Ten shot, 2 dead near New York's Empire State Building

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I don't know enough about guns to write that law.

I appreciate your honesty. But wouldn;t that imply you don't know enough about guns to form an educated opinion on their subgroup legallity as well?

I simply think an AR-15, a gun I shot at a Vegas range during my brother's bachelor party, shouldn't be legal. To my admittedly amateur eyes, that gun is made for shooting people and would not be sport in hunting.

Hunting is not the only legitimate use for a rifle. Target shooting and even plain old personal enjoyment are also legal and legaitimate uses.

And with respect "made for shooting people" is a core design aspect of every firearm ever made. It's hardly a qualifier for banning, as you can plainly see, as that would qualify every gun (and crossbow, and bow for that matter) as banable.

Even if it is not technically an assault rifle, as it cannot go burst/auto, it is a military grade weapon, in my opinion even if it is classified otherwise.

An AR-15 is hardly "millitary grade". I will defer to our resident soldiers and former soldiers, but I'm going to assume they'd choose alot of things for their personal loadout before they'd get to "civvie AR-15 witjh the bling carbonfibre stock!".

This is a complicated issue, but I see the AR-15 as not really standing the test of being a home-defense weapon / hunting weapon, I see it as a soldier's weapon.

But as you've admitted, you know very little about guns, and as I said above, hunting/home defense is not the only reason people own firearms in America. For example, you may also think a Lamborghini is too much care for "commuting or going to Food Town to buy groceries, it's a racecar", but that would not be a basis for you to ban Lamborghini's, would it?

I have no problem with semi-auto pistols, no issue with shotguns and no issue with bolt-action hunting rifles. But if you look at those videos above, that weapon, and I'm sure there are other weapons out like that on the market, are far more dangerous, in terms of combination of firepower, range, clip size and speed between rounds, than any shotgun, bolt action rifle or semi-auto pistol.

It all depends, as we both agree, it's rather complicated.

A practicesed marksman, not neccessarily millitary grade, with an off-the-shelf high-end bolt-action rifile and quality scope, could, in short order, kill MANY more people than a random spurting .22 rounds as blazing speed and almost no accuracy.

I cannot write the law as I don't know enough, and perhaps someone can convince me I'm wrong in this thread - I'm willing to learn - but right now, if we're talking about common sense approaches to enforcing the 2nd amendment in the 21st century, I think guns like the AR-15 should be illegal.

In all honesty, I'm not going to attempt to convince you. There is nothign wrong with your opinions on guns, and I would strongly respect if you personally choose not to own one.

My only point is that in the realm of compromise, the devil is clearly in the details and the terminology, and it's not so simple as "ban assault rifiles" to fix the issue. We'd have to find some agreeable common ground, in the majority, and I'm not sure such a place exists, and given how little the non-gun fan knows about guns, it's safe to say that innocent ignorance plays a rather lareg role in the discourse ont heis topic.

As a side not, I'm curious, how is it that Holywood gets a pass, completely, on the level of violence on ouir TV's and movie screens almost daily? On most other things, we'd be quick to point out influences on the insane (liek the church for example) or the weapon they use, but it seems the influence of ultra-violent TV (which I enjoy myself in many forms) has been given a pass. Apparently you can ban all guns for the tiny fraction who would use them in the wrong, btu we cannot and should not talk about TV/Movie violence, as thats sacrosanct in America?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I appreciate your honesty. But wouldn;t that imply you don't know enough about guns to form an educated opinion on their subgroup legallity as well?

Absolutely.

I can't make all those distinctions on subgroups or legalities. I should not write the law, but I think there needs to be a discussion about the AR-15 and weapons like it. The AR-15 is the "civilian version" of the M-16 assault rifle. It is not considered an assault rifle because it does not have burst or auto, but looking at those videos of people shooting and taking into account the Aurora shooting, I think we should reevaluate whether simply removing auto/burst from a rifle should deem it ready for civilian use.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Hunting is not the only legitimate use for a rifle. Target shooting and even plain old personal enjoyment are also legal and legaitimate uses.

And with respect "made for shooting people" is a core design aspect of every firearm ever made. It's hardly a qualifier for banning, as you can plainly see, as that would qualify every gun (and crossbow, and bow for that matter) as banable.

An AR-15 is hardly "millitary grade". I will defer to our resident soldiers and former soldiers, but I'm going to assume they'd choose alot of things for their personal loadout before they'd get to "civvie AR-15 witjh the bling carbonfibre stock!".

