Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.

First, to the OP: You are perfectly safe where you are. If the attacker managed not to kill his target when he stabbed him in the neck, then the knife-wielding thugs in your area have no idea how to use a knife. Just grab the knife arm and kick 'em in the nuts. They'll never see it coming.

Don't get in fights involving knifes often do you?

econd, to the disarmament group: If the only way you can trust me to be a responsable human being is to render me completely harmless, you don't trust me at all.

Of course not. I don't know you.

And I can do more damage with a good sharp pencil than the thug mentioned in the OP managed with a knife. So... do we outlaw pencils? What about baseball bats? Where do you draw the line?

Yes, and I can do it by waiting for them to crash their car during a snowstorm. We should outlaw the snow. Thats a stupid argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bla_Ze wrote:When reading this thread i thought of a pic i saw quite a while ago. Still it kind if fits, kind of..
Still it makes you think.



PS Sorry for the "propaganda"

So what your saying is that universal healthcare stops gun crime?

Death to the Snowy Invader!

Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.

I've been saying that from the start. Americans love the hell out of violence and guns, and lack the moral sense to really understand either. The english aren't much better though. You just have less guns.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.

I've been saying that from the start. Americans love the hell out of violence and guns, and lack the moral sense to really understand either. The english aren't much better though. You just have less guns.

It's not sufficient to say that the Swiss understand such notions by nature, while the Americans don't. There has to be a reason. I, for one, blame Chicken Wings.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.

I've been saying that from the start. Americans love the hell out of violence and guns, and lack the moral sense to really understand either. The english aren't much better though. You just have less guns.

It's not sufficient to say that the Swiss understand such notions by nature, while the Americans don't. There has to be a reason. I, for one, blame Chicken Wings.

American media and culture has glorified violence, competitiveness, and the gun for hundreds of years. We created the action movie, the western genre, the comic book, the videogame (the first videogame involved shooting), and much more. We're certainly not the most violent culture on the planet. Not even close. But historically we're far from the most peaceful. Eminem can go platinum with rap fantasies about killing and the best selling entertainment property of all time is call of duty: modern warfare 2 in which you literally kill thousands of people. The previous best selling entertainment property was grand theft auto IV. American media is violent, thus American people regard violence as inherent to daily life.

I'm fairly sure that other countries (ergo Canada, UK and Aus) all have similar sorts of media, but nowhere near the same sort of tendency for violence.

There was a fatal school stabbing a few weeks ago here in Queensland and that kicked up a huge fuss, serious changes in the law and school policy have taken effect to prevent it in the future. I'm not saying that these steps will be effective, but I'm kind of worried that over in America it seems to be so much more commonplace.

I'm fairly sure that other countries (ergo Canada, UK and Aus) all have similar sorts of media, but nowhere near the same sort of tendency for violence.

It should also be noted that gun crime statistics are increasing in virtually every stable democratic country that draws from U.S. media sources.

Actually, I've always detested much of the US media. I've always preffered UK shows or even my own ABC to anything that America may offer. No offence Shuma, but American shows are just so...artificial.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I've always detested much of the US media. I've always preffered UK shows or even my own ABC to anything that America may offer. No offence Shuma, but American shows are just so...artificial.

And yet it sells so very well regardless.

Hey. Shooting USA and Mail Call are 2 of the best shows on TV.

GTA rocks. Beat up hookers, kill innocents, blow up cars and jump cars.

Let's not forget CoD: MW2. Lots of guns and explosions and death. What's not to love?

Fateweaver wrote:
GTA rocks. Beat up hookers, kill innocents, blow up cars and jump cars.

Let's not forget CoD: MW2. Lots of guns and explosions and death. What's not to love?

EF, Shuma, you stand correct.

Wrong.

Only the socially and mentally inept learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence.

I was watching R movies back when it was okay for even 8yo's to see them in theatres so long as an adult was present; watched them at home. First horror movie and favorite of mine was "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I was 12, parents let me watch it. They had no interest in it so I wasn't "babysat" while I did it but I watched it.

I was a Freshman when MK hit arcades. Parents didn't care if I used my allowance to go to the arcade and play it.

FFW 20 years later. Never been convicted of a violent crime, do not condone violence, was in 1 fight my entire life at school (the rest I talked my way out of), do not agree with the messages some rappers convey although I like to listen to rappers such as Eminem, don't hate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers or whatever.

Exposing someone to violence doesn't mean they'll be violent; it increases the odds but it doesn't constitute "auto-violent".

I think family values are in the toilet and have been for the past decade or so. I was raised where mom stayed at home and dad worked. He earned enough to where it wasn't until my senior year when mom had to get a job due to economical changes. The past 10 years has seen more and more single parent households due to higher divorce rate, women acting like whores and riding any stud that comes along and men acting the studs and laying pipe to any and everything and not caring to cap it (apparently lots of men love paying child support). With only one parent household or 2 parents working guess who raises the kids? Either the tv or the teen babysitter who spends more time "OMFGBOBBYISSOCUTE" txting her friends than doing her job so she too just turns on the tv so she can concentrate on her makeup or her iphone. Kids are impressionable and if the parents don't teach good values you get soulless pricks like the Columbine kids or the V-tech dude.

So yeah I joke about GTA and CoD because I know reality from violence. I've never shot someone in real life nor do I want to.........BUT if I have to I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I not only saved my own life but might have saved the life of my brother or anyone else with me when some dude decided to "get stupid".

Only the socially and mentally inept learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence.

Don't take many psych courses do you?

Exposing someone to violence doesn't mean they'll be violent; it increases the odds but it doesn't constitute "auto-violent".

Wait what? So people do in fact learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence?

The past 10 years has seen more and more single parent households due to higher divorce rate, women acting like whores and riding any stud that comes along and men acting the studs and laying pipe to any and everything and not caring to cap it (apparently lots of men love paying child support).

Actually that trend has been continuing for more than half a century, but lets not let reality get in the way of a good rant.

FFW 20 years later. Never been convicted of a violent crime, do not condone violence, was in 1 fight my entire life at school (the rest I talked my way out of), do not agree with the messages some rappers convey although I like to listen to rappers such as Eminem, don't hate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers or whatever.

Thankfully you are every single person in america. Otherwise this personal anecdote wouldn't work at all.

Kids are impressionable and if the parents don't teach good values you get soulless pricks like the Columbine kids or the V-tech dude.

Wasn't the vtech dude on a student visa from korea?

So yeah I joke about GTA and CoD because I know reality from violence.

But you don't seem to know reality at all.

Yes because someone overpaid to pound his opinion into your head, who is probably against violence in the first place, is the final authority on matters.

As I just said I watched and played as many violent games and movies at 12 as I do now. I'm not violent irl. I know I can't prove it to you but you'll have to take my word for it.

I don't get a hardon shooting at targets or even handling my guns so obviously violent action does nothing for me.

Glad to think that someone as liberal minded as you thinks courses taught in school trump real life experience. Must be rough being middle class in a nice suburbia where your only fear is the neighbors all painting their houses a different color and since you don't want to stand out having to repaint your own house.

Must be a rough life to have all your real life experiences taught to you in a classroom.

Yes because someone overpaid to pound his opinion into your head, who is probably against violence in the first place, is the final authority on matters.

I'll trust the psychological community and dozens of case studies over some dude that is usually incorrect on matters of factual accuracy regularly on a forum dedicated to plastic toys.

As I just said I watched and played as many violent games and movies at 12 as I do now. I'm not violent irl.

As an interesting contrast I watched plenty of violent shows as a child and I am.

I don't get a hardon shooting at targets or even handling my guns so obviously violent action does nothing for me.

You're the one bringing sex into this, no one else has done that.

Glad to think that someone as liberal minded as you thinks courses taught in school trump real life experience. Must be rough being middle class in a nice suburbia where your only fear is the neighbors all painting their houses a different color and since you don't want to stand out having to repaint your own house.

Do you seriously think your personal experience is the final word in psychological study?

Must be a rough life to have all your real life experiences taught to you in a classroom.

I'm a new media design major. Most of the gak I know is self taught. For someone who has "only ever been in one fight" you certainly do seem to act like I'm the one lacking street experience here.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
GTA rocks. Beat up hookers, kill innocents, blow up cars and jump cars.

Let's not forget CoD: MW2. Lots of guns and explosions and death. What's not to love?

EF, Shuma, you stand corrected.

I didn't mention games. I was talking about shows such as CSI: Miami or *shudder* some of their talk shows. At least their modern shows are, as I kid I really did enjoy watching re-runs of Get Smart, and my little brother is hooked to it this day. Also, I'm not an avid fan of most rap music but I have seen some very enjoyable and, dare I say it, soul-touching songs by EMINEM.

