Another day, another shooting in the US

[Lord Satori]

What about democracy? What if the US government put the gun debate to the vote and 80% said to do away with guns?

you're talking about a country that tried to pass a law to censor the entire internet.

[neorichieb1971]

Yeah, but in that circumstance democracy saw common sense.

[Ed Oscuro]

We have a federalist system, neorichie. States can have unique laws so that the national government doesn't have to legislate every little thing to fit all circumstances.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Shmups where you shoot candies and flowers instead of bullets and bomb. That would be a good start. I think the problem lies in their social structure.
I don't like to generalize, but this is a society that praise the use of violence to solve problems.

Kind of off topic, but I agree that there's a lot of games out there that are very violent or reward you directly for killing. Multiplayer online deathmatch in FPSes is very popular, and generally the goal is kill people = points. I don't think responsible adults turn into killing machines just from playing a FPS (and I remember reading studies that cooperative play actually benefits, negating the impact of the violence itself and reinforcing teamwork, friendship, etc), but I do think that violent video games could potentially exacerbate problems among the mentally ill (especially if their parents aren't paying enough attention to what they should and should not be playing.

Interestingly, I think Cave's shmups have largely avoided glorifying violence. Yes, the games themselves are very violent, but the plot in most Cave games is actually about how bad war is, its negative impact on the people involved and how the protagonists would actually rather not be fighting. In Mushi, Reco is forced to fight Aki in a ritualistic battle and she's given little choice. Even worse, in Mushi Futari they're forced to fight against their own allies and have to kill Aki's mother as she's gone crazy (with Reco and Palm both begging for everyone to stop fighting at the st5 midboss). Ketsui's heroes all end up dead in the ending (unless you beat Ura route) as they're essentially going to be nameless heroes to stop an evil arms dealing company for the UN. Akai Katana and Deathsmiles both have playable characters having to fight their own power-hungry fathers (as well as former comrades in AK). ESP.Ra.De, Espgaluda and Progear are about unfortunate heroes drawn into fights they'd rather not have gotten involved in ("The power of ESP. One who has the power is destined for tragedy."). Heck, even the very first Donpachi had that WTF loop 2 spoiler where you learn you were killing your own allies in order to train you to be an elite pilot.

Pretty much every Cave game's plot is about how depressing war is and makes it clear that the protagonists are not enjoying fighting, but they're doing it in order to survive (except maybe Dangun Feveron, but that's because it's pure absurdity about saving disco bots with the power of MEOWMEOWMEOW). Even the scoring systems are generally abstract and more about precise bullet cash-ins/cancelling and not simply "kill kill kill" as fast as possible.

You could even argue a lot of shmups in general are less about the violence aspect and more about learning to dodge through intricate patterns. The Touhou series' characters pretty much all get along after fighting each other with little ill-effects afterwards.

[Lord Satori]

I grew up around bloody and violent video games and I turned out just fine. I'm pretty much living proof that video games turn people violent is total horse shit.

[Ex-Cyber]

As predicted, LaPierre played the "mentally ill people are monsters" card. Because dehumanizing rhetoric and guns are two great tastes that taste great together.

[neorichieb1971]

Well my view on this now is that the US should try to identify the people who do this stuff (even if its just asking for these guys to come forward).. They should give them free professional care, try to wing them off this disorder, disease, psychiatric condition. Even give them gun shooting time if necessary. Whatever it takes to stop this happening again. The gun situation isn't worth talking about anymore.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Well my view on this now is that the US should try to identify the people who do this stuff (even if its just asking for these guys to come forward).. They should give them free professional care, try to wing them off this disorder, disease, psychiatric condition. Even give them gun shooting time if necessary. Whatever it takes to stop this happening again. The gun situation isn't worth talking about anymore.

Uh... what?

