dungeon Keeper is still a favorite of mine. It's a game that places you as spectral force digging out exactly the kinds of grid-based dungeons that old RPG games would have you exploring. As such, your tools were largely gathering monsters, feeding them, readying them for combat, expanding territory, then using various kinds of harm on adventurers you defeated (jailing, torture, killing) for various benefits. It really held to that perspective with its mechanics - complete with dread-voices narrator of events - in a narratively interesting way. It was genuinely good writing - while being about unethical characters and outcomes.
But no one generally became more cruel through playing Dungeon Keeper - if anything, it taught me about the family of motivations you have to follow to 'justify' torturing your enemies as a valid tactic - and why none of them add up to a good idea in any way. The game wasn't pushing the buttons on the audience, so much as it fairly deconstructed how our 'regular' stories were also pushing our buttons, in its own over-the-top way.
Kids see bullies winning the perennial getting-away-with-it game every day. Every one of them knows they could 'win' by fighting more violently using tools. Imagining only the glory of that outcome, and not the full scenario is the core flaw... well, in most crime, not just school violence.
I say the better answer is a more rigorous exploration of that space - a simulation that goes full circle - that shows that this violence only results in scenarios where bullies at large get away with more, because even with complete surveillance, folks will only bother to look back in broken circumstances - and it will still tend to only result in innocent people getting punished meaningfully, since punishments tend to mean almost nothing to bullies, and the process only entrenches them in that path. At least with the logic of school rule enforcement here in the US.
You don't even need guns to explore that space. Just avoid cheaply pushing buttons with your narrative.
Ryan Fenton
Atari (Score:3)
Back in ancient times of game systems, in Seven Cities of Gold (I think) on the Atari, you could wantonly attack peaceful Indians ... or keep slaughtering ones that had stopped resisting.
They went into some kind of weird tribal dance of utter despair that really freaked me out and made me never want to try that again. Brrr.
But my point is you could do it.
Granted, they were so pixilated and cartoonish that I don't think even those who believe video games inspire violence could really think that game would ... so it;s not quite the same thing.
I'm shocked... (Score:2)
I'm shocked it took someone this long to make a school shooting game.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't. SCMRPG came out 13 years ago. [wikipedia.org]
nothing (Score:2)
We need to STOP PUBLICIZING shootings! (Score:3)
this is a good idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the difficulty with school shootings is law enforcement figuring out how to outsmart the advanced military tactics of a child?
The game is tasteless and useless. Of course, I'm all for tasteless and useless things being available to buy. That's what freedom is about, if you only want freedom for the things you like that's simply wanting to be the dictator of a tyrannical society. If it gets into the hands of a kid who decides shooting up his school is a cool idea because of it, and people die, then a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, games are the problem (Score:2)
Not bullying. Not at all. That's why kids shoot up schools instead of, say, shopping malls where it would be easy to rack up a way higher body count. That's why they shoot their former classmates and teachers instead of simply kicking open and spraying bullets into the first classroom they get to.
But you can't say that. How DARE you blame the poor, poor children? Just because they had a little fun with the evil, evil shooter.
Re: (Score:2)
Games can be a part of the problem, in desensitizing undeveloped minds and training them towards violence. Not with the mere concept of killing, but with previously unavailable realism.
Just like part of the problem can be from a lack of skilled counselors,
A lack of empathy being instilled from teachers,
A lack of empathy being instilled from both parents having to work, or only having one parent.
A lack of empathy as a result of the culture of online communications and its cruelties,
A sense of injustic
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the desensitizing argument. It has a lot of that "gateway drug" argument. Usually it comes down to the question whether you think you would have become a violent bastard had you played those games. And usually the answer is no. Which makes me question why you think it applies to everyone else. It surprises me to no end why again and again I run into people who would assume that everyone else is stupid or weak-willed, but they themselves would never "fall" for whatever they accuse everyone else to be sus
Re: (Score:2)
controversy sells (Score:2)
Generating controversy is a great way to get free advertising.
Personally, I don't care, there are all sorts of horrible things in games and movies. People know the difference between fantasy and reality.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I might suggest looking to Australia for examples we can use, regarding gun turn-in or buy-back programs. Maybe a start would be to further limit the kinds of guns that most people can buy. The vast majority of the public, for example, does not require a semi-automatic rifle of any kind. Every time any member of my family in Texas has gone hunting, the rifle was bolt-action. There are very niche use cases for semi-automatic rifles where special permits could be issued, but there's no reason they need to
The responsiblity to bear arms? (Score:2)
I found out a few years back that this is already the case. If you are a collector or historian type, you can get a permit to own fully automatic weaponry and other really dangerous(tm) stuff like ww2 machine guns, bazookas and the like. I think that there is a more rigorous background investigation involved, and it appears to more or less work, since y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Seems kind of limp-dicked when you've already made some pretty heavy concessions in the past.
I didn't make that concession. It was made before my time. Howsabout just stopping the slide down the slope?
Re: (Score:2)
Good, as long as you're part of a well-regulated militia then I'll believe you're trying to adhere to the Constitution. If you just want to keep a gun in your house because it makes you feel powerful then I don't think you can use the Constitution as a crutch. Also, like the other poster said, if you believe in a person's right to bear any and all weapons they choose, good for you for being consistent. If you think people shouldn't be allowed to own fighter planes with bombs and missiles or a mini gun or
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the government sold you the gun, it's not a buyback.
What you want to call it is completely irrelevant.
How? What about the millions of that sort already in circulation which you are never going to see bought back?
Well, I would assume any such law would have a deadline, and unlicensed guns after that deadline would be illegal. It's not a hard concept.
Not to mention the fact it is getting increasingly easy to build your own.
Sure, like drugs, or bombs, or anything else that we say is illegal.
Given most pistols are semi-automatic, you are going to be hard pressed to legislate such a thing
I never even mentioned pistols. It's not hard to legislate that. Start with barrel length, maybe explosive force. Really, these barriers you're throwing up aren't difficult to work around.
let alone the simple 'fun' argument for plinking.
Whoa there, pal, buddy, it's not called the "Bill Of Fun." Las
Re:US is at fault (Score:4, Informative)
As someone living in Great Britain I seem to have missed these multiple murders.
Could you perhaps provide references, as well as better explain who 'they' are?
Re: (Score:2)
Shall not be infringed. I don't care how you do it in your country, AC. That's your business.
Re: (Score:2)
Every adult male was part of the militia. These days that's changed of course: women are welcome too.
Re: (Score:2)
Every adult male was part of the militia.
That would be an un regulated militia.
Re: (Score:3)
> "well regulated militia"
That's the whole of the people. Regulated in this sense probably means well supplied. In any event, nothing about the second amendment's actual writing, nor its intention from those who wrote it, imply that being in a militia (and CERTAINLY not being in an army- the second amendment doesn't suddenly switch from detailing individual rights to detailing that the government should be able to raise armies, a detail covered in the main body of the constitution) has anything to do w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you trying to say that their guns are being taken from them...at gunpoint?
Or are their houses/vehicles being burglarized? If it's the latter then it's definitely happening without them knowing about it. Maybe they found out about it later, but they didn't know when it was happening. Ei
Re:US is at fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a dog. It will make you safer than owning a gun will, and won't make you more likely to commit suicide or kill a family member.
If you have a dog, that home intruder won't even try to come into your house. Bad guys avoid dogs, but they look to steal guns
A gun in the house increases the risk to your family.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/a... [oup.com]
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>Except the US.
And many others!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
France, Canada both allow gun ownership.
And why does the USA have the most guns? It's fucking simple--well, only if facts are allowed in this discussion: The USA has LUXARY GOODS because it's a super-high-GDP country. The rich in the USA buy nice China, nice cars, and nice guns. They buy nice guitar, nice, boats, nice TVs.... and more guns.
The people who own the MOST GUNS in the USA (3% of all citizens own 133M guns!)[1], are rich people, wh
Re:As seriously as the US takes it (Score:4, Informative)
It's not that they don't care (well, some don't, obs) but most of them realize that school shootings are statistical rarities. That ain't what's gonna kill yer kid.
What's gonna kill 'em? The car you drove her to school in. Dogs. Cancer. Suicide (big one, esp for teens). Homicides outside the school from people they know, mostly their own parents. Non-automobile accidents of all sorts. But not school shootings. Those aren't worth bothering with as far as actual risk goes (as opposed to fear... they're great for causing fear).
About 300 kids have been killed in school shootings in the last 35 years, or about 8 or 9 per year. 8 or 9 kids will die in automobile accidents today. The rate of school shootings has been slowly declining since the 1990s. [northeastern.edu]
Re:As seriously as the US takes it (Score:5, Informative)
You're more likely to be killed by a deer. About 120 Americans are killed by deer every year [vox.com]. (325.7 million Americans) / (120 deaths/year) = 1 in 2.7 million chance of being killed by a deer each year. Do you wring your hands over the possibility of being killed by a deer, and hold marches to demanding the deer population be controlled?
The U.S. causes of death statistics are readily available from the CDC website [cdc.gov]. For 2015, the leading causes of death for the 15-19 year old demographic were:
3,919 deaths - Accidents (mostly automobile accidents and drug overdoses)
2.061 deaths - Suicide
1,587 deaths - Homicide (mostly outside school, and gang related)
583 deaths - Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
306 deaths - Heart disease
195 deaths - Birth defects
72 deaths - Influenza (the flu)
63 deaths - Chronic lower respiratory diseases
61 deaths - Cerebrovascular diseases
52 deaths - Diabetes
41 deaths - Complications from pregnancy and childbirth
All of these represent a greater risk to students than the 14 deaths per year from school shootings.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I worry a lot about the possibility of hitting a deer whenever I'm driving because there are a lot of them around here. I appreciate the deer crossing warning signs where they're especially common. And there's no need for marches because we already have a very advanced deer population control system called deer hunting season, which is vital to keeping the ecosystem i
Re: (Score:2)
So... school shootings are okay because more people die from harder to prevent causes each year?
Re: (Score:3)
Two reasons: Because 14 deaths a year is a trivially small price to pay for the right to defend yourself,
Tell that to the family of one of those 14, I dare you.