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

    um mrs. clinton back in 93 and currently is for banning such games. it isnt just the right. also hassleback is an idiot im sorry and i dont take news anchors seriously because they say dont track guns and yet they demand answers to that whole thing involving the fast and furious bill wich failed.
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 18, 2013
  2. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Then she is wrong too if it is to the extremity the Right is suggesting. It does not change the fact that it is simply a means of deflecting the debate.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  3. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    the crap you see on tv about politics is one giant smoke screen man. jesse ventura hit in on the head when he stated wile running for govenor of mn the whole dems vs repubs is nothing more that a bad pro wrestling segment because when the lights are out and cameras are off there all best friends behind the scenes.

    i know alot of people dislike ventura for his stance on the military and conspiracy theories but it takes a big person who was in political office to come out and say such things. how many politicians have ever said things like that in the past? none
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 18, 2013
  4. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    No, but I can see the stupidity in that.
  5. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    To be fair, GTA is a horrible video game (for multiple reasons) and the Godfather is a masterpiece. But neither contributes to gun violence. :)
  6. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    im just saying how can anybody hate one thing for being violent but condone something else for the exact same thing?

    i dont think anybody can argue that any form of violence is exclusive to one particular thing.

    its like saying i hate animal abuse ( wich i do) but condoning domestic abuse ( wile i do not condone ) where is the sense in that?
  7. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    but the the discussion is violence. master piece or not how is godfather 2 any different from gta ? its not like one does and dosent have violent images of killing people.

    dont get me wrong im not saying it should be banned or censored but im just trying to point out the real discussion at hand.
    Last edited by sons_of_anakin_tatooine, Sep 18, 2013
  8. Dinos4Ever Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2013
    star 2
    All of my facepalm.
  9. Volderon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 23, 2007
    star 4
    This always comes along every time a new GTA game comes out it seems doesnt it?

    Just a bunch of nonsense. If video games really did cause violence we would have a bunch of senior high school kids and college kids on rampages as we speak.
    Last edited by Volderon, Sep 18, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  10. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    if thats the case last i checked the colorado shooting happened at the batman midnight premier so how exactly does the release of gta have anything to do with that let alone sandy hook?
  11. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Huh? It's not a bill.
  12. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I understand the hypocrisy from O'Reilly but it's stupidity outweighs its hypocrisy.
  13. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    Is your Shift key broken?
    V-2 likes this.
  14. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    is there a written rule on the internet that i have to use such a thing?
  15. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    It makes your posts easier to read, so unless it's broken, there's no reason not to use it. This isn't a chat room, where such laziness is more acceptable.

    The long and short of it is, if you have the ability and opportunity to do something the correct way, there's no reason not to do so.
    Gamiel and Mia Mesharad like this.
  16. sons_of_anakin_tatooine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 28, 2005
    star 3

    or you know if you hate it that much simply dont read my reply its that simple. dont come in here and throw your weight around like your some mod or you wrote the rules.

    i explained myself before why i type the way i dont so maybe you should go see what i stated that way i dont have to repeat myself again.
  17. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    So what is "the real issue"?
  18. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    If a gun is called an AR15 or not, that's a really dull technical detail. If some newsreader said the wrong name of a gun, that's really not a reason to ensure that crazy people are allowed to own and obsess over guns.

    I honestly can't be bothered arguing with closed minded gun people any more, not over the same dull points again and again. It's like a religion to these people.

    Also since when was Hilary Clinton anything other than right wing? Your republican and democratic parties are both right wing. America simply doesn't have a mainstream centre party, let alone a left wing party.
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Essentially, you are saying "a gun is a gun", then, right?

    Except that's not how it is in reality. There are different types of guns for different reasons. Handguns are primarily designed for portability, and are best for self-defense. Rifles are designed for greater accuracy (because of the longer barrel, which gives a longer sight radius) and have a rifled bore which causes the bullet to spin, making it more stable in flight. Shotguns use a smooth bore, and tend to fire loads of shot (small pellets of varying sizes, depending on your target). Shotguns are essentially the oldest form of firearms in existence.

    An AR-15 is a rifle. In fact, it is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is designed to be used for everything from the battlefield to deer hunting to personal defense. It can be used in calibers from 22LR up to 50 Beowulf, although it is most commonly found in .223 Remington or 5.56x45. (In general, a gun designed for 5.56 is able to fire .223). It can use magazines standard-designed ranging from 5 rounds up to 100 rounds.

    A Remington 870 (the weapon actually used by Alexis) is a pump-action shotgun. It is primarily designed for use in hunting and home defense. It can be used in gauges ranging from 12 Gauge (at the largest) down to .410 bore. It comes in two different capacities: 4+1 and 7+1 (meaning either 4 or 7 rounds in the tube magazine, plus one round in the chamber).

