AfterDawn: Tech news

Nancy Pelosi: Game violence can't be singled out in gun debate

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 11 Feb 2013 17:27 User comments (38)

Nancy Pelosi: Game violence can't be singled out in gun debate Pelosi wants comprehensive gun violence debate that is based on evidence, and not anecdote.
The House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D), was speaking on Fox News Sunday on the issue of gun violence in America. Interviewer Chris Wallace brought up the role of video games and asked Pelosi why she doesn't get her Hollywood friends to "stop the video games."

"I understand what you're saying. I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother," Pelosi said. "The evidence says, in Japan for example, they have the most violent games and the lowest mortality from guns. I don't know what the explanation is for that, except that they might have good gun laws."

She criticized Wallace for sticking to only one part of the issue of gun violence. While she said that further examination of video games is needed, it must be in the context of a larger comprehensive look at the gun issue and based on evidence.

"I think we have to do it all. We have to take a look at these games are," Pelosi said.

"I don't think we should do anything anecdotally. We have a saying here: the plural of anecdote is not data. And so we want to know: what is the evidence? What will really make a difference here? And I think it has to be comprehensive."

Video game violence has been singled out - even by the NRA - as playing a significant role in mass shooting events in the United States, while defenders of the industry point out that the same violent video games are played in Canada, and in almost every country in the world.

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

38 user comments

111.2.2013 18:04

It doesn't even make sense to the majority of US citizens; it's simply the NRA and gov't officials that support them that refuse to take accountability accepting the fact that guns kill by the end users who choose to do the killing; plain and simple as that. Give a person a gun, it's their choice who and what they target, not the video-games, movies or songs that person may or may not be influenced by.

Even should they surmise (with or without evidence) that it's only video games as the majority cause; then they would have to examine on a case by case basis in court, whether than in fact if video-games played such a social impact on the accused mind, if then he was criminally responsible for the crime committed?

So essentially anyone caught owning/playing a violent video-game then turns around and does a crime spree can not be found according to the NRA, guilty due to mental disorders of being subjected to video game violence.

211.2.2013 20:45

Originally posted by Mysttic:
It doesn't even make sense to the majority of US citizens; it's simply the NRA and gov't officials that support them that refuse to take accountability accepting the fact that guns kill by the end users who choose to do the killing; plain and simple as that. Give a person a gun, it's their choice who and what they target, not the video-games, movies or songs that person may or may not be influenced by.

Even should they surmise (with or without evidence) that it's only video games as the majority cause; then they would have to examine on a case by case basis in court, whether than in fact if video-games played such a social impact on the accused mind, if then he was criminally responsible for the crime committed?

So essentially anyone caught owning/playing a violent video-game then turns around and does a crime spree can not be found according to the NRA, guilty due to mental disorders of being subjected to video game violence.
As someone who isn't an American, I find the debate in America over guns to be very strange. I know, for example, that even the NRA up until the mid-70s was pro-gun control, and up until the late 90s, was supportive of Universal background checks.

I think Americans have it in their heads that the ability to own a gun is the measure of their freedom, and I think that's frankly nonsense. Even those who support second amendment rights as a guaranteed individual right to bear arms, somehow completely ignore the fact that the word is "arms" and not "guns." If you can claim, based on the constitution that you have a right to own a handgun, then why not something more serious? Why not high grade explosives?? Because they are dangerous?

But then there's also the massive problem with the liberal arguments. Obama wants to limit high capacity mags and ban "assault rifles", but America doesn't have an assault rifle problem in this context. The VAST majority of gun deaths in America are handgun related, so what's the point?

But even more strange to me is how nobody ever takes the context of the second amendment into account. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, and the second amendment was adopted in 1791... 8 years after gaining independence from an empire not known for keeping its word, which could bring a new fleet by sea any time, therefore the context of "well regulated militia" and not infringing the right of the people to be armed makes SENSE in that context. The second amendment was for protection against the British, not the American government or anyone else. Then there's the context of what arms were available in 1791, which is a far cry different to the weaponry that gun nuts cling to now in America.

I would say if Americans wanted to interpret the second amendment as being the protector of the right to carry an extremely powerful weapon for personal protection against crime or whatever, then go right ahead, but at least be honest that this is a new interpretation. Hell, as said already, even the NRA changed its position on this over the last 40 years.

But ye, don't get offended Americans, I'm not judging, just an outsider looking in at the debate :-)

311.2.2013 21:35

Originally posted by Dela:
Originally posted by Mysttic:
It doesnt even make sense to the majority of US citizens; its simply the NRA and govt officials that support them that refuse to take accountability accepting the fact that guns kill by the end users who choose to do the killing; plain and simple as that. Give a person a gun, its their choice who and what they target, not the video-games, movies or songs that person may or may not be influenced by.

Even should they surmise (with or without evidence) that its only video games as the majority cause; then they would have to examine on a case by case basis in court, whether than in fact if video-games played such a social impact on the accused mind, if then he was criminally responsible for the crime committed?

So essentially anyone caught owning/playing a violent video-game then turns around and does a crime spree can not be found according to the NRA, guilty due to mental disorders of being subjected to video game violence.
As someone who isnt an American, I find the debate in America over guns to be very strange. I know, for example, that even the NRA up until the mid-70s was pro-gun control, and up until the late 90s, was supportive of Universal background checks.

I think Americans have it in their heads that the ability to own a gun is the measure of their freedom, and I think thats frankly nonsense. Even those who support second amendment rights as a guaranteed individual right to bear arms, somehow completely ignore the fact that the word is "arms" and not "guns." If you can claim, based on the constitution that you have a right to own a handgun, then why not something more serious? Why not high grade explosives?? Because they are dangerous?

But then theres also the massive problem with the liberal arguments. Obama wants to limit high capacity mags and ban "assault rifles", but America doesnt have an assault rifle problem in this context. The VAST majority of gun deaths in America are handgun related, so whats the point?

But even more strange to me is how nobody ever takes the context of the second amendment into account. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, and the second amendment was adopted in 1791... 8 years after gaining independence from an empire not known for keeping its word, which could bring a new fleet by sea any time, therefore the context of "well regulated militia" and not infringing the right of the people to be armed makes SENSE in that context. The second amendment was for protection against the British, not the American government or anyone else. Then theres the context of what arms were available in 1791, which is a far cry different to the weaponry that gun nuts cling to now in America.

I would say if Americans wanted to interpret the second amendment as being the protector of the right to carry an extremely powerful weapon for personal protection against crime or whatever, then go right ahead, but at least be honest that this is a new interpretation. Hell, as said already, even the NRA changed its position on this over the last 40 years.

But ye, dont get offended Americans, Im not judging, just an outsider looking in at the debate :-)
Im gonna focus on the 2nd amend part to help clarify a little for you(and btw, im not offended).
It wasnt just about the British if they came back, it was also about whether our own government at some point in time would turn on its own citizens. Thats why in the USA when you join the miiltary and that it specifies both foriegn and domestic. Arms is also just another way of saying weapons which include guns.

411.2.2013 22:20

The sad part is that the government has turned on the populous and there are still civilians crying that we need fewer guns. At the same time, we glorify professional killers (our troops) because they kill out of a belief that patriotism is the support of ones government, even when that government is against the people. If the president actually wanted less gun violence, he would simply pull our troops out of the countries that don't want us there and pose no threat to us.



512.2.2013 1:22

Actually the only thing they found in the study of violent video games

Qoute from pen and tellers bull **** !!!

They found that they where 16 depressed and outcasts of there society and piers they didnt find anything to say violent video games caused these kids to go postal and gun down 40 million people

612.2.2013 1:46

Why O why is this even a topic with violence, errr I am so sick of the blame being pushed this way and that. Bottom line is if you go out and harm someone or something, there is a mental issue, nothing else. It's not the games, not the movies, not even hearing about all the horrible stuff that goes on in the world, if you have these feelings you need help. Now the government is making it so the people that actually want/need to get help are scared to or are going to lie in fear of their confidentiality is going to be breached and arms taken. So great now we are going to have more nuts out there with guns that could have got some help, good move guys.......idiots. Oh yeah and another dumb move was here in NY they lowered the mag limit to 7 when a great majority of handguns hold 8-10, what is 2 bullets going to fix besides piss all us law abiding citizens off?? Hello!!! The people that commit these crimes don't give a shit about the law, they're still going to carry more then 7 just like the gun they have isn't legal either. Am I wrong. . . . . .

712.2.2013 4:58

violence has been around since mankind began.
violent movies,videogames,comic books have been around for years and i dont believe its the problem behind gun related crime.
I think the issue with gun violence in usa is due to easy access to guns and lack of training to own a gun responsibly.
in australia its very hard for us to legally own a gun and we have less gun crime than usa.
americans think they need guns to defend themselves personally think its a bit of paranoia.
hope i havnt offended anyone.


custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.

812.2.2013 5:38

I don't actually think the gun side is the problem, it's the shootings people going off buying guns from the local gin shop having a lic to own them then go down to the local shopping centre and have a good ole test shot with all the gins they have.

The overall problem seems to be the licing or how it should be handled maybe have people psych tested as well as the other problems.

I do find it odd that a country that has enough guns that each person can have 6 of them each yet someone can go and do a shooting and have nothing happen what so ever they never get shot at the cops run around doing all sorts of useless crap while the shooter can happily walk and gun as they please.

it's a bit like if you can own guns for self defence (that's the typical line for having any gun) but no one is willing to use use them then whats the bloody point in having the 2nd amendment or even having the public with guns.

The whole NRA line of having cops at every school to protect the school (an utter waste of time and money as they'd be shot dead first or they run away) is kind of shot seeing as you have a copper who's killed a few people and some coppers. which is really great when you want these people to stop others doing shootings.

Anyway, have to wait and see what happens now, as the whole copper things will have put a spanner in the works

912.2.2013 7:45

Quote:
it's a bit like if you can own guns for self defence (that's the typical line for having any gun) but no one is willing to use use them then whats the bloody point in having the 2nd amendment or even having the public with guns.
What people also need to factor is in $. Because of the large scale sales wide on weapons and ammunition there's a lot of tax $ involved as well. To cut back, or reform legislation on gun registration or distribution would be like slicing a hole in the US wallet and watching the millions poor out of it at a time they can't really afford to lose. For government officials I'm pretty sure it's more than just the need to bare arms; for NRA it is sure, and anyone associated with.

1012.2.2013 8:27

Originally posted by manitoba:
Originally posted by Dela:
Originally posted by Mysttic:
It doesnt even make sense to the majority of US citizens; its simply the NRA and govt officials that support them that refuse to take accountability accepting the fact that guns kill by the end users who choose to do the killing; plain and simple as that. Give a person a gun, its their choice who and what they target, not the video-games, movies or songs that person may or may not be influenced by.

Even should they surmise (with or without evidence) that its only video games as the majority cause; then they would have to examine on a case by case basis in court, whether than in fact if video-games played such a social impact on the accused mind, if then he was criminally responsible for the crime committed?

So essentially anyone caught owning/playing a violent video-game then turns around and does a crime spree can not be found according to the NRA, guilty due to mental disorders of being subjected to video game violence.
As someone who isnt an American, I find the debate in America over guns to be very strange. I know, for example, that even the NRA up until the mid-70s was pro-gun control, and up until the late 90s, was supportive of Universal background checks.

I think Americans have it in their heads that the ability to own a gun is the measure of their freedom, and I think thats frankly nonsense. Even those who support second amendment rights as a guaranteed individual right to bear arms, somehow completely ignore the fact that the word is "arms" and not "guns." If you can claim, based on the constitution that you have a right to own a handgun, then why not something more serious? Why not high grade explosives?? Because they are dangerous?

But then theres also the massive problem with the liberal arguments. Obama wants to limit high capacity mags and ban "assault rifles", but America doesnt have an assault rifle problem in this context. The VAST majority of gun deaths in America are handgun related, so whats the point?

But even more strange to me is how nobody ever takes the context of the second amendment into account. The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783, and the second amendment was adopted in 1791... 8 years after gaining independence from an empire not known for keeping its word, which could bring a new fleet by sea any time, therefore the context of "well regulated militia" and not infringing the right of the people to be armed makes SENSE in that context. The second amendment was for protection against the British, not the American government or anyone else. Then theres the context of what arms were available in 1791, which is a far cry different to the weaponry that gun nuts cling to now in America.

I would say if Americans wanted to interpret the second amendment as being the protector of the right to carry an extremely powerful weapon for personal protection against crime or whatever, then go right ahead, but at least be honest that this is a new interpretation. Hell, as said already, even the NRA changed its position on this over the last 40 years.

But ye, dont get offended Americans, Im not judging, just an outsider looking in at the debate :-)
Im gonna focus on the 2nd amend part to help clarify a little for you(and btw, im not offended).
It wasnt just about the British if they came back, it was also about whether our own government at some point in time would turn on its own citizens. Thats why in the USA when you join the miiltary and that it specifies both foriegn and domestic. Arms is also just another way of saying weapons which include guns.
Of course it has a lot to do with oppressive government but again, in HISTORICAL context, Europe was ruled by monarchy and religious powers at this time, it was the NORM on the world stage and so it was a threat.

Also on your point about foreign and domestic threats, I always saw that as a nod to the civil war, given that the south did try to break up the Union and was stopped from doing so by the North and the armies of the North, so the domestic threat wasn't the state it was uprising against the state?

The way I see it, right now in the United States, the House of Representatives and Senate are directly elected, as is the President and VP. The cabinet is nominated by the elected President and confirmed by the elected Congress. The Judiciary is composed of people nominated by elected representatives, and state government is largely along the same lines. So the responsibility for all policy in the United States actually comes down to the voter at the end of the day. So this idea of having 300 million guns to protect against a democratically elected congress and administration seems, again, bizarre to me.

Unfortunately, the only interpretation from the outside looking in is that the problem is partisanship and not an inherently bad nature of government..... Bush was elected, he was accused by the left of all kinds of unconstitutional actions and worse... then Obama was elected and accused by the right of the the same things..... both left and right have blind spots when their guy is in the White House (Obama kills with drones.... left is eerily silent.... Bush runs a devastating war and loses and has the largest ever foreign attack on American soil on his watch.... the right is eerily silent)

Remember, even before the horrible tragedy in December, gun sales were through the roof just because Obama was President. I'm kind of digressing here but I want to point out how the partisanship poisons the debate.

One last thing, if there really is so much of a debate about whether the second amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms and that the militia text is more or less meaningless, then why not just put an end to the debate with a new amendment? One that specifically mentions an individual right to bear arms, that is completely clear cut, in text, no references to militias and in the context of the 21st century? This SHOULD be easy, most democrats believe in an individual right to bear arms, all republicans do and so does Obama, so why not just do it???

I think that's where you'll find the smoking gun (no pun intended). The right doesn't want a new amendment because "they'll take your guns" is too good a political argument when seeking votes, and the left don't want it because so many liberals don't think the second amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Again, partisan politics means hours and hours of wasted time and infighting, paranoia and other important issues taking a back seat.

With the second amendment as it is, you leave a void. Even though the Supreme Court has decided that it guarantees an individual right to bear arms, that is not the final say... a different supreme court with different justices could find differently later on, and that brings up another symptom of leaving issues like this unanswered: judicial activism. We elect lawmakers in democratic governments to make laws and make decisions for us, NO court in the land should be able to act like a legislature. Their job is to interpret text, but in the United States it seems completely OK to have even a Supreme Court justice be biased and loyal to one side of the political spectrum, that's wrong (whether left or right).

But ye, I've gone on too long :-) It doesn't particularly affect me anyway since I'm not American, but it is a fascinating fight that seems to me to have such an easy solution.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Feb 2013 @ 8:46

1112.2.2013 9:03

Originally posted by xtago:
I don't actually think the gun side is the problem, it's the shootings people going off buying guns from the local gin shop having a lic to own them then go down to the local shopping centre and have a good ole test shot with all the gins they have.

The overall problem seems to be the licing or how it should be handled maybe have people psych tested as well as the other problems.

I do find it odd that a country that has enough guns that each person can have 6 of them each yet someone can go and do a shooting and have nothing happen what so ever they never get shot at the cops run around doing all sorts of useless crap while the shooter can happily walk and gun as they please.

it's a bit like if you can own guns for self defence (that's the typical line for having any gun) but no one is willing to use use them then whats the bloody point in having the 2nd amendment or even having the public with guns.

The whole NRA line of having cops at every school to protect the school (an utter waste of time and money as they'd be shot dead first or they run away) is kind of shot seeing as you have a copper who's killed a few people and some coppers. which is really great when you want these people to stop others doing shootings.

Anyway, have to wait and see what happens now, as the whole copper things will have put a spanner in the works

I know it's a little more easy in some states, but in NY you have to go through a grueling process to get your pistol permit. They do a complete mental, FBI and state backround check, even sealed stuff is opened. So again it's not the licensing that's the problem, it's the criminals. Also that Newtown shooter didn't have a permit, he was denied trying to buy a rifle the week before the shooting and then stole his mothers firearms, which by the way were not locked up even with her knowing her kid had issues
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Feb 2013 @ 9:18

1212.2.2013 9:28

here in australia you are not legally allowed to keep a gun on the property if you have a mentality ill person living there.


custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.

1312.2.2013 12:01

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
here in australia you are not legally allowed to keep a gun on the property if you have a mentality ill person living there.
See now that sounds like a law a majority of the people would get behind, why... because it actually makes sense. When they 1st were debating the gun laws they had some pretty good ideas, more in depth backround checks, extended mag bans and an assalt weapon reform but then they came out of nowhere with this 7 bullet law. Really ignorant and from what was said the NY governor rushed into it because he wanted to be the 1st person to do something in the US after Newtown.

1412.2.2013 13:22

I don't think it had to do with civil war more like if our government reemerged as an "evil monarchy" or dictatorship then we as a people could rise up and reclaim the government for the people with our arms need be.

1512.2.2013 18:02

Mass Murders have been increase lately & will keep increasing, 'cos the U.S. Govt. is side-sing with the corporations to control and exploit the citizens of USA (Wage-Slave)since all those politicians in Washington have stocks on many corps. and the people are waking up from the "America Dream" lies!!!
THIS QUOTE SAY IT ALL:
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_banners/473567144/1359854670/web

NRA (4M members) is a Washington D.C. Lobbying Group funded by Gun manufacturers to sell guns. They will never propose solutions that hurt profit. ($12B a year Industry)
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13992-be...rearms-industry

Correction: NRA Opposes Background Check Requirements.
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201106070005

7 NRA Gun Groups:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201...tion-day-groups

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Feb 2013 @ 18:17

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

1612.2.2013 18:47

Violent Video games has very little to do with it. Based on what I see the problem seems to lie in the households of the parents. Working in Education for many years I see more parents that are content to expect the school system to basically raise their children with very little parents being involved in their children's education and daily lives. They buy them items like cell phones and allow them to play any game they want all at a young age and then the parents do not keep up on what they are actually doing with that technology. This is partially because some parents do not understand it all but also I feel that some parents feel they are too busy to be bothered with it.

I grew up in a house with guns as my father was a police officer and a detective. I also played violent video games on the PC that had swearing, death, and blood. I think the difference is that no matter how busy both my working parents were they still found time to ask about my day and school, made sure I did my homework, and when I was old enough my father took me to the gun range and taught me how to use and care for a gun safely. At home he kept them locked up in a gun safe and if I even thought of getting out of line I got my ass beat. Non of this time out crap or my parents being my buddy much like I see today.

So like most things they refuse to address the source of the problem and using video games as a skapegoat. Parents need to wake the eff up and keep their kids under the age of 15 from playing rated M games as a general rule and instead of letting their kids have free reign of the console and playing it 24/7 and free reign of the internet and their cell phones they need to make it clear that they will be watching their children like a hawk and have strict rules and punishment until the day the child can PROVE they deserve the freedom and responsibility instead of automatically getting the priviledges without working for it.

All that being said I know I grew up in a different time before everyone was so instantly connected but I think if I was a child or teenager now my parents still would be parents and make sure I was on the right path of life by being involved and making me earn my freedoms and priviledges instead of automatically giving them to me. Kids today expect too much for nothing.

OK RANT OVER


AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

1712.2.2013 19:41

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
violence has been around since mankind began.
violent movies,videogames,comic books have been around for years and i dont believe its the problem behind gun related crime.
I think the issue with gun violence in usa is due to easy access to guns and lack of training to own a gun responsibly.
in australia its very hard for us to legally own a gun and we have less gun crime than usa.
americans think they need guns to defend themselves personally think its a bit of paranoia.
hope i havnt offended anyone.
Yes you do have fewer gun violence in AUS, however all other types of crimes have gone to double or even triple there previous rates.

1812.2.2013 23:15

Originally posted by bobiroc:
Violent Video games has very little to do with it. Based on what I see the problem seems to lie in the households of the parents. Working in Education for many years I see more parents that are content to expect the school system to basically raise their children with very little parents being involved in their children's education and daily lives. They buy them items like cell phones and allow them to play any game they want all at a young age and then the parents do not keep up on what they are actually doing with that technology. This is partially because some parents do not understdisciplineisciplinend it all but also I feel that some parents feel they are too busy to be bothered with it.

I grew up in a house with guns as my father was a police officer and a detective. I also played violent video games on the PC that had swearing, death, and blood. I think the difference is that no matter how busy both my working parents were they still found time to ask about my day and school, made sure I did my homework, and when I was old enough my father took me to the gun range and taught me how to use and care for a gun safely. At home he kept them locked up in a gun safe and if I even thought of getting out of line I got my ass beat. Non of this time out crap or my parents being my buddy much like I see today.

So like most things they refuse to address the source of the problem and using video games as a skapegoat. Parents need to wake the eff up and keep their kids under the age of 15 from playing rated M games as a general rule and instead of letting their kids have free reign of the console and playing it 24/7 and free reign of the internet and their cell phones they need to make it clear that they will be watching their children like a hawk and have strict rules and punishment until the day the child can PROVE they deserve the freedom and responsibility instead of automatically getting the priviledges without working for it.

All that being said I know I grew up in a different time before everyone was so instantly connected but I think if I was a child or teenager now my parents still would be parents and make sure I was on the right path of life by being involved and making me earn my freedoms and priviledges instead of automatically giving them to me. Kids today expect too much for nothing.

OK RANT OVER[/qu
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Violent Video games has very little to do with it. Based on what I see the problem seems to lie in the households of the parents. Working in Education for many years I see more parents that are content to expect the school system to basically raise their children with very little parents being involved in their children's education and daily lives. They buy them items like cell phones and allow them to play any game they want all at a young age and then the parents do not keep up on what they are actually doing with that technology. This is partially because some parents do not understand it all but also I feel that some parents feel they are too busy to be bothered with it.

I grew up in a house with guns as my father was a police officer and a detective. I also played violent video games on the PC that had swearing, death, and blood. I think the difference is that no matter how busy both my working parents were they still found time to ask about my day and school, made sure I did my homework, and when I was old enough my father took me to the gun range and taught me how to use and care for a gun safely. At home he kept them locked up in a gun safe and if I even thought of getting out of line I got my ass beat. Non of this time out crap or my parents being my buddy much like I see today.

So like most things they refuse to address the source of the problem and using video games as a skapegoat. Parents need to wake the eff up and keep their kids under the age of 15 from playing rated M games as a general rule and instead of letting their kids have free reign of the console and playing it 24/7 and free reign of the internet and their cell phones they need to make it clear that they will be watching their children like a hawk and have strict rules and punishment until the day the child can PROVE they deserve the freedom and responsibility instead of automatically getting the priviledges without working for it.

All that being said I know I grew up in a different time before everyone was so instantly connected but I think if I was a child or teenager now my parents still would be parents and make sure I was on the right path of life by being involved and making me earn my freedoms and priviledges instead of automatically giving them to me. Kids today expect too much for nothing.

OK RANT OVER
Perfectly said, I have been saying the same thing for long time now and I'm not even a parent yet. It's really sad to see but REAL parents like mine and the ones you descibed are a dying breed. These kids today (god I sound old) have shitty attitudes and think they're entitled to whatever they want. They do need their ass beat 110%, maybe then you wouldn't hear them telling adults to F-off. It's disgusting the way they act and it makes me ashamed to even be young because I don't want to be put in that catagory. None of this is ever going to happen though because parents today are scared of and scared to discipline their kids

1912.2.2013 23:54

Originally posted by Bigwillyz:
Perfectly said, I have been saying the same thing for long time now and I'm not even a parent yet. It's really sad to see but REAL parents like mine and the ones you descibed are a dying breed. These kids today (god I sound old) have shitty attitudes and think they're entitled to whatever they want. They do need their ass beat 110%, maybe then you wouldn't hear them telling adults to F-off. It's disgusting the way they act and it makes me ashamed to even be young because I don't want to be put in that catagory. None of this is ever going to happen though because parents today are scared of and scared to discipline their kids
Believe me I know. I work I.T. in a high school and I am surrounded by self-entitled punks all day that think the world owes them something. Kid is failing school because he is lazy and does not apply themself the parent comes in and blames the school and the teachers. In my day if I got a C my parents were on my ass and going to the teacher asking them what I was doing wrong. It doesn't end there but I think you get my point.

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

2013.2.2013 2:24

Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by Bigwillyz:
Perfectly said, I have been saying the same thing for long time now and I'm not even a parent yet. It's really sad to see but REAL parents like mine and the ones you descibed are a dying breed. These kids today (god I sound old) have shitty attitudes and think they're entitled to whatever they want. They do need their ass beat 110%, maybe then you wouldn't hear them telling adults to F-off. It's disgusting the way they act and it makes me ashamed to even be young because I don't want to be put in that catagory. None of this is ever going to happen though because parents today are scared of and scared to discipline their kids
Believe me I know. I work I.T. in a high school and I am surrounded by self-entitled punks all day that think the world owes them something. Kid is failing school because he is lazy and does not apply themself the parent comes in and blames the school and the teachers. In my day if I got a C my parents were on my ass and going to the teacher asking them what I was doing wrong. It doesn't end there but I think you get my point.
if i got a c in high school my parents were glad i passed.did have school deputy principal on my back telling me i should be geting straight a and that getting c's and b's werent good enough.also almost every other kid got paid from there parents per every a they got.

custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.

2113.2.2013 14:16

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Originally posted by Bigwillyz:
Perfectly said, I have been saying the same thing for long time now and I'm not even a parent yet. It's really sad to see but REAL parents like mine and the ones you described are a dying breed. These kids today (god I sound old) have shitty attitudes and think they're entitled to whatever they want. They do need their ass beat 110%, maybe then you wouldn't hear them telling adults to F-off. It's disgusting the way they act and it makes me ashamed to even be young because I don't want to be put in that category. None of this is ever going to happen though because parents today are scared of, and scared to discipline their kids
Believe me I know. I work I.T. in a high school and I am surrounded by self-entitled punks all day that think the world owes them something. Kid is failing school because he is lazy and does not apply themselves the parent comes in and blames the school and the teachers. In my day if I got a C my parents were on my ass and going to the teacher asking them what I was doing wrong. It doesn't end there but I think you get my point.
if i got a c in high school my parents were glad i passed.did have school deputy principal on my back telling me i should be geting straight a and that getting c's and b's werent good enough.also almost every other kid got paid from there parents per every a they got.
Yes definitely see your point.

Here we go, this is a good example of bad parenting. Paying your kid to get good grades is bribery and teaches them nothing. Now they expect something for doing what they should already be striving for. If I did good in school I got to go out with my friends, that's it. The only money I ever saw was for doing a list of chores and a job. This is where the self entitled BS comes in, what's next...oh you did a poops...good job here's $5. Sorry to go that route but that's seriously how ridiculous it sounds. It's like the way we treat our animals by giving them treats, no wonder some act like one

2215.2.2013 21:25

Originally posted by Mysttic:
It doesn't even make sense to the majority of US citizens; it's simply the NRA and gov't officials that support them that refuse to take accountability accepting the fact that guns kill by the end users who choose to do the killing; plain and simple as that. Give a person a gun, it's their choice who and what they target, not the video-games, movies or songs that person may or may not be influenced by.

Even should they surmise (with or without evidence) that it's only video games as the majority cause; then they would have to examine on a case by case basis in court, whether than in fact if video-games played such a social impact on the accused mind, if then he was criminally responsible for the crime committed?

So essentially anyone caught owning/playing a violent video-game then turns around and does a crime spree can not be found according to the NRA, guilty due to mental disorders of being subjected to video game violence.
Very true!

This is what I would expect from Pelosi as she will not go against part of her backing, Hollywierd, otherwise she is all about taking away our rights.

The second amendment isn't about hunting either it is about our right to defend ourselves against the government, specifically the British regime at the time. I truly hate the nonsense argument of hunting riffles so often used by the media/dem's, especially since a shot gun is much more effective in close requirements then any assault riffle.

2317.2.2013 9:06

No it's NOT video games because in Oz we banned pistols, assault weapons etc. over 15 years ago after the last gun massacre and since then there have been none when there was at least one every year before that.

From wikipedia:
As a response to the spree killing [by Martin Bryant], Australian State and Territory governments placed tight restrictions on semi-automatic centre-fire rifles, high-capacity repeating shotguns and high-capacity rifle magazines. In addition to this, heavy limitations were also put into place on low-capacity repeating shotguns and rim-fire semi-automatic rifles.... Though this resulted in stirring controversy, opposition to the new laws was overcome by media reporting of the massacre and mounting public opinion in the wake of the shootings.


The USA might (but probably not reading many of the comments here) consider the very real experience of we Australians instead of just conjecturing or thinking they are radically different from other democracies in this world.

PS: I am not against the owning of guns for sport or hunting. My brother-in-law runs a gun shop and is a national rifle champion. Of course the guns at his home are kept in a locked safe and ammo and firing pins are kept in another- by law. Even though he could make a lot of money he is completely comfortable with the situation and considers Americans bonkers.


Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


2417.2.2013 12:22

When I was young we had more guns in our homes. They were not locked up and we had ammo with the guns. They could be picked up and used in a pinch. We had children around but they were taught to respect the guns and use them safely. We had no problems like we do today were there are less homes with guns so what has changed?

Could it be that kids are brought up will less respect? Could it be that children are brought up with no boundaries? Could it be the Entitlement attitude prevalent today? Could it be our more then ever a socialistic society? Could it be all of the less than desirable people we invite into our country? Could it be over sensationalized by the media as it is still a very small number compared to other death rates?

What I can tell you is it isn't the guns and that is a fact, it's our society and the way people are today.

I personally prefer freedom at any price and freedom like every other way comes at a price.

2517.2.2013 12:36

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
What I can tell you is it isn't the guns...
As I predicted in my third paragraph... explains the flood of Americans moving to Australia.


Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


2617.2.2013 13:06

Your Prime Minister is great and you are right even my family has contemplated moving to Australia and getting away from the Obama/Reid/Biden/Pelosi clan.

2717.2.2013 14:03

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Your Prime Minister is great and you are right even my family has contemplated moving to Australia and getting away from the Obama/Reid/Biden/Pelosi clan.
Sure. But Oz is not for you... I think you'd be better off moving to the 1800s.

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


2817.2.2013 14:39

I don't think you have a say in the matter nor do you know what is better for me. Maybe you should move to the US you might fit in well here.

2917.2.2013 21:21

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
I don't think you have a say in the matter nor do you know what is better for me. Maybe you should move to the US you might fit in well here.
Rest assured, I don't have a say in the matter. But if you don't like it in the US for the reasons you stated... you would absolutely hate it here, I guarantee. So much so, I thought you were being sarcastic before. Even the Yanks I know getting Aussie citizenship and buying houses here are doing it because they like the thriving hybrid economy and are escaping your luna-right. And we despise smug arrogant Yanks with a passion... we call them "Septics" (true). I think you have the wrong country, we are tantamount to communists according to your standards (and proud of it)... you must have meant Austria.


EDIT: No offence to Austrians, you have a beautiful country.


------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Feb 2013 @ 0:59

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


3018.2.2013 6:31

What a joke, hybrid, sure.....

3118.2.2013 7:13

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
What a joke, hybrid, sure.....
Not my term. Like I said, laissez faire ideologues would naturally see us as filthy commies. Try somewhere else, maybe some third-world country.

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


3222.2.2013 15:52

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
When I was young we had more guns in our homes. They were not locked up and we had ammo with the guns. They could be picked up and used in a pinch. We had children around but they were taught to respect the guns and use them safely. We had no problems like we do today were there are less homes with guns so what has changed?

Could it be that kids are brought up will less respect? Could it be that children are brought up with no boundaries? Could it be the Entitlement attitude prevalent today? Could it be our more then ever a socialistic society? Could it be all of the less than desirable people we invite into our country? Could it be over sensationalized by the media as it is still a very small number compared to other death rates?

What I can tell you is it isn't the guns and that is a fact, it's our society and the way people are today.

I personally prefer freedom at any price and freedom like every other way comes at a price.
Less respect, less boundaries, more attitude:
'cos the last generations grow up "without parents" 'cos women work to be as equal as men, single parents, etc. and kids nannies are the TV, video games, etc. No a real parenthood guidelines and kids grow up trusting no-one or hardly any-one.

More socialistic:
Kids look at us as a materialistic machines, etc.

Immigration issues:
Immigrants came to work hard for minimum wages and do jobs that American Citizens do not want to do.
1rs. Generation Immigrants are good 'cos they have the illusion to get ahead no matter how hard it will be or how long it will take. They do not forget where came from, so they have an identity, but not an American-Identity.
2nd. Generation Immigrants are the basters, confused, rebels, etc. They born on the line, they are not a "real Americans" but also they are not from where their parents where from: (Re-negates)
+3rd. Generation Immigrants are the winners. They have an America-Identity and are mentally stables to be wherever they want to be.

Death related Issues:
Yes, we are more each day and less people die from simple deceases that kill many on the past centuries.

To summarize all:
This U.S. Government way to deal with mass-murders and blame Video-Games is the most stupid way to deal with the real problem (The Govt. Itself). But we all know that the Govt. like to play mind games & lie; divide & confuse people in order to keep the power over us.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Feb 2013 @ 16:01

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

3322.2.2013 16:07

Government, Schools, and parenting.... Are the big problems today. I love it because my kids or my sisters kid, everyone that meets them go wow you kids are well mannered, respectful and they work hard, seems to be uncommon these days unfortunately.

You made good points and there are more of course.....

3422.2.2013 21:14

Originally posted by Mrguss:
But we all know that the Govt. like to play mind games & lie; divide & confuse people in order to keep the power over us.
You're lucky to at least be living in a democracy... do something about it!

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


3523.2.2013 22:34

Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by Mrguss:
But we all know that the Govt. like to play mind games & lie; divide & confuse people in order to keep the power over us.
You're lucky to at least be living in a democracy... do something about it!
Back to the jokes again I see. We are far from a Democracy although that might be the image they would like to portray.

3624.2.2013 0:15

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by Mrguss:
But we all know that the Govt. like to play mind games & lie; divide & confuse people in order to keep the power over us.
You're lucky to at least be living in a democracy... do something about it!
Back to the jokes again I see. We are far from a Democracy although that might be the image they would like to portray.
Democracy is not perfect or ideal... it is a work in progress... it has been for millennia and always will be. I feel I'm reasoning with a spoilt brat.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Feb 2013 @ 0:19

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


3724.2.2013 6:30

Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by Mrguss:
But we all know that the Govt. like to play mind games & lie; divide & confuse people in order to keep the power over us.
You're lucky to at least be living in a democracy... do something about it!
Back to the jokes again I see. We are far from a Democracy although that might be the image they would like to portray.
Democracy is not perfect or ideal... it is a work in progress... it has been for millennia and always will be. I feel I'm reasoning with a spoilt brat.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing in life is "Democracy is not perfect or ideal..." I don't think your "feel" is on point. Actually you are way off, kind of what I've danced around prior... But there is truly no point to continue this path further either is there.

3824.2.2013 7:09

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Originally posted by Mrguss:
But we all know that the Govt. like to play mind games & lie; divide & confuse people in order to keep the power over us.
You're lucky to at least be living in a democracy... do something about it!
Back to the jokes again I see. We are far from a Democracy although that might be the image they would like to portray.
Democracy is not perfect or ideal... it is a work in progress... it has been for millennia and always will be. I feel I'm reasoning with a spoilt brat.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing in life is "Democracy is not perfect or ideal..." I don't think your "feel" is on point. Actually you are way off, kind of what I've danced around prior... But there is truly no point to continue this path further either is there.
I understand that democracy does not fit your naive "utopian" vision. I know I'm bang on point but trying to remain as civil as I can... so I used the words "I feel".

I should also have put the words "perfect" and "ideal" in quotes but I overestimated your ability to read things in context... my bad.

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.


Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive