Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[SuBe]

That all depends on what state you live in. If you are in Florida, that would fall under the federal definition, which can currently be found on page 38 of the ATF Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide.

Maybe I'm dumb, but in their "Definitions" section, it does not define "Assault" or "Assault Weapon". Correct?

 

[Victarion]

Obama wants research from the CDC on bringing down gun violence; I'm glad to hear it. Then he went to violent video games. FML.

 

[dnno1]

Maybe I'm dumb, but in their "Definitions" section, it does not define "Assault" or "Assault Weapon". Correct?

On page 38 it defines a semi-automatic assault weapon (know as a SAW).

 

[SuBe]

On page 38 it defines a semi-automatic assault weapon (know as a SAW).

A "SAW" stands for "Squad Automatic Weapon", not "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon.

 

[SuBe]

Obama wants research from the CDC on bringing down gun violence; I'm glad to hear it. Then he went to violent video games. FML.

Don't you remember all of the City planning that happened after Sim City was released? Dark days it was.

 

[Victarion]

According to Fox, this is what's in the stuff Obama's going to be signing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/

 

[dnno1]

A "SAW" stands for "Squad Automatic Weapon", not "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon.

Not in the context of the ATF Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide. According to the ATF SAW is an acronym for Semi-Automatic Weapon. I clarified that in my previous post.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Obama wants research from the CDC on bringing down gun violence; I'm glad to hear it. Then he went to violent video games. FML.

I'm not much for censorship, at least as far as the entertainment producers go, art is art and it should be as the artist intended. However, I still think a lot of people pretend that violent video games are not dangerous to a child's developing mind when that clearly is not something they should be watching or playing yet.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Agreed, however without dealing into censorship, the regulations based on movies and games has gone as far as it can (age-restriction and ratings system). Parents need to actually start parenting their kids again. The government can't and shouldn't be the ones to do so.

 

[Victarion]

Yes! The restrictions are out there on the games; its up to the parents to show that they care what their children see.

 

[SuperT]

It doesn't sound like he's even coming close to any sort of censorship issue, and I don't nor do I expect him to in the future. He's simply looking at research into any sort of correlation which is valid, and something you guys have already stated perfectly.

It's up to the parents! I think he simply through it in there to appease the crazies that still shout violence in media sparks violent actions.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Agreed, however without dealing into censorship, the regulations based on movies and games has gone as far as it can (age-restriction and ratings system). Parents need to actually start parenting their kids again. The government can't and shouldn't be the ones to do so.

It doesn't sound like he's even coming close to any sort of censorship issue, and I don't nor do I expect him to in the future. He's simply looking at research into any sort of correlation which is valid, and something you guys have already stated perfectly.

It's up to the parents! I think he simply through it in there to appease the crazies that still shout violence in media sparks violent actions.

Well I didn't throw my hands up and say "it's up to the parents". I just don't think censorship, or the ratings system is very effective. The first problem I have with it is know a kid looking for something violent can actually use the ratings system to know if what he is buying is violent. Or has nudity.

I think someone should do something with cable/TV providers and internet providers that enables more customize-able content control features, maybe even more along the lines of a la carte cable services. Perhaps even some sort of log in, so when you go to select a program on cable it already knows whether the user is of age. Really they should even be able to overlay things like language censorship live right into a program these days.

Say you watched Pulp Fiction, but in the middle you turned on a content feature when your kids got home that made Pulp Fiction "TV friendly".

Stuff like that.

 

[Kelly]

Most cable providers do have a solid system for parents to use to censor for their children. Now, whether or not they know how to use it is another thing.

As far as video games, parents need to be more aware of what their kids are doing in the bedrooms. I was listening to a woman that works in McDonald's and she was talking about how her kid was the newest edition of "whatever video game, I don't remember the name" and then she said "but he can't have it, he already has one version of it and he plays it all the time, way too violent...so he doesn't get the new edition". I have a feeling there are far too many parents out there just like her.....if I'm not mistaken I think she said her kid was in 5th grade. *shakes head*

 

[SuperT]

I think someone should do something with cable/TV providers and internet providers that enables more customize-able content control features, maybe even more along the lines of a la carte cable services. Perhaps even some sort of log in, so when you go to select a program on cable it already knows whether the user is of age. Really they should even be able to overlay things like language censorship live right into a program these days.

Say you watched Pulp Fiction, but in the middle you turned on a content feature when your kids got home that made Pulp Fiction "TV friendly"

Most major cable providers already have this sort of filter. Comcast, one of the biggest cable providers in the country, already does give users the option to set their cable boxes so that only certain types of content can be viewed without using a passcode.

It's just that most people either don't know or are too lazy to follow through with it.

 

[enterthemadness]

Kelly, when I was a kid...9, 10, 11 area...I saw Die Hard 3. know what i learned? Never be a cop whose is always at wrong place, wrong time.

 

[dnno1]

Most major cable providers already have this sort of filter. Comcast, one of the biggest cable providers in the country, already does give users the option to set their cable boxes so that only certain types of content can be viewed without using a passcode.

It's just that most people either don't know or are too lazy to follow through with it.

That was required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

 

[DACrowe]

I think asking the CDC to study "media violence" is a wild goose chase of wasted money as all previous studies has shown no known correlation. However, the rest of his proposals and executive orders are sensible, moderate and long overdue.

 

[SuperT]

I think asking the CDC to study "media violence" is a wild goose chase of wasted money as all previous studies has shown no known correlation. However, the rest of his proposals and executive orders are sensible, moderate and long overdue.

Absolutely! I can't think of a single one on his list that would be objectionable by any sane human being.

Of course, the Repub's in congress will find some way to stall this until it falls out of the minds of the populous or until, God forbid, another terrible shooting act happens.

 

[dnno1]

I think asking the CDC to study "media violence" is a wild goose chase of wasted money as all previous studies has shown no known correlation. However, the rest of his proposals and executive orders are sensible, moderate and long overdue.

That was proposed by the NRA. We have to get data to support ruling it out or not. Since violence is a public health issue, the CDC would be a valid entity to conduct such a study.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The fact of the matter is, young children are impressionable. It doesn't matter the content or the media, if they see something that strikes their interest, their actions will, to one degree or another, incorporate it. That's why you hear little kids toss out a curse word if their parents curse a lot. It's why kids run around playing Power Rangers in the playground. Yes, most of these can and are innocent and short lived, but like with every thing, there are the outliers - the emotionally unstable person who misses the mark in terms of what is right and wrong in their actions, influenced by a life of unrestricted media and inappropriate action.

"Yes, 9.999 out of 10 kids aren't going to pick up a gun and start shooting people because they played Call of Duty, so we don't need any research or regulations!" gamers will say (and being a gamer, I would agree to an extent) but doesn't that sound an awful lot like what your news-spread pro-gun people say?

I guess my point is, anyone who blindly says "What I love isn't harmful! Look at the other guy!" is fooling themselves.

 

[Hotwire]

A "SAW" stands for "Squad Automatic Weapon", not "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon.

He's right. I would know, too. I used to carry one.

 

[dnno1]

The fact of the matter is, young children are impressionable. It doesn't matter the content or the media, if they see something that strikes their interest, their actions will, to one degree or another, incorporate it. That's why you hear little kids toss out a curse word if their parents curse a lot. It's why kids run around playing Power Rangers in the playground. Yes, most of these can and are innocent and short lived, but like with every thing, there are the outliers - the emotionally unstable person who misses the mark in terms of what is right and wrong in their actions, influenced by a life of unrestricted media and inappropriate action.

"Yes, 9.999 out of 10 kids aren't going to pick up a gun and start shooting people because they played Call of Duty, so we don't need any research or regulations!" gamers will say (and being a gamer, I would agree to an extent) but doesn't that sound an awful lot like what your news-spread pro-gun people say?

I guess my point is, anyone who blindly says "What I love isn't harmful! Look at the other guy!" is fooling themselves.

I don't think that even you can make that claim without any scientific evidence. Like I said before, the NRA blamed Hollywood, the music, and the video game industry for the violence that we have today. That should be verified with some type of scientific data, not just dismissed by personal opinion.

 

[Hotwire]

Cracked.com has a great article up today about games and gun violence. I highly recommend it. It is, however, full of coarse language so, I won't link it. Just hit their home page, www.cracked.com

 

[Marvolo]

According to Fox, this is what's in the stuff Obama's going to be signing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/

Well, **** me, that actually sounded intelligent and like it might help.

 

[Hotwire]

The fact of the matter is, young children are impressionable. It doesn't matter the content or the media, if they see something that strikes their interest, their actions will, to one degree or another, incorporate it. That's why you hear little kids toss out a curse word if their parents curse a lot. It's why kids run around playing Power Rangers in the playground. Yes, most of these can and are innocent and short lived, but like with every thing, there are the outliers - the emotionally unstable person who misses the mark in terms of what is right and wrong in their actions, influenced by a life of unrestricted media and inappropriate action.

"Yes, 9.999 out of 10 kids aren't going to pick up a gun and start shooting people because they played Call of Duty, so we don't need any research or regulations!" gamers will say (and being a gamer, I would agree to an extent) but doesn't that sound an awful lot like what your news-spread pro-gun people say?

I guess my point is, anyone who blindly says "What I love isn't harmful! Look at the other guy!" is fooling themselves.

Well said.