    This might seem like "dull technical details", but they really do make a difference.

    You see, US law treats shotguns and rifles differently, because they are different types of guns. Federal law tightly restricts firearms with a bore over .50 caliber as destructive devices (except for standard shotgun gauges), and has since 1934. That's the same category as missiles, grenades, or bombs. Rifles with a barrel less than 16" or a overall length less than 26" are tightly regulated (in the same way that machine guns are). For shotguns, the barrel length has to be over 18" to avoid the tighter regulations.

    Even under the now-expired 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, there were very different sections of law that applied to rifles versus shotguns. In order to be restricted, AR-15s had to meet a certain set of criteria. In contrast, shotguns (like the Remington 870) had to meet a very different set of criteria. Handguns had a third, again vastly different, set of criteria.

    If the concern is to address a mass shooting with a Remington 870, focusing on the legal restrictions on AR-15s won't do a whit of good, because you are talking about two different sections of law. When you are talking about passing new laws, those technical details matter.

    On top of that, there's another, bigger issue here dealing with the press. How can we trust the information that the press gives us, if they repeatedly get simple, fundamental details wrong. It gets worse when they refuse to comment or retract their errors (such as the NY Daily News earlier this week). When the press gives us misinformation, and then uses that misinformation to push for new laws that don't address the real problems, it damages all of us.
    SWBob likes this.
  20. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    So in reality some guns are not guns?

    Honestly, take your gun-obsessive technical details to someone who isn't specifically complaining about how boring gun technical details are.
    Last edited by V-2, Sep 19, 2013
  21. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    It's clear that you prefer to be willfully ignorant and not actually look at the actual issues. A handgun is not a rifle is not a shotgun, and the law treats each of them differently. As such it matters which one you are talking about.

    For example, under federal law, you have to be 21 or older to buy a handgun from a FFL. You only have to be 18 to buy a shotgun from an FFL. Except for some minor exceptions, you cannot receive a handgun from anyone else outside of your state of residence, but you can buy a rifle or shotgun from a FFL in any state, as long as you obey the laws in both that state and your home state. (That's why Alexis was able to buy a shotgun in Virginia even though he was a Texas resident. He wasn't able to buy an AR-15 because of Virginia law, not federal law.)

    You have to deal with reality as it is. As part of that, before you start talking about what laws need to be changed, you need to understand what the laws currently are, and how those laws actually apply to real life.

    For example, it does no good to say that Alexis should have undergone a background check, because he did go through a background check. Yes, there are reports that he heard voices, but according to the VA (through which he was getting his medical care), the only treatment he actually received was for insomnia. Yes, he had a Secret clearance, but that was issued in 2008 (when he joined the Navy Reserve), and they are usually valid for 7 years before they need to be renewed, or 2 years after you leave the military (he left in 2011). He would have been due for his renewal sometime this year.

    These might seem like "technical details" to you, but they are the reality of how things actually are. It's easy to say "this shouldn't ever happen", but it's a lot harder to look at the nitty-gritty details to figure out what (if anything) can feasibly be done about it.
    SWBob likes this.
  22. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    I've this horrible feeling that you're not even seeing the funny side in this conversation.

    *backs away slowly*

    It's as if you don't remember having this exact conversation numerous times in the gun control thread. It's as if you spit out this drivel so often you forget you've already bored people with it numerous times already.

    The terms of the gun debate should not be dominated by obsessive technical detail about your murder machines.
    Last edited by V-2, Sep 19, 2013
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    If you don't actually want to discuss the issue, then why are you here in the Senate? This isn't the JCC, and you don't even have the excuse that you didn't see the Senate tag.

    This is the Senate. We tend to dig deeper into the issues here, and expect people to actually look at and care about the details.
  24. V-2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    star 4
    Report me or just ignore me, or just try not to get offended. The issue is violence and video games.
    Last edited by V-2, Sep 19, 2013
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Nor should they be dominated by your emotional response to a tool and its uses.

    Even if you count suicides in the mix, guns are used defensively about 5-10 times more often than they are used for crimes. They are used to prevent rapes, murders, assaults, and numerous other crimes, in greater numbers than they are used to commit crimes. To accept your position is to ignore all of those lives saved by the use of guns, all of those women not raped because they could defend themselves, all of those people who weren't injured.

    Guns aren't "murder machines" any more than knives or cars are. They are tools, and you have to look at both sides of the equation.

    If you could argue from a rational position, rather than an emotional one, you would do so. The fact that you have explicitly rejected looking at the sort of details that are required in order to deal with it rationally says that you have nothing but your own emotional response to base your arguments on.
    SWBob likes this.