"Video games are a bigger problem than guns"

[throAU]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, coupled with TV shows and movies like "Bullet to the Head", I think it's safe to say we have a pretty violent culture. I'm not sure if the chicken came before the egg though, so to speak.

Do you disagree?

Myself, along with all my friends played violent video games (doom, quake, mortal kombat, etc) through high school and into our 20s and beyond.

None of us shot anyone.

I don't recall ever seeing a school shooting here in australia.


It's not video games that are the problem. Maybe it's something in the water. Maybe it's the crap you have on TV. Maybe it's to do with the food you have over there. Maybe it's air pollution.

Who knows.

But you can rule out factors that most of the rest of the western world have plenty of as well - such as video games.

[vastoholic]

Originally Posted by throAU

Maybe it's the crap you have on TV.

I think you'd go crazy too with all the stupid reality shows we have in the US.

[skottichan]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

See above, the violent content of games consumed in Europe and Japan is not the same as in the USA. They also are not allowed to have guns. Unfortunately (for you apparently) access to guns is a constitutional right in the USA and that's not going anywhere so one of the best options is to strike at media that affects young people in negative ways with respect to violence and aggression.

As I pointed out before, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is the best selling game in Europe, for not just January 2013 but for ALL of 2012, and if you combine system sales, it sold twice the number of the #2 game FIFA 2013. CoD: Black Ops 2 is exactly the same game that's sold in the US.

Secondly, there have been plenty of peer reviewed studies that video games and movies do not make the majority of children any more aggressive.

Shall I also point out that the Constitution is a living document? We've had a constitutional amendment repealed, and we've had one curb our Constitutional rights as voters (thank you Republicans).

[throAU]

Originally Posted by vastoholic

I think you'd go crazy too with all the stupid reality shows we have in the US.

Quite likely.

I love how they always try to blame video games.

"the guy had been playing quake the day before!"


so had a large percentage of the rest of the teenage guy population who didn't shoot anyone.

[Beeplance]

Originally Posted by freeny

Video games don't kill people, guns do.

Enough said. Some people fail or even REFUSE to acknowledge this.

How long does America have to wait until the guns are gone?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Beeplance

Enough said. Some people fail or even REFUSE to acknowledge this.

How long does America have to wait until the guns are gone?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

"I play violent video games and I've never shot anyone"

"I own a gun and I've never shot anyone"

[eawmp1]

Originally Posted by Beeplance

Enough said. Some people fail or even REFUSE to acknowledge this.

How long does America have to wait until the guns are gone?

Originally Posted by eric/

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

"I play violent video games and I've never shot anyone"

"I own a gun and I've never shot anyone"

And here we have the primary problem. In the fantasy world those cowering in fear that the govment is gonna take their guns, reality and fantasy are blurred.

A video game is the fantasy. While FPS games may numb one to violence, I can't take one out and actually kill someone with it. And in the real world, having a gun doesn't make you stronger/safer/taller/less bald/sexier/better hung/etc. It does make you more lethal.

A bit of regulation is not confiscation.

[Beeplance]

Originally Posted by eric/

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

"I play violent video games and I've never shot anyone"

"I own a gun and I've never shot anyone"

As it has already been reiterated throughout the few pages of this thread, America has more gun deaths than many other country on the globe. If the root cause of the deaths by shooting isn't the weapon, then can you kindly enlighten me on the reason of such a phenomenon?

Your "People kill people" hypothesis doesn't work at all. There are many, if not more, people in other countries, but just compare the deaths rates. Something is very different in the US, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what it is.

My country has a total ban on guns, which effectively means no one has access to guns except the military and the police. And that is why our death by gun rate is an absolute ZERO. People here can walk on the streets safely and we don't live under constant fear that some ruffian is going to take out a pistol/high-caliber rifle and start shooting citizens.

This is why I pointed out that some people still REFUSE to come to terms with the reality that the problem lies with the weapon, not the people.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Beeplance

As it has already been reiterated throughout the few pages of this thread, America has more gun deaths than many other country on the globe. If the root cause of the deaths by shooting isn't the weapon, then can you kindly enlighten me on the reason of such a phenomenon?

Your "People kill people" hypothesis doesn't work at all. There are many, if not more, people in other countries, but just compare the deaths rates. Something is very different in the US, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what it is.

My country has a total ban on guns, which effectively means no one has access to guns except the military and the police. And that is why our death by gun rate is an absolute ZERO. People here can walk on the streets safely and we don't live under constant fear that some ruffian is going to take out a pistol/high-caliber rifle and start shooting citizens.

This is why I pointed out that some people still REFUSE to come to terms with the reality that the problem lies with the weapon, not the people.

Firearms don't just go around killing people on their own, nor do they have some magical property that makes you want to start killing people.

The underlying issues, is that people become so distraught by society, for a variety of reasons, that they feel the need to act out and utilize a weapon, regardless of what it actually is, to do something.

UK bans guns, it's the most violent country in Western Europe.
Switzerland as a nation enjoys firearms and marksmanship. Low violence.

It's not as simple as just pointing to the number of guns, and then trying to infer a correlation between # of weapons and # of deaths. Just as it doesn't make sense to look at video games and say the same.

The larger point I was attempting to illustrate is that the US is very culturally different than probably any other single location on earth. In Japan, they have a tsunami, people stand in line to receive aid and supplies. In New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina hits, people are shooting each other in the streets. Hurricane Sandy wipes out parts of the North Eastern coast, people are standing in line, helping each other rebuild. Guns are just as legal in Louisanna as they are in New Jersey.

It's cowardly to just sit around and blame weapons without introspection on one's own culture and why people feel the need to go out and rob somebody, or try and shoot up a school. Can better safety measures be put in place? Sure. Do we need to start banning guns in an attempt to fix the problem? No, because that's just treating the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself.

Myself and many others enjoy firing weapons, hunting, and a variety of other very fun activites related to weapons. The vast, vast majority of people whom own guns never harm a fly. And even the ones that do, most harm themselves, or are involved in an accident (something that we shouldn't be legislating).

So the answer here is not as simple as "my country has 0 gun deaths" so you should ban guns. We're also allowed to spit gum on the ground and not go to jail.

----------

Originally Posted by eawmp1

And here we have the primary problem. In the fantasy world those cowering in fear that the govment is gonna take their guns, reality and fantasy are blurred.

Well, if the government isn't going to take weapons or restrict them, why is it being brought up?

Originally Posted by eawmp1

A video game is the fantasy. While FPS games may numb one to violence, I can't take one out and actually kill someone with it. And in the real world, having a gun doesn't make you stronger/safer/taller/less bald/sexier/better hung/etc. It does make you more lethal.

Well you can certainly argue it makes you safer and stronger.
.

Originally Posted by eawmp1

A bit of regulation is not confiscation.

If by regulating you mean banning things, it has the same effect.

[Eraserhead]

How exactly is the UK the most violent country in Western Europe?

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by Beeplance

...This is why I pointed out that some people still REFUSE to come to terms with the reality that the problem lies with the weapon, not the people.

I would be curious to hear how you can explain the following...

Estimates of the number of firearms in the US vary greatly, ranging from 270,000,000 to 350,000,000. Let's pick 300,000,000 as a nice round number to work with.

The most current available statistics of firearm associated deaths in the US are approximately 30,000 annually. This includes homicides, suicides and accidents.

Therefore, the approximate ratio of firearm deaths to total firearms is .0001.

If the problem is the weapons, rather than the people (a hypothesis I personally find absurd), wouldn't you expect these evil weapons to result in a larger ratio than one ten-thousandth?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

How exactly is the UK the most violent country in Western Europe?

Well, here's one article

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

•The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
•It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
•The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
•It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

That's just an article I found from a quick search.

But even if that wasn't the case, it's undoubtably higher than Switzerland, where marksmanship is a pasttime, and many, many citizens own weapons.

[eawmp1]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well you can certainly argue it makes you safer and stronger.

You can argue, but I'd like some data (and remember the plural of "anecdote" is not "data").

If by regulating you mean banning things, it has the same effect.

I said nothing about banning. And don't pull out the slippery slope argument.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by eawmp1

You can argue, but I'd like some data (and remember the plural of "anecdote" is not "data").

Define strong and safe first. Because I'm not going to get into an argument over terms.

So tell me your definitions, then I'll discuss the point.

Originally Posted by eawmp1

I said nothing about banning. And don't pull out the slippery slope argument.

Oh, well if we're not banning ar-15s and 30 round clips, I'm probably alright with whatever regulation you want to propose. What do you have in mind?

not including things like closing gun show loopholes and better mental health screening

[Beeplance]

People, ask yourself if the same scenario would have happened WITHOUT GUNS.

What would happen to America if there was NO GUNS? Can a person then take out a butcher knife on the streets, and slash 10, 30 people at one go without getting overwhelmed? Harpoon? sword? chainsaw? Baseball bat?

When no one has access to guns, you won't need guns to protect yourself. Guns are a big problem in your society, and you guys are treating it as if it is not. When will it take for you to realise it - when you see your loved ones get gunned down?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Beeplance

People, ask yourself if the same scenario would have happened WITHOUT GUNS.

What would happen to America if there was NO GUNS? Can a person then take out a butcher knife on the streets, and slash 10, 30 people at one go without getting overwhelmed? Harpoon? sword? chainsaw? Baseball bat?

No but they can still kill at least 1. Hell, I would venture to say they could get 3-4 before being stopped.

Is that acceptable? Why not ban those weapons so we have 0 deaths?

Originally Posted by Beeplance

When no one has access to guns, you won't need guns to protect yourself. Guns are a big problem in your society, and you guys are treating it as if it is not. When will it take for you to realise it - when you see your loved ones get gunned down?

I admire your pathos, but I disagree.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, here's one article



That's just an article I found from a quick search.

But even if that wasn't the case, it's undoubtably higher than Switzerland, where marksmanship is a pasttime, and many, many citizens own weapons.

Are they comparing like-with-like? UK violent crime statistics include "assault without injury" unlike other countries including the US. And assault without injury makes up at least half of all violent crime in the UK.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Are they comparing like-with-like? UK violent crime statistics include "assault without injury" unlike other countries including the US. And assault without injury makes up at least half of all violent crime in the UK.

What is assault without injury?

If it's what I think it is, than I definitely would still consider that violent crime. As far as I know, the article considers the came things for all of the countries it's comparing.

And idk how the US defines things, but the US isn't Europe.

[Beeplance]

Originally Posted by eric/

No but they can still kill at least 1. Hell, I would venture to say they could get 3-4 before being stopped.

Is that acceptable? Why not ban those weapons so we have 0 deaths?

Guns are much more lethal, you disagree? Put on a suppressor, stand in the middle of a crowd, and you can easily gun down 30 people by just pressing the trigger and turning your body 360 degrees.

Even in societies without guns, it is sheer common sense that there is no such thing as 0 deaths. But I think most people would agree that 30 deaths is much worse than 3-4.

The thing is, you people don't feel the pain, don't feel the need to bans gun because such incidents have never actually happened to you before. I really wonder if your stand will remain unchanged once you or your loved ones becomes a victim.

Better be safe than sorry.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by eric/

What is assault without injury?

If it's what I think it is, than I definitely would still consider that violent crime. As far as I know, the article considers the came things for all of the countries it's comparing.

And idk how the US defines things, but the US isn't Europe.

The US only classes assault as violent crime if you have to spend a couple of days in hospital.

I also doubt the other European countries class assault without injury as a violent crime.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The US only classes assault as violent crime if you have to spend a couple of days in hospital.

I also doubt the other European countries class assault without injury as a violent crime.

Well, can you prove any of this?

----------

Originally Posted by Beeplance

Guns are much more lethal, you disagree? Put on a suppressor, stand in the middle of a crowd, and you can easily gun down 30 people by just pressing the trigger and turning your body 360 degrees.

Ok, well the question I want to know is firstly, what does putting a suppressor on the weapon accomplish in this scenario?

Second, perhaps you're unfamiliar with firearms, but weapons where you could "just turn 360 degrees and kill people" are illegal in the US.

Originally Posted by Beeplance

Even in societies without guns, it is sheer common sense that there is no such thing as 0 deaths. But I think most people would agree that 30 deaths is much worse than 3-4.

Sure, but most gun deaths at any instance or 1, maybe 2 at the most. Any sort of mass killing is an outlier.

Originally Posted by Beeplance

The thing is, you people don't feel the pain, don't feel the need to bans gun because such incidents have never actually happened to you before.

How do I not feel pain? Do you not think that because I own a weapon, enjoy target shooting, that I'm incapable of feeling emotion? I can't go to a dog/cat pound because it'll make me cry because it hurts to see the animals locked up.

But I know we can't just release them all into the wild either.

Being logical, doesn't mean you're void of emotion. And while I recognize tragedies, I don't think that banning firearms is the right solution.

Originally Posted by Beeplance

I really wonder if your stand will remain unchanged once you or your loved ones becomes a victim.

No it wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Beeplance

Better be safe than sorry.

Reminds me of a Pink Floyd song.

[eawmp1]

Originally Posted by eric/

Define strong and safe first. Because I'm not going to get into an argument over terms.

So tell me your definitions, then I'll discuss the point.

You are the one who claims a gun makes you stronger and safer. The burden of proof is on you.

Oh, well if we're not banning ar-15s and 30 round clips, I'm probably alright with whatever regulation you want to propose. What do you have in mind?

not including things like closing gun show loopholes and better mental health screening

How about this...you can have ANY gun you want. But you must have a license to have guns and registration on your person for each gun you are carrying. If you sell the gun you must have a title transfer registered with the authorities. If you are found to be without the above you get a citation and the gun is impounded until such time when you provide the paperwork. Strengthen penalties for possession/use of unregistered guns. And liability insurance for the guns...actuarial stats determine premiums paid. This would help promote safe gun ownership.

