I guess this is a rant of sorts

[z0mbi]

There's something I don't understand about your argument... so when my Father went under a 16 yr old girl in her mothers car because she pulled out of a side road without looking/seeing him coming down the main road, it was his fault? It was his fault that she didn't see him and basically ran him down?

I don't follow, please elaborate.

 

[calsdad]

Wow, good topic.


Everyone is an individual, I don't think everyone's ability to own a gun should be based on one individual's opinion or ability. If one person feels they cannot be trusted with a gun, than why does that mean that others can't be? I know I don't dare to sky dive, but others do it regularly. I don't feel it should be illegal because I worry I would kill myself doing so, it is the individual who posses the power to choose. I thought America was about freedom of choice and being an individual? Why push your views and beliefs on others that don't feel the same?

People that feel others shouldn't own guns should consider one thing. What if somebody took away something they enjoyed and loved based solely on the belief that "If it's not safe for me, there is no way you could possibly be safe with it either." I would love to see something that anti-guns love get treated the way guns do, maybe after they deal with ridicule and needless harassment they might figure out it's best to not judge what you don't understand.

Kenny

The analogy between guns and motorcycles, or guns and skydiving is a good one, but there is one major difference between not trusting yourself to ride a motorcycle or go skydiving - but "letting" other people enjoy those activities - and not trusting yourself with a gun - and "letting" other people have access to guns.

The difference is that a person on a motorcyle or skydiving is probably far more likely to kill themself - than somebody else. And your enjoyment of those activities while it may rub the other person's cowardice or lack of self control in their face a little - is something they can sort of conveniently ignore for the most part and put out of their mind.

Guns on the other hand ARE different - in that if you have a gun - and they don't (because they can't trust themselves) , you are not only throwing your competence and lack of fear of an inanimate object in their face - you are mastering a tool that can essentially make you master of all you survey - literally.

There are a lot of people in this world who - because they can't trust themselves with that type of power, believe that YOU cannot be trusted with it either. They stick their heads up their butts and put their faith in the govt. to make it all right - and believe in their betters as knowing more than them - because it takes the responsibility off their shoulders and lets them avoid confronting their failings.

When I got my first gun ( a Glock) I did the usual things, took it out, took it apart, dry fired it, etc. Then one day while dry firing it I looked over at the bag full of ammo I had just bought (and not put away yet) and realized: I could load this thing up right now and shoot myself in the head if I was in that frame of mind. I could load it up and go next door and kill the neighbors, I could blow away my cats, kill the postman, kill my girlfriend, or go down to the mall and just start blowing people away.

This was the thoughts that ran thru my head - partially because I have been exposed to the same kind of media crap and video games, etc. that probably most of us have watched and played.

After those fleeting thoughts passed - I also realized one other major thing: I DON'T WANT TO. It would be wrong. What would be the point of that? It's just mindless destruction for nothing. It's just a piece of metal and plastic in the end. I could just as easily go outside and pick up one of my nailguns and drive a nail into my head - or take the Skilsaw and cut my hand off on purpose. All of these things would just be screwed up.

That's also when I realized more fully how mentally screwed up so many people are - they never even contemplate these things. Their heads are so effed up that they truly don't trust themselves with true responsibility. So they live in video games and live a "virtual" life - because the reality is just too damn hard for them - and dangerous (especially when your'e stupid).

I now have a safe full of firearms. They don't talk to me at night. They don't jump into my hands and make me want to climb up on top of a clock tower or take potshots from a book depository. They don't dominate my every waking day or dominate my life. They are just pieces of wood and plastic and metal - and they are tools just like the jobbox full of carpentry tools that sits out in the garage or the wrenches and sockets that sit right across the room from the safe.

The problem is not with the guns - it's with THE PERSON if you have a problem with guns.

 

[dwarven1]

I now have a safe full of firearms. They don't talk to me at night.

They don't? Gee, mine keep whispering "Let's go to the range" in my ear. Either that or "Hey, assmuppet, when are you going to clean me?!".

