Quantcast
House minority leader trying to blame video games for mass shootings. Update: Walmart pulls violent video game ads for 2 weeks

Forums - Politics Discussion - House minority leader trying to blame video games for mass shootings. Update: Walmart pulls violent video game ads for 2 weeks

GoOnKid said:

Sorry to bust in but I think one major reason for this entire argument is that you believe the problem was binary, when it's actually not. This is not a question of 'either this or that', it's rather a spectrum. Having stricter gun laws does not automatically mean that the government takes anything away from you. It also doesn't mean that suddenly these massacres vanish over night. But it's a first step to decrease the chances of such massacres. That's what this is about. We all know and agree that bad things can happen anytime anywhere, but what anti-gunners simply want is to decrease the chances. This is really not that hard to grasp.

If laws were stricter the amount of guns will decrease slowly. Again, this is not binary, so it won't happen over night, but we're talking about slow processes that may take several years of time. And then next, with fewer guns in the wild, chances will logically decrease that guns will be violated and therefore fewer people will die unnecessary deaths. Everybody would be safer in general. Wouldn't you want that, too?

I understand both points however its not those who buy guns from shops that are the ones going on these killing sprees. Its also not what Americans want by removing freedom from there citizens because that's basically what it is, removing freedom from those who didn't do anything wrong. Just because some mental idiots go on rampages doesn't mean we need to take away things from the good people.

What you guys want is for the US to phase out guns completely to a point where its like Australia where you can get guns but its extremely difficult that its basically not worth it. 

How about ban cigarettes because they cause more deaths per year than these shootings. DO we take cigarettes away from people? DO you stop people from driving cars? do we take the extreme to avoid these death tolls because we care about saving lives, or do you just hate guns and so guns are to blame but anything else that can kill you is okay because a road death is different to a shooting death.

Human culture is to just point the finger because something has to get blamed, lets not blame the culture.

Lets say we put laws on guns in the US which will make it harder to buy weapons, over the course of the years guns start to phase out, shootings still happen in this time frame, so the government has to place blame on the next closest thing, weather that be to ban video games or censor them like they did with Hatred in Australia where I cannot purchase the game due to its violence. Is that what we want? because that's what will end up happening.

If we love lives this much than ban everything because a life is a life.



Around the Network
Azzanation said:
GoOnKid said:

Sorry to bust in but I think one major reason for this entire argument is that you believe the problem was binary, when it's actually not. This is not a question of 'either this or that', it's rather a spectrum. Having stricter gun laws does not automatically mean that the government takes anything away from you. It also doesn't mean that suddenly these massacres vanish over night. But it's a first step to decrease the chances of such massacres. That's what this is about. We all know and agree that bad things can happen anytime anywhere, but what anti-gunners simply want is to decrease the chances. This is really not that hard to grasp.

If laws were stricter the amount of guns will decrease slowly. Again, this is not binary, so it won't happen over night, but we're talking about slow processes that may take several years of time. And then next, with fewer guns in the wild, chances will logically decrease that guns will be violated and therefore fewer people will die unnecessary deaths. Everybody would be safer in general. Wouldn't you want that, too?

I understand both points however its not those who buy guns from shops that are the ones going on these killing sprees. Its also not what Americans want by removing freedom from there citizens because that's basically what it is, removing freedom from those who didn't do anything wrong. Just because some mental idiots go on rampages doesn't mean we need to take away things from the good people.

What you guys want is for the US to phase out guns completely to a point where its like Australia where you can get guns but its extremely difficult that its basically not worth it. 

How about ban cigarettes because they cause more deaths per year than these shootings. DO we take cigarettes away from people? DO you stop people from driving cars? do we take the extreme to avoid these death tolls because we care about saving lives, or do you just hate guns and so guns are to blame but anything else that can kill you is okay because a road death is different to a shooting death.

Human culture is to just point the finger because something has to get blamed, lets not blame the culture.

Lets say we put laws on guns in the US which will make it harder to buy weapons, over the course of the years guns start to phase out, shootings still happen in this time frame, so the government has to place blame on the next closest thing, weather that be to ban video games or censor them like they did with Hatred in Australia where I cannot purchase the game due to its violence. Is that what we want? because that's what will end up happening.

