Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deseret News)   "Excessively violent movies and their impact on our culture." Because we all know that if we stopped killing each other in movies, then death would just take a holiday   (deseretnews.com) divider line 345
    More: Stupid, Django, Quentin Tarantino  
•       •       •

3277 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Dec 2012 at 9:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



345 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-26 09:22:47 AM  
My favorite movie is Kill Bill. I guess that's why I'm doing time for hacking up forty people with a katana.
 
2012-12-26 09:24:18 AM  
Good thing we don't all live in medieval Europe. We'd all be serial killers.

/writers is a sniveling wuss
 
2012-12-26 09:24:21 AM  
Oh so?

Its good to know that people weren't killing one another violently before film and television were around.
 
2012-12-26 09:24:26 AM  
/Candle

Stopped reading the article.
 
2012-12-26 09:25:08 AM  
NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people
 
2012-12-26 09:25:26 AM  
Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.
 
2012-12-26 09:25:50 AM  
We really should go back before 1867 when movies were first created... Nobody ever got killed, and there were no wars.

/a kinder, gentler time.
 
2012-12-26 09:27:07 AM  

runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people


art.penny-arcade.com
/appropriate, yet again.
 
2012-12-26 09:27:52 AM  
No no no. SEX is bad. Violence is WHOLESOME.
 
2012-12-26 09:28:19 AM  
Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....
 
2012-12-26 09:28:33 AM  
Meh..... a thread about David Gregory violating DCs high capacity magazine ban on the air would be more interesting.
 
2012-12-26 09:28:43 AM  
If we're going to ban things because they might inspire violent behavior, I suggest we start with the Bible, the Quran, and the Communist Manifesto. Those three have inspired more death and destruction than anything else I know of.
 
2012-12-26 09:28:55 AM  
Murder and mayhem will never take a holiday but it seems reasonable to me that if kids weren't fed a constant diet of it in movies, TV and video games from the time they're able to walk, they might be a little less willing to accept it as a viable option in an argument when they're adults.

And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment, let's not forget the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' thing. There are limits to free speech.
 
2012-12-26 09:29:25 AM  
I'm OK with shootings in movies, as long as they are required to make them realistic That means no one gets back up after being shot in the chest or head. Wounds need to be realistic as well.

I was talking with someone the other day, who owns guns...a gun shop actually. and I said we need  to have educational videos for guns the way we used to have educational videos for driving, like "Blood on the Highway". He was OK with that.

//yes, I'm still pushing the petition in these threads
 
2012-12-26 09:31:03 AM  

dofus: Murder and mayhem will never take a holiday but it seems reasonable to me that if kids weren't fed a constant diet of it in movies, TV and video games from the time they're able to walk, they might be a little less willing to accept it as a viable option in an argument when they're adults.

And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment, let's not forget the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' thing. There are limits to free speech.


Dude, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not at all comparable to making a movie where someone gets killed.
 
2012-12-26 09:31:45 AM  

runaway06: Movies and video games kill people


The point of contention is that some, not all, of video games and movies kind of glorify killing. And for some obviously less stable people they might not quite have it all together, well things can possibly start to get fuzzy.

Will I put on a yellow track suit and start hacking people to bits after watching a Kill Bill marathon? Probably not. But I can see a 15-18 year old that idolizes a particular character in a game or a movie having a lapse in judgment.

Does it mean that we should ban violence in TV in movies? No. But in turn if we had any writers worth a damn we wouldn't have to fill in so much time of a movie with it to hide the fact that there isn't any plot advancement and that they only have 20 minutes of actual story that they need to stretch to an hour and forty-five minutes.
 
2012-12-26 09:32:51 AM  
Watching violent movies as a kid has done nothing but good things for me.

Just last weekend I beheaded this guy on the steps of his front porch, right in front of a bunch of his friends.

But its cool, he was the leader of some snake cult and an all-around bad guy.

Crom was pleased.
 
2012-12-26 09:32:56 AM  
It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.

I'm a firm believer that advertising and the consumer culture has harmed us a great deal. Same sort of thing ---it's just words and pictures. We don't have to participate. And yet our country is much, much different than it would have been if we weren't inundated with messages to buy, buy, buy 24 hours a day. How do you know that a lot of exposure to fake violence hasn't somehow affected our way of thinking about things?
 
2012-12-26 09:33:04 AM  

Chinchillazilla: My favorite movie is Kill Bill. I guess that's why I'm doing time for hacking up forty people with a katana.


My favorite movie is Silence of the Lambs so I've eaten a few people and made a skin suit out of some. It's a worthwhile hobby,not like those terrible violent movies or video games.
 
2012-12-26 09:33:44 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Good thing we don't all live in medieval Europe. We'd all be serial killers.

/writers is a sniveling wuss


Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.

The Roman games are a perfect example. Killing all manner of beast and finding ways to kill criminals that makes a sword to the gut sound appealing.

Not to mention the plethora of medieval torture devices and techniques.

I'd argue that TV has saved more lives than it has cost.
 
2012-12-26 09:34:40 AM  
It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.
 
2012-12-26 09:34:48 AM  
i bought alien vs predator for like 5 dollars and played it. you get to be an alien and sneak up behind people and kill them in fantastic graphic fashion. i have yet to murder anyone. author is a menstruating coont
 
2012-12-26 09:36:56 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.


if you're correct we should see an increase in violent deaths once modern media became established, but despite all the wars in the 20th century, you were still less likely to be killed by someone else then than in any previous century, a trend that continues to the modern day, and is observable throughout history.

People in pre-agricultural societies have something like a 4% chance of dying violently; obscenely high compared to any modern society. Clearly hunter gatherers played too much GTA.
 
2012-12-26 09:37:12 AM  

runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people


But only in the US. A movie isn't able to stir up violence in... oh, I don't know... let's say... Bengazi.
 
2012-12-26 09:37:16 AM  

born_yesterday: Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.

The Roman games are a perfect example. Killing all manner of beast and finding ways to kill criminals that makes a sword to the gut sound appealing.

Not to mention the plethora of medieval torture devices and techniques.

I'd argue that TV has saved more lives than it has cost.


Yeah all cultures seem to have had some form of violent entertainment long before television.  Television is just the modern equivalent.  Though we're trending away from violent executions in favor of dressing them up as if they were a medical procedure.  But really there's no difference between a violent movie and a gladiator fight in many respects.
 
2012-12-26 09:37:47 AM  

cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.


I know what you mean. I play this game, not even 2 years old...and everytime I hear any sort of hissing sound I throw myself to the ground and wait for the creeper to explode...
 
2012-12-26 09:37:47 AM  

Big Beef Burrito: Watching violent movies as a kid has done nothing but good things for me.

Just last weekend I beheaded this guy on the steps of his front porch, right in front of a bunch of his friends.

But its cool, he was the leader of some snake cult and an all-around bad guy.

Crom was pleased.


Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart. He gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.
 
2012-12-26 09:37:52 AM  
My entire family loves gruesome Tarantino movies,and our particular new favorite is The Raid: Redemption. We are not at all violent people, and the person who likes those movies most is a woman who won't even fire a gun without running away from it afterwards.

People are crazy first and will latch onto whatever to propel their sick fantasies.
 
2012-12-26 09:38:13 AM  

runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people


And rock and roll!
 
2012-12-26 09:38:44 AM  

dofus: Murder and mayhem will never take a holiday but it seems reasonable to me that if kids weren't fed a constant diet of it in movies, TV and video games from the time they're able to walk, they might be a little less willing to accept it as a viable option in an argument when they're adults.

And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment, let's not forget the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' thing. There are limits to free speech.


Yeah. You can't make a speech inciting others to violence or riot. Other than that, everything else is fair game or considered a civil matter. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is nothing comparable to a movie, as you are inciting people to riot.

Did you have a point here, or are you just trying to be a pants-pissing fascist who ignores the real problems with American culture and the mental health system to chide the television for the fact you're letting it raise your kids?
 
2012-12-26 09:39:46 AM  
So there were no violent deaths before the advent of movies?
 
2012-12-26 09:39:47 AM  

xtragrind: Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.



Don't worry. We're not far off from that.

I bet that, when it happens, it will happen quick.
 
2012-12-26 09:40:02 AM  
Remember that time we watched all the Superman movies and flew around then accidently melted the TV with our laser vision? Good times. Good times.
 
2012-12-26 09:40:06 AM  

Gunther: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

if you're correct we should see an increase in violent deaths once modern media became established, but despite all the wars in the 20th century, you were still less likely to be killed by someone else then than in any previous century, a trend that continues to the modern day, and is observable throughout history.

People in pre-agricultural societies have something like a 4% chance of dying violently; obscenely high compared to any modern society. Clearly hunter gatherers played too much GTA.


Because we still live exactly as hunter-gatherers did, noothng at all has changed EXCEPT for TV...
 
2012-12-26 09:40:19 AM  
Because other countries don't have violent movies or video games...Even Michale Moore explored this in "Bowling for Columbine". This ain't it...

I am starting to think it is the culture of ultra-competitiveness. Everything in the U.S. is now judged...Your clothes, your school (your pre-schools, grammar, middle, high school, college, post-grad), your home/apartment/other, your car, where you work, your rank in the org, etc...

Now before I get jumped on, I am not an "everybody gets a trophy" type. I have to say, though, that the more socialist countries that focus more on overall quality of life rather than individual bank accounts seem to have less of this.

This is only a working theory...
 
2012-12-26 09:40:26 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: No no no. SEX is bad. Violence is WHOLESOME.


...and rough sex is another $50 on top of whatever it is you're paying her to begin with.
 
2012-12-26 09:40:53 AM  

cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.


Actually, plenty of studies on that subject have been done.

Not that you care - you're after a scapegoat, not the truth.
 
2012-12-26 09:42:12 AM  
Leftists want to follow Australias example in regards to firearms....why don;t they want to follow Australias example in regards to some of the strictest censorship laws in the non Sharia world?
 
2012-12-26 09:42:14 AM  

xtragrind: Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....


dammit, i just wrote out a whole rant then realized i'm an idiot. but i realized you're right so i'm not a fool.
 
2012-12-26 09:42:29 AM  
Okay so it's important NOT to blame the tools selected to carry out massacres but we MUST blame the the entertainment industry.

Makes sense if you don't invest any thought on the subject.

What ever happened to blaming the criminal for the crime?
 
2012-12-26 09:42:42 AM  

Vertdang: runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people

[art.penny-arcade.com image 800x401]
/appropriate, yet again.


it is not appropriate because it is stupid and missing the point.
This is not about enacting laws to stop violent video games and movies.
It is about having self restraint and not putting out that type of garbage that promotes a violent culture.

people here whine about the Kardashians and Jersey Shore but no one is accusing those whiners about 1st amendment violations.
 
2012-12-26 09:42:43 AM  

dofus: Murder and mayhem will never take a holiday but it seems reasonable to me that if kids weren't fed a constant diet of it in movies, TV and video games from the time they're able to walk, they might be a little less willing to accept it as a viable option in an argument when they're adults.

And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment, let's not forget the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' thing. There are limits to free speech.


The thing is, I listen to death metal and black metal. I watch horror movies. I play violent video games. The only time I have ever resorted to violence IRL is if I had no other choice. My first choice is always to RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! If I can't, then  I start swinging. My son, who is in his 20's, grew up with this stuff and is much the same  way, except throw in some anime and big band music. We both despise violence IRL. We, like most people who listen to "extreme" metal, watch horror movies and play violent video games, would never harm anyone by choice. I can't even stand to hear about someone being harmed IRL many times,  which is why I can't watch Investigation Discovery very often. It horrifies me. I still shiver about one poor girl's story on that channel and the torture she went through and wish I'd never seen that episode of that show at all.

It's not the entertainment. You are surrounded by people like us. Every. Single. Day. It's the person committing the violence and some fundamental flaw in  them. For most of us, it's merely an outlet, sometimes for aggression, but it's an outlet that is harmless on its face.
 
2012-12-26 09:43:13 AM  
Nice troll sunny. 9/10
 
2012-12-26 09:43:39 AM  
This is very easy.
Lack. Of. Personal. Accountability.

Plain and simple. No one EVER thinks it is his or her fault anymore. This is what happen when people are raised in an "everyone is a winner," special snowflake society. Their precious egos can't handle the fact they did something wrong, and in fact, fail at life. This is at the core of the problem and a lot of problems with society today. It isn't guns. It isn't the news. It isn't video games. It isn't movies. It is the self-entitled child that has had everything handed to him or her on a silver farking platter for his or her entire life that can't handle failure. So much so, when fail does come knocking (ohh and it will), people freak out and commit acts of rage/violence/what-have-you. Stop this snowflake society and I guarantee results...but that's not going to happen when the ex-flower children hippie parents have had their way for so long.
 
2012-12-26 09:43:48 AM  

strix99: Nice troll sunny. 9/10


Subby...damn autocorrect
 
2012-12-26 09:44:05 AM  

runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people



From "That's My Bush": Guns don't kill people; bullets do. Guns just make them go reeeeeeally fast!


/Let my "People" go!
 
2012-12-26 09:44:38 AM  

Chinchillazilla: dofus: Murder and mayhem will never take a holiday but it seems reasonable to me that if kids weren't fed a constant diet of it in movies, TV and video games from the time they're able to walk, they might be a little less willing to accept it as a viable option in an argument when they're adults.

And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment, let's not forget the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' thing. There are limits to free speech.

Dude, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not at all comparable to making a movie where someone gets killed.


Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same after I hit the Add Comment button...

There is probably some arrangement of words that gets the point across that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should but it's not happening for me this morning.

I don't mind that it exists - I'm a fan of NCIS - but I do mind the overwhelming volume of it. I was flipping the channels once and in the space of five minutes I found eleven different shows where some character had a gun in his hand during the few seconds I was watching. There's something wrong with that.
 
2012-12-26 09:44:42 AM  
When I was a youngster my daddy took me to movies like Scarface and full metal jacket, we had guns, including machine guns, all over the house, and my toys were GI Joes. And while I went hunting many times with my dad, I never had the urge to kill anyone or any thing. I turned out just fine, and not at all gay, so I'm proof that these things A. do not cause violence, and B. make sure effeminate boys turn out straight.

/true story
//never went to visit a steel mill though
 
2012-12-26 09:45:00 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.


It hasn't been proven to increase the likelihood of making someone a violent criminal. In fact, studies have suggested the opposite. Which was subby's point.
 
2012-12-26 09:45:37 AM  

born_yesterday: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Good thing we don't all live in medieval Europe. We'd all be serial killers.

/writers is a sniveling wuss

Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.

The Roman games are a perfect example. Killing all manner of beast and finding ways to kill criminals that makes a sword to the gut sound appealing.

Not to mention the plethora of medieval torture devices and techniques.

I'd argue that TV has saved more lives than it has cost.


I made the mistake of trying to read a book on medieval torture devices once. I didn't make it very far. It sickened me.

I just cringed remembering the descriptions of some of those devices, btw.
 
2012-12-26 09:45:43 AM  
The author's point went down in flames when he decided to blame a single individual instead of talking about the culture as a whole.
 
2012-12-26 09:45:45 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Because we still live exactly as hunter-gatherers did, noothng at all has changed EXCEPT for TV...


Are you responding seriously to a sarcastic quip at the end of a post so you can ignore everything else in it? Or are you dumb enough to think "Clearly hunter gatherers played too much GTA" was the meat of the argument?

Either way; wow.
 
2012-12-26 09:45:59 AM  

Bontesla: What ever happened to blaming the criminal for the crime?


You can't do that. Society is to blame. At some point one person had to have done something bad to them in the past, so obviously they were emotionally scared to the point of this outcome. How could you be so heartless as to suggest that they should be held accountable for their actions when clearly either their parents, teachers, family member, or a bully was to blame for their suffering.
 
2012-12-26 09:46:30 AM  

BigBooper: When I was a youngster my daddy took me to movies like Scarface and full metal jacket, we had guns, including machine guns, all over the house, and my toys were GI Joes. And while I went hunting many times with my dad, I never had the urge to kill anyone or any thing. I turned out just fine, and not at all gay, so I'm proof that these things A. do not cause violence, and B. make sure effeminate boys turn out straight.

/true story
//never went to visit a steel mill though


Hope is isn't the Simpsons steel mill.

www.tvgasm.com
 
2012-12-26 09:46:42 AM  

Zasteva: runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people

But only in the US. A movie isn't able to stir up violence in... oh, I don't know... let's say... Bengazi.


3/10.
 
2012-12-26 09:47:31 AM  
Ya know, if your dumbass kid is THAT influenced by movies or games or music or whatever, you are a complete and abject failure as a parent.
 
2012-12-26 09:47:53 AM  

cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now.


Hyper-Realistic Video Games? So they're putting on MILES Gear and firing simunition at eachother?

What, they're not?

cryinoutloud:  Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society?

Yeah. They've done those studies. The ones that aren't horribly biased and poorly conducted have found no causation link between violence in television and video games, and street violence. What they have found correlation AND causation links to are poverty, bullying/abuse and lack of access to mental health services.
 
2012-12-26 09:48:04 AM  
Pretty sure all of the mass killings are a symptom of too many people. As the population increases, as will the frequency and size of the killings....it's probably nature's way of controlling the population.
 
2012-12-26 09:49:03 AM  

rrife: Pretty sure all of the mass killings are a symptom of too many people. As the population increases, as will the frequency and size of the killings....it's probably nature's way of controlling the population.


Dammit. Bob Barker had it right all the time...
 
2012-12-26 09:49:26 AM  

Gunther: Holocaust Agnostic: Because we still live exactly as hunter-gatherers did, noothng at all has changed EXCEPT for TV...

Are you responding seriously to a sarcastic quip at the end of a post so you can ignore everything else in it? Or are you dumb enough to think "Clearly hunter gatherers played too much GTA" was the meat of the argument?

Either way; wow.


What point did he make other than "violence has declined over time ergo violence in media means nothing"?
 
2012-12-26 09:49:51 AM  

cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.

I'm a firm believer that advertising and the consumer culture has harmed us a great deal. Same sort of thing ---it's just words and pictures. We don't have to participate. And yet our country is much, much different than it would have been if we weren't inundated with messages to buy, buy, buy 24 hours a day. How do you know that a lot of exposure to fake violence hasn't somehow affected our way of thinking about things?


I actually did an experiment like that for my sociology class in High School. I had a group play a "violent game" (Freedom Fighters, school only allowed a T rated game) and a non violent (racing game of some kind, I think) and we asked them to measure their anger, stress and happiness before and after.

Guys ended up being calmer, less stressed and less angry after playing the violent game whereas the women got more pissed and angry after playing the violent game.

But hey, it was just a shiatty high school project, nothing more.
/science!
 
2012-12-26 09:50:03 AM  
"Our excessively violent culture and its impact on movies." How about that for an article?
 
2012-12-26 09:50:14 AM  

DeathCipris: BigBooper: When I was a youngster my daddy took me to movies like Scarface and full metal jacket, we had guns, including machine guns, all over the house, and my toys were GI Joes. And while I went hunting many times with my dad, I never had the urge to kill anyone or any thing. I turned out just fine, and not at all gay, so I'm proof that these things A. do not cause violence, and B. make sure effeminate boys turn out straight.

/true story
//never went to visit a steel mill though

Hope is isn't the Simpsons steel mill.

[www.tvgasm.com image 320x240]


They work hard, and PLAY hard!
 
2012-12-26 09:50:53 AM  

WippitGuud: rrife: Pretty sure all of the mass killings are a symptom of too many people. As the population increases, as will the frequency and size of the killings....it's probably nature's way of controlling the population.

Dammit. Bob Barker had it right all the time...


Remember to spay and neuter your pets...also your children.
 
2012-12-26 09:51:28 AM  

DeathCipris: BigBooper: When I was a youngster my daddy took me to movies like Scarface and full metal jacket, we had guns, including machine guns, all over the house, and my toys were GI Joes. And while I went hunting many times with my dad, I never had the urge to kill anyone or any thing. I turned out just fine, and not at all gay, so I'm proof that these things A. do not cause violence, and B. make sure effeminate boys turn out straight.

/true story
//never went to visit a steel mill though

Hope is isn't the Simpsons steel mill.

[www.tvgasm.com image 320x240]


Hot stuff, coming through!
 
2012-12-26 09:52:05 AM  
I think it has very large consequences on our culture. I err on the "artsy" side of things, but if I were to name my top 100 movies, 3/4 of them would probably feature gun-play pretty heavily. Does that mean I want to censor films, etc? No. That is stupid. But to say that decades of dramatic violence has nothing to do with America's unique problem of real violence is equally as stupid. We obviously have a culture of the stuff.
 
2012-12-26 09:52:05 AM  
Murders per 100,000 people in the US in 1991: 9.8
Murders per 100,000 people in the US in 2010: 4.8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_ti m e
 
2012-12-26 09:53:28 AM  

littlett's: runaway06: Movies and video games kill people

The point of contention is that some, not all, of video games and movies kind of glorify killing. And for some obviously less stable people they might not quite have it all together, well things can possibly start to get fuzzy.

Will I put on a yellow track suit and start hacking people to bits after watching a Kill Bill marathon? Probably not. But I can see a 15-18 year old that idolizes a particular character in a game or a movie having a lapse in judgment.

