Violent movies and video games

[gebobs]

Strict causation in such a complex maelstrom of factors may not be possible to establish with as much certainty as you might want, say, in engineering or biology. Yes correlation is not causation, but then again you cannot have causation without it. If nothing else, the study warrants further research "in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games" as Prof. Willoughby states in the article.

Anyhoo, I sent an email to Prof. Willoughby. Perhaps she will fill us in.

Her response:

The longitudinal research just published in Developmental Psych that the Telegraph is referring to is not able to determine causation as we could not rule out all possible alternative explanations in our analyses. In that study, we show a long-term association between violent video games and aggression, but we do not say that it is the violent content (or anything else) in video games that causes the aggression. If the Telegraph article is implying causation, that does not come from us.

Our experimental data, however, can get a little closer to causality, although with the important caveat that aggression in the lab might not translate into aggression in the real world, and our experimental data shows that it is the competition in violent video games that is responsible for the increased aggression and heightened arousal found in the lab, not the violent content of the games.

[MikeInRoch]

Wow. That's really interesting. Thank you for following that up.

I wonder if the "in the lab" effect translates to "real life".

[dannyek71]

I play violent video games to blow off steam.

When I was in 9th or 10th grade, I made a simple video game where you shot the teacher with a gun. I even showed it to the teacher. He laughed and commended me on my good programming skills. He even gave me hints on making the game better. There was no real life violence/hate involved.

Lord knows what would happen to me now.

[Lucidvizion]

But since you're so agreeable, let's get the conversation started. Feel free to tell me where my ideas are wrong. I harbor no illusions of expertise. But when you do, go ahead and put your own ideas out there.

Anyhoo, I think to start we should go for low hanging fruit. Complete ban on assault rifles or at least a ban on firing outside of licensed ranges. They have specific ammunition. Only distribute it there.

The problem is, the rifles that have been coined assault rifles are essentially hunting rifles wrapped in better ergonomics and they are designed to be modular (for attachments and part replacement). They even shoot the same ammunition.

The original AWB tried banning the rifles by banning the specific "assault weapon" features(pistol grips, etc.), but all manufacturers had to do was design around the law with a few tweaks here and there. If congress came up with a comprehensive ban on assault style weapons, you'd just see lots more hunting rifles that accept high-capacity magazines.

I could go on and on down that rabbit hole, but I think the truth is if the honest goal is to stop these massacres, nothing short of a complete gun ban is going to curb it. I can't even begin imagine the political route it would take to get to that point. In this country the fight could last a generation or 10.

[dannyek71]

The problem is, the rifles that have been coined assault rifles are essentially hunting rifles wrapped in better ergonomics and they are designed to be modular (for attachments and part replacement). They even shoot the same ammunition.

The original AWB tried banning the rifles by banning the specific "assault weapon" features(pistol grips, etc.), but all manufacturers had to do was design around the law with a few tweaks here and there. If congress came up with a comprehensive ban on assault style weapons, you'd just see lots more hunting rifles that accept high-capacity magazines.

I could go on and on down that rabbit hole, but I think the truth is if the honest goal is to stop these massacres, nothing short of a complete gun ban is going to curb it. I can't even begin imagine the political route it would take to get to that point. In this country the fight could last a generation or 10.

Without looking it up, trivia question.

What actually makes a rifle an "Assault Rifle"? There are so many people that want them banned, so explain what they are (without Googleing it).

[Lucidvizion]

Without looking it up, trivia question.

What actually makes a rifle an "Assault Rifle"? There are so many people that want them banned, so explain what they are (without Googleing it).

Off the top of my head:

a rifle that
- accepts detachable magazines

and has 2 or more of the following features:
- pistol grip
- flash suppressor
- collapsible stock
- barrel shroud
- bayonet mount
- grenade launcher
- threaded barrel

An AR15 with an A2 stock and a permanently attached muzzle brake (instead of a flash suppressor threaded to the barrel) would not be banned under the 1994 assault weapon ban (which is currently still in effect in NY, CA, MA, CT, NJ, cook county IL).

What do I get for a prize?

[dannyek71]

Off the top of my head:

a rifle that
- accepts detachable magazines

and has 2 or more of the following features:
- pistol grip
- flash suppressor
- collapsible stock
- barrel shroud
- bayonet mount
- grenade launcher
- threaded barrel

An AR15 with an A2 stock and a permanently attached muzzle brake (instead of a flash suppressor threaded to the barrel) would not be banned under the 1994 assault weapon ban (which is currently still in effect in NY, CA, MA, CT, NJ, cook county IL).

What do I get for a prize?

You'd get a prize if you were correct.

[Tagir]

Have you ever watched kids play a video game?

They are not really intent on killing someone. They are intent on accomplishing a task. They are playing a game and trying to succeed, to unlock the next level or defeat the computer. They are trying to press "A", "up, "down", "down", "B" fast enough to succeed. I doubt almost any kids consider the killing to be very interesting.

[MikeInRoch]

The answer is "no one has agreed on a definition."

[Lucidvizion]

You'd get a prize if you were correct.

I would have been okay with "Wow, that was pretty accurate for someone not using google"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

[dannyek71]

The answer is "no one has agreed on a definition."

It has to do with the mid-sized of the ammo used. They weapon doesn't use a rifle bullet (See the BAR), nor does it use a typical pistol sized round (Sub machine gun). The generally first accepted assault rifle was the German STG44, pretty much an early AK47. This is where the assault rifle gets its tame. The STG44 meant "Storm" or assault.

I watch too much modern marvels.

- - - Updated - - -


I asked what "Assault Rifles" were.

[JATMtheJATM]

Have you ever watched kids play a video game?

They are not really intent on killing someone. They are intent on accomplishing a task. They are playing a game and trying to succeed, to unlock the next level or defeat the computer. They are trying to press "A", "up, "down", "down", "B" fast enough to succeed. I doubt almost any kids consider the killing to be very interesting.

unless its grand theft auto. i have no interest in playing the game. just using a sniper rifle to take out bystanders.

[gebobs]

The problem is, the rifles that have been coined assault rifles are essentially hunting rifles wrapped in better ergonomics and they are designed to be modular (for attachments and part replacement). They even shoot the same ammunition.

The original AWB tried banning the rifles by banning the specific "assault weapon" features(pistol grips, etc.), but all manufacturers had to do was design around the law with a few tweaks here and there. If congress came up with a comprehensive ban on assault style weapons, you'd just see lots more hunting rifles that accept high-capacity magazines.

I could go on and on down that rabbit hole, but I think the truth is if the honest goal is to stop these massacres, nothing short of a complete gun ban is going to curb it. I can't even begin imagine the political route it would take to get to that point. In this country the fight could last a generation or 10.

Nah...the tide is turning. It took the NRA a few generations to get their propaganda in the national consciousness when the only vehicle was mail, radio, and network TV. We can turn that quicker.

[TacklingDummy]

Mommy ****ed up- she was an irresponsible gun owner. No doubt about that. But smaller clips would NOT result in less dead kids unless someone was fighting back to take advantage of the time it takes to switch clips. That's just delusional thinking.

Mommy probably thought she was a responsible gun owner. She probably had her guns locked in one of those nice glass cabinets to show them off. That makes me wonder, how many gun owners who think they are responsible are really not responsible? I'd bet it's over half.

Smaller clips would have saved lives. If the wacko fired off seven 30 round clips for 210 rounds, using a clip that only allowed 5 rounds he would have had to reload 42 times compared to 7 which would have took a lot more time. That might have led to a lot of things. Gun jamming, someone being able to stop him, more kids having time to get away, time for the shooter himself to think "WTF am I doing", more time for the Police to get there, less lives lost. He also wouldn't have been able to carry 42 clips on him.

[dannyek71]

Mommy probably thought she was a responsible gun owner. She probably had her guns locked in one of those nice glass cabinets to show them off. That makes me wonder, how many gun owners who think they are responsible are really not responsible? I'd bet it's over half.

Smaller clips would have saved lives. If the wacko fired off seven 30 round clips for 210 rounds, using a clip that only allowed 5 rounds he would have had to reload 42 times compared to 7 which would have took a lot more time. That might have led to a lot of things. Gun jamming, someone being able to stop him, more kids having time to get away, time for the shooter himself to think "WTF am I doing", more time for the Police to get there, less lives lost. He also wouldn't have been able to carry 42 clips on him.

There are plenty of powerful weapons with the internal capability to hold many more than 5 shots.

Hell, I've shot cheap .22's that internally hold 15-20 shots.