Senate Violence and video games

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 17, 2013
  2. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    This sort of finger-pointing always happens after each mass shooting. It's really getting quite tiresome. Video games are not the problem.
  3. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    apprently the obama administration is starting the gun control debate already after yesterday. as a person who is antigun imo this isnt the time to bring that up. i think this guy had a illness or maybe even ptsd since from what i understand this guy had a card to get into the facility so maybe he was a seal i have no idea.
  4. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    It's never the time to bring it up.

    Then when it is the time, it's time to discuss inane technical details and the special wording of the Holy American constitution...

    Until it fizzles out, then it's back to not being the time to bring it up, since another crazy person with a gun has gone crazy with a gun.
  5. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    see for me i grew up playing violent games and violent films i turned out ok im sure others as well.

    im just so sick and tired of the media blaming whats popular in pop culture.

    same with the gun debate. i have my reasoning why i hate guns but i dont fault the people who are responsible and i have some friends who were raised right with them.

    what bugs me is the hypocrisy because someone like a bill oreilly will say a game like gta is terrible but he considers the godfatther 2 be a a masterpiece of a film.

    anyone else see the irony in that?


    how can anybody really attack one thing for being to violent and yet support a movie that is the same?

    same with the bible. all i ever hear from hardcore christians and catholics and other religious minority is people are being desensitized by violence in pop culture and yet the bible itself is even more violent depending on if you read the old or new testament

    nobody and i mean nobody is a mind reader and the human brain is very difficult to understand. we truely dont under stand it yet we may got some credible info but in the end we still have alot more digging to do as to what causes things in a person to do such violent things in society.

    im 28 years old been diagnosed with ocd and depression my entire life and till this day i sit back and think how did i become what i i have been diagnosed with?

    people assume those who are depressed are emo people that isnt the case at all

    depression can just stem from anything and i think depression is just the way humans are.
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 17, 2013
  6. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The media doesn't blame video games. The ritual is that at some point when CNN runs out of other things to say about the incident, which is about 3 minutes into the news cycle, they pop up the headline "Are violent video games to blame for mass shooting incidents?" Then some pundit makes the case for why they're to blame.

    It would be nice to ask the question "Is the vast amount of media attention paid to mass shootings plus the endless and readily available supply of firearms an incentive for crazy people to consider mass shootings as a form of self-expression?"

    "I'm angry. I can get guns, and I can get 72 hours of nonstop television and internet exposure." - that's a pretty rational-sounding stream of thought for someone who's bat**** crazy, but no one knows exactly how mental illness works.
    Last edited by Jabbadabbado, Sep 17, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    I used to play a Godfather game on the Amiga where you walked around with a machine gun shooting mobsters, cops and members of the public. The women pushing prams sometimes pulled out machine guns of their own. Oh and there was the Texas Chainsaw Massacre PD game where you had to kill 5 people to generate a petrol can to keep your chainsaw going so you could kill more people... They were before things like GTA, torture simulators and high definition first person shooters.
  8. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    well its not cnn but more fox news and politicians from both sides

    you do touch on a point though in regards to mental illness someone could have 30 years of experience being a shrink and i know from experience as a patient antidepressants and social anxiety meds arent a cure but more of a way to kind of help relax certain illnesses.

    in some cases meds can be overly put on a high dosage wich would either drug someone up to the point there a zombie or sometimes simply just by mistake

    i guess my problems are i always had social anxiety depression and currently dealing with someone close to me who is eventually going to die from stage 4 cancer and believe me i never experienced this sort of thing so im not use to it.

    i went on wellbutrin to quit smoking weeks ago wich also supposedly helps with anxiety/depression and i noticed red flags about sucidal thoughts in wich i know id never act on so luckly i was taken off it and feel great now. as a person i know i would never do such a thing so i think it was the pills and the mgs i was on.

    on that kind of drug it was 150 mgs and you had to take 2 a day wich is a total of 300 and luckly i never took 300 just 150. so if one made me feel the way i did who knows what wouldve happened if i took the other.

    i used to be on zoloft and i was fine so im asking my shrink to put me back on but instead of 25 mgs id like to go to 50 that way it isnt a crazy dose
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 17, 2013
  9. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    There's a different question entirely. Is it healthy for people who already have anxiety, depression, antisocial personality traits, etc. to be playing intensely anti-social and violent video games that provide reinforcement and satisfaction through simulated acts of killing people with high-powered weapons?

    That's much different from asking whether plopping mentally well-adjusted people into first person shooter games turns them into gun nuts hell-bent on launching a killing spree.
    Last edited by Jabbadabbado, Sep 17, 2013
  10. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    thats a trick question it really is because despite what i told about myself i know i will never do harm to myself or anybody. now if it was someone who was lets say ptsd or even scizophrenic that would be kind of a interesting debate because how would one wich something like either of those react? would they think the game world is real or would they think the real world is a giant game? both disorders do give the delusion that something is or isnt there so.


    also adding to the discussion

    Study: Violent video games do not cause real violence
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/23/study-violent-video-games-do-not-cause-real-violence/
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 17, 2013
  11. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3
    fbi is on now. they say he acted alone. no other suspects
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    When is the time? How about after we have the facts about what actually happened?

    For example, on Monday, the media was reporting that the shooter used an AR-15. This caused quite a few people to call for a renewed assault weapons ban, and mandatory background checks. By Tuesday, we found out the truth: he used a shotgun (Joe Biden's recommended weapon) that he bought at a gun store (passing a background check) to kill two police officers and take their handguns.

    We have seen time and time again that the initial reports after any major incident are highly unreliable. The DC snipers were supposedly driving a white van (they weren't). The Oklahoma City bombing suspects were Muslims (except they weren't). Ryan Lanza shot up Sandy Hook (except it was actually his brother).

    No amount of focusing on "assault weapons" or eliminating private sales would have stopped this shooting, because it didn't involve either assault weapons or private sales. And yet, those were the knee-jerk reactions, rooted in emotionalism, not rational thought.

    When emotions are running high is always the worst time to be making policy.
    Sarge likes this.
  13. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Those initial reports on the type of weapon used were wrong, but one thing we do know that is troubling is this: this nutcase heard voices in his head, told multiple authorities, was arrested for two gun incidents, was mentally unstable, and yet none of this showed up on his background check. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this man should have owned a gun.
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, Sep 18, 2013
  14. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Let's go through those one by one.
    Just telling someone that you heard voices shouldn't be a basis for denying someone a constitutional right. Taking that route makes it too easy to fraudulently deny them their rights.

    If those authorities couldn't or wouldn't take actions to get him involuntary treatment (which would have been covered by the background checks), then that is the source of the problem.

    The mere fact that someone has been arrested doesn't support denying a constitutional right. In the two cases in question, the charges were dropped, which legally is no different than him never having been arrested. The first of those two arrests, had it been prosecuted, would have been disqualifying for him. The lack of prosecution is the source of the problem.

    Because you can't deny someone their rights on the basis of mere allegations. There is this thing called "due process" that has to be followed before you can deny someone their rights.

    And the responsibility for that falls on the prosecutors who dropped the ball in Seattle 9 years ago, and the prosecutors who dropped the ball in Virginia 3 years ago, and the many officials who didn't report his mental instability, and the current mental health system that makes it extremely difficult to force people to get treatment without their consent.

    What didn't fail here are the current gun laws. Had any of the many authorities I listed above done their jobs, then the current gun laws would have prevented him from passing the background check to buy the shotgun.
    timmoishere and Sarge like this.
  15. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    Nice use of inane technical details, there.
  16. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    "Inane technical details"?

    In each of the cases I pointed out, the details were rather material to the actual incidents. With the DC snipers, law enforcement wasted several days searching for white vans, which prolonged the amount of time before they were caught. Authorities spent the better part of 3 weeks searching for the non-existent van.

    Before all of the victims of Monday's attack were dead, Diane Feinstein was already blaming assault weapons and background check "loopholes" for the attack, and calling for the same old legislation to "stop" such things from happening again. Tuesday, the NY Daily News ran a front-page cover devoted to how the AR-15 was at the root of the attack, making an impassioned plea for more restrictions on something not at all associated with the attack.

    The entire response (before any accurate information was available) was straight out of the anti-gun playbook leaked earlier this year. It has nothing to do with what actually happened.
  17. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    I understand that it was more technical details that didn't cause his past to show up, but it nonetheless underscores why background checks are important (and should be universal) and why they need to be more substantial and detailed than they are currently. And we aren't going to agree - so we can leave it or take it further if you'd like. I simply don't understand why we can't having meaningful regulations and checks to prevent these kinds of people from getting these weapons without it being an absolute infringement on their rights. Or even a discussion that could develop common-sense reforms that are obviously so desperately needed, but the pro-gun crowd views any reform as 'coming to take their guns.' We have common-sense regulations and checks around nearly ever right, but somehow this one is sacrosanct.
    V-2 likes this.
  18. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    My problem with universal background checks (UBCs) is threefold:

    1) The current background checks have proven ineffective, and none of the UBC proposals so far would do anything to actually fix the underlying problem, and
    2) The way various proposals have been structured would lead to both significant increases in costs for gun owners (such as in DC, where it costs $150 to transfer any firearm through the only FFL), and
    3) The current proposals would all essentially be a backdoor registration scheme, especially with the ATF's recent switch towards allowing electronic submission of Form 4473.

    How many shooters have passed the background checks that gun control proponents want to make "universal"? Cho, Laughtner, Holmes, and Alexis are just a few examples. Until we actually fix the underlying problem there, what is the point of trying to force those same, ineffective background checks onto other transactions? It won't do anything to actually solve the problem.

    Additionally, there is no reason why a NICS check that the FBI doesn't charge an FFL for should cost the firearm recipient exorbitant amounts of money. A better way would be to provide an online verification system, and require someone to keep a copy of the verification and the accompanying photo ID for a set amount of time (such as 1 year) after a private sale. Additionally, for someone who has already undergone multiple background checks (such as a CCP holder) a valid permit should be sufficient to pass.

    Often, gun control supporters will claim to only want "reasonable" restrictions, but those "reasonable restrictions" often have nothing to do with the problems that they claim to be addressing.

    If you want a list of what one firearm supporter says would be "reasonable", take a look at this piece. I can't say that I agree with all of the suggestions, but many of them are at least on the right track for addressing the underlying problems.
  19. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Yes, current background checks are relatively ineffective. That is why I think they should be much more thorough. The fact that Alexis told multiple authorities that he was hearing crazy people in his head didn't make it from his medical record to a red flag on his gun background check is a problem. And, we're never going to agree here, but I have little sympathy for any inconvenience or cost for gun owners. Also, I'm sorry but I'm not going to take a site called "The Truth About Guns" seriously.
    V-2 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  20. Dinos4Ever Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2013
    star 2
    Seriously? Don't people know that attacking violent videos games is so 1990's?
  21. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    personally i say introduce a law that says if you want to buy a gun you must be evaluaded by a shrink in order to do so.i think thats really one way to sort of fight ( not defeat) the people who do have seriously mental health issues. i know alot ( not all) gun owners would think there being attacked but this has to stop because guns are falling into the wrong hands of mentally unstable people.

    a ban will never happen because just look at prohibition back in the 20s its basicly impossible
  22. Jedi Merkurian ST Thread Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    For sake of discussion: what happens when someone who has legally purchased guns is later determined to be stark-howling barmy? Do we confiscate his weapons while being treated?
  23. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    I would say absolutely. Not sure about the legal technicalities of this, but I see no justification for why someone that beats their spouse, gets mental treatment for hearing voices, commits a non-lethal act of gun violence, etc. should remain able to keep their guns. Since the right loves the car v. gun comparisons so much, we've already determined that if you prove you can't drive responsibly then you no longer may exercise that right for a time.
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, Sep 18, 2013
    Mia Mesharad and V-2 like this.
  24. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    can you be more specific? because are you asking what constitutes as violent behaviour?
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 18, 2013
  25. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Video games are the tool the Right uses to deflect the debate about gun control. The newest overpaid liar for Fox News is Elizabeth Hasslebeck who actually stated that video games should be regulated and tracked instead of guns.