- Status
getochkn
Polypheme
- Jul 2, 2006
- 12,407
- 54
- 65,040
That's the problem, there is no more crazy anymore. 50 years ago we locked up crazy people. Now they coddle them and let them out the streets, then they shoot people or become crazy conspiracy people.
If your kid plays GTA and thinks it's real and go out trying to mow down hookers in a SUV, your kid is screwed in the head and needs mental help. It's not the game, it's your damn kid. Parents don't "parent" anymore. They let their kid sit in their room on their PC watching porn and movies, playing games, and don't throw their a$$ outside anymore and say go play in real life with real people.
[citation][nom]soccerplayer88[/nom]What I don't get is the 10-round magazine limit. Doesn't that pretty much eliminate all weapons except for revolvers or high-caliber pistols? Wouldn't something like a 20-round magazine limit make more sense?[/citation]
Why, on planet Earth, is it legal to buy MILITARY ASSAULT rifles please?
Why, on planet Earth, is it legal to buy MILITARY ASSAULT rifles please?
bigdragon
Distinguished
- Oct 19, 2011
- 1,113
- 560
- 20,160
So how do I get in on this research thing? I played Wolfenstien 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, and Doom back in elementary school. Then I moved on to Quake, Unreal, Grand Theft Auto, and other "violent" games afterward. I have a successful career, house, vehicle, and more today. I'm pretty much as non-violent as it gets. If they're going to skew the research by predetermining the outcome of their research (it's a politically-motivated study which means the outcome has already been determined) then I'd like to help straighten it out in the right direction.
This new study proposal looks like another giant waste of money we _don't_ have.
This new study proposal looks like another giant waste of money we _don't_ have.
The fact that the NRA lobbied so hard and won the ban back in the 90's should be plenty reason enough to lift the ban on research, and get some squints working on WHY the NRA pushed so hard for a ban on research. Chances are we'll discover some nasty results, but are we willing to actually make an effort to change?
I can't even come close to the number of times I've played Black Ops 2 with whiny prepubescent children who swear worse than a drunken sailor, and cry when you pop them in the head. These children do not belong any where near a online multiplayer violent games.
I can't even come close to the number of times I've played Black Ops 2 with whiny prepubescent children who swear worse than a drunken sailor, and cry when you pop them in the head. These children do not belong any where near a online multiplayer violent games.
pocketdrummer
Distinguished
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,084
- 30
- 19,310
If I had known Obama would go "full retard" I wouldn't have voted for him. I voted for him so he could focus on equal rights and clean energy. What is he doing? Stripping our rights and enacting the nanny protocol. This is completely absurd.
Make no mistake THW readers, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, recreation, or collecting. It was put there SPECIFICALLY to guard against a tyrannical government. That doesn't mean we're arming ourselves in case China comes knocking. It means the people are responsible for keeping our government in check. We are armed to protect the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and the document made no mention what-so-ever of limitations on the weapons used. At the time, the citizens were allowed to use the latest weaponry available without restrictions in order to match force with the military. The same should be allowed today. If the citizens are limited in what they can purchase (all semi-automatic rifles), then we will shift power entirely into the government's hands, and that's when things start getting hairy.
Furthermore, the 1st Amendment is under attack as well. Too often we've seen the government make attempts to limit our right to assemble. And too often we see them make attempts to censor our rights to free speech. One day, the government may decide to limit this right completely. It may not happen in your lifetime, but it could happen. Don't be naive. And if it does happen, how will be fight to retain our rights? Obama is trying to remove our ability to demand it with force. Next they will have no real opposition to remove our ability to do so peacefully.
And for the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think 911 was an inside job or anything ridiculous like that. I'm simply a concerned citizen that believes in our constitution and understands the risks involved in limiting our freedoms.
Make no mistake THW readers, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, recreation, or collecting. It was put there SPECIFICALLY to guard against a tyrannical government. That doesn't mean we're arming ourselves in case China comes knocking. It means the people are responsible for keeping our government in check. We are armed to protect the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and the document made no mention what-so-ever of limitations on the weapons used. At the time, the citizens were allowed to use the latest weaponry available without restrictions in order to match force with the military. The same should be allowed today. If the citizens are limited in what they can purchase (all semi-automatic rifles), then we will shift power entirely into the government's hands, and that's when things start getting hairy.
