This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

CNN host tries and fails to link videogames to violence,,,

#61Guitarist76Posted 2/2/2013 1:43:24 PM
Exactly, if they limit games theyll have to do the same for all other media and it's not like you have to kill random people in games,in fact a lot of games punish you for killing random people.
---
if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and are 100% proud of it put this in your sig
Rock n' Roll aint noise pollution
#62SparkItUpPosted 2/2/2013 1:45:51 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
SparkItUp posted...
If you look at the FBI crime data...During the 1994 Assault Weapons ban...violent crime dropped dramatically...

Columbine also happened right after that ban.

And also as the FBI data shows, the weapons on the ban list are NOT the most used weapons in crime, they're the LEAST used criminal weapons, so the ban would have had ZERO EFFECT on the vast majority of crime.


one major incident in that time span..my god....compared to the dozens of similar incidents have happened since...poor example buddy.
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFLXayD6e8
Now don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright, but that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night...
#63shawnmckPosted 2/2/2013 1:49:16 PM(edited)
Res5 posted...
My boss says that the overall death rate in the US has dropped in the last 50 years because of the rise in consumer-owned guns. I don't know statistics but if that's true then in spite of the rise in crime does it not warrant investigating that maybe the guns are doing more good than bad in spite of the tension it creates? Most gun owners fire at ranges with their guns. The only people who seem to ever resolve a gun situation is people who have their own guns, not the ones "authorized" to use them like the police.

There was an Autozone employee that got fired for saving the store he worked in with his own gun he had on him because he was violating safety rules for the company by having his gun with him at work.


^ This can actually be proven to be correct with statistical data.
Since 1950, every mass gun crime involving more than 3-deaths took place in areas that had a complete ban on guns (schools, movie theaters, malls, etc). The only exception was the one that happened in Arizona involving Congresswoman Gifford.
There are actually hundreds of events every year where a crime or murder was actually prevented because someone had a gun on them, and thus they were able to stop the criminal. These cases NEVER get reported, because it doesn't fit with the agenda that the politicians & News journalists want to convey.

Criminals do NOT want to attack places where they will meet resistance (someone else with a gun).
Just look at where all the mass shootings take place....either at a school, or a university, or a mall, or some place where they know that guns are prohibited.
They target areas that have bans on guns.
So all a gun ban is going to do is prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves....whereas by definition a criminal is NOT going to obey the law.

Lets put this all into perspective....
Lets say you (anyone) was at a public place, and some maniac showed up and started shooting people....
Would you want there to be someone in the crowd who owned a gun who can shoot back, or do you want to have to rely on 911 and pray that the police show up in time before the shooter gets to you ?
Meanwhile, the body-count is starting to add up and get higher.

Its been statistically proven that States with the least gun regulation & laws have the lowest crime.
And that States & cities with the highest gun regulations & gun bans have the highest crime.

Chicago has a complete gun ban, yet leads the Nation in murder and gun crimes.
yet this is never reported in the News.
The same goes for cities like New-York, Detroit, Oakland, and many others, where guns are banned.

And some people (like the News) like to show misleading data to prove their point, but the data they show is extremely misleading.
For example, they will report the total number of gun deaths in the US, and then compare it to gun deaths of a Country that has a complete ban on guns....and they will show that there are far fewer deaths in the Country with the gun ban.
Why this is misleading is because gun deaths do NOT equate to overall crime (murder, etc).
Whereas if you take those same countries and compare overall crime & murder rates, you find that the Country they used actually has a much higher total number of murders committed and that it is much higher than the US per 100,000.

Not only that, but they also like to add every single report where a gun was involved.
Meaning that a simple accident where a gun went off and someone was injured (but not killed) is counted and added to the statistic....just like how they add suicides that involve guns into the statistic....which just over-inflates their numbers but that aren't accurate.

To give you an idea, watch this video from youtube that demonstrates all this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRjxEAWwagc&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561
#64TrugamerPosted 2/2/2013 1:52:56 PM
This whole "gun violence" debate has devolved into nothing but straight up attack on the 1st and 2nd amendments of the constitution by progressives who are nothing but pinko communist wanna be's using every "crisis'" they can find to further their agenda.
I could go deeper but why bother with all the closed minds around this place.
#65SparkItUpPosted 2/2/2013 1:53:54 PM
DyingPancake posted...
SparkItUp posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
SparkItUp posted...
I think the fact that you can look at crime statistics worldwide and see nations that have strict gun control, have lower violent crime rates are source enough.

Right now the UK has more than 4 times the violent crime rate per capita of the USA, more rapes, robberies, assaults, and overall crime than the USA. The UK's numbers before the bans were a fraction of what they are now.

Every nation that's had guns and banned them has watched their crime rates SKYROCKET instantly after the ban.

Kennesaw Georgia, gun ownership made mandatory for all home owners and concealed carry allowed. Home burglary drops to near zero in 2 months, person to person crime drops to near zero in 2 months. When both of those laws were repealed a few years later their crime went right back up again.

Same thing happened in Florida just after the CCW permit system was changed from May Issue to Shall Issue. Entire gangs started targeting foreign tourists because they knew they wouldn't be armed like Florida residents would be.

Vermont, loosest gun laws in the country, according to the fearmongering from CNN it should "be like the Wild West" (their own words) because no permit is required to carry concealed guns anywhere in the state, but Vermont has maintained SINGLE DIGIT firearm homicide numbers for more than 40 years in a row, some years have ZERO gun murders.

In Castole Doctrine states, states where people are LEGALLY allowed to defend themselves in their own homes from burglars, home burglary is FAR lower than in states where criminals are allowed to sue the victim if they get injured.



If you look at the FBI crime data...During the 1994 Assault Weapons ban...violent crime dropped dramatically...To be transparent however, this could also be due to the economic prosperity that the country as a whole was enjoying and also possibly due to the ban on lead (although this is a new theory and not entirely proven). This also however brings up a totally other different cause of violence...the economic conditions of a country (or more specifically, the correlation of not so much their QoL, but the degree of disruption of it). I'm not blaming guns totally, so please do not get that impression, I am merely point out that it is indeed a factor (not the sole, but one of many).


No

Crime actually increased during that ban and after it was lifted murder and crime decreased about 5%

This was in the FBI preliminary Summary so I'm not sure which report you're reading


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

As you can see, in 1994 (year the assault weapons ban started), crime (murder & rape in particular) went down and did so continuously across the board...in 2004 when it was allowed to lapse, they started to rise..so yes...the ban obviously was effective.
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFLXayD6e8
Now don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright, but that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night...
#66jastenPosted 2/2/2013 2:08:12 PM
SparkItUp posted...
DyingPancake posted...
SparkItUp posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
SparkItUp posted...
I think the fact that you can look at crime statistics worldwide and see nations that have strict gun control, have lower violent crime rates are source enough.

Right now the UK has more than 4 times the violent crime rate per capita of the USA, more rapes, robberies, assaults, and overall crime than the USA. The UK's numbers before the bans were a fraction of what they are now.

Every nation that's had guns and banned them has watched their crime rates SKYROCKET instantly after the ban.

Kennesaw Georgia, gun ownership made mandatory for all home owners and concealed carry allowed. Home burglary drops to near zero in 2 months, person to person crime drops to near zero in 2 months. When both of those laws were repealed a few years later their crime went right back up again.

Same thing happened in Florida just after the CCW permit system was changed from May Issue to Shall Issue. Entire gangs started targeting foreign tourists because they knew they wouldn't be armed like Florida residents would be.

Vermont, loosest gun laws in the country, according to the fearmongering from CNN it should "be like the Wild West" (their own words) because no permit is required to carry concealed guns anywhere in the state, but Vermont has maintained SINGLE DIGIT firearm homicide numbers for more than 40 years in a row, some years have ZERO gun murders.

In Castole Doctrine states, states where people are LEGALLY allowed to defend themselves in their own homes from burglars, home burglary is FAR lower than in states where criminals are allowed to sue the victim if they get injured.



If you look at the FBI crime data...During the 1994 Assault Weapons ban...violent crime dropped dramatically...To be transparent however, this could also be due to the economic prosperity that the country as a whole was enjoying and also possibly due to the ban on lead (although this is a new theory and not entirely proven). This also however brings up a totally other different cause of violence...the economic conditions of a country (or more specifically, the correlation of not so much their QoL, but the degree of disruption of it). I'm not blaming guns totally, so please do not get that impression, I am merely point out that it is indeed a factor (not the sole, but one of many).


No

Crime actually increased during that ban and after it was lifted murder and crime decreased about 5%

This was in the FBI preliminary Summary so I'm not sure which report you're reading


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

As you can see, in 1994 (year the assault weapons ban started), crime (murder & rape in particular) went down and did so continuously across the board...in 2004 when it was allowed to lapse, they started to rise..so yes...the ban obviously was effective.



Um... the data is not bearing that out. Crime didn't drastically lower or rise. And has actually dropped to lower levels by 2010 despite the ban being lifted. So not sure how you think your point is being served by this chart at all. Especially since it's likely if you add ten years prior to 91 there would probably be a steady downward trend prior to that. But then, not surprising... those "assault" weapons aren't used in most gun crimes.
---
We are not merely the sum of our parts
#67NightRainPosted 2/2/2013 2:11:09 PM
Oh god.
I saw this on TV the other night... I thought I was watching Fox News but nope! It was CNN... what the hell?
One thing I remember very well at the end of the interview: "Well thank you very much. We appreciate taking the time and giving some provocative answers there..."

Excuse me?? YOU are provocative by saying this. Very useless and stupid comment by her. Feeling the need to voice her opinion. She pretty much said that what the guy said is totally bull**** to her. Wow, I hate her already.
---
Xbox 360/Wii
Canadiens/Red Sox/Patriots
#68LodissPosted 2/2/2013 2:27:17 PM
SparkItUp posted...
most of which are more entertainment more so than actual news. pretty much proved my post single handed.


I wish I could be anti-everything like you.

Seriously, you can't be well informed by any single news source, but neither can you be well informed by simply dismissing popular media because you are too cool or too smart for any of it.

Do your own research, yes, but don't go around bashing people for paying attention to the popular media. I don't absorb every scrap of information they send out, but I do like to know which information comes from which source, and try to figure out why.
---
You were indicted
#69FFTHEWINNERPosted 2/2/2013 2:45:36 PM
Day By day,i get convinced more and more that most americans are a bunch of idiot sheep who would rather blame anything but themselves.
---
WHO AM I?FFTHEWINNER. WHO ARE YOU?URTHELOSER
http://i.imgur.com/xgSex.png
#70RyuDJZPosted 2/2/2013 2:45:39 PM
Ugh, when will they stop with this.

First school shooting: 1902
Pong is released: 1972

"But no, violence definitely came into existence when video games were spawned from the depths of hell. If we get rid of them, everything will be fine and no one will ever kill anyone else ever again."