 

[Lynne]

"Hey, assmuppet, when are you going to clean me?!".

 

[calsdad]

They don't? Gee, mine keep whispering "Let's go to the range" in my ear. Either that or "Hey, assmuppet, when are you going to clean me?!".

He heh. I keep hearing those voices too - I didn't realize it was the guns. I thought it was it was the ghost who keeps leaving all the full ammo cans down in my basement.

 

[Bill Nance]

Frankly I think video games, which are truly cartoon-level violence is far less disturbing than say the Friday the 13th movies. I literally cannot watch that stuff, not because I'm squeamish, but because I'm so disgusted by the casual attitude towards the most graphic and realistic possible depictions of horror done to another person for no other dramatic element than kicks.

The people you're referring to (or I'll project what I think) that piss me off so much are people who can sit through a slasher film without batting an eye and then proceed to lecture me on the evils of violence.

Aside from the fact that I have nothing but contempt for pacifism, hypocritical pseudo-pacifism pisses me off even more.

These people have been sissified to the point of uselessness and been indoctrinated by their parents, schools etc that violence is ALWAYS wrong -Unless the government is the one dealing it out.

They've never thought about it except to recoil in horror at the notion of getting socked in the nose, as though somehow nothing on earth could be worse.

They then take up all their pent up frustration, fear, anger etc. and release it at a slasher flick.

I'm no psychologist, but that seems largely to be the case. And that's a very VERY sad place for our society to be.

 

[cekim]

First, these people lead such sheltered lives that they think violence and evil only really exists in the world of fiction. They just can't comprehend anything bad happening to them, and they put their faith in the government nanny to protect them.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter...

No matter how many times you tell them and show them what has happened numerous times throughout history, even recent history, until they see it for themselves, its just "fiction"...

Since the horror is a fiction, so too the fiction of the state protecting them can be maintained... They are told from childhood that first their parents, then the school, then government will protect them. Until they learn otherwise, they continue in this illusion...

Frankly, I think this is a "defense" mechanism of the mammalian brain. It is smart enough to scare the crap out of itself with its imagination of what _could_ happen, so it rationalizes its "safety in numbers".

Enter guns - this is pure conditioning... From every angle, the modern sheeple have been indoctrinated to the idea that guns and anyone who has them other than the police and military are evil... It's a nice simple abstraction they can wrap their mind around - uniform+gun = good, no-uniform+gun=bad... It's absurd since homo sapiens have been arming themselves since before we could claim to be human from a genetic stand point... Taking away guns won't "disarm" anyone but the law abiding...

This is of course historically inaccurate, you'd be hard pressed to find a photo of the most prolific killers of the past century holding a weapon - certainly they aren't commonly displayed...

So, I think its part breeding (mammal characteristic to "herd" with hunters and protectors, if they are present in the minority), part oversimplification, and part socialization since the 1930's...

Powerful forces all...

 

[drgrant]

The gamers that do first-person shooters but don't have any real-world experience or discipline are the most dangerous. They are spending all their time breaking down the natural resistance they have to shooting other people in their mind and training their minds and reactions to shoot people. Yet they know nothing about real-world safety procedures or tactics.

I honestly don't really see what one has to do with the other. One thing is real and the other is obviously fake.

I've trained "gamers" to shoot guns and they were no more "dangerous" than anyone else I've ever brought to the range. It's all about the individual and how they approach something.

As far as the "breaking down the resistance to shooting somebody" I think that's BS, too. It might train people to react a certain way, but shooting a human is not the same as killing someone or something in a videogame.

Can we let this silly "doom caused columbine" myth die already?


-Mike

 

[M1911]

I play first person shooters (Insurgency mod) all the time. I'm also an NRA certified instructor and range safety officer.

I agree with Mike about the "doom caused columbine" myth being just that, a myth.

 

[zzrider]

There's something I don't understand about your argument... so when my Father went under a 16 yr old girl in her mothers car because she pulled out of a side road without looking/seeing him coming down the main road, it was his fault? It was his fault that she didn't see him and basically ran him down?

