jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (149 posts)

Is it even about the guns anymore?

  1. Farawaytree profile image87
    Farawaytreeposted 12 months ago

    More gun violence very close to where I live yesterday. Most weapons, including guns, are available to anyone in this country at any given time.

    But what about the people who are using the guns? Are they mentally ill? are they psychopaths? Are they terrorists? Are they all of the above?

    In any case, no matter what excuse they had, whether it be anger, hatred, religion, politics, race, or even drugs, they are still murderers. When are we going to stop the blame game and figure out the sickness that is at the core of all the violence and murder within THIS country?

    It's true you don't need guns to kill if all you want is to just kill people, but guns do make it easier. Why do so many people want to kill? With so much of it around, perhaps it's just human nature and we need to accept that.

    Thoughts?

    1. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      As long as people are seeking a single cause there will be no solution.  Most guns are not used to kill people.  Most mentally ill people do not kill people.  Most places and most of the time people are not being killed.

      So the question is how much time and money the nation is willing to put into helping the mentally ill and regulated guns, and exactly how much non-homicidal people are willing to have their freedoms curtailed to reduced the number of people getting killed.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Many of the recent mass murders have been committed with AK-47s, which usually hold 30 rounds of ammo but can hold up to 100 rounds.

        The thought that people need an AK-47 for "defense" as opposed to a handgun is ridiculous.

        Resuming the ban would be a simple step in the right direction.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Assuming the "right direction" is to knock another chink in the armor of freedom, yes.  Other than that, it won't do much of anything.  Taking the chosen weapon of "many" mass murderers does not mean they won't kill regardless of how badly we'd like to think that without their favorite gun, or a gun at all, they won't.

          I do have to wonder, though - do rights have anything to do with need?  If so, do you "need" the right to free speech?  The right to choose your religion?  Even the "right" to pursuit of happiness or liberty?  Or do we just want them?

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            The right to life is a greater freedom than the right to a gun.

            Given a brutal choice between a murderer killing 30 children with an AK-47 or killing six with a handgun, I will take the latter.

            Yes, I believe rights and needs go together. The Constitutional right to life is based on the need to live. The right to free speech is based on the need to protect us from dictatorships and other dangerous forms of political power.

            I would love to know what need gives someone the right to own an AK-47.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      We train many killers unwittingly with our numbness to violence. The movies, the video games and television give us a cacophony of murderous delights every night. It is ingrained in us from childhood and feasted upon as adults. Any civil unrest is soon to turn deadly with blame spread about like bubble gum at a fireman's parade. We have less problems with porn as violence is much more acceptable. Only in America. roll

      1. mrpopo profile image87
        mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        "We train many killers unwittingly with our numbness to violence."

        Ridiculous. What about the hundreds of millions of people who are exposed to the same violent imagery but don't become killers?

        "Only in America"

        Actually there are dozens of first world countries who allow their citizens access to violent imagery and they do not suffer significant levels of violence. And specifically in the United States, the correlation is actually the opposite; as sales of violent media increase, violence has decreased: http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/12/614151 … orld-crime

        Meta analysis of violent video game effects: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 … 007-9056-9

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          You conclusion is then that all people who play violent video games are subject aggressive behavior if you put that number forward as proof? BS my man. There just as many studies that show it does have an affect on those playing violent video games and especially with young people who are supposed to be censored from them. Violent family history, low income and low IQ are multipliers of the this type of violence. Good try!

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229070/

          http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ … games.aspx

          https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ge … aggression

          1. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            "You conclusion is then that all people who play violent video games are subject aggressive behavior if you put that number forward as proof?"

            All people are 'subject aggressive behavior'? Maybe you're missing a word or thought in there somewhere.

            Anyway, I didn't offer any conclusions about the causes of killing rates. I simply observed that the crime rate in the United States has decreased despite the sales of violent media increasing, and media becoming more accessible to the general populace and being used on a daily basis by hundreds of millions.

            To focus specifically on youth, 90% of American youth play video games, up to 99% for boys. The most popular games are also the most violent, and even the ones classified as E for Everyone contain significant elements of violence. A majority of youth is going to be and has been playing these violent video games since the late 90s at least.

            If your hypothesis were correct we should be seeing more violence, but we're not.

            "There just as many studies that show it does have an affect on those playing violent video games"

            Even if I assume that's true, how on Earth does having an equal number of studies for and against your position in any way make your position conclusive?

            It should go without saying that you actually have to look at the studies themselves to determine their credibility. Right now you're labeling all studies as equally valuable and valid research when in truth a significant number of them are flawed, including the ones you mentioned. Simply put, all studies are not created equally.

            Your claim is that the studies are affecting young people specifically. Have you read your cited studies? Most are not dealing with young people to begin with, as they themselves admit:

            Is this research applicable to children? Implications of this research are often applied to children, yet relatively few of the studies used in the meta‐analyses reviewed included children or adolescents younger than age 16 as participants in the research.

            Off the bat, your studies are not measuring their effects on the demographic you claim.

            What effects are they measuring? Aggressiveness, a vague and poorly defined word that you can ascribe equally to a competitive athlete, excitable child or serial killer:

            Existing research on violent video games has "vague and inconsistent" definitions of aggression and violence, he says. While the APA's report acknowledges this problem ("The violent video game literature uses a variety of concepts, terms, and definitions in considering aggression and aggressive outcomes..."), it does not attempt to solve it.

            Without a standardized definition of aggression how can you even hope to claim any sort of definitive effect?

            How are they measuring aggressiveness? Usually via short-term emotional responses like how much chilli they dispense after playing a game. Do you honestly think you can extrapolate the "unwitting training of killers" from "increased chilli distribution rates"?

            To your first study, it's obvious from a glance that they're conflating "aggressiveness" with "competitiveness." They begrudgingly admit to this here:

            It should be acknowledged that the violent and the neutral video game chosen for this study may differ in properties other than difficulty, pace of action, and enjoyment. For example, the first-person shooter game, even when played offline (alone), contains a great deal of competitive content (competing in shooting battles for survival against other computer-generated characters), whereas the neutral video game contains little to no competitive content. Importantly, previous research has demonstrated an effect of competitive video game content (i.e., competing against other computer-generated characters in a game) on aggressive behavior in the short-term [35] and long-term [36]. Unfortunately, we did not control for competitive content so it may well be that our finding that violent video games increase aggression can be (in part) accounted for by differences in how competitive the game is perceived to be.

            (Isn't it interesting that these studies admit that competitiveness by itself increases aggression? If competitiveness increases aggression, and aggression trains killers, we are unwittingly training killers with competition. This would include fields like athletics, education, career development...are you going to be consistent and blame these things as well?)

            APA's meta-analysis is questionable as addressed by an open letter from 230 scholars, the driving point being what I addressed to you from the beginning:

            During the video game epoch, youth violence in the United States and elsewhere has  plummeted to 40-year lows, not risen as would have been expected if the 2005 APA resolution were accurate. Although we do not assert video games are responsible for this decline (such would be an ecological fallacy), this decline in societal violence is in conflict with claims that violent video games and interactive media are important public health concerns. The statistical data are simply not bearing out this concern and should not be ignored.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/223284732/Sch … lent-Media

            Your last source's primary study [5] is, again, rife with flaws, having been addressed by a follow up commentary:

            In their analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. included many studies that do not relate well to serious aggression, an apparently biased sample of unpublished studies, and a "best practices" analysis that appears unreliable and does not consider the impact of unstandardized aggression measures on the inflation of effect size estimates. They also focused on bivariate correlations rather than better controlled estimates of effects. Despite a number of methodological flaws that all appear likely to inflate effect size estimates, the final estimate of r = .15 is still indicative of only weak effects.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192554

            "Good try!"

            Your sarcastic quip is noted and filed under "List of ironic projections by rhamson."

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              "Even if I assume that's true, how on Earth does having an equal number of studies for and against your position in any way make your position conclusive?"

              Common sense.

              "Is this research applicable to children? Implications of this research are often applied to children, yet relatively few of the studies used in the meta‐analyses reviewed included children or adolescents younger than age 16 as participants in the research."

              The studies also cited that the more violent games with mature ratings were not conclusive because of the admitted availability to adolescents. In other words it could not determine either way that those who were more aggressive were because of this phenomena.

              "Without a standardized definition of aggression how can you even hope to claim any sort of definitive effect?"

              So dump the whole idea is your answer. Because the data is not easily digested or explained it must not be true?

              "Unfortunately, we did not control for competitive content so it may well be that our finding that violent video games increase aggression can be (in part) accounted for by differences in how competitive the game is perceived to be."

              So once again it was not determined for sure because of the lack of a control study? All it admitted is that aggressive behavior could be either or both. Nice try.

              In case you missed it the last "quip" was a quote from the study. Not mine. Did you only read what you agreed with and miss the conclusions of the studies or is that a convenient mistruth as well?

              1. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                "Common sense."

                Oh, thank goodness. It's okay everyone! Rhamson said it's common sense! We do not need to investigate any further! He's solved everything!

                Rhamson, why do you think a 50-50 study split means conclusiveness? "Common sense."

                Rhamson, why do you think violent media causes violence? "Common sense."

                Rhamson, why do you think Islam does not cause violence? "Common sense."

                It must be wonderful being this intellectually bankrupt.

                "The studies also cited that the more violent games with mature ratings were not conclusive because of the admitted availability to adolescents. In other words it could not determine either way that those who were more aggressive were because of this phenomena."

                Wait rhamson. Slow down. You just said your studies conclude that "video games cause violence." Why are you now flip-flopping and saying that the effects of the more violent video games were not-conclusive? Oh that's right! "Common sense."

                (Also, this still has nothing to do with children...that's the, err, bit you quoted, remember?)

                "So dump the whole idea is your answer. Because the data is not easily digested or explained it must not be true?"

                Hmm, no. I said they do not have a consensus on what "aggression" means. Data is not mentioned anywhere in that quote, and neither is dump the whole idea. (This is quite concerning, rhamson. For someone who claims to know how to correctly interpret religious scripture you have terrible reading comprehension.)

                By all means, if you can find a direct link between violent media and criminal activity then society should be made aware so it can take adequate precautions. I certainly do not want us to be unwittingly training killers.

                Wait, what's this? Look! It's the title of the APA's meta analysis, the one you cited!

                APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression.
                Finds insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal violence


                What is that in red? I can't quite make it out. I think it says something that goes completely against your hypothesis. Weird, that can't be right. Why are they saying something that contradicts your position, rhamson? Is it common sense?

                Okay that's fair, people sometimes skip the title anyway when blindly pasting articles, but let's try reading the first sentence: Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological Association task force report.

                What is going on here? Why does it say there is insufficient evidence when you say it's all conclusive?

                There must be a very "common sense" reason to citing articles that do not support your position, but I just don't see it.

                "So once again it was not determined for sure because of the lack of a control study? All it admitted is that aggressive behavior could be either or both. Nice try."

                Whatever it "admitted" is irrelevant as they have no evidence of their proposed "admission". Without controlling for competitiveness they have no way of knowing how much of an effect competitiveness is having on aggressiveness. They have no idea if the effect can be completely or partially accounted for by competitiveness. They're assuming it's partial because it lines up nicely with their existing hypothesis, but that's simply a meek attempt at covering up a glaring flaw in an inadequate study.

                "In case you missed it the last "quip" was a quote from the study. Not mine."

                I'm sorry rhamson, I didn't know that using a supposed quote from the study as a sarcastic quip somehow made it not a sarcastic quip.

                "Did you only read what you agreed with and miss the conclusions of the studies or is that a convenient mistruth as well?"

                I also had no idea that "Good try" was a conclusion of any sort in these studies.

                Oh but here's an actual conclusion though:

                APA Finds insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal violence

                Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological Association task force report.

                Now I know someone as honest as yourself will not have missed these conclusions. That would be hiding from "convenient mistruths" and you most certainly don't do that, nor do you make any silly projections, and not nearly enough to merit any lists thereof.

                Anyway, I'm very glad you addressed about half of my concerns inadequately. That's progress!

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  You do have a way with words my friend and clinging onto a sentence to disprove all that follows it is a simple mindedness I had not expected. To debate this you have to at least have a grasp of the ideas being presented. While nothing was disproved the recommendations and conclusions of the studies are null and void because you cannot understand the gist of the explanation nor the definition of a word. C'mon. I thought you were smarter than that. What ever your thoughts are on the subject it does not preclude the idea that Aggression as defined cannot be discounted as a feeling without an action. In many cases such as sports the aggression is converted to fair play but still with a sometimes violent element such as hockey or football. As such it is within the realm of some peoples reasoning's (not yours my friend as per your argument without facts) that this is manifested in violent behavior. This behavior may be in the form of a smack all the way to a murderous rage. I won't use the term common sense as you seem to have an aversion to it. Are you perhaps a gamer? If so it might explain your outrage more clearly.

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    "You do have a way with words my friend and clinging onto a sentence to disprove all that follows it is a simple mindedness I had not expected"

                    Weren't you criticizing me for missing conclusions and "convenient mistruths" earlier? (Not that "Good job" is any sort of conclusion in the first place.)

                    Well, those "sentences" you claim I'm "clinging to" are the actual conclusions of your own studies. Why are you missing these "convenient mistruths" now?

                    We both know why; because you're projecting. Projection #1

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "To debate this you have to at least have a grasp of the ideas being presented."

                    We're talking about aggression, something which is poorly defined and which cannot be extrapolated to violence as your own studies admit, yet here you are extrapolating this to violence. Who here doesn't have a grasp on the ideas presented? Projection #2

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "While nothing was disproved"

                    Already you phrase this poorly. The default position in these studies is that of the null hypothesis, which would be that video games do not cause violence. The alternative hypothesis is that video games do cause violence.

                    The only way the authors can consider the alternative hypothesis is if there is sufficient evidence to reject or disprove the null hypothesis. In other words, they are supposed to try and disprove this hypothesis.

                    The authors essentially stated - in those little sentences I was "clinging" to - that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

                    When you say nothing was disproved, you're right, but for the wrong reasons.

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "the recommendations and conclusions of the studies are null and void"

                    The main reasons they're null and void are because the evidence they present is inconsistent and weak, their hypothesis' predictive ability is nonexistent and they ignore the majority of studies which have found no effect. Also, because they themselves said they cannot link the activity to violence.

                    The reasons they're null and void are reflective on their inability to have a consistent and precise definition of aggression. The fact that their definition is inconsistent is only one of many reasons to be skeptical of their studies - yet here you are, clinging on to one particular point in an incorrect and exaggerated fashion, as if that disproves all other points made. (See Projection #1)

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "because you cannot understand the gist of the explanation nor the definition of a word"

                    I can understand definitions just fine. The problem is their definitions are inconsistent and vague, as they themselves admit. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

                    Why is this a problem? There are quite a few "studies" that have defined rape to include "witnessing someone being touched without an expressed verbal approval" or "having sex while drunk" (e.g. http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ and http://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-i … -straight/).

                    Neither of these two scenarios are actually definitively indicative of rape, since sexual encounters can occur without verbal approval and with alcohol. Because their definition was so vague and inconsistent, they were including perfectly normal interactions as rape (false positives). This led to ridiculous conclusions, like 25% of women in college campuses having been raped when in reality it's closer 0.6% (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176).

                    If they're watering down or completely erring the definition of aggression in a similar manner, they'd be overestimating the actual degree of aggression by a significant margin (false positives). Why do you not find this to be a significant fla-

                    Oh right, I forgot. Your 'special' common sense.

                    But go ahead and define aggression as the studies use it, rhamson. They themselves think their definitions are vague and inconsistent, but clearly you know better than they do. Projection #3

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "Aggression as defined cannot be discounted as a feeling without an action"

                    What meaningless truism. Rape as defined cannot be discounted as a feeling without an action either. And yet we can water down the definitions of those particular feelings or actions to obtain a statistic of 25% of college women on campuses having been raped.

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "In many cases such as sports the aggression is converted to fair play but still with a sometimes violent element such as hockey or football."

                    I hope you're going to be consistent and campaign against these clear producers of killers as well. Many sports are literally violent (boxing, hockey, rugby, football, fencing, martial arts, ), whereas fictional media is, well, fictional. Sports should be training killers even more effectively than violent media if your claims were remotely true.

                    Can you elaborate on your mention of "fair play aggression" and whether this changes anything?

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "(not yours my friend as per your argument without facts)"

                    You're right. If only I said something as factual as "common sense." Projection #4

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "This behavior may be in the form of a smack all the way to a murderous rage."

                    Your studies aren't even measuring smacks in the lab, let alone murder. They're measuring how much chilli you're willing to give to someone, or how loud you're willing to blast a speaker into someone's ears, in a controlled setting at the behest of the authors of the study. How can these comparatively innocuous actions under the guidance of authority be extrapolated to an individual's criminal violence? The letter I referred to above addresses this issue:

                    We also express concern about the overgeneralization of controversial laboratory measures of aggression to public health issues and violent crime. Laboratory measures certainly have their  place, but we believe that greater caution should be used in generalizing them to real-life behaviors they may only obliquely measure. Further, the unstandardized and “ad hoc” nature of many of these measures is of concern to us, given they may create false positives.

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "I won't use the term common sense as you seem to have an aversion to it."

                    Yes, I have an aversion to desperate weasel words and poorly contrived cop-outs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word#Forms

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "Are you perhaps a gamer? If so it might explain your outrage more clearly."

                    Any outrage you perceive is directed primarily at your spewed nonsense.

                    In any case, it should not be a surprise when you make fraudulent claims against a demographic, to see that demographic responding with a certain degree of outrage. I could have said the following about your own outrage in our previous discussion about Islamic violence:

                    "Are you perhaps a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer? If so, it might explain your outrage more clearly."

                    Unfortunately this in no way validates any claims produced. It's just another pathetic deflection on your part.

          2. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Rhamson, thanks for posting credible sources of information. I wish more people would do the same.

            1. mrpopo profile image87
              mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              lol

              Might I ask what is wrong with my other sources? I am certain a few hundred academics would be curious as well.

              1. promisem profile image94
                promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Polygon is a gaming site. Springer is an abstract about a study and not the conclusions of a study. Scribd is a minority group letter simply objecting to a policy stance by the majority association. NCBI is another abstract and not a study that only questions the "methodological issues" of some studies.

                Post conclusive studies from credible sources showing no link between violent games and violent behavior, and I will be on your side.

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  "Springer is an abstract about a study and not the conclusions of a study"

                  You must be joking. Do you know what an abstract is?

                  The funny thing is this exact study is referenced in your "credible" APA review (page 30) and was actually done by an APA member, Christopher Ferguson.

                  Well, I hope you're going to notify the APA and their members of their egregious error in citing "an abstract about a study," whatever that means.

                  "Scribd is a minority group letter simply objecting to a policy stance by the majority association"

                  So because they're a "minority group letter" they're not a credible source? You know many of these individuals are also part of the APA? Like the aforementioned Ferguson?

                  I would also be more wary about blindly trusting the APA, especially because they are a "majority". Majority groups are not automatically correct by virtue of being a majority. Likewise, minority groups are not automatically incorrect by virtue of being a minority. Ask Galileo.

                  In the APA's case they have a history of being completely wrong on this subject because of - well, read the "minority" letter. Or read this article summarizing their concerns: http://www.newsweek.com/apa-video-games-violence-364394

                  Note what, yet again, Ferguson has to say about them:

                  "People have to remember that groups like the American Psychological Association—of which I'm a fellow, by the way—are guilds. They do not exist to provide people with objective facts. They exist to promote the profession. It's to their advantage to identify problems that psychologists can run in and fix. It is not to their advantage to say 'we don't know' or 'the evidence is all over the place' or 'there's nothing we can do to help you.'"

                  "This seems to be a pattern with the APA," he adds. "We're talking about an organization that was caught colluding in the real torture of real people in real life and now they're turning around and wagging their hand about people playing video games?"


                  "NCBI is another abstract and not a study that only questions the "methodological issues" of some studies."

                  "Only"? Good grief, so you don't think the methodological issues of these sources are an issue? No wonder you're accepting rhamson's sources.

                  This commentary was, once again, conducted by Ferguson, along with a member of the American Sociological Association. I hope that satisfies your appeal to authority.

                  "Post conclusive studies from credible sources showing no link between violent games and violent behavior"

                  Let's make a subtle distinction: I never said there is absolutely "no link" between violent games and violent behaviour. I can't claim this just like I can't claim that there is absolutely no link between eating peanut butter and liking Lady Gaga songs.

                  Note however that we all assume there is no link between peanut butter and liking Lady Gaga songs. We do this because there is not enough evidence to reject this claim, mostly because there isn't any reason to suspect a link between peanut butter and liking Lady Gaga songs.

                  But who knows? Maybe there is a link between peanut butter and liking Lady gaga songs. However, until evidence of this link is presented, we assume there is no link - or, more appropriately, we are not able to reject that there is no link between peanut butter and liking Lady Gaga songs.

                  With that out of the way, here is a source that explicitly states they have not found a link between violent video games and violence. You may it slightly familiar:

                  http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ … games.aspx

                  "APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression
                  Finds insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal violence

                  Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological Association task force report."

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    I know. I read the same thing. I never said there is a proven link between violent games and murder. You made that assumption. My main point was that we need credible sources of information, not gaming sites that write an article about one study refuting others.

                    Otherwise, I don't have the time or desire to get into a 1,000-word rebuttal of your rebuttal that parses everything and takes sentences out of context.

                    What I will say is this: Don't expect rational human beings to buy the idea that playing a game where you can mow down people with an automatic rifle or slit throats of "bad guys" is a normal and health activity with no consequences on player behavior.

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Some of your sources are not credible or objective. Polygon is a gaming site with a vested interest in violent games.

          The Internet is filled with propagand from outlets that don't follow professional standards and often have special agendas.

          1. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            The source is not Polygon. The study is linked within Polygon.

            This is the actual study:

            http://interpersonalresearch.weebly.com … olence.pdf

            Go ahead and tell me how the researchers have somehow managed to botch comparing sales of violent video games with crime statistics in the United States.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              OK, I accept a paper published in the APA journal as a credible source of information. But studies often disagree. I believe a consensus has more weight than an individual study:

              http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ … games.aspx

    3. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      A gun is a weapon. Simple enough I say. I accept the 2nd Amendment, so no need to go there. Today there is a blame game with the media knowingly or unknowingly within the U.S and maybe elsewhere. Research must be conducted to gain a valid perspective with veracity. The main blaming today presented by the media is guns, mental illness, today being a Muslim, and being a cop. Are there others? So, we can ask is that simply opportunity to report something?

      Hopefully adding to the OP with a perspective. In regard to a weapon interestingly 56% of driving deaths are accounted for as being aggressive driving. That means 18,322 deaths were due to a mental disposition - aggression, while someone wielded something that can be a weapon. Adding to is there is a trial now in San Diego regarding road rage. A young lady actually purposely hit a motorcyclist and then, next, purposely ran him over on the interstate. Huh?

      Some other notes to consider from Aggressive Driving and Road Rage

      Road Rage Statistics

      The following statistics compiled from the NHTSA and the Auto Vantage auto club show that aggressive driving and road rage are causing serious problems on our roads.

          66% of traffic fatalities are caused by aggressive driving.
          37% of aggressive driving incidents involve a firearm.
          Males under the age of 19 are the most likely to exhibit road rage.
          Half of drivers who are on the receiving end of an aggressive behavior, such as horn honking, a rude gesture, or tailgating admit to responding with aggressive behavior themselves.
          Over a seven year period, 218 murders and 12,610 injuries were attributed to road rage.

      One scary statistic worth noting is:

          2% of drivers admit to trying to run an aggressor off the road!
       
      How does this lend to the OP? Possibly it is now cultural in the U.S. today to be aggressive leading onward to something else? Yes, those isolated incidents regarding shootings are now becoming more frequent we 'do' see reported on TV. Regarding mental health or any health issue a professional looks at the symptoms first, applies extensive knowledge and experience, and then a diagnosis.

      So, where to we start?

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        tsmog ~ In the REAL World The DEBATE is OVER ~ Guns Kill even if there is NO Mental illness behind the trigger so here's exactly where we start as a NATION to REDUCE Gun Violence ~ Differing and or Conflicting Laws State by State do NOT Work, Action taken must be UNIFORM, Contiguous  & Consistent to cross boundary lines ~

        The President should enact an IMMEDIATE Indefinite Moratorium on gun sales nationally, an IMMEDIATE Executive Order to BAN Assault & Related Weapons, then we go from there ~

        Our 2cnd Amendment is Suspended all the time all over the country for varying reasons, I can't think of a better Time & Place to tackle this out of Control Firearm Crisis ~

        1. tsmog profile image84
          tsmogposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Are you suggesting we disagree? Not sure . . . I considered the OP and provided an answer offering simply a compare and contrast seeking discovery.

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Accepting the 2nd Amendment is a big part of the problem. It is badly worded and open to many interpretations.

        It's easy to make the argument that only a militia has an absolute right to bear arms.

        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    4. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      The gun issue is and never was about the 2nd Amendment. It is about the money as evidenced by the vote yesterday in Congress. The NRA has bought the slime bags in Congress lock stock and barrel. To not even come up with an amendment to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, whose chosen weapon is a gun, is unconscionable. If you did not know Congress was bought by now you need to put your head back in the sand. They don't care.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        At the risk of sounding like I'm defending the NRA, I have to say that campaign financing (what used to be called bribery) has corrupted everything in politics.

        The NRA is just doing what every other corporation, union and association are doing.

        Otherwise, I understand your frustration.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Agree +. The hegemony is intact.