Does it mean that we should ban violence in TV in movies? No. But in turn if we had any writers worth a damn we wouldn't have to fill in so much time of a movie with it to hide the fact that there isn't any plot advancement and that they only have 20 minutes of actual story that they need to stretch to an hour and forty-five minutes.


But would you be willing to at least put on a tight yellow track-suit and pose with a katana?
 
2012-12-26 09:54:34 AM  
I wish to address the elephant in the room in regard to these shootings.

Virtually every single mass shooting going back to Columbine was committed by a male who was not sexually active. These shootings are caused by extreme frustration which causes these men to lash out violently, and sexual frustration plays a huge role. Getting laid every now and again goes a long way in ensuring mental stability, while never getting laid while falling into a routine of loneliness and social isolation is a great way to build mental instability.

Maybe the solution is to legalize prostitution, maybe the problem won't be solved until they invent reasonably sexy robots. But either way, I remain convinced that handjobs save lives.
 
2012-12-26 09:54:48 AM  
Pretty sure statistics show overall violent crime has been going down for the last 20 years.
 
2012-12-26 09:54:56 AM  
i45.photobucket.com
This movie made me think I could skate.
 
2012-12-26 09:57:39 AM  

littlett's: Bontesla: What ever happened to blaming the criminal for the crime?

You can't do that. Society is to blame. At some point one person had to have done something bad to them in the past, so obviously they were emotionally scared to the point of this outcome. How could you be so heartless as to suggest that they should be held accountable for their actions when clearly either their parents, teachers, family member, or a bully was to blame for their suffering.


Lol

I always feel that response is based out of misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure you're mocking the response so this reply isn't specifically for you. Society can do more than it has been doing. For example - better access to cost-effective mental health services for young adults. We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.
 
2012-12-26 09:58:10 AM  

Great Justice: I wish to address the elephant in the room in regard to these shootings.

Virtually every single mass shooting going back to Columbine was committed by a male who was not sexually active. These shootings are caused by extreme frustration which causes these men to lash out violently, and sexual frustration plays a huge role. Getting laid every now and again goes a long way in ensuring mental stability, while never getting laid while falling into a routine of loneliness and social isolation is a great way to build mental instability.

Maybe the solution is to legalize prostitution, maybe the problem won't be solved until they invent reasonably sexy robots. But either way, I remain convinced that handjobs save lives.


God bless you, sir.

I want this to be the national discussion.

/"We chose to get laid in this decade and do the other one, not because they are easy but because I am hard!"
//"I knew Jack Kennedy, and you, sir, do not lay like Jack Kennedy"
///"Ask not, what your prostitute can do for you; ask what you can do for a prostitute!"
 
2012-12-26 09:58:16 AM  
I gotta ask...since i'm not on either side of the debate about violence in movies and video games...but, looking at movies (since games are a fairly recent invention), violent action is more focused, and more central to the storyline, where older movies tended to make other points the key focus and violence a background or incidental item.

How do we account for the fact that we make violence itself a central point in our entertainment?
 
2012-12-26 09:58:24 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.


I guess if you allow your kids to watch that much, maybe. Or you could sign them up for sports and give them books about science and other useful stuff.


/John Wayne good, Tarantino bad, amidoingthisright?
 
2012-12-26 09:58:32 AM  

WippitGuud: rrife: Pretty sure all of the mass killings are a symptom of too many people. As the population increases, as will the frequency and size of the killings....it's probably nature's way of controlling the population.

Dammit. Bob Barker had it right all the time...


Spay and neuter your psychopaths!
 
2012-12-26 09:58:48 AM  
Stupid Mormons.
 
2012-12-26 09:59:20 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.


Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

marginalrevolution.com
 
2012-12-26 09:59:30 AM  

Big Beef Burrito: Watching violent movies as a kid has done nothing but good things for me.

Just last weekend I beheaded this guy on the steps of his front porch, right in front of a bunch of his friends.

But its cool, he was the leader of some snake cult and an all-around bad guy.

Crom was pleased.


Fark You. Tunnel Snakes Rule!
 
2012-12-26 09:59:58 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
I love this graphic SO much! And it gives it's data source (the DOJ) to boot!
 
2012-12-26 09:59:59 AM  

Bontesla: For example - better access to cost-effective mental health services for young adults. We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.


You can say that, and I know averting one tragedy could be worth the costs, but I'm not sure these are the people who would voluntarily seek help.
 
2012-12-26 10:00:23 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: What point did he make


Ooh, was that a simple spelling mistake or the accidental reveal of a sockpuppet?

Anyhoo, the point I was making was that we can compare cultures before and after they were exposed to violent media. There's no percievable increase in violence. The generation of kids who grew up after video games aren't any more violent than the kids who grew up beforehand (they're less violent, actually).
 
2012-12-26 10:01:20 AM  
This is analogous to the porn/rape argument. I say fap it out, shoot it out on Halo, whatever gets you through the day without snapping.

I think that violence is a natural effect of isolating ourselves in homes that resemble the arcades of yesteryear, but cheaper and with better graphics, so that we fear our neighbors and become antisocial, and in doing so become a source of that fear for others. Our information about the outside world comes from a fear mongering, greed driven industry rather than participation in that world, because we've all been warned that leaving the safety of our homes and computers will subject you to terrorism...

Part of whats wrong with today is that people have no real social support because everyone else is self absorbed and isolationist. So you give up, until you snap. It might be suicide, road rage, a blackout drunk, or depending how bad the depression or other mental health issue is, a mass shooting.

Aren't something like one in four women on antidepressants right now? I refuse to believe that many people are depressed by their biology alone. Society failed them, because as we knew it, society is over. This, Fark and the like, might nearly replace it with purely virtual interaction one day.

People need sun and love.
 
2012-12-26 10:01:21 AM  
Why do the chickenchit feared to near death partisans always look for a single easy answer?
Never willing to protect themselves, they gladly surrender their freedom for the false road to the hell they fear the most.

/just don't get it
 
2012-12-26 10:03:09 AM  

dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

[marginalrevolution.com image 850x582]



It's not enough to know why it has fallen through the centuries, but we should also try and learn what caused the peaks.
 
2012-12-26 10:03:26 AM  
I think Stephen King actually argued our intake of simulated violence is healthy because it feeds the "alligators"
 
2012-12-26 10:03:38 AM  
Dear idiots people who blame video games for violence:

MORAL PANICS ARE INHERENTLY MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE SOCIAL FORCE THEY ARE FIGHTING AGAINST
 
2012-12-26 10:04:11 AM  

Gunther: Actually, plenty of studies on that subject have been done.
Not that you care - you're after a scapegoat, not the truth.


I'm not looking for a farking scapegoat. But keep right on with the reflexive dismissal. I'm saying that the things we are exposed to affect us. Is that too far-fetched? You will never be able to figure out if A VIDEO GAME made that killer snap--it's like the nature/nurture argument. You'll never be able to figure the individual inputs that caused some things to happen. Watching hours of fake violence, or playing video games, might affect the way some vulnerable person reacts to stresses in his life. Most people it wouldn't affect at all.

I've been on Fark for years. The things I've been exposed to here have affected the way I think about certain things. My son plays violent war games for hours, but I don't fear that he might go shoot up the mall. It has made him more interested in guns, though. Unless you go around in a cloud of smug, everything you see and participate in every day affects you somehow. Is it such an outrage to say that maybe seeing fake violence all the time might not be good for some people?

BronyMedic: Yeah. They've done those studies. The ones that aren't horribly biased and poorly conducted have found no causation link between violence in television and video games, and street violence. What they have found correlation AND causation links to are poverty, bullying/abuse and lack of access to mental health services.


And how many of those kids were exposed to fake violence in some form, and it may have affected their way of dealing with their poor hand in life? We don't know. You cannot make a study that can suss out all the inputs that cause one action.

If you're arguing against a possible connection EVER, then you're arguing that no one actually processes anything that goes on around them, and that nothing has any affect on how we think--we're all perfect vessels who just get our thoughts about life from air or something. Our parents, schools, advertising, friends, way of life, our damn choice of pet--all those things have an effect on our life and our way of thinking. But video games and TV violence have NO affect, on anyone? That's stupid.
 
2012-12-26 10:04:53 AM  

Bontesla: We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.


I think that starts with the parents too. In general the trend seems to either let the people watching them at day care or their teachers, be the general care givers for their children. I wish that parents would find a way to spend more time with their children. And to me, sitting watching TV or playing your video game while they play their's doesn't really count.

give me doughnuts: But would you be willing to at least put on a tight yellow track-suit and pose with a katana?


I have one of those items, but not the other.
 
2012-12-26 10:04:54 AM  
www.justfactsdaily.com

If the idea that violent media, especially more realistic violent media, increases homicides in anyway, then this graph should be *RISING*, not *FALLING*.

Perhaps realistic violent media actually has some sort of cathartic effect instead. I'm not married to the idea, but it certainly fits the data better.
 
2012-12-26 10:06:05 AM  
Gee, I have to wonder how they stirred up the killing lust in their children all those years before video games, before TV, before violent cartoons, before violent comic books, before,,,

You chickenchit "citizens" are going down the road to absolute terror in your sheeple fearmongered fear of personal freedom.
Don't like guns, Fine! Just let the rest of us protect you like we have been for 200+ years.
 
2012-12-26 10:06:16 AM  

cretinbob: I'm OK with shootings in movies, as long as they are required to make them realistic That means no one gets back up after being shot in the chest or head. Wounds need to be realistic as well.

I was talking with someone the other day, who owns guns...a gun shop actually. and I said we need  to have educational videos for guns the way we used to have educational videos for driving, like "Blood on the Highway". He was OK with that.

//yes, I'm still pushing the petition in these threads


Based on my limited knowledge of such things, I would cite Django Unchained as pretty realistic. There are a few bits intended to get a cheer or laugh from the audience that are a bit less believable but, in general, once shot in a vital area, the targets stayed down.

//saw the movie opening day in an art theatre
//If anything, even more sensitized to violence than before
//Left-winguts should get a clue
//Right-wingnuts should get a clue
//The First Amendment is useless without the Second, and vice-versa
//Stop blaming the media for humanity's core problems
 
2012-12-26 10:07:50 AM  
It appears the baby-boomer generation was much more murder happy than the current one. I blame Leave It To Beaver.
 
2012-12-26 10:08:00 AM  
TFA: "somehow Tarantino doesn't grasp the connection between a culture that produced the Sandy Hook Elementary school tragedy in Connecticut"

The only connection I can hypothesize from the data available is: the author clearly has a stick up their ass, so perhaps that stick is roughly in the shape of Quentin Tarantino?

/ despite heavy bias and *numerous* studies on the matter, no-one has ever found a connection between violent media and violence
// not films, not tv, not children's programming, not books, not rock music, not rap music, not dungeons and dragons, not video games -- not nuthin.
/// let that poor decades-dead horse *alone* ffs.
 
2012-12-26 10:09:52 AM  
Again this is another "But the children!" article from a bunch of Mormons who'd ban coffee if they could.
 
2012-12-26 10:10:09 AM  

dittybopper: [www.justfactsdaily.com image 850x613]

If the idea that violent media, especially more realistic violent media, increases homicides in anyway, then this graph should be *RISING*, not *FALLING*.

Perhaps realistic violent media actually has some sort of cathartic effect instead. I'm not married to the idea, but it certainly fits the data better.


The big drop seems to be about when the web became public. Interesting...
 
2012-12-26 10:10:41 AM  

give me doughnuts: dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

[marginalrevolution.com image 850x582]


It's not enough to know why it has fallen through the centuries, but we should also try and learn what caused the peaks.


A smart person would look at that and say: 1770s peak? Probably the Revolutionary War. 1860s peak? Civil War. 1920s/30s peak? Prohibition and Great Depression. 1990's peak? 1970s-1990s peak? War on Drugs.

Pretty simple to figure out that wars that pit neighbor against neighbor (like the Revolution and Civil wars) might result in homicides outside of the normal course of war, and that prohibitions on alcohol and drugs, combined with economic downturns, might also result in peaks.

It's not brain science or rocket surgery.
 
2012-12-26 10:11:10 AM  

BronyMedic: Dear idiots people who blame video games for violence:

MORAL PANICS ARE INHERENTLY MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE SOCIAL FORCE THEY ARE FIGHTING AGAINST


Indeed. Look at what the temperance movement did for organized crime.

littlett's: Bontesla: We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.

I think that starts with the parents too. In general the trend seems to either let the people watching them at day care or their teachers, be the general care givers for their children. I wish that parents would find a way to spend more time with their children. And to me, sitting watching TV or playing your video game while they play their's doesn't really count.

give me doughnuts: But would you be willing to at least put on a tight yellow track-suit and pose with a katana?

I have one of those items, but not the other.


Sword and no track-suit? Even better!

(However, knowing that you run a lot of miles in all sorts of weather, I'm going with the inference that you don't own any japanese non-kitchen cutlery)
 
2012-12-26 10:11:16 AM  

cryinoutloud: And how many of those kids were exposed to fake violence in some form, and it may have affected their way of dealing with their poor hand in life? We don't know. You cannot make a study that can suss out all the inputs that cause one action.


And how many of THOSE Children had issues like Autism (Adam Lanza), where they are unable to directly handle their emotions and deal with social situations in a properly adjusted context? How many of these people had underlying and untreated severe mental illness? (Lanza and Sideshow Bob) How many of those children you cherrypick live in homes with parental absentism, and overly permissive parenting styles which don't prepare them to think properly in today's environment? How many of these children are abused to the point of being in fear of their lives while adults ignore it because it'll "make them stronger" (Columbine)?

People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

Do you see how this moving the goalpost thing works? You're looking for something to blame when the answer is, in reality, mcuh more complex?
 
2012-12-26 10:11:17 AM  

dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:


Because absolutely nothing else has changed in society since1700.
 
2012-12-26 10:11:53 AM  
Violent crime has been on a steady decline since Pulp Fiction was released in 1994.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm
 
2012-12-26 10:12:00 AM  

Gunther: cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.

Actually, plenty of studies on that subject have been done.

Not that you care - you're after a scapegoat, not the truth.


You aren't cool til this commie bint has you on ignore with all the other people who embarrass her for for her asstalking. Shouldn't be long now. Her goal is to be left alone with her own thoughts in an otherwise empty thread, which should happen right after she finally goes a round with AbbeySomeone, unless I missed it.
 
2012-12-26 10:13:24 AM  

browntimmy: It appears the baby-boomer generation was much more murder happy than the current one. I blame Leave It To Beaver.


It was that ass kisser Eddie Haskel all along.


give me doughnuts: Sword and no track-suit? Even better!


Only if.
 
2012-12-26 10:13:26 AM  
Cain didn't need a movie or a gun to kill his brother.
 
2012-12-26 10:13:37 AM  

littlett's: Bontesla: We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.

I think that starts with the parents too. In general the trend seems to either let the people watching them at day care or their teachers, be the general care givers for their children. I wish that parents would find a way to spend more time with their children. And to me, sitting watching TV or playing your video game while they play their's doesn't really count.

give me doughnuts: But would you be willing to at least put on a tight yellow track-suit and pose with a katana?

I have one of those items, but not the other.


Well, our society is focused on creating employees and not families. We spend a greater portion of our lives in relationships with others than we do working yet we have such an emphasis on training for the work force, being a good employee, etc. Parenting isn't necessarily innate and if your parent was bad, odds are you will be too because our behaviors are often learned.

Think about it. We spend so much money and time preparing children for this aspect of their lives while ignoring much bigger aspects. So parents are told that what they're doing is important and the implication is that if you don't know how to do it then you're broken. You're a failure. We stigmatize training on how to be in relationships with others despite that being the biggest thing in our lives.

We've got to do better.
 
2012-12-26 10:18:14 AM  

born_yesterday: Big Beef Burrito: Watching violent movies as a kid has done nothing but good things for me.

Just last weekend I beheaded this guy on the steps of his front porch, right in front of a bunch of his friends.

But its cool, he was the leader of some snake cult and an all-around bad guy.

Crom was pleased.

Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart. He gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.


You know, I've been contemplating for a while, and I think I can be honest with myself. I tried to justify my anger by telling myself he killed my mother, my father and my people, but it was really his hair. I couldn't stand his mullet.

Or maybe I've been out in the sun too long.
 
2012-12-26 10:18:35 AM  

Bontesla: I think Stephen King actually argued our intake of simulated violence is healthy because it feeds the "alligators"


Like a blood bool?
 
2012-12-26 10:18:40 AM  

littlett's: browntimmy: It appears the baby-boomer generation was much more murder happy than the current one. I blame Leave It To Beaver.

It was that ass kisser Eddie Haskel all along.


give me doughnuts: Sword and no track-suit? Even better!

Only if.


I always thought Eddie would have gotten really heavily into bondage porn, and put June Lockhart's face on all the dominatixes (is that how you pluralize "dominatrix"?).
Then it occured to me that it was really weird to be thinking of such things.

/...and that I needed a spanking.
 
2012-12-26 10:19:19 AM  
As I said in an earlier thread, we need to have another census, but in this version, people report on the behavior of their neighbors. Anyone who fits the profile of a potential mass murder,serial killer, pedophile, etc. etc. or black, should be rounded up and put into camps; we'll call them Freedom Schools. Now I know what your thinking, but no, these would not be prisons or concentration camps. They would be places where these potentially dangerous people would be given the help and care that they need to reintegrate with society. Once it was proven that they were not and would never become violent, they would be released. But this time they would be joining our communities with knowledge and skills they learned in Freedom School. Sure they would be watched closely, the jobs they would be allowed to take would be limited, where they could live would be tightly controlled, and they will have been sterilized, but they will be free to live full and complete lives! And our society will flourish! Imagine the freedom of living without violence or fear, or basic human rights!

And those who can't prove that they will never be violent or have rich parents or relatives who can buy their way out of Freedom School will be allowed to work for the betterment of society, as miners, and ditch diggers and the like. Now don't worry, each of them would be fitted with tracking and explosive collars to keep them in check.

Always remember: Trust and love your government, we know best.

/peace and order through obedience!
//obedience is freedom, dissent is chaos!
 
2012-12-26 10:19:58 AM  

Bontesla: I think Stephen King actually argued our intake of simulated violence is healthy because it feeds the "alligators"


Or, to put it in plain english: it provides us with a safe outlet for otherwise destructive urges. IMO the same could be said for porn.

Violent games / movies / books = mental enemas.
 
2012-12-26 10:21:03 AM  

give me doughnuts: littlett's: browntimmy: It appears the baby-boomer generation was much more murder happy than the current one. I blame Leave It To Beaver.

It was that ass kisser Eddie Haskel all along.


give me doughnuts: Sword and no track-suit? Even better!

Only if.

I always thought Eddie would have gotten really heavily into bondage porn, and put June Lockhart's face on all the dominatixes (is that how you pluralize "dominatrix"?).
Then it occured to me that it was really weird to be thinking of such things.

/...and that I needed a spanking.


Hey, it's Ward's job to be hard on the Beaver!
 
2012-12-26 10:22:04 AM  

BigBooper: As I said in an earlier thread, we need to have another census, but in this version, people report on the behavior of their neighbors. Anyone who fits the profile of a potential mass murder,serial killer, pedophile, etc. etc. or black, should be rounded up and put into camps; we'll call them Freedom Schools. Now I know what your thinking, but no, these would not be prisons or concentration camps. They would be places where these potentially dangerous people would be given the help and care that they need to reintegrate with society. Once it was proven that they were not and would never become violent, they would be released. But this time they would be joining our communities with knowledge and skills they learned in Freedom School. Sure they would be watched closely, the jobs they would be allowed to take would be limited, where they could live would be tightly controlled, and they will have been sterilized, but they will be free to live full and complete lives! And our society will flourish! Imagine the freedom of living without violence or fear, or basic human rights!

And those who can't prove that they will never be violent or have rich parents or relatives who can buy their way out of Freedom School will be allowed to work for the betterment of society, as miners, and ditch diggers and the like. Now don't worry, each of them would be fitted with tracking and explosive collars to keep them in check.

Always remember: Trust and love your government, we know best.

/peace and order through obedience!
//obedience is freedom, dissent is chaos!


www.vernonpaddlingcentre.ca
 
2012-12-26 10:22:20 AM  

Big Beef Burrito: born_yesterday: Big Beef Burrito: Watching violent movies as a kid has done nothing but good things for me.

Just last weekend I beheaded this guy on the steps of his front porch, right in front of a bunch of his friends.

But its cool, he was the leader of some snake cult and an all-around bad guy.

Crom was pleased.

Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart. He gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.

You know, I've been contemplating for a while, and I think I can be honest with myself. I tried to justify my anger by telling myself he killed my mother, my father and my people, but it was really his hair. I couldn't stand his mullet.

Or maybe I've been out in the sun too long.


It's the Black Lotus. That shiat will really mess with your head, especially if you get some of that cheap-ass haga.
 
2012-12-26 10:23:30 AM  

Charles Martel: It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.


If someone walks into a school and starts killing people by throwing Reservoir Dogs DVD's at them, you might have an equivalent argument.

I've never felt any influence from violent movies, but maybe that's because I was a child of the 80s. Granted, back then, shoot em up westerns were on TV all the time, and theaters alternated every week between slasher flicks and movies like Rambo, Predator, and Robocop.

