Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[Ravi]

How many war trophies that had been smuggled back from WWII do you think were in circulation during this period? I'm guessing that with enough determination and a nudge in the right direction, one of these kids could've layed their hands on a sub-machine gun that'd been brought back from Europe. Grenades, too. And pipe bombs aren't that difficult to make. Where there's a will there's a way. Except back then the will to commit school massacres appears to have been conspicuously absent.

I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,

Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. Either way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.

No they weren't. In fact, in 1934 the US passed a law making anyone that possessed one register it with the federal government.

Where are they now?

 

[Swagger]

Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.

I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.

Pure supposition.

Either way, many of the war trophies brought back from the campaign in Europe could hold over 30 rounds. MP40s, Sten guns and Thompson submachine guns were all in circulation, and could each hold over 30 rounds. Any of them would've had a devastating effect if emptied into a packed classroom.

Let's see your evidence that these weapons were in circulation to the extent you seem to believe they were and address the question of where the ammo came from to use them once in the US.

Look up the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act (yet to be passed, if memory serves). They wouldn't have drafted it if they didn't think that American servicemen didn't smuggle weapons back from the war.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.

Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP. They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.

I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.

And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.

Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD

Meanwhile gun manufactures fight tooth and nail over every single proposed regulation LOL

 

[Koios]

Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.

Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP. They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.

I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.

And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.

Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD

Meanwhile gun manufactures fight tooth and nail over every single proposed regulation LOL

That's merely an attempt by the industry to avoid actual regulations of their content, for non adults. Should pornography, tabacco and alcohol be similarly self "regulated?" How would that work out? (tip: poorly.)

 

[Some Guy]

Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP. They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.

I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.

And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.

Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD

I agree. TV and video games have become acceptable parenting stand-ins for far too many people in the U.S. It's a lot easier to plop the kid down in front of a TV with a controller then it is to play a game with them. As it is with just about everything, video games for kids should be played in moderation. And of course, parents need to be diligent in what their kids are playing, watching, etc.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I've never seen any statistics that claim that many sub-machine guns were brought to the US after the war. If they were, where are they now? And where would one, back then, get the ammo for them? Not at Walmart,

Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. Either way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.

No they weren't. In fact, in 1934 the US passed a law making anyone that possessed one register it with the federal government.

Where are they now?

There are quite a few still around, in private collections. I would LOVE to have one, but it would cost me around $20K and my wife.

US manufactures produced 1.5 MILLION of them during WWII Ravi, I assure you some of them found their way back to this country after the war.

But here is the thing, his argument is irrelevant because NO ONE is saying the gun itself is the cause of these types of shootings. But obviously shootings can't happen without guns. That is the part they ignore.

 

[Foxfyre]

Politely requesting that we return this thread to the topic please. There are a gazillion threads out there dealing with gun control and I'm pretty sure we can agree that fire power is not the motivation behind these mass killings of innocents and I would really appreciate this not being derailed into another gun control thread.

I would like to refocus the discussion on the topic of whether exposure to gratuitous violence in media, music, video games etc. is an important component of the mass killings of innocents or is otherwise a negative force in our society.

To recap.

The theory is that the young person--and it has always been a young person who commits these senseless acts in recent decades--is a little off mentally and may or may not have feelings of inadequacy, has been bullied, has been poorly parented, or otherwise is socially stressed etc. etc. etc.

So he watches violent movies and television programs in which the lawless one is the hero, a sympathetic figure, and one to be admired. He listens to music that glorifies and justifies violence. And he plays endless video games in which the definition of success and winning is determined by how much death and mayhem can be accomplished.

Admittedly the vast majority of young people exposed to these same things do not commit violence upon others. And I don't KNOW whether that is a factor in the plethora of such acts in recent decades. But though there have always been murders of opportunity (organized crime, gangs, etc.) and of passion or anger, these mass murders of innocents are a new phenomenon in our culture. Yes they are rare in the great scheme of things, but when it happens the results are tragic as we have seen again and again.

So the question remains. Is the graphic, extreme, gratuitious violence that seems to have become a component of our culture a healthy thing? If it can drive a mentally unbalanced individual off the edge, is it really okay for others? Or does it have potential to affect society in negative ways whether or not it results in a Sandy Hook or other such tragedy?

 

[Ravi]

Doesn't mean they weren't brought back. Either way, the Thompson submachine gun was widely available. Except no-one emptied one into a classroom.

No they weren't. In fact, in 1934 the US passed a law making anyone that possessed one register it with the federal government.

Where are they now?

There are quite a few still around, in private collections. I would LOVE to have one, but it would cost me around $20K and my wife.

US manufactures produced 1.5 MILLION of them during WWII Ravi, I assure you some of them found their way back to this country after the war.

But here is the thing, his argument is irrelevant because NO ONE is saying the gun itself is the cause of these types of shootings. But obviously shootings can't happen without guns. That is the part they ignore.

From what I've read they became collector's items after the war and kept by private collectors. I've not seen any evidence that they were out in the general population since gangster times.

But you are correct, the shootings can't happen without guns.

 

[Foxfyre]

Refocus on topic please.

 

[JustTheFacts]

No; regulate both, so the benefits are not outweighed by the negative aspects.

Videogames are already self regulated. Video game manufactures voluntarily send their video games in for rating by the ERBP. They have no control over if parents allow their children to play such games despite the big fucking M for mature audiences only printed on the box or not.

I've played Call of Duty and other games online and it is SHOCKING how many little kids are playing these games, and you know they are little kids because they have headsets on and are cursing like sailors nonstop while shooting people.

And you can't blame any of the companies for allowing kids online either, because if they know you are underage they won't let you sign up and if you get reported for being underage they will ban you from playing online.

Kids playing video games they ought not be playing falls 100% square on parents. PERIOD

Meanwhile gun manufactures fight tooth and nail over every single proposed regulation LOL

That's merely an attempt by the industry to avoid actual regulations of their content, for non adults. Should pornography, tabacco and alcohol be similarly self "regulated?" How would that work out? (tip: poorly.)

Do what? So you want to introduce the government into a system that works as designed?

Go to Wal Mart and notice the big square on the front of the box, you can't miss it, looks something like this

with different categories for who the game is rated for.

Now pick one with the above rating of M and give it to your child to take to the register and buy. They will be denied.

The system works, NO system can prevent an idiotic adult from buying a child such a game though.

My 7 year old has a Wii, and a Nexus 7, she only has games that I have allowed her to have.

The ratings are for educating parents to the content of the games as much as they are for preventing children from buying the game themselves. It's not the fact that it's voluntary regulation's fault that may parents ignore the ratings.

Government regulation would not accomplish what you think it would accomplish in this case.

 

[eflatminor]

Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.

Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.

Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.

Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...

Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.

I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.

That would be another false assumption. Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today. Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.

You've also wrong about the "rate of fire". Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns. Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.

I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.

 

[eflatminor]

Just disputing his rose colored glasses view of gun fatalities in schools in the olden days.

Maybe if they had bigger weapons back then they would have done more, maybe not.

Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.

Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...

Regardless of that, I'm sure you got my point.

No, that would not be the case. You seem to imply that advances in firearm technology is somehow related to the frequency and/or severity of mass killings. That's not the case. I assure you, a crazy guy could kill just as many people with a 50+ year old firearm as a modern one.

I point this out to demonstrate that the problem of mass killings is a problem of people doing evil acts, not the tool used to carry out that crime.

 

[eflatminor]

Politely requesting that we return this thread to the topic please. There are a gazillion threads out there dealing with gun control and I'm pretty sure we can agree that fire power is not the motivation behind these mass killings of innocents and I would really appreciate this not being derailed into another gun control thread.

I would like to refocus the discussion on the topic of whether exposure to gratuitous violence in media, music, video games etc. is an important component of the mass killings of innocents or is otherwise a negative force in our society.

Okay.

I do not believe that's the case. I find no empirical evidence to suggest a connection between violent entertainment and mass killings. In fact, there is more evidence to suggest violent games results in less violent acts as we see with more pornography resulting in less rape.

So the question remains. Is the graphic, extreme, gratuitious violence that seems to have become a component of our culture a healthy thing?

It may be. No evidence exists to suggest it's an unhealthy thing.

If it can drive a mentally unbalanced individual off the edge, is it really okay for others?

I would argue it is impossible to know what drives a crazy person to do crazy things. Anything can set them off. It's why we call them crazy.

Or does it have potential to affect society in negative ways whether or not it results in a Sandy Hook or other such tragedy?

I see no evidence of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you read the piece re the studies that have been done eflat? You aren't buying their conclusions?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Umm, what "bigger weapons" are your referring to that are around today that were not then? Hint: Today's firearms are no "bigger" than those 50 years ago. In fact, the rounds used in an AR platform and most all firearms are far SMALLER than the calibers we tended to use years ago. This has to do with improvements in gun powder and projectile technology, which tended to negate the need for larger calibers.

Just thought you'd appreciate the facts, not having an agenda and all...

Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.

I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.

That would be another false assumption. Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today. Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.

You've also wrong about the "rate of fire". Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns. Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.

I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.

How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.

The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.

As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.

 

[Koios]

Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.

I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.

That would be another false assumption. Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today. Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.

You've also wrong about the "rate of fire". Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns. Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.

I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.

How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.

The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.

As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.

Cool!!! What then are the chemical changes in the shell that propels the bullet center-of-badguy-mass-ward?

And while you're at it, the comparative drag coefficients on 9mm vs. .358 slugs, using light, normal or heavy loads?

Thanks in advance.

 

[JustTheFacts]

That would be another false assumption. Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today. Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.

You've also wrong about the "rate of fire". Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns. Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.

I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.

How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.

The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.

As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.

Cool!!! What then are the chemical changes in the shell that propels the bullet center-of-badguy-mass-ward?

And while you're at it, the comparative drag coefficients on 9mm vs. .358 slugs, using light, normal or heavy loads?

Thanks in advance.

What does that have to do with the thread or whether guns are dangerous, and what's more at most posting the answers to the questions you posed would prove that I could Google the answers if I didn't already know, you would have no idea how I came about my answers.

I say it again, ones comparative knowledge of guns has nothing to do with whether guns are dangerous or not. I the wrong hands of course they are dangerous, and that is all anyone in this forum (I won't count forums outside the clean zone b/c well there are some crazy posters out there) is saying. Have you seen Ravi post "get them guns" or anything of the sort? Of course you have not.

Sane people advocate keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous whether they have a gun or not. Denying that a gun would make those people even MORE dangerous than they were without is just denying the obvious.

It's like denying the sky is blue b/c you don't like the color blue.

 

[eflatminor]

Clearly Ravi meant bigger as in higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire. Not physically bigger.

I rank that up there with arguing over the definition of magazine versus clip. It serves no purpose. One doesn't have to know all the nomenclature and stats of certain weapons to know that some weapons are more efficient at killing than others.

That would be another false assumption. Firearms in the past 100 years has no less "ammo capacity" than we have today. Firearms in the past held just as many rounds in their magazines, clips, or belts as they do today.

You've also wrong about the "rate of fire". Firearms in the past did not have a lower rate of fire, unless of course you're claiming we have problem with full auto machine guns. Otherwise, it's one pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, just as it's always been.

I think it would serve you well, and the case you're attempting to make, to educate yourself on actual firearm technology before you attack it.

How can I be wrong, when I made no argument? I merely clarified what I felt Ravi meant.

The only real argument I made in the post you declared I was wrong in was the argument that attacking people who know less about firearms than you do and invalidating their opinions is wrong, and you turned right around and did it again.

As for weapons themselves, I daresay I have as much or more knowledge about them as you or anyone else on the board. That does not make my OPINION about their inherent danger , or lack therof any more valid than Ravi's or anyone''s.

I understand your point but I would draw a distinction. I think a lack of knowledge about a subject does render an opinion on that subject potentially less than valid. I believe that was the case when the point Ravi was trying to make was based on a false assumption. Sure, it's possible someone ignorant on a subject can make a valid point about that subject, but I do not believe that was the case here.

Nevertheless, I'll resist attempting to educate those unfamiliar with firearms unless the point they're trying to make is based on a faulty assumption. In other words, I get what you're saying. I've been guilty of correcting the "clip / magazine" confusion when that really had nothing to do with the point at hand. My bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

One more time politely requesting folks to take the gun debate to a gun thread. This is not the thread for that. Please. Pretty please?

Okay re those studies and the controversy as to whether violence in the media, music, and video games is harmful to kids, I am the first to be skeptical of many of the studies on lots of controversial things whether that is politics or economics or religion or anthropological global warming or why marriages break up, etc. etc. etc. But that doesn't mean all studies are irrelevant either.

Just ran across this article today that emphasizes the controversy we have here:

Excerpt:

As a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School and the director of residency training for child and adolescent psychiatry at two major Massachusetts hospitals, Eugene Beresin is well-versed in the academic literature regarding how media violence can adversely impact children and adolescents.

"There are over 3,000 studies that link violence in movies (and) television with an impact on kids and adolescents," Beresin said in a recent interview. "But I think it's unclear from the literature that violence on television or movies will have a detrimental impact on every child. … We don't know which kids are vulnerable."

Media violence 'unchained': Multiple studies show kids are adversely affected by violence in entertainment, news | Deseret News

 

[eflatminor]

Did you read the piece re the studies that have been done eflat? You aren't buying their conclusions?

I'm not sure if I've seen them. I didn't see any links in the original post. If you'd direct me to the studies you're talking about, I'll read them with an open mind.