Some mass shootings that have occurred were committed by people who were not actually known to be mentally ill and didn't show any real signs that they were dangerously violent. Even with increased mental health awareness and screening, you're going to have cases where people who didn't show any signs of being ill suddenly cracking and trying to murder people for no reason. Mental illness isn't the sort of thing where people are always aware they're seriously ill, you can't expect everyone to realize "oh I'm psychotic" and come forward. Mental illness also isn't the sort of thing where you can simply 'try to wing them off this disorder'. The whole reason for the gun debate is to try and limit how easy it is for someone to get access to one, especially something as dangerous as an assault rifle. If guns (weapons that are dangerous even in relatively untrained hands) are harder for a mentally ill person to get on a murderous impulse, there's less chance of such a thing occurring. Also, as has been pointed out, if a gun weren't available the best they could choose is a much less lethal weapon like a knife or an improvised weapon, and would be far less capable of injuring a large number of people in a short period of time.

Making it harder to get guns won't make it 100% impossible for stuff like this to occur, but it will make it rarer, and that's important. Even with better mental health screening, you can't guarantee that the people who need help are always going to get it or be diagnosed before something like this happens.

Saying that guns aren't 'worth talking about anymore' and all you need is better mental health screening is like the NRA saying that all you need to stop the problem is more guns in schools. There's no single quick-fix for this sort of issue.

[Lord Satori]

There's no single quick-fix for this sort of issue.

Ban guns entirely.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Ban guns entirely.

With the gun culture in the US, you'd have a revolt on your hands.

[Ed Oscuro]

I grew up around bloody and violent video games and I turned out just fine. I'm pretty much living proof that video games turn people violent is total horse shit.

But the gun control advocacy position often seems to be that if it allows for some reduction in crime then it's worth it.

Of course there's something different between a tool used for an action, and something that might motivate you to use the tool one way or another. But in both cases, you could make the argument that if it leads even in some cases to some public ill, then a ban is in order. At the very least they will have to do some fancy footwork with utilitarianism, because one can certainly have simple pleasure (good) from a video game, but also from ownership and legal use of a firearm (say a day at the range or hunting, pest control, etc.).

I don't want to strawman the gun control position here but that does look like a reasonable reading of the often un-nuanced position some take.

(Maybe this post is short enough that it can get a response...)

[CMoon]

Two thoughts:

1) Still can't believe how far off the deep end the NRA went. They'd have been much better saying nothing.

2) Regarding violent video games--I do think about this a bit. Certainly kids and teens have always absorbed a huge amount of violent media whether its TV, movies, books, comics, etc. Violence has always been glorified in our culture, so isn't this in fact a indictment of our entire American way of life? *cue Animal house* The question is whether realistic military simulators are in any way different than all this other junk we were all exposed to? I mean, it doesn't sound like a cool thing to imagine being, but whatever.

[Lord Satori]

Two thoughts:

1) Still can't believe how far off the deep end the NRA went. They'd have been much better saying nothing.

2) Regarding violent video games--I do think about this a bit. Certainly kids and teens have always absorbed a huge amount of violent media whether its TV, movies, books, comics, etc. Violence has always been glorified in our culture, so isn't this in fact a indictment of our entire American way of life? *cue Animal house* The question is whether realistic military simulators are in any way different than all this other junk we were all exposed to? I mean, it doesn't sound like a cool thing to imagine being, but whatever.

really? what'd the NRA do?

as for the second one, the only reason violence seems to be going up is because media coverage of said violence is going up. speaking of media, people always seemed to blame it for all the worlds trouble. what do you think happened when newspapers first came out? what happened when television came out? what happened when cave paintings came out?

the only reason video games are being blamed is because the media covers more violent events, such as the shooting this thread is about. frankly, I don't even watch the news. aside from yahoo headlines, I don't pay attention to the news at all. every time I catch the news, there's some depressing story about some disaster, shooting, crash, or something else. its no wonder people think "what's wrong with the world today?"

sorry if I don't make sense, its kinda late here

[Randorama]

It always beggars [BEGS, N.D.R.] belief to find Americans who still believe the core values of the fabled constitution are somehow maintained within the spirit of the populace and the government is there as a secondary power...


