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

deskpro2k3 said:
I grew up watching papeye the sailor, and not once did I feel the need to eat some spinach and beat up someone. Then there is video games like Contra 3 on my Super Nintendo when I was 9 yrs old.. Never felt like shooting up the place. This Kevin McCarthy punk can STFU.

I grew up watching the simpsons never aging... now I'm 36 play video games and my Desk has a fully lit kit of the Enterprise E glowing on it... Cursed TV show made me never want to grow old!

Agree of course though, creating a link between video games and gun violence is like attributing all house fires to be the cause of kitchen sinks, because they're always present where house fires happen! It's just one of those things that US politicians and politicians around the world do, and that is when they're asked one question they will answer another, Ask someone about gun crime and they talk about the impact on the youth of video games... completely derails the subject matter and the attention to be on all the wrong things but at least the politician didn't have to answer the real question posed to him.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Chrkeller said:

As if a gun would do anything against tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, submarines, biological weapons, etc.  If the government wanted you dead, a gun isn't going to stop them. 

so governments should just be able to do whatever they want with their citizens, with no resistance if they become despotic?

Just in terms of something like a pistol VS US Gov equipment, just from an unmanned drone point of view

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about U.S. drone strikes (as of 17 September 2017):[19]

  • Total strikes: 429
  • Total killed: 2,514 – 4,023
  • Civilians killed: 424 – 969
  • Children killed: 172 – 207
  • Injured: 1,162 – 1,749

As of January 2014, the U.S. military operates a large number of unmanned aerial systems (UAVs or Unmanned Air Vehicles): 7,362 RQ-11 Ravens; 990 AeroVironment Wasp IIIs; 1,137 AeroVironment RQ-20 Pumas; and 306 RQ-16 T-Hawk small UAS systems and 246 Predators and MQ-1C Grey Eagles; 126 MQ-9 Reapers; 491 RQ-7 Shadows; and 33 RQ-4 Global Hawk large systems.[1]

The Gov has literally thousands of Drones capable of murdering 10+ people per strike, from an altitude beyond what any of these civilian held weapons would ever hope to be able to reach or hit. That count there btw was in 2014... you imagine in the last 5 years they've not made more of them? Thousands more. Those strikes as well were in places thousands of miles from the US home soil, it would be so much easier for them to drone strike people within the same land mass as where the drones are made, would be like shooting fish in a barrel, but the fish in the barrel are all holding knives in their mouth, assured in holding them that they're safe from being shot from above.

Also will say... that's a crazy number of Children and Civilians killed by drones, those things must lose tons of sleep... oh yeah of course, they're unmanned murder machines. ugh.... taken from wiki "Leaked military documents reveal that the vast majority of people killed have not been the intended targets, with approximately 13% of deaths being the intended targets, 81% being other militants, and 6% being civilians" 13% the intended target... that's a lot of collateral damage.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Ganoncrotch said:
o_O.Q said:

so governments should just be able to do whatever they want with their citizens, with no resistance if they become despotic?

Just in terms of something like a pistol VS US Gov equipment, just from an unmanned drone point of view

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about U.S. drone strikes (as of 17 September 2017):[19]

  • Total strikes: 429
  • Total killed: 2,514 – 4,023
  • Civilians killed: 424 – 969
  • Children killed: 172 – 207
  • Injured: 1,162 – 1,749

As of January 2014, the U.S. military operates a large number of unmanned aerial systems (UAVs or Unmanned Air Vehicles): 7,362 RQ-11 Ravens; 990 AeroVironment Wasp IIIs; 1,137 AeroVironment RQ-20 Pumas; and 306 RQ-16 T-Hawk small UAS systems and 246 Predators and MQ-1C Grey Eagles; 126 MQ-9 Reapers; 491 RQ-7 Shadows; and 33 RQ-4 Global Hawk large systems.[1]

The Gov has literally thousands of Drones capable of murdering 10+ people per strike, from an altitude beyond what any of these civilian held weapons would ever hope to be able to reach or hit. That count there btw was in 2014... you imagine in the last 5 years they've not made more of them? Thousands more. Those strikes as well were in places thousands of miles from the US home soil, it would be so much easier for them to drone strike people within the same land mass as where the drones are made, would be like shooting fish in a barrel, but the fish in the barrel are all holding knives in their mouth, assured in holding them that they're safe from being shot from above.

Also will say... that's a crazy number of Children and Civilians killed by drones, those things must lose tons of sleep... oh yeah of course, they're unmanned murder machines. ugh.... taken from wiki "Leaked military documents reveal that the vast majority of people killed have not been the intended targets, with approximately 13% of deaths being the intended targets, 81% being other militants, and 6% being civilians" 13% the intended target... that's a lot of collateral damage.

what about the provisions in the constitution that speak of the need for militias to guard against government tyranny?

should that section of the constitution be ignored?

its in the law of the land that the citizens of the country should have the capacity to defend themselves from government encroachment



I want to know what these mysterious US-exclusive video games are that apparently aren't available anywhere else in the developed world.



