Uncensored Media Considered Harmless 574
"Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life."
- George W. Bush, presidential debate, October 11, 2000
The term we're looking for is "manufactured crisis." That's what we need to start calling it, this supposed violence in our schools.
I don't need to provide you with more quotes from Bush, Gore, Cheney and especially Lieberman about how disgustingly violent our culture has become. You can't pick up a paper without seeing at least three people moaning about violent movies, the violent internet, and worst of all violent video games. They're infecting the minds of our children, don't'cha know. It'd be the new national pastime if it weren't 200 years old: grumping about those damn kids.
Let's counter disinformation with some real numbers. Here's an annotated timeline showing the increase in violent imagery, and the corresponding decrease in actual violence.
1993
Students' nonfatal violent crimes:
1,438,200.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
49.1.
Let's consider 1993 our baseline year, the pre-Doom year. That blockbuster was not released until December 1993, so I think we are safe to assume that it did not begin darkening hearts until 1994 or later. By the end of 1993, the internet's two million host machines include 500 webservers.
Demolition Man, Kalifornia and Falling Down are in the theaters.
1994
Students' nonfatal violent crimes:
1,424,200:
a 1% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
51.2:
a 4% increase from the previous year.
In 1994, shareware Doom, downloadable from the evil internet, shatters existing gaming records. Its bloody graphics and Satanic imagery shock and offend many who are easily shocked and offended. In an era where 200,000 is a great-selling title, 1994 sees the first of fifteen million gamers who download and play Doom.
Meanwhile, the web grows at an annual rate of 341,000%, becoming the 2nd-most popular type of data; among the three million machines on the net, there are too many webservers to count.
The movies Pulp Fiction, Timecop, True Lies, Children of the CornIII, and the politicans' favorite Natural Born Killers are all released in 1994.
1995
Students' nonfatal violent crimes:
1,290,000:
a 9% decrease from the previous year.
Total under-18 murderers:
2,169.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
46.1:
a 10% decrease from the previous year.
In 1995, the web becomes the most popular internet service among the net's four million machines. Shareware Doom continues to rack up downloads. Doom II: Hell On Earth, released last October, takes over as the violentest game ever, with an initial release of half a million units.
The Basketball Diaries, Braveheart, Se7en, and Die Hard3 are released.
1996
Students' nonfatal violent crimes:
1,134,400:
a 12% decrease from the previous year.
Total under-18 murderers:
1,683:
a 22% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
41.6:
a 10% decrease from the previous year.
1996 is a banner year for violent images. Doom II continues on its track to eventually sell two million copies. Duke Nukem 3D, aimed at the young teenage male market, gives our nation's young boys a healthy mix of strippers, jokes, and mass slaughter with machine guns. Soon after, the breakthrough title Quake offers unprecedented visual accuracy: blood, gore, and murder are now illustrated with detail that makes Doom and Duke Nukem look cartoony.
Scream is released in theaters to tremendous success, along with Broken Arrow, CrowII, Sling Blade, and the excellent Fargo. Meanwhile, there are now 9 million hosts on the net.
The effects of all that horrible media violence in 1996 appear in 1997's statistics...
1997
Students' nonfatal violent crimes:
1,055,200:
a 7% decrease from the previous year.
Total under-18 murderers:
1,457:
a 13% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
38.8:
a 7% decrease from the previous year.
In 1997, there are 16 million hosts on the net. At year's end, QuakeII is released, and is quickly banned in Germany for its even-more-realistic violence. And Con Air, Face/Off, Starship Troopers, and Scream2 are released in theaters.
1998
Total under-18 murderers:
1,169:
a 20% decrease from the previous year.
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
36.0:
a 7% decrease from the previous year.
In 1998, Quake II hits its sales stride and begins corrupting young minds. Grand Theft Auto, one of the more vilified and censored video games, is released. The web crosses the 300-million-page mark.
Brace yourself for the movie list: Lethal Weapon4, Saving Private Ryan, American HistoryX, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Ronin, Urban Legend, Blade, and the crappy remake of Psycho hit the theaters.
The result?
1999
Victims of violent crime per 1,000 population, all ages:
32.1:
an 11% decrease from the previous year.
There it is. In the four years between the release of Doom and Quake II, the number of killers under the age of 18 in this country plummeted. A drop of 46% in just four years is nothing short of astonishing.
Long-term graphs are even more valuable. Click through to these, they're small and quick:
- The homicide rate, 1900-1998. We are experiencing the longest and steepest sustained dropoff in violence since the Great Depression.
- Homicide offenders grouped by age, 1976-1998. The number of teenage killers is steadily falling.
- Average age of homicide offenders, 1976-1998. The average age of the American killer has been rising since 1993.
Last month, I watched CNN as my friend Bennett Haselton got grilled opposite Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). After CNN's introduction telling us what to think - cutting straight from footage of Doom to footage of crying Columbine students - the Senator explained how violent games cause children to commit violent actions. He wants to keep dangerous weapons like Quake away from our kids.
That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children.
How do the posturing panderers justify their crisis-du-jour? How'd we end up with the phantom of media-created child violence as a major election issue, while violence plummets?
The facts speak for themselves. If seeing violence has any effect on children's actions, it obviously makes them calm and peaceful.
So here's the slogan for my campaign: our kids deserve the best in first-person shooters. In my America, every family will have free movie tickets, 300 megatexels, and low-ping broadband. Let's put an end to frame rates under 30Hz. For our country - for our safety - we can leave no child behind.
(Sources: US DOJ 1, 2, 3; OJJDP 1, 2, 3; FBI UCR; Blues News; crime.org; poynter.org.)
Re:jamie, jamie, jamie (Score:2)
FWIW, he kept them unloaded in a gun rack (which did have a lock but he usually didn't bother). It was his choice to do so just like it was your dad's choice to keep his (presumably loaded) locked in a drawer. The problem with a lot of these gun mandates are they're exactly that - mandates. You have to keep a gun lock on when you're not using it. You have to keep it locked in a gun safe when you're not using it. There are situations where that may not be good for someone, especially if they feel threatened or don't have kids running around. I don't think the government should have the ability to determine what steps you have to take to protect yourself because they vary too greatly between individuals. I certainly don't know what's best for my neighbor so how could the some bureaucrat in DC know what's good for him?
But kids, especially little ones, don't always listen, no matter how much you tell them. I think your dad took a pretty big risk that you would listen, even with the education he gave you.
Again, this is something best left up for a parent to decide rather than a government. I was mature enough at 7 to have my own gun. Little Joey may be mature enough to watch a scary movie at 10. Franky may not be trustworthy enough to play down at the playground without supervision at 12. Suzy may not be stable enough to use a knife at age 15. I don't think the government can effectively determine what's best for everyone because everyone is GREATLY different. The best we can hope to do is give parents the education they need to help make decisions for their children. I don't have a problem with the movie rating system being used as a rough guideline to let parents know the severity of the flick. I don't have a problem with a violence rating on games. I don't have a problem with minors not being able to buy their own firearms. I do have a problem with a government that would say "Children are not allowed to see x until age y else their parents will be prosecuted and face z years in prison" or "Parents who give their children (some type of) access to guns are psychopaths who need to be locked up to protect their children from their harmful influences." I believe individuals are the ones who can best determine their own needs and that government is too broad and distant to effectively mandate those needs.
Slashdot can be as bad as CNN (Score:2)
However, it contains one irritating grain of hypocrisy that for various reasons I feel I MUST point out.
quote:
"...After CNN's introduction telling us what to think - cutting straight from footage of Doom to footage of crying Columbine students - the Senator explained how violent games cause children to commit violent actions. He wants to keep dangerous weapons like Quake away from our kids.
That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children."
I agree that the introduction you describe, cutting from Doom to Columbine, was indeed designed to "tell us what to think". But in your very next paragraph you commit the same crime. By pointint out how the senator voted on these gun control issues, you have implied that voting against gun locks is as wrong-headed as censoring violent media. Regardless of how one feels about gun control, the implication that it protects children better than censorship is every bit as much "telling us what to think" as CNN's combination of imagery.
And, correlation of statistics aside, isn't this really about freedom? Content creators have an inalienable right to depict violence, and content consumers have an inalienable right to... well, consume that content, yes? Saying that you support the freedom of expression and reception of that expression while at the same time opposing the freedom of self-defense (which includes storing firearms in a way that knee-jerkers consider "unsafe" but that actually allows you rapid and sure enough access) is like saying you want more government programs with less taxes, or dry water, or any other silly example you could think of. It contains an internal contradiction.
