Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Mar 2013 15:42 UTC
Games "For nearly thirty years we've been having this discussion, asking the question: do violent movies, music or video games make people violent? Well according to Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, yes. Based on the results of their research they concluded in 2001 that video games and violent media can make people aggressive and violent. Based upon their data and their conclusions, however, it's safe to say that photos of snakes, crispy bacon, or a particularly rigorous game of chess can also make people aggressive and violent." And politicians?
Thread beginning with comment 554886
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

It's however not the reason for violence. Like some gun proponents claim. There are a lot of things that make people violent, one of which is religious views.

from a theoretical or social view, yes.
from a practical view, no. ban civilians from carrying weapons and no one gets hurt. we can't always hide behind principles. sometimes we need to look for strict practical answers.

Reply Parent Score: -1

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Yes they will (get hurt). They'll get stabbed with kitchen knives, hit in the eyes with forks, get thrown with stones etc.
I'd like to see you ban-happy fellows banning sticks & stones. Even the EU is not that ridiculous (yet).

Edited 2013-03-09 19:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

Yes they will (get hurt). They'll get stabbed with kitchen knives, hit in the eyes with forks, get thrown with stones etc.
I'd like to see you ban-happy fellows banning sticks & stones. Even the EU is not that ridiculous (yet).

Still if you disallow carrying guns in public, you are removing a significant cause of murders, right?

It's like banning smoking in public places like restaurants. sure it oppresses freedom but realistically solves a problem, correct?

Sometimes you have to put aside your morals, ideals and principles in order to create a safer environment.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice freedom and rights for the safety of the whole. it's called responsibility. It comes with living in a technically and culturally advanced country.
This isn't the middle ages anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 1

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Yes they will (get hurt). They'll get stabbed with kitchen knives, hit in the eyes with forks, get thrown with stones etc.


They will get hurt, yes.

But they will also be [i]much less likely to get killed.

On the same day as the Newtown school shootings in America, a mentally-unbalanced man entered an elementary school in Chengping, China and tried to kill the students. He wounded 22 children and 1 adult.

Wounded, not killed. That's because all the man had was a knife -- private ownership of firearms is illegal in China. The casualties got taken to the hospital, and they lived to tell the tale.

Incidentally, the security guards who tackled the man did not have guns. The police in China also normally go on patrol without guns. (They do have guns at the station house, if they need them.)

Japanese police do carry guns -- but they are restricted from using them in most situations. They are actually instructed to let a fleeing suspect go free, rather than shoot him. The gun is there solely for purposes of defense -- and that means that you shouldn't shoot the criminal when he isn't threatening anyone. The criminals know this, and so they're more willing to go around without guns. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood that they'll kill someone.

When you get rid of guns, you decrease the overall violence level of society. This is a Good Thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

It is also much more difficult to kill with a knife than with a machine gun, and much easier to escape. Especially since very little people have training in knife throwing, compared to gun shooting.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There's a difference though. Firearms where specifically designed to kill while kitchen knives & forks where designed for something else entirely and just happen to also be able to kill.
There's a difference in intent.

Reply Parent Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

from a practical view, no. ban civilians from carrying weapons and no one gets hurt.

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month. Ban "civilians" from carrying guns and guess what happens? The criminals still get them. Then said "civilians" no longer have a way to defend themselves. Those who will use weapons to harm others don't give a damn about your regulations or bans. Perhaps the lives of criminals are worth more to you than the lives of the rest of us, but you can forgive me if I don't take that view myself as my life is just a little important to me. When we add zealous law enforcement into the mix, it gets even more complicated especially when the government behind them moves to control our lives more and more by the day. This has already happened several times within the last century. Do you people never learn from history?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Interestingly enough, Australian Institute of Criminology data shows a decline in firearm related homicides since gun control laws were introduced. What it also shows is that prior to gun control laws, homicide in general was already on a decline, and that decline was completely unaltered by the availability of firearms. Firearm related homicide as a percentage of all homicide sharply fell, but homicide was largely unchanged. It's basically mathematical proof that people who want to kill eachother will do it however they can. A gun may be a weapon of opportunity, just as a kitchen knife, a pillow, or your own bare hands can be.

Interstingly, the data stretches to 1990, before violence in video games was a real issue. Before the graphics were really capable of properly depicting violence. Violent games are all the more common, today, and more violent. Clearly, an increase in the social penetration of violent games, and an increase in the violence of these games doesn't even register in the homicide statistics.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Edited 2013-03-09 23:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19


That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month. Ban "civilians" from carrying guns and guess what happens? The criminals still get them.


Fewer criminals will have guns. And that is a good thing -- even if the occasional ultra-violent criminal gets an illegal gun anyway.

It's simple game theory. The criminals arm themselves to the extent that they feel they need to, in order to be successful in their lives of crime. If everyone else has guns, they're unlikely to buy an illegal rocket launcher on the world arms market, because that would be overkill. Similarly, if everyone else has knives, they're unlikely to buy an illegal gun, because that would be overkill.

We see this in lots of places. In England, for example, the police normally go around unarmed -- and resist calls for them to routinely carry guns. They argue that if they carried guns, then so would the criminals. And so they've gained no relative advantage over the criminals -- except that they've just managed to raise the overall violence level in society. In so doing, they make it more likely that they themselves will get shot in the line of duty.

Now, do the police in England get shot and killed from time to time, because they are unarmed? Yes. But much less often. When you bring down the overall level of gun ownership, you also bring down the overall violence level of society.

Edited 2013-03-10 00:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month. Ban "civilians" from carrying guns and guess what happens? The criminals still get them.


I've seen some debates concerning the gun-laws in US. Based on that knowledge it seems that there are as less restrictions on purchasing guns than a pack of cigarettes.
And then, when you don't track properly weapons... How will police know that you are allowed to carry one?
And then... How many times do we get news that a legally purchased gun was used to kill innocent children vs a gun was used to kill intruders.
And then there's tragic case of Treyvon.

You know what seems stupid? Steven Seagal training a bunch of wannabe's to defend schools.

This has already happened several times within the last century. Do you people never learn from history?

Yes we do. We also learn from recent history. For example in Chechnya, while the local militia outnumbered the Russian forces the militia were no match for the special forces. Try playing paintball or softball with marines... You will be torn to pieces.
Also, civilian grade weapons are a joke. They are useful to kill your neighbour, not a soldier. And that is how they are mostly used...

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do you people never learn from history?


I dunno, many countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S have a lower rate of violent crime.
Who's the ones not learning from history?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

ban civilians from carrying weapons and no one gets hurt.


You don't read British newspapers, do you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290658/The-battered-face-1...

Reply Parent Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yep. That is as opposed to this:
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/78457/Oak_Park_driveby_shoo...

A boy beaten up and lived, a man shot and died. Guns make it all better, the man did not suffer... Amirite?

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is the dailymail FFS.

Reply Parent Score: 4

terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

Denieing the opportunity to deal with physical weapons and violent feelings (sometimes they are a necessity to survive but mostly it's undesired in social environments), isn't practical either and just an easy hack.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/weird-science-ponders-the-se...

The article talks about how we are inclined to abuse our advantage over another, be it a sharp mind or a knife. I think that's rather the point that needs to be addressed, rather than taking away one tool.

Reply Parent Score: 1