Psychopaths will look for anything to justify their motivations. Charles Whitman gunned down people from a clocktower at a time when movies couldn't show a gunshot and it's impact on a person in the same frame. Hell, the Son of Sam believed a dog was an ancient god ordering him to kill.

If you're looking for a real analysis on the impact of violent movies on people, just look at Canada. They get the exact same violent TV shows and violent movies that we do at the same time we do, and per capita, they have a minute fraction of the crime.
 
2012-12-26 10:24:00 AM  

give me doughnuts: dominatixes (is that how you pluralize "dominatrix"?).


dominatrices?

I don't know.
 
2012-12-26 10:24:26 AM  
Has anyone touched on the obvious demon in the room? Every school shooting and Mass killing in the history of ever has been done by someone on weed.

Watch the documentary "Reefer Madness". It will really open your eyes!
 
2012-12-26 10:24:28 AM  

thecpt: Bontesla: For example - better access to cost-effective mental health services for young adults. We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.

You can say that, and I know averting one tragedy could be worth the costs, but I'm not sure these are the people who would voluntarily seek help.


I think you'd be surprised at how many times they reach out. It isn't always so obvious. And if they're not reaching out to the right people or the response isn't helpful then they reach out less and less. The problem with our system is that we expect young people, still developing, to identify problems within themselves and then articulate that to the right people.

You've got children who are angry or feel excluded from their peers who are supposed to recognize what healthy anger is or to understand how to cope with feelings of exclusion when they may only be able to articulate that they feel bad or angry.

There are also circumstances in which adults also unintentionally create problems. Call on social outcasts during class and the entire back of the room erupts in snickers.
 
2012-12-26 10:24:38 AM  

ringersol: TFA: "somehow Tarantino doesn't grasp the connection between a culture that produced the Sandy Hook Elementary school tragedy in Connecticut"

The only connection I can hypothesize from the data available is: the author clearly has a stick up their ass, so perhaps that stick is roughly in the shape of Quentin Tarantino?

/ despite heavy bias and *numerous* studies on the matter, no-one has ever found a connection between violent media and violence
// not films, not tv, not children's programming, not books, not rock music, not rap music, not dungeons and dragons, not video games -- not nuthin.
/// let that poor decades-dead horse *alone* ffs.


I agree.

I think the NRA made a tactical mistake on this one, but it may have been a forced error. People are looking for *SOMETHING* to blame. The NRA can't just say "Hey, it's not the guns!", and just leave it at that, because then we will hit the truth of the matter: There really isn't that much we can do to stop this sort of thing, especially in a relatively free society.
 
2012-12-26 10:24:50 AM  

Gunther: Holocaust Agnostic: What point did he make

Ooh, was that a simple spelling mistake or the accidental reveal of a sockpuppet?

Anyhoo, the point I was making was that we can compare cultures before and after they were exposed to violent media. There's no percievable increase in violence. The generation of kids who grew up after video games aren't any more violent than the kids who grew up beforehand (they're less violent, actually).


Are you accusing me of being your sock puppet? Well I head I can't deny it. We might be crazy like that.

*my* point is that generations born after mass media really took off were also being born after/during society deciding that blacks were people, some were people, maybe people shouldn't be left to starve in the streets, workdays shouldn't be 14 hours, not to mention how far police work has come. To just glance at a trendline and put it all down to TV is terminally retarded.
 
2012-12-26 10:26:32 AM  
Certainly people are accountable for their own actions.

Then what is the rest of the authors blabbing all about?
 
2012-12-26 10:26:52 AM  

littlett's: give me doughnuts: dominatixes (is that how you pluralize "dominatrix"?).

dominatrices?

I don't know.


According to "Yahoo Answers": dominatrixes, dominatrices. But dominatrix, like fish, can be used as the plural form

[The More You Know.gif]
 
2012-12-26 10:26:54 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

Because absolutely nothing else has changed in society since1700.


www.justfactsdaily.com

What has changed in society since 1992?  We've got more guns than ever before, and media is more realistically violent than ever before.
 
2012-12-26 10:27:11 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Bontesla: I think Stephen King actually argued our intake of simulated violence is healthy because it feeds the "alligators"

Or, to put it in plain english: it provides us with a safe outlet for otherwise destructive urges. IMO the same could be said for porn.

Violent games / movies / books = mental enemas.


Well said.
 
2012-12-26 10:28:37 AM  
Sigh.

Rewatch "Bowling for Columbine". Like/hate Micheal Moore, at least he did the fine service of taking every STUPID idea about the cause of mass killings and ran sanity tests against them -- they all failed.

If violence in media was the cause of mass killings, then societies like South Korea and Japan, which have much higher levels of violent media should have the same problem... but they don't.

Next idiot idea?
 
2012-12-26 10:29:10 AM  
some women were people


/fark this phone.
 
2012-12-26 10:30:04 AM  

give me doughnuts: Big Beef Burrito: born_yesterday: Big Beef Burrito: Watching violent movies as a kid has done nothing but good things for me.

Just last weekend I beheaded this guy on the steps of his front porch, right in front of a bunch of his friends.

But its cool, he was the leader of some snake cult and an all-around bad guy.

Crom was pleased.

Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart. He gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.

You know, I've been contemplating for a while, and I think I can be honest with myself. I tried to justify my anger by telling myself he killed my mother, my father and my people, but it was really his hair. I couldn't stand his mullet.

Or maybe I've been out in the sun too long.

It's the Black Lotus. That shiat will really mess with your head, especially if you get some of that cheap-ass haga.


That explains a lot. I just tried to make out with a buzzard, and I swear there's a Mexican surfer/archer following me around.
 
2012-12-26 10:30:28 AM  

dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

Because absolutely nothing else has changed in society since1700.

[www.justfactsdaily.com image 850x613]

What has changed in society since 1992?  We've got more guns than ever before, and media is more realistically violent than ever before.


Internet porn.
 
2012-12-26 10:31:30 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.


Is there a death culture in this country? Absolutely.

Does it desensitize us a bit? I have no doubt.

Does theatrical violence cause people to murder? I can't buy into that. Not even for a moment.
 
2012-12-26 10:32:14 AM  

Vertdang: runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people

[art.penny-arcade.com image 800x401]
/appropriate, yet again.


That dude looks like a posturing, wuss, douche bag. But he's right.
 
2012-12-26 10:33:00 AM  

dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

Because absolutely nothing else has changed in society since1700.



What has changed in society since 1992?  We've got more guns than ever before, and media is more realistically violent than ever before.


Kids who would have been hitting their teenage years didn't because abortion.
 
2012-12-26 10:33:03 AM  
farm4.staticflickr.com

Let's start by banning the original "dirty book".
 
2012-12-26 10:33:04 AM  

OhioKnight: Like/hate Micheal Moore, at least he did the fine service of taking every STUPID idea about the cause of mass killings and ran sanity tests against them -- they all failed.


Uh, you can't run a sanity test if you failed it yourself.
 
2012-12-26 10:33:10 AM  

dittybopper: Perhaps realistic violent media actually has some sort of cathartic effect instead. I'm not married to the idea, but it certainly fits the data better.


...Or perhaps the number of children staying home VS getting involved with gangs or other bad influences is also helping to lower the murder rate. One of the reason many parents loved Nintendo was that it kept kids away from arcades and the dangers of traveling to them.

If you were one of the millions who stayed out of the water after seeing Jaws, I don't think you'll dispute the fact that media greatly affects how we think. The written word drove our founders to revolution and a well written speech drove nations to commit genocide.
Games can be an equally bad influence to the wrong crowd.

I don't think we should blame them over poor parenting, but people must understand that adult content is not suitable for children. We have to voluntarily censor what kids see before some bureaucratic asshat with a stack of graphs argues that the government should do it for us.

/Because when they are done with the disarmament they'll need something else to blame.
/If they don't find the evidence, they'll cook it up.
 
2012-12-26 10:33:30 AM  

Bontesla: thecpt: Bontesla: For example - better access to cost-effective mental health services for young adults. We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.

You can say that, and I know averting one tragedy could be worth the costs, but I'm not sure these are the people who would voluntarily seek help.

I think you'd be surprised at how many times they reach out. It isn't always so obvious. And if they're not reaching out to the right people or the response isn't helpful then they reach out less and less. The problem with our system is that we expect young people, still developing, to identify problems within themselves and then articulate that to the right people.

You've got children who are angry or feel excluded from their peers who are supposed to recognize what healthy anger is or to understand how to cope with feelings of exclusion when they may only be able to articulate that they feel bad or angry.

There are also circumstances in which adults also unintentionally create problems. Call on social outcasts during class and the entire back of the room erupts in snickers.


I know generally speaking of what your talking about. Making mental health care available and discrete for those who are struggling, and increasing education so children can better identify if they need it. I'm saying the ones who do the acts that cause thousands of ignorant and objective articles like this one aren't the ones who would seek services. A lot of threads keep saying mental health, and yes the criminals are absolutely batshiat bonkers, but I haven't seen a convincing/practical approach to finding and helping the ones that want to stay on the fringes and kill for glory. I just don't see how you could test a person's mental health without infringing on their freedom.

Testing those who buy firearms is another story. Do that and make them pay for it. I don't care. Won't stop these acts, but it will help.
 
2012-12-26 10:34:18 AM  

BronyMedic: Has anyone touched on the obvious demon in the room? Every school shooting and Mass killing in the history of ever has been done by someone on weed.

Watch the documentary "Reefer Madness". It will really open your eyes!


What the hell was that movie all about anyway? My sis, both her boyfriends and several of my friends blaze (though I do not) and when they're stoned they can hardly get off the damn couch unless it's to go eat an entire loaf of bread I just finished baking before asking me to make them cookies. Pigs.

/saw that doc years ago and saw right through it
//snickered, too
 
2012-12-26 10:34:26 AM  
I watch "3 guys one hammer" on an endless loop in my basement, so obviously I am well-adjusted.
 
2012-12-26 10:34:30 AM  

dittybopper: What has changed in society since 1992?


Mafia bossJohn Gotti is sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and racketeering.

FDA Urges Stopping the use of silicone gel breast implants.

So it had to be one of those.

I mean, Miley Cyrus was born in 1992, but that couldn't be it.
 
2012-12-26 10:34:58 AM  
The US is a violent culture and has always been. Violence is glorified in music, movies, video games, politics, sports.

All of that is a reflection, not cause of the attitudes towards violence.

Banning or restricting violent media is as stupid as banning or restricting guns.

There needs to be a culture shift, not government action.
 
2012-12-26 10:36:02 AM  
So, if I understand this,,,,
You make it abundantly clear that killing a few your children in their school will set off a forest fire of butthurt.
And now you just have to wait for the next creep to go off and you get your fear delivered in spades.
Stupid.
You can harden your schools w/o armed guards. But, no. That would solve the problem instead of Nanny up the butthurt.
Gotta feed the butthurt to advance your authoritarian agenda.

So, business plan: Farm every outrage, and certainly don't get caught inciting an event, to advance your agenda creep by creep.
 
2012-12-26 10:36:51 AM  

MugzyBrown: The US is a violent culture and has always been. Violence is glorified in music, movies, video games, politics, sports.

All of that is a reflection, not cause of the attitudes towards violence.

Banning or restricting violent media is as stupid as banning or restricting guns.

There needs to be a culture shift, not government action.


Also, this.

Change the channel morans.
 
2012-12-26 10:36:51 AM  

MugzyBrown: The US is a violent culture and has always been. Violence is glorified in music, movies, video games, politics, sports.

All of that is a reflection, not cause of the attitudes towards violence.

Banning or restricting violent media is as stupid as banning or restricting guns.

There needs to be a culture shift, not government action.


Oh, the Nannys are trying.
Not sure this is the shift we had in mind.
 
2012-12-26 10:37:40 AM  

littlett's: dittybopper: What has changed in society since 1992?

Mafia bossJohn Gotti is sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and racketeering.

FDA Urges Stopping the use of silicone gel breast implants.

So it had to be one of those.

I mean, Miley Cyrus was born in 1992, but that couldn't be it.


I met the distaffbopper in 1992. As my domestic bliss increased, violence fell across the nation, because I'm funny that way.
 
2012-12-26 10:39:20 AM  

BronyMedic: BigBooper: As I said in an earlier thread, we need to have another census, but in this version, people report on the behavior of their neighbors. Anyone who fits the profile of a potential mass murder,serial killer, pedophile, etc. etc. or black, should be rounded up and put into camps; we'll call them Freedom Schools. Now I know what your thinking, but no, these would not be prisons or concentration camps. They would be places where these potentially dangerous people would be given the help and care that they need to reintegrate with society. Once it was proven that they were not and would never become violent, they would be released. But this time they would be joining our communities with knowledge and skills they learned in Freedom School. Sure they would be watched closely, the jobs they would be allowed to take would be limited, where they could live would be tightly controlled, and they will have been sterilized, but they will be free to live full and complete lives! And our society will flourish! Imagine the freedom of living without violence or fear, or basic human rights!

And those who can't prove that they will never be violent or have rich parents or relatives who can buy their way out of Freedom School will be allowed to work for the betterment of society, as miners, and ditch diggers and the like. Now don't worry, each of them would be fitted with tracking and explosive collars to keep them in check.

Always remember: Trust and love your government, we know best.

/peace and order through obedience!
//obedience is freedom, dissent is chaos!

[www.vernonpaddlingcentre.ca image 320x362]


Only Moderately Crazy?!? If that shiat isn't off the scale batshiat Nazi flavored crazy, I don't know what is.
 
2012-12-26 10:41:32 AM  

xtragrind: Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....


Oh, I see. You don't want them to ban something you happen to like.
 
2012-12-26 10:41:35 AM  

way south: dittybopper: Perhaps realistic violent media actually has some sort of cathartic effect instead. I'm not married to the idea, but it certainly fits the data better.

...Or perhaps the number of children staying home VS getting involved with gangs or other bad influences is also helping to lower the murder rate.


My point was that it can't be guns: Those have increased in number since 1992, and that it can't be violent media, because that has also become more realistic and more common since then (especially if you are talking about video games).
 
2012-12-26 10:41:35 AM  

BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.


To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.
 
2012-12-26 10:42:50 AM  

BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET.


Really bad example. I can personally attest that that game was responsible for the initiation of many violent episodes, bordering on the psychotic.

Stop running into the pit. STOP RUNNING INTO THE PITTT!@!
 
2012-12-26 10:43:12 AM  

dittybopper: What has changed in society since 1992? We've got more guns than ever before, and media is more realistically violent than ever before.


Everyone has a theory. I tend to think that the general increase in employment and quality of life was a big part of it. We live in a time and place where even if you're flat broke, you most likely have access to food, clean water and some kind of basic health care. I realize that being poor sucks a LOT (believe me), but if you need some perspective on how bad the disparity between rich and poor can get, wander around the road around the Mumbai airport for two hours and get back to me.

It's just harder to get murderin' angry when you have a roof over your head, clean water, some bagels and an Xbox.
 
2012-12-26 10:43:13 AM  

xtragrind: Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....


I choose to ingest tobacco. Somebody ELSE gets to choose if they shoot me or not.

They are fundamentally different discussions. Not that either has more merit than the other, but you don't do either position any favors by slapping the two on the table together.

Meanwhile, it's a problem of logistics, and the fact that we only visit the discussion about firearms when there's a tragedy and emotions are running high means we will never have sensible gun policy in this country.

How do you prevent somebody from converting a semi-auto to a full-auto? How do you prevent people from buying extended magazines, or simply doing the old school "tape two magazines together" thing? How do we "define" what is banned and not banned. All a gun really is, after all, is a metal tube. Everything else is just tacked on to make them work better. As such, there's no line that makes any god damned sense.

If somebody wanted to do some damage, an M1 Garand would be problematic as well. Super accurate, high powered, quick reload.

But when people talk like I am, at times like this, folks who are riding high on outrage think we're saying we can't effectively regulate fire arms instead of trying to overcome the challenges with such regulations. And the folks who are buying guns and ammo like it's going out of styles right now are convinced that I'm trying to take their guns.

Let's stop, and talk about this again after we collectively pull our heads out of our national asshole.

/Merry Christmas?
 
2012-12-26 10:45:21 AM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.


The game that made me want to kill people the most was the Atari Pac-Man game. First game that I remember really anticipating, and the stupid thing didn't even change directions? What the hell? If I had owned a car back in the day I would have driven out to the developers house and beat him to death with his own shoes.
 
Bf+
2012-12-26 10:45:32 AM  
All of the time spent on television and in the political arena on the subject of violent video games, music, television, and art, is time not spent talking about addressing the actual issues. This is really the only purpose of such discussion. It is a massive troll intended to derail productive discussion. In much the same way that this thread is now about ponies.
s.funnymama.com
 
2012-12-26 10:45:43 AM  

BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET.


To be fair, E.T. did incite violence. I remember flinging that bastard cartridge across the room and accidently hitting my brother with it.

HOW THE FARK DO YOU GET OUT OF THE GODDAMN PIT?????
 
2012-12-26 10:45:54 AM  
Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses
 
2012-12-26 10:46:41 AM  
1) Entertainment culture of violence
2) Psychotropic drugs
3) ???
4) Movie rights
 
2012-12-26 10:46:45 AM  

fireclown: dittybopper: What has changed in society since 1992? We've got more guns than ever before, and media is more realistically violent than ever before.

Everyone has a theory. I tend to think that the general increase in employment and quality of life was a big part of it. We live in a time and place where even if you're flat broke, you most likely have access to food, clean water and some kind of basic health care. I realize that being poor sucks a LOT (believe me), but if you need some perspective on how bad the disparity between rich and poor can get, wander around the road around the Mumbai airport for two hours and get back to me.

It's just harder to get murderin' angry when you have a roof over your head, clean water, some bagels and an Xbox.


It's also hard to actually murder people when you are a 400 lb blob of fat. The poor in the US are disproportionately obese.

/200 lb blob of fat.
 
2012-12-26 10:46:49 AM  

thecpt: Bontesla: thecpt: Bontesla: For example - better access to cost-effective mental health services for young adults. We, as a society, are fully responsible for the treatment of our most vulnerable.

You can say that, and I know averting one tragedy could be worth the costs, but I'm not sure these are the people who would voluntarily seek help.

I think you'd be surprised at how many times they reach out. It isn't always so obvious. And if they're not reaching out to the right people or the response isn't helpful then they reach out less and less. The problem with our system is that we expect young people, still developing, to identify problems within themselves and then articulate that to the right people.

You've got children who are angry or feel excluded from their peers who are supposed to recognize what healthy anger is or to understand how to cope with feelings of exclusion when they may only be able to articulate that they feel bad or angry.

There are also circumstances in which adults also unintentionally create problems. Call on social outcasts during class and the entire back of the room erupts in snickers.

I know generally speaking of what your talking about. Making mental health care available and discrete for those who are struggling, and increasing education so children can better identify if they need it. I'm saying the ones who do the acts that cause thousands of ignorant and objective articles like this one aren't the ones who would seek services. A lot of threads keep saying mental health, and yes the criminals are absolutely batshiat bonkers, but I haven't seen a convincing/practical approach to finding and helping the ones that want to stay on the fringes and kill for glory. I just don't see how you could test a person's mental health without infringing on their freedom.

Testing those who buy firearms is another story. Do that and make them pay for it. I don't care. Won't stop these acts, but it will help.


What makes you think that they didn't seek help?

I'd argue that there's a history of these people seeking help. We're not talking about well adjusted folks waking up one day and deciding to slaughter a school or movie theater. If those kids didn't have a singular goal of generating a massacre since birth then I'd argue that they likely sought help and didn't get it (at least in any continued capacity).
 
2012-12-26 10:47:18 AM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.


That had to have been the worst game ever made.  To this day I still don't know what you were supposed to do.
 
2012-12-26 10:49:41 AM  

give me doughnuts: littlett's: give me doughnuts: dominatixes (is that how you pluralize "dominatrix"?).

dominatrices?

I don't know.

According to "Yahoo Answers": dominatrixes, dominatrices. But dominatrix, like fish, can be used as the plural form

[The More You Know.gif]


I'd have said dominatri
 
2012-12-26 10:50:03 AM  

littlett's: Wasilla Hillbilly: BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.

That had to have been the worst game ever made.  To this day I still don't know what you were supposed to do.


You were supposed to bury it in the ground.
 
2012-12-26 10:50:12 AM  

dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: dittybopper: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

Apparently, it doesn't, or if it does have *SOME* effect, it's the opposite you think:

Because absolutely nothing else has changed in society since1700.

[www.justfactsdaily.com image 850x613]

What has changed in society since 1992?  We've got more guns than ever before, and media is more realistically violent than ever before.


You should see Freakonomics. Basically Roe v. Wade. Less unwanted children = lower crime rates when they hit young adulthood.
 
2012-12-26 10:50:19 AM  

cryinoutloud: I'm not looking for a farking scapegoat. But keep right on with the reflexive dismissal.


And then later in the same post, in response to BronyMedic pointing out that there are studies examining the very thing you claim that there aren't any studies examining:

cryinoutloud: And how many of those kids were exposed to fake violence in some form, and it may have affected their way of dealing with their poor hand in life? We don't know


You just dismiss it out of hand and go back to ranting about violent media. You are interested in a scapegoat, not the truth. It couldn't be any more blatantly obvious.
 
