Congresswoman Defends Violent Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Dense_Electric:
Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned.

*points at the R&P forum*

Really, if you haven't heard that, you haven't been around the escapist too much. Secondly, why the hell do people assume "ban" the moment they hear "gun control"?

Is it really always "all or nothing" with Americans? I'm sorry if that sounds crass, but I'm starting to get exasperated.

ON TOPIC: Well, she sure had some guts to go with this on FOX. And to paraphrase one of my favorite M's, "Sure, I don't have balls but that means at least I don't have to think with them."

My favorite part is that they think video games are made in hollywood. Fox news, video games don't cause violence and they certainly aren't made in hollywood.

Fireprufe15:
My favorite part is that they think video games are made in hollywood. Fox news, video games don't cause violence and they certainly aren't made in hollywood.

You think Fox News would dare sully their hands with... research?!

DVS BSTrD:
Just because her lips are fake doesn't mean her logic is. Thanks Pelosi.

Honestly I want to mention it but I think women are in the unfortunate position that looking their age is a death knell.

People treat women differently when they look old, kinda sad.

Glad to hear her say it. But its not merely gun laws, but gun mentality, which stems from the laws.

We are a nation need to understand firearms and their purpose.

We also need to not ignore "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment, literally everyone against gun regulation omits that part when they cite the 2nd amendment >.>...

<.<...

For convenience I guess.

Oh, shes good. She saw the rage agiasnt videogames. she saw how gamers reacted and now she just won a lot of votes by responding at the peak of "we hate goverment that is agaisnt games" rumble. perfectly played madam, you deserve to be in politics.

LoL, and the debate flops back again. It's video games! It's guns! It's videogames! It's guns! And here we have people applauding the flip flop of the whole situation.

while its obviuosly not one-sided causality, the fact that guns area a real life danger remains to be true and lack of any decent regulation of it in america remains a problem.

Oh look, she's using video games just like the Right is, just in reverse.

Want to draw attention away from guns? Draw attention to something else.

Want to draw attention onto guns? Draw attention away from everything else.

And I'm saying this as a profoundly anti-gun person

This person isn't fighting for us, she's using us as a tool just the same as the right is.

GAunderrated:
Nice to see other people noticing that they are just engaging in the same black and white thinking that sadly occurs way too often in our society.

Thanks. I try (though don't always succeed) to avoid being a member of any pitchfork-wielding mobs.

Orks da best:
Everyone vote this woman! Now Now Now Now Now Now Now Now!
Thats an order!

She logic in a world of lies and half truths.

*snort, snicker*

zdog jr:
My only thought while reading this article was

GIVE HER ALL THE VOTES!!!!!!!!!!!

but in all seriousness, YAY LOGIC!!!

Pfft. Heh, heh. Oh hell: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!! Was nobody paying attention to all the completely irrational, common sense-defying bullshit that pretentious, self-righteous twit burdened the American public with during her tenure as Speaker of the House? Anybody? You know, that stuff that earned her a kick-ass 21% approval rating. Well, I guess it's A-OK to shoulder the U.S. citizenry with crippling debt as long as you say something favorable about video games. Awesome.

Formica Archonis:
I'm a cynic who has politically-active friends in California. I assumed she was doing it specifically to bring up gun laws from the get-go.

Pro-gun needs a different scapegoat, so blames games.

Anti-gun wants to scapegoat guns, so supports games simply to pull pro-gun's scapegoat out from under it.

In the painfully black-and-white us-vs-them mentality that is media-based politics, if you're pro-X you're anti-Y and vice versa. Today's X and Y are guns and games.

YES! YOU WIN! As a Californian myself, and as someone who views politics in an incredibly skeptical light, I can safely say that you win this thread. This thread could go on for 20 pages and you still win the whole damn thing. What you wrote is exactly what I thought when I read the article but you got there first so you win.

This is a very agenda based response, a calculated redirection. See, when the pro-gun advocates tried to scapegoat video games they made a mistake in the fact that it put the video game industry, an industry that has absolutely no stance or stake in the debate, on the defensive for no good reason. So the response would naturally to come right back and say that games are no problem and that everyone needs to take care of those nasty guns. It's a weird circular blame game and is completely unconstructive. I could point out extremely logical ways I could use to win the debate hands down, but that's for another thread.

Well, like I said you win the thread. I'd give you a cookie, but that's way to cliché by now, and since this is obviously going to turn into another raging debate about firearms, here, you win a gun.

All I can say is that I hope no one in this thread going 'vote Nancy Pelosi,' actually lives in the 12th district. You vote to stomp on my rights with the patriot act and wide sweeping domestic spy programs, you're dead to me.

I really thought after reading the comments there would be a bunch of gamers celebrating over the fact that there is a person in congress that agrees with us for once. But you can't mention the word 'gun' without a huge mess. Why are gun laws such a huge issue all of sudden. I know there was a school shooting, and this might make me sound like a terrible person but, that wasn't the first school shooting ever. Gun laws never seem to change even though, after every shooting people go crazy about them. If you want some actually change or if you don't, how about we stop auguring over the internet and come to some agreement. We are suppose to be partying in here guys.

Black_Reaper:
I really thought after reading the comments there would be a bunch of gamers celebrating over the fact that there is a person in congress that agrees with us for once. But you can't mention the word 'gun' without a huge mess. Why are gun laws such a huge issue all of sudden. I know there was a school shooting, and this might make me sound like a terrible person but, that wasn't the first school shooting ever. Gun laws never seem to change even though, after every shooting people go crazy about them. If you want some actually change or if you don't, how about we stop auguring over the internet and come to some agreement. We are suppose to be partying in here guys.

It's because people are under the impression that because school shootings are being reported more often, they are happening more often. Therefore, they believe that gun violence is out of control, and needs to be controlled.

thebobmaster:

Black_Reaper:
I really thought after reading the comments there would be a bunch of gamers celebrating over the fact that there is a person in congress that agrees with us for once. But you can't mention the word 'gun' without a huge mess. Why are gun laws such a huge issue all of sudden. I know there was a school shooting, and this might make me sound like a terrible person but, that wasn't the first school shooting ever. Gun laws never seem to change even though, after every shooting people go crazy about them. If you want some actually change or if you don't, how about we stop auguring over the internet and come to some agreement. We are suppose to be partying in here guys.

It's because people are under the impression that because school shootings are being reported more often, they are happening more often. Therefore, they believe that gun violence is out of control, and needs to be controlled.

You have a fair point Mr.TheBobMaster, but it feels like its exploded larger than it has in a long time. Also, with this much talk, you would think that law makers would have addressed this by now. But nothing has been purposed yet.

... Pelosi? THE Pelosi? The only politician I know of that has rick-rolled people?


(Check around the 0:36 mark)

... Well it's good that someone is on our side, anyways.

My Boss's daughter lost two friends in Newtown. He doesn't blame the guns.

I come from a different perspective. I was raised in what people would consider the 'ghetto'. The South Bronx. I was born in 1980 and lived there until 1992. I have family in Brooklyn and the Bronx, so I went back to visit at least several times a month. I have dodged bullets, seen people shot, and ran from situations with guns.

To me, this is just America catching up with something that's always been there. but before, when it wasn't at their doorstep, it was just gang violence. Urban Warfare. Things that you can turn your head from and say 'Well, it's no where near me, so what do I care?'.

And I see the tragedy over the last few years. The senseless violence. These... people going into helpless areas and living out whatever is in their sick minds. But I don't get the shift to guns as the problem.

Back when I was growing up, we knew who to blame. It was the gangs. The gang bangers who were trying to get turf, show that they were men, or who were just bored. No one looked at the weapons they held and said that was the reason. We knew it was the choice of the gangs. But now that these crimes are being committed by people who don't look like they belong in gangs, The once meek and over looked, we can't understand how these things could happen? And all of a sudden, it has to be that a saturation of guns just warped our minds? Bullshit. This is just a case of people now feeling the very real threat of violence and are just overreacting.

Don't misunderstand me. The criminals and the sick shouldn't have access to guns. But we have millions upon millions of people who do own these weapons. And a relatively small (relatively because any unnecessary death is distasteful in my eyes, but I do realize we don't live in a Utopia) amount of gun violence with these particular weapons. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of people's intent. And this is the age of the internet. I'm assured there will be some ne'er-do-well factions who will be more than willing to teach these crazy people how to make bombs out of household fixings just as long as they get a big enough body count.

So we're just sweeping mental health under the rug again?

Signa:
So we're just sweeping mental health under the rug again?

Considering that A conservatives will sabotage any improvements to healthcare best they can and B it will not affect the amount of spree shootings (since most mental cases do not appear on the radar of healthcare before they try and second amendment solution) more than marginally, then probably yes.

It should be about what works, and that's ensuring that there's no guns with which to perpetrate shootings. All else is pretty much just scapegoating stuff.

Blablahb:

Signa:
So we're just sweeping mental health under the rug again?

Considering that A conservatives will sabotage any improvements to healthcare best they can and B it will not affect the amount of spree shootings (since most mental cases do not appear on the radar of healthcare before they try and second amendment solution) more than marginally, then probably yes.

It should be about what works, and that's ensuring that there's no guns with which to perpetrate shootings. All else is pretty much just scapegoating stuff.

Fully disagree with you there man. Getting rid of the guns will just cause bigger problems for everyone instead of an unfortunate few. If we're talking about new gun control rules to keep the guns out of the hands of depressed people, sure, why not, but you're pointing your finger at the guns themselves when it's the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger.

There's a comedy routine in there: Cops dog-piling a gun held by a gunman and letting the gunman go because the gun was at fault.

Signa:
Fully disagree with you there man. Getting rid of the guns will just cause bigger problems for everyone instead of an unfortunate few.

Why that would somehow magically happen remains a part of NRA mythology though, while international experiences around the world are clear: Ban guns, fewer problems everywhere.

The Belgium male suicide rate was more than cut in half after introducing stricter gun regulations for instance. In Australia, the phenomenon of spree shootings stopped entirely after a gun ban was put in place.

Switserland on the other hand loves guns, but can afford everything in regards to mental healthcare, and despite that they've got massacres, a violent crime rate that's remarkably high considering their low population density and wealth, and massive amounts of family dramas.

Signa:
If we're talking about new gun control rules to keep the guns out of the hands of depressed people, sure, why not, but you're pointing your finger at the guns themselves when it's the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger.

How does that change the fact that no matter how mentally ill someone is, or what they want, if they don't have guns they can't perpetrate shootings?

Guns are always the cause because they're the enabling factor. Untill a gun violence advocate figures out a way to shoot people with your bare hands, that point will stand firm. (and no, it's impossible to argue that 'there will always be guns'. That too is just NRA mythology)

Who the hell let her onto congress?

I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to be on congress if you are clear headed and rational? She's not even trying to hold on to traditions that really should be let to rest! She's insane!

zdog jr:
My only thought while reading this article was

GIVE HER ALL THE VOTES!!!!!!!!!!!

but in all seriousness, YAY LOGIC!!!

Atary77:
Nancy, you got my vote! Why can't more people agree with her?!

Orks da best:
Everyone vote this woman! Now Now Now Now Now Now Now Now!
Thats an order!

She logic in a world of lies and half truths.

Truth is, she's pandering just like any other politician, she's a representative from California, their biggest money maker being violent media.
If she was representing a state that made no movies/games but had a large voting population (and more importantly, tax base) that worked in Arms Manufacturing, she'd be saying the exact opposite.

Typical Washington DC political whoring, nothing to see here.

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." ~ Henry Kissinger, United States diplomat & scholar.

Keep fighting the good fight, Nancy.

Blablahb:
snip

Look, I'm not getting into another gun debate, it's been done to hell and back. I think that if you believe that guns are the problem, go ahead and vote to take away your privileges, it doesn't bother me. I just know that our founding fathers didn't make the second amendment with the notion that the government might at some point want to take away everyone's hunting tools (that's all guns were back then). They wanted to make sure that the reason they started their own country (another corrupt government) wouldn't happen again in the newly founded USA, and if it did, there would be a way to cleanse it if it became necessary.

Now, you've said your piece, and I've said mine, there's no point in driving this further.

Signa:
Look, I'm not getting into another gun debate, it's been done to hell and back. I think that if you believe that guns are the problem, go ahead and vote to take away your privileges, it doesn't bother me.

Actually, guns are pretty much banned around here. Getting a permit for one requires some work in the form of fees, passing an extensive background check, psychiatric evaluation, mandatory safe storage and gun club membership of at least a year.

As a result, shootings are nearly unheard of. Drug criminals killing eachother account for the vast majority of gun crime, other people getting hurt is extremely rare and actively avoided by them (because doing that instantly makes you public enemy nr 1 and ensures getting caught and sentenced heavily). There's been exactly 2 spree shootings against citizens across 50 years, 1 of which didn't kill anyone because the perpetrator had to make do with a crappy former Yugoslavian pistol that he couldn't learn to handle.

Blablahb:

Signa:
Look, I'm not getting into another gun debate, it's been done to hell and back. I think that if you believe that guns are the problem, go ahead and vote to take away your privileges, it doesn't bother me.

Actually, guns are pretty much banned around here. Getting a permit for one requires some work in the form of fees, passing an extensive background check, psychiatric evaluation, mandatory safe storage and gun club membership of at least a year.

As a result, shootings are nearly unheard of. Drug criminals killing eachother account for the vast majority of gun crime, other people getting hurt is extremely rare and actively avoided by them (because doing that instantly makes you public enemy nr 1 and ensures getting caught and sentenced heavily). There's been exactly 2 spree shootings against citizens across 50 years, 1 of which didn't kill anyone because the perpetrator had to make do with a crappy former Yugoslavian pistol that he couldn't learn to handle.

Sorry, I just assumed you were American since you were talking about an American issue. I assume your mental health system is far superior to ours too. It's becoming more of the norm to look at disturbed people as someone with "a different life choice" than to be concerned about either helping them, or putting them away for the safety of others and themselves. Keep in mind we are the same country that privatized the prison system, so people are actually making money by running a business for holding people instead of rehabilitating them. I've heard statistics that roughly [1] 5% of the population commit 60% of violent crimes. We're fucked, basically, so taking away guns from that law abiding 95% isn't going to help anyone in the long run. The media loves a good scapegoat, and guns are the perfect ones right now after a dozen kids needlessly died.

EDIT: I should also add that you're falling into the same trap that everyone does when discussing gun control. Your point hinged heaviliy on the people who mistreat their privileges of freedom. A perfect society shouldn't need to have guns illegal because no one would want them or misuse them, but because there's always going to be those few that cause problems, these discussions always come up. It's never fair to punish all the people who did right because of a few people who did wrong, and yet that is what we are talking about doing every time this comes up. What needs to be done is not to remove the guns, but to make sure that those that like to jump through loopholes can't, and anyone who tries is punished severely for it. In other words, have a good mental health system that not only treats patients, but makes it impossible for dangerous patients to get a hold of a weapon. It's easier said than done, but it's the right thing to do because it fixes several problems at once, and it's not a retardedly ham-fisted solution to a knee-jerk reaction.

[1] I'm too lazy to find the actual numbers again, but the grossly disproportionate ratio is key to my point anyway

Signa:
We're fucked, basically, so taking away guns from that law abiding 95% isn't going to help anyone in the long run.

How do you suppose people will commit spree shootings with guns then? Shoot people with their bare hands? Banning guns does work. Australia proves that for one thing, since they introduced fairly strict gun bans, spree shootings just stopped.

Actually it's crazy difficult to have someone admitted to a mental asylum against their will. You can safely assume we Dutch have the same crazies running around you have. Major difference: The biggest weapon any crazy can get their hands on is kitchen cutlery. It's not uncommon for 'armed' criminals to carry small swiss army knives or similar weapons of questionable killing power. The numbers of firearms deaths among the public is very low as a result, and there's no equal rise in victims to other means.

To name an example of how that works out 'on the ground': There was a psychopath a few years ago, Rudolf K. nicknamed 'the executioner of Twente', who ended his criminal career by going on a crazy stabbing spree in a town centre. He injured three people, one of which only sustained minor cuts to his hands because he wore a leather jacket, before police arrested the would-be killer. Beats a headline that goes 'fifteen die in crazy shootout in city centre' if you ask me.

Other public wannabe spree-killers don't get far, bystanders ussually overpower them. I deal with such potential threats often as I work as a security guard in an addict care centre, and I've seen people fight. One even pulled a knife (aimed at another client he was fighting with) but it would've been childsplay to kick him away (most people don't talk back from a shoe to the face) or disarm him as such a knife hardly makes him more of a match for me. It was of little risk to go stand in between the two and stop the confrontation by telling him I'd really have to hurt him unless he stopped it right there and then. He did. Everybody walked away unharmed, and the knife puller got a two week premises ban.

If he had had a gun, that other client would be dead. Me too probably, and everybody present would be mentally scarred for life. Now, most people didn't notice anything other than a minor brawl which I ended in a hurry.

Dense_Electric:
She had me up until she started on gun laws. Games can provide inspiration for a crime as readily as guns can provide a means. Most of us would agree that that doesn't mean we should blame games when someone goes and shoots someone after playing GTA IV, so why would you blame the gun? Both are merely scapegoats to excuse a violent individual.

Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons. Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents.

Because you can't kill someone with a video game. Not unless its made of.... RAZOR PLASIC!

But yeah, restricting who can buy guns will do nobody any harm. Having to take a training test/psychological exam before buying a gun wouldn't be the end of the world.

Blablahb:

Signa:
Fully disagree with you there man. Getting rid of the guns will just cause bigger problems for everyone instead of an unfortunate few.

Why that would somehow magically happen remains a part of NRA mythology though, while international experiences around the world are clear: Ban guns, fewer problems everywhere.

The Belgium male suicide rate was more than cut in half after introducing stricter gun regulations for instance. In Australia, the phenomenon of spree shootings stopped entirely after a gun ban was put in place.

Switserland on the other hand loves guns, but can afford everything in regards to mental healthcare, and despite that they've got massacres, a violent crime rate that's remarkably high considering their low population density and wealth, and massive amounts of family dramas.

Signa:
If we're talking about new gun control rules to keep the guns out of the hands of depressed people, sure, why not, but you're pointing your finger at the guns themselves when it's the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger.

How does that change the fact that no matter how mentally ill someone is, or what they want, if they don't have guns they can't perpetrate shootings?

Guns are always the cause because they're the enabling factor. Untill a gun violence advocate figures out a way to shoot people with your bare hands, that point will stand firm. (and no, it's impossible to argue that 'there will always be guns'. That too is just NRA mythology)

Was the Belgium suicide rate cut or the handgun suicide? Suicidal people will find a way to accomplish their ends. Japan has no guns but a suicide rate higher than the USA. Since the gun ban in Australia a woman is 3 times more likely to get raped than in the USA

The last massacre in Switzerland was when The Matrix was still Fresh.

Also your gun ban assumes that Americans are willing to give up their guns. There are 300 million guns in America. if 1% chooses not to give up their guns that is still 3 million guns in play. And if it took the life of one cop to take away one of those rogue guns then we would run out of cops faster than we would run out of guns Bans didn't stop Alcohol in the 20s and it hasn't stopped Drugs in the now.

Lastly Nancy Pelosi is a retard. She is not pro-games she is just anti-gun. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

psijac:
Was the Belgium suicide rate cut or the handgun suicide? Suicidal people will find a way to accomplish their ends.

There was a small rise in male suicide by other means if you look at the percentages by method, but that is taken into account with the trend of it being cut in half.

Even more significantly, at the same time the economic crisis broke out (so suicides should've actually increased during that time) and the female suicides statistics revealed that women don't use guns to kill themselves (or fewer than 1% of the cases as it wasn't mentioned as a category) and the female suicide rate remained constant and rose slightly during the same time period.

This means that not being able to get guns was the sole variable, and therefore the cause of the suicide rate to be cut in half.
If you understand Dutch I can link you the detailed study of the statistics?

psijac:
Since the gun ban in Australia a woman is 3 times more likely to get raped than in the USA

Sounds like a rubbish comparison. For this you need to prove that for one thing that's true, and for another thing, that it's causally related to guns.

Especially that last bit has never been done before.

psijac:
The last massacre in Switzerland was when The Matrix was still Fresh.

Uh, no. Actually they have one about weekly. It's ussually just a wife and kids being murdered with army weapons kept at home. The Swiss are so used to that it's not even being reported any longer.

You have to understand that Switserland is an enclave of retarded patriarchal conservative thinking. It's the laughingstock of Europe in that regard. People are surprisingly tolerant and okay with women being killed for disobedience, divorce, or other offenses against conservative Christian morals.

They only even gained voting rights for women in 1991. Last country in Europe, and beaten to it by countries like Iran.

psijac:
Also your gun ban assumes that Americans are willing to give up their guns. There are 300 million guns in America. if 1% chooses not to give up their guns that is still 3 million guns in play.

Reasoning the other way around it would result in 99% reduction of firearms violence.

Sounds like succes to me.

As an US outsider I have different proposal
How about working on improving mentality?
Not "I have rights and I will kill to ensure them"
But rather "While I have rights, I also have obligations to fellow humans"
Because to be honest, unitedstatians think that they have rights AND ONLY THEY have rights, others MUST provide their rights often on expense of their own rights.
Maybe that could decrease violent crimes for a notch?

Blablahb:

psijac:
Was the Belgium suicide rate cut or the handgun suicide? Suicidal people will find a way to accomplish their ends.

There was a small rise in male suicide by other means if you look at the percentages by method, but that is taken into account with the trend of it being cut in half.

Even more significantly, at the same time the economic crisis broke out (so suicides should've actually increased during that time) and the female suicides statistics revealed that women don't use guns to kill themselves (or fewer than 1% of the cases as it wasn't mentioned as a category) and the female suicide rate remained constant and rose slightly during the same time period.

This means that not being able to get guns was the sole variable, and therefore the cause of the suicide rate to be cut in half.
If you understand Dutch I can link you the detailed study of the statistics?

psijac:
Since the gun ban in Australia a woman is 3 times more likely to get raped than in the USA

Sounds like a rubbish comparison. For this you need to prove that for one thing that's true, and for another thing, that it's causally related to guns.

Especially that last bit has never been done before.

psijac:
The last massacre in Switzerland was when The Matrix was still Fresh.

Uh, no. Actually they have one about weekly. It's ussually just a wife and kids being murdered with army weapons kept at home. The Swiss are so used to that it's not even being reported any longer.

You have to understand that Switserland is an enclave of retarded patriarchal conservative thinking. It's the laughingstock of Europe in that regard. People are surprisingly tolerant and okay with women being killed for disobedience, divorce, or other offenses against conservative Christian morals.

They only even gained voting rights for women in 1991. Last country in Europe, and beaten to it by countries like Iran.

psijac:
Also your gun ban assumes that Americans are willing to give up their guns. There are 300 million guns in America. if 1% chooses not to give up their guns that is still 3 million guns in play.

Reasoning the other way around it would result in 99% reduction of firearms violence.

Sounds like succes to me.

As of 2010 Australia had a rape per Capita of 79.5 In America is was 27.3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

A gun Massacre is usually 5 or more victims. If you lower the definition of Massacre to a mum and her kid than even a kitchen knife is capable of a massacre in your definition. And why Do you keep missspelling Switserland? The Rape Capital of Europe is Sweden. The only Countries in Europe with a lower rape per capita Than Switzerland is Greece and Poland.

It's certainly a step forward. Good going!

Wait a moment here...someone actually bothered to look at statistical evidence and research? She is using facts???

What's happened? I thought that pointing fingers based on nothing but opinion and thin air was the way to get things done.

Gonna go on a bit of a rant here.

OOH I'm gonna vote for her because she says videogames are fine!

Videogames aren't a main topic of politics, and this "violent videogames ERR EVILZ" bullshit will be 99% gone in 20 years when this generation is voting. I focus on the biggest issues, and right now, fixing the economy and paying off all these debts are the biggest issue. NOT videogames. Or our fucked-up gun laws, which I don't care about either. (Does nobody realize how unbelievably rare school shootings are?)

Second, Nancy Pelosi doesn't give a shit about videogames. She's saying that to divert attention to her anti-gun agenda. I wouldn't even be surprised if if she got her anti-gun legislation through, she'd be on the "videogames err evilz and we should tax them" bandwagon too.

psijac:
As of 2010 Australia had a rape per Capita of 79.5 In America is was 27.3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

If differences are that large, something else is at work. And you could've read the warning that went with that crude list of UN numbers:
"This list[5] indicates the number of, and per capita cases of recorded rape. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported, or which are not recorded.[6] Nor does it specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. Nor does it take the different definition of rape around the world into account."

A likely explanation is that the definition of rape is different in the US and Australia. Also you should realise that more than half of all rapes occur within the family, and the vast majority of the remainder is perpetrated by moral authority figures like priests and church elders.

I still don't understand what this has to do with the fact that guns increase the amount of violence and crime, and certainly don't lower it, but hey.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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
Registered for a free account here