- Forum
- Lounge
- vlad from moscow
- Page 8
vlad from moscow
I'm not going to give any links here, but this is just what I hear in everyday life... I have to point out to people in this thread that the general opinion in the UK of guns being widely available to the public is treated as idiocy and is regularly mocked. The typical UK citizen seems to consider it to be a fool's idea.
Also, the US constitution and much of US society is falling behind the times. If things continue as they are continuing, the US nation will divide and fall.
Also, the US constitution and much of US society is falling behind the times. If things continue as they are continuing, the US nation will divide and fall.
Whats interesting is that when it comes to freedoms americans dont really care too much about losing them, just the gun freedom, that one matters for some reason.
One positive thing about american citizens is they actually glom together very well when in a crisis, I think if being divided was causing problems the outcome wouldn't be civil war, more of some concentrating on core principles until order was restored (i reckon).
One positive thing about american citizens is they actually glom together very well when in a crisis, I think if being divided was causing problems the outcome wouldn't be civil war, more of some concentrating on core principles until order was restored (i reckon).
| Also, the US constitution and much of US society is falling behind the times. If things continue as they are continuing, the US nation will divide and fall. |
This is certainly one of the stupidest things to show up on this thread. Ironic it should show up in the same post that calls another culture's gun policy "idiocy" without any logical support (unless "I hear" passes in your neck of the woods.)
I love that everyone keeps referring to it as a slippery slope scenario when in fact is it what is playing out. The NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre said in a televised conference that it wasn't guns that created violent people, it was games like (had to look this up again) Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto, movies like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers, and music with all their glamorized violence. Then a few days later CNN reported that a NRA spokesperson had reported LaPierre's intent, that if Congress passed stricter gun laws he would lobby to have stricter control on media. Carol Costello the next morning referred to the movement as battling Rights (joke on battling banjos) Right to bare arms versus Freedom of Speech. Finding his speech is easy, but not having any luck finding the segment with the NRA Spokesperson remarks on LaPierre's intent.
At first I didn't worry about NRA, until the fact that in that same speech LaPierre said the solution wasn't to remove guns, but when you have "bad guys with guns" you need to have more "good guys with guns" and to put armed security in schools. Several months later Obama approved funding to put armed police officers in schools, which was basically what LaPierre had said to do. Everyone know the NRA has several Senators in their pockets, so if by some chance stricter laws are passed, we can certainly expect NRA supported congress to try laws to restrict games, movies, and music more than they are now.
At first I didn't worry about NRA, until the fact that in that same speech LaPierre said the solution wasn't to remove guns, but when you have "bad guys with guns" you need to have more "good guys with guns" and to put armed security in schools. Several months later Obama approved funding to put armed police officers in schools, which was basically what LaPierre had said to do. Everyone know the NRA has several Senators in their pockets, so if by some chance stricter laws are passed, we can certainly expect NRA supported congress to try laws to restrict games, movies, and music more than they are now.
| devonrevenge wrote: |
|---|
| what do you think of the UKs gun policy cire? |
I don't.
| BHXSpecter wrote: |
|---|
| Several months later Obama approved funding to put armed police officers in schools, which was basically what LaPierre had said to do. |
No kidding? Obama approved funding for an already existing practice in some urban schools? We must be sliding into chaos.
| BHXSpecter wrote: |
|---|
| Right to bare arms |
I support your right to wear short sleeves or even shirts of the sleeveless variety.
Last edited on
| cire wrote: |
|---|
| No kidding? Obama approved funding for an already existing practice in some urban schools? We must be sliding into chaos. |
Until now it was paid for by the school corporation which is why some schools didn't have them (didn't have the money to put into it). Problem is, Obama went on for those several months saying that wasn't the answer, had a meeting with NRA, Congress, and a few other organizations and suddenly put a fund in place to let all schools get money to put police officers in place.
