Granted, America has an "appetite for violent media" and it can have an
effect on people's behavior. Although, let's not blame media alone for
"gun violence", let's blame (if you will) guns as well. Let's
work things out. For example, now the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) will be
free to research gun violence for first time in 17 years, to research the causes
and prevention of gun violence. In addition, states need to act in contributing
to reduce gun violence in the country. According to the New York Times,
"State gun laws matter. Of the 10 states with the most restrictive laws,
seven also have the lowest gun death rates, according to a study by the Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Similarly, lax gun laws correlate to a high
level of gun deaths." Furthermore, President Obama recently presented 23
executive actions (gun-control proposals. Indeed, media can have a negative and
lasting impact in people's behavior, nevertheless, gun control needs to be
properly, and effectively addressed, examples? many.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the quote at the beginning of the
article. Assuming the Buddha was on to something, how does that truism inform
the rest of this debate?
Plenty of countries have violent media. Plenty of countries have extensive gun
ownership. Canada, Norway, and Sweden all come to mind. They also have much
lower crime rates.But you know what these countries don't have?
The Death Penalty.Nothing says a violent society like a government
that coldly executes its own people.
"America needs to curb its appetite for violent media’Why
not "America needs to curb its appetite for violence."War
after war, with a short break in the 70's secret wars conducted during
Reagans regime, than bush1 little break with Clinton.I watch all the
violent movies and not once have I thought about perpetrating a violent act.This has much more to do with mentally unstable people and all to easy access
to weapons, than the millions and millions who see the movies and never act
"like them."If a mesurable percentage of people exposed to
violent movies acted out because of them, we'd be in trouble but
statistically that just isn't the case.
It was mentioned that there is in esseence "hate speech" being used
against the president. Hinting that it's the people on the right that have
deep seated hatred and what has been suggested by some of the folks on the left
as hidden racism.I'm sure if you looked you could find people
that feel that way. I don't sense that this president has seen an increase
of "hate speech" than other presidents. Especially from the media that
has cuddled this president and refuse to question any policy. However, if you
look back just one president the hatred of the media was at it's peak. They
couldn't wait to paint President Bush as an evil tyrant and the whole world
was going to hell because of his policies.The overwhelming
majorityof Americans believe thatthe constitution 2nd Amendment is to protect
citizens rights to protect itself from tyranny. It's a small minority
group that feels otherwise.Ifyou really wanted tosave childrens
lives. There are more effective ways. For example wecould save hundreds
ofmillions ofchildrens lives bystopping most abortions.Why the president allows
people to choose to kill the unborn and then claim heloves childrenis beyondme
[Many researchers remain baffled by precisely why numbers have dropped, but
noted social scientist James Q. Wilson suggested in the Wall Street Journal that
more severe sentencing, self-protective measures like alarm systems, moves to
safer neighborhoods, improved police techniques, reduced lead in the atmosphere
and reduced crack cocaine use contributed significantly to the drop.]Sounds contrived. Maybe people are just committing less crimes?Youth crime has especially dropped. As has teen pregnancy, teen sex rates, and
teen drug use. Probably because of increased media use. You can't be out
committing crimes if you're home on Xbox and Facebook most of the day. Sure
there is potential to commit crimes online, but most kids aren't clever
enough to do more than take nude pictures of themselves.I love it
when old people complain about "kids these days" sitting in front of
screens and not going "out" to do things. They then proceed to wax
poetically about all the horrible activities they engaged in as kids and teens,
things that we today would define as vandalism, bullying, etc., but its always
followed with "But it was all harmless".
Dektol,The difference is realism.
We're sure carrying on as if this violence in film and television is
something new. It's been there, relatively ignored, all along. Now
it's the poster boy of trying to attract motivation away from gun control
efforts, and that's kind of hypocritical because violence as entertainment
is consumer driven. We want and pay for it. Art imitates life.
Will you start by censoring Road Runner and and other cartoons that show
shooting, explosions and trying to kill others?
Liberal, I think you are missing Mike's point.Shouldn't
RESPONSIBLE gun owners welcome the proposed gun safety regulations? On the
other hand, I can't even begin to count the number of threatening comments
posted right here on DN. Then there was the clown who strutted into the
Penney's store packing a handgun and assault type weapon the other day.Most concerning, though, are the strident voices shouting anger and even
hatred against our President. All sorts of names and ugly epithets. Even our "leaders" in Congress set reason aside and shout at one
another. Even some of our churches preach forms of what can only be described
at hate.Our national problem is much larger than just violent movies
and TV shows.
Everyone forgets the core book of our nation: "The Holy Bible" is full
of graphic violence and sex. Art from ages ago is also full of graphic
violence, and sex. Our culture (ie Western Civilization) is incredibly
violent (see history 101). So lets not pretend this is something new and
blame the new guy on the block (media) when in fact violence in our society
predates all of this.
Liberal Ted. I was not calling "responsible gun owners" A threat. You
conveniently read that notion into what I said. I was pointing out the fact that
some of the inflated retoric that was used prior to and during the civil war is
the same today prompted in part by the gun control issue.If you
believe in any public provided roads, police forces, fire departments and a
whole plethora of other public accomodations then you are a socialist as well.
What we have in the country is a democratic form socialism and capitalism.
About 30% of our economy could be characterized as being socialist. If Obama
said he was a socialist, then that is probably what he was talking about. your
last sentance is libertarian hyperbole. No one that I know thinks to grant
"government power to nurture us from craddle to grave". And the other
that we are "free men to choose destiny" may be an ideal, but in fact
there are always practical limitations to both freedom and destiny.
@ Mike in Cedar CityYou stated, "The rising tide of ugly voices
threatening a new civil war if any weapons legislation is passed is evidence of
that..."I see where you are trying to go with this. But, to call
people "ugly voices" and a "threat" who are responsible gun
owners. Doesn't make sense. The Civil War that this country fought over,
had nothing to do with gun control. It had to do with differences of opinions
and viewpoints.The constitution allows it's people to arm and
defend themselves against threats both foreign and domestic. If the amendment
was meant to protect hunting, then why didn't they also state that land
will be set aside for a hunting a reserve or mention hunting at all?This is why the country is stagnant. Two polarizing viewpoints. Neither side
is gaining ground. One is to grant government power to nurture us from craddle
to grave. The other viewpoint is that we ourselves are free men and can choose
our own destiny and are not reliant on a ruler to dictate every step of our
lives.Barack even called himself a socialists during meet his press.
We read sacred books or listen to sacred music to gain a spiritual view. We
watch brief advertisements that influence our behavior. A funny movie makes us
laugh or a sad one makes us cry. From some we learn empathy for a particular
group.But some would have us believe that violent movies watched
over and over or dozens of hours (each week) of hyper violent and very realistic
video games have zero effect on us?Violent media is unlikely to be
the whole answer. But it is part of the answer.
I appreciate the Deseret News publishing this piece. The LDS Church for years
has encouraged its membership not to view R-rated movies. When this stance was
a topic of debate, I remember many of my friends assuming that this counsel was
geared exclusively towards sexually oriented content. They would steer clear of
movies that included nudity, but thought nothing of watching a violent move. I
suspect that the LDS Church's counsel was more inclusive than many thought.
Art imitates life. We as a nation have been at war for over ten years.
According to Hollywood and Robert Redford. Violent and sexual movies are
entertainment protected by free speech in the constitution. However, they
believe guns are not protected. They also believe guns whisper into peoples ears
and make people commit murders with the weapon. Something Robert and Hollywood
believe their violent "entertainment" does not do.What a
bunch of hypocrites.
We do seem to have a cultural propensity for violence. Historicaclly speaking,
that is nothing new. Violent media is propbably aggravating that propensity.
But there are other factors rammping up uncompromising hatred of our fellow
countrymen. The rising tide of ugly voices threatening a new civil war if any
weapons legislation is passed is evidence of that. The old spector of state
rights and "nullification" has been raised again because the President
has suggested a few executive actions to help reduce the level of weapons
violence. Incredibly, they are even threatening his impeachmentThis
intensifying attitude of hatred coupled with the unprecedented power of modern
weaponry has created a dangerous situation that could make for deadly civil