[Closed] Guns don't kill people

The shoot-em-up video game argument is an interesting one

No, it's a retarded one.

Games don't make people go on mass murdering sprees before blowing their own brains out; being wrong in the head does that. And if you're a swivel-eyed socio/psychopath, you're eventually going to do something loopy irrespective of what computer games (video nasties, rock & roll music, energy drinks, pornography) you've been exposed to.

The logic bomb that always gets overlooked by the Professionally Outraged is that the causal link here isn't games, it's mental illness. The fact that a gunman happened to be playing Grand Theft Auto a month ago just means that it's the sort of title which would appeal to a nutcase (as well as to large numbers of normal, well-adjusted people, of course, all of whom strangely fail to go on murder rampages).

Shades of Gray has resulted in an increase in the sales of BDSM gear

Skipping the obvious question (which is "so what?"), what does this actually prove? That 50SoG has turned mild mannered librarians across the country into rampant screaming perverts, or that it's made BDSM more mainstream and acceptable so people are less inhibited about buying toys?

As for gun control,

Banning guns in the US isn't going to work. There are several factors at work here, some of which have already been discussed here. There's too many in circulation for a ban to be practical; it'd be like banning tomato soup over here. If the US announced a crackdown, the first thing everyone would do is stock up. Plus, we've already seen how well prohibition works in the US.

Then there's legislation. The Constitution is a battleship of a thing, and effecting any sort of amendment to it can take decades.

In any case, assuming there was a ban, either partially ('no automatic weapons' say) or fully, people who wanted guns badly enough would still get them. And there'd be a lot; guns are 'normal' in US culture. Just google "every day carry" for a scary demonstration of that. The fundamental problem, one of mentality, would persist.

It's like the knife ban here. I'm speculating here but, you ban knives, "attacks with knives" might go down (or not), but I doubt that attacks generally will. Thugs will still be thugs, they'll either just carry knives illegally or carry something else. The people most affected by the knife ban are regular citizens who carried a knife for fishing or camping or because generally it's a useful thing to have.

You want to tackle crime, you need to tackle the causes of crime. And that's poverty, education, drugs, employment... good luck with that.

Then there's legislation. The constitution is a battleship of a thing, and effecting any sort of amendment to it can take decades.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting the ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons, and therefore wouldn't require amending.

The fundamental problem, one of mentality, would persist.

Maybe for the current generations, but further down the line?...

You want to tackle crime, you need to tackle the causes of crime. And that's poverty, education, drugs, employment... good luck with that.

Agreed. However, it doesn't mean you should not assist the process in other ways.

You've never been to the Apple store in Switzerland I take it?

Nope, but I know that that rifle does not have a mag fitted so that, at most, it's got one up the spout before he/she has to load it and make ready.

Missing the point maybe, but seeing a magazine off would make me feel slightly more safe than not.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting the ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons, and therefore wouldn't require amending

No?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Semi and automatic weapons would come under 'arms' would they not?

Cougar I get your point but extreme positions on either side are unhelpful

For example plenty of folk drink responsibly plenty of folk dont and become angry or alchies. Its a bit of both the question is how much of each is casual.As for professionally outraged - WTF does that ad hominem mean in general and in particular on a thread related to the recent gun deaths in the US? you are better than this 😕
The 50 shades thing shows that exposure to things - new stimuli alters behaviour but I assume you got that but ignored it as it does not help your argument so you were jokey about what it meant

Some folk read some BDSM some folk had some BDSM- its not going to be as clear cut with murder though and only an idiot would argue that playing violent computer games makes you go on a killing spree. However [ to repeat again] research shows that those exposed to violence act more violently in studies
how real this is and what effect it has who knows in terms of what we are discussing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

So lets carry on arguing about an inanimate metal object that does nothing. it's the human with their hand on it that's the problem, try and solve the cause not the symptom. I am not against restricted access to guns by the way just want to get the discussion further.

A sticking plaster is not going to cure a severed limb.

