If violence in video games, movies or music 'makes' people do crazy crap, then that is not the big picture. To say otherwise is courting ignorance.
There has to have been a deep-rooted mental condition in the first place, before listening or playing games or music which includes images or words of violent conduct.
Before is the operative word.
To suggest that, even with supposed studies, and let's face it, these studies are not conclusive, never have been, never will be, then i think ignorance is a word i would use for that summation.

Well the experts have been arguing over that point forever (kind of like gun control). Lots of experts think video games increase peoples tolerance to violence and increases aggression. There have been piles of studies, with results that go either way, and all of these studies frequently having more holes in them than a sieve (aka confounds).

Disturbed individuals who are likely to murder will go off no matter what medium they focus on (helter skelter for example). Plus like I said, everyone knows video games are not real, even at a subconscious level. Honestly I think the news media bears the biggest brunt of things as for causing these events, they are the ones that go nuts with coverage over events like this, and sometimes, what they are covering are actual events.

Also like it or not, guns (and other weapons) are what kill people in the end. That point is inescapable. There is logic in wanting to restrict the implements that make these events possible. Freedom versus a safer society... not an easy call.

Also honestly, I seriously question the effectiveness of advertising, I think its effectiveness is way overblown by the advertising industry. For myself, advertising can so enrage me that I will make it a point never to buy that product or any other products by that company ever again (like if they insult my intelligence, or endlessly bombard me).

long list there Feuer Frei
One part of it is important.
If that number was even only 10% it would demonstrate that a significant proportion of "legal" gunsellers are criminals.
It shows why LaPierre is nothing but an idiot as he flatly refuses any measure which would affect this criminal activity.



That August is reasonable no matter who makes the proposal.

Do they oppose all other regular transactions which require disclosure of medical information?
If not then that is just a smoke screen.

Yet since you agree that they are not inalienable and unifringable you have already rejected the arguement you are once again falling back on.

Precisely. :yep:

"Winning"

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/u...pscfbee19f.png

So because one idiot in a leadership role of the NRA proves his personal fanatacism and arrogance, the entire organization must be?

So what does that generalization say about the Democratic Party, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Or Democratic legislators led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Care to stop blasting everyone that you disagree with using baseless and wrong generalizations?

Of course he doesn't. You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything. After all it's not like they have a record of accomplishment to concentrate on.

Yet as the "pro gun" crowd repeatedly base their arguement on a position they have already rejected they appear to have nothing at all.

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.

But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital". Haven't you heard the catch-phrase "The man who stands for nothing will fall for anything?" Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.

I know.
You called me that recently, but hey I can live with that risk:03:

Easily and frequently demonstrated.
On the one extreme you have the "its the guns".
You can drag them to reality where they agree its some guns, some people, those people, not those people, not those guns, not that situation.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "its the guns"
On the other extreme you have the "no restrictions"
Likewise you can drag them to reality where they agree to these restrictions, those restrictions, these people, those people, those situations.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "no restrictions".

Both extremes manage to destroy their own arguements, but still run away to try and cling to them again and again.


Not really since the two extremes are shooting so far beyond their targets the flak the middle gets is just harmless noise.

Quite a comical process really isn't it.:D

No, I said I couldn't tell where you stood.

Finally agree, two extremes, but the fact is the pro gun people have given in numerous times to hundreds of restrictions. The problem is every study shows they don't work.

To show that you would need at least two identical samples to work from.
Since there are none that match due to the huge amount of variables studies cannot have shown that.
They may portray it as shown, but they have not shown it.

Steve
May I be so bold as to ask you to try and define non-commital?

Sure. Non-commital consists of not being committed to one side or the other. I didn't say that was you; in fact, that's often me. I said that from your posts I couldn't tell if you were for one side, the other, or somewhere in between, meaning not that you had no opinion but that you seemed to want to hide it, or at least not bring it out. In fact I think what I said was that you never seemed to express an opinion on the subject at all, only prodded others for their opinions. You have since stated that you don't attack people's opinions, but only their arguments or lack thereof. I've agreed to take your word for that, for the time being anyway.

While we're on the subject, exactly what do you think of the gun-control issue?

Perhaps "pro gun" and "anti gun" are actually meaningless when you look at it?


I think its mainly hot air.
I think both sides supporters recycle the same meaningless catch phrases(parrot fodder), use the same cut and pastes of dubious "proof" without actually reading it, checking the sources or even thinking.
I think too many people start with an emotional arguement and then progressively(or regressively) get more emotional on the topic.
I think that the first stage must be getting fundamental to establish the basic truths then developing the details on from that level.
I think that far too often people accept the basics, but then reject the basics when their emotions get the better of them once it comes to the details.

That is what I think of the gun control issue.

So is your next question going to be on "basics"?

That's a good point.

And Tribesman is now guilty of one of the best posts I think I've read on the subject.

Thanks. :sunny:

No. I wanted to ask what your definition of "is" is. :O:

Intersting link.

Now really, how come Canada has such a lower gun violence rate than the US, despite allowing Canadians to bear arms ??