I don't follow, please elaborate.

<hijack>

I don't presume to speak for Calsdad, but I think his point is that in order to maximize the chances to survive, a motorcyclist must operate with the assumption that anything that could happen is his or her fault. This frame of mind helps maximize situational awareness.

The vast majority of motorcycle crashes (there are no "accidents") are caused be either sheer stupidity, poor judgement, or a failure of situational awareness.

I'm sorry to hear about your dad's crash. I'm almost afraid to ask, but did he make it out of the crash ok?

I'm not going to suggest that anyone can ever hope to have complete control, but these kind of "she pulled out in front of me" crashes can often be avoided by (1) Being aware of motorists who have an opportunity to collide with you, (2) Assuming they are trying to collide with you, and (3) really knowing the limits of and how to handle your bike (especially hard breaking, which is difficult and scary on a motorcycle).

</hijack>

It's funny how many parallels I find between motorcycling and gun ownership. They seem totally unrelated, but both involve serious elements of discipline, training, practice, responsibility, and potential (but largely avoidable) danger.

 

[RI_John]

Then one day while dry firing it I looked over at the bag full of ammo I had just bought (and not put away yet) and realized: I could load this thing up right now and shoot myself in the head if I was in that frame of mind. I could load it up and go next door and kill the neighbors, I could blow away my cats, kill the postman, kill my girlfriend, or go down to the mall and just start blowing people away.

Note to self-- Don't piss off calsdad...

 

[livefreeorhere]

I play first person shooters (Insurgency mod) all the time. I'm also an NRA certified instructor and range safety officer.

I agree with Mike about the "doom caused columbine" myth being just that, a myth.

amen! I can watch the grossest of slasher films while eating popcorn without batting an eye but when i get any kind of deep cut or see a little of my own blood i get woozy. I can't even watch the needle go in when I'm giving blood! you know you're watching a movie.

great thread Bob P! I had a similar reaction to the other thread. too bad anti-gunners don't get irony. or logic.

on a side-note that's totally unrelated except for guns and ammo - I was watching Goonies yesterday while waiting all day for the cable guy to come (seriously, from 1-3 yesterday and i still haven't seen him) and there's a scene where the rich dink with the convertible is taking a dump. you know where the goonies are trying to bang on all the water pumps to get rescued... well he's reading guns and ammo right before he gets blown off the toilet.

 

[M1911]

amen! I can watch the grossest of slasher films while eating popcorn without batting an eye but when i get any kind of deep cut or see a little of my own blood i get woozy. I can't even watch the needle go in when I'm giving blood! you know you're watching a movie.

I can't deal with slasher films, but I don't judge those who can. To each his own.

 

[Ray-500]

So, I think its part breeding (mammal characteristic to "herd" with hunters and protectors, if they are present in the minority), part oversimplification, and part socialization since the 1930's...

Powerful forces all...

I believe all you said is true. I personally follow the Palladin mode. Fictitious character, yes. But, common sense, reason, and....action, when required, are the norm.

 

[z0mbi]

<hijack>

I don't presume to speak for Calsdad, but I think his point is that in order to maximize the chances to survive, a motorcyclist must operate with the assumption that anything that could happen is his or her fault. This frame of mind helps maximize situational awareness.

Well being hyper aware of the potential danger of any situation is always a good state to be in, whether you're walking down a poorly lit street at night, riding a bike, or driving a car. I don't see how you can expect someone to be so hyper aware as to proclaim that anything that happens beyond their control is now somehow their fault, though, because they just weren't aware enough. You can be as prepared and aware as humanly possible, but fate is still gonna up and bite you on the ass now and again no matter what precautions you take. No matter how maneuverable your bike is, there is still a threshold of mechanical and physical ability which cannot be breached.

I'm sorry to hear about your dad's crash. I'm almost afraid to ask, but did he make it out of the crash ok?

Yeah, he's fine. The bike was a loss and he had a knot on his thigh the size of a basketball for awhile. Burned the sole off of one of his boots, and a hole straight through his chaps and jeans. If he wasn't wearing chaps he'd probably have no skin on his left leg.

I'm not going to suggest that anyone can ever hope to have complete control, but these kind of "she pulled out in front of me" crashes can often be avoided by (1) Being aware of motorists who have an opportunity to collide with you, (2) Assuming they are trying to collide with you, and (3) really knowing the limits of and how to handle your bike (especially hard breaking, which is difficult and scary on a motorcycle).

Often, but not always... especially not when the person looks straight at you, and then pulls out right in front of you anyway, which is what happened to my Father. The sun was behind him, and she looked straight at him. He thought she saw him, but she did not.

 

[Ray-500]

<hijack>

I don't presume to speak for Calsdad, but I think his point is that in order to maximize the chances to survive, a motorcyclist must operate with the assumption that anything that could happen is his or her fault. This frame of mind helps maximize situational awareness.

The vast majority of motorcycle crashes (there are no "accidents") are caused be either sheer stupidity, poor judgement, or a failure of situational awareness.

I'm sorry to hear about your dad's crash. I'm almost afraid to ask, but did he make it out of the crash ok?

I'm not going to suggest that anyone can ever hope to have complete control, but these kind of "she pulled out in front of me" crashes can often be avoided by (1) Being aware of motorists who have an opportunity to collide with you, (2) Assuming they are trying to collide with you, and (3) really knowing the limits of and how to handle your bike (especially hard breaking, which is difficult and scary on a motorcycle).

</hijack>

It's funny how many parallels I find between motorcycling and gun ownership. They seem totally unrelated, but both involve serious elements of discipline, training, practice, responsibility, and potential (but largely avoidable) danger.

Totally agree with you. As much fun as a bike is, it takes constant awareness of the all that is going on around you. No need to limit enjoyment, just need to be aware and observant. Yes, I ride defensively.

 

[Lilorfnannie]

I honestly don't really see what one has to do with the other. One thing is real and the other is obviously fake.

I've trained "gamers" to shoot guns and they were no more "dangerous" than anyone else I've ever brought to the range. It's all about the individual and how they approach something.

As far as the "breaking down the resistance to shooting somebody" I think that's BS, too. It might train people to react a certain way, but shooting a human is not the same as killing someone or something in a videogame.

Can we let this silly "doom caused columbine" myth die already?


-Mike

It's not fake to the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind literally cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Whatever image is shown to your eye the subconscious mind accepts uncritically. This is deep training and conditioning here. I can find links that give articles talking about it but frankly I don't feel like going to the effort- I can if you insist I guess- but that concept is the basis of most positive-thinking type programs, and a lot of other things.

So no, of course killing a person in real life is not morally equivalent to killing a person in a first-person shooter. HOWEVER- my point is that the subconscious does not recognize the difference. It is literally training for killing. Why else do the military and others use computer simulations if not for this very purpose?

 

[Ray-500]

So no, of course killing a person in real life is not morally equivalent to killing a person in a first-person shooter. HOWEVER- my point is that the subconscious does not recognize the difference. It is literally training for killing. Why else do the military and others use computer simulations if not for this very purpose?

Very simple....self defense. Take computer games and throw them out the window. Its a very basic human concept...self defense. Cannot address any psycobabble. Do not play computer games. Live in, and deal with, the real world.

 

[Lilorfnannie]

Very simple....self defense. Take computer games and throw them out the window. Its a very basic human concept...self defense. Cannot address any psycobabble. Do not play computer games. Live in, and deal with, the real world.

It's not psychobabble, it's well-known fact. (well, well-known to those who study these things.)

I don't allow first-person shooter games in the house (for the kids or myself)- guns yes, first-person shooters, no. They teach an entirely wrong view of killing and how & why to respond to violence.

 

[calsdad]

There's something I don't understand about your argument... so when my Father went under a 16 yr old girl in her mothers car because she pulled out of a side road without looking/seeing him coming down the main road, it was his fault? It was his fault that she didn't see him and basically ran him down?

I don't follow, please elaborate.

Yeah - pretty much, that is exactly what I am saying.

First let me say I am sorry for what happened to your father.

But as the rider of the vehicle in this situation that stands to lose the most in any accident it his responsibility to have situational awareness and anticipate the stupidity of other drivers.

He obviously made an assumption - an assumption that he had the right of way and that the 16 year old girl saw him and would not just pull out in front of him.

He made that assumption - and he lost.

I learned a long time ago to pay very close attention to all cars pulled up to intersections and especially to cars coming up from cross streets to main roads. The idiots in those situations for some reason will always pull out in front of you. Knowing this - when I see a car come up from a cross street - I will actually steer TOWARDS the car - and SPEED UP. You would be amazed how focused a driver becomes when their sixth sense alerts them to the fact that something is heading directly towards them at 40mph.

I have never once seen a drive fail to pay complete and total attention to when using this tactic. Conversely I have almost been hit a few times when I tried to practice avoidance maneuvers.

I think this is a psychological thing - people are wired to perceive threats. A motorcycle heading right at you is a threat. A motorcycle that is trying to avoid you is seen by a person in a car as something they don't have to worry about. Therefore they pull out in front of you.

Either way: as the person on the vehicle that stands to lose in any collision with a car it is your responsibility to do whatever it takes to avoid that collision. Blaming the other person for not paying attention might strictly be true - but it's irrelevant when your dead.

 

[cekim]

Either way: as the person on the vehicle that stands to lose in any collision with a car it is your responsibility to do whatever it takes to avoid that collision. Blaming the other person for not paying attention might strictly be true - but it's irrelevant when your dead.

That approach fails on a lot of levels...

First, there are many circumstances in which the driver of the vehicle with "more to lose" cannot possibly anticipate or even react to bad drivers of other vehicles...

Running stop signs, changing lanes, failing to leave enough room to stop - these are instances where you can take additional care as the potential victim, but speaking from the perspective of someone who rides bicycles, you don't seem to understand just how badly some people drive... Moreover, when they make these catastrophically bad moves, there is nothing you can do other than try to contain the damage - physics wins every time...

Second, the only way to avoid these people would be to not drive at all...

Third, much like civilization itself, the whole principle of having all these 2 ton hunks of metal on the road with 150-600HP is predicated on people behaving themselves for the most part.

So, I don't see how you can say that it is anything but the fault of the person who failed to yield to physics and the oncoming bike here...

 

[calsdad]

That approach fails on a lot of levels...

First, there are many circumstances in which the driver of the vehicle with "more to lose" cannot possibly anticipate or even react to bad drivers of other vehicles...

Running stop signs, changing lanes, failing to leave enough room to stop - these are instances where you can take additional care as the potential victim, but speaking from the perspective of someone who rides bicycles, you don't seem to understand just how badly some people drive... Moreover, when they make these catastrophically bad moves, there is nothing you can do other than try to contain the damage - physics wins every time...

Second, the only way to avoid these people would be to not drive at all...

Third, much like civilization itself, the whole principle of having all these 2 ton hunks of metal on the road with 150-600HP is predicated on people behaving themselves for the most part.

So, I don't see how you can say that it is anything but the fault of the person who failed to yield to physics and the oncoming bike here...

Strictly speaking - it is the fault of the person who ran the red light, ran thru the intersection, etc.

And you are right - the only way to avoid them completely is to just stay off the road.

But just the same way fighter pilots are taught that if something goes wrong - it's your fault. Riding a motorcycle falls way down on the scale of "whatever happens - it's your fault".

If you make a mistake in an airplane - you will in all likelihood die.

If you make a mistake on a motorcycle - you have a pretty high chance of dying. The difference between a motorcycle and bicycle is that on a motorcycle you have a much higher capability to put yourself in a situation where you could die.

Last time I checked a bicycle can't easily get itself up to 150 mph. A good many sportbikes on the roads these days will do that with ease. You screw up at that speed on a public road and you are going to die. If the wheel comes off because you failed to check the bolt holding it on: your fault. If your helmet flips back and obscures your vision because you failed to make the strap tight enough: your fault.

The capabilities of a motorcycle and the fact that you ride directly in traffic puts it into a different realm from a bicycle.

I have ridden with the philosophy that it is my fault whatever happens when I ride a motorcycle - and I have NEVER been in an accident on the street and I have never gone down. I have come damn close a couple of times, and both of them were MY FAULT.

I know friends who ride motorcycles and have been down multiple times and been in multiple accidents. Every single time they bitch and complain about the other driver not paying attention, how the road conditions were right, how the bike had a problem, yada yada.

These nitwits are going to kill themselves sooner or later. They just don't get it and they never will. They don't have the mindset to exist on the level they need to - to avoid accidents.

The worst motorcyle accident I ever saw was when two guys dragged each other off a light on the VFW highway in Lowell. They accelerated all the way up to the tight bend up near the dam where the road takes a kink near the North Campus at ULowell. One guy laid his bike down when he couldn't make the corner - the other one didn't lean it over far enough (it was a cruiser style bike) and he went right over the median strip into the other lane of oncoming traffic. Where he ran headon at about 40 mph into a Honda Accord full of four old ladies coming back from church. He hit the driver side front of the car - somersaulted over off the handlebars from the impact and his head impacted the upper left passenger corner of the windshield. This impact spun him around a little and he sailed about 40 feet further down the road and landed in the gutter next to the curb.

The thing that saved his life was that he landed right in front of one of the sororities that was full of nursing students sitting outside eating their breakfast (it was a Sunday morning).

That guy f***ed up multiple times. First thing he did was keep on the throttle right up until the point where he realized he wasn't going to make the corner. Second was that he was riding a cruiser (they don't like to lean over) - and he far exceeded the capabilities of the bike to handle a corner like that. He also seemed to refuse to want to lay the bike over - he would have been better off laying it down instead of jumping the median.

What was interesting was watching the whole thing happen and thinking: "that guy is about to get seriously f***ed up."

He didn't get it. And he almost died. He refused to consider ALL of the possibilities of what might happen to him from his actions. And he paid for it.

And I still say to this day : It was his own fault.

 

[cekim]

And I still say to this day : It was his own fault.

That one may very well be - any time you have an issue of traction or choosing the lesser of evils, you can always ascribe some blame to the biker, no question...

But physics says that there are some actions which do not leave time for cognitive function which will change the outcome in any way at all...

The red light, intersection, lane change, etc... These are examples where the biker can drive as defensive as he likes and its entirely up to the other vehicle...

Whether on a bicycle or in a car I drive "aggressively defensively"... I actively try to prevent people from putting me in danger. I don't let myself get stuck in blind spots, I leave following distance as a function of the car behind me not my car's ability to stop (which I have enhanced), I will move away from bad drivers in any way that I can...

I watch cars approaching me when I am stopped and even if my manual transmission means I don't need my foot on the break, I will apply the break to illuminate my brake lights to remind them I am stopped. I make a sport of it and enjoy it actually

Yet I've still, despite all my best efforts been rear-ended multiple times while stopped - with no where to go but oncoming traffic to avoid them... Not because I "stopped short" - I was at a dead stop...

If I were on a motorcycle in these instances, I'd be waving a bright yellow BS flag on your theory There was NOTHING I could have done short of staying off the roads to stop those people from hitting me...

I've also had instances of people running lights and stop signs... Rt 3A and the off ramp of 128/95 in Burlington is a fun one - people come through there at very high rates of speed - for the most part you can see them as you are turning and let them fly by, but I've had some that were moving fast enough that it was sheer luck that they missed me. Even though I hesitate when I go through that light (to check for runners) because I've seen it run at speed so many times...

 

[drgrant]

It's not fake to the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind literally cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Whatever image is shown to your eye the subconscious mind accepts uncritically. This is deep training and conditioning here. I can find links that give articles talking about it but frankly I don't feel like going to the effort- I can if you insist I guess- but that concept is the basis of most positive-thinking type programs, and a lot of other things.

I'm guessing you've probably read Grossman's book, and frankly, there is some merit to what he's said there. However, that being said, humans generally still have to consciously make a decision as to whether or not they're going to kill somebody. A computer, simulator, whatever, doesn't take that away. If it did every veteran that came back from theater would kill anyone that caused them a problem at the drop of a hat, and that simply doesn't happen. The same thing with LEOs, folks carrying guns, and other
people who have mentally and physically taken steps to train themselves to defend their lives with deadly force.

So no, of course killing a person in real life is not morally equivalent to killing a person in a first-person shooter. HOWEVER- my point is that the subconscious does not recognize the difference. It is literally training for killing.

Yeah, because seeing a hadji on the screen with a gun pointed at them is anywhere close to the same thing in real life.

Further, Last I knew most humans still make most decisions consciously, unless the subject in question is sleepwalking, has some serious mental health issue, etc.

A prime example of this was that special forces operator (I think he was a SEAL) who had his dog shot by some punk kids. He was literally "trained
to kill" and he could have shot all those bastards and buried them on his farm at the drop of a hat, but he didn't- because his conscious mind controls his decision making process. Even someone that has been trained to kill" still has the ability to make those kinds of decisions.

Why else do the military and others use computer simulations if not for this very purpose?

Well, for starters, costs are a big reason. The military has been "training people to kill if necessary" since the founding of our nation, and they didn't
need computer simulations to do it, either.

I'm not really sure of the argument you're trying to make. You've suggested that "videogames train people to kill" and that these people are
"more dangerous" with firearms. If that's the case, then, by proxy you're basically insulting:

-Anyone on NES who has ever played (or plays) a violent videogame on a regular basis (You'd find there's a metric ton of folks here that are gamers).

-Any veteran of the armed forces who has ever been in a Combat MOS.

-Any LEO or layperson who has undertaken immersive training involving the employment of deadly force.

Are these people all "more dangerous" with firearms because they've been "trained to kill" ? What stops any of us from being "more dangerous" ?

Be careful where you throw rocks.

-Mike

PS, I think I'm I think I'm going to queue up a round of "Lee Hong Assassination" just on principle, it's been awhile.

Guard: "Why you so interested in our car??!?!?"
Hitman: "I always wanted to drive one of these. "
Guard: "Well, it won't be this one, p**s off!"

 

[z0mbi]

Yeah - pretty much, that is exactly what I am saying.

First let me say I am sorry for what happened to your father.

But as the rider of the vehicle in this situation that stands to lose the most in any accident it his responsibility to have situational awareness and anticipate the stupidity of other drivers.

He obviously made an assumption - an assumption that he had the right of way and that the 16 year old girl saw him and would not just pull out in front of him.

He made that assumption - and he lost.

I see your point, but I couldn't disagree more. Maybe superman would have the reflexes to avoid every possible accident in every possible situation, but my Father who was in his mid-sixties at the time did not, nor does any other human being.

I've avoided plenty of accidents in my lifetime, and I chalk it up to my driving skills and situational awareness... but I know there's likely a bumper out there with my name on it and no matter what I do, I can't dodge bullets my entire life. It's always the ones you can't hear that get you.

 

[cekim]

It's always the ones you can't hear that get you.

Either that or the day you are distracted while talking on your cell phone as you ride your bike.

 

[z0mbi]

It's not fake to the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind literally cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Whatever image is shown to your eye the subconscious mind accepts uncritically. This is deep training and conditioning here. I can find links that give articles talking about it but frankly I don't feel like going to the effort- I can if you insist I guess- but that concept is the basis of most positive-thinking type programs, and a lot of other things.

That's funny, because to me and everyone else I know who play competitive FPS's, it's not the image of killing a person that you see while playing, it's putting the cursor on a pixel, moving or stationary, clicking on it, and receiving points. Maybe some messed up psycho might think it's anything other than that, but not a normal person.

