[onlooker]

I think you make good points Kaiser. But it is not an either/or proposition. We must properly treat the mentally ill but we must also restrict access as much as possible to lethal weapons of all kinds including certain firearms

[KaiserJeep]

But my main point was that when a clever person looks at most things in life, they can be turned into weapons or even WMDs in the case of LNG tankers. Vehicles are not considered weapons but when used to kill, can kill more people than a firearm. A rolled up magazine can become a deady weapon if one were to stike someone in the face and drive splinters of bone into the brain. You could of course do the same with a baseball bat or the branch of a tree. Controlling the availability of a weapon does not control the ability to kill another, since a variety of everyday objects can be used as weapons.

[jedrider]

Kaiser, when every gun owner starts dreaming of firing buck-shot or scatter-shot at crowds, let me know and, maybe, I'll revise my argument. The AR-15 should be on the banned side, which is quite evident from it's appearance AND it's fire rate, above all.

I am also all for upping the disqualifications for gun ownership. You take a psycho-medicine, you cannot own a gun. You are a felon, you cannot own a gun, BUT you should be allowed to vote (out those Democrats that won't let you own a gun). I thought I'd throw that in for humor

[Cog]

All I stated was that a semi-automatic, such as an AR-15, is somewhat to be considered an "assault rifle". At some point, a LINE must be drawn. That's all. No, I am NOT suggesting we take away toy guns from toddlers (an example of an EXTREME argument, for instance).

Are you volunteering to be a door-kicker and kill those Americans who don't want you to confiscate their guns? If not why not? Don't you have the strength of your convictions?

Since I can't get onlooker to join up with a stack to come kill me maybe you are game.

[Cog]

LOL for those who think the Second Amendment was written to protect hunting.

[evilgenius]

Outcast, is talking about compromise and I totally agree. But it seems to me that the biggest agreement should revolve around the lethality of Guns. As Jerider said the AR-15 is purely a killing machine. I

Do you honestly think the same result could not have been achieved with someone skilled using a rather tame looking bolt action Savage or Mossberg .308 with a scope?

Are you suggesting that a trained individual with a small varmint gun such as a .22 long rifle with a scope couldn't have done the exact same damage?

The AR-15 may look scary and invoke thoughts of combat in conflict zones but in reality a bullet from any rifle properly aimed can have the same outcome.

Not unless they could also set up other constraints. The most famous shooter with ordinary rifles was that guy who shot a whole bunch of people from that tower in Texas. In that case, he set himself up in a place where he could maximize the damage his weapons could do. He wouldn't have achieved the same level of death by simply firing across an open space from which he took no advantage.

I get that you are equating death with death. You are, however, doing it against a backdrop of mass killing. People are alarmed about the mass killing. They aren't about the ordinary level of death taking place from day to day brought about by crime or domestic violence, where it wouldn't really matter what type of weapon a person used.

[Cog]

[AdamB]

[evilgenius]

Why is it, do you think, that first person shooter games were(and are) the default starting point for video games? That has been the easy place to start. And once video games, around the time of the game Doom started becoming popular first person shooter seemed almost the exclusive type of game available. Developers didn't put much stock into the other kinds. It was easy to get a first person shooter game developed and hard to get some other concept past initial review. Yes, there were race car games and early sport playing games. It wasn't like first person shooter dominated so much that other concepts didn't exist. I ask you because the theme was(and is) so dominant.

I think it has something to do with agency. And those types of games turn agency almost into candy. But why would agency be so alluring, unless people felt they lacked it in the first place? The definition of agency has enough to do with death, obviously, that when people accept guns as an argument for its appearance that they also gloss over the reality that death brings with it. Agency is that important.

Where does agency come from? At its most basic level it has something to do with the seeming ability to manipulate the world. Initially, it's akin to an infant reaching out and spinning one of those mobiles their parents hang over the crib. Eventually, though, it becomes more strategic. The definition of whether it was a success, whether it moved the world, changes to become one of implementing strategy. Where do the ideas surrounding strategy come from? Boys kill girls who spurn them because they looked upon love as a sort of possession. Fathers kill their families and then themselves because they looked upon a particular setback as a critical change which wrought havoc upon the strategy which they were following in pursuit of what? Some person goes into their workplace and kills a bunch of people they work with because they couldn't get what they wanted out of the place. Where do these ideas, these minor philosophies, surrounding agency come from? Don't they come from society?

The school is the fundamental place in American society where socialization takes place. If people don't get it there, then they are expected to get it from work. Last of all, some say first of all, they may get it from family. I think family may be where what society has done to our parents is ground into us, in preparation for what will come later. That it is a work in progress, so to speak, and not a fait acompli. Unless you have one very dark and controlling family in play, that is to say, children soon mirror their peers as opposed to their families at a certain point in time. Family is a touchy subject, though. How many people, when push comes to shove, really enjoy spending much time with their extended family? And, yet, they shape us in ways that are permanent. Some of that is nature, but, by far, most of it is nurture. They don't nurture us in a vacuum.

Gosh, one, two, three. But family is the place where things go wrong the most, not schools. Schools are meant to take all of the disparate streams that come to it from all of the families and make something of them. Maybe this is about the kind of thing that KaiserJeep talks about a lot, anthropology, and maybe it is about how within a society the memes they use to describe themselves can become overextended? The world has been changing for some time, and those changes have been recorded in the failures of the family for the most part. There will always be an element of static change between generations, for lack of a better term, but it takes place at that point where there is the most rub between the old and the new. It takes place right where the very best argument for the existence of law exists(that it might prevent the most horrible things), and where, out of the three, its prevalence is the most subjective. Now the pace of change, and our continued inability to adapt to those changes, has gotten so bad that the story can no longer be confined to family alone. We are using schools and workplaces to write it. So, where are we headed?

[onlooker]

Indeed, American society has gotten worse and worse by almost any standard one cares to use. I believe though that at its core this is a problem of alienation. Evil you speak of Agency. Certainly feelings of helplessness are factors involved in persons who can become dangerous and difficult to deal with. But, I think again that this feeling can be alleviated in societies that are not so alienated. Where any particular person can find help and comfort in communion with others. It is truly ironic that in a world of so many people, people can feel alienated. But that is precisely what the hyper individualistic and consumer culture of the US is doing. We have little time to socialize, we go to work and back and then we sit in front of a computer or TV. In bygone days, people would intermingle in all kinds of activities. But now hardly. Ibon has spoken of this. And then the helplessness, the failures are magnified because a person senses that the world out there is cold and impervious to that person's plight. And thus empathy breaks down as we feel we are not receiving it and thus are not willing to extend it. So, that when a person cannot or does not empathize with others, then it becomes easier to blame or hate others. Economically hard times could bind people but also leave some adrift, alone and bitter with the world and people.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Why is it, do you think, that first person shooter games were(and are) the default starting point for video games? That has been the easy place to start. And once video games, around the time of the game Doom started becoming popular first person shooter seemed almost the exclusive type of game available. Developers didn't put much stock into the other kinds. It was easy to get a first person shooter game developed and hard to get some other concept past initial review. Yes, there were race car games and early sport playing games. It wasn't like first person shooter dominated so much that other concepts didn't exist. I ask you because the theme was(and is) so dominant.

I think it has something to do with agency. And those types of games turn agency almost into candy.

Why the need for violence to express the concept (or philosophy) of agency?

Another popular meme of computer games I like is "builders". Such as Civilization builders, space theme builders, railroad system builders, Sim City style builders, and on and on.

To me, these were more like having a career, but it was fun instead of stupid, as far as the things one needed to do to progress, at least in a large company (instead of growing the craft you got an education for, which quickly became secondary in the real world -- UNLESS you were willing to be a purist and advance very little). Skills like planning and strategy, and goals like productivity and optimization and overcoming obstacles are good things in such a context.

It's one thing to have a culture of guns as a serious tool where safety and respect is paramount (where for example, you NEVER aim a gun at anything living you don't intend to shoot). It's another to have a culture full of games where kids pretend to blast away at people and enjoy the blood and gore, and then be shocked, SHOCKED, when that casual psychology toward guns contributes to a culture where when a growing percentage of people go blast away at lots of people when they reach some breaking point.

[Tanada]

In the 1950's most American public schools had gun safety classes and a large percentage had shooting clubs where young people learned to respect firearms.

Add in that from 1940-1972 the National Draft put most 18-20 year olds into two year military service where a much more extensive weapon care and use training took place.

When these things changed in the 1970's the Hollywood 'gun makes you superman' theme started to pervade peoples thinking. Before that people knew and understood Hollywood was being melodramatic, after that people started to believe guns make you all powerful. Gun use became fetishized for young social misfits who view guns as a means of avenging wrongs real r imagined done against them by school, some class of people like the 'jocks' or 'nerds' or society in general. Take away the mystical power of guns and most of this crud will stop, keep making guns sound all powerful and the weak and bullied kids will keep seeing them as a way to avenge themselves.

[Plantagenet]

I wonder which is bigger?

The FBI task force assigned to investigate Donald Trump or the FBI task force assigned to investigate tips about dangerous school shooters?

[evilgenius]

Why is it, do you think, that first person shooter games were(and are) the default starting point for video games? That has been the easy place to start. And once video games, around the time of the game Doom started becoming popular first person shooter seemed almost the exclusive type of game available. Developers didn't put much stock into the other kinds. It was easy to get a first person shooter game developed and hard to get some other concept past initial review. Yes, there were race car games and early sport playing games. It wasn't like first person shooter dominated so much that other concepts didn't exist. I ask you because the theme was(and is) so dominant.

I think it has something to do with agency. And those types of games turn agency almost into candy.

Why the need for violence to express the concept (or philosophy) of agency?

Another popular meme of computer games I like is "builders". Such as Civilization builders, space theme builders, railroad system builders, Sim City style builders, and on and on.

To me, these were more like having a career, but it was fun instead of stupid, as far as the things one needed to do to progress, at least in a large company (instead of growing the craft you got an education for, which quickly became secondary in the real world -- UNLESS you were willing to be a purist and advance very little). Skills like planning and strategy, and goals like productivity and optimization and overcoming obstacles are good things in such a context.

It's one thing to have a culture of guns as a serious tool where safety and respect is paramount (where for example, you NEVER aim a gun at anything living you don't intend to shoot). It's another to have a culture full of games where kids pretend to blast away at people and enjoy the blood and gore, and then be shocked, SHOCKED, when that casual psychology toward guns contributes to a culture where when a growing percentage of people go blast away at lots of people when they reach some breaking point.

I get the same sort of reaction when I see the prevalence of first person shooter games. I wonder why agency isn't more collaborative? It's a real short circuit to focus upon the single player so narrowly as to allow for such easy slacking of thirst for agency. It's not to say that multi-player games are a better answer. They might be. What I'm getting at is how agency is found in the real world is often by cooperating with others. When you try to do things on your own you can only get so far. When you try to do them with others you can really excel. You can get what you want. It takes developing the ability to listen, to allow for what others want alongside what you want. When they point out that your way of doing something may not be the best way, if you learn to test to see which way is the best way rather than get upset, then you will have learned something valuable. Take reaching your goals out of the realm of the emotions, so to speak, and put them into a place where they can be acted upon, so that your emotions can participate as a participant and not as the driver. Games, and education, can focus upon how to do that. I say that education should emphasize entrepreneurship. I say that because the skills necessary for success in today's world lie in that. True agency rarely comes alone. And rarely do entrepreneurs make it alone. And, as for those who see things like love as based in possession, that is an even lonelier place to be.

[Cog]

[KaiserJeep]

One thing everybody should keep in perspective. The Pew statistics show that the overall rate of gun violence has been declining at a modest overall rate since 1993, almost 25 years. In case you are wondering, I use Pew because they include data on crimes not reported to the police, unlike the FBI UCR (uniform crime reporting) or BJS (Bureau of Justice stats).

In fact if one filters out the gang related and drug related offenses, the decline in gun violence is dramatic, not modest.

The difference is now the media are all over gun crimes, school shootings, and the like. This plethora of reports distorts the fact that we are safer from gun violence as time passes, and that no changes are needed in anything.

BTW, there are two legitimate uses for AR-15 type rifles. In spite of it's usage in urban and jungle warfare, the .223 cartridge, or the related 5.56mm NATO round has two main applications in civilian life. Those would be "varmint" shooting (i.e. medium sized pests such as coyotes and foxes) and target shooting.

The fact that these semiauto rifles are built to resemble REAL assuault weapons, which would be fully automatic infantry rifles, is simply marketing. As for the legitimate government applications of REAL infantry arms, the M16-A1 that I learned to fire in 1971 had actually entered service in 1962, and that makes the AR-15/M16 type weapons the longest serving design in US History, 2X-3X longer than anything used in WW2.

[KaiserJeep]

BTW, when I look at his face:

...and read the name Nikolas Cruz, I see a person of mixed racial heritage who has the head shape and slightly distorted features of a kid born with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). I'm not by any means suggesting that he be given a pass on 17 murders - just asking, in what universe did his mental health professionals not feel an obligation to place this sick f--k in the FBI database that would have prevented him from legally buying weapons?

[Outcast_Searcher]

BTW, when I look at his face:

...and read the name Nikolas Cruz, I see a person of mixed racial heritage who has the head shape and slightly distorted features of a kid born with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). I'm not by any means suggesting that he be given a pass on 17 murders - just asking, in what universe did his mental health professionals not feel an obligation to place this sick f--k in the FBI database that would have prevented him from legally buying weapons?

So how can you tell by someone's looks that they are a "sick f--k"? Much less stupid or mentally deficient. How can you tell how wealthy they are or intelligent they are?

People's intuition about the good or evil of someone (i.e. by their race, their clothes, their posture, etc) are about as useful as their intuitions about what is true or false vs. the body of scientific evidence. (Which is by no means perfect, but a HELL of a lot better than rantings about ghosts or a flat earth or AGW based on their personal intuition).

[Ibon]

People's intuition about the good or evil of someone (i.e. by their race, their clothes, their posture, etc) are about as useful as their intuitions about what is true or false vs. the body of scientific evidence. (Which is by no means perfect, but a HELL of a lot better than rantings about ghosts or a flat earth or AGW based on their personal intuition).

Scientific racism employs anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines, in proposing anthropological typologies supporting the classification of human populations into physically discrete human races, that might be asserted to be superior or inferior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

[Ibon]

By the way, opinions please if the outrage this time around might actually have teeth enough to move the intractable stalemate around gun control?

It seems like those aging millennials have finally found a topic to rally around as they are reaching the age to flex their political muscles.

Or am I not reading this right from far away?