Games don't make people go on mass murdering sprees before blowing their own brains out; being wrong in the head does that. And if you're a swivel-eyed socio/psychopath, you're eventually going to do something loopy irrespective of what computer games (video nasties, rock & roll music, energy drinks, pornography) you've been exposed to.

No, you're right they don't. However games like COD do have an effect on a child's behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows. I'd rather it didn't have that effect on my child, regardless of the outcome. I'm not saying this chap sat there on a three hour COD session before going on the rampage, but I'm saying that potentially it could skew a childs perspective on what is right and wrong

As for access to guns and it being the person doing the shooting - I'd rather take my chances with a bloke swinging a baseball bat or brandishing a knife than I would a nutter holding a semi-automatic gun

So lets carry on arguing about an inanimate metal object that does nothing. it's the human with their hand on it that's the problem

The two things are not isolated.

If I am unarmed, get drunk, get into a fight with someone, what am I going to do? Punch them, get punched back, end up in a scuffle. If I am armed, I am a lot more likely to shoot the other guy aren't I?

Then you've got the false courage aspect. If I see something I don't like and I have a gun, I might be more inclined to intervene and start shooting than if I am unarmed.

Then there's the possibility that simply having guns affects people's psychology and possibly their behaviour.

Bearing in mind the above, do you think Trayvon Martin would still be alive if George Zimmerman had never owned a gun?

However games like COD do have an effect on a child's behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows.

Yes. They make them excitable and possibly aggressive. But it does not follow that they lose sight of right and wrong, or are more inclined to hurt real people.

But it does not follow that they lose sight of right and wrong, or are more inclined to hurt real people.

You don't think it desensitises them at all then?

its an extreme position to claim a gun does nothing and its only an innamate object . It is a weapon and it has only one primary function- it takes two but remove one and you have a lesser issue

Its obviously easier to prevent access to the gun than to prevent mental illness.

WTF does that ad hominem mean in general and in particular on a thread related to the recent gun deaths in the US?

Sorry, you misunderstand me.

I was talking specifically about the "outraged" people who start blaming computer games (or the other things I listed) when there's a tragedy like this. You know, the sort of thing the Daily Mail likes to crow about. I wasn't having a pop at those outraged about the shooting; that's something one can genuinely be outraged about!

The 50 shades thing shows that exposure to things - new stimuli alters behaviour but I assume you got that but ignored it as it does not help your argument so you were jokey about what it meant

I'm always jokey. My point was really that it's not particularly clear what the poster - Edukator? Probably - was getting at, or how the analogy was appropriate. Has "new stimuli altered behaviour" here, or has it just raised awareness and made something more acceptable within society? Or maybe it's helped raise it as a talking point in relationships where people were too shy to suggest something a little different? I don't actually know, probably a little from column a and a little from column b. In either case though it might have given a few people ideas, but I doubt it'd convince them to do something they didn't want to do.

You don't think it desensitises them at all then?

Honestly - no.

Because there's such a gulf between a bunch of pixels and a real person deep down in our brains.

I'm saying that potentially it could skew a childs perspective on what is right and wrong

Weasel-word alert. "Potentially"? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it [i]actually [/i]skew anything?

However games like COD do have an effect on a child's behaviour as experienced by not just myself as this thread shows.

You don't think it desensitises them at all then?

Going from "excitable" to "killing spree" is a leap of tabloid proportions. By comparison, how would they react to an extended Tom & Jerry marathon, I wonder?

Kids are impressionable, but they're not stupid. Well, most of them.

Because there's such a gulf between a bunch of pixels and a real person deep down in our brains.

As an aside, I wonder how this discussion will go in a few years time, when games are photorealistic? We're getting there.

Weasel-word alert. "Potentially"? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

Is it really your view that playing violent computer games is as likely to skew your view or desensitise you to violence as is eating a packet of crisps.

I dont know why we have to debate in such extremes. 😕
Its clear that playing violent computer games will have some affect on you so lets debate what if that is where the debate is going.

