Obama Calls on Congress to Fund Research on Effects of Violent Videogames

[drinkingcola86]

So here is an easy way to get violent video games out of reach of minors.

Parents be parents and control what their child watches and plays in their house. I know to many families that the parents are disconnected from what their child does and is involved in. Get involved in their child's life.

I know this can't always be the case, kids have friends. If they want to hand out do a joined dinner first to let the concerns be known to the other parents about violent video games.

 

[clownbaby]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]>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]

I'm sorry, but you're begging the question. Assuming that petty firearms restrictions is the answer to stop violence is unsubstantiated. Despite the logical arguement that someone cannot be shot without a gun, statistics PROVE that theft and violent crime rise whenever restrictions are put on firearms, and drop when liberties are given (source: www.justfacts.com).

If you are truly concerned about curing these specific incidents, you should be taking more time in examining the problem than taking a "moral high ground" on gun control.

As everygamer pointed out, in these incidents, there is a very specific profile of person that has committed these crimes. Study and investigation should focus on why these psychopaths develop in these circumstances, and how to treat and prevent. Leaving the system intact that produces dangerous individuals will only lead to more incidents. If the guns are gone, it will be with something else...cars? knives? bombs?

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Why, on planet Earth, is it legal to buy MILITARY ASSAULT rifles please?[/citation]
I know what I'm about tell you for a fact judging by what you just said: you have never handled or at least fired an AR15 or M16 and know the difference. What the military has AND uses, is not what you can buy as a civilian without a lot of legal paperwork and tax fees levied (we're talking thousands of dollars before you can even possibly purchase the weapon). What they use, which is an assault weapon (and not a sporting rifle) and military grade, is more advanced and deadly.

I have a hunting rifle that has a plain stock (no scary pistol grip), just a scope (no scary rail mounts), it fires the exact same way the big bad AR15 does, but it's not considered an assault rifle and it's not on the ban list. Let me go further and tell you that the caliber/bullet it fires has the potential to do four times the damage of the .223/5.56 that the AR15 shoots. To sum it up, don't let a weapon "posing" with the look of a military-grade firearm which doesn't have the same capability as one, fool you.

 

[makaveli316]

I think violent games shouldn't be even rated. If a kid can't make a difference between a game and reality, than you should bring him to a psych, before it's too late.
I was twelve and i played violent games, but i only enjoyed them, like every normal person should - you play, you enjoy it and that's it.
If you're to become a serial killer or a crazy dude on a killing spree with a gun, playing no violent games or watching no movies, wouldn't prevent it from happen.
If you're nuts, you're nuts, don't blame the games/movies, blame God, your parents genes or something that it went wrong in the process of your creation or something, i don't know.
This whole "violent games are bad for your kid" is a nonsense.

 

[clownbaby]

[citation][nom]xxsk8er101xx[/nom]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.[/citation]

Less than 8% of violent crimes in America are committed with a firearm present. People hurt each other with whatever they can.

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

 

[clownbaby]

quoted the wrong post on the above. my apologies.

 

[koga73]

Has nobody considered that a study on video game violence is not the job of the Centers for Disease Control..?
Regardless this study is pointless.

As for "high capacity magazines" or as we call them in Georgia "normal capacity magazines" I don't see what the problem is. I'm tired of hearing everyone say "you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer..." Since when did the second amendment become only about hunting? As another user stated the real purpose of the second amendment is to empower the people of this great nation. This nation is run by the people not the government and for it to stay that we the people need the ability to keep the government in check. Also lets talk about what kind of gun that magazine is for. I have a 25rd magazine for my .22 rifle. If I were serious about hunting deer, bear, or any kind of big game with a .22 rifle I would want that 25rd magazine. .22 rounds aren't very powerful and it may take more than 10 shots to bring down a deer or bear.

 

[punahou1]

Wasn't this study already done? I could swear that this was done just before the game rating system went into effect....

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]...statistics PROVE that theft and violent crime rise whenever restrictions are put on firearms, and drop when liberties are given (source: www.justfacts.com)...[/citation]
Um, "justfacts" is an NRA tool. You couldn't find a more biased source. Why not just get your 'information' from www.iwanttoshootanyolddangtime.com? (and by the way, the 'crime goes up where gun restrictions are imposed' is tired, old, discredited nonsense.

 

[jbucko]

obama is so stupid. lets spend 10 million dollars on research that has already been done. not like we could use 10 minllion else were to help boost the economy or anything. socialists.................