You have no liberties...

I'm sick of hearing all the talk. If you want to act on your supposed civil liberties, take those arms, go to DC, and demand power be returned to the people. Just make sure you dodge all the tank fire on the way.

I completely agree with Tom on this. I also don't give a damn about the rest of the discussion, too.

[neorichieb1971]

Err, at the point someone picks up a gun heading for the nearest school, I think it should be in the thoughts of the gun holder to go to the police station and plead for help. It should be advertised that you can do that and get help.

At least that way someone knows another option exists.

When someone does this sort of thing, they feel trapped.. only one way out. You have to give them at least a 2nd thought to try and get them discouraged. Like I said if you do nothing, it will happen again.

Unless you ban guns entirely. In this sort of situation, even 1 kid dead is too many. In the UK it would be anyway. I don't know the USA's tolerance to collateral damage. But it seems quite high.

[BulletMagnet]

Regarding violent video games--I do think about this a bit. Certainly kids and teens have always absorbed a huge amount of violent media whether its TV, movies, books, comics, etc. Violence has always been glorified in our culture, so isn't this in fact a indictment of our entire American way of life?

My personal take on the whole "violence in the media" thing is that in most cases it doesn't constitute the "trigger" that makes somebody act violently in real life, but its more worrying and less tangible effect on far more people is to desensitize them to the violent acts of others, and instill apathy where there should be outrage: "Our soldiers are torturing civilians? Well, they gotta do what they gotta do, not my problem anyway." "Allow mental patients to carry rocket-propelled grenades into church? Eh, why not, if the pastor's not packing an Uzi of his own it's his fault if any parishioners die." Weaponization and use of force to attain one's ends without any concern for others is just a part of daily life to be accepted with no more than a shrug of the shoulders: THAT'S the part of the equation that worries me a lot more than "some nutcase will see this and want to act it out", because it's the part that ensures that nothing changes once the nutcase has acted, and that universal violence remains both accepted and, more importantly, profitable.

Also, this will probably end up here at some point, if it hasn't already.

[Octopod]

Also, this will probably end up here at some point, if it hasn't already.

I'm not sure if that comic is trying to imply that the first amendment is more important than the second. Is the 13th less important than the ones that came before it? At any rate obscenity is not covered by freedom of speech with obscenity being defines as 'any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time.' Whether or not that fits I have no idea.

[CMoon]

Also, this will probably end up here at some point, if it hasn't already.

I'm not sure if that comic is trying to imply that the first amendment is more important than the second.

Nah, it's getting after the NRA/republicans for being so hypocritical attacking one amendment to protect another. I mean, you can't accuse everyone else of being commies when you only pick the parts of the constitution you like. That said, I'll do the same if they start attacking the 21st amendment.

[Octopod]

Also, this will probably end up here at some point, if it hasn't already.

I'm not sure if that comic is trying to imply that the first amendment is more important than the second.

Nah, it's getting after the NRA/republicans for being so hypocritical attacking one amendment to protect another. I mean, you can't accuse everyone else of being commies when you only pick the parts of the constitution you like. That said, I'll do the same if they start attacking the 21st amendment.

I personally don't see much wrong with the 21st. After all, alcohol related incidents kill more than twice as many people per year than guns in the USA. I'm sure it is also much worse for individuals and society than most of the illegal drugs are. I do drink upon occasion though so there is that.

Er, actually I confused the 21st and the 18th. I should say that I actually think all substances should be legal but if we are going to make some of them illegal alcohol should be one of them since it is one of the more dangerous ones.

[CMoon]

I personally don't see much wrong with the 21st. After all, alcohol related incidents kill more than twice as many people per year than guns in the USA. I'm sure it is also much worse for individuals and society than most of the illegal drugs are. I do drink upon occasion though so there is that.

Wow, let's rumble!

First off, how do you compare the danger of alcohol to illegal drugs when a far greater number of people use alcohol, and most people who use illegal drugs don't admit to it? How do we actually compare the risk per capita? Of course anything that impairs judgment that most adults use is responsible for a large number of deaths. I'd argue further that since the real sin here is alcohol + driving, that if we factor out alcohol, we find that it is in fact driving that kills (alcohol just makes it a LOT FUCKING WORSE.) I'm not ready to make driving illegal yet.

Regardless, I'm also not for keeping narcotics illegal and the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the next 10-20 years we see pot go totally legal in the US. I can't imagine strong cases being made for legalizing heavier drugs, but I could see the argument being made for decriminalizing them (this is a longer conversation that goes in another thread.)

So yeah, that's why I said I would defend the 21st amendment the same way the NRA is willing to throw other amendments under the bus to protect their guns. I don't give a shit about the right of people to own guns, but I don't want the government saying the masses can't have alcohol, fuck that!

I should say that I actually think all substances should be legal but if we are going to make some of them illegal alcohol should be one of them since it is one of the more dangerous ones.

You'll have to pry the kegs out of my cold dead hands!

[Lord Satori]

-_-

aren't you guys forgetting about prohibition?

[trap15]

Very different situation. Apples and oranges.

[Skykid]

Just thought this might be worth leaving here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/ne ... index.html

:sigh:

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Saw that yesterday by accident while browsing something unrelated. Fuck, there's a lot of people who're going to have lovely Christmas memories this year...

while National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre has said his group will fight any new gun restrictions

Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20842120

Police Chief Gerald Pickering told reporters that Spengler, who apparently shot himself in the head, had used a .38 calibre revolver, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Bushmaster .223 calibre rifle with flash suppression.

The same make and calibre rifle had been used in the murder of 26 teachers and children at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut on 14 December, he said.

Obligatory.

[Skykid]

Remember that civil liberty, freedom of speech?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... tv-1504776

Ha ha!

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Not surprised, sadly. Who gives a shit about anything 'cept if OHNOES THE GUBMINT GOAN TAKE MAH GUNS!11!eleventy

I'm not really sure how you can justify it being so easy to acquire assault weaponry in this day and age without some form of mental retardation.

[hail good sir]

leather

[neorichieb1971]

I saw this recently -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0O3B7N848o

After you hear the audience at the end, you just know its a lost cause.

[hail good sir]

like

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I saw this recently -

The argument that you need guns in case your government suddenly turns against the people and goes fascist overnight is basically feeding on paranoia and fear, the sort you'd see from conspiracy theorists. The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when America had just been established, did not really have any other serious allies, and the possibility of the England retaking the colony (and the government) were both very real.

Nowadays, America has tons of allies to the point where other countries would quickly come to its aid if it were discovered the own government were going to war against its citizens (if they didn't, the American economy would be fucked up and that would hurt the world globally). There's also stuff like the internet, which makes communication incredibly easy, and therefore extremely difficult for a country to suddenly turn into a fascist dictatorship without people knowing about it. Basically, the 2nd Amendment's wording is obsolete, and doesn't fit today's society (granted, it already suggests that it's talking only about arms with respect to a state-supported militia, but I think the wording should be made absolutely explicit in order to dissuade people from simply paying attention to the 'right to bear arms' bit and thinking that means they should be allowed to own military-grade assault rifles and missles).

Even if you do go to war against your country, you'd be up against an armed military supporting said leader; armed citizens does not automatically ensure victory/safety if there's anything to learn from Syria. And, you can have a revolt/uprising be effective without needing to have everyone armed with assault weapons. Look at places like Egypt or Myanmar.

The point is that if you've let your government get to the point where it's able to impose a fascist leader overnight, you've got serious issues that guns alone aren't going to easily fix. It's pretty much not going to happen to Americans in this day in age, so the idea that you need easily accessible guns everywhere is obsolete, and isn't worth the large number of gun deaths caused by guns, especially assault weapons being readily available. No, tightening gun laws won't stop gun violence entirely, but it will certainly help lower it.