This makes me concerned because since the 90s they have been doing studies with CAT-scans and other medical procedures that allegedly show peoples pleasure centers light up like a christmas tree when playing violent video games or watching violent movies. They have also been saying games and movies make violent people, but with the steady increase in violence in the US, Congress may very well start considering restrictions and rules to enforce on other media.
| cire wrote: |
|---|
| I support your right to wear short sleeves or even shirts of the sleeveless variety. |
Yeah, kept debating on if it was bear or bare, but neither seemed right and my mind was thinking of the animal when I thought of bear and not the right to have arms.
Well, yes. Pleasure part in one's brain lights up when playing violent video games... but does it necessarily mean that they associate "shooting people" with "fun"? Usually not, since there is that displacement from reality. In other words, they don't see it as actually shooting a human being. Stop assuming that kids are so stupid that they would go around shooting everyone because they could in a video game. It is baseless opinions like that that result in these absurd knee-jerk reactions to anything remotely resembling a gun being inside of a school, et cetera.
As for evidence of this, I have yet to find a fully accurate article on the subject, but I did find an article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23529828) that specifically states that the psychosocial development of children is not correlated to the number of hours of video games played, or whether they were played at all. Hell, television watching did have an effect in this case, but video games did not. This begs the question of whether video games would have such a dramatic effect of having kids want to shoot people for fun. Now, the actual help/hurt factor in video games does alter their perceptions of humanity to be more positive/negative, but that is just a case of optimism and pessimism. In other words, other studies point less towards kids playing video games wanting to kill other people, but rather that it just makes them slightly more depressed about the state of humanity.
As for evidence of this, I have yet to find a fully accurate article on the subject, but I did find an article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23529828) that specifically states that the psychosocial development of children is not correlated to the number of hours of video games played, or whether they were played at all. Hell, television watching did have an effect in this case, but video games did not. This begs the question of whether video games would have such a dramatic effect of having kids want to shoot people for fun. Now, the actual help/hurt factor in video games does alter their perceptions of humanity to be more positive/negative, but that is just a case of optimism and pessimism. In other words, other studies point less towards kids playing video games wanting to kill other people, but rather that it just makes them slightly more depressed about the state of humanity.
Last edited on
That study isn't what I would call factual for two reasons. The control data collected was from a second source (the mothers answering what they observed) and then the data is based off predictions of the control data. Fact, kids imitate what they see whether it is a tv show or game. Fact, mothers aren't a good factual source (the Virginia Tech shooter's mother said she didn't think it was her son because he was an angel and wouldn't hurt a fly; rest of the family said he was screwed up in the head).
I don't deal in opinions, mainly because everyone has one and they don't mean shit unless you have the financial backing to have something done in favor of your opinion. I do deal in facts, and fact is that studies that have been done recently that say that article is wrong. Here is a 2003/2004(updated) article that appeared in the Journal of Adolescence ( http://opencoursesfree.org/archived_courses/cs.berkeley.edu/inst.eecs-cs10/fa09/dis/02/extra/update_violence.pdf )
Fact, the right to bear arms is our second amendment, and they are trying to make laws that bend that amendment. Video games fall under the first amendment, so if they have no qualm about bending or breaking the second, nothing to stop them from trying to bend or break other amendments.
I don't deal in opinions, mainly because everyone has one and they don't mean shit unless you have the financial backing to have something done in favor of your opinion. I do deal in facts, and fact is that studies that have been done recently that say that article is wrong. Here is a 2003/2004(updated) article that appeared in the Journal of Adolescence ( http://opencoursesfree.org/archived_courses/cs.berkeley.edu/inst.eecs-cs10/fa09/dis/02/extra/update_violence.pdf )
| One updated part wrote: |
|---|
For many in the general public, the problem of video game violence first emerged with school shootings by avid players of such games at West Paducah, Kentucky (December, 1997); Jonesboro, Arkansas (March, 1998); Springfield, Oregon (May, 1998), and Littleton, Colorado (April, 1999).More recent violent crimes that have been linked to violent video games include a school shooting spree in Santee, California (March, 2001); a violent crime spree in Oakland, California (January, 2003); five homicides in Long Prairie and Minneapolis, Minnesota (May, 2003); beating deaths in Medina, Ohio (November, 2002) and Wyoming, Michigan (November, 2002); school shootings in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania (June, 2003) and Red Lion, Pennsylvania (April, 2003); and the Washington, DC.‘‘Beltway’’ sniper shootings (Fall, 2002).Video game related violent crimes have also been reported in several other industrialized countries, including Germany (April, 2002), and Japan (Sakamoto, 2000). |
Fact, the right to bear arms is our second amendment, and they are trying to make laws that bend that amendment. Video games fall under the first amendment, so if they have no qualm about bending or breaking the second, nothing to stop them from trying to bend or break other amendments.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
| devonrevenge wrote: |
|---|
| ಠ_ಠ |
Yeah, but that is because UK gun laws don't affect US gun laws or US citizens and you aren't allowed to have firearms off American soil (I think, can't say I've ever had the need to either take a gun out of the US or leave the US so I can't say for sure).
Alright... Reading that article, first thing that comes flying to my face in bright bold is "Meta-Analysis." In other words, it is a correctional study, which means that the results mean nothing. Why? Because correlation does not mean causation. Sure, kids who committed those shootings played video games. They were also white. Does that mean that being white makes you more likely to commit horrible crimes at school? No. So you're still not dealing with facts here, just correlations. And correlations can mean everything, or nothing at all. Like I said earlier, there are no concrete studies done to show the causation.
After reading news articles and research papers all day, I was hoping you would come back with something like that. Fact is, you can find research on all sides of the debate. I found three on one science news site, one saying it does contribute in a small way, one saying it doesn't, and one saying it was beneficial to those with ADD and such.
The one saying it may be beneficial to those with ADD and such:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123134.htm
The one saying it is a risk factor:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326121605.htm
The one talks about the impact mentally:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm
Something you said, got me thinking too.
That doesn't make me think that question at all. Makes me think "double edged sword". If violent video games don't desensitize people, but violent movies do, where is the logic in that? You can't have it both ways. Violence to a violent person is the same as cocaine to a drug addict, the more they do it, the more the body gets used to it, the lower the high (pleasure) is and the more they do it to get that high back. Watching violent movies and television has been said to desensitize you and make you more violent, but games don't...even though they have you pulled into the game by letting you do the violent acts you see on television.
Let's think about this...you throw in the original Alien movie and sit back to watch the Alien kill and destroy everyone on the ship. You watch Ripley kill it finally, or so she thinks. Maybe that isn't violent enough, lets say you watch Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, or Full Metal Jacket, but either way, there you are still sitting on your butt watching all this violence unfold in front of you and not doing anything. Now, you throw in Dead Space, Dead Rising 2, GTA, or another overly violent game, but wait now instead of just watching the violence you have a controller in your hand and controlling who dies, how they die, and if anyone dies with them. Now you are shooting hookers, ripping arms off zombies, shooting people in the head, blowing up cars and explosives and taking out numerous enemies. Wait, you decide to play one of the missions, happens to be the an annoying one that causes you to die 20 times and start over, so now on your 21st try you're aggressive and fed up with the game so that when you die again you scream or throw the controller or something out of frustration. Maybe you beat it, that wonderful high from the feel of accomplishment, just to be taken away in the next mission or two where you start the roller coaster again.
But violent video games don't affect anyone, just violence on tv.
The one saying it may be beneficial to those with ADD and such:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130826123134.htm
The one saying it is a risk factor:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326121605.htm
The one talks about the impact mentally:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm
Something you said, got me thinking too.
| Ispil wrote: |
|---|
| Hell, television watching did have an effect in this case, but video games did not. This begs the question of whether video games would have such a dramatic effect of having kids want to shoot people for fun. |
That doesn't make me think that question at all. Makes me think "double edged sword". If violent video games don't desensitize people, but violent movies do, where is the logic in that? You can't have it both ways. Violence to a violent person is the same as cocaine to a drug addict, the more they do it, the more the body gets used to it, the lower the high (pleasure) is and the more they do it to get that high back. Watching violent movies and television has been said to desensitize you and make you more violent, but games don't...even though they have you pulled into the game by letting you do the violent acts you see on television.