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]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.[/citation]
People use guns because they are generally easily accessible to carry out actions. Tell me, why have the likes of things such as homicide by stabbing gone way up as gun bans have been placed in certain countries? They're tools to carry out human intent. People inflict harm on other people, is it that hard to understand?
Look, I understand that the individuals that think guns kill, cars kill, spoons make people fat, rope is responsible for hangings, a baseball bat inflicts damage, knives stab, and so on - cannot be reasoned with. Just try to think outside the box on the issue.......

 

[unoriginal1]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]>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]
lamorpa you amaze me. Thats all I'm gonna say.

 

[clownbaby]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Um, "justfacts" is an NRA tool. You couldn't find a more biased source. Why not just get your 'information' from www.iwanttoshootanyolddangtime.com? (and by the way, the 'crime goes up where gun restrictions are imposed' is tired, old, discredited nonsense.[/citation]

Your opinion on the info I cited is pretty unfounded. Despite what you think of that website (which has not affiliation with the nra, or any other group for that matter), the statistics are pulled from government, and accredited private studies.

If you understood argument, you might present facts or citations that contradict my argument, but instead, you have opted to lambaste me personally.

'crime goes up where gun restrictions are imposed'

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect

Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower

These are publicly available crime rates provided by the states for which they apply.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]People use guns because they are generally easily accessible to carry out actions. Tell me, why have the likes of things such as homicide by stabbing gone way up as gun bans have been placed in certain countries? They're tools to carry out human intent. People inflict harm on other people, is it that hard to understand?Look, I understand that the individuals that think guns kill, cars kill, spoons make people fat, rope is responsible for hangings, a baseball bat inflicts damage, knives stab, and so on - cannot be reasoned with. Just try to think outside the box on the issue.......[/citation]
It's a dodge. All studies show the lethality of the weapon used has the greatest effect on the fatality of the outcomes. More lethal weapon, more fatalities. That's irrefutable. Do you think the Sandy Hook 'stabber' or 'clobber' would have had as many fatalities? (Hint: the answer is 'no')

 

[clownbaby]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]It's a dodge. All studies show the lethality of the weapon used has the greatest effect on the fatality of the outcomes. More lethal weapon, more fatalities. That's irrefutable. Do you think the Sandy Hook 'stabber' or 'clobber' would have had as many fatalities? (Hint: the answer is 'no')[/citation]

So why not concentrate on preventing people from being violent instead of picking what instruments they choose?

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect...[/citation]
...without mentioning that for the point to be valid, you'd have to show that no other socioeconomic factors changed over that time, as though the population was in a time freeze except for that one law. It's self-serving, cherry picked data set. Not what is considered to be a valid study. One could easily cherry pick data and 'show' that the imposition of sensible firearms controls causes a 40% reduction in cancer rates.

 

[Guest]

I'm sure glad I didn't vote for this idiot. Waste more money you fool. The vast majority of kids that play these games and some adults dont want to run out and commit violence because of a game we just played. 99.99% of us can distinguish between right and wrong. Its that .1 % that you need to focus on thats the problem. Banning guns won't do it either, your only hurting the legal gun buyer with that. I'm glad the states are stepping up and saying they won't enforce these new mandates.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]So why not concentrate on preventing people from being violent instead of picking what instruments they choose?[/citation]
Why not concentrate on both?

 

[wilson_22]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]It's a dodge. All studies show the lethality of the weapon used has the greatest effect on the fatality of the outcomes. More lethal weapon, more fatalities. That's irrefutable. Do you think the Sandy Hook 'stabber' or 'clobber' would have had as many fatalities? (Hint: the answer is 'no')[/citation]

And you dodge the question of self-defense. What's the outcome of a woman pulling a knife on a rapist, a father trying to fight off a home invader with a knife, supporters of democracy taking up knives against a dictator? Not to mention that anyone who wants to ban guns will also want to ban knives (carrying a knife gets you several years in jail in the UK). Hundreds of millions of people lose their everyday freedom in order to save a few lives of children who will grow up in slavery.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]wilson_22[/nom]And you dodge the question of self-defense. What's the outcome of a woman pulling a knife on a rapist, a father trying to fight off a home invader with a knife, supporters of democracy taking up knives against a dictator? Not to mention that anyone who wants to ban guns will also want to ban knives (carrying a knife gets you several years in jail in the UK). Hundreds of millions of people lose their everyday freedom in order to save a few lives of children who will grow up in slavery.[/citation]
You're asking me what the outcome of someone with little or no experience in armed fighting trying to pull out a weapon against a violent, experienced, desperate criminal? They would be endangering themselves to a much greater extent, of course (even more with a much more lethal weapon line a handgun). The statistics show this clearly. You didn't know that? It's like the dimwits who wished they are in the CO theater so they 'could have shot the joker' (meaning actually crap in their pants and squeeze off a shot or two in a random direction, likely hitting a bystander, increasing the body count). Let's talk about reality here, not wishful thinking.

 

[clownbaby]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]...without mentioning that for the point to be valid, you'd have to show that no other socioeconomic factors changed over that time, as though the population was in a time freeze except for that one law. It's self-serving, cherry picked data set. Not what is considered to be a valid study. One could easily cherry pick data and 'show' that the imposition of sensible firearms controls causes a 40% reduction in cancer rates.[/citation]

I left that statistic open for interpretation. It's a statistic, not a study. You study statistics. Factually speaking, the statistic about crime in Chicago is 100% correct. It's not cherry picked. When you combine that with a number of other statistics of similar situations, you can then start to infer the meaning of those statistics.

There are similar statistics set over a wide variety of times and in different cultures/societies that all reflect the same values as in Chicago in that there is no factual basis that a restriction on guns reduces crime.

 

[wilson_22]

You're asking me what the outcome of someone with little or no experience in armed fighting trying to pull out a weapon against a violent, experienced, desperate criminal? They would be endangering themselves to a much greater extent, of course (even more with a much more lethal weapon line a handgun). The statistics show this clearly. You didn't know that?

Oh, "the statistics". I assume you're referring to your research demonstrating the effectiveness of getting on your knees to suck off violent experienced criminals. To each his own, but isn't it more exciting when these beefy men point a gun at you too?

 

[itchyisvegeta]

Obama translation - "Lets spend money to research what has already been researched and found no link with, yet will make it seem like I am doing something about a problem that doesn't exist, making me look better politically, while exploiting a shooting tragedy"

Politics make me want to throw up.

 

[unoriginal1]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]You're asking me what the outcome of someone with little or no experience in armed fighting trying to pull out a weapon against a violent, experienced, desperate criminal? They would be endangering themselves to a much greater extent, of course (even more with a much more lethal weapon line a handgun). The statistics show this clearly. You didn't know that? It's like the dimwits who wished they are in the CO theater so they 'could have shot the joker' (meaning actually crap in their pants and squeeze off a shot or two in a random direction, likely hitting a bystander, increasing the body count). Let's talk about reality here, not wishful thinking.[/citation]
Your full of OPINIONS and about zero facts. Someone states a statistic or fact that can be backed up with actual #'s or proof by visiting a states website and getting the stats and you attack them with an opinion each time and say they are using a "dodge" or something stupid. Have you ever picked up a gun? Have you ever even been in a fist fight? or did you grow up as that kid that always used words to resolve everything. Starting to annoy me with your anti-gun rants acting like it's the single solution. I can appreciate someones opinion. But not when they can't argue with facts, research and evidence. Go get some proof or numbers then come back and make a post with some weight to it.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]unoriginal1[/nom]Your full of OPINIONS and about zero facts. Someone states a statistic or fact that can be backed up with actual #'s or proof by visiting a states website and getting the stats and you attack them with an opinion each time and say they are using a "dodge" or something stupid. Have you ever picked up a gun? Have you ever even been in a fist fight? or did you grow up as that kid that always used words to resolve everything. Starting to annoy me with your anti-gun rants acting like it's the single solution. I can appreciate someones opinion. But not when they can't argue with facts, research and evidence. Go get some proof or numbers then come back and make a post with some weight to it.[/citation]
So not just a gun owner, but a hubristic gun owner. Of course I've had my fair share of target shooting and a little hunting. I'm pretty good, but have little time for it. What kind of person goes around talking about a subject of which they know nothing? The fanaticism seen here is the screaming of 'anti-gun' and 'gun opponent' at those who suggest meaningful limits and controls on the firearms that the average citizen can easily get their hand on. It's like the nut who screams bloody murder if someone brushes up against them because they want to pick a fight. I'm certainly not going to create a bibliography for my information. It stands on its own. Biased statement from biased referenced sources just take up space.

And watch out for those so problematic people (not me) who, "grew up as that kid that always used words to resolve everything" God forbid. What a social deviant...