Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Connecticut town gathering, destroying violent games Options · View
MoonlightSerenity
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:45:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/7/2012
Posts: 854
Location: United Kingdom
Source

Quote:
Southington, CT group says giving up gory games is "an action of responsible citizenship"

A community group established in the wake of last month's Newtown, Connecticut shooting has established a Violent Video Games Return Program, hoping to collect and destroy violent games, movies, and CDs.

As reported by Polygon, SouthingtonSOS, a community group from Southington, CT (a little more than 30 miles from Newtown) is holding a trade-in event January 12 where people can turn in violent games and other media in exchange for gift certificates provided by a Greater Southington Chamber of Commerce member "as a token of appreciation for their action of responsible citizenship." The games will be destroyed and collected in a dumpster "for appropriate permanent disposal."

While SouthingtonSOS was established in the wake of the Newtown tragedy to create "a greater proactive public awareness response" to such events, the group insists that the collection drive is not saying violent games were the cause of the Newtown shooting.

"The group's action is not intended to be construed as statement declaring that violent video games were the cause of the shocking violence in Newtown on December 14th," according to a SouthingtonSOS statement. "Rather, SouthingtonSOS is saying is that there is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying. Social and political commentators, as well as elected officials including the president, are attributing violent crime to many factors including inadequate gun control laws, a culture of violence and a recreational culture of violence."

Southington School superintendent Joe Erardi, a member of SouthingtonSOS, told Polygon the move was intended to create a dialogue between parents and children.

"There are youngsters who appear to be consumed with violent video games," Erardi told the site. "I'm not certain if that's a good thing. If this encourages one courageous conversation with a parent and their child, then it's a success. We're suggesting that for parents who have a child or children who play violent video games, to first of all view the games. We're asking parents to better understand what their child is doing. Have a conversation about next steps."

Since the Newtown shooting, violent video games have been a subject of much criticism from politicians, pundits, and parents. In the days after the shooting, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced a bill that would have multiple government agencies investigating the effects violent games have on children. That was followed by the National Rifle Association pinning blame for the shooting on "a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against own people, through vicious violent video games."



What do you think a step to far or a step in the right direction?
And would any of you actually partake in this event?

Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!
Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:02:50 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,374
Location: United States
Most of the people who play these games aren't going to commit real acts of violence. I think that most people are able to separate reality from fantasy well enough that they don't emulate the movies that they watch or the games that they play. There are studies that show violent games increases feelings of aggression in children, increased activity in the amygdala and lessened activity in the prefrontal lobe. This was in brain scans after playing the games. I wonder if there is a cumulative effect.

I'm sure that Congress would love to be able to blame all the problems of our violent society on video games. They always seek out an easy enemy. We live in a violent society. We are a violent species. The problem isn't video games, it's that we're the kind of animals who love violence. How do you fix that?
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:06:17 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,551
Location: My Tower, United States
i'd prefer they destroyed semi automatics...

ya know, i gotta say it, i can't help it...

video games don't kill people, people kill people. bootyshake

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
SatinBatty
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:09:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/13/2010
Posts: 198
if they destroy video games they better include movies, including documentaries about any historical wars, all tvs that carry any kind of world news, all books fiction and non-fiction or basically anything that has entertainment value

so dumb to think videogames make people violent
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:23:55 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Can violent videogames make people more aggressive? Certainly at the moment while you're playing it and getting killed at the same spot time and time again, surely the frustration level rises. I know. Will it make you more aggressive over time? That's a difficult question to answer, as it's difficult to say who is attracted to violent games. More aggressive people are more likely to have an outlet through violent games, so I think the studies will be difficult to conclude with a certain answer.

But the question isn't the level of aggression in my book. The question is does violent video games make you more prone to commit acts of violence. That's the issue. Not how aggressive people are. People can still be angry and aggressive without actually doing anything. There's a reason we have the phrase "all talk and no walk".

Besides, if people were actually doing their jobs as parents there wouldn't be a need for a study asking how GTA and COD and Assassin's Creed affect 13yo's. It states clearly on the box, even if it in many countries isn't mandatory, that these games should not be played by people younger than 18. I'm not saying that parents put the guns in the hands of the kids, but if you're so worried that you're kid's gonna be affected by it why the hell don't you have a look at what he's gaming instead of just lashing out. The computer isn't a babysitter, and it's your responsibility to make sure that your 13yo isn't playing GTA or watching porn. And stop having grandma buying games that she doesn't know a thing about.