Let's think about this...you throw in the original Alien movie and sit back to watch the Alien kill and destroy everyone on the ship. You watch Ripley kill it finally, or so she thinks. Maybe that isn't violent enough, lets say you watch Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, or Full Metal Jacket, but either way, there you are still sitting on your butt watching all this violence unfold in front of you and not doing anything. Now, you throw in Dead Space, Dead Rising 2, GTA, or another overly violent game, but wait now instead of just watching the violence you have a controller in your hand and controlling who dies, how they die, and if anyone dies with them. Now you are shooting hookers, ripping arms off zombies, shooting people in the head, blowing up cars and explosives and taking out numerous enemies. Wait, you decide to play one of the missions, happens to be the an annoying one that causes you to die 20 times and start over, so now on your 21st try you're aggressive and fed up with the game so that when you die again you scream or throw the controller or something out of frustration. Maybe you beat it, that wonderful high from the feel of accomplishment, just to be taken away in the next mission or two where you start the roller coaster again.
But violent video games don't affect anyone, just violence on tv.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
Well, there is always the difference of how video games do have enough of an "animated" quality where you can tell that they are outright fiction, while television shows and movies more than often use real people. Maybe it's simply the quality of rendering? Maybe as the quality of graphics that can be displayed from computer software through graphic design reaches the point where it becomes indistinguishable from reality, the effects would be significantly more profound?
Lets consider for one moment some actual history here and see what happens.
Because of gun restrictions, teachers were not allowed to have guns in schools.
Did these restrictions help protect anyone on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado?
Did the restrictions stop two students from bringing guns into the school and killing several other students and one teacher?
Do bad people follow restrictions?
Or are we just leaving the good people defenseless?
We don't know for sure, but what would have been the outcome if good people had not been restricted by gun control?
Because of gun restrictions, teachers were not allowed to have guns in schools.
Did these restrictions help protect anyone on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado?
Did the restrictions stop two students from bringing guns into the school and killing several other students and one teacher?
Do bad people follow restrictions?
Or are we just leaving the good people defenseless?
We don't know for sure, but what would have been the outcome if good people had not been restricted by gun control?
but manga if all school teachers had guns and stopped the columbine massacre how do you know that there would still have been more deaths from other things as a result of teachers having guns.
I would also like this opportunity to bestow some of shock haired petes wisdom, a 17th century kids book has a moral lesson about guns, a rabbit manages to steal a hunters musket when he's sleeping, he then shoots him, he thinks its fun so he goes and shoots the huntsman's wife and kids...lots of fun too so the bunny goes and shoots his own kid and then shoots himself.
(the book has two versions of that story) the moral is that guns make you go crazy and go on massacres.
I would also like this opportunity to bestow some of shock haired petes wisdom, a 17th century kids book has a moral lesson about guns, a rabbit manages to steal a hunters musket when he's sleeping, he then shoots him, he thinks its fun so he goes and shoots the huntsman's wife and kids...lots of fun too so the bunny goes and shoots his own kid and then shoots himself.
(the book has two versions of that story) the moral is that guns make you go crazy and go on massacres.
...that's a bit propaganda-ish, is it not? I mean, owning a gun doesn't necessarily make you go crazy, else the number of gun-related deaths each year in the US would be significantly higher.
I own a hand gun. As of yet I have not shot anyone. I agree with ispil that story is from the land of propaganda fictionia.
I wouldnt like a weapon in my house, the wrong people may get hold of it, I had a good crossbow but I feared angry women or drunk freinds shooting me, this is actually common sense because if you do have a gun "for protection" your more likley to accidently shootyourself with it than see of potential thieves/kings of england.
the statistic back this up.
And yes having a gun has made you completely mad you just dont know it.
the statistic back this up.
And yes having a gun has made you completely mad you just dont know it.