If we love lives this much than ban everything because a life is a life.

First of all, I want to say that I fundamentally disagree with most of your points. It seems to almost exclusively be based out of the slippery slope fallacy which isn't exactly a great argument, but I feel several other have done a good job of rebutting those points.

So, I just want to ask: Out of curiosity, what is you opinion on how we solve this mass shooting crisis and generally reduce homicide/assault rates?



Azzanation said:

Australia is a heavily monitored country where the lack of freedom is laughable compared to the US. You cannot do anything in Australia without being looked at or fined. Cannot even lower your car height to much without it being illegal. But hey, if lowering a car too low is a danger to lives than I guess it makes sense.. oh wait it has nothing to do with saving lives. Its government control. Heck we have the most speed cameras in the world compared to anywhere else because placing cameras down hills and on roads where the speed changes drastically helps prevent lives.. or is it a money making industry? hmm

Are you really sure that the rules about ground clearance have nothing to do with safety for the people within and around the vehicle?

If you are lowering your car too much, you can damage it while driving over an obstacle. That damage (f.e. the axes of the car) can put the people in the car and/or other road users in danger, don't you think? 

And are you really sure that driving down a hill too fast can't put people in the car and/or other road users in danger?

Speed limits and monitoring its compliance can be inconvenient, but in most cases it helps prevent traffic deaths (additionally to making money).

Preventing lives is a different issue and has more to do with contraceptives and abortion rules

Azzanation said:

But the stupidest thing Australia has going for it, is its Justice system, We allow murderers to walk free after 4 years, we allow mental heads to drive cars and allow idiots to walk the street. Take something away, they will find another avenue or still get what they wanted anyway.

Do you have a source for the 4 years for murder?

In 2009 - 2010 the average aggregate prison term for a person convicted of murder in New South Wales was just over 25 years (302 months). The average minimum term was 20 years (240 months).

https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_media_releases/2012/bocsar_mr_bb76.aspx

I have my doubts that the average prison time and average minimum prison time in other parts of Australia was or now is only a fraction of that.

What are mental heads? People who lower their cars beyond the safety minimum? And are you aware that some kinds of metal illnesses can decrease the ability to drive safe/responsible... while many other metal illnesses won't decrease that ability?

And do you want to lock away every "idiot"? What is the exact definition for an "idiot". Does it include people who drive too fast, people who lower their cars beyond the safety minimum, people who want guns, people who don't want guns...?

And who decides about the "idiot" status, which forbids people to walk the street? The evil government? A corrupt judge? A vote in town hall? A mob with pitchforks and torches?

Last edited by Conina - on 11 August 2019

It's true. I've been playing a lot of Persona 5 lately, now I'm just dying to break into palaces and steal shit.



4 ≈ One

Azzanation said:
GoOnKid said:

Sorry to bust in but I think one major reason for this entire argument is that you believe the problem was binary, when it's actually not. This is not a question of 'either this or that', it's rather a spectrum. Having stricter gun laws does not automatically mean that the government takes anything away from you. It also doesn't mean that suddenly these massacres vanish over night. But it's a first step to decrease the chances of such massacres. That's what this is about. We all know and agree that bad things can happen anytime anywhere, but what anti-gunners simply want is to decrease the chances. This is really not that hard to grasp.

If laws were stricter the amount of guns will decrease slowly. Again, this is not binary, so it won't happen over night, but we're talking about slow processes that may take several years of time. And then next, with fewer guns in the wild, chances will logically decrease that guns will be violated and therefore fewer people will die unnecessary deaths. Everybody would be safer in general. Wouldn't you want that, too?

I understand both points however its not those who buy guns from shops that are the ones going on these killing sprees. Its also not what Americans want by removing freedom from there citizens because that's basically what it is, removing freedom from those who didn't do anything wrong. Just because some mental idiots go on rampages doesn't mean we need to take away things from the good people.

A gun is a weapon. The single intent of a gun is to kill or injure another person. The ownership of a gun is just one tiny part of freedom. Again, this is not the entirety of freedom. You are thinking in 0 and 1 when in reality life actually has much more in between. This one tiny part of freedom is one that yes, I believe, should be regulated. This has nothing to do with robbing you of every aspect of freedom whatsoever and it also has nothing at all to do with a government bullying you around. It's rather the government taking measures to protect its' citizens, which should naturally be the most basic purpose of any form of cilvilization. A life is much more important than being allowed to carry weapons.

