Slashdot Mirror
President Trump: 'We Have To Do Something' About Violent Video Games, Movies (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In a White House meeting held with lawmakers on the theme of school safety, President Donald Trump offered both a direct and vague call to action against violence in media by calling out video games and movies. "We have to do something about what [kids are] seeing and how they're seeing it," Trump said during the meeting. "And also video games. I'm hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is shaping more and more people's thoughts." Trump followed this statement by referencing "movies [that] come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else." He made a suggestion for keeping children from watching violent films: "Maybe they have to put a rating system for that." The MPAA's ratings board began adding specific disclaimers about sexual, drug, and violent content in all rated films in the year 2000, which can be found in small text in every MPAA rating box.
Right wing conservatives are so quick to point out when someone even hints at possibly affecting their second amendment rights but have absolutely no problem at all with stripping away 1st amendment rights.
At least for me, they were an escape from what I endured day in and day out in that festering shithole they called a School. The hell I endured being a computer geek in the 1980's, just so I could go to school and get an education.
It paid off, I make a good living, and have a great life now. But on many days going home and playing violent video games saved me from doing something I would now regret. (Not that they didn't have it coming, but jail would not have been a happy environment for me.)
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
I agree. In fact, the NRA actually funded the rifle training of the shooter.
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/...
When you think about it, it makes sense. The only group that benefits from mass shootings is the NRA, the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The last assault weapons ban established by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, and which lasted for a decade, was widely studied and, based on studies funded and directed by conservative think tanks, was found to have zero effect on gun violence.
ftfy
Take a look at this chart.
Well yes. Beware the politician's syllogism.
Something must be done.
Here is something.
Therefore we must do it.
Having said that, this is indeed a start. The willingness to do something is actually better than the refusal to do anything because you probably still live in a democracy and this opens the conversation.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
What are they going to do, take away his guns? But that would require gun regulations... I don't think this is about laziness. Our criminal justice system has become so broken going after non-violent offenders, that actual threats, which should be treated as a crime, just get ignored. This guy should have been charged with making a substantial threat multiple times, and his access to firearms removed as a result. (i.e. not only could he not buy them, he could not possess them.) But that would require a working, effective criminal justice system and some sort of firearm ownership regulations. Neither of which we have in the U.S.
How about appropriately blaming a society where:
a) There are guns everywhere.
b) There is very little social responsibility (its always someone ELSES fault).
c) Being the Alpha is what matters, be it through money, force, or fame.
d) Not 'fitting in' is punished by being socially ostracised, and told there is something wrong with you.
e) A Police force that will thunder through the door guns blazing in response to a phone call.
f) Living in a constant media and social deluge reinforcing all of the above.
Disenfrancise enough people and this is the outcome. Congratulations America, I guess this is 'The Dream'.
But dont worry, just arm more people, because escalation works.
(btw, no, video games wont work - many countries, especially Asian boys, LOVE violent video games, and have very very very very low rates of these crimes)
It isn't the money that NRA tosses around that is the major problem. It is - comparatively - only a small part of Republican party funding: in 2014, only 1% of the money raised in 2014 came from the NRA.
No, the NRA's real power is how quickly - and repeatedly - they can mobilize their supporters. As importantly, NRA supporters don't forget about the issue in a month or two; gun-control is /the/ major issue for them. It trumps issues like abortion, taxes, immigration, and all the other hot-button topics that divide this nation. And they vote.
The NRA wields a huge club because they can get a huge number of voters behind (or against) a particular candidate depending on his stance on gun-control. Although many other issues result in vocal support (or disagreement), very few groups have a the same ability to guarantee actual votes on the topic. The NRA does. That's why they don't need to push so much money at the candidates (that money, after all, is mostly used for advertising to convince voters to their side; with the NRA, the issue is already decided). So rather than risk alienating them most politicians try to either placate the NRA or avoid the issue entirely.
Banning the assault-style weapons for everyone obviates the need to differentiate people on mental health basis. Yes, I realize that may require amending the US Constitution, but it does seem like the best option for stopping these assaults. At some point, the inalienable right to life has to beat the alienable right to arms.