April 15, 2008 -
While critics of violent video games regularly seek to blame school shootings on games, an anti-gun violence activist notes that games are popular around the world while school shootings are largely a U.S. phenomenon.As reported by the Guardian, Paul Helmke (left), president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said:
We are seeing more and more of these gun incidents, from a kid waving a gun around right up to the level of mass shootings. Amazingly, no one keeps official statistics at government level about shootings in schools and colleges, but we can see from news reports and research that it's increasing. One of the main reasons is that it is so easy for the wrong people to get hold of guns in this country...
It tears me apart. It's become such a common occurrence and I keep asking why we allow this to happen. I'm not sure that psychological factors or violent movies and video games are any different here than in other countries - the difference is how easy it is to get a gun.
Comments
So did you.
"I would like to think that America has moved on somewhat from it’s early years."
We have, slavery is abolished, and we have hate crime laws and limits on hate speech.
"I don’t think you want to start comparing homicide statistics with the UK and claiming them to be “as the US”."
I don't, but you insist on drawing parallels between your country and mine while the differences in our culture void such parallels.
Violent crime in this country involves a lot of drunken fighting, too, but one of my base arguments is that our cultures are different, and those differences lead to our country being permiated by small arms, and your country having bad teeth.
England: The citizenry has never had the right to own a firearm. The wars faught for your "revolution" in the 1600's were faught with swords and spears by soldiers and knights, not plowshares hammered into swords by the farmers and blacksmiths.
US: The citizenry has from day one had the right to bear arms. It was a basic need, as the citizenry was also the standing army. Our guns were necessary on levels other than defense; lacking a strong agricultural infrastructure, food products were difficult to grow in early america. If our people wanted to eat, they had to go out and shoot something. Denying that this is a function of a gun, and a necessity of the burgeoning US in is cultural ignorance.
The breadth of our country during its growth through the 1800s required that we be able to defend ourselves and hunt as well. The Lawlessness in the American west necessitated private firearm ownership and continued to entrench guns in American culture. Since no rational reason could be found to remove these guns as the west calmed down, because it was still impossible for the marshalls and sherrifs to stop cattle rustling and rape and murder, guns continued to remain in everyone's home. Now fast forward to today. What are we going to do with all the guns, just make them disappear? Even though we proved that removing legal guns increases violent crime in every single American city where guns are banned or heavily restricted, you still seem to think that a countrywide ban on legal arms is going to somehow work out differently this time. It won't. History and empirical evidence is on my side. I'm not exactly sure what you're basing your argument on anymore, mostly that guns = violence, it seems, and I can prove otherwise even in your country.
This is what confuses me the most:
"TheStripe:
“Shady seems to have a limited understanding of constitutional history and appears to like to set up straw men, just like you.”
written just after…
“@NaiveBlack”
Strawman arguments are bad, but Ad Hominem ones are fine?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, I've attempted to keep Ad Hominem attacks in the margins while trying to make valid points, and I also fail to see where I've been setting up straw men. I disagree with shady and a lot of his tactics, but I'm still not sure what you're trying to say there, other than continuing your own Ad Hominem attack on American culture.
Because banning guns in the united states has resulted in each and every case a dramatic increase in violent crimes, we should not ban guns.
Argue that. Keep in mind that WHY this statistical correlation occurs is irrelevant, just that it does occur every time. I've even attempted multiple times to explain why, even though that's not necessary for the integrity of my argument. When you can explain why we should ban guns (or regulate them, if you're mincing words) even though it makes our violent crime rise, I'll yeild to your awesome logical prowress.
"I didn’t say I wasn’t making Ad Hominem attacks, I just said they were in no way the bulk of my argument. You just made another whole post with nothing but an ad hominem attack."
So what you are doing in a childlike way is shouting "You're naive" and when someone tells you to stop making personal comments you complain that "You're making personal comments too by saying I'm making personal comments".
Your logic here, as with you arguments over links with guns to violence, fails.
I think however in closing that this exchange between me and you sums up nicely your opinions:-
Chuma said: “You clearly seem to think that all criminals have guns and are out to kill people and your only line of defense is to have a gun. ”
TheStripe said: “This is true.”
And hopefully anyone reading will feel the same way I do about that sentiment.
