SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-it-still-ok-to-kill-zombies-and-storm-troopers? dept.
Trump Meets With Video Game Industry, Watchdog Groups to Talk Gun Violence
President Donald Trump met with video game executives and watchdog groups on Thursday at the White House to talk about gun violence, one of a series of meetings planned by the White House in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shootings.
The meeting started with the showing of a series of particularly violent video clips, according to two participants who were there, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center and Melissa Henson, program director of the Parents Television Council. Both are media watchdog groups.
[...] "This is not a simple thing," Bozell told Variety. "This is not to say that the video game industry is the alpha and omega of the problem, but they have to be part of the discussion."
[...] The White House released a statement afterward. "The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence." They also released the video that was shown.
The White House posted the video to YouTube. As of this submission, it's got 53 kilodislikes.
After industry meeting, Trump highlights alleged game violence effects
If game industry representatives hoped their meeting with President Trump today would help change his mind after recent statements of concern over violence in video games, they came away sorely disappointed. In a statement following that meeting, the White House said that President Trump "acknowledged some studies have indicated there is a correlation between video game violence and real violence."
"During today's meeting, the group spoke with the president about the effect that violent video games have on our youth, especially young males," the White House statement reads. "The conversation centered on whether violent video games, including games that graphically simulate killing, desensitize our community to violence. This meeting is part of ongoing discussions with local leaders and Congress on issues concerning school and public safety and protecting America's youth."
The White House statement goes against the overwhelming consensus of the research community, which has shown wide agreement that exposure to violent games in youth has little to no relationship with violent outcomes later in life.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:59AM (16 children)
You lot do love to go on about the NRA like it's some big evil organization solely funded by the military industrial complex, don't you? I guess the truth of the matter, that it's an organization of, by, and for gun owners just wouldn't fit your narrative. The NRA is less beholden to corporate interests than the ACLU is and it preforms precisely the same function but on a different amendment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:06PM (3 children)
Solely? No.
As a significant part of their income? Yes [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @12:23PM
Those are extremely vague categories, only one of which implies the possibility of outside corporate influence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:06PM (1 child)
Poll: 67 percent of gun owners say NRA 'overtaken by lobbyists' [politico.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:57PM
Well, yeah. Nobody sane likes lobbyists, even when they're necessary. They're like lawyers and dentists in that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:21PM (10 children)
If you think that the NRA isn't controlling opinions of our elected officials with "campaign funding" then you are the one in denial. And god forbid if anyone goes against even a single idea that the NRA likes not only do they withhold funding, but they spend a ton of money ton convince voter to vote against that person.
Look at what happened recently here in GA... The budget had a deal for a major fuel tax cut to Delta... Delta stopped a discount program for the NRA. The Lt. Govenor, who gets a lot of funding from the NRA, killed the deal [11alive.com]... despite the possibility of Delta moving its HQ out of Atlanta, and even having possible ramifications for the ongoing bid for Amazon's HQ2. Let's face it, why would you alienate a huge business in your own state and possibly kill another potentially huge deal, just for petty revenge against a corporate entity taking a stand for its opinion? If this was a direct cause of the NRA swaying its overpowered influence over our elected officials, I don't know what else it could be.
I admit, I am not a fan of guns... but I am not trying to pry them out of anyone's cold dead (or living) hands.
The problem is that even responsible measures are immediately rejected as draconian.
Let's face it, is 21 too long to wait to buy a rifle? The majority of people I know get wiser as they get older, so is waiting for that little bit of age too long? In FL, 21 is the legal age for hand guns, why is that reasonable for guns yet not rifles?
How is a 7 day waiting period a bad thing for rifles as well? Again, it already applies to hand guns, why is that unreasonable for rifles. A waiting period has been shown to result in fewer homicides because it stops impulsive buys and requires that people actually sit and think about their actions. Last time I checked, many people would plan their first hunting trip ahead instead of doing it on a whim.
What about eliminating the Gun Show loopholes? It is well known around here (in GA anyway) that all background checks and waiting periods can be avoided if you go and buy firearms at a gun show? WTF is the point of having these laws if you can just ignore them? What is so extenuating about a gun show that allows these laws to be bypassed? I can understand not requiring these if you are a dealer buying wholesale from another dealer (and ofc having regular background checks and licensing as a dealer with the id to prove it) but their is no reason for any passerby at one of these shows to get their purchase without a check and waiting period.
And lets face it... arming teachers with guns is a FUCKING STUPID idea. Who needs to bring a gun into the school if they are already there. All you need to do is get it. There is no safe place to store them in a school that can be accessed by a teacher in an emergency. You think students can't break into a teacher's desk? A gun safe? no way would that work; the students can just steal the keys, or break it open with the tools from various shop classes, assuming they can't pick it or break it open with more conventional means. And how much training do you want to force on teachers to shoot guns? I'd rather they spend the time to keep up with curriculum. Not to mention, what teacher with a hand gun is going to stare down an assailant with a handgun? While I would expect some to gain courage from trying to protect their students, a hand gun versus a rifle is far from a fair fight.
As far as courage is concerned... The deputy at the seen of the FL shooting did not even enter the building when the school shooting was ongoing [cnn.com]. The deputy was on the force for over 30 years, he was ex-military, he was well commended for his duties including twice nominated for deputy of the year. Someone trained for that work had a hard time doing it... what makes people think that a random teacher is going to do any better? Lets face it, courage is easy to talk about, but how many have the ability to stare death straight in the face against the unknown that is armed with weapons out-classing your own weapon.
My previous post never mentioned where the NRA gets their funding (or any of my prior posts on SN that I can remember); I do not deny that they get a lot of funding from personal memberships... but if you think that is there only source they have, you are too naive. With the deep pockets they have, they are getting a boatload of money from gun manufacturers... and recently news has even shown that they have received funding from Russia for over 6 years. [npr.org]
Next month will be the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting... Why is it that despite most of the people looking for a reasonable level of gun control, that our laws haven't really changed at all? Our are politicians listening to the people that elected them, or to the NRA.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:30PM (3 children)
That's not remotely what I said. They absolutely should be influencing our elected officials though. They're a lobbying group that represents at least a hundred million citizens. I get that you anti-gun lot want to try to spin it as them representing Big Gun or some other bullshit but that's just not the truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 14 2018, @02:01PM (1 child)
You said that I thought the NRA was a big evil organization funded sole by the military industrial complex.
My reply was to refute that and added lots of facts.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @02:42PM
Adding irrelevant or intentionally misleading facts is not a conversational benefit. Our founders, who owned fully military weapons and even warships, did not feel the need to in any way allow for the limiting of arms to civilians. If you want to change that, you need to amend the constitution; any lesser laws you pass would be unconstitutional if SCOTUS gave a damn about the constitution. Honestly, even gun-free zones should be unconstitutional. Read the ninth and tenth amendments again. They're summarily ignored nowadays but they explicitly state that any power not affirmatively granted to the government is not a power it legally has.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:59PM
No, they're not. They're a lobbying group that represents about 5 million citizens and a few big corporations that pretends to represent the opinions of the other 95 million or so people who own guns. Even though in surveys a substantial percentage of those 95 million would like the NRA to go die in a fire and are demanding increased gun regulations. I have no problem with the NRA saying its piece. I do have a problem with an organization representing maybe 2% of the population having an absolute stranglehold on an area of public policy.
For comparison's sake: Let's say an organization a similar size to the NRA was allowed to dictate a different area of public policy. Say, PETA (6.5 million members), getting the right to set all agriculture regulations, without any consideration whatsoever given to farmers, 4-H programs, Smithfield, fast food restaurants, etc. I'm guessing you'd think that was completely idiotic. And you'd be right.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:38PM (3 children)
The problem from the other side: Why will you stop at age 21 and a 7 day wait? When the next school shooting happens - and it will to the point of certainty - then will the "reasonable" voices start asking why not 25 years old and a 30 day wait? And instead of bump stocks, let's just make it collapsible stocks that are banned. You can't promise that the goalposts won't be moved again after any proposed changes are normalized and found not to work, nor is there evidence I'm aware of that any of the measures proposed would have stopped any of the recent shootings (though I'm willing to admit I can be wrong).
Keep going along that spectrum and it will be asked why it's unreasonable we don't mimic Australia and Great Britain's gun policies. Then your side - not you - will be coming to take away the guns.
Do I fully believe that? No. But that's what you're up against, and make no mistake that you are up against not just a gun lobby but a significant percentage of the population. They're just not speaking, lest they be branded.
The most prima facie evidence against why not allow older than 18: Raise the age of enlistment for the armed forces to parallel it. Do not allow any person younger than the minimum carry age to carry a weapon for country, either.
What gives anyone the right to interfere with a private sale of property that is otherwise legal? And I'd argue just the opposite: Dealer to dealer transfers should be regulated as heck. Back away from using "gun show." Substitute, "private party sale." Or did you think that 'gun show' regulations wouldn't apply to Joe on the corner who lists his shotgun for sale in the local paper? Same thing. (And, actually, I'm not at all against having to wash such transactions through an FFL dealer and requiring a background check... provided dealers "must comply" with allowing such transactions at a very nominal cost if they want to keep their licenses. Just trying to debunk that "gun shows" are mystical or special when they're just organized ways for non-firearms dealers to trade.)
Like arming airline pilots [nydailynews.com]. What a totally ridiculous idea! [latimes.com]
Show me how that is done, please. Better still, find out how cops deal with securing their arms in places they aren't allowed to carry. (You didn't think those exist? Do research.)
Um. No. If there is an active shooter, I'll take a revolver. If I have time to get it and have it in ready position, I can very reasonably face down a rifle, anywhere within nominal range of the handgun, and do well. I'd do better with a revolver than any rifle in such a situation. (Most especially, if I don't have confidence that one double-shot will take the attacker and not get a bystander, I won't pull the trigger.) The key measure is reaction time - do I have the ability to get a weapon to bear - far more so than its type?
There was a time when law enforcement officers were all-but-expected to put themselves in harm's way. That was part of the risk for given the authority to carry weapons and arrest people. Not sure when that evolved. But the key difference is that the officer is not trapped inside the school - the officer may remain outside. I thought (and can be wrong) that most departments' protocol is contain the area, remain outside, until SWAT arrives. If anyone has a link that the officer violated his department's policies by waiting outside I'd like a link - I suspect he was just hung out to dry, actually.
The way I would see arming teachers working, if it worked at all, is that on a lockdown call the teacher is authorized to draw the weapon. He or she doesn't seek the shooter out, but if the shooter gains access to where the armed person is, they are clear to engage back. The REAL trick is finding a universal way to identify the teacher as a Good Guy... because when the SWAT team does make entry they'll have to differentiate between the shooter and the armed teachers - not an easy trick at all.
It may not work. But I know teachers who feel like if they had been the ones there, and had the means to do so, there would have been less life lost that day. I don't know.
Where I do agree, completely, is that there is absolutely no reason that this should not be treated as a health issue, and see if there are potential remedies by researching it as such.
This sig for rent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:52PM (1 child)
The idiocy of your post starts at the first word and ends at the last. Actually, the stupidity of it is still ringing in my head. I don't know where to start, but if you think a handgun is as accurate as a rifle...wow. Maybe you have been playing too many video games.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 14 2018, @09:05PM
If you think a rifle's as good a weapon as a handgun at close range, you're the idiot in the room.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @08:46PM
What's the point?
Remove any restrictions on gun purchases. It's almost always the the white trash and darkies shooting each other in public schools anyway.
Let them kill each other. Give the babysitters^W teachers bulletproof vests and be done with it.
It'll save us money incarcerating these worthless scum later on. If they had value, they'd be rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:00PM
Why would you give these deals to corporations in the first place? Especially Amazon. It's disgusting how much local governments are sucking up to corporations like Amazon to get them to build an HQ in their cities. How about helping the common man instead of doing this nonsense? This certainly doesn't help the common person, regardless of what fallacious arguments people use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:49PM
I'll gladly trade you raising the age to purchase a gun to 21 for raising the age to vote to 21 as well. Let's throw pornography and joining the military in there as well, just for good measure.
Somehow I doubt the Democrats arguing that you're not mature enough to own a gun until 21 feel the same about the maturity necessary to elect our leaders.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:57PM
The NRA constantly negotiates rights away. All gun control - all of it - is unconstitutional, and since the NRA supports at least some forms of gun control, they don't truly support the second amendment.