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.
How about appropriately blaming the Police and FBI that ignored multiple blatant opportunities to catch that nutjob. Heck, he used his real name to threaten school shootings online, and one of his relatives called the FBI tip line in January.
There are violent movies and video games in other countries and they don't have the same issues with gun violence.
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no! If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too? Anyone want to lay bets that Pence is as much behind this as possible, too?
"Maybe they have to put a rating system for that."
Uh, they have a rating system. Been in place for a long damn time now, not quite show how the hell Trump could have not known this.
If he's looking for more than that, there's an easy answer. It's called Parenting.
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.
We absolutely must end the ability of people to pretend to kill others, whilst doing nothing to stop people being able to kill each other.
Because binary "you are being punished" or "you are not being punished" is coarse, stupid and was done away with a while ago. We recognize that serial DUI drivers don't ever deserve the freedom to not have an interlock that technically prevents (or at least inconvenience) drunk driving. We recognize that wife beaters should be forbidden from making contact with their wife after they get out. We recognize a need for a parole system that manages behavior while still allowing for some freedom.
I'm not saying every crime needs to have an inability to own a gun, but there are definitely some where that right should be forfeit forever.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I don't know how things work in the US but most countries already have a system in place for doing assessments: driving tests, welfare assessments, social services, etc.
One thing that might be a start is that if you don't have a conviction but you do have lower-level things (e.g. violence on your school record, DVO/ASBO/whatever, maybe even "police were called" one too many times) you are on probation for N years and can't get a firearm, or perhaps can't get a firearm over a certain level of "power" (e.g. centrefire rifle, anything that holds more than two rounds/shells). The probation can be lifted by having an assessment.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"I'm hearing more and more people say Trump is an idiot."
"We should do something about that."
Politifact has a rating for Presidents' lies. It's been around since about 2000 also.
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.
He probably just had a meeting with Pence or some other social conservative who wants government censorship of immoral content in games.
Sooner or later he'll get another meeting with an alt-righter concerned that the alt-right will be vulnerable to censorship and the idea will be forgotten.
The only policies that Trump follows through on are things that enrich him personally (pass through tax rate) and anti-immigrant measures. Everywhere else he does what the party wants, the best model is an establishment conservative without accountability.
I stole this Sig
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.
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no!
The same can be said for guns. Mental illness seems to be a recurring theme in these mass shootings, well the ones that are not terrorism related.
If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too?
Ignoring science in this debate is common on both sides. For example the AR-15 being no more lethal than other semiautomatic rifles that are not part of anyone's "assault weapon" list. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR-15 and how is it different from the semiautomatic hunting rifles? Both sides are picking the respective scapegoats.
The real problem is likely in US social policy. We've had magazine fed semiautomatics for nearly a century. The civilian AR-15 for 50 years or so. Something changed, it wasn't the guns.
How about their voting rights? In Florida, there are 1.5 million people who are denied voting rights because they were convicted of felonies, even after they've served their sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
It will make it a hell of a lot harder for criminals to get guns. Over time, criminals will have less and less guns.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What is the life span of a gun? It's going to take a hell of a lot longer than a decade to make a difference.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Seriously video games and movies have been shown to decrease violent tendencies in young men because they are an outlet for youthful aggression.
I don't shoot people. Just aliens and zombies. Maybe the occasional historical figure but I mostly stab them.
But you raise a good point. The underlying problem isn't guns, it's gun culture. And gun culture pervades everything.
Everything in American media and a lot of American politics teaches you that guns and warfare are the answer to problems. Social problems aren't issues to manage, they are enemies that you declare war on. That's even the narrative around mass shootings: guns would fix that problem too.
Guns are tools to accomplish certain tasks. They are not a solution to any problem. Get Americans to understand and internalise that, and you can probably keep all the "rights" you want.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Every now and then, politicians trot out the rotting corpse of 'entertainment media influences violence.' It's as dead now, as it was in the 80s.
How about having to prove you are responsible and stable enough to own a gun? People are required to prove they can drive safely before being allowed to get behind the wheel without an instructor.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Going to go full disagreement with you on this one.
While illegal as hell and very much sitting in the banned category, I can rattle off a list of drugs as long as my arm that are far too easy for folks to obtain on a moments notice.
Guns will fall into the same category. You ban or limit them, folks will just obtain them from unofficial sources and the black-market will love you
for it. Or folks will just turn to other methods to deal pain and death to one another. We've been killing each other for thousands of years and we've
become quite efficient at it.
Besides being a relatively modern trend, what's most interesting is that a vast majority of these shooters have all been on some sort of psychiatric medication at some point or another.
What really bugs me is why this is a modern problem. Kids have always been bullied in school. Most kids I knew always had access to all sorts of firearms, yet the whole school shooting thing didn't really take off until the Columbine Duo. Gun access hasn't changed, kiddos getting bullied hasn't changed. . . . . so what has ?
The administration of psychiatric drugs to kiddos and media sensationalism are the two things off the top of my head. Different parenting standards ? Society just going to shit ?
It's a curious problem.
Tell me: do you think those drugs would be easier or harder to obtain if they were made legal?
All I can say is, it worked in Austrailia.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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)
Guns are not the problem, culture is the problem. Every western nation defines health care as a right and gun ownership as a privilege, except the US who have it backwards. This is why the US is at then top of the list for gun violence and the bottom of the list for health care affordability and outcomes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Elections have consequences..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yeah... Because other countries that have repealed gun laws in the last ten years lost all their other rights too- o wait you've been losing your rights since 2001, it's just guns you care about, NVM we have a nutter over here...
Actually, it was curtailed the hardest in the 20's/30's due to mob violence. All the shootouts that are glorified in prohibition time mobster movies using things like the Thomson Sub-Machine gun and BAR, is what led to the high regulation of fully automatic guns. Before that, you could mail order a sub machine gun with ease. When the mafia and stories like Bonnie & Clyde started happening, the government thew some of the 2nd Amendment out the window. Not all the way though, as they weren't "banned", but made more difficult to get and tracked. The next biggest hit was sometime around the 80's when they banned the manufacture or import of NEW fully automatic weapons. This basically froze the market to what was already produced. This had the consequence of causing the cost of aquiring one to sky-rocket. Now if you want a fully automatic gun, you not only have to comply with the high regulations, extra fee's and background checks, but you also have to find one available, and the cost is prohibitive-- expect to pay over $25K for a singe gun. Guns widely shown in movies like the MP5 can easily cost $45K or more to get your hands on a functional one.
But I agree with statement none-the-less, the 2nd amendment's intention was that it is your right to own the same firepower as the military does. It was for protection of the country from invaders, as well as protection of the people for tyranical government. It also falls in line with the thought that the government derives it's powers from the people.
Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment what happens next?
1) You need to get gun control through both houses. Good luck with that, given that 15 Democrats voted against Obama's Federal Assault Weapons Ban
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.
No problem you say, we'll fill CNN with crying children and bring on Jimmy Kimmel, also crying, to emotionally blackmail anyone who is going to vote against the bill so it passes. Well Republicans don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or CNN so you'll have to concentrate of the Democrats. You also need the bill to survive legal challenges, which it's fair to assume there will be a lot of.
However now your problems are only just beginning.
2) You need to confiscate all the now illegal guns. ATF and the FBI will need to go door to door. Most people are going to say "Oh yeah that AR-15? Lost it in a tragic boating accident?". In Australia only about one third of guns were collected
https://www.nationalreview.com...
Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let's suppose it did. How would it work? Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.
Some percentage of gun owners will decide that a government which confiscates guns is Literally Hitler and it is their patriotic duty to die fighting it. So you'll need the National Guard. Maybe the army too - though at that point you've admitted it's a civil war. Though it's fair to say that people who join the army and National Guard might sympathize rather more with the people who believe in the 2nd Amendment than the politicians telling them to confiscate guns. But hey, don't worry. The US's armed forces are pretty well indoctrinated into the importance of following orders from civilians, even if they disagree with them. There hasn't been a mutiny since troops in Vietnam fragged their superiors.
Still do you see gun deaths going up or down in this process? Do you see civil liberties being enhanced or radically curtailed as the government ends up fighting an insurgency on its own territory and supported at the very least by ex military types? If you're the delicate sort who cries when a few dozen people get killed in gun violence, be prepared to be crying all the time as the ATF and right wing militias duke it out and a few people in the armed forces announce they're going over to the rebel side.
American gun control would be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, i.e. a complete mess. On the other hand it's not like putting the toothpaste back in the tube causes a bloody civil war. So actually it's significantly worse than putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese will be celebrating because the government of their only strategic competitor has just done something which makes overseas military action impossible. And they'll be sure to take advantage of that. If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO or China sending troops into Taiwan?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO
The nuclear bombs that would be falling on Moscow and St. Petersburg within 10 minutes of them crossing the border
Going to go full disagreement with you on this one.
And you'd be wrong. One of the good things about living in the UK is the fact that the most dangerous thing a criminal can threaten me with is a knife but most wont even have one of those. Our criminals are cowards and we have a much lower rate of violent crime as a result.
The problem with the US is, and you are part of that problem, that it refuses to admit it's society has a problem. America with Guns is like an alcoholic with a bottle of scotch, they don't believe they have an issue even when they're dying of renal failure and will use any excuse in the book not to change.
Now introducing gun control wont fix the issue, gun control will come as a natural consequence of fixing the issue of fixing the broken ideas in your society. This has to happen at every level from the top down. The first part is admitting that the American attitude towards firearms is foolhardy and dangerous and that gun owners need to take more responsibility. The same will be true of licensing and registration of firearms, it will be a natural consequence of a more sensible and mature attitude around firearms.
Gun control has worked in Australia and the UK because gun owners saw it as the right thing to do after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia and the Dunblane shootings in the UK. Gun owners in these countries are responsible (yes, contrary to what the NRA would have you believe, you can own a gun in Australia or the UK) and irresponsible gun owners have their firearms taken away. Until the US changes its attitudes, innocent people will continue to be gunned down needlessly and senselessly.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Do you think there should be limits on your self defense from any would be assailant by the government?
A gun is an equalizer and a deterrent. Grandma can defend herself from Bubba. Bubba has to think twice about an armed would-be victim. That will not happen with a knife or a phone call.
A gun is a tool. A tool which is violent by nature because we live in a violent world not a world of angels. Violence can come from many different places or people or institutions. Violence from the government. Violence from a mob or Violence from foreign would-be invaders. All have a common recourse of action and the gun has the infamy of equalizing any encounter. No standing army can hold America because Grandma can shoot Private Bubba.
Agreed, and in response to parent, I read his article, and was actually starting to change my long term belief because it was mostly credible. Then I got to this (search for 'and concluded'):
Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3)
So one of the article's most important argument legs is that you can't statistically prove Australia's buyback program had any impact. But:
before the buyback, mass shootings: 2 out of every 3 years
after the buyback, mass shootings: 0 in 20 years
You can't draw a statistical conclusion from that? Cmon, man.
ugg... I hate commenting to ACs because Im half convinced its a bot anymore. That said, yes Switzerland even makes the ex-soldiers keep their real assault rifles they were issued. Or maybe that was another Scandinavian country. Here is some demographics to ponder...
statistically speaking most school shooters (not other mass shooters but at least the school ones) have all been young white males.
at the same time the number of incidents are increasing, we also read about things like 'white privilege', and 'toxic masculinity'. Words are purposefully being used that instantly trigger ideas of the world being against them. I find this weird because the people instituting the use of these terms are the same ones that will say merely hearing the N-word immediately triggers an emotional response. Which I do not dispute. But in the same breath will use words that on their face say 'you suck because you are white' , 'you suck because you are male' and when you happen to be both 'your world is going to end and one day we will own you'. I really hope that the femanist movement that coined the term 'toxic masculinity' did not set out to immediately put men on the defensive by choosing such a harsh and, to use their phrase, 'toxic' choice in a label. How can you effect change if you alienate someone in your opening remarks?
is it not possible that these less-stable white men are somehow vulnerable to despair in part because of mental stability, and another part because they also feel under attack from everywhere on things they had zero choice in the matter. They didnt pick being white, they sure didnt pick being male. And I'm pretty sure they dont feel very fucking privileged right now. But instead of trying to handle it, we let the media use these hateful expressions to somehow bully them into conformity. Only maybe they didn't conform, maybe they just snapped.
Obviously its not a huge number, but even 1 in 1000 could be enough to breed the next mass killer, regardless the method.