US Politics

[Thursday Next]

As others have pointed out, the Chinese example is great for illustrating how a lack of ready access to guns saves lives. Even if mental health issues were addressed, there is nothing to stop a perfectly sane person buying guns and then going off the rails. We can't predict when a mental break will happen or what will trigger it.

 

I tend to think of banning guns in a similar way to locking my car. Locking my car doesn't stop someone who wants to get in from getting in. So why do it? I do it to stop the guy who walks past and in a moment of weakness thinks, "Ooooh look, some pennies on the dashboard!", checks the door, finds it locked and walks on.

 

I tend to find that people (myself included) are essentially lazy. It takes a huge amount of incentive for anyone to do anything, so the harder you make it for people to get guns, the less likely they are to have them.

[Mal]

Not quite sure if this related tangent should go here or world politics but...

 

 

What do you folks think about US involvement in this pretty little leaf? I feel that this could eventually become a direct problem for the US if something, I don't know what or how, is done. The Mexican government just can't win this war against the cartels and the cartels don't want to completely stomp the Mexican government (since then the whole of Mexico would be their problem).

[CorgiShinobi]

It's already a problem for the United States. Like I said in P4's status, drug cartels have a longer reach in the US then you might realize. It's not nearly as violent as it is on the border, but narcotics are sold in many states and that's why there is such a high revenue for them. While weapons are another concern, it's not like drug cartels solely get their weapons when they're hanging out in the States.

 

In one of my college courses, a group presented on drug cartels and one of the requirements was to make a video. They interviewed a few people from Mexico or who had family there. I say a few because these interviewees were the only ones who would talk about drug cartels. The video up above isn't exaggerating when it says many people have died just talking about any single cartel.

 

You know how in elementary school we were taught the dangers of gangs, but for the most part it was "don't join them?" Everything that might make you fear a gang, multiply that by a couple dozen and consider them like a PMC.

 

A former classmate of mine is also a photographer and gets to do a lot of weddings. He was going to be payed a couple thousand to do the photos for a wedding being held in some town in Mexico close to the border. We kept warning him about how he had to be careful and watch where he drove. He blew it off and thought he'd be fine. You know, make it to the wedding, take photos, and head back home.

 

Well, about a dozen or so miles away (from the wedding location) the next day there had been a shooting. He was fine and all, but he never believed any violent shootings or cartel activity would be happening in such a small town. It goes to show that you can't think yourself incapable of facing major travesty you've only seen on televised news.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Atomsk88

[Mister Jack]

http://www.newyorker...nc-scandal.html

 

Tehehe.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Mister Jack

[madbassman39]

thats laughibly sad. they are just grabbing anything and everything they can to get obama out of office

[Mister Jack]

It's actually a parody article, but it did take me a minute to realize that. Kinda goes to show how bad things have gotten.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I usually avoid this thread like the plague, but I'm pleased to find rational discussion on both sides. Carry on. Or I will shoot you.

[Waldorf and Statler]

So what are the thoughts on a congressman trying to push for a Darwin Holiday on february 12th and most likely being met with denial to the board of sciences being ran by hardcore republicans who have previously called evolution something straight out of hell?

[deanb]

We've got Darwin on our money and I'd question a Darwin day. Sounds more like it's to stir up shit with creationists. He's not even American.

[Mister Jack]

Darwin doesn't need a holiday and the board of science sure as hell doesn't need young-earth creationists on it.

[Waldorf and Statler]

I think that if any scientist should get a Holiday it should be Newton. Darwin would be a second with Einstein a very distant third. You know, nuclear war and all

[Mister Jack]

Nikola Tesla.

[Waldorf and Statler]

Teslaaaaaaaaaame

[madbassman39]

It's actually a parody article, but it did take me a minute to realize that. Kinda goes to show how bad things have gotten.

 

Well now I just feel stupid. At least I didn't do anything stupid but read the article laugh at how silly it was and comment here. One of my biggest pet peeves these days is people posting incorrect articles/parody articles as fact on Facebook. I refuse to get into political debates on facebook.

[Mister Jack]

Teslaaaaaaaaaame

 

[Waldorf and Statler]

BRING IT ON OLD MAN! BRING IT ON!

 

Some of us would take you seriously here if it wasn't for your big meaty claws.

 

Yeah that's right

 

 

BIG. MEATY. CLAAAAAAAAWS

Edited January 25, 2013 by Waldorf And Statler

[CorgiShinobi]

Even if Darwin got a holiday, "personage" holidays (or whatever they're called) seem to have gone down hill in terms of importance. I remember back when Washington and Lincoln's birthdays were seperate holidays, but now it's President's Day. Then you have all the controversy of Colombus Day, and schools don't take time off for Martin Luther, though I would at least hope teachers discuss him and civil rights during that time.

[Waldorf and Statler]

The thing about most holidays is that unless the citizens get something outright from them, they won't care. Everybody loves Christmas and the breaks because they signify free time or presents. People love Halloween because candy and boobies.

 

But the rest of the days where they take a day off are just remembered because they get a day off.

[Hot Heart]

People love Halloween because candy and boobies.

 

Wait, what? I don't know where you've been Trick-or-Treating, but I want in.

[TheMightyEthan]

http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/b8e2f2e044/sluttiest-halloween-costumes-ever

 

Somewhat NSFW.

 

As far as MLKJ Day, the schools around here still get that day off.

[TheMightyEthan]

Texas is giving tax breaks to any companies that are fined by the federal government for not providing contraceptive coverage as mandated by Obamacare.  The tax breaks are up to either the amount of the fine, or the total state tax liability of the company, whichever is lower.

 

Edited January 29, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

...is that even legal?

[madbassman39]

As we all know, the Vice President of the US is saying we need to study the effects of violent video games. I think its a really interesting approach (not interesting as in good, as in a "I don't know how to feel" way). When I was younger I used to say "No violent video games DO NOT make one violent." As I got older I realized that maybe games like GTA weren't for 14 year old kids, and maybe we should start to really pay attention to the games our children were playing. I played GTA at the age of 14, and frankly nothing bad ever came out of it, aside from me sneaking play time when my parents weren't in my room.

 

The issue I take is that we are talking about a government funded study on the effects of games. I think that the government taking a long hard look at the issues that may or may not have effects on national tragedies is a good thing. So I'm in a tricky spot where I agree with the motives but disagree with the spending. There are already many studies being performed, but how can you legitimize which study had motives and which did not? Why should we or should we not use the studies that have been performed before?

 

I also am worried about the "what if" situation of "what if the studies prove that violent video games to cause violent tendencies?" What is the next step after that? Do we start to put up laws that limit sales to individuals? Do we start to censor games? Do we start to make an awareness campaign to notify the responsible party (mostly parents) of the effects and to monitor the games your kids play? Do we create a government controlled rating system? Or "what if the studies prove there is no connection between violence and violent video games?" Is there a plan to follow that up? Does the spending become moot? Not all outcomes are bad, but I would like to know how the government plans to continue to spend their money in this issue before they begin to spend it.

[TheMightyEthan]

...is that even legal?

 

I'm not sure, tbh.  My gut reaction says no, they can't actually do that, but I don't know of any thing that would specifically bar them from doing it.

 

As we all know, the Vice President of the US is saying we need to study the effects of violent video games. I think its a really interesting approach (not interesting as in good, as in a "I don't know how to feel" way). When I was younger I used to say "No violent video games DO NOT make one violent." As I got older I realized that maybe games like GTA weren't for 14 year old kids, and maybe we should start to really pay attention to the games our children were playing. I played GTA at the age of 14, and frankly nothing bad ever came out of it, aside from me sneaking play time when my parents weren't in my room.

 

The issue I take is that we are talking about a government funded study on the effects of games. I think that the government taking a long hard look at the issues that may or may not have effects on national tragedies is a good thing. So I'm in a tricky spot where I agree with the motives but disagree with the spending. There are already many studies being performed, but how can you legitimize which study had motives and which did not? Why should we or should we not use the studies that have been performed before?

 

I also am worried about the "what if" situation of "what if the studies prove that violent video games to cause violent tendencies?" What is the next step after that? Do we start to put up laws that limit sales to individuals? Do we start to censor games? Do we start to make an awareness campaign to notify the responsible party (mostly parents) of the effects and to monitor the games your kids play? Do we create a government controlled rating system? Or "what if the studies prove there is no connection between violence and violent video games?" Is there a plan to follow that up? Does the spending become moot? Not all outcomes are bad, but I would like to know how the government plans to continue to spend their money in this issue before they begin to spend it.

 

As far as using studies that have been performed before, my understanding is that what's being proposed is more of a meta-review of existing data, rather than going out and actually collecting new data, so it would be using the existing studies.

 

As for censoring games and government rating systems and whatnot, those have been fairly conclusively established to be in violation of the first amendment.  The only think I could really see happening would be the courts changing their approach to obscenity.  Currently obscenity rules only apply to sexual content, not violence, and I could see the court saying that in certain contexts violence can be considered obscene and thus susceptible to regulation by the government.  However, even if they say that, in order to qualify as legal obscene content must meet all three of the following criteria:

1. the average person, using contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual [or violent] conduct specifically defined by the law
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

It's that third one that's the killer.  Almost anything has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.  About the only things that qualify under obscenity rules is actual porn, that is just about sex (with sometimes lipservice paid to a plot).  So even if they expanded the definition of obscenity to include violence, I don't think it would be any more detrimental to games than the current version has been to movies or books.

 

Also, something a lot of people don't understand is that in the US movie ratings are not government enforced, and legally cannot be (except porn under the obscenity test above).  There's no law that says a theater can't let unaccompanied minors into R-rated films, or that a store can't sell the same movie to kids, it's just a lot of places voluntarily restrict themselves through company policies.

Edited January 29, 2013 by TheMightyEthan
formatting

[FredEffinChopin]

@FDS

My money is on that bill going nowhere. I'm not sure whether even to take it seriously or to write it off as posturing for the sake of maintaining a steady show of defiance, more to be read than it is to be seriously considered. Between them and Mississippi, I expect to see a lot more of this under this administration. It's really awkward, and there is no end in sight.

 

@MBM

It looks like Ethan saved me some typing in regards to video games' protection, and did a far better job than I could/would have.

 

I would add though, that even if we did reach a point where we were looking into regulating artistic/entertainment media content on a federal level, the door would open up for examination of more than just video games. I'd welcome the study that compared the

causal effects of video games on young people vs. something like sport culture or cinema. Or the evening news. I've not been to too many gaming conventions in my life, but the ones I've been to give me the impression of a bunch of people who are just loving the opportunity to look at and talk about nerdy stuff together. Not a single drunken brawl, no riots (celebrational or otherwise), and not even many rude people. I'm confident that our culture speaks for our hobby, and serious studies will reflect that.