It's the "civilian version" of an M-16, and from what I understand the substantive difference is the burst/auto toggle function. Perhaps there are soldiers who simply keep it on semi-auto and therefore have functionally the same weapon that's for sale to civilians.

Originally Posted by Warfish

But as you've admitted, you know very little about guns, and as I said above, hunting/home defense is not the only reason people own firearms in America. For example, you may also think a Lamborghini is too much care for "commuting or going to Food Town to buy groceries, it's a racecar", but that would not be a basis for you to ban Lamborghini's, would it?



It all depends, as we both agree, it's rather complicated.

A practicesed marksman, not neccessarily millitary grade, with an off-the-shelf high-end bolt-action rifile and quality scope, could, in short order, kill MANY more people than a random spurting .22 rounds as blazing speed and almost no accuracy.

Well, a Lamborghini is not designed to kill, nor is it as easily attainable as an AR-15.

And yea, a true marksmen could use their weapon of choice, such as a bolt-action rifle which I am not for making illegal, to great destruction.

But I'm assuming that the Aurora Shooting would not have been nearly as devastating if that guy, not a marksmen, had a bolt action rifle. Essentially, a marksmen will always be a problem if they decide to go psycho - what I'm trying to legislate is making it more difficult for an amateur to wreak destruction.

Originally Posted by Warfish

In all honesty, I'm not going to attempt to convince you. There is nothign wrong with your opinions on guns, and I would strongly respect if you personally choose not to own one.

My only point is that in the realm of compromise, the devil is clearly in the details and the terminology, and it's not so simple as "ban assault rifiles" to fix the issue. We'd have to find some agreeable common ground, in the majority, and I'm not sure such a place exists, and given how little the non-gun fan knows about guns, it's safe to say that innocent ignorance plays a rather lareg role in the discourse ont heis topic.

As a side not, I'm curious, how is it that Holywood gets a pass, completely, on the level of violence on ouir TV's and movie screens almost daily? On most other things, we'd be quick to point out influences on the insane (liek the church for example) or the weapon they use, but it seems the influence of ultra-violent TV (which I enjoy myself in many forms) has been given a pass. Apparently you can ban all guns for the tiny fraction who would use them in the wrong, btu we cannot and should not talk about TV/Movie
violence, as thats sacrosanct in America?

Certainly there is ignorance on my part, I don't know enough about this issue.

I don't worry about fictional violence in movies, TV and video games. They are works of fiction and it's up to parents and individuals to be able to recognize that.

That, to me, is completely separate issue from what firearms should be outlawed.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Absolutely.

I can't make all those distinctions on subgroups or legalities. I should not write the law, but I think there needs to be a discussion about the AR-15 and weapons like it. The AR-15 is the "civilian version" of the M-16 assault rifle. It is not considered an assault rifle because it does not have burst or auto, but looking at those videos of people shooting and taking into account the Aurora shooting, I think we should reevaluate whether simply removing auto/burst from a rifle should deem it ready for civilian use.

Agreed, I'm happy to have that discussion be a part of the debate on firearms and the 2nd.

It's the "civilian version" of an M-16, and from what I understand the substantive difference is the burst/auto toggle function. Perhaps there are soldiers who simply keep it on semi-auto and therefore have functionally the same weapon that's for sale to civilians.

Yes. And by definition a "civiliian version" is not a "Millitary Version", as I am sure you'd agree.

Well, a Lamborghini is not designed to kill, nor is it as easily attainable as an AR-15.

So now you're limiting it only to objects "designed to kill" eh?

I wonder how consistent you are in that seemingly convenient limitation...

But I'm assuming that the Aurora Shooting would not have been nearly as devastating if that guy, not a marksmen, had a bolt action rifle.

Yes, you are assuming, with facts not in evidence.

Replace his AR-15 with any number of other semi-auto handguns, multi-round shotguns or semi-automatic rifiles (or a host of other violence-capable items, like trucks or bombs or the like), and the situation is (materially) unchanged. Hell, a man with a knife can stab and kill a dozen people in a go, and have, without being taken down, if the circumstances are right.

Remind me (because I honstly forget), what did the Va Tech shooter use on his rampage? Was it an AR-15 type as well, or something else?

Essentially, a marksmen will always be a problem if they decide to go psycho - what I'm trying to legislate is making it more difficult for an amateur to wreak destruction.

Interesting that you get half of it, but not all.

The correct answer is "Anyone will always be a problem if they decide to go psycho".

It's not the gun. It's the wielder. Take away guns, you can be assured that those who "go psycho" will find other convenient methods of exacting violence on innocents. There is no shortage of ways with which to kill the fragile beigns we are.

It is the idea that everyoen should be barred for the actions of a tiny few that I take issue with. 99,999 could never show a hint of illegal violence, but they should be barred, because 1 man, with a host of issues well beyond ownign a gun, choose to engage in violence.

In effect, it's communal punishment for individual crime.

I don't worry about fictional violence in movies, TV and video games. They are works of fiction and it's up to parents and individuals to be able to recognize that.

See, now if I were a liberal, I'd decry you as "stupid" and "ignorant" and a "science denier" for this reply. Because science can show a clear psychological factor for exposure to tv and movie violence and those who commit violent acts. It's not definitive, of course, but it's as well proven as say, primarily-man-caused-climate-change.

One has to wonder, are you in denial opver the effects of violence on TV and film, because most of Holywood and the industry are liberal and give generously to (D), or simply because you (like I) enjoy these products, and you (nor I) have ever been violent because of them?

In either case, the scicne and the studies are there, if you wish to persue them.

That, to me, is completely separate issue from what firearms should be outlawed.

So a factor in the creation of violence is to be ignored, while the tool of the violent is to ba banned?

Interesting.

We should also ignore the factors that lead to individual poverty, and simply ban profit too, right?

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It is the idea that everyoen should be barred for the actions of a tiny few that I take issue with. 99,999 could never show a hint of illegal violence, but they should be barred, because 1 man, with a host of issues well beyond ownign a gun, choose to engage in violence.

I do believe in laws that are in the best interest of the public. It's a pretty broad spectrum of things you'd allow with the 'only 0.001% would abuse it' test. Serious questions - would you then strike down laws against or restricting:

• possession of any/all drugs (including narcotics)? (small percentage would abuse)
• speed limits on all roadways? (small percentage would drive recklessly)
• possession of any/all explosives, in any quantity? (who wants that stuff around the house anyway?)

etc., etc.


I feel the need to mention that I'm mostly responding to your posts because I enjoy the debate, and you're usually up for it. No stalker; No homo.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

Serious questions - would you then strike down laws against or restricting:

[*]possession of any/all drugs (including narcotics)? (small percentage would abuse)

*Fish coughs the Politician pre-speach cough*

If elected, I would immediately decriminalize all drug posession. I would outright legalize Pot. While I am on it, I'd also legalize prostitution, regulating both and taxing both.

Posession of controlled substances alone (i.e. not other cime committed) would be treated as a medical, not a criminal, issue.

If you commit a crime while in posession, or in seeking to posess, controlled substances, all penalties for the crime you committed would be doubled.

[*]speed limits on all roadways? (small percentage would drive recklessly)

There is no Constitutional Right to Drive, or to Drive at the speed of your choosing.

As such, I fully support speed limits, even if I think most are set artificially low in order to act as a source of reliable public funding via speeding tickets.

[*]possession of any/all explosives, in any quantity? (who wants that stuff around the house anyway?)

As above, there is no Constituional basis for a right to bear TNT or Plastic Explosives. As such, regulation for the well beign of the public is perfectly acceptable.

Let me be clear (like that, thats an Obamaism!), if you want to ban guns, there is a clear way to do so, and it's called a Constitutional Amendment.

If you pass one, I may not like it or support it, but it would then be the Law. And that Law must be accepted and followed by those who are law abiding.

To circumvent an existign right is wrong, IMO. Some reasonable regulation (like a tank cannon is not a "arm", i.e. not a gun) is fine. The quest to ban them all, without addressing teh Constitutional Right Issue, is not.

On this I am consistent, I am find with reasonable regulation of rights, no yelling fire in a theatre, no buying guns without an ID and backgriund check, and no voting without showing a picture ID of who you are. Reasonable regulation, consistently applied equally to one and all.

I feel the need to mention that I'm mostly responding to your posts because I enjoy the debate, and you're usually up for it. No stalker; No homo.

No worries isi, it's good fun most times

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

*Fish coughs the Politician pre-speach cough*

If elected, I would immediately decriminalize all drug posession. I would outright legalize Pot. While I am on it, I'd also legalize prostitution, regulating both and taxing both.

Posession of controlled substances alone (i.e. not other cime committed) would be treated as a medical, not a criminal, issue.

