World View of United States

[Opsa]

Last night I was watching BBC news and was somewhat taken aback to hear Katty Kay generalizing Americans as gun-toting maniacs, even though I think she said that something like 44% of Americans own guns. I know that's a large percent, but it is not all of us. I was saddened to think that my country was being slammed as being full of gun-wild ye-haws. If 44% of us were Hindu would that make us seen as all Hindu? And what about the gun owners who agree that we need tougher gun laws? They do exist.

I'll admit, there is a lot of utter carp going on here, but there are wonderful things about my country, too. It is a beautiful land. There are good things produced here. We have lotsa art and great writing and design. Technically we can oppose our government without being thrown in jail. Women can get an education. The people here don't seem any more good or bad than anyplace else, as far as I can see.

It made me feel a bit insulted. (But not so much that I went and bought an AKA47 at the convenience store to shoot the TV.)

[Swatopluk]

Well, that shows that you are not a true patriot. Otherwise you would not even have thought of using a commie instead of a tommy-gun.

[Griffin NoName]

I think it's usual for the minority (but it's only just a minority) to give the majority a bad name, but 44% is quite shocking to me. Remember, even our police aren't armed (mostly) here and we have a law of reasonable force where people have been locked up for harming their burglar (not sure of they didn't change that a bit recently?) so it's way outside our comfort zone. Not that I approve of generalising.

[pieces o nine]

Swato, your joke made me laugh.

Opsa, I agree with you. We are not all crazed vigilantes, armed to the teeth, even though that is what our movies, Rappers, religious leaders, politicians, and media focus on. What is the rest of the world supposed to think?

I will add that I'm very happy to be celebrating inauguration weekend in my own place, with no FauxNews-watching NRA patriots and their fully-stocked gun locker (the size of some people's pantries) in sight!

-pieces o' unarmed and no intentions of changing that nine

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

[rant]
Opas, since I've been living in this country I've met plenty of reasonable, nice and caring people, and being from a country that not too long ago was considered a nest of thiefs, drug dealers and terrorists, I have a low tolerance for broad generalizations, but, while not every American is a gun crazed yahoo, we have to admit that we have a problem with guns, and a truly serious at that.

The other day while listening to the radio I heard a claim from Gabby Gifford's husband and it sounded so outlandish that I had to dig up the actual numbers. It turned out that his claim wasn't completely accurate but disturbing enough to put the actual stuff in my FB page:

In case it isn't legible enough, that is, from the 26 richest countries in the world, 87% of all children killed were Americans. If that isn't a problem I honestly can't figure out what is anymore, if there is something every f$%^& body talks about is the future and the children, but when it comes to firearms, it seems that children aren't so important after all.

I'm sorry, and I don't want to generalize individual opinions and positions, but, to me, this country is sick, when is more important to have assault weapons around than protect school children, we have a problem, when almost half of the people has firearms, we have a problem, when half of the people in the state I live has concealed-carry permits, there is a problem, and when the laws of the state allow the incredibly moronic stand-your-ground law that fundamentally gives a defense path for murder, we do have a f%^&ing serious problem in this country.

Yes, I applaud NY state for passing some serious laws but what good does it make when you only have to drive less than an hour to legally get what you couldn't in NY? When at least 25% (and I wouldn't be surprised if the true number were >50%) think that having four shootings in a year in which 20 elementary kids died with several bullets from an assault weapon in just one of them, is a fair price to pay to keep their incredibly moronic interpretation of the 2nd amendment, there is a incredibly serious problem in this country.
[/rant]

Sorry but I had that one on my chest for a while.

[Swatopluk]

In one point the 'pro-gunners' are correct. It's not primarily the guns that are the problem. They just refuse to face the logical consequences: If there are guns, there has to be regulation and a zero tolerance policy for violations. I would not want the Swiss model in Germany (for other reasons) but it is pretty close to what the US constitution* in its 2nd amendment had in mind: universally armed citizens but on a very short leash as far as the use is concerned.

*resp. the people that drafted it

[Sibling DavidH]

Problem is, the perception often has little to do with the reality.  For all it matters, you might have only 4% owning guns, but they are constantly appearing on European TV.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

...  And what about the gun owners who agree that we need tougher gun laws? They do exist.

Me.  I'm one of those:  I think we need to shift to the "car ownership" model of gun ownership:  to own a car, you must register said ownership with your state (car title).  To drive it, you must pass a test, get a license and carry liability insurance.  To transfer ownership of the car, you must inform the state (title transfer).  If your car is stolen?  You must file a record with your local police if you wish to be paid by most insurances.  Etc.

And there must be teeth in this:  in the form of liability/culpability penalties-- the registered owner of record is responsible for accidental discharges, and/or guns used in the commission of a crime (any crime(s)).   The only acceptable excuse, would be either a registered title transfer, or a formal police report/notification of theft [of the gun(s)].

This would result in responsible owners (such as myself) locking or otherwise rendering safe, the firearms in question from casual access by minors.   There are modern gun safes that open with a simple thumbprint in an instant, for those paranoid types who feel they must have one by their bedside-- one of the nice benefits of such a safe, is an intruder cannot get to your gun(s) first...

.... meh.

These simple changes in the current laws would go a very long way to prevent accidental shootings of children, and would probably help somewhat in suicide-shootings too-- if you had to hunt for the safe key, or remember a 10 digit code to open your main gun safe, you might just think twice (or maybe not--I have no clue what is going through the mind of a suicide person).   

Another side effect:  casual burglars would not be able to steal guns so easily (an all too common thing, unfortunately-- the underground illegal gun market is at least as big as the underground illegal drug market in the US... according to some folk's estimates).

---------------------------

We're not going to change our image of Anarchist-Cowboys anytime soon; that image is too deeply ingrained in our history and our culture.    But we can do reasonable things to mitigate it. 

Will we? 

No.  That's my pessimistic prediction:  after the gunsmoke settles?   Nothing serious will have changed:  too many politician-hogs feeding at the lucrative trough offered up by the gun makers.    And why not?  Anytime there's a gun-related crisis?  The price of guns are ... effectively doubled for the next 3 to 6 months-- seriously.

Manufacturing a gun is like selling diamonds:  the makers can sell these things for 3, 4 or even 5 times (or more) what it cost them to create....!   Few other industries have such a high margin of profit.  Of course they have money to burn buying politician-hogs.   I suspect they love it when there's a gun-related "crisis".   They cry all the way to the bank deposit slot...

.... meh. 


As usual:  education is the only real cure for this.   Educating the up-and-coming generation is our only real hope here.  Such that, by the time they become adults, they haven't bought into the gun culture.

[pieces o nine]

^ That's the comparison model I like to use, Bob. I also have hopes for education, but positive change -- as in so many other problem areas -- will require positive peer pressure in order to overcome those growing up in homes with guns, guns, and more guns, and a constantly preached gospel of "second amendment rights" (with few responsibilities).

In the ocean o'sand there is a strong (albeit romanticized) hive-mind memory of good old days of cowboys and Indians, commonplace street duels, and a rough-and-tumble frontier justice. It bears noting that in areas where the gun reigned supreme in closest approximation to the Hollywood ideal, law-abiding citizens finally decided that they had had ENOUGH. Their solution was not to arm every man, woman and child with as much firepower as each could physically carry, but to pass local legislation severely curtailing the carrying of weapons (both guns and knives) in public places. The outspoken "personal rights" types fought this to the bitter end, but ultimately the "rights" of the greater populace prevailed. (Anyone in these hyeah parts ever hear tell of a feller named Wyatt Earp?)

[Opsa]

I don't own any guns either, and hope I never get so paranoid that I think I have to own a gun. That's just too weird a state of mind for me.

I do know sportsmen that own guns and hunt, and I can respect that. We are a big country with lots of hunting grounds, and I suspect a good deal of the guns out there are not automatic weapons, but sporting rifles for hobby target shooting and the occasional hunt.

I have a problem with the sort of person who will not accept responsibility for gun ownership. I respect Bob's responsible attitude. I keep hearing people on the TV saying that closing the gun show loophole (where any psycho can buy a gun at a gun show without any wait period or background check) would violate their right to bear arms, and that criminals would just obtain guns illegally. They never address that the gun show loophole makes it a snap for criminals and unstable people to get guns. Make it hard for them! Make them have to break the law to get a gun, it'll slow them down and make it more expensive. Criminals are lazy, that's why they do crimes instead of getting regular jobs. Why make it easy for them?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Absolutely, Opsa-- close the gun show loophole, as in retroactively-yesterday.

One of the things that really chaps my chain about gun shows?  Is that it takes away legitimate business from legitimate brick-and-mortar gun stores-- who do have to participate in the registration process-- I know, as I have personally purchased used guns from such stores-- I had to register, and submit a form for a background check, etc.   One for each firearm too--no blanket-covers-everything.  I know that because I witnessed the purchase of three guns once--separate forms for each firearm were required (this was a lovely matched set of shotguns--sold as a set, but registered individually as required).

I'd also close the private sales loophole as well-- by instilling legal liability for whatever a given gun is used for, to the owner of registry.   If said owner is dead?   The responsibility falls to his inheritors--behooving them to register the transfer or destruction of inherited firearms.    There is always donation to various charities, who would be happy to register the donations, and subsequent auctions I have no doubt at all-- all nice and aboveboard.

I'd also institute, right now, a national bounty on voluntary turn-in of guns--regardless of their condition--turning them over to a local authority of some sort, to be disposed of, or properly re-purposed as the police-agency sees fit, and a bounty paid to the person(s) donating.   If the gun(s) are registered, the donators would have to show they are the legitimate owner-- this would avoid creating an instant market for stealing guns just to get the bounty (although there might be some merit in that one, in certain areas.... ).

We can live responsibly with many firearms in our midst.  But we must all act like.... adults.    meh. 

Obviously, that is simply beyond the capabilities of ... certain people.  meh²

[Swatopluk]

The NRA is currently furious about highly successful gun buy-backs and tries to have police forces forced to sell those bought back guns to the highest bidder and make it a crime to destroy them (as the sellers explicitly wish).

And to think that there are several groups that have split form the NRA because the organisation is not radical enough....

As far as shops vs. gun shows is concerned, Obama/Biden have gathered support from Walmart. The mega company would heavily benefit from the gun shows losing attractivity because it is the largest non mobile gun and ammo retailer.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Yes--but Wal Mart no longer sells (and hasn't for a long time) handguns-- it's shotguns and light rifles only.  But ammo?  You betcha.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Closing loopholes for illegal weapons is something strongly fought by the NRA, and the reason is simple: in times of peace guns have a very long shelf life, it isn't as if the gun would stop working after a year of being purchased, so gun manufacturers have a limited market, more so because there aren't that many repeat sales from normal people, which leaves only two markets, the crazy paranoid types that are expecting a commie/feds/mexicans/aliens invading the country and that feel the need to have a large stock in their basements, and the black market for criminals. Considering that even nut cases are limited, the only ongoing market is the criminal one, therefore, closing loopholes would cripple their retail sales.

it's shotguns and light rifles only.

I'm not so sure, for black friday I saw among the Walmart offers a SIG rifle (for ~$800 IIRC), not exactly your Diana pellet gun if you ask me.

[Aggie]

Don't forget the export market.  Canada may be a net exporter of marijuana and heavy crude oil, but we a net importer of illegal firearms, especially hand guns.  Our own rules are sufficiently tight that it makes smuggled US handguns rather attractive to criminal types. They're cheaper and easier to obtain than the legal equivalent. Your lax gun laws don't just affect the US.  I wouldn't be surprised if even more guns head south across the US border.

[Swatopluk]

Concerning shelf life, German luxury car manufacturers were opposed to installing anti-theft devices because a stolen car meant a new sale (plus likely extra spare parts). Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen (stolen today, in Poland to-morrow) became something of a popular motto.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

At the moment Mexico has a very large problem with the US on that front because practically all the weapons used by the cartels were purchased in the US and imported illegally to Mexico. Mexicans can legally have guns but it is a heavily regulated area that in practice makes extremely difficult to have a concealed-carry permit. I bet the amount of guns going south is at least five times larger than going north.

[Swatopluk]

And the NRA fights tooth and nail against any attempt to do anything about the gun-running over the US/Mexcican border.

[pieces o nine]

And the NRA fights tooth and nail against any attempt to do anything about the gun-running over the US/Mexcican border.

Well of course. As their more paranoid supporters always say, "If it becomes criminal to own guns, only criminals will own guns."  Not that the leadership subversively fuel that very outcome in order to make a sale...     

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

All excellent points. 

What we really need?  Are automatic expiration dates on guns..... in that they automatically disintegrate after a couple of years (used or not).  That way, the greedy b*****ds that make them still get obscene profits, and the paranoids can keep doing what they love, without running out of space:  buy more guns.

[pieces o nine]

I'm going to add a little plug for Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told.  I've had my copy for almost 20 years now, and have re-read it several times. As an armchair editor, I give this one a B- for presentation, but A+ for concept.

Spoiler: the NRA is part of the plot. A *key* part of the plot.  
It's one man's concept of what a saner approach to gun ownership would look like in the US.

_{Edited to correct the link.}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Thanks, Pieces -- added to my "books to buy" wishlist. 

[Bruder Cuzzen]

My view of the US ?

I''ve only been to South Beach Florida. I came across few Americans , everyone was a tourist . The few I met were young drifters working for cash for my boss at the time ,opening up a gay clothing store. I was not allowed to work butI was permitted to supervise while my two superiors went shopping for stuff  , local labour , contractors and good restaurants. So I'm stuck in this beat up ole art deco building , getting hit on every day by gay guys while those two cruised the town. I thought they were bonkers but we were treated quite nicely ... I like South Beach .

I thought everyone was great , half the Cuban lads had handguns ... they were a fun bunch , but I was a tourist and ignorant of the city beyond the beach. All the bars covering doors and windows alarmed me and I thought every body must be armed.

Then the hurricane warning came and I thought again .

People are so human , Yanks are people too.
I watch AFV with Tom Bergeron so I believe this to be true 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

South Beach is a crazy place (and half the Cubans are indeed crazy...) .
---
In the many places I've been in this country the closest I got to the stereotypical US was a time in which they closed a portion of the highway connecting Buffalo to Cleveland and my wife and I had to use a secondary road that led us to a small town in Pennsylvania where we stopped to get something to eat. The only thing open was a bar and we felt truly foreign. The place had the low lighting, pool table, white guys drinking beer, the posters, etc.
---
Interestingly enough, we had relatively similar experience in a little store in a little town in the outskirts of Milan, where we sat down to get a sandwich and we had the eyes of the locals on us as if we came from a different planet (same thing in PA BTW).

[Aggie]

The last time I was in the US (only time as an adult) I was in northern Idaho.  I found that Americans lived up to their reputation as friendly and welcoming people. I did run into one fairly stereotypical American man who'd I'd wager dollars to donuts liked his guns while waiting for the outhouse at a campsite; he was an older gentleman in a cowboy hat who said to me "From Canada? Well, you're in God's Country now." with the implication that I better walk straight and behave.

If I was a cheekier sort, I would have asked him innocently "Aren't they all God's countries?"...  but he might have shot me.

I don't recall seeing a gun that entire trip (perhaps a rifle or two in a truck gun rack? That used to be a common sight here when I was growing up).

Guns were very visibly ubiquitous in the Philippines, however, with many gas stations, convenience stores, banks and sometimes retail shops in urban areas having armed guards posted out front. We felt safer because of it, actually...  on at least two occasions we ran for the nearest guard with a shotgun to protect us from some mentally unwell people threatening us  (both in Puerto Princessa). The bank there had a large sign out front PLEASE LEAVE YOUR FIREARMS WITH THE GUARD.  Guns were certainly visible and apparently carried by citizens.  However, the numbers don't really seem to compare to the US (data from http://www.gunpolicy.org/):

The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.8 firearms per 100 people

The rate of private gun ownership in the Philippines is 4.7 firearms per 100 people

The rate of private gun ownership in Canada is 23.8 firearms per 100 people

So, my own country has far more guns than the Philippines, yet they are less visible. Guns over there seemed to be a visible deterrent...  show that you have a gun and maybe you won't have to use it. I didn't spend enough time in the country or especially in highly-populated areas to find out whether gun crime was a regular thing, but the only time we got a gun pulled on us was because my friend was goofing around and jumped a wall, startling a guard. Even with some of the semi-shady situations we put ourselves into in Manila, we were much more concerned about having our bags snatched or having something slipped in our food than being mugged at gunpoint.  


There is certainly a cultural component that goes beyond the numbers with regards to guns.  I know a few gun nuts here, but I'd say based on knowing these guys that they are drawn to the power of firearms but generally don't obsess or fantasize about the human-killing power of them. Most prefer to go up in the bush and blow the hell out of an old stump. I've no doubt that in a potentially violent situation (say, a home invasion), these guys would turn first to their firearms, but I can't see them doing so to settle a dispute with another person.  I could say I've got the same attitude about sharp objects, which are cheaper, easier to acquire, easier to maintain and almost as threatening as a firearm (albeit much less prone to causing deadly accidents).  Having a machete by the bed "just in case" doesn't mean I'd ever be likely to run amok with it.

I do think there is something in the American cultural consciousness that obsesses about guns as human-killing machines. That's by no means universal, but it is part of the cultural mythology of America, and it is something that perhaps needs to be acknowledged in order to deal with it.

I think its telling that roughly 1/2 of suicides in the US are by gun, compared to roughly 1/6 of suicides in Canada. How we choose to harm ourselves may be as telling as any other metric about our attitudes to guns. Then again, perhaps guns are generally a method of choice for suicides, and it's the availability that leads to the numbers. It's much harder to blow your brains out with a long gun than with a handgun, and the latter are hard to come by in Canada.

[Opsa]

That would have freaked me out a bit.

I wonder if the high ratio of guns to U.S. Americans is because those that own them often own quite a few. I was surprised to see how many guns my husband's father had in his collection. There were easily 30. Some were historic, from wars. Others were just target rifles. There was a b-b gun, too.

Gave me the crawlies. I was glad to see them go.

[Aggie]

We had about 6 around the house when I was a kid; with the exception of one .22 handgun which Dad turned in a long time ago, they were all working guns used for hunting.  I got my first hunting rifle (.22) for my 10th birthday, but it was not to be touched unless going out target shooting or hunting with Dad. I was allowed unrestricted access to a pellet gun, but only for backyard target shooting. We were indoctrinated very young that guns were very dangerous and not to be EVER pointed at a person, whether loaded or not. To be honest, at that time neither the guns nor the ammo was locked up, but you JUST DIDN'T play with the guns. Any time I did pick up a gun I was taught to check immediately that it was unloaded; if it was loaded, the safety was kept on. I don't think we generally even kept a cartridge chambered while hunting; safety came before worrying about whether the animals would hear you load a shell.

[Opsa]

Smart folks you got there, Aggie.

[Aggie]

You've got to be, around guns. I think that as a parent, I'd be very hesitant about letting my kids have toy guns (except Nerf or water guns and the like, which have got so fantastical that they rarely resemble real weapons these days). Guns aren't toys, and pretending to kill people shouldn't be fun.

Actually, I've probably mentioned this before, but the current crop of ultra-realistic military simulator video games (which are blatantly used as recruiting tools by the US military) scare the bejeesus out of me. My buddies have started playing these things, and I'm disinclined to hang out when they are playing them. I actually refuse to play, myself (I generally turn down playing hockey too, but that's because I suck at it ). I'll take a stab at some of the more lighthearted games, but ones set in realistic, human-on-human combat zones where your bonuses allow you to call in drone strikes, killer robots and K9 attack squads? Eeek! Too much for me!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

As someone who frequently plays first person shooters, I have an issue with the demonization of video games every time an incident like this happens. I agree that certain violent games shouldn't be played without guidance or sold freely to children, but not only I don't feel the sudden urge to go shoot someone after I play, nor the statistics suggest so, for instance, The Netherlands has a very high rate of video game purchases but their gun related violence is particularly low.

Yes, there is a culture that glamorizes guns, but in my view, it isn't so much that movies and video games promote that culture, but reflect it and even then, the same movies that play in the States are played everywhere else without the same effects. If your pipes leak do you blame those who take showers or the pipes themselves?

