Shooting Lawsuit Against id Software Dismissed 383
greg writes: "I saw on Bluesnews that the lawsuit against id Software over the Paducah County school shootings has been dismissed.
Here is a link to id CEO Todd Holleshead's .plan file." Sounds like a sigh of relief from id -- just think of the implications if the judge had gone the other way. (Remember the PMRC?)
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Am I missing something?
You're living in fantasy land... (Score:2)
And just how do you propose to do that? You won't be getting any gun of mine; I promise you that. And I know that many, many other people will keep their guns.
Face it, guns are here to stay. The arguments for banning guns sound *so* similar to the arguments in favor of the encryption export laws, which people here are so against.
Still, I can understand the anti-gun position of most people here. If I had been indoctrinated all my life to fear guns, I'd probably hold hoplophobic opinions, too.
If you *really* look at the statistics...I mean *really* look, with an open mind...you will find that gun ownership does not lead to an increase in murders. But you have to be open-minded and intellectually honest in order to see that.
One pointer...compare murder rates in North Dakota and Saskatchewan. See what you come up with.
New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
/bin/tcsh: Try it; you'll like it.
Re:The McDonald's Thing (Score:2)
Re:Yes but if someone wants to kill me with a knif (Score:2)
Why do I care what a criminal uses to kill me? I want a gun precisely because it's easy to use and very effective. I don't want to try to fight off an attacker with a knife. I'm not a big guy and I probably wouldn't win. The guy has no right to be in my home and no right to threaten my life. If he decides to do those things, I should be well within my rights to shoot him on the spot. I'm not going to play games of chance when it comes to defending myself and my family. I do believe that a person should have to take a training course in order to own a gun though. That would drastically cut down on the stupid accidents that happen when some moron doesn't know how to properly use, clean, and store a gun.
Re:Guns don't kill ppl, ppl with guns kill ppl. (Score:2)
When it comes to defending myself and my family I'm not going to try to fight off someone with a knife. I'm not going to play games with him. I'm not a big guy and I'm not going to take that kind of chance. It would be stupid. I'm going to shoot the bastard right then and there. I have a much better chance of eliminating the threat that way. Even if the intruder has a gun, I still have a fairly even chance of killing or incapacitating him before he gets me. The odds would be much worse if I didn't have a gun. I'm not willing to take that chance.
not Signal11 ...read the name again (Score:2)
Re:If you want to see something really scary... (Score:2)
Re:If you want to see something really scary... (Score:2)
Re:Damn that annoys me... (Score:2)
A mistake from a gun can end a life - my life, because you made an error in judgement.
By your logic we should outlaw cars. An error in judgement can kill many people, and does, in fact, kill several orders of magnitude more people every year than guns do. Yet I hear nobody crying for the banning of motor vehicles. "Ah, but they're useful" people will say. So what? A gun is very useful to me in providing a defense for my home and family. Is it my fault that some idiots don't know how to take responsibility for a gun? Why should I have the only reasonably effective means of defending my family taken away because of someone else's incompetence? Aside from requiring training (and/or a competence test) for the purchase of a gun, I don't believe I should be restricted in any way from owning weapons for sport or defense. Such training and testing should cut down on the number of accidents quite a bit. Then the vast majority of gun-related injuries and deaths will be caused by criminals, just as they would if you banned guns altogether. (More on this later)
I don't trust anyone's judgement, thus I'd like to see guns removed from society.
Just like they've removed drugs from society. Just like prohibition removed alcohol and its evil effects such as crime from society, right? Wake up. If you ban guns, people will want them even more, because they will suddenly feel defenseless. There will be many people willing to provide those guns too, because it will become a much more lucrative business, just like drugs. Suddenly only criminals and the government will have weapons. As someone who doesn't trust the judgement of others, surely you can understand that people will not like such a situation where they feel even more at the mercy of those in power. I don't trust the judgement of others all that much either. That's exactly why I want the right to possess a gun. In case their bad judgement leads them to assault me or my family.
Try this article [the-times.co.uk] if you'd like to see some numbers. Gun violence is actually rising in the UK now, despite the gun ban. This illustrates the point that it's not legal owners of guns that are the problem. It's the criminals who don't give a damn about any gun ban anyway.
Re:Damn that annoys me... (Score:2)
That's an argument?
This Internet thing must be really growing. We seem to be living on different planets or something. I'm saying this because on my planet, real effects tend to matter a bit more than intentions. Just because cars weren't intended to kill people, doesn't mean they don't do it quite effectively. Should we just make our decisions based on intentions from now on? I think I'll end this post right now before I say something very sarcastic. Thank you, drive through.
Re:Yes but if someone wants to kill me with a knif (Score:2)
Actually, in my case, the odds would be better if I and the attacker both had a gun rather than him having a knife or bat or whatever and me having access to a similar weapon. I'm not big and I probably wouldn't stand much of a chance if it comes to hand-to-hand fighting. At least with a gun, the odds are a bit more even. If I've practiced enough, the odds might even be in my favor.
Damn that annoys me... (Score:2)
but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer? (Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't)
Funny how we immediately jump on guns as the reason our country isn't as safe as we think it should be. If we just take away everyone's guns, they won't be able to hurt themselves or others. Damn! It's like we're to be treated like a bunch of kids! I'm not a damn kid. If I choose to own a gun to defend myself and my family, who the hell are you to tell me I shouldn't have that right? It's blatantly obvious that cops don't defend us. They get there after we've become victims and fill out paperwork. I don't see any reason why I should have to rely on sheer dumb luck to decide whether the person who breaks into my home will decide to kill me or not. But that's just one argument.
Have you considered that there are several other factors that play a large role in the problem, a larger role, IMHO, than guns even?
Think about the disparity in wealth in this country. Think about the fact that there are literally millions of Americans living below the poverty line. Think about the fact that public education in this country is shockingly bad. I wonder what kind of difference it would make in the violent crime statistics if people could actually support themselves and their family. I wonder what kind of difference it would make if kids got a good education that would give them some direction in life rather than leave them as barely literate punks with nothing to lose. Maybe if we spent some of this money we're using to fight the "war on drugs" on fixing up schools, hiring better teachers and paying them well, and providing better access to technology so that kids can learn something useful, we wouldn't need to have a war on drugs at all. Kids might end up being smart enough to make these decisions in their best interest. They'd have a good chance of making a living and providing for a family. But the government won't do that. It would make too much sense. We spend all kinds of money on national defense and attacking and defending other countries. We spend a bunch to pay interest on a national debt that we have yet to do anything significant to reduce. Why can't we spend this kind of money to educate all the children of this country the best we possibly can, rather than just relying on those who can afford to go to the best schools to become the leaders of this country? Then again, maybe that's the plan after all.
And the Bill of Rights itself? (Score:2)
>that a right to own weapons is some divine mandate.
I'm not buying your argument that we'd be safer without guns, but let's accept for the point of argument.
You are talking about something enshrined in the Bill of Rights. To get rid of guns, we need to change the Bill of Rights, removing something. This is a dangerous precedend. Maybe there could be a better list if we were starting from scratch under today's circumstances, but making the BofR negotiable is just too high a price. Hmm, maybe defendants' rights . . . OJ was clearly guilty; let's allow double jeapardy. Those people that aren't willing to be searched must be hiding something. And those hurtful things that those folks are saying; there's too much freedom of speech.
Yes, the price may be high. But even assuming no or minimal benefits from the guns to society, tampering with the Bill of Rights is just too high a price.
hawk, esq.
Re:Oh, please... (Score:2)
>Again, technically true, but you have to agree that the odds of being
>shot in a country where 10,000 people have a gun is significantly
>higher than a country where only one guy owns one.
Probably, but the chance of producing such a country by disarmament are much lower than the chances of being shot in the country with 10,000 guns . . .
so then (Score:2)
:)
smart guns & bunnies . . . (Score:2)
[pan camera to confused look, then pull back]
He looks down, opens his wrist-tag . . . *AUGHH* he used the other brand of batteries! . .
And the bunny bangs its drum as it wanders off once again . . .
Re:The Otter's Gun Theory (Score:2)
>should avail yourself of all legal, nonviolent means to eliminate that
>infringement. In the event that these means fail, then it is time to
>consider revolution and overthrow of the oppressive regime.
I sure hope it's OK. Otherwise, we owe about 225 years of back
taxes to London . . . .
Re:The Otter's Gun Theory (Score:2)
> Especially now that the soviet union has disintegrated and the world's
> well funded terrorist groups now have The Bomb?
Do you *really* think that without the nuclear threat we would have gone from 1945 until the implosion of the Soviet Union without a major war in Europe? This is the longest period of general peace in Europe since the end of the Pax Romana . . . (and yes, I"m aware of the level of atrocities that are occurring).
Call it the Pax Americana or Pax Atomica as you wish (I'll let future historians decide), but WWII would have lasted another couple of years in the Pacific without the bomb, with a seven-figure casualty count for the Allies, and several times that for the Japanese. Soviet invasion and direct conflict (rather than proxy fights in southeast Asia) would have been thinkable.
Yes, I think we're *much* safer with the existance of these weapons, although I'd be much happier if they'd all go away now.
hawk
Well, you certainly showed me. (Score:2)
Also, the communist-nonsense you shot at me is a load of garbage. Believing that the courts shouldn't waste time on frivolous lawsuits is not communist. Perhaps you should read some Marx, grow up and come back here when you grasp some basic english.
I'm embarrassed that you're a Canadian.
Oh, please... (Score:2)
You are correct that increased availability of something does make it easier to get a hold of. That's the only statement with even the slightest sense of logic. As for the others...
The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition).
Only if it is used. I could build a nuclear weapon, set it on the ground somewhere with all the codes locked safely away, and then just turn around and walk away. Certainly a deadly weapon, but a completely harmless one, because it cannot be used.
So if more guns are available, more deaths will occur, and if less guns are available, less deaths will occur.
While your conclusion does theoretically make some sense, it is drawn from flawed logic. A weapon does not become more or less deadly simply because there are more instances thereof. If I have a gun, that gun is certainly a deadly weapon. If I have two guns, neither is any deadlier than it would be if it were the only gun I had. If I have ten thousand guns, none of them is any deadlier than it would be if I only had one.
If more guns are available, more deaths will occur, but only if the guns are misused. Likewise, if fewer guns are available, fewer deaths would occur only if the guns removed were ones that would have been misused.
We can debate the makeup of the victims (ratio of "criminals" v's "the law abiding") - but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer?
The only safe playing field is one that is level. If you're willing and able to do what it takes, that doesn't necessarily mean that you need a gun. I don't have a gun; I have other means of defending myself and those I love. But those means are very rare, and to be effective they require a far greater expenditure of money, time, and resources than any gun does. So for most, a gun is the only way to level the playing field between themselves and those who would do them harm. No, it doesn't make society a safe place if everyone is armed. But an armed person is in far less danger against an armed opponent than an unarmed person is.
Criminals today are almost invariably armed. In this day and age it's the only way most people can pose any real threat, and posing a threat is the stock in trade of a criminal. You can take the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, but you can't get them away from the criminals. They already get their guns by illegal means because legal ones are too easy to track, so gun laws change nothing for them.
Now, some gun laws do make sense. Trigger locks, for example. They won't do a damn thing to decrease gun violence, but they will do a great deal to reduce gun accidents. They don't reduce the effectiveness of a gun, because there is no law stating that the locks must be used, only that they must be made available.
Smart guns: iffy. They would certainly help reduce gun accidents and even short-term gun theft. But smart guns rely on technology, and any technology can be cracked given the time and resources to figure out the trick. The best you can do is make it really, really hard to crack. This rules out any remote device like rings or watches which the owner must wear for the gun to go off; "dummy" devices wouldn't be too hard to make (and besides, anything which can be worn can be stolen along with the gun). You'd have to go with something like handprint-sensing technology, coupled with thermal detection so that you couldn't simply chop someone's hand off and use it with the gun. And no backdoors. This is the ideal case, but the gun could still be modchipped. The modchipping takes time; certainly the gun couldn't be used at the place where it was stolen. But no criminal with half a brain does that anyway; they steal guns from locales farther off from the intendeed scene of the crime, to throw investigations off track.
Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't
Depends. You're speaking of only one statistic: gun deaths. And indeed, the chances of dying by a gun are greater here than most other places. However, there are far more ways to die than by being shot. Take Mozambique's current situation, for instance. Very, very few people own guns there. But right now, I'd say it's pretty damned dangerous to live there. Then take drug overdoses. I don't know the ststistics here or in other parts of the world. But if drugs are easier to get then it's also easier to die from them (this is the difference between drugs and guns: drugs are bought specifically to be used, whereas most guns are bought in the hope that they never will be). And drugs are certainly easier to get in some parts of Europe, particularly the Netherlands but other places as well. So by your logic, these nations should be as dangerous as the US. The point is that you cannot take one example and draw generalities. It's like seeing one black swan and deciding based only on that observation that all swans are black.
Also, I love this idea of "universal disarmament." It would be great if that were what you really wanted. But it's not, of course; you'd still rather that the government and the police have guns, just not the average citizen. You thus allow a government which could become oppressive at any time to step all over the rights of its people, who no longer have the means to end the problems. And before you start on nonviolent means to getting rid of an oppressive government, I should remind you that a government which is truly oppressive is not going to be ousted by peaceful means. Part of the very definition of an oppressive government is that there is no legal (meaning peaceful) way to oust it. That's how it stays oppressive. And any government, except perhaps a true democracy, has the capability to become oppressive (and true democracy has problems of its own which make it unworkable for anything as large as even a small nation).
The abuse of guns is a terrible thing; I agree with you on this. But the genie is out of the bottle. There are only two ways to prevent the abuse of guns. Only one of these is sure-fire (pardon the pun): the banning and destruction of every single gun on the planet. That simply isn't going to happen. The other one is to teach people respect, both for guns (to prevent accidents) and other people (to prevent misuse of a gun; simply put you don't shoot people you respect, nor do you give them any cause to shoot you).
Something must be done about gun violence. Banning guns is easy, but it's not a real solution, both because it won't be a complete ban (I'd love to see you convince the military and police to give up their weapons), and because it doesn't address why people shoot each other. So something else has to be done.
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
But yes, the 2nd Amendment is there because the framers had recognized the importance of a well-armed society when opposing a tyrannical government. After all, they had just lived through it. The spark that started the Revolutionary War was an attempt by the British military to sieze a privately-held armory in Concord, Massachusetts. The alarm having been raised throughout the countryside, farmers and townspeople used their guns to keep their weapons from being siezed.
But the framers were well aware of the fact that the government they established might one day fail and be no better than the one which they had fought for independence from. So many provisions were set up to both sustain the integrity of the government as long as possible (checks and balances between the various branches of the govt.), and many civil liberties were explicitly guaranteed as well.
Note that NONE of the framers didn't believe in the liberties granted in the Bill of Rights. The only reasons that it was adopted seperately were because:
1)It took a while for everyone to agree that additional checks on the government were needed
2)It was risky explicitly listing some, as that might lead people to believe that unlisted rights didn't exist
3)The federal government wasn't thought to have powers to infringe anyway
But pass it did. And so, should the existing US government go too far it is just that it should be overturned, if necessary by force of arms. I sure wouldn't want to be helpless if it came down to that, and neither did they.
As for slavery, a lot of the northern states were opposed to it, and while it had become reasonably popular in the south (there were still indentures, and many people simply hired laborers) it was a very big sticking point. The colonies would simply never have agreed on the issue and their only solution was to shelve it until future generations could resolve things. Attempts were made to limit slavery though - importation ended at a fixed date.
Of course, slavery didn't *really* take off in the south until the cotton gin was developed.
But don't characterize all of the framers as slave owners, or accepting of slavery. Many were, but not all. (nb that it was also still legal in the UK at the time)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Actually, violent crime -- especially "hot" burglaries -- has been INCREASING in Britain and Australia since their gun bans... so if you want to retain your POV, they're very, very bad examples of your case.
You're pulling that out of your ass, aren't you? Where did you get that stat?
I've seen a stat that showed CLEARLY that, the more guns there was in a country in Europe, the more violent crimes tehre were. FYI there are quite a lot of them in France compared to the rest of Western Europe (I think we come second next to Switzerland), and violent deaths are higher here than in Englang.
Re:Check Russia, too. (Score:2)
Beautiful logic.
High vodka consumption; out-of-control russian language use.
Drinking vodka helps you speak Russian, obviously!!!
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
It doesn't mean anything. Maybe the brits are just nicer people on average than americans.
You've never been there, have you? ;)
I'd be more interested in the crime rate before and after a country passed anti-gun laws.
What if they pass those gun laws because of an increasing crime rate involving firearms? Plus, if such a law is passed, do you believe firearm are just going to vanish all of a sudden because of it?
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Add a new moderation level (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
You are obviously not clear on the meaning of freedom and natural rights. In a free society, i can own anything I wish, as long as it does not infringe the freedom of anyone else. I can own guns, knives, swords, and explosives in massive quantities. Why is it my right to have these things? Because it requires nothing of anyone else, except the willful manufacture and trade of arms.
You, on the other hand, are anti-freedom. You are trying to take away my natural rights by requiring me to do something. You are requiring me to give up my arms, which I have acquired through peaceful and cooperative trade. It is you who represent the dangerous future in America: the future where spineless lackwits strip away the rights of the people, for the supposed benefit of the children/elderly/infirm/whatever.
-jwb
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
http: //www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/01/16 /STN160801.300x204.jpg [sunday-times.co.uk]
I see one cop with a handgun and another cop with a rifle. Show me your evidence that the British cops don't pack.
I don't buy your other argument, either. Produce official statistics on crime rates in Britain. Thi s article [sunday-times.co.uk] in the Sunday Times claims that more than 3 million illegal guns are held in Britian, leading to over 13,000 armed offences in 1998. It also claims that there are 100 crimes per month involving firearms in Birmingham alone! I don't know what kind of reputation the Sunday Times has, but I've produced hard number and I suspect it is more evidence than you can produce.
-jwb
Game idea (Score:2)
Heck, I'm surprised there aren't any MODs out for any of the first person shooters based on these events.
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:American Media Hype (Score:2)
Maybe the US is doing enough about preventing guns from being used inappropriately (I doubt it), but it definately needs to be seen to be doing more.
Re:The Otter's Gun Theory (Score:2)
Come on people, it's trivial to understand: More of something makes it easier to get hold of. The deadlier the weapon, the more deaths it will cause (by definition). So if more guns are available, more deaths will occur, and if less guns are available, less deaths will occur. We can debate the makeup of the victims (ratio of "criminals" v's "the law abiding") - but how can anyone say that greater access to weapons makes a society safer? (Obviously if that was true, the US would be the safest place in the world, which it clearly isn't)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Australian - and damn proud that our gun laws piss off the NRA from all the way over here (BTW NRA: your pro-gun ads aren't fooling anyone).
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:Yes but if someone wants to kill me with a knif (Score:2)
What you don't need to kill people is a black trenchcoat, a copy of Quake III or an attraction to gothic nightlife.
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
A gun takes a simple theft that the insurance companies can handle and turns it into a life or death struggle.
At the extreme end, a gun takes a school caffiteria brawn and turns it into a murderous rampage. America simply has to decide if it wants the risk of death in exchange for the "right to bear arms". Australia, thankfully, has made the right decision (Thank "God" *erhem* that we don't have that damn inconvient Second Amendment...)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Remember, this isn't a debate on traditional armed robbery - it's about "rage" killings by school children. If their parents, and their friend's parents don't have any guns, and the shops and shows won't sell guns to them, then they will have a very hard time getting hold a gun. Radically reduce the number of weapons on the street and even if they find someone who will sell them one, they might not be able to afford it...
People will always find something to get worked up about - the nastier the weapon they can get their hands on, the more damage they can do.
Re:Damn that annoys me... (Score:2)
The problem is the US's "all or nothing" stance on guns - this belief that a right to own weapons is some divine mandate. Guns are a tool, and as such can be used for both good and bad things. However, they amplify force to such an amount that a small child can accidentally kill an adult. This is a problem, because small children have accidents. Even teenagers make mistakes. A mistake from a gun can end a life - my life, because you made an error in judgement. I don't trust anyone's judgement, thus I'd like to see guns removed from society. Moreover, I belive that removing guns from society makes it safer.
Moderate up parent (Score:2)
Actually, I only partially support that post (Score:2)
I think it's worth investigating, but I don't think there's much good evidence either way yet.
Re: Firearms & Video Games (Score:2)
Hum, I live in Germany and don't have the right to bear arms (like my 70 million countrymen). I don't feel like a slave ...
And I've never seen a paragraph in the charter of Human Rights which includes the right to bear arms. And IIRC there's nothing about this in the Bible, either.
Each law is made in a certain cultural and historical environment. If the environment changes, laws become obsolete. There are no "eternal" laws or laws which fit any given society at any given time.
Regards
tom
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Even MORE people do the SAME thing with their automobiles in the US. They get enraged and out of control and cause wrecks, a lot of them fatal. Do you think cars are too accessible as well? Or are you willing to admit that you think the benefit of driving yourself to work each day is more important than the benefit of being able to defend yourself and your country?
"That's why most gun deaths are `crimes of passion.'"
Statistics beg to differ when it comes to handgun deaths. Show me some proof from recent years that show that a majority of handgun deaths were crimes of passion by law abiding citizens.
Bad Mojo
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
And in 40 years the US people would be ripe for a military coup or unable to defend itself from any kind of tyranical(sp) government. Sure, I admit that we are unlikely to have a serious revolution soon, but maybe 40 years from now, once we're helpless (and unable to reverse such a decision) I don't want to take that chance.
"The guy who shoots his neighbor in a fit of rage was not the criminal(s) you were talking about."
With freedom comes responsability. As a gun owner, I am held to a level of control that prevents me from using my handgun outside the law. If someone is out of control, and they use a firearm to express that anger, why is the gun to blame? Did the gun create the anger or loss of control? No. Did the gun leap into an enraged killers hands? No.
Many US citizens may want to give up certain rights to FEEL safer, but I am not one of them. I would rather live with a risk of being shot than KNOW for a FACT that I have no way to even defend myself from an aggresor who DOES have a gun or knife. I am willing to risk my life in order to maintain the well being of this country as a free nation.
Bad Mojo
Re:If the judge had gone the other way? (Score:2)
The sentence "If the judge had gone the other way?" was referring to the implications this would have on the gaming industry, what would happen to free speech and such things. It was in no way referring to any kind of illegal activity.
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Please don't paint everyone with such a broad brush -- that's part of why these debates (and party politics in general) tend to be so counterproductive.
I consider myself to be very liberal (meaning that progress is good and people should be helped whenever possible), but I have no interest in restricting gun rights for those who wish to exercise them.
I personally have found the ACLU's position on the matter bizarre -- every point on the bill of rights is universally interpreted in the most liberal light (meaning the light giving the most rights to the citizens), except the second.
Re:Guns as self-defense *NOT* (Score:2)
I take it you've never actually seen someone get shot.
The REAL truth is that gunshots are nowhere near the all-powerful force that many people believe them to be. You're better off getting shot thasn stabbed or bludgeoned, in many cases.
Gunshot wounds tend to be fairly clean, many times the bullet passes right through and you're essentially left with a hole (that admittedly could be fatal depending on where it is).
A serious stab wound tends to cause more damage because it generally covers a larger area and is more likely to hit something important like an organ or artery -- plus they're messy because the wound itself is generally jagged and torn, rather than the "simple" star-shaped bullet hole.
being budgeoned (with a bat or other tool) is almost always the worst long-term damage you can get. It breaks off shards of bone and pushes them down into your body (usually into the skull, as you generally hit someone on the head). The blunt trauma ensures that damage is done to as wide an area as possible, and many of the damages are internal, without the puncture of a cut or hole to relieve pressure. Many times a person will die from the internal bleeding & pressure on the brain, and if they don't they can frequently find themselves with a dramatically reduced mental facility due to brain damage.
Of course, this doesn't apply to hollow-point or tumbler bullets -- the whole reason they exist is because someone had to figure out how to make gunshots more effective and damaging.
Given the choice between being shot from 5 feet away (with a regular bullet), stabbed in the torso, or hit with a bat on the head, I'll take the bullet every time. Odds are I'll be able to walk to the hospital myself (albeit in a great deal of pain). After the wound is healed, your life will be pretty much the same (unless of course it hit your spinal cord or similar).
The real tragedy of movie violence is that they don't show the true damages of things like getting hit in the head (likely brain damage) and treat it like "oh, you just tap somebody and they pass out, and wake up with a headache!".
Obviously this varies by the person and the incident -- I've seen people die of blood loss from minor wounds, and I've seen people with 3 nasty shots to the torso walk out of the hospital 6 weeks later. I saw a guy get shot point-blank in the chest with a
Needless to say, the victim had a bruise the size of a Mack truck over his whole torso the next day and could barely walk from pain, but at the time of the shooting he was so pumped on adreneline he would have been happy to shoot the other guy if he wasn't already dead from the three others who were backing him up.
The shooter suffered from Hollywood syndrome, thinking that by firing a gun the other guy would turn to dust or something. Guns just aren't as deadly as people make them out to be.
So in my opinion, the whole thing about using guns as self-defence or for "protecting my house from burglars" is effectively moot
Well, your opinion runs contrary to reality. The FBI acknowledges that a victim with a gun is much less likely to be killed in a crime than one unarmed (this is of course ignoring the issue of unsecured guns, which cause greivous problems when children or burglars get access to them. But burglars rarely use a gun in the house they got it, they simply steal it and pawn it, the source of many illeagal weapons).
But self-defense is a legitimate, and truthful application of firearms. Burglars rarely are interested in shooting people (that's why they're burglars), and statistics show they ALWAYS run when faced with an armed homeowner.
That all said, i don't own a gun and never have. I just don't like them...
Re:How? (Score:2)
It depends on the state. In Texas, you are allowed to protect your property with lethal force...
