[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Yeah I?m gonna have to see some evidence of modern day gun control being like that or you?re simply calling me a racist.

Oh, but I'm not calling you personally a racist, I'm saying you just happen to live in a society in which white supremacy impacts everyone's lives in ways perceptible and imperceptible, large and small, and that a system of privilege and oppression exists within it that is not always obvious to those in positions of privilege. And, that you should consider that and weigh historic legacy against contemporary interests, and endorse a mediated position that leads society towards greater equity. Just because you don't see that connectivity, does not mean that connectivity does not exist.

Bullshit aside. Convicted felons can't legally possess or purchase firearms unless they get the felony expunged from their record. Regardless of offense. Which groups get nailed disproportionately hard by non-violent felony drug offenses, and have the least success with expunction? [HINT: It's the same group that gets disproportionately disenfranchised for the same reason, and gets blown away by militarized cops on the regular. How neat is that?]

Black disarmament still happens, and to a shocking degree -- just under a layer of legitimacy and justification as a compelling state interest. Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is a compelling state interest, but the intersection of that with Jim Crow 2.0 (AKA the drug war) yields an outcome detrimental to minority groups' civil rights. The policy itself isn't racist, but it exists within a racist policy framework. You know, kind of like voter ID -- the law itself isn't racist, but on the other hand you can guarantee once voter ID laws get passed, BMV's in majority or plurality black areas get shut down real fuckin' fast.

 

[Marik2]

I just read the the guys manifesto. He's claiming he did it, because resource depletion, automation, and how immigration will accelerate those things. He blames democrats, republicans, and corporations for not doing anything to stop over consumption of resources. It's basically a poorly written high school paper. At least it wasn't a shitpost like the christchurch shooter who was basically a nihilist and didn't looked like he cared about the ideology he was "defending".

Here's a very different take. And this may explain the poorly thought out manifesto

That's very interesting, the differences between political violence perpetrators and serial killers. Someone needs to talk about it on mainstream news.

 

[Erttheking]

Yeah I?m gonna have to see some evidence of modern day gun control being like that or you?re simply calling me a racist.

Oh, but I'm not calling you personally a racist, I'm saying you just happen to live in a society in which white supremacy impacts everyone's lives in ways perceptible and imperceptible, large and small, and that a system of privilege and oppression exists within it that is not always obvious to those in positions of privilege. And, that you should consider that and weigh historic legacy against contemporary interests, and endorse a mediated position that leads society towards greater equity. Just because you don't see that connectivity, does not mean that connectivity does not exist.

Bullshit aside. Convicted felons can't legally possess or purchase firearms unless they get the felony expunged from their record. Regardless of offense. Which groups get nailed disproportionately hard by non-violent felony drug offenses, and have the least success with expunction? [HINT: It's the same group that gets disproportionately disenfranchised for the same reason, and gets blown away by militarized cops on the regular. How neat is that?]

Black disarmament still happens, and to a shocking degree -- just under a layer of legitimacy and justification as a compelling state interest. Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is a compelling state interest, but the intersection of that with Jim Crow 2.0 (AKA the drug war) yields an outcome detrimental to minority groups' civil rights. The policy itself isn't racist, but it exists within a racist policy framework. You know, kind of like voter ID -- the law itself isn't racist, but on the other hand you can guarantee once voter ID laws get passed, BMV's in majority or plurality black areas get shut down real fuckin' fast.

I'm well aware of what happens when Black people are criminalized. Except the people who are generally pro-gun control tend to also be against the over-policing of black people. Dude, you are bringing things up that I myself regularly bring up. What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control? Just...no. I'm just baffled that you're saying the mainly left-wing idea of gun control is racist because of the right-wing idea of being tough on crime.

Like I said before. It's like arguing you can't take kids away from their abusive families because taking kids away from their families was and is done to Native Americans in the name of bigotry. A history of racism? Yes. But bringing it up when it's advocated for non racist means is a non sequitur. And I'm guessing you're not in favor of making it so that the government can never, ever take kids away from their families.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To add to what Leg End has said:

Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...

That's never stopped anyone from talking about guns and gun control. On either side of the debate, unfortunately. I'm not military or police or even American, my knowledge of guns comes from private research I've done myself. There is a wealth of information out there, it's just that many, many people are either clueless muppets or lying.