[Aggie]

As someone who frequently plays first person shooters, I have an issue with the demonization of video games every time an incident like this happens. I agree that certain violent games shouldn't be played without guidance or sold freely to children, but not only I don't feel the sudden urge to go shoot someone after I play, nor the statistics suggest so, for instance, The Netherlands has a very high rate of video game purchases but their gun related violence is particularly low.

Yes, there is a culture that glamorizes guns, but in my view, it isn't so much that movies and video games promote that culture, but reflect it and even then, the same movies that play in the States are played everywhere else without the same effects. If your pipes leak do you blame those who take showers or the pipes themselves?

I don't blame the games; however, I do notice subjectively that the nature of the violence and the level of realism affects me more than previous generations of games. I don't think playing violent video games induces violence in those not prone to violent acts, but when one spends 1000s of hours per year lining up head shots, I don't think it's a stretch to think that certain neural pathways involving killing people get a little more reenforced in than for those who don't play such games.  Heck, I know even if I play too much solitaire on the computer, I will sometimes get images of cards flashing across my mind's eye as I'm trying to go to sleep at night.  Of course, I might be a particularly sensitive person. I recently watched a season of Dexter and found the violence a bit much for me now (I really like the show, and I used to watch it regularly, but now it makes me feel kind of anxious and stabby.  There's really not that much violence in the show, considering, so maybe my lack of exposure has re-sensitized me to violent acts).

I agree with you that video games and movies are generally a reflection of the culture, not drivers of it....  generally.  However, North America's culture (IMHO) is primarily a media-driven pop-culture that does change and respond dynamically to what's being shown on television, portrayed in the movies, sung about on the radio, and especially advertised.  Ignoring violence, would anyone like to make a case that the sexualization of 'tweens' (in dress and behaviour) was a spontaneous cultural revolution that preceded their direct targeting as a marketing demographic?  There's too close of a link between culture and media in North America to clearly say that one responds to the other, and never the other way around.  When a certain way of life, set of values or manner of behaving is portrayed and viewed repeatedly, thousand of times per year, it must have an influence on the viewer.  If this wasn't true, we would not have an advertising industry. This is the sole purpose of advertising: to modify behavior via repeated exposure.


With respect to video games, if playing military-simulation games does not make one more likely to want to pick up a gun and kill people, then why did (previous versions of) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army#Reception]America's Army[/url] get singled out for awards and nominations like Best Use of Tax Dollars,     Honorable Mention for Best Multi-Channel Marketing and Best Advergame of 2005?  Rumour is there's a 4th generation in the works.

Ok, I might be stretching the point a bit here, as I'd need to see some firm numbers suggesting that actual recruitment numbers are influenced by military simulator games, but I don't think it's such a stretch to suggest that playing military simulators might make one a wee bit more disposed to support your country's military actions. The narrative in these games is explicitly that some situations are best dealt with by violence, even when the game doesn't put much focus on why. To say that having these games as a significant part of our culture does not have a significant influence on that culture is IMHO a bit ridiculous.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But isn't that the case with the media in general? If you watch the news there is precious little why's and when some are uttered they are completely wrong (the classic "they hate our freedoms" ). A video game may reinforce those views but to my knowledge, they are not the root cause.

Again, I don't disagree with the premise that VG can be a bad influence, I just have a problem with the idea that they are the cause.
---
There are a number of VG in the market in which you can choose to be good or bad (and/or have a karma-meter), and there is a tradeoff in each case. Is the player who decides to be evil in a game venting his/her own frustrations or is (s)he training for a real life confrontation? Again if you follow the stats, the former is drastically more possible than the latter.

[Opsa]

I can't stand violent video games and will not stick around if they are played. This is understandable however, because I am a pacifist.

What bothers me most about them is the aggression that emerges from the players. I know they are just playing, and if they are well people, it probably amounts to no more than target practice. However, I can picture an unstable person getting a bit too much fantasy out of them, a fantasy that may blur into reality. This may not be the fault of the video game, but at some point I think game makers need to recognize that these games may overstimulate unwell individuals.

Just as the NRA needs to know that here need to be regulations that would preclude mentally unstable people from buying guns, we also need to make sure than people of delicate psyche should not be exposed to things that can set them off. It's personal responsibility for people who might not be able to control themselves. If you have no history of mental illness, then you should be able to buy a gun, or a violent video game. If you're a nutcase, then you'll have to take the extra step to become criminal too if you want either of these things. Too bad!

UNTADDY SOAPBOX ALERT

I am unnerved by heads exploding in a cloud of blood. I don't like the good-guy/bad-guy idea, either. Who is to say who is the good guy? To me it seems dehumanizing, like the way The Enemy is treated in war. If we have an Enemy, then we are also The Enemy to them. So, who is right? Who deserves to have their head blown off?

The other thing that pisses me off completely is the lack of consequence. You blow a guy's head off and then move on. Never mind the guy's wife and kids who have to go on without him. As far as we know, he was their hero. No-one ever seems to freaking care about the women who loved these Enemies. Screw 'em, huh, for loving a Bad Guy? Never mind that they now have to raise the kids all by themselves. That's what they get. I hate war, real or fictitious.

Okay, I'll get down now. I have soapbox splinters in my feet from all the stomping.

[Swatopluk]

It's interesting that there are now* games on the market where the player can choose to either go 'the way of blood (and chaos)' or to go through the game deliberately not committing any act of violence against sentient beings with both ways being legitimate but possibly leading to different endings.
The player may be actually encouraged to replay several times to try out all possibilities. And all of this with a very high degree of realism.

*Dark Project (The Thief) several years ago was a case were the amount of bloodshed allowed depended on the set difficulty. Easy=kill as much as you want; normal= kill only monsters but no living human; hard=one death and you lose, even if it was not by your hand (e.g. a monster jumps at you but drops into water and drowns).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Opas, in most shooting VGs the bad guys are either zombies, monsters, or in the more realistic cases, WWII axis soldiers, warlords or mercenaries. Some franchises (like Call of Duty which started with WWII games) have become more concrete, killing Arabs (assumed terrorists) or Russians (assumed from a totalitarian regime), which goes more to your criticism. I such cases I would say that the target shouldn't be the medium (VGs), or the genre (shooters) but the specific game.

Then again in some games you can make choices, I remember playing Postal 2 in which you could kill civilians if you wanted or, for the most part, avoid killing anyone to a degree (it became a very difficult game BTW), and you can level the criticism arguing that in real life, violence will get you killed always, most frequently sooner rather than later.

[Swatopluk]

In very pernicious cases the bad guys can be identified by them using ambulances. That is not a joke and it was in at least two very different settings (one was the literal postapocalyptic game put out by the Left Behind guys, where the allies of the Antichrist used them as transport, the other (forgotten the name and company) was set in the Middle East, I think after the infamous helicopter video came out).

[Griffin NoName]

..... as a parent, I'd be very hesitant about letting my kids have toy guns

With my first son, we didn't alllow guns as toys, but he and his friends just made sticks into guns. ie. there was no getting away from shooting people as a "game". They'd leap out of the bushes as passers by walked past and shoot them with their sticks.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As someone who frequently plays first person shooters, I have an issue with the demonization of video games every time an incident like this happens. I agree that certain violent games shouldn't be played without guidance or sold freely to children, but not only I don't feel the sudden urge to go shoot someone after I play, nor the statistics suggest so, for instance, The Netherlands has a very high rate of video game purchases but their gun related violence is particularly low.

Yes, there is a culture that glamorizes guns, but in my view, it isn't so much that movies and video games promote that culture, but reflect it and even then, the same movies that play in the States are played everywhere else without the same effects. If your pipes leak do you blame those who take showers or the pipes themselves?

I agree 100% here-- if anything, first person shooters can be a healthy outlet for feelings of aggression and competition.

And I also agree that the media is basically a mirror of what is going on in the culture itself.  These memes (the violent ones) start at a very, very early age.   By the time most kids see violent movies, it's far too late-- the meme that "violence is the correct answer to your problem" has already been well rooted in their minds, and the movie only plays to that pre-existing mindset.

I do think a lot of the "boys will be boys" mentality is partly responsible, in that turning a blind eye to boys bullying others does not help matters.  But the up-and-coming generations have had a childhood where it's (mostly) not cool to be a bully .   That could well change things, by the time they reach adulthood.

We shall see.