Furthermore, the 1st Amendment is under attack as well. Too often we've seen the government make attempts to limit our right to assemble. And too often we see them make attempts to censor our rights to free speech. One day, the government may decide to limit this right completely. It may not happen in your lifetime, but it could happen. Don't be naive. And if it does happen, how will be fight to retain our rights? Obama is trying to remove our ability to demand it with force. Next they will have no real opposition to remove our ability to do so peacefully.
And for the record, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think 911 was an inside job or anything ridiculous like that. I'm simply a concerned citizen that believes in our constitution and understands the risks involved in limiting our freedoms.
therogerwilco
Distinguished
- Dec 22, 2009
- 196
- 0
- 18,680
I put the numbers together the other day... if EVERY murder last year was committed by a gamer as a direct result of violent video games, AND every murder involved 10 murderers, out of the 62 mil (20% of general US population) who play violent video games, there was .23% violent video gamers who committed murder. Are those just the best statistics or what? Didn't even cost me 10 million dollars.
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]If I had known...[/citation]
You seem to have done a very good job of justifying your selfish behavior to yourself. Your talking points are old, regurgitated, and distortions of the actual ideas and intents to the point where they are simply incorrect, but I think you're past thinking and on to blindly justifying why there should be unrestricted access to firearms of any type, even if it is at the cost of scores of children's lives - and it's not even about actually trying to control things, it's about looking into possible ways of controlling things. That level of resistance to dialog is clearly at a paranoid level.
You seem to have done a very good job of justifying your selfish behavior to yourself. Your talking points are old, regurgitated, and distortions of the actual ideas and intents to the point where they are simply incorrect, but I think you're past thinking and on to blindly justifying why there should be unrestricted access to firearms of any type, even if it is at the cost of scores of children's lives - and it's not even about actually trying to control things, it's about looking into possible ways of controlling things. That level of resistance to dialog is clearly at a paranoid level.
unoriginal1
Distinguished
- Apr 11, 2012
- 1,529
- 0
- 19,960
lol. I have a feeling there could be a nice little civil war on our hands very soon. I know for certain I will never, ever, turn any of my guns in. (as im sure hundreds of thousands of others won't) Ive been responsible, Ive paid my dues, And 10 damn rounds is not enough to go have some fun shooting with.... lol. Out of sight, Out of mind 
just sad I'll be forced to be hush hush about it. Instead of inviting friends and family for a afternoon of shooting. For all of those in support of banning any type of weapon. Your entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but your sadly mistaken. The guns will still be there... Now sadly they will only be in the hands of criminals (the ones owning them illegally). Were going from bad to worse.
However, One part i do agree on is the background checks. At gun shows you can basically buy with no restraints right now. Love going to them and purchasing. (especially ammo, tends to be cheaper) But they do need to make sure the right people are buying.
just sad I'll be forced to be hush hush about it. Instead of inviting friends and family for a afternoon of shooting. For all of those in support of banning any type of weapon. Your entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but your sadly mistaken. The guns will still be there... Now sadly they will only be in the hands of criminals (the ones owning them illegally). Were going from bad to worse. However, One part i do agree on is the background checks. At gun shows you can basically buy with no restraints right now. Love going to them and purchasing. (especially ammo, tends to be cheaper) But they do need to make sure the right people are buying.
Antimatter79
Distinguished
- Jul 24, 2009
- 293
- 0
- 18,810
[citation][nom]merikafyeah[/nom]This is a good thing. Now they can finally put to rest any notion of a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior. Spoiler alert: It's been done before.[/citation]
But the problem is they can glean whatever they want from the results, or of course skew the results to appear to indicate a correlation between violent video games and violent tendencies in people. It's just too easy and convenient to use this to forward an agenda that will pull in more political favor. This is just typical reactionary political posturing. If someone bites into a bad steak and dies next week, we'll have calls for people to stop eating red meat and PETA will have a field day.
But the problem is they can glean whatever they want from the results, or of course skew the results to appear to indicate a correlation between violent video games and violent tendencies in people. It's just too easy and convenient to use this to forward an agenda that will pull in more political favor. This is just typical reactionary political posturing. If someone bites into a bad steak and dies next week, we'll have calls for people to stop eating red meat and PETA will have a field day.
[citation][nom]unoriginal1[/nom]lol. I have a feeling there could be a nice little civil war on our hands very soon. I know for certain I will never, ever, turn any of my guns in. (as im sure hundreds of thousands of others won't) Ive been responsible, Ive paid my dues, And 10 damn rounds is not enough to go have some fun shooting with.... lol. Out of sight, Out of mind just sad I'll be forced to be hush hush about it. Instead of inviting friends and family for a afternoon of shooting. For all of those in support of banning any type of weapon. Your entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but your sadly mistaken. The guns will still be there... Now sadly they will only be in the hands of criminals (the ones owning them illegally). Were going from bad to worse. However, One part i do agree on is the background checks. At gun shows you can basically buy with no restraints right now. Love going to them and purchasing. (especially ammo, tends to be cheaper) But they do need to make sure the right people are buying.[/citation]
FFL holders are required to perform background checks in all 50 states, even at gun shows. Private citizen sales in most states do not require background checks, but the seller assumes a measure of liability if a check is not performed and a crime is committed with the weapon.
Background checks are only required on handguns, which is fine, becuase between 90%-98% of all gun crimes are committed with handguns.
Requiring private citizens to perform background checks on transfers within state lines would be just another law that works only to limit ones' freedoms without any benefit.
FYI, the government is currently wasting billions of tax dollars buying up hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition (mostly .40 s&w), to clog up domestic manufacturing, limit civilian supply, and artificially raise ammunition prices in the open market. If they were subject the the FCC, they'd be in jail.
FFL holders are required to perform background checks in all 50 states, even at gun shows. Private citizen sales in most states do not require background checks, but the seller assumes a measure of liability if a check is not performed and a crime is committed with the weapon.
Background checks are only required on handguns, which is fine, becuase between 90%-98% of all gun crimes are committed with handguns.
Requiring private citizens to perform background checks on transfers within state lines would be just another law that works only to limit ones' freedoms without any benefit.
FYI, the government is currently wasting billions of tax dollars buying up hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition (mostly .40 s&w), to clog up domestic manufacturing, limit civilian supply, and artificially raise ammunition prices in the open market. If they were subject the the FCC, they'd be in jail.
unoriginal1
Distinguished
- Apr 11, 2012
- 1,529
- 0
- 19,960
[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]FFL holders are required to perform background checks in all 50 states, even at gun shows. Private citizen sales in most states do not require background checks, but the seller assumes a measure of liability if a check is not performed and a crime is committed with the weapon.Background checks are only required on handguns, which is fine, becuase between 90%-98% of all gun crimes are committed with handguns. Requiring private citizens to perform background checks on transfers within state lines would be just another law that works only to limit ones' freedoms without any benefit.FYI, the government is currently wasting billions of tax dollars buying up hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition (mostly .40 s&w), to clog up domestic manufacturing, limit civilian supply, and artificially raise ammunition prices in the open market. If they were subject the the FCC, they'd be in jail.[/citation]
I won't lie and say that I know all of the laws in place for purchasing weapons right now. It does come as a surprise to me that even hand guns require a background check. Last gun I got at a show I did a trade for a M1 Garand.
But n e who what your saying about the ammo makes sense. Doesn't surprise me. I still think stricter laws on background checks are an ok thing. But i don't like where the rest of it's going :/
I won't lie and say that I know all of the laws in place for purchasing weapons right now. It does come as a surprise to me that even hand guns require a background check. Last gun I got at a show I did a trade for a M1 Garand.
But n e who what your saying about the ammo makes sense. Doesn't surprise me. I still think stricter laws on background checks are an ok thing. But i don't like where the rest of it's going :/
soccerplayer88
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2010
- 227
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]The 'sense' of that depends whether you are the one in the room where the shooter is trying to blow holes in everyone.[/citation]
So you would rather be holding a 6 round revolver (or nothing at all it seems to you) in a room with an armed individual carrying an AR-15.
Good luck.
Most of the high magazine weapons (even military grade) are sold and bought on the black market, not through legitimate channels.
So you would rather be holding a 6 round revolver (or nothing at all it seems to you) in a room with an armed individual carrying an AR-15.
Good luck.
Most of the high magazine weapons (even military grade) are sold and bought on the black market, not through legitimate channels.
TheWhiteRose000
Distinguished
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]You could have stopped right at 'I'. That's the end of useful input. There is no such thing as a study of 1. A study means a large sample, controls, etc. Ever heard of the Scientific Method? (or too busy shooting zombies?)[/citation]
That's the whole point about the study that you read too far past, one is not needed because anyone with common sense knows where the real blame points to.
Ever heard of the law of motion? I'll give you a hint, inanimate objects cannot set themselves into action. In this case, guns are tools, used to carry out the actions of an individual with the intent to harm in one way or another. Ever starred a gun down on a counter and watched it shoot someone all by itself?
Let's say I wasn't a calmly-composed individual and I snapped over some incident, you can ban all the guns in the world, but I'll just use whatever else I can find to get the job done. Don't you understand, that's the human way. Where there's a will, there will always be a way, even if the tool to carry out whatever harmful intent being unleashed changes.
That's the whole point about the study that you read too far past, one is not needed because anyone with common sense knows where the real blame points to.
Ever heard of the law of motion? I'll give you a hint, inanimate objects cannot set themselves into action. In this case, guns are tools, used to carry out the actions of an individual with the intent to harm in one way or another. Ever starred a gun down on a counter and watched it shoot someone all by itself?
Let's say I wasn't a calmly-composed individual and I snapped over some incident, you can ban all the guns in the world, but I'll just use whatever else I can find to get the job done. Don't you understand, that's the human way. Where there's a will, there will always be a way, even if the tool to carry out whatever harmful intent being unleashed changes.
[citation][nom]soccerplayer88[/nom]So you would rather be holding a 6 round revolver (or nothing at all it seems to you) in a room with an armed individual carrying an AR-15.Good luck.Most of the high magazine weapons (even military grade) are sold and bought on the black market, not through legitimate channels.[/citation]
Un, children rarely carry any firearms, let alone something like an AR-15. I know it may be hard for you to conceive of being anywhere without being locked and loaded, but we are, of course, talking about the attacker here, not some vigilante weekend target plinker making believe they would be effective in real life armed combat. If the CT shooter had had less multiple fire capability, more children would have been able to get away.
Un, children rarely carry any firearms, let alone something like an AR-15. I know it may be hard for you to conceive of being anywhere without being locked and loaded, but we are, of course, talking about the attacker here, not some vigilante weekend target plinker making believe they would be effective in real life armed combat. If the CT shooter had had less multiple fire capability, more children would have been able to get away.
internetlad
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2011
- 1,080
- 0
- 19,310
Because there isn't enough people studying this already.
Great work, Mr. President. Money well spent. That's really helping to balance the national debt.
Seriously though, it's PR for Sandy Hook. 10m Is pennies to the US Government and this will pacify thousands of angry suburbanites looking for something to demonize. In a year watch as this commission comes back with the finding that "Although Video games and violence in video games may play a role in the development of children and young adults, at this time no direct evidence links the use of violent video games to violent behavior"
These government commissions always are PR stunts. When the government wants to look like it's doing something but doesn't want to spent much time on it.
Great work, Mr. President. Money well spent. That's really helping to balance the national debt.
Seriously though, it's PR for Sandy Hook. 10m Is pennies to the US Government and this will pacify thousands of angry suburbanites looking for something to demonize. In a year watch as this commission comes back with the finding that "Although Video games and violence in video games may play a role in the development of children and young adults, at this time no direct evidence links the use of violent video games to violent behavior"
These government commissions always are PR stunts. When the government wants to look like it's doing something but doesn't want to spent much time on it.
everygamer
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2006
- 282
- 0
- 18,780
Ok, I don't mind research, research is good, but why do I feel like the focus is being lost on the issue.
Adam Lanza was 20 years old, a young man, had psychological issues and his mother took him to the shooting range as a way to connect with him. This was clearly a bad mix.
Each major shooting like this in the last 20 years the individuals involved had clearly defined psychological issues, these were not stable people. In most cases they had withdrawn from most social aspects of their lives, and/or had issues that kept them from forming strong social bonds.