But that's only if you take a principled look at it. But even if your perspective is purely pragmatic, it still doesn't hold water. Consider a lock with a key. To be able to access the gun when you need it, you'll need to have the key close at hand. That means either wearing it around your neck while you sleep (or similar measuers) or leaving it in a place where it could be stolen (by your gun-obsessed child, I suppose) or lost. Consider a lock with a combination. If your child has enough resolve and unsupervised time to find the gun in the first place, he has the time to go through all 1000 combinations. And if you've done the horribly irresponsible thing and not taught your child proper gun handling and firearm ethics (indeed this lack of proper training and respect is what causes most children to become fascinated with guns to the point of a fatal accident), it's likely that your child *will* either acquire the key or the combination, and cause an accident. But assuming either type of lock keeps your kid(s) from using it, it keeps *you* from using it as well. And what's the point of having a gun for self defense if when you need it, you're unable to use it?
At any rate, views and even facts about gun locks and (un)safe storage aside, my real point is that Slashdot and its authors should not condemn another media outlet, be it CNN, the NYT, or the Podunk Post for "telling us what to think", then turn around and to the exact same thing.
MoNsTeR
Re:what we REALLY need. (Score:2)
Kid 1: I'm here because my parents were too lax. They never paid any attention to me. They let me do whatever I wanted. When people complained about me, they'd say "that's too bad". It didn't matter what I'd done. . . . .
Kid 2: I'm here because my parents were too strict. They wouldn't let me do anything. Whenever I went out, they wanted to know exactly what I was doing and where I was going. I felt smothered. I had no freedom whatsoever . . . .
____________________
Yeah. Go ahead. Blame the parents. Blame the internet. Blame the kids. The main purpose in blaming is to avoid looking for where you can take responsibility for your part in the problem. As long as you're unwilling to look at your part in the situation, there's no power to really affect the end result.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Re:Al Gore's lies make baby Jesus cry. (Score:2)
----
Ok, this has gone on long enough... (Score:3)
Crime isn't caused by guns; it isn't caused by violence in the media; it isn't caused by bad parenting; it isn't caused by lack of government or increase in police patrol; it isn't caused by war or peace. There are criminal tendencies in all of us, and when desparation gets high enough, the crime line on the bell curve moves and we get more criminals. When there is readily available employment everywhere, the line moves away from the center, and fewer and fewer people excersize their criminal tendencies.
That is the only reason anyone has ever been able to prove. The correlation between personal wealth and crime is extremely easy to demonstrate, whereas even parenting is hard. In Columbine, it is obvious that bad parenting had something to do with it, but there are plenty of situations where good people come from bad homes. Statistically, bad parenting isn't significant anymore than violent movies and games are. And availability of guns has nothing at all to do with crime rates except to act as a deterrant to petty crime, so a high saturation of guns in a society will reduce the instances of burglary and robbery and a certain decrease in homicide, but will certainly not increase these things unless they are in the hands of criminals only.
Its all about context. (Score:2)
somewhere along the line we begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and have their
heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody
else's life."
Perhaps you should read that again. It has nothing to do with the internet, it has to do with the responsibility of people. The point being, if children were raised properly, and supervised properly while they were in their formitive years, the internet wouldn't turn a child's heart dark, nor would anything else.
However, when the internet is used as a babysitter for children who's parents aren't interested in making the time to actually raise them, then the chances are increasingly good they're going to turn out screwed up, whether its the internet that does it, TV, gangs, or whatever else the current media crisis is.
-Restil
Re:Ahh, yes, throwing money at the problem (Score:2)
However, the actual truth of the matter is that these politicians do not see a problem in search of a solution. They see opportunities.
The first is to get the "soccer mom's." The soccer mom's don't like those video games, but buy them for their kids when the kids whine. They don't really believe that they are going to turn their kids into killers, they just think theses games are "icky." (And they think that that kid up the street, with the permissive freethinking parents needs more restrictions. If his parents won't do it, then by Gum, the government will have to.)
The second is to get the grumpy old people's vote. These people don't like teenagers, period, and anything that makes the kids miserable is fine by them. "Lousy longhaired kids, they think they're so smart. Well, when I was a kid they had a shortage of rubber, and I had crummy toys. Why should those punks have it better than me."
The third are the Religious Right. These people vote reliably, but their mentality resembles that of Carry's Mom in the movie Carry. In other words they're nuts, but the politicians want their votes.
The movie and TV industry would probably like to duck for cover, "Get those video games, they're to blame." Besides, if the kids can't play video games, they might sell a few more tickets to Scream XXIV.
Politicians also like power, and the ability to wipe their feet on the US Constitution. This gives them a chance to further suppress the First Amendment. Heck, it might just be video games, but it's a start!
So, politicians will always want to keep this issue around. It's not something the vide game industry could fix by self-censoring, politicians will always want to flog this issue, and they'll always find an excuse to do it.
Re:Does anyone bother learning about the candidate (Score:3)
realchange.org is the ONLY site on the web that I have found that has bad things to say about Nader (other sites just paraphrase this site). For the large part, this site seems to be out to just criticize and slander candidates because it feels like it, for the sake of criticism itself. Most of what is there about Nader is out of context, and I don't really put much credibility in it.
Please, be at least as skeptical of your sources of criticism than of the subjects of the criticisms.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, Nader is head and shoulders above most of the other candidates. And if that just means the other candidates are sleazier than you thought, well, so be it.
I dare you to find a SECOND source to qualify, put in context, and legitimize the statements on this site. If you do, come back then...if not you're just propaganting unsubstantiated criticism.
Re:The Real Issue (Score:2)
There was nothing in the original constitution that was prohibitive of slavery, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.
I would be all in favor of an amendment making it illegal to transfer wealth from one individual to another without voluntary consent. It's called "freedom".
--
flip it around (Score:2)
You also *presume* that gun locks actually do reduce accidents, which is far from proven. I was a smart kid, and you probably were too. If knowing it was wrong didn't stop you or I, we could have gotten the locks off those guns no question about it, and we would have had the same chance of accidentally discharging the supposedly "safely stored" weapon. No accident prevented.
I'm not saying that exactly 0 accidents will be prevented, or even that more people will die because they couldn't defend themselves than children will be saved (though I believe the latter would be true). Regardless of that, my firearm is my property, and I have an absolute right to use it in any way that is not an INITIATION of force. Simply storing it a certain way is not a willful act of force, and thus cannot be legitimately prohibited. (also note that using it in self-defense is RETALIATORY force, which is not only a right, but considered by many to be a duty)
MoNsTeR
The Government Wants Control Over All Media (Score:4)
So... What does cause violence? (Score:4)
This is my opinion.
However, if these things don't cause crime or violence, I must ask myself - what does?
Actually, I must not ask myself what causes violence and crime, I must instead ask myself "Why am I not violent and/or a criminal?"...
This is the root question. I am not saying I don't get angry, that I never throw things out of anger, that I don't ever yell - indeed, I have done all of these things, and will probably do them again in the future. However, overall, I am not a criminal, nor am I violent. So, why not?
I think (personally) it comes down to one thing, and one thing only:
Respect.
I am not violent because I respect myself and others. I am not criminal because I respect others and their property.
One thing I have noticed, growing up, is that respect seems (for a lot of people - not all) to come with age and wisdom. It is also something that can be taught. In fact, I would argue that even if respect is instilled at an early age, you still gain more respect as grow older. What makes me say this?
I have seen interviews on TV done with older individuals who, as younger teens and adults, commited various attrocious crimes (murder, rape, etc), but now see the error of what they have done (many times after spending long amounts of time in prison), and are trying to get youths around their neighborhoods to change, to be better individuals. I have also personally seen individuals who, as they got older, gained more respect.
Recently, I got my first driving ticket, for speeding. I was doing 85 in a 75 mph zone. What does this have to do with anything? Well, when the cop hit his lights, I looked at my speed, saw that I was speeding - and thus rightfully deserved the ticket. No prob there. After I got home (knowing that I typically speeded all the time, even going 15 miles to/from work), I decided to do an experiment:
For one week, I would try going the speed limit, and see how it was. I would respect my fellow drivers, and drive more safely. So, what did I find?
First, I found that speeding didn't help me any in the first place at such short distances - and extra 10-15 mph only saves a few minutes, if that, on trips of such short distances.
But most intriguingly (perhaps because before, I was one among many), was the blatent display of lack of respect of other drivers. Now, these same drivers would "get on my tail", urging me to go faster, plus I tended to notice more of the "insane" drivers on the road. I also noticed the ones who gave the same respect as I was now giving.
After the week was up, I continued driving at the more conservative speed. I have since found (it has been over a month now) that I find it less stressful driving to and from work - less stressful driving everywhere, in fact - since I am not having to concentrate as hard as I did driving at major speeds. I can also spot the less respectful drivers on the road quicker, and get out of their way, as well.
Lack of respect - this is what causes the majority of violence and crime in America.