What you guys want is for the US to phase out guns completely to a point where its like Australia where you can get guns but its extremely difficult that its basically not worth it. 

Basically yes. And that is nothing to be afraid of. Most parts of the first world already evolved towards that because they understood how to balance the value of life against the value of owning a weapon. 

How about ban cigarettes because they cause more deaths per year than these shootings. DO we take cigarettes away from people? DO you stop people from driving cars? do we take the extreme to avoid these death tolls because we care about saving lives, or do you just hate guns and so guns are to blame but anything else that can kill you is okay because a road death is different to a shooting death.

The topic is not about drugs or cars, but about guns. Guns are weapons with the single purpose to kill or to injure other people. Weapons should be regulated. If you carry a weapon around you are a menace to society.

Human culture is to just point the finger because something has to get blamed, lets not blame the culture.

Lets say we put laws on guns in the US which will make it harder to buy weapons, over the course of the years guns start to phase out, shootings still happen in this time frame, so the government has to place blame on the next closest thing, weather that be to ban video games or censor them like they did with Hatred in Australia where I cannot purchase the game due to its violence. Is that what we want? because that's what will end up happening.

Again, these events will not vanish completely, they will still happen, but probably not very frequently. I am aware that bad things can happen anytime anwhere, but the chances will be much smaller. If then such a crime happens again we can talk about the real issues at hand but we are far away yet because we are circling around because some believe that the right to carry a weapon is more important than public safety. Or even worse, that people could be safer when they all are armed.

Hatred is by the way a truly terrible game with no appeal at all but shock value. Good riddance.

If we love lives this much than ban everything because a life is a life.

We love life and that's why it's important to protect it. But arming the population is the wrong way. 

In bold.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Azzanation said:

Alright so do you honestly believe if they take the guns away from the people (it will be the only way to come anywhere close to stopping shootings, we cannot just place laws as laws can be broken) that it will actually stop shootings? You believe that a criminal master mind or some mental head wont be able to get a gun or cause a massive crime scene in the US? 

Uh. It's not taking guns away from people... You are looking at it incorrectly. - You do not loose your constitutional right to bear arms.
You need to educate yourself on what Australia did, how it did it and why it did what it did... Because it worked.

Even if Australia has a massacre tomorrow, the gun legislation that it brought in decades ago still worked, the scheme was successful.

Essentially the first phase was the legislative phase, this is where the debates were had... Where Pro-gun nuts used the same arguments you did... (And were historically proven incorrect!) From there we formed and came up with the new laws and legislation that would go on to form the ground work of our gun control scheme.

The second phase was a voluntary gun buy-back scheme, where you would go to the Police station and hand in your weapon for cash, this reduced the amount of devices in the country substantially, people rushed to it.

The third phase was where education of the population would occur, to guide people through the appropriate avenues to purchase weapons, how to store weapons, how to use the weapons... For example we need to store guns in a locked safe, bolted to the ground with an active alarm system monitoring it. (I.E. No gun stored in a shoebox for a kid to reach into!)

It is a process... It is a process that still continues. - The guns didn't just disappear from existence over night you know and there is a talk for another buy-back effort after the last couple were so successful.

Azzanation said:

What if after banning guns, another shooting happens, what will they take away next? Video Games? 

Isn't that what they are talking about in the USA anyway despite guns being legal? Ergo your argument holds zero weight.

...But our Gun control works, so we aren't even having this discussion in Australia!

Azzanation said:

Australia is a heavily monitored country where the lack of freedom is laughable compared to the US. You cannot do anything in Australia without being looked at or fined. Cannot even lower your car height to much without it being illegal. But hey, if lowering a car too low is a danger to lives than I guess it makes sense.. oh wait it has nothing to do with saving lives. Its government control. Heck we have the most speed cameras in the world compared to anywhere else because placing cameras down hills and on roads where the speed changes drastically helps prevent lives.. or is it a money making industry? hmm

This is absolutely Fake news.

