From Diane
Part II
“We need to have some sort of informational database where troubled folks are somehow flagged to prevent ownership.”
Some jurisdictions require background checks for gun purchases, and waiting periods. A national approach might work better as checks could be to a national database instead of relying on just one State’s records.
“We can ban assault weapons and high capacity clips and large orders of rounds but it’s already too late. Even if the ban were to take effect tomorrow there are so many weapons out there now it would be meaningless.”
I disagree. This attitude stops people from doing anything at all and that is a mistake. Start with laws controlling what guns could be sold today and tomorrow and then slowly implement progressively stringent restrictions on guns sold prior to the new laws taking effect. One additional thing that could be done immediately is the banning of sales of high capacity clips. 6-8 rounds max. Ammo manufacturers could design and sell such low volume clips and the fact that they would be relatively inefficient and expensive/round works to the advantage of those who would reduce firepower.
“1. Programmed indifference. We live in a video game world.”
This is absolutely a must to correct. Video games do not have to have as their OBJECTIVE the killing of people with bonus points for headshots. The fact that the people are not “us” does not justify the killing. We could start with banning the manufacture and/or sale of games that use killing of people to “win.” Later, mere possession would be illegal as we know well that such games would be smuggled into the country. Still, you have to start somewhere and people knowing that these games were illegal, particularly teenagers, would cast the games in a negative light whereas today, they are accepted as reasonable by all ages.
“2. Mental health. We have failed to protect our citizens from troubled individuals…”
I don’t think the problem is protecting us from the mentally ill. The problem is failure to TREAT the mentally ill. The second half of the 20th century saw massive closings of mental hospitals and state mental institutions. As is often the case, we went for the easy fix. Eliminate the symptom of a problem not the root. These closures were undertaken to address the abysmal situations in many mental health facilities but that was it! And where were the mentally ill to go? Who knew and fewer cared. The do-gooders relieved the poor, mentally ill persons of their abuse. They did NOT address in any way the causes of mental illness or provide meaningful alternatives to the “Bedlams” that then existed. In addition, while there were bad mental hospitals, there were also good ones and they went too. The baby with the bath water.
We need to institute a comprehensive, nationwide mental health program along with the facilities to house and treat those who truly cannot function in the real world. It is time to stop pretending that certain classes of mentally ill individuals are never really a danger to others by hiding behind the added phrase, “as long as they stay on their meds.” We all know that too often, they DON’T stay on their meds and then chaos and sometimes disaster ensues. Additionally, medical needs change over time and without proactive monitoring, people whose mental acuity is compromised will fail to receive the adjustments to drug protocols that they need.
“No Internet sales direct to a residence, no same day gun purchases at gun shows.” These are no-brainers but as yet, thanks to heavy lobbying by gun manufacturers and enthusiasts, these obvious and simple measures have not been implemented. The question to be answered here is, “Which is more important? Trying to protect citizens from those who would use guns to commit criminal acts or making the acquisition of guns and ammo easier for legitimate gun enthusiasts?”
“3. Assault weapons.”
I suggest doing away with addressing TYPE of gun and focus on mode of OPERATION instead. Any weapon that fires a missile of any kind and can do so more than 6-8 times without reloading should be classified as military grade. Ban military grade weapons in the civilian marketplace. Prohibit their acquisition by civilians AND as above, prohibit civilians from selling, purchasing or importing any device that can hold more than 6-8 rounds. Also, make simple possession of any magazine or clip capable of holding more than 8 rounds subject to HEAVY fines and much LONGER jail terms than now handed out. Mandatory fines of tens of thousands of dollars, not a few hundred and 5-10 years in jail instead of 6-12 months after the first offense. Where to put this raft of new prisoners? How about ending the War on Drugs, Marijuana Division. By releasing immediately every person convicted of possessing less than a year’s supply of marijuana and passing laws to regulate that substance in much the same way as alcohol is regulated, our prisons would magically depopulate substantially.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/persons-arrested/persons-arrested
“The highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1,531,251 arrests)” of which 43.3% were for possession of marijuana (approx 663,032 arrests).
NORML estimates that across the country, approx 100,000 are currently incarcerated for possession of marijuana.
While I agree with most of what you wrote about new gun regulations, I couldn’t disagree more about your take on video games. Not only is there no credible study indicating that violent video games cause more aggressive behavior, there is actually new evidence indicating no link at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/19/as-video-game-sales-climb-year-over-year-violent-crime-continues-to-fall/
I think that while it may be easy to try to blame violent video games for mass shootings, the data just doesn’t support such a claim. Also, I really hate censorship. I don’t feel books, movies, or video games should be banned. They should be properly labeled, as they are now, but not banned. I believe it was Mark Twain who said, “Censorship is like telling a grown man he can’t eat a steak because a baby can’t chew it.” Censorship is one the most effective ways of destroying the freedom of speech.
Good luck with any laws that confiscate or make illegal any gun or type of magazine already out there in circulation. I just can’t see that happening. We can start with more sensible laws but its going to be hard. A while back Virginia tried to limit the number of guns a person can buy (can anyone really need to buy several a month?) and it failed.
@Doubtful
I don’t think your point is valid. When automobiles first came on the scene, there were no restrictions at all as to who could drive them or where they could go, other than obvious physical limitations.
As more and more automobiles hit the roads, laws were passed restricting where one could drive, how fast, WHO could operate a motor vehicle, etc. So no, people can and will accept new and greater restriction of their freedom IF a good case can be made for the new restrictions.
