Boy, 8, fatally shoots self with Uzi at gun show

[Ozymandias]

Man, some people in here think a whole lot about killing and ways to kill.

Isn't anyone else bothered by this conversation?

Maybe years of video games have desensitized you to violence. Let me ask this: if you indeed WERE desensitized to violence, would that fact bother you? If not, why not?

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Man, some people in here think a whole lot about killing and ways to kill.

Isn't anyone else bothered by this conversation?

Maybe years of video games have desensitized you to violence. Let me ask this: if you indeed WERE desensitized to violence, would that fact bother you? If not, why not?

What country do you live in? I am not trying to prove anything with that question just more or less curious.

I do not think I would blame video games. I personally have no problem separating them from reality. If you are asking if it has done it on a subconscious level I honestly have no idea.

Would it upset me? No I do not really think so. Violence and war has been with the human race for as long as we can remember. I do not find it unnatural to be undisturbed by violence.

Myself it probably has a lot to do with my background and upbringing. Strong sense of nationalism,firearms,right wing politics and so on are very big issues in my family and I was exposed to them a great deal at a young age.

For me the measure of "how much I care" would depend on who the violence is being done to. I would be more sympathetic to a couple of Marines or British soldiers being killed over several dozen Afghan locals being bombed in order to weed out a couple of militants.

We all have our priorities

I am interested to learn more about how video games might influence desensitization towards violence. Do you know of any studies done on this subject that are not completely biased towards some type of political goal?

 

[ceacar99]

Man, some people in here think a whole lot about killing and ways to kill.

Isn't anyone else bothered by this conversation?

Maybe years of video games have desensitized you to violence. Let me ask this: if you indeed WERE desensitized to violence, would that fact bother you? If not, why not?

well.... there IS the fact that i want to found a munitions company sometime in the next 4-8 years(depending on where i go in terms of education in about 3 years). ive already begun drawing up concepts and designing firearms(like i believe my SR blowback firearms will be a major leap in operation for pistols), the design of firearms and other ordinance isnt the only thing i want to do, however its the thing that i plan to step off into the business world doing.

there is also the fact that im desensitized pretty much every morning when i run with the unit screaming "kill!" and the like. lol. its funny though, i LOVE weapons. im obsessed with them. i started blacksmithing because i love swords and knives, i joined the corps to learn more about military firearms and i want to take my first steps into business with weapons. however i'm also probably one of the nicest most gentle people you'll ever meet. its not really in me to be truely vicous or cruel, lol i found it funny when i found that it just went against my whole grain trying to be evil in a game like knights of the old republic. the worst i can do without being uncomfortable is being that guy who says 'i do what i want!".

 

[Wooz]

Violence and war has been with the human race for as long as we can remember. I do not find it unnatural to be undisturbed by violence.

So has rape. The fact it's 'been around forever' is not a reason to remain indifferent to a negative phenomenon.

I would be more sympathetic to a couple of Marines or British soldiers being killed over several dozen Afghan locals being bombed in order to weed out a couple of militants.

Keep this sort of racist declarations for yourself, or you'll run into trouble very quickly.

Man, some people in here think a whole lot about killing and ways to kill.

Isn't anyone else bothered by this conversation?

To be completely honest, I'm a bit too busy to be reading November Newbs' rich and insightful comments on Life.

To answer your question, because you don't seem as dense as the rest of the newbs: One thing is a video game, another thing is 'the real world' (or what passes for it, at any rate). It takes a special and very impressionable mind to emulate videogame behaviour, and I seriously doubt the vast majority of people would react in the same way to a situation in a simulated, contained environment as to the same situation in the real world. Especially when it comes to violence.

I doubt every plumber that's played Mario tries to jump into pipes sticking out of the ground, or that every single NFS fan drives mom's Honda Civic into a tree over 200KPH.

In the same way, an airline pilot might have trained a hundred times on a simulator emergencies involving engine fires, and he/she might know the routine by heart to the point of being able to recite it off-hand if someone wakes him up suddenly at two AM. That doesn't mean the pilot won't be shitting his pants if such a situation occurs 'in the real world'.

I think that even if some games might be heavily conditioning on some minds, the ultimate decision is one taken by the individual.

Let me ask this: if you indeed WERE desensitized to violence, would that fact bother you? If not, why not?

Depends on the amount of indifference it would imply, to what situations. It's pretty hard to give you an answer on abstract terms.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

So has rape. The fact it's 'been around forever' is not a reason to remain indifferent to a negative phenomenon.

Fair enough, I worded myself quite bad here and for that I apologize. I am not sure exactly what I was trying to get across.

Something along the lines of war and violence have been with us forever and will remain so until the human race ceases to be? I am not one of those optimistic people who believes "world peace" can ever exist.

Keep this sort of racist declarations for yourself, or you'll run into trouble very quickly.

How is that racist? I did not say "Arabs" or attack the racial group Afghans belong to in particular, I listed a group of people who occupy a country my country is at war with.

My point was my insensitivity to violence depends on exactly who is involved.

For another example I would be affected by three or four getting shot at a local mall more than some atrocity that occurred last week in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that left a couple hundred dead.


edit: I suppose also my insensitivity was strengthened by the fact I was a "old school" member of Ogrish before they sold out and became live leak.

Watch enough beheading,landmine death,random war,Israeli/Arab graphic conflict, etc videos and you stop caring at a certain point.

 

[Patton89]

Fair enough, I worded myself quite bad here and for that I apologize. I am not sure exactly what I was trying to get across.

Something along the lines of war and violence have been with us forever and will remain so until the human race ceases to be? I am not one of those optimistic people who believes "world peace" can ever exist.


How is that racist? I did not say "Arabs" or attack the racial group Afghans belong to in particular, I listed a group of people who occupy a country my country is at war with.

My point was my insensitivity to violence depends on exactly who is involved.

For another example I would be affected by three or four getting shot at a local mall more than some atrocity that occurred last week in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that left a couple hundred dead.


edit: I suppose also my insensitivity was strengthened by the fact I was a "old school" member of Ogrish before they sold out and became live leak.

Watch enough beheading,landmine death,random war,Israeli/Arab graphic conflict, etc videos and you stop caring at a certain point.

World peace cannot exist, yes, but does that justify developing more "efficient" ways to kill ?

And you really have to think about it for few seconds ? On what basis can you say that afgan life is of lesser importance than coalition one ? Carpet bombing civilian villages that MIGHT or might not have fighters is nothing short of genocide and mass murder.

No one cares if some villagers in some developing country get killed, as long as they don't have to think about whats happening and untill are forced to see violence. Thats true. It simply seems most humans are idiots. Or simply believe that the killed are going to a "better" place. Sounds insane, but i have actually HEARD christians say that.

Oh..and i really think that watching people getting killed or losing limbs etc doesn't make one any more less effected by other real tragedies. Lack of empathy is never a good thing.

 

[Naissus]

American and British troops are more important because they are our allies. Of course we should avoid killing civilians. Nothing is perfect and in war civilians will get killed. Its unfortunate but its the truth.

 

[Patton89]

American and British troops are more important because they are our allies. Of course we should avoid killing civilians. Nothing is perfect and in war civilians will get killed. Its unfortunate but its the truth.

Well, maybe it is the fact that i consider death to be final, that i simply cannot write civilian deaths as acceptable thing. There is nothing acceptable about civilians dying. I am not overly patriotic person, so that really doesn't "help" at all. And please, dont say things like that. All human life is valuable. Or maybe it is just my atheist/humanist crap.

And wars always will have some civilian deaths, yes, but it seems that Americans are not trying to avoid and minimize them as much as they should. Civilian deaths in Afganistan create very strong counter effect, simply enraging and throwing the victim population deeper in to extremists hands. They should know that, because anyone who has read history knows that it can, and will most likely happen.

And the deaths in Iraq shouldn't have even happened . It seems that they didn't think it through that well. The idiots didn't have a strategy to as how they were going to rebuild the country, or how were they going to stabilize it, and you can see the results today. Very unstable, ruined nation. With thousands dead.

 

[SuAside]

Man, some people in here think a whole lot about killing and ways to kill.

Isn't anyone else bothered by this conversation?

i've never killed anyone, nor do i intend to.

i hope i never have to.

shooting for me really isn't about killing at all. it's for fun and sport.

i mean, you prepare for the eventuality, but you don't actively go looking for it unless you're batshit insane.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

World peace cannot exist, yes, but does that justify developing more "efficient" ways to kill ?

Yes it does, as long as war is a possibility (always) I fully support weapons research. When war does break out I would want my country and its allies to have the tools they need to give them an edge on the battlefield.

Not to mention we need not even get into how much money there is to be made in the Arms Industry. You do not want to fuck with the Military-industrial complex.

And you really have to think about it for few seconds ? On what basis can you say that afgan life is of lesser importance than coalition one ? Carpet bombing civilian villages that MIGHT or might not have fighters is nothing short of genocide and mass murder.

I say it because I value the lives of my countrymen and our allies over the lives of the militants we are fighting and the families of said militants. We are fighting an enemy who does not wear a uniform and hides amongst women and children.

All the same I feel it is important to say I am not for randomly gunning down civilians in the streets.