You can lower your car. - You can lower your car by no more than one-third of the original suspension travel that was set when the car was manufactured.. And there is very fundamental reasons for such limits... And it results in me going out to less car accidents and cutting gear heads out of vehicles.

Australia's "Freedoms" ranks far more highly than the United States in various indices. - Have you not done your research?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_by_country

As for being heavily monitored... That is laughable when compared to the nation who pushed for the NSA to have Mass Surveillance on all American Citizens! Hahahaha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States

And Australia is worst off? Puhlease.

Azzanation said:

Drugs and Guns are very different. If you are saying they are the same thing than we might as well put everything into the same barrel. Everything can kill you so we need to monitor and restrict everyone from doing everything. We live in a Country that is so controlled its beyond a joke. We gave in to Gun laws a long time ago, but than shortly after, we gave them everything else, video games getting banned, knifes getting banned, bats, Cars cannot be lowered or have neon lights, highly restricted on modifying cars etc. Australia gave in and now basically we lost more than just guns. People waste there money paying fines they cannot afford because of our government. 

Yes Drugs and Guns are very different, that isn't up for dispute.
But what is the same is the reasoning/excuses that you can use to justify both, meaning your original argument is highly flawed.

We also have not lost access to guns. You can still buy and own guns. - Stop with the fake news!

Azzanation said:

My final opinion on this matter is I am all for adding more gun laws and removing guns form the streets however.. I don't believe it will solve the shootings. US is too deep with its own problems that the only way to stop these shootings is to actually find these mental idiots and remove them from the streets. 

Again, we need to look at what has worked. And Gun control has proven to work in more than 1 nation.

Someone here must worship at the altar of the state.  Wow.  In some sense, you are demonstrating Azz's point about the authoritarian nature of Australia.  You seem to have bought right in.  

I'll grant you one thing though - you are right that the US is not as free as it is sometimes given credit for. That's a reputation that was once deserved, but probably isn't anymore, unfortunately.  



Nighthawk117 said:
There is no way in hell that Americans will give up their guns. Myself included. I don't care how much money is offered to me.

My guns are my legacy. They and the ones before them, will be passed on to responsible family members.

If they are passed down from family members they aren't semi-automatic rifles so why would you be worried? Nobody is scared of a rifle from the revolutionary war my dude...



Azzanation said:

If your method is to take something away to solve an issue than its a fail on our behalf. How about solve the issue that causes it rather than give the government more control. As I have witnessed first hand in this country, give the government an inch, they take a mile. We lost all rights to a lot of things. And if the USA still have gun massacres after implying laws than expect them to keep taking until there is nothing left to take. I don't agree with taking something away from people especially since the majority has done nothing wrong with guns apart from some bad eggs.  

I will say it again... You don't loose access to guns if you are a law-abiding, healthy citizen, simple as that.

I have owned guns, I still use guns... Last time I used a gun was about a year ago when I had to assist a farmer and kill about 50 sheep after his truck rolled over.
But no longer do you see an old fart cocking a shotgun in a rocking chair, yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

Azzanation said:

That's because the problem with people is we want to pass the blame onto something. Its no different to exactly what you are doing instead of blaming video games, you are blaming guns. 

Missing the point yet again.
Video Games can't be blamed in Australia because there are no gun massacres.

Azzanation said:

Do you honestly think fining car drivers because they lowered there car a couple centimetres lower than it should is a life and death situation? Sorry to say, cars actually handle better the lower they are. Its a stupid rule in place much like having a car exhaust a little louder than the limit.. because government control, not safety. And just to prove my point, Motorbikes are aloud to have loud exhausts because it acts like a safety feature so others can here them coming. Why cant we have Neon lights on the bottom of our cars? because of safety? Yeah right. Its incredibly sad how the AUS goverment wont let you do anything to your car. It has nothing to do with safety, just controlling your citizens and making money. Sorry if you believe otherwise.

As a road crash technician who works in this field? Yes. Yes it actually does make a difference.
If you think you have more qualifications than me on this front...

As for Neon lights... You are only allowed what is specified by the road traffic standards, this is set in such a way so that braking and indicating become prominent light features of a vehicle for the easy identification of what drivers are doing... Otherwise our roads would look like a Christmas festival with all the lights on vehicles.
For example many people back in the late 90's thanks to the fast and the furious were having red and blue neons and people were getting confused with emergency service vehicles, which isn't a good thing, because that drives complacency for when the real thing does come along.

The fact you cannot recognize this is rather troubling...

You can still have neon lights and so on if you are in a stationary position, you just can't have them turned on whilst on the road.

Azzanation said:

Thank You for admitting Drugs and Guns are different. 

We can own guns, I know but the sneaky thing Australia did was destroy majority of guns so people couldn't actually buy guns which meant buying means imports, special licenses, and finding a place that actually sells guns. yet we still have bike gang shootings all the time. Strange. 

BTW Pump Action Shotguns are banned from my knowledge in AUS. I would assume same would be for some high powered weaponry as well.

 

It wasn't a sneaky thing. The majority of Australians support gun control, there was tons of debate, you would actually be a minority in the way you think on this topic in Australia.

Bikie Gangs are being tackled via other approaches.

Why would anyone need Pump Action Shotguns? Do you like eating led when you kill a roo?

Azzanation said:

I understand both points however its not those who buy guns from shops that are the ones going on these killing sprees. Its also not what Americans want by removing freedom from there citizens because that's basically what it is, removing freedom from those who didn't do anything wrong. Just because some mental idiots go on rampages doesn't mean we need to take away things from the good people.

You aren't removing a freedom, you can still own guns with gun control.

Azzanation said:

How about ban cigarettes because they cause more deaths per year than these shootings. DO we take cigarettes away from people? DO you stop people from driving cars? do we take the extreme to avoid these death tolls because we care about saving lives, or do you just hate guns and so guns are to blame but anything else that can kill you is okay because a road death is different to a shooting death.

I would be fully supportive of banning cigarettes. They smell, they are bad for the environment, they are bad for yours and the people around you, health.

Azzanation said:

How about ban cigarettes because they cause more deaths per year than these shootings. DO we take cigarettes away from people? DO you stop people from driving cars? do we take the extreme to avoid these death tolls because we care about saving lives, or do you just hate guns and so guns are to blame but anything else that can kill you is okay because a road death is different to a shooting death.

If you do nothing... Nothing changes. - And clearly whatever reasoning/arguments/blame-pointing/whatever else the USA has been doing over the past decades in regards to curbing gun massacres simply has not worked.

But what has worked? Gun Control. In Australia.

Conina said:

Are you really sure that the rules about ground clearance have nothing to do with safety for the people within and around the vehicle?

If you are lowering your car too much, you can damage it while driving over an obstacle. That damage (f.e. the axes of the car) can put the people in the car and/or other road users in danger, don't you think? 

And are you really sure that driving down a hill too fast can't put people in the car and/or other road users in danger?

Speed limits and monitoring its compliance can be inconvenient, but in most cases it helps prevent traffic deaths (additionally to making money).

There is actually more to it than that.

Vehicles are designed for crumple zones... It is basic physics, crumple zones absorb kinetic energy. - If you were to take two identical vehicles and substantially lower one... What happens during an impact? Not just with another vehicle, but with animals, pedestrians... The lot?

VAMatt said:

Someone here must worship at the altar of the state.  Wow.  In some sense, you are demonstrating Azz's point about the authoritarian nature of Australia.  You seem to have bought right in.  

I'll grant you one thing though - you are right that the US is not as free as it is sometimes given credit for. That's a reputation that was once deserved, but probably isn't anymore, unfortunately.  

I don't agree with all laws, but I have seen first hand the effect of what road laws do, I have seen the effect that gun control has done... And will stand-by those legislative choices enacted by the various right-wing and left-wing governments of the day.






It's totally incorrect to blame video games. My hope here is that GOP are actually using some sort of strategy to protect our gun rights, but I've seen the left also blame video games in past decades. This is most likely just a boomer issue and their generation not understanding video games. 



teamsilent13 said:

It's totally incorrect to blame video games. My hope here is that GOP are actually using some sort of strategy to protect our gun rights, but I've seen the left also blame video games in past decades. This is most likely just a boomer issue and their generation not understanding video games. 

Indeed.

There were literally two world wars before video games were even invented.