Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4827 Mar 06 2018 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,352 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I keep seeing people arguing the gun purchasing age should be 18 because the military lets 18 year olds have weapons...


Yeah. It's a dumb argument. So debunking said dumb argument is equally dumb (or at least somewhat meaningless).

The better argument is that the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in our constitution, and that by default the full rights of an adult come to each of us when we legally become adults. It's the point at which we are legally allowed to basically do what we want, and are legally responsible for what we do. It's the point at which we can enter into contracts on our own (which includes a whole host of things, like owning bank accounts, property, enter into employment without parental consent, etc), be compelled to testify in court, gain the right to vote, etc.

That age of majority is set nationally at 18. So by default, the age at which legal adults should have the right to keep and bear arms (on their own, as opposed to under parental supervision) should also occur at the age of 18. This is not the same as when we allow someone to purchase alcohol, or buy cigarettes, or whatever. Those are not rights.

What I do find amusing is the slippery slope argument being made, pretty much unabashedly. So because we previously restricted the purchase of handguns to the age of 21, against the wishes of the gun rights activists of the day, we should now have no reason not to raise the age for rifles to 21 as well. In fact, I've seen dozens of folks making the argument that it's somehow "bizarre" that we require people to wait until 21 to buy a handgun, but they can go buy the dreaded AR-15 at the wee age of 18. It's such a travesty! Never mind that handguns are actually used to commit crime vastly more often than rifles, of course.

Great. Let's lower the age for handguns back to 18, where it should have been all along. There's no evidence that raising it ever reduced any crime committed with handguns anyway, so why keep a failed law on the book? The idea that we will now make hay out of the difference in age is astounding. Yup. It's a dumb distinction. It should never have passed in the first place. Using that age difference to push for increasing the age for rifles is just bizarre. And again, let's recall that the default for obtaining adult rights is when you become an adult. We really ought to have an extremely good reason for restricting it by age.

And no: Some people might abuse the right isn't a good reason to restrict it for everyone.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4828 Mar 06 2018 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,352 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sigh. Again. There are different types of shootings, with different motivations for the shooter.
It's almost like the country needs to tackle the problem from different directions and use multiple ideas to combat the problem.


That's fine. But when the emotional motivation to "do something" is the direct result of a mass spree shooting at a school, and someone proposed a idea that would perhaps reduce the likelihood of mass spree shootings at schools, it seems silly to counter that idea by continually speaking about how this change would not reduce other types of shootings, or be effective in other situations than at schools.

I've written at length about how the psychology of the spree shooter is different than the guy who kills his neighbor in an argument, or his wife, or girlfriend, or a rival gang member, or gets into a gun fight with police while committing some other crime. These are completely different than the guy who plots and plans and schemes to go to a location with a large number of people and randomly shoot them. Those other types of shootings are targeted, or related to some other activity. The spree shooter is specifically about power and control. He had no agenda. He's not angry at this person or that person. He's not settling a grudge. He's not trying to steal something, nor trying to get away after stealing something.

The spree shooter is trying to gain a brief moment of perfection. He wants to be in complete and total control over everyone else around him. He wants to feel like a god, with the power of life and death over others, and to be able to see that fact reflected in the eyes of those around him. That's why he does it. And this only works if he knows he will have that absolute power, even if it's just for the 10-15 minutes it takes for law enforcement to arrive on the scene.

Even a tiny chance that one of the random people in the crowd might not be a helpless victim, but could be a threat, ruins this fantasy. And if the fantasy isn't perfect, he wont do it at all. He's not doing this for the "fun" of shooting it out with other armed people. He will, in fact, go to great lengths to prevent this. To make sure that no one else has a gun, except him. This is why all of these silly ideas about putting more LEOs on campus wont work (well, I suppose if you put a whole lot of them, but that would be silly expensive). It's why all the counters about "what about this?", or "what about that?" are meaningless. In all of those scenarios, the potential shooter is weighing the odds of someone being able to stop him, how long it will take, how much time he'll have, and planning to those facts. It's entirely possible that the very fact that it'll take X amount of time for LEOs to arrive already deters many of these potential shooters, and we're not even aware of it. That amount of time may be past their threshold for "sufficiently perfect". We don't know.

And yeah, It's possible (probable in fact) that there will be some who will find the odds of a random person in the crowd being armed an acceptable risk for the payoff. But that number will always be fewer than the number right now. This is not a 100% either/or scenario, but a scale. As the certainty of conditions increase for the potential shooter, the odds that he'll go through with this sort of thing increases. And the certainty decreases, the odds of him doing so also decreases.

I'm simply suggesting that we maximize that uncertainty, and thus minimize the number of shootings. Again, it costs us nothing. It doesn't have any impact or effect on any other aspect of gun crime being talked about. So why not do this? Sure, it won't prevent some guy with PTSD from having paranoid thoughts and turning on two guys he's out at a shooting range with. And it wont prevent some gang banger from doing a drive by in the opposing gang's turf. And it wont prevent someone from committing armed robbery. And it wont prevent some one from committing road rage with a gun. And it wont prevent someone from deciding to kill his girlfriend or wife, or someone else he's angry at.

Those are all other issues. Issues we can talk about. But removing the gun free zones from schools wont increase the rates at which those occur either. So why not do this?

Edited, Mar 6th 2018 7:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4829 Mar 07 2018 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... You do realize you didn't actually address my point at all, right? The rate of "robberies of convenience stores" doesn't change if "some" of them might have an armed store owner. What it does change is whether or not the potential robber avoids the stores where there might be an armed owner, while targeting those where he knows they are not.

This doesn't even make sense Smiley: laugh

"Having a known armed guard doesn't stop shootings" -- No! It has to be a secret chance at an unknown gun!
"Having a much higher, though unknown, chance of an armed clerk doesn't decrease robbery rates." -- No! It only works if SOME have a chance for a gun and some don't!
"But you wanted all schools to have the random secret guns." -- ...
Quote:
It's entirely possible that, in a world where he had no such assurance, he might make a totally different decision to outlet his anger. We don't know what that might be. Heck. It might not even involve a firearm.

"Well, I was going to go on a murderous suicide shooting spree but there might be a secret gun -- I wouldn't care if there was a known gun, of course -- so I guess I'll take up Anger Fly Fishing instead..."

Do you ever listen to yourself?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4830 Mar 07 2018 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,449 posts
gbaji wrote:
That age of majority is set nationally at 18.
Age of majority changed in 1970 from 21. Alabama and Nebraska is currently 19, Mississippi is still 21. But you know, besides the fact it has been changed, it totally can't be changed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4831 Mar 07 2018 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Plus, Age of Majority is nebulous anyway. Depending on the state, you can enter into marriage as young as 13. You can be tried as an adult before your 18th birthday, etc. It's not some firm, cut and dry line where you go fully from A into B.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4832 Mar 07 2018 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,449 posts
I like that it was changed so people could vote, not so they could buy rifles and become ninjas to protect schools in secret.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4833 Mar 07 2018 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,177 posts
Funny how the last topic I saw was gun control, and somehow through the months, we looped back to gun control.

My biggest observation is that we somehow went back to blaming videogames and media, but only because the shooter was a teen. Crazy how media and parenting only play a factor when the shooter is a teen.
#4834 Mar 07 2018 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump is holding a meeting with video game representatives tomorrow! That'll fix things.

The ESRA is all "Meh, video games are globally distributed and you don't see this shit in other nations so find another scapegoat."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4835 Mar 08 2018 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,449 posts
If there weren't so many soccer games there wouldn't be so many people in the world playing soccer.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4836 Mar 08 2018 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,151 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If there weren't so many soccer games there wouldn't be so many people in the world playing soccer.


Giving up video games if it meant getting rid of soccer fans?

Man... tough choice.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4837 Mar 08 2018 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,983 posts
People clamoring over violence in the media probably wouldn't like it pointed out how incredibly violent their holy book almost certainly is.
#4838 Mar 08 2018 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,151 posts
Allegory wrote:
People clamoring over violence in the media probably wouldn't like it pointed out how incredibly violent their holy book almost certainly is.

Eh... there's a very wide overlap in the "violence in media" between Left and Right sides of the aisle. I mean, the whole Gamersgate thing is the Left-side of the anti-video game/media spectrum.

And while I haven't been to church in years, but when I did go with family members or bring family members to them, the violent parts of the stories weren't the parts glorified day in and day out.

Just saying, comments like this aren't really as clever as you may think they are.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4839 Mar 08 2018 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,449 posts
Well, it isn't glorified in the more public churches anymore, anyway. You've still got people quoting Leviticus but ignoring the other seventy plus sins the crazy man wrote about.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4840 Mar 08 2018 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,983 posts
It's pretty on the nose.

I don't know why you brought up the left-right divide, as I never referenced that. As someone who went to a Lutheran church and private school for over decade, I know very well what parts of the Bible that tend to be emphasized and what parts tend to be ignored. The point is that just someone might superficially judge Seven as being overly violent and ignoring any other aspects of the media and why someone might watch it, the same game be said of of the Bible. There is also a large overlap between the people who would make those superficial judgements about other media and people who have a religious text where any ban or restriction they might advocate for would reasonably apply.

Edited, Mar 8th 2018 8:53am by Allegory
#4841 Mar 08 2018 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,151 posts
Allegory wrote:
I don't know why you brought up the left-right divide, as I never referenced that.

Because when people criticize religion used in politics they totally mean the left too. Gotcha.

Smiley: rolleyes


Context. When criticizing the current GOP line about violent video games being a cause rather than gun availability, you mention how they don't bat an eye at the violence inside the religious texts. And you then wonder why someone infers Left/Right in the statements?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4842 Mar 08 2018 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
I mean, the whole Gamersgate thing is the Left-side of the anti-video game/media spectrum.

Wait, what? I don't think that an anti-feminist "Oh noes SJWs are ruining mah vidya games!" screed fits well into traditional left-leaning ideologies.

