Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

so the us goverment is blaming video games again for the mass shootings


Quinn_flower

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Svip said:

@Saggy, I appreciate the long post, but you really didn't have to.  You convinced me pretty much in the first paragraph.  In fact, your reference to Mafia-style killings in the 1930s made me wonder whether the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre would count as a mass shooting.  After all, 7 people were killed, although there was at least 4 perpetrators.  (But mass shootings are not limited to lone shooters, as far as I know.)

Yeahh I rambled a bit.  I have a problem with brevity. 

 

I was also wondering how the mafia killings would work into a "mass shooting" style of definition.  From what I've read, there were only a few incidents where more than 1 or 2 people were shot and killed.  Beyond that, I think the intent matters, because with mafia killings it was basically a plain and simple assassination for whatever motives organized crime would have to do that, but seems like people just got in the way.  For example, how different would it be if the shooter's goals was to hit bystanders instead of avoid them.

 

Statistics are one thing, but there is a very clear public perception that the U.S. is inundated with shootings possessing these criteria...

 

A dozen or multiple dozens of fatalities

An intent to kill as many people as possible

Was conducted using a semi-automatic, intermediate or large caliber, high round-capacity weapon

 

I do see a definite distinction between the types of shootings collated into studies, or reported on day after day by media outlets, and the types of shootings where the killer was intent on amassing as many casualties as they could, and where that figure ultimately results in numbers that are in magnitudes of order greater than other multiple-fatality shootings.  A multiple-fatality gang shooting where 5 people die is not similar at all, in intent, to something like the Orlando night-club shooting where a homophobic individual kills 50 in an attempt to kill as many as he can.

 

I think part of the problem with developing research methodolgy, as well as understanding public perception, is where to decide what number of casualties is significant.  A singular killing is significant enough.  So you might say 5 people being killed as a "mass" when compared to one death.  However, what do you then call a shooting where 50 people die?  There needs to be recognition that the fatality numbers in shootings where the shooter intends to kill as many as possible are reaching much higher echelons than all other typical multiple-fatality shootings.

 

I would propose considering one umbrella group of "multiple fatality shootings" which covers any shooting where 2-5 people die.  You then consider any shooting whose casualty figure is ten times higher than 2-5 ( so 20-50 ) as being on a higher echelon, let's say "massive fatality shooting".  Of course 20 is more in the median range in terms of how high the casualty figures in these attacks have reached, so there needs to be a tolerance in there, let's say +/- 5-10 .  So 15-55+ fatalities (or 10-65)  would fall into that "massive fatality" category and be reasonably distinct enough from other "multiple fatality" shootings that the statistics could get a better sense of it.  What could be deduced as the intent of the shooting would then be used to determine how much tolerance to apply to the lower bounds, so that a drive-by shooting that killed even 10 people would be a "multiple fatality homicide" but a disgruntled worker who kills the same number of people would be a "massive fatality homicide".  The reason being, that of the 10 that died in the hypothetical drive-by, many are often bystanders, or associates simply present among one or two intended targets.  In the disgruntled worker hypothetical, the intent was to kill anybody and everybody the shooter came into contact with.

 

Following that type of complex metric, we could actually track and define different types of shootings according to the average person's sensibilities and not a rigid, simple metric like body count alone.  By that complex metric, I would have to say that the mafia killings are distinct from the type of shoot-everyone-you-see "massive fatality" shootings we've had a lot of lately.

 

I also wonder if the action we took to curtail the tommy gun's popularity would work in the same way to curtail this recent trend of "massive fatality" shootings.  That would kind of rely on data showing that such "massive fatality" shootings were in fact spiking due to a particular weapon or style of weapon.  My hunch is that the closeness in timing between "massive fatality" shootings becoming a trend, and the assault weapons ban being lifted, isn't just coincidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dryspace

 

Further from original point. In the part I quoted, you attempted to equalize Mass Shootings with School Shootings, as if they were interchangeable, so that your point could continue to be valid. You've been doing it from the start, slightly changing the definition of what a mass shooting is every time sivis questioned it or showed you wrong. That's what moving the goalposts mean: redefining an argument every time you are challenged, so that it can not be countered by the adversary. Most famous example are antivaxxers and their logic; first Thimerosal isn't safe. Then thimerosal is removed, but other vaccine components aren't safe. Then  other components are proven safe, but vaccine injury still exists. Then "vaccine injury" is explained, but doctors are out to make you sick. Then it is shown that doctors aren't out to make you sick, but it's all a conspiracy and you can't trust anyone, thus vaccines cause autism and are bad. 

 

They keep going further and further so that they can maintain that they are right and their argument is true, coming to a point where it can't technically be challenged because it's a false premise.

 

Quote

I also wonder if the action we took to curtail the tommy gun's popularity would work in the same way to curtail this recent trend of "massive fatality" shootings.  That would kind of rely on data showing that such "massive fatality" shootings were in fact spiking due to a particular weapon or style of weapon.  My hunch is that the closeness in timing between "massive fatality" shootings becoming a trend, and the assault weapons ban being lifted, isn't just coincidence.

This is an interesting point, though. The Tommy Gun was a landmark in gun control, leading to legislation to tax it and require registration, likely curtailing its use by non-criminals and making access to it more difficult. Eventually gangsters abandoned it once the gangland period of the mafia was over, and they became more "professional" in their dealings.

 

But then the provisions were later revoked in 1968, because it would criminalize owners who tried to register weapons that were illegal in their state. Surely they could have come up with an alternative to that, but I guess it was "easier" to just allow it all. 

 

I completely agree that it isn't just a coincidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Saggy

 

I think that you have a very reasonable point about public perception and semantics, as regards terminology. Earlier in this thread I made a similar point in a reply to sivispacem:

 

On 3/14/2018 at 6:10 PM, Dryspace said:

"I think we can all agree that requiring four fatalities to count as a "mass" killing and excluding familicide even when more than four [die] are fairly ridiculous."

I don't agree. The term is 'mass killing'. If it were 'multiple killing' I would agree that the number four instead of three or two would be fairly ridiculous. Upon reflection, I would say that your assertion is closer to ridiculous. I believe that most people would not imagine a 'mass killing' as a killing of 2 or 3 people. A number had to be picked, and I don't think four unreasonable. I believe it was recently changed to three, and I maintain that many if not most people would be surprised to find, after being informed of a mass killing, that the total number of deaths is three.

As for familicide, I don't in my ignorance presume to question the reasoning. I would guess it was related (uggh, lol) to the issue of perception, which is fundamental to issues of semantics. What I do agree with--again, in my ignorance--is that the reason for omitting familicides that otherwise meet the definition of 'mass killing' is not obvious to me.

 

@Tchuck

 

I understand the concept of 'moving the goalposts'. What I don't understand is what you are basing your assertion on. When you say that my "point could continue to be valid", I don't know what point you are talking about. My point regarding U.S. history? Or are you perhaps referring to my assertion that mass shootings are not "mostly an American thing"?

 

At the outset, I made a claim regarding U.S. history based on the concept "reasonably similar to the school shootings of today". I believed that this concept would be understood by the average person. What I meant was a person making plans to show up at a school and begin firing upon people, and carrying out that plan. This claim regarding history was not based upon any specific number of injuries or deaths. Not once did I exclude an historical example based upon number of injuries or deaths--in fact one incident of March 30, 1891 that I counted as reasonably similar had zero deaths.

 

I'm convinced this is a misunderstanding, but I would know for sure if you would paste the "before and after" text so that I can see the discrepancy that you refer to. If I have contradicted myself or made disparate claims, you should be able to clearly show this by pasting the contradictions one after the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm suspicious of the recent WHO gaming disorder classification. Sure there will be individuals who develop problems around gaming, but so what? You gotta sort the wheat from the chaff somehow. What's really important is that someone (usually Mom) is around to do the drudge work, whilst little Johnny should be free to indulge his passion/addiction for computer games. 

 

The WHO classification could be viewed as part of a creeping tendency to try to control computer gaming. This must be resisted at every turn. Fight for your right to game whilst others toil.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you actually looked at the classification or are you just parroting the rhetoric of fearmongers? All it does is recognise that people can use video games to a detrimental effect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2018 at 2:18 PM, RedDagger said:

Have you actually looked at the classification or are you just parroting the rhetoric of fearmongers? All it does is recognise that people can use video games to a detrimental effect. 

I'll assume you are addressing me. Of course I haven't looked at the classification, though i have heard reports of it on the news.

 

A detrimental effect on some children, however small, will be seized upon by the Mothers of Morality (MoM) as an excuse to lobby for restrictions on computer games and simulated worlds in general. They'll want us to help out with chores, study hard, finish homework, go to college, get a job, listen to their whiny reproachful voices encouraging us to get married so we can have yet another whiny, reproachful voice in our lives. Instead they should butt out and get back to their work. What we really need, nay, righteously deserve, is an army of slaves to toil whilst we immerse ourselves in the virtual worlds of our fancy. That's what I'm afraid the fookers will try to subvert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Short Stay said:

A detrimental effect on some children, however small, will be seized upon by the Mothers of Morality (MoM) as an excuse to lobby for restrictions on computer games and simulated worlds in general

Right, because that worked so well for "Parental Advisory" stickers on albums, or the film classification system, didn't it?

Slippery slope arguments of this nature are seldom very appealing. I don't think a WHO classification for gaming addiction is any more likely to sound the death-knell of gaming as we know it than the WHO classification for alcohol addiction has drinking culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What it just happened is unbelievable, and it's incredible how these mass shootings are happening regurlarly in the US. Honestly I'm not very informed about US politics in general, but I don't think banning all the gun shops would help so much at this point, because people who've already bought a weapon would still be dangereous... But limiting the damage IMO is the best choice!

 

From what I heard the guy who shooted had lost a match in Madden in that tournament, and if this is true let's prepare to see tons of "articles" about how videogames are killing people. For journalists and people at the government there won't be any difference between a game like Madden (ESRB "Everyone" - PEGI "3") and an "Mature"/"Adults Only" rated game, for them the most important thing is that a videogame was attached to this mass shooting.

 

All my thoughts are for the victims and their families and their friends. Let's hope at least that who's been injured could survive!

Link to post
Share on other sites

omg moving pictures and pieces of code causes mass shootings lmao

 

media just uses video games for higher ratings and interest from old boomers. 

 

Its rly not a big issue tbh.

Edited by Jerking For Soup
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jerking For Soup said:

omg moving pictures and pieces of code causes mass shootings lmao

 

media just uses video games for higher ratings and interest from old boomers. 

 

Its rly not a big issue tbh.

Yeah, I agree with you, we can just ignore all the things that medias say about videogames in general... But the problem comes when the "old boomers" who're at the government start to censor games because of their violence!

Now probably I'm not the best person for speaking about this topic because I'm living in a country that has never banned/censored a game (only Manhunt 2 risked a ban), but in the recent years I've seen tons of garbage articles blaming videogames that have never considered a thing: the PEGI (which is the european equivalent of ESRB). Only one time I saw a semi-decent article about PEGI and how it should be respected as a law, but again they've missed one thing: kids could create a fake account on PSN/Live/Steam and buy

18+ games without any problems! 

 

But even if 13 years old guys buy a 18+ game, will it really hurt them? Unless they've some mental problems the answer is no! Even 10 years old kids can see the difference between the real life and a videogame. If we make a poll in this forum asking at what age people played their first GTA, I'm quite sure that the most voted answer would be "10-17". When we are in that range of age we want to feel more mature, and this has been always a thing even in past generations. In the past maybe music could be that "mature thing", now there are films and videogames. Everything is normal, a part the sells of some newspapers I guess 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2018 at 3:17 PM, sivispacem said:

Right, because that worked so well for "Parental Advisory" stickers on albums, or the film classification system, didn't it?

Slippery slope arguments of this nature are seldom very appealing. I don't think a WHO classification for gaming addiction is any more likely to sound the death-knell of gaming as we know it than the WHO classification for alcohol addiction has drinking culture.

How long will it be before any kind of violence, be it 'killing' enemies in first person shooters or running over pedestrians in you know what game series, will be deemed "Problematic" and hence slowly squeezed out? The evidence provided by the censorious will come in the form of suggested links between gaming and real life violence. This will be taken up as empirical evidence by those who don't give a hoot as long as they get their way. Slippery slope arguments of that nature are very appealing to those who really should be getting on with the drudge work.

 

Perhaps the Jacksonville Landing shooting will provide some more 'ammunition' for the Drudges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading a lot of repetition and not a lot of reasoning. On what basis are you making these assertions given that video games and other media, violent or otherwise, have received the item of motivated individuals and been associated  colloquially(though not scientifically) with violence for the best part of half a century now without ever being subject to what you describe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

I'm reading a lot of repetition and not a lot of reasoning. On what basis are you making these assertions given that video games and other media, violent or otherwise, have received the item of motivated individuals and been associated  colloquially(though not scientifically) with violence for the best part of half a century now without ever being subject to what you describe?

I'm making my assertions by way of memory and life experience. Ironically, I should of course be making them by way of empirical examples, which is something which I have accused the other side of lacking. You are correct that there have been many previous moral panics around video games, which appear to have had little effect, but then it is hard if not impossible to measure how much self-censoring amongst game makers has taken place, looking over their shoulders and all too aware of previous moral panics. The climate is changing, with the digital world coming under increasing scrutiny as it itself grows ever larger. I don't know if violence will eventually be banned in video games but, if I were a Drudge, I'd certainly be making noises about it. That gives me an idea - why don't I join some Drudge forum and agitate against violence in games? Being a double agent would tickle my fancy no end.

 

As to the repetition - say it long enough and hard enough and eventually enough will believe it, something the Drudges know all too well.

Edited by Short Stay
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Short Stay said:

I'm making my assertions by way of memory and life experience

Are you? Exactly what exposure in your life experiences do you believe gives you the authority to argue these outcomes are inescapable, given that they haven't occurred with any other violent media?

 

2 hours ago, Short Stay said:

You are correct that there have been many previous moral panics around video games, which appear to have had little effect, but then it is hard if not impossible to measure how much self-censoring amongst game makers has taken place, looking over their shoulders and all too aware of previous moral panics.

Alternatively, you can look at game content and how much more graphic when it comes to violence and torture and portrayal of sex they have become in the last couple of decades.

If developers are self-censoring, it's not around barbaric levels of graphic violence- it's around gender, race/ethnicity and sexuality.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Short Stay

 

As I don't know anything about Drudge other than that I believe he is anti-leftist, what are some examples of things that he has repeated which are demonstrably untrue, or that defy logic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on you Drudges, it's a well known fact that violence in video games encourages violence in the outside world, just as it's a well known fact that the objectification of women encourages violence against women. You surely don't need reminding that violence in the outside world must surely include violence against women? Even if there is no proof of this as such, are you willing to take the chance and possibly have the blood of innocent women on your hands? Shame on you!

 

Why do we have to tolerate boys playing with their silly toys anyway? They would be better served helping mummy around the house, painting their faces with coloured pigments, and playing with plastic babies.

 

Discuss.

 

~~~~~~~~~~

@sivispacem You win the argument, again.

@Dryspace Drudge is usually female, or at least identifies as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dryspace said:

@Short Stay

 

I, uh...I see your non sequitur and raise you one--unless a guitar is a good substitute for villainy?

My life has been a failure. I think I may as well top myself.

 

So long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean sure video games can influence or have an effect in some cases to a person doing something crazy. but overall? No, video games are video games. People are people. People make the choice to kill and become mass murderers. Clearly there is something wrong with them in the head to be willing to do it, but its there own doing, not a video games influence. I think its crazy every time this happens, the blame is shifted onto something that doesn´t need to be blamed at all. Infact even guns shouldn´t be blamed as they do, cause its people doing this. They can still kill with a gun or something else. Grant it they would prefer a gun since its easier mostly. Even then people will get access to guns whether they are controlled or not. I think we need to start getting the blame on the correct thing. The people doing it and not a video game. Its a game. Like I said some cases sure, a game could of caused it (Though I cant name it off the top of my head) but mostly its a person making a disturbing choice to act this way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

As much as I really love video games (hence, why I’m on this site), I do believe that young children shouldn’t be playing GTA, COD, etc. I also believe there should be background checks at stores like GameStop and E. B. Games. I don’t believe that video games are responsible for mass shootings as long as the correct people are playing them.

Edited by ThatKyloRenGuy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ThatKyloRenGuy said:

As much as I really love video games (hence, why I’m on this site), I do believe that young children shouldn’t be playing GTA, COD, etc. I also believe there should be background checks at stores like GameStop and E. B. Games. I don’t believe that video games are responsible for mass shootings as long as the correct people are playing them.

The irony in you being against gun control but pro "game control" (as in, background checks for games) is hilarious.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The USA government, as a whole, isn't blaming video games. The vast majority of left wing officials in our government don't blame video games at all. Unfortunately, the companies that manufacture guns give money to the NRA and then the NRA gives money to right wing politicians in the form of legal brides. In return, those corrupt right wing politicians then come up with all sorts of absurd reasons why everything except guns are the problem. In many instances, they suggest after a mass shooting that people buy more guns to keep themselves safe. People then buy guns, the money goes to gun manufacturers, they give it to the NRA, NRA gives it to corrupt politicians and the cycle continues. The outcome of this sick process is that the gun manufacturers, NRA, and right wing politicians make money off mass shootings and promoting fear among the people. It's abhorrent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simpjkee said:

 In return, those corrupt right wing politicians then come up with all sorts of absurd reasons why everything except guns are the problem.

Can you be more specific so that we may understand? For example, are you saying that nothing except guns is the problem?

 

Also, whether guns are a problem or the problem, can you explain exactly what the problem is with guns?

 

Also, if you have time, perhaps you could explain, if guns are a (the?) problem, why the politicians don't lead by example and forbid any of the bodyguards, police, and Secret Service agents who protect them and their families from carrying guns?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dryspace said:

Can you be more specific so that we may understand? For example, are you saying that nothing except guns is the problem?

 

Also, whether guns are a problem or the problem, can you explain exactly what the problem is with guns?

 

Also, if you have time, perhaps you could explain, if guns are a (the?) problem, why the politicians don't lead by example and forbid any of the bodyguards, police, and Secret Service agents who protect them and their families from carrying guns?

 

I wouldn't say nothing except guns is the problem. My originally point is that the corrupt politicians will deflect or come up with absurd reasons for the problem in an effort to avoid talking about the inherent dangers of have a country awash in guns or of any type of gun control. Like... "We don't need gun control! It's a mental health problem" (valid argument, but when they then insist on cutting funding for mental health services it falls flat), We don't need gun control! It's a video game problem", "We don't need gun control! We need more good guys with guns", etc, etc.

 

A gun in itself is an inanimate object. No machine is dangerous outright. It's the manner in which it used that is dangerous. That said, a gun was designed to kill living things. It has no other purpose. Guns are the biggest problem in regards to gun related deaths by mass shootings and suicides. Countries without guns don't have the mass shootings and suicide rates that the US has. There are guns everywhere in America and it is far too easy to obtain a gun legally or illegally and then use it on yourself or someone else.

 

The politicians can't lead by example because the country is awash in guns and they have to protect themselves from all the other guns in the country. That said there are many politicians who would love to lead by example and work toward addressing the problem, but the corruption in our political system makes it impossible.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simpjkee said:

 

My originally point is that the corrupt politicians will deflect or come up with absurd reasons for the problem in an effort to avoid talking about the inherent dangers of have a country awash in guns or of any type of gun control.

Yes, "corrupt politician" is a redundancy. Avoiding real solutions and good governance in favor of looking out for Number One is the very modus operandi of a politician--as opposed to a leader.

 

Quote

 

Like... "We don't need gun control! It's a mental health problem" (valid argument, but when they then insist on cutting funding for mental health services it falls flat)

I don't have any specifics on this, but I'm not aware of any insistence on specifically cutting funding for mental health services, and if you were to honestly think about it, I'm sure you would realize how unlikely that sounds. What I suspect is that this refers to some typical twisting of facts or outright lies for use as propaganda against progress and reform. You could make it easy by just providing the evidence, at which point I would admit both my error and surprise.

 

 

Quote

 

We don't need gun control! It's a video game problem", "We don't need gun control! We need more good guys with guns", etc, etc.

As you go on to admit yourself, we don't need gun control. Guns are pretty good at behaving themselves. There is a good argument that we need better human control, though. People who have been convicted of murder are let back out onto the streets when people who merely sell drugs go to prison for life. People with severe mental illness are extremely difficult to force into a hospital because of laws passed decades ago.

 

 

Quote

 a gun was designed to kill living things. It has no other purpose.

Except that's false. A gun can be used to kill if necessary, which is why many, but by no means all, are designed to do so as efficiently as possible. I could kill with a screwdriver or my fists, but if I wish to kill, why would I use either if a better device is available?

 

Displaying a gun--or even merely being known to possess a gun--is often enough to deter cowards from attacking, which means that a gun has uses other than killing living things. Surely you're not in agreement with the politicians who have outlawed certain inanimate objects--and sent people to prison for selling them--because they are "only designed for the smoking of illegal substances"? An inanimate object is an inanimate object. I fail to see what the supposed "intent" of the person who manufactured it has anything to do with anything.

 

 

Quote

Guns are the biggest problem in regards to gun related deaths by mass shootings and suicides.

No. Guns are not the biggest problem in regard to gun-related deaths by mass shooting, because, in the U.S. for example, in any given year approximately 0.00001% of all firearms are used in a mass shooting. That goes well beyond any statistical evidence necessary to show that it is not the existence of the guns that is the problem. And there is also the issue that the U.S. did not have a problem with mass shootings before the 1960s, yet gun ownership per capita was considerably higher pre-1960s.

 

As far as suicide, that is an entirely separate issue and is used by dishonest people in order to inflate statistics. Suicides are of no threat to the public. No one lives in fear of suicides. And further, suicide rates are far higher than the U.S. in some countries that have little or no gun ownership. The suicide rate in Japan is higher than the U.S., and approximately zero of them are gun-inflicted. France has a similar suicide rate to the U.S., and firearm access is severely restricted. The facts do not match the propaganda.

 

We should help people who are suicidal if possible, but no one has the right to tell a person he can't kill himself. Again, suicide has nothing whatever to do with the issue of murder, and is only used by politicians and demagogues to conceal truth. I would also suggest that it serves to deflect the focus away from mental illness.

 

 

Quote

Countries without guns don't have the mass shootings and suicide rates that the US has.

Those assertions are both false.

 

 

Quote

 

There are guns everywhere in America and it is far too easy to obtain a gun legally or illegally and then use it on yourself or someone else.

It's also far too easy for me to get into my vehicle and run over the nearest group of pedestrians. Why don't I do it? Why don't you do it? Why don't most people do it?

 

 

Quote

The politicians can't lead by example because the country is awash in guns and they have to protect themselves from all the other guns in the country.

So....they won't give up their guns until everyone else gives up theirs and is no longer a threat? Sorry, politicians have said that owning or carrying a gun is unnecessary and only something a nut would do. In that case, they are going to have to get rid of all guns within their proximity, and also disarm the police forces first.

 

Because there is no need to own or carry a gun. Only a nut would even want to.

Edited by Dryspace
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

Yes, "corrupt politician" is a redundancy. Avoiding real solutions and good governance in favor of looking out for Number One is the very modus operandi of a politician--as opposed to a leader.

 

I don't have any specifics on this, but I'm not aware of any insistence on specifically cutting funding for mental health services, and if you were to honestly think about it, I'm sure you would realize how unlikely that sounds. What I suspect is that this refers to some typical twisting of facts or outright lies for use as propaganda against progress and reform. You could make it easy by just providing the evidence, at which point I would admit both my error and surprise.

 

 

As you go on to admit yourself, we don't need gun control. Guns are pretty good at behaving themselves. There is a good argument that we need better human control, though. People who have been convicted of murder are let back out onto the streets when people who merely sell drugs go to prison for life. People with severe mental illness are extremely difficult to force into a hospital because of laws passed decades ago.

 

 

Except that's false. A gun can be used to kill if necessary, which is why many, but by no means all, are designed to do so as efficiently as possible. I could kill with a screwdriver or my fists, but if I wish to kill, why would I use either if a better device is available?

 

Displaying a gun--or even merely being known to possess a gun--is often enough to deter cowards from attacking, which means that a gun has uses other than killing living things. Surely you're not in agreement with the politicians who have outlawed certain inanimate objects--and sent people to prison for selling them--because they are "only designed for the smoking of illegal substances"? An inanimate object is an inanimate object. I fail to see what the supposed "intent" of the person who manufactured it has anything to do with anything.

 

 

No. Guns are not the biggest problem in regard to gun-related deaths by mass shooting, because, in the U.S. for example, in any given year approximately 0.00001% of all firearms are used in a mass shooting. That goes well beyond any statistical evidence necessary to show that it is not the existence of the guns that is the problem. And there is also the issue that the U.S. did not have a problem with mass shootings before the 1960s, yet gun ownership per capita was considerably higher pre-1960s.

 

As far as suicide, that is an entirely separate issue and is used by dishonest people in order to inflate statistics. Suicides are of no threat to the public. No one lives in fear of suicides. And further, suicide rates are far higher than the U.S. in some countries that have little or no gun ownership. The suicide rate in Japan is higher than the U.S., and approximately zero of them are gun-inflicted. France has a similar suicide rate to the U.S., and firearm access is severely restricted. The facts do not match the propaganda.

 

We should help people who are suicidal if possible, but no one has the right to tell a person he can't kill himself. Again, suicide has nothing whatever to do with the issue of murder, and is only used by politicians and demagogues to conceal truth. I would also suggest that it serves to deflect the focus away from mental illness.

 

 

Those assertions are both false.

 

 

It's also far too easy for me to get into my vehicle and run over the nearest group of pedestrians. Why don't I do it? Why don't you do it? Why don't most people do it?

 

 

So....they won't give up their guns until everyone else gives up theirs and is no longer a threat? Sorry, politicians have said that owning or carrying a gun is unnecessary and only something a nut would do. In that case, they are going to have to get rid of all guns within their proximity, and also disarm the police forces first.

 

Because there is no need to own or carry a gun. Only a nut would even want to.

Uncorrupt politicians are leaders. They seek solutions and seek good governance. When they are corrupt the look out for number one. Unfortunately the Supreme Court legalized brides for politicians which is why seemingly all our politicians are corrupt. Not all are though.

 

Trump had millions of dollars in cuts to funding mental health services in his first budget as president. It's no secret that Republicans get off on the idea of "entitlement reform" which is cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicaid is what covers mental health services for millions of Americans. Google it. The evidence is not hard to find. It's shocking to me that this is news to you.

 

No, we need gun control. We have human control and we don't seem to have any problem adjusting it when we feel it would be helpful. Despite our attempts at human control gun deaths are still at epic levels. Human control is failing. Let's try something different. Let's look at the tiny numbers of gun deaths in other countries and see what they do that is working. Unsurprisingly, they have gun control laws. Shocking. The majority of Americans even want gun control laws, but so far we have folded under the corrupting forces of the gun manufacturers and the NRA.

 

Actually, it's not that hard to force someone in to a mental health hospital. I work in behavioral health and we do it all the time as long as there is a legitimate reason.

 

Your argument about what guns are made for doesn't make any sense. They were created and are created to kill living things. The only reason they are also used to intimidate others is because it is a device that can easily kill them when used. And you make a great point. Why use a fist or a screwdriver if you can use a gun. This is the exact reason why them being so easily available is a problem.

 

The people who actually die in a mass shooting are not the only victims. You have the hundreds or thousands who witness the shooting that begin experience symptoms of PTSD, which can lead to substance use among many other mental health disorders. You have the family and friends of those who were killed or injured or are now suffereing from the effects of witnessing the event. Just last week I had a client in my office who relapsed on heroin after his relative was murdered in the Las Vegas shooting.

 

Regarding suicides... I'll concede in regards to our suicide rates and those in other countries, however, I would argue that our suicide rates would decrease if we had more gun control laws. Self inflicted gunshot wound is an especially lethal method of attempting suicide. It's common knowledge in mental health services that those who attempt suicide and survive report that they immediately regret the attempt after the attempt is made. For example, someone who jumps off a bridge immediately regrets jumping after they jump. Someone who tries to posoin themselves with carbon monoxide has the time to back out of the attempt. With a gun, once they pull the trigger theres no coming back.

 

I'm not sure how you think it's false that there are more mass shootings in the US than in other countries.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.