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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 45 of 345 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

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