Like what? What is a reasonable deterrent to violent criminals that would continue to work in the face of a gun ban? What? Everyone says "You don't need guns to defend against armed criminals," but, if they even bother to provide them, their alternatives are proven to not work against attackers armed with firearms.
Good job bowing out before the dance is over.
It's no fun dancing with someone with 2 left feet. Consider me out too.
of COURSE i said causation in my April 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am post…
beacuse i WAS saying there was a causal link between guns and being shot.
when i said
''“err.. there is a ‘correlation’ between shark attacks and ice cream sales.”
i was making you look like an idiot (the point went right over your head) beacuse i was showing that the correlations you keep putting forward arent hard evidence of anything. The example above is a correlation perfectly valid but everyone knows (apart from yourself) that increasing ice cream sales dont CAUSE shark attacks. *sigh* i REALLY am done this time its like debating with a small child playing a broken record , and misunderstanding absolutely everything that is said.
And why does everyone KEEP talking about bans over and over. all i was talking about was SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL (ive used that phrase several times). Gee what was i thinking doing something that in its nature is defined as 'sensible' would be crazy for some of you.
"Some of you really don’t understand what Correlation and Causation means. This is something I had hoped EVERYONE woudl have learned from Jack Thompson’s own ignorance of the two, but apparently not.
Correlation is merely that two events increase and decrease with one another. They can be completely independant events but happen to do this.
Causation is where one event CAUSES the other event to occur and thus the increase in one CAUSES the increase in another."
Yes, I know, and if you actually read my posts, then you will notice that I have never claimed otherwise, in fact I said exactly this...
Though correlations should still be stated because they do have some scientific value, but they certainly aren't proof...
@chuma
"Let’s take Novablacks very fine example of Correlation. Shark attacks go up as Icecream sales go up. Does that mean the presence of icecream causes sharks to go mad? NO. What happens is that the SUN comes out in the summer, people go to the beach, swim lots and eat icecream. More swimmers and warmer seas brings in sharks. Warmer weather also means that people enjoy cooling down with an icecream."
The reason I got a bit mad at that statement wasn't because it was incorrect, but because I was saying exactly that, and the one time I admitted that correlations have scientific value he tried to make me look like an ignorant person by stating that which I have said through most of my posts...
Which is why my first response to this was, Thank you for explaining MY point to me...
@chuma
"What Novablack is saying with regards to guns and shootings is true. It is a causal link. If noone in the US had guns at all, even criminals, there would be no shootings because there is nothing to shoot bullets with. The presense of guns means there is more shootings. That is causal. Period."
I have agreed through this whole discussion that guns have a causal relationship with shooting guns... which I have argued is neither here nor there in terms of whether or not to control them or not, cause 99.9999% of the time they aren't fired to kill people(if the statistic above by illspirit is accurate...)
However Novablack(see my last response to him) argued about guns having a causal relationship with violence(even when not related to guns). That is simply not true and an insane assumption if the facts are reviewed....
@chuma
"Please try and understand and learn the difference. This doesn’t have to change your viewpoint if you feel you want guns so badly for other reasons, but don’t argue from ignorance."
Please read my posts carefully as you seem to have misunderstood them...
@chuma
"Some of you would like to argue that if EVERYONE had guns, they would cancel each other out."
They wouldn't cancel each other out, but if it is only criminals vs everyone, then the everyone option is by far the better one.
@chuma
"I’ll throw out my argument here in all it’s glory. You can disagree with it if you want, but I’m not about to change my position for the reasons given below:-
1.Criminals are seldom out to kill people for killing sake.
2.These are usually psychopaths or gang members."
1. I have agreed with this the whole time, I have merely stated that there are still many that do kill, and if there are witnesses, they prefer to not have them around any more...
2. Which still number in at least hundreds of thousands...
@chuma
"If we set these people aside because they are going to try and get hold of weapons anyhow, and concentrate on other crimes that can lead to murder like theft, muggings and burglery.
1.If they encounter the person who owns the property with no weapons, then they can try to intimidate or attack the civilian in order to get the posessions, but runs the risk of being outmuscled."
1. In such a fighting match, the civilians has the risk of being seriously injured and would have had far better chance with some sort of a weapon against the unarmed criminal. In fact like in 85% of the times when a gun is used for self defense, it is likely that merely seeing a gun in the hands of a civilian would make this criminal escape...
@chuma
"2.If they take a knife they can usually intimidate people into submission that way. It is a close-range weapon however, but most right-minded people wont want to risk being stabbed for the sake of an item or money. "
2. Many burglaries occur in poor neighborhoods, so the money that a criminal steals may mean that you and your children will not eat for a while... Which means defending yourself is often(please don't start saying that I said always because often means many times it doesn't even mean most times) a better option, but you are correct, most unarmed civilians will simply let the criminal take what he wants. Then there is a chance that the criminal doesn't like witnesses, which is not very high but higher then you seem to believe it to be. Also if the civilians had a weapon like a gun, the criminal would likely make a quick escape... or be one of the 15% of successful defenses were a civilian does shoot the criminal.
@chuma
"3.If the civilian has a knife too to make another stand off, the criminal has either a choice to attack them and stab them to get the goods or leave."
I agree, but if the civilian had a gun, then don't you think he would be better off in this scenario?
All of the last 3 options would have a better ending for a civilian with a gun... because these civilians could be killed without it, since as you point out in 2 of these, they do struggle with a criminal and in number 2 there is still some chance of them getting killed... and will mostly not be killed if they have a firearm...
@chuma
"4.Which leaves the criminal having a gun. Guns are distance weapons so pointing it at someone from across the room has the same threat as under their chin. Usually the sight of a gun will mean the civilian will give up their posessions. "
4. Ok, I also agree, but if the criminal was stupid enough to not wear a mask, he will not be very happy in letting a witness go free when he is done... also there is the chance that the civilian is frozen in fear of the burglar and doesn't respond to his commands to hand over his things(how does that usually end?) and there is a chance that the civilian goes after the gunman anyway, but without a weapon his chances aren't very good(unless he is in close range).
@chuma
"5.If the civilian has a gun however, what does it come down to? Ultimately it comes down to the will of the two people. If the criminal wants the posessions badly enough, their ONLY choice is to pull the trigger. The presence of the other gun has removed any other option. Of course there will also be times where if a civilian has a gun the criminal will decide not to chance it and run off."
5. I also agree, but why do you think this to be a far far worse option then 4? Most criminals are less trained in the use of guns then many civilians... also the chance of the criminal running off is much higher then you think...
The criminal has two problems, if he wins, then the cops will have been alerted and he will likely go to prison for a long time, maybe even get the death penalty... if the civilian wins, then he also doesn't do to well... Escape would be the best option for the criminal in this situation...
Also some criminals use fake guns which would make this a very short gun fight...
@chuma
"As I take it, the argument that others here are using is that if the criminal has a gun and the civilian doesn’t have one, they are likely to shoot them. I disagree with this position entirely. I believe having a gun puts any motivated criminal in a position to HAVE to kill to take posessions and thus increases the likelihood of murders taking place."
I have never argued this. NEVER.
and I agree about the increased chance of a struggle, though the chance of them succeeding in the murder is far far lower than it otherwise would be...
I have argued that there is a chance that the criminal doesn't like witnesses... also many home invasions are for the purpose of rape... so it may not be a deadly encounter but it may be one you want to be protected against...
@chuma
"Yes, my way will mean there might be more people who have stuff successfully stolen from them that police have to follow up. I personally think that is preferable to having more people shot and killed."
Where is the time when a civilian has a bat or a knife against a gun???
I would think this to have the highest casualty rate...
Also if fewer criminals die in robbery attempts then the number of robbers rises drastically, which would increase the number of deaths as well...
and if we don't count the gangbangers and drug lords, then the stats are on my side, since without them home invasions are ten times less likely here in the states then UK. Why its like criminals don't like getting shot at or something...
IF what you suggest is true and it is mostly civilians getting killed and submitting than we would have a far greater amount of home invasion wouldn't we?
I think that you are simply wrong on this point, the number of civilians that go uninjured and/or survive robberies and home invasions increases with guns even though there maybe a shoot out...
@chuma
"So there we go, thats my thoughts - have at them. I won’t bother to respond any more as I have said this as concisely as I can possibly say it and someone asserting “I will just shoot the criminal first” isn’t going to make me believe that you can’t be taken by surprise or beaten to the quick. But if you guys carry guns and are ever faced with a criminal with a gun, I wish you good luck. Personally, I will be handing over my wallet and trusting in the police. My life isn’t worth X amount of money."
I have already mentioned knowing a guy who went to the shooting range several times and then single handedly fought off 5 hardcore criminals two of which were convicted of murder before and while he was fine, only 3 criminals got out of the house, and one of them died from injuries later on... all the criminals were armed, not sure if they all had guns but several did... I admit that something like this is rare(only 5% of the 1 million successful defenses with a gun result with a dead criminal and not many of those have five criminals involved), but since only a local paper that no one reads reported that he had a gun, we wouldn't know even if this happened every day...
I would also like to mention that my friends and I were attacked once on the street by two guys with knifes, my friend had a concealed gun and he used it... We were ALL fine... a warning shot was more than enough... The criminals were arrested for attempted armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon when the cops came... No one at all reported on that one...
That isn't how it will always happen but it happens far more than enough to justify owning a gun...
Good luck too you too, I hope you don't see the criminals face and that he isn't on drugs or something...
@chuma
"2) You assume that the criminal is willing to shoot another human being.
That assumption is made for the benefit of TheStripe and Shady8x who believe this to be the case for all criminals. Want proof? Scroll up!"
I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. EVER.
@chuma
""5) You make the faulty assumption that we’re only defending ourselves from murder."
If you aren’t defending yourself from just murder then you are at fault for using your weapon in the eyes of the law. So yes, I made the assumption you weren’t a criminal yourself…"
What if it's a few guys with bats that promise that they will only break a few bones???
By law you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force from any serious physical injury also you can defend your property and other people. Well the threat has to be imminent.
Wait it's illegal in GREAT Britain to protect yourself from being raped with a gun even if you passed the ridiculous checks for gun ownership and do own a gun!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? is the same true for a knife?????
WOW, that explains a lot actually...
Thompson? This is GAMING!
I don't think blaming guns for someones stupid actions is so bad. For instance, if guns were not easily available in USA then a large amount of these school shootings just wouldn't have happened. American gun law is stupid at best.
And I have no intention of arguing with non-americans over the merits of the constitution. If you feel that guns should be controlled, that's no better than saying speech should be controlled. 1st and 2nd amendment ftw!
Finger-pointing is one form of self-preservation, part of an animal's instinct that demands that the organism survives regardless of what happens to everyone else.
Agreed.I mean look at Japan they don't have any guns (they are illegal!) and arguably they are much more technologically advanced than any other country.
@ gweedo
Regardless of what you think about guns, what this is about is principle. If he could use such a convention to place even more restrictions on guns (that would be unconstitutional, but what politician cares about that anyway these days), that would justify him or someone else when they try to limit video games. I stand by Yuki, stupid people are stupid people, and they must be blamed for their actions. If guns did not enable them to hurt or kill, something else would have. I am sure they would have used sticks and stones if they had to.
For those of you a little too dense to break from the 'Guns are Evil' paradigm...
Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons.
Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons.
Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons.
I guess.. we could always disarm and become a population of victims.
Dare I ponder the effects of imperfect chemical interference within the brain?
I don't know about that. I find it hard to place him on the same level of hate and ire that JT has for video games, and he does make a point. It is very easy to get a gun in this country. While I still believe in the 2nd amendment right to bare arms, I think at times we take it for granted. I can understand a family buying a hand gun, or maybe even a shot gun(though this may be pushing it), for defending the home in an emergency, but you don't need anything more then that to do so. Anything else is overkill. Plus guns and video games are two very different things. Video games cant kill you if handled incorrectly or by a psychopath, however a gun can kill you regardless of who is holding it.
Aside from your argument being absolutely impossible to prove (Walmart)... I still wonder how you plan to protect people from intent.
What other encroachments on liberty would the US Government consider if we didn't have weapons to up rise against them? It's the ultimate checks and balances system, IMO. Just look at the shit they are doing now.
Alright, let's take a look at these major shootings. Most of them are in schools, at least one has been in a Post Office, there was at least one in a mall... These are all "Gun Free Zones," where it is illegal to carry a gun of any type. So, people are defenceless to react, and people will freeze up anyway. Solution? Let the people have concealed guns. The word of the day here is "Deterrance."
Ever wonder why the US never just nuked the USSR during the Cold War, or vice versa? If one launched nukes at the other, the other would respond in full force. The ever-famous "If I go down, I'm taking you with me" clause. In fact, there's a movie with a young Mathew Broderick called "Wargames" (maybe it's two words, I don't know) that brought up that very same topic.
Anyway, back to the point, these shootings take place in locations where people are overpowered by the presence of even a single gun. They know that, they know they can "get away" with it. Now, what if they knew there was opposition? What if they knew that if they pulled out their gun, they had a good chance of getting shot themselves? They'd be less likely. They'd be afraid.
Penn & Teller brought this up on an episode of their show "Bullshit!" where they used a very simple example. Penn's hypothetical law: give every woman a handgun. It's their choice to take it, and their own choice to carry it. In the end of this hypothetical situation, about 50% of the women would take, and carry, the pistol given to them. Now, if you were looking to rape a woman, and you know that there's a 50% chance she's packing heat, would you take the chance?
... But, hey, it's politics. It's all about playing the blame game, saying false statements that can't be held against you, and being way behind the majority of the public (for example, the majority of America now supports the Roe v. Wade decision, while lawmakers are still trying to oppose that).
Or maybe they're just nuts.
I do know that guns, while making these murders easier, aren't really the problem. In my region, taking days off from school for three days of Deer Season is an excused absense. Yet no one has brought their shotgun to school and blown everyone away.
I would much rather people have just intent, rather than intent and a loaded firearm.
Thank God... Excellent points. These gamers have it right on pretty much everything I've seen discussed here.. but not this.
Please enjoy being a slave to the state, a victim to criminals, and an unfit protector of your family. =D
Also, Illinois has by far the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but that didn't stop a mentally insane person from shooting up NIU. Keyword being insane.
My word sir, a bold statement! Be careful I can already see the shit storm brewing on the horizon.
As for the issue it is really easy to blame something like a gun when A) the act is so horrible it is almost unbelievable that the one person could be responsible, it makes it tolerable when you can say "It would not have happened if..." B) It fits your agenda (this is not say the guy is a JT level douche but he does have an agenda).
You are far more likely to be killed by an incompetent police officer than you are in a school shooting.
Much like how you are more likely to be killed in a tornado than killed in a terrorist attack, but we spend far more money on Terrorism prevention than enforcing building codes.
Its all about fear mongering on the part of politicians and pundits.
I think that American gun law is daft, and should be changed, but too many people think that a 500 year old document shouldn't be amended, which is just as daft as your countries gun laws.
In my country, UK we have much tighter restrictions on guns, but I could still get one if I really wanted. But that doesn't alter the fact that USA has had crap loads more school shootings than any other country.
Gun availability is not to blame, that i do agree, but you cant argue that it isn't a contributing factor
There is no one solution that will prevent future events.
More/less gun availability, more/less censorship in any or all forms of media, more/less access to various specific religious beliefs, stronger/less strict punishment/security in or out of schools, better mental health services, better control over abuse (verbal, mental, physical, sexual) and how it is handled in society as well as in specific locations such as schools, and so on. It's difficult to focus on one solution for all situations but, frankly, those who do very much appear to be more interested in their own agendas than making things better.
If, however, we examine each situation and the complexity of those situations, we can see that some situations have more than one issue that needs to be addressed. Not simply for that specific case but for any future situations. And we have to be prepared for the fact that there are many situations which have a great many potential solutions. And not all situations will be solvable by the same solutions type of solution. And the solutions themselves may create their own problems as well. We must consider those facts as well.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Umm, so the research keeps statistics while the government doesn't? Or are you just trying to claim that increased coverage equates to increased incidents.
Will I am an American and proud of it. Over here in the states we take the Bill of Rights very seriously and do not mess with it lightly we've got tons of organizations dedicated to just about every part of it. Americans would not want the UK's tight gun laws just as we would not want your tight speech laws.
Why is no one addressing the state of mental health care?
Now seriously:
Everyone should have a gun? That would keep things peaceful? Come on! Does anyone with more than two neurons actually believe that? Was the Wild West a peaceful place?
Having guns everywhere will just have people itching to be the first to pull the trigger in fear of the next guy.
You should not let anyone have a gun, just like you shouldn't have anyone drive a car or perform brain surgery.
You have no idea what the Wild West was like, do you? There was LITTLE to NO law enforcement. The people had to take the law into their own hands or criminals would just roll over them. The guns were used not just to defend, but to hunt. If you came into bar, gun drawn, you would have a sawed-off shotgun in your face and a pistol at the back of your head, and you would be told to leave.