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 555062
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

A bullet through your head shot from a semi-automatic AR-15 will kill you all the same as a bullet through your head shot from a military-grade M-16 assault rifle.


Yep... A head shot. Do you even know how hard is that to do? You're not a freaking sniper.
A shot from a military grade weapon is deigned to take down a person with one shot(not necessarily to the head) at a long range. Civilian grade weapons don't work like that.

PS: Would you mind quoting me and not putting words into my mouth.

Reply Parent Score: 2

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

You have not seen guns outside of Call of Duty or Counter-Strike, have you?

A flesh wound from a "military grade" weapon is, of course, a magnitude worse than from a "civilian grade" weapon if you are to be believed.

If not for the fact that the only difference between them is likely the trigger mechanism preventing full-auto fire on civilian versions (if talking about rifles; handguns don't even have that). The cartridge, barrel, everything that matters is the same!
But, of course, it's declared "military grade" and therefore automagically more deadly than its pussy "civilian grade" counterparts.

Funny how, when we talk about "military grade" computing, for example, we do not make that kind of flat-out distinction but discuss the actual differences between mil/civ versions of gadgets.

PS. I was not putting words in your mouth. I was responding to a quote from you with another quote from you. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

All that is irrelevant though considering that the army can use armoured vehicles, planes, tanks, missiles, chemical weapons, drones... pretty much any kind of killing device known to man, and that without getting into the fact that they have actual military training.

An armed militia on the other hand has a bunch of rifles. Thinking that being allowed to own weapons would make any difference when standing against a government is so delusional it's not even funny.

Reply Parent Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You have not seen guns outside of Call of Duty or Counter-Strike, have you?

Having been conscripted and having had a visit to US with my friends that are posted as part of NATO operations in US - I know the difference between the firepower of civilian weaponry(in US) and military(M16 and AK47). I've also been goat hunting on a T92 tank.

I haven't had the benefit of opening up the civilian weaponry, so I can't say what physical differences are there. But the bang is significantly different.

Funny how, when we talk about "military grade" computing, for example, we do not make that kind of flat-out distinction but discuss the actual differences between mil/civ versions of gadgets.

That is BS. Anyone that knows the catalogs of electronics components suppliers, knows that there is a commercial, industrial and military versions of almost every component. There is a significant difference between the durability of the expensive military and commercial grade electronics.

PS: Computers also don't shoot bullets and military grade computers are often called - supercomputers.

Reply Parent Score: 2