If you commit a crime while in posession, or in seeking to posess, controlled substances, all penalties for the crime you committed would be doubled.



There is no Constitutional Right to Drive, or to Drive at the speed of your choosing.

As such, I fully support speed limits, even if I think most are set artificially low in order to act as a source of reliable public funding via speeding tickets.



As above, there is no Constituional basis for a right to bear TNT or Plastic Explosives. As such, regulation for the well beign of the public is perfectly acceptable.

Let me be clear (like that, thats an Obamaism!), if you want to ban guns, there is a clear way to do so, and it's called a Constitutional Amendment.

If you pass one, I may not like it or support it, but it would then be the Law. And that Law must be accepted and followed by those who are law abiding.

To circumvent an existign right is wrong, IMO. Some reasonable regulation (like a tank cannon is not a "arm", i.e. not a gun) is fine. The quest to ban them all, without addressing teh Constitutional Right Issue, is not.

On this I am consistent, I am find with reasonable regulation of rights, no yelling fire in a theatre, no buying guns without an ID and backgriund check, and no voting without showing a picture ID of who you are. Reasonable regulation, consistently applied equally to one and all.



No worries isi, it's good fun most times

FTR, I agree with you re: drugs/taxes. If nothing else, it's a 'what we're doing isn't working' situation. But is there a constitutional right to have Heroin? Or would you say there is a constitutional right to have anything that the constitution doesn't say you can't have?

And couldn't you define 'the right to bear arms' as the right to have any weaponry (gun, explosive, etc.), unless that particular weapon is banned by law? And isn't a law like that in and of itself a circumvention of the constitution? You could argue that at some point, exercising your right is impinging on the rights of your neighbors, but not if it is handled/used the right way and in the right situation, and then having any gun at all could potentially impinge on your neighbor's right to life, liberty and the pursuit... So we have to make judgements, and compromises, as you say, to find the 'sweet spot' between what we can accept and what we feel is right.

This is the problem I have with Libertarianism - while I admire the black-and-white nature of it all, I think that you have to cop to the fact that the 'framers' didn't (and couldn't have) foreseen the world as it is today - the kind of weaponry we have today, the medical capabilities, the technology, even the large/dense cities themselves, from both a physical and sociological standpoint. The amendment granting us the right to bear arms was intended to give the people recourse against the possibility of a tyrannical government with control of the only military in town, right? So the way I see it, you'd be more justified starting from the right to bear arms, as written in the late 1700's, as absolute — but only as it applies to the kind of weaponry available in the late 1700's. Then make your individual banishments for the greater good from there. And if that's not good enough, you want a newer technology included in the right to bear arms, you think semi-auto handguns should be allowed... Make an amendment.

Problem solved! Have the Libertarian party send me a check for services rendered.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

FTR, I agree with you re: drugs/taxes. If nothing else, it's a 'what we're doing isn't working' situation. But is there a constitutional right to have Heroin? Or would you say there is a constitutional right to have anything that the constitution doesn't say you can't have?

Well, there are two answers.

1. No, there is no Constitutional Right to recreation drugs, or drugs of any kind. That works both ways, no right to Heroin, and no right to say, penicillan paid for by taxpayers either.

2. There is also no Federal right to ban them either, that would be a case of "to the States". At most they could regulate it's inter-State trade (which was not, it should be pointed out, intended to be a bludgeon for outright Federal bans).

On this, I simply think it's the right direction. Criminalization and a "War on Drugs" has been a catestophic failure on every front. Time to ry the "freedom" idea IMO.

And couldn't you define 'the right to bear arms' as the right to have any weaponry (gun, explosive, etc.), unless that particular weapon is banned by law?

You could. Liberals redefine to suit all the timje (in fairness, many Cons do too).

But the writers had a specific meaning in mind, personal firearms. And a specific reason, as a defense againt Tyrany, foreign and potentially domestic (if their own Govt. exceeded it's power). The 2nd cannot and should not be sperated from it's clear intent to act as an aegis for the people to keep the Federal at bay.

You could argue that at some point, exercising your right is impinging on the rights of your neighbors, but not if it is handled/used the right way and in the right situation, and then having any gun at all could potentially impinge on your neighbor's right to life, liberty and the pursuit... So we have to make judgements, and compromises, as you say, to find the 'sweet spot' between what we can accept and what we feel is right.

