Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the
you're just full of conspiracies today aren't you
Thinking pornography leads to gun violence is just bizarre. It would be more likely caused by violent movies and video games, and I think those would have only a slight correlation, if any.
No it wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who watched a Scorsese film or Saving Private Ryan or a Horror flick would be out committing violent acts. Movies may inspire already disturbed people but so can books or any other number of things and that's down to the disturbed person, not the medium. That said I see you tempered your comment with your last opinion.
No it wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who watched a Scorsese film or Saving Private Ryan or a Horror flick would be out committing violent acts. Movies may inspire already disturbed people but so can books or any other number of things and that's down to the disturbed person, not the medium. That said I see you tempered your comment with your last opinion.
I probably didn't express my point very well. In the past I have heard violent video games and movies blamed for violent acts of young people. I've always been very skeptical of those claims, but I can at least understand why some people may suspect a correlation, as both are related to violence. Whereas I can see no reason to even suspect that sexually related material could have any relationship with non-sexual violence like school shootings.
No it wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who watched a Scorsese film or Saving Private Ryan or a Horror flick would be out committing violent acts. Movies may inspire already disturbed people but so can books or any other number of things and that's down to the disturbed person, not the medium. That said I see you tempered your comment with your last opinion.
I probably didn
Me too but it's lazy reasoning imo. I remember they blamed Colombine on everything from Marylin Manson to that film The Basketball Diaries due to a dream sequence where Leonardo di Caprio shoots a teacher while wearing a black trench coat. The James Bolger murder was blamed on horror films particularly Childs Play 3. Again it's just lazily looking for a handy scapegoat. Re porn iirc Ted Bundy tried to blame it on his penchant for serial murder and that was pretty much bullshit too.
It is conceivable that violent video games get into some people's heads. But the difference is that in video games when you die you are reborn to play again. Whether it is in the same game or the next time you play. In these school shootings the suicide will clearly not end in a chance to do it again...
Violent movies are also a problem from an identification standpoint. The killers in movies are almost never likeable characters unless they are doing something for somebody else, often a child or young woman. So it isn't likely that killer movies will inspire people to do something that will cause everyone to hate them forever(after they die). Unless they want to be hated or just don't care what other people think.
What is happening now is that there seems to be some internet sites where people who want to commit suicide are being convinced that they should kill people first. And that by doing that they will be appreciated by everyone at that site. And these sites are often about hatred of certain types of people (like Blacks, Latinos, Asians, illegal immigrants, Jews, etc.)
In many ways this may be why the only way countries can greatly reduce massive amounts of killings is to remove guns from their populations. The only problem for the US is that it would violate the constitution. The 2nd amendment anyway. Which is:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now as long as there is a conservative supreme court majority, that could care less about people's lives because the money being made by large corporations is far more important, the 2nd Amendment will always allow US citizens to own guns. But it is possible that somewhere in the distant future there will be a supreme court that could rule that unless you are a member of a federal or state military force, the FBI, or even a state or local police force, gun ownership is forbidden because it won't help as far as the security of a free state.
Point that can’t be denied is that mass school shootings were not a problem in the middle of the 20th century USA …when there were just as many if not more guns per capita.
“Gallup shows that the percentage of households with at least one gun has actually declined or remained stable since the mid-20th century. In 1959, 49% of households reported owning a gun, compared to approximately 42% in 2025”
Thus there’s something wrong with modern culture in America. Saying that has nothing to do with racism and people who try and tell others how they think ie “well you must be racist if you’re criticizing modern American culture” are just trolling or simply wrong.
There’s quite a few differences in American Society today compared to the past. Americans of today are subjected to a much different culture compared to the past.
Yeah, social and main stream media. In this forum you have people that can't wait to post the most ridiculous stuff they've eaten up on the twitter, which you know they are addicted to, as if we care. I'm pretty sure those posters are enraged all day.
You do that enough, and get some outliers, and boom.
Point that canβt be denied is that mass school shootings were not a problem in the middle of the 20th century USA β¦when there were just as many if not more guns per capita.βGallup shows that the percentage of households with at least one gun has actually declined or remained stable since the mid-20th century. In 1959, 49% of households reported owning a gun, compared to approx
Yeah, social and main stream media. In this forum you have people that can't wait to post the most ridiculous stuff they've eaten up on the twitter, which you know they are addicted to, as if we care. I'm pretty sure those posters are enraged all day.
You do that enough, and get some outliers, and boom.
Social media is definitely a factor but I am sure al the pharmaceuticals prescribed to kids contributes as well
I suspect a lot of suicides in the 50s and 60s were covered up. There was a lot more shame and blame connected to suicide then than there is today. You were also at the tail end of times when religious stigma around suicide was more of a thing.Blindness to suicide and people being less open about depression / disorders likely also meant plenty suicides were never considered as
I'm sure that's true to some degree. Looking back at the sparse data from the early 1900s, youth suicide was almost non-existent. But we're dealing with a range from around 2-3 per 100k back then to 16-18 today.
So it was either always around at around our current level or x. If the latter the bulk of the increases occurred before there was much if any reporting in the media, video games, along with more guns in the homes.
if laughing at idiots like you makes me enraged, i'll take it.
vic, i'm assuming you do this because occasionally someone will listen to your spiel long enough and nod his head enough that you believe you've opened someone's eyes
wasn't that by the way the original usage of woke, as in woken up?
I highly doubt I am going to open the eyes of anyone around here. but you guys can just go and read the Epstein files if you want.
No it wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who watched a Scorsese film or Saving Private Ryan or a Horror flick would be out committing violent acts. Movies may inspire already disturbed people but so can books or any other number of things and that's down to the disturbed person, not the medium. That said I see you tempered your comment with your last opinion.
The murderer apparently spent a lot of time watching a snuff site.
I'm sure that's true to some degree. Looking back at the sparse data from the early 1900s, youth suicide was almost non-existent. But we're dealing with a range from around 2-3 per 100k back then to 16-18 today.So it was either always around at around our current level or x. If the latter the bulk of the increases occurred before there was much if any reporting in the media, vi
There were more guns in the homes from the 50s-80s than there are now. Now, a smaller percentage own a larger percentage of guns - with the majority being 2A or nostalgic olds who never shoot and just keep their daddy's something or other in the top shelf of the closet for the comfort.
I wish more people would shoot semi regularly. It's like skydiving, the best thing you can do for someone who want to end their life is to throw them out of a plane and let them decide if they want to pull the cord or not. It can quickly put things into a better perspective - same with consistently firing a gun that can kill. It just makes you realize that your life actually isn't GTA-7
No it wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who watched a Scorsese film or Saving Private Ryan or a Horror flick would be out committing violent acts. Movies may inspire already disturbed people but so can books or any other number of things and that's down to the disturbed person, not the medium. That said I see you tempered your comment with your last opinion.
Research on that issue is driven by statistics. Even if you find a correlation between violence in media and violence, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between violent people being attracted to violent media vs violent media creating violent people.
The alternative would be to feed someone on a diet of violent media vs a control group and see which group becomes more violent. Which might have flown in the 1930s, but research ethics have come a long way since then.
Now, there have been experiments of the immediate effect of violent media. This is more palatable experiment from an ethics perspective, and typically shows short-term increase in aggressive behavior or short term increase in acceptance of violent behavior. However, to go from that to conclude that there is a long-term effect or that a long-term effect would be driven by exposure over time is questionable. It has also become somewhat of a political minefield, with research results often being exaggerated both by people who oppose violent media and those who disagree with them. That debate often takes the form of moral hysteria.
Regardless, it would also be a correlation driven by the extreme results. Most people who enjoy violent media are not violent. Or perhaps a better way to put it, most of them are no more violent than the those who don't.
Note that this is comment where by violent media I mean the more commonly accepted fare of such media. Violent pornography is a subject of its own.
.Georgia father Colin Gray found guilty in son's alleged deadly school shooting https://share.google/3y2DrioKCieYxvMKK
The panel in Barrow County found Colin Gray, 55, guilty of all changes, which included second-degree murder and cruelty to children, connected to the Sept. 4, 2024, mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder.
I know it's not likely, but I hope he rots in prison for the rest of his life.
Do you think punishing parents for their kids murders should get extended to parents whose kids kill in gang related murders too? I am talking about cases where the parent knew about the gun and the kids gang activities?
Do you think punishing parents for their kids murders should get extended to parents whose kids kill in gang related murders too? I am talking about cases where the parent knew about the gun and the kids gang activities?
Anyone who thinks parents should be held responsible for their kid's gun crimes would say yes. What a ridiculous gotcha attempt.
Anyone who thinks parents should be held responsible for their kid's gun crimes would say yes. What a ridiculous gotcha attempt.
It wasn't a gotcha attempt. I was curious, because I don't agree that we should punish people for a crime someone else committed. There is a big difference between driving the getaway car and gifting your kid a gun. Maybe in this case the parent did more than just gift the kid a gun.
Why stop at just gun crimes? What if a parent gifted a kid a knife that was used in a fight (or murder)? What about a hit and run death where the car was gifted to a kid with emotional challenges?
It seems like in a lot of those situations (either gang violence or school shootings) it is going too far to say that parents should have known their kid would kill.
Do you think punishing parents for their kids murders should get extended to parents whose kids kill in gang related murders too? I am talking about cases where the parent knew about the gun and the kids gang activities?
Sure, why wouldn't I?
I think parents should be held legally responsible for any crime committed by their child.
But this case was particularly heinous because the father actually gave the gun and ammo to the child.