On another note, when denying kids the game one argument will of course be "But everyone else has it" while another will be "But it's just a game! Of course I know it's wrong to kill people".

And what's a violent CD?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
DarkMaster
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:35:28 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/15/2012
Posts: 20
Location: Wouldnt you like to know, Japan
I’ve been a gamer and involved in the martial arts for over a decade, a fan of heavy metal as well. I can personally say that their are other more impacting things then media like movies, games and music that make people violent. People are so quick to forget that the environment in which we live is a factor that is never considered. Their are also many hereditary psychological factors that can also play a major role. Blaming media for the violence others commit is just a scapegoat of parents who are to lazy to pay attention to their children. One could say its a lack of discipline and morality being enforced that silence's the voice that says what is right and wrong. If you would take a look at the way society is currently, we have gang issues where the violence is perpetual. Studies have shown that individuals imprisoned for the most trivial crimes enter the jail system as desperate people and leave as harden killers and career criminals. Human beings have a violent history, and probably always will. It all falls on the engrained instinct to survive, for some they cant see the lines between necessity and insanity.

"Some Warriors look fierce, but are mild. Some seem timid, but are vicious. Look beyond appearances; position yourself for the advantage. - Deng Ming-Dao
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:23:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 543
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
How long before they are burning books they think are violent?
DLizze
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:23:02 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
How long before they are burning books they think are violent?


That was my immediate reaction, too.

Destroying video games is the modern day equivalent of book burning. People who would do that and those who would support them are dangerous far beyond any terrorist organization.

I lived through an era of that sort of witch hunt, and don't care to relive it.

Go read my story, "McCarthy" on the blue sister site. Also read Ray Bradbury's book, Farenheit 451, and Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:27:47 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,290
Location: Cakeland, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Most of the people who play these games aren't going to commit real acts of violence. I think that most people are able to separate reality from fantasy well enough that they don't emulate the movies that they watch or the games that they play. There are studies that show violent games increases feelings of aggression in children, increased activity in the amygdala and lessened activity in the prefrontal lobe. This was in brain scans after playing the games. I wonder if there is a cumulative effect.

I'm sure that Congress would love to be able to blame all the problems of our violent society on video games. They always seek out an easy enemy. We live in a violent society. We are a violent species. The problem isn't video games, it's that we're the kind of animals who love violence. How do you fix that?


Unfortunately, we perpetuate most of the violence in our society.

Violence is an endorphin rush. Many of our youth, once exposed to it - become addicted to it. A lot of our youth are repelled by it and never venture towards it. Many of those who do step into that tide of filth do manage to pull up and out of it and then steer clear of it ever again.

This process is part of maturing into a civilized adult. The pre-teen to post-adolescent age range is that roughly twenty year generation which we can most readily find immature minds which are most easily influenced and interested in chaotic and then instructed violence.

It is not just an American issue. It's a human issue. It affects almost every society and almost every culture on this planet.

Look how we are evolving in how we supposedly civilized people conduct warfare. We're increasingly using robotic drone aircraft to deliver packages of death and destruction - putting layers of technology between the perpetrators of the violence and the victims of the violence. Numbing all emotion out of the equation.

We dehumanize what we are informed - is the enemy. We allow ourselves to become desensitized to a point where we no longer recognize humanity as being valuable. What do you think of when you hear or read the gore-porn term - collateral damage ...or better yet - how do you feel about that phrase when it is delivered to you ?

There are very good reasons why LushStories.com has this set of rules of civilization placarded upon its website guidelines:



Lush is attempting to remain civilized. Look that word up if you have any doubts as to its meaning. I detest and I know the owner and the moderators of Lush, detest - censorship. I also know what they detest even more than that though and I applaud her and the moderators for knowing the difference, taking a stand and putting up necessary walls and boundaries.

I wish the rest of our fucked up, violence loving societies around this planet would implement similar measures.

Yet I know how many who read this will reply. Save it. I'm 53 years old and I already lived through (barely) my 20 year phase of being a violence prone individual. I wasn't mature enough at the age of 10, to swerve away from it. I was attracted to it like a moth to flame.

Those of my generation who were repulsed by violence - were much more mature than me, and ahead of me as they grew into civilization.

Anything which perpetuates violence as means to an end, or a consequence of an activity, or as Enter-Fucking-Tainment - is just totally messed up. But it's not FUBAR. It can be overcome.

We have to start someplace. I started within myself, where we all must start.

Moderate thy selves - so others do not need to moderate you.

If you're still so much into violence... volunteer for military duty and throw yourself full on into the meat grinder where chickenhawks and other violence-prone career anti-social fucktards will gladly chew you up, desensitize you, brainwash you to feel robotically patriotic, put a real automatic weapon in your grasp and set you out in an environment where real projectiles are fired back at you. Where depleted-uranium carnage and mangled death and real violence-porn are your hourly companions.

Then tell us how much you love that shit.

That's true psychopathy. There's a road to getting there and tools to achieving that status.

Our violence glorifying culture grooms all of us young. Our society cannibalizes.

I prefer civility.






If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:51:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Most of the people who play these games aren't going to commit real acts of violence. I think that most people are able to separate reality from fantasy well enough that they don't emulate the movies that they watch or the games that they play. There are studies that show violent games increases feelings of aggression in children, increased activity in the amygdala and lessened activity in the prefrontal lobe. This was in brain scans after playing the games. I wonder if there is a cumulative effect.

I'm sure that Congress would love to be able to blame all the problems of our violent society on video games. They always seek out an easy enemy. We live in a violent society. We are a violent species. The problem isn't video games, it's that we're the kind of animals who love violence. How do you fix that?


Most, overwhelmingly most, aren't going to commit real acts of violence. The problem is that small percentage that will. Most people can separate reality form fantasy, but the few that can't can easily blur the line between the two and see their fantasy life as a better alternative to their real life.

I think what WMM said makes a lot of sense. We DO perpetuate violence in our society. And the concept of warfare from a distance is not new, we've just gotten better at it. It reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H where a bomber pilot ends up in the 4077th and actually sees with his own eyes the damage he's done to men, women, and children. From above he was just dropping bombs on land, when faced with the carnage that HE himself caused, it changes him.

If violence in video games and movies were not an issue, caused no changes in the psyche of kids... then there would be no need for a Ratings system. If violent games don't affect us, why wouldn't everyone have access to buy and play/watch them? Because it DOES have an affect.

For 99% of us, playing Call of Duty (or whatever) and shooting Charlie in the head.. .it's just a game. But for that 1%, it becomes something else. Power.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 9:57:21 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,290
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:

If violence in video games and movies were not an issue, caused no changes in the psyche of kids... then there would be no need for a Ratings system. If violent games don't affect us, why wouldn't everyone have access to buy and play/watch them? Because it DOES have an affect.

But for that 1%, it becomes something else. Power.


If the shit wasn't attractive/addictive - it wouldn't sell.
If it didn't sell, there wouldn't be anyone manufacturing and distributing it to us.

It is no different than any other influential, mind altering drug.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:49:29 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:



If violence in video games and movies were not an issue, caused no changes in the psyche of kids... then there would be no need for a Ratings system. If violent games don't affect us, why wouldn't everyone have access to buy and play/watch them? Because it DOES have an affect.


I'm not asserting that violent video games don't have an "affect" (wide range of possible definition there) on anyone, but I am asserting that it's not the reason we have a ratings system for games.

It's no different than for movies, or books, or anything else. It's a degree of idiot-proofing for parents. A quick reference of "oh, this game might not be appropriate for my 7 year old", the same way that 9-1/2 Weeks and Blackhawk Down aren't appropriate for 7 year olds. Not because it might make them turn into sexual deviants or psychopathic killers, but because little kids don't need to be exposed to four-letter-word tirades, explicit sex, and graphic violence.

lafayettemister wrote:

For 99% of us, playing Call of Duty (or whatever) and shooting Charlie in the head.. .it's just a game. But for that 1%, it becomes something else. Power.


Maybe, maybe not. I do know this: a ratings system for media entertainment is more than enough. Short of having a minimum age of purchase law, anything more is a loss of freedom of speech. Unlike the 2nd Amendment, there's not that much grey area there. Witch-hunting movies, books, music, and games won't defuse senseless violence. Gun advocates would say that witch-hunting the weapons is equally fruitless. If it's a round-em-up solution, I agree. But when any sort of conversation on reform (let alone actual implementation thereof) is met with a "from my cold dead hands" attitude, fulfilling all the worst gun-nut stereotypes, I'm all the more certain that some sort of reform is needed, and then we'll see where we are.

Practically speaking, a full-scale roundup of all violent media is no more practical in any way than a full-scale roundup of all privately-owned firearms.
BabydollSlave
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:50:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/15/2012
Posts: 483
Location: Been All Around The World , Japan
CoopsRuthie wrote:
I'm sure that Congress would love to be able to blame all the problems of our violent society on video games. They always seek out an easy enemy. We live in a violent society. We are a violent species. The problem isn't video games, it's that we're the kind of animals who love violence. How do you fix that?


we cant fix it. we can cope. these acts of violence can be traced back through all of history. the exception now is kids can "act out there violence" on these games. Do i blame the games? no of course not. Books, movies, games....can't be blamed for the lack of parents or guardians watching what their underage children do. Just a few days ago i saw a clerk ask the parent at a video game store..."are you sure you want your kid playing this?" I looked at my husband who said i'll explain this game later. (as most of you know i don't play games) the parents then bought the game for their child like it was no big deal. after getting home my husband showed me a "walk through" of this "game". There was extreme violence and sexual innuendos. I was appalled that a parent would buy this for their under 13 child....that is what is wrong with society and that is what needs fixed!

my newest :)
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:24:49 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:

I'm not asserting that violent video games don't have an "affect" (wide range of possible definition there) on anyone, but I am asserting that it's not the reason we have a ratings system for games.

It's no different than for movies, or books, or anything else. It's a degree of idiot-proofing for parents. A quick reference of "oh, this game might not be appropriate for my 7 year old", the same way that 9-1/2 Weeks and Blackhawk Down aren't appropriate for 7 year olds. Not because it might make them turn into sexual deviants or psychopathic killers, but because little kids don't need to be exposed to four-letter-word tirades, explicit sex, and graphic violence.


Maybe, maybe not. I do know this: a ratings system for media entertainment is more than enough. Short of having a minimum age of purchase law, anything more is a loss of freedom of speech. Unlike the 2nd Amendment, there's not that much grey area there. Witch-hunting movies, books, music, and games won't defuse senseless violence. Gun advocates would say that witch-hunting the weapons is equally fruitless. If it's a round-em-up solution, I agree. But when any sort of conversation on reform (let alone actual implementation thereof) is met with a "from my cold dead hands" attitude, fulfilling all the worst gun-nut stereotypes, I'm all the more certain that some sort of reform is needed, and then we'll see where we are.

Practically speaking, a full-scale roundup of all violent media is no more practical in any way than a full-scale roundup of all privately-owned firearms.


Why don't they need to be exposed to that stuff? If there's nothing wrong with that stuff, why shield them from it? If seeing any of the things you mentioned wouldn't turn them into deviants or killers... why not show them? Because Little Johnny will see an Seth Rogan F-bomb tirade and then repeat it.

Environment is a HUGE player in a child's development. Kids brought up in violent homes or neighborhoods grow up violent. Kids that grow up in homes where daddy beats mommy, are more likely to grow up to be an abuser or abused. Kids that grow up watching mommy or daddy drink a fifth of vodka every night are more likely to grow up to become alcoholics. Kids growing up in a go-to-church every Sunday family, are more likely to become church goers as adults. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that growing up watching Pulp Fiction and playing Assassin's Creed could lead a kid, with already developing social anxieties and lack of self-image, to be led to action similar to what he's watched his whole life.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 3:54:48 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:


Why don't they need to be exposed to that stuff? If there's nothing wrong with that stuff, why shield them from it? If seeing any of the things you mentioned wouldn't turn them into deviants or killers... why not show them? Because Little Johnny will see an Seth Rogan F-bomb tirade and then repeat it.

Environment is a HUGE player in a child's development. Kids brought up in violent homes or neighborhoods grow up violent. Kids that grow up in homes where daddy beats mommy, are more likely to grow up to be an abuser or abused. Kids that grow up watching mommy or daddy drink a fifth of vodka every night are more likely to grow up to become alcoholics. Kids growing up in a go-to-church every Sunday family, are more likely to become church goers as adults. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that growing up watching Pulp Fiction and playing Assassin's Creed could lead a kid, with already developing social anxieties and lack of self-image, to be led to action similar to what he's watched his whole life.


Okay, I see what you're saying. But what's your point? That those items should be banished from society? Are you attempting to equate firearms and Call of Duty for XBox?
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:01:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:


Okay, I see what you're saying. But what's your point? That those items should be banished from society? Are you attempting to equate firearms and Call of Duty for XBox?


I don't think banning them is feasible. But I do believe that for some people, this glorification of violence and "first person real life shooters" are allowing affected minds to blur the lines between reality and fantasy. The reason those games have ratings is becuase young minds, even teenager minds, aren't necessarily up to separating the two. Their impact on the minds of easily impressionable minds is more a factor in why someone goes "postal" and is worth more study than the weapon they choose to use.

Short on time so that was a jumble. I'll reply better when time isn't a factor.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
DarkMaster
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:32:21 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/15/2012
Posts: 20
Location: Wouldnt you like to know, Japan
I think that’s kind of a stretch there. The human mind is only capable of separating the two if the parents are active in explaining right and wrong. Yes environment is a key factor but it also falls back on parenting cause parents create and maintain the the environment of children and teens. Human beings have been violent creatures since their inception, that will never change. But as parents , we have the power to help them understand between right and wrong. When its necessary to fight and when its better to walk away. But more often then not parents are not active in their kids development. While it is clear that individuals who have mental disorders shouldn’t be exposed period to violent content, again this responsibility falls on the shoulders of parents ,legal guardians, and doctors. Pointing the finger at forms of media is just a scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for not directing children when it is obviously needed.


"Some Warriors look fierce, but are mild. Some seem timid, but are vicious. Look beyond appearances; position yourself for the advantage. - Deng Ming-Dao
lambdavi
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:40:49 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/20/2012
Posts: 39
Location: Italy
sprite wrote:
i'd prefer they destroyed semi automatics...

ya know, i gotta say it, i can't help it...

video games don't kill people, people kill people. bootyshake


33 years in the military have taught me many things about life, the real world, and people.

One thing I leaned is that people will very easily fall prey to the principle that if something evil was done by means of an object, then that "object" is evil.

It applied to electricity in the mid-1800's, to the telephone, to radio, to television. Priests and village elders preaching about "this new technology, child of the devil!"

The same applies to computers and the internet. My own father refused to go on the internet "because I was told it's full of pornography".
"Dad, even the local Bishop and the Pope himself have their own websites". Nothing, he wouldn't budge.

Here I read of a Forum Member who would like to ban the object used in the event. The tool, mind you, not the cause.

Fine. Have chicken pox? Never mind the virus, here, use some facial cream and cover up those pimples, who cares if your face will be scarred for life...

Is this what we want ? The Church banned books for centuries, it even banned teaching to read, and what was the result? Martin Luther's Reformed (Lutheran) Church, and Protestantism.
Hitler banned (some) books, and so did Stalin. Both regimes fell, one through war, the other through economic collapse, which was a war in its own right.

You want to ban individual weapons? Try banning cars because of road accidents, or kitchen knives, or lengths of rope...

The only solution, in my opinion, is a proper "gun culture" as was in the West in the 1800's, where a father or uncle would take his son/nephew out in the countryside
and teach him how to shoot and proper gun wielding discipline.
In a crowded, very crowded environment such as Europe, you can't own a gun without a Police permit.
You can't have that permit without a) a clean criminal record, and b) being certified by a firearms tutor/trainer working for the local certified shooting range that you are qualified to handle a firearm in full safety.

It is really no different than owning and driving a car, if you think about it. You want a car? Fine, you can't drive it away from the showroom if you aren't qualified to do so (driving license)

I don't understand the lack of will by US Congress to pass "an easy to apply, clear to read, no fumbles or subtleties between the lines" federal law disciplining gun control.
Just copy and paste what laws already say about owning and driving a car... can't be THAT difficult...
LadyX
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:24:36 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lambdavi wrote:


33 years in the military have taught me many things about life, the real world, and people.

One thing I leaned is that people will very easily fall prey to the principle that if something evil was done by means of an object, then that "object" is evil.

It applied to electricity in the mid-1800's, to the telephone, to radio, to television. Priests and village elders preaching about "this new technology, child of the devil!"

The same applies to computers and the internet. My own father refused to go on the internet "because I was told it's full of pornography".
"Dad, even the local Bishop and the Pope himself have their own websites". Nothing, he wouldn't budge.