With all due respect, that is an assinine argument. The implication that mere existence is a breach of YOUR rights is laughable of every level. Such reasoning could be used to no end of abuse and evil.

It also fails to take into account that YOUR rights end where MY Right begin, and vice versa. It criminalizes a state of being, instead of (rightfully) criminalizaing an action that in some way deprives you of your rights. TLDR: I havn't removed your right by owning a gun, I removed them by shooting you.

No, I reject such an idea wholesale. It's an affront to the very concept of personal freedom.

This is the problem I have with Libertarianism - while I admire the black-and-white nature of it all,

I don't think of it, or my version of it, as black and white at all, certaily not universally. In fact, one of my most strident black/white views, illegal immigration, runs directly counter to the Libertarian position of lolopenborders.

I think that you have to cop to the fact that the 'framers' didn't (and couldn't have) foreseen the world as it is today - the kind of weaponry we have today, the medical capabilities, the technology, even the large/dense cities themselves, from both a physical and sociological standpoint.

Agreed. Thats why they left mechanics for the people to change it as needed.

The amendment granting us the right to bear arms was intended to give the people recourse against the possibility of a tyrannical government with control of the only military in town, right?

Basicly, yes. A role I freely admit is outdated due to technological advance and reasonable regulation (i.e. no tanks for the people, fun as that could be).

So the way I see it, you'd be more justified starting from the right to bear arms, as written in the late 1700's, as absolute — but only as it applies to the kind of weaponry available in the late 1700's.

lol, no.

Again, it comes down to definitions. Where you clearly would say "muskets", I would say "personal firearms". Both could be accurate, depending on how one chooses to define this or that. Thats the problem with redefining things, no agreement.

And if that's not good enough, you want a newer technology included in the right to bear arms, you think semi-auto handguns should be allowed... Make an amendment.

Problem solved! Have the Libertarian party send me a check for services rendered.

Sorry, no. Thats the reverse of how the system is intended to work.

And really, I hardly think you would be wiling to accept that on OTHER aspects of our rights handled the same way. For example, the right to speech is only speach as it existed in 1776? So no free speech on the web, TV, radio, satellite, or elsewhere, without an amendment?

No right to vote if it's done electronicly? Or absentee? Or done exactly as it was in 1776?

No right to religions that didn;t exist in the United States in 1776? Tom Cruise will be PISSED.

No, the system is supposed to have a foundation we, the poeple, build on as time and change required. The problem si the system is ignored now, and the people divided. With this type of division, the sstem is supposed to default to not changing. It takes more, and should take more, than a 40% group to force change on all of us, one way 9to the right) or the other (to the left).

[32green]

Originally Posted by Warfish

With all due respect, that is an assinine argument.

So...are we are to assume there was NO due respect?





-

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

With all due respect, that is an assinine argument.

I literally LOL'd, particularly because...

Originally Posted by Warfish

The implication that mere existence is a breach of YOUR rights is laughable of every level. Such reasoning could be used to no end of abuse and evil.

That's not what I'm saying, the existence doesn't impinge on my rights, it had the potential to, and if it is used or handled improperly, it can impinge on my rights.

Originally Posted by Warfish

It also fails to take into account that YOUR rights end where MY Right begin, and vice versa. It criminalizes a state of being, instead of (rightfully) criminalizaing an action that in some way deprives you of your rights. TLDR: I havn't removed your right by owning a gun, I removed them by shooting you.

Right, see, we agree on this.

And, yeah, I was being facetious about the whole 'rights as they existed in 1790' thing, but it's really no more preposterous than trying to apply some of those rights in today's world without a means to interpret and come to agreement on the interpretation.

The border/immigration issue is interesting though, it's a perfect example of something that seemed so obvious and right then and is, at the very least, not a slam dunk now. If you part with the framers there, how can you expect others to adhere to their code in other aspects and not allow for the same kind of dissent?

[isired]

Originally Posted by 32green

So...are we are to assume there was NO due respect?





-

I think he was saying none was due, not that he wasn't paying what was due. I think. Right?

Anyway, it's all good, he didn't realize that we agreed on that point. All asimple misunderstanding officer, nothing to see here. He should have left my respect unpaid in a different section.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

I think he was saying none was due, not that he wasn't paying what was due. I think. Right?

Anyway, it's all good, he didn't realize that we agreed on that point. All asimple misunderstanding officer, nothing to see here. He should have left my respect unpaid in a different section.

/facepalm

I can respect the poster and e-friend (in this case you Isi) and not respect the content of one of that posters ideas.

In any event, issues well covered at this stage. Not sure there is much else to say.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

/facepalm

I can respect the poster and e-friend (in this case you Isi) and not respect the content of one of that posters ideas.

In any event, issues well covered at this stage. Not sure there is much else to say.

I literally did laugh out loud when I read it, I thought it was truly funny. You can 100% disagree, you know that (damn they make it hard to use the % sign on this Swype keyboard). But in this case, I think you just misunderstood my point, and as I re-read how I wrote it, I can see why.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Yes. And by definition a "civiliian version" is not a "Millitary Version", as I am sure you'd agree.

But see, my point is that's part of the problem - we designate a weapon rifle civilian even though it's virtually the same as a military grade, minus a switch that enables to shoot auto/burst...

Originally Posted by Warfish

So now you're limiting it only to objects "designed to kill" eh?

I wonder how consistent you are in that seemingly convenient limitation...

Yea, I think things that are designed to kill should be heavily regulated?

Originally Posted by Warfish

Yes, you are assuming, with facts not in evidence.

Replace his AR-15 with any number of other semi-auto handguns, multi-round shotguns or semi-automatic rifiles (or a host of other violence-capable items, like trucks or bombs or the like), and the situation is (materially) unchanged. Hell, a man with a knife can stab and kill a dozen people in a go, and have, without being taken down, if the circumstances are right.

Remind me (because I honstly forget), what did the Va Tech shooter use on his rampage? Was it an AR-15 type as well, or something else?

Yes, I'm assuming that an AR-15 has the potential to kill more people than any of the weapons you cite, except for a bomb, which I already previously addressed is far more difficult to come by, as one must make it themselves.

The VA Tech shooter had 2 pistols and shot less people, but killed more. Though he obtained his weapons illegally, whereas the murderer in Colorado obtained his legally.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Interesting that you get half of it, but not all.

The correct answer is "Anyone will always be a problem if they decide to go psycho".

It's not the gun. It's the wielder. Take away guns, you can be assured that those who "go psycho" will find other convenient methods of exacting violence on innocents. There is no shortage of ways with which to kill the fragile beigns we are.

It is the idea that everyoen should be barred for the actions of a tiny few that I take issue with. 99,999 could never show a hint of illegal violence, but they should be barred, because 1 man, with a host of issues well beyond ownign a gun, choose to engage in violence.

In effect, it's communal punishment for individual crime.

Yes, it is the people, not the guns. I don't ascribe human psychological problems to guns. I just think certain guns have far too great a potential for destruction, in the hands of the wrong people, and therefore should not be allowed for purchase.

All things being equal, the AR-15 wielding person has an advantage over the person with two pistols.

Originally Posted by Warfish

See, now if I were a liberal, I'd decry you as "stupid" and "ignorant" and a "science denier" for this reply. Because science can show a clear psychological factor for exposure to tv and movie violence and those who commit violent acts. It's not definitive, of course, but it's as well proven as say, primarily-man-caused-climate-change.

One has to wonder, are you in denial opver the effects of violence on TV and film, because most of Holywood and the industry are liberal and give generously to (D), or simply because you (like I) enjoy these products, and you (nor I) have ever been violent because of them?

In either case, the scicne and the studies are there, if you wish to persue them.



So a factor in the creation of violence is to be ignored, while the tool of the violent is to ba banned?

Interesting.

We should also ignore the factors that lead to individual poverty, and simply ban profit too, right?

We already regulate violence in film and television to a degree I'm comfortable with. And no, I was not aware the scientific community had a "consensus" on this issue. By all means, enlighten me.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Yea, I think things that are designed to kill should be heavily regulated?

I think you can safely remove "designed to kill". From our time together here, I'm not sure I can recall there being anything (other than voting ID's) you were against regulating at the Federal level.

Yes, I'm assuming that an AR-15 has the potential to kill more people than any of the weapons you cite

You'd be wrong.

The kill potential is more about the skill and preperation of the killer, and teh circumstances of teh attack, that the specific firearm he or she carries.

Yes, it is the people, not the guns.

Speaks for itself.

All things being equal, the AR-15 wielding person has an advantage over the person with two pistols.

And you'd know that, because of all your knowledge and experience with guns, right?

We already regulate violence in film and television to a degree I'm comfortable with. And no, I was not aware the scientific community had a "consensus" on this issue. By all means, enlighten me.

The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions


Eugene V Beresin, M.D.

Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Residency Training

Massachusetts General Hospital and McLean Hospital

While violence is not new to the human race, it is an increasing problem in modern society. With greater access to firearms and explosives, the scope and efficiency of violent behavior has had serious consequences. We need only look at the recent school shootings and the escalating rate of youth homicides among urban adolescents to appreciate the extent of this ominous trend. While the causes of youth violence are multifactorial and include such variables as poverty, family psychopathology, child abuse, exposure to domestic and community violence, substance abuse and other psychiatric disorders, the research literature is quite compelling that children's exposure to media violence plays an important role in the etiology of violent behavior. While it is difficult to determine which children who have experienced televised violence are at greatest risk, there appears to be a strong correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior within vulnerable "at risk" segments of youth. In this article, I will briefly review the impact of media violence on children and adolescents, and indicate the vital role physicians can play in helping to diminish this powerful cause of violent behavior.

Over the past 30 years there has been extensive research on the relationship between televised violence and violent behavior among youth. Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and experimental studies have all confirmed this correlation. Televised violence and the presence of television in American households have increased steadily over the years. In 1950, only 10% of American homes had a television. Today 99% of homes have televisions. In fact, more families have televisions than telephones. Over half of all children have a television set in their bedrooms. This gives a greater opportunity for children to view programs without parental supervision. Studies reveal that children watch approximately 28 hours of television a week, more time than they spend in school. The typical American child will view more than 200,000 acts of violence, including more than 16,000 murders before age 18. Television programs display 812 violent acts per hour; children's programming, particularly cartoons, displays up to 20 violent acts hourly.

How does televised violence result in aggressive behavior? Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy and may view violence as an ordinary occurrence. In general, violence on television and in movies often conveys a model of conflict resolution. It is efficient, frequent, and inconsequential. Heroes are violent, and, as such, are rewarded for their behavior. They become role models for youth. It is "cool" to carry an automatic weapon and use it to knock off the "bad guys." The typical scenario of using violence for a righteous cause may translate in daily life into a justification for using violence to retaliate against perceived victimizers. Hence, vulnerable youth who have been victimized may be tempted to use violent means to solve problems. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, models of nonviolent conflict resolution in the media. Additionally, children who watch televised violence are desensitized to it. They may come to see violence as a fact of life and, over time, lose their ability to empathize with both the victim and the victimizer.

There are other, new forms of violence to which children and adolescents are exposed. In one recent study, it was demonstrated that 15% of music videos contain interpersonal violence. Still another new source of violent exposure is access to the Internet and video games. There is little data on the incidence of violence on the Internet; however, there is concern about sites that may advocate violence, provide information on the creation of explosive devices, or reveal how to acquire firearms. There is also little research on the impact of violent video games. We do know, however, that they are extensive and have a role-modeling capacity. The fact that the child gets to act out the violence, rather than to be a passive observer, as when viewing television or movies, is especially concerning to experts.

Child and adolescent psychiatrists, pediatricians and other physicians can have a major impact on the effects of media violence. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has created a list of recommendations to address television violence. It suggests that physicians talk openly with parents about the nature and extent of viewing patterns in their homes. Parents should limit television to 1-2 hours daily and watch programs with their children, enabling them to address any objectionable material seen. Physicians should make parents and schools "media literate," meaning they should understand the risks of exposure to violence and teach children how to interpret what they see on television and in the movies, including the intent and content of commercials. In doing so, children may be increasingly able to discern which media messages are suitable. Schools and homes should teach children conflict resolution. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, along with medical organizations, has been a strong advocate for television ratings and installation of chips to block certain programs. Physicians, in their role as health promoters, should become more active in educating the media to become more sensitive to the impact of violence on youth. We should be speaking up to the networks, cable vendors, local stations, federal agencies, and our political officials to help insure that programming decisions are made with an eye open to the potential consequences to the viewing audience, and that when violence is present, there are adequate warnings provided to the public. The arena of media violence is a new frontier where physicians can promote health through public education and advocacy.

http://www.aacap.org/

First hit on google btw.

if you don't like that one, try this one: http://www.indiana.edu/~cspc/ressenate.htm

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I think you can safely remove "designed to kill". From our time together here, I'm not sure I can recall there being anything (other than voting ID's) you were against regulating at the Federal level.

Yea, see, that's absurd. Am I to list out every government regulation and give you my opinion on them?

Ridiculous, Warfish, and in no way representative of reality

Originally Posted by Warfish

You'd be wrong.

The kill potential is more about the skill and preperation of the killer, and teh circumstances of teh attack, that the specific firearm he or she carries.

Those are not the only factors. The weapon plays a huge part. That's why RPG's and M60's aren't legal.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Speaks for itself.

And you'd know that, because of all your knowledge and experience with guns, right?

I know that because it's common sense. Rifle's have a larger bullet, more range, a bigger clip and are more accurate. There are very few situations where you want a pistol instead of a rifle. So, as I said, all things being equal, an AR-15 can do more damage than two glocks.



Both of these studies suck. The first has virtually no substance. Honestly, read through that sh*t. That's rampant with speculation.

The second talks about youth violence, without any mention of the rise of gangs since the early 80's - the #1 cause of youth violence. Remember those Chicago murders you were bringing up? Mostly gangs, mostly kids and it's because of the drug prohibition. Within two years of drugs legalization, gangs lose their need for existing.

The Problem: Youth Violence

According to the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), law enforcement agencies arrested approximately 2.8 million juveniles in 1997. Of that number, 2,500 were arrested for murder and 121,000 for other violent crimes. Juveniles accounted for 19% of all arrests, 14% of murder arrests, and 17% of all violent crime arrests.

According to DOJ, the number of juvenile violent crime arrests in 1997 exceeded the 1988 level by 49%.

According to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5.9% of high school students carried a gun in the 30 days prior to the survey. Eighteen percent of high school students now carry a knife, razor, firearm, or other weapon on a regular basis, and 9% of them take a weapon to school.

A Principal Cause: Media Violence

The Committee report reviewed existing studies and found:

Eighty-seven percent of American households have more than one television, and almost 50% of children have television in their rooms; 88.7% of homes with children have home video game equipment, a personal computer, or both. An average teenager listens to 10,500 hours of rock music during the years between the 7th and 12th grades.

By age 18 an American child will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence.

Television alone is responsible for 10% of youth violence.

Modern music lyrics have become increasingly explicit concerning sex, drugs, and violence against women.

A preference for heavy metal music may be a significant marker for alienation, substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, suicide risk, sex-role stereotyping, and risk-taking behaviors during adolescence.

Violent video games have an effect on children similar to that of violent television and film. Some experts suggest an even greater pernicious effect, concluding that the violent actions performed in playing video games are more conducive to children's aggression. As one expert concludes, "We're not just teaching kids to kill. We're teaching them to like it."

America's youth are also exposed to violent words, music, and images on the Internet, where there are more than 1,000 websites espousing radical hate and bigotry and violence.

More than 1,000 studies on the effects of television and film violence have been done over the past 40 years. The majority of these studies reach the same conclusion: television and film violence leads to real-world violence.

The existing research shows beyond a doubt that media violence is linked to youth violence. As one expert concludes, "To argue against it is like arguing against gravity."

Responsive, Responsible Steps for National Reform

The Report makes several recommendations for national reform aimed at curbing the effects of violent media on children, including measures that would:

Enact a limited antitrust exemption enabling the entertainment industries to conduct joint discussions and enter into agreements to develop voluntary guidelines and ensure retail compliance with existing ratings systems;

Encourage the television, motion picture, music, and video game industries to develop a uniform rating system for their products;

Establish a biannual "report card" by the Federal Trade Commission detailing the prevalence of media violence and industry efforts to reduce it;

Require that retail establishments disclose music lyrics to parents;

Ensure that parents will have access to filtering technology that will enable them to block access to Internet content they deem unsuitable for children;

Encourage Internet service providers to rid their systems of "hate" material, and criminalize the posting of such material, when posted to incite an act of violence;

Provide for a 2-year national campaign against youth violence;

Limit the use of certain federal property, equipment, or personnel in filming motion pictures or television shows that glorify or endorse violence;

Require a Federal Trade Commission/Attorney General joint study to determine the extent to which the entertainment industries market violence to children;

Provide for a National Institute of Health study to explore further the impact of violent video games and music on children;

Establish a National Youth Violence Commission to study and identify the causes of youth violence;

Establish a national media campaign to educate parents about rating systems, the V-Chip, Internet filters, and other tools available to shield children from media violence;

Create a national clearinghouse on children and entertainment violence, modeled on the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information; and

Create financial incentives for entertainment companies that would use federal property, equipment, or personnel to create programs suitable for children.

And most of these would do more harm than good.