I didn't think there would be a direct this week, cos I'm a pessimistic dunce.

Ganoncrotch said:
pokoko said:

You're telling me, honestly and seriously, that you do not understand that the United States, an area larger than all of Europe, contains environments that are vastly different from one another?  That there are States and cities where violence is much, much more commonplace than others?

So you're telling me, honestly and seriously, that you do not understand that if an average of 12 deaths per 100k is spread over all the states that sounds terrible, but if you are telling me that it is so vast and there are regions where there are 0 deaths per 100k, that must mean that there is another region where the deaths are 24 per 100k, which is the worst, in the world in terms of gun violence by a long shot.

Btw starting a post with "you're telling me" and then typing a pile of rubbish that wasn't in my post is such amateur hour arguing tactics, keep your words in your own mouth, I do not like them in mine.

Also at your bolded text.... Takes how long to open Google?

"Europe covers about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi)"

"At 3.8 million square miles (9.8 million km2), the United States"

But hey, what do the numbers matter when you want to question someones ability to understand something.

Or were you maybe referring to the European Union? Rather than the continent of Europe? Because those are two different things... but of course you would know that right?

This is what you said, "I was to move from here to the USA my chances of dying to a gun increase nearly 15x, sorry if that fact based on numbers upsets you living in the states, but you are 15 times more likely than me to die to a gun."  I'm posting it again so you can't pretend you didn't say it.  

So I get this straight, you think if you move to New Hampshire, at state with a homicide rate of 1 per 100,000 people, that it would be the same as moving to Louisiana, a state with a 12.4 homicide rate?  I mean, you look at those two states and you cannot see the difference?  

No, I'm not 15 times more likely to die to a gun than you.  First, I don't live anywhere near a poor metropolitan area, which is where most gun violence occurs.  Second, most gun deaths in the United States are suicides, which doesn't apply to me.  Pretending that simply moving to the US means you'll have the same risks of getting shot no matter where you go or what circumstances you place yourself in is just silly.  People who use statistics while willfully ignoring context are usually just trying to pound home an agenda.

And, yeah, I was wrong about the size comparison, I thought the US was larger with the addition of Alaska.  You want to be an asshole about it with more "takes how long to open Google" comments then feel free.  

⚠️ WARNED: Flaming ~ CGI

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 06 August 2019

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Ganoncrotch said:

Just in terms of something like a pistol VS US Gov equipment, just from an unmanned drone point of view

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about U.S. drone strikes (as of 17 September 2017):[19]

  • Total strikes: 429
  • Total killed: 2,514 – 4,023
  • Civilians killed: 424 – 969
  • Children killed: 172 – 207
  • Injured: 1,162 – 1,749

As of January 2014, the U.S. military operates a large number of unmanned aerial systems (UAVs or Unmanned Air Vehicles): 7,362 RQ-11 Ravens; 990 AeroVironment Wasp IIIs; 1,137 AeroVironment RQ-20 Pumas; and 306 RQ-16 T-Hawk small UAS systems and 246 Predators and MQ-1C Grey Eagles; 126 MQ-9 Reapers; 491 RQ-7 Shadows; and 33 RQ-4 Global Hawk large systems.[1]

The Gov has literally thousands of Drones capable of murdering 10+ people per strike, from an altitude beyond what any of these civilian held weapons would ever hope to be able to reach or hit. That count there btw was in 2014... you imagine in the last 5 years they've not made more of them? Thousands more. Those strikes as well were in places thousands of miles from the US home soil, it would be so much easier for them to drone strike people within the same land mass as where the drones are made, would be like shooting fish in a barrel, but the fish in the barrel are all holding knives in their mouth, assured in holding them that they're safe from being shot from above.

Also will say... that's a crazy number of Children and Civilians killed by drones, those things must lose tons of sleep... oh yeah of course, they're unmanned murder machines. ugh.... taken from wiki "Leaked military documents reveal that the vast majority of people killed have not been the intended targets, with approximately 13% of deaths being the intended targets, 81% being other militants, and 6% being civilians" 13% the intended target... that's a lot of collateral damage.

what about the provisions in the constitution that speak of the need for militias to guard against government tyranny?

should that section of the constitution be ignored?

its in the law of the land that the citizens of the country should have the capacity to defend themselves from government encroachment

Its no longer possible for civilians to guard against goverment tyranny anyways.... so yes?

Owning a gun or rifle wont change that, and meanwhile these guns are the cause of so much trouble...
its not a good argument anymore, towards owning a gun ect.



I cannot fathom the simple minded nature of this mentality. Do these people truly believe somebody as fucked up as to gun down several innocents wouldn't have inevitably done so anyway had they not been supposedly "triggered" to do so with video games? And why do other countries, which also have mostly the same access to the same shooters and violent games, not have nearly the same amount of gun violence? 

The reason the US is out of control with gun violence is simple - it's mainly the relative ease of accessibility of assault weapons, in addition to (a less talked about factor), the ease of availability of mind-altering psychotropic drugs in this country. The combo of these two factors is a recipe for disaster. You've also got a growing number of disenfranchised young men growing up in abusive/broken homes being fucked up with no place to turn. 

But no, Trump and the Republican puritans would point the finger at entertainment. This bs is merely a deflection of the real issues at hand. What a joke. 

We just had to endure the "games are often sexist!" bs from the Authoritarian left, and now we've come full circle back to the Jack Thompson Authoritarian right blaming video games for violence. I guess this medium is an easy target for scapegoating since it's still a relatively new form of entertainment that's scary to older and more puritanical folks. It's like metal music..



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

DarthMetalliCube said:

We just had to endure the "games are often sexist!" bs from the Authoritarian left, and now we've come full circle back to the Jack Thompson Authoritarian right blaming video games for violence. I guess this medium is an easy target for scapegoating since it's still a relatively new form of entertainment that's scary to older and more puritanical folks. It's like metal music..

And some games feature metal music! THOSE are really dangerous!



Signature goes here!

TruckOSaurus said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

We just had to endure the "games are often sexist!" bs from the Authoritarian left, and now we've come full circle back to the Jack Thompson Authoritarian right blaming video games for violence. I guess this medium is an easy target for scapegoating since it's still a relatively new form of entertainment that's scary to older and more puritanical folks. It's like metal music..

And some games feature metal music! THOSE are really dangerous!

Better keep people away from Guitar Hero and Brutal Legend!



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

pokoko said:
Ganoncrotch said:

So you're telling me, honestly and seriously, that you do not understand that if an average of 12 deaths per 100k is spread over all the states that sounds terrible, but if you are telling me that it is so vast and there are regions where there are 0 deaths per 100k, that must mean that there is another region where the deaths are 24 per 100k, which is the worst, in the world in terms of gun violence by a long shot.

Btw starting a post with "you're telling me" and then typing a pile of rubbish that wasn't in my post is such amateur hour arguing tactics, keep your words in your own mouth, I do not like them in mine.

Also at your bolded text.... Takes how long to open Google?

"Europe covers about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi)"

"At 3.8 million square miles (9.8 million km2), the United States"

But hey, what do the numbers matter when you want to question someones ability to understand something.

Or were you maybe referring to the European Union? Rather than the continent of Europe? Because those are two different things... but of course you would know that right?

This is what you said, "I was to move from here to the USA my chances of dying to a gun increase nearly 15x, sorry if that fact based on numbers upsets you living in the states, but you are 15 times more likely than me to die to a gun."  I'm posting it again so you can't pretend you didn't say it.  

So I get this straight, you think if you move to New Hampshire, at state with a homicide rate of 1 per 100,000 people, that it would be the same as moving to Louisiana, a state with a 12.4 homicide rate?  I mean, you look at those two states and you cannot see the difference?  

No, I'm not 15 times more likely to die to a gun than you.  First, I don't live anywhere near a poor metropolitan area, which is where most gun violence occurs.  Second, most gun deaths in the United States are suicides, which doesn't apply to me.  Pretending that simply moving to the US means you'll have the same risks of getting shot no matter where you go or what circumstances you place yourself in is just silly.  People who use statistics while willfully ignoring context are usually just trying to pound home an agenda.

And, yeah, I was wrong about the size comparison, I thought the US was larger with the addition of Alaska.  You want to be an asshole about it with more "takes how long to open Google" comments then feel free.  

I always hate people from other countries telling us how dangerous it is to live in the US.

This isn't like I need to stay away from a dangerous neighborhood. For most Americans, it's you need to not drive 5 hours straight to get to just the city, then go out of your way to find the dangerous part that you would have zero reason to go to as everything you would want in the city would be available somewhere else. 

That is where 99% of all gun related deaths, not counting suicides happen. Like .001% of the entire US is a no go zone. One would have to make it their goal to be in those areas, to ever be in those areas. And it's not like you are surprised. You would happily take your baby out on a walk in the stroller in the rest of the 99.999% of the US, and know damn well that you don't even want to drive your car as fast as you can through those .001% areas.