Gun Control

2000, I'm glad we've established that you are in favor of the censorship state. I'll paraphrase a famous quote to summarize my opposition to that: "Censorship is a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime."

Not only that, but even a Big Brother government that attempts to control attitudes and opinions of its citizens, can't. Though I grant you they can do a solid job of it; ref. Russia and China. Not that those models are the ones I'd like to see followed, but we all have a different idea of what makes America, I suppose...

This underscores one thing really. You don't really give a rip about freedoms and liberties. Actually restraining government from authoritarian impulses is met with a stunning shrug and a "Hey, uncensored media content is not in the Constitution." You *just* want to keep your guns. That's fine. Beautiful, even. But stop blathering about any freedom other than that of gun ownership.

Glad we established that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
2000, I'm glad we've established that you are in favor of the censorship state. I'll paraphrase a famous quote to summarize my opposition to that: "Censorship is a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime."

Not only that, but even a Big Brother government that attempts to control attitudes and opinions of its citizens, can't. Though I grant you they can do a solid job of it; ref. Russia and China. Not that those models are the ones I'd like to see followed, but we all have a different idea of what makes America, I suppose...

This underscores one thing really. You don't honestly give a rip about freedoms and liberties. Actually restraining government from authoritarian impulses is met with a stunning shrug and a "Hey, uncensored media content is not in the Constitution." You *just* want to keep your guns.

Glad we established that.
Click to expand...
#JimJefferies
 
zoogs said:
2000, I'm glad we've established that you are in favor of the censorship state. I'll paraphrase a famous quote to summarize my opposition to that: "Censorship is a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime."
Click to expand...

Kind of unrelated but I was just listening to a podcast that was talking about the correlation between someone's propensity towards using their non-dominant hand for tasks and their likelihood of accepting authoritarian power structures isn't that neat?

 
http://allpsych.com/journal/violentmedia/

The Psychological Effects of Violent Media on ChildrenEverything that children see or hear in the media early on in their lives affects them in some way. Positive parenting role models indicate that in the best interest of our children we should limit their exposure to violent acts. Unfortunately, violence is one of the most popular forms of entertainment. Over sixty percent of television shows being shown in prime time contain some form of violence. There are two very opposite sides of this issue. The media who market the violent television, video games and other forms of entertainment argue this is safe entertainment and the others argue that violence promotes violence

Current research tends to agree with the proponents who argue that violent media is associated with aggressive behavior. Risky behavior by children and young adults can include violence against others, lack of remorse for consequences. The type of faulty thinking creates stressors in children which can lead to the onset of many different symptoms. Children who view media violence are more likely to have increased feelings of hostility, decreased emotional response to the portrayal of violence and injury that lead to violent behavior through imitation. An example here would be the television show Jack a$$. There have been several accidents related to young men attempting stunts that are done on the show. The act of imitating what they have seen on a television show causes injury to themselves or others around them.
Click to expand...
 
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1495

Exposure to violence in media, including television, movies, music, and video games, represents a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents. Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed. Pediatricians should assess their patients' level of media exposure and intervene on media-related health risks. Pediatricians and other child health care providers can advocate for a safer media environment for children by encouraging media literacy, more thoughtful and proactive use of media by children and their parents, more responsible portrayal of violence by media producers, and more useful and effective media ratings. Office counseling has been shown to be effective.
Click to expand...
 
What amount of federal government sanitation of media do you think will solve this problem of people existing who decide to kill other people?

 
I think it's hilarious that supposedly we should be able to rid society of all violent images and exposure, make all persons model parents and eliminate abortion to boot (all apparently through government intervention and adoption of new laws) but dadgummit we can't pass one single, sensible gun law because THAT would infringe on our Constitutional rights. Hold that thought while I reload this bowl of popcorn.

Does anybody know, are there any other rights conferred on us citizens in the US Constitution except for the right to bear arms? Or, does that pretty much cover our only right?

 
Question: How many of HuskerBoard users here have been exposed to violent media? I'd guess pretty much all of us. How many of us have went on killing sprees? I'd guess none of us.

Psychological research deems a relationship causal if there's random assignment of individuals by the researcher before manipulating the independent variable while controlling for all possible confounds. The problem with this line of research is that it is so riddled with confounds that obfuscate any link between violent media and violent behavior. There can't possibly be a causal link between violent media and violent behavior because there are so many non-violent consumers of violent media. So there's more than likely a very very very very very very very very very specific subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup individuals for whom we can say violent media causes violent behavior--we're likely to never find that subgroup of individuals.

So is censoring violent media a practical way of reducing mass shootings. I highly doubt it, and violent media research doesn't bolster the argument.

 
It'sNotAFakeID said:
Question: How many of HuskerBoard users here have been exposed to violent media? I'd guess pretty much all of us. How many of us have went on killing sprees? I'd guess none of us.

Psychological research deems a relationship causal if there's random assignment of individuals by the researcher before manipulating the independent variable while controlling for all possible confounds. The problem with this line of research is that it is so riddled with confounds that obfuscate any link between violent media and violent behavior. There can't possibly be a causal link between violent media and violent behavior because there are so many non-violent consumers of violent media. So there's more than likely a very very very very very very very very very specific subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup individuals for whom we can say violent media causes violent behavior--we're likely to never find that subgroup of individuals.

So is censoring violent media a practical way of reducing mass shootings. I highly doubt it, and violent media research doesn't bolster the argument.
Click to expand...

Come one now, you are way smarter than this (see first bold). To the second bold - I never said we should do this just for mass shootings, but for violence in general, to help curb all violence.

It is funny, people are complaining about my suggestion infringing on there right to violence, but yet have no problem infringing on the rights of gun owners. I guess my suggestion hit closer to home for some than further gun control does.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huskerfan2000 said:
It'sNotAFakeID said:
Question: How many of HuskerBoard users here have been exposed to violent media? I'd guess pretty much all of us. How many of us have went on killing sprees? I'd guess none of us.

Psychological research deems a relationship causal if there's random assignment of individuals by the researcher before manipulating the independent variable while controlling for all possible confounds. The problem with this line of research is that it is so riddled with confounds that obfuscate any link between violent media and violent behavior. There can't possibly be a causal link between violent media and violent behavior because there are so many non-violent consumers of violent media. So there's more than likely a very very very very very very very very very specific subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup individuals for whom we can say violent media causes violent behavior--we're likely to never find that subgroup of individuals.

So is censoring violent media a practical way of reducing mass shootings. I highly doubt it, and violent media research doesn't bolster the argument.
Click to expand...

Come one now, you are way smarter than this (see first bold). To the second bold - I never said we should do this just for mass shootings, but for violence in general, to help curb all violence.

It is funny, people are complaining about my suggestion infringing on there right to violence, but yet have no problem infringing on the rights of gun owners. I guess my suggestion hit closer to home for some than further gun control does.
Click to expand...
Well first of all, nobody has a right to violence. That's against the law.

Second of all, how does more stringent regulations regarding "weapons capable of killing many many people" infringe on the rights of gun owners. And why should I, as a non gun owner allow my rights to be trampled on in favor of gun owner rights?

 
Back
Top