What gun control activists need to worry about is pushing through laws based on bad science, or inadequate reasoning ONLY because of people’s heightened awareness of the potential for tragedy. If they do that, and I believe ardent anti-gun types would have no compunction about taking advantage of the post-Sandy Hook climate, those laws will backfire in two ways. One, they will get struck down in the courts and two, they will paint the more moderate gun/ammo regulation forces with the same discredit as the extremists which will make reasonable regulation of firearms more difficult.
@TPOV
Read the Forbes article. Good, documented, and open-minded. However, here is another take from someone commenting on another article,
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/06221619795/study-links-violent-video-games-macbeth-effect.shtml
“But violent media does desensitize people who consume it. The ridiculous claim is that violent media can actively make people violent. Desensitization works like this: We have psychological barriers when it comes to harming other people. Violence is just shocking to us, and thus hard to commit. On top of that, we have moral barriers: most of us believe it’s wrong to harm others and thus we do not do it.
“By becoming familiar with scenes of violence and gore, we are less shocked by violence and thus, if we wanted to hurt somebody for any reason, we might be less hesitant to do it. To be clear: Violent media would not make us WANT to hurt people, but it would make us less likely to resist those urges should we have them.”
The breakdown of psychological barriers is a phenomenon we have all experienced. If you are repeatedly exposed to something that repulses you, over time, you become inured to it. The reaction of an animal rescue worker, who for the first time sees a dead, bludgeoned cat hanging from a chain link fence, is horror at such inhumanity. By the time that person has seen a few hundred animals who have been tortured to death, his/her reaction will not be as strong. Cops on the beat learn to take violence in stride. The more often we are exposed to violence, the less visceral is our response to it.
The commenter continues. “As for the moral barriers: media can teach us that sometimes violence is justified. The media doesn’t have to be violent to teach us that, but usually it is. As an example, think of CSI: Miami and how Horatio Caine, the main police guy, regularly takes justice into his own hands and beats up a pedophile, a cop killer and on another occasion let another pedophile die when he could have saved him. The message sent by the media is clear: the worst criminals deserve to be beaten/die.
“Now imagine Average Joe is watching this show. He believes killing is always wrong… He watches the show and he’s basically told “hey, society actually approves of killing pedophiles you know?”. His moral barriers weaken a little. After repeated exposure to such messages, his moral barriers weaken very much… Now that won’t make Average Joe go out to hunt and kill pedophiles. But if something happens in his life that makes him want to kill pedophiles (maybe one day his nephew is abducted by a pedophile), then Average Joe will no longer think “killing is wrong, even in the case of pedophiles”: his moral barrier will no longer be there.”
The point here is that the degree to which we view violence as WRONG can be reduced by repeated exposure to violent media when it is presented in a positive context. While I am sure you oppose killing people, haven’t you ever watched a movie about a guy whose family is threatened and violated or a woman who is repeatedly beaten and raped and then rooted for that person when they finally turned on and killed their tormenter? Remember how popular the Dixie Chicks’ recording “Goodbye Earl” was? And the full version of Garth Brooks’ “The Thunder Rolls”?
In short, viewing violence, whether in movies, video games, sports or our jobs, may not cause us to kill but it can make us less likely to resist the urge to do so.
@TPOV
While I dislike censorship, I realize that like with limits on free speech (FIRE! in a crowded auditorium, blatant lies about a neighbor), there are times when censoring material is valid. In my elementary school we sometimes got to watch short movies when it was raining and we couldn’t go outside to play. I doubt anyone here would think that including a porno short would have been acceptable.
I’ve never seen child pornography but my mind can conjure up some pretty horrific images. It is illegal to POSSESS child porn and yet, what harm is visited on anyone else if the owner of cp views it on his own computer? Clearly, none. That harm befell the children in the making of the video is true but the purchaser himself harmed no one. The stuff is illegal to possess because if men want it, they create a market and thus encourage others to abuse children to satisfy that market. Because the damage done in creating cp is so great, the material is banned, both the making of AND the possession of it. That is a judgment call, a weighing of the freedom to see and own what we want and the harm some things create by their very existence.
Diane,
The article you linked to does not support your assertion at all. Indeed the quotes you have seem to come from anonymous posters talking about the article, not the article itself.
Thanks,
Kevin
The study is interesting, but mostly theoretical, not statistical. I think part of the problem is people don’t differentiate between causation and correlation. Is it true that many mass shooters played violent video games? Perhaps. But does that mean the video games caused the violence? Or is someone mentally ill and aggressive just more likely to play those video games? I would need to see statistical evidence with hard data linking video games to the cause of aggressive behavior manifesting before I would support such a hit on our free speech rights. Some studies find that by being able to express some of their violent tendencies in the safe setting of a video game, it actually reduces real life aggressive behavior.
Also, the Supreme Court already decided on this last year with a 7-2 vote.
“On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors’ rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html
The murders at Sandy Hook Elementary are beyond horror, as well as every other murder and abortion committed. Just this year Governor Malloy let out of prison early three violent offenders who had bad behavior in prison and these same three robbed and murdered convience store clerks with guns. No uproar from anybody and the get out of jail early program still is cranking out violent offenders from our prisons even though they have had bad behavior their entire time in prison. It is time for you who hate the 2nd ammendment defend your positions; I suggest you put a sign in front of your home for all to see that you do not own a gun and are against them. While you are out campaigning to ban guns, maybe you can attach a rider to it and ban spoons and we can end obesity at the same time.
@Kevin
That is what I said. “However, here is another take from someone commenting on another article”
I only provided the link so you could see where the comments came from.
Isn’t there a difference between dong it to yourself and doing it to someone else, Mary?
Diane,
Missed that, thanks.