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      This is about moral evil and people being deceived by many things.  This is also perhaps sometimes about mental illness.  I believe the answer is to address the moral issues, and discuss what are true and better ideas so people will want to let go of their moral problems, if they indeed care about truth and that goodness is better than "badness", or hurting others.  I think some just want to.  There are answers out there, but not all are willing to take what comes with it. 

      More often than not, people want something they prefer, to be true over what actually is.  They then live out their lives in this way, especially if they see leaders that agree with them, encouraging them to do so.  The thing is that truth wins always, and thus the cause and effect is always in play.  Thus, the need for blame games when the obvious very negative effects play out.  It can't be that the idea or belief is bad that some people hold, and can't really defend.  Thus the vicious cycle of wanting others to be wrong and pointing fingers, while many just hope to not be shot next. 

      So only when people are willing to see the truth and moral goodness, and better ideas, will things begin to get better.  I truly believe with all of my heart, more than ever, that many do not really want that. (not if it can't be on their terms, in the way they demand or want it.  Very strange indeed.)   As awful as that sounds.  Thus, what we see.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        oceansnsunsets ~ Try not to get DRAWN into the "MOTIVE" discussion because it's IRRELEVANT, simply a proverbial "Exercise in Futility" with no resolution to be had ~ Radical Republicans LOVE & Crave this ~

        There ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be 'MOTIVE"  if Humans continue to inhabit this Planet and that's an Unfortunate Historical FACT ~ So that's not the primary issue nor can a valid solution be found therein ~ The ONLY way to Reduce and or Mitigate Mass Murder Gun Crime is to Significantly REDUCE the number of tools in Nationwide Circulation which are used to commit gun crimes ~ We can start by issuing an Exec Order to Ban Automatic Weapons Immediately ~ This will finally get to the ROOT of the Crisis ~

    6. tirelesstraveler profile image86
      tirelesstravelerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Guns have only made killing a disconnected activity.  In the grand scale of time they haven't been around  too long, but people killing each other has been a thing much longer.

    7. Onusonus profile image84
      Onusonusposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12345549_10153169390330896_2999659578331931292_n.jpg?oh=3ec0e3419d62165725e1f49bb8b4b1a9&oe=56E9BCF8

      1. Farawaytree profile image87
        Farawaytreeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        I see your point.

  2. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

    It's ALL about the guns ~ "INTENT" or "Mental illness" have NEVER Killed anyone ~


    The President should enact an IMMEDIATE Indefinite Moratorium on gun sales nationally, an IMMEDIATE Executive Order to BAN Assault & Related Weapons, then we go from there ~

    "People Don't Kill People, Guns Kill People"  ~ That's a FACT ~

  3. janshares profile image87
    jansharesposted 12 months ago

    I share your sentiments, Farawaytree and Alternative Prime. I think our country needs to take notes from Canada where there is virtually no gun violence because there are no guns. But you hit the nail on the head, Farawaytree. We need to look at the bigger picture which is the culture and mentality about using guns in violent ways against human beings. It's outrageous and has become an unfortunate way of life in our country. Just my thoughts.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Check the murder rate by knives or bludgeoning in Canada vs the US (both considerably higher in Canada).  Then explain again why it is so much better to be killed with a knife rather than a gun.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        And yet the U.S. homicide rate is 2.5 times higher than Canada's because of easy access to guns. Is that better?

  4. Michaela Osiecki profile image86
    Michaela Osieckiposted 12 months ago

    I don't think it's mental illness or terrorism. Look at the state of things for a lot of people right here in our borders - high levels of poverty and unemployment, broken government programs that don't help the people they promise to help, a lot of civil unrest around social issues, the fear of having Hitler 2.0 as our next president....people are scared. People are angry. People are lashing out against a system that does not represent them and refuses to acknowledge them. And they don't know how else to be heard or get their point across. They don't know how else to quell their rage about how horrible things are right now.

    And guns....are really d*mn easy to get a hold of. A lot easier than food stamps or medication, that's for sure.

  5. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 12 months ago

    I would argue that trying to communicate a message through homicide is almost always a mentally disordered choice. Especially as the objectively measured situation in this country compares very well to this country in the past and most other countries on the planet.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      +1 agree.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Now wait, hold on, maybe we should have a discussion about "mental disorders."

      I am addressing your comment seriously, because it seems that recently the definition of mental disorders, (or illness, or insanity, or disabilities), has changed to include any action that doesn't fit with our current ideas of social behavior.

      For instance; my understanding of mental disorders covers the range from the `One jumped over the Cuckoo clock' crew to the bi-polar and schizophrenic types. (and of course the other classics too)

      My thought is that among us there are bad people that do bad things. I don't think they are "bad" because they have a mental disorder, I think they are just bad seeds.

      Was a Mafia killer taking care of "business" mentally disordered? A strongman ruler killing his challengers?

      Do I need to change my thinking about this? Is anyone that doesn't act in the currently acceptable norm now mentally disordered?

      GA

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Agreed! Perhaps a nail has been hit on the head and it is not a coffin filled full of blame. Maybe it is constructing something of usefulness. I could discuss the point “Now wait, hold on, maybe we should have a discussion about "mental disorders” with great length, but hesitate. Firstly, that coffin would really be very full since 1 of 5 in the U.S. today will experience mental illness this year. That can be easily Googled. Oh my . . . lions, tigers, and bears. Don’t look now . . . I will offer two quotes from reliable resources to ponder.

        Dispelling the Myth of Violence and Mental Illness. A little more lengthy paper with stats provided by Psych Central. There summary conclusion is:

        "Violence is most often a criminal activity which has little correlation with a person's mental health. Most people who suffer from a mental disorder are not violent -- there is no need to fear them. Embrace them for who they are -- normal human beings experiencing a difficult time, who need your open mind, caring attitude, and helpful support."
         
        Mental Health Myths and Facts From U.S Dept. of Health & Human Services - Mental Health.gov:

        Myth: People with mental health problems are violent and unpredictable.

        Fact: The vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. Most people with mental illness are not violent and only 3%-5% of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness. In fact, people with severe mental illnesses are over 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. You probably know someone with a mental health problem and don't even realize it, because many people with mental health problems are highly active and productive members of our communities.

  6. chef-de-jour profile image90
    chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago

    It's sickening news again from the USA. It seems the threshold for gun violence is lowering in these times of uncertainty and whilst there are many factors involved, including mental instability and personality disorder, it has to be the ease of access to lethal weapons that is at the heart of all mass killings. 

    I know the pro-gun lobby people are going to start shouting about rights and this and that and the other but, in a mature democracy, surely you could have say, a 6 month ban on all gun sales to people under 30 years of age? This could go hand in hand with a background check on all purchasers.

    Thousands of your young people are dying needlessly. 

    Yes, there is a black market for weapons no doubt and if someone is determined enough they'll get hold of a gun BUT why not at least try and do something a bit different instead of living in fear, waiting for the next massacre?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Since the great Australian gun confiscation, there have been 9 mass murders in the country (according to Wikipedia).  Only 3 of those were shootings, which would seem to point to killers using whatever is available, not just guns.  Lethal weapons such as blunt instruments, fire, acid and knives were chosen instead - all of course readily available just as guns are.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        The U.S. murder rate is 5 times higher than Australia, according to the World Bank.

        Do you really think it's just as easy to commit a mass murder with a knife than it is with a gun?

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        It's also worth pointing out that the Australia homicide rate has declined nearly 40% since the ban.

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

  7. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    As many liberals ply onward with the needs of more gun controls , California has the most stringent gun laws in the US. ?     ,  Washington DC, Baltimore Md. ,  and in  Chicago Illinois,  Why then if its about "too many guns  " in the rest of the country ,   most  violent gun crimes are in the area's  of strong gun controls ?  It constantly happens in areas of ALREADY  strong gun control laws ?   

    Why not call this exactly what it is Terrorism by Islamic influenced  activist's !   This happened at a Christmas party ,   pipe bombs , radio controlled  explosives ,  thousands of rounds of ammo  ,  Is it true they even had "Go Cams "?    Prosecute your existing gun laws . Enforce  full term prison sentences , No plea bargaining , 

    When the leader of our country can't even say the words "Islamic militants "  we are already in trouble !

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Plenty of non liberals are tired of mass murders with AK-47s, which didn't used to happen when they were banned in this country.

      Wanting to end them doesn't make someone a liberal.

  8. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    The Naiveté of many forum dwellers  will have everyone thinking that statistics maintained by an open and free country like the US. .  as to gun or any KINDS OF CRIME ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS WORLD WIDE .     Does any one truly believe that accurate government statistics   about crime  are a world wide habit , AND that they are held to the same standards as America's ?..........  Please !

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Conservatives who don't like what they hear often claim that media and government are liars or liberals.

      Do you know how many thousands of people and hundreds of agencies would all have to lie and never reveal it to anyone?

  9. Farawaytree profile image87
    Farawaytreeposted 12 months ago

    Wow, everyone is raising fantastic points.

    GA Anderson, I see what you're saying. I have been wondering myself about the definitions we place on mental illness. If we are the ones labeling others as mentally ill, how do we know the line between what's normal and what's deviant? I suppose whatever the majority of us deem appropriate behavior or what's been written in psychology textbooks?

    And, if some of us are inherently "evil" and the rest are inherently "good," then should we just chalk up all these killings as casualties of the deviant side of human behavior and accept it, or keep having these debates about who and what is actually to blame for the frequent number of murderous events?

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Hello Farawaytree,

      I would say yes to `all the above', with just a little clarification, ( I always like to leave a door or two cracked).

      I chose "bad" for a reason. Deviant and evil might be possible substitutes, but they bring along connotations that are a little beyond the snapshot I was offering.

      Deviant has two strikes against it; 1) deviant implies a norm, and norms change, which then implies that deviant will change too, not the point I was making, and 2) it seems most use of the word is to describe an extreme negative, a bias from the start.

      Evil is also stronger and deeper into an impression of nonredeemable actions. Is Evil a mental disorder? I say no, but hesitantly, because  that is a discussion in itself.

      And I am much too timid to even think about applying "inherently" to my statement. My thought was much more simplistic; like a rotten egg, or a bad apple.

      You finished with a well-stated either or question, but it seems possible, (and I think beneficial), that the "or" could be dropped. I think the best realistic answer is to do both. Accept the former because it is a fact of life, (I think), and continue to do the latter because we never know what we don't know. Debate, discussion, increased interest... it could be a boon or a bust. We may discover that what it is, is what it is, or we could make a new round earth discovery.

      You will have to guess from here...

      GA

  10. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 12 months ago
    1. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Looks like a Ridiculous Cartoon from the NRA, not even close to the TRUTH ~

      We've already discussed this Ad Nauseum and anyone with a reasonably functioning brain understands the difference ~ Mass Murder is much MORE Difficult using other utensils and or apparatus versus an efficient GUN machine ~

      However, if you actually believe this cartoon, I guess owning a Baseball Bat or knife rather than a gun would satisfy your desires right? No need for a firearm anymore, just go get sized Up for a large piece of wood ~

      In REALITY, REDUCING the number of guns in circulation is a DETERRENT in and of itself , and that's a FACT ~

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        I've asked over and over for evidence supporting this supposed FACT, yet you have consistently failed to provide any.  Are you ready to do so yet, or still just spouting nonsense you can't back up?

        1. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Thank you wilderness, you are spot on with Alternative Prime.

        2. Alternative Prime profile image87
          Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          ONCE Again wilderness, I fully understand the fact that in "Republican Pretend Land" Scientific Evidence & Mathematical Certainties are NOT considered FACTS ~ In the REAL World it's called Proof ~

          Like Colorfulone, I guess you would also prefer to be in a room with an individual weilding an assault rifle versus a baseball bat. of knife, or toothpick, or hair dryer, or Jed Bushs' Personality ~ smile ~ Well guess what? YOU & Colorfulone are the ONLY 2 human beings residing on this lovely planet who like those odds ~

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            What was that math again?  That if you take guns, people can't kill with guns, right?  Ignoring that they still kill, but hey, the math is correct, right? 

            But pretending that Republicans are, like Democrats, too stupid to see you "palm that card" doesn't work very well, does it?

  11. chef-de-jour profile image90
    chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12774117.jpg

    You don't think it's ease of access to a gun?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      As citizens of Switzerland have a far greater access to guns than those of the US, I'd have to say no.  The graph shows the opposite, in fact, as long as you cherry pick countries to compare.

  12. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 12 months ago

    300 million + legal guns are owned in the US. Time to stop talking like that's a bad thing. Also, the govt could NEVER take them without a war. Think Iraq was bad? Afghanistan? Syria?

    Try 365 million US citizens who a larger fraction own their guns legally. US wants to go strong? Fine.... Run groups door to door and pull ILLEGAL GUNS. 


    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12774118.jpg

    We have an evil problem. Obama can't even bring himself to say Muslims are going jihad in America. He will not say radical Islamic terrorists are responsible for the mass shootings.  BUT, he wants more gun control instead of solving the Muslim problem.  Radical Islam is evil.   That makes Obama apart of the problem.  Could be he is mentally ill.  Psychopath!

    1. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Ted Cruz' Father is a Refugee as well ~ What's worse to a republican than a middle eastern refugee? A Cuban refugee ~

    2. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Not to let the facts get in the way of a good meme, but Mohammad Abdulazeez was not a refugee.  His parents were standard non-refugee immigrants.

  13. Farawaytree profile image87
    Farawaytreeposted 12 months ago

    Yes, I agree that the government will not be able to disarm it's nation without a war. It's too late for that.

  14. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 12 months ago

    The gun control push illustrates the misguided priorities of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. They refuse to stand up and do what is necessary to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, to defeat ISIS, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, they remain obsessed with disarming the American citizenry, of stripping us of our fundamental right to protect our homes, our lives, and our families.

    You don’t get rid of the bad guys by getting rid of our guns. You get rid of the bad guys by using our guns.


    Ted Cruz blisters the President, saying his calls for more gun control "ignores the fact that California already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country [and] to the surprise of no one, the laws failed to prevent this horrific attack."

    Ted Cruz about the Democrats’ attempts to use the San Bernardino attack as an impetus for gun control and his counter position that the attack actually shows why now, more than ever, the Second Amendment must be defended and the American people must be armed.


    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12774245.jpg

    Ted Cruz, does not sound at all like Obama who is a “unmitigated socialist.”

    We need to counter jihadists.

  15. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

    Once Again, another thread Contaminated and Unilaterally CONVERTED into a "Radical Conservative Republican" Propaganda Outlet for NutCase Colorfulone and her Cohorts to vent ~

    Your "Hitler" & "War on OUR Federal Government" by Insane Hillbilly Republicans toting pea-shooters is OLD & Tired NONSENSE ~ Why not save that retardation for the "Fox Loser Snooze" chatrooms where it belongs? ~ smile

    BTW ~ Over one decade ago, Numbskull George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc and their ultra-conservative administration commenced 2 un-winnable wars both in Iraq & Afganistan ~ Bush had 7 years in which to secure a victory(s), he FAILED Miserably ~ Thank GOD we NOW have a "THINKING" Intelligent President who understands this FACT ~

    Good Luck with your new thread Farawaytree, Unfortunately IRRATIONAL CONservative Behavior & Comments seem to have HIJACKED it ~ smile

  16. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 12 months ago

    Pants on fire! (AP) smile  You can keep Jeb all to yourself! wink
    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12774489_f1024.jpg

  17. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    I can imagine that the first impulse of most anti- gun people in a situation like San Bernardino  will be to seek out and smother someone  who HAS a gun .     Watch out and see in the future .

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I am not anti gun but I don't understand why domestic terrorists can still be able to buy guns. Can you explain that for me?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        How do you know which is a terrorist and which is a hunter...before they kill someone?  Go back to the days of J Edgar, when suspicion was reason enough to ruin lives?

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12774528.png

          For president Obama , this is workplace violence !


          http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12774531.png

          This is a hunter of "wabbits" .
          http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/5470170.jpg

          This is a lone wolf  killer .

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          The ones specified were on a terrorist list by the FBI is how. This is about NRA money Is all this is about. How about the mentally ill? I guess that is too hard to identify too?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Yes it is.  How do you test for actions due to mental illness 5 years down the road?  Or even 1 year?  Without testing?  Hindsight is wonderful, but not of much value in this case (particularly as we'll continue to pretend guns kill rather than mentally ill people).

            Terrorists: were these people convicted of terrorism, or simply suspected of vague connections?  One is a valid reason to not only deny guns but to lock them safely away, the other nothing more than a reason to post a watch.  We ARE "innocent until proven guilty", you remember?

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              If one is accused of something in our legal system they are entitled to legal action. If a person is on the terror list and refused a gun then they have the right to a hearing of the evidence. It is so very simple. As far as mentally ill people the same is true only an evaluation has to be heard to determine if they are competent to own or buy a weapon. If you want a precedence all you have to look at is where a former criminal convicted or just arrested has to prove they are either pardoned or have their record expunged to be able to buy or own a weapon. Really you are arguing this? It is a Congressional slime bag argument against this because of the NRA money pure and simple. It has nothing to do with rights as evidenced by the totally partisan vote. The ones who are PAID by the NRA voted with them.

