• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food

Goshin said:
When Hollywood action movies commonly make in the hundreds of millions of dollars, I'm pretty sure they'd go ahead and just buy the guns if the manufacturers didn't offer them free.

Why does Hollywood make movies like that?

Because the general public flocks to see them in droves, spending hundreds of millions on tickets and more on DVDs and movie-themed games.

Most of the guns I see on video games are not ID'd as real brands btw, but as fictional brands or sci-fi stuff. Can only think of a few that use real brands.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Supply or demand? or is it a "vicious circle"?

I don't see where the gun manufacturers are responsible for our national obsession with violence. At least, no more and probably far less than Hollywood, Silicon Valley and their financial backers.
Click to expand...

I don't think you take into consideration that guns are products and like Budweiser or Coca-Cola their creators hold the right to determine where and how they're used.
 
stonewall50 said:
I'm aware of COd. I'm also aware of 360 no scopes and all their fake violence.
Click to expand...

Well, when one argument fails, then you move on to another one. I just showed multibillion dollar franchise with real weapons, which contradicts your "fake weapon" nonsense and your best answer is that some games are cartoonish in their gun violence. Well, I'm sure that somehow... what? Addresses the notion that real guns are still being glamorized?

I'm also aware that a majority of gamers are OVER 18.

Btw.

Video games cause violence as much as Elvis caused sex.
Click to expand...

Great strawman. Does it work in the gun forum? :)
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I don't think you take into consideration that guns are products and like Budweiser or Coca-Cola their creators hold the right to determine where and how they're used.
Click to expand...



Not so much once they've been purchased. I'm no expert on laws regarding the depiction of products in movies (far from it), but I'd think once you bought it, you can use it pretty much as you please. Perhaps there would be certain limitations on using the brand name or logo, but not the weapon itself I'm fairly sure.

In any case, that doesn't address the fact that Hollywood makes these movies/etc because people pay to see them. Addressing that from the perspective of holding gun manufacturers accountable for how guns are depicted in movies is a bit backwards IMHO.
 
Hatuey said:
There are various multibillion franchises with fictional weapons that beg to differ.
Click to expand...


What makes the games with fictional weapons any better, Hat? It is still glorifying violence.
 
Goshin said:
What makes the games with fictional weapons any better, Hat? It is still glorifying violence.
Click to expand...

I think human beings draw a line between violence with fictional weapons and can't easily do so with violence made to look realistic. We all watched those WB cartoons with Elmer Fudd shooting at Bugs Bunny and Daffy from the 1950s and 1960s. There were also violent tv shows where it was clear that the violence was staged. Yet for some reason, we simply didn't have this many incidents. I could also be wrong and it could simply be that the media reports them more often and they've always happened. However, I think there is a serious difference between media portrayals of weapons 30 years ago and today. I think what has been lost in today's media is the reinforcement or suggestion that it's all fake. To some degree it can be attributed to a lack of consciousness that isn't reinforced.
 
Schwartz said:
At least there would be no anonymous guns around 13-year-old kids. Could anyone tell me what's so bad about stricter gun legislation? Those who want to obtain guns will be able to do so anyways. Those who need no gun - and therefore know nothings about safety and proper storage - will face some hurdles that will stop them from obtaining one.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that?
 
Hatuey said:
I think human beings draw a line between violence with fictional weapons and can't easily do so with violence made to look realistic. We all watched those WB cartoons with Elmer Fudd shooting at Bugs Bunny and Daffy from the 1950s and 1960s. There were also violent tv shows where it was clear that the violence was staged. Yet for some reason, we simply didn't have this many incidents. I could also be wrong and it could simply be that the media reports them more often and they've always happened. However, I think there is a serious difference between media portrayals of weapons 30 years ago and today. I think what has been lost in today's media is the reinforcement or suggestion that it's all fake. To some degree it can be attributed to a lack of consciousness that isn't reinforced.
Click to expand...


I agree that things have changed somewhat, but disagree as to causes.

30 years ago was 1985. We were just coming down from a violent crime high in the 1970s, which has continued to decline.... which seems to argue that this crisis isn't exactly a major pandemic.

I remember 1985 well. I had graduated from HS and started college. I remember watching very violent movies starring Arnie and Chuck and others where real or realistic weapons were used.

Back up another decade, or two... as a kid I watched John Wayne and other war and cowboy movies with real revolvers, rifles, shotguns, Tommy guns and military weapons.


I don't see this as being the critical difference between the mindset of that day and of today. And frankly considering the long-term decline in violent crime across the country, it calls into question whether anything we've discussed is actually making things *worse*.... since overall violent crime isn't worse, it's less.


Media hype makes a lot of things, like minors doing stupid things with weapons, SEEM worse, but is it really? Stats seem to say otherwise.
 
Schwartz said:
Florida teen kills brother, wounds another after argument over food | Fox News

Are we going to do something about it? Kids are dying one by one and absolutely nothing is being done. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides. 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Probably gun control is not a bad idea if you think? Obviously this incident could be avoided with no guns being present in the household. Nobody wants to deprive you from the right to bear arms, all we have to do is comply with stricter legislation. When grown up people die it is sad but when innocent kids suffer it becomes unbearable.
Click to expand...

Instead of commenting on your idiotic blaming of an inanimate object, let's talk about every action the BOY did was already illegal.
 
MACS-24 said:
Instead of commenting on your idiotic blaming of an inanimate object, let's talk about every action the BOY did was already illegal.
Click to expand...


1. Minor in possession of firearm unsupervised (depending on state law and circumstances).
2. Murder
3. Assault with a deadly weapon/Ass't w/ Intent to Kill.

but sure, some NEW law would have stopped him in his tracks...


Kids are dying one by one in traffic accidents too, in far greater numbers than by gunshot, yet apparently that doesn't hit his radar for some reason.
 
Goshin said:
I agree that things have changed somewhat, but disagree as to causes.

30 years ago was 1985. We were just coming down from a violent crime high in the 1970s, which has continued to decline.... which seems to argue that this crisis isn't exactly a major pandemic.

I remember 1985 well. I had graduated from HS and started college. I remember watching very violent movies starring Arnie and Chuck and others where real or realistic weapons were used.

Back up another decade, or two... as a kid I watched John Wayne and other war and cowboy movies with real revolvers, rifles, shotguns, Tommy guns and military weapons.


I don't see this as being the critical difference between the mindset of that day and of today. And frankly considering the long-term decline in violent crime across the country, it calls into question whether anything we've discussed is actually making things *worse*.... since overall violent crime isn't worse, it's less.


Media hype makes a lot of things, like minors doing stupid things with weapons, SEEM worse, but is it really? Stats seem to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part where I say there was a reinforcement that it was fake. Hell, I doubt the average person ever questioned that John Wayne was worlds away from a real cowboy. The same could be said for Chuck and Arnold movies. Even on its best day, Commando simply was a bit of a joke. Today, I don't think that exists. As for the other violence you suggested, I admit I wasn't even alive in the 70s so I don't know for sure but I think that can be attributed to a similar lack of consciousness. However that was brought on by poverty that lasted well into the mid 80s. However, these factors simply don't exist today. You have kids from suburban homes killing class mates because of bullying. You have kids from upper class homes killing their parents over money. You have neighbors killing each other over loud music. You can't simply chalk that up to media hype. It becomes clear that there is a very dangerous culture where guns are promoted as a solution to every problem. Who is responsible? We can say it is the media, but that's like saying cigarette companies had no role in higher smoking rates and lung cancer incidence.
 
Hatuey said:
I think you missed the part where I say there was a reinforcement that it was fake. Hell, I doubt the average person ever questioned that John Wayne was worlds away from a real cowboy. The same could be said for Chuck and Arnold movies. Even on its best day, Commando simply was a bit of a joke. Today, I don't think that exists. As for the other violence you suggested, I admit I wasn't even alive in the 70s so I don't know for sure but I think that can be attributed to a similar lack of consciousness. However that was brought on by poverty that lasted well into the mid 80s. However, these factors simply don't exist today. You have kids from suburban homes killing class mates because of bullying. You have kids from upper class homes killing their parents over money. You have neighbors killing each other over loud music. You can't simply chalk that up to media hype. It becomes clear that there is a very dangerous culture where guns are promoted as a solution to every problem. Who is responsible? We can say it is the media, but that's like saying cigarette companies had no role in higher smoking rates and lung cancer incidence.
Click to expand...



Yeah, the confluence of cigarette companies and gun manufacturers isn't working for me.


Cigarettes don't really do anything positive for you. They aren't useful.


Guns are useful in many ways. There are not merely a purposeless "vice".


And again, it is highly debatable whether this stuff is really "worse" than it was 30-40 years ago, given that the overall violent crime rate is substantially down over that time period.
 
Goshin said:
Yeah, the confluence of cigarette companies and gun manufacturers isn't working for me.


Cigarettes don't really do anything positive for you. They aren't useful.


Guns are useful in many ways. There are not merely a purposeless "vice".


And again, it is highly debatable whether this stuff is really "worse" than it was 30-40 years ago, given that the overall violent crime rate is substantially down over that time period.
Click to expand...

Whether they're useful or not doesn't matter. However, if that doesn't work for you: What about medicine? You can't see an ad on tv without a 4 minute explanation on what the side effects of that drug are. You can't even get an ad for menopause meds without some lady talking for 20 mins about how it could lead to some crazy side effect that only occurs in a small percentage of cases. We have literally developed a culture of consumption (in the pharmaceutical industry) where people are informed on the dozens of side effects whether they want to buy the drug or not. You can't get an abortion in some states without having to have a doctor tell you about killing children. Why is this not done with guns? Instead we have a reinforcement that guns are a solution to problems; from movies to video games and even certain politicians depending on their language and the time of the month. Do you believe that can't be changed in the same manner that it was established?
 
tres borrachos said:
So what would gun control have done to stop this? According to the article, nobody even knows whose gun it was.
Click to expand...

Does it even matter? Even if it was the parents gun there would be no charges because they have "suffered enough". That is what needs to be changed. Consequences for improper gun ownership needs to be law. The most common "use" for home weapons is to kill or injure the owner or his family and that is a travesty.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Does it even matter? Even if it was the parents gun there would be no charges because they have "suffered enough". That is what needs to be changed. Consequences for improper gun ownership needs to be law. Most home weapons only kill or injure the owner or family.
Click to expand...

It already is. Had the boy survived he would have been charged with illegal possession of gun by minor. Try again.
 
iguanaman said:
Does it even matter? Even if it was the parents gun there would be no charges because they have "suffered enough". That is what needs to be changed. Consequences for improper gun ownership needs to be law. The most common "use" for home weapons is to kill or injure the owner or his family and that is a travesty.
Click to expand...

Aside from you editing original post to become a bait thread, do you have anything to back up that absurd statement that I bolded?
 
MACS-24 said:
It already is. Had the boy survived he would have been charged with illegal possession of gun by minor. Try again.
Click to expand...

And allowing a gun to get into the hands of a minor is cause for celebration I guess. Is that also part of the 2nd ammendment? The right to allow your children to play with guns?
 
Hatuey said:
Whether they're useful or not doesn't matter. However, if that doesn't work for you: What about medicine? You can't see an ad on tv without a 4 minute explanation on what the side effects of that drug are. You can't even get an ad for menopause meds without some lady talking for 20 mins about how it could lead to some crazy side effect that only occurs in a small percentage of cases. We have literally developed a culture of consumption (in the pharmaceutical industry) where people are informed on the dozens of side effects whether they want to buy the drug or not. You can't get an abortion in some states without having to have a doctor tell you about killing children. Why is this not done with guns? Instead we have a reinforcement that guns are a solution to problems; from movies to video games and even certain politicians depending on their language and the time of the month. Do you believe that can't be changed in the same manner that it was established?
Click to expand...



Does any mature adult in his right mind need a warning label telling him guns are dangerous? They shouldn't.
 
iguanaman said:
And allowing a gun to get into the hands of a minor is cause for celebration I guess. Is that also part of the 2nd ammendment? The right to allow your children to play with guns?
Click to expand...

Would it make you feel better if the boy used a bat?
 
iguanaman said:
And allowing a gun to get into the hands of a minor is cause for celebration I guess. Is that also part of the 2nd ammendment? The right to allow your children to play with guns?
Click to expand...

You should stop editing your posts. They keep going from already very bad to worse and really getting weighted down by strawmen.
 
MACS-24 said:
Aside from you editing original post to become a bait thread, do you have anything to back up that absurd statement that I bolded?
Click to expand...

My statement is correct from just suicides alone. Suicides are the most common use of a home weapon and owning one increases your risk of suicide greatly.This case is a excellent example.

The harrowing fact of suicide demands a story: “Why?” But from a public health perspective, an equally illuminating question is “How?” Intent matters, but so does method, because the method by which one attempts suicide has a great deal to do with whether one lives or dies. What makes guns the most common mode of suicide in this country? The answer: They are both lethal and accessible. About one in three American households contains a gun. The price of this easy access is high. Gun owners and their families are much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners. A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership—though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same. A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.
Click to expand...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom