WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[ixcuincle]

First, no, that is not what Hillary Clinton believes...or else she wouldn't be such an ardent supporter of laws like the Brady Bill, which her husband signed into law in the 90's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500397_162-713544.html

Second, to completely disregard legitimate, peer-reviewed studies indicating a correlation between viewing violent shows and video games and an increased level of aggression and saying "well it doesn't directly say causation" is...well, not very smart and shows you are not open to any type of reasonable discussion regarding violent video games and television.

Basic statistics courses can tell you that correlation does not imply causation. It is a tenet of statistics.

http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm

One of the most common errors we find in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies. In theory, these are easy to distinguish — an action or occurrence can cause another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated. But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense.

Unfortunately, our intuition can lead us astray when it comes to distinguishing between causality and correlation. For example, eating breakfast has long been correlated with success in school for elementary school children. It would be easy to conclude that eating breakfast causes students to be better learners. It turns out, however, that those who don’t eat breakfast are also more likely to be absent or tardy — and it is absenteeism that is playing a significant role in their poor performance. When researchers retested the breakfast theory, they found that, independent of other factors, breakfast only helps undernourished children perform better.

I spent a lot of time doing research in undergrad and grad school. I can tell you this as a positive fact. And most any other educated post-secondary collegiate student who has taken a basic statistics course can also tell you that you can't say for sure that video games are responsible for violence. You need an experiment to do that.

No one out there is saying media violence is THE single cause of anything. People are saying it's a factor that may need to be addressed when looking at causative agents of this alarming trend of mass shootings in our country.

I suggest you take a look at what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said then.

Clearly there is no reasoning with you since you won't even acknowledge legitimate research studies that unequivocally prove you wrong

I've done my fair share of studies and research to know what is reliable and what is not. I've also seen ample "studies" perpetuated on the media about how eggs raise cholesterol, or how women shouldn't drink any alcohol at all lest they get cancer. Forgive me if I am a little jaded.

[alexey]

But studies prove violent people get violent by violent media!

So that person will not be playing violent video games but cutting up his neighbours cat or something. Causality is difficult to establish here. If I had to pick one thing, for example, i would blame social seclusion over exposure to violent content.

Do not get me wrong - I see tons of problems in our culture and media, and I think we should talk about it. I just want to make sure that we are not focusing on the narrow picture.

[ixcuincle]

Could you explain what you mean by that? Are you saying there is no evidence to support the viewing of violent media/game correlation with aggressive behavior, or that there is evidence to support that?

Have you ever taken a statistics course

You cannot infer causality from correlation

My problem is anyone blaming video games is simply making an excuse to blame a scapegoat, an easy cop-out. It's easy to say "Video games cause violence", and one can make all the research "studies" they want. But until you sit down in an experiment, control the variables, and know for sure that violent video games do for a fact lead to violence, then the studies are unsubstantiated, regardless of "peer review" or not.

The issue is not as simple as "Those who play violent video games MUST be violent." What if the people who played the games and then shot up various establishments were inherently violent? Do you understand? We must explore further rather than bastardizing the issue. When we bastardize the issue, we skirt and ignore the real problem in this country, mental health.

I worked as a psychologist doing experiments for some time back in the day. I oversaw many experiments and studies. I can tell you right now there is no positive link between video games and violence.

[Special K]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500397_162-713544.html

You just gave me a link about Hillary's argument against violence and sexual content in video games and media. No place in the article does Hillary state violence are mass shootings are caused "STRAIGHT" by exposure to violent video games and/or media and place all the blame on this factor as you stated in a previous post.

Here it is in case you don't recall:

And the NRA and Joe Manchin basically put the blame STRAIGHT on violent video games. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also believe the same.

Basic statistics courses can tell you that correlation does not imply causation. It is a tenet of statistics.

Basic statistics (which I took in undergrad) and advanced stats (which I took multiple courses of in grad) also tell you that you cannot say with absolute certainty that "X" plays "NO ROLE" in outcome "Y" if a correlation is observed as statistically significant.

Which you did below (again, quoted for your recollection)

They play no role.

I suggest you take a look at what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said then.

You might want to actually read the blogs before you post them as reference. They certainly are not the solidifying, case-closing facts you apparently think they are...

And again, you provided a link where this Senator did not place "STRAIGHT" blame of mass shootings on violent video games. Instead, he stated that the effects of these and mental health issues need to be "looked into."

Typically, when intelligent people observe a correlation in a relationship between various agents, they proceed to "look into" that correlation instead of: 1) dismissing it and saying "correlation does not prove causation!!!" 2) call or insinuate that people suggesting these could likely be a potential factor amongst a plethora of societal factors involved in facilitating an environment conducive to violence and mass shootings, are nutjobs 3) proceed to further display their lack of knowledge about statistical analysis outcomes and terminology by steadfastly claiming that a factor that has been proven to have a correlation with an outcome instead "play(s) no role" in that outcome. You're right that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But to state that correlation means "plays no role" is an absurd and incorrect leap in logic.

Forgive me if I am a little jaded.

It's not your jadedness that's the issue.

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 08:09 PM ----------

Have you ever taken a statistics course

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about exact stats courses and number of stats courses taken. If you really want to know though, I did science in undergrad and grad...so I guess you could say I've taken one or 2 courses I've also been involved in research and one of the studies I collaborated on has been published. I sincerely hope qualifies me to discuss statistics with you.

The issue is not as simple as "Those who play violent video games MUST be violent." What if the people who played the games and then shot up various establishments were inherently violent? Do you understand? We must explore further rather than bastardizing the issue. When we bastardize the issue, we skirt and ignore the real problem in this country, mental health.

People (and the studies I gave you if you cared to read even the abstracts) are NOT saying those who play video games MUST be violent. Studies are showing positive correlation between viewing violence and displays of agressive behavior. They are stating this MAY be ONE of the MANY factors we need to address at some level.

And why, if you're a psychologist or mental health professional, are you separating potential psychological effects of viewing violent television/video games from MENTAL HEALTH??? This is an aspect of mental health, particularly when discussion is geared toward people would are predisposed to violent behavior and how they are psychologically affected by viewing violent material.

[twa]

I'm just waiting for the NRA to announce that all firefighters should be armed.

This is getting more ****** up by the passing day.

Hail.

It has certainly been proposed before, and some areas they do not respond to w/o police and a full crew, unfortunately shooting at firemen(and other traps) are not new

add
seems a lovely fellow that should have been executed years ago

New York gunman died of self-inflicted gunshot wound, and had served time for killing his grandmother with a hammer, police said.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/natio...184678511.html

Webster police identified the gunman Monday afternoon as William Spengler, 62, and said he died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Spengler had served nearly 18 years in jail for killing his 92-year-old grandmother in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened, and he had a "lengthy criminal record," police said. After serving time for manslaughter in his grandmother's killing, police said he was on parole until 2006 and could not legally own a gun. A motive for Monday's shooting was unclear

[KDawg]

I find political posturing to be laughable, to be honest.

I know one of the people who were injured. He's not accounted for in the stories as a number, just as an "off duty cop" who was passing by and got a shrapnel wound. He works in MY town, another suburb of Rochester as an officer. He is ALSO our school resource officer. (You know, one of the ones who got cut because we don't have money). He's a great guy.

It seems like he's going to pull through okay, and he was treated on scene.

But this just hit entirely too close to home. The shooter had everyone scared to leave their houses within a 15 mile radius for the morning and into the afternoon.

I won't sit here and pretend to know what the answer is. I don't know what it is and I'd be a prick if I sat here and preached. But I do know this: If we don't work together to find middle ground and solutions, we'll never do anything. Our wheels will keep spinning in the mud. Gun lovers, you'll have to sacrifice some. Gun haters, you'll have to allow the fact that you'll never get rid of all guns. The same can be said for any issue.

And before you think about doing it, don't turn around and say, "Yeah, but the other guys won't do what you're saying, so why should I?"

If you go there, I'm going to tell you to grow up... REAL fast.

[FletchLives]

Wow, this is a popular thread.

[stevemcqueen1]

Yeah, that's seriously ridiculous. Especially since the people who signed that petition are likely very strong supporters of the Constitution...apparently just not the free speech part, lol. Ding dongs.

It also makes a mockery of petitions. In an ideal world signing thousands of names to a petition and sending it to the government should be a way to give voice to legitimate grievances. Getting pissed off at some pundit on CNN for his stance on gun control does not qualify as a legitimate grievance.

[Special K]

It also makes a mockery of petitions. In an ideal world signing thousands of names to a petition and sending it to the government should be a way to give voice to legitimate grievances. Getting pissed off at some pundit on CNN for his stance on gun control does not qualify as a legitimate grievance.

Wouldn't disagree with you on that. Although petitions have been ridiculous for quite a while now, not just what's happening with Piers Morgan. I can't count how many silly petitions I've been asked to sign just on facebook alone...

I actually think it would be pretty comical to be the petition "person" in D.C. or wherever who screens these things when they first get sent out...

[stevemcqueen1]

Gun haters, you'll have to allow the fact that you'll never get rid of all guns.

I'm not sure I accept this as given. You won't get rid of all guns in the absolute sense but I think, in my lifetime, we can eradicate virtually all guns from our society like Japan and many other Western democracies have.

It's the broad trend for developed nations like ours. In general, the US has been slower to liberalize than the countries who got devastated by WWII. We came out of that conflict essentially unscathed and as imperialistic and powerful as ever compared to the other major participants. The aftermath of the war shaped geopolitics for five + decades.

The country is rapidly changing though. Imperialist doctrines like American-Exceptionalism are dying. The millennials are the bluest generation in American history and generation Z will be even more liberal when all of them start voting. In a couple decades this country will be radically different. Far more socially liberal and a series of tipping points like Newton will lead to legislation that will eventually progress to comprehensive gun bans like those that exist in other developed countries.

The pro-gun crowd is fighting against the tide. They've got the same basic problem the anti-gay marriage crowd had--they lack a (philosophically speaking) good reason for their position. All of the fantasies posed as arguments about John Wayne citizens fighting off killers with their guns and overthrowing the military in an uprising against a hypothetical tyranny are just flimsy arguments to dress up the real motivation for their position--guns are recreation for the pro-gun crowd and they don't want to lose their hobby and toys. Similar to how the pro-violent video game crowd wants to keep their status quo. They don't feel like they should have to give up their toys because some bad person somewhere else is killing other people with guns and that they deserve to be able to continue buying and keeping their toys. That justification is just not going to get it done in the long run, any more than religious dogma has been enough to prevent the country from liberalizing on gay marriage.

[Special K]

I'm not sure I accept this as given. You won't get rid of all guns in the absolute sense but I think, in my lifetime, we can eradicate virtually all guns from our society like Japan and many other Western democracies have.

It's the broad trend for developed nations like ours. In general, the US has been slower to liberalize than the countries who got devastated by WWII. We came out of that conflict essentially unscathed and as imperialistic and powerful as ever compared to the other major participants. The aftermath of the war shaped geopolitics for five + decades.

The country is rapidly changing though. Imperialist doctrines like American-Exceptionalism are dying. The millennials are the bluest generation in American history and generation Z will be even more liberal when all of them start voting. In a couple decades this country will be radically different. Far more socially liberal and a series of tipping points like Newton will lead to legislation that will eventually progress to comprehensive gun bans like those that exist in other developed countries.

The pro-gun crowd is fighting against the tide. They've got the same basic problem the anti-gay marriage crowd had--they lack a (philosophically speaking) good reason for their position. All of the fantasies posed as arguments about John Wayne citizens fighting off killers with their guns and overthrowing the military in an uprising against a hypothetical tyranny are just flimsy arguments to dress up the real motivation for their position--guns are recreation for the pro-gun crowd and they don't want to lose their hobby and toys. Similar to how the pro-violent video game crowd wants to keep their status quo. They don't feel like they should have to give up their toys because some bad person somewhere else is killing other people with guns and that they deserve to be able to continue buying and keeping their toys. That justification is just not going to get it done in the long run, any more than religious dogma has been enough to prevent the country from liberalizing on gay marriage.

Wel, IMO, the problem with your argument is the whole 2nd amendment issue. There is way too much money invested in protecting that and there is no way that will ever be overturned. I think we'll see much stricter gun control in our lifetime, but essentially ridding our nation of guns like Japan and other nations won't happen. That actually is something I can confidently say "never" to.

The "war" on violent video games will likely enact some minimal control standards, and I see gay marriage and legalization of weed nationwide happening in our lifetime...but getting rid of all guns? No way.

[stevemcqueen1]

It doesn't take wholly getting rid of the 2nd amendment IMO because of the "well regulated milita" part of the clause opens up avenues for redefining it's meaning. Right now it's been taken to mean "guns are fine for recreation" and has been used to support very loose gun laws and wide-scale armament of the population. I don't think that's going to last.

[Burgold]

It doesn't take wholly getting rid of the 2nd amendment IMO because of the "well regulated milita" part of the clause opens up avenues for redefining it's meaning. Right now it's been taken to mean "guns are fine for recreation" and has been used to support very loose gun laws and wide-scale armament of the population. I don't think that's going to last.

Yeah, what does "a well regulated militia" have to do with being a collector which is so often cited as the reason for gun ownership.

[Koolblue13]

Religious folk have updated their interpretation of the bible and they take that **** way too serious. No eating shrimp, working on Sundays, etc. We can update our constitution a little.

[alexey]

...

Police Chief Gerald Pickering said 62-year-old William Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother, armed himself with a revolver, a shotgun and a military-style rifle before he set his house afire to lure first responders into a death trap before dawn on Christmas Eve.

Two firefighters were shot dead and two others are hospitalized in stable condition. Spengler killed himself as seven houses burned around him Monday on a narrow spit of land along Lake Ontario.

One of the guns recovered was a military-style .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber weapon used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Pickering said.

The chief said police believe the firefighters were hit with shots from the rifle given the distance but the investigation was incomplete.
..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...a43_story.html