The root of this discussion should shift to mental health, detection and treatment, support systems. Guns laws could be further tightened, but his mother was the one that obtained the guns so it would be hard to form a legal structure for testing an entire family when someone wants to own a gun. I believe in Gun ownership but not sure people need high capacity clips nor assault rifles. If a hunter can't take down a deer with the first shot, they are likely going to be tracking the deer for miles to put it down so why would they need 30 in the clip ... usually indicates a hunter that needs to learn how to shoot.
Lastly I have been playing violent video games for years, I am not pricing out rifles to hunt people. I see parents buying M rated games for kids under 17 all the time and they know what they are doing, they know what the M rating means when they buy it they just don't care or don't think its a big deal. So parents need to start being a little bit more considerate with their kids and the content they consume. I am a heavy video game player, I will run through about 3-4 games a month. I do not let my Son play them, he's not old enough yet, just like I wont let him watch rated R movies yet.
I say bring on the research, but don' take your eye off the ball, and in this case the ball is all the topics not just video games.
Adam Lanza was 20 years old, a young man, had psychological issues and his mother took him to the shooting range as a way to connect with him. This was clearly a bad mix.
Each major shooting like this in the last 20 years the individuals involved had clearly defined psychological issues, these were not stable people. In most cases they had withdrawn from most social aspects of their lives, and/or had issues that kept them from forming strong social bonds.
The root of this discussion should shift to mental health, detection and treatment, support systems. Guns laws could be further tightened, but his mother was the one that obtained the guns so it would be hard to form a legal structure for testing an entire family when someone wants to own a gun. I believe in Gun ownership but not sure people need high capacity clips nor assault rifles. If a hunter can't take down a deer with the first shot, they are likely going to be tracking the deer for miles to put it down so why would they need 30 in the clip ... usually indicates a hunter that needs to learn how to shoot.
Lastly I have been playing violent video games for years, I am not pricing out rifles to hunt people. I see parents buying M rated games for kids under 17 all the time and they know what they are doing, they know what the M rating means when they buy it they just don't care or don't think its a big deal. So parents need to start being a little bit more considerate with their kids and the content they consume. I am a heavy video game player, I will run through about 3-4 games a month. I do not let my Son play them, he's not old enough yet, just like I wont let him watch rated R movies yet.
I say bring on the research, but don' take your eye off the ball, and in this case the ball is all the topics not just video games.
[citation][nom]unoriginal1[/nom]lol. ...10 damn rounds is not enough to go have some fun shooting with.... lol. ...[/citation]
>10 round clips for my personal fun... an entire schoolroom of children being murdered and mutilated by multiple 'head shots'... it's always so hard to figure out priorities. ... lol?
>10 round clips for my personal fun... an entire schoolroom of children being murdered and mutilated by multiple 'head shots'... it's always so hard to figure out priorities. ... lol?
[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]Ever heard of the law of motion? I'll give you a hint, inanimate objects cannot set themselves into action. In this case, guns are tools, used to carry out the actions of an individual with the intent to harm in one way or another. Ever starred a gun down on a counter and watched it shoot someone all by itself?Let's say I wasn't a calmly-composed individual and I snapped over some incident, you can ban all the guns in the world, but I'll just use whatever else I can find to get the job done. Don't you understand, that's the human way. Where there's a will, there will always be a way, even if the tool to carry out whatever harmful intent being unleashed changes.[/citation]
Yup, like I said, regurgitated silly talking points. The old 'law of motion' nonsense dodge. Extend it and ask this: Who shoots more people?: A person with a gun or a person who does not have a gun. A pretty small study could determine that.
Yup, like I said, regurgitated silly talking points. The old 'law of motion' nonsense dodge. Extend it and ask this: Who shoots more people?: A person with a gun or a person who does not have a gun. A pretty small study could determine that.
xxsk8er101xx
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 3,967
- 4
- 22,815
What a waste of money. It's already been deemed by the supreme court that it follows under the 1st amendment of the constitution. Even if research finds that violent video games creates serial killers there's nothing you can do because it's freedom of speech.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 17
-
-
Question Can I plug a docking station to a USB-C 2.0 port to have video output?- Started by jameli
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram