Slashdot Mirror
Shooting Lawsuit Against id Software Dismissed
greg writes: "I saw on Bluesnews that the lawsuit against id Software over the Paducah County school shootings has been dismissed.
Here is a link to id CEO Todd Holleshead's .plan file." Sounds like a sigh of relief from id -- just think of the implications if the judge had gone the other way. (Remember the PMRC?)
Phillip-Morris causes people to get lung cancer. Smith-Wesson cause people to get killed by bullets. People want to sue Orkin to pay for their broken TV over this commercial (one women threw a motorcycle helmet at the TV, maybe the helmet maker should be responsible for having too hard a helmet). Why doesn't iD (any game makers) cause people to be violent? I mean, this case follows all the other rules, blame someone else. This seems perfectly made for our judicial system.
:)
Am I missing something?
And just how do you propose to do that? You won't be getting any gun of mine; I promise you that. And I know that many, many other people will keep their guns.
Face it, guns are here to stay. The arguments for banning guns sound *so* similar to the arguments in favor of the encryption export laws, which people here are so against.
Still, I can understand the anti-gun position of most people here. If I had been indoctrinated all my life to fear guns, I'd probably hold hoplophobic opinions, too.
If you *really* look at the statistics...I mean *really* look, with an open mind...you will find that gun ownership does not lead to an increase in murders. But you have to be open-minded and intellectually honest in order to see that.
One pointer...compare murder rates in North Dakota and Saskatchewan. See what you come up with.
New XFMail home page
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
After this lawsuit I was the one at our local McDonalds assigned to check the tempature of our coffee. It was withing specs, but on the hot side. I turned the tempature down. Next week I turned it back up. It seems that most coffee drinkers like their coffee hot, and they noticed and didn't like the colder coffee. (Note that the tempature was never out of mcDonalds specifications, but it was the hottest we could be and still be within specifications)
Why do I care what a criminal uses to kill me? I want a gun precisely because it's easy to use and very effective. I don't want to try to fight off an attacker with a knife. I'm not a big guy and I probably wouldn't win. The guy has no right to be in my home and no right to threaten my life. If he decides to do those things, I should be well within my rights to shoot him on the spot. I'm not going to play games of chance when it comes to defending myself and my family. I do believe that a person should have to take a training course in order to own a gun though. That would drastically cut down on the stupid accidents that happen when some moron doesn't know how to properly use, clean, and store a gun.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
When it comes to defending myself and my family I'm not going to try to fight off someone with a knife. I'm not going to play games with him. I'm not a big guy and I'm not going to take that kind of chance. It would be stupid. I'm going to shoot the bastard right then and there. I have a much better chance of eliminating the threat that way. Even if the intruder has a gun, I still have a fairly even chance of killing or incapacitating him before he gets me. The odds would be much worse if I didn't have a gun. I'm not willing to take that chance.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Grossman is full of crap. Moving a mouse cursor over targets IS NOTHING like firing a gun. The only conceivable way it could have helped him is by improving hand-eye coordination, but even Super Mario Bros. will do that, as will tennis. I read somewhere that the kid had fired guns before too. Grossman probably doesn't mention that. The guy is either an idiot or he's got an agenda that we don't know about.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Maybe you'd like to provide a link or reference to these "studies." I've seen studies that "prove" all sorts of asinine stuff. I don't buy this without some pretty damn good proof. Nearly all of the kids that have been involved in the shootings over the last few years have had MUCH bigger problems than the video games they were playing or the movies they watched. Nobody says a damn thing about fixing the real problems though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
A mistake from a gun can end a life - my life, because you made an error in judgement.
By your logic we should outlaw cars. An error in judgement can kill many people, and does, in fact, kill several orders of magnitude more people every year than guns do. Yet I hear nobody crying for the banning of motor vehicles. "Ah, but they're useful" people will say. So what? A gun is very useful to me in providing a defense for my home and family. Is it my fault that some idiots don't know how to take responsibility for a gun? Why should I have the only reasonably effective means of defending my family taken away because of someone else's incompetence? Aside from requiring training (and/or a competence test) for the purchase of a gun, I don't believe I should be restricted in any way from owning weapons for sport or defense. Such training and testing should cut down on the number of accidents quite a bit. Then the vast majority of gun-related injuries and deaths will be caused by criminals, just as they would if you banned guns altogether. (More on this later)
I don't trust anyone's judgement, thus I'd like to see guns removed from society.
Just like they've removed drugs from society. Just like prohibition removed alcohol and its evil effects such as crime from society, right? Wake up. If you ban guns, people will want them even more, because they will suddenly feel defenseless. There will be many people willing to provide those guns too, because it will become a much more lucrative business, just like drugs. Suddenly only criminals and the government will have weapons. As someone who doesn't trust the judgement of others, surely you can understand that people will not like such a situation where they feel even more at the mercy of those in power. I don't trust the judgement of others all that much either. That's exactly why I want the right to possess a gun. In case their bad judgement leads them to assault me or my family.
Try this article if you'd like to see some numbers. Gun violence is actually rising in the UK now, despite the gun ban. This illustrates the point that it's not legal owners of guns that are the problem. It's the criminals who don't give a damn about any gun ban anyway.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That's an argument?
This Internet thing must be really growing. We seem to be living on different planets or something. I'm saying this because on my planet, real effects tend to matter a bit more than intentions. Just because cars weren't intended to kill people, doesn't mean they don't do it quite effectively. Should we just make our decisions based on intentions from now on? I think I'll end this post right now before I say something very sarcastic. Thank you, drive through.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, in my case, the odds would be better if I and the attacker both had a gun rather than him having a knife or bat or whatever and me having access to a similar weapon. I'm not big and I probably wouldn't stand much of a chance if it comes to hand-to-hand fighting. At least with a gun, the odds are a bit more even. If I've practiced enough, the odds might even be in my favor.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer? (Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't)
Funny how we immediately jump on guns as the reason our country isn't as safe as we think it should be. If we just take away everyone's guns, they won't be able to hurt themselves or others. Damn! It's like we're to be treated like a bunch of kids! I'm not a damn kid. If I choose to own a gun to defend myself and my family, who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't have that right? It's blatantly obvious that cops don't defend us. They get there after we've become victims and fill out paperwork. I don't see any reason why I should have to rely on sheer dumb luck to decide whether the person who breaks into my home will decide to kill me or not. But that's just one argument.
Have you considered that there are several other factors that play a large role in the problem, a larger role, IMHO, than guns even?
Think about the disparity in wealth in this country. Think about the fact that there are literally millions of Americans living below the poverty line. Think about the fact that public education in this country is shockingly bad. I wonder what kind of difference it would make in the violent crime statistics if people could actually support themselves and their family. I wonder what kind of difference it would make if kids got a good education that would give them some direction in life rather than leave them as barely literate punks with nothing to lose. Maybe if we spent some of this money we're using to fight the "war on drugs" on fixing up schools, hiring better teachers and paying them well, and providing better access to technology so that kids can learn something useful, we wouldn't need to have a war on drugs at all. Kids might end up being smart enough to make these decisions in their best interest. They'd have a good chance of making a living and providing for a family. But the government won't do that. It would make too much sense. We spend all kinds of money on national defense and attacking and defending other countries. We spend a bunch to pay interest on a national debt that we have yet to do anything significant to reduce. Why can't we spend this kind of money to educate all the children of this country the best we possibly can, rather than just relying on those who can afford to go to the best schools to become the leaders of this country? Then again, maybe that's the plan after all.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
>The problem is the US's "all or nothing" stance on guns - this belief
>that a right to own weapons is some divine mandate.
I'm not buying your argument that we'd be safer without guns, but let's accept for the point of argument.
You are talking about something enshrined in the Bill of Rights. To get rid of guns, we need to change the Bill of Rights, removing something. This is a dangerous precedend. Maybe there could be a better list if we were starting from scratch under today's circumstances, but making the BofR negotiable is just too high a price. Hmm, maybe defendants' rights . . . OJ was clearly guilty; let's allow double jeapardy. Those people that aren't willing to be searched must be hiding something. And those hurtful things that those folks are saying; there's too much freedom of speech.
Yes, the price may be high. But even assuming no or minimal benefits from the guns to society, tampering with the Bill of Rights is just too high a price.
hawk, esq.
>Again, technically true, but you have to agree that the odds of being
>shot in a country where 10,000 people have a gun is significantly
>higher than a country where only one guy owns one.
Probably, but the chance of producing such a country by disarmament are much lower than the chances of being shot in the country with 10,000 guns . . .
Windows and Mac users kill with guns, and *nix folks with kitchen knives, and *nix folks who use scripts concoct poisons?
:)
Yes, the evil Dr. Killgood finally has the pink bunny in his sights. No fancy gadgets to go wrong. He aims, he fires . . . no, he doesn't . . .
.
[pan camera to confused look, then pull back]
He looks down, opens his wrist-tag . . . *AUGHH* he used the other brand of batteries! . .
And the bunny bangs its drum as it wanders off once again . . .
>I believe that when a government infringes upon your rights, you
:)
>should avail yourself of all legal, nonviolent means to eliminate that
>infringement. In the event that these means fail, then it is time to
>consider revolution and overthrow of the oppressive regime.
I sure hope it's OK. Otherwise, we owe about 225 years of back
taxes to London . . . .
> Kinda like how the nuclear arms race has made the world a safer place?
> Especially now that the soviet union has disintegrated and the world's
> well funded terrorist groups now have The Bomb?
Do you *really* think that without the nuclear threat we would have gone from 1945 until the implosion of the Soviet Union without a major war in Europe? This is the longest period of general peace in Europe since the end of the Pax Romana . . . (and yes, I"m aware of the level of atrocities that are occurring).
Call it the Pax Americana or Pax Atomica as you wish (I'll let future historians decide), but WWII would have lasted another couple of years in the Pacific without the bomb, with a seven-figure casualty count for the Allies, and several times that for the Japanese. Soviet invasion and direct conflict (rather than proxy fights in southeast Asia) would have been thinkable.
Yes, I think we're *much* safer with the existance of these weapons, although I'd be much happier if they'd all go away now.
hawk
I see, so in your mind, frivolous lawsuits are as important as genuine ones. You are exactly the same type of person who probably thinks suing McDonald's for burning yourself is a Good Thing. In fact, you are specifically what is wrong with Americans.
Also, the communist-nonsense you shot at me is a load of garbage. Believing that the courts shouldn't waste time on frivolous lawsuits is not communist. Perhaps you should read some Marx, grow up and come back here when you grasp some basic english.
I'm embarrassed that you're a Canadian.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Your logic is so massively flawed it barely merits refuting.
You are correct that increased availability of something does make it easier to get a hold of. That's the only statement with even the slightest sense of logic. As for the others...
The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition).
Only if it is used. I could build a nuclear weapon, set it on the ground somewhere with all the codes locked safely away, and then just turn around and walk away. Certainly a deadly weapon, but a completely harmless one, because it cannot be used.
So if more guns are available, more deaths will occur, and if less guns are available, less deaths will occur.
While your conclusion does theoretically make some sense, it is drawn from flawed logic. A weapon does not become more or less deadly simply because there are more instances thereof. If I have a gun, that gun is certainly a deadly weapon. If I have two guns, neither is any deadlier than it would be if it were the only gun I had. If I have ten thousand guns, none of them is any deadlier than it would be if I only had one.
If more guns are available, more deaths will occur, but only if the guns are misused. Likewise, if fewer guns are available, fewer deaths would occur only if the guns removed were ones that would have been misused.
We can debate the makeup of the victims (ratio of "criminals" v's "the law abiding") - but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer?
The only safe playing field is one that is level. If you're willing and able to do what it takes, that doesn't necessarily mean that you need a gun. I don't have a gun; I have other means of defending myself and those I love. But those means are very rare, and to be effective they require a far greater expenditure of money, time, and resources than any gun does. So for most, a gun is the only way to level the playing field between themselves and those who would do them harm. No, it doesn't make society a safe place if everyone is armed. But an armed person is in far less danger against an armed opponent than an unarmed person is.
Criminals today are almost invariably armed. In this day and age it's the only way most people can pose any real threat, and posing a threat is the stock in trade of a criminal. You can take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, but you can't get them away from the criminals. They already get their guns by illegal means because legal ones are too easy to track, so gun laws change nothing for them.
Now, some gun laws do make sense. Trigger locks, for example. They won't do a damn thing to decrease gun violence, but they will do a great deal to reduce gun accidents. They don't reduce the effectiveness of a gun, because there is no law stating that the locks must be used, only that they must be made available.
Smart guns: iffy. They would certainly help reduce gun accidents and even short-term gun theft. But smart guns rely on technology, and any technology can be cracked given the time and resources to figure out the trick. The best you can do is make it really, really hard to crack. This rules out any remote device like rings or watches which the owner must wear for the gun to go off; "dummy" devices wouldn't be too hard to make (and besides, anything which can be worn can be stolen along with the gun). You'd have to go with something like handprint-sensing technology, coupled with thermal detection so that you couldn't simply chop someone's hand off and use it with the gun. And no backdoors. This is the ideal case, but the gun could still be modchipped. The modchipping takes time; certainly the gun couldn't be used at the place where it was stolen. But no criminal with half a brain does that anyway; they steal guns from locales farther off from the intendeed scene of the crime, to throw investigations off track.
Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't
Depends. You're speaking of only one statistic: gun deaths. And indeed, the chances of dying by a gun are greater here than most other places. However, there are far more ways to die than by being shot. Take Mozambique's current situation, for instance. Very, very few people own guns there. But right now, I'd say it's pretty damned dangerous to live there. Then take drug overdoses. I don't know the ststistics here or in other parts of the world. But if drugs are easier to get then it's also easier to die from them (this is the difference between drugs and guns: drugs are bought specifically to be used, whereas most guns are bought in the hope that they never will be). And drugs are certainly easier to get in some parts of Europe, particularly the Netherlands but other places as well. So by your logic, these nations should be as dangerous as the US. The point is that you cannot take one example and draw generalities. It's like seeing one black swan and deciding based only on that observation that all swans are black.
Also, I love this idea of "universal disarmament." It would be great if that were what you really wanted. But it's not, of course; you'd still rather that the government and the police have guns, just not the average citizen. You thus allow a government which could become oppressive at any time to step all over the rights of its people, who no longer have the means to end the problems. And before you start on nonviolent means to getting rid of an oppressive government, I should remind you that a government which is truly oppressive is not going to be ousted by peaceful means. Part of the very definition of an oppressive government is that there is no legal (meaning peaceful) way to oust it. That's how it stays oppressive. And any government, except perhaps a true democracy, has the capability to become oppressive (and true democracy has problems of its own which make it unworkable for anything as large as even a small nation).
The abuse of guns is a terrible thing; I agree with you on this. But the genie is out of the bottle. There are only two ways to prevent the abuse of guns. Only one of these is sure-fire (pardon the pun): the banning and destruction of every single gun on the planet. That simply isn't going to happen. The other one is to teach people respect, both for guns (to prevent accidents) and other people (to prevent misuse of a gun; simply put you don't shoot people you respect, nor do you give them any cause to shoot you).
Something must be done about gun violence. Banning guns is easy, but it's not a real solution, both because it won't be a complete ban (I'd love to see you convince the military and police to give up their weapons), and because it doesn't address why people shoot each other. So something else has to be done.
Well the idea of having a government that derived it's powers and legitimacy from the people as opposed to some guy with a shiny hat was pretty unique at the time as well. (Didn't take the French long to try their hand at it though)
But yes, the 2nd Amendment is there because the framers had recognized the importance of a well-armed society when opposing a tyrannical government. After all, they had just lived through it. The spark that started the Revolutionary War was an attempt by the British military to sieze a privately-held armory in Concord, Massachusetts. The alarm having been raised throughout the countryside, farmers and townspeople used their guns to keep their weapons from being siezed.
But the framers were well aware of the fact that the government they established might one day fail and be no better than the one which they had fought for independence from. So many provisions were set up to both sustain the integrity of the government as long as possible (checks and balances between the various branches of the govt.), and many civil liberties were explicitly guaranteed as well.
Note that NONE of the framers didn't believe in the liberties granted in the Bill of Rights. The only reasons that it was adopted seperately were because:
1)It took a while for everyone to agree that additional checks on the government were needed
2)It was risky explicitly listing some, as that might lead people to believe that unlisted rights didn't exist
3)The federal government wasn't thought to have powers to infringe anyway
But pass it did. And so, should the existing US government go too far it is just that it should be overturned, if necessary by force of arms. I sure wouldn't want to be helpless if it came down to that, and neither did they.
As for slavery, a lot of the northern states were opposed to it, and while it had become reasonably popular in the south (there were still indentures, and many people simply hired laborers) it was a very big sticking point. The colonies would simply never have agreed on the issue and their only solution was to shelve it until future generations could resolve things. Attempts were made to limit slavery though - importation ended at a fixed date.
Of course, slavery didn't *really* take off in the south until the cotton gin was developed.
But don't characterize all of the framers as slave owners, or accepting of slavery. Many were, but not all. (nb that it was also still legal in the UK at the time)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Actually, violent crime -- especially "hot" burglaries -- has been INCREASING in Britain and Australia since their gun bans... so if you want to retain your POV, they're very, very bad examples of your case.
You're pulling that out of your ass, aren't you? Where did you get that stat?
I've seen a stat that showed CLEARLY that, the more guns there was in a country in Europe, the more violent crimes tehre were. FYI there are quite a lot of them in France compared to the rest of Western Europe (I think we come second next to Switzerland), and violent deaths are higher here than in Englang.
Beautiful logic.
High vodka consumption; out-of-control russian language use.
Drinking vodka helps you speak Russian, obviously!!!
It doesn't mean anything. Maybe the brits are just nicer people on average than americans.
You've never been there, have you? ;)
I'd be more interested in the crime rate before and after a country passed anti-gun laws.
What if they pass those gun laws because of an increasing crime rate involving firearms? Plus, if such a law is passed, do you believe firearm are just going to vanish all of a sudden because of it?
But are the Swiss as "in love" with guns as so many in the U.S. seem to be? Those adult males are required to have those rifles because they are part of Switzerland's defense force. I suspect that lower crime rate is more of a cultural thing than a fear of getting shot.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hi. Let's add a new moderation tag to Slashdot: Gun Control Debate. Oh, and it should be -1.
You are obviously not clear on the meaning of freedom and natural rights. In a free society, i can own anything I wish, as long as it does not infringe the freedom of anyone else. I can own guns, knives, swords, and explosives in massive quantities. Why is it my right to have these things? Because it requires nothing of anyone else, except the willful manufacture and trade of arms.
You, on the other hand, are anti-freedom. You are trying to take away my natural rights by requiring me to do something. You are requiring me to give up my arms, which I have acquired through peaceful and cooperative trade. It is you who represent the dangerous future in America: the future where spineless lackwits strip away the rights of the people, for the supposed benefit of the children/elderly/infirm/whatever.
-jwb
http: //www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/01/16 /STN160801.300x204.jpg
I see one cop with a handgun and another cop with a rifle. Show me your evidence that the British cops don't pack.
I don't buy your other argument, either. Produce official statistics on crime rates in Britain. Thi s article in the Sunday Times claims that more than 3 million illegal guns are held in Britian, leading to over 13,000 armed offences in 1998. It also claims that there are 100 crimes per month involving firearms in Birmingham alone! I don't know what kind of reputation the Sunday Times has, but I've produced hard number and I suspect it is more evidence than you can produce.
-jwb
Perhaps it would be interesting for a bunch of us programmers to get together and make a really "Incorrect" game based on the recent shootings, just to piss people off. It could be something like a really messed up 'Postal,' except GPLed.
Heck, I'm surprised there aren't any MODs out for any of the first person shooters based on these events.
Maybe the US is doing enough about preventing guns from being used inappropriately (I doubt it), but it definately needs to be seen to be doing more.
Come on people, it's trivial to understand: More of something makes it easier to get hold of. The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition). So if more guns are available, more deaths will occur, and if less guns are available, less deaths will occur. We can debate the makeup of the victims (ratio of "criminals" v's "the law abiding") - but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer? (Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't)
Australian - and damn proud that our gun laws piss off the NRA from all the way over here (BTW NRA: your pro-gun ads aren't fooling anyone).
What you don't need to kill people is a black trenchcoat, a copy of Quake III or an attraction to gothic nightlife.
A gun takes a simple theft that the insurance companies can handle and turns it into a life or death struggle.
At the extreme end, a gun takes a school caffiteria brawn and turns it into a murderous rampage. America simply has to decide if it wants the risk of death in exchange for the "right to bear arms". Australia, thankfully, has made the right decision (Thank "God" *erhem* that we don't have that damn inconvient Second Amendment...)
Remember, this isn't a debate on traditional armed robbery - it's about "rage" killings by school children. If their parents, and their friend's parents don't have any guns, and the shops and shows won't sell guns to them, then they will have a very hard time getting hold a gun. Radically reduce the number of weapons on the street and even if they find someone who will sell them one, they might not be able to afford it...
People will always find something to get worked up about - the nastier the weapon they can get their hands on, the more damage they can do.
I think the parent of this comment is very sensible.
Actually, I posted too soon. I agree that people spouting anecdotes are pretty worthless, but I do NOT agree that there is ample evidence that violence in the media leads to violent behavior. The studies I've looked at (admittedly only a couple) don't seem to be very conclusive at all.
I think it's worth investigating, but I don't think there's much good evidence either way yet.
Hum, I live in Germany and don't have the right to bear arms (like my 70 million countrymen). I don't feel like a slave ...
And I've never seen a paragraph in the charter of Human Rights which includes the right to bear arms. And IIRC there's nothing about this in the Bible, either.
Each law is made in a certain cultural and historical environment. If the environment changes, laws become obsolete. There are no "eternal" laws or laws which fit any given society at any given time.
Regards
tom
--
"Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."
"No but if someone is able to use a firearm to express their anger then the firearm was way too accessible."
Even MORE people do the SAME thing with their automobiles in the US. They get enraged and out of control and cause wrecks, a lot of them fatal. Do you think cars are too accessible as well? Or are you willing to admit that you think the benefit of driving yourself to work each day is more important than the benefit of being able to defend yourself and your country?
"That's why most gun deaths are `crimes of passion.'"
Statistics beg to differ when it comes to handgun deaths. Show me some proof from recent years that show that a majority of handgun deaths were crimes of passion by law abiding citizens.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
"In 10 years you would see a difference. In 30 they'd be practically non-existant."
And in 40 years the US people would be ripe for a military coup or unable to defend itself from any kind of tyranical(sp) government. Sure, I admit that we are unlikely to have a serious revolution soon, but maybe 40 years from now, once we're helpless (and unable to reverse such a decision) I don't want to take that chance.
"The guy who shoots his neighbor in a fit of rage was not the criminal(s) you were talking about."
With freedom comes responsability. As a gun owner, I am held to a level of control that prevents me from using my handgun outside the law. If someone is out of control, and they use a firearm to express that anger, why is the gun to blame? Did the gun create the anger or loss of control? No. Did the gun leap into an enraged killers hands? No.
Many US citizens may want to give up certain rights to FEEL safer, but I am not one of them. I would rather live with a risk of being shot than KNOW for a FACT that I have no way to even defend myself from an aggresor who DOES have a gun or knife. I am willing to risk my life in order to maintain the well being of this country as a free nation.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Earth to clueless person:
The sentence "If the judge had gone the other way?" was referring to the implications this would have on the gaming industry, what would happen to free speech and such things. It was in no way referring to any kind of illegal activity.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
you liberals have a way of treating kids like emotional and intellectual retards
Please don't paint everyone with such a broad brush -- that's part of why these debates (and party politics in general) tend to be so counterproductive.
I consider myself to be very liberal (meaning that progress is good and people should be helped whenever possible), but I have no interest in restricting gun rights for those who wish to exercise them.
I personally have found the ACLU's position on the matter bizarre -- every point on the bill of rights is universally interpreted in the most liberal light (meaning the light giving the most rights to the citizens), except the second.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The truth is, most gun wounds hurt the victim so bad that he/she wont be capable to get their gun
.40 (he was wearing a bulletproof vest). He went down, and the shooter thought he was gone for good. He stood back up, very pissed off and the shooter nearly crapped his pants.
I take it you've never actually seen someone get shot.
The REAL truth is that gunshots are nowhere near the all-powerful force that many people believe them to be. You're better off getting shot thasn stabbed or bludgeoned, in many cases.
Gunshot wounds tend to be fairly clean, many times the bullet passes right through and you're essentially left with a hole (that admittedly could be fatal depending on where it is).
A serious stab wound tends to cause more damage because it generally covers a larger area and is more likely to hit something important like an organ or artery -- plus they're messy because the wound itself is generally jagged and torn, rather than the "simple" star-shaped bullet hole.
being budgeoned (with a bat or other tool) is almost always the worst long-term damage you can get. It breaks off shards of bone and pushes them down into your body (usually into the skull, as you generally hit someone on the head). The blunt trauma ensures that damage is done to as wide an area as possible, and many of the damages are internal, without the puncture of a cut or hole to relieve pressure. Many times a person will die from the internal bleeding & pressure on the brain, and if they don't they can frequently find themselves with a dramatically reduced mental facility due to brain damage.
Of course, this doesn't apply to hollow-point or tumbler bullets -- the whole reason they exist is because someone had to figure out how to make gunshots more effective and damaging.
Given the choice between being shot from 5 feet away (with a regular bullet), stabbed in the torso, or hit with a bat on the head, I'll take the bullet every time. Odds are I'll be able to walk to the hospital myself (albeit in a great deal of pain). After the wound is healed, your life will be pretty much the same (unless of course it hit your spinal cord or similar).
The real tragedy of movie violence is that they don't show the true damages of things like getting hit in the head (likely brain damage) and treat it like "oh, you just tap somebody and they pass out, and wake up with a headache!".
Obviously this varies by the person and the incident -- I've seen people die of blood loss from minor wounds, and I've seen people with 3 nasty shots to the torso walk out of the hospital 6 weeks later. I saw a guy get shot point-blank in the chest with a
Needless to say, the victim had a bruise the size of a Mack truck over his whole torso the next day and could barely walk from pain, but at the time of the shooting he was so pumped on adreneline he would have been happy to shoot the other guy if he wasn't already dead from the three others who were backing him up.
The shooter suffered from Hollywood syndrome, thinking that by firing a gun the other guy would turn to dust or something. Guns just aren't as deadly as people make them out to be.
So in my opinion, the whole thing about using guns as self-defence or for "protecting my house from burglars" is effectively moot
Well, your opinion runs contrary to reality. The FBI acknowledges that a victim with a gun is much less likely to be killed in a crime than one unarmed (this is of course ignoring the issue of unsecured guns, which cause greivous problems when children or burglars get access to them. But burglars rarely use a gun in the house they got it, they simply steal it and pawn it, the source of many illeagal weapons).
But self-defense is a legitimate, and truthful application of firearms. Burglars rarely are interested in shooting people (that's why they're burglars), and statistics show they ALWAYS run when faced with an armed homeowner.
That all said, i don't own a gun and never have. I just don't like them...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Killing a burglar is *not* self defence
It depends on the state. In Texas, you are allowed to protect your property with lethal force...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Fool! The ability to shoot or repel bullets is insignificant compared to the power of the Force.
No, no, HELL no. The problem is NOT gun laws. The PROBLEM is addiction, abuse, and poverty.
I was right behind you when you were talking about treating the causes and not the symptoms. However I dont think that gun control laws are even anywhere near the root of the problem. That isnt to say that they are a solution either...
Stop for a second and look at the guy who beats his wife and kids. I would bet that he learned to do that by being beaten himself. Abuse begets abuse, and teaches young minds that violence solves problems. The kid who shot the six year old was living in a hell hole by all accounts.
Who takes hits from the bong between classes? The kid who watches his older brother doing it with his friends. The kid who has a Dad who burns more alcohol than a funny car. Combine the biology and environmental factors, and you have kids walking around looking for their next hit before they take the first one. Drugs bring violence and the addicts feed the drug trade.
When was the last time you saw a well paid sysadmin shooting up a convience store in a botched robbery attempt? Probably never. They have the opporunity to get a check that makes the contents of the register seem trivial.
These issues infect people and create patterns in their lives that are hard to break out of. They also tend to lead people to violent paths. Does it always happen? No, people are not automatons. Would solving these problems end all forms of violence? No, when it comes down to it there are a lot more ways that people can be messed up. However, if you could successfully address these problems, I would expect to see a significant decrease in violent crime.
Note: Im not from the North, Im not a Democrat, and Ive shot plenty of guns in my life.
-BW
I'd love to see the stats on crimes involving guns v's crimes involving bombs
I wonder how those stats might be different if guns where illegal. After all, a Ryder full of anfo can take out a bunch of people.
Lookup the stats on the number of times a gun is turned on the owner, and then tell me if you still want to have one in your house
Ive done some target shooting in my day and am comfortable around guns. However for personal reasons I dont want to have one in my home. What I do want is the RIGHT to have a gun if I wanted one. Why? I believe in the concept of inherent and inalienable personal liberty. I am OK with choosing not to have a weapon. Yet I do not want anyone else making that decision for me.
-BW
If politicians have no term limits, then they have NO accountability to their constituents! If politicians have to earn their constituents support, wouldn't they be better representatives? I understand there is the large gray area of money: PACs, lobbyists, soft money, campaign costs.
I've seen news editorials dissing elected politicians for changing their votes on certain issues to "get more votes". Huh?? These people would rather elect a politician with "solid values" than a polictician who is DIRECTLY REPRESENTING their constituents' voiced opinions (via polls)!
cpeterso
I meant, "if politicians HAVE term limits, then they have NO accountability to their constituents."
:-) If the constituents like what their elected representative is doing, then great! Let them keep their job. I think term limits are just a loser's tactic. If the constituents really wanted change, they would elect someone else. They don't need a term limit law to make a choice. Democracy, eh?
It's when a politician had only one term with no possibility of re-election where he/she shouldn't care what the voters think, right? This is always the argument I've heard against single-term laws, that gives them every incentive to say whatever they think will help them get elected, but then there is zero incentive to actually do anything remotely resembling what they claimed they would do once in office.
Your statement is precisely what I was trying to say!
cpeterso
The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition).
Bullshit. Example one: some rare poisons are much more deadlier than, say, arsenic. Did they cause more deaths? Example two: you would probably agree that a nuclear bomb is more deadly than conventional munitions. Yet the (in)famous bombing of Dresden in WWII killed significantly more people than a nuclear bomb did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
So if more guns are available, more deaths will occur, and if less guns are available, less deaths will occur.
More bullshit. Most houses in Switzerland have a fully automatic assault rifle stored somewhere (most men are "reserve" members of armed forces and have their personal weapon at home). By your logic this means that Switzerland should be awash in killings. In Israel it's extremely common to see people with assault rifles slung over the shoulder to walk the streets, sit in cafes, etc. Again, this should mean that the murder rate in Israel should be extremely high, no?
I am not a big fan of NRA, but you might want to think a bit about their slogan that it's people who kill other people, not guns.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
[availability of guns in the US] it's right there in my mind whenever I'm discussing travel with friends - it's the reason I'll never set foot in America.
Interesting. If you are so afraid of dying that the probability of being killed by a gun while a tourist in the US stops you from going there, then your life should be very complicated. Your chances of being run over by a car when crossing the street are much, much higher -- so, presumably you do not cross streets. I also assume that you don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat saturated fat, don't engage in sex (what if a condom breaks?), don't drive in a car, don't swim in the ocean (sharks!!) and generally don't do anything that's riskier than being killed by a gun in the US.
Oh, well.
And, by the way, don't come even if the US prohibits all guns. The chances of your aircraft plunging into the Pacific ocean are still considerably higher than being shot in the USA while a tourist there.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Accually no, it DOOM that makes you kill people, Atleast thats what the media constently says, HAHHA. I never did understand that, noone plays DOOM anymore.
Who takes hits from the bong between classes? The kid who watches his older brother doing it with his friends. The kid who has a Dad who burns more alcohol than a funny car. Combine the biology and environmental factors, and you have kids walking around looking for their next hit before they take the first one. Drugs bring violence and the addicts feed the drug trade.
This is a completely different issue. I take bong hits before class. I smoke a joint on the way to school. And this is not detrimental to me or others around me. I am still a contributing member of society. I work, I pay taxes, I go to school, I release free software. How does my drug use affect you or anybody else?
The war on drugs in another example of treating the symptoms of a problem. In some European countries, where marijuana is legal, where heroin is legal, there is MUCH less of a drug problem than there is in America. You can walk into a pharmacy and get yourself a dose of high-grade heroin, over the counter. While here in the U.S., our government is telling is what we can and cannot do to our own bodies!. No, I don't condone the use of drugs (nor do I count pot as a drug, BTW, anymore than I count tobacco or coffee as a drug - technically, they all are, but should not be in the same category as heroin or cocaine.) But I believe that our government has way too much say in what we can and cannot do. The war on drugs is destroying this country from the inside out. Did you know that 75% of all arrests in this country are for the possession of fucking marijuana?? 75 percent of people arrested are arrested because they want to be able to relax and have a good time, without bothering anybody. Talk about fucking ridiculous.
Dammit, now I've gone and rambled again and gotten completely off the topic. Oh well. I need a place to vent.
That's because the US gun lobby is so strong that politicans try anything and everything else before they're willing to fix the obvious problem of too easy access to guns - because no matter how they handle it, it will lose them their next election. Hopefully the shakeup currently in progress (child safety locks, "smart" guns - wireless keys) will make simply discussing gun control less of an instant election loser...
Yup. I wish that politics weren't so much about getting elected and more about doing something important once in office. There are so many things that need reform in this country (gun control, drug laws, etc...) and it's not going to happen for a long while.
I think bad Hollywood movies are to blame for this, showing brave men responding to gun fire with one or two bullet wounds to their bodies. Even if you just get a "nice" bullet in your leg or so, the blood loss will make you really dizzy and most probably not even capable of targeting a gun, or maybe even hold it.
So in my opinion, the whole thing about using guns as self-defence or for "protecting my house from burglars" is effectively moot. Guns hurt. Instantly and seriously. No self-defense there.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
I'm sure pipe bombs are pretty hard to make, and you aren't going to mug someone armed with a pipe bomb - well, not unless you're really stupid ;)
Hence the threat of rage killings is reduced. It's not just grab your gun and run out and pop a few people - it's sit down with your knife and pipe and explosives and painstakingly put together your cruddy little wannabe grenade, then you run out and throw it somewhere and it probably won't even explode, or maybe it will even go off in your hand. A whole different ball game than a gun.
(Just as a side note, I remember reading somewhere about someone holding up a shop with a tortoise, claiming it would bite the shopkeeper if he resisted - he paid up!!!)
The Charter of Human Rights, IIRC, includes such insane `rights' as health care and food. That is utter nonsense (IMHO). Rights are in my opinion, things which do nto hurt other people: speech, religion, arms-bearing--not the improper use of arms, which does hurt others, just like the improper use of speech: e.g. `hang him!' to a mob. I hardly consider it a valid authority on what is and is not a human right. Instead, I seek a logic and rationale for determining what should and should not be considered a right. IMHO the right to bear arms is the most fundamental of all. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.
There are no eternal laws, but rights are eternal. They may be granted or denied, but the right itself is always a right, and any who denies it to another is a tyrant. All IMHO, of course.
And a government which does not protect these rights is worse than useless. It takes its due but does not perform its duty.
A government which does more than this does too much; it intrudes upon what should be the private realm. Also, I have a feeling--I may be wrong--that any time a government steps beyond protecting rights it must inevitably violate rights. For example, welfare involves violating the property rights of the rich in order to better the lives of the poor. I will have to think about that one; it may not actually follow.
The untrained person raised on Hollywood films and some games will not hunch down low; his survival instinct has been conditioned out. He will stand out and will be cut down. The trained person will try to duck for cover and things along those lines. While a video game cannot teach the physical end of things, it can teach the mental aspect of all this.
As unbelievable as it may seem, most untrained people just stand still or run around when they hear gunshots. Most veterans hit the floor and find cover. This is the result of training.
You are right though; all of those experiences taught you how to kill. And they should all be legal, regardless of what they taught. That was my point.
BTW, it was an American officer holding a gun to a VC's head; the VC had just finished killing either a friend of his or his family. I forget which. But a picture never gives context; it just shows some poor fellow about to die.
This means that the so-called rights to food or health care are not rights; for them to be guaranteed you others must be deprived of their posessions. TANSTAAFL; if I wish to feed you then I must take that food from someone. Generally this means that a government which guarantees these `rights' must steal from some of its citizens in order to give to others.
Now, this is not to say that the poor should not be fed or the ill taken care of. Indeed, in my religion these are virtues. But what right have I to impose my religion of caring for others on those very same others? What right do I have to make a misanthrope pay to keep the poor alive? None. Instead, I give willingly of my own posessions to feed the poor and nurse the sick. But I will never make someone else do so.
The right to keep and bear arms does not deprive anyone else of anything: it does not deprive him of his faith, his opinion, his property, his life, his liberty or any other thing. Granted, a weapon can be used to do so, but that is a case of misuse. My freedom of religion could be sued to deprive you of religion, or life, or property, but only if misused.
The one (taking care of the destitute) is a moral duty; the other is a natural right.
Arms-bearing is what seperates the free man from the slave. Among our ancestors the Germans when a slave was freed he was given a weapon as a token thereof. The Romans had a similar concept, I believe. Life is, in some ways, a power struggle. Government--good or bad, excellent or tyrannical--exercises its will through raw violence. It is impossible to do away with this; it is a fact of nature and of life. So we have two options: we can deny it, we can give up our right to wield violence for our own ends, cede our power to a monopolistic wielder of violence or we can reserve our right, the right which indicates our freedom, the right which demonstrates to all that we are not slaves of The Man but our own men.
Note that I do not mean that any individual has a hope against a government--he most certainly does not. That sort of conflict is not what I mean at all. It is the symbolism of the thing. When a young boy is given his first knife, he has attained a certain level of freedom. When he is given his first BB gun, he has reached another. When his father gives him his first .22 rifle, then he is well on the way to manhood.
I could go on about it more, about how familiarity with weapons leads to a greater sense of moral responsibility, but that would be off-topic.
On-Topic Stuff Here
This actually related to the video game issue. There are those who are against guns because they enable slaughter. But if they are against guns, then they must also be against violent video games, for video games also enable slaughter. Col. Grossman, whome I greatly dislike, does have a point. Those games do teach one how to make headshots, clear a room, keep a low profile (in some sense of that phrase; they cannot teach things like keeping the arms in tight).
But is this bad? Of course not. We already have the arguments against this. The video game does not cause anyone (save, perhaps, the demented, who could be set off by popcorn just as well as by video games) to murder. Neither does the gun. They are merely tools. The video game can teach some parts of combat readiness. The gun can be used in combat. But the choice to go into that combat, the choice to shoot and kill one's fellow man: that is made by a human being of his own free will.
I am a gun owner; I own a rifle and a handgun. I am responsible with my firearms. I never point a gun at something I do not wish to kill. I would rather shoot myself than someone else. Somehow that eeevvviiilll thing, the gun, has yet to turn me into a psychopath. But it has taught me a respect for life and death, for actions which do not have an 'undo' button: try looking at the body of an animal, knowing that you killed it and wishing that you could breath life back into it; try looking at the shattered remains of what was just a fraction of a second ago a perfectly normal beer bottle; try walking around with a device which if used properly is perfectly safe but which can be as deadly as anything else in this world. You learn that life isn't like a computer game. In real life no-one runs through a room figuring that he'll only get shot once or twice. No-one who knows what he is doing shoots someone without the clear idea that he is taking the life of a human being. The real world is for good; you cannot undo your actions by going to the Edit menu.
That is the problem with video games; they lead to a sense that nothing is permament. But this does not matter; it is our right to play video games just as much as it is our right to read what we will, believe what we will and wield what firepower we will. And I will defend anyone's right to play video games, and defend any video game manufacturer from this sort of foolish charge. Blame the craftsman, not the tools.
I daresay that I shall be moderated out of sight, but we shall see...
Fair enough. I think I understand where you are coming from. Just please understand that the gun debate is only one small part of our society, and not even the most important to most people. A great many people share your views; that is why the topic is so hotly debated here. Even among those that support gun ownership, they generally don't subscribe to the sort of action hero philosophy that our media is in love with.
I guess what I am trying to say is that America is much more than the face we broadcast to the world. The actions of our political leaders do not always reflect the feelings of the citizens. And that obnoxious/rude/loud American tourist is NOT a true representative of what America is all about (it is just that they are the ones that draw the most attention to themselves).
I guess what I am trying to say is that America is a mish-mash of a great many peoples and philosophies, and that is part of what makes it worth visiting. Heck, visit the Milwaukee / Chicago area and I promise to show you some of the *good* stuff that America has to offer. :-)
Cheers,
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
That is unfortunate. You seem to have boughten into the media hype that portrays America as a gangster filled, crime saturated battlezone. Random gun violence is almost unheard of here... that is why it still makes big news. That is not to say gun violence is not a problem, I just don't see it as something so serious that it should stop you from visiting the country. There is always some risk in traveling to any new place, but that shouldn't stop you from checking out what the world has to offer. Your likelyhood of being shot while visiting America is vanishingly small.
Cheers
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
but I heard the parties are still going to settle this with an old-fashioned gladiator battle, quake3 style. Let's just hope id uses a real champion and not Linus for the sake of name-value like Transmeta did.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Oh yeah, it couldn't be that the border is undefended, and anyone can smuggle stuff across easily.
Its about time that there was some sense brought into the American legal system. This particular lawsuit was just one in a series or frivilous lawsuits, all filed by the parents of the children who were killed in the shooting. Its understandable for them to be greif-stricken, but these lawsuits are not the way for them to deal with it. In addition to them suing id, and some other game/media companies, they also sued the school, including all teachers/administrators that the convicted shooter had from the 2nd grade to present. If I recall correctly, this case was thrown out also. Just one more note, its not Paducah county, is McCracken county. Paducah is the major city in McCracken county.
=
=================================================
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4
Primarily, they need evil intent. There are millions of people with the motivation, training, and weapons to kill; 99.99999% of them do not do so.
Accept that those good old blood and guts games have a price and accept the price you pay for freedom.
So, what was Billy the Kid's high score at Doom? Which TV shows did Leopold and Loeb's watch? What was playing at the movies during Jack the Ripper's prowl?
Violence is part of our flawed human condition, and blaming it on media is either a cop-out or a cynical rationalization for censorship.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Most of the rage killings AFAIK _are_ from ppl getting in a "rage" over their wife cheating, etc
These points are mutually contradictory. Once someone is in a "rage" over adultery, etc, the detachment and physical distance issues become quite irrelevant -- somone in that state who doesn't have a gun handly will simply use whatever happens to be handy, and in fact is likely to get more satisfaction out of stabbing or bludgeoning the object of their rage.
You are _far_ more likely to be severely injured or killed in a burglary, etc., attempt _if_ you own a gun in your house.
To illustrate the statistical fallacy at work here, let us start with the known fact that buildings with security alarms are far more likely to be robbed than buildings without security alarms. Which of the following is the more reasonable inference?
you have a gun, I need a gun to protect myself
Even if all criminals could be disarmed, this would not remove the size and strength advantages hooligans typically have over their potential victims.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Cars come with a drivers licence. Let me trot out my Honesty Check for people who advocate "licensing guns like cars": I can possess and drive a car on my own property without any license, so long as I don't take it onto a public street. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license? I can drive a car through downtown DC if I have a license issued in Idaho. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license? Just about anyone with sufficient motor coordination, eyesight, and sanity to be able to function without assistance can routinely expect pass a driver's license test. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license? The same license covers the driving of cars ranging from a Yugo to an Alfa Romeo (special licenses kicking in for full-sized trucks). Would this be the case with your proposed gun license (anything from .22 pistols to semi-auto rifles covered by a standard license, special licenses kicking in for machine guns)?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Is it just me, or is /. losing HTML tags?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I know that it's bad form to comment on spelling errors, but I had to chuckle at the incongruity of this one.
Getting back to the issue, the storage requirements you describe are for the firearms issued to Swiss citizens by the government as part of their militia/military service, not for firearms generally. See this article from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, not known as a font of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy thought.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It is normal and wholesome to respect the law and authority in general.
Oh fucking please. It is normal and wholesome to fear the law and authority. Respect is a different kettle of fish. I will respect two people who sit down and sort out their differences. I fail to respect someone who goes crying to a higher authority stating the letter of the law in order to force someone else into their point of view. But the law has the authority to use force and it is common sense to fear the use of force. Legal systems are based on fear and force, not respect and not common sense.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Just think had that lawsuit gone through, there would of been a massacre of JohnKatz articles and Slashdot "update" articles.
The Second Amendment and Games
Of course, it had no effect on anything. In fact, pro-Second Amendment politicians have been attacking games to draw peoples fire away from the Second Amendment (in a rather disgusting display of political cowardice.) I mean after Col. Grossman testified on the Hill that games ought to be regulated as armaments: Lt. Col. David Grossman
since part of his contention was that they were "learn by doing" murder simulators, it has become impossible to seperate the First Amendment issue involved with games from the Second Amendment issue involving guns. Grossman was acting as a consultant on these lawsuits, and has certainly gotten book sales out of them.
What people who are interested in facts should realize is that the emotional hysteria generated by these school shootings has destroyed the existence of rational debate on. Trigger locks, while they might possible preven accidental shootings, would have had no effect on Paducah. In fact, short of siezing guns from people who already had them, gun control wouldn't have been effective in any of these cases. The anti-games stuff is, of course, absurd as well. It is based on a view of games that suggests that they turn normal people into zombie killing machines. I get irritated when political opportunists who are against the Right to Bear Arms or against Free Speech expect us to swallow the most absurd arguments because they hope we've been blinded to reason by the emotions generated by these events. It is like the "red-baiting" mentality, connect your enemies to the commies and hope that no one looks at what you are really trying to accomplish.
The people who brought this suit ought to be sued by ID for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, and for attempting to gain from the suffering and death of innocent people.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Read the reviews carefully! It is even more important to mod up the reviews of the book that are accurate as it is to moderate down Grossman's cronies.
Well, this is the first time I've logged into my Amazon account since Bezos patented 1-Click. (I may have to go to the library one day and see if they have this book so I can write a review. I'm sure not going to buy it for that purpose, though. Hmm... I wonder what colonel would do if I scanned it and put it up on the Internet in PDF format? I'm sure he would thank me, because after all he's written it as a public service... and not as an attempt to cash in on the death and suffering of children, right? (note sarcasm)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers
It has some interesting data on the case:
While it's good news that the Anti-Gamer Agenda didn't manage to push its agenda any further than they have in past cases, it's a little frightening that these twisted, single-minded fanatics have been pushing this <insert obscenity> at the American people for so long. I just wonder when the American people will see the truth, that it is these people, the ones pushing lawsuits like this, who are truly dangerous to the United States and who need to be pushed out of the mainstream and sent to the fringes, where they belong! I find fascist-leaning lunatics like Grossman to be far more dangerous than any gamer, and far more likely to cause death and suffering.All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
And, of course, voting should be compulsory, like in many modern democracies.
If you are really in a democracy, you do have the right NOT to vote. After all, the more things you are compulsed to do, the less freedom you have. And if you have no freedom, why have a democracy at all?
But see my post here for my thoughts on the issue of gun control (I tried to post it before and netscape decided to nicely crash.) They aren't permanent beliefs. I listen to reason. I'm sure there are many holes. Feel free to correct me. Preferably nicely. :)
I have thought about the issue of gun control a lot b/c I tend to be a staunch supporter of peoples' liberties, BUT thus far the conclusion that I have come to from my life experience and from all the statistics I've seen and all I've read (including all the posts on this /. thread) is that I am for gun control. Call me a hypocrite, but here's why I think guns should be controlled.
I believe that in guns the bad simply outweighs the good. See discussion from one of yesterday's censorship threads - there are limitations to your freedoms. You have the right to your freedoms so long as they don't interfere with other peoples' rights to life, for example - note "yelling fire in theater, causing riot" example. I believe that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of guns is to do physical harm, and your liberty to have guns in our current-day society is outweighed by other peoples' rights to live.
No, guns themselves don't kill people. Yes, people would still die if guns didn't exist. BUT guns make it _much easier_ to kill ppl (detachment, physical distance, etc.), so yes, a lot of people die b/c of guns.
Just b/c I am against guns does not mean that I am against violent video games, rope, bottles, etc. Those do NOT have a PRIMARY PURPOSE of doing physical harm.
Yes, "career criminals" will still have guns. But the issue is not about planned murder, it is about rage killings mostly.. and there is the common argument about "acccidental killings" by kids, which is certainly something worth trying to prevent, but probably accounts for a very small percentage of the gun deaths. The rage killings however are _not_ a small percentage. And somone cited that most are actually "b/t criminals", but where that statistic comes from AFAIK is that most of the assaulters and victims of rage killings have had some kind of criminal record in the past - i.e. drug violations, etc. NOT that they are necessarily active criminals engaged as a drug dealer, in the Mafia, etc. ;-) Most of the rage killings AFAIK _are_ from ppl getting in a "rage" over their wife cheating, etc., and they happen to have a gun. It happens for obvious reasons that a lot of these ppl do have criminal records from the past, but those are _not_ the ppl. who would have the guns if guns were much harder to get. The ones that _would_ still be able to get guns are the career criminals.
Additionally, the argument that you need guns to "protect" from getting robbed, etc., is BS. Proven statistic (don't have it offhand, but can find it if need be.... AFAIK it is commonly accepted as fact by both "sides" on this issue): You are _far_ more likely to be severely injured or killed in a burglary, etc., attempt _if_ you own a gun in your house.
And yes, of course banning guns is not going to immediately make all guns in the U.S. disappear, but as mentioned earlier, in the long term the ppl. who aren't "career criminals" won't have them, so it will help very significantly with the rage killings, etc. (very significant portion of the gun deaths - anyone know the number offhand.. I've seen it but can't find it now)
As someone mentioned, its just like U.S. and USSR... ever see Wargames? nuclear escalation... well its the same thing. like the other poster said, you have a gun, I need a gun to protect myself.. next it'll be bombs (see discussion from some thread yesterday where the limits to your liberties were discussed, in specific relation to bombs). Do you want everyone to be allowed to have an H-bomb "to protect themselves". Sure there are laws existing on the books that would punish ppl for setting off an H-Bomb, but is that really going to deter anyone who was going to set one off anyway!? There is an immediate danger posed by someone having an H-Bomb, and likewise by someone having a gun. Primary purpose of both is to do physical harm....
And I want to note that probably the best argument I've heard _for_ allowing free access to guns is for purposes of a revolution someday.... I don't expect most ppl to necessarily agree with me here, but I can say why this reason doesn't make me agree that guns should be allowed - this is b/c my personal beliefs are that it is not right and I _could not_ kill anyone under any circumstances, no matter how unjust they are being and how many other people they are having killed, and I believe and it is supported from history that it _is_ possible to have non-violent revolutions... by no means easy, but possible, and the chance of that is better than killing anyone IMHO. But its interesting to note that this argument about needing guns for revolution is the only one that makes any real sense at all to me, yet it is rarely argued by the gun-rights supporters...
Ok, now I'm ready for the flames... if anyone actually made it through the whole post, put the secret keyword "notaflame" in your reply so I know you actually read my post so could make an informed reply. :)
Good judgment. After all, to quote AJ from UserFriendly when he visited the world of Sluggy Freelance:
:) ).
"I just mastered the keyboard mouse combo, do you expect me to get the arms and legs combo?!?"
Come on now, getting up and shooting somebody would mean having to like get up and stuff, and I just got my keyboard settings set up properly again (the Dvorak keyboard is great for typing, but man does it ever screw up the keyboard
IMHO, violent video games reduce the chances I would go and shoot someone. It's just logistically too different. sarcasm { Except for maybe stuff like Area 51 - you actually use a red plastic gun in that one. } Besides, after blowing up my coworkers with a rocket launcher in Quake, my stress levels are far below homicidal levels.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
I do have to question any parent who lets a child be over exposed to this (or any other) form of media that displays death so much. I've played the hell out of Doom, Doom2, Quake1 2 and 3 and I haven't gone out on a shooting rampage (note: I did put in an application at an american post office the other day, but that's a different issue;). This is testiment to the fact that in moderation these games are fun.
If a parent sees a child displaying anti-social behaviour and leaves the kid alone in his room for 2 years to watch death (in a video game or Martin Scocesee movie) 24/7 . . . newsflash! Jr is gonna be a little depressed.
_______________
The 80% the following term is an interesting concept - kind of a not-quite-term-limit (i.e., you have to be a damn popular incumbent to be allowed to keep the office). The % might be adjusted - maybe just 2/3?
We should also modify the election system to make sure that only candidates who are supported by a majority of the population can be elected - right now, by playing opponents against each other, candidates who represent distinctly minority views can gain positions of power over the majority. The CANDIDATES might enjoy the game, but I don't think it's good for the society as a whole to be in that situation.
I'm not convinced about the compulsory voting - there's a lot of people who I would prefer not be making decisions about my future - I wouldn't trust their judgement to order me my next McDonald's meal, much less decide whether or not I should be shot for attempting to cross the street. (Now perhaps compulsory EDUCATION about how to "get along" in a society?)
There's another issue in today's current setup, which is related to why incumbents keep getting reelected even though they keep screwing the country over and over - they really DO keep an eye out for their voters - by bribing them with "pork", if nothing else.
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that they behave in a manner which helps the society as a whole - just those people who they need the votes of. Therefore, you get a whole bunch of greedy, grasping politicans who do everything they can for their OWN voters, usually to the detriment of OTHER voters (and if your representative isn't strong or clever enough, you get screwed).
What you need is a way for all of the OTHER voters to kick out so-called "national" representatives if they are convinced that those representatives don't represent their best interests, even if they didn't vote them into office in the first place.
That way, you have a balance between the voters in a particular locale picking somebody to represent their interests, and everyone else having the ability to make sure that representative doesn't trample on THEIR interests.
Well I guess now the debate over wether violent video games make people violent is going to get heated.
A debate like will never end in our(game fans) favor. The argument will only get violent its self.
-----
DemonStreet.com
The french revolution was bad news indeed for the aristocrats, but IIRC most of the victims were regular people whose snitching neighbours carried a grudge. And I seriously doubt that Napoleon was more benign than Louis XVI (albeit less clueless)
Admitted, a revolution now and then might shake some pieces into place. Far too often the end result is a new nomenklatura. Most often the cause is a weak formal ruler in a tradition of strong governments and a strong informal leader.
The new leader might be smarter, but not neccesarily better for the people. Power and corruption, same old story.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Guns are *not* all or nothing. You can stop the supply even if there is a huge pool out there.
Do you want only the government and criminals to have guns? What does that solve? Yes, fewer accidental shootings. So the kids at columbine would have taken everyone out with pipe bombs (as I recall the ones that they used miraculously didn't go off, so in the future people will know to check out a few bombs before using them). Wow. huge improvement.
If cops and hardened criminals are the only ones with easy access to guns, one thing is gained: The "normal citizen" who goes nuts one day, will *not* simply have to walk by the nearest gun shop before gunning down his coworkers (or classmates)
Preparing pipe bombs takes some time. Getting a gun when there is a waiting period or a required license takes *time* Time during which you might get back to your senses.
Oh, and the constitution does guarantee the right of people to bear arms. It sites specifically that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
You don't suppose something might have happened since then? Or are the americans still a bunch of revolutionaries fighting against colonists? I get your point about how states change for the wors, but lets stick to the situation *today*
So how do you propose to disarm the law-abiding populace of America and yet allow them to maintain their freedom against those who would take it away from them?
Licenses.
You want a gun for sports shooting? Take a test for a sports shooting licence. Show that you can handle the weapon type in question in a proper way. *Then* you can have a gun.
Hunting? Prove that you can handle the rifle (and hunt in a responsible way, ie hit to kill not to maim) *Then* you can have that hunting rifle (and an ak74 is *not* a hunting rifle )
You really need a gun for self defence? Get a license. Requirements: Safe gun handling *and* understanding of the responsabilities. Killing a burglar is *not* self defence. If you can't prove that he was a lethal threat, you will probably be facing at least a manslaughter charge.
You want to be part of that militia, neccesary in that free country? Organise a militia, coordinated with (not governed by) the regular forces. Let officers of that militia issue licenses *and* be responsible for them. (criminal neglect or whatever the legal term might be)
Oh, and what about if I die because you drive drunk, tired, with screaming kids in your car who distract you, etc? Should you have a car?
Cars come with a drivers licence. If you are caught drunk driving, you should have your licence revoked. Not everyone is caught before it is too late, but *some* are.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Rare, yes, but they get a lot of attention. If you are pro-gun, a licensing scheme might target high-profile gun abuse without really affecting legitimate use. That is, lessen the pressure for even harder gun control laws.
one thing is lost: the millions of acts of self-defense using a gun that occur each year in America.
No.
I did not say anything about forbidding guns for self defence. (I don't believe in them myself, but that is beside the point) I suggested a *licence* for self-defence guns. First prove that you can handle the gun properly and most important: That you understand the consequences should you ever fire the gun at another human being.
citizens have absolutely no reason to expect the police to protect them
But they *should* have. The risk of getting caught *should* be enough to discourage all but the really desperate. Unfortunately that is not the case
how do you propose that people protect themselves...
Actually, the best defence would probably be a decent alarm system. (And a police with decent response time)
You might succeed in scaring a mugger off with your gun, but if he is *not* scared? If he calmly says "You don't have the guts to fire, and if you do me and my friend here will swear that we were just asking you what time it was when you pulled a gun on us."
What do you do in that scenario?
Shoot?
To kill?
Given the choise between losing your wallet and face a manslaughter charge (or at least assault with a deadly weapon or something similar) do you really think that the latter is a better option?
All opinions are my own - until criticized
There are no quick fixes to social problems.
No laws will stop "career criminals".
Disasters happen, one incident does *not* create a pattern.
Guns are effective, therefor dangerous, tools. I dont want a gun in the hands of anyone whom I wouldn't trust with my sysadmin password. That is *my* stance. I cant tell *you* what to do.
Killing is wrong.
Yes, killing a "criminal" is also wrong.
You prepare fo a revolution if you want, but before you start, think about how much good it did in russia.
Peace, please?
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I do not believe any restrictive gun-control sceme will work in the US. (for the record I'm not american) I am certain that the majority of american gun owners are very aware of the responsibility that comes with the freedom to bear arms. I certainly realize that a "real" criminal (as opposed to a casual thief) will not be affected by any law. (carrying a gun w/o licence is peanuts compared to robbery, at the very best it gives a police officer something to book him for)
The reason for my thoughts about a licencing sceme is that I was wondering about how to target the not insignificant minority that are not hardened criminals, but fail to take their responsibility seriously. Perhaps the implications would be overbroad, perhaps too narrow. It is still more constructive than digging trenches.
general licensing schemes don't solve the high-profile shootings by people who just snap
Not all of them, but perhaps some. Unfortunately we never hear of the incidents that *don't* happen
It's obvious safety training only addresses accidents
Why the bold "only"? It is also obvious that there is a large grey zone in the statistics you refer to, since it (probably) only contains accidents that resulted in personal injury (and where the victim saw a doctor)
Actually, I had a "hidden agenda" concerning safety training. Mandatory safety training is something that the average law abiding citizen might agree to. Therefore it is a form of licensing that might actually be accepted. It does not affect your *right* to buy a gun, it just throws some inertia into the system. It makes you stop to think for a moment. And that might do more good besides simply reducing the number of accidents.
Oh and I know what an AK74 is. And I can tell the difference btw AK47, AKM and AK74. Guess I should have included a smiley :-) Dammit assault rifles (or automatic carbines) are really fun shooting. Don't get me started or I'll lose all credibility as a pro-control guy...
[Alarm system]
I *did* say best, not "the most cost effective"
And finally the scenario.
What I was getting at was that all cases are not simple matters of "Obvious homocidal robber vs Law abiding citizen"
The cops finds person A with a smoking gun over the dead body of person B. No witnesses. Homocide or self defence?
Someone pulls a gun at you because he just escaped a mugger who somehow resembled you and (in panic) honestly think you want him dead. Regardless of who kills who, he could probably claim self defence.
A foreigner who does not understand when the texan shouts "freeze" grabs inside his coat for a phrase book...
You always shoot to kill because that gives you the best chances to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, this is a sad fact of life, and stopping an attacker is always the ultimate goal of self-defense
Is the ultimate goal of self defence not to escape or minimize any harm intended for you?
A dead person in your house can cause you far more harm than some lost property.
That is why *I* don't believe in guns for self defence. I respect your opinion. I don't want to take *your* gun (if your judgement is as good as your writing) I just want people to think before making a desicion.
Regards
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Remind me never to pay you a surprise visit :-)
Actually I was speaking morally, not legally. I put right to life over right to property any day.
I respect your right to defend your property, but *not* to the extent of taking another human beings life.
If your life, or that a third party is in danger I see the cause for possibly lethal force. Only then. (and "He *might* have killed me, I heard about this other burglar on CBS who..." does not cut it)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I can possess and drive a car on my own property without any license, so long as I don't take it onto a public street. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
No.
I can drive a car through downtown DC if I have a license issued in Idaho. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
Probably, Yes. Why not?
Just about anyone with sufficient motor coordination, eyesight, and sanity to be able to function without assistance can routinely expect pass a driver's license test. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
Not as you put it. However I don't want impossible tests, just a sanity check and a delay.
The same license covers the driving of cars ranging from a Yugo to an Alfa Romeo (special licenses kicking in for full-sized trucks). Would this be the case with your proposed gun license (anything from .22 pistols to semi-auto rifles covered by a standard license, special licenses kicking in for machine guns)?
Some license classes would be neccesary. See my original post.
As I said, I'm just trying to be constructive.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
(full text)
It all fits in our present society where nobody ever bears fault. Everything is the result of somebody else and that somebody else should pay. Good to see that the judge had some common sense. Alot of these weird cases don't need the wisdom of Salomon, just some plain old common sense.
Use Adsense for Charity
I recognize that giving up these things "for the children" (sorry, obligatory), will be hard for some, but if we save just 1, just one life, won't be it worth it?
Let's live in the nerf (tm) society where none of can get hurt, ever. The government can do it better (tm).
For the children!!!! :-)
Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Perhaps I should be more clear. I didn't mean that less-violent gun owners are more likely to take classes, I meant that simply the experience of owning a gun is an educational one that teaches respect for the weapon and the lives of all people concerned. In some areas (including the one I live in) it is mandatory to take an NRA safety course before purchasing a firearm. I am in support of these programs. You should be certified fit to use a gun just like you should be certified fit to drive a car.
I didn't say purchasing a weapon, I said owning a weapon. If you've never used a firearm, then you don't know what I'm talking about. But if you ever do, you will quickly understand the deep respect and responsibility that is instilled in you by the knowledge that you have the power to easily kill people. Regarding your statement about accidentally shooting someone: Accidental gun-deaths are extremely rare; you're more likely to die accidentally by falling, slipping, or fire. Maybe we should make slippery floors illegal? Hmmmmm :)
In many communities, including mine, an NRA (or equivilent) certification is required to purchase a firearm. I support these requirements for the same reason I support the idea of driver's licenses.
5. Sources?
See Taking aim at Gun Control for some interesting statistics.
- In the US, every citizen is guaranteed a fundamental right to own a firearm. The founding fathers realized that fundamental rights MUST REMAIN ABSOLUTE, or you might as well have no rights at all.
- In the US, almost half of all households have a gun in them. It is therefore statistically ludicrous to assign severely abnormal traits to gun owners.
- Studies have shown that gun owners who are properly trained are likely to be less violent than non gun owners.
- All instances of children accidentally shooting themselves or each other is the result of irresponsible parents failing to properly secure their guns and teach their children proper respect for them (Yes, children CAN learn respect for things, you liberals have a way of treating kids like emotional and intellectual retards)
- In the past 30 years, the number of firearms owned by Americans have increased from 122 million to more than 220 million. During that time, violent crime, school violence, and domestic violence rates have decreased.
Some more things to learn- Taking aim at Gun Control
- Why gun control is wrong (by Yours Truly)
- GunCite - Everything you need to know about gun control and why it's wrong.
- Ethics from the barrel of a gun: what bearing arms teaches about the good life - Written by the same dude who brought you The Cathedral and the Bazzaar
Thank you for listening to my rant. You can go about your business now.But with this new type of violence, nobody knows when something is going to happen. Usually, the people act alone, are extremely secretive, and do it for themselves, not a group that has to communicate with other people. It is even harder to predict because the cases of mass shootings are so diverse--it seems everyone that does it, does it for a different reason.
But the numbers of mass shootings are definitely on the rise--whether the such kids derive their inspiration from others who have done the same or references in popular culture remains to be seen.
I predict that most, if not all, of the effect is due to hearing in the news of other kids doing a mass shooting. Take for instance the movie "Natural Born Killers". If there was ever a movie to promote a mass shooting, NBK is it. Eventually, NBK was sued because one of these kids got some inspiration from it. But this kid did his deed years after the movie. Why weren't there more shootings before him motivated by the movie, when the movie had a greater audience? The reason is that the culture at the time, violent movies or no, did not promote mass shootings in any way. It just wasn't something that people did. No one would even think of doing it.
The first successful plane jacking for money happened in the early 70's. Before that, no one even had even really conceived of doing it. And those crinimals that had probably thought of it as hypothetical than as a rational crime to commit. But after it happened, many copy-cats tried the same thing, and we have had sporadic plane-jackings since.
Mass killings are here to stay for a while, but this is because they started in the first place, and kids realized it could be done, not because of any new entertainment media.
Nuff said, can't beat the writings of an italian marxist on toilet paper ;-)
Working for the (other) man
...before somebody thinks of blaming us.
I have an idea. All you Slashdotters who are parents, tell your children you love them. It just might work.
I am a geek. I was physically assaulted at least twice weekly in school by my "peers". I was a social outcast. I had few friends. In many respects, I resembled these killers.
I've played Doom since I was thirteen. I played all the violent games since; Duke, Quake, etc... I even played Operation Body Count, fer chrissakes.
And I've never killed anyone. I'm actually decently proficient with a gun, and could land eight hits with eight rounds on a target the size of the head and upper torso.
This is all because my parents love me, and raised me to be a decent human being. Maybe if some of these parents tried it, we'd have fewer shootings.
"Let me open these blinds so the snipers can see in." - Kevin Giffhorn
Its great that the suit was dropped, but the thing is, some damage has already been done. id already had to pay quite a bit of $$$ for lawyers. The case started at least 6 months ago, right? Thats six months of paying for a lawyer through that time. There are TONS of other ways this money could have been spent that would be much more productive for id. Hell-throwing it in their furnaces would have been better. _That_ is what is wrong with the judicial system today...anyone with money can sue anyone else whenever they want to and cut them out of a few grand. Im sure whoever was sueing them had all kinds of groups behind them(Mothers against Games or some such crap like that)...
Yes, but Switzerland has firearm storage laws similar to other parts of Western Europe & some Australian states, where the said firearm has to be stored unloaded, without any ammunition & (if possible) disable in a locked steal box that's bolted & welded or cemented down, with the ammunition & if possible the fireing pin, stored in another part of the house in a similar way. Seeing as the vast majority of firearm incidents (probably over 90%) are not acts of premeditated criminality, but due to accidents, impulsiveness, drunkeness, jealousy, domestics & that sort of thing & the fact is thats why these things happen more when there's easy avaliabilty of firearms. Also if you classify a criminal as some one who has committed more than just a couple of felonies & or get a proportion of their regular income through illegal activitiesthe, then the simple fact is the vast majority of criminals don't possess firearms themselves, & if they did, then the odds would be it would be pawned by the end of the next working day. BTW, where do you think criminals get their firearms from? They buy 'em or otherwise aquire them from average everyday mostly law abiding people. Thats why by simply making firearms less avaliable, decreases the amount of firearms avaliable to criminals too. Personlly I think that the world is vastly overpopulated with people anyway, so the more Americans who go arround shooting each other, then the better the planet's enviroment will be. So don't think I'm advocating gun control, I'm just debating the issues.
I guess Amazon is being "selective" in which reviews they are posting. Otherwise, how can such tripe average a 4-star rating?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I'm getting really tired of people who think that laws which originated hundreds of years ago are still completely applicable today. While on the one hand I agree that too many new laws make things too complex for simple folks, the fact of the matter is that we need more laws because there are more people. Not that I like these laws, but we have to learn to live with them, just like we have to learn to get along with each other.
It is normal and wholesome to respect the law and authority in general. Balanced against that statement is the nasty little fact that tyranny makes use of working within the system to insure that nothing ever changes. Responsability can be used as a weapon against fairness. Often the real progress in the world is made by those who buck the system. The very folks who developed the computer industry were counter culture nerds and geeks who denied the more common values and goals of life.
There seems to be a real bad Slashdot code bug around here - the Score descriptions aren't showing. Meaning, if a post is rated (3, Informative) the 'Informative does *not* show up (only the "(3,)") does.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
... There's no way in hell John Carmack would have enough money left this year to buy another Ferrari.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
This type of frivolous lawsuit is completely detrimental creativity. There may be a correlation between violence and video games, but even that does not, in any way, equal causation. I could just as easily mention that it rained here in Toronto, and that prices of pizza went up in China. The two seem unrelated, but statistically, there is a correlation. However, it doesn't take much to conclude that the rain didn't cause the pizza prices to change.
The problem is that the individuals who were both victims and agressors in this case refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't something as trivial as movies or video games, but a greater pervasive problem throughout a society.
You want a focus group? Try Canada. We recieve the same movies, video games, and much of our culture is related. Clearly, the media is not to blame.
I could theorize about the lack of guns in Canada, or our less liberal view of hunting for children, but that would just bring out the gun-nuts. I'm more concerned with showing what isn't the cause - the media - not placing the easy blame.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Remember the PMRC?
Wasn't that the committee that declared Tipper to be the inventor of music?
_______
2B1ASK1
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Fortunately judges take a dim view of this sort of attitude and I hope it stays that way.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This will never make it into the mainstream media. You will not see this story appear on CNN, MSNBC, or [insert your favorite news media source here]. The intial lawsuit was considered "news" and "interesting" and therefore fit for distribution becuase it would attract eyeballs and therefore ratings. But a lawsuit being dismissed?
Why, it's completely boring and uninteresting. Who would ever care about such a thing? Result=no public exposure when these ridiculous lawsuits get thrown out as they should. Chalk it up to a fundemental flaw in the media system and how it perceives its relationship to those who receive information from it. The media has no legal responsibility whatsoever for printing or distributing a retraction or correction to an inaccurate previous story. The media has no legal responsibility to present both sides of a story. The media has no legal responsibility to follow up on a story and report on its aftereffects.
Victories in the courtroom are all well and good, but when was the last time you say Bernstein, Junger, or [some ludicrous lawsuit thrown out or some issue resolved in favor of any resonable sense of justice] receiving equal prominence with, say, the RIAA or MPAA's receiving preliminary injunctions against such "pirating and hacking tools like DeCSS"?
Hmmm...I guess that makes him a bisexual judge `;^)
Okay, I'm a smart-ass!
Have a look at my web site
4-6-2000
In a decision that has just been made
available, id has prevailed in the
Paducha lawsuit on all points. Judge
Johnstone has dismissed the case on
all grounds, validating what we have
said all along: the case lacked a
shred of merit.
Now that this legal hurdle is out
of the way, work can finally resume
on id's latest title, "Columbine
Revenge 2001," and our latest add-on
pack to Q3A, "Cafeteria Crossfire"
When I was a kid in the late 70's/early 80's, we had a games we all knew about in the neighborhood. Ahh yes, back in the pre-PC age of analog, we had to come up with games instead of buying them, believe it or not. We had three neighborhood favorites. "Ghost In The Graveyard", "Smear The Queer", and "Guns".
In "Ghost In The Graveyard", we played it only at night. One person was selected to go somewhere in the neighborhood and hide. The rest of us would split up and search for the ghost. The fun came when you had the crap scared out of you when you came across the person hiding, or heard a scream of terror somewhere in the neighborhood. I liked Ghost In The Graveyard, and played it alot. However, it didn't make me worship satan and bite the heads off of chickens later in life. It was a game.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, or incredibly insensitive towards gays, i'll tell you about the next game. "Smear The Queer" was a variant of rugby. Before the days of political correctness, it was a sure-fire way of humilitating and physically punishing your friends as a group. The person with the football ran around and had to avoid relinquishing posession of it, even after being tackled and beaten into submission. I liked playing Smear The Queer, and played it alot. However, it didn't make me a gay-bashing redneck later in life. It was a game.
Similarly, "Guns" was alot of fun. Any object in the household that even vaguely resembled a firearm was used in an imaginary war of attrition with a line drawn between houses. In my case, I managed to get a discarded power-drill from my dad which looked vastly more impressive than the simple garden-hose sprayers and silicone caulking guns the other kids had. We chased eachother around the neighborhood, the 6 of us, for hours on end, jumping over cars and diving over bushes, hiding under stairwells and such, our imaginations running wild with the thought of gunning down our friends in a real-life Quake arena, if you will.
However, it didnt make me a homocidal mainiac with an unquenchable thirst for human suffering. It was a game.
So, here I am, 20 years later. I have no interest in the occult. I have no urge to physically assault gay people, and I have no bizzare fixation with firearms. Infact, it would scare me to even know someone involved in any of those activities, let alone be a participant in any of those activities myself.
When the line between fantasy and reality is blurred in the mind of a child, you can often times look directly at that kid's parents and point out very, very severe problems in how they handled the task of raising their child. Dylan Klebold left his house every morning wearing a black trenchcoat with a swastika armband on, leaving a sawed-off shotgun ontop of the dresser in his bedroom. His parents did nothing about it, unfortunately. And by the time they understood the gravity of their own neglect of their child, a dozen or more kids lay dead in a school.
Your upbringing wont cause you to become a psychopath later in life. The _lack_ of an upbringing, however, will. Thats not to say that companies like Id are immune from scrutiny but the fault most often lies with internal causes rather than external ones, like TV, music, or entertainment in general, IMHO.
Flame away. Thats how I see it, and i'm-a stickin' to it.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda)
Bowie J. Poag
Thank God they didn't get a stupid judge in this case - that would have been bad news.
Lawsuits like this make me wish I wasn't an American. This country has way too many problems with trying to treat the symptoms of a problem rather than the causes of the problem. Example: all the shit that followed Columbine. People are cracking down on people dressing in black and being different than other people, rather than trying to figure out why these people have a tendancy to go nuts and start shooting. If they just looked at the problem in a larger scope, they would see that they are not the causes of the problem - the cause of this problem is people harassing these people because they are different, and the people who are trying to fix the problem are just making it worse.
...check out the Amazon customer reviews on Lt. Col. David Grossman's Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill .
:-)
This will give you an idea of what id and the gaming community as a whole are up against. For those tuning in late, Col. Grossman is the chief evangelist behind this and similar lawsuits which attempt to pin the blame for recent school shootings on creators and distributors of popular culture.
Never one to let facts and statistics interfere with a good diatribe, Grossman and his cronies excel at distracting their followers' attention from the fact that acts of violence in schools (not to mention the rest of US society) are occurring less frequently these days than at any time since the 1960s.
So if correlation really does imply causation, as Grossman would have us believe, then we should be thanking id Software and Valve for selling American kids a violence-dousing cathartic.
Personally, when it comes to figuring out what drove Michael Carneal to go postal at his junior high school, my money's on the town uranium-enrichment plant.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
What should we have done if the judge had gone the other way? Precisely what we do when the judge rules for a position that we favor. One cannot selectively pick and choose which judicial mandates to ignore and which to accept based on the personal self-benefit that would be derived from such a position. I too am utterly outraged when some judge rules for some idiotic company only interested in enriching its own pockets at the expense of the consumer and trodding over the rights of the many; however, if we accept the rulings in our favor, and thereby the implicit underlying premise that our common abstract conception of justice will eventually prevail in the end through the judicial process, we would be inconsistent to refuse to obey a ruling that had gone the other way.
Civil disobedience: a term use frequently by Slashdotters in a flimsy justification for disregard of the law. It's a noble concept, but mirroring the DeCSS code, for instance, just doesn't cut it, IF you are not willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your civil disobedience. If the judge had gone the other way, fight vigourously to have the decision overturned on appeal, pester your legislators for change in tort reform, contact all the civil liberties assocations that you know about, boycott the company, whatever. But I believe that it would certainly be hypocritical to defy such a ruling under the assertion that the judge is a moron, or some such nonsense.
....because if I can go from pushing the 'CTRL' key down with picking up a submachine gun, striping it, cleaning it, reassembling it, loading and cocking it, aiming it, and firing it, while using the proper stance, BRAS technique, staying on target, target discrimination, etc etc whilst wearing a scratchy trench coat then DAMN, hold me back!
Oh, and since I've played Falcon 4.0, don't let me near an Air Force base; I can bugger off with a Falcon and bomb people to death!
Besides; anybody who's actually played Doom knows that if somebody was going to kill people, Doom Style, they'd do it with the CHAINSAW!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play Heretic II for the EXPRESS purpose of learning how to cast magic spells.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.