Trump shifts blame to violent video games, movies in gun violence discussion

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

And that argument just washes away in the sand, because the ratio should be the same.  The only thing that has changed is that access to guns has gotten more strict (at the law abiding level, anyway).

Is the ratio still the same? I'm sure there is data on it.

[yuna628 9,533]

11 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't think back when my parents were young it was considered normal to hover over your kids, helicopter parent, schedule their every waking hour or even necessarily carve out one on one time. i think it was more acceptable back in the 60s-80s to leave kids home alone or turn them loose on the neighborhood from dawn till dusk, the whole 'kids are to be seen not heard' sort of thing. that isn't socially acceptable now, for parents trying to be 'good parents'. but also, i don't think having a kid involved in multiple afterschool activities and staring at a phone the whole time is being 'hands on' either.

i pretty much had one rule with my son when he was little. he wasn't allowed to go to church without me, so basically he wasn't going ever. it's always struck me as ironic that as strict as my parents tried to be with me when i was young, they'd drop me off in a brand new church and leave me with whatever sunday school teacher to be indoctrinated. if a friend invited me to go to church with them, it was no problem (my first exposure to speaking in tongues, lol). i spent weeks in a multi-denominational church camp where my parents had no idea what was being taught.

My dad had very hands off parents... so when he was young he spent most of his days playing skipping school, playing baseball, getting into fights, racing cars, burning fields, hanging with the wrong people, attempting unsuccessfully to rob an old lady who beat him soundly with her purse (go her!), and generally becoming an alcoholic - before he made the decision to change. His siblings faired no better for a while. No hands on parenting for him, and tbh he was never really hands on with me or any of my siblings. The religious way we were raised gives the appearance of being hands on, but it's not really. It's a form of really unhealthy control. They may have attempted to control the content of everything we learned and consumed, but spent little time actually being interested in us. That affected me greatly... and I think that will ultimately cause me to raise my kids very differently. Each generation has their various hang-ups, and pass it on to the next. Hopefully in the future we can choose better for our kids, and give them the tools they need to succeed.

[smilesammich 10,727]

27 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Blocking internet at home is an exercise in futility.  Libraries, schools, Internet cafes... too many ways for kids to find whatever they want.  I TALKED to my kids about porn and social sites, but never blocked them, except one time when my daughter gave WAY too much info to a stranger, I took her FB account away for a month.  But was it really effective? She could just create another at school.  I don’t think she did, she seemed to learn from it, but one never knows.

 

I very much disagree with you on parents being more hands-on today.  No way.  There are SOME who are, but those tend to be like you describe... ultra-religious, home schooling, never let their kids outta their sight types.  As my kids grew up, I got to see just how little other parents interacted with their kids, and I found it sad.  Not that I am a great parent or anything, but I always knew where my kids were, told them multiple times a day that I loved them, and tried to stay in touch, even if they were away from me.  

 

Perhaps your son is more sensitive to other people; I know my son is.  He’s just a kind person, has been since birth.  Muscula & brawny today, very strong physically, but always considers the feelings of others.  Daughter?  Not so much.  It seems she gives little thought to how her actions may affect others.  Different kids, same parents, different attitudes.  People die, and she doesn’t appear to be fazed much.  But let an animal get hurt, and she’s all over it, taking care, etc.  Wants to be a vet.  

 

Just keep doing what you are doing, and be thankful that your son is the way he is.  Part of it is due to you, part of it is him, but all that matters is that he turns out to be a productive member of society.  

and like i said, i've never tried to filter much with my kid. i would rather have my kid feel comfortable talking to me about what he's seen than be afraid he'll get in trouble if i found out. i have been very lucky that my kid is mostly a homebody like me and he thinks drugs/drinking is for losers. when i was his age i was a pothead stealing mad dog after school, passing out in parking lots. got good grades though and had a job. those two things my son is lacking..but i'll take it.

i guess i just don't know any bad parents, i don't see it.

 

24 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

And that argument just washes away in the sand, because the ratio should be the same.  The only thing that has changed is that access to guns has gotten more strict (at the law abiding level, anyway).