With all that said, IMHO GTA was a crap game anyway.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes because someone overpaid to pound his opinion into your head, who is probably against violence in the first place, is the final authority on matters.

I'll trust the psychological community and dozens of case studies over some dude that is usually incorrect on matters of factual accuracy regularly on a forum dedicated to plastic toys.

As I just said I watched and played as many violent games and movies at 12 as I do now. I'm not violent irl.

As an interesting contrast I watched plenty of violent shows as a child and I am.

I don't get a hardon shooting at targets or even handling my guns so obviously violent action does nothing for me.

You're the one bringing sex into this, no one else has done that.

Glad to think that someone as liberal minded as you thinks courses taught in school trump real life experience. Must be rough being middle class in a nice suburbia where your only fear is the neighbors all painting their houses a different color and since you don't want to stand out having to repaint your own house.

Do you seriously think your personal experience is the final word in psychological study?

Must be a rough life to have all your real life experiences taught to you in a classroom.

I'm a new media design major. Most of the gak I know is self taught. For someone who has "only ever been in one fight" you certainly do seem to act like I'm the one lacking street experience here.

* Dozens of case studies does make a very good basis considering the thousands, even 10's of thousands of violent criminals in prison. If you are talking 1,000 dozen maybe but let's assume 100 violent criminals studied out of 30,000. That's a piss poor sample size.

* I think you hate yourself is why you are so violent but moving on...

* My hardon comment stems from people being violent obviously enjoying it. Maybe not sexual but I'm sure for some it is (rapists don't rape for sexual pleasure, it's the violent sexual act that they enjoy because if they loved romantic sex they wouldn't force themselves on people. If you don't enjoy violence you won't commit violent acts out of necessity.

* Do you think a few dozen case studies is the final word in how violence effects people because I know at least 2 dozen people that are like me and were raised like me. There are as many case studies PROVING violence doesn't breed violence as there are that do.

* Who cares about street experience? I don't need to be a school bully or "tfg" at the bar or gaming store to have real life experience in diffusing violent situations or being exposed to them. You stood up for yourself in HS. Good on you. Not all of us feel the need to fight to "be a man" or "get through life". If my life was ever threatened to where I either kill or be killed I won't hesitate. Could you say the same?

So yeah, keep thinking you are more right than me because some book tells you that EVERY person exposed to violence is violent. If there is such a book I want to read it because than I know the author/quack job who wrote it is full of lies because I can prove violence does NOT beget violence.

Fateweaver wrote:If my life was ever threatened to where I either kill or be killed I won't hesitate.

And just how do you determine that situation?

If someone is pointing a gun at you, it's probably too late to try and get your own gun out to shoot them back. If someone is saying something along the lines of 'I'm gonna kill you' and you then shoot them, what happens if it was just trash talk?

Absolutely right -- violence in the media is what causes violence in real life... after all, the Tudor era was far more violent than modern times. I blame that psycho Shakespeare, for all those violent plays, with beheadings and child-murder and stuff.

The Roman Empire's campaigns of mass murder are all due to the arena -- give people violent entertainment, and what do you get? A whole nation of systematic killers!

Anyway. I exaggerate to make a point. But if you chart violence over time, you can see that the availability & realism of violent entertainment correlates directly with a reduction in actual violence.

Pinker provides all the stats you need:

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

We live in a relatively enlightened era, and one that's getting more and more enlightened over time. That's why we perceive it as violent -- because, in fact, we are far less tolerant of real-world violence than any society in previous human history.

J.Black wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:If my life was ever threatened to where I either kill or be killed I won't hesitate.

And just how do you determine that situation?

If someone is pointing a gun at you, it's probably too late to try and get your own gun out to shoot them back. If someone is saying something along the lines of 'I'm gonna kill you' and you then shoot them, what happens if it was just trash talk?

Lot's of determining factors. Odds are then I'd take the chance he won't shoot. I'm not a speed drawer so you are right, I'd be shot going for my gun. On the other hand it may not necessarily be a fatal wound giving me time to get off a shot of my own. If it's a non-lethal shot I'll probably injure if not outright kill the guy as well. On the other hand, if he's not prepared for me to have a gun or is hesitant themselves than I'll get a shot off first. Sure he'd fire in reaction but then again it'll either be a miss on his part or he'll hit me (hopefully not doing any permanent damage).

If the person is unarmed and we are in a public place with witnesses and he threatens to kill me than I have 2 choices. Perceive it as an empty threat and walk away or take it seriously and draw. If that person continues to threaten and or act in a menacing and threatening way toward me I can and do have the right to defend myself.

If that person comes into my house, all bets are off. In my state, thanks to the "Castle Law" I am authorized by the Mn government to use deadly force in order to protect my home, family and myself from being the victim of a felony and the felony has already been committed by that person "burglarizing" my home. He doesn't even have to threaten me personally. On the other hand if he/she turns to run away after I confront them and I shoot them in the back than the crime is on me as that person was attempting to diffuse the situation. But then again I don't have to give that person a chance to walk away or turn himself in. I hear my window being broken or door kicked in I can draw, aim and shoot.

Any of the 3 situations above would happen in a matter of seconds and so while I wouldn't have all day to contemplate my next move I would have just enough time to decide if I want to die OR live and suffer potential consequences. So long as I feel threatened I have the right to defend myself. Most of the time you are not going to be the victim of a prank. If someone, armed or unarmed walks up to me and says "give me your money or I'll kill you", there is a good chance they are serious. If they want to see their next birthday they'll walk away and forget they were trying for the Darwin award.

I'm the past 16 years I've been legally carrying I've never had to even draw once. I hope it continues but I also take comfort in knowing if I have to make that decision that I'm prepared for it. I'd rather be prepared for something that may never happen then to be caught off guard and be unprepared. That is my right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and I exercise that right.

Fateweaver wrote:
Lot's of determining factors. Odds are then I'd take the chance he won't shoot. I'm not a speed drawer so you are right, I'd be shot going for my gun. On the other hand it may not necessarily be a fatal wound giving me time to get off a shot of my own. If it's a non-lethal shot I'll probably injure if not outright kill the guy as well. On the other hand, if he's not prepared for me to have a gun or is hesitant themselves than I'll get a shot off first. Sure he'd fire in reaction but then again it'll either be a miss on his part or he'll hit me (hopefully not doing any permanent damage).

There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.

In the past 16 years I've been legally carrying I've never had to even draw once. I hope it continues but I also take comfort in knowing if I have to make that decision that I'm prepared for it. I'd rather be prepared for something that may never happen then to be caught off guard and be unprepared. That is my right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and I exercise that right.

QFT. I hope to be able to say the same thing someday.

Anyway. I exaggerate to make a point.

Actually by exaggerating in sarcasm you lose your point entirely.

ut if you chart violence over time, you can see that the availability & realism of violent entertainment correlates directly with a reduction in actual violence.

Oddly enough if you chart the availability & realism of food over time you run into the same thing. Same with education. Same with literacy. Same with virtually every other "virtue" that is endemic to progressive modernization. That states nothing to the effect of violence on the psyche of a human being.

We live in a relatively enlightened era, and one that's getting more and more enlightened over time. That's why we perceive it as violent -- because, in fact, we are far less tolerant of real-world violence than any society in previous human history.

Globally? Or is there a specific society you are remarking upon? Regardless however it has nothing to do with the concept of violent media influencing violent acts or tendencies in the viewer.

There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.

Thats a terrible saying. The vast majority of fatal wounds are not instantly so.

IvanTih wrote:I find it cowardly to kill someone unarmed with a weapon

I find it idiotic to engage in a fair fight, especially one where your own life could be at stake.

Tyyr wrote:

IvanTih wrote:I find it cowardly to kill someone unarmed with a weapon

I find it idiotic to engage in a fair fight, especially one where your own life could be at stake.

This is far too generic a situation for either of you to make such grandiose claims about the rightness of actions.

Never claimed anything was right or wrong.

Tyyr wrote:Never claimed anything was right or wrong.

Saying something is idiotic is a value judgement.

The first post was:

Tyyr wrote:

IvanTih wrote:I hate when unarmed people are killed by someone armed.I would never kill an unarmed person with a weapon.

Much safer to kill them while they're unarmed, preferably while they're back is turned, unconscious if at all possible.

I've been tweaking him about it since. And yes, it's a judgment, but on methodology not whether or not you oughta go kill someone.

ShumaGorath wrote:

There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.

Thats a terrible saying. The vast majority of fatal wounds are not instantly so.

I'm sorry that I thought that, "...with relatively immediate medical treatment." was so obvious as to not be included in my first sentence.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.

Thats a terrible saying. The vast majority of fatal wounds are not instantly so.

I'm sorry that I thought that, "...with relatively immediate medical treatment." was so obvious as to not be included in my first sentence.

Tell that to a soldier, or some dude in africa.