The Political Game: Don't worry, be happy
by Dennis McCauley 
{ Dec 8th 2006 at 11:25AM }
Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:
If you haven't caught this week's edition of Time Magazine, put down EGM or PC Gamer or whatever gaming mag you read and be sure to pick up a copy.
The cover story, "Why We Worry About the Wrong Things" isn't written about the raging controversy over video game content, but it easily could have been. As I read through Jeffrey Kluger's terrific article, I was reminded over and over again about the current political battle surrounding games.
How so?
Kluger is spot on when he writes that, as a society, we obsess over scary but extremely rare threats like avian flu, which hasn't killed a single American. Yet many of us fail to be inoculated against the common strain of influenza which wipes out more than 35,000 of us every year. Or, we fret about mad cow disease in our burgers, but not about the cholesterol in red meat that contributes to heart disease, which spells game over for 700,000 Americans annually.
As Kluger also points out, unfamiliar threats are more frightening than ones we know. So you may not fear dying in a car crash, but you'll probably think twice about eating at Taco Bell after this week's sudden E. coli outbreak. The unfamiliarity issue becomes important in the video game debate if you think for a moment about the ages of those leading the charge against games. Most are 50 or older. Their hands-on familiarity with games is likely to be minimal.
What's more, the Time article got me thinking about all of the political energy devoted to attacking video games, when there's exactly zero scientific proof that a game ever made anyone kill. There are, however, plenty of known causes of crime and violence among youth. Poverty, drugs, abuse, gangs and easy access to firearms are readily acknowledged as contributing factors to the 16,692 people murdered in the United States last year.
Why aren't video game critics addressing the known causes of youth violence, instead of wasting time on cartoon combat? Why aren't activists writing nasty letters to Smith & Wesson? Why isn't Congress intent on eliminating poverty in America? Or stopping the incredible availability of weapons in our cities? Are those problems too insurmountable to tackle?
Or are they just too politically risky?
Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
If you haven't caught this week's edition of Time Magazine, put down EGM or PC Gamer or whatever gaming mag you read and be sure to pick up a copy.The cover story, "Why We Worry About the Wrong Things" isn't written about the raging controversy over video game content, but it easily could have been. As I read through Jeffrey Kluger's terrific article, I was reminded over and over again about the current political battle surrounding games.
How so?
Kluger is spot on when he writes that, as a society, we obsess over scary but extremely rare threats like avian flu, which hasn't killed a single American. Yet many of us fail to be inoculated against the common strain of influenza which wipes out more than 35,000 of us every year. Or, we fret about mad cow disease in our burgers, but not about the cholesterol in red meat that contributes to heart disease, which spells game over for 700,000 Americans annually.
As Kluger also points out, unfamiliar threats are more frightening than ones we know. So you may not fear dying in a car crash, but you'll probably think twice about eating at Taco Bell after this week's sudden E. coli outbreak. The unfamiliarity issue becomes important in the video game debate if you think for a moment about the ages of those leading the charge against games. Most are 50 or older. Their hands-on familiarity with games is likely to be minimal.
What's more, the Time article got me thinking about all of the political energy devoted to attacking video games, when there's exactly zero scientific proof that a game ever made anyone kill. There are, however, plenty of known causes of crime and violence among youth. Poverty, drugs, abuse, gangs and easy access to firearms are readily acknowledged as contributing factors to the 16,692 people murdered in the United States last year.
Why aren't video game critics addressing the known causes of youth violence, instead of wasting time on cartoon combat? Why aren't activists writing nasty letters to Smith & Wesson? Why isn't Congress intent on eliminating poverty in America? Or stopping the incredible availability of weapons in our cities? Are those problems too insurmountable to tackle?
Or are they just too politically risky?
Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Avinash_Tyagi @ Dec 8th 2006 11:36AM
Fear is the best tool of the politicians, just look at how they've created the Al-Qaeda/vast terrorist network myth, or the avian flu scares.
MikeUF @ Dec 8th 2006 11:36AM
Too bad 99% of Americans will never read that column
DiRT @ Dec 8th 2006 11:39AM
"Why aren't activists writing nasty letters to Smith & Wesson?"
