The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

So, guns (simply through manufacture/sales) have increased. Gun violence is at historic lows - after some 20 years or so of falling - so the number of guns available seems to have no impact on gun violence. What seems to have increased are these mass killings - even though overall gun violence is trending lower. So, it would tell me that the number of guns is not the issue - something with these snot-nosed, entitled kids today is <snark>. So, over the last 20 years, psychotropic drugs have increased exponentially. First person shooter games have increased exponentially*. Culture has become increasingly course. Education - this is a biggy - has continued its downward spiral in terms of quality. Those Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft pills you're feeding your kid - that isn't meant for EVERY problem. Economics dictate that it is easier to prescribe than it is to give therapy. You cant involuntarily commit someone to a mental institution anymore practically. Lots of things have changed, but it doesn't seem that the number of guns is the major factor.

* Those first person shooter games - I'm not saying they turn someone into a killer, but it does trivialize these things for entertainment. And really, what is the point of some Walter Mitty, I'm a SEAL masturbatory exercise anyway? I heard a guy talking about these games and said that as far as a "simulation" it is on par with what military and law enforcement used. Not sure if that is correct, but look at the Newton guy. Was anyone else surprised that there were only two people wounded? He had lots of "kills" and seemed better prepared than say Holmes or other shooters.
 
I think sensationalized violence all over the media (games, movies, tv, music) is definitely a contributing factor of this violence (amongst probably a half dozen other societal factors).

I'd like to see some American societal push to deglamorize that, but I don't favor any government controls to change it.
 
Hacker15e said:
As much as I'd like to hang my hat on violent video games, that's just as narrow-minded as hanging the cause on guns.
Click to expand...
ATN_Pilot said:
Waco, are you implying that these video games should be banned? Because I'd be just as against that as I'm against gun control. One amendment is just important as another.
Click to expand...

Not at all banned. And I do not think there is one cause - I think there are multiple factors at play here.

But I do have to question how a parent could let or want their kids to play a game in which you can shoot hookers, cops, etc. Or that show incredibly graphic detail of your killing. I mean, we played space invaders - nothing remotely "real" about that. Further, I do not get letting a kid play more than an hour or so of video games per day in any way good. That's why our nation is filled with pasty obese children who can't throw, or if they can throw, they throw like girls. Read books. Play outside. Don't glory in the "base things" like stealing cars, killing hookers and cops. It all plays a part. Much MUCH more than the availability of guns.
 
WacoFan said:
t I do have to question how a parent could let or want their kids to play a game in which you can shoot hookers, cops, etc. Or that show incredibly graphic detail of your killing.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly.

I think there is a massive parenting problem amongst Americans currently that is a significant part of the issue. Again, not something that can be legislated and 'fixed'.
 
WacoFan said:
But I do have to question how a parent could let or want their kids to play a game in which you can shoot hookers, cops, etc.
Click to expand...

Eh, I've got mixed feelings on this. While I think it's probably not good for younger kids to play these games, I also remember being a kid and it being absolutely impossible for my parents to keep them from me. When I was a kid, the latest violent game was the original Mortal Kombat. First the parents would try to make it less violent by turning off the blood feature. But then we figured out that there was a cheat code to turn it back on, so that ended that. Then my parents would just prohibit me from playing it. Of course, that was a fool's errand, because I would just go my friend's house to play it.

I hate to break it to you, but unless you refuse to allow your kids out of your sight at all, you can't really control what they do. I was a relatively "good kid." Didn't do drugs, never got into fights, was in the Cub Scouts, played Little League, all that crap. But when I wanted to play a video game, or see a violent movie, I was going to find a way to do it, no matter what my parents said. And every kid is the same way.
 
WacoFan said:
Interesting study here. My thinking is by shining the spotlight on them, parents may reconsider if they are a good idea or not.

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-rel...-behavior-university-of-missouri-study-finds/
Click to expand...
I find this to be a weird test. The sound level of the blast doesn't necessarily mean aggression is increased. Perhaps they were in a competitive environment where the increased blast would give them a bit of an edge? Seems extremely subjective to me. Also desensitization could also be caused by other forms of media. Attempting to actually find one form of media in this case to blame is shortsighted. Movies and the news have been desensitizing people to violence a lot longer than video games have.

Maybe the "glorification" of these violent killers in the media is a motivation factor for some of these people. I still hear about the Connecticut shooting every time I pass a TV with the news.

This dude says it better.


He cites surveys that indicate that the average elementary school child spends more than 40 hours a week playing video games
Click to expand...

Unless they spend all weekend playing games I don't see this as being real. Only professional gamers and MMO addicts put that much time into a game each week. A minority of gamers.

BTW violent crimes have been exponentially decreasing as games have gotten more violent. There is seriously no data to back up the claim that video games will give someone a tendency to be violent. More aggressive doesn't mean violent.
 
Maurus said:
violent crimes have been exponentially decreasing as games have gotten more violent.
Click to expand...

This is a weird statement -- "exponentially" decreasing? That would mean that violent crimes would be going away at an obscenely rapid rate and that rate would also be picking up speed insanely (and quickly disappearing altogether), and I just haven't seen any evidence of that anywhere.

Certainly the trend line is for a decrease in violent crime, but it looks linear to me and not exponential.
 
Hacker15e said:
This is a weird statement -- "exponentially" decreasing? That would mean that violent crimes would be going away at an obscenely rapid rate and that rate would also be picking up speed insanely (and quickly disappearing altogether), and I just haven't seen any evidence of that anywhere.

Certainly the trend line is for a decrease in violent crime, but it looks linear to me and not exponential.
Click to expand...
Yeah probably a bad word to use.
 
A couple of nice opinion pieces; first from a former Washington Post editor, and the second from Sen Manchin, who is the politician who gun control folks rallied around the last few weeks because of his stated intention to consider every possible aspect of preventing further Newtowns (which was interpreted to mean he was pro-AWB and numerous other gun control proposals):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a-7863a013264b_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-joe-manchin-between-obama-and-the-nra-another-path-to-stopping-mass-violence/2012/12/21/181d4e94-4adc-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html
 
I'm not as encouraged by Senator Machin's piece as you are. It seems to me that he's willing to accept bans (or at least restrictions) on so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. But we'll see.
 
I agree with you -- it is more that I'm encouraged by the fact that, as a Democrat, he has stated something other than what is the party platform.

I can't begrudge someone who says they're willing to consider all the proposals and all the evidence before making a decision. That's what logical, intelligent, reasoning men do.
 
Hacker15e said:
I agree with you -- it is more that I'm encouraged by the fact that, as a Democrat, he has stated something other than what is the party platform.
Click to expand...

Oh, he does that all the time. He wouldn't even clearly endorse the President in the last election. He's distanced himself from the party because of the coal lobby in his state.

I can't begrudge someone who says they're willing to consider all the proposals and all the evidence before making a decision. That's what logical, intelligent, reasoning men do.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. The problem I had with his article was the use of gun phobic buzzwords like "weapons of war" and "assault weapons."
 
Summary of Feinstein's new AWB below, straight from her website.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
  • Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    • Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
    • Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
    • Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
  • Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
Click to expand...
 
While I disagree with the entirety of Feinstein's gun grab legislation, I find the last section the most alarming. The inclusion of so-called "assault weapons" in the National Firearms Act is going to become a method for disarmament, IMO. The "certification from local law enforcement" could very easily become the mechanism to disapprove someone's application and confiscate their now-banned firearm.

If this atrocious piece of trash gets passed, I can only hope it is gutted beyond recognition by the NRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top