Owning an AR-15 is not going to enable you to overthrow the government. Banning AR-15s that have features like bayonet lugs or pistol grips is not going to stop people from being shot by AR-15s.

I strongly believe that the US would be better if it had serious gun control, I strongly believe that it won't get it any time soon, and I can definitely accept an argument that owning a gun might make you safer from the Nazis that are roaming US streets. The downside being that there's lots of other dangers involved in owning a gun or going to a public shooting range.

Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...But isnt there a considerable difference between rifles and handguns?

Like, rifles allow for more powerful/high caliber ammo (so one shot is almost guaranteed to kill the target, and maybe the guy behind him) unless were talking about magnums, and allow the user to kill at longer ranges (so people fleeing after the initial surprise attack), AND tend to have larger clips so you can shoot 30 shots instead of abotu 10 before you reload, making the initial burst before anyone can stop the guy while he is reloading much longer and deadlier, right?

Yes and no. Being guaranteed to kill the target is a lie told to you by Hollywood (or, dare I say it, videogames). Firearms are both more and less dangerous than people tend to believe. In the movies, the bad guy gets shot by the hero and dies instantly, the hero gets shot in the shoulder and makes a full recovery. In reality, the bad guy might take a while to die (while pointing their gun at the hero, there's a problem there), and the hero, if they survive, likely suffers severe and permanent damage.

Rifle rounds tend to be higher velocity, so they are more likely to inflict more damage on the target, that is absolutely true. You can get extra big magazines for pistols, but then again you can get big drum mags for rifles.

I mean....IF they're so interchangeable, why arent solider using handguns and not rifles? Clearly, the rifle is better at killing people when you want to kill a lot of people than just a handgun, otherwise why do people gravitate towards assault rifles when they want to kill a lot of people?

US soldiers (and police) tend to have pistols and rifles. Right tool for the job and all, plus it's faster to draw a pistol than find out why your rifle has stopped working and fix it. Not all militaries issue pistols that way, though.

You also mean "assault weapon" (a legal term created by gun control advocates who don't know or don't care what they are talking about), rather than "assault rifle" there. Though, often the difference is just the lack of automatic or burst fire.

While mass shootings tend to be done with assault weapons, very often AR-15s, murder in general are more likely to be done with handguns as they are easier to conceal. And some companies made cheap, basically disposable guns (sometimes advertised as not leaving fingerprints on well), basically for the murder business.

A lot of murders and gun crime is also committed with whatever gun someones parents or grandparents had lying around.

I'm convinced at this point most of them just use AR-15s because it's common, and for actually thinking they're awesome badasses with black rifles mowing down people.

Well, they are very common, and do have the cred of being part of the same platform as the standard issue US military rifle and carbine. And you can get all sorts of after market add ons. Though, a lot of that is probably due to being popular due to being popular.

 

[Saelune]

First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

Multiplication? It's still people attacking others with knives, and in an organized fashion. Not dissimilar to a shooter.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

...I give you credit for consistency. It'd make more sense to me if you were outright calling for bans on both, but you're consistent in that part of your worldview.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

I'll just link this for a more comprehensive covering of the various statistics over the years. It's nowhere close to a straightforward subject, but think of it along the lines of people not always(or rarely) reporting rapes or attempted rapes when they happen, and we don't know about things that happen in the dark. With all of that accounted for, I firmly believe that the amount of defensive uses and potential among the 5-7 digit counts to have prevented death or suffering absolutely dwarfs the number of people killed by the statistically microscopic nutcases, who can also be combated with the same defensive gun use. I don't like breaking humans down to simple numbers, but y'all wanted it and there you go. Pure, by the million-is-a-statistic numbers. I'm actually depressed now and need to go do something uplifting.

1 person with a gun scares me more than 1 guy with a knife. 100 guys with guns scare me more than 100 guys with knives.

I dont think knives should be regulated the way guns are, but I would be suspicious of people overly attached to their knives outside a kitchen or dinner table or out camping.

Being consistent in one's views should not be considered an exceptional thing, it should be the norm. Turn away from Trump and McConnel and Graham and Conway and the rest of them. And no, its not ok for left wingers either.

Considering how often right-wingers doubt rape accusations, I find it inconsistent to use rape prevention as an excuse, I mean, when refering to non-hypocritical people anyways.

Or would Kavanaugh be less credible with a gunhole instead of a dickhole?

I genuinly think shooting each other to death* is not the best form of personal defense considering how easily people can get hostile and riled up. How many cases ending in broken noses would instead end in homicides? I mean, I wont cry over a rapist full of gunshots, but I dont think that will be most cases. I dont even trust people with alcohol and cars.

*I am always told shoot to kill, that the idea of shoot to subdue is unrealistic

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Ohio shooting, less than 30 seconds, 10 people killed, 27 injured. How is that better than one person being killed with a knife, maybe 1-3 others injured with cuts?

You underestimate knives. Actual point, a truck, in the span of five minutes, managed to kill 86 people and injure 458.

You don't want to talk statistics, cause you only want it when it suits you, not when it doesn't. Unless you can prove guns save more lives cause of 'good guys with guns' than injure or kill, then you have no ground to stand on.

I literally just cited the metric shitload of defensive gun uses. To think that, moderate estimate, six digits of instances haven't overtaken mass shooting deaths in protection from theft, rape, or murder is... I don't even know what to tell you.

First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

Truck usage is regulated. You need to pass a test and register your truck.

 

[Saelune]

Ohio shooting, less than 30 seconds, 10 people killed, 27 injured. How is that better than one person being killed with a knife, maybe 1-3 others injured with cuts?

You underestimate knives. Actual point, a truck, in the span of five minutes, managed to kill 86 people and injure 458.

You don't want to talk statistics, cause you only want it when it suits you, not when it doesn't. Unless you can prove guns save more lives cause of 'good guys with guns' than injure or kill, then you have no ground to stand on.

I literally just cited the metric shitload of defensive gun uses. To think that, moderate estimate, six digits of instances haven't overtaken mass shooting deaths in protection from theft, rape, or murder is... I don't even know what to tell you.

First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

Truck usage is regulated. You need to pass a test and register your truck.

Lots of things are regulated. Guns should be too. Where are all the people calling for the abolition of driver's licenses? People saying even kids should be driving cars? People act like we don't accept this shit all the time already. (Not saying you're one of them, if that's not clear)

 

[Kwak]

Proven in that availability of guns has a direct correlation to suicide. Obviously going to impact murder. Pulling a trigger in the heat of the moment is easy. Premeditated murder will still happen, but a lot of murder, and suicides, are done in the midst of rage/emotion/depression. Add an extra step in there by changing the availability of an easy to use deadly force, yes it will make a difference.

Alright, taking that at face value. How would you accomplish that, short of actually banning civilian access to firearms and borderline eliminating the illegal market, through whatever means? How do you directly address the issue of influx suicidal emotions? How do you address the growing number of people taking the exit route of suicide by cop? How do you address any other method? I'm not seeing the issue of people that are suicidal actually being addressed. I feel like guns are being seen as the boogeyman people are blaming for people wanting to end their own life, and thinking that it just stops if they don't have a gun in their hand.

It's like... fuck, dude.

I, ah, was not aware I was making a controversial proposal.
I'm not attempting to 'solve' it. I don't suggest less easy access to guns will stop suicide or murder, it will still happen. It will just happen less and it will be demonstrable that it happens less. Those in the depths of despair will not reach for a quick literal trigger 'solution' if it's not so quick and easy. Those who deliberately and meticulously plan out their acts will still follow through, but the many who are just in the grip of momentary spasms of despair will live another day to see a sunrise or puppy or a smile that may change how they feel. I would be dead so many times if there were guns in easy reach.

 

[Baffle]

Would I buckle and fuck up, likely hitting someone else in the process? I, like anyone else, cannot say I would not do those things with absolute certainty until I'm actually in the hot seat. I'm preparing for that possibility however, and I can only hope that if the day comes, I live up to the standard I've set here.

You probably don't hope it quite as much as the person you accidentally hit when you buckle and fuck up.

 

[Trunkage]

I just read the the guys manifesto. He's claiming he did it, because resource depletion, automation, and how immigration will accelerate those things. He blames democrats, republicans, and corporations for not doing anything to stop over consumption of resources. It's basically a poorly written high school paper. At least it wasn't a shitpost like the christchurch shooter who was basically a nihilist and didn't looked like he cared about the ideology he was "defending".

Here's a very different take. And this may explain the poorly thought out manifesto

That's very interesting, the differences between political violence perpetrators and serial killers. Someone needs to talk about it on mainstream news.

This guy is a journalist, so he's more likely to make an impact in that space

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control?...

Lots of people in the thread argle-bargling about white supremacy and gun control, no discussion of the other side of it yet, ergo I brought it up. I won't let that discussion remain one-sided, period, especially for the fact it doesn't go discussed in generalized "conversation" about the topic pretty much anywhere you go, and a lot of people would prefer to remain ignorant or denialist about it.

Especially for the fact gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are often characterized as paranoid anti-government types. You know what, people are well within their rights and perfectly justified in having healthy skepticism of and distrust for their government, especially historically-disadvantaged groups. Keyword, healthy. Absolutely, an unstable and dangerous hyper-vocal minority has an unhealthy skepticism and distrust, I'd even go so far as to say hatred, of government which should absolutely be addressed as a social issue, but the alternative should be in no way construed as only slavish, uncritical nationalism, or hyper-partisanism.

This matters, because people who go onto execute spree killings still manage to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms. That kid who shot up the Madden tournament had actually been institutionalized for mental health problems that made him a danger to himself and those around him, and still managed to legally purchase in a state with some of the strictest mental health-based purchase restrictions in the country. Closing the "gun show loophole" won't stop straw purchases; straw purchases are already criminal acts, and performed with mens rea.

The law enforcement "solution" (which is ultimately addressing a symptom, not the cause) would require an expansion of state surveillance power unprecedented by either the war on drugs or war on terror. Monitoring not just purchase, but possession and availability, of firearms, as well as extensive monitoring of online and offline activity for red flags and evidence of planning. Well in excess of PRISM's touted mission, and lest we forget the mere revelation of PRISM's existence and abuses of it, and like programs by NSA agents, was such a gross overreach of power it damn well should have gotten Obama impeached on the spot. Yet, here we are six years later, and not only has it not been put to an end, but it and programs like it are being outsourced to fuckin' Amazon in highly-lucrative, classified, defense contracts.

All without dismantling, or even a good-faith attempt to dismantle, the white supremacy already baked into the system. And as far as I can tell, Democrats and liberals are lionizing the intelligence community and surveillance state to dunk on Trump and execute neo-McCarthyist masturbatory fantasy. Sorry, but after the last two years, I can no longer take "the same people who are pro-gun control are also anti-police state" line in good faith; I used to buy it, but not any more. Especially when the talking heads are already on -- and have been for days -- about classifying the alt-right as domestic terrorists and advocating for greater power and scope of the law enforcement and intelligence communities in domestic surveillance.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Let's talk about Jack Thompson.

Jack Thompson never actually said that video games cause violent behaviour in adults.

He never said that the sale of violent video games should be banned to adults.

Jack Thompson's primary argument was that exposure to violent video games in childhood could cause violent behaviour in children and young adults.

There is an overwhelming consensus among researchers that exposure to violent media in childhood has detrimental effects, such as increased aggression and reduced empathy. Here is the APA's current official position on the subject of violent games https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games


I said on another thread that I was getting tired of the argumentum ad Thompsonium, and this is a perfect illustration of why. Almost everyone who brings up Jack Thompson has absolutely no idea what he argued or why he was wrong, and also has no interest in what is actually right unless it can be twisted it to fit their own narrative, much as Jack Thompson did himself when he misrepresented legitimate scientific findings in order to advance his own career.

Jack Thompson is a fucking creep. Even a cursory summary of his career will reveal a highly manipulative individual who preyed on vulnerable people (either grieving or themselves children) to advance his own agenda and raise his own profile. It will also reveal someone who is (ironically) highly aggressive and prone to personally harassing people to get his own way. But this is not Jack Thompson's crime. This is not why anyone cares about him. You see, Jack Thompson did the most terrible thing imaginable, worse than any of the stuff I just mentioned. Jack Thompson... said mean things about video games.

I dunno. If you want to demonstrate that video games haven't warped your perspective, it may not be a great idea to lump anyone who criticises the medium in any way in as "enemies" and harbour some kind of twisted grudge against them for years or decades on end because they said a thing you like might be a societal ill (or even just have a problem). That's not exactly the sign of a healthy, prosocial person.

Can we hate him for how he was an abject embarrassment to the legal profession as a whole, and that he turned his disbarment proceedings into an absurd farce? I mean, goodness, just take a look at his behavior. It would be unbecoming of a 1L with a chip on their shoulder, let alone a supposed member of the Bar.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

This guy is a journalist, so he's more likely to make an impact in that space

No he won't, don't kid yourself. I actually find his point quite persuasive, but it wouldn't drive ratings and ad revenue quite the same way as talking heads yelling at a camera for weeks on end.

 

[CaitSeith]

white supremacy already baked into the system

Do you know something more about that?

 

[Silvanus]

Just because we don't have your regulations, doesn't mean we don't have regulations.

Regulations which don't prevent people with zero training, or criminals, from legally obtaining guns aren't really worth very much, are they?

It's a bit like saying a country has a "regulated" industry in car sales, if someone who hasn't passed any kind of test can wander in and buy one, even if they ran someone over a week ago.

Ever consider the defensive gun uses preventing things from actually happening? Rapes, Robberies and Murders that don't happen, don't happen.

Given how the United States fares very poorly in those areas, it doesn't seem like the preponderance of available weaponry is doing a very good job of lowering the crime rate, does it?

Statistically, he's going to have a knife. Statistically here, they're likely to have a gun or a knife. Within the realm of reality, there is no way we can manage to flush out the supply of firearms held by criminals without actually going 1984 overnight and performing the action over several decades, as well as building what amounts to a giant dome around the country because we're not an island, and we kind of have what amounts to an open border with a country that is more or less being controlled by organized crime. The situation, as you have previously stated months back, is not the same. What you are proposing would not in fact work. The amount of firearms floating around exceeds the number of people to use them. You will never, ever be able to tell me you can actually prevent someone from using a gun to rob me.

What I'm proposing? I haven't proposed any particular approach, and I'm not suggesting that banning guns overnight would work at all. Obviously it wouldn't. Attitudes need to change first-- step one might be loosening the vice-like grip the gun industry and its lobbyists have on the political debate.

Operating under the assumption this is how mass shootings work? Alright, brutal, cold numbers. 340 people died in a mass shooting in 2018, according to a quick Google search. The amount of defensive gun uses varies depending on the source, but the lowest reported estimate by anyone was the Gun Violence Archive at a hair over two thousand. Other estimates skyrocket above that at at least 55,000 a year bare minimum as a common number, with other numbers ranging up to six digits, and surveyed usage has gone as high as over four million uses. It's not hard to imagine that, even with the lowest number possible, defensive uses may have saved as many or more lives than people died in mass shootings here in 2018.

So in short? Yeah. That sounds like a lot more life saved.

I would be very interested in finding out where these sky-high numbers are coming from, considering the violent crime rate in the US is still staggeringly high even despite all these supposedly-averted crimes.

Does this just mean the likelihood of Americans attempting to commit crime is already, at a base level, many hundreds of times higher than any other country? Or does it mean every other country is supernaturally good at preventing crime as well? I'm interested to see your workings.

From what I've experienced firsthand? No, they'd actually be less safe in your country. The things I've seen your government do to someone to cover up their own fuck ups is probably what made me go from entertained with firearms, to fanatical devotion to never leave myself at the mercy of government, or anyone else for that matter.

You believe that people are at greater risk of the UK government whisking them away to "cover up" something, than being the victim of violent crime in the USA? Am I understanding that right?

Because that's just utterly ludicrous, completely unsupported by either statistics or faint common sense.

 

[Agema]

...but the intersection of that with Jim Crow 2.0 (AKA the drug war)...

Harsh but fair.

 

[Asita]

Operating under the assumption this is how mass shootings work? Alright, brutal, cold numbers. 340 people died in a mass shooting in 2018, according to a quick Google search. The amount of defensive gun uses varies depending on the source, but the lowest reported estimate by anyone was the Gun Violence Archive at a hair over two thousand. Other estimates skyrocket above that at at least 55,000 a year bare minimum as a common number, with other numbers ranging up to six digits, and surveyed usage has gone as high as over four million uses. It's not hard to imagine that, even with the lowest number possible, defensive uses may have saved as many or more lives than people died in mass shootings here in 2018.

So in short? Yeah. That sounds like a lot more life saved.

I would be very interested in finding out where these sky-high numbers are coming from, considering the violent crime rate in the US is still staggeringly high even despite all these supposedly-averted crimes.

Does this just mean the likelihood of Americans attempting to commit crime is already, at a base level, many hundreds of times higher than any other country? Or does it mean every other country is supernaturally good at preventing crime as well? I'm interested to see your workings.

It's also worth noting that that particular citation is a bit of a misleading comparison. Note what's being compared here: Deaths from Mass Shootings, and Defensive Gun Use.

The former is very specific and accounts for a small proportion of gun deaths. For instance, in 2016, there were 38,658 gun deaths in the United States. 71 of those were from Mass Shootings, meaning that mass shootings accounted for 0.18% of gun fatalities that year. The principle driver of firearm fatalities was suicide (22,938 deaths)[footnote]Tangentially, here's another sobering pair of statistics. Only 6% of suicides use a gun, but attempts that use a gun represent over 50% of completed suicides.[/footnote] and homicide (14,415, or 14,344 without the mass shootings). The remaining 1,305 fell into the "Other" category, and lumped together everything from accidental deaths to war casualties.

Defensive Gun Use, however, is a general statistic not limited to a specific type of crime. It's further rendered a case of apples to oranges in that where the former statistic tracks deaths, this one tracks use and is not measured by corpses or injury.

To better illustrate this issue, let's look at the year 2011. That year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of Firearm Homicides was 11,101. Much bleaker statistic than the 19 deaths from mass shootings that year, right? Well, yes, but it's also not the statistic that would turn this into an apples to apples comparison. It's still counting in corpses as opposed to gun usage. To make the statistic comparable to "Defensive Gun Use" you want to track "Offensive Gun Use". The closest I've found for that is "Criminal Firearm Violence" - which tracks both fatalities and injuries from firearms in victims of violent crimes - which was 478,400 that year.

Topping it all off is a bit of equivocation between "Defensive Gun Use" and "lives saved", wherein it's assumed that all reported instances would have included manslaughter or homicide if the gun had not been used. And that is simply not a tenable assumption, as evidenced by the aforementioned distinction between Firearm Homicides and Criminal Firearm Violence.

 

[Trunkage]

This guy is a journalist, so he's more likely to make an impact in that space

No he won't, don't kid yourself. I actually find his point quite persuasive, but it wouldn't drive ratings and ad revenue quite the same way as talking heads yelling at a camera for weeks on end.

I meant, he's more likely to have an impact that us. But, you're right, he isn't following one of the two acceptable narratives and won't make waves

 

[rayman 101]

I actually unironically want Trump to ban all video games in NA in response to this so that America's grip and monopoly on the international video game market loosens and non-American devs can stop pandering to NA identity politics. This the exact kind of VG crash modern America deserves.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Let's talk about Jack Thompson.

Jack Thompson never actually said that video games cause violent behaviour in adults.

He never said that the sale of violent video games should be banned to adults.

Jack Thompson's primary argument was that exposure to violent video games in childhood could cause violent behaviour in children and young adults.

There is an overwhelming consensus among researchers that exposure to violent media in childhood has detrimental effects, such as increased aggression and reduced empathy. Here is the APA's current official position on the subject of violent games https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games


I said on another thread that I was getting tired of the argumentum ad Thompsonium, and this is a perfect illustration of why. Almost everyone who brings up Jack Thompson has absolutely no idea what he argued or why he was wrong, and also has no interest in what is actually right unless it can be twisted it to fit their own narrative, much as Jack Thompson did himself when he misrepresented legitimate scientific findings in order to advance his own career.

Jack Thompson is a fucking creep. Even a cursory summary of his career will reveal a highly manipulative individual who preyed on vulnerable people (either grieving or themselves children) to advance his own agenda and raise his own profile. It will also reveal someone who is (ironically) highly aggressive and prone to personally harassing people to get his own way. But this is not Jack Thompson's crime. This is not why anyone cares about him. You see, Jack Thompson did the most terrible thing imaginable, worse than any of the stuff I just mentioned. Jack Thompson... said mean things about video games.

I dunno. If you want to demonstrate that video games haven't warped your perspective, it may not be a great idea to lump anyone who criticises the medium in any way in as "enemies" and harbour some kind of twisted grudge against them for years or decades on end because they said a thing you like might be a societal ill (or even just have a problem). That's not exactly the sign of a healthy, prosocial person.

Can we hate him for how he was an abject embarrassment to the legal profession as a whole, and that he turned his disbarment proceedings into an absurd farce? I mean, goodness, just take a look at his behavior. It would be unbecoming of a 1L with a chip on their shoulder, let alone a supposed member of the Bar.

Please do. Professional dishonour among his peers is the least of what he deserves but its as good as anything.