 

Males are more prone to violence because strength and dominance are in our DNA. That permeates the entire animal kingdom and has since time began.  Even when the West was wild, you didn’t hear of too many lady gunslingers.

ratio? overcrowding is an issue. city life is different than country life primarily because of population density and the stress that lifestyle brings. more people to fall through the cracks.

yes, men have more testosterone than women. ever heard of toxic masculinity? i think those dated social norms have more to do with tendencies towards violence than 'strength and dominance'. women have always been able to hold their own. also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

Edited March 8, 2018 by smilesammich

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

My dad had very hands off parents... so when he was young he spent most of his days playing skipping school, playing baseball, getting into fights, racing cars, burning fields, hanging with the wrong people, attempting unsuccessfully to rob an old lady who beat him soundly with her purse (go her!), and generally becoming an alcoholic - before he made the decision to change. His siblings faired no better for a while. No hands on parenting for him, and tbh he was never really hands on with me or any of my siblings. The religious way we were raised gives the appearance of being hands on, but it's not really. It's a form of really unhealthy control. They may have attempted to control the content of everything we learned and consumed, but spent little time actually being interested in us. That affected me greatly... and I think that will ultimately cause me to raise my kids very differently. Each generation has their various hang-ups, and pass it on to the next. Hopefully in the future we can choose better for our kids, and give them the tools they need to succeed.

i absolutely agree here. absolutely.

[-Trinity- 513]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

I started going into Pubs when I was 16, not that often, I had no money. But the US attitude to many things is strange.

 

To be fair I also remember shops in the Uk that sold guns like in the US and we had a school shooting range, mention that now and look at the horror.

 

We had a school disco when I was 16 and some girl high decided she could fly out of a window, first and last disco.

That's funny, didn't know that about the UK. In the Netherlands they would react the same, but as far as I know weapons are banned 100 years ago.

 

You can still get a permit, but they have very strict regulations.

 

 

 

 

[Boiler 43,622]

I remeber as a kid walking to the Football Ground with my Grandfather and there was a Sport Shop we would stop at, for the life of me I can not remember why..

 

Anyway they did Fishing. Guns etc.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

Is the ratio still the same? I'm sure there is data on it.

Similar is probably a better word.  

 

1970 - Population: 205 million.  Guns: 112 million

2015 - Population: 321 million.  Guns: 300 million

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/06/firearms-numbers-in-united-states-1945.html

 

 

The U.S. population increased from 133 million in 1945 to 313 million in 2012, a 135% increase in population, or over a 200% increase in the number of guns per capita.  Guns per capita rose from .35 in 1945, to 1.1 guns per capita in 2012.

(Not a source I’d be the farm on, but hard to find good statistics that far back). http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/06/firearms-numbers-in-united-states-1945.html

 

 

As can be seen here, gun ownership has been decreasing for years.  Meaning less families with guns, but more guns per those families.  One can infer that less people are able to “touch” a gun today than 10-20 years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.08a384bc54f5

 

What seems to be overlooked is the fact that while the total number of guns in the US has risen every year (but does not account for discarded weapons as they age/break), the number of households which has guns has decreased, and the amount of gun crime has also decreased.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

That's funny, didn't know that about the UK. In the Netherlands they would react the same, but as far as I know weapons are banned 100 years ago.

 

You can still get a permit, but they have very strict regulations.

When I was a kid in school, we had kids with guns in their vehicles driving to school every day.  We carried knives into classrooms.   No one ever got shot or stabbed at my school.  Ever.

[-Trinity- 513]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Good points.  When I think of games and what we watch as things that influence actions today, I don’t think the game itself nor the movies or media we watch to be the actual culprits themselves.  Rather, it is what has become “normal” in today’s society.  When I was a kid, video games had very little direct violence, only remote (space invaders, Galaxians, Galaga, Pac Man).  You killed “things”, not people.  My son played Halo.   You kill each other, but little graphic gore. Now we have COD, GTA, MW etc.  All first-person shooters, with much gore.  

