The Cost of America's Gun Addiction

[steve1 5]

Assasins were once trained to kill by the U.S. Government, using classical conditioning and social learning methodology. Films were used depicting violence and death. They became more and more guesome and horrific as training progressed. In psychological terms this is called systematic desensitization. People were shown being killed and injured in various ways. The purpose of all this was to train people to over come their resistance to killing. And it worked well!

Kids do the same thing in America. As they get older they are allowed to watchmore and more violent video games and TV shows.

The video games kids watch may be even more realistic than training by soldiers and police.

I was trained to kill by the U.S. Army back in the early 70's. We fired at targets shaped liked a human torso. If you made a hit the silhouette went down. As I said earlier, military troops did a very good job at killing the enemy in Vietnam, largely due to realism in training.

But to tell you the truth, that training is nothing compared to the realism in todays violent video games. You shoot someone on a video game, and there is blood and guts, maybe even a scream or two. As I said earlier many kids can not even sleep at night after playing one of these damn games.

And all this is not military training. It's called entertainment for our kids.

I work as a counselor. When I talk to troubled kids I am amazed at all the violent thinking that is going on. When I ask them what they like to do, in almost every case, the reply is watching video games.

There is a ton more I could write on this subject, but I'd better quit for now....

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It was stated earlier that the murder rate has not risen appreciably since way back when. This may be true, but those statistics leave out a lot.

No, it's not that it may be true. It's absolutely true. If you want to reject actual facts, you need to actually supply new ones, not a lot of conjecture and unlisted statistics.

Better medicine cuts death rate 67%. Proof? Timeline?

'Aggravated assault' (an inconsistently measured event) is up 7X since 1957? Why pick that year? Violence in movies didn't uptick till the late 70s, and more realistic computer violence didn't come till the early 90s. You've already been told that murder picked up in the 60s and 70s (coinciding with the rise of the drug trade), so how much did AA increase in the first 20 years?

How much of the medical advances came in the past 15 years as computer game violence supposedly became a factor? Honestly, I doubt the improvement was that marked in this time frame.

In the mid 80s, there was lots of BS research about the effects of pornography. Yet 2 decades of internet porn and we're all still standing. Again, where's the beef to these claims?

The most significant factor in the level of violent crime in America has been the size of the young male population. When there is a bulge in that demographic, it trends up. When it passes, it retreats back.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I work as a counselor. When I talk to troubled kids I am amazed at all the violent thinking that is going on. When I ask them what they like to do, in almost every case, the reply is watching video games.

No shit?

And if you bothered to ask the non troubled kids what they like to do, in almost every case, the reply will be playing video games. That's why they're getting fat.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Only if you can get EVERYONE's access reduced. And history has shown you are not able to do that.

Agreed, the general thought would be that if you ban guns, over time the availability would decline. I'm not sure there is enough history yet to either prove or disprove that theory.

Quote

Can you agree that it would be better to be armed when faced with an armed opponent?

I agree. Though I also believe that it is even better never to face an armed opponent.

Quote

I did that for a reason.. Notice I am not supporting banning all those things?

I did, but it is comparing apples to oranges. You are saying that we shouldn't ban a tool, cause we also shouldn't ban actions.

Quote

Well consider that 2/3rds of those deaths are either suicides or drug related crime.... Both already illegal BTW... That leaves 1/3rd to accidents and violence against innocent people (innocent as defined as not being engaged in criminal activity).

Not debating the numbers, but what we don't know is how many of those suicides or drug related gun deaths would have taken place if guns were not as readily available. I for one do not believe that every suicide would have taken place, if the tool to do it was not as readily available.

Quote

You want to reduce gun crime?

1. Better mental health screening to prevent suicides.
2. Keep kids away from drugs.
3. Keep kids away from criminals.
4. Teach kids about firearms.
5. Lock up your firearms away from children.

I can certainly agree with all those points. But, that is certainly not the exclusive list of options.

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

It was stated earlier that the murder rate has not risen appreciably since way back when. This may be true, but those statistics leave out a lot.

No, it's not that it may be true. It's absolutely true. If you want to reject actual facts, you need to actually supply new ones, not a lot of conjecture and unlisted statistics.

Better medicine cuts death rate 67%. Proof? Timeline?

'Aggravated assault' (an inconsistently measured event) is up 7X since 1957? Why pick that year? Violence in movies didn't uptick till the late 70s, and more realistic computer violence didn't come till the early 90s. You've already been told that murder picked up in the 60s and 70s (coinciding with the rise of the drug trade), so how much did AA increase in the first 20 years?

How much of the medical advances came in the past 15 years as computer game violence supposedly became a factor? Honestly, I doubt the improvement was that marked in this time frame.

In the mid 80s, there was lots of BS research about the effects of pornography. Yet 2 decades of internet porn and we're all still standing. Again, where's the beef to these claims?

The most significant factor in the level of violent crime in America has been the size of the young male population. When there is a bulge in that demographic, it trends up. When it passes, it retreats back.

.....................................................................

I'm sorry I used the word may in reference to the increase in murder rate over the years. You are right, there has not been a huge increase in the murder rate.

Like I said progress in medical technology has kept the murder rate much lower than it would be, if we had the same technology as back in the fifties or sixties. Helicopter medevacs, 911 operators, para-medicas, and trauma centers etc. are some of the innovations that have kept this rate that low. It is estimated that the murder rate would be three times higher if we hadn't had those improvements. So, graphing this or using statics over the years to say that the murder rate has remained the same is misleading.....

I could have looked at any year after 1957. Statistics show the same thing. There has been a huge increase every year since, in aggravated assault and imprisonment.

We are presently building prisons faster than we are schools. So, tell me again we don't have a violence problem in America.....

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

...the rate of aggravated assault. It has risen nearly seven times higher than it was in 1957.

Do you have a cite for that?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[steve1 5]

Much of the information I'm giving comes from the book "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Grossman. I'm referring to a chart showing the relationship between aggravated assault, murder, and imprisonment on page 300 of his book.

I'll be honest on this. I'm not sure exactly where he drew all this data from. If this isn't accurate, I'd like to know.

Someone wrote in earlier saying that some of his facts and figures could be off at times. I am interested in knowing the truth on this, so correct me if these numbers don't match up with yours.....

[steve1 5]

reply]

You can believe whatever you want, but I don't need to convince you against falsehoods you hold without any evidence to support them. Only in a stupid world does "common sense" outweigh actual evidence.

I'll put it differently. The 'violent' movies and TV in America don't come remotely close to the sort of movies that John Woo was making when he was still in Hong Kong. See the closing sequence of A Better Tomorrow (I or II) for an example. Yet HK has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

Wolf 3D came in 1992 and Doom a year later. This followed the Mortal Combat video games in the mid 80s. After came the hyper realistic team combat games. We're getting pretty close to 30 years of these, but are we seeing a surge in violence in America? No.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Agreed, the general thought would be that if you ban guns, over time the availability would decline. I'm not sure there is enough history yet to either prove or disprove that theory.

Yet places like Mexico that have really strict gun rules has increasing violence seem to show that it does not work. And before someone claims that all those guns are coming from the US. Many of this weapons are full auto post samples that are not legal in the US unless you are LEO or an SOT.

Quote

I agree. Though I also believe that it is even better never to face an armed opponent.

Until you stop violence, you will always encounter violent criminals. So while it might be best not to face an armed criminal... It is pretty clear that gun rules are not going to prevent a criminal from getting them. Reference Mexico having guns that are illegal there and in the US and the drug problem the US has.

Quote

I did, but it is comparing apples to oranges. You are saying that we shouldn't ban a tool, cause we also shouldn't ban actions.

I don't think actions that only hurt the individual should be banned, only actions that hurt others. But I also realize that banning a tool does not stop actions... Again refernce drugs in the US.

Quote

Not debating the numbers, but what we don't know is how many of those suicides or drug related gun deaths would have taken place if guns were not as readily available. I for one do not believe that every suicide would have taken place, if the tool to do it was not as readily available.

There have been studies that have shown that after gun laws were put into place that the rate of suicide by GUN reduced, but the overall rate of suicide didn't.

And that's ignoring the fact that bans don't really work. You are talking about some magical removal of all weapons... That has been shown not to be possible.

Quote

I can certainly agree with all those points. But, that is certainly not the exclusive list of options.

But they will work better than other plans like bans that have been shown not to work.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[steve1 5]

Violence in TV and Video Games has become progressively more violent over the years. Now a new age of video game is starting where a person can wear a helmet. When you turn your head you see new scenes. All this makes things more realistic. What direction are we headed with all this.

I think it is a crime to expose kids to this kind of garbage. I have no doubt this has an affect on violence in America.

But part of my concern is selfish. I grew up with guns. I own a bunch of them. I use them for hunting and recreation with my family. How long is it going to be before we lose that freedom in America.

If violent crime keeps increasing, I think it is only a matter of time before we lose it. I think it's about time America starts looking at it's root causes of violence, and then do something about it....

[Ron 10]

You do realize that some people think that real killing (hunting) creates an appitite for violence than fake killing (video games, movies..ect)?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That is interesting that Hong Kong has one of the lowest homicide rates in the World despite their access too violent videos.

But maybe other factors are at work there. Maybe people there have to work much of the day, instead of spending the entire day playing violent video games and watching violent T.V.

Perhaps the oppressive government they have has something to do with this. What happens when you get in big trouble in China? One solution is to cane the shit out of you. Another is to take the bad guy out back, shoot him in the head, and then harvest his organs. That could stop a lot of people from thinking of using violence.

Hasn't China had advances in medical treatment over the years. Again, that is a good explanation for the lower homicide rates....

Once again, you're rejecting actual data in place of assumed facts and beliefs. This isn't science - hell, it doesn't even qualify as social science.

HK was still independent of Big China during the John Woo era. He and Chow Yun Fat had already moved to Hollywood before the transfer to the PRC. And no, medicine wouldn't explain HK having 1/10th the official homicide rate of the US. It's not like HK doesn't have gangs or organized crime. It certainly does.

To sum it up, you're blaming game and movies for the actions of bad people. Which makes as much sense as blaming guns for the actions of bad people.

[Heatmiser 0]

Hater

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[steve1 5]

.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

.

Yes, it's quite clear that there is absolutely no link at all between TV/computer violence and violence in the real world. Sorry, Steve, your vision is false. The majority of violence continues to be felons killing felons.

[cliffwhite 0]

I have signs on my lawn declaring a firearmfree zone . Anyone on my property,including police and federal agents,must disarm or be considered a threat to my safety.
I will preemptively shoot any one carrying firearms onto my property.
Preemptive action has legal precedent if you consider the war in Iraq legal.

Blues,
Cliff

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

I have signs on my lawn declaring a firearmfree zone . Anyone on my property,including police and federal agents,must disarm or be considered a threat to my safety.
I will preemptively shoot any one carrying firearms onto my property.
Preemptive action has legal precedent if you consider the war in Iraq legal.

Blues,
Cliff

This is a joke right? Firearmfree zones = Victim zones, like my college campus is a victim zone. More importantly, police and federal agents would destroy you if you attempted to do as you say. If you lived you would be imprisoned.

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

I have signs on my lawn declaring a firearmfree zone . Anyone on my property,including police and federal agents,must disarm or be considered a threat to my safety.
I will preemptively shoot any one carrying firearms onto my property.
Preemptive action has legal precedent if you consider the war in Iraq legal.

Blues,
Cliff

This is a joke right? Firearmfree zones = Victim zones, like my college campus is a victim zone. More importantly, police and federal agents would destroy you if you attempted to do as you say. If you lived you would be imprisoned.

So you are saying that I should be afraid of the police state responce in "the home of the free".

Of course I have considered their responce,DeathByCactus, still this is my property, my castle ,and as a Freeman I'll make the rules as to whom I allow to carry firearms on my property.
My rule is no one but myself.
I've posted warning signs.

Anyone entering my sovereign domain carrying firearms has announced themselves as a threat to my life and liberty.

Blues,
Cliff