More or less my feelings on it can be summed up in this scenario and you will get the general idea: A soldier or Marine is taking fire from a building that moving against could mortally wound or maim himself or a member of his squad. In said building however it is a possibility there are civilians on a lower level. I would have no problem what so ever with close air support being called in and having a Cobra or Apache level that building to the ground.

Also another example for you would be the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan. I would have rather dropped an atomic bomb on every city in Japan instead of having Marines invade and end the war by conventional means.

(And yes I know the entire argument of how Japan was possibly going to surrender and there never would have been an invasion but the example still stands.)

No one cares if some villagers in some developing country get killed, as long as they don't have to think about whats happening and untill are forced to see violence. Thats true. It simply seems most humans are idiots. Or simply believe that the killed are going to a "better" place. Sounds insane, but i have actually HEARD christians say that.

You could show me the violence and I would not care. Why should I waste my time worrying about "random ethnic cleansing #459 in African shithole #9?".

You would find I would be a bit more caring if something bad happened to Americans,British,Israeli, *Insert pretty much any NATO Ally in this box*, etc.

I think you get the idea.

Oh..and i really think that watching people getting killed or losing limbs etc doesn't make one any more less effected by other real tragedies. Lack of empathy is never a good thing.

I suppose not it just used to be an interest of mine. I miss Ogrish =/. Back in the day there was a very diverse group there and the political forums were a blast.

Well, maybe it is the fact that i consider death to be final, that i simply cannot write civilian deaths as acceptable thing. There is nothing acceptable about civilians dying. I am not overly patriotic person, so that really doesn't "help" at all. And please, dont say things like that. All human life is valuable. Or maybe it is just my atheist/humanist crap.

And this would be the main reason we could argue until we are blue in the face. You find value in all human life and I am of the mind set that I would not trade a single Coalition members life for several dozen Afghan or Iraqis.

All the same I respect your opinion, I am sure yours in much more "in the norm". I really only find great support in my views when I talk on gun forums and to military personal .

And wars always will have some civilian deaths, yes, but it seems that Americans are not trying to avoid and minimize them as much as they should.

As I said before the enemy we are fighting does not wear a uniform or go by rank. They fight amongst women and children and expect to force the upper hand because we have "respect for life".

I know this is not a good enough excuse for you but what would you do if you were in a situation where your friends and comrades were dying and you could stop it but in the process kill a few dozen families?

 

[ceacar99]

And you really have to think about it for few seconds ? On what basis can you say that afgan life is of lesser importance than coalition one ? Carpet bombing civilian villages that MIGHT or might not have fighters is nothing short of genocide and mass murder.

um....... um..... the last strategic bombing campaign we took on was in the vietnam war. that war sprung up the debate on weather the strategic carpet bombing campaigns were really effective or if they just make war more horrific then it had to be. after the debate was done it was decided that we'd pretty much put a hold on massive bombing campaigns like that for all foreseeable future wars. i'm in agreance with this because for example, the 24/7 strategic bombing of germany near the end of the war really didnt destroy its ability to produce. its production levels actually continued to rise until the borders of germany itself were actually pierced by ground forces. the ONLY thing that strategic bombing seemed to ahve destroyed was germany's ability to refine and produce oil, which makes sense considering facilities that do that are very fragile complex pieces of work, where a factory for rifles could function under extremely adverse conditions.

since the vietnam war no major "carpet bombing" campaign has taken place, as such the massive strategic bomber fleet that we have currently serves no purpose other being the only planes we have that are actually capable of lifting a massive atomic bomb in the air. we dont send something like a massive b-52 to wipe out an entire town anymore, we use weapons against singular targets predominantly. the only exception to this recently was the invasion of iraq where we did use artillery to wipe out strips of buildings overlooking canals. the buildings often provided the enemy the ability to withstand much of our firepower and prevent us from forcing a crossing.

 

[Viliny]

I have played loads and loads of games with violence going over the top. I have watched loads and loads of movies full of gory stuff...

I'm a boxer and i still feel bad about hitting others in the face

 

[Wooz]

Heh. No wonder. It's easy to be cocky and violent when you've never seen the actual suffering your actions can cause.

Most soldiers and policemen I've talked to aren't too hot on violence, either. Stands to reason a boxer (OK, except Valujev), knowing what a punch can do, would enjoy punching people in the face outside the ring.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Heh. No wonder. It's easy to be cocky and violent when you've never seen the actual suffering your actions can cause.

I have friends in the military who served/currently serving that say fire fights are the greatest thrill they have ever experienced.

My most recent example would be one I already told on Vet day when my buddy in the Corps called me and was so excited I could barely understand him at first over having finally getting to shoot two Iraqis attempting to steal car parts from the base.