Re:Actually, I only partially support that post (Score:2)
Growing up outside of Chicago, I knew the phone number for Empire Carpet before I knew my own. If I were exposed to strongly negative things, often enough, I would have undoubtedly been changed by it.
Case in point -- I remember when I was in High School, I watched Reginald Denny get dragged out of an 18-wheeler and nearly beaten to death by a mob of black people on live television. 90 seconds. It nearly made me puke at the time I saw it, it still makes me ill to some degree. 90 seconds was all it took. I cant even imagine how I would have felt if instead of being 16, I was say, 9 or 10.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda [unc.edu])
Re:Actually, I only partially support that post (Score:2)
Boy X grows up in house with guns.
Will Boy X be predisposed to solving his problems with guns?
The answer is neither Yes, or No. It all depends on how Boy X was raised. If Boy X was raised with a strong sense of civic responsibility, and a healthy respect for guns, then Boy X will not be predisposed to solving his problems with guns.
However, if Boy X is raised in a home without a stable set of parents, where there are guns lying around all over the place, and he's parked infront of a damn television all day, then I'd say yes, Boy X _will_ be predisposed to solving his problems with guns.
Make sense?
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda [unc.edu])
Re:I wish that I was as 1337 as Lt. Grossman claim (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
I was right behind you when you were talking about treating the causes and not the symptoms. However I dont think that gun control laws are even anywhere near the root of the problem. That isnt to say that they are a solution either...
Stop for a second and look at the guy who beats his wife and kids. I would bet that he learned to do that by being beaten himself. Abuse begets abuse, and teaches young minds that violence solves problems. The kid who shot the six year old was living in a hell hole by all accounts.
Who takes hits from the bong between classes? The kid who watches his older brother doing it with his friends. The kid who has a Dad who burns more alcohol than a funny car. Combine the biology and environmental factors, and you have kids walking around looking for their next hit before they take the first one. Drugs bring violence and the addicts feed the drug trade.
When was the last time you saw a well paid sysadmin shooting up a convience store in a botched robbery attempt? Probably never. They have the opporunity to get a check that makes the contents of the register seem trivial.
These issues infect people and create patterns in their lives that are hard to break out of. They also tend to lead people to violent paths. Does it always happen? No, people are not automatons. Would solving these problems end all forms of violence? No, when it comes down to it there are a lot more ways that people can be messed up. However, if you could successfully address these problems, I would expect to see a significant decrease in violent crime.
Note: Im not from the North, Im not a Democrat, and Ive shot plenty of guns in my life.
-BW
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
I wonder how those stats might be different if guns where illegal. After all, a Ryder full of anfo can take out a bunch of people.
Lookup the stats on the number of times a gun is turned on the owner, and then tell me if you still want to have one in your house
Ive done some target shooting in my day and am comfortable around guns. However for personal reasons I dont want to have one in my home. What I do want is the RIGHT to have a gun if I wanted one. Why? I believe in the concept of inherent and inalienable personal liberty. I am OK with choosing not to have a weapon. Yet I do not want anyone else making that decision for me.
-BW
I don't understand why people like term limits. (Score:2)
I've seen news editorials dissing elected politicians for changing their votes on certain issues to "get more votes". Huh?? These people would rather elect a politician with "solid values" than a polictician who is DIRECTLY REPRESENTING their constituents' voiced opinions (via polls)!
oops, you're right. (Score:2)
It's when a politician had only one term with no possibility of re-election where he/she shouldn't care what the voters think, right? This is always the argument I've heard against single-term laws, that gives them every incentive to say whatever they think will help them get elected, but then there is zero incentive to actually do anything remotely resembling what they claimed they would do once in office.
Your statement is precisely what I was trying to say!
Re:The Otter's Gun Theory (Score:2)
Bullshit. Example one: some rare poisons are much more deadlier than, say, arsenic. Did they cause more deaths? Example two: you would probably agree that a nuclear bomb is more deadly than conventional munitions. Yet the (in)famous bombing of Dresden in WWII killed significantly more people than a nuclear bomb did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
So if more guns are available, more deaths will occur, and if less guns are available, less deaths will occur.
More bullshit. Most houses in Switzerland have a fully automatic assault rifle stored somewhere (most men are "reserve" members of armed forces and have their personal weapon at home). By your logic this means that Switzerland should be awash in killings. In Israel it's extremely common to see people with assault rifles slung over the shoulder to walk the streets, sit in cafes, etc. Again, this should mean that the murder rate in Israel should be extremely high, no?
I am not a big fan of NRA, but you might want to think a bit about their slogan that it's people who kill other people, not guns.
Kaa
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Interesting. If you are so afraid of dying that the probability of being killed by a gun while a tourist in the US stops you from going there, then your life should be very complicated. Your chances of being run over by a car when crossing the street are much, much higher -- so, presumably you do not cross streets. I also assume that you don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat saturated fat, don't engage in sex (what if a condom breaks?), don't drive in a car, don't swim in the ocean (sharks!!) and generally don't do anything that's riskier than being killed by a gun in the US.
Oh, well.
And, by the way, don't come even if the US prohibits all guns. The chances of your aircraft plunging into the Pacific ocean are still considerably higher than being shot in the USA while a tourist there.
Kaa
Re:stupid (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
This is a completely different issue. I take bong hits before class. I smoke a joint on the way to school. And this is not detrimental to me or others around me. I am still a contributing member of society. I work, I pay taxes, I go to school, I release free software. How does my drug use affect you or anybody else?
The war on drugs in another example of treating the symptoms of a problem. In some European countries, where marijuana is legal, where heroin is legal, there is MUCH less of a drug problem than there is in America. You can walk into a pharmacy and get yourself a dose of high-grade heroin, over the counter. While here in the U.S., our government is telling is what we can and cannot do to our own bodies!. No, I don't condone the use of drugs (nor do I count pot as a drug, BTW, anymore than I count tobacco or coffee as a drug - technically, they all are, but should not be in the same category as heroin or cocaine.) But I believe that our government has way too much say in what we can and cannot do. The war on drugs is destroying this country from the inside out. Did you know that 75% of all arrests in this country are for the possession of fucking marijuana?? 75 percent of people arrested are arrested because they want to be able to relax and have a good time, without bothering anybody. Talk about fucking ridiculous.
Dammit, now I've gone and rambled again and gotten completely off the topic. Oh well. I need a place to vent.
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Yup. I wish that politics weren't so much about getting elected and more about doing something important once in office. There are so many things that need reform in this country (gun control, drug laws, etc...) and it's not going to happen for a long while.
Guns as self-defense *NOT* (Score:2)
I think bad Hollywood movies are to blame for this, showing brave men responding to gun fire with one or two bullet wounds to their bodies. Even if you just get a "nice" bullet in your leg or so, the blood loss will make you really dizzy and most probably not even capable of targeting a gun, or maybe even hold it.
So in my opinion, the whole thing about using guns as self-defence or for "protecting my house from burglars" is effectively moot. Guns hurt. Instantly and seriously. No self-defense there.
Re:I don't understand why people like term limits. (Score:2)
I'm confused by your comment and figure you meant the other way around. If a politician is not limited to one term, he is us for re-election eventually and so probably *does* care what the voters think of his performance once elected.
It's when a politician had only one term with no possibility of re-election where he/she shouldn't care what the voters think, right? This is always the argument I've heard against single-term laws, that gives them every incentive to say whatever they think will help them get elected, but then there is zero incentive to actually do anything remotely resembling what they claimed they would do once in office.
Re:guns are the only weapons? (Score:2)
Hence the threat of rage killings is reduced. It's not just grab your gun and run out and pop a few people - it's sit down with your knife and pipe and explosives and painstakingly put together your cruddy little wannabe grenade, then you run out and throw it somewhere and it probably won't even explode, or maybe it will even go off in your hand. A whole different ball game than a gun.
(Just as a side note, I remember reading somewhere about someone holding up a shop with a tortoise, claiming it would bite the shopkeeper if he resisted - he paid up!!!)
Re: Firearms & Video Games (Score:2)
The Charter of Human Rights, IIRC, includes such insane `rights' as health care and food. That is utter nonsense (IMHO). Rights are in my opinion, things which do nto hurt other people: speech, religion, arms-bearing--not the improper use of arms, which does hurt others, just like the improper use of speech: e.g. `hang him!' to a mob. I hardly consider it a valid authority on what is and is not a human right. Instead, I seek a logic and rationale for determining what should and should not be considered a right. IMHO the right to bear arms is the most fundamental of all. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.
There are no eternal laws, but rights are eternal. They may be granted or denied, but the right itself is always a right, and any who denies it to another is a tyrant. All IMHO, of course.
Re: Firearms & Video Games (Score:2)
And a government which does not protect these rights is worse than useless. It takes its due but does not perform its duty.
A government which does more than this does too much; it intrudes upon what should be the private realm. Also, I have a feeling--I may be wrong--that any time a government steps beyond protecting rights it must inevitably violate rights. For example, welfare involves violating the property rights of the rich in order to better the lives of the poor. I will have to think about that one; it may not actually follow.
Re: Firearms & Video Games (Score:2)
The untrained person raised on Hollywood films and some games will not hunch down low; his survival instinct has been conditioned out. He will stand out and will be cut down. The trained person will try to duck for cover and things along those lines. While a video game cannot teach the physical end of things, it can teach the mental aspect of all this.
As unbelievable as it may seem, most untrained people just stand still or run around when they hear gunshots. Most veterans hit the floor and find cover. This is the result of training.
You are right though; all of those experiences taught you how to kill. And they should all be legal, regardless of what they taught. That was my point.
BTW, it was an American officer holding a gun to a VC's head; the VC had just finished killing either a friend of his or his family. I forget which. But a picture never gives context; it just shows some poor fellow about to die.
Re: Firearms & Video Games (Score:2)
This means that the so-called rights to food or health care are not rights; for them to be guaranteed you others must be deprived of their posessions. TANSTAAFL; if I wish to feed you then I must take that food from someone. Generally this means that a government which guarantees these `rights' must steal from some of its citizens in order to give to others.
Now, this is not to say that the poor should not be fed or the ill taken care of. Indeed, in my religion these are virtues. But what right have I to impose my religion of caring for others on those very same others? What right do I have to make a misanthrope pay to keep the poor alive? None. Instead, I give willingly of my own posessions to feed the poor and nurse the sick. But I will never make someone else do so.
The right to keep and bear arms does not deprive anyone else of anything: it does not deprive him of his faith, his opinion, his property, his life, his liberty or any other thing. Granted, a weapon can be used to do so, but that is a case of misuse. My freedom of religion could be sued to deprive you of religion, or life, or property, but only if misused.
The one (taking care of the destitute) is a moral duty; the other is a natural right.
Re: Firearms & Video Games (Score:2)
Arms-bearing is what seperates the free man from the slave. Among our ancestors the Germans when a slave was freed he was given a weapon as a token thereof. The Romans had a similar concept, I believe. Life is, in some ways, a power struggle. Government--good or bad, excellent or tyrannical--exercises its will through raw violence. It is impossible to do away with this; it is a fact of nature and of life. So we have two options: we can deny it, we can give up our right to wield violence for our own ends, cede our power to a monopolistic wielder of violence or we can reserve our right, the right which indicates our freedom, the right which demonstrates to all that we are not slaves of The Man but our own men.
Note that I do not mean that any individual has a hope against a government--he most certainly does not. That sort of conflict is not what I mean at all. It is the symbolism of the thing. When a young boy is given his first knife, he has attained a certain level of freedom. When he is given his first BB gun, he has reached another. When his father gives him his first .22 rifle, then he is well on the way to manhood.
I could go on about it more, about how familiarity with weapons leads to a greater sense of moral responsibility, but that would be off-topic.
On-Topic Stuff Here
This actually related to the video game issue. There are those who are against guns because they enable slaughter. But if they are against guns, then they must also be against violent video games, for video games also enable slaughter. Col. Grossman, whome I greatly dislike, does have a point. Those games do teach one how to make headshots, clear a room, keep a low profile (in some sense of that phrase; they cannot teach things like keeping the arms in tight).
But is this bad? Of course not. We already have the arguments against this. The video game does not cause anyone (save, perhaps, the demented, who could be set off by popcorn just as well as by video games) to murder. Neither does the gun. They are merely tools. The video game can teach some parts of combat readiness. The gun can be used in combat. But the choice to go into that combat, the choice to shoot and kill one's fellow man: that is made by a human being of his own free will.
I am a gun owner; I own a rifle and a handgun. I am responsible with my firearms. I never point a gun at something I do not wish to kill. I would rather shoot myself than someone else. Somehow that eeevvviiilll thing, the gun, has yet to turn me into a psychopath. But it has taught me a respect for life and death, for actions which do not have an 'undo' button: try looking at the body of an animal, knowing that you killed it and wishing that you could breath life back into it; try looking at the shattered remains of what was just a fraction of a second ago a perfectly normal beer bottle; try walking around with a device which if used properly is perfectly safe but which can be as deadly as anything else in this world. You learn that life isn't like a computer game. In real life no-one runs through a room figuring that he'll only get shot once or twice. No-one who knows what he is doing shoots someone without the clear idea that he is taking the life of a human being. The real world is for good; you cannot undo your actions by going to the Edit menu.
That is the problem with video games; they lead to a sense that nothing is permament. But this does not matter; it is our right to play video games just as much as it is our right to read what we will, believe what we will and wield what firepower we will. And I will defend anyone's right to play video games, and defend any video game manufacturer from this sort of foolish charge. Blame the craftsman, not the tools.
I daresay that I shall be moderated out of sight, but we shall see...
Re:American Media Hype (Score:2)
Fair enough. I think I understand where you are coming from. Just please understand that the gun debate is only one small part of our society, and not even the most important to most people. A great many people share your views; that is why the topic is so hotly debated here. Even among those that support gun ownership, they generally don't subscribe to the sort of action hero philosophy that our media is in love with.
I guess what I am trying to say is that America is much more than the face we broadcast to the world. The actions of our political leaders do not always reflect the feelings of the citizens. And that obnoxious/rude/loud American tourist is NOT a true representative of what America is all about (it is just that they are the ones that draw the most attention to themselves).
I guess what I am trying to say is that America is a mish-mash of a great many peoples and philosophies, and that is part of what makes it worth visiting. Heck, visit the Milwaukee / Chicago area and I promise to show you some of the *good* stuff that America has to offer. :-)
Cheers,
Thad
American Media Hype (Score:2)
That is unfortunate. You seem to have boughten into the media hype that portrays America as a gangster filled, crime saturated battlezone. Random gun violence is almost unheard of here... that is why it still makes big news. That is not to say gun violence is not a problem, I just don't see it as something so serious that it should stop you from visiting the country. There is always some risk in traveling to any new place, but that shouldn't stop you from checking out what the world has to offer. Your likelyhood of being shot while visiting America is vanishingly small.
Cheers
Thad
The lawsuit may be dismissed... (Score:2)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Frivoulous Lawsuits (Score:2)
=================================================
Re:Monkey see, monkey do (Score:2)
Primarily, they need evil intent. There are millions of people with the motivation, training, and weapons to kill; 99.99999% of them do not do so.
Accept that those good old blood and guts games have a price and accept the price you pay for freedom.
So, what was Billy the Kid's high score at Doom? Which TV shows did Leopold and Loeb's watch? What was playing at the movies during Jack the Ripper's prowl?
Violence is part of our flawed human condition, and blaming it on media is either a cop-out or a cynical rationalization for censorship.
/.
notaflame, but a rebuttal (Score:2)
Most of the rage killings AFAIK _are_ from ppl getting in a "rage" over their wife cheating, etc
These points are mutually contradictory. Once someone is in a "rage" over adultery, etc, the detachment and physical distance issues become quite irrelevant -- somone in that state who doesn't have a gun handly will simply use whatever happens to be handy, and in fact is likely to get more satisfaction out of stabbing or bludgeoning the object of their rage.
You are _far_ more likely to be severely injured or killed in a burglary, etc., attempt _if_ you own a gun in your house.
To illustrate the statistical fallacy at work here, let us start with the known fact that buildings with security alarms are far more likely to be robbed than buildings without security alarms. Which of the following is the more reasonable inference?
you have a gun, I need a gun to protect myself
Even if all criminals could be disarmed, this would not remove the size and strength advantages hooligans typically have over their potential victims.
/.
Re:Damn that annoys me... (Score:2)
/.
OT: Slashdot Bug (Score:3)
Had the judge ruled the other way... (Score:3)
Thank God (Score:3)
The problem is that the individuals who were both victims and agressors in this case refuse to acknowledge that it wasn't something as trivial as movies or video games, but a greater pervasive problem throughout a society.
You want a focus group? Try Canada. We recieve the same movies, video games, and much of our culture is related. Clearly, the media is not to blame.
I could theorize about the lack of guns in Canada, or our less liberal view of hunting for children, but that would just bring out the gun-nuts. I'm more concerned with showing what isn't the cause - the media - not placing the easy blame.
Re:Thank God (Score:3)
Re:Thank God (Score:3)
I question the need for publicly available weapons of this leathality in a modern society. I also question the validity of the "illegal guns have an appeal" - I would imagine that for most people considering a firearm that the specs would be much more important and that illegal weapons are more attractive because they're more deadly.
I can only imagine this as I'm far more interested in more exotic weapons (I used to do archery - I still have my old compound bow screwed to the wall) and their history and I don't feel the need to own a gun to protect myself. I have, however, held and fired a rifle on a remote Australian country farm (remote means that your driveway is 2km long and your nearest neighbours are over the horizon). I understand the roll of guns in farming, and I appreciate the use in sport (love the biatholon). I even see the arguement when it comes to policing - though I'd like to say that UK police didn't carry guns for ages ("Bobby"s still mightn't) and the desire of criminals to carry guns was similarly reduced.
It's basically an arms escallation thing - you have a gun, I want a gun - it's time for unilateral disarmament. It's time to find non-leathal equivalents.
Re:Thank God (Score:3)
If the rage itself is the problem, then no guns aren't the problem - the overall collapse of society as we know it is the problem. And the cause of that is that people no longer (believe that they) need each other to survive, so their prosperity is not tied to their family's or neighbour's prosperity and duely they don't give a crap about each other.
Interesting times we live in...
(Hmm, perhaps there should be a "gross oversimplification -1" moderation.)
Re:Thank God (Score:3)
Politicians should be nominally elected for only one term, and eligible for a second term ONLY if 80% of their constituents vote for them. That way, they will do what has to be done, and not what the people are led to believe they want.
And, of course, voting should be compulsory, like in many modern democracies.
--
PMRC (Score:3)
Wasn't that the committee that declared Tipper to be the inventor of music?
Re:Thank God (Score:3)
No, no, HELL no. The problem is NOT too easy access to guns. The PROBLEM is gun laws. Many guns are illegal, and therefore have an appeal to them. If guns were legal, and people were taught early a healthy respect for guns, I believe that there would be far less violence in our country.
Note: I'm not from the South, I'm not a Republican, and I've never held a gun in my life.
Re:Thank God (Score:3)
The fact that the symptoms tend to get treated has little or nothing to do with stupidity or laziness. Most people do know what the answers are. Admitting the truth about those answers is what is difficult. Following through on that admission is even tougher.
And it is tough for *everybody*. In fact, the older you get, the more difficult it becomes to follow through, even when you know what the answer is ("from out of the mouths of babes"). Part of this is due to society, and cultural expectations. Often, it is due to our own human frailties and insecurities. All of us experience this, and it takes a strong person to stand against the tide. Most rocks break against the tide.