I do agree that trying to draw comparisons to the Bible is silly. "Shamgar slew 300 Philistines with an ox goad" isn't "violent". No one is complaining that you can auto-complete a battle in Medieval: Total War and be told that 210 men died. No one is going to say "Oh, the Bible says two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number? Well, I guess now I feel silly about being disgusted by the slow motion x-ray shot of a sniper round penetrating a man's skull through his eye socket and tearing apart his brain!"

Edited, Mar 8th 2018 9:24am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4843 Mar 08 2018 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,983 posts
TirithRR wrote:
And you then wonder why someone infers Left/Right in the statements?

If you read "People clamoring over violence in the media" and think that is implicating only the the political right, then that association is on you.
#4844 Mar 08 2018 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,151 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I mean, the whole Gamersgate thing is the Left-side of the anti-video game/media spectrum.

Wait, what? I don't think that an anti-feminist "Oh noes SJWs are ruining mah vidya games!" screed fits well into traditional left-leaning ideologies."


Sorry, I referred to the entire thing as "Gamergate" when referring to both sides. Would the other side have it's own name within it? When referring to those denouncing games which depict women in weak, negative, or victimized roles, should I have just called them SJW? Rather than the umbrella of the whole situation under "Gamergate"?

I meant the whole thing was the flipped political spectrum of the violent media. Instead of the right denouncing the issue and the left defending it.

Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
And you then wonder why someone infers Left/Right in the statements?

If you read "People clamoring over violence in the media" and think that is implicating only the the political right, then that association is on you.

Sure, when "people clamoring over violence in the media" is currently the GOP in rebuttal to gun control...

"But, I never said the Right!"

Edited, Mar 8th 2018 10:29am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4845 Mar 08 2018 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"What about the children?" hand-wringing about the media isn't a solely right-aligned thing. Witness Tipper Gore and the "Parental Advisory" album labeling hysteria. But left-leaning worrywarts don't typically rely on the Bible for justification.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4846 Mar 08 2018 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Would the other side have it's own name within it? When referring to those denouncing games which depict women in weak, negative, or victimized roles, should I have just called them SJW? Rather than the umbrella of the whole situation under "Gamergate"?

Sarkeesian Ideology, obviously.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4847 Mar 08 2018 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,449 posts
Primal Rage is the first game I remember that outraged people. Specifically the part with the soccer mom complaining about the urination fatality.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4848 Mar 08 2018 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,151 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"What about the children?" hand-wringing about the media isn't a solely right-aligned thing. Witness Tipper Gore and the "Parental Advisory" album labeling hysteria.


I never pictured Dee Snider as the more conservative of that situation though. The whole Music and Tipper vs Twisted Sister would be a "More Liberal new generation" thing from what I gather. And maybe a shifted ideology from liberal views 35 years ago and today, or even personal ideology of Tipper herself not in line with other liberals (I was a baby then. I'm not sure how the political landscape was).

The situation in Gamergate is definitely not that those GG Alt-Righters are more liberal than the GG SJWs.

Edited, Mar 8th 2018 11:15am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4849 Mar 08 2018 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,983 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Sure, when "people clamoring over violence in the media" is currently the GOP in rebuttal to gun control...

I'm going to take a stab in a dark and guess that, as someone on a gaming forum, you likely agree that concerns about violent games causing real world violence are overblown. If we both agree that this is a stupid cause, why are you trying to twist this into some weird partisan thing?
#4850 Mar 08 2018 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,151 posts
Allegory wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Sure, when "people clamoring over violence in the media" is currently the GOP in rebuttal to gun control...

I'm going to take a stab in a dark and guess that, as someone on a gaming forum, you likely agree that concerns about violent games causing real world violence are overblown. If we both agree that this is a stupid cause, why are you trying to twist this into some weird partisan thing?

I didn't think I was the one that made it partisan. I don't believe at all that you were not referring to those in the GOP currently bringing up the subject in your original comment.

And no, I don't think violence in games and media is an issue (or much of one). I just felt it was silly to criticize someone who may feel that Call of Duty's primary focus of violence may have negative effects because hey... they go to Church, and there's violence in the Bible too.



Edited, Mar 8th 2018 12:36pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4851 Mar 08 2018 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,983 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I don't believe at all that you were not referring to those in the GOP currently bringing up the subject in your original comment.

I stated "People clamoring over violence in the media". That includes all people who are clamoring over violence in the media, left or right. That includes no people not clamoring over violence in the media, left or right. I don't care about your assumptions. Stop criticizing me for things you imagined me saying.
TirithRR wrote:
I just felt it was silly to criticize someone who may feel that Call of Duty's primary focus of violence may have negative effects because hey... they go to Church, and there's violence in the Bible too.

Then talk to me about that instead of this left right thing, because I actually did bring up religion. It's fairly easy to show how campaigns by groups like One Million Moms, who expressed concerns over a clothing shop calling their sale "badass", would reasonably include the Bible based on passages like the one where a man sends his daughter out to be gang raped and beaten by a crowd all night and then later cuts her up and ships her body parts around to recipients throughout the land.

Edited, Mar 8th 2018 2:18pm by Allegory
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT