Gun Violence Task Force Calls For Research, Parental Tools

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Wait a minute, an actually logical and well put down report. Yay for research!
While it does not go into the opinion that i want, i didnt expect that, my views are quite extremistic.

Jove:

Seriously it takes you less than a second to look at the bottom right hand corner of the box to see the ESRB rating for a game. The parents have almost unlimited resource to research about any game their child wants to play.

ESRB and any ratins in general are far from trustable. This is because they are set up by a bunch of people who while follwoing guidelines still are influenced by their opinion. and that makes it very very biased. Thouh i must admit ESRB is better than other media ratings. Still i prefer PEGI.

Adam Jensen:
I wonder if they'll ever find any link between gun violence and gun ownership.

Gun ownership is necessary. How else do you protect yourself from other people who own guns?

(I don't normally do this but i'm going to add a '/sarcasm' as i've heard enough peopel on here use the above argument in seriousness you could be forgiven for thinking i really meant what i said above.)

TechNoFear:

cerebus23:
100,000 prescription drug deaths yea guns are a crisis in this nation, keep pounding that whole epidemic thing till people believe it,

Sylveria:
Slips and falls account for over 20,000 fatalities per year in North America. 500,000+ injuries from slip and falls. 500% more than injures from being shot

Just walking around is more of a risk to your health and safety than firearms.

And of course, no link is found, but they're gonna keep researching until they find one, no matter how thin that link is.

These are both 'false equivalence' logical fallacies.

cerebus23 ignored the beneficial use of prescription drugs, which are orders of magnitude greater than the harm caused. (ie a 'cost / benefit' analysis or CBA)

This CBA is not true with firearms. [before you quote Kleck do some research into his methods]

Sylveria tries to equate a basic human function to a item that is mostly used for recreation, is not required for society to function and is used to inflict pain and death on OTHERS.

How many people are murdered each year where the murder weapon was the victim walking, tripping or falling (and not being 'pushed')?

If surfboards where used as weapons to murder ~10,000 people, and surfboards where used as weapons to seriously injure another ~70,000 and surfboards where used by 20,000 people to commit suicide, then the US would legislate against surfboards ([insert any sports equipment and this holds true]).

The difference is that firearms are 'protected' by a vague clause in the US Constitution, just as slavery once was before we realised how repugnant it was.

that clause is not vague by any stretch of the imagination, look at the times the people that wrote the clause lived in, they just got out from under an oppressive government that tried to take way their firearms by law and by force, we fought a war over that if you recall, saying the founders intent in a is vague when they say congress shall make no laws that abridge that right in any way shape or form is being purposely obtouse, we can argue the well regulated bit till the cows come home the fact of the matter is we have plenty of laws on the books that ban real assault weapons and noone not the nra noone is calling for that to be lifted. we have laws the prevent mentally unstable and felons from getting guns, we have laws that keep felons from getting guns.

so you can retcon the constitution any way you like but do not try to pretend the founders intent is vague. it is pretty well common sense how the founders intended most things, look at the men look at the times they lived in.

did you know that they wanted to make the preamble life liberty and the protection of property? you know why they left property out? because the south considered slaves property and if the bill of rights or constitution specifically said property that would give legal protection to slavery.

slavery was a concern for our nation from nearly day one, but it was hard to just get out from a war with britian and then turn around and immediately gone to war over slavery the nation would have utterly collapsed before it got started.

you surfboard argument is silly because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime, where is the outcry to ban baseball bats because people like to hit other people with them? where is the outcry to ban fast foods and junk foods because of the obesity epidemic in this nation? run a CBA on that.

how about we talk about how well our war on booze and war on drugs have gone historically, one we gave up and the other we been fighting the same war for decades with ever increasing costs to the nation in law enforcement legal and jail costs, now you want to ban guns it take it?

excluding the intent of the founders entirely how would you get guns off the streets?

would you raid everyones home to search for guns? would you close down interstate commerce and treat each and every border like the mexican border? how would you close the robust drug channels into this nation? those same channels that are rife with weapons due to our war on drugs and all the money involved in it. jow would you stop that? you do not think drug cartels would be all to happy to sell real ak47s tac9s and all sorts of hardware on our streets happily? do you think they will screen people for mental stability? do you think they will care at all when every criminal is armed to the teeth and people are dying. would you spend the several trillion dollars to secure our 1000s of miles of coasts and borders?

and why is this even an issue really? because some psychopath created an autrocity? so we change the whole society on the chance that some crazy person might do something crazy? someone that gasp broke the law numerous ways because he was insane? wanted to go out in a blaze of glory?

if anything i think it should speak to the sanity of advertising schools as gun free zones, i cannot recall being allowed to carry a gun to school when i was a kid, it was kinda common sense if you were you know sane, there might have even been rules about it for all i know but we did not need signs all over the school declaring that noone may carry.

maybe we should discuss school administrators and local law enforcement working together on a voluntary basis to take gun safety training and target shooting and allow administrators and teachers to possibly carry so we do not have a school full of sitting ducks for any random psycho that chooses to break the law and kill people.

at lest that would be something feasable than the next war on we want to crusade or the next bunch of rights you want to sign away hoping the government or police will protect you from all the scary things out there. and infinately less expensive then taking guns off the streets and all the things and rights you would have to just toss out to make a gun ban, drug ban actually work.

but feel free to run a CBA on getting firearms out of our nation realistically. i am sure the cost would be in the 10s of trillions, we can just pile that onto our health care and 16 trillion in debt while we are at it, yes more government is what we need yes sir.

All I got from the line about the media in that was "We haven't found any evidence, so we're going to conduct studies until we get some."
Who's willing to bet that the "study" that says video games cause violence is incredibly biased.

the doom cannon:

cerebus23:
100,000 prescription drug deaths yea guns are a crisis in this nation, keep pounding that whole epidemic thing till people believe it,

Agreed. But it for some reason ppl get their panties in a bunch when there's a "mass" shooting. Just because a shooting is violent doesn't mean the death is any more important than the guy who died across the street after accidentally overdosing on his medications.

image

You get the difference between self-inflicted and murder, don't you? The reason people suggest that guns should be subject to further restrictions is because they're use to kill other people involuntarily, and make doing so much easier than any other method. Theres a reason the media also gets up in arms over suicide due to bullying yet ignores suicide due to the subjects own actions.

Jove:
"The entertainment and videogame industries have a responsibility to give parents the tools to make appropriate choices about what their children watch and play..."

READ THE FREAKING LABEL ON THE BOX DAMN IT!

Seriously it takes you less than a second to look at the bottom right hand corner of the box to see the ESRB rating for a game. The parents have almost unlimited resource to research about any game their child wants to play.

Maybe I'm reading it the wrong way but I'm just sick of how parents still to this day get no blame for any actions they take. Then again, this is the same country that let criminals like Casey Anthony off the hook. -_-

"Parental Tools" in this context sounds more like educating parents on how they're suppose to be doing their job, rather than - well, I can't think of what else it could mean in the context.

cerebus23:
that clause is not vague by any stretch of the imagination, look at the times the people that wrote the clause lived in,

You missed my point; that the 2nd amendment is legally vauge and irrelevent (in our time and technology).

It has limits (NFA, FOPA, etc) but no one is clear as to exactly what those limits are (eg Heller vs DC).

cerebus23:
you surfboard argument is silly

That was the point....

cerebus23:
because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime,

No they don't.

The 2011 FBI UCR shows ~68% of homicides, ~41% of robberies and ~50% of suicides (CDC 2010) involve firearms.

The only category of violent crime where firearms are not the most 'popular' is assault (~21% firearm / ~52% other weapon). Note that often assaults with a firearm are considered attempted murder (or become murder).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-21
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/robbery-table-3
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

cerebus23:
[sniped the rambling strawman]

Please note I am not an American and could care less how frequently you shoot each other, but your argument was clearly a false equivalency.

cerebus23:
100,000 prescription drug deaths yea guns are a crisis in this nation, keep pounding that whole epidemic thing till people believe it,

Or we can belittle it with false analogies to another group where safety measures are taken, blame isn't falsely spread, and deaths actually are taken seriously.

cerebus23:

you surfboard argument is silly because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime

Okay, prove that one. Even Fox and Breitbart didn't go that far, and they already lied about the contents of the statistics they purported.

How about those mongrels start researching the most obvious reason? Parenting or better to say the lack of parenting? Even if games cause violence, they are rated with an motherfucking M and kids can't buy it. So it's obvious that the parents buy those games for the kids. So it's not a games fault, it's the parents fault. Same as if a parent bought cigarettes, alcohol or guns for his kid. It's no the cigarettes', alcohol's or gun's fault. It's the parents fault for buying and giving something that isn't for kids to the kids.

This is absolutely absurd. Give them tools to control what their kids play etc.? THEY HAVE THE TOOLS. THEY ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY THE ONES BUYING THE 18-RATED GAMES! If you don't want your kids to play violent video games, don't buy them for them and ensure they don't have the means to buy them themselves.

How can you tell apart someone who wants to conduct science and someone who wants to further their agenda?

When you ask the scientist what he thinks about videogame induced violence according to all the studies done he will answer the following.

"There have been extensive tests in the past that have shown no or negligible results in increased violence, or have shown other sources to be higher causes of increased violence that nobody seems to pay attention to. If people want to continue researching this field they should rethink their testing methodology because at this stage a similar test that DOES show an increase in violence is more likely going to be doctored or faulty when in previous tests in the same method there was shown no significant increase."

When you ask a someone with an agenda:

"We just have to continue doing these tests until we have sufficient results that videogames do increase violence. It is having an effect on our children that we are ignoring just because there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates it. That is why we need more of these tests so we can gather more data and find the tests that do show an increase in violence."

One supposes a result that has to be proven correct, the other lets the results speak loudest.

Jove:
"The entertainment and videogame industries have a responsibility to give parents the tools to make appropriate choices about what their children watch and play..."

READ THE FREAKING LABEL ON THE BOX DAMN IT!

Seriously it takes you less than a second to look at the bottom right hand corner of the box to see the ESRB rating for a game. The parents have almost unlimited resource to research about any game their child wants to play.

I cannot overstate my agreement with this assessment.

The tools are already there and piss easy to use. If parents refuse to use them then that's not an issue the game industry has to deal with.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Oh boy, next they'll want to outlaw violent video games, maybe make us watch 10 minutes of sunshine and rainbows for every minute of violence.

If they can't enforce the current laws, then what's the point of punishing those who aren't the "dangerous, mentally ill, and criminally motivated" type of people? If I want to have a firearm to defend myself for the upcoming zombie outbreak, then I should be allowed to own one. Good luck England, seriously, you guys are hosed.... you too Australia.

Why is it that when research results don't fit the expectations, more research is needed? There's no connection, so why waste resources on this?

Maybe it's time to put some research into gun control, effective law enforcement, or security in schools?

Zachary Amaranth:

cerebus23:

you surfboard argument is silly because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime

Okay, prove that one. Even Fox and Breitbart didn't go that far, and they already lied about the contents of the statistics they purported.

"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."

did not take me long to find numerous discussions on it, the actual fbi pages, when they organize them better then i will dig through them.

but it is not a hard common sense thing to assume really that anything that would be more handy when people get peeved would be more commonly used in violent assaults than guns, since contrary to popular myth over across the pond apparently where we are all armed and ready to shoot each other every waking minute of every day.

fun facts.

we have a population of about 313 million people.

28,000 miles of atlantic coastline, 17,000 miles of gulf coastline, 40,000 miles pacific coastline, 2,000 miles arctic coastline for a grand total of just shy of 89,000 miles of coast.

we have about a 4,000 mile border with canada. and just shy of 2,000 mile border with mexico.

we have 50 states many are the size of your average european nation or larger in actual area. you can travel across several nations in europe in the time you cross between states here.

we can just toss out there that waving your hands and saying something is bad and making it illegal, which turns a good chunk of your former law abiding citizens into criminals overnight because you wish it so does not get rid of anything.

go research our war on drugs and the cost in lives and helping spread hatred is the USA in s america and places that we turn into war zones because of our appetites for drugs.

you want to do the math or a "cost benefit analysis" on the amount of guns and the explosion of a full blow black market in guns in this nation, how quickly those lines of marijuana and cocain distribution can easily swap out cartons of ak47s and uzis when there is enough money in it.

no you seem far more intent on dismissing any argument that dares challenge your rather limited view of issues.

and again piling more laws and more regulation and more government on top when we already have laws that made everything this guy did ILLEGAL already.......really 313 million people and 1 person shoots 26 kids in a school because he is crazy......and we have a epidemic....and we have people so riled up about this f it, lets get rid of guns they are barbaric and childish, lets get rid of videogames they are barbaric and childish murder simulators. because on the action of ONE solitary madman.

*FACEPALM*

the vast majority of gun owners in america are rational law abiding citizens that never fire a gun at another person in their entire lives, way some of you talk it is still the wild west up in here, and oddly enough these really bad shootings seem to happen in anti gun zones or states wow go figure. see how chicago fares under its anti gun environment in a pro gun nation.

gentlemanghost:

The only "tool" parents need is the word, "No." Parents, learn to say it to your kids when they want something, no matter how much they bitch and whine and call you the worst mother/father ever.

Yes, although there's still the Internet (the kids often are more tech-savvy than their parents), and of course the kids can get their hands on forbidden stuff if they have friends who have parents who either don't care or have different standards.

Of course there's also the risk that the kids come in contact with guns that way. Even if you're very careful, or don't have guns, who's to say your neighbours are the same?

We have 20+ years of solid evidence that games never have and never will cause violence, and they ask for research?

This is as fucking despicably dishonest as you can get without directly asking for it. Fucking stop banging on about the question and actually get to the part where you figure out the REAL reasons why shootings happen.

For fuck's sake.

It's too bad that the people funding the research on gun control are the gun lobbies and manufacturers.

I'm English, and can you guess how many people were killed with guns in the city of Plymouth England this week? none! yup thats right not a sausage. Heck had to serch the net and found only one case back in October 2011, terrible still but in that case the man even lived.

So yes we may get more inventive without guns in the UK knives, kittens and the odd Ukulele hell the SAS ain't feared for nothing, but joking aside people still die! Comit suidie with other methods, i think the Tamar bridge(plymouth again) is the 3rd most popular suiside spot nation wide (but don't quote me on that) so no guns can't be blamed for all the US's worries - people can make bombs from house hold goods if they really want to cause death.

I'll get to my point now. I'm trying to say in the middle but i'll be honest I don't really like guns. The one thing i'll say is simply people have killed people since the dawn of human civilisation why and how is a matter for each case but the point is in a civil and forward thinking society all we can do is make it as hard as possible to harm another human being and guns i'm afraid to say do the exact opotiste if they're sold in freely :(
Its instant death(yes I know not always but more so than most methods) not a punch or a wild slash and the same logic for most suisides as they have to be planed and thought over which hopefully saves a few who get help before they can go through with it.

Life is important and even with this being blown out of proportions and becoming a witch hunt against games and movies the point stands in the long run something should be done! Not sure what as I saw a figure on how many guns are in the US in general and there is no way to retroactively get rid of them all in a day or even reduce them by any major amount without the support of the people and the US loves its guns and i'm not going to tell you what to do but remeber every life matters and saving a few by reducing deaths by guns would be nice right?

Keep well and be civil and troll away if you must :) i've said my quiet peace.

There's only one thing that will significantly save lives and that is a full ban on guns, all guns, even and especially handguns. That is the only way to get those stats down. But considering that a majority of Congress is Republican and another majority is in good standing with the NRA, a ban on the second amendment isn't going to happen any time soon.

cerebus23:
100,000 prescription drug deaths yea guns are a crisis in this nation, keep pounding that whole epidemic thing till people believe it,

This isn't a purely numerical issue. There's a moral aspect to be considered. Yes, the damage that prescription drugs do is bad, but pretty much every culture, government and religion worldwide agrees that murder is the one crime that must be avoided above all else. Not least because it concerns one individual exerting force over another against their will. And whether or not (hand)guns are legal plays a big part in that murder rate, as the U.S. exemplifies. That is why guns deserve special attention and not just because they cause a certain number of deaths.

Reaching for more control over population. The more they squeeze, the more people will slip through their fingers. And then, when the laws ban everything worth doing (they won't stop at guns, games or books... power grabs are all-or-nothing responses, like muscle contractions) then the general population will either be propagandized sheep or those on the outside fighting for freedom.
Freedom isn't just about having guns, but being allowed to make our own choices and have our own responsibilities. If we as people can't be trusted to own guns, neither should the government because THEY ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE!

cerebus23:

"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."

Too bad you were already debunked before you quoted me. And your quote doesn't back up your claim.

Wouldn't it be easier to just concede the argument, rather than doubling down on something someone else already cited as false?

Farther than stars:
There's only one thing that will significantly save lives and that is a full ban on guns, all guns, even and especially handguns. That is the only way to get those stats down. But considering that a majority of Congress is Republican and another majority is in good standing with the NRA, a ban on the second amendment isn't going to happen any time soon.

It doesn't hurt that nobody's actually going to proclaim the desire to ban all guns.

I disagree with your premise, however. Banning guns is unnecessary. Well, let me rephrase. "Banning guns is not necessary to significantly save lives. Common sense gun control is sufficient to do that."

It's a shame the NRA opposes even the softest gun control, especially since their own membership supports most/all of the tenets of say, Obama's gun control policy. Whether you think Obama's gun control goes far enough, the fact is that if you propose it without Obama's name, it gets majority support in this country. Even among NRA members.

This isn't a purely numerical issue. There's a moral aspect to be considered. Yes, the damage that prescription drugs do is bad, but pretty much every culture, government and religion worldwide agrees that murder is the one crime that must be avoided above all else. Not least because it concerns one individual exerting force over another against their will. And whether or not (hand)guns are legal plays a big part in that murder rate, as the U.S. exemplifies. That is why guns deserve special attention and not just because they cause a certain number of deaths.

He sounds an awful lot like the pharmacological conspiracy theorists who think that big pharma is preventing us from acting on such deaths.

The biggest problem here is that we already take common sense measures with medication. It's funny that people whoare generally anti-nanny state are so concerned with drug deaths that largely come down to end-user issues. Aspirin is oe of the most quoted ones, and the reason people die from aspirin is that despite numerous warnings on all aspirin products, people take products containing aspirin like candy. Avandia was one of the big drugs that got a Congressional hearing, and the problem with it was actually a known issue: heart failure. Thing is, the heart failure issue was specifically for people doctors should have been screening out in the first place.

It's funny how nobody complains about knee-jerking with pharmaceuticals.

Pharmaceutical deaths are also accounted for by suicide, which we are supposed to ignore with firearms, and cases where the risk of death is known but considered acceptable due to the level of suffering experienced. I can't remember which arthritis drug was pulled off the market in another kneejerk, but the users of the drug protested loudly that this was a drug that gave them their lives back, and it was worth risking a shorter life span.

Which circles right back to the statement of a moral issue. So yeah, I agree, but I think there's more to it than just that. I think there's also bad mathematics and gross hypocrisy.

Edited to add: I guess part of my point here is that if firearms were regulated even half as strongly as pharmaceuticals, we might actually see some progress. Ironically, we're looking at someone who is complaining that a more heavily regulated market should be the target because...Well, ponies I assume.

To be fair, the ratings groups can be indecisive at times. XCom Enemy Unknown received a 12 from the BBFC, 16 from the USK and 18 from PEGI. Thanks guys.

cerebus23:
"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."

did not take me long to find numerous discussions on it, the actual fbi pages,

No, 'common' or 'simple' assault is the most frequent violent crime.

Aggravated assault involves a weapon, simple assault does not (and is more common).

Firearms are MUCH more deadlier than cutting or bashing weapons.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/

BTW you are redefining what you said, in an attempt to make you statement appear more credible.

cerebus23:
when they organize them better then i will dig through them.

Funny, I have no trouble finding the data I required to rebut your argument and link you to the data.

As the saying goes, a poor workman blames his tools....

cerebus23:
we have 50 states many are the size of your average european nation or larger in actual area.

I come from a country that has a state over 4 times larger than Texas, with a population under 2 mill and over 14,000 kms of empty coastline.

It has national parks bigger than some EU countries and US states. It takes approx 2 days to drive from one end to the other (of just that one state).

So fucking what?

cerebus23:
no you seem far more intent on dismissing any argument that dares challenge your rather limited view of issues.

Actually my intent is to rebutt illogical, ill-conceived arguments with no basis in fact and no supporting evidence supplied by the poster....

cerebus23:
the vast majority of gun owners in america are rational law abiding citizens that never fire a gun at another person in their entire lives,

And the vast majority of people who take perscription drugs will never over-dose and die from them, yet you used it as an argument against firearm controls. You can't have it both ways....

BTW Try searching those links I provided for the relationship between homicide victim and offender, they will show that over 25% of homicides are by one of your own family members / spouse.

Zachary Amaranth:
It's a shame the NRA opposes even the softest gun control, especially since their own membership supports most/all of the tenets of say, Obama's gun control policy. Whether you think Obama's gun control goes far enough, the fact is that if you propose it without Obama's name, it gets majority support in this country. Even among NRA members.

The NRA supports promotes the adgenda of it's major finacial contributors, which are firearm manufacturers, not firearm owners.

Zachary Amaranth:

Farther than stars:
There's only one thing that will significantly save lives and that is a full ban on guns, all guns, even and especially handguns. That is the only way to get those stats down. But considering that a majority of Congress is Republican and another majority is in good standing with the NRA, a ban on the second amendment isn't going to happen any time soon.

It doesn't hurt that nobody's actually going to proclaim the desire to ban all guns.

I disagree with your premise, however. Banning guns is unnecessary. Well, let me rephrase. "Banning guns is not necessary to significantly save lives. Common sense gun control is sufficient to do that."

It's a shame the NRA opposes even the softest gun control, especially since their own membership supports most/all of the tenets of say, Obama's gun control policy. Whether you think Obama's gun control goes far enough, the fact is that if you propose it without Obama's name, it gets majority support in this country. Even among NRA members.

Common-sense gun control does almost nothing, since those kinds of measures never include handguns, which account for roughly 80% of U.S homicides (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics). And even if all common-sense measures were enforced regarding sales and background checks, the fact that hand guns would still be legally available would mean that they would be siphoned into criminal organizations one way or another.
The most surefire way to ensure a decrease in the homicide rates is to ban all guns. But, since the NRA is Washington's most powerful lobbying group, we can see that that won't happen any time soon. So the most important thing is a change in culture, especially among Republicans and NRA-backers, to draw away votes from that sector and make anti-gun candidates more popular.
That's not something that will easily be achieved and - according to Social Darwinism - a lot more of these massacres will have to take place before such a shift in culture is observed. However, given time, I am sure that will happen, because it increases the security of human survival.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here