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
it's not about being stubborn (Score:3)
1. A lock on my gun will at the very least make it difficult to ready my weapon to defend my life, family, and home. At the worst, it will outright *prevent* me from doing so, say because I lost the key or forgot the combination. And if on top of that I don't have kids, then there's no chance of an accident being prevented, and thus no possible positive value whatsoever.
2. It is my absolute right to use my property (here, my gun) in any way that is not an INITIATION of force. Simply storing it in a certain way is not a willful act of violence, and thus cannot be legitimately prohibited. (note that use of my firearm in self-defense is RETALIATORY force, another absolute right).
3. Kids are smart. Could you have gotten the lock off of a gun when you were a kid if you didn't know any better? I could have, no doubt. All a kid would have to do is sit around guessing combinations, or just find the key, and the lock's as good as non-existant. The kid's also smart enough to pick a time when daddy's away, so he has a bunch of time to guess numbers or hunt for the key, whereas when your house is being broken into you have mere seconds to ready your firearm.
4. An irresponsible gun owner, who has children, and puts a lock on his gun creates for himself a false sense of safety. What a responsible gun owner does is take his kid to the range and teaches him how to properly handle and shoot a gun, and to respect it for the dangerous tool that it is, like my Uncle Marc did with me when I was 7. And because I knew proper gun safety that young, I got my first gun for xmas when I was 12, a beautiful Ruger 10/22 that I still have and love (I'm 19). Because I've known proper firearms ethics, I've never shown my friends where the guns are, or played with a loaded gun, or anything of that foolish nature. For the irresponsible gun owner who doesn't teach his kids about guns, that lock is indeed ALL that insures against an accident, and it is flimsy insurance indeed.
5. Laws mandating "safe storage" are unenforceable, unless we really do repeal the 4th Amendment (remember when we had protection from unreasonable searches and siezures? I don't, we lost it before I was born). The police would have to knock on your door, ask you if you own any firearms (this is already a hideous violation of your rights), and then if you say yes, you'll have to show them where and how your guns are stored, and the police will have to decide if it's "safe" or not. Of course, to even show up, they'd either need no 4th Amendment restrictions, or a proper warrant (and how would they get a warrant if the only evidence are the guns themselves?).
So, to summarize why no intelligent person should vote FOR gun lock laws:
1. They're counterproductive.
2. They violate our rights.
3. They don't work.
4. They're counterproductive.
5. They're unenforceable.
MoNsTeR
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
If you want to make the purpose of a car that basic, do the same with guns. Firearms are designed to launch projectiles. No more, no less. What you do with that from there is up to you. It is impossible to design a firearm that can do that if it is inappropriately misused.
LK
Re:Don't Expect Salvation to Come From the Courts (Score:2)
America hasn't been a "free country" in a long time, if you're referring to the right to do whatever you want and damn the consequences. America hasn't been a "free country" this century if you're referring to children's rights. Children don't have rights. Children are frighteningly close to property of the country and their parents. Their parents have the right to raise them however they wish, unless and until they begin a narrow category of action known as "abuse" (which I won't even get into the hypocrisy regarding), at which point the govenment can take away the kids and raise them however the government wants.
Children are a perpetual, self-sustaning second class. They have effectively no rights, and no voice to complain about it. Get used to it. It's been going on since forever.
Your "draconian laws" are there to "protect" children, who are obviously impressionable in their youth and thus need protection. They're also there to aid parents in preventing kids from violating their will. Because, after all, children must never ever think for themselves. Until of course they become adults.
Yes, some of the above is sarcastic. Some of it is real. No I didn't bother to separate it out. Why? Because you're going to read it through your understanding of the world, and take from it whatever your brain feels like taking from it. So why should I bother with the effort to make it easier for you to disagree with me?
Jeff
Re:The Real Issue (Score:2)
jamie, as usual, is hyperventilating as only an earnest and idealistic youngster can do. Bush did not blame Columbine on the internet. Think of it this way: Bush could have said that those boys had their hearts turned dark by hanging out on the street corner. If he had said that, would he have been blaming "street corners"? No. He would have been using "street corner" as a shorthand to describe a social phenomenon that is known to or is easy to imagine foments anti-social attitudes. Such forums exist on the internet also. You can argue whether he's right or wrong, but you'd do better to stick to what he meant and not some bogeyman you've invented.
Re:Homicide Rates in Scientific American (Score:2)
--
Re:No, that's just a symptom (Score:2)
I agree, in part...
The REAL problem is HOW we educate. Do we model a system of top down coercion, where the teacher plays the role of an authority figure, more interested in compliance training than learning?
Do we focus kids on competition by making it implicit in all the games they play and everything they do?
Or do we try a more democratic approach to education where genuine collaboration is at least as important as competition?
Competition means keeping secrets. Kids want to win, so they don't communicate. See how this breaks down collaborative learning? See how this isolates?
Same thing with authority. Should we coerce children into following rules, or should we show them the role they play in a democracy so that they develop a vested interest in following the rules that they helped create? We should teach kids from day one how to govern as a citizen in a democracy.
Why isn't critical thinking on the curriculum? Well, it would be disasterous. They'd see right through the stupid things they are being asked to do everyday in school. I don't know about you, but I would never deliberately put myself into a situation like I experienced in school. And I sure as hell wouldn't put a child through that experience!
RE Higher standards, we should ask for higher standards in terms of quality, not test scores. They are two very different things. Asking for higher test scores alone is asking for WORSE SCHOOLS! Don't believe me? We should all learn from Texas:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/c
and
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
So in closing, you can spend all the money you want. But it won't make a difference unless you spend it wisely.
James.
Re:My jaw dropped when i heard that (Score:2)
LK
Re:Gun Safety (Score:2)
> If you think Handgun Control Inc. has anything to do with gun safety, you have been smoking too much weed.
While I don't agree with your general sentiments, I do agree that there is an enormous crock of stinky stuff involved.
For instance, who actually uses locks on their handguns?
Scenario #1 -
Dope dealer: Hold on a sec, G-man. We'll shoot it out as soon as I wake up enough to find the key to my gun lock.
Scenarion #2 -
Honest resident of bad neighborhood: Hold on a second, burgler man. Let me take the lock off my gun so I can defend my family and possessions.
Frankly, I think the gun lock issue was a content-free PR move on both sides of the issue. For one side, it was a meaningless "concession" that helped prevent more serious concessions. For the other, it was a meaningless "triumph" that lets them claim progress where none is actually being made.
I suspect a few people will actually use their gun locks. More power to them. But I seriously doubt that enough people will use them to have any measurable effect on the rates of accidental or deliberate shootings.
--
Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
And don't forget the current sentacing dispairities between powder cocaine (primarily used by whites) and "crack" cocaine (primarily used by blacks), and other laws which, while technically colorblind, have resulted in a fantastic number of black persons being convicted of felonies instead of misdemeanors and thus being stripped of the vote.
Maybe it is already too late. Who was it that said that the US is at that awkward stage, too late to work within the system but too early to shoot the bastards?
Re: Religion stops a thinking mind (Score:2)
Re: Religion stops a thinking mind (Score:2)
Lee Reynolds
Re:definition of facism... (Score:2)
Hitler was elected. It doesn't make much difference when the majority of the people are sheep who are easily deceived.
Re:Gun Safety (Score:2)
That's a load of BS. It's only true if you include suicides, which is a stupid thing to include because it's intentional and self-inflicted. If there wasn't a gun handy, the person would prolly just down a bottle of pills or something.
Re:Gun Safety (Score:2)
Secure handgun storage? Child safety locks? These aren't gun bans.
No, but they do effectively render the gun useless in the event of an emergency in which you need it (i.e. someone breaks into your house or your ex-spouse is trying to break in the door to kill you). Not much better than a ban really.
These two bills are intended solely to prevent children from reaching guns and hurting themselves/others with them.
While I can appreciate the intent, I can't condone their tactics. Education, training, and enforcement of existing laws would be a lot more likely to prevent such things from happening and we'd still have a means of self-defense that was worth a damn when we need it. Look at the situations where a kid gets ahold of a gun. Often the parents or others are fscked up beyond belief and leave the guns laying around for the kids to pick up and walk off with. Think more laws are gonna fix that problem?
Re:Won't work (Score:2)
Overall this is an excelently researched and written article. I think that it is wasted if it is 'only' posted on slashdot (preaching to the converted). It should be submited to more 'mainstream' media.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Re:jamie, jamie, jamie (Score:2)
Take a look at states with concealed carry laws. Violent crime has gone down even further in those states precesely because a criminal doesn't know if his next victim may kill him. Where do we see some of the most violent crimes today? Airports... because the criminals know that their victims are unarmed. How often do you hear stories out of major tourism places like Florida regarding foreigners being targetted? Criminals have to think twice before they go after someone who's armed
Where shall this end? Is some property really more worth than a life?
When criminals realize they will either spend the rest of their life in prison doing hard time or be killed by attacking an armed victim. Crime persists today because the penalties for committing them are too light. If a criminal is forced into hard labor in a system that supports PENANCE, he'll think twice before committing some crime against another human or society at large. If they think they're going to get their wrists slapped or suffer a mild punishment of 3 meals a day, cable tv, free college education, free weight room, etc, what provides the impetus for them to act in a legal manner? It sounds nice to think we can rehabilitate people but something like 75% of all parolees violate their parole and go back to prison... we need to tell them "If you commit a crime, you will be punished for it... and you can't blame society or your parents. You're not a victim... you committed a crime of your own will." Is property worth more than life? Certainly not... but only some violent crimes are caused by desire of property - many are the result of a desire to hurt another human (see rape, serial killing, bombings, etc). Would you want your mother to be able to have some amount of self protection from a rapist or would you rather her tell the attacker "but you're only supposed to want my property"?
Does anyone bother learning about the candidates? (Score:2)
Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups:
College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of control, use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a form so they can get their $2-6 back. Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader, like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off - unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary checkoff would only have raised $30,000
There's much more. I wish people would apply the the same level of suspicion to third-party candidates that they apply to popular candidates.
-$20? I wanted a peanut.
Enter The Sarchasm (Score:4)
I don't usually flame Slashdot commenters en masse.
I'll make an exception for every single one of you who paid way too much attention in Stats class and far too little attention in English.
Jamie's point wasn't that we need more violence. I don't care what he said; it doesn't take more than a few moments of reflection to realize Jamie's point was to brutally shred the conjecture that A) Video games have turned our kids into bloodthirsty murderous beasts and B) The people wishing to blame everything on violent games have any legitimate intention of truly protecting our children(as opposed to just trying to make a quick political buck).
Seriously, folks. Figure it out.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Did the Internet Turn YOUR Heart Dark, Child? (Score:3)
Further, we hereby declare the Governor to be a big smirky doofus."
The facts speak for themselves... (Score:2)
I think this is inaccurate. The effect of the Internet and video games is that kids are at home surfing the net and playing games. They have something to captivate their interest enough that they aren't blowing each other's heads off.
--josh
--sysadmin for ibm's ebusiness web farm
Re:So... What does cause violence? (Score:2)
Follow the three R's:
Respect for self
Respect for others and
Responsibility for all your actions.
You seem to be following this, I salute you.
-John
Re:jamie, jamie, jamie (Score:2)
The genie is already out of the bottle... there is no way you're going to eliminate guns from the hands of criminals in the US so the best thing to do is to have an educated and armed populace to defend themselves. If a criminal thinks he may die in the commission of his crime, chances are he'll think twice about doing it.
What lots of people don't realize is that jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone.
Jail isn't about rehabilitation. It's about paying back society for your crime. The root of the word "penitentiary" is penance... which is defined as punishment to show repent for wrongdoing. We're too easy on criminals today... instead of making them pay for committing a crime, we treat them like they're the victim. They aren't. The chose to commit an act against society and deserve to pay the price for that willful violation of the law.
If you want to fight do something about society, take care that there is no reason to commit a crime.
You're living in some socialist utopian fallacy if you think this is even possible. Humans have shown time and time again the willingness to commit a crime even if there is no reason to commit one. Nobody's desires are the same as everyone else's... Some people are simply wired wrong... even rich people commit heinous crimes despite the fact they have everything they could ever need. Make someone think twice about having to do hard time for committing a crime and keep the prisoners locked up for the full term of their sentence and suddenly the desire to commit crime will plummet.
Guns vs pot (Score:3)
Europe: We don't care much about what you can do to yourself, that's your business. However we will restrict stuff made to harm others.
US: We don't care what you can do to others. But we will restrict stuff made(or grown) that might harm you.
ok.. I havent worked it out completely yet, but feel free to comment
//rdj
Maybe all of that's true - - (Score:2)
Good or bad these are the facts; in NYC the boogie man theory just doesn't play out.
Re:what we REALLY need. (Score:3)
we need better parents!
You'll never get anywhere in politics by blaming the people who vote for you. Even if you're absolutely 100% right. You will never see a politician with this position get elected, which is a shame, since I firmly believe you're right.
Re:The Real Issue (Score:2)
People don't pay attn to the mod strings, mostly to just "+1" or "-1".
And there's no way to mod "Funny but true".
--
Re:what we REALLY need. (Score:4)
I think the Onion [theonion.com] said it best:
FBI to Require Background Checks On Child-Care Providers; Child-Havers Unaffected [theonion.com].
--
Interesting Numbers (Score:2)
Given those numbers and the supposed "increase" in exposure to violent entertainment, one could logically conclude that violent entertainment actually LESSENS crime.
It seems like such a simple, logical, obvious contradiction -- leaders take credit for decreases in crime rates, while at the same time demanding greater restrictions on personal freedoms in order to combat the "crises". Well, which is it?
The fundamental problem is that Americans get their impression of the rest of the country through their televisions. One horrible incident (such as Columbine) creates the impression that the same thing is happening all over the place. "We have to act!"
Result -- Absurd zero-tolerance policies that get kids suspended for carrying keychains with 1" models of guns.
Geez America. Grow up.
Re:SlashDot the Vote. (Score:2)
Wow! (and assigning blame) (Score:2)
This was the most insightful and best researched bit of social commentary I've ever read on Slashdot.
I don't fully blame Congress or the candidates in the US for this situation. I hesitate to say this next bit: I blame the competition among the local news programs. I believe that in the competition for viewers, the major networks and their local affiliates learned that highlighting local stories involving violence, sex, and preferably both attracted viewers. The teasers like "see how this ordinary housewife obsession led her to kill her lover, after these messages" wouldn't be used unless they worked. Just as websites are judged by advertisers for their 'stickiness', TV news programs fight to keep viewers glued to the channel. The resulting coverage becomes more focused on violence than the statistics alone would justify.
A second important point is one of perception. The media may run one two minute spot discussing the "drop of violence according to a recent government report" and 200 stories about individual violent acts. To the viewer, the repetition will win out.
I'd like to conclude by saying that we also have ourselves to blame. As the viewing audience, we could select alternate news sources like Public Television (US) or the BBC. But we don't. Instead we gossip around the proverbial water cooler about the horrible carnage on last night's news. Maybe today's news is yesterday's gladiatorial combat.
Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Example 1:
1993: Students' violent crimes: 1,438,200.
1994: Students' violent crimes: 1,424,200: a 1% decrease from the previous year.
1995: Students' violent crimes: 1,290,000: a 9% decrease from the previous year.
1996: Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,134,400: a 12% decrease from the previous year.
1997: Students' nonfatal violent crimes: 1,055,200: a 7% decrease from the previous year
First of all, how did the word "nonfatal" get in there in 1996? Are we still measuring the same thing with different terms or are they apples and oranges?
Second, I notice that student information from 1998/1999 is not given. Why not?
Third, why did you start in 1993? Why not start way back BEFORE violent video games made an appearance to get a baseline? If there was a big jump when gaming started, then recent fluctuations are moot.
All in all, poorly presented--especially since this is a technical forum, you damned idiot, not a pulpit for you to expound your personal political views..
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:2)
--
Re:Do It To Julia! (Score:2)
I didn't interpret that as an attack on someone else's rights; rather pointing out that while the senator wants to regulate something that has, at best, a tenuous association with violence, in the form of depiction, the senator opposes any attempt to regulate a tool which is favoured as an actual method of delivering violence.
Since both gun ownership and free speech are protected by the US Constitution[1], it seems intellectually incoherant to attack depict tools of violence while defending the tools thereof.
[1] I'll let others argue to what degrees.
Repeat after me... (Score:2)
Just because computer games were on the rise in the 90's and violence among teens was on the decline DOES NOT mean that one caused the other, or vice versa.
Please go read some Richard Fenyman - he had the right idea - what you are doing is pseudoscience, and in the end it will only cloud things up and push us away from the real causes and solutions.
LL
Re:Yep (Score:2)
He gives great quotes and statistics and backs them up with links to reputable places. But correlation does not imply causation.
There is no attempt to make a direct link between teen violence and video games anywhere in his argument.
Who knows, maybe there was a similar increase in the sales of bananas since 1993; does that mean that bananas are responsible for the decrease in teen violence? Of course not! Likewise, video game usage may or may not have have been a cause (or effect) of teen violence, but no good evidence for that is found in his argument.
This method of saying "look at this graph! this is going up and this is also going up so this must be the cause of that" is really bad science.
LL
Re:Attack on the internet (Score:2)
Kids ignored by their parents? Yes of course current generations invented these things didn't we?
I think the real problem is that this is just a large example of what I cold "golden age syndrome" (social psycology probably has a better term but I only had one class in it). Which is the tendancy of people to think "Things were better back when..."
There seems to be a general sense of "things are getting worst". and of course "this didn't happen back when I was a kid".
I am pretty sure that people have been saying this for the past few thousand years, and with the exception of changes caused by technological advances, they have almost always been wrong.
Kids doing violent things? How about Leopold and Loeb? They were teenagers who killed kidnaped and killed a classmate of theirs, back in the 1920s or so.
Ok, maybe prior to the past 40 years or so, semi-automatic guns were not as available. Better weapons certainly allows violence to be scaled up (like columbine) but seriously, its nothing new, just more of the same.
The only real change that I see, over the past 50 years, is the end of the cold war. Now there is no "Big bad enemy" that our media can focus on. So what happens? We hear more about bad things going on at home. Its not the big bad russians who want to kill nuke our children - its the guy next door.
Serial killers, sociopaths, and people who just like being violent, have existed since the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is our ability to find out about them (and find out about them and find out about them).
Of course, being a MA native, I would be lax to not throw good old Lizzy Borden into the mix. wasn't that over a hundred years or so ago that she felt the need to axe her parents about a few things? (so what if she wasn't convicted - its pretty widely believed that she did it)
To bring out the old cliche "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
Human: Same animal - new toys.
-Steve
Great. Now prove the two are connected. (Score:4)
Is it really Doom that caused the drop in crime rates? Or is it better law enforcement at the state and local levels? Is it mandatory sentencing? Was it caused by things that happened 15 years ago? PROVE IT, or you are as bad as they are.
I have to say that Bush's quote about the Columbine shootings being related to the internet was weak. It certainly sounded like he was blaming the net, at least in the sound bite that got picked up on the radio this morning.
(On the other hand, I have to point out that Gore's assertion that more gun control would have prevented Columbine is absurd. The killers broke something like 19 different laws getting their guns, the problem was that they didn't get CAUGHT doing it. It was a failure of enforcement, by the police, and the schools, and the families, not a problem of not having enough laws on the books. But with Gore, as with all gun control types, all it will take is just one more little law, and one more little right surrendered. Then everything will be fine and the sun will shine 24 hours a day. And when that doesn't work, they'll do it again. This is off-topic, I know, but I had to say it.)
Jon
they're both idiots. (Score:2)
Re:what we REALLY need. (Score:2)
Re:What they don't understand... (Score:2)
Now violance in schools.. that's a good question. Why do kids come in to school with guns and start shooting? It might have something to do with opression.
Re:Do It To Julia! (Score:3)
You can defend your safety (your right to life, if you will) by attacking someone else's rights. You are most likely alive right now because everyone else's right to kill you has been taken away by the government, while this does not prevent every murder, it prevents a whole lot. I know there are plenty of people I would have killed in the heat of the moment if I knew there would be no repercussions from law enforcement, I would drive much faster if the government didn't take that right away, and I would steal food from the grocery store if the government didn't take that right away.
You do obtain security by taking freedom away. In a truly free socity, anyone would be free to take your freedom away.
Re:damn straight (Score:2)
Re:Wow! (and assigning blame) (Score:2)
Repeat after me: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
His argument has great numbers, but he doesn't establish a single link between the two. He might as well have put up the number of bananas shipped each year and tried to correlate that with teen violence.
Wake up people, his method of argument is just as bad as the people who claim that video games DO cause violence in teens. You all just happen to like his conclusion better, so you are ignoring that it is pseudoscience.
LL
Re:Oh, that 2nd amendment right... (Score:2)
Here in MA, many towns have laws regarding pool safety, mostly so that kids don't get into your yard and drown in your pool. There has to be a fence X feet high, with no gap larger than Y (meaning usually picket fences). Locked (padlocked) gates to access the pool area. Plus you're still responsible even if someone gets around all that and still drowns in your pool. Homeowner insurance is typically higher as a result of this.
I don't recall hearing that homeowner insurance is more expensive if you have firearms - maybe it is.
Culture and the Internet (Score:2)
But I also disagree with Slashdot's statement: "If we really want less violence in our schools, we obviously need more violence on our Internet.
Do you really believe there is some kind of Human Violence Quotient that all humans must maintain? I hope not.
I think the real problem is that the entertainment industry is taking advantage of this lack of supervision to groom super-impulse-consumers.
Ask any parent if they think they're at war with the entertainment industry for the minds of their children -- they'll say YES!! The entertainment industry preys specifically upon people (and especially children) with low self-esteem and brainwashes them into becoming lifelong impulse shoppers.
The more low-self-esteem people out there, the better! One of the most common advertising messages out there is, "You didn't buy a Widget? Now everyone thinks you're weird!!" Unfortunately, many low-self-esteem people find violence and violent video games as a way to feel in control.
Logically (Score:4)
Come to think of it, I don't really remember to many school shootings before Clinton and Gore came to power.
Correlation != Causation (Score:2)
Correlation does not imply causation. This article correlates an increase in violent movies & video games with an overall decrease in violent crimes. The claim that exposing a child to violent media makes them "calm and peaceful" is absolutely outrageous. I'm not saying the claim is necessarily false, but you have no direct evidence for this. Only controlled studies with repeatable results can suggest causation.
Here's an example:
Children with large feet tend to be better readers. Does this mean that large feet facilitate reading, or that the language center of the brain somehow influences our growth? No. All it means is that older children (who generally have larger feet) tend to be able to read better than younger ones.
While you accuse politicians of spreading disinformation, you're doing the same yourself. The only difference is that your disinformation conforms to your value system.
Re:what we REALLY need. (Score:3)
how long have we been hearing that solution? if no other cause for the crisis du jour seems immediately relevant: blame parents.
Are parents not legally and morally responsible for their children until their children reach adult age?
The reason that particular solution hasn't gone away yet is because as a general rule parents aren't taking responsibility for their children's upbringing. They pop 'em out, plunk them in front of the TV/computer/N64 and then blame everyone else when their kid turns out to be the next psychopath.
As a parent of two (soon three) children myself, I know damn well how much hard work it is to raise kids (and these kids aren't even old enough to cause real trouble yet!) -- many parents just don't realize how much effort is required and when they do, they slough it off since it's "too much".
So yes, better parents is the answer.
Re:what we REALLY need. (Score:2)
that's right! more porn in school! (Score:2)
well, something like this. more violence on the internet==less violence in reality, more porn in school==less violence in school. it's a similar tack, anyway.
Re:Look, apples and oranges! (Score:2)
(Emphasis mine.)
If you realize it is tongue in cheek, then why do you say it is just as bad? It's not. It's tongue in cheek! Is he really saying that increasing the amount of violence on the internet and movies causes a decrease of violence amoung the young in real life? No.
Re:Look, apples and oranges! (Score:2)
Also, it's possible that the "training" and desencitisation kids get from violent video games is exactly what they need to prevent violence. Simply, practice improves your critical thinking during violent situations which leads to a better understanding of the advantages of a nonviolent solution, i.e. kids learn to minimize the effects of adrinolin and/or the violent situation on their judgement processes.
Actually, that would be an interesting studdy. Do kids who play violent video games manage to get out of more fights without violence. If the result's were positive then it would go a long way towards showing that violent video games really do decrease violence among kids.
She wasn't trying to (Score:2)
I'm 100% certain that if you sat down jamie and asked her (I'm assuming it's a female jamie, and if I'm wrong I'm sorry) she would tell you that she doesn't really believe that Doom is directly lowering the rate of violence in this country.
Intelligent != Good Parent (Score:2)
You'd think so, wouldn't you? My wife is a nanny for 3 boys between ages 2 and 10. Both of their parents are Ph.D.s and are tenured university professors. I think they qualify as "intelligent" and "well-educated".
However, these people are about the worst parents I've ever heard of. The mother has no clue about nutrition (gives her kids cookies or even a bowl of bacon bits for breakfast - I kid you not). The father will leave the kids alone in the house while he goes out for coffee. Both of them let the youngest stay up until nearly midnight. Discipline is non-existent, and each child knows how to push the parent's buttons just so. To wit, the 3 year-old was getting HARD CANDIES for BREAKFAST when he was less than 2. Stupid, AND dangerous.
So, a clarification: We need intelligent people who are well-educated about being parents. Frankly, intelligence and higher learning do not a good parent make.
Re:Don't harp on guns. (Score:2)
Of course, after that we'd no doubt see a five day waiting period to buy a gallon of gasoline, and federally mandated gas cap locks.
Censorship is inevitable (Score:5)
The truth is that the Republicans decide, after the string of school shootings that the best way for them to defend their positions on guns was to ratchet up the Culture War. The Democratic presidential ticket is just as right wing on the Culture War as the Republicans are, there is no significant difference between the two tickets on the First Amendment.
I'm probably tilting at windmills with my Libertarian vote, but as far as I'm concerned a vote for the two party system is a wasted vote, and I don't feel like sitting home on election day feeling irrelevant as the Democratic and Republican sharks circle around the US Constitution deciding with part to chomp off next.
As a game developer recently wrote in Computer Gaming monthly, games are going to take the fall for Hollywood, because Hollywood has more clout with the old men than the Gaming Industry. The studies which supposedly "prove" that violent video-games lead to violence in real life are junk science (see my sig), but that won't matter to people who believe that creation science is not an oxymoron. (Or even to some others, who may scoff at people who believe in creation science but will choose to believe the nonsense behind these studies because it fits in with their world view, or gets them money and political power.)
America is not a free country, it is only free compared to worse places. When you go to a movie, you don't see the same one they can show unedited in Europe. When you play a game, you play a different version than they play in Japan. It's a new age of censorship, with the government putting legal muscle behind region based censorship.
We will continue to hear, from the fascists who now populate the Republican and Democratic parties that "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds." If you can put aside the reality of life in modern America and believe that, I envy you. Unfortunately, I am incapable of destroying my powers of reason to the point where I can agree with such a statement.
We are heading into a new dark age, and no one is putting on the brakes. Where is a public voice against censorship? Where is a cry for reason over emotion?
Not in American political life, that's for sure!
School shootings (Score:4)
I lived in Philly most of my life growing up, and there were always lots of shootings and incidents in the city schools. But they were predominately in the black schools, and so nobody put up much of a fuss about it. I think it just goes to show how the media is still an ethnocentric device of the majority race of this country.
Re:Fuzzy Math! (Score:2)
As others have pointed out that Jamie is the author of this one, not Katz.
Aside from that, despite its name, fuzzy math and its accompanying multi-valented logic (correctly used) is typically much more accurate than traditional math with its bi-valented logic.
I cracked up while watching the first presidential debate when George W. Bush tried to condemn Al Gore's numbers with allegations of fuzzy math. It became quite apparent that Mr. Bush has no comprehension of advance mathematics. The same can likely be said for Mr. Gore, but I don't have any firsthand evidence of that.
have a day,
-l
It isn't just the Republicans (Score:3)
Re:Look, apples and oranges! (Score:3)
Good piece, thank you! You listen to NPR, and appreciate good logic. Did you catch that story a few days ago when the Milosevic government fell? An NPR story spun the story about how "good" the Serbian people are because they are to a man armed, and yet had a revolution with no bloodshed. See the logic? The US has too many murders, therefore too many guns. Serbia has little killing, therefore... good people.
Re:The Real Issue (Score:4)
What to do? Well, I'm voting for a candidate who supports my right to buy whatever games I want, play then whenever I want, send or receive any form of communication via the Internet or any other medium without being intercepted by government agents, rent or buy any film I want, and do all of this without paying any federal income or sales taxes. Sound good? If so, then check out Harry Browne [harrybrowne2000.org]. He's on the ballot in all 50 states and - I'm not 100% sure, but - hold your breath - I think he's actually read the Constitution at some point in time!
If you don't want your Net to be taxed (Gore) or censored (Bush), vote for the candidate who actually supports your views, not just the lesser evil of the two drones you may have watched last night. Blatant plug? Sure. Offtopic? No damn way. If you vote for Gore, you're saying that you support higher taxes (and censorship - Lieberman, anyone?). If you vote for Bush, you're saying that you support censorship (and higher taxes - come on, do you really see this guy resisting money coming his way?). Well...do you?
What's wrong with this post. (Score:5)
One of the first things you should learn (in any social science class, anyway) is that correlation does not imply causality. Wait a minute. Apparently someone doesn't get that. I'll say it again.
Correlation does not imply causality.
Saying "what we really need is more violence in the media" is a lot like Herrstein and Murray's conclusion in the Bell Curve [amazon.com] that non-white people really *are* less intelligent. They conveniently forgot, as apparently you have as well, to look at confounding factors, and so they assigned race as a causative factor of low intellligence.
Now, I'm not accusing you of being a racist. I understand that what you probably MEANT was that "hey, the increase in media violence has not caused a corresponding increase in actual violence." I just wish you'd SAID that. Because what you DID say is that media violence somehow decreases actual violence. Which is preposterous, and not supported by anything.
"his party's bogeymen" (Score:3)
(Interlude: Sigh... It appears that www.algore.com [algore.com], and not www.algore.org [algore.org], is the Gore campaign homepage. I guess that's appropriate, since politicians are basically commercial organizations these days...)
Here are some quotes from a 1998 Gore speech [algore.com]:This speech was given long before the Columbine incident, and (creepily) a few hours before the Jonesboro shooting. The fact that Gore came up with his position on his own, before all the hype started, is in some ways even more disturbing.
On balance, Gore-Lieberman would probably do slightly less damage to our freedom of speech than Bush-Cheney would, but the difference is insignificant. Blaming the movement on the Republicans only reduces your credibility as an activist.
As you might have guessed by now, I'll be voting for Harry Browne [harrybrowne2000.org]. At least he uses TLD's properly.
SlashDot the Vote. (Score:3)
what we REALLY need. (Score:4)
we need better parents!
now, I am not blaiming anyone here, but where are the parents at in all of these instances? violence prevention starts at home, with the morals and values that are instilled by our parents and peers.
people need to leave our internet, video games, literature, etc. alone and be responsible for the life they bring into this world.
The Real Issue (Score:5)
/.
Re:you think BUSH is stupid... (Score:3)
Why is that such an unreasonable course of action, as compared trying to hide and hoping that the gunman kills someone else instead of you? Here is a report (original source here [ogo.org]) on a student who did exactly that, and was aided by his experience with guns:
No, that's just a symptom (Score:4)
Yes, we do. But you can't just make that happen by saying it. Here's the REAL issue:
We need a more intelligent, better-educated populace!
Education is known to increase IQ plus it is a lot easier to control the quality of (unless you want to have a Genetic Screening Board) so that is the area we need to focus on. Intelligent, educated people will make smart choices, including raising intelligent children intelligently.
I'm all for defense and "military readiness"--but can't we take 3% of the defence budget in order to triple (or more?) our education spending? More teachers, higher standards (for both teachers AND students), public involvement, PR work to counter anti-intellectualism, etc. Get smart, the rest will follow.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Score:5)
With 2 million convicts in our prisons, an increase of 1 million from a decade ago, and the proliferation of firearms in the hands of honest citizens, I can't see how violent crime can do anything but go down. Those most likely to commit violent crimes are either in prison or smart enough to refrain so they don't get shot. Those who are neither are dead.
Youth have always been a great convenience for those who want to manipulate the public. Talk about how much something or another is going to hurt someone's kids and how you plan to stop it and you've got their attention if not their outright support. Whether or not that something is harmful to anyone at all is irrelevant if you can paint a dark enough picture of it. The internet is merely another "new threat" in a long list of other supposed threats that have been used over the years to dupe the stupid among our nations voters.
As someone who knows his ass from a hole in the ground, I'm really quite angered by Bush's comment about someone having "their heart turn dark as a result of being on the Internet." What planet is he on? Or a better question might be what planet are the people on who he is obviously pandering to? Politicians repeat back what they think the public believes, not what they themselves believe. He's pandering to people who vote and who are not online. As a group, the elderly vote more than anyone else. They are also least likely to be online and most distrustful of new technologies and social change. So whats that add up to? Attacking the internet makes grandpa more likely to vote for you instead of Gore.
A new technology which has social impact will always demonized by those who don't understand it. The more quickly a new technology is adopted, the more vigorously it will be attacked.
The internet is simply the latest victim of this mentality. These attacks remind me very much of what happened when television became popular, or rock music. In both cases there was a "moral outcry" from people who didn't have a clue about either one. Television was figuratively demonized, and rock music was literally demonized. Television expanded our horizons, even if most people did watch the Gong show instead of Nova. Today very few people believe that television is inherently harmful to anyone, yet at one time many people believed just that.
The simple truth is that those guys in Colorado didn't kill anyone because of the internet. One was crazy, the other easily led. Psychologists have been working and trying for a very long time to understand the nature and causes of psychosis and other dangerous mental disorders. Last time I checked use of the internet wasn't among their leading theories.
Things like this just go to show you that quite a few people in this world are truly not very bright. I never used to believe that. I liked to think that most people were intelligent. I'd still like to believe that, but I can't. If the average IQ is 100, then close to 50% of the population has a double digit IQ. I don't think the IQ tests have been recalibrated anytime recently, so the average may be 110 for all I know. I do know that for every intelligent person out there, there is another person who is not too bright. It seems to me that our only real hope in the long run is genetic engineering. Imagine if the average IQ were 150 and pretty much no one had an IQ below 125. How much better the world would be without cretins dragging the rest of us down. I think it would be a very good world indeed.
Lee Reynolds
Re:Attack on the internet (Score:5)
I'm going to make a social observation. Normally, one prefaces social observations with, "I am not a racist; these are just the facts." However, what I'm going to say is probably somehow racist, so I will make no such disclaimer.
Anyone who's read the numbers know that upper-middle class kids with internet access do not commit the majority of crimes. The majority of crimes, actually, are committed by underclass minorities who do not have internet access.
Occasionally, a fairly well-to-do kid will snap after being picked on for long enough, and will pump bullets into everyone he sees. In 1991, two years before Doom, when the most violent game I had was probably either SPACEWAR.EXE or Pool of Radiance, I was actively plotting to drive my mom's SUV through my middle school playground at 80 MPH. You beat a kid up every day for long enough, and he's going to want to kill you. I don't think his cultural influences matter one bit.
Don't harp on guns. (Score:3)
--
Re:No, that's just a symptom (Score:3)
you can become more educated about IQ, however, especially if you read this open letter published in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago. [www.mun.ca]
Two points: Japan and FPS/Guns (Score:4)
Homicide Rates in Scientific American (Score:3)
--
Virtual Violence (Score:4)
I _is_ interesting that the two people that the US is planning on letting run the country have chosen to tie the internet to teenage violence. Ok, so there is a possiblity that people who can't distinguish reality from games like Quake might get carried away, but there is a substantial chunk of evidence that shows that games of that nature actually aid reaction times and concentration. Who amongst us has sat down for a quick five minute game of AvP and stood up four hours later? I certainly have.
After a couple of hours playing Gran Turismo on the PSX my driving is pretty ropey, but if I sit down for an hour and talk with my friends before I drive, it isn't a problem. When I get in my car, It actually feels more responsive and I certainly notice more of what is happening around me. In some ways, I concentrate more on what I am doing simply because I _know_ it is not a game.
I totally disagree that the internet is to blame for violence and subversion. The internet simply _is_, it is the people that choose to use the information or can't handle that volume of information that are to blame. In some case, it may be the people that let them use it, but as it's free, who can say where to draw the line? I'm not going to.
Re:Don't harp on guns. (Score:3)
Got Panzers coming for you? Blow up the bridges in their way. What good is a tank if you're stuck behind a river. Bombers? Puhleese! Bombers are only effective against infrastructure. Defense plants, power, etc.
Correlation is not causation (Score:3)
While Bush's comments are groundless, naive, and a smear on technophiles, I really must raise my objections to the idea that participating in virtual violence is some sort of safety valve. It's not. Just like artificial neural nets, our brains pathways become reinforced with activity. Could it be that playing violent video games reinforces pathways that equate violent responses to tense situations? Afterall, the military uses video games desensitize infantrymen to pulling the trigger (without such training, some significant percentage of soldiers in combat will not pull the trigger or will shoot over the heads of the enemy).
Correlation is not causation. Crying censorship is not a convincing argument.
To address some other points made. Good parenting is important. As a parent, I know (or think I know) that the great majority of parents will do just about anything for their children. Parents routinely go to great lengths to secure income while at the same time providing a safe environment, nourishment, and education for their children.
IMHO, it is our society's reward system that is doing great harm to many children's value systems. As a society, we often reward the dishonest and deceitful with great wealth. Specifically, I am speaking of CEO's who use unfair business practices but command incredible compensation, the politicians who abuse the campaign financing laws, and the athelete who justifies his narcistic behaviour with his talent. Don't underestimate a child's ability to cut through crap. It is difficult for a parent to teach honesty and civility when as a nation we (seem to) value treachery and bad behaviour.
So, let's gives parents some credit. Afterall, it's our children that will be financing our retirement. We don't want to save in IRAs only to find the dollar to have no purchasing power by the time we go liquid.
That all said, Bush is absolutely wrong. His comments are very unresponsible. Unfortunately, they will have currency with too large a segment of our population.
Perhaps the best response is to point out the great of achievements of computer science history. Allan Turing cracking Enigma. Medical modelling. Etc.
Gun Safety (Score:5)
If you think Handgun Control Inc. has anything to do with gun safety, you have been smoking too much weed. Anyone who opposes their gun ban agenda is branded as being "against the children". The one program that has been proven to work, the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program, has faced bitter opposition from the so-called gun safety advocates.
Look, apples and oranges! (Score:4)
I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek commentary on political hype, but correllating an increase in violent games and movies to a decrease in violent statistics is just as bad as what the politicians are claiming. I just fundamentally dislike using bad statistics to back up any argument.
I listen to NPR [npr.org] just about every morning and evening, and violent gaming seems to have a surprisingly objective review there. Just yesterday was an interview with one family on why Diablo II is so popular, with audio quotes from two young boys maintaining that "It's just a game!", and that they can distinguish cartoon/videogame violence from the real thing.
But then, a couple of months ago, they had another discussion about a pre-teen kid esperienced with first-person shooters, and his first experience with shooting a real handgun. The adult observer commented on how steady his hand was, how careful his eyes, how his hesitation at shooting a target was nonexistent -- and then pointed out that these games are so good at training individuals to use real weapons that the Army now uses the same technology toward the same goal.
Do realistically violent games and movies desensitize kids to the real thing? No doubt. Does it do so to the point where actual violence is much, much easier to commit? Unprovable. There are plenty of things that can cause a decrease in crime statistics, from better policing to bad reporting. But claming that there's no correlation at all between virtual and actual violence, even in sarcasm, is just dodging the issue and irresponsible in the extreme.
Re:The Real Issue (Score:5)
This first example is becoming cliche, but stick with me a moment: In Japan, acts of violence and depravity are commonplace in anime and manga, and are accepted... yadda yadda. And their people commit one of the lowest rates of real violence in the world.
Contrast that with Germany, where entertainment that depicts violence committed by one human against another is verboten. Command and Conquer had to be retouched and its manual rewritten to depict its soldiers as robots, not people. Even then, it was sold only to adults. Forget about playing Panzer General. And God Forbid you even link to a web page that mentions Nazis in anything but a contemptful light. This is a reaction to their Fascist era, a time when elected German leaders executed 6 million minority citizens.
So yes. It is cultural. IANASociologist, so I won't get all Jungian and speculate about archetypes and cultural personality, but each society has to find what works -- and what doesn't -- for them. And in every society except stagnant, isolated ones, it's an ongoing search.
Now I'm going to use a word that will make a lot of you want to invoke Godwin's Law [landfield.com]. But I'm not using that word in the sense in which Godwin usually encountered it. I'm going to use it in it's original sense. It's important that we, as informed citizens, be able to talk about this word, and know what it really means.
Get out your dictionary [m-w.com] and look up the first definition of fascism [britannica.com] - it's not about goosestepping and stiffarm saluting and gassing minorities. It's about efficiency. Fascism is the principle that any order, any rule, any law, is justified if it means the state will benefit: be more efficient, run smoother, be safer. Beginning to sound familiar? It should.
Because that's exactly what a lot of legislators have aimed for lately, without regard for individual liberty: anti-smoking laws, censorship of violence in media, drug wars, gun control, three strikes mandatory sentencing. Even worse, if it hasn't been effective at safety and efficiency, it's been successfully sold as such.
And it's not only state-oriented fascism, it's corporate-oriented fascism. Washington legislators are more than happy to exchan ge votes for the contributions [billionair...orgore.com] of major corporations in order that they may run more efficiently. Laws are continually passed "for the good of the people" when they are really just good for business. To hell with the constitution, there's a buck to be made.
It's scary how the children of men who fought against fascism in WW2 are so willing to embrace it. It's scary how easily we've forgotten. Too many liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike are willing to sacrifice our liberties for safety and efficiency. My grandfather, a WW2 B-29 pilot, is probably pounding the walls of his coffin in frustration.
But that's the dark corners of the big picture. We still have defenders of the liberties endowed upon us by the constitution: From the EFF to the NRA. The entire state of Nevada and most of Texas. From PETA and Greenpeace to Larry Flynt. The Libertarian Party and even Nader. Anyone who argues for the rights of anything other than big business and "what's best for the country."
We aren't going to wind up like modern Germany. There's an equilibrium somewhere between libertarian anarchy and fascism, and we're seeking it. There are too many of us who paid attention in high school Civics class and know what's in the bill of rights. There are too many of us who own guns and know how to use them properly... and accurately. There are too many of us who entertain ourselves simulating small unit combat and tactics...
So you see, in the end, FPS and RTS games are one of the weapons in our arsenal against bad government. They fit right in alongside free press and the right to bear arms. No wonder they're being condemned by government. I suggest that these games -- weapon and combat simulators, really -- should be protected under the second amendment, as well as the first.
Re:Ahh, yes, throwing money at the problem (Score:3)
It works so well. If you took 3% of the defence budget and tripled the education spending, do you know what you'd get? More administrators. More education foundations like the NEA. More stuff....
BUT LESS LEARNING!
Money isn't the problem. Oh, sure there are some schools with money problems, mostly inner-city, predominately black/hispanic schools. Do you know why they aren't getting money? I don't know -- maybe because the money is regulated from Washington?
Many public schools are flush with cash -- and they don't know how to spend it, so they spend it badly.
Re:jamie, jamie, jamie (Score:5)
Back in 1991 (I was the ripe old age of 14), my mom's new husband raped her, grabbed a gun and told her he was coming to kill my dad, sister and me. Upon notifying he cops of his threat, they said they couldn't do anything until he actually came after us. My Dad and I loaded our shotguns, turned off the lights and waited for him to show up (which he never did since my mom filed charges and he was picked up on the rape count on the way here). Sure, we ended up not needing the gun in this case when our lives were threatened but what about people who've received anonymous death threats and the police refuse to help? Should they be forced to keep their gun locked away where they can't get to it? What happens when a (illegally obtained) gun-wielding thug breaks into your house at night to rob you? "hold on Mr. Robber, let me take my gunlock off before you shoot me." Even if the crook didn't have a gun, he could just as likely have a knife, baseball bat, pipe, whatever. Millions of crimes are PREVENTED each year because of the threat of a gun wielding defender.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, and i think by law all head of households should be required to take a gun saftey course, and own a gun w/ammo.
Take this a step further. Teach kids in schools what guns actually do. We have fire prevention week in most schools and one day the fire department will come in and explain fire escape techniques. Why can't we have an officer come in and talk about gun safety one day a year? He doesn't need to teach kids how to clean a gun, aim effectively, etc... just teach them that guns kill and when you kill someone, they don't come back - EVER. One of the most effective things you can do is set a watermelon out in a field and shoot it to show what happens when a bullet hits someone's head.
But requiring that they be locked in a closet? That would only seem to be the common sense thing to do if you have guns and kids....my dad did it so i wouldn't play with something i didn't understand.
I grew up with guns in the house. My earliest memories of them were my dad telling me to NEVER touch them unless he was around and gave me permission. I was taught exactly what they did and how they worked. I learned to respect the awesome amount of damage they can do. I saw first-hand what a 12 gauge slug can do to a living body (deer). He gave me my first gun( a 22 rifle ) at age 7. I respected it as a tool of death and didn't screw with it like it was a toy. Why? I knew better. I was brought up in a culture that respected guns and educated me about them. Locking something away and pretending they don't exist(security by obscurity) NEVER really works... education(open review) is the best answer.
Re:Don't harp on guns. (Score:3)
Heck, I believe it was the Danish king's retainers who held off the Nazis for some time with naught but staves and swords--their guns having been confiscated--before finally being defeated. That story could be apocryphal, though.
Re:Do It To Julia! (Score:3)
> if you will) by attacking someone else's rights.
Really?
> You are most likely alive right now because
> everyone else's right to kill you has been
> taken away by the government
So what you are saying is that others have the right to kill me, and the government is opressing them by saying that they can't?
Firstly, I would object by saying that no right to kill exists, regardless of what a government says.
Secondly, This is bull. It is social pressure and the fact that killing a person, outside of self defense, is considered to be morally wrong that people don't kill.
Thirdly, Safety is a feeling, You can never truely be absolutely safe. You may FEEL safer because there are laws against murder, however the law is NOT what stops me, or anyone else, from shooting you. ALL the law does is make you FEEL better.
> I know there are plenty of people I would have
> killed in the heat of the moment if I knew there
> would be no repercussions from law enforcement,
> I would drive much faster if the government
> didn't take that right away, and I would steal
> food from the grocery store if the government
> didn't take that right away.
Really? You are in the minority then, in fact, you may even have some sort of psycological problem - giving up control of your own decisions to an outside force can't be healthy.
I drive faster than speed limits - sometimes signifigantly faster. I wouldn't drive faster than I do now - because I wouldn't feel safe doing it. I drive exactly as fast as _I_ judge is safe and apropriate (sometimes thats much slower than the speed limit posted - sometimes much faster - it depends on road conditions and the state of my vehicle - NOT the numbers on a sign)
I do not steal from stores. I know I could, and I know I could get away with it if I wanted to. I don't want to. My moral beliefs do not allow me to, even if I could get away with it. The law never enters into the picture here.
Kill people? Hell no. Not unless my life, or the life of another was in danger. I may have been mad, I may have felt like visiting violent acts upon a person. However...I have never been so mad as to be actually ready to kill someone. I have control over my anger, enough as to not present a danger to society.
Again...law doesn't enter into the picture. I was brought up to respect life and to respect others. THAT is what keeps me from comming to your house and shooting you, and your whole fammily. THAT is what keeps just about everyone else from doing it too.
To get back to the point of guns. If you take away guns legally, then they will be replaced with illegal guns. Do you REALLY think that a person who is willing to kill a person is going to even think twice abou tbuying an illegal gun?
Do you actually expect that someone is going to say "Darn, I want to kill him, shoot him right dead, but I can't break the law and buy a gun".
Face it, the people who own guns now, and will not go out and buy illegal guns, are the ones that you didn't need to worry about anyway. Someone who is willing to use a gun to commit violent acts, outside of self defense, are the ones who wont think twice about buying illegal guns.
As for whether they will be available - you can close down all of the gun manafacturers in the world, new black market ones will spring up over night.
the ONLY effect that it could possibly have is giving the black market YET ANOTHER product that they can sell to make more money.
--Steve
Re:School shootings (Score:4)
Nobody cares much about violence among the lower classes because one can show that certain kinds of violence have always been common amongst them--just as certain kinds of violence have been common amongst the upper classes and no-one cares much about that either. It is when the middle classes--traditionally, the most contented and least violent and criminal--see an increase that there is an issue.
The upper and the lower classes have always been violent, immoral and criminal. It is when the middle class goes the same way that there is cause for concern.
Not that the middle class is much better; it lacks the style of the upper and the honesty of the lower...
The real agenda! (Score:3)
Since man first made his own spears, the main outlet for anger and violence has been through the art of warfare. You got a kid who likes to destroy and cause violence? Send him to the army! That way he can persue his violent tendencies and promote the interests of the nation at the same time, everyone wins!
Now, with the advent of violent media/games, most of these aspiring killing machines have been pacified by the realistic killing environments that have been created for them in movies/games/comic books/etc, and have no interest in becoming professional 'real-life' killers, they just want to become another Quake World Champion!
The United States, being a military superpower, realizes that it's next generation of soldiers are quickly dwindling due to lost interest in serving in the armed forces. So in the end, the new political agenda isn't about children causing violence, it's about the upcoming lack of violent children enrolling in the armed forces!
Internet and Crime (Score:4)
The idea that 3D shooters are some form of katharsis for America's youth is ludicrous. It has been psychologically disproven, you cannot compartmentalize violence in this way. Embracing violent behavior in one location tends to create violent behavior everywhere else as well.
Why is adolescent violence going down then? Because most adolescent violence is caused by people who don't have a sense of "belonging". This is not to say that being a loner means you are a killer, but a common thread in a lot of these teen shootings is that the shooter didn't have many/any close friends. Interviews with the other students go like this "I didn't know him very well but he was always very nice." Getting the picture. The internet changed all that because now, while a young geek can't find people like him at school, he can find them on the net. He "belongs" somewhere in cyberspace. Hence the drop in violence.
Note I am not advocating geek profiling or anything like that. I am saying most school shootings involve loners. It is an observable trend. Thanks to the internet non-social loners in meatspace are much more likely to have a social life in cyberspace.
Re:The Real Issue (Score:4)
But in general, to all those undecideds, independents, and progressives out there, I say: Please, take a moment, analyse the third party candidates, and ask yourself who you really trust and who you would really like in office. Elections are not horse-races or soda tasting contests; you should vote your conscience. For anybody that dissuades you from voting on your conscience on the basis that the candidate "doesn't have a chance", you should immediately discard their persuasions - apparently *they* have already given up and have settled for the lesser of two evils.
(and some facts to nudge you: 1) the election is decided not by popular vote, but by the electoral college. In all but a handful of battleground states, you can vote "freely" for a third party. While it may not have a large effect on who eventually carries that state, it will send a message, and will help build your third party so that *next* time, we can't be ignored; 2) for those liberals or conservatives out there that think that the opposing major candidate will go against your opinions as far as abortion and the supreme court: since abortion was instituted, the most liberal judges were appointed by conservative administrations, and conservative judges by liberal administrations...don't fall into their scare tactic)