Mass Violence in America: the All Inclusive Thread

[squeekness]

I live in the US and I watch all kinds of gun filled action movies and yet I don't go out shooting people because I watched it in a movie. I don't even own a gun.

I also watch a lot of movies with swords. I don't own one nor go around trying to hack and slash my way through the public.

I watch racing movies, and I do own a car yet somehow I manage to not treat the neighborhood street as a drag racing track.

And the number of horror movies and games I have watched and played? I should be putting every psycho killer to shame with my body count. If again, that was actually a thing.

Well, that may be because you are well adjusted. If you were an incell, or bullied, or radicalized that might be a whole other story. Active shooters are a percentage, you just happen to not belong to that very small minority.

 

[Iceman]

March For Our Lives: Tens of thousands rally for stricter US gun laws

 

[Detective Conan]

Its a combination of problems. Violent media content alone can't cause it. Violent content, right wing propaganda, easy gun access, and mental health issues combined on the other hand... that's a recipe for disaster and tragedy.

Itd be foolish to entirely disregard media content's impact on us. All media content effects our outlook and it can reinforce or encourage ideas we have and give us ideas. Sane people can pretty much deal with it. Unbalanced people can't. And I think people only a century ago would be seriously disturbed if they saw even a fraction of the content modern people are exposed to every day. Modern media has allowed people to make even their most violent fantasies play out realistically and stream it directly into people's homes. It cant be healthy to expose ourselves to so much violent imagery throughout our lives. And if we are going to indulge in violent media the mature thing to do is acknowledge that it could be impacting us and our society.

I definitely think the violence in media can play a factor in what causes deranged individuals to carry out such heinous acts of violence but there’s studies that show violence in media can actually mitigate violence in individuals:

 

[Teelie]

Also something to recall, we are an inherently violent species. We've had wars and genocides, mass murders and all manner of crimes against humanity long, long before there was even a written language. Blaming media is just misdirection and diverting responsibility.

The only media I would say has a definite effect is the kind that lies to the people, tells them to fear the worst and believe the worst in other humans. We can rise above that but not if some right wing propaganda network with its own agenda keeps feeding the vulnerable those lies and hate.

That does tie into people's fears about being "replaced" or that jobs are being "stolen" even if those are jobs these fearful people would never work themselves.

Fictional video games and movies and television aren't feeding that hatred. They are not telling some incel or some racist that their fear of the other is really out to get them. It's a distraction and a break from reality for most people.

 

[squeekness]

Also something to recall, we are an inherently violent species. We've had wars and genocides, mass murders and all manner of crimes against humanity long, long before there was even a written language. Blaming media is just misdirection and diverting responsibility.

The only media I would say has a definite effect is the kind that lies to the people, tells them to fear the worst and believe the worst in other humans. We can rise above that but not if some right wing propaganda network with its own agenda keeps feeding the vulnerable those lies and hate.

That does tie into people's fears about being "replaced" or that jobs are being "stolen" even if those are jobs these fearful people would never work themselves.

Fictional video games and movies and television aren't feeding that hatred. They are not telling some incel or some racist that their fear of the other is really out to get them. It's a distraction and a break from reality for most people.

Oh definitely. If you're mad and go online in certain places to rant, there might others out there to exploit or egg on all of that rage. Some just for kicks, too. Wind 'em up and watch them go. Social media carries a good chunk of the blame, too. Killing for Likes.

 

[Dr.]

...It'd be foolish to entirely disregard media content's impact on us. All media content effects our outlook and it can reinforce or encourage ideas we have and give us ideas...

Maher’s “New Rules” segment was mainly about an apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy (favorite targets for comedians). But this message got somewhat muddled with the implication that movie gun violence is a major cause of real violence and mass murder. Thus, folks have pointed to studies which (allegedly) show that no such causation exists. Or they point to other countries (exposed to the same movies) which have much less gun violence than the USofA. Nevertheless, Maher made a few interesting observations. For instance, it’s rare, nowadays, to see movie characters smoke cigarettes. Why? Well, because smoking is not good! And it’s generally agreed that it’d be socially irresponsible for Hollywood studios to “promote” or “romanticize” this dangerous habit — which might well influence impressionable youth. But hold on. So… movies do have the power to glamorize bad behavior when it comes to smoking — but they do not have that power when it comes to gun violence? As I say, it’s an interesting discrepancy and an interesting bit of dissonance. And that makes if fodder for Maher’s typical comedic rants.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Maher’s “New Rules” segment was mainly about an apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy (favorite targets for comedians). But this message got somewhat muddled with the implication that movie gun violence is a major cause of real violence and mass murder. Thus, folks have pointed to studies which (allegedly) show that no such causation exists. Or they point to other countries (exposed to the same movies) which have much less gun violence than the USofA. Nevertheless, Maher made a few interesting observations. For instance, it’s rare, nowadays, to see movie characters smoke cigarettes. Why? Well, because smoking is not good! And it’s generally agreed that it’d be socially irresponsible for Hollywood studios to “promote” or “romanticize” this dangerous habit — which might well influence impressionable youth. But hold on. So… movies do have the power to glamorize bad behavior when it comes to smoking — but they do not have that power when it comes to gun violence? As I say, it’s an interesting discrepancy and an interesting bit of dissonance. And that makes if fodder for Maher’s typical comedic rants.

It's a chicken and egg situation.

Do fewer people smoke because movies show less smoking or do movies show less smoking because fewer people smoke?

I mean unless Maher can explain why countries with the same access to violent movies and video games rarely have mass shootings then his commentary is nothing more than misdirection.

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[Zarex]

Maher’s “New Rules” segment was mainly about an apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy (favorite targets for comedians). But this message got somewhat muddled with the implication that movie gun violence is a major cause of real violence and mass murder. Thus, folks have pointed to studies which (allegedly) show that no such causation exists. Or they point to other countries (exposed to the same movies) which have much less gun violence than the USofA. Nevertheless, Maher made a few interesting observations. For instance, it’s rare, nowadays, to see movie characters smoke cigarettes. Why? Well, because smoking is not good! And it’s generally agreed that it’d be socially irresponsible for Hollywood studios to “promote” or “romanticize” this dangerous habit — which might well influence impressionable youth. But hold on. So… movies do have the power to glamorize bad behavior when it comes to smoking — but they do not have that power when it comes to gun violence? As I say, it’s an interesting discrepancy and an interesting bit of dissonance. And that makes if fodder for Maher’s typical comedic rants.

A key difference is that despite restrictions placed on availability and usage, smoking is a legal and still somewhat common activity. Shooting at humans is not. Restricting tobacco usage onscreen hasn't eliminated the practice, but it seems reasonable to think that moving it to the fringes of the mainstream culture has aided in reducing its use from nearly half of American adults back in the 1950s to around 12.5% today. Still, there are tens of millions of Americans puffing away despite the known dangers.

In comparison, those susceptible to engaging in gun violence is a far, far lower % of the American public than those who may be included to buy a pack of Parliaments. Would shunting gun violence away from mainstream cinema and video games likely have an impact on those individuals? Unlikely, just as erasing cigarette usage hasn't impacted my Aunt Pat and her two pack a day habit. Getting the hard core cigarette smokers and dangerous gun owners to give up their weapon of choice is a much more difficult task.

TLDR: Movies and video games can impact casual users but for the true believers the message, good or bad, will likely fall on deaf ears.

 

[squeekness]

Oops...

 

[Teelie]

"Find weaknesses" in their police force? They already have shown their weakness: doing their ****ing job.

 

[Lily Adler]

Senate negotiators announce framework deal on bipartisan gun package (nbcnews.com)

 

[Sithborg]

The coverup continues.

 

[InCali]

Regarding movie violence and gun violence.

There are factors involved in gun violence. In other words, you will never completely get rid of it, but there are most certainly measures that can be taken to mitigate it.

Here's something most people probably don't understand about statistics. In the real world, not everything is simple (ie x+y+z=X in an additive manner). Factors can interact with each other and produce some complex results (it's actually called interaction between variables). I haven't done this particular analysis, but it "can" work like this.....

Access to guns is one variable. Age is another variable. Violence in movies is yet another variable. Violence in movies may be a significant factor in gun violence, but ONLY when people of a certain age have access to guns. In other words, if people don't have access to firearms at the age of 18, movie violence MAY NOT be a significant factor in gun violence and is ONLY a factor when 18 year olds can buy guns. You can run tests to check for these interactions and I actually did a paper on the removal of non-significant factors in a multiple regression formula; which is "sorta" related to this phenomenon, but I won't explain why because I want you to read the last paragraph.

This might be the explanation as to why some other countries that show the same movies don't have the same problem that we do, but people who don't understand how factors weigh in on outcomes have this tendency to say "Well OTHER countries don't have a problem with movie violence" (edited quote here) or "well it's only the people in the US who watch these movies who are the ones who tend to commit gun violence so therefore it's the movies and not guns or age" and have no idea what they are talking about. The key is to identify underlying factors and not go off on some wild goose chase WRT to what, on the surface, appear to be contradictions or conclusions.

 

[Sithborg]

You know, thinking on it some more, the move to block public release of body cam footage means a few things for me. First of all, it is definitely making it much, much more likely that a cop shot a kid. And two, that this is a political move, that having that bodycam footage will kill the GOP talking points. And if that seems cynical, this is Texas, where Abbot et al are all abusing their power for political gain.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

 

[Teelie]

Cops may get qualified immunity but if we see video of them shooting children that might be just enough to get the laws changed.

 

[Sithborg]

Cops may get qualified immunity but if we see video of them shooting children that might be just enough to get the laws changed.

Qualified Immunity isn't a law. It is a practice made up whole cloth by the judiciary.

 

[Teelie]

It's enforced as a law by the judiciary though.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Hate crime charges filed against Buffalo shooting suspect who allegedly killed 10 at supermarket

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Police: 1 Dead, 2 Hurt in Alabama Church Shooting – NBC Los Angeles

 

[Sithborg]

 

[chamber-music]

Regarding movie violence and gun violence.

There are factors involved in gun violence. In other words, you will never completely get rid of it, but there are most certainly measures that can be taken to mitigate it.

Here's something most people probably don't understand about statistics. In the real world, not everything is simple (ie x+y+z=X in an additive manner). Factors can interact with each other and produce some complex results (it's actually called interaction between variables). I haven't done this particular analysis, but it "can" work like this.....

Access to guns is one variable. Age is another variable. Violence in movies is yet another variable. Violence in movies may be a significant factor in gun violence, but ONLY when people of a certain age have access to guns. In other words, if people don't have access to firearms at the age of 18, movie violence MAY NOT be a significant factor in gun violence and is ONLY a factor when 18 year olds can buy guns. You can run tests to check for these interactions and I actually did a paper on the removal of non-significant factors in a multiple regression formula; which is "sorta" related to this phenomenon, but I won't explain why because I want you to read the last paragraph.

This might be the explanation as to why some other countries that show the same movies don't have the same problem that we do, but people who don't understand how factors weigh in on outcomes have this tendency to say "Well OTHER countries don't have a problem with movie violence" (edited quote here) or "well it's only the people in the US who watch these movies who are the ones who tend to commit gun violence so therefore it's the movies and not guns or age" and have no idea what they are talking about. The key is to identify underlying factors and not go off on some wild goose chase WRT to what, on the surface, appear to be contradictions or conclusions.

I also think there are bigger factors than violence in the media.

How sensationalised the news is around crime is a big factor. There is a level of paranoia thanks to some people believing violent crime is more widespread than it actually is.

The unhealthy relationship some gun owners have also seems like an issue. There is a weird subsection of the gun owning population that seem to want 'something' to happen so they have a justification to shoot somebody. Homicidal fantasies and guns don't mix well.

 

[Teelie]

Nothing suspicious about conducting it in secret.