Video Games and Violence

[NaffNaffBobFace]

How to get a Gun-Free America in 5 easy steps:

I didn't say "Gun-Free" I said "Gun Control". I don't for one second think that America is going to ditch it's firearms outright. Like your video says Australia didn't ban guns. What they did was regulate and control them. And look, no more Port Arthurs.

And it's not like America is Slave Free. It just changed it's name from Slavery to Minimum Wage Worker. Ever wonder how Tipping became mandatory in the US?

 

[sum1]

I didn't say "Gun-Free" I said "Gun Control". I don't for one second think that America is going to ditch it's firearms outright. Like your video says Australia didn't ban guns. What they did was regulate and control them. And look, no more Port Arthurs.

And it's not like America is Slave Free. It just changed it's name from Slavery to Minimum Wage Worker. Ever wonder how Tipping became mandatory in the US?

ya, I know, but a lot, and I mean a LOT of people are not going to see it that way, why? well because of 4 words "shall not be infringed" and if they see you want to infringe, they are going to take it the same as a gun-free. because if your infringe now, what keeps you from making more infringements later? and more, and more...

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

ya, I know, but a lot, and I mean a LOT of people are not going to see it that way, why? well because of 4 words "shall not be infringed" and if they see you want to infringe, they are going to take it the same as a gun-free. because if your infringe now, what keeps you from making more infringements later? and more, and more...

It also states "As part of a well regulated militia" suggesting as long as it can be proved what you have now is not well regulated you may be able to get some leverage or void the whole amendment altogether.

I also believe infringements have already occurred, such as limits on land-mines, explosives, chemical and biological weapons and other types of arms. That right has already been infringed multiple times.

The video also mentions a Civil War being preferable to giving up easy access to firearms and ammo. The Second Amendment states all citizens have the right to bare arms for the security of a free state and is regularly cited as a reason why the status quo should be maintained so the people can rise up against the government if they started doing things that were unacceptable didn't like... Well if all the Liberals rose up against the republicans (or vice-versa depending on who was in power when if that happened) what do you think is going to happen? Everyone who voted for that party is going to be like "Well, okay that's your second amendment right for the security of your state", nope it's another civil war.

EDIT - Just saw the edit on your post. I get where you are coming but I feel we are talking about two different things, an outright ban vs controls and better regulation, I only used the Slaves example as it's the only one I knew of where the constitution had to change to protect people... Right now the citizen militia does not appear to be well regulated, and people need protecting.

 

[sum1]

It also states "As part of a well regulated militia" suggesting as long as it can be proved what you have now is not well regulated you may be able to get some leverage or void the whole amendment altogether.

Any constitutional lawyer will tell you the definition of "regulated" being used here is ": to bring order, method, or uniformity to" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate) and that I agree we should have more of. It would be silly to give control of the firearms to the government in one part and then tell them not to infringe on the other. now in the sense that we should have local well-regulated militia's, I think that would go a LONG way in helping keep people in the community and helping each other when they need it.

I also believe infringements have already occurred, such as limits on land-mines, explosives, chemical and biological weapons and other types of arms.

A shame I know :( but in all reality, Jefferson himself wrote to shipping merchants telling them 2A applied to them putting cannons on their ships to protect themselves.

The video also mentions a Civil War being preferable to giving up easy access to firearms and ammo. The Second Amendment states all citizens have the right to bare arms to ensure their government cannot be totalitarian. Well if all the Liberals rose up against the republicans (or vice-vercia depending on who was in power when if that happened) what do you think is going to happen? Everyone who voted for that party is going to be like "Well, okay thats your second amendment right", nope it's another civil war.

Well, this is a common question, I have seen two good videos about the likelihood of a civil war (around 60%!) and how it would play out. enjoy!

 

[MurderingPsycho]

Good to hear they've not stopped noting it, but definite room for improvement especially given the modern ages wireless comminications making there less and less reason why that kind of info can't be passed over at the speed of light... I work in a job where it seems nothing is fixed unless it can be justified and reinforced with numbers. Recently I found numbers to back up something that had been occurring for about 3 years. Before the numbers it was dismissed as unsubstantiated, after finding the numbers some short terms measures were immediately taken to rectify, with longer terms measures being planned into the next systems builds. No accurate data, no urgency.


Thanks for the info. While reading about accuracy part of me was thinking "git gud" but I think I know what you mean, when a round has random accuracy you can't perform long range target sport. Is there any scope for smaller calibers to retain that the size of the round offsetting the material its made from, or is it large calibre that are used for sports?

Also, what is the legal age for purchasing ammo? Is there room for kids to only be allowed less-lethal until they hit drinking age?

As for metal targets and bouncing rubber-plastic rounds, paper and cardboard are wonderful at yealding to something moving at 300 meters a second ;-)

I don't think that any scopes are made specifically for this but if you practiced with them you could probably figure out a hold over by yourself using the markings they do have. The prison near me has guards in the towers at least 50 yards from the inmates and their first round is rubber so they must be confident that that shot can be made. If there was actually a market for it, I'm sure an ammo company would be happy to make more aerodynamic rounds but the fact that they would need to come to a point would likely negate the non-lethal aspect, especially with enough force to push them out to longer ranges. Honestly, if there was a way to keep them non-lethal and get them accurately down range, I'm sure there would be videos of people in Texas shooting random shit with them already.

The caliber depends on the sport and event, pretty much anything from .22 and up depending on the event, there are probably even air rifle events that I'm just not aware of. Legal age is 18 and up for rifles and shotguns and 21 for everything else but this can go higher depending on the state laws.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Any constitutional lawyer will tell you the definition of "regulated" being used here is ": to bring order, method, or uniformity to" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate) and that I agree we should have more of. It would be silly to give control of the firearms to the government in one part and then tell them not to infringe on the other. now in the sense that we should have local well-regulated militia's, I think that would go a LONG way in helping keep people in the community and helping each other when they need it.

A shame I know :( but in all reality, Jefferson himself wrote to shipping merchants telling them 2A applied to them putting cannons on their ships to protect themselves.

Well, this is a common question, I have seen two good videos about the likelihood of a civil war (around 60%!) and how it would play out. enjoy!

Sounds like Boston Dynamics needs to shift up a gear to get those ED 209's in the streets before stuff gets really crazy.

Just a note on definitions: Regulating uses regulation which has the following definition contrary to the uninfringed line:

Definition of REGULATION

the act of regulating : the state of being regulated; an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure; a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Does the Second Amendment contradict itself?

 

[sum1]

Just a not on definitions: Regulating uses regulation which has the following definition:

So the issue is the use of English, this is where lawers come in. the definition I provided in the commonly recognized for the understanding of the word as it is used in the document. so you would have to argue that point to have any traction in modern attempts to ban any guns/weapons IE: "assault weapons"

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

So the issue is the use of English, this is where lawers come in. the definition I provided in the commonly recognized for the understanding of the word as it is used in the document. so you would have to argue that point to have any traction in modern attempts to ban any guns/weapons IE: "assault weapons"

Ahh, lawyers. There are many fine lawyers, however no offense to any of them, but where there are areguments that require lawyers there are agendas. We are back to whatever is easiest/most profitable and so the status quo remains.

Again, not talking about banning, just making sure its well regulated in the spirit of the original text.

Who knows, you might be able to get your landmines back if regulation allowed a sliding scale of trust for those who had proven themselves to be able to handle and not abuse them, just as there is a sliding scale of pilots license.

I'm sure there are many millions of Americans who could be trusted with assault weapons. At the moment it's the lowest common denominator ruining it for everyone.

So how about this: You start in the militia as a cadet (as in when you are born). You have a base level of weapons access, small caliber, perhaps even rubber/plastic less lethal ordinance depending on your age (under 5's only allowed rubber bullets etc). You are not infringed from accessing weapons but you are not given carte blanch to go postal. You can then earn the right in the militia to climb the ranks and access more and more powerful arms if you so wish. You don't get into the army and are handed the ground to air missiles immediately, I'd expect a well regulated militia to be the same.

 

[Sraika]

im just gonna chime in with this:

Spoiler

Travel Advisory: United States of America

The Amnesty International travel advisory for the country of the United States of America calls on people worldwide to exercise caution and have an

www.amnestyusa.org

if you're at the point where an international human rights organization is warning people against visiting your country there is clearly something that needs to change

 

[sum1]

Again, not talking about banning, just making sure its well regulated in the spirit of the original text.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the spirit is the militia to be well regulated, IE in well-working order, it has nothing to do with the right of bearing arms.
second Arms is a term of military weapons, not hunting rifles.

 

[MurderingPsycho]

It also states "As part of a well regulated militia" suggesting as long as it can be proved what you have now is not well regulated you may be able to get some leverage or void the whole amendment altogether.

Our constitution does not state this, the media is the only reason that you believe it does. The 2nd amendment is written as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You are also using the wrong definition for regulated. That amendment was added in 1791, not 2019. Here you go:
Regulate
REG'ULATE, verb transitive
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

and Infringe:
Infringe
INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

The 1828 dictionary was the oldest I could find. We have to interpret agreements based on the meaning at the time of writing, otherwise you could change the terms just by changing a definition, and at its core, the constitution is an agreement.

I also believe infringements have already occurred, such as limits on land-mines, explosives, chemical and biological weapons and other types of arms. That right has already been infringed multiple times.

This kind of stuff is where we opened the door for abuse of power. I don't believe for a second that the average person should be allowed to own most of these things but it should have been done properly, by amendment, rather than on emotional reaction to fear. Legislation passed based on fear destroys nations.

if you're at the point where an international human rights organization is warning people against visiting your country there is clearly something that needs to change

Dude, what are you talking about? I know Canadians that own these same weapons. One even borrowed my father's and brought it across the border without issue. Canada also allows short barreled rifles, which are regulated here.

 

[sum1]

im just gonna chime in with this:

Spoiler

View attachment 13423

Travel Advisory: United States of America

The Amnesty International travel advisory for the country of the United States of America calls on people worldwide to exercise caution and have an

www.amnestyusa.org

if you're at the point where an international human rights organization is warning people against visiting your country there is clearly something that needs to change

after 15 mins on their website, it is clear they have a political agenda.
I think Colion Noir lays it out really well.

backed up by FBI charts https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8c2wKISv0o

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the spirit is the militia to be well regulated, IE in well-working order, it has nothing to do with the right of bearing arms.
second Arms is a term of military weapons, not hunting rifles.

Interesting second point - if they are talking about "Arms" in Military weapons, how is this not related to the first part of the line which regards a milatary unit "milita" requiring the well regulation - especially as it shares the same line and is not separated by a full-stop?

[continued below]

Our constitution does not state this, the media is the only reason that you believe it does. The 2nd amendment is written as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You are also using the wrong definition for regulated. That amendment was added in 1791, not 2019. Here you go:
Regulate
REG'ULATE, verb transitive
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

and Infringe:
Infringe
INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

The 1828 dictionary was the oldest I could find. We have to interpret agreements based on the meaning at the time of writing, otherwise you could change the terms just by changing a definition, and at its core, the constitution is an agreement.

Okay, I think I am with you both here:

So:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

Is not related to in any way:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me with the above definitions the first part of the line is the justification and the condition, and the second half the payoff. As in:

A well regulated Militia [the intended outcome], being necessary to the security of a free State [the justification to allow the intended outcome], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [the condition to allow the intended outcome], shall not be infringed [the payoff that ensures the intended outcome can be].

I can't logically see why they would be on the same line and not be separated by a new line or even a full-stop, unless they were related directly to and of one another... but if that's the way the US interprets it that the way it's interpreted so I'll have to leave it there.

One last question: In the context of the 1790's what is a "Free State"?

 

[sum1]

I can't logically see why they would be on the same line and not be separated by a new line or even a full-stop, unless they were related directly to and of one another... but if that's the way the US interprets it that the way it's interpreted so I'll have to leave it there.

1700s English man. That is why you have to look at the meanings of the words using a late 1700s or 1800s dictionary (like the above video) because the meanings of words change, and the way we write changes.

One last question: In the context of the 1790's what is a "Free State"?

the general agreement on this usage is to be free from tyrannical rule. or "from libera res publica (literally, "the free public thing/affair")" It is not something I have delved into a lot.

 

[MurderingPsycho]

Interesting second point - if they are talking about "Arms" in Military weapons, how is this not related to the first part of the line which regards a milatary unit "milita" requiring the well regulation - especially as it shares the same line and is not separated by a full-stop?

[continued below]

Okay, I think I am with you both here:

So:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me with the above definitions the first part of the line is the justification and the condition, and the second half the payoff. As in:

A well regulated Militia [the intended outcome], being necessary to the security of a free State [the justification to allow the intended outcome], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [the condition to allow the intended outcome], shall not be infringed [the payoff that ensures the intended outcome can be].

I can't logically see why they would be on the same line and not be separated by a new line or even a full-stop, unless they were related directly to and of one another... but if that's the way the US interprets it that the way it's interpreted.

One last question: What is a "Free State" and what is the reverse of that?

You can't even imagine the kind of arguments the damn comma placement causes. To be honest, it appears to be just bad grammar, which isn't helping. From other writings from the founding fathers about the 2nd amendment, they make it clear that this interpretation is what they meant. A militia of the citizenry was required to ensure that individual states remained free and the people had to be armed to provide that militia. At times people were actually required to arm themselves after the revolutionary war such as in church or other public meetings places because they were worried that the British or native Americans (or whatever name people are most comfortable with) would attack these places. As @sum1 pointed out, they also made it clear that arms could be used for self defense, but lets be honest, at that time this was a ridiculous question to even ask. The colonies were under constant attack in the early days. Keep in mind, the US government wasn't supposed to have a standing army. The states and their citizens were responsible for defending the country, not just their own state. The constitution wasn't just a way of enumerating rights it was laying out the limits of government power and the responsibilities expected of its citizens.

For the free state part, it gets complicated. The constitution isn't supposed to be a starting point, it was meant to list the only power the federal government had (mostly protecting people's freedom). The states themselves were free to do as they pleased as long as they didn't violate the constitution. So the 2nd amendment was also protection of the state from the federal government. If the US government overstepped, the states had the right to raise a militia and fight them. This actually happened a lot during Washington's time. He fought several battles against state militias that thought the government was overstepping or that were in violation of the constitution. After the battles, the militia soldiers were allowed to take their weapons and leave. They could have ended this pretty quickly by disarming them but even before the 2nd amendment was ratified the founding father's new that would be a mistake. They didn't believe in one universal government having that kind of control because they didn't even trust themselves to not abuse it. Fresh wounds from British rule.

The reverse of free state would be one government divided into separate, more manageable regions. Basically, most nations today, or the colonies back then.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

1700s English man. That is why you have to look at the meanings of the words using a late 1700s or 1800s dictionary (like the above video) because the meanings of words change, and the way we write changes.

the general agreement on this usage is to be free from tyrannical rule. or "from libera res publica (literally, "the free public thing/affair")" It is not something I have delved into a lot.

You can't even imagine the kind of arguments the damn comma placement causes. To be honest, it appears to be just bad grammar, which isn't helping. From other writings from the founding fathers about the 2nd amendment, they make it clear that this interpretation is what they meant. A militia of the citizenry was required to ensure that individual states remained free and the people had to be armed to provide that militia. At times people were actually required to arm themselves after the revolutionary war such as in church or other public meetings places because they were worried that the British or native Americans (or whatever name people are most comfortable with) would attack these places. As @sum1 pointed out, they also made it clear that arms could be used for self defense, but lets be honest, at that time this was a ridiculous question to even ask. The colonies were under constant attack in the early days. Keep in mind, the US government wasn't supposed to have a standing army. The states and their citizens were responsible for defending the country, not just their own state. The constitution wasn't just a way of enumerating rights it was laying out the limits of government power and the responsibilities expected of its citizens.

For the free state part, it gets complicated. The constitution isn't supposed to be a starting point, it was meant to list the only power the federal government had (mostly protecting people's freedom). The states themselves were free to do as they pleased as long as they didn't violate the constitution. So the 2nd amendment was also protection of the state from the federal government. If the US government overstepped, the states had the right to raise a militia and fight them. This actually happened a lot during Washington's time. He fought several battles against state militias that thought the government was overstepping or that were in violation of the constitution. After the battles, the militia soldiers were allowed to take their weapons and leave. They could have ended this pretty quickly by disarming them but even before the 2nd amendment was ratified the founding father's new that would be a mistake. They didn't believe in one universal government having that kind of control because they didn't even trust themselves to not abuse it. Fresh wounds from British rule.

