And the shootings continue....

[Biggles]

I don't think it's entirely accurate to claim that a lack of religious affiliation is the cause of horrendous acts such as these, or that a religious lifestyle would prevent it. Anders Behring Breivik was apparently deeply religious, and killed 77 innocent Norwegians last year.


Nutheads exists in all forms and places. Personally, I'd say you'd make it harder for them to do things like these if you made it harder for them to get guns. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" Yeah, well, I think the guns help, as Eddie Izzard put it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The message was still the same. Somebody wrongs somebody, you shoot 'em dead.

That's an oversimplification. The message was that evil exists in the world and it must be fought. How many of those old time cop shows and westerns had the townspeople banding together to help the heroes fight off the bad guys? That's a far far different message than the one a kid gets spending all afternoon running down hookers in GTA with extra blood graphics mods turned on.

Also the increased gore, to me, is a sign of the consequences of such violence, as contrasted with the clean action of those westerns. There, all you do is pull the trigger and the problems goes away all neat and tidy without any mess or consequence.

On the other hand it removes the huge shock that seeing it in real life would produce. Todays killers are not going to be shocked by gore because they have been trained to expect to see it.

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, I see your point, Biggles, religious people can go crazy too. Point in case, Muslim extremists. August makes a good argument too. I agree, our society has changed a lot from the 1950s, and it's not all good.

I am a guy who like to shoot a gun once in a while, and I don't like the idea of giving up my constitutional rights to own a weapon and protect myself and family. But if there was a magic button that would make all guns go away, I would be interested in talking about it. In reality, no matter how strict the gun law, some people, usually criminals, would get them. They aren't going to disappear.

Last week a crazy SOB killed 27 people with a couple of handguns. The same week, 140 million gun owners did not kill any school kids.

Check out the links I posted, you can kill people without a handgun.

I think all campuses need to have an armed security guard, and the principals should also have an emergency weapon available.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Biggles

I don't think it's entirely accurate to claim that a lack of religious affiliation is the cause of horrendous acts such as these, or that a religious lifestyle would prevent it. Anders Behring Breivik was apparently deeply religious, and killed 77 innocent Norwegians last year.


Nutheads exists in all forms and places. Personally, I'd say you'd make it harder for them to do things like these if you made it harder for them to get guns. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" Yeah, well, I think the guns help, as Eddie Izzard put it.

I would agree with that. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. I also think that history has shown us that adherence to religous practice does not necessarily equate with the prevention of acts of evil.

[Onkel Neal]

You know,
if you'd have told me 20 years ago.


I'd see children walking
the streets of our Texas towns.


...with green hair, bones in their noses...


I just flat-out
wouldn't have believed you.


Signs and wonders.


But I think once you quit hearing "sir"
and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

That's an oversimplification. The message was that evil exists in the world and it must be fought. How many of those old time cop shows and westerns had the townspeople banding together to help the heroes fight off the bad guys? That's a far far different message than the one a kid gets spending all afternoon running down hookers in GTA with extra blood graphics mods turned on.

Now we're talking about different things. My argument was in reference to Armistead's comparison of television to television. The townspeople did certainly band together, and they banded together to shoot the problem dead. The solution was person-to-person violence. This wasn't the Beaver receiving sage advice from Dad. This was 'guns make your problems go away'. And it was always neat and bloodless.

Now, I will give you the GTA comment in reference to video games. Television is a passive medium. Once it becomes interactive, the revenge fantasy takes a huge leap forward in becoming reality. As such, video games are indeed vastly more dangerous than television.

On the other hand it removes the huge shock that seeing it in real life would produce. Todays killers are not going to be shocked by gore because they have been trained to expect to see it.

Yes, but that shock would only occur once the act was committed. I would argue that being unaware of the consequences only makes one more likely to engage in the act.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

I agree. We bathe our children in virtual blood and 3d destruction their entire lives then argue that violent movies and video games play no part when they dress up like their online avatars and act out what they grew up pretending to be.

But it's not just that. We belittle and destroy our religious institutions and claim it's for equality, leaving people without a moral code or compass to follow just because some think a community should have no need for such quaint traditions. Maybe if this monster believed in a hell he wouldn't have been so eager to send himself there. We don't even know our neighbors anymore. In too many cases we couldn't tell if the folks next door were cannibals let alone sane humans. We coddle and over shelter our children, never allowing to them to burn their fingers, or loose a softball game, or learn a lesson the hard way, making them so emotionally weak that they'll commit suicide over a mocking twitter message, or it seems walk into an elementary school and open fire.

We have to start growing people with a skin. We also have to stop creating in our children such a driving desire for fame and recognition that infamy becomes an acceptable alternative if it gets them remembered.

Agreed, as do the majority of Psychologist. I think another dangerous issue is our kids are being over diagnosed with mental illnesses and placed on drugs at young ages. Read somewhere over 40% of kids take some type of drug before they reach puberty for ADD and a host of other issues. We hardly know the long term effects. Most of these issues could be addressed with some good exercise and less sugar.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Yes, but that shock would only occur once the act was committed. I would argue that being unaware of the consequences only makes one more likely to engage in the act.

This is also where we differ on subject matter. In those old westerns there were always consequences. Not necessarily in blood but every killer in those old movies got his just deserts in the end.

You can't deny that the sight of large amounts of blood and gore is a shock to anyone that beholds it unexpectedly. It can and has shocked people into immobility. The military has long understood this effect which is what "blooding the troops" is all about.

But today such scenes regardless of scale and degree should be of no surprise to anyone who has played a first person shooter or watched an R rated movie let alone years of them. I can think of no better way to prepare a mass murderer to carry out his crimes than this. I mean with todays graphics and sound all one is missing is the smell.

[CaptainMattJ.]

No, violent video games are hardly the "problem". A normal kid who plays something like call of duty doesn't go out and disassociate the horrible feelings from what it really means to kill someone, to take someone's life from them. There's clearly WAY more going on then "let's blame it on violent video games". If your child can't identify with what it means to live, and therefore what it means to take away life, then you have a messed up child who needs help.The millions of gamers who play these games aren't going to go out and murder a bunch of people because they did it in a virtual, hypothetical, detached game unless they have serious issues. You know the MASSIVE majority of troops deployed now that are coming back with PTSD have seen Those same R-rated gore flicks or played those violent games. According to what you are saying that soldier shuld be relatively immune. Incorrect in every sense. Most everyone, including today's youth, would be utterly horrified, disgusted, and mentally scarred by real scenes of gore and death. Your assumptions are wrong. I've played those same game and watched those same movies yet get just the same disgust and shock at real pictures of death, and even stories of mass murder such as this. It's revolting.

It's obvious that the kids who do these things are not mentally well. It's also obvious that those around him either neglected the sings and didn't get him the help he most definitely needed.

Not to mention that that whole absurd religious "moral compass" has been the same "moral compass" that have been the basis for some of the most psychotic mass murderes in history, all killing in the name of religion. This false moral compass has done way more harm than good. If you need to follow some religion to get your morals then you aren't really a moral person. You should have those morals because you are a decent human being and not because some religion tells you to. What an absurd argument.

[August]

Besides by act you're talking about the first act. Mass murderers by definition commit many of them. Shock at the sight of gore might not stop the first murder but it just might stop the second one and the ones after that or at least give some more time to escape while the killer adjusts to the sight of what he's caused.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

No, violent video games are hardly the "problem". A normal kid who plays something like call of duty doesn't go out and disassociate the horrible feelings from what it really means to kill someone, to take someone's life from them. There's clearly WAY more going on then "let's blame it on violent video games". If your child can't identify with what it means to live, and therefore what it means to take away life, then you have a messed up child who needs help.The millions of gamers who play these games aren't going to go out and murder a bunch of people because they did it in a virtual, hypothetical, detached game unless they have serious issues. You know the MASSIVE majority of troops deployed now that are coming back with PTSD have seen Those same R-rated gore flicks or played those violent games. According to what you are saying that soldier shuld be relatively immune. Incorrect in every sense. Most everyone, including today's youth, would be utterly horrified, disgusted, and mentally scarred by real scenes of gore and death. Your assumptions are wrong. I've played those same game and watched those same movies yet get just the same disgust and shock at real pictures of death, and even stories of mass murder such as this. It's revolting.

[The massacre will be] "like playing Doom", and "it'll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWII, Vietnam, Duke Nukem and Doom all mixed together" -- Eric Harris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ha..._Dylan_Klebold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(v...#Controversies

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

No, violent video games are hardly the "problem". A normal kid who plays something like call of duty doesn't go out and disassociate the horrible feelings from what it really means to kill someone, to take someone's life from them.

There's clearly WAY more going on then "let's blame it on violent video games". If your child can't identify with what it means to live, and therefore what it means to take away life, then you have a messed up child who needs help.The millions of gamers who play these games aren't going to go out and murder a bunch of people because they did it in a virtual, hypothetical, detached game unless they have serious issues.

It's obvious that the kids who do these things are not mentally well. It's also obvious that those around him either neglected the sings and didn't get him the help he most definitely needed.

Well apparently some people are affected by virtual violence or at least trained to commit it and if it saves even one life to ban video games then I say far better that than give up our right to keep and bear arms.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think we are seeing a "who can top this" mentality. It has little to do with gun control. We had less laws for guns years ago. What did we see? Manson killings. A man in a tower at TX university taking out students. Today there are more laws and we have kids trying to "top this" at the expense of peoples lives. Gun control only takes guns out of law abiding citizens hands. The criminals will still have them. The lunatics will find ways to obtain one so they can "top this."

[Armistead]

I think it's more of an issue is that we've created the perfect storm culturally for these events to happen. It's more than school shootings, it's an every day life of violence. On one hand we baby our kids, they're spoiled, feel entitled, everyone gets a prize, they're no more good losers. At the same time, their worlds are filled with mass gore, violence, cheap sex, etc....

My wife's sister teaches 2nd grade and says 1 in 3 of her kids are on some type of drug for depression or ADD. I admit she's in a tough school district, but still....It's just too common for a school to complain of a child being hyper, parent goes to Doctor and the child is placed on meds. When we were young, we played outside, came in worn out at dark, in bed by 9 or 10.

It seems today parents are taught to respect their kids, instead of the other way around.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would say kids are desensitized today because of the media. I'll probably be blasted for the comment but this is how I see it.