Good luck taking my guns.
princec:
[quote]Americans come up with insanely irrational ways to keep having more guns.
[/quote]
The majority of Americans want more regulations. You are mistaking a loud and well organized few for the majority. This happens all the time, including here, where the loudness helps intimidate and wear down any pushback. I’m wondering, in fact, this might be a good case study in how an unpopular position can still dominate in a democracy.
elect:
Neat. Is this also a reference to “going down a rabbit hole” and Alice and Wonderland?
I’ve also heard the terms distraction, squirrel, deflection. I think there are other terms as well. But yes, in the greater scheme of things, I don’t see “reforming” or restricting video games as something that is going to do very much in the way of lowering the number of people getting mowed down by weapons that can kill so many people with such ease.
VaTTeRGeR:
[quote]You would need to regulate all kinds of firearms, “scary” looking guns aren’t more dangerous.
But maybe you should start with fixing everything around the education system first
[/quote]
I’m not so concerned about arguments on terminology, whether something is automatic, semi-automatic, or a rifle or whatever. It seems to me that the distinction that matters the most is the degree of deadliness, the speed and ease with which people can be killed by a given weapon. If there is regulation, it should be tailored to a “deadliness” classification, imho.
The argument that we should fix something else “first” is often spurious. Usually there is no reason one can’t work to reform or improve multiple things at the same time.
princec:
[quote]Then you also need to realise that feeding the gun lobby is gun culture. Gun culture absolutely, totally pervades every aspect of American life.
[/quote]
I think this an exaggeration, but not by a whole lot! Please keep in mind that there is a huge number of people here that would really, really like there to be less guns, but the aggressiveness of those supporting guns is intimidating and hard to counter. I do think the gun lobby (NRA) helps promote this and gives platforms/megaphones in support of anything that helps their ability to make a profit. Would be really great if their financial political support turned ‘toxic’.
The pushback initiated by the high school kids at the last shooting has been remarkable and may help turn this around. One of the kids, I think it might be Emma Gonzalez, in a couple weeks gained more Twitter followers than the NRA. There is a huge hunger by a large population for some sensible regulations and roll backs.
jonjova:
Is not the actual problem that actual people keep using actual guns to kill actual children en masse all the time?
Cas
[/quote]
I’m not a fan of that sort of thing, to say the least.
But what makes you so sure that restricting civilian access to guns will solve the problem?
Have you made a detailed analysis? What will be the pro’s and con’s of attempting such a feat?
Will it be a net positive in the short term and in the long term?
Good intentions alone does not result into a positive outcome. It’s much easier to break things than it is to fix things.
[/quote]
I think princec answered jonjova’s question here, even though jonjova didn’t explicitly acknowledge it. I’d add, we also have a more general problem with the firepower that can be brought to bear against people at any large gathering, but the most heinous aspect has to be our collective failure to deal with the killing of school children.
As for the “requires further study”–I don’t see why we need to put the brakes on high-polling, common sense notions: for example universal background checks and waiting periods, including gun show sales.
In this instance, I would say that if for some reason a new regulation turns out to be a problem, it will be relatively easy to reverse. Bear in mind that even if some of the more vociferous proponents of gun control want to get rid of them all, quite a few (including the aforementioned Emma Gonzalez) are not pushing that far. This is the opposite of a slippery slope situation. There is a large “centrist” contingent on this issue that will prevent going to extremes.
The problem with calling for “studies” is that NRA and the politicians that are aligned with their positions have been instrumental in cutting off funds for studies! When Center for Disease Control last did some studies, congress cut their budget by the amount used to pay for this research. Message received! It argument about needing more studies reminds me of the old joke about the kid that murders his parents and the lawyer pleads for mercy because the kid is an orphan. More studies would be great. We’d probably do a better job of decreasing fatalities from guns if we had more of them. Of course, as soon as we start getting results that curtail gun manufacturers profits, we will likely hear them screeching once again about researchers being biased, and other smokescreens. For this reason, a lot of people simply don’t believe the argument about needing more study is sincere, and assume it is being used as a delay tactic.
jonjova
[quote]Could you please try and re-articulate it in such a way that even a person like me would be able to understand it?
[/quote]
I am trying my best.
jonjova
[quote]I think we can both agree that making all guns disappear from the entire world is practically impossible.
However, I see your point is perhaps that we could try and restrict access through legislative power, yes?
Perhaps make them illegal, even?
But couldn’t that create an imbalance between criminals and civilians? Criminals would still be able to access guns.
[/quote]
Are you familiar with the term: “Perfect is the enemy of the good”?
The more obstacles to something happening, the less likely it will happen. That is a simple principle of nature, practically.
With more hoops to jump through, an individual would have to be that more more organized and be of clear intent, as opposed to caught up in an emotion or having a disorganized, irrational mind, or prone to lashing out or having poor impulse control. I don’t think criminals are the best at dotting i’s and crossing t’s. The ones that are capable of this probably aren’t particularly suicidal, as most mass murderers seem to be.
One last thought–it seems to me a good side benefit of having fewer highly deadly weapons in play is that our police would be in less danger, overall. Of course, it would remain a dangerous job, but maybe there would be fewer instances where police would panic and shoot first. Wouldn’t that be a nice little plus to add on to not having to worry about children being slaughtered?
[quote]The argument that we should fix something else “first” is often spurious.
[/quote]
You’re right, that was a bit sloppy formulated, i’m not against implementing stricter gun regulations, I just don’t think it’s what should be in the focus when trying to prevent school-shootings specifically.
Not at all. But I think trying solve problems without defining the actual problem is generally a very bad idea.
Just because you have good intentions does not mean you have good ideas.
I find it quite repulsive that people robust their arguments with protruding that they’re doing it for the greater good. Saying things like:
“Oh don’t you think children getting shot is a problem? You monster!”
How disgusting of a statement is that? They’re so high and blinded by their fabricated moral superiority that they’re willingly dancing on the graves of children to buffer their ideological, Utopian solutions without any effort to think, discuss and look things through.
Read an interesting article about this kind of thing today: http://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/
I think that’s a low resolution definition of the problem. They are surface manifestations of a deeper underlying issue.
I mean, we know exactly why they happen. The perps write and tell us in detail why they are doing what they’re doing.
The media masturbating to the perps doesn’t help.
[quote=“philfrei,post:42,topic:59357”]
Thank you~
I think we can both agree that what we’re talking about aren’t spur of the moment manifestations.
And I don’t think labeling the perps as irrational, disorganized and insane is accurate. I’m certainly not condoning their actions, not at all. But you’re doing a disservice to a truthful discussion about what and why they’re doing what they’re doing.
You’ll never not worry about your children so you can just throw that idea out right at the gate.
To a large extent I don’t think you can protect children, you can only help make them strong. Something like that. Now, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t protect children, obviously.
In the next decade everyone will have 3D printers and will be able to print out guns. Scientific progress will increase and ordinary people will have more and more access to more and more dangerous items.
I mean you can already make an incredibly destructive bomb with less than 50$ of household ingredients.
So I don’t think that guns are a sufficient definition of the problem at all.
And I think those trying to ban guns are in large part doing so to make themselves feel good without actually taking a deep, difficult and painful look into the problem.
I think threatening moderation action against one of our community members because he has differing politics absolutely reinforces the picture jon gave. Really in poor taste… Not everybody thinks the way you do.
Im lurking here, because I am very interested in this discussion, but the threat of moderation was rash. What forum rules have been violated? Is one not allowed to disagree with a Mod? I genuinely respect you Cas, but in all the years I have been here, that is the first thing you have done that has disappointed me.
The threat of moderation is real and getting closer.
Firstly the discussion was veering dangerously towards simple argument.
Secondly there is no place on the entire internet where this argument ends up either resolved or with more people friends with each other at the end of the argument than at the start of the discussion.
Thirdly you will find that questioning moderation decisions in public neither endears you to the moderators nor weakens their resolve.
I think this thread should be ended before it ends badly. What do you think?
Moderation action was “threatened” because this conversation is going nowhere. This is one of those topics where everybody wants to insert their own take, which ends up just being a bunch of people talking over each other.
I invite you to think about: what would it take to change your mind? If the answer is nothing, then what do you hope to get out of this thread?
The original post was perhaps related to Java game development, in that it mentioned video games. Obviously “video games cause violence” is an oversimplification, but I also think “video games are completely innocent” is also an oversimplification. It’s a complex issue, and part of that complexity is examining your own contributions to the problem. Society isn’t something that’s separate from us. It’s not an “us vs them” thing. We all contribute, and that can be a hard thing to think about. More thinking, less talking over each other.
Anyway I’m with princec. This thread should be closed.
Trying … really … hard not to say, before someone gets shot … damn! ;D
+1 to killing this thread. Mainly because it’s pointless, and I’m fed up of reading the same tired arguments flying back and forth without anyone actually taking anything in, while us bemused outsiders all think the whole thing is, well, frankly, a little odd.
Me, I’d have all your guns confiscated until you all feel you have the maturity to handle a Kinder Egg without killing yourselves! 
There’s probably a joke to be made about Cas being british and the vast majority of the people here (including myself) being American, and how he would be the one to go full anti-gun in this thread, but I can’t seem to think of it right now. It’s always sad to see old stereotypes being proven as true, though.
I’m genuinely curious if that’s true; I was under the impression that there were many Europeans here.
The joke is that Americans get on the internet and think they’re surrounded by extreme liberals, when in reality it’s just that America is much more conservative than the rest of the world, we just don’t know it. What we call liberal, the rest of the world calls normal.
[quote=“DarkCart,post:51,topic:59357”]
Agreed.
Chit-chat Monster here we come!
Yes, I thought so too! Proudly European and British :persecutioncomplex: here!
To be fair, what you call liberal doesn’t really bear much relationship to liberalism either. 
I don’t see how people are talking over each other in this thread. Unless you mean that arguments and points are being ignored by others, or questions being avoided or sidelined, then I guess you have a point.
People think by talking to each other. Almost nobody can actually think for themselves. It’s extremely hard, time consuming and painful. People need to talk with each other.
I think our community is relatively mature comparatively. I don’t think it’s self evidently the case that discussing a complex issue within our community would be counter productive.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here since it’s clouded by sarcasm and caricatures. But I wouldn’t be so hasty to pass judgement of what is considered normal or not by world standards. Yeah yeah I know you’re being sarcastic and hyperbolic, but still.
Nobody is going to learn anything from this thread. Nobody is going to change anybody else’s mind. Nobody is going to change their own mind. We can all dump our opinions on here, but what’s the point? What are we getting out of it? What is the site in general getting out of it?
There is one interesting and on-topic conversation in this thread that has a place on this forum, but it has long since been buried by noise.
Honest question: what do you hope to get out of this thread? What are you trying to learn? Is there a reason you’re trying to learn about it on a Java game development forum?
I wasn’t being sarcastic, I wasn’t painting any caricatures, and I made zero judgments. America is more conservative than most other developed countries, and I think we encounter a bit of culture shock when we start talking to people from other countries, and vice-versa. Evidence of that is in this very thread.
But again: what does any of this have to do with Java game development?
Nice to hear both sides of the story. Some great points made with colourful metaphors and quotes.
Here’s another interesting follow up article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/trump-s-violent-video-game-distraction-lags-out
[quote]Riccitiello, now the CEO of game engine startup Unity Technologies ApS, sat in a similar such discussion during the Obama administration. Riccitiello recalled telling Vice President Joe Biden, “There’s no issue.” Biden’s response: “If people think there’s an issue, there’s an issue. That’s the issue,” Riccitiello recalled. “He was so right. The theater allowed them to move on from it.”
[/quote]
A funny comment referenced in the article:
[quote]“If video games were the problem, Japan would be a slaughter house.”
[/quote]
I liked this Tweet. More on topic than a lot of our own discussion.
https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/972525315267399680
[quote]42% Of Americans Play video games for at least 3 hours per week.
Research shows that only 20% of Mass Shooters showed any interest in video games.
Call me crazy, but perhaps we need more video games…
[/quote]
That’s quite pessimistic and presumptuous in my opinion.
Something that would be useful to know so that I don’t have to walk straight into brick walls. I mean what do you hope to get out of discussing issues with other people in general? I don’t think it’s an accurate assumption that everyone is here only to spit out their opinion and leave. That’s why I was asking questions at the beginning, to try and get a better understanding of what was being meant. Asking questions is a key part of listening, a vital part in any kind of discussion.
Come on, man.
You’re saying that as if it’s obviously a bad thing. Those are two very broad categories.
Studies have been made between differences of Europe/America
I think it went something like this:
Java gaming -> Video game violence is bad -> no, guns are bad -> why? -> silence! ->