2012-12-26 10:50:45 AM  
Does advertising have any effect? Obviously, because people pay millions for a short ad that will be watched by many. Never mind the apparent results of an effective campaign.

Now how is a tv show or a movie not a long ad for whatever the show is about?

Would Magnum pistols be popular if it weren't for Dirty Harry?
Would we have a different society if the movie Grapes of Wrath or the movies about chain gangs were never made?
Did the glorification of gangsters with movies like Bonnie and Clyde or Scarface have any influence?
Would break dancing be anything if it weren't for a movie?

To deny that movies and anything else that exposes people to something they don't already experience won't have any effect is ridiculous. The effects on society of popular movies or advertising is well known.

No, you're not going to brainwash anyone, but you can influence their thoughts and behaviors.
 
2012-12-26 10:51:22 AM  

dittybopper: It's also hard to actually murder people when you are a 400 lb blob of fat. The poor in the US are disproportionately obese.


I'll chalk that up as a weird effect of prosperity. I forget the name of the place, but there is a diner in DC that is run by a family of African immigrants. The place is kind of a fixture. I remember reading a newspaper interview where the owner said that he decided to move to the US because he wanted to live somewhere where poor people were fat.
 
2012-12-26 10:51:46 AM  

Bontesla: What makes you think that they didn't seek help?

Why Kids Kill

mentioned how they actively didn't seek help. It's a book that looked extensively into a lot of shooter's personalities (including Columbine shooters and other tragedies) to find any patterns in what makes someone a crazed killer. Came out shortly after the V-tech shooter so it wasn't dated.
 
2012-12-26 10:51:52 AM  

littlett's: Wasilla Hillbilly: BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.

That had to have been the worst game ever made.  To this day I still don't know what you were supposed to do.


The Raiders of the Lost Ark game failed to live up to its potential, as well. At least the graphics were awesome.
 
2012-12-26 10:53:15 AM  

tothekor: You were supposed to bury it in the ground.


Wasn't the urban legend that most of them wound up in a land fill before they were sold?
 
2012-12-26 10:55:24 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Are you accusing me of being your sock puppet? Well I head I can't deny it. We might be crazy like that.


OK, I'm gonna stop making jokes. Either I'm too dumb today to make it clear when I'm not being serious, or you're too dumb to get them. Or possibly you did actually get it, that was a sarcastic comeback and I'm too dumb to see it.

My head hurts.
 
2012-12-26 10:56:12 AM  
dittybopper: "The NRA can't just say "Hey, it's not the guns!", and just leave it at that, because then we will hit the truth of the matter: There really isn't that much we can do to stop this sort of thing, especially in a relatively free society."

Other relatively free societies present some pretty straightforward and reasonable examples of how you can *mitigate* this sort of thing. "Stopping" is an absurd bar. One doesn't throw their hands up and say "whelp, we can't *stop* fatal car accidents, so fark this crumple-zone, seatbelt and airbag nonsense." That we take steps to mitigate social ills inherent in the failings of mortal man is the mark of civilized society.

We can require the same background checks at gun shows that we do at gun stores. (A stupid loophole to leave open so long. Background checks aren't perfect, but they *do* work and it's stupid to further disadvantage brick & mortar stores.) And we can concede there really *is* no good damn reason for 30 and 100 round magazines for semi-automatic rifles that any tom, dick or harry can own.

Because no sportsman gives two shiats about magazines you can't actually fill and empty at the range or gun club without getting your crazy ass kicked out. The only time that shiat's appropriate is at something like a full-auto shoot; where, as the name implies, the tighter controls and special nature of the event enable people to enjoy those weapons in a responsible way.

So, yeah, there isn't much we can do to *stop* it. But there ain't much we can do to *stop* any number of horrible things -- death, taxes, bubble-gum pop, fan-fic, network sitcoms.
It's still right to mitigate the carnage if and where we can.
 
2012-12-26 10:56:24 AM  

way south: dittybopper: Perhaps realistic violent media actually has some sort of cathartic effect instead. I'm not married to the idea, but it certainly fits the data better.

...Or perhaps the number of children staying home VS getting involved with gangs or other bad influences is also helping to lower the murder rate. One of the reason many parents loved Nintendo was that it kept kids away from arcades and the dangers of traveling to them.

If you were one of the millions who stayed out of the water after seeing Jaws, I don't think you'll dispute the fact that media greatly affects how we think. The written word drove our founders to revolution and a well written speech drove nations to commit genocide.
Games can be an equally bad influence to the wrong crowd.

I don't think we should blame them over poor parenting, but people must understand that adult content is not suitable for children. We have to voluntarily censor what kids see before some bureaucratic asshat with a stack of graphs argues that the government should do it for us.

/Because when they are done with the disarmament they'll need something else to blame.
/If they don't find the evidence, they'll cook it up.


I happen to think that the more outlandish and over the top and unbelievable the violence is, the more likely it is that somebody who finds themselves thinking "that's a really nice car, I should steal it and bring it back to my garage", realizes that they are still stuck in the thought patterns of Grand Theft Auto.

/I certainly remember having *weird* responses to stimuli after especially long sessions with GTA3 or Castle Wolfenstein
//Maybe it reinforces your ability to think clearly about consequences? Think of some completely apeshiat thing to do, realize *instantly* that it's a terrible idea. Years later, think of some not so apeshiat thing to do, realize it's also probably not a good idea.
 
2012-12-26 10:56:42 AM  
Hmmm, no one gave a shiat about Martial Arts until a Bruce Lee movie came out. Then we had a Kung-Fu tv show and then before you knew it "Everybody was Kung-Fu fightin' Yeah".

/never mind the fights all the kids were getting into during the Frazier-Ali matches.
 
2012-12-26 10:59:02 AM  

BigBooper: As I said in an earlier thread, we need to have another census, but in this version, people report on the behavior of their neighbors. Anyone who fits the profile of a potential mass murder,serial killer, pedophile, etc. etc. or black, should be rounded up and put into camps; we'll call them Freedom Schools. Now I know what your thinking, but no, these would not be prisons or concentration camps. They would be places where these potentially dangerous people would be given the help and care that they need to reintegrate with society. Once it was proven that they were not and would never become violent, they would be released. But this time they would be joining our communities with knowledge and skills they learned in Freedom School. Sure they would be watched closely, the jobs they would be allowed to take would be limited, where they could live would be tightly controlled, and they will have been sterilized, but they will be free to live full and complete lives! And our society will flourish! Imagine the freedom of living without violence or fear, or basic human rights!

And those who can't prove that they will never be violent or have rich parents or relatives who can buy their way out of Freedom School will be allowed to work for the betterment of society, as miners, and ditch diggers and the like. Now don't worry, each of them would be fitted with tracking and explosive collars to keep them in check.

Always remember: Trust and love your government, we know best.

/peace and order through obedience!
//obedience is freedom, dissent is chaos!


I see what you did there!
 
2012-12-26 11:00:52 AM  
My favorite Death:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-26 11:01:00 AM  
I see the Fark scholars are out in force.

/Bunch of dumb asses
 
2012-12-26 11:01:01 AM  

Skarekrough: Pants full of macaroni!!: No no no. SEX is bad. Violence is WHOLESOME.

...and rough sex is another $50 on top of whatever it is you're paying her to begin with.


Can I get her phone number?

/It's for a friend.
//I don't have to pay for mine.
///NTTAWWT.
 
2012-12-26 11:01:12 AM  

littlett's: Wasilla Hillbilly: BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.

That had to have been the worst game ever made.  To this day I still don't know what you were supposed to do.


I broke a controller in frustration over Maniac Mansion. After I replaced it, I broke the new one, playing the same game, a couple weeks later. I finally just quit playing  the game. I don't even remember  what part of the game upset me so. I'll stick to the first person shooters and fighting games. At least then I know what I am supposed to do and how to do it and don't throw massive temper tantrums resulting in broken hardware.

/Samurai Showdown queen of the house and neighborhood for many years!
 
2012-12-26 11:01:54 AM  

thecpt: Bontesla: What makes you think that they didn't seek help?

Why Kids Kill mentioned how they actively didn't seek help. It's a book that looked extensively into a lot of shooter's personalities (including Columbine shooters and other tragedies) to find any patterns in what makes someone a crazed killer. Came out shortly after the V-tech shooter so it wasn't dated.


How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?

It's like children who feign illness to avoid school because they're being picked on. There's a history of that often prior to a student committing suicide and often the parents will say, "they told me they weren't happy. I just didn't understand. I thought it was kids being kids."

Feelings of isolation and exclusion can start before those children even have the language skills to say they feel excluded from their peers. And if their parents dismiss feelings as unimportant or as a natural state of development then that may be the last time they reach out.
 
2012-12-26 11:02:33 AM  

ringersol: Other relatively free societies present some pretty straightforward and reasonable examples of how you can *mitigate* this sort of thing.


What, you mean like Norway?
 
2012-12-26 11:06:12 AM  

dittybopper: What, you mean like Norway?


You mean one attack in decades versus 61 in the United States since 1982? Gosh, you're right. That one event by a paranoid, racist man who used an illegal weapon to carry out the opening shots of what he thought would be a revolution in his crazed mind invalidates every point about their culture and approach to mental health and altruism being valid.
 
2012-12-26 11:08:40 AM  
planetivy.com
Just look at the happy, benevolent face. What could go wrong?

www.vancouversun.com
Oh...God...what have we done?
 
2012-12-26 11:10:26 AM  
Wonder which Tarantino flick Andrew Kehoe watched before he decided to blow up the Bath, Michigan school in 1927?

You want some real violence 'n killin'? How 'bout the Crusades... Pretty sure those guys didn't watch "Reservoir Dogs".

People have been murdering and torturing each other since man first stood upright. If someone's psycho enough to whack a bunch of people, they're going to do it regardless.
 
2012-12-26 11:10:52 AM  

belhade: My favorite Death:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 179x256]


Mine, too! I have this:
i.ebayimg.com

She's on my bookshelves hanging out with Frazetta's Death Dealer, among other things.
/thought they'd make a cute couple
 
2012-12-26 11:13:09 AM  

Vertdang: runaway06: NRA / "Conservative" slogan
Guns don't kill people. Movies and video games kill people

[art.penny-arcade.com image 800x401]
/appropriate, yet again.


I hate to tell you "we are allowed to say anything we want, the founders said so" types...but that wasnt the intent. The freedom of speech was meant in a mainly political sense, to allow the citizens to be able to publicly speak against the government without worry of reprisal.

It was not meant as free run to spill whatever crap comes to your mind out of your mouth. it was not meant to spill hate like Westboro, or too bully teenage girls until they commit suicide.

So...how bout you leave our amendment alone and we will leave yours alone...
 
2012-12-26 11:13:11 AM  

Bontesla: How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?


Uh, part of the problem is that school administrators and teachers don't help these kids, and actively discourage them from going to authority figures because of bullying. It builds character in their minds, and teaches them how to handle these situations, you see!
 
2012-12-26 11:13:27 AM  
Yeah, well go ask Muslims, for instance, all about the great utopia Scandinavia has to offer. I caught a documentary once. I'll wait til you get back.
 
2012-12-26 11:14:09 AM  
I'm not saying that violent movies/games inspire violent behavior but I think it would be worth investigating why our culture tolerates violence in entertainment to a greater degree than sexuality. Football is arguably a violent sport and that's okay for kids to watch but god damn it if a signer exposes a breast during the halftime show then people are made to testify gravel in front of a congressional panel.
 
2012-12-26 11:16:34 AM  

dittybopper: ringersol: Other relatively free societies present some pretty straightforward and reasonable examples of how you can *mitigate* this sort of thing.

What, you mean like Norway?


Alright, that's not cool at all. That was the largest spilling of blood on Norwegian soil since WWII. Gun  violence there  is exceptionally rare, guns are not. Please quit using Anders Breivik for your quasi-political non-points. He never sought help, he hung out at  American far right wing blogs and idolized the likes of Rush  Limbaugh.

/I am a first generation American
//My family is Norwegian
 
2012-12-26 11:16:37 AM  
Right, because Europe totally doesn't have the same movies, despite their far lower rates of gun homicides. Gun control doesn't work, I don't believe in the rest of the world, LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP
 
2012-12-26 11:16:43 AM  

DeathCipris: This is very easy.
Lack. Of. Personal. Accountability.

Plain and simple. No one EVER thinks it is his or her fault anymore. This is what happen when people are raised in an "everyone is a winner," special snowflake society. Their precious egos can't handle the fact they did something wrong, and in fact, fail at life. This is at the core of the problem and a lot of problems with society today. It isn't guns. It isn't the news. It isn't video games. It isn't movies. It is the self-entitled child that has had everything handed to him or her on a silver farking platter for his or her entire life that can't handle failure. So much so, when fail does come knocking (ohh and it will), people freak out and commit acts of rage/violence/what-have-you. Stop this snowflake society and I guarantee results...but that's not going to happen when the ex-flower children hippie parents have had their way for so long.


THIS! QFT
 
2012-12-26 11:18:02 AM  

littlett's: Wasilla Hillbilly: BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.

That had to have been the worst game ever made.  To this day I still don't know what you were supposed to do.


Challenge Accepted!

img577.imageshack.us
/FWIW, ET the game was designed in less than 2 months at the behest of Atari, so that they could capitalize on the international popularity of ET (which came out Summer '82) before Christmas. The game was designed and built in a matter of weeks and tested in a matter of days.
//You're looking for phone parts, I think.
 
2012-12-26 11:18:27 AM  

BronyMedic: Bontesla: How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?

Uh, part of the problem is that school administrators and teachers don't help these kids, and actively discourage them from going to authority figures because of bullying. It builds character in their minds, and teaches them how to handle these situations, you see!


That's as true as the day is long, to both of you. My kids were harassed and bullied constantly at their old school. Lets just say it was a bad fit for our demographic. I pulled them out, and they are doing awesome at their new place, especially after what the adults did at the old school...
 
2012-12-26 11:18:51 AM  
Anybody yet mention that the removal of lead from gasoline is probably responsible for a good part of the reduction in violent crime?
 
2012-12-26 11:18:58 AM  

BronyMedic: Bontesla: How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?

Uh, part of the problem is that school administrators and teachers don't help these kids, and actively discourage them from going to authority figures because of bullying. It builds character in their minds, and teaches them how to handle these situations, you see!


Well, that was part of my point. We need to do better about offering mental health services to those who seek health. Hell, we should teach general skills like coping mechanism, conflict resolution, and provide everyone with a list of qualified professionals at a young age.
 
2012-12-26 11:21:34 AM  
Decades of research and hundreds of studies substantiate the negative effects of media violence on children, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry also concludes that viewing media violence can produce distress, emotional anesthetization to violence, loss of empathy for victims and the view that violence is an acceptable means for dealing with problems.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/221675-the-influence-of-violent-medi a-on-children-adolescents/#ixzz2GAx9JFwF
 
2012-12-26 11:22:22 AM  
Even young kids can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If you can't that's not societies fault. That's your problem and you news to get help.
 
2012-12-26 11:24:11 AM  

Bontesla: How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?


What qualified was seeking help from their school administration or some kind of authority. They kept feelings secret from their parents and school friends. Most times they weren't even kids who were 'singled out" like typical stories of troubled youth. I don't expect children to understand their feelings at all. I'm saying that they usually blend so well and know what feelings to keep secret that conventional and present testing from the the government wouldn't work and would be seen as an infringement on freedom.

I really do completely agree with you on everything else. Maybe sometime parents aren't perceptive and experienced enough to realize that someone is in danger. My argument isn't about suicide (I'm a huge proponent of teen help and counseling for suicide prevention, especially because my friend is in a gay outreach program, aka one of the biggest causes of teen suicide). My argument is that the level of psychiatric assistance needed to catch the children and young adults who go on rampages is almost unfathomable and would most likely be seen as infringing on freedoms.
 
2012-12-26 11:26:39 AM  

verbaltoxin: Again this is another "But the children!" article from a bunch of Mormons who'd ban coffee if they could.


And they think our society is screwed now?

I'd love to see someone try it, if only to marvel at the magnitude of the resulting category 5 shiatstorm!

/article is too stupid to insult
//gunning down people in video games is totally cathartic
///if my exposure to media influenced my behaviour, I'd start an anti-Cylon party
////four slashies, what
 
2012-12-26 11:26:42 AM  
maxximillian

"I'm not saying that violent movies/games inspire violent behavior but I think it would be worth investigating why our culture tolerates violence in entertainment to a greater degree than sexuality. Football is arguably a violent sport and that's okay for kids to watch but god damn it if a signer exposes a breast during the halftime show then people are made to testify gravel in front of a congressional panel."

Fundie Christians... we have a lot of 'em. They seem to tolerate violence ok, but when it comes to the occasional titty:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-26 11:29:09 AM  

letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses


notthisshiatagain.jpg

Society is not collapsing, no matter how many times you post the same idiotic thing.

As for TFA, I'm always amused when someone tries to present "culture" and "movies" as if they're entirely separate things.
 
2012-12-26 11:29:11 AM  
The problem isn't that that there are too many depictions of fake violence on our airwaves and in our theaters. The problem is that there are too few depictions of actual violence.

Would we have had the same sort of unrelenting, take-no-prisoners in the search for truth reporting of the Vietnam war that demonstrated daily to Mr. and Mrs. America what the consequences of foreign policy decided by amoral men in suits in Washington was to our men in uniform during the Iraq war then that shiat would have ended with George W. Bush being dragged from the White House by an angry mob.

Fake violence isn't the problem. Pretending actual, real-world violence isn't consequential is the problem.
 
2012-12-26 11:29:17 AM  

mrlewish: Anybody yet mention that the removal of lead from gasoline is probably responsible for a good part of the reduction in violent crime?


Now you have me tripping over phthalates and all those other endocrine disrupters the government lets into our food stream. I'm thinking more and more that being guinea pigs for plastics and chemicals that didn't even exist when our parents were born just might have something to do with autism and depression rates shooting up. We retain enough of these chemicals to show up in lab tests.

I've heard people say black girls menstruate earlier than white girls because of chemicals that act as estrogen in the body. If we know that's happening, what else could be that we haven't discovered?
 
2012-12-26 11:31:28 AM  
Chemicals in ethnic beauty treatments like hair oil mists.

Preview is my friend, lol
 
2012-12-26 11:32:35 AM  

Blathering Idjut: The problem isn't that that there are too many depictions of fake violence on our airwaves and in our theaters. The problem is that there are too few depictions of actual violence.

Would we have had the same sort of unrelenting, take-no-prisoners in the search for truth reporting of the Vietnam war that demonstrated daily to Mr. and Mrs. America what the consequences of foreign policy decided by amoral men in suits in Washington was to our men in uniform during the Iraq war then that shiat would have ended with George W. Bush being dragged from the White House by an angry mob.

Fake violence isn't the problem. Pretending actual, real-world violence isn't consequential is the problem.


"Showing pictures of flag-draped coffins is unpatriotic, and insensitive to the families of those servicemen."

Yeah. Free press, my ass. There's a reason our government tries to sweep wounded veterans under the rug, and out of sight: they're not good for business.
 
2012-12-26 11:33:02 AM  

letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses


Since the "path", as dozens of posters have shown, is LESS crime and violence over the past ~20 years, I say, let's keep on that path!
 
2012-12-26 11:34:40 AM  

BronyMedic: You mean one attack in decades versus 61 in the United States since 1982? Gosh, you're right. That one event by a paranoid, racist man who used an illegal weapon to carry out the opening shots of what he thought would be a revolution in his crazed mind invalidates every point about their culture and approach to mental health and altruism being valid.


Considering the US is about 60 Norways as far as population, I don't think your statistic is very meaningful
 
2012-12-26 11:36:02 AM  

thecpt: Bontesla: How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?

What qualified was seeking help from their school administration or some kind of authority. They kept feelings secret from their parents and school friends. Most times they weren't even kids who were 'singled out" like typical stories of troubled youth. I don't expect children to understand their feelings at all. I'm saying that they usually blend so well and know what feelings to keep secret that conventional and present testing from the the government wouldn't work and would be seen as an infringement on freedom.

I really do completely agree with you on everything else. Maybe sometime parents aren't perceptive and experienced enough to realize that someone is in danger. My argument isn't about suicide (I'm a huge proponent of teen help and counseling for suicide prevention, especially because my friend is in a gay outreach program, aka one of the biggest causes of teen suicide). My argument is that the level of psychiatric assistance needed to catch the children and young adults who go on rampages is almost unfathomable and would most likely be seen as infringing on freedoms.


And I completely disagree with your assertion that help wasn't sought. Yes, absolutely, they ultimately stopped seeking help and conspired in secret. But there was a time prior to that when they realized no one was going to help them. There was a moment before they fell through the cracks. We can do better about watching those cracks.

That's why I pointed to the example of children feigning illness to avoid school. That, right there, may be a request for help. Parental awareness helps but so do counselors that keep an eye out for attendance oddities.

I think we have two different ideas of what constitutes as reaching out for help? Because I fully think help was sought and it was likely sought before the idea of a massacre was borne. And it could have been sought from parents or friends or family members. It could have been sought from a teacher or nurse. It was there but we're not necessarily trained to understand each one of those calls.
 