So no, of course killing a person in real life is not morally equivalent to killing a person in a first-person shooter. HOWEVER- my point is that the subconscious does not recognize the difference. It is literally training for killing. Why else do the military and others use computer simulations if not for this very purpose?

Because simulators are a hell of a lot cheaper than firing live ammunition, burning fuel, and maintaining equipment.

 

[Lilorfnannie]

I'm guessing you've probably read Grossman's book, and frankly, there is some merit to what he's said there. However]

Sorry I'm going to clip it there for the sake of brevity. Just wanted to indicate which post I was responding to.

First off I don't know who Grossman is and haven't read his book. I have however read "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" (clicky) (clicky).

You're exaggerating what I'm saying and bringing things into it that I'm not saying.

Of course a person still has to consciously decide to kill. However- the problem as I see it is that as a society we have many ways of bypassing conscious thought. Television is a known hypnotizer, a person watches television and there have been studies that show that their brain waves are literally in an alpha brain-wave state (literally hypnotized.) Same with video games and computers. It's better with plasma screens now, the flickering of the old screens is part of it- but you still have all kinds of social conditioning and underlying messages and teaching that is going on in the shows/games themselves. I mean, the kids that obeyed the instructions given to them in the prank calls were a prime example of the result of years of being taught to switch off their conscious decision-making skills and obey. 50 or 100 years ago people still thought for themselves- but now? Not so much. So while it still takes a conscious decision, it is things like television and video games and computers that reduce the mind's ability to think consciously and not just react, not be hypnotized.

Come on, thread after thread here of examples of idiot people acting like sheeples, bleating the party line and not thinking for themselves, so how is it so out of line to suggest that these people have been hypnotized for much of their lives by various media and trained to not decide things consciously, only "feel" and react?

With the example of the Navy SEAL and his dog and the kids- you're proving my point. This is (most likely) a man that had trained his mind and body to be disciplined and react appropriately. That is entirely different from what I was talking about, the gamer who sits and hypnotizes his mind with violence and virtual gangster junk. That is part of what I am saying- that the person who does gaming and doesn't actually get out there and learn training and discipline is the most dangerous one out there.

Now as for insulting the folks on NES who game.

What I said was that the subconscious mind does not differentiate between fantasy and reality. If you or anyone here wants to take that and be offended at it, be my guest. It is a simple fact, and there are a whole bunch of world religions and positive-thinking techniques and so on that make use of this. If a person watches murders or sex scenes or gardening or snakes on a plane then the subconscious mind thinks it really happened. I'm not going to say differently because I know it is true. Part of the key thing to ask oneself is what they want to fill their mind and heart with.

If anyone here wants to soak themselves in violent video games or horror flicks or what-all then be my guest. It's none of my business, and I don't care. If/when I meet you folks then if you are decent to me then great! That's what counts. From the little I know of you folks I think overall you are a real stand-up bunch.

What I don't appreciate is you saying that I'm insulting the folks here, because I'm not.

 

[Lilorfnannie]

That's funny, because to me and everyone else I know who play competitive FPS's, it's not the image of killing a person that you see while playing, it's putting the cursor on a pixel, moving or stationary, clicking on it, and receiving points. Maybe some messed up psycho might think it's anything other than that, but not a normal person.



Because simulators are a hell of a lot cheaper than firing live ammunition, burning fuel, and maintaining equipment.

If a simulator is cheaper then great. But it is still being done with the intent of TRAINING the mind- it is a direct substitute for actually getting out there. Done in the right way it can be valuable. But it proves my point, the simulator is being used to the same effect as actually getting out there. Trouble is with video games there's no additional training going on that tells how to be disciplined and react appropriately to violence- but there is a lot of killing hookers and cops and such.

I responded to some of that just now in another post. Other than that I'm not going to deal with it any more. I said my piece and if others want to understand more of what I'm saying then they can google it. I'm not going to do the work for them and I'm not going to throw my knowledge before those who are only going to twist it and mock it.

Sorry mods for getting off topic!

 

[z0mbi]

Fine, but... I just want to know why I haven't killed any hookers yet.