Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

[baldeagle]

I would suggest to include:

1. Straw purchaser, 10 years mandatory. If the gun is used in a felony, 25 years mandatory.
2. If your kids (<18) commit a crime, you are liable whether you are the custodian or not. We can discuss about sentences for the parents.
3. Ban all movies and TV shows if they glorify any crime or criminals.
4. Ban all media from reporting mass murder, particular using their names.
5. Make showing violent movies to minors or letting minors play violent games a felony.

A first DWI isn't even a felony...

Once could be a mistake. Twice is a confirmed scofflaw.

[03Lightningrocks]

I would suggest to include:

1. Straw purchaser, 10 years mandatory. If the gun is used in a felony, 25 years mandatory.
2. If your kids (<18) commit a crime, you are liable whether you are the custodian or not. We can discuss about sentences for the parents.
3. Ban all movies and TV shows if they glorify any crime or criminals.
4. Ban all media from reporting mass murder, particular using their names.
5. Make showing violent movies to minors or letting minors play violent games a felony.

A first DWI isn't even a felony...

Once could be a mistake. Twice is a confirmed scofflaw.

So is this the topic? I think the OP of that silliness was being sarcastic. At least I thought he was.

[baldeagle]

Yes, he was being sarcastic. And yes, the subject of this thread is suggested laws/actions/ideas that can reduce or deter the incidence of mass shootings.

[03Lightningrocks]

Well then... I am in the camp that strongly believes the video game industry along with the "rappers" have brought us to this point. I have watched 8 year olds playing video games that look like real life and they are slaughtering other human beings for fun and entertainment. That silly rating system means nothing. Many of these parents are paying no attention to the content. As long as "little Johnny" is kept entertained while mom works all day, everything is good. Gangsta Rap singers glorify violence and abuse with every word out of their mouths. Again... parents are allowing this exposure but realistically, there is no penalty for a parent doing this and many parents have no clue of the trash they are allowing children to absorb.

This garbage does desensitize our young people.

My serious suggestions on these two fronts. Institute some criminal penalties for adults that give people under the age of 18 access to this filth... just like we do for adults that give porn to people under the age of 18.

[punkndisorderly]

The arguement for taking doing away with violent video games and gangsta rap is just as flawed as the arguement for doing away with the civillian ownership of firearms.

Taking away law abiding, normal citizens rights because a handfull of people cannot use them responsibly is wrongheaded. Whether it be firearms, video games, or fast food.

Crazy people do crazy things. Evil people do evil things.

Aside from locking up the evil and treating the mentally ill, I don't see anything that will have a real effect.

We can debate whether we're doing as good a job as possible with either one of those.

[tommyg]

Guns should only be denied to violent criminals. Not to someone who committed a felony for throwing a bucket
of paint on an unpopular teachers house 10 years ago

[03Lightningrocks]

The arguement for taking doing away with violent video games and gangsta rap is just as flawed as the arguement for doing away with the civillian ownership of firearms.

Taking away law abiding, normal citizens rights because a handfull of people cannot use them responsibly is wrongheaded. Whether it be firearms, video games, or fast food.

Crazy people do crazy things. Evil people do evil things.

Aside from locking up the evil and treating the mentally ill, I don't see anything that will have a real effect.

We can debate whether we're doing as good a job as possible with either one of those.

Just to be sure there is no confusion. Nowhere in my post did I say or even insinuate a ban on either. I suggested penalties for irresponsible parents who allow under aged people access to violent video games or filthy x rated gangsta rap. It is naive at best to think chronic exposure to wanton killing, rape and abuse throughout the developemental years won't have a negative effect on a human being.

[tommyg]

The internet is full of violent vid games and porn
A parent can't stop it realistically kids will get it if they want it.

Kid gets violent vid game or porn behind parent's back parent looses gun rights
regulating it off the web is a form of censorship
THERE ARE PLENTY OF ANTI GUN FOOLS OUT THERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO CENSOR OUT THIS FORUM

[03Lightningrocks]

I agree completely that banning violent games or gangsta rap is out of the question. Punishing parents that are irresponsible and buy that garbage for their under aged children should be no infringement of any rights. Kids getting it off the internet without a parents consent is a WHOLE different matter.

REALITY is... parents ARE buying these violent games and noise they call rap for their children. They are mistakenly thinking it is not doing harm. They are ignoring the ratings on this stuff. Usually because of a lack of interest in what is really happening in their childrens lives.

[punkndisorderly]

Sorry, I don't agree that the government penalizing parents because they have a different vision of what "good parenting" means is a good thing either. I can remember the PMRC blaming the corruption of my generation on Ozzy and Dead Kennedy's records when I was growing up. The vast majority came through just fine.

These games and music genres are enjoyed by millions, and only a very small minority "turn bad". Of those who do, who is to say there were not other factors that caused it (abuse, neglect,, mental illness, brain damage, peer pressure, etc.).

Don't fall into the trap of limiting freedoms being OK as long as it isn't one you choose to exercise.

[Andrew]

Sorry, I don't agree that the government penalizing parents because they have a different vision of what "good parenting" means is a good thing either. I can remember the PMRC blaming the corruption of my generation on Ozzy and Dead Kennedy's records when I was growing up. The vast majority came through just fine.

These games and music genres are enjoyed by millions, and only a very small minority "turn bad". Of those who do, who is to say there were not other factors that caused it (abuse, neglect,, mental illness, brain damage, peer pressure, etc.).

Don't fall into the trap of limiting freedoms being OK as long as it isn't one you choose to exercise.

A short quote from Prof. Frank Zappa's statement at a hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, 99th Congress, first session on content of music and the lyrics of records:
The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal’s design.

It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC’s demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.

Replace 2nd for 1st.

[03Lightningrocks]

So... are you folks in favor of allowing children access to porn , strip clubs and rated R movies? Interesting line of thought. I don't know how many here have had the pleasure of witnessing some of these video "games". If you have watched some of them, how can you think chronic exposure to this level of graphic violence has no affect on the human mind? Especially one that is developing.

Maybe this is a good example of why we can't get anything done in America. Remember, I am talking of limiting access to this garbage for children only... not adults. For the record... gangsta rap glorifies rape, murder and abuse of women... Trying to draw some kind of analogy between gangsta rap and Buddy holly or even Ozzie is simply absurd.

Anyway... I offered up a few suggestions I believe would help. Maybe some of you could offer some suggestions to help, rather than looking for ways to shoot down constructive suggestions from others.

[hpcatx]

So... are you folks in favor of allowing children access to porn , strip clubs and rated R movies?

In one word, yes. The onus should be on parents to restrict access for their children. We may not agree with it, but we have to accept certain things that may churn our stomachs to ensure the things/behaviors we hold dear are not limited. As with the examples provided and with guns, access is already age restricted, too.

Maybe this is a good example of why we can't get anything done in America.

Arguably, this lack of getting things done is what limits extreme actions by our government and is the way policy decisions were envisioned. This way, transient, emotional swells of the general public don't dictate legislation; only overwhelming consensus does. Doesn't work this way in reality, but think of how different a country (and how little liberty would be left) if our political machines were efficient in getting things done.

ETA: I'm not so old as to have missed growing up and playing video games, which have progressively become more graphic. None of the friends with whom I played have any trouble discerning reality from the simulacra. They are all upstanding, law abiding citizens. The effects are indicative of other, broken aspects of our society -- the breakdown of the family, the inadequacy of state provided education, etc. Do I agree with all the violent content of video games or misogynistic lyrics of certain rap songs? No. But where is the line drawn? Why do we compromise here, but not on 2A/RKBA? We shouldn't compromise on either and, as we do in the gun debate, demand real solutions to the underlying problems -- not going after the symptoms. There are reasons this content sells.

[baldeagle]

So... are you folks in favor of allowing children access to porn , strip clubs and rated R movies?

In one word, yes. The onus should be on parents to restrict access for their children. We may not agree with it, but we have to accept certain things that may churn our stomachs to ensure the things/behaviors we hold dear are not limited. As with the examples provided and with guns, access is already age restricted, too.

We don't accept child abuse from parents. We don't accept parents engaging in child porn with their own children. How does allowing them to view violent movies, listen to graphic music or play violent video games differ from those? (This is a genuine question.) I'm not sure these aren't a distinction with a difference. I'm also not convinced that the argument that "all my friends turned out OK" is valid in this context.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

[hpcatx]

So... are you folks in favor of allowing children access to porn , strip clubs and rated R movies?

In one word, yes. The onus should be on parents to restrict access for their children. We may not agree with it, but we have to accept certain things that may churn our stomachs to ensure the things/behaviors we hold dear are not limited. As with the examples provided and with guns, access is already age restricted, too.

We don't accept child abuse from parents. We don't accept parents engaging in child porn with their own children. How does allowing them to view violent movies, listen to graphic music or play violent video games differ from those? (This is a genuine question.) I'm not sure these aren't a distinction with a difference. I'm also not convinced that the argument that "all my friends turned out OK" is valid in this context.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

I'm suggesting the same approach we hold as correct for analyizing restrictions on the 2A be used for other Constitutionally defined rights, such as the 1A. No, we certainly don't allow child pornography -- atrocities being forced on minors. If children were forced to watch porn, attend strip clubs, or play violent games, maybe that would be a fair analogy. There is a major difference between not restricting certain content for adults and risking that under age children may see it (age restrictions in strip clubs and porn, R ratings on movies, and M ratings on games) with forcing minors to consume (or in your example participate) in the same.

My comment about others turning out just fine speaks to our framers comments on rights, criminal behavior, and where our presumptions should reside. It is better to let guilty men go free than to deprive a single innocent man of liberty. Sure, there will always be examples of folks that break the law, and worse. But this doesn't negate that their behavior is indicative of other aspects of our society that are broken and not inherent in the consumption of this type of content. Correlation is not the same as causation and many factors drive our youth to both desire simulated violence in games or pornography and harm people in the real world. I suggest that we should boycott the consumption of this type of content (vote with our dollars) and work on our underlying societal shortcomings that make these things desirable -- not legislate solutions to erode Constitutional rights.