 

We see bloodshed on TV and online.  TV does not try to shield our kids from any of it; if that happens, it is ONLY at the parent level.  Much more fantasy cartoons and such, anime, etc.  A paradigm shift in what kids see as normal today.

 

None of this will make anyone more violent; that comes (or doesn’t) from within.  But the idea that violence is more normal today is certainly out there, and for a younger developing person, I think that changes how they perceive they can act.

I think, and believe that when kids are exposured to a certain level of violence, it will influence them, they can get num.

 

Obviously it's more complicated then this. But if excessive use of tablets or other mobile devices have the same effect on childrens brains as cocaine, would it be unrealistic to think that violent video games can effect their brains too?

 

I was reading today ( before I even read this thread)  about a 14 year old boy, who killed his parents couple months ago. They described what he was doing the days before, and the day of the murder itself, he was playing videogames, and on one of the gaming websites he announced a couple times that he was planning to kill his parents.

 

It made me wonder; in what world was he living in? And what about the people he told that he was going to kill them.

 

Anyhow, not saying that the videogames did it, but if someone already has a mental problem issue, are violent games the right leisure for that person?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by -Trinity-

[-Trinity- 513]

35 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

When I was a kid in school, we had kids with guns in their vehicles driving to school every day.  We carried knives into classrooms.   No one ever got shot or stabbed at my school.  Ever.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

I don't think it will ever go back to how it was again. Simply because the world has changed, and will continue to do so.

[smilesammich 10,727]

38 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

When I was a kid in school, we had kids with guns in their vehicles driving to school every day.  We carried knives into classrooms.   No one ever got shot or stabbed at my school.  Ever.

i think most people can say that, no one ever got shot or stabbed AT my school either. there was one gun related suicide that i remember, one accidental shooting. but they didn't occur at school.

[bcking 3,157]

40 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Similar is probably a better word.  

 

1970 - Population: 205 million.  Guns: 112 million

2015 - Population: 321 million.  Guns: 300 million

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/06/firearms-numbers-in-united-states-1945.html

 

 

The U.S. population increased from 133 million in 1945 to 313 million in 2012, a 135% increase in population, or over a 200% increase in the number of guns per capita.  Guns per capita rose from .35 in 1945, to 1.1 guns per capita in 2012.

(Not a source I’d be the farm on, but hard to find good statistics that far back). http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/06/firearms-numbers-in-united-states-1945.html

 

 

As can be seen here, gun ownership has been decreasing for years.  Meaning less families with guns, but more guns per those families.  One can infer that less people are able to “touch” a gun today than 10-20 years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.08a384bc54f5

 

What seems to be overlooked is the fact that while the total number of guns in the US has risen every year (but does not account for discarded weapons as they age/break), the number of households which has guns has decreased, and the amount of gun crime has also decreased.

 Based on those numbers guns have seen a 260% increase, versus the overall population which has seen a 150% increase (roughly).

 

I wouldn't call those two increases "similar". I'm pretty sure if we did the calculation they would be significantly different.

 

Not saying the relative increase in guns is important in any way...but it does at least seem like the numbers have increased on a per capital basis in a significant way.

 

Interesting though about the "per household" data though...crazy gun hoarders

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

Did anyone mention the fact that they(conservative gun advocates) are trying to neuter the 1st amendment to protect the second?

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[smilesammich 10,727]

29 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Did anyone mention the fact that they(conservative gun advocates) are trying to neuter the 1st amendment to protect the second?

 

 

i think it's just about blaming anything but guns. notice it's never about mental illness when chicago gun violence is brought up..its not about video games and movies when it's a 60 some year old guy shooting up a concert or a baseball practice. 

[Merle 458]

10 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i think it's just about blaming anything but guns. notice it's never about mental illness when chicago gun violence is brought up..its not about video games and movies when it's a 60 some year old guy shooting up a concert or a baseball practice. 

Chicago's gun violence is commited primarily by gang bangers who are criminals. If their guns were taken away I'm sure they wouldnt become law abiding pillars of the community.