2012-12-26 11:36:12 AM  
Sounds legit.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-26 11:37:19 AM  

ringersol: We can require the same background checks at gun shows that we do at gun stores. (A stupid loophole to leave open so long. Background checks aren't perfect, but they *do* work and it's stupid to further disadvantage brick & mortar stores.)


This is already federal law: the *SAME* exact laws on selling and buying guns in a brick and mortar store applies in a gun show.

You've been *LIED* to, there is no "loophole", other than the "private sale" loophole. If you want to sell one of your personal guns, you don't need to run a NICS check on the person buying it, whether you sell it through a newspaper ad, a 3x5 card tacked up on the bulletin board at work, at a garage sale, through some online site, or at a gun show.
The law is the same for all of those (state law might vary, some do require NICS checks run at gun shows)

Point is, though, that you can't really complain about the gun show "loophole" without requiring that *ALL* such transactions go through a background check.

The problem is, that some states and localities already require that sort of thing for all private transfers (California being the biggest one), and it hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence.

Even if it *WERE*, there is a problem with the idea: It's quite probably unconstitutional, because it makes getting the permission of the government a *REQUIREMENT* before exercising an enumerated constitutional right. No other right in the Bill of Rights requires that. In fact, it's called "prior restraint", and is generally frowned upon.

And we can concede there really *is* no good damn reason for 30 and 100 round magazines for semi-automatic rifles that any tom, dick or harry can own.

Because no sportsman gives two shiats about magazines you can't actually fill and empty at the range or gun club without getting your crazy ass kicked out. The only time that shiat's appropriate is at something like a full-auto shoot; where, as the name implies, the tighter controls and special nature of the event enable people to enjoy those weapons in a responsible way.


And then, after another shooting happens, what then? Europe *HAS* all these sorts of laws. You have to jump through some pretty appalling hoops just to *PURCHASE* a gun in almost all European countries, and they still have mass shootings on a regular basis. They even have school massacres on a regular basis.

And yet in most countries in Europe, you can't own a so-called 'Assault Weapon' at all, and with the possible exception of Switzerland, those that do allow it place a high degree of scrutiny on those who purchase them. So the question is, why do something that has been shown to be ineffective at stopping this sort of thing?

Another data point: We *DID* this in the United States from 1994 to 2004, and it failed to have any measurable effect. From the Department of Justice 2004 study on the effectiveness of the 1994 AWB:

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading.
...


Plus, you have to add in the fact that laws that would be legal in Europe would almost certainly fail constitutional muster in the United States.

In other words, we had this discussion, we tried it your way, it didn't work, and it likely isn't legal to do now anyway.
 
2012-12-26 11:43:00 AM  

letrole: But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin, "sin" is an abstract concept inveted by power-hungry psychos as a means of controlling others. Besides, control of one's own life is the ultimate human right, so fark you and your control freak bullshiat.
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified, Our country was founded on public disobedience and defiance against authority (most modern countries were). Of course we glorify it...it's how shiat gets done.
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit, I think you mean "awarded" here. Regardless, how should we define "merit"? Honey Boo Boo is famous and provides entertainment. Is she less deserving of her fame than Keanau Reeves? Megan Fox? Nicholas Cage? If so, why?
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute, Right and Wrong have never been absolute in the history of the human race. Murder, rape, slavery, reality television...anything and everything that is "wrong" has not always been considered so.
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful, You sound....Victorian. "What is different must be shamed!"
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue, The only groups that I've ever seen hold that as a virtue have been the very same groups that whould whole-heartedly agree with your other 5 points. Funny how that works.

 
2012-12-26 11:43:52 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: It was not meant as free run to spill whatever crap comes to your mind out of your mouth. it was not meant to spill hate like Westboro, or too bully teenage girls until they commit suicide.


Those are two entirely different things from a speech perspective. The latter most certainly could be equated with yelling fire in a crowded theater as the speech was employed in such a way that it caused physical harm.
 
2012-12-26 11:45:44 AM  
To be fair, any medication that would have helped Lanza, such as an antipsychotic, would have such an assload of side effects as to be unbearable to some people. We also have a psychiatric system that seems to be dependent on the discovery of drugs like Prozac to influence their disease theories far too much, although with our current understanding of the brain I suppose that's necessary to some extent.
 
2012-12-26 11:46:04 AM  

PanicMan: Even young kids can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If you can't that's not societies fault. That's your problem and you news to get help.


So you're saying that fake violence might affect some people negatively?
 
2012-12-26 11:47:39 AM  

BronyMedic: dittybopper: What, you mean like Norway?

You mean one attack in decades versus 61 in the United States since 1982? Gosh, you're right. That one event by a paranoid, racist man who used an illegal weapon to carry out the opening shots of what he thought would be a revolution in his crazed mind invalidates every point about their culture and approach to mental health and altruism being valid.


Oh, look, it happens in Europe all the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansbach_school_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

That's just school shootings, btw. Here are the other mass shootings from Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Moscow_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Li%C3%A8ge_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooti n g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Florence_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Bratislava_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_L%C3%B6rrach_hospital_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabukovac_killings

That list isn't comprehensive, btw, and it's only from the last 5 years (2007 - 2012)

So what was your point again?
 
2012-12-26 11:49:22 AM  

Flaumig: letrole: But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin, "sin" is an abstract concept inveted by power-hungry psychos as a means of controlling others. Besides, control of one's own life is the ultimate human right, so fark you and your control freak bullshiat.
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified, Our country was founded on public disobedience and defiance against authority (most modern countries were). Of course we glorify it...it's how shiat gets done.
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit, I think you mean "awarded" here. Regardless, how should we define "merit"? Honey Boo Boo is famous and provides entertainment. Is she less deserving of her fame than Keanau Reeves? Megan Fox? Nicholas Cage? If so, why?
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute, Right and Wrong have never been absolute in the history of the human race. Murder, rape, slavery, reality television...anything and everything that is "wrong" has not always been considered so.
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful, You sound....Victorian. "What is different must be shamed!"
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue, The only groups that I've ever seen hold that as a virtue have been the very same groups that whould whole-heartedly agree with your other 5 points. Funny how that works.


Boom. Someone just got LeTrolled
 
2012-12-26 11:53:26 AM  

Bontesla: And I completely disagree with your assertion that help wasn't sought. Yes, absolutely, they ultimately stopped seeking help and conspired in secret. But there was a time prior to that when they realized no one was going to help them. There was a moment before they fell through the cracks. We can do better about watching those cracks.

That's why I pointed to the example of children feigning illness to avoid school. That, right there, may be a request for help. Parental awareness helps but so do counselors that keep an eye out for attendance oddities.

I think we have two different ideas of what constitutes as reaching out for help? Because I fully think help was sought and it was likely sought before the idea of a massacre was borne. And it could have been sought from parents or friends or family members. It could have been sought from a teacher or nurse. It was there but we're not necessarily trained to understand each one of those calls.


Depending on the killer, they might actually enjoy school. If you create a list of "symptoms" you're probably not going to get very far and a lot of overreactions. The parents weren't usually active in their children's lives so that list wouldn't go far anyways. As far as attendance goes, in HS we couldn't miss 10 days of school legally, and the counselors would hold a meeting with every child who did.

I'm going off of what I've read, and the kids literally never reached out to the people you listed, nor did those people (teachers were typically interviewed) think that the children were exceptionally different in any way that wasn't positive. They might say "quiet" and such, but if every kid who was ever considered quiet was suspected of having troubles we'd be quite the nanny state.

I know what your saying about what constitutes as reaching out for help. We have probably defined it differently in our postings as I think your definition is normally what is found on suicide awareness posters. Kids who give suddenly give away possessions and things like that (not saying that is included, just things along those lines). My definition is more along the lines of the child saying "okay, I have a problem and I need to seek help before I do something." These children (and young adults) are so crazy that you can't stop them at that point. I don't know what you could do to catch them before this happens that wouldn't be seen as culturally unacceptable or helicopter parenting/teaching/everything.

Yes, you can say the parents sucked. I just don't think that saying that over and over again does any good. But I don't think you in particular are doing that. Its ignorance if a parent doesn't say that there is something wrong, but the fight against ignorance is always a losing one IMO. Especially knowing some people that I grew up with who have children.
 
2012-12-26 11:58:32 AM  
Oh look, the hobbyists are here.

bbygurl.com
 
2012-12-26 11:59:24 AM  
Last time I checked properly stimulated mentally ill people have always killed people.But that does not mean we are not in more trouble today than we have been in the past. Is there any value in the pervasive violence that has desensitized a generation. Endless war is now possible, Unchecked violent Israeli Racism is now more allowable than ever, drone killing barely gets a tut tut. Cops are generally told shoot first and ask questions later, racking up many more kills than they used to - zero prosecutions.
Pervasive violence is not only for the psychos, but for an entire society. It has allowed us all to stumble closer to the moral abyss that scuppered many prosperous but eventually morally bankrupt civilizations. So just because you aren't mowing down a McDonald's, does not mean you have not been affected by the cancer of desensitization. Think about the fact that every level of our government is openly corrupt (from fracking in city limits to Citizens United) and yet we all snickered at the hippies of the occupy movement instead of joining and giving it some momentum. Me thinks the water is getting warmer fellow frogs.
 
2012-12-26 11:59:36 AM  
There is too much sex and violence in our media. Whether it makes you have violent thoughts or devalues sex to an act is really an individual phenomenon, but to be so naive as to think these things, like any environmental stimuli has no impact is wrong.
 
2012-12-26 12:01:14 PM  
If guns somehow only ever killed their owners and their families, the push for gun control probably would not exist in any capacity.
Understand?

xtragrind: Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....

 
2012-12-26 12:02:44 PM  

Mahhughes: Last time I checked properly stimulated mentally ill people have always killed people.


Last time I checked properly worded tautology have always killed people.
 
2012-12-26 12:05:05 PM  
In my day, we got a lot of Looney Tunes. Laugh at this notion all you want, but I still have nightmares about the kid at my school who tried to roll a boulder onto all of us before jetting away on rocket powered roller skates. It will haunt my dreams forever.
 
2012-12-26 12:05:06 PM  
The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.
 
2012-12-26 12:08:07 PM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-26 12:09:03 PM  

Emposter: Right, because Europe totally doesn't have the same movies, despite their far lower rates of gun homicides. Gun control doesn't work, I don't believe in the rest of the world, LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP


Actually, people of European descent in the US have European-like homicide rates, despite owning guns by the crateful.

The homicide rate for white non-Hispanics in the US in 2010 was 2.52 per 100,000. (Source: CDC WISQARS)
Homicide rate for Europe overall is 3.5 per 100,000.

You would expect that whites in the US would fall somewhere between the lows of Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (1.0, 1.5, and 1.4 per 100,000 respectively), and the high of Eastern Europe (6.4 per 100,000), but biased a bit towards the lower end: It matches historical immigration patterns into the US pretty closely.

Now, it actually has zero to do with race. What it has to do with is culture: We learn our cultural values about many things, including violence, from our parents. And they learned about it from their parents, and so forth back in time. What you are looking at is the echoes of cultural values that likely predate the invention of firearms.
 
2012-12-26 12:10:28 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: In my day, we got a lot of Looney Tunes. Laugh at this notion all you want, but I still have nightmares about the kid at my school who tried to roll a boulder onto all of us before jetting away on rocket powered roller skates. It will haunt my dreams forever.


the only thing that gets me going is a cross dressing rabbit. Try having a relationship after that.
 
2012-12-26 12:10:37 PM  

ChuDogg: We moved crime from one location to another. That is all.


I'm OK with that.jpg
 
2012-12-26 12:11:39 PM  
dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.
 
2012-12-26 12:12:17 PM  

NannyStatePark: To be fair, any medication that would have helped Lanza, such as an antipsychotic, would have such an assload of side effects as to be unbearable to some people. We also have a psychiatric system that seems to be dependent on the discovery of drugs like Prozac to influence their disease theories far too much, although with our current understanding of the brain I suppose that's necessary to some extent.


There is a very high correlation between mass shooters and taking psychiatric drugs.

It may be the case that letting more people go untreated for their depression/mental illness might be the safer option.
 
2012-12-26 12:14:06 PM  

thecpt: Bontesla: And I completely disagree with your assertion that help wasn't sought. Yes, absolutely, they ultimately stopped seeking help and conspired in secret. But there was a time prior to that when they realized no one was going to help them. There was a moment before they fell through the cracks. We can do better about watching those cracks.

That's why I pointed to the example of children feigning illness to avoid school. That, right there, may be a request for help. Parental awareness helps but so do counselors that keep an eye out for attendance oddities.

I think we have two different ideas of what constitutes as reaching out for help? Because I fully think help was sought and it was likely sought before the idea of a massacre was borne. And it could have been sought from parents or friends or family members. It could have been sought from a teacher or nurse. It was there but we're not necessarily trained to understand each one of those calls.

Depending on the killer, they might actually enjoy school. If you create a list of "symptoms" you're probably not going to get very far and a lot of overreactions. The parents weren't usually active in their children's lives so that list wouldn't go far anyways. As far as attendance goes, in HS we couldn't miss 10 days of school legally, and the counselors would hold a meeting with every child who did.

I'm going off of what I've read, and the kids literally never reached out to the people you listed, nor did those people (teachers were typically interviewed) think that the children were exceptionally different in any way that wasn't positive. They might say "quiet" and such, but if every kid who was ever considered quiet was suspected of having troubles we'd be quite the nanny state.

I know what your saying about what constitutes as reaching out for help. We have probably defined it differently in our postings as I think your definition is normally what is found on suicide awareness posters. Kids who give suddenly give away possessions and things like that (not saying that is included, just things along those lines). My definition is more along the lines of the child saying "okay, I have a problem and I need to seek help before I do something." These children (and young adults) are so crazy that you can't stop them at that point. I don't know what you could do to catch them before this happens that wouldn't be seen as culturally unacceptable or helicopter parenting/teaching/everything.

Yes, you can say the parents sucked. I just don't think that saying that over and over again does any good. But I don't think you in particular are doing that. Its ignorance if a parent doesn't say that there is something wrong, but the fight against ignorance is always a losing one IMO. Especially knowing some people that I grew up with who have children.


You're mistaking my examples as as something much more central to my point. My point is these kids have likely sought help but didn't receive it either because they didn't ask clearly enough or didn't ask the right person. They slipped through cracks and we can be better about watching those cracks.

So when you say some killers liked school - it doesn't negate my point that school officials can help prevent teenage violence by having more resources, being better paid, and paying attention. Will that alone prevent all future massacres? Of course not but it is helpful if part of an overall effort to do better in creating a mental health system.

Having a checklist of things to look out for is a great guideline but if you focus on the list then you miss the person in many cases. We shouldn't be looking for the next killer or suicide victim. We should be looking for children having trouble adjusting or coping. We should also be looking for a break in behavior as something to pay attention to.

If you're a teacher and a student hangs out after class to specifically ask you a trivial question and it's uncharacteristic of that student- that can be an invitation that the student is looking to find someone they can reach out to.

If you're a coach and your star athlete suddenly doesn't want to play the game or participate in locker room rituals after the game then that's something you may want to pay attention to.

Those are just examples and not a to do list. They won't work in every situation but no approach should be so rigid that it must work everywhere.

The problem is that there isn't a checklist one can use to determine the next victim of violence and most people aren't equipped to respond to being approached for help (especially indirectly). That's why I said it's entirely likely the shooters sought help. Requests come in unusual forms and aren't always verbal in nature.

You want to separate the killers from those who commit suicide but their stories are often more similar than different. And why should we look for specific mental problems when we can simply look for those who seem to be struggling? A wider net catches more fish.
 
2012-12-26 12:20:41 PM  

ChuDogg: The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.


That...that's some of the most idiotic logic I've ever encountered in my life.

"I was showing a kindergarten class the Pixar movie Cars, and they seemed to be enjoying it, but one or two were crying as well. Then I took a group of them and locked them in the closet. The ones in the closet ALL started crying, so obviously Cars contributes to kids crying!"
 
2012-12-26 12:23:11 PM  

dittybopper: Emposter: Right, because Europe totally doesn't have the same movies, despite their far lower rates of gun homicides. Gun control doesn't work, I don't believe in the rest of the world, LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Actually, people of European descent in the US have European-like homicide rates, despite owning guns by the crateful.

The homicide rate for white non-Hispanics in the US in 2010 was 2.52 per 100,000. (Source: CDC WISQARS)
Homicide rate for Europe overall is 3.5 per 100,000.

You would expect that whites in the US would fall somewhere between the lows of Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (1.0, 1.5, and 1.4 per 100,000 respectively), and the high of Eastern Europe (6.4 per 100,000), but biased a bit towards the lower end: It matches historical immigration patterns into the US pretty closely.

Now, it actually has zero to do with race. What it has to do with is culture: We learn our cultural values about many things, including violence, from our parents. And they learned about it from their parents, and so forth back in time. What you are looking at is the echoes of cultural values that likely predate the invention of firearms.


And American culture is much more similar to Mexico or Brazil than it is UK or Norway. Both of which have very strict gun control as well.

I dont know why we always want to look at western european countries for a comparison but if you mention Mexico's gun control it is always met with "oh we are better than those third world shiatholes". Well now they are one of the largest demographics here, and the US has an extremely low Human Development index. Parts of the US certainly look like brazillian havelas than any bad neighborhood in Norway. While some suburbs of Mexico City could put Connecticut to shame.

No, the US is not exceptional, and gun control here would certainly look more like Mexico than England after a hundred million firearms flood the black market.
 
2012-12-26 12:27:29 PM  

Bontesla: So when you say some killers liked school - it doesn't negate my point that school officials can help prevent teenage violence by having more resources, being better paid, and paying attention. Will that alone prevent all future massacres? Of course not but it is helpful if part of an overall effort to do better in creating a mental health system.


You know I would like that more than anything. Okay, so when you say mental health system you're more talking about additions to current systems than something that is supposed to operate independently? When I read typical threads on it, people seem to think that professional doctors are need which is of course nearly impossible considering possible resources. But anyways, we need to pay principals a shiat ton of money to run our schools while we spend huge amounts of money on a war that's been going on for over a decade. Don't talk about paying more to those people who spend more time with our kids than we do.

Half of my teachers cared, half didn't. The one time I outright quit something, a teacher pulled me aside and asked why. I imagine others weren't so lucky.
 
2012-12-26 12:29:38 PM  

Gunther: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

if you're correct we should see an increase in violent deaths once modern media became established, but despite all the wars in the 20th century, you were still less likely to be killed by someone else then than in any previous century, a trend that continues to the modern day, and is observable throughout history.

People in pre-agricultural societies have something like a 4% chance of dying violently; obscenely high compared to any modern society. Clearly hunter gatherers played too much GTA.


Not to even mention the staggering stupidity of a statement like "witnessed 80000 deaths before middle school.". Really? That's the idiotic logic people are trying to use? Who's devaluing the average human life now, Mr. Equates Pixels to Real People? Because unlike you, the vast majority of gamers knows the difference between real life and video games.
 
2012-12-26 12:30:15 PM  

Teufelaffe: ChuDogg: The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.

That...that's some of the most idiotic logic I've ever encountered in my life.

"I was showing a kindergarten class the Pixar movie Cars, and they seemed to be enjoying it, but one or two were crying as well. Then I took a group of them and locked them in the closet. The ones in the closet ALL started crying, so obviously Cars contributes to kids crying!"


It would be more like if you took the two kids who were crying and put them in the closet, and told us that abortion was the reason nobody is crying any more.
 
2012-12-26 12:32:27 PM  

BronyMedic: Has anyone touched on the obvious demon in the room? Every school shooting and Mass killing in the history of ever has been done by someone on weed.

Watch the documentary "Reefer Madness". It will really open your eyes!


Watched it on Netflix the other night. Laughed really hard at how seriously they took themselves.

It WAS an interesting glimpse into how the 30's society could be manipulated though. The "Er-mer-Gerd" level in that movie was simply amazing.
 
2012-12-26 12:33:34 PM  

ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.


Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.
 
2012-12-26 12:34:02 PM  

cretinbob: I'm OK with shootings in movies, as long as they are required to make them realistic That means no one gets back up after being shot in the chest or head. Wounds need to be realistic as well.


That's a big problem with the MPAA: One character in a film shoots another? That's a PG13.

One character shoots another, with a realistic depiction of the consequences, including blood and a wound? That's an R, accompanied by a significant hit to your box office.
 
2012-12-26 12:35:36 PM  

mooseyfate: the vast majority of gamers knows the difference between real life and video games.


And that right there points to the biggest failure of the "violence in media contributes to violence in life" argument. To equate the witnessing of a real death with witnessing a fake one is just stupid.
 
2012-12-26 12:36:37 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds legit.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 791x1000]


To be fair... Able WAS kind of a dick.
 
2012-12-26 12:36:58 PM  
Waitaminnit.... Disregard last post. According to Fark Rules of Etiquette TM, because Brony and I disagree on a couple things, I am supposed to hate his stinking guts and never ever EVAR find commonalities in which we agree to....

So, Brony, you're a big poopiehead and you are WAY off base here ya freak!!!

/does this mean we have to start fighting now?
 
2012-12-26 12:39:12 PM  
Biggest problem with society by far is the issue of fistfights being treated as a horrible crime and punish indiscriminately in schools. Gone are the days you can get into a fight, work out some anger and then talk to the guy afterwards.
Everyone takes it so seriously now and noone steps up to defend weaker people anymore because
 
2012-12-26 12:39:46 PM  

ChuDogg: Teufelaffe: ChuDogg: The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.

That...that's some of the most idiotic logic I've ever encountered in my life.

"I was showing a kindergarten class the Pixar movie Cars, and they seemed to be enjoying it, but one or two were crying as well. Then I took a group of them and locked them in the closet. The ones in the closet ALL started crying, so obviously Cars contributes to kids crying!"

It would be more like if you took the two kids who were crying and put them in the closet, and told us that abortion was the reason nobody is crying any more.


Your whole argument is this:

When measuring the levels of violent crime in society, we need to factor in the violence being perpetrated by the people who have been removed from society.

It's a dumb argument and you should feel bad for making it.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:37 PM  

somedude210: cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.

I'm a firm believer that advertising and the consumer culture has harmed us a great deal. Same sort of thing ---it's just words and pictures. We don't have to participate. And yet our country is much, much different than it would have been if we weren't inundated with messages to buy, buy, buy 24 hours a day. How do you know that a lot of exposure to fake violence hasn't somehow affected our way of thinking about things?

I actually did an experiment like that for my sociology class in High School. I had a group play a "violent game" (Freedom Fighters, school only allowed a T rated game) and a non violent (racing game of some kind, I think) and we asked them to measure their anger, stress and happiness before and after.

Guys ended up being calmer, less stressed and less angry after playing the violent game whereas the women got more pissed and angry after playing the violent game.

But hey, it was just a shiatty high school project, nothing more.
/science!


I get pissed off and stressed playing racing games more than violent games. For me it's all about timing. Dirt 2 forced me to steer in real time. GTAIV was all about sniping people from cover, setting traps with satchel charges, and patiently rolling through their ranks.

I play video games to do things I can't do in real life. I can play soccer or stack boxes whenever I want. I only get to battle zombies or do 150 down the streets of San Francisco on the XBox.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:53 PM  

thecpt: Bontesla: So when you say some killers liked school - it doesn't negate my point that school officials can help prevent teenage violence by having more resources, being better paid, and paying attention. Will that alone prevent all future massacres? Of course not but it is helpful if part of an overall effort to do better in creating a mental health system.

You know I would like that more than anything. Okay, so when you say mental health system you're more talking about additions to current systems than something that is supposed to operate independently? When I read typical threads on it, people seem to think that professional doctors are need which is of course nearly impossible considering possible resources. But anyways, we need to pay principals a shiat ton of money to run our schools while we spend huge amounts of money on a war that's been going on for over a decade. Don't talk about paying more to those people who spend more time with our kids than we do.

Half of my teachers cared, half didn't. The one time I outright quit something, a teacher pulled me aside and asked why. I imagine others weren't so lucky.


Well, if we leave screening up to doctors we're excluding everyone who doesn't make it that far. We operate our mental health services like many baby boomers operated their families: kids bully each other, buck up, my father was harder on me, you'll survive and so on.

At this point we have enough research to know our system is broken and that expecting our children to "toughen up" is a very poor approach when the football team threatens to release a sex tape you didn't know they had (recent suicide case).

We need to adapt. Scores of adults are interacting with our children every day. Why can't we teach them to throw a life jacket? And not only to those that will take a life (be it their own or someone else's) but to everyone? One bad month can create a drug addiction. One bad school year can create teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections and diseases.

If our society paid more attention and responded appropriately - we would be healthier and happier. We expect these kids to navigate away from ice bergs without any tools to help.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:59 PM  
dittybopper: "n other words, we had this discussion, we tried it your way, it didn't work, and it likely isn't legal to do now anyway."

Talking points, straw-men and arguing by association are all fine and dandy on the internet. But I truly hope you don't try to navigate real life this way.
Not everyone who disagrees with you holds the same positions as other people who disagrees with you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you or make your life difficult for no reason. Not everyone who says "hey, go ahead and take the 30 round magazines back, there ain't a responsible gun owner who'll miss 'em" is secretly looking to forcibly confiscate all guns in the pursuit of a socialist utopia. Just, ya know, food for thought.

Anayway: the "assault weapon ban" was not "my way". The existence of gun crime under the "ban" does not somehow validate that we can and should do nothing about high capacity magazines any more than it validates that we can and should do nothing about goddamm high explosives or fully automatic weapons.

When people who are not ideologues talk about gun shows, they're talking about the personal swaps and 'straw purchases' that are rampant there. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you know pretty damn well that a person with a rap sheet could walk into a gun show --today-- and walk out with a weapon without so much as a hassle, let alone a background check.

And, once again, we're talking about *rates* of crime, not *existence* of crime. The continued existence of gun crime in more-heavily-regulated European nations does not counter the point that our rates of gun violence and rampages are far beyond theirs.
 
2012-12-26 12:42:08 PM  

dittybopper: The problem is, that some states and localities already require that sort of thing for all private transfers (California being the biggest one), and it hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence.

Even if it *WERE*, there is a problem with the idea: It's quite probably unconstitutional, because it makes getting the permission of the government a *REQUIREMENT* before exercising an enumerated constitutional right. No other right in the Bill of Rights requires that. In fact, it's called "prior restraint", and is generally frowned upon.


Something like that will only be effective if it is nationwide and tracks who is buying what.

If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem. Your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and making people jump through some pretty minor loops to sell dangerous weapons doesn't do that.
 
2012-12-26 12:42:18 PM  

physt: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds legit.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 791x1000]

To be fair... Able WAS kind of a dick.


His real name was Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.
 
2012-12-26 12:44:19 PM  

dittybopper: What, you mean like Norway?


Yeah, one mass shooter since forever. Meanwhile, the firearm-related death rate of the US is more than five times that of Norway.
The problem isn't the number of guns in itself. The problem is that the US has some deep cultural issues, of which the bizarre US gun culture is a symptom.
 
2012-12-26 12:44:30 PM  

liam76: If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem.


If the burden is placed on the publisher, then there is no constitutional problem with censorship either. At least, that's the equivalent of what you are saying.
 
2012-12-26 12:50:38 PM  

dittybopper: So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.


In what given time period?

Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012, Leaving at Least 88 Dead
 
2012-12-26 12:52:19 PM  

dittybopper: liam76: If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem.

If the burden is placed on the publisher, then there is no constitutional problem with censorship either. At least, that's the equivalent of what you are saying.


It is the equivalent if you think books or newspapers are like guns.

They aren't.

One you can leave around, or hand out, while the other has laws making doing so illegal.

The fact is that saying if you want to sell a gun you have to check with the FBI or ATF to see if they can pass a background check, and that you have to record what you are selling isn't unconstitutional. We already do the first one.
 
2012-12-26 12:54:27 PM  

ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.


Rampage? I loved that game.
 
2012-12-26 12:57:19 PM  

Uncle Tractor: dittybopper: What, you mean like Norway?

Yeah, one mass shooter since forever. Meanwhile, the firearm-related death rate of the US is more than five times that of Norway.
The problem isn't the number of guns in itself. The problem is that the US has some deep cultural issues, of which the bizarre US gun culture is a symptom.


As I showed above, one would expect 63 times more mass shootings in the US based on the population difference alone (we have 63 times more people - 315 million vs. 5 million)

Also, don't get hung up on *FIREARM* homicide rate: Use total homicide rate.

More to the point, is there a place in the US like Norway in terms of population and homicide rate? Yep. It's called Minnesota: Roughly the same population (5 million), and a homicide rate almost as low (1.4 per 100,000 vs. 0.6 per 100,000), despite the popularity of firearms in Minnesota.

Oddly enough, though, Minnesota has a *LARGE* number of people who are descended from Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish stock, so it's not really surprising that the homicide rate in that area is about the same as the homicide rate for Northern Europe.
 
2012-12-26 01:01:00 PM  
Can anyone think of a single big budget movie in the past 10 years that didn't have someone get shot in it?


/Didn't think so
 
2012-12-26 01:01:09 PM  
dittybopper: "based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway."

Ok. And do you really think we *aren't* notably higher than that?
You can hand-wave that argument a bit, today, based on the subjectiveness of any definition of "mass shooting", and because specific figures aren't easily obtained.
But it's a matter of a time until some researcher compiles them. And there's no reason to expect them to diverge from the overall firearm homicide rates (Norway - 0.19, United States - 2.98).

If anything, rate comparisons for mass shootings will likely make the US look *worse* than our gun policy differences account for, due to being compared against countries with more social safety net and nationalized (mental) health care. Just as our overall gun homicide rates look unduly atrocious for those same reasons.

So... I wouldn't lean too heavily on a numbers-based defense.
 
2012-12-26 01:06:56 PM  

born_yesterday: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Good thing we don't all live in medieval Europe. We'd all be serial killers.

/writers is a sniveling wuss

Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.

The Roman games are a perfect example. Killing all manner of beast and finding ways to kill criminals that makes a sword to the gut sound appealing.

Not to mention the plethora of medieval torture devices and techniques.

I'd argue that TV has saved more lives than it has cost.


You make an excellent point. It seems like humans have always had a thirst for bloody "entertainment".
 
2012-12-26 01:10:37 PM  

fluffy2097: Can anyone think of a single big budget movie in the past 10 years that didn't have someone get shot in it?


/Didn't think so


the day after tomorrow. That took me a whole second. Oh, Disney exists too.
 
2012-12-26 01:11:02 PM  

born_yesterday: Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.


Indeed. I remember reading on some game sight where they tossed a graph of youth violence up against the release of various popular consoles - each release had a fairly sharp downturn in violence afterwards.

While studies showed that violent video 'cartoon'* shows increased the violence of pre-teens due to their imitating what they watched, in older age categories it seems to act more as a stress relief; they become LESS violent.

You get the occasional nut who uses a game/video/song/religion to justify violence, but they were mentally ill and going to fixate on something.

*Quotes because one of the example shows was Power Rangers, which isn't a cartoon.

ChuDogg: It may be the case that letting more people go untreated for their depression/mental illness might be the safer option.


Untreated chemically, perhaps, but there has also been a lot of research into non-chemical options - mental therapies. For example, exercise can treat mild ADD. Only problem is that doing the non-chemical options requires more than half an hour with a doctor, and is thus more expensive.
 
2012-12-26 01:11:59 PM  

thecpt: the day after tomorrow. That took me a whole second. Oh, Disney exists too.


just about any romantic comedy.
 
2012-12-26 01:12:13 PM  

liam76: dittybopper: liam76: If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem.

If the burden is placed on the publisher, then there is no constitutional problem with censorship either. At least, that's the equivalent of what you are saying.

It is the equivalent if you think books or newspapers are like guns.

They aren't.


Sure they are. I can name three books that have caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people collectively: Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, and The Bible.

One you can leave around, or hand out, while the other has laws making doing so illegal.


Nice tautology you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

The fact is that saying if you want to sell a gun you have to check with the FBI or ATF to see if they can pass a background check, and that you have to record what you are selling isn't unconstitutional. We already do the first one.


Only for purchases from federally licensed dealers. The government can require that you do that as a condition for getting a federal firearms license, and it can enforce it by pulling your license and charging you with a crime.

We also do the second one, for federally licensed dealers: You know the infamous Form 4473? Dealer has to retain them, and their "bound book" where they record purchase information.

This isn't necessarily a significant burden on the Second Amendment legally* because you can still get firearms privately, or you can legally make them yourself if you are so inclined.

The problem becomes when you can't legally acquire a firearm without prior government approval. That then becomes prior restraint. A government that has the sole power to approve firearms transactions can also not approve them. At that point, any guarantee that you can own them in the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed upon. And if *THAT* 'guarantee' isn't worth anything, neither are any of the others.

*I'd argue otherwise, but I recognize
 
2012-12-26 01:12:53 PM  

thecpt: fluffy2097: Can anyone think of a single big budget movie in the past 10 years that didn't have someone get shot in it?


/Didn't think so

the day after tomorrow. That took me a whole second. Oh, Disney exists too.


Pretty much anything made by Pixar...Cars 2 and The Incredibles being the only two I can think of with anyone getting shot.
 
2012-12-26 01:14:00 PM  

frazzenrazzen: Because other countries don't have violent movies or video games...Even Michale Moore explored this in "Bowling for Columbine". This ain't it...

I am starting to think it is the culture of ultra-competitiveness. Everything in the U.S. is now judged...Your clothes, your school (your pre-schools, grammar, middle, high school, college, post-grad), your home/apartment/other, your car, where you work, your rank in the org, etc...

Now before I get jumped on, I am not an "everybody gets a trophy" type. I have to say, though, that the more socialist countries that focus more on overall quality of life rather than individual bank accounts seem to have less of this.

This is only a working theory...


I think in those cultures also, the general mindset is "what's best for society as a whole?" not "screw you, I got mine." There's such an impersonal disconnect between most Americans.
 
2012-12-26 01:15:58 PM  

Firethorn: in older age categories it seems to act more as a stress relief; they become LESS violent.


Which is pretty similar to the results when comparing behavior and attitudes of adults who watch porn. They tend to have healthier attitudes toward sex and gender relations than those who do not.

Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.
 
2012-12-26 01:17:43 PM  

ChuDogg: NannyStatePark: To be fair, any medication that would have helped Lanza, such as an antipsychotic, would have such an assload of side effects as to be unbearable to some people. We also have a psychiatric system that seems to be dependent on the discovery of drugs like Prozac to influence their disease theories far too much, although with our current understanding of the brain I suppose that's necessary to some extent.

There is a very high correlation between mass shooters and taking psychiatric drugs.

It may be the case that letting more people go untreated for their depression/mental illness might be the safer option.


Honestly, having dealt with depression and anxiety by throwing pills at it to try to see what stuck, I can see that being totally reasonable. I'm off all meds now and doing as well or better than before. I took gabapentin for anxiety, used also for nerve pain, and it was like feeling emotional desolation on an unbearable level until it left my system. I didn't want to get hooked on Zanax, so it was a crazy ride until I stopped the bus and got off.

And nobody could legally make me get back on it, because I'm not stupid enough to tell someone I'm considering suicide. I'm not the least bit homicidal, but if I was, again, if I don't let it slip I'm not going anywhere.
 
2012-12-26 01:28:25 PM  

dittybopper: ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.

Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.


memedepot.com
 
2012-12-26 01:28:36 PM  

dittybopper: As I showed above, one would expect 63 times more mass shootings in the US based on the population difference alone (we have 63 times more people - 315 million vs. 5 million)


I believe I addressed that in another post. Something about 16 mass shootings in the US in 2012...

Also, don't get hung up on *FIREARM* homicide rate: Use total homicide rate.

It wasn't the homicide rate; it was the rate of deaths by firearms, including suicides and accidents.

More to the point, is there a place in the US like Norway in terms of population and homicide rate? Yep. It's called Minnesota: Roughly the same population (5 million), and a homicide rate almost as low (1.4 per 100,000 vs. 0.6 per 100,000), despite the popularity of firearms in Minnesota.

Oddly enough, though, Minnesota has a *LARGE* number of people who are descended from Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish stock, so it's not really surprising that the homicide rate in that area is about the same as the homicide rate for Northern Europe.


I was going to say something about Minnesota maybe being saner than the rest of the US. Then I remembered this:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-26 01:29:52 PM  

ringersol: dittybopper: "based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway."

Ok. And do you really think we *aren't* notably higher than that?
You can hand-wave that argument a bit, today, based on the subjectiveness of any definition of "mass shooting", and because specific figures aren't easily obtained.
But it's a matter of a time until some researcher compiles them. And there's no reason to expect them to diverge from the overall firearm homicide rates (Norway - 0.19, United States - 2.98).

If anything, rate comparisons for mass shootings will likely make the US look *worse* than our gun policy differences account for, due to being compared against countries with more social safety net and nationalized (mental) health care. Just as our overall gun homicide rates look unduly atrocious for those same reasons.

So... I wouldn't lean too heavily on a numbers-based defense.


Yet, you keep saying "gun homicide" rates when you should be saying "homicide rates".

The ratio of "gun homicide" rates between the US and Norway that you quote is 2.98 to 0.19, or about 15.7 to 1.

The ratio of homicide rates by all causes is 4.2 to 0.6 respectively, with the difference working out to about 7 to 1.

By concentrating only on *FIREARMS* homicides, you intentionally make the homicide comparisons look worse than they actually are by at least a factor of 2.

If you look at a demographically similar area in the US, like Minnesota with it's homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000 (lower than Finland!), the difference is only a bit more than 2 to 1, despite Minnesota having much, much looser firearms laws.

Hell, it's more valid to compare New Hampshire to Norway then it is to compare Norway to the United States. In 2009, New Hampshire had a total homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000, which is only 33% more than Norway, despite having some of the most lax gun laws in the US.
 
2012-12-26 01:33:59 PM  
This is dumb. We are still arguing over the same things that we have in the past. If you don't want crazy people shooting up places then do a better job at finding and treating those people before their illnesses worsen.

But no let's keep blaming movies and video games. And then let's make owning a firearm a political movement. This is all dumb, we are just going in circles.
 
2012-12-26 01:36:24 PM  

austerity101: dittybopper: ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.

Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]


Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.
 
2012-12-26 01:43:35 PM  
Everyone give me your wallets! I have a copy of Gigli and I'm not afraid to use it!
 
2012-12-26 01:47:48 PM  
As advertisers have learned over the years, Americans -- along with the majority of the human race -- are gullible. The old 'Monkey see, monkey do' condition most certainly applies, especially among those under 30.

Nearly as far back as recorded history goes, we've noticed that governments have to tell their citizens who to hate and millions have died because one leader was pi$$ed off at another
.
Born in the 50's, I was raised on a generation of Cowboys and Indians and WW2 movies. All of us boys had toy guns, BB guns and, later, air guns (BB and pellet guns fired by compressed air or CO2 cartridges). Discrimination was firmly in place and the 'N' word was tossed around commonly. Items shipped from Japan usually had 'Stolen from Japan' stamped on their bottoms.

TV had only 3 channels and was highly censored so we spent a lot of time in the various movie theaters, where we learned to hate the Nazi's, the Japanese and came to the conclusion that the US Military was the best in the world, showing compassion as well as thoroughly stomping out the enemy. (After all, <b>WE</b> won the war for the allies. So said our media and Hollywood.)

It's a proved fact -- proven time and time again -- that what we see on TV, the Movies and the Internet can influence us. Look how fast that stupid 'gangsta' way of holding a gun sideways caught on. Then those belt less, baggy, knee pants took off, along with the 'prison dress'. People got killed over those big, ugly, expensive sneakers when they came out.

Smack in the middle of the worse gas crisis ever, which shook our economic foundation, the car makers introduced the gas guzzling SUV and folks ran out and bought them.

The internet introduced us to SPAM, viruses and stealing our information. It didn't take long before school kids were writing and releasing viruses just because they could and thought it fun. When several Radical sites showed you how to make pipe bombs, -- and kids promptly did so, along with adults.

When the ACLU and Lawyers started going nuts over everyone's 'rights' -- kids picked up on it and were soon getting their authority figures tossed in jail, stripping their parents of control and calling the cops if Mom or Dad slapped them.

The media made it appear that sex offenders were behind every bush and dirt clod in the land. Suddenly, 6 out of 10 kids had been molested -- even though, in some cases, the term molestation was highly exaggerated. Congress passed poorly thought out laws -- meaning you can be classified as a sex offender for nearly any action -- like being drunk and taking a leak in the parking lot. 6 year olds can be expelled from school as sex offenders.
The media disclosed how lawyers could sue anyone for any reason and you could make big bucks -- and the rate of lawsuits exploded so much that it actually hurt our way of doing business and even our lifestyles.

TV produced 'reality shows' where folks found ways to make money off the misery of others and suddenly, everyone is a house flipper, a storage bidder, junk yard raider or 'picker'. Oddities showed folks are willing to pay a couple of hundred bucks for that chunk of Great-uncle Jacks infected intestine he kept in a jar and you inherited.

TV showed us how to avoid police radar, how to question the radar gun operators skills, how to sue a store or business over almost everything and how to capitalize on the poor.

The Internet shows you how to make weapons at home from common goods and how to convert semi-automatics into full auto. You can buy assorted rounds for guns designed to explode, to release scores of razor sharp bits of steel and be incendiary. Some shotgun shells hold tiny ball and chain shot, designed to rip the target up.
TV showed us how to make grenades out of clay pots and gunpowder and even how to make gunpowder.

Plus, since the 1979's we have been treated to real images of various battles around the world, with millions laying in pools of real blood, dead or dying. We've suddenly seen various religions become corrupted and blood thirsty. We play realistic video games where we can slaughter friend and foe alike and those where we can become criminals and fight the law.

We see the aftermath of disasters in real time, watch the dead wash up on shores, see people being killed and others being brutalized. We can easily find a dozen rather nasty ways to kill someone and we've watched the bad guys get riddled with bullets on scores of TV shows and movies.

We get to learn about the real horrors going on in prisons and even get to see interviews with cold blooded killers. Reality TV has shown us how to make jailhouse weapons and even how to dispose of them. It also informed us that most prison guards are unarmed, unlike when I was growing up.