FWIW locally someone dug up a corpse froma graveyard, took the head and scrawled 666 on the head and dropped it on his mates door rang the doorbell and ran off. he did this after he saw Omen.

Now the guy was a nutter[like that needed saying], and he was off his head on glue but it was an interaction between all three.

Thank god he could not get his hands on guns is all I think tbh

I dont think banning them[ games or films] will stop events like this but i dont think they generally help either.

Weasel-word alert. "Potentially"? Sure. So could eating crisps. Does it actually skew anything?

You're a bit aggressive aren't you, been on the xbox this afternoon?

Going from "excitable" to "killing spree" is a leap of tabloid proportions. By comparison, how would they react to an extended Tom & Jerry marathon, I wonder?

Kids are impressionable, but they're not stupid. Well, most of them.

Kids ARE impressionable, which means they need to be taught the difference between right and wrong. If they see constant images of shootings, blood, gore and all the rest then it desensitises them to the extent that it becomes the norm. Was this killing the result of the perp playing Medal of Honour - probably not (I don't know the kids background, what he did in his spare time and so on). Does playing similar games have an effect on children. Yes, it does - I've witnessed it first hand.

Yes. They make them excitable and possibly aggressive

So you agree it makes them aggressive but don't agree that it desensitises them to violence?

bwaarp - Member

Educator, the shrinks in germany are talking bollocks. You need a sample size of 30 to make any significant conclusion, have they had 30 mass killers in germany to make such a conclusion? No. A big **** off resounding no. What were their methodologies for supporting such a conclusion because I bet statistically I can destroy their argument.

A gem Bwaarp, until there are at least thirty such killings you don't accept the validity of anything a psychologist has to say. Now what were Freud's sample sizes again? Profilers use a sample size of one successfully.

Copycat killings happen, if you accept that then you accept people can be inspired to commit crimes simply by reading. An engrossing, hands-on, sound and vision experience is likely to inspire.

One of the reasons I gave up display driving was that leaving one venue I saw someone trying to imitate what we'd been doing in the car park with people walking past. I realised I was inspiring dangerous driving.

Junkyard, it's not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are. If you read my two post I think you may get what I'm trying to get at. The issue is not the gun (yes I know they make killing easier), it's the why are people doing this? We could get fixated on all sorts of things that hurt or kill people but solve the problem we need start looking at the cause. What is happening to people to make them behave in this way? What can we do that stops someone turning into a killer. I still believe the debate is stalled, even trapped in the gun argument. Again I am not against gun control, let's get past it and into what this guy and other the way they are. What's you view on the cause?

I'd say it was extreme not to look past the gun issue.

To many mistakes to edit, sorry.

Another post to make it clear I'm anti-killerspiel rather than anti-gun. I'm quite happy for people to own and use guns under British/French legislation. Hunting, sport shooting, biathlon seem valid reasons for owning guns. Keep them under lock and key at home, and when being transported to places they can be safely used. Keep a register of ownership as for cars. No problem. When I asked a sport shooting mate what he owned he said "Clint's 44 and the Lethal Weapon Beretta". People are influenced by what they read, see, hear and play on the computer.

I does help if the police that deal with permits aren't being pressured/influenced though.

That's interesting I thought both those pistols would be illegal to own at home, wonder what reason for ownership he gave to FAO. Oh bug..r I'm talking about guns now.
Things is could the posser of such hardware become disafected with society enough to do something really stupid. Is anyone checking his mental well being.
Perhaps it's to big an issue to solve so we only try and ban this or that but where do we stop.

Banning guns in the US isn't going to work. There are several factors at work here, some of which have already been discussed here. There's too many in circulation for a ban to be practical; it'd be like banning tomato soup over here

If you ban tomato soup, eventually all of the cans in existence would be eaten or go out of date. It would take a while but it would happen.

Banning guns or stopping the sale would not remove the problem now. But it [i]might[/i] start making a dent in things for 50 or 100 years down the line. That seems a good enough reason to me to make a start.

If you can't ban them, tax them so heavily that they become too expensive for the vast majority. Paint them pink, make licenses expensive. Lots they can do if there is the will. But what Obama is saying now was also said by Bush, and Clinton. Nothing changed then

Well, looks like Obama reads STW!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20776784 ]Obama backs ban on assault weapons[/url]

Junkyard, it's not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are.

I dont disagree with the rest of your post

My view -

Many factors are at work here and none should be overlooked of which the main one is obviously what drives individuals to do this.

Access to lots of guns does not help an dis harmful as probably is not causal but it makes it easier and the death number higher but it is probably not casual - Perhaps a few nutters would not have killed had they had to use a bat or knife who knows?

Access to computer games and violent films does not help but it does not turn anyone into a killer either.

I am sure that most gun owners are reasonable folk but with 300 million guns you are going to have gun related issues more so than if you have 300.

Being where the uk is with strict gun controls and no real culture or gun lore is the best place to be.
How you get America to that? - or more likely a Canadian type level of ownership for hunting and less personal hand guns I have no idea.

How we stop mad folk no idea but I would prefer them to not be able to get hold of guns as easily as they can in the USA

Clinton banned some categories of gun but Bush didn't renew the law or cancelled it or something - Google it. Anyhow Clinton tried to do something but Bush did not.

Got told earlier that the company that makes the weapon chap used (a Bushmaster AR clone) has investment from the Californian Teachers' Union pension fund. They've withdrawn their funding/support - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20770290 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20770290[/url]

I agree with them from an ethical position, despite personally liking their weapons from a technical and professional standpoint, but this does highlight one possible way that America could change. If the manufacture and retail of firearms became financially unsustainable, then there would be no option. That would also fit into their free market ethos.

An alternative could be to continue the status quo, but require NRA membership for all gun owners and then make the NRA financially and legally liable for each and every death as a result of a legally held firearm. That should stop any lobbying pretty damn quickly.

Is it really your view that playing violent computer games is as likely to skew your view or desensitise you to violence as is eating a packet of crisps.

Sure. I've done both, and I'm no more violent than when I started.

Its clear that playing violent computer games will have some affect on you so lets debate what if that is where the debate is going.

FWIW locally someone dug up a corpse froma graveyard, took the head and scrawled 666 on the head and dropped it on his mates door rang the doorbell and ran off. he did this after he saw Omen.

Then he was a nutcase; my point still stands. I've seen The Omen and I've never been tempted to take a spade to the nearest graveyard. If he hadn't seen The Omen, he'd have listened to Iron Maiden and we'd still be having the same discussion. He's bonkers in the nut.

and he was off his head on glue

Bingo. The problem here isn't scary movies, it's Bostick.

Kids ARE impressionable, which means they need to be taught the difference between right and wrong

I think perhaps you don't give kids enough credit.

Banning guns or stopping the sale would not remove the problem now. But it might start making a dent in things for 50 or 100 years down the line. That seems a good enough reason to me to make a start.

By then you'll have a lot of old, unsafe weapons.

he did this after he saw Omen.

Now the guy was a nutter[like that needed saying], and he was off his head on glue

The question is, if he had done the last two things and not watched Omen, would he have done something else equally disturbed? It's not really possible to blame the movie in this case.

So you agree it makes them aggressive but don't agree that it desensitises them to violence?

I think that video games and movies change a child's mood [i]within the parameters of the child's normal behaviour[/i]. I have shot countless baddies in video games, but if you took me outside and beat a gangster to death with a baseball bat in front of me, I'd still be shocked, because I am non-violent and therefore such things are outside the scope of my normal behaviour. I suspect that most kids would feel the same way.

However there are some kids who'd get a thrill out of seeing it, I'm sure - but I don't think playing COD would change that. Because COD or GTA are [b]not real violence[/b]. When real people are present, most people's brains react pretty differently to when a picture of a non-real person is present.

Now there are people who don't have enough empathy to respond to the suffering of others. I would say the perpetrators of most mass killings would fall into that category. I strongly doubt that the playing of COD would actually move someone into that category.