Didn't 'they' sue firearms makers about a decade back?
coocoo @ Dec 8th 2006 11:39AM
Great story. I took a social stats course 25 years ago that was taught from exactly this view, perceived vs. actual risk. Reviewing at the end of the semester, it was amazing to see just how much media coverage (even back then, it's only become worse) was on things that have absolutely no affect on people's everyday life.
"Can a common toy in your home kill your child ?"
"Is something you drink everyday, toxic?"
"Is something in your kitchen poisoning you family ?"
all followed by the inevitable:
"Join us at 11 (or 10 inyour area) to find out"
when it finally airs (at 11:25) you find out to not allow your kid to swallow slinkies, or that if you drink 500 gallons of coffee a day, you can die, or scratched teflon pans are dangerous.
People need to focus on solving issues that matter, not wild goose chases on causes that don't really apply. The best correlation between a child's behavior and their upbringing is the amount of time that the parents spend with the children. The more time, the better chance the kid has of being a productive citizen (even with playing some shooter type video games). But that solution is just too obvious.
farmok @ Dec 8th 2006 11:39AM
I would have to agree greatly with what you and the article has to say. It is too easy to focus on the unknown because we don't know what can be done to stop it other than to complain and scare people about it. The stuff we do know how to fix ends up to be too much "work" and requires too much effort on ours and their parts to prevent.
There is one way this game attacks can stop. Let EA, or Activision, or THQ start contributing to campaigns of some of these politicians, and they will quickly sing a different tune.
Rami @ Dec 8th 2006 4:23PM
I completely agree. Look at Germany and way the public treats games there. They are now trying to make anyone playing or creating violent games a criminal. There are so many problems in this world that are not pursued which cause much more pain and sufferring. Why not tackle those first? Why not use the money to give parents knowledge about how to raise children that are potentially violent? Why not tackle the other causes of teen violence (Ex. bullying in schools)? These are the underlying issues, not the violent games.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 11:43AM
Uh, last I checked, activists are writing nasty letters to Smith & Wesson. And Remmington. And every other gun manufacturer.
But since brought up the topic about how guns are a bigger worry , easy access to guns doesn't cause deaths. If everyone was armed there would be a lot less gun violence. Criminals really do think twice about robbing someone that might be armed. Or about shooting someone when they know that 50 other people on the street are armed as well.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 11:47AM
Oh, and one more thing to add to your list of perceived risks - global warming. I mean, global climate change. I mean, warming in the northern hemisphere and cooling in the southern hemisphere. I mean, melting of the polar ice caps. I mean, oh wait, the ice in Antartica is thicker than it has ever been.
crono141 @ Dec 8th 2006 11:46AM
Um, people ARE attacking the gun industry. But once again, guns (and videogames) don't kill people, people kill people. Its a good thing we have the 1st and second amendments to protect our rights to own games and guns.
Rick @ Dec 8th 2006 11:50AM
"Poverty, drugs, abuse, gangs and easy access to firearms"
These causes of crime affect primarily poor people... who most politicians could care less about.
But suburban soccer mom's don't want their kid going to school with their other maladjusted kids who are trained on killing simulators like GTA...
D Cross @ Dec 8th 2006 11:47AM
Hey, remind me again. What was that video game that Bin laden used to play? How about the one they are playing in Rwanda right now?
Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Blame Canada.
Derbeste @ Dec 8th 2006 12:03PM
ummm....You answered your final question in your very article.
They don't fight those things more because it's easier to get the public's attention with the rare problems that we are not desensitized to yet.
Watch any of our movies, TV shows, or even our GAMES. We are a society obsessed with drama. You need to tackle something new, scary, and edgy to get noticed.
The funniest part though......
I GARANT-fUCKING-TY you that all these people on this very blog defending games will impulsively react the same way to whatever trend the next generation picks up. I'd LOVE to show some people their own blog entries 30 years from now as they are badmouthing the "lazy, irresponsible, psychotic youth that will result in the end of our world".
miannone @ Dec 8th 2006 12:34PM
This is one of the shortfalls of democracy (although it is still much better than any alternative). Politicians are elected and need to keep the people happy to maintain their positions. As the article mentions the majority of the population is worried about rare cases, not about the common ones that pose a greater threat.
A politician hoping to stay in power is likely to make a big deal about the rare case (ex. avian flu) to keep the majority of the public happy since that is what the average person is thinking/concerned about.
I'm sure gaming is a similar subject. There are probably many parents out there who are concerned about the violence in games so politicians jump on the anti-gaming band wagon to help get more votes.
As for the reason why people are concerned about rare/weird scenarios I feel it is greatly due to the news networks. News newtworks are driven by the number of viewers not how good and unbiased their news is. To entertain their viewers they report of entertaining things, like weird things that happened or things the public might not have heard of. Although they do report on other subjects that have a greater impact on the average person (ex. poverty) this is usually only a small percentage of what they actually broadcast (the rest being the rare/entertaining stories)
This gives the uneducated viewer a skewed view on reality. If whenever they turn on the TV they see people talking about the avian flu, they will think that this is a major concern. That isnt to say they shouldnt be concerned at all about it, its just to say that the chances of this affecting them in any way is extremely small and there are much larger concerns to worry about...which I guess is what the article is about.
The Intangible Fact @ Dec 8th 2006 12:40PM
I can't imagine what the world will be like 30 years from now. There could be a world in total chaos with countries that completely dispise each other over beliefs and money.(oh wait....that sounds like the present)
mikey mcclenathan @ Dec 8th 2006 12:43PM
maybe the solution is for the video game industry to start making enormous contributions to politicians.
Bobikcus @ Dec 8th 2006 12:53PM
Captain Obvious,
You obviously need to back up statements like "If everyone was armed there would be a lot less gun violence."
Common sense would tell you that drastically increased opportunities for risk will coincide, just through chance, in increased occurances barring any other preventative mechanisms. If we all carried scissors, cases of scissor injuries and scissor related violence would go up.
Comparing Canada with the US is not a controlled comparison, but it does hint gun prevelance is not inversely related to gun violence.
Argue about appropriate 2nd amendment implementation intelligently, please.
Justin @ Dec 11th 2006 9:30AM
Why is "the gun problem" the first argument that pro-gamers always come up with as the real reason for the violence problem in America?
"OK, let's pass the responsibility to someone else."
For those that don't know, you can't just go into a store and buy a gun. You have to be a certain age, pass a background check, not have any felonies on record, etc. Unless you know the facts, shut up.
Criminals, by definition, don't go to a store to buy a firearm. They steal them or get them from someone else that has stolen them, or any other illegal means that they can. They are criminals.
Being a gamer and firearm enthusiast, I am dismayed when a gamer shifts the violence away from games and onto gun owners. That doesn't solve the problem, nor is it true. Every state that has enacted concealed carry laws has seen a reduction in violent crime. Like someone above said, Joe Criminal doesn't want to rob you if he's worried you will defend yourself (as you have the right to do). Criminals prey on the weak. I wish the US would issue a firearm to every citizen like some European countries. Gun violence would disappear.
And if you wanna pick on guns, why not knives, cars, bats, hammers, etc? Like someone above said, people kill people. There are many reasons for someone wanting to commit an act of violence, just having a gun is not one of them.
dreamshade @ Dec 8th 2006 1:14PM
You know, common knowledge about laws restricting videogame sales is that you have to vote for them - if you vote against them, it makes you look like you don't care about protecting children, and the people who are against the bill don't really have any strength in politics. But the opposite seems to be happening - videogame laws rarely make headline news, and few people seem to be heralding the senators pushing these laws as defenders of our youth from a terrible culture.
Many of the people I talk to online have become very soured on people like Sens. Clinton and Lieberman. It's not so much that they plan on going out and voting against anyone who votes for a videogame bill, but more that they see it as part of a larger problem of triangulation, posing for the camera, and working on bills that mean nothing while doing nothing provide real solutions. I wonder that in the long run that this sort of legislation doesn't hurt more than it helps - the soccer mom crowd doesn't really move much on it, but a lot of potential voters who really pay attention to politics end up too depressed to get involved and make a difference in the political sphere.
Thisguy @ Dec 8th 2006 1:09PM
Give Captain Obivious a break Bobickus.
Just look at Canada and most europeans countries where they have an higher crime rate and a lot more gun violence. The reason is because the majority of people dont carry guns there.
Oh, wait, I think it goes the other way around, doesnt it? Why is that?
bm @ Dec 8th 2006 1:21PM
"If everyone was armed there would be a lot less gun violence."
HAH! HAHA!
Gang wars anyone?
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 1:26PM
@Bobikcus
When did I compare Canada to the US? I don't look to the way Canadians or Europeans do anything as an example of what should be done here in the US.
And sure, more accidents might occur. But crime would go down significantly. All crime would go down. You're not going to make a grab for someone's wallet on the subway if you see guns all around you. You're not going to steal an old lady's marble rye if she might have a gun in her handbag.
Just because accidents might occur regarding a product doesn't mean it is not worth having the product. Just look at scissors. Everyone has a set at their desk, as a necessity. The benefits outweight the risks. Also look at cars, airplanes, small dice, cellphones, pianos or anything else. Prevalence of anything will cause more accidents. More cars = more crashes. More airplanes, more crashes. More small dice = more small children choking. More cellphones = more accidents, possible radiation. More pianos = more cartoon coyotes getting squashed.
And more guns = more gun related accidents, but also less crime.
crono141 @ Dec 8th 2006 1:44PM
"Gang wars anyone?"
Because the obvious conclusion to my mom (or your mom, or grandfather, or uncle)owning a gun, is that she'll run out and join a gang so she can shoot people in rival gangs.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 1:34PM
Guys, here's how it works. Consider the following:
1. You think that I own a gun.
2. You don't think that my neighbor owns a gun.
3. You are a criminal.
4. You obtained a gun illegally through the black market, which is never going away no matter how much regulation or gun control there is.
Which house do you choose to rob? At my house, there could be a shoot-out, resulting in your death or escalating your crime to murder. At my neighbor's house, you point the gun at him and tell him to open the safe, then leave without having to shoot or be shot at.
Now, let's change the assumptions, and assume that you know that both my neighbor and I own guns. You KNOW this, because everyone owns guns. Are you really just as likely to proceed with the robbery as before? Can you just acknowledge that, yah, maybe there might be some deterrent effect? That's all I'm asking. It might be conceivable that more guns will result in less crime, that's all I want to get across. People that want gun control think that the other side is completely nuts, when, in fact, there are completely rational and justifiable arguments for why the prevalence of guns lowers crime.
Lucas @ Dec 8th 2006 1:39PM
Just like the scare about terrorism. Everyone wants to hide under their bed with a teddy bear and have their rights and freedoms taken away from them by the government because they think some guy that doesn't even know them on the other side of the planet is going to kill them. In reality, they are exponentially more likely to be killed by a fellow American, maybe even their next-door neighbor. This isn't even taking into account accidental death, like car accidents or falling from a ladder and breaking your neck. You know, when the Japanese attacked pearl harbor and the cold war threatened to destroy ALL LIFE ON EARTH with MAD, we didn't allow the government to throw the Bill of Rights into a shredder. When did America lose it's courage?
Starsmore @ Dec 8th 2006 1:40PM
Didn't the gun lobby get a law passed not too long ago that gave them immunity to lawsuits stemming from people using guns to slaughter people?
Something to the effect of "It's not our fault a crazy person bought our product and killed people with it, don't blame us for making the weapon!"
Can anyone back me on this?
virus d20 @ Dec 8th 2006 1:43PM
"Argue about appropriate 2nd amendment implementation intelligently, please." Ahh as long as we follow your "perspective" about this then we are being intelligent. See this is the problem with the world we live in, people like Bobikcus "assume" they must be great and wise because they have an opinion that is soooo much better than anyone else's opinion. Bobikcus you should keep words like "intelligently" out of arguments based on opinions. Intelligence and trying to make points on the internet should never be used in the same sentence. (yes I am aware of the hypocrisy of that statement)
I disagree (this is an opinion i dont have the powers to pass down law like Bobikcus does) with "Common sense would tell you that drastically increased opportunities for risk will coincide, just through chance, in increased occurrences barring any other preventative mechanisms." Common sense? Common to who? If this common sense was in fact so common don't you think less people would do things like call others unintelligent based on an opinion or kill others for a god that is supposed to be good and kind? If common sense is in fact common then why do so few people seem to have it and why do i strangly have lapses of it from time to time (its video games fault)
The truth no gun haters want to talk about is that people don't go out, register to buy a gun, and then go out and murder someone with it. As hard as this is to believe they have this nifty thingy called a datar bass (izz thinks thats what they calls it) and with that there datar bass and some cool csi gear they be matchin bullets with the owners! Wowzers good thing they just thought of that. So I guess that means that most gun violence happens with registered guns. Gun related murders must a cops best friend, "just send it to ballistics, case closed"!
If you know that a gun is dangerous and you treat it with respect accidents will not happen. Its easy to shoot yourself with a gun but only a careless fool would do so. That being said I will concede that 90% of the populace would be better of without guns but its not the fault of the gun. The fault comes back to human complacency. People only care/worry about things they are interested in and based on this people would be to lazy to take gun safety serriously. People need to leave registered gun owners and gang banger as seperate groups. If you take guns away two weeks later you will be taking away bats, then knives, then boots, then hair spray and lighters. People that want to kill will do so with or with out guns. Personally if I am going to get killed over 40 bucks I would rather be shot in the face than have my head stomped in with a shoe and slowly bleed to death as I wonder what I did to deserve this, all the while knowing it simply karma for all the f-ed up stuff I have done in my life.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 1:47PM
@Starsmore
Yes, you are correct. But should a car manufacturer be liable when an elderly person uses a car product to mow down a dozen people in Santa Monica? Or when a student in Santa Barbara goes crazy and crashes his car into a dozen kids, all the while screaming that he is the devil?
@Lucas
Thanks for bringing up an absolutely fantastic point. We should not let our civil liberties be regulated in response to our fears. People forget that our second most important civil liberty, as our founding fathers decided it was to be the second amendment, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This right ranked higher than all other civil rights, save freedom of speech. After freedom of speech, the right to own a gun is the most important right to protect and maintain a democracy.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 1:55PM
One more example. Or when some depressed guys wants to commit suicide and parks his SUV on the train tracks, changes his mind at the last minute and gets out of the car, but leaves the car on the tracks, and dozens of people are killed, maimed, dismembered or otherwise injured as a result of the car?
And these examples are just from the Southern California area, all in the last five years.
virus d20 @ Dec 8th 2006 1:55PM
"It's not our fault a crazy person bought our product and killed people with it, don't blame us for making the weapon!"
A gun is a tool nothing more. What YOU do with it is your choice. I am very peaceful and against hunting but I love target shooting. Many people find target shooting enjoyable and many people buy guns just for target shooting. So I shouldn't be allowed to target shoot or stop a-holes from attacking my family because some kid whose parents did give a crap about him kills some other kid for shoes he wouldn't even care about if he didn't see some rich guy on TV with them. Why not just ban TV and rich/famous people? More lives would be saved than getting rid of guns. The time story is about just what I am saying. Getting rid of guns would save very few lives, yet getting rid of cars would save tons.
K-OSS @ Dec 8th 2006 2:04PM
"Because the obvious conclusion to my mom (or your mom, or grandfather, or uncle)owning a gun, is that she'll run out and join a gang so she can shoot people in rival gangs."
Neither scenario is depicting the true issue here. If everyone had a gun, it would ideally be considered a system of deterrence similar to that used during the Cold War era to keep everyone at bay. The main difference between the Cold War Deterrence and the everyone has a gun idea of deterrence us that EVERYONE has to abide by the concept of deterrence, which leads to the number one flaw which is inherent in a good portion of the human race, which is not everyone cares to think about anything beyond the immediate resolve. This would lead to a break in the deterrence policy and similar to the conceptual alternative to the cold war, could essentially create a domino effect of violence over a good portion of the population, if not immediately it would create a sense of stronger distrust and strengthen the ease of which that ill fated truce can be broken.
Ultimately, not a viable solution for a large scale, but could work in some smaller communities.
Bobickus @ Dec 8th 2006 2:12PM
Captain Obvious,
I compared the US to Canada to indicate that prevelence may not coincide with deterance. Lower ownership in Canada and also lower gun violence. A causal relationship? Don't know, but the research is more compelling than your simplistic anecdote that relys on a minimumal factors, full knowledge by all participants and consistent rational thought by the criminal. Regardless, more direct causality may be found in poverty rates than in gun policies.
The whole point of real risk analysis and the article is to ignore anecdote and fear so that we can see what real research tells us. Captian Obvious's statement about gun ownership is no different than the politician who states with assertion that, "kids who play violent games will be violent, I mean, it's obvious!"
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 2:10PM
@K-OSS
Here's the response to your point. If everyone were allowed to carry, it doesn't mean that everyone would. The mere possibility that everyone around you might have a gun, or even just a few people, is enough of a deterrent. The entire populace would not be packing heat 24-7.
And the Cold War analogy is not fair. The control in that scenario is state-mandated totalitarian control. The prevalence of guns is personal choice.
Starsmore @ Dec 8th 2006 2:15PM
@ Captain Obvious:
Exactly the point I was making. Car & gun makers have more immunity to the result of their products misuse than video games, and their products are for more destructive.
Just proving a point, I guess.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 2:19PM
RE: Canada
Since Canada enacted stricter control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canadian crime rates have dramatically increased. In the US since 1991, crime rates have fallen.
Source: Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 2:45PM
I know I've kind of gone overboard with posts here, but this is an important issue. It really bothers me when people think that Just Because I Saw Bowling For Columbine I Am Qualified To Spout Falsehoods And Lies Without Acknowledging Any Of The Truths About Guns And Gun Crime.
virus d20 @ Dec 8th 2006 2:35PM
Starsmore the levels of murder in our court system are based on intent. A car maker doesn't make the car to murder people. Same thing with guns. Aftermarket gun sales add no bottom line to gun manufacturers, they do not make the guns with the intent of gang bangers using them to murder and kill. What does a gun maker like s&w get out of jimmy buying a black market gun off of his buddy George? They don't market to gang bangers, they market to registered gun owners who BUY the guns and use them legally. If people use guns to kill and they go to jail they cant buy more guns. Getting rid of loyal customers is bad business. Its a sick way of looking at it but it is also the business way of looking at it. At the end of the day the only real weapon in this world is the human intellect, with it anything can become a weapon. Strangely murder was still rampant before guns.
Zack @ Dec 8th 2006 2:39PM
Obvious and Virus, just wanted to say that comparing the misuse of general consumer products with the misuse of weaponry is inappropriate. I certainly won't go so far as to say that more gun control is better (your arguments about prevalent ownership being a deterrent sound plausible), but those product comparisons are inapplicable.
The purpose of a car is to get you somewhere. Cars are not intended to cause damage. If there was a car manufacturer that made cars specifically made for people to crash into things, that'd be a different matter.
Guns are made to kill things, or (at the very least) have high destructive capability. This is a wildly different purpose from most consumer products, and thus comparing the fatal misuse of guns to the fatal misuse of general consumer products is simply not applicable.
Gun manufacturers cannot simply shrug their shoulders and say, "We just makes 'em, we don't shoots 'em." If they want to defend their choice of product, they must own up. They could claim they're helping equip the Good Citizens to defend themselves, if they want to put a positive spin on it.
Regarding the article above, I fully agree. Media sensationalism is one reason so few people watch the nightly news anymore. And as amusing as shows like The Daily Show are, I yearn for a news channel that would strictly limit itself to real issues and promote dialogue on tough subjects. And I don't mean I want a bunch of old men in suits yelling at each other; there are intelligent people out there who would love to discuss relevant current events. Someone just needs to make a show with them.
~the1jeffy @ Dec 8th 2006 3:09PM
@ Capt. Obvious
"Now, let's change the assumptions, and assume that you know that both my neighbor and I own guns. You KNOW this, because everyone owns guns. Are you really just as likely to proceed with the robbery as before? Can you just acknowledge that, yah, maybe there might be some deterrent effect? That's all I'm asking. It might be conceivable that more guns will result in less crime, that's all I want to get across."
Actually, if I was a criminal, I'd be more likely to shoot you first if I thought you were armed. So, a just as 'rational' interpretation of the 'Armed Society is a Polite Society' mantra you are portraying, is if you assume others are armed, you shoot them first.
The only way arming society at large is safe or effective for crime deterrence is to ensure that everyone that is armed is trained in shoot/no shoot scenarios, marksmanship, firearm maintenance, and situational thinking. So, some form of gun control is necessary. Otherwise you have a bunch of armed idiots.
Unfortunately, training the masses is not something the government wants. It's easier to scapegoat the evil guns, and pass semi-Constitutional gun-control laws.
Thisguy @ Dec 8th 2006 2:58PM
"After freedom of speech, the right to own a gun is the most important right to protect and maintain a democracy."
Well I think the U.S.A. and the rest of the civilized world will have to keep on disagreeing on this, since they manage to protect and maintain their democracy without the right to own a gun (they meaning the rest of the civilized world).
newmiracle @ Dec 8th 2006 3:02PM
wait wait wait...
"D Cross" (#10)- did you just copy the David Cross bit, or are you REALLY David Cross?
Either way, definetly one of my favorite stand up routines.
Avinash_Tyagi @ Dec 8th 2006 3:13PM
Captain Obvious:
Better solution to fixing the violence issue in the US than arming everybody is to fix the social issues of this country, namely the economic inequalities in our current system
K-OSS @ Dec 8th 2006 3:13PM
@ Captain Obvious
As it stands now, you are correct, you are free to choose. But that's not the scenario you originally proposed. You stated "If EVERYONE was armed there would be a lot less gun violence." Which does not imply any choice in the matter. Thus if my Cold War analogy is unfair, then your example was unclear.
Regardless of the over abundance of American Freedom(tm) or USSR Totalitarianism, the arguement of we have guns so others won't mess with us (which I believe is the basis of your point if I understand correctly) is the founding basis of deterrence, and thus my arguement still stands, as we're not debating the Cold War in terms of individual freedoms and in terms of Nuclear Deterrence. If you were speaking in realistic terms and not hypotheticals (such as EVERYONE has a gun), then that's a whole different thing. Thus the source of our little miscommunication.
virus d20 @ Dec 8th 2006 3:32PM
Zack I would like to clear up that I never said more guns would solve the problem. What I am saying is less guns will not fix the problem and shifting blame to gun makers is silly. "or (at the very least) have high destructive capability." So does a car or a propane tank, you can kill more people with a hummer in a park than with a gun that has to be reloaded.
"Gun manufacturers cannot simply shrug their shoulders and say, "We just makes 'em, we don't shoots 'em." Why? If I kill someone I alone should bare the blame. Alcohol kills way more people than guns yet I cant sue Jose Cuero if I commit vehicular manslaughter. I think you are missing the ENTIRE point of the time article. Guns are low on the list of things that kill people yet here you are focusing on something that so small compared to heart disease and cancer. If I die of heart disease can my family sue fast food joints because "I" was to much of a glutton to stop eating. Even "if" a gun is made to kill people with, it is in the end your choice to pull the trigger.
"Regarding the article above, I fully agree" No you don't! You selectively agree. If you fully agreed you would acknowledge that gun related deaths should be the least of our worries. Fast food and cars should be the main worry and guns just an after thought. You are just going with the meme that guns are sooooo bad yet no evidence exist that they are such a huge problem. Yet the truth is some "people" are bad and will do bad things to others with or with out guns. Law suits over stupid crap like this drag down our court system. Money isnt going to bring back your dead _____ and it surely isnt going to put s&w out of business. Its just going to waste tax payer money on things that in the end WILL NOT SAVE LIVES. Use that money for the poor or to fight disease. Dont mistake your greedy need to get free money as a noble cause. The black market for guns will never go away.
Tony @ Dec 8th 2006 3:33PM
Avinash_Tyagi:
you will never be able to fix the economic inequalities in our current system, that is the fundimental flaw inherient to capitilism
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 3:42PM
@~the1jeffy
No, you really wouldn't be more likely to shoot me first. There is a significant difference in the penalty for breaking and entering or other property crimes and the penalty for felony murder.
Of course, my argument assumes the rational criminal. If you throw out rationality, then none of this matters. And in dealing with the irrational criminal who is going to shoot no matter what, I'd rather that I had a gun to shoot him, or, at least, that my neighbor has a gun to make sure the criminal that just shot me doesn't get away to hurt others.
crono141 @ Dec 9th 2006 11:54PM
"Better solution to fixing the violence issue in the US than arming everybody is to fix the social issues of this country, namely the economic inequalities in our current system"
Oh here we go again. You know the poorest person in the country is still in top 50% richest people in the world (with total assets of only $2,200)? Did you know to get in the top %10 you only had to have assets of around $61,000? And to be in top 1% richest people in the world you had to have assets of just over $500,000 dollars.
http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-press-release-5-12-2006.pdf
I think a better crime deterrent would be for people to learn to be content with what they have, work for a better life, not try and take it from someone else. Its a culture of greed and self-pity that breeds crime amongst the poor, not being poor itself.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 3:42PM
Just a question about inequalities in our capitalist system. If our economic inequalities are so horrible, why do people die on boats, in deserts, underneath the dashboards of cars, and so many other horrible ways in order to get here?
The dirt poor from Cuba, from Mexico, from Southeast Asia, from China, from all over the world want to come here. Why?
Let's look at the economic inequalities in, say, communist Russia. Or, how about the inequalities in Saddam's Iraq? We don't even need to go farther than Mexico to see the vast and lavish wealth that the top of society enjoys, while the bottom is lucky to find food.
You want to help the poor, the homeless, the starving? Give money to your local church or synagogue. Don't ask the government to do it for you, and please, do not ask them to take my money just because my wife and I make over $100,000.00 a year.
Bobickus @ Dec 8th 2006 3:44PM
Jesus, Go to a meeting and come back to this...
Obvious,
"False hoods and Lies"?
Thank you for taking the time to falsly label anyone who requests that you support your argument that universal gun ownership would end gun violence.
Curious, since ownership already stands at 35-50% of house holds (depending on who you ask), I assume those who want guns have them. So does your plan require incentivizing ownership? Subsidizing it? Requiring it?
As for your linked article, even it admits that your initial premise is wrong. Gun violence does decrease as gun ownership decreases.
Captain Obvious @ Dec 8th 2006 3:55PM
@Bobikcus
I don't recall the article saying that. What page was it on? I searched for instances of "decrease" and "decreased."
The falsehood I am referring to is the belief that Canada's strict gun control has made Canada a safer place and reduced crime. That's what Michael Moore presented in Bowling for Columbine. That IS false.
I appreciate that you read the linked article. Thank you. It rather clearly demonstrates that Canada's crime rate has gone up, not down, as a result of its gun control laws. That is the only falsehood to which I am referring.
Bobickus @ Dec 8th 2006 4:04PM
As for economic inequalities, I believe the comments weren't meant to request a leveling redistribution of wealth. Rather, several people calmly pointed out that many issues find their root cause in those inequalities. A valid point, no?
Now if we are willing, as a country, to spend billions on threats of terrorism which affect a tiny portion of the population, would we not, as rational beings, benefit more from applying those same financial sacrifices to addressing the ills of socio-economic inequality? (or buying every car-owner a injury preventing helmet?) Apolitical risk assessment leads to interesting proposals for public funds. (trying to get back to the initial topic)