Violent Video Games (Score:3)
-----------------------
Blame Canada! (Score:3)
Fortunately judges take a dim view of this sort of attitude and I hope it stays that way.
All well and good, but... (Score:3)
Why, it's completely boring and uninteresting. Who would ever care about such a thing? Result=no public exposure when these ridiculous lawsuits get thrown out as they should. Chalk it up to a fundemental flaw in the media system and how it perceives its relationship to those who receive information from it. The media has no legal responsibility whatsoever for printing or distributing a retraction or correction to an inaccurate previous story. The media has no legal responsibility to present both sides of a story. The media has no legal responsibility to follow up on a story and report on its aftereffects.
Victories in the courtroom are all well and good, but when was the last time you say Bernstein, Junger, or [some ludicrous lawsuit thrown out or some issue resolved in favor of any resonable sense of justice] receiving equal prominence with, say, the RIAA or MPAA's receiving preliminary injunctions against such "pirating and hacking tools like DeCSS"?
"...what if the judge had gone the other way?" (Score:4)
Hmmm...I guess that makes him a bisexual judge `;^)
Okay, I'm a smart-ass!
Have a look at my web site [kizzier.net]
Re:Thank God (Score:4)
If a law is passed to ban guns or severly restrict them, it will not impede criminals at all. Unless you are under some delusion that a gun ban will actually keep criminals from getting guns.
Bad Mojo
Re:Thank God (Score:4)
Comment removed (Score:5)
Boys, guns, fantasy, and morons. (Score:5)
In "Ghost In The Graveyard", we played it only at night. One person was selected to go somewhere in the neighborhood and hide. The rest of us would split up and search for the ghost. The fun came when you had the crap scared out of you when you came across the person hiding, or heard a scream of terror somewhere in the neighborhood. I liked Ghost In The Graveyard, and played it alot. However, it didn't make me worship satan and bite the heads off of chickens later in life. It was a game.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, or incredibly insensitive towards gays, i'll tell you about the next game. "Smear The Queer" was a variant of rugby. Before the days of political correctness, it was a sure-fire way of humilitating and physically punishing your friends as a group. The person with the football ran around and had to avoid relinquishing posession of it, even after being tackled and beaten into submission. I liked playing Smear The Queer, and played it alot. However, it didn't make me a gay-bashing redneck later in life. It was a game.
Similarly, "Guns" was alot of fun. Any object in the household that even vaguely resembled a firearm was used in an imaginary war of attrition with a line drawn between houses. In my case, I managed to get a discarded power-drill from my dad which looked vastly more impressive than the simple garden-hose sprayers and silicone caulking guns the other kids had. We chased eachother around the neighborhood, the 6 of us, for hours on end, jumping over cars and diving over bushes, hiding under stairwells and such, our imaginations running wild with the thought of gunning down our friends in a real-life Quake arena, if you will.
However, it didnt make me a homocidal mainiac with an unquenchable thirst for human suffering. It was a game.
So, here I am, 20 years later. I have no interest in the occult. I have no urge to physically assault gay people, and I have no bizzare fixation with firearms. Infact, it would scare me to even know someone involved in any of those activities, let alone be a participant in any of those activities myself.
When the line between fantasy and reality is blurred in the mind of a child, you can often times look directly at that kid's parents and point out very, very severe problems in how they handled the task of raising their child. Dylan Klebold left his house every morning wearing a black trenchcoat with a swastika armband on, leaving a sawed-off shotgun ontop of the dresser in his bedroom. His parents did nothing about it, unfortunately. And by the time they understood the gravity of their own neglect of their child, a dozen or more kids lay dead in a school.
Your upbringing wont cause you to become a psychopath later in life. The _lack_ of an upbringing, however, will. Thats not to say that companies like Id are immune from scrutiny but the fault most often lies with internal causes rather than external ones, like TV, music, or entertainment in general, IMHO.
Flame away. Thats how I see it, and i'm-a stickin' to it.
Bowie J. Poag
Project Founder, PROPAGANDA For Linux (http://metalab.unc.edu/propaganda [unc.edu])
Thank God (Score:5)
Lawsuits like this make me wish I wasn't an American. This country has way too many problems with trying to treat the symptoms of a problem rather than the causes of the problem. Example: all the shit that followed Columbine. People are cracking down on people dressing in black and being different than other people, rather than trying to figure out why these people have a tendancy to go nuts and start shooting. If they just looked at the problem in a larger scope, they would see that they are not the causes of the problem - the cause of this problem is people harassing these people because they are different, and the people who are trying to fix the problem are just making it worse.
If you want to see something really scary... (Score:5)
This will give you an idea of what id and the gaming community as a whole are up against. For those tuning in late, Col. Grossman is the chief evangelist behind this and similar lawsuits which attempt to pin the blame for recent school shootings on creators and distributors of popular culture.
Never one to let facts and statistics interfere with a good diatribe, Grossman and his cronies excel at distracting their followers' attention from the fact that acts of violence in schools (not to mention the rest of US society) are occurring less frequently these days than at any time since the 1960s.
So if correlation really does imply causation, as Grossman would have us believe, then we should be thanking id Software and Valve for selling American kids a violence-dousing cathartic.
Personally, when it comes to figuring out what drove Michael Carneal to go postal at his junior high school, my money's on the town uranium-enrichment plant.
If the judge had gone the other way? (Score:5)
Civil disobedience: a term use frequently by Slashdotters in a flimsy justification for disregard of the law. It's a noble concept, but mirroring the DeCSS code, for instance, just doesn't cut it, IF you are not willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your civil disobedience. If the judge had gone the other way, fight vigourously to have the decision overturned on appeal, pester your legislators for change in tort reform, contact all the civil liberties assocations that you know about, boycott the company, whatever. But I believe that it would certainly be hypocritical to defy such a ruling under the assertion that the judge is a moron, or some such nonsense.
I wish that I was as 1337 as Lt. Grossman claims.. (Score:5)
....because if I can go from pushing the 'CTRL' key down with picking up a submachine gun, striping it, cleaning it, reassembling it, loading and cocking it, aiming it, and firing it, while using the proper stance, BRAS technique, staying on target, target discrimination, etc etc whilst wearing a scratchy trench coat then DAMN, hold me back!
Oh, and since I've played Falcon 4.0, don't let me near an Air Force base; I can bugger off with a Falcon and bomb people to death!
Besides; anybody who's actually played Doom knows that if somebody was going to kill people, Doom Style, they'd do it with the CHAINSAW!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play Heretic II for the EXPRESS purpose of learning how to cast magic spells.