Here I read of a Forum Member who would like to ban the object used in the event. The tool, mind you, not the cause.

Fine. Have chicken pox? Never mind the virus, here, use some facial cream and cover up those pimples, who cares if your face will be scarred for life...

Is this what we want ? The Church banned books for centuries, it even banned teaching to read, and what was the result? Martin Luther's Reformed (Lutheran) Church, and Protestantism.
Hitler banned (some) books, and so did Stalin. Both regimes fell, one through war, the other through economic collapse, which was a war in its own right.

You want to ban individual weapons? Try banning cars because of road accidents, or kitchen knives, or lengths of rope...

The only solution, in my opinion, is a proper "gun culture" as was in the West in the 1800's, where a father or uncle would take his son/nephew out in the countryside
and teach him how to shoot and proper gun wielding discipline.
In a crowded, very crowded environment such as Europe, you can't own a gun without a Police permit.
You can't have that permit without a) a clean criminal record, and b) being certified by a firearms tutor/trainer working for the local certified shooting range that you are qualified to handle a firearm in full safety.

It is really no different than owning and driving a car, if you think about it. You want a car? Fine, you can't drive it away from the showroom if you aren't qualified to do so (driving license)

I don't understand the lack of will by US Congress to pass "an easy to apply, clear to read, no fumbles or subtleties between the lines" federal law disciplining gun control.
Just copy and paste what laws already say about owning and driving a car... can't be THAT difficult...


I like your post, except for the part where you trotted out the old "let's just ban cars" talking point. Surely, you're too smart for such a stupid comment.

As for the guns themselves, as I've said before, I'm no expert. But I know there's a class of weaponry that sits between "I really need those for hunting" and "you can't touch my guns because the 2nd Amendment says I can stockpile anything I want, you fascist", and I really see no practical reason for those to remain floating around. As for all the others, what you're recommending is exactly what should happen: the guns are registered, the users are licensed. The user licenses are only issued after a comprehensive test and background check, and is subject to periodic renewal.

Even if people say (as they invariably do) that the legal users aren't the issue, there still is zero reason for not having the weapons and their lawful users under strict regulation, and all that fall outside of it being met with severe, deterrent consequences.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:39:59 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
lafayettemister wrote:


I don't think banning them is feasible. But I do believe that for some people, this glorification of violence and "first person real life shooters" are allowing affected minds to blur the lines between reality and fantasy. The reason those games have ratings is becuase young minds, even teenager minds, aren't necessarily up to separating the two. Their impact on the minds of easily impressionable minds is more a factor in why someone goes "postal" and is worth more study than the weapon they choose to use.

Short on time so that was a jumble. I'll reply better when time isn't a factor.


No worries, that was very clear.

From a big picture standpoint, I see two issues. Gun violence and violent culture. I'm solidly in the camp that believes we need to start with tougher gun regulations, then go from there. I know that won't eliminate gun violence, but it's nonsensical to claim that less regulation on weapons of any kind will yield less gun violence, yet that's the argument being put forth by many. I know, I know, somebody cue the gun stats showing the opposite. Then I can show the ones that refute those, then somebody can show me yet another set of stats that refute mine. At the end of the day, the same common-sense conclusion remains intact. Nobody's going to round up every single gun, but we have to start somewhere.

As for violent culture, I think there's no hope. We're in decline. We want immediate pleasure: sex, money, things, media. Most of us get along just fine, but for a (thankfully) tiny minority, that immediate impulse is to exact violence on others. I don't think we can fix that. We have lots of poverty, hopelessness, pervasive nihilism, emotional isolation, and lack of purpose among many of us. Life is not worth much, even our own. I'm of course not speaking for everybody; those of us that worry about such things don't apply to that, obviously. But I'd be lying if I said I haven't at times felt some of those things.

There is a growing element of sociopathy, evil, and carelessness in society. Everything contributes to it in some way, including the entertainment media culture. But, an attempted de-fanging of our own creativity would fail miserably, and the potential and theoretical "gain" of eliminating violent games, movies, and music would be surpassed by the very real "loss" of freedom of expression and commerce.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 12:20:27 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,274
Location: West Coast
People that are prone to psychopathy or have underlying aggressive tendencies will probably naturally exhibit similar behaviour. Maybe they are the type to like playing violent video games, maybe they tend to enjoy porn more than the average person, or listening to certain kinds of music, or maybe they tend to prefer the colour red.

None of these things are 'causing' the behaviour or are responsible for the way the brain is wired.

It just makes common sense that people who are wired a certain way will be drawn to certain things. I mean, they have to be interested in something, right? So it's probably reasonable to assume that it's not going to be warm and fuzzy type stuff.

Plenty of normal people are drawn to violent games, movies, books, songs, imagery etc. too and have never had the inclination to commit crimes. Even if you turned the world into a media-friendly pleasantville bubble, you will still get people doing horrible things. Violence is part of the human condition. If people are that freaked out about video games warping kids minds, then maybe they should reconsider sending 18 yr olds off to war. Technically it follows the same kind of overly simplistic logic.




LYFBUZ
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 4:52:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2012
Posts: 3,383
Location: 1st star to the left, Canada
I can applaud the town for at least making a positive effort but I certainly don't think there is a simple causal link of games to outrageous acts of violence. Violent crime happens because of a variety of socio-economic factors. Violent games are one small part of this but I'd be more concerned at the lack of human interaction that video games have replaced for some people. I often wonder how society will interact in the future when I see some young people who seem incapable of having what I would consider normal social interaction where I think most people learn mutual respect. Then again look how rock music used to be described (or still is.) But then I'm also appalled at ill-mannered people who don't hold a door for someone, say "please, thank you, excuse me" or giving up their seat for a woman who is so obviously pregnant. The problems in society and the world in general are caused by so many things, big and small. The solutions will be a combination of many things big and small. Should weapons that hold clips of 15 or 20 rounds be so easily obtainable? I don't think so.
I think when we are referring to the more extreme aberrations of violent behaviour there are obviously some serious mental health issues at work. If it isn't guns it will be poison gas, fertilizer bombs, or something else. Zealots, unfortunately, can be quite ingenious in how they create havoc.
Don't know what the certificates can be used for but I bet I can cause more harm with a hockey stick than a game controller.
slavegary
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:19:31 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 12/10/2012
Posts: 9
Location: United States
People have been killing people way before guns and video games and will continue to do so.
Knives weren't banned after O.J killed his ex and her friend.
These peole are just wasting their time.
If someone wants someone else dead,they will find a way.Guns or no guns.
tender_cowboy
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:37:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/7/2007
Posts: 52
Location: South Dakota
Humans are by nature a very violent creature this started with Cain and Able. We have rules and laws both by society and religion as to how we should behave. But this old blame game is getting old and serves no end, but the one thing i have yet to seen addressed is our judicial system failure. The mother of the school shooter was trying to jump through the hoops to get her son help, the shooter that took the lives of the fire man had killed his grand mother with a hammer but was out of prison because of a failure as i see it of our judicial system. People who can not follow the rules set by society need be incarcerated for a much longer time in my view as not to be a threat to society. Leaving bad people on the street is our biggest mistake.
Guest
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:39:08 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338


And to answer the question, no I would not, and yes, their attentions will stray from the mark.

Would go on about the real issue, but I see there are numerous threads concerning the real issue.
ByronLord
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:00:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
The same games are sold in pretty much every country. In the developed world only the US has had a series of spree shooting incidents.

Most European countries have had zero shooting spree incidents in the past ten years. The US had eight last year alone. That is more than the whole of Europe put together.

This is just an attempt to distract attention from the real source of the problems in the US: Its the guns stupid.

Guest
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:29:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
Welcome, Southington. The the alumni await.





tender_cowboy
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:35:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/7/2007
Posts: 52
Location: South Dakota
I am glad most people do not abuse their second amendment rights the was ByronLord abuses his first amendment rights. Calling some one stupid that disagrees with your narrow point of view say a lot about your state of mind. If the European countries are so great.........
DLizze
Posted: Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:33:04 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
I stole this from a previous poster's signature line:

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
(Actually, I believe Plato wrote that, and attributed it to Socrates)

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Guest
Posted: Monday, January 07, 2013 4:51:55 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
wall of text incoming

video game burning= bullshit act of symbolism. videogames don't make me a killer. except maybe the Wii. but that shit's dangerous as the expanse of Wii accidents on youtube as proven. people are much better at seperating reality from fantasy. and honestly, if they did cause us to commit violent acts, this shit would have happened LONG ago. shooters have been out for ever. not as shiny and glossy as todays, but hours of mind numbing violent, gory action packed shooting none the less. as WMM has said, that stuff is addictive. I have no issues saying I'm a video game junkie in addition to all my other addictions.

ByronLord wrote:
The same games are sold in pretty much every country. In the developed world only the US has had a series of spree shooting incidents.

Most European countries have had zero shooting spree incidents in the past ten years. The US had eight last year alone. That is more than the whole of Europe put together.

This is just an attempt to distract attention from the real source of the problems in the US: Its the guns stupid.


The source of the problem is not the guns. the guns them selves are inanimate objects that can literally do nothing without a person or using it, or perhaps a well trained monkey, which isn't too far separated from most people in this day and age anyways. or a drastic mechanical failure while loaded. However, if you store your gun loaded, you are a fucking idiot.

Fact of the matter is, by golly, people are the ones committing these crimes. Not the tools that they are using, (as has been said a berjillion times infinity by those dirty NRA gun nut hilly billy fucks, and also the non hillybilly gun nuts). I could just as easily go on a spree with a hammer, axe, knife, club, (insert inanimate device here), just as easily as i could with a gun ( also been said).

Results would obviously vary (proven in china), as guns are the most efficient tool giving the most grievous wounds in the least amount of time, as well as giving the most deaths. therefore we all must assume that guns are evil solely on the fact that they are designed to kill. So that statement of "it's the gun stupid" is really really fucking childish. especially the stupid part. try and act like a grown up. Please.

On a personal note, I am a gun owner. I have a handgun, I have a rifle for hunting. I've had the opportunity to get more than that, and i would have loved to but i don't need it. My rifle is a high enough caliber that if I do have to fight "the government" (in before tanks, blah blah blah, fact is if the government wanted to "occupy" america, they would need boots on the ground"), it will do the job needed. I also am a military veteran. I keep my weapons under lock and key, ammo as well. I have been around them since i learned to hunt at the age of 15. and in no way do I believe I have a right to own them. Owning a fire arm in this day and age is not a right. Its a fucking HUGE RESPONSIBILITY therefore, i have no issues with gun laws making it harder for people to obtain them. personally, if you want to own one, i think you need to undergo a yearly, if not every six months, exam with a psychologist, and earn your licence each year. not this every five crap.

Continuing, I've been around violent, gory bloody media as long as i can remember. books, comics, movies, and video games. personally the more violent and bloody the game, the odds are i'm going to like it more. I have no issues saying that i'm a violence junky. I LOVE violence. some of it makes me cringe, some of it makes me laugh, none of it bothers me when its in media. why? because my parents taught me to separate what's real and whats not. I've been in fistfights, I didn't enjoy or relish the experience. I hated the first time i killed a deer. But it did teach me the value of life, and how tasty those little bastards are.

Ultimately in my untrained internet expert opinion, it comes to

A: parenting: Parents need to get more involved with their kids lives, times economy whatever else, is bullshit excuses. Get involved, you aren't your kids bff, you are the fucking adult, act like it. and if you find out your kid is a bully, whoop the shit out of that little fucker. boy or girl. beat the sense into them. also teaching them that actions have consequences. (keep in mind i don't advocate child abuse, i believe in proper discipline directed by parent's pre "i'll call the cops for child abuse" era. don't let your kids think they have power over you. i tried that shit with my parents and my dad offered to call my ambulance while i called the cops so he'd go to jail for what he was accused of. never tried that shit again.)

B: Responsible gun owners: All the guns used in a majority of these cases, without looking anything up and going off of memory, were STOLEN. not purchased but stolen. ( in before ban them and confiscate them no one has them) if you have your gun stolen, unless you were attempting to use it to defend yourself and family and shit went backwards, you aren't a responsible gun owner period. I don't care if you have never missed a shot, made a bad judgement call, whatever, you're shit gets stolen, and it's used in a crime like a murder, or whatever else, your ass needs to sit behind bars too. You have Gun Safes, and Lock Boxes for a reason. to SECURE and store your firearm. and on a final note for that. the only person that should have the combination, or access to the safe, is the head of the house hold. no exceptions.

C: Mental Health Care: exams blah blah blah, and getting people to understand that coming forward for help isn't weakness. de-stigmatize it as it were. also, this bullying shit. figure out a way to curb it. will that ever happen? probably not, but if A ever were to kick in, then bullying would be a less common thing.

end rant.


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.