Exceptions to the rule I suppose? I do not know the numbers of how many react to the violence of war this way but I am sure everyone handles it differently.

That or maybe I just have some very "special" Marine and Soldier buddies

edit: Age might have a factor on this as well? Again I do not know of any official studies to link for either side of the argument. My friend does have some interesting stories tho about an E8( I think it was that or E7 I dont recall that detail exactly.) in the Corps (approaching 20 year vet and former Recon, that I do remember for a fact) who without going into details shares the same attitude to say the least.

I will try to find some research done on this topic.

 

[ceacar99]

Heh. No wonder. It's easy to be cocky and violent when you've never seen the actual suffering your actions can cause.

Most soldiers and policemen I've talked to aren't too hot on violence, either. Stands to reason a boxer (OK, except Valujev), knowing what a punch can do, would enjoy punching people in the face outside the ring.

well, there are a LOT of marines that had a great deal of fun in iraq. i know one who even decided to reinlist durring the height of the faluniah fighting. age may be a factor, especially considering that the marine corps has the youngest membership on average.

 

[ravenshrike]

a UZI is not small (unless it was a micro-uzi), nor low recoil.

It was a micro uzi, which is why he managed to shoot himself in the head.

 

[Rhett Butler]

Seriously though, guns are too prevalent in america, well, at least unneeded guns are, you don't need a fucking assault rifle or a 50. caliber weapon, I think the most you'd need is a shotgun or a handgun, not some damn handcannon, it doesn't make your dick bigger, it doesn't make you some kind of bigger man.

Lots of kids die in swimming pools in my country. Seriously, swimming pools are too prevalent in New Zealand, well, at least unneeded pools are. You don't need a fucking kindney shaped pool or a diving board. I think the most you need is an inflatable paddling pool or a cold bath, not some damn outdoor pool. It doesn't make your dick bigger, it doesn't make you a bigger man.

 

[ceacar99]

sorry ment to have this in my last post.

maybe sometimes people actually need to die. maybe even sometimes they have to die in a very horrific manner, such as those poor japanese souls that weren't lucky enough to be killed by the atomic bomb or the acid rain, but rather happened on a patch of thick radiation and died a very sickening death over a long period.

there are a few people in the world such as me that thinks no event or action is truly wrong or right, bad or good but rather is. if you buy a cheeseburger and i steal it and eat it before you can then you go hungry, but that also means that i am not hungry. its not bad, it just is.

its good to put morals on things. such as we do our best not to kill children in war, however i think its foolish to think that we can transcend violence and negative human nature its just like we cant truely swing completely the other way. it is part of us, it will stay with us, and it is part of us for a reason.... because it is neeeded.

 

[remake]

Also another example for you would be the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan. I would have rather dropped an atomic bomb on every city in Japan instead of having Marines invade and end the war by conventional means.

I can't believe they let people like you walk on this earth, let alone be allowed on this website. Why aren't you banned yet?

 

[Patton89]

um....... um..... the last strategic bombing campaign we took on was in the vietnam war. that war sprung up the debate on weather the strategic carpet bombing campaigns were really effective or if they just make war more horrific then it had to be. after the debate was done it was decided that we'd pretty much put a hold on massive bombing campaigns like that for all foreseeable future wars. i'm in agreance with this because for example, the 24/7 strategic bombing of germany near the end of the war really didnt destroy its ability to produce. its production levels actually continued to rise until the borders of germany itself were actually pierced by ground forces. the ONLY thing that strategic bombing seemed to ahve destroyed was germany's ability to refine and produce oil, which makes sense considering facilities that do that are very fragile complex pieces of work, where a factory for rifles could function under extremely adverse conditions.

since the vietnam war no major "carpet bombing" campaign has taken place, as such the massive strategic bomber fleet that we have currently serves no purpose other being the only planes we have that are actually capable of lifting a massive atomic bomb in the air. we dont send something like a massive b-52 to wipe out an entire town anymore, we use weapons against singular targets predominantly. the only exception to this recently was the invasion of iraq where we did use artillery to wipe out strips of buildings overlooking canals. the buildings often provided the enemy the ability to withstand much of our firepower and prevent us from forcing a crossing.

Using UAVs, attack helicopters, or F-16/F-18s to bomb doesn't make it less of a bombing , does it ? Bomb and rockets, whats the difference in the end ? Results are the same. Your "wunderwaffen" are not as accurate as it is sometimes claimed.

And its not about it being "bad", it is about it being absolutely idiotic. If you don't think that killing civilians is wrong, fine, but you cant argue that it isn't illogical considering how the local populace will react. And how it is insane when you consider maintaining genetic variety. War doesn't excuse everything, nor does it excuse the way of thinking that the "enemy" populace is free target practice for weapons.