Kids DO indeed need to be taught the difference between right and wrong. Killing real people = wrong, playing COD = ok.

it's not an extreme position to think that guns are inanimate,they are

Have you ever held or shot a gun? Ever seen someone walking around carrying one? Did it have an emotional effect on you? It does on most people. Does holding a tennis racket have a similar effect? I'd suspect not.

Just read this,

how real this is and what effect it has who knows in terms of what we are discussing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment

That's nothing to do with violence, it's Pavlov's Dog. Also, the age range in the experiment is 3-6; I'm not sure as it's fair to compare the responses of preschoolers when we're discussing 18-certificate games.

Put it another way; which are we actually discussing? The effect of the influences of violent media on "impressionable" teenagers, or "impressionable" pre-schoolers? Only, I expect they're different situations and I'm not aware of any pre-schoolers who went on rampages with assault rifles. Exposure to inappropriate material for a given age range is a whole other can of worms.

The thing you have to ask yourselves is what is a mother of two doing owning such a collection and answer the question why? What pleasure, security sense, or logic dictated that she have them in her home.

So it's not just the technical feature of the instrument, it is the glorification of it's use.
A lot of us are probably watching movies in which they feature right now.

So we educate ourselves and our kids from the word go that they (guns) are exciting, give pleasure/thrill/satisfy various human senses, so until we stop doing that as a race, it is never going to end.

Yes, almost certainly movie and video game violence warp the perception of the weak minded, it warps the perception of some stronger minds, were it not the case movies like Rambo, Die Hard, Bond etc wouldn't be the cash earners that they are.

So you either eradicate all that, or accept what we have, risk assess and put more safeguards in place, like armed security in schools.

The US is the home of violent movies and the glamourisation of death and violence, it's actually surprising there are not more incidents like this.

Sure. I've done both, and I'm no more violent than when I started.

I have drunk alcohol and gambled but i am no different so I can only assume that its the same for everyone and we have no problem drinkers or alcoholics - anecdote is not evidence - AGAIN I am not saying playing these games turns you in to a murdering monster.

Its clear that playing violent computer games will have some affect on you so lets debate what if that is where the debate is going.

Is it? Says who? Got any evidence of that?

Are you better than you were when you started there you go an effect 🙄
Shall we discuss what they are now?

Then he was a nutcase; my point still stands. I've seen The Omen and I've never been tempted to take a spade to the nearest graveyard. If he hadn't seen The Omen, he'd have listened to Iron Maiden and we'd still be having the same discussion. He's bonkers in the nut.

Agred but it still remains that and I quote

Now the guy was a nutter[like that needed saying], and he was off his head on glue but it was an interaction between all three.

Now imagine he could get guns and he played violent computer games

All your points stand but we have a murder spree- as to how much influence each was who knows- the easiest to remove would be the guns I presume.

Its not one or the other but an interaction that is my point.

As far as i can see no one is saying anyone other than nutters do this, no one is saying computer games makes you nutters so I dont why you are spending so much time defeating this argument and ignoring the point being made.

The question is, if he had done the last two things and not watched Omen, would he have done something else equally disturbed? It's not really possible to blame the movie in this case.

I am not "blaming it" but its hard to argue it did not influence his behaviour as it did.

Would he have done something if we remove any one of these - in all honesty I dont know but I agree the film is ,probably, the least influential of the three.

Blaming films and video games for violence is an easy cop out and means they don't have to deal with the real, difficult issues.

Humans have been committing acts of violence against one another since the year zero and has nothing to do with video, music, fighting fantasy books, or whatever crutch you like to use to prop up your waifer thin arguments.

Stop burying your head in the sand.

Now imagine he could get guns [s]and he played violent computer games[/s]

Any different?

Ugh, read through all this and all I can say is that you have waved a red flag to gun nut Zulu 11 so he can post stuff in an attempt to deflect you from the main issue.

Some of you need shooting for that. 8)

Edukator criminal profiling is one of the dodgiest professions on the planet in terms of quackery. Psychology isnt exactly one of the most robust disciplines either and is very open to quackery and new fads.

Even if mass killers can be shown to be more likely play violent video games, its a leap of faith to assume this causes their behaviour instead of being a symptom of their underlying pathology. Im sure canucks play just as much cod as yanks so why are they not killing each other to the same degree?

As others have pointed out most of the games were talking about are 18 rated, this is not the age where the idea of right and wrong are formed.....they already have been and if that individual is incapable of differentiatig between reality and video games then they already need to be sectioned.

Its a seriously warped viewpoint that blames games instead of guns for deaths like these.

Cougar - Member

As an aside, I wonder how this discussion will go in a few years time, when games are photorealistic? We're getting there.

It'll go all uncanny valley and the desensitisation/crossing of real/imaginary world boundaries argument will make even less sense.

A report on Europe 1 this morning on a massive increase in assault rifle sales in the US. The journalist was in a gun shop. The boss said sales were over double normal. The client said he was buying that particular gun because it was used by the American army and he used it in COD.

BDs (or bédé =bande dessinée) are popular over here. Drop into a shop and you'll find a huge variety including an erotic section. Presumably clients find drawn images just as erotic as real people. Then there's Lara croft. I don't seee that drawn or computer generated images are any less powerful than film. They are perhaps more powerful as the only limit to behaviour is the artist's imagination.

The Shades of Gray/erotic theme I've chosen as the Yanks are so keen on limiting public access to anything saucy. Watch an under 18 American film and you definitely won't see any sex, just lots of people being gunned down. I bought a DVD with a universal certificiate, after the third or fourth brutal killing I took it out of the machine, cut it up and threw it in the bin. Not family viewing IMO.

The Yanks are scared of sex but glorify killing in every form of media. We are being contaminated - resist. Don't be copycats.

I couldn't get enough shagging after seeing my first porn movie.

The client said he was buying that particular gun because it was used by the American army and he used it in COD.

But at the risk of repeating myself, "so what?" People buy stuff they think is cool; in the US, guns are cool. When 24 was on TV, we sold a boatload of Cisco IP phones (and had a lot of complaints because they didn't have the CTU ringtone). But, repeating myself again, there's a world of difference between buying something that's "cool" and strolling into a primary school with automatic weaponry. (And incidentally, you'll have to point me towards Grand Murder Preschool, I must have missed that game.)

I bought a DVD with a universal certificiate, after the third or fourth brutal killing

Eh? What film that?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Guns are banned in China so the weapon of choice is a knife. When people want to kill, they will find a way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29

Good info here,

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/18/beyond-symbolism-protecting-the-children/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MassadAyoob+%28Massad+Ayoob%29

I think the comparison between the US and Israel with regard to firearms is a little... strained.

Whilst Israel is certainly a paranoid country with a lot of armed civilians, they are, to a certain extent, correct in their paranoia (i.e. that everyone in their area pretty much is out to get them). They have also, pretty much without exception, been trained to use the firearms that they carry to a professional level. By professional I mean military.

The US in comparison seems to have little in the way of formal training for its gun owners, simply allowing a background check and a valid credit card or cash. Some of the gun owner I know in the US I would not want owning a firearm, but that's just my personal opinion. I'm also not saying that every gun owner in the US is a raving nutter survivalist with anti-establishment leanings, just that the few that are, that make the 2nd amendment argument every time someone threatens to take their toys away, make them appear to be.

[url= http://www.zimbio.com/Guillaume+Canet/articles/1103664/Tell+No+One+Ne+le+dis+personne+2006 ]Tell No One[/url] (Ne le dis à Personne), Guillaume Canet.

The Anders Breivik case revealed a lot to those who followed it. A sample size of one you'll retort, Bwaarp. Apart from being a killerspiel gamer he listed his favourite films as Gladiator 300 and Dogville by Lars von Trier, the final scenes of which Lars himself said bore a troubling resemblance to the events on the island.

Comedy gold leaps of logic posters from Brainflex. 😆