The reverse of free state would be one government divided into separate, more manageable regions. Basically, most nations today, or the colonies back then.

Well thanks for your time, chums. Obviously whatever happens is going to have to be an amendment to the second amendment even if it's limiting the ammo a kid under 17 can legally be allowed to use... When was the last time an amendment was changed/updated? Even if it was a totally unrelated clause it'd be nice to know if it's actually been done before and is possible.

@MurderingPsycho I'd love to read some of those writings from the time that outline and explain exactly what they meant if you have some links?

I thought a Free State was one that didn't do slavery from what I was reading about slavery earlier on... obviously well out of context with the 1790's...?

 

[Bambooza]

Good to hear they've not stopped noting it, but definite room for improvement especially given the modern ages wireless comminications making there less and less reason why that kind of info can't be passed over at the speed of light... I work in a job where it seems nothing is fixed unless it can be justified and reinforced with numbers. Recently I found numbers to back up something that had been occurring for about 3 years. Before the numbers it was dismissed as unsubstantiated, after finding the numbers some short terms measures were immediately taken to rectify, with longer terms measures being planned into the next systems builds. No accurate data, no urgency.


Thanks for the info. While reading about accuracy part of me was thinking "git gud" but I think I know what you mean, when a round has random accuracy you can't perform long range target sport. Is there any scope for smaller calibers to retain that the size of the round offsetting the material its made from, or is it large calibre that are used for sports?

Also, what is the legal age for purchasing ammo? Is there room for kids to only be allowed less-lethal until they hit drinking age?

As for metal targets and bouncing rubber-plastic rounds, paper and cardboard are wonderful at yealding to something moving at 300 meters a second ;-)

The biggest issue with rubber bullets is they are not non-lethal and can and do kill people, disfigure and leave individuals with permanent disabilities. But because they are considered safer they are used in a more cavalier way do to the idea that it's non-lethal. IE Shooting into a crowd of rioters where it would be unthinkable to shoot lead bullets into the same crowed (still happened at Kent State). The second idea is if it was just target practice at close range and shooting paper targets then it would be far more practical and cheaper to just use an airsoft gun. But the end result is not about target practice or the skills involved but about the use of a lethal weapon be it for offensive or defensive purposes. For which humanity has used for great effect be it stones and sticks or modern guns to inflict harm upon creatures and each other. While the US focuses on the use of guns in the latest media hype in japan less then a month ago a man killed 2 and injured 16 with a knife. And if you take these laws to prevent people from having any weapon to its logical conclusion you end up with laws like the UK where they can and do arrest anyone who has any item on them that can be interpreted as being a possible weapon. (https://www.uknip.co.uk/2018/08/22/breaking/man-jailed-for-possession-of-baseball-bat/)

None of these rules and laws address the heart of the matter and no amount of litigation will ever accomplish the result we so desperately seek. There will always be a subset of humanity that wishes to cause pain and suffering upon others. While guns do allow for a much easier time to inflect trama and death upon another it also greatly evens the field in that everyone no matter their physical stature has the same capabilities. No longer does the skilled swordsperson have dominance over a whole village or country.

Laws do not stop people from doing what they wish. Police do not stop crimes from happening. Both only acts as a deterrent and allow for society to systematically remove unfavorable elements from their ranks.

 

[sum1]

even if it's limiting the ammo a kid under 17 can legally be allowed to use...

common misinformation here. you do have to be 18 to legally own a gun. and in many places over 21 to own a handgun.

 

[Bambooza]

Well thanks for your time, chums. Obviously whatever happens is going to have to be an amendment to the second amendment even if it's limiting the ammo a kid under 17 can legally be allowed to use... When was the last time an amendment was changed/updated? Even if it was a totally unrelated clause it'd be nice to know if it's actually been done before and is possible.

@MurderingPsycho I'd love to read some of those writings from the time that outline and explain exactly what they meant if you have some links?

I thought a Free State was one that didn't do slavery from what I was reading about slavery earlier on... obviously well out of context with the 1790's...?

Last time an amendment to the US Constitution was May 5th 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

common misinformation here. you do have to be 18 to legally own a gun. and in many places over 21 to own a handgun.

That's good then. Parents must find it very difficult not to get their kids .22's and the like, considering the culture.