Why should regulations for guns be any less than those required of cars?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, can you prove any of this?.

Excerpt from the European Commission, Eurostat website ...

Crime trends in detail

Crimes recorded by the police

Introduction

The crime statistics in this statistical article cover offences recorded by the police in the EU Member States and other countries.

There are differences between countries in systems of legal and criminal justice; in definitions of crimes[1]; methods of reporting, recording and counting crimes; and the proportion of reported to unreported crime[2]. So it is not usually possible to make direct comparisons of crime types and levels between countries: a picture has to be built up by considering trends over time (assuming that background circumstances remain unchanged).

It should also be recognised that these crime figures cannot provide a full description of the extent of crime in Europe as some crime goes unreported, and trends for particular offences may reflect the focus of police activity in those areas.

The EU Safety Survey (due to be conducted in 2013) will provide additional knowledge of crime in the EU. This victim survey will have standardised features which will make it possible to extract EU-wide comparable statistics on people’s experience of crime.


Data sources and availability

Developing EU Statistics on crime and criminal justice

Eurostat received a mandate under the 2004 Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union to develop comparable statistics on crime and criminal justice, and a series of measures towards this end were undertaken under the 2006-10 Action Plan on Developing a comprehensive and coherent EU strategy to measure crime and criminal justice.

Following the conclusion of the Action Plan, the system is being enhanced and extended as part of the implementation of the 2009 Stockholm Programme: An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens.

Data collection The methodology used in this article draws upon that developed by the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, in particular the definition and measurement of criminal offences, and upon the Surveys on Crime Trends conducted by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.

Countries were asked to adhere to a standard definition when assembling the figures and to provide details of any divergences.

Figures for the United Kingdom are reported separately (as UK: England & Wales, UK: Scotland and UK: Northern Ireland), owing to the existence of three separate jurisdictions.

Comparisons

The data are taken from information recorded or reported by the police. Comparisons of crime levels based on the absolute figures would be misleading, since they are affected by many factors, including:

• different legal and criminal justice systems
• rates at which crimes are reported to the police and recorded by them
• differences in the point at which crime is measured (for example, when reported to the police, on identification of suspects, etc.)
• differences in the rules by which multiple offences are counted
• differences in the list of offences that are included in the overall crime figures

Figures for the prison population may also be affected by many factors, including:

• number of cases dealt with by the courts
• the percentage receiving a custodial sentence
• the length of the sentences imposed
• the size of the population on remand
• the date of the survey, especially where amnesties apply

For these reasons, direct comparisons of crime levels in different countries should be avoided. Rates per head of population (which might imply that such comparisons could be made) are therefore not presented in this publication, except in the case of homicide and the prison population, where the figures may be more readily comparable. In these cases, rates per 100 000 head of population averaged over 3 years have been calculated.

Caution should also be exercised when considering low numbers for some crimes. For example, for homicide, the rate may vary considerably from year to year. This is especially true for small countries or cities where there may be no homicides recorded in one year and two or more the following year.

As a general rule, comparisons should be based upon trends rather than upon levels, on the assumption that the characteristics of the recording system within a country remain fairly constant over time.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/sta...ends_in_detail

[Zombie Acorn]

Poverty is caused because they buy those expensive game consoles and then join a gang and shoot people based on their halo street cred.

Violence isn't the focus of games like call of duty anymore than sports games like football. Its skill based, you aren't focusing on the fact that there are a bunch of guys plowing the crap out of each other on the football field.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by eawmp1

You are the one who claims a gun makes you stronger and safer. The burden of proof is on you.

And I can prove it, provided you define the terms. Because I'm not going to get into an argument where you just say "that's not being strong".

Originally Posted by eawmp1

How about this...you can have ANY gun you want. But you must have a license to have guns and registration on your person for each gun you are carrying. If you sell the gun you must have a title transfer registered with the authorities. If you are found to be without the above you get a citation and the gun is impounded until such time when you provide the paperwork. Strengthen penalties for possession/use of unregistered guns.

That sounds just dandy. Of course details would have to be worked out, but otherwise I don't really see that as unreasonable.

Originally Posted by eawmp1

And liability insurance for the guns...actuarial stats determine premiums paid. This would help promote safe gun ownership.

I don't think this is a great idea.

Originally Posted by eawmp1

Why should regulations for guns be any less than those required of cars?

Why should they be the same?

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Excerpt from the European Commission, Eurostat website ...

so then why do we constantly compare US stats to European stats when there isn't even a standard?
Furthermore, what's the difference then? Provide some stats to actually prove the difference.
Back to the original point.

Gun ownership and gun culture in Switzerland, and it has less violent crime.
Less in the UK, more violent crime.