              And trying to tie this to your weapons kill not just guns is not applicable as the terrorists weapon of choice are guns. Who knows about the mentally ill as they will grab whatever they can. The only question with them is why make it easy to be a gun?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Our legal system is based on proving your innocence after suspicion removes rights?  I don't think so - this is nothing but a return to Hoovers tactics in the FBI where anyone he didn't like was automatically guilty.

                While I don't question the advisability of making guns impossible for terrorists to get, your solution of assuming everyone is a terrorist without bothering to prove it is not acceptable.  Assuming guilt without a trial is not what our justice system (poor thought it is) is based on.

        3. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          The same way they find out now.

  18. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    This is an Islamic terrorist.
    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12774553.png

  19. chef-de-jour profile image90
    chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago

    There are indisputable facts that can't be denied or ignored.
    *Out of the last 133 cases of mass shootings only 1 of the attackers was offically deemed mentally ill.
    *Places with more guns have more homicides.
    And from the washington Post:

    http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12775045_f248.jpg

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Officially declared mentally ill. I suppose that means that only one jury accepted mental illness as a defense?

      I know that news reports have shown several mass killers to be on anti depressant drugs. I'm not saying that makes them mentally ill. I do wonder if there is a connection between the side effects of use and mass killings.

      We hear so little about the facts surrounding the suspects. I can't help but wonder if there is some underlying thread which connects many of them. Guns have been a part of our lives since the first settlers crossed over from Europe. What we have is a fairly recent turn of events. We have a problem but making gun ownership more difficult does not address the root cause of the problem.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      "*Places with more guns have more homicides."

      Can you back that up with hard numbers over a wide range of places, or is it just rhetoric?

      1. chef-de-jour profile image90
        chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        All I did was google guns and killings. It's all about the guns.

        Here is one source:

        Harvard Injury Control Research Center

        1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

        Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

        Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-4

        And also this from vox.com:

        But the fact that the finding holds up no matter how you approach it is suggestive, and most experts think the relationship is at least partially causal. "Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide," David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's director, wrote in his book Private Guns, Public Health.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          "1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)."

          Suggest you take a hard look at actual numbers rather than simply accepting the word of anyone at all.  The statement is quite false.

          "But the fact that the finding holds up no matter how you approach it is suggestive, and most experts think the relationship is at least partially causal."

          Sorry, the "finding" is no finding at all and is not true.  If most "experts" think a non-existent relationship is causal they aren't much of an expert.  And if Hemenway thinks he can prove it, take a look at his "evidence" - you will find it non-existent as well.

          There are several hubs on this site that did just that - look at the numbers.  Every one I've seen came to the same conclusion - the facts do NOT support the idea that more guns = more homicides and certainly do not support the misbegotten idea that guns are causal to high murder rates.  No one, in fact, that actually produces the numbers and statistics does.  Only those that make claims without supporting data.

          1. chef-de-jour profile image90
            chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            OK, I haven't gone into detailed research but what do we pay academics for but to give us objective studies? And why would an academic want to distort such simple figures, if that's what you're implying. There are many more studies by the way, and the figures are overwhelming.

            But to an extent I agree with you - statistics, lies and damn lies as Twain said? The figures can be manipulated either way and the debate go on and on ad nauseam...until the next mass shooting spree/killing. Then what?

            The crux of the matter is to ask if there's a problem or not? The facts suggest that there's a huge problem - no other comparable western country has quite the same rates. So, either bury heads in the sand or admit a need to change something.....do something positive about it. I'm sure those caught up in these horrors want to do something positive about the ease of purchasing a weapon.

            Are these killings bad enough to warrant action on the political scene or are they perceived as an integral part of USA culture, to be tolerated indefinitely?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              "And why would an academic want to distort such simple figures"

              Because they're paid to?  Because it fits better with their wants?  Because they believe their "common sense" more than they do their data?  How would I know - I just know that they DO distort the facts.

              Yes, there's a huge problem, and yes we have the worst homicide rate in the developed world.  So what do we do about it?  Well, we continue to take guns away, pretending that it has worked elsewhere even though we know it hasn't.  Isn't it time to forego the losing concept that guns cause murders and work on what is really wrong with our society?  Or will we continue to bury our head in the sand and pretend that all will be well if we can only get rid of those evil pieces of steel.

              "I'm sure those caught up in these horrors want to do something positive about the ease of purchasing a weapon."

              You're right, and that is a huge part of the problem.  Concentrating our efforts and resources on getting rid of guns instead of working on the real problem.  And yes, those killings will be tolerated indefinitely, or at least until we finally pay some attention to data and facts, accepting that guns do NOT cause homicides.  People do, with all their problems.  You comment that you have not gone into really researching the facts, and until you do you will remain a part of the problem.  Continuing to demand that a failed action (failed over and over and over) will somehow produce different results this time around.  Other countries worldwide have taken this same step, with the same results - no change in murder rates - so why can't we seem to learn something from that experience?  What in the world makes us think we're any different, that taking guns will solve our homicide problem when it hasn't done so anywhere else in the world?

              1. chef-de-jour profile image90
                chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Ease of access to guns is the problem. If you won't accept the academic approach then I'll offer a journalistic alternative in the hope that the message is at least worth looking at!

                This from the NYT:

                In the continuing debate over how to stop mass killings in the United States, Australia has become a familiar touchstone.

                President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation “like ours.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has said the Australian approach is “worth considering.” The National Rifle Association has dismissed the policies, contending that they “robbed Australians of their right to self-defense and empowered criminals” without reducing violent crime.

                The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.






                None of us can truly research facts unless we're part of the academic/research team doing the studies or carry out personal investigation.
                I don't get the logic of your argument about people who are suggesting some sort of action as problematic.

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12775469_f248.jpg

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  And herein lies the problem, doesn't it?  Yes, Australia IS much like the US - at least as much as can be said of any other country.

                  But there it comes to a dead stop.  First, Australia HAS had mass murders since the gun confiscation - 9 of them.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders)  But notice the difference in terminology; your "experts" have defined "mass killings" as ONLY those done by guns.  All others are ignored (including 3 by guns), as if the dead care which weapon was used.  Truth, with a capital T, does not include suddenly changing the topic in the hopes that the implied lie (there have been no more mass murders) will be swallowed without ever noticing the sudden change.

                  Likewise with your pretty graph; the topic is homicides, not homicides by gun.  In addition to that, if you actually look up and find statistics on homicide rates in Australia before and after the gun confiscation, you will find that the same gradual slide already happening continued it's merry way without any change.  Taking guns from Australians thus did nothing at all to reduce the homicide rate and even the gun homicide rate changed very little from the slide it was already on (shown by your graph).

                  This is exactly what I was talking about when I said the facts and data are twisted: not only is the topic of homicide rates suddenly changed to be only homicides by gun, without ever making the change clear, (a no-brainer as killers that can't get a gun will not use one to do his killing with) but the historical trend in Australia is not included in the conclusion that falling homicide rates were caused by the confiscation of guns.  Twisted completely out of reality, just to "prove" that taking guns will produce a lower homicide rate.

                  Finally, yes you CAN research facts.  Find raw data, collect it, examine it and produce a conclusion.  I and others here on HP have done that for both the world and for the US.  I used data from the Small Arms Survey commissioned by the UN, and include the raw data in a hub I wrote on it.  While I forget where the data came from in a different hub on the US alone, the inescapable conclusion was the same as mine for the world: There is no statistical correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate of that society.  Without even a detectable correlation there can be no causal effect, either.

                  The moral?  Read carefully what is being said; it is very common to suddenly go from "homicide rate" to "gun homicide" rate.  Without careful reading the change is never caught, and you are then convinced of something that has no truth in it.  The gun haters seldom if ever concern themselves with overall homicide rates, but only gun homicide rates, and it is very easy to show that taking massive amounts of guns from law abiding citizens will almost certainly reduce gun homicide rates by criminals.  Pretty much a "no brainer", as I said.

                  But that isn't relevant to the real world: what we need to know is if taking guns will save lives - if the overall homicide rate drops.  And the answer is "No, it does not.  Killers keep right on killing, just with a different weapon".  This isn't a guess, it isn't "common sense", it isn't a vague hope; it is hard fact, borne out by actual, real life numbers and experience.  It even flies in the face of that much proclaimed "common sense" that because guns are easy to use taking guns will save lives, but is nevertheless true and factual.

                  We can even see this in a limited sense.  Gun homicide rates in Canada are much, much lower than the US...but knifings and bludgeonings are both higher.  In spite of a lower overall rate, both of those sub-classes are higher than in the US - guns are more difficult to get in Canada, so different weapons are used more often.  Same with Australia and their mass killings - guns are more difficult to get, so other weapons (arson, bludgeoning, knifings and even acid) were often used since 1996.  I don't know if the US has ever had a mass killing by bludgeoning, but Australia has - they traded shooting for blunt weapons. 

                  Is that what we want for the US?  Violate the 2nd amendment as much as the courts will allow, just so murder victims won't be shot but instead knifed or burned instead?  Remove rights and freedom from millions, so that just as many people will be murdered, just not shot?  Personally, I don't think so.

                  1. chef-de-jour profile image90
                    chef-de-jourposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Ease of access to guns is the problem.

                    These quotes from the National Observer.com comparing gun laws in Canada and the US.

                    'And a review of 2015’s year-to-date total for firearms-related deaths in the U.S. shows that as of Dec. 3, the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) has already recorded 12,236 deaths and a further 24,755 injuries from shootings. This casualty toll includes 640 children aged 0-11 killed or injured by guns.'

                    The issue as far as I can make out is not one of 'taking guns (away)' but one of making the access to the purchase of guns more difficult. This is my point. I'm not a gun hater, not anti-gun; I'm trying to make sense of a situation that  seems out of control.

                    If you don't want to be robbed you use lots of security measures as deterrent. If you don't want to be killed by a bullet you use lots of deterrents to stop a potential killer buying a gun.


                    'Anyone wishing to buy a gun in Canada and/or ammunition must have a valid license under the Firearms Act. To obtain a firearms license, all applicants must undergo a screening process, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background checks, provision of personal references, and a mandatory waiting period.'

                    I know the arguments over the 2nd amendment are hot - judged by the recent debate in the forums - but I see no problem with the right to own a gun, I just think the time has come to make it harder for any Tom, Dick or Harry to buy one casually:

                    'Anyone wishing to dodge even a cursory federal background check can simply buy weapons from gun shows, or from friends, family, and neighbours in private sales, according to CNN.
                    It was loopholes and lax checks that allowed racist gunman Dylan Roof to obtain the weapon that he then used to carry out a massacre of worshippers at an African-American church in Charleston, North Carolina. Despite being arrested for drug possession and trespassing – and had also displayed racist imagery on Facebook – he still met the legal requirements for buying a weapon.'

                    Genuine people with the right to own a gun are being given a bad name by these rogue individuals who mass kill through hatred and prejudice and grudge. And because they can easily get hold of a firearm.

  20. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    Given America's size and world influence , When real terrorism , like that seen in our regions ,finally  arrives in America ,  average people like many here on the forums will have conveniently forgotten about the whole gun debate ...................Except to  scream  in panic ,"where is my own gun "?  You will see American" refugees"  lining up to be protected by the NRA .

  21. aware profile image71
    awareposted 12 months ago

    Chris Rock has a bit .if bullets were made of gold you'd see a dramatic decrease in the use of them. One gun sale dosent raise a red flag..buying a thousand bullets for that gun should.I think. .
    And ideas do kill people.certain idealism's need to be looked at as if they were a loaded gun

  22. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago

    Once Again, another thread dedicated to the mis-guided OBSESSION with "Mental illness" ~

    Most individuals who kill are NOT Suffering from a Mental and or Psychological Disturbance, Breakdown, Detachment from Reality etc ~ They are pressumably of SOUND Mind according to the Medical Community ~

    "Mental illness" is NOT a prerequisite to kill, but an automatic weapon or reasonable facsimile thereof is absolutely a requirement for an Efficiently Effective MASS Murder ~

    Mentally Sound or NOT, Assault Style Weapons must be BANNED Immediately ~ It's a GOOD Start ~

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Ah, but automatic weapons and assault weapons are already banned.  Problem solved, yes?

      Although I would have to say that pretending either one is an absolute requirement for an efficient mass murder is an outright lie; the biggest mass murder in the history of the country had not a single gun involved.  Just planes.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        I thought it was gas.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          That would have been in Iraq.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        wilderness ~ I was refering to "Assault Style" weapons as well, and ALL "Loopholes" therein must be surgically sealed ~ State Laws  versus Federal Law are ambiguous at best, CONFLICTING, this is what happens when you begin to remove the adhesive which tightly secures our Union ~ CONFUSION, Mis-Interpretation, Jurisdictional Consequences etc ~

        UNIFORM National Gun Laws & Abatement is what this country needs ASAP ~

        FYI ~ Just DAYS ago, your Insane conservative republican buddies in congress blocked bi-partisan legislation which would have closed said "Loopholes" ~ The amendments and or new draft which republicans Obstructed would have BANNED "No Fly" individuals living here in the United States from purchasing firearms ~ I guess Dim-witted CONservatives seem to think those who are under suspicion and or close observation/surveillance  by FBI, CIA, Law Enforcement etc should have the right to be armed against "We the People" and OUR Government ~

        This "Suspicious Republican Activity" could quite possibly equate to "Treasonous Activity" committed by congressional republicans and or any democrats who opposed the law, and would certainly make CONservatives Complicit in any future events ~ I think even  Republicans would like to know the REAL Reason why their own representatives in the GOP BLOCKED this effort ~

        The UNWRAVELLING of the "Republicans are Tough on National Security" Myth continues ~

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          It seems that the dim-witted Democrat takes "shall not be infringed" to mean "unless I suspect them of wrong doing".  A suspicion, without proof, is all it takes to infringe on constitutional rights, isn't it?  At least to the dim-witted Democrats that know better than the people how things should be.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image87
            Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Enabling "No Fly" individuals to Purchase GUNS via "Inaction", which is EXACTLY what your conservative republican congressmen/women have achieved is not just "Suspicious Activity" it's Defiantly Blatant in Allegience to the NRA and perhaps "Foreign Mal-Intended Entities" ~

            If this negligence leads to any future incidents, ALL republicans who were Complicit should, and hopefully will be held accountable for their Reckless Actions ~

            P.S. wilderness ~ I think we've determined LONG Ago that FREEDOM is NOT Absolute, nor should it be, and your rights are constantly infringed upon and or suspended for very good reason in most instances ~

            Trey Gowdy, the republican congressman who presided over one of the Biggest Tax Payer Funded SHAMS in United States History, is now facing legal actions for his involvement in the Benghazi Committee Witch Hunt which targeted Hillary Clinton in a POLITICAL way ~ Mr. Gowdy will probably be forced to resign as a result, what consequences will befall other republicans in the future, operatives who use public office to further an agenda which is in conflict with the Public Interest? ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, our freedoms are constantly infringed - it's why eternal vigilance is required to limit that infringement as much as possible.  Including unconstitutional removal of the right to keep and bear arms.

              I don't know much about the "no-fly" list - have those people been convicted of a crime worthy of being on the list?  If not, not being allowed to board an airplane is not in the same category as have constitutionally guaranteed rights removed.  And even if they ARE convicted of something, does that conviction (on par with speeding, perhaps?) warrant violating the constitution? 

              Questions you don't seem to want to talk about - is there a reason why?  Because of a totally irrelevant, so-called "witch hunt" between Gowdy and Clinton?  Is that a valid reason in your Democratic mind?

              1. Alternative Prime profile image87
                Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                wilderness ~ Your response is absolutely Insane, Irresponsible & Reckless, just like dim-witted backward congressional republicans who have  willfully ENABLED those who are Banned from FLYING, the opportunity to purchase a gun ~ sad ~ RIDICULOUS & Negligent ~

                Maybe we should REMOVE Suspect Individuals from ALL Lists, discontinue FBI & CIA surveillance, enable and encourage them to purchase a gun, allow them to committ a horendous crime, THEN place them on a "Watch List" ~

                Essentially, that's what you are advocating ~ Now do you understand WHY everyone realizes the FACT that conservative republicans are considered INEPT & Incompetent at National Security? The last republican administration under idiot george W Bush, who actually got us into this mess, was a disaster in ALL areas especially National Defense & Security and your sentiments solidify this fact ~

                FYI ~ Banned from Flying and Banned from Purchasing a weapon is essentially an infringement of Freedom which occurs frequently to PROTECT "We the People" ~ These "Infringements" are Necessary & ESSENTIAL ~

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  What I understand is that you don't give a rat's a$$ about rights or freedom - Voltaire's concept isn't even on your horizon.  You didn't even address the question of what it takes to get on that list, just declared that a suspicion of terrorism is all it takes to remove constitutionally guaranteed rights.  (And no, flying is not guaranteed by the constitution; the right to own a gun is)

                  1. colorfulone profile image87
                    colorfuloneposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    I read an article yesterday that reported the former Senator Ted Kennedy somehow got on the no-fly-list somehow accidentally (?), and its happened to many others.   I wouldn't trust the current administration with that list being used for gun control.

                  2. Alternative Prime profile image87
                    Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Typical Republican NON-answer, by now, I expect no less ~

                    But when an individual who is on said list committs a violent crime in the future, you and your backward republican NRA ZOMBIE cohorts will show up on FOX Loser Snooze Propaganda Outlet with a Psycho PRETEND Judge janine Piro, SCREAMING like little girls " WHY did this HAPPEN? How INCOMPETENT is our President" !!!! ~

                    FYI wilderness ~ There are many MORE Rights & Freedoms we enjoy as Americans which are NOT attached to the Constituition ~

          2. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            The same dimwits who changed the bit where the Constitution said black people were worth less than white people?

            The Constitution is an important document but it was made by men, not gods.  It can be changed.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, of course it can be changed; we've seen quite a few calls to remove the 2nd amendment entirely and each amendment (along with repeal of one) has been a change.

              But until it IS changed, it remains a rather stupid maneuver to promote or pass laws that intentionally violate it.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image87
                Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                wilderness ~ If you owned a gun store and an individual listed on a "No Fly" list walked in to purchase a gun, he/she has Valid ID and all pertinent info in order etc, and no other information was available, would you as proprietor consumate the sale?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  As I have no idea how a person gets on the "no fly list", and there doesn't seem to be any law against it, I would have to say "yes".  They can buy a gun.

                  I assume you would not - can you explain why?  What is there about being a suspected terrorist (not a terrorist, mind you, but merely a suspected one) that indicates that a person has lost their constitutional rights?  Or would you also lock them up (deprive them of liberty) or shoot them (deprive them of life) because someone, somewhere, has a suspicion they might be a terrorist?  There is insufficient evidence to prove it; does that now mean a suspicion is all that's needed?

  23. aware profile image71
    awareposted 12 months ago

    Illness is a excuse..

  24. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    If America keeps on in the direction of social unrest that it's on , guns will be a rather small issue compared  to civil unrest .   Divisive attitudes and disconnect even towards even  social  violence  , mindless impulsiveness , selfish ingrates ,  racial  mind control , ethnic issues ,P.C ,   anarchy in the streets ,   How far away can open conflict be ?  Does anyone truly believe that police protection  can keep up with an open  unrest ?  Time for Americans to mature up and  at least prepare for taking care of your own .  Can't  you even imagine  a  police state coming , can any of you  say Martial law ?

    But the left see's only a vision of some utopian  socialism without guns . The magic bullet for peace and harmony ,   Some people really just need to grow up .

    1. Farawaytree profile image87
      Farawaytreeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      ahorseback,  I agree that the political system cannot keep up with the bubbling pot of civil unrest. Although, I don't believe that the left wants a "gun-free" society. I think we all know that's impossible. The issue is US as a society.
      Talking about growing up is interesting to me because the people out there committing these murders are adults and were raised by someone, weren't they? What went wrong? Just religion??? As we've already talked about - just bad seeds, or is it nature vs nuture again?

  25. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    This government employs people on the terror watch list ,  it lets those like the wife of the  San Bernardino shooters in on refugee status , There are already  2000  + - Syrian  refugees, in America  ,  the Boston bombers were here on refugee  status ,  I take off my or shoes all but strip down  and  watch my wife get groped at the airport  ,  AND IT  WANT'S  TO TAKE MY GUNS .    Sorry , it ain't happening .

    1. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I'm so sorry that happened to your wife. 

      That reminded me of when the Russian passenger plane went down recently.  Russia said a bomb was put on the plane.  That led to finding out that there are un-vetted foreigners working in airports which possibly includes here in the United States.  James Woolsey, former director of the CIA said that, the nation's airport security staffers are no longer subjected to full vetting. 

      That is a scary thought in-light of all the terrorist attacks.

  26. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    Just like gun violence ,  knife killings ,  rope strangulation ,  or pipe bombings ,    Or for that matter  the evils of Nazism .  Once long ago  as a teenager , I have a fascination with the second world war , based on my Fathers first hand experiences , particularly how  the evils of the Nazi's  could possibly manifest itself in an otherwise " great"   society, and an otherwise very intelligent people  .  In the middle of my education I read one  persons  definition  .

    All of the worlds evils are in each individual  human heart .   In Hitler's heart , in his hundreds of thousands of followers , in yours and mine too  . There is an element of potential evil .   You and I  ..........well at least I control mine .   the criminally insane  apparently cannot !    It's really THAT simple .

  27. Farawaytree profile image87
    Farawaytreeposted 12 months ago

    Several of my close and extended family have boys who played all those video games such as Call of Duty, Halo, etc, since they were younger, and they are all gentle, caring, non-violent - not even a fight in school or out of school kind of boys. Hard to say about the influence of video games and aggression. Perhaps some people are more influenced by what they see than others and some know the difference between "right" and "wrong" more than others.

    They played with toys guns too, as do many boys and even girls nowadays. Should we take those away?

    1. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Actually Farawaytree, Video Games, Motive, Heat of Passion, Mental illness etc and ALL other Excuses conservative republicans & operatives of the NRA try to use to  DISTRACT from the REAL issue are Irrelevant if we get the True Root of the problem ~

      There will ALWAYS be MOTIVE, mental illness etc  regardless of Time & Place, but if you begin to REDUCE the Number of "TOOLS" i.e. Guns, especially multiple round releasers, which are used to Commit Horendous Mass Killings, you will inevitably, over time, REDUCE the Violent Crimes associated with said efficient military style weapons ~ That's a Mathematical FACT and the ONLY resolution which will work ~

  28. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 12 months ago

    Too many people would rather be wrong than admit they are wrong. Republicans and Democrats often defend their parties no matter what.

    People who buy guns do the same thing. They defend, rationalize and often resist any effort to find common ground. Some even suggest they will go to war if anyone tries to take their guns when in fact most people simply want to see a stop to the mass killings with AK-47s.

    Until more people become objective and clear minded, we will continue to have battles over guns, politics, abortion, illegal immigrants and many other issues. And we will get nowhere.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Tell me, what is the common ground between two groups - one wanting the reasonably free access to weapons guaranteed by the constitution and the other want to take all guns away from private citizens?  (If it were true that "...most people simply want to see a stop to the mass killings with AK-47s" we would be seeing efforts to ban that weapon, and that weapon alone, as a compromise.  We don't.)

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, there is no Substantial Common Ground right now wilderness ~

        How can you negotiate in good faith with an Irrational Backward Republican Congress whose main reason for "Arming Up" is to fight the "BIG One" with their OWN Federal Government ?? ~ Ridiculous ~

        This is one reason WHY President Obama has Legally By-passed the Republican Congress in the past with Executive Orders and will probably be compelled to do so again in the future if progress is to be made on this and ALL other pressing issues ~

        "We the People" can't even get your numbskulled Speaker Paul Ryan to call a vote to fund the 9/11 First Responders Bill ~ How's that for Republican Retardation?? ~ OBSTRUCTION & Postponement Period, that's your GOP at work, or whatever ~

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          And how can you negotiate when your main reason is to violate the 2nd amendment? 

          There's your vaunted "Progressive" at work - the ends of total socialism justifies whatever the means is.

  29. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 12 months ago

    This is the quintessential HYPOCRISY.

    Former NC Democratic State Senator R.C. Soles sees no possible basis for underlings in his constituency to own a gun, but he sure does owned one ... and used it in his own personal defense!  I'm convinced there is a dark agenda of control with many of the anti-gun politicians.  As for those who truly just think banning guns will solve the problem...that's their right, but it is a perspective completely absent of common sense!

    Assault conviction:
    On December 30, 2009, Soles (at the time, the longest-serving legislator in the state) announced he would not seek re-election in 2010. This came after an August, 2009 incident in which he shot a young man and former legal client in the leg who was allegedly trying to kick in Soles' front door. In another incident, Soles pepper sprayed a young man. Soles' lawyer, Joseph Cheshire, said the shooting was self-defense. Cheshire and Soles have said that Soles has been generous to former clients in hoping to ease them back to a law-abiding life. Soles has denied having sexual relations with any of the young men. Soles was indicted on charges of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury on 7 January 2010. Soles pleaded guilty in 2010 to assault with a deadly weapon and was fined $1,000.

    Sexual abuse allegations...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Soles,_Jr.

  30. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    This President is all  about circumventing his 1/3  executive  balance of power ! The executive , the judicial and the legislative triangle  is about the balance of power from the beginning of America .    Yet this president thinks he's been through a  coronation   , emerged as   King Obama .   I believe he is playing with dynamite as to the  raising of the average citizen's hackles .

 
working