Does that desensitize us?

You f**king better believe it.

Decades ago, a little girl, dying of cancer, wrote a book and it became a huge sensation. Since then, other kids dying of cancer have written books and no one cares anymore. Actually, we've found that nearly everything causes cancer so those affected with it -- being so very many -- no longer elicit the sympathy of 30 years back. Plus we've discovered there's big money to be made in treating cancer and that assorted institutions will exaggerate and lie about their cure rate to get our business.

Before the massive homeless explosion in the 70's, if you fell over in the street, folks cared and stopped to help. Now, it happens so often that folks just keep on walking. We've recordings of folks watching someone get hit by a car and just walking off and traffic doesn't even stop, it just slows to avoid the bloody body.

We've had to create laws forcing people to help.

So, if you think the media doesn't influence people, you must have been hiding under a rock for decades.
 
2012-12-26 01:49:50 PM  

dittybopper: ringersol: dittybopper: "based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway."

Ok. And do you really think we *aren't* notably higher than that?
You can hand-wave that argument a bit, today, based on the subjectiveness of any definition of "mass shooting", and because specific figures aren't easily obtained.
But it's a matter of a time until some researcher compiles them. And there's no reason to expect them to diverge from the overall firearm homicide rates (Norway - 0.19, United States - 2.98).

If anything, rate comparisons for mass shootings will likely make the US look *worse* than our gun policy differences account for, due to being compared against countries with more social safety net and nationalized (mental) health care. Just as our overall gun homicide rates look unduly atrocious for those same reasons.

So... I wouldn't lean too heavily on a numbers-based defense.

Yet, you keep saying "gun homicide" rates when you should be saying "homicide rates".

The ratio of "gun homicide" rates between the US and Norway that you quote is 2.98 to 0.19, or about 15.7 to 1.

The ratio of homicide rates by all causes is 4.2 to 0.6 respectively, with the difference working out to about 7 to 1.

By concentrating only on *FIREARMS* homicides, you intentionally make the homicide comparisons look worse than they actually are by at least a factor of 2.

If you look at a demographically similar area in the US, like Minnesota with it's homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000 (lower than Finland!), the difference is only a bit more than 2 to 1, despite Minnesota having much, much looser firearms laws.

Hell, it's more valid to compare New Hampshire to Norway then it is to compare Norway to the United States. In 2009, New Hampshire had a total homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000, which is only 33% more than Norway, despite having some of the most lax gun laws in the US.


All those data show are that the correlation between "access to firearms" as a general sort of principle, and homicide rates, as another sort of amorphous concept, is not strong enough to warrant decreased access to firearms.

It does not, however, imply that if we removed the other sources of variance in the equation, rates of mental illness, quality of education, median income vs cost of living... that this correlation would not be entirely significant. I'd wager that it isn't so much access to guns as it is the elevation of guns from tools to lifestyle, combined with decreased access to mental healthcare and an overall drop in the quality of life in general over the last several decades.

If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms. If it makes everyone feel better, records of these checks must be retained for 7 years and then be destroyed unless the check resulted in a classification that prohibits gun ownership. Bans are dumb. Some kind of licensing test? Not dumb.
 
2012-12-26 01:51:44 PM  

Hobo Jr.: This is dumb. We are still arguing over the same things that we have in the past. If you don't want crazy people shooting up places then do a better job at finding and treating those people before their illnesses worsen.


I'm 100% with you.

But no let's keep blaming movies and video games. And then let's make owning a firearm a political movement. This is all dumb, we are just going in circles.


Too late, by, oh, what is it? Something like 40 years now? This was recognized back in the mid-1970s:

But underlying the gun control struggle is a fundamental division in our nation.
The intensity of passion on this issue suggests
to me that we are experiencing a sort of low-grade war going on
between two alternative views of what America is and ought to
be. On the one side are those who take bourgeois Europe as a
model of a civilized society: a society just, equitable, and democratic;
but well ordered, with the lines of responsibility and
authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and
correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation. To such people,
hunting is atavistic, personal violence is shameful, and uncontrolled gun
ownership is a blot upon civilization.

On the other side is a group of people who do not tend to be
especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed
in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman
who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from
the state. They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to
America's unique pre-modern tradition-a non-feudal society with a
sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman. To these people,
"sociological'" is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood
means responsibility and caring for your own.

This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few
million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point
of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps
the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will
be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall
first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side,
"Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves
no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries.
But slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis
that fits the phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having
guns, someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and
liberty. Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they
are cornered.

It would be useful, therefore, if some of the mindless passion, on
both sides, could be drained out of the gun-control issue. Gun control is
no solution to the crime problem, to the assassination problem, to the terrorist
problem. Reasonable licensing laws, reasonably applied, might be marginally
useful in preventing some individuals, on some occasions, from doing violent
harm to others and to themselves. But so long as the issue is kept at white heat,
with everyone having some ground to suspect everyone else's ultimate intentions,
the rule of reasonableness has little chance to assert itself.

The Great American Gun War - Barry Bruce-Briggs, 1976.

That was written 36 years ago.

Sound familiar?

Oh, and since that was written, we tried national waiting periods for handguns, and dropped it as useless. We tried an assault weapons ban, and dropped it as useless. We now have two Supreme Court decisions that explicitly state the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to be armed.
 
2012-12-26 01:52:34 PM  

dofus: And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment


Nothing you've said has anything to do with the first amendment. Not everything has to be followed to its logical conclusion. We've managed to become more health-conscious and more environmentally aware in this country without having to resort to banning things. Same could happen with violent content if we gave a shiat.
 
2012-12-26 01:57:12 PM  

dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.

Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]

Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.


Population density is a thing. Fewer murders in Wisconsin than New York CITY.

New York City has about 8.25 million people in it and had 485 murders last year.

Wisconsin has about 5 million people in it and had 136 murders last year.

New York City is about 470 square miles.

Wisconsin is about 65 thousand 600 square miles.

If we were to ignore that, it might appear that NYC has more violence because of restrictions on handgun ownership than Wisconsin does.

That would, however, be retarded.
 
2012-12-26 01:58:10 PM  
Flaumig: WARRGARBL

trappedspirit: Boom. Someone just got LeTrolled


Boom. Looks like somebody might be an exact profile match
 
2012-12-26 02:03:53 PM  
All of these movies are seen around the world. Why are only Americans turned into homicidal maniacs?
 
2012-12-26 02:03:56 PM  

OhioKnight: Sigh.

Rewatch "Bowling for Columbine". Like/hate Micheal Moore, at least he did the fine service of taking every STUPID idea about the cause of mass killings and ran sanity tests against them -- they all failed.

If violence in media was the cause of mass killings, then societies like South Korea and Japan, which have much higher levels of violent media should have the same problem... but they don't.

Next idiot idea?


blessthe40oz.com
 
2012-12-26 02:04:14 PM  

fireclown: I love this graphic SO much! And it gives it's data source (the DOJ) to boot!


Saved.

I know correlation =/= causation, but I wonder if, for some people, violent games give them an outlet to release aggression without actually hurting anybody. (I know the more likely reason is the overall drop in this country.)
 
2012-12-26 02:08:22 PM  

OhioKnight: Sigh.

Rewatch "Bowling for Columbine". Like/hate Micheal Moore, at least he did the fine service of taking every STUPID idea about the cause of mass killings and ran sanity tests against them -- they all failed.

If violence in media was the cause of mass killings, then societies like South Korea and Japan, which have much higher levels of violent media should have the same problem... but they don't.

Next idiot idea?


The flipside to that is the gun-fetishists' argument that more guns = safer people. If that were the case, since the US has the highest number of guns per capita, we would have the lowest instances of violent crime on Earth.
 
2012-12-26 02:09:08 PM  

dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.

Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]

Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.


I don't even need to rebut other than to point out the above bolded text, and say that I'm just going to sit by and watch the other people who've been responding to your very same post and explaining in many more words why you are wrong. No need to gild that lily.
 
2012-12-26 02:13:15 PM  
uploads4.wikipaintings.org
 
2012-12-26 02:14:42 PM  
www.examiner.com
 
2012-12-26 02:15:54 PM  

BeesNuts: If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms.


We didn't ask you.

But requiring that, and keeping the records for anything over a couple minutes runs the risk of building up a list of gun owners, something that is expressly forbidden by federal law.

Keeping lists and requiring government approval for *ALL* acquisitions of firearms is antithetical to one of the usually unstated, but nonetheless core purposes of the Second Amendment: To guarantee that the people have the ability to resist, and even overthrow the government, violently if necessary, should the government ever become tyrannical. It's a kind of 18th Century version of "Mutually Assured Destruction": No government that respected the right of the people to be armed could become tyrannical, and the people can be safe in the knowledge that they live in a country that is free, so long as there weren't any encroachments upon that right.

It is the ultimate in checks and balances.

As for the ability of people armed with rifles, shotguns, and pistols in the age of jets, tanks, and nuclear weapons to resist government, I would point out that happened in Iraq, and we weren't winning there until we co-opted the leadership of those opposed to use, and we are *STILL* in Afghanistan, 11 years after we invaded, and we are still taking casualties. We left Vietnam with our tails between out legs.

You don't have to be able to actually win, you just have to make it so expensive that the other side won't try in the first place, or, failing that, so expensive that they eventually give up.
 
2012-12-26 02:16:46 PM  
You're right. Hollywood makes us violent.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-26 02:17:01 PM  

Bucky Katt: [www.examiner.com image 450x447]


The bronze fez is no match for the dried turd.
 
2012-12-26 02:18:47 PM  

BeesNuts: That would, however, be retarded.


Kind of like comparing Norway to the US, without pointing out the differences?
 
2012-12-26 02:23:33 PM  
www.bethspage.us

cdn.twentytwowords.com

www.wagnerstudios.org
 
2012-12-26 02:24:38 PM  
www.conservapedia.com
 
2012-12-26 02:26:11 PM  

austerity101: dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.

Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]

Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.

I don't even need to rebut other than to point out the above bolded text, and say that I'm just going to sit by and watch the other people who've been responding to your very same post and explaining in many more words why you are wrong. No need to gild that lily.


OK, I can see the stupidity quotient is high on Fark today.

I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.
 
2012-12-26 02:29:00 PM  

dittybopper: I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.


And you'll find that the rates of gun violence and mass shootings are lower per capita, making population differences moot.
 
2012-12-26 02:34:10 PM  
Old news is old

Tipper Gore Widens War on Rock

Two years after beginning a campaign against sexually explicit and violent lyrics on record albums, Tipper Gore has moderated her tone but expanded her scope to include music videos, television programming and video cassettes.

She and her husband, Senator Albert Gore Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, met with members of the recording industry in Los Angeles in late October to discuss her record-labeling campaign. Few of the meeting's participants expected to find common ground.

While Mrs. Gore said the meeting was ''a chance to clear the air,'' she said she was under no illusion that it would change the opinion of industry officials, some of whom have said her campaign is tantamount to censorship. A New Platform for Views

Some entertainment officials said the Los Angeles meeting was an attempt by Senator Gore to make peace as he campaigns for the Democratic Presidential nomination. In fact, Senator Gore's campaign has given his wife a new platform for her views. ''It's a marvelous opportunity to make the statement I want to make,'' Mrs. Gore said recently in a telephone interview from her home in Washington.
 
2012-12-26 02:40:46 PM  

Teufelaffe: Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.


No kidding. Heck, look at 'abstinance only' sex ed being proven to cause MORE teen pregnancy than having NO sex ed. DARE programs being shown in studies to increase illegal drug use.

Kids might be ignorant, but they're generally not stupid. Honesty is generally the best policy with them. Give them the facts and they'll generally make good decisions.

Rik01: Smack in the middle of the worse gas crisis ever, which shook our economic foundation, the car makers introduced the gas guzzling SUV and folks ran out and bought them.


Actually, during the gas crisis the reason the domestic car makers all went broke is that they had a line-up of gas guzzling SUVs and nobody was buying them. BEFORE the gas crisis, tightening EPA gas standards and the fact that SUVs fit into a commercial class(so didn't count in the standard gas mileage requirements) rather than personal meant that cars were built smaller, lower to the ground, and were actually more expensive such that with an SUV you got more bang for the buck, despite the lower gas mileage.

My mother ended up in a small SUV not because of hauling needs, but because of minor disability she has a hard, hard time getting out of a low lying seat. My grandfather suffers from after-effects of polio, and couldn't get out of standard height car seats decades before that. Heck, I look at my family and nearly half suffer from some condition that the higher seat height of trucks/SUVs help with. Ergo, we end up in them.

The Internet shows you how to make weapons at home from common goods and how to convert semi-automatics into full auto.

Just as a note that if you have the tools to do this you probably knew how to do it anyways, or could figure it out without much trouble.

You can buy assorted rounds for guns designed to explode, to release scores of razor sharp bits of steel and be incendiary. Some shotgun shells hold tiny ball and chain shot, designed to rip the target up.
TV showed us how to make grenades out of clay pots and gunpowder and even how to make gunpowder.


Gunpowder you can learn in history books, along with the clay pot grenades. I don't remember any real problem with clay pot grenades or even home made gun powder, so it's not that big of an issue. Shotgun shells with 'tiny ball and chain shot' isn't anyworse than shooting the person with a slug or buckshot. It's a marketing/'neato' item.

Before the massive homeless explosion in the 70's, if you fell over in the street, folks cared and stopped to help. Now, it happens so often that folks just keep on walking. We've recordings of folks watching someone get hit by a car and just walking off and traffic doesn't even stop, it just slows to avoid the bloody body.

What caused the homeless explosion? The closing of the Asylums. Why were the Asylums closed? A series of TV specials highlighting the worst asylums out there. All tarred with the same brush, you had a lot of mentally ill kicked out onto the streets without family, help, or life skills.

So, if you think the media doesn't influence people, you must have been hiding under a rock for decades.

Yep.

BeesNuts: If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms. If it makes everyone feel better, records of these checks must be retained for 7 years and then be destroyed unless the check resulted in a classification that prohibits gun ownership. Bans are dumb. Some kind of licensing test? Not dumb.


Already mostly done in the USA - NICS check? In order to be a commercial seller you have to have a FFL license, which includes a background check. I'm not sure about the retention of those checks, but every gun sold is kept in the bound book of the FFL for some huge length of time, and that includes the result of the check. There are some issues with the check - not all states provide the mental health information, for example, but it's more in need of tuning and a few fixes than some radical overhaul.

All that's left is the 'gun show loophole', which is more the 'private sale' loophole - IE I'm a private owner of a firearm, it's my right to sell it without going through an FFL. I don't have access to NICS though, partially because the government doesn't want to hand out free background checks - I can guarantee that if individuals could access it, various business owners/managers would use it to check all their employees. Personally, I only sell to those I trust - having a valid CCW license, for example, but it's an issue I'd like to see a solution for, even if it's just voluntary. Even with that a statistically insignificant number of crime guns are traced to private sales, so it's not as big of an issue as the media makes it out to be.
 
2012-12-26 02:41:02 PM  

Rik01: So, if you think the media doesn't influence people, you must have been hiding under a rock for decades.


You've been watching way too much internet
 
2012-12-26 02:50:45 PM  

Teufelaffe: Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.


What, like child psychologists and psychiatrists and their professional organizations, which pretty much universally agree that violent media has an effect on people?
 
2012-12-26 03:06:31 PM  
As advertisers have learned over the years, Americans -- along with the majority of the human race -- are gullible. The old 'Monkey see, monkey do' condition most certainly applies, especially among those under 30.

W ...

It is interesting that you use the word gullible...it is an ersatz word and can not even be found in the dictionary.
 
2012-12-26 03:06:40 PM  

Charles Martel: It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.


No it doesn't. If those guns had been exclusive to the military, those kids would still be alive. If Tarantino never made a movie, those kids would still be dead.
 
2012-12-26 03:07:40 PM  

whatshisname: Teufelaffe: Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.

What, like child psychologists and psychiatrists and their professional organizations, which pretty much universally agree that violent media has an effect on people?


"has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].
 
2012-12-26 03:17:50 PM  

verbaltoxin: Stupid Mormons.


Came here for this, now its time to go back to work, satisfied.
 
2012-12-26 03:30:41 PM  

Teufelaffe: "has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].


Google it. There's lots of information out there.
You might also want to check a dictionary or two.
 
2012-12-26 03:36:39 PM  

whatshisname: Teufelaffe: "has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].

Google it. There's lots of information out there.
You might also want to check a dictionary or two.


Sorry, but you're the one making claims about what psychologists "universally agree" upon, so the burden of citation falls to you. Don't worry though, we already know you don't have anything. That's why you're trying to get me to look up supporting information for your argument.

As for your dictionary comment...WTF are you even talking about?
 
2012-12-26 03:42:17 PM  
we should ban movies and video games
 
2012-12-26 03:42:41 PM  

Teufelaffe: whatshisname: Teufelaffe: "has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].

Google it. There's lots of information out there.
You might also want to check a dictionary or two.

Sorry, but you're the one making claims about what psychologists "universally agree" upon, so the burden of citation falls to you. Don't worry though, we already know you don't have anything. That's why you're trying to get me to look up supporting information for your argument.

As for your dictionary comment...WTF are you even talking about?


Actually, I started out by countering your unsubstantiated claim that media violence does not beget more violence, so maybe the onus of proof rests on you. However, since you seem to be unwilling to do some basic research here's a few peer-reviewed papers to read through.

The dictionary comment was in response to your assertion that "has an effect" wasn't the same as "causes".
 
2012-12-26 03:46:07 PM  

moothemagiccow: Charles Martel: It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.

No it doesn't. If those guns had been exclusive to the military, those kids would still be alive. If Tarantino never made a movie, those kids would still be dead.


Or not

Link
June 11, 1964: Cologne school massacre. Armed with an insecticide sprayer converted into a flamethrower, a lance and a homebuilt mace-11 killed | 22 injured

May 18, 1927 : In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.
 
2012-12-26 03:54:39 PM  

dittybopper: The problem becomes when you can't legally acquire a firearm without prior government approval.


You already can't acquire pistols without prior government approval, i.e. Background checks to make sure you aren't a convicted felon, adjudicated as dangerous to yourself or others by reason of mental illness, or are currently under an EPO/DVO. Is it really so burdensome to require checks for private sales, and/or for rifles and shotguns?

Analogous to cars: even private transfers must be registered with the state. Instead of going to the DMV, you'd take your private firearm transfer down to the the nearest licensed firearms dealer and, for a small fee, do a NCIS check.
 
2012-12-26 03:59:06 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: I know correlation =/= causation, but I wonder if, for some people, violent games give them an outlet to release aggression without actually hurting anybody. (I know the more likely reason is the overall drop in this country.)


As much as I love that chart, I don't believe that FPS games caused the decrease in violent crimes over that time. I tend to think that near-full employment and increasing prosperity had a far larger hand. The reason that it is so awesome is that people tend to think that crime increased like crazy during that time, wheras it decreased despite the FPS phenomenon.

I really don't that the games had anything whatsoever to do with it, FWIW.
 
2012-12-26 04:02:55 PM  

give me doughnuts: do a NCIS check.


Typo, not TV show.
 
2012-12-26 04:04:53 PM  

austerity101: dittybopper: I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.

And you'll find that the rates of gun violence and mass shootings are lower per capita, making population differences moot.


Gun violence, yes.

Mass shootings: That hasn't necessarily been shown to be true.
 
2012-12-26 04:05:56 PM  

whatshisname: Teufelaffe: whatshisname: Teufelaffe: "has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].

Google it. There's lots of information out there.
You might also want to check a dictionary or two.

Sorry, but you're the one making claims about what psychologists "universally agree" upon, so the burden of citation falls to you. Don't worry though, we already know you don't have anything. That's why you're trying to get me to look up supporting information for your argument.

As for your dictionary comment...WTF are you even talking about?

Actually, I started out by countering your unsubstantiated claim that media violence does not beget more violence, so maybe the onus of proof rests on you. However, since you seem to be unwilling to do some basic research here's a few peer-reviewed papers to read through.

The dictionary comment was in response to your assertion that "has an effect" wasn't the same as "causes".


You didn't actually read any of the studies you linked, did you? You'll find that many of them point to correlation and not causation. Not only has the research not shown that violent media causes real life violence or anti-social behavior, it's shown the exact opposite. Further, recent analysis has concluded that violence in video games is not related to engaging in violent behavior:

The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analysis ~ John Sherry (2001) (PDF)
The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review ~ Christopher K. Ferguson, PhD, and John Kilburn, PhD (2009) (PDF)
Much Ado About Nothing: The Misestimation and Overinterpretation of Violent Video Game Effects in Eastern and Western Nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010) (PDF)

As for what "causes" means, you should probably read the dictionary entry on that when you're done reading those studies you've linked because that word does not mean what you think it means.
 
2012-12-26 04:10:26 PM  

give me doughnuts: dittybopper: The problem becomes when you can't legally acquire a firearm without prior government approval.

You already can't acquire pistols without prior government approval, i.e. Background checks to make sure you aren't a convicted felon, adjudicated as dangerous to yourself or others by reason of mental illness, or are currently under an EPO/DVO. Is it really so burdensome to require checks for private sales, and/or for rifles and shotguns?


Hah, you don't even know the *CURRENT* law: Background checks are already required for *ALL* new modern firearms sales. That goes for rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

There is no federal requirement for a background check for private handgun sales, nor for private gun sales of any kind.

Analogous to cars: even private transfers must be registered with the state. Instead of going to the DMV, you'd take your private firearm transfer down to the the nearest licensed firearms dealer and, for a small fee, do a NCIS check.


Let's treat guns like cars then. That would result in a significant relaxation of the gun laws in my state (NY).

I could purchase a gun for cash no questions asked. I wouldn't have to get prior government approval just to *OWN* it. If I wanted to "use" it in public, say, for hunting, or for concealed carry, I'd have to go and get license to do so. This would consist of a check to make sure I'm not prohibited
 
2012-12-26 04:16:29 PM  

hasty ambush: May 18, 1927


I am fine with regulating guns and ammo the way we do explosives.
 
2012-12-26 04:17:46 PM  

dittybopper: Background checks are already required for *ALL* new modern firearms sales.


Then it would be a simple thing, and not one of prior restraint, to make it a requirement for the transfer (by sale, trade, or gift) of ALL firearms.
 
2012-12-26 04:27:39 PM  
Science flies a rocket to the moon, religion flies a plane into a building.
 
2012-12-26 04:28:08 PM  

give me doughnuts: dittybopper: Background checks are already required for *ALL* new modern firearms sales.

Then it would be a simple thing, and not one of prior restraint, to make it a requirement for the transfer (by sale, trade, or gift) of ALL firearms.


My dad died and left an arsenal, including something scary called an S K., semiautomatic. Do you think anyone took time out to go register his guns in their name? I left that can of worms to my sister. I don't possess them anyway. I warned her not to sell them, though.
 
2012-12-26 04:29:54 PM  

dittybopper: give me doughnuts: dittybopper: The problem becomes when you can't legally acquire a firearm without prior government approval.

You already can't acquire pistols without prior government approval, i.e. Background checks to make sure you aren't a convicted felon, adjudicated as dangerous to yourself or others by reason of mental illness, or are currently under an EPO/DVO. Is it really so burdensome to require checks for private sales, and/or for rifles and shotguns?

Hah, you don't even know the *CURRENT* law: Background checks are already required for *ALL* new modern firearms sales. That goes for rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

There is no federal requirement for a background check for private handgun sales, nor for private gun sales of any kind.

Analogous to cars: even private transfers must be registered with the state. Instead of going to the DMV, you'd take your private firearm transfer down to the the nearest licensed firearms dealer and, for a small fee, do a NCIS check.

Let's treat guns like cars then. That would result in a significant relaxation of the gun laws in my state (NY).

I could purchase a gun for cash no questions asked. I wouldn't have to get prior government approval just to *OWN* it. If I wanted to "use" it in public, say, for hunting, or for concealed carry, I'd have to go and get license to do so. This would consist of a check to make sure I'm not prohibited


Didn't get to finish before the computer hit enter for me.

Anyway, if I wanted to use my gun in public (as opposed to just keeping it on my private property, or using it at a private target range, etc.), I'd need a background check, and I'd need to take a simple written and practical test to make sure I know the laws and how to carry the gun safely. The written test would be worded so that an adult of average intelligence and ability can easily pass it. Likewise, the practical test at the range would be just to make sure you know how to safely operate a gun. Upon passing the tests and paying a reasonable fee, you would be issued your license.

This license would be honored by all 50 states.

As it stands now, just to *OWN* a handgun, I have to pay $20 to attend a 3 hour class, $90 for a "finger-print background check", photos (cost $5), and a fee $10. I have to submit character references. It can take 6 months to a year to get it approved. Then I have to pay a $3 fee for every amendment to that license, like every time I purchase or sell a handgun.

So it costs $125+ just to get the "legal privilege" of owning a handgun in New York State. It's something like 3 times that much in New York City.

Oh, but it gets better: I wouldn't mind so much if that was an unrestricted license to carry a handgun, but almost certainly, it isn't: Most counties in New York State issue their pistol permits restricted to "hunting and target shooting only". It used to be that rural counties issued them "Unrestricted", but most don't anymore.

So yeah, I'd *LOVE* it if we treated guns like cars. But I suspect that's not what you are asking, is it?
 
2012-12-26 04:32:40 PM  

dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.

And you'll find that the rates of gun violence and mass shootings are lower per capita, making population differences moot.

Gun violence, yes.

Mass shootings: That hasn't necessarily been shown to be true.


The US averages 20 mass shootings a year. (PDF) Wouldn't this mean that, looking at population, Norway should have a mass shooting every 3 years?
 
2012-12-26 04:38:38 PM  

give me doughnuts: dittybopper: Background checks are already required for *ALL* new modern firearms sales.

Then it would be a simple thing, and not one of prior restraint, to make it a requirement for the transfer (by sale, trade, or gift) of ALL firearms.


You aren't very clear on the concept of "prior restraint", are you?

Right now, you can easily legally own a gun without getting the approval of the government. It must be a used one, or you need to make it yourself, but you can do it without getting in any sort of legal trouble.

If you require that *ALL* firearms transactions must get prior government approval, well, that's pretty much the definition of prior restraint, isn't it? It no longer becomes possible to acquire a firearm legally without a background check.

Name any other enumerated constitutional right that you would put up with something like that. What if you had to get prior government approval before exercising your First Amendment rights? What about the Fourth, or Fifth? Would that be OK?
 
2012-12-26 04:41:08 PM  

dofus: Chinchillazilla: dofus: Murder and mayhem will never take a holiday but it seems reasonable to me that if kids weren't fed a constant diet of it in movies, TV and video games from the time they're able to walk, they might be a little less willing to accept it as a viable option in an argument when they're adults.

And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment, let's not forget the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' thing. There are limits to free speech.

Dude, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not at all comparable to making a movie where someone gets killed.

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same after I hit the Add Comment button...

There is probably some arrangement of words that gets the point across that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should but it's not happening for me this morning.

I don't mind that it exists - I'm a fan of NCIS - but I do mind the overwhelming volume of it. I was flipping the channels once and in the space of five minutes I found eleven different shows where some character had a gun in his hand during the few seconds I was watching. There's something wrong with that.


But, if they say a naughty word, show a bit too much skin or (yikes!) an errant nipple, they get biatch-slapped by the FCC amidst shrieks of outrage by "concerned viewers."

/hooray backwards society norms!
 
2012-12-26 04:47:19 PM  

austerity101: dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.

And you'll find that the rates of gun violence and mass shootings are lower per capita, making population differences moot.

Gun violence, yes.

Mass shootings: That hasn't necessarily been shown to be true.

The US averages 20 mass shootings a year. (PDF) Wouldn't this mean that, looking at population, Norway should have a mass shooting every 3 years?


It's the Brady Campaign. They count more than one person being shot as a "mass shooting". They even include Chicago gang violence:

Chicago, IL
July 11, 2012
Four youngsters are among the latest victims caught in Chicago's gun violence epidemic,
including two middle school-aged girls who were wounded in a neighborhood park on the Far
South Side. (Gun Violence Leaves 4 More Chicago Youth Wounded, CBS Chicago, July 11
2012)


Chicago, despite having gun laws as strict as most European countries (they only recently allowed handgun ownership, because the Supreme Court told them they had to), has some of the highest violence rates.

Seriously, don't trust the Brady Campaign as a source, any more than you would trust the NRA.
 
2012-12-26 04:50:08 PM  

Seraphym: I found eleven different shows where some character had a gun in his hand during the few seconds I was watching. There's something wrong with that.


Meh. Most of my favorite activities involve walking around with a gun in my hand. Of course, it's this gun:

img236.imageshack.us

So your mileage may vary.
 
2012-12-26 04:53:12 PM  

BeesNuts: littlett's: Wasilla Hillbilly: BronyMedic: People have been blaming video games since ET. Strangely enough, as games have gotten more realistic, violence has gone down.

To be fair, the ET video game causing violence would be understandable.

That had to have been the worst game ever made.  To this day I still don't know what you were supposed to do.

Challenge Accepted!

[img577.imageshack.us image 252x357]
/FWIW, ET the game was designed in less than 2 months at the behest of Atari, so that they could capitalize on the international popularity of ET (which came out Summer '82) before Christmas. The game was designed and built in a matter of weeks and tested in a matter of days.
//You're looking for phone parts, I think.


Hmm, I'm not sure... Custer's Revenge and Smurf Rescue are pretty damn bad, too. At least you were playing a likeable character in ET.

/then there's Shaq-Fu and Typing of the Dead - that's true horror
 
2012-12-26 05:16:31 PM  

trickymoo: Oh so?

Its good to know that people weren't killing one another violently before film and television were around.


I did some research for a paper on censorship and movie violence when I was in law school. During the glory days of the Chicago Mob during Prohibition, the Hayes Office was in full force, and movies were under some of the tightest censorship they would ever see. The man in charge of enforcement wryly commented at the time that even though movies were violence-free, homicides in Chicago were at an all-time high, which according to the Hayes Office boosters shouldn't have been possible.

People just want to believe that something--ANYTHING--is responsible for violence besides our own human natures.
 
2012-12-26 05:23:37 PM  
Of course, if parents did their job and taught their kids the differences between fantasy and reality, there might be less violence.

Of course, there will always be those who have a hard time differentiating the two, so better mental health care would be great for them.

/thanks for nothing, Reagan
 
2012-12-26 05:25:01 PM  
We have violent entertainment because we are a violent species. "Are you not entertained?!"
 
2012-12-26 05:26:51 PM  

hasty ambush: moothemagiccow: Charles Martel: It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.

No it doesn't. If those guns had been exclusive to the military, those kids would still be alive. If Tarantino never made a movie, those kids would still be dead.

Or not

Link
June 11, 1964: Cologne school massacre. Armed with an insecticide sprayer converted into a flamethrower, a lance and a homebuilt mace-11 killed | 22 injured

May 18, 1927 : In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.


"Since two people used two unconventional things to cause chaos, we shouldn't do anything at all to try to end mass killings."
 
2012-12-26 05:29:04 PM  
cdn.idolator.com

In preparing for this debate, I did a little research, and I discovered something astonishing. There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
 
2012-12-26 05:41:15 PM  
More responsible parenting and more after school programs are the only sure ways to raise a healthy society. Pointing fingers at the entertainment industry is a on-starter, it simply gives the people what they want.
Having said that, Tarantino is a nostalgia/shlockmeister who occasionally writes memorable dialogue but whose contribution to cinema ran its course long ago.
 
2012-12-26 05:42:48 PM  

dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.

And you'll find that the rates of gun violence and mass shootings are lower per capita, making population differences moot.

Gun violence, yes.

Mass shootings: That hasn't necessarily been shown to be true.

The US averages 20 mass shootings a year. (PDF) Wouldn't this mean that, looking at population, Norway should have a mass shooting every 3 years?

It's the Brady Campaign. They count more than one person being shot as a "mass shooting". They even include Chicago gang violence:

Chicago, IL
July 11, 2012
Four youngsters are among the latest victims caught in Chicago's gun violence epidemic,
including two middle school-aged girls who were wounded in a neighborhood park on the Far
South Side. (Gun Violence Leaves 4 More Chicago Youth Wounded, CBS Chicago, July 11
2012)


Chicago, despite having gun laws as strict as most European countries (they only recently allowed handgun ownership, because the Supreme Court told them they had to), has some of the highest violence rates.

Seriously, don't trust the Brady Campaign as a source, any more than you would trust the NRA.


Even if you take out all of the shootings that you have decided don't count, Norway still has far fewer mass shootings after calculating for population differences. How do you explain that?
 
2012-12-26 05:51:59 PM  

letrole: Flaumig: WARRGARBL

trappedspirit: Boom. Someone just got LeTrolled


Boom. Looks like somebody might be an exact profile match


dafuq
 
2012-12-26 06:05:27 PM  

trappedspirit: letrole: Flaumig: WARRGARBL

trappedspirit: Boom. Someone just got LeTrolled


Boom. Looks like somebody might be an exact profile match

dafuq


Yeah, didn't make any sense to me, either.
 
2012-12-26 07:18:46 PM  
Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying that "The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."

He should know. Rothschild made a fortune buying in the panic that followed the Battle of Waterloo against Napoleon.
 
2012-12-26 07:31:26 PM  

runescorpio: Biggest problem with society by far is the issue of fistfights being treated as a horrible crime and punish indiscriminately in schools. Gone are the days you can get into a fight, work out some anger and then talk to the guy afterwards.
Everyone takes it so seriously now and noone steps up to defend weaker people anymore because


Even if this isn't a cause of increased violence from crazies, it's still ridiculous enough to be stopped. Zero tolerance is crap, even someone who gets suckerpunched for no reason and does nothing to fight back still gets suspended.

CSB time! A friend of mine got into it with some douchecanoe in gym class. They hopped over the fence, walked what they figured was 1000 ft. (and thus off of school property), fought it out, and came back later. Got detentions for "skipping" but couldn't be punished for fighting. Or, at least, the coaches decided not to worry about it.

/fighting is exercise!
 
2012-12-26 07:53:23 PM  

dittybopper: liam76: dittybopper: liam76: If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem.

If the burden is placed on the publisher, then there is no constitutional problem with censorship either. At least, that's the equivalent of what you are saying.

It is the equivalent if you think books or newspapers are like guns.

They aren't.

Sure they are. I can name three books that have caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people collectively: Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, and The Bible.


Really? You are now arguing that books kill people?

The fact is a you can easily and accidentally kill someone with a gun, it is nothing like a book.

dittybopper: Nice tautology you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.


What tautology? Improper handling of a book can't kill you, not so for a book.

I pointed otu that the laws treat them differently to point out your argument about constitutionality of such laws are BS.

dittybopper: This isn't necessarily a significant burden on the Second Amendment legally* because you can still get firearms privately, or you can legally make them yourself if you are so inclined.

The problem becomes when you can't legally acquire a firearm without prior government approval. That then becomes prior restraint. A government that has the sole power to approve firearms transactions can also not approve them. At that point, any guarantee that you can own them in the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed upon. And if *THAT* 'guarantee' isn't worth anything, neither are any of the others.


As you pointed out above people can still make them.

I am really curious why the guarantee will be worthless if everybody who wishes to sell guns had to follow the same rules dealers do. If the govt was going to enact restrictions making guns next to impossible to get, why haven't they with licensed dealers?

Also, by the fact that we have regulations for dealers means the "prior restraint argument doesn't hold up in court.
 
2012-12-26 08:00:38 PM  

hasty ambush: moothemagiccow: Charles Martel: It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.

No it doesn't. If those guns had been exclusive to the military, those kids would still be alive. If Tarantino never made a movie, those kids would still be dead.

Or not

Link
June 11, 1964: Cologne school massacre. Armed with an insecticide sprayer converted into a flamethrower, a lance and a homebuilt mace-11 killed | 22 injured

May 18, 1927 : In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.


Obviously, the solution is to make bombs and bomb making materials totally unrestricted.
 
2012-12-26 08:35:40 PM  
Watching violent movies caused Genghis Khan to kill 60 million people you know. And that was before they had talkies even.
 
2012-12-26 10:02:07 PM  

austerity101: Even if you take out all of the shootings that you have decided don't count, Norway still has far fewer mass shootings after calculating for population differences. How do you explain that?


You want a real answer?

Norway does not allow private citizens to own guns without meeting stringent requirements. Norway does not allow open sales of guns. What this means is that Norwegian CRIMINALS do not have guns, because there are no legal guns to steal (when guns are outlawed, outlaws have to go someplace else to get their guns). Norway can confiscate guns right out of the hands of their owners if they don't have all their papers in order (unlike the US, where the benefit of the doubt goes to the owner, not the government).

Norway has much better healthcare than the US, so mental cases get treatment. Norway has much better penal rehabilitation than the US, so criminals don't get caught in the same kind of revolving door as US prisoners. Norway can preemptively detain suspected terrorists, criminals and other people, since they don't have the same civil rights restrictions as we do. All this means that potential shooters (the crazy, the criminal, the extremists) are under much closer watch than they are here and are more likely to be treated or incarcerated before they snap.

Norway has a more homogenous culture than the US. Even with immigration, minority populations in Norway are smaller than in the US. The divide between rich and poor is not as marked as it is in the US. Norwegian politics and socialist policies tend to ensure that most people have what they need to survive, so tensions are not as severe as they are in America between the haves and the have-nots.

Since mass-shootings tend to be synergistically caused, the lack of the causes in Norway (lack of guns, lack of social pressure, presence of more safety nets) tend to ensure that they will occur less in Norway than they will here.
 
2012-12-26 10:40:22 PM  
Well, no, but if we stopped fetishizing violence our culture might slightly less resemble a cross between A Clockwork Orange and the Hatfields vs the McCoys.
 
2012-12-26 11:16:31 PM  
 
2012-12-26 11:37:02 PM  

illannoyin: Link

Link


Sorry, but there's nothing hypocritical about saying we need better mental health care in this country while simultaneously saying that institutionalizing people against their will is not acceptable.
 
2012-12-27 12:14:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: austerity101: Even if you take out all of the shootings that you have decided don't count, Norway still has far fewer mass shootings after calculating for population differences. How do you explain that?

You want a real answer?

Norway does not allow private citizens to own guns without meeting stringent requirements. Norway does not allow open sales of guns. What this means is that Norwegian CRIMINALS do not have guns, because there are no legal guns to steal (when guns are outlawed, outlaws have to go someplace else to get their guns). Norway can confiscate guns right out of the hands of their owners if they don't have all their papers in order (unlike the US, where the benefit of the doubt goes to the owner, not the government).

Norway has much better healthcare than the US, so mental cases get treatment. Norway has much better penal rehabilitation than the US, so criminals don't get caught in the same kind of revolving door as US prisoners. Norway can preemptively detain suspected terrorists, criminals and other people, since they don't have the same civil rights restrictions as we do. All this means that potential shooters (the crazy, the criminal, the extremists) are under much closer watch than they are here and are more likely to be treated or incarcerated before they snap.

Norway has a more homogenous culture than the US. Even with immigration, minority populations in Norway are smaller than in the US. The divide between rich and poor is not as marked as it is in the US. Norwegian politics and socialist policies tend to ensure that most people have what they need to survive, so tensions are not as severe as they are in America between the haves and the have-nots.

Since mass-shootings tend to be synergistically caused, the lack of the causes in Norway (lack of guns, lack of social pressure, presence of more safety nets) tend to ensure that they will occur less in Norway than they will here.


Yes, thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with every last word of your response. (Actually, I generally overwhelmingly agree with just about everything you post.)

I just wanted what's-his-face to actually say it.
 
2012-12-27 04:08:41 AM  
You mean the Conservative-leaning newspaper run by the LDS is spouting the same tired excuses the rest of the GOP is using to keep the discussion away from guns?

Well I for one am shocked! Shocked I tells ya. I need to grab my fainting chair for this one.
 
2012-12-27 06:43:20 AM  
"Excessively violent culture and it's impact on our movies."

FTFY
 
2012-12-27 09:32:59 AM  

dittybopper: BeesNuts: If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms.

We didn't ask you.

But requiring that, and keeping the records for anything over a couple minutes runs the risk of building up a list of gun owners, something that is expressly forbidden by federal law.

Keeping lists and requiring government approval for *ALL* acquisitions of firearms is antithetical to one of the usually unstated, but nonetheless core purposes of the Second Amendment: To guarantee that the people have the ability to resist, and even overthrow the government, violently if necessary, should the government ever become tyrannical. It's a kind of 18th Century version of "Mutually Assured Destruction": No government that respected the right of the people to be armed could become tyrannical, and the people can be safe in the knowledge that they live in a country that is free, so long as there weren't any encroachments upon that right.

It is the ultimate in checks and balances.

As for the ability of people armed with rifles, shotguns, and pistols in the age of jets, tanks, and nuclear weapons to resist government, I would point out that happened in Iraq, and we weren't winning there until we co-opted the leadership of those opposed to use, and we are *STILL* in Afghanistan, 11 years after we invaded, and we are still taking casualties. We left Vietnam with our tails between out legs.

You don't have to be able to actually win, you just have to make it so expensive that the other side won't try in the first place, or, failing that, so expensive that they eventually give up.


You are completely insane. We love you for it. But you are absolutely bonkers.

I hope the government never decides to disabuse of your fantasy.
 
2012-12-27 11:29:13 AM  
xtragrind


Smartest
Funniest

2012-12-26 09:28:19 AM

Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....


******************************************************

Read much? Obesity is the number one killer in this country. As for second hand smoke, not to mention your numbers there Mr. Magico, not sure where you pulled those out of but you have my blessing to stick them back there. There have been no credible studies done to support your claims on second hand smoke. Yes I said CREDIBLE. But hey why not turn Bubba loose with an assault weapon with 30 rounds of ammo cuz he might see a ground squirrel or something as menacing and need to defend himself from it.
 
2012-12-27 01:32:10 PM  
You do realize this all started with violent cave pictures, eh?
 
2012-12-27 07:43:40 PM  

snocone: You do realize this all started with violent cave pictures, eh?


Those Wooly Mammoths had it coming.
 
Displayed 345 of 345 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report