Online Now 196

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

Online now 153
Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)

Boards ▾

Fighton247 Board

The home for discussion on USC athletics

Off Topic Board

FightOn247 message board for off topic posts

Reply

Conn School shooting

  • That statement is inaccurate just on shear population numbers. Canada has 35 million pop (1/8 our pop) and Japan has 128 million (less than half). I don't have stats (nor the time to look them up) but would guess that Japanese kids spend less time (hours per person) playing those kinds of video games.

    To say it has nothing to do with it is naive.

    When our armed forces/police/etc are "just training" they don't kill anyone either. But later when asked to actually kill they have the training to do so. Fortunately, we also train them on what really happens when they are asked to execute that training. With video games kids get to taste the "kill" without realizing what would happen if they really did that. They get desensitized to it. There are numerous professions that train through video simulation (pilots as one).

    I'm not saying the video games are to take all the blame. But they are part of the recipe.

    signature image

    "...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK

  • Interesting article on the influence of violent video games.

    Violent video games linked to aggression in c

    Children who play violent video games demonstrate a high level of physical aggression for months afterwards, according to new research.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3376397/Violent-video-games-linked-to-aggression-in-children.html
    signature image

    "...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK

  • So many studies prove this is not the case. In fact a number of experts see the games as a stress relief.

    Again, the games are played around the globe, but we seem to have the problem.

    Your population numbers mean nothing to my statement. Zero. To claim my post is inaccurate based on that when you refuse to even look up the stats is just embarrassing for you.

  • The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review
    The Journal of Pediatrics
    Volume 154, Issue 5 , Pages 759-763, May 2009

    Objective
    To conduct a meta-analytic review of studies that examine the impact of violent media on aggressive behavior and to determine whether this effect could be explained through methodological problems inherent in this research field.

    Study design
    A detailed literature search identified peer-reviewed articles addressing media violence effects. Effect sizes were calculated for all studies. Effect sizes were adjusted for observed publication bias.

    Results
    Publication bias was a problem for studies of aggressive behavior, and methodological problems such as the use of poor aggression measures inflated effect size. Once corrected for publication bias, studies of media violence effects provided little support for the hypothesis that media violence is associated with higher aggression. The corrected overall effect size for all studies was r = .08.

    Conclusions
    Results from the current analysis do not support the conclusion that media violence leads to aggressive behavior. It cannot be concluded at this time that media violence presents a significant public health risk.

    Elsevier

    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(08)01037-8/abstract

    http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(08)01037-8/abstract
  • We need to close the Gun Show loop hole at least. And Some form of Registration. I would favor some form of competence testing (But I know that is not realistic.)

    But you can get a gun if you are on the Terrorist Watch List!

    So you cannot fly if people think you might kill people, but you can still buy a gun. That makes no sense to me at all. I think something like 70% of the members of the NRA favor closing that Gun Show loop hole.

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • Rosebowl, I was merely stating an opinion. I said I think video games play a role in this increasing amount of violence amongst young people. Since guns have always been legal in this country (FYI- this is not an endorsement of guns), why do you think 6 out of the 12 deadliest shooting massacres in the U.S. have occurred within the last 5-6 years?

  • Again that is pretty lame.

    The talk of civil war is a political one. Not a military one...

    And if you are going to complain about giving guns to a drug lord. How about complaining when a President gives missiles to a country that kidnapped our diplomats. (I am only raising this point because its a silly analogy you made.)

    And yeah...it probably is better to get wounded with a knife then killed with a gun.

    Why?

    Because you are still alive!

    WHAT NEXT are we going to suggest that titty twisters are worse then gun shot wounds?

    This post was edited by D A Stankovich 16 months ago

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • Is registered guns per capita a statistic? Maybe someone knows off the top of their head if it exists. I'd look it up but I'm kind of busy at work. If it is an available statistic, with so many people talking about easy accessibility to guns, I'd presume the stat has risen disproportionately in the last half decade? Thus explaining the increase in mass killings. Now I'm not denying that easy access to guns is an issue, but if that stat has remained about the same throughout recent U.S. history, then we probably should be talking about additional issues and that's why I suggested video games (without knowing research data). I'm of the opinion - again without any data to support it - that people are more fucked up these days; whether from lack of parenting, the media, video games, etc. If so, easily being able to acquire a gun is obviously a recipe for disaster, I'm just trying to think of what in this day and age is driving more people to kill than in the past.

  • I think one factor is a change in attitude by some gun enthusiasts that has seen many people develop a gun fetish rather than simple an appreciation for guns. The fetish goes beyond mere collecting. It manifests itself in many people who do not even participate in traditional firearm sports (hunting, target, skeet/trap). The demand to take guns everyplace is a sign of this. These are not sportsmen, nor are they interested in personal protection (no need for an arsenal of dozens of weapons).

    These people seem to elevate the value of a gun and its ability to solve their issues for them.

    Now most gun owners are not this type. I am not talking about the guy who likes to take an occasional hunting trip, or keeps a gun around for protection. But this fetish group is strange and disturbing. Along with this fetish comes a very careless and casual attitude to keeping guns.

    responsible gun collectors can also have large collections. These are not the people that concern me. It is the ones who act like their gun is an extension of their penis that bother me.

    OK this was a rambling rant, and not so much on topic. As for the cause, I think the easy availability and the casual attitude towards guns is a contributor to gun violence. This goes for young and old. People seem awfully quick to try to solve their issues with a gun. Too often they pull the trigger before they think through the consequences. These mass shootings are primarily a result of mental illness, but they are compounded when there is easy access to a weapon.

  • Interesting story....From LGM:

    “After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs (Naked Lunch) once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” Burroughs continued: “I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”

    Their life in Mexico City was not especially happy. One September afternoon in 1951, they began to drink with friends. Eventually, Mr. Burroughs, who was quite drunk, took a handgun out of his travel bag and told his wife, ”It’s time for our William Tell act.” There never had been a William Tell act, but his wife laughed and put a water glass on her head. Mr. Burroughs fired the gun. The bullet entered her brain through her forehead, killing her instantly."

    William Burroughs convicted of Manslaughter, heroin addict and Pedophile. A perfect example of the sort of person who would complain about restrictions on gun laws. roflmao

    This post was edited by D A Stankovich 16 months ago

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • nice story bro...

    signature image

    "...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK

  • Well the US far outpaces others in registered guns per capita, at about 89 per 100 residents. Second on the list is Serbia at 58. Japan has less than 1 per 100 residents. Canada has 31, Australia 15, England 6.

    Looking for good stats on historic ownership rates, but all accounts have us at all time highs. California is on record gun sales pace this year, rates have been climbing dramatically and we will finally outpace 1993 sales which was an outlier due to fallout from the LA riots.

  • SCARY BLACK RIFLE!

    Yes, what you posted is one example of a semi-auto .223 rifle. It is not a picture of the rifle they found on the scene yesterday. The one in your pic has a bunch of tacticool, mall ninja, super high-speed shit added onto it which makes it look threatening to the uninformed but no more deadly than the rifle in my picture, which is also a semi-auto .223.

    In fact, the rifle in the pic you posted would probably be less suitable for something like the shootings yesterday because it is fitted for long-distance shooting instead of close quarters - it has a long, heavy barrel, a bipod, a sniper's grip, and a rather large scope.

    What's the difference in your mind that warrants banning the rifle in your pic, but not the one in mine (assuming that you don't want to ban all semi-auto rifles, of course)?

  • a-That old Carbine you show there doesn't fer one carry 30 rounds. The second point is who benefits by putting that Bush Master into circulation. The NRA is not a grassroots organization. In a “special thanks” to their donors, the National Rifle Association Foundation lists Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the company that makes the assault rifle reportedly found with the shooter responsible for the mass murder today in Newtown, Connecticut. https://www.nrafoundation.org/about/traditions/graphics/q306.pdf

    The Violence Policy Center has estimated that since 2005, gun manufacturers have contributed up to $38.9 million to the NRA. Those numbers, however, are based on publicly listed “sponsorship” levels on NRA fundraising pamphlets. The real figures could be much bigger.

    And if you heard the statement given by Connecticutt's chief ME today ALL OF THE CHILDREN KILLED WERE NOT KILLED AT CLOSE RANGE.

    IN short, the Bushmaster did exactly what it was designed for.

    Finally read the following letter...that may explain things better.

    "From TPM Reader SS …

    I’m a pretty left-of-center liberal. Read TPM regularly. Donated nearly $1,000 to BHO’s re-election campaign. But I was raised with guns. More to the point, my childhood was steeped in gun lore: I learned to hand-load ammunition when I was 10 and 11, and - by the time I was 14 - my dad was trusting me to prepare my own handloads. I could (and to some extent, still can) recite chapter and verse of firearms arcana, from muzzle velocities - a product of the type of gunpowder used in one’s handloads; of the weight (in grains) of a projectile; of the length of a gun’s barrel (the longer, the faster); of the temperature and elevation at which one is shooting - to impact energy (measured in footpounds), to trajectories (flatter for heavier bullets; some calibers have an innate advantage over others), and so on.

    I bring this up to establish my bona-fides.

    The gun culture that we have today in the U.S. is not the gun culture, so to speak, that I remember from my youth. It’s too simple to say that it’s “sick;” it’s more accurately an absurd fetishization. I suppose that the American Gunfighter, in all of his avatars, is inescapably fetishistic, but (to my point) somewhere along the way - maybe in, uh, 1994? - we crossed over into Something Else: let’s call it Gonzo Fetishization. The American Gunfighter as caricature.

    The guns that I grew up with (in the late-1970’s and 1980’s) were bolt-action rifles: non-automatic weapons, with organic fixtures - i.e., stocks - and limited magazine capacities. As a pre-adolescent, weaned on the A-Team and the nationalist inanity of the Reagan years, I still remember marveling at the gorgeous glossiness - at the beauty - of my dad’s Sako “Vixen” .222 Remington, with its hand-checkered French walnut stock.

    I was raised nominally to hunt, although we didn’t do much of that: once a year, at most. More frequently, we’d go to the range and shoot at targets. So I grew up practicing, and enjoying, what’s commonly called benchrest rifle shooting. I still do so (to a limited extent) today.

    Most of the men and children (of both sexes) I met were interested in hunting, too. Almost exclusively, they used traditional hunting rifles: bolt-actions, mostly, but also a smattering of pump-action, lever-action, and (thanks primarily to Browning) semi-automatic hunting rifles. They talked about gun ownership primarily as a function of hunting; the idea of “self-defense,” while always an operative concern, never seemed to be of paramount importance. It was a factor in gun ownership - and for some sizeable minority of gun owners, it was of outsized (or of decisive) importance - but it wasn’t the factor. The folks I interacted with as a pre-adolescent and - less so - as a teen owned guns because their fathers had owned guns before them; because they’d grown up hunting and shooting; and because - for most of them - it was an experience (and a connection) that they wanted to pass on to their sons and daughters.

    And that’s my point: I can’t remember seeing a semi-automatic weapon of any kind at a shooting range until the mid-1980’s. Even through the early-1990’s, I don’t remember the idea of “personal defense” being a decisive factor in gun ownership. The reverse is true today: I have college-educated friends - all of whom, interestingly, came to guns in their adult lives - for whom gun ownership is unquestionably (and irreducibly) an issue of personal defense. For whom the semi-automatic rifle or pistol - with its matte-black finish, laser site, flashlight mount, and other “tactical” accoutrements - effectively circumscribe what’s meant by the word “gun.” At least one of these friends has what some folks - e.g., my fiancee, along with most of my non-gun-owning friends - might regard as an obsessive fixation on guns; a kind of paraphilia that (in its appetite for all things tactical) seems not a little bit creepy. Not “creepy” in the sense that he’s a ticking time bomb; “creepy” in the sense of…alternate reality. Let’s call it “tactical reality.”

    The “tactical” turn is what I want to flag here. It has what I take to be a very specific use-case, but it’s used - liberally - by gun owners outside of the military, outside of law enforcement, outside (if you’ll indulge me) of any conceivable reality-based community: these folks talk in terms of “tactical” weapons, “tactical” scenarios, “tactical applications,” and so on. It’s the lingua franca of gun shops, gun ranges, gun forums, and gun-oriented Youtube videos. (My god, you should see what’s out there on You Tube!) Which begs my question: in precisely which “tactical” scenarios do all of these lunatics imagine that they’re going to use their matte-black, suppressor-fitted, flashlight-ready tactical weapons? They tend to speak of the “tactical” as if it were a fait accompli; as a kind of apodeictic fact: as something that everyone - their customers, interlocutors, fellow forum members, or YouTube viewers - experiences on a regular basis, in everyday life. They tend to speak of the tactical as reality.

    And I think there’s a sense in which they’ve constructured their own (batshit insane) reality.

    One in which we have to live.

    Thanks for reading. I apologize for having gone on for so long. Hope that you’ve found it interesting,"

    This post was edited by D A Stankovich 16 months ago

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • As someone who critically evaluates links, what is he research design for the study?

    “Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.

  • http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf

    That tens of thousands of Children are killed every year in Gun incidents is undeniable.

    In 2008, 2,947 children and teens died from guns in the United States and 2,793 died in 2009
    for a total of 5,740—one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years. The 5,740 children and teens killed by guns in 2008 and 2009:
    Would fill more than 229 public school classrooms of 25 students each;
    Was greater than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and
    Afghanistan (5,013);

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics' Open Secrets website, "between 2001 and 2010, the NRA spent between $1.5 million and $2.7 million on federal-level lobbying efforts. During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level -- messages that advocate for or against political candidates. These messages primarily supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic candidates."

    In the 2010 federal congressional elections, the NRA contributed $902,700 to Republican candidates and gave $373,350 to Democratic candidates.

    American gun deaths are unique in their inability to generate political action. These things keep happening and we do nothing.

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • Stank,

    This is what bothers me about your claims to having been some sort of a street cop. The "old carbine" shown appears to be a Ruger Mini 14. It is not old at all.

    AND it actually holds no rounds at all. However, the magazines manufactured for this rifle hold 5, 10, 20, and (whaddya know) 30 rounds.
    Every street cop who worked during the 90s in the USA is very familiar with this particular firearm, how it was used, and how it forever changed the FBI.

    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction". Ronald Reagan

  • I don't post on the OT board...but being 60 miles from Sandy Hook I will say this....

    if it were my six year old I would have chased that motherfucker through the very gates of hell to exact my revenge. I would not care what would have happened to my soul.

    I am responsible gun owner, so incidents like this piss me off even more because those of us who own guns legally are thrown into the middle of an issue that makes us look like barbarians.

    I will leave it at that...I have too many emotions right now to go further.

    My heart is with those poor babies and their families.

  • It is a Mini-14 and you are exactly right about the magazine issue. The difference is that its got a wood stock, no pistol grip and is shown without a mag, therefore it's a good useful old-timey gun and not a scary assault rifle despite the fact that it is capable of exactly the same thing.

  • Does the color of a gun make it any more or less dangerous?

    As for tactical attachments, a flashlight seems like the ultimate in legitimate attachments for a home defense weapon so im not sure what your point is there. Suppressors and flash hiders are illegal without a license from the ATF (or DOJ, I forget which) so that's not really an issue.

  • Fuck I don't care what it is. Secondly, I stopped working the streets in the 80's. But its irrelevant to the discussion here. (Whether you approve of my Bona Fides or not).

    It is not the issue at all. What is the issue is why that idiot woman had that the Bushmaster in the first place!

    Having it, simply resulted in her death.

    Which seems to be the point that is missing in this whole discussion.

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • You mentioned the color of the gun. I didn't. I mentioned that it was not a hunting weapon...and it aint. People are dead because some idiot had to have the biggest blast. And nobody seems to give a fuck!

    And you guys are differentiating between Rugers and Bushmasters and anything else.

    If in my born days I have ever heard a greater venture in irrelevancy...this is it!

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • By the way, I have owned exactly three weapons in my life. My Father's old 38 Chiefs Special, My old 38 Chiefs Special and Walther PPK. And there was the .357 Magnum that I was issued from the Department, which I returned when I left.

    ON matters I was involved in there was never anything larger then a handgun. My interest in firearms goes no further then that.

    So the fact that I haven't analyzed a ton of weapons is not that significant. After all, if you were good street cop then you wouldn't have defended Joe Arpaio on the old board, since he he seems to do nothing but getting sued. You would have seen that his act is all smoke and mirrors. You didn't. But I didn't question your background.

    I think the New Yorker says the ultimate point about worrying about differentiating between long weapons:

    "Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.

    The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

    All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe."

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by D A Stankovich 16 months ago

    signature image

    Tous pour un, un pour tous

  • I'm not really an emotional person, but I couldn't help but shed a few tears on Friday as I was driving home from work.

    I have a six year old son who's in the first grade, and to think that someone would commit such a horrific act is beyond my own comprehension. I couldn't wait to go pick my son up from school and the first thing I did was hug him and it took everything I had in me not to break down right there. I really feel for those parents. Just the night before they were going through their normal bed time routine, like many of us do with our own children, and now they'll never get a chance to kiss them goodnight or tell them that they love them.

    What a sick, sick world we live in.

  • Yep keep playing the children card.....LMAO....Odd to see those who support an adults right to take the life of an unborn while using kids to try and take away ones right to own guns.

    What changes in the American Schools and political landscape have taken place in the last 50 years that parallel the increase in gun violance? no takers on that one just personal attacks.....all good.

    Yes Stank, how many beating hearts will stop this week from an adult making the choice to kill an unborn? things do keep happening and some support it....

    "The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made. "

    All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe."

    Stank thanks for the quote....i guess that unborn beating heart just doesnt quite make the cut here.....

    This post was edited by FanofSC 16 months ago