Search found 13 matches

by baldeagle
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:43 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

03Lightningrocks wrote:The slippery slope works both ways. What we considered graphic violence twenty five years ago would be on the family hour of TV today.

It should be real interesting to observe what will be considered acceptable in another ten years. The media and the gaming industry continues to increase the level of violence and anti social behavior in order to titilate the audiences. Why? Because the same materials that would have caused "shock and awe" twenty years ago is considered tamed by today's standards. Again... Why? Because the human mind is desensitized by constant exposure to violence and the gaming industry must constantly increase the levels of violence to keep the interest in the games going.

Don't kid yourselves. The gaming industry is not marketing games to adults. They are marketing to children. A game may be rated for mature audiences, but it was never intended for that market. The big money is in selling to young people.

Another example is what we call family TV. We have gone from shows such as Brady Bunch to shows that glamorize teen promiscuity and even teen pregnancy.

There is a reason the gaming industry and the media is working so hard to claim this garbage isn't the problem. It is called BIG MONEY. Consider yourself a tool of the anti gun movement when trying to make the absolutely absurd case that children exposed to porn and graphic violence aren't affected. Consider yourself a tool of the anti gun movement when you act as if it is somehow violating constitutional rights to put some of the blame on the very companies that provide the training material for these mass murders.
Well said. The critical point for me is that many don't even realize how these things have impacted our society. When I was a kid, if a girl got pregnant, she was whisked off to a place where she could bear the baby and then put it up for adoption. She was looked upon with disapproval. Now, she simply goes down to Planned Parenthood and gets an abortion. Problem solved. Adult females now see nothing wrong with being inseminated (artificially or otherwise), then bearing their child alone and raising it in a single parent home.

When I was a child, Ozzie and Harriet sleep in separate twin beds. Now you can watch a plethora of TV shows where two adults act like rutting pigs, slobbering all over each other in their insatiable desire to commit the sex act on the first date.

I have no doubt that I may live to see the day when we have full frontal nudity on broadcast TV. But I won't be celebrating it. I'll be shaking my head wondering how much farther into the sewer we will descend before people have had enough.

No matter where you stand on these changes, approve or disapprove, you must admit, that's a dramatic change in the course of a mere 50 years. These things have always been with us, but it's only in recent years that they have become perfectly acceptable in polite company.

My question is, if you won't stand up against these things, where do you draw the line? After the fight is completely lost? If you drive past a large pig farm, the smell is almost overwhelming. If you live in it, it's perfectly normal.
by baldeagle
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:28 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

K.Mooneyham wrote:In the end, it comes down to parenting, and THAT is something that I think many of us will agree is sorely lacking in our nation today...and I am the first to admit that I have no clue what the fix for that is, or if it can be fixed.
:iagree: Totally.
by baldeagle
Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:49 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

I think if a child commits a crime, and it can be shown that the parents allowed the child to be exposed to violent tv or video games, sexually arousing material, drugs, etc., that the parents should be held culpable for the child's conduct until his or her age of maturity. I am not in favor of having "the games police" running around inspecting what people are doing, but I do think parents should be held responsible for a child's conduct if can be shown that they contributed to that behavior by exposing the child to "bad" influences.
by baldeagle
Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:29 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

hpcatx wrote:The evidence for video games is not so clear cut.
Actually, there is scientific evidence that the frontal lobe is negatively affected. There are long term effects indicating a reduction in frontal lobe activity accompanied by a reduced emotional control and increased aggressiveness.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1284 ... ioning.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/ ... ession.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://web.clark.edu/mjackson/anderson.and.dill.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi ... text=wlulr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Arc ... y/EMES.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/n ... young-men/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
by baldeagle
Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:21 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

hpcatx wrote:I'm suggesting the same approach we hold as correct for analyizing restrictions on the 2A be used for other Constitutionally defined rights, such as the 1A. No, we certainly don't allow child pornography -- atrocities being forced on minors. If children were forced to watch porn, attend strip clubs, or play violent games, maybe that would be a fair analogy. There is a major difference between not restricting certain content for adults and risking that under age children may see it (age restrictions in strip clubs and porn, R ratings on movies, and M ratings on games) with forcing minors to consume (or in your example participate) in the same.
Wouldn't a parent who took a child to a strip club be guilty of a crime? How is that different from bringing the strip club home to the child? I'm struggling to see the distinction. Parents provide the venue, pay for the product and allow their children to access it. How does the activity taking place in the home make it different than if it occurs in public?

BTW, we're not talking about banning the activity. We're talking about fines and/or jail time if you get caught and it's proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
by baldeagle
Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:30 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

hpcatx wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote:So... are you folks in favor of allowing children access to porn , strip clubs and rated R movies?
In one word, yes. The onus should be on parents to restrict access for their children. We may not agree with it, but we have to accept certain things that may churn our stomachs to ensure the things/behaviors we hold dear are not limited. As with the examples provided and with guns, access is already age restricted, too.
We don't accept child abuse from parents. We don't accept parents engaging in child porn with their own children. How does allowing them to view violent movies, listen to graphic music or play violent video games differ from those? (This is a genuine question.) I'm not sure these aren't a distinction with a difference. I'm also not convinced that the argument that "all my friends turned out OK" is valid in this context.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.
by baldeagle
Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:14 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

Yes, he was being sarcastic. And yes, the subject of this thread is suggested laws/actions/ideas that can reduce or deter the incidence of mass shootings.
by baldeagle
Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:40 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

gigag04 wrote:
Stupid wrote:I would suggest to include:

1. Straw purchaser, 10 years mandatory. If the gun is used in a felony, 25 years mandatory.
2. If your kids (<18) commit a crime, you are liable whether you are the custodian or not. We can discuss about sentences for the parents.
3. Ban all movies and TV shows if they glorify any crime or criminals.
4. Ban all media from reporting mass murder, particular using their names.
5. Make showing violent movies to minors or letting minors play violent games a felony.
A first DWI isn't even a felony...
Once could be a mistake. Twice is a confirmed scofflaw.
by baldeagle
Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:39 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

OK, stop hijacking the thread and let's get back to the discussion.
by baldeagle
Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:24 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

Stupid wrote:I would suggest to include:

1. Straw purchaser, 10 years mandatory. If the gun is used in a felony, 25 years mandatory.
Straw purchaser would have to be very carefully defined. Otherwise a parent buying a gun for their child would be a felon.
Stupid wrote:2. If your kids (<18) commit a crime, you are liable whether you are the custodian or not. We can discuss about sentences for the parents.
Define crime. Misdemeanor? Felony? What class? It has merit so long as it makes sense.
Stupid wrote:3. Ban all movies and TV shows if they glorify any crime or criminals.
Bzzzt. Violation of the First Amendment. Requiring ratings strictly defined, OTOH, might pass muster. I suggested that in another thread, including ratings for sex, violence and profanity and requiring an "X" rating for more than some number of violent actions, more than some number of profane words or more than some number of sexual behaviors.
Stupid wrote:4. Ban all media from reporting mass murder, particular using their names.
Bzzzt. Violation of the First Amendment. However, you could pass a law that forbids law enforcement from releasing the name of the killer before trial, just as we do for rape victims. I would also be in favor of encouraging journalists to obtain a license from the state and holding them to certain standards to retain the license. They could still practice without one, but the publishers would have to publish whether or not they were licensed and prominently display their license on their site or in their print products.
Stupid wrote:5. Make showing violent movies to minors or letting minors play violent games a felony.
Who's committing the felony? The parents? The movie theatre? The game manufacturer? The games is especially problematic, since those can be done in the privacy of your own home. But you could hold movie theaters liable for not carding underage customers and preventing them from entering movies rated R or X.
by baldeagle
Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:06 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

A-R wrote:
baldeagle wrote:Never let a crisis go to waste, they say. Strike while the iron is hot, they say. Now is the time for action, they say.

OK, here's some suggestions based on the facts:
1) Don't pass gun control legislation. It does nothing to solve crimes like Sandy Hook.
2) Get serious about providing genuine mental health services (not drugs) that identify truly dangerous people and heal the rest. An identification of dangerous person must be arrived at by at least three completely independent professionals and approved by a state or federal court. An appeals process must be put in place to ensure abuses are few.
3) Stiffen the penalties for possession of a weapon as a convicted felon; first offense, 10 years (not up to) and no parole, second offense, life in prison, no parole. Possess a weapon with two previous felony convictions and it's automatic life without parole. Violent felons should be locked up, not "rehabilitated".
4) Allow CHL holders to carry everywhere that law enforcement personnel can; sporting events, schools, courtrooms, police stations, churches, malls, movie theatres - all the "gun free" zones that turn into slaughter houses.

Those are a few. There are probably others that make sense as well.
Great list ... permission to share?
Of course.
by baldeagle
Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:37 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Re: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

Stupid wrote:Still don't see the need for you to have any assault clips.
Fine. Don't buy any.
by baldeagle
Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:26 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma
Replies: 79
Views: 7198

Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

Never let a crisis go to waste, they say. Strike while the iron is hot, they say. Now is the time for action, they say.

OK, here's some suggestions based on the facts:
1) Don't pass gun control legislation. It does nothing to solve crimes like Sandy Hook.
2) Get serious about providing genuine mental health services (not drugs) that identify truly dangerous people and heal the rest. An identification of dangerous person must be arrived at by at least three completely independent professionals and approved by a state or federal court. An appeals process must be put in place to ensure abuses are few.
3) Stiffen the penalties for possession of a weapon as a convicted felon; first offense, 10 years (not up to) and no parole, second offense, life in prison, no parole. Possess a weapon with two previous felony convictions and it's automatic life without parole. Violent felons should be locked up, not "rehabilitated".
4) Allow CHL holders to carry everywhere that law enforcement personnel can; sporting events, schools, courtrooms, police stations, churches, malls, movie theatres - all the "gun free" zones that turn into slaughter houses.

Those are a few. There are probably others that make sense as well.

Return to “Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma”