[QUOTE=bsquared;322073]malevolent people can still slaughter kids with semi-automatic or even with bolt-action guns. Maybe not as many, but that's splitting hairs.[/QUOTE]

You might not call it "splitting hairs" if it was your loved one that got away while a malevolent person was busy reloading or was using a handgun instead of an Uzi because of tougher gun laws.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the asinine argument, "doing X won't [i]completely[/i] solve the problem, so we should do nothing instead".

I do however agree with you that the attacker has every advantage. Defensive measures are mostly futile. Our county just voted to [strike]invest[/strike]squander $3M putting a sheriff in every elementary school for the rest of the year. In all likelihood if there had been a sheriff at the Connecticut school no lives would have been saved - and perhaps one more lost.

[quote=zeta-flux]And by the way, the U.S. did ban assault weapons. There was little to no effect on crime rates[/quote]

These high-profile mass shootings are rare enough that you won't find any meaningful evidence using crime rates.

[QUOTE=Prime95;322094]These high-profile mass shootings are rare enough that you won't find any meaningful evidence using crime rates.[/QUOTE]And yet these are what we fixate upon, ignoring the many other murders which, in total, make this one high-profile mass shooting pale in comparison. [But I ABSOLUTELY agree that we should ban these guns anyway. Make it as hard for them to do it as possible.]

[QUOTE=chappy;322071]Have you seen Japanese pop-culture? Makes American look like Pleasantville, no plague of mass shootings. Canada has just about the same pop-culture as the US, plus Tim Hortons--no plague of mass shootings.
[/QUOTE]

Considering the types of weapons used in mass shootings, what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among Japanese residents, what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among Canadian residents and what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among U.S. residents?

[QUOTE]Considering the types of weapons used in mass shootings, what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among Japanese residents, what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among Canadian residents and what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among U.S. residents?[/QUOTE]Note: We are not taking a position with this link.

[url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp[/url]

[QUOTE=Prime95;322094]You might not call it "splitting hairs" if it was your loved one that got away while a malevolent person was busy reloading or was using a handgun instead of an Uzi because of tougher gun laws.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the asinine argument, "doing X won't [i]completely[/i] solve the problem, so we should do nothing instead".

I do however agree with you that the attacker has every advantage. Defensive measures are mostly futile. Our county just voted to [strike]invest[/strike]squander $3M putting a sheriff in every elementary school for the rest of the year. In all likelihood if there had been a sheriff at the Connecticut school no lives would have been saved - and perhaps one more lost.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not advocating we do nothing. What I'm tired of is all the reactionary responses... someone attacks so we must defend. But you can't build a big enough shield. So look elsewhere for solutions. Some amount of defensive reaction might be ok, but I just don't want to focus solely on that. I also don't mean to give the wrong impression - I'm all for stricter gun control, I just don't think it will do much good. My point about splitting hairs was the opposite of the way you took it, which is to say, it won't help a victim's families any to learn that their loved one was murdered with a handgun vs. an assault rifle - the result is the same.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;322108]Note: We are not taking a position with this link.

[URL]http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp[/URL][/QUOTE]Your non-position-taking is kindly noted.

(Swiss gun-culture differs from that of Japan, Canada and USA, hence my country-specific inquiries ...)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;322103]Considering the types of weapons used in mass shootings, what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among Japanese residents, what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among Canadian residents and what is the rate of ownership of such weapons among U.S. residents?[/QUOTE]

It would seem you are making a separate argument Kasekoph. One that is much harder to ignore, for sure, but has little bearing on whether violent video games are causally related to violence.

Yes, Zeta you cry about ad hominems where there are none, yet poison the well at your first opportunity. Perhaps you see why arguing with you is hardly worth my time, so I will ask once again. Can you provide actual data to support your assertion that violent pop-culture leads to an increase in violent activity.

Your own wiki-quote shows that the majority of school shooters (in a minuscule sample) were not attracted to each of the violent aspects of popular culture. In fact, had you actually read the [URL="http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf"]report linked [/URL]you would have seen that the total of all three categories was 59%, meaning that there was considerable overlap in 'interest in violence.' All this becomes meaningless, however because as the writers of the report state very clearly: "There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence."

Further that [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies"]same article [/URL]makes the claim that while various aspects of popular culture are becoming more violent, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies#cite_ref-40"]juvenile violence is actually on the decline[/URL].

[QUOTE=chappy;322124]Yes, Zeta you cry about ad hominems where there are none,[/quote]Boo hoo hoo. Ad hominems. Boo hoo hoo. ;-)

[quote]yet poison the well at your first opportunity.[/quote]I suppose you are speaking of my statement about not taking my science from the Washington Post. I can see how you would interpret my statement that way. I probably should have said "I don't take my science from news agencies. Please link to the actual science article instead please." (But you are probably right that there was a little well-poisoning on my part, good call. I apologize for that.)

[quote]Perhaps you see why arguing with you is hardly worth my time, so I will ask once again. Can you provide actual data to support your assertion that violent pop-culture leads to an increase in violent activity.[/quote]To repeat myself, that is [b]not my claim[/b]. I don't know whether violent pop-culture leads to a significant [b]increase[/b] in violence. Just as I don't know that access to semiautomatic weapons leads to a significant increase in gun violence/deaths (in a country where we have access to other types of guns).

But it is clear to me that access to assault weaponry and access to the violent media culture, both contribute to the gun culture in this nation. (E.g. Can you honestly say that the Batman movies had no influence on the recent shooting at the theatre in Colorado?)

[quote]Your own wiki-quote shows that the majority of school shooters (in a minuscule sample) were not attracted to each of the violent aspects of popular culture. In fact, had you actually read the [URL="http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf"]report linked [/URL]you would have seen that the total of all three categories was 59%, meaning that there was considerable overlap in 'interest in violence.' All this becomes meaningless, however because as the writers of the report state very clearly: "There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence."

Further that [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies"]same article [/URL]makes the claim that while various aspects of popular culture are becoming more violent, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies#cite_ref-40"]juvenile violence is actually on the decline[/URL].[/QUOTE]I'll take a closer look at these articles. But again note, my claim wasn't about *increased* violence. I'm not out to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons because I think they have increased the level the violence. I just think they are a bad idea for society, and contribute to the violence. Same with the violent media.

In other words, I don't think that violent movies have made me more violent (I hope), but I don't think they have made the culture better either.

[URL="http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_38_1_15.pdf"]2007 article on the effects watching violent movies on the attitudes of youth[/URL]

[URL="http://bscw-app1.let.ethz.ch/pub/bscw.cgi/d5907573/HuesmannTaylor-The%20Role%20of%20Media%20Violence%20in%20Violent%20Behavio.pdf"]This 2006 article claims it does increase violence[/URL]

[URL="http://psi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/81"]A 2003 article that claims [/URL]"Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts" and "Short-term exposure increases the likelihood of physically and verbally aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions."

Then again, this [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_violence_research"]wiki article on media violence[/URL] suggests that these studies and others are incorrect.

So, what can we say? For all I know both sides are correct. Violent movies increases violent tendencies, but there may be other factors (such as, you have less time to be violent if you are in front of your TV) that decreases the total number of acts of violence in the nation. *shrug*

Reports are now coming out that Adam Lanza spent hours locked in the basement playing violent video games, such as Call of Duty. [URL="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/playtime_in_den_of_doom_vYB2VlXSBEW8Di7pMo1leJ"]NY post article[/URL]

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;322068]Absolutely brilliant thought analysis in your posting NBtarheel_33. If you are OK with it, I would like to provide your posting as a link in a debate that I am having right now with someone.


Gary[/QUOTE]

Please do. Good thoughtful debate has too long taken a back seat in this country to the bluffing, "chicken-playing", I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine, and "my dog's bigger than your dog" tactics that prevent serious discussion of nearly every topic or idea pertinent to running the country today. It will get easier as the days go ahead, and the Christmas season ends, and the media trucks pack up and pull away, for the town to drop fifty or a hundred grand on a nice little monument for the dead and then for the whole country to let what happened sink deep into their minds without making any changes or bettering our lifestyle. Everyone needs to keep the image in their minds of an entire Little League teeball game PLUS two, being mowed down in three minutes, and that all that blood is on this country's hands until we take a step to ensure it never happens again.