Author Topic: Zimmerman Verdict  (Read 14567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12324
  • Darwins +675/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #261 on: July 30, 2013, 01:07:28 PM »
And you might note that they used a stun gun and beanbag rounds.

You say that as if it's a good thing.  The guy was 95 years old.  Who'd guess he'd die from that?  Pretty much everyone except the stupid cop.

And are you telling me a strapping young officer, trained in a plethora of martial arts (or should be) cannot figure out how to disarm a geriatric patient of a knife without shooting him with bean bag rounds and 50Kilovolts?  If not, he should not be a cop.

Are you telling me three of them together could not figure out a way that would not end up with one or more person involved dead?  If not, they should find other jobs.

Are you telling me that someone in charge of police tactics could not think of a better way to handle this type of situation "by the book"?  If not, our police establishment needs a complete overhaul (it does).

And I'll have to dole out another link:
http://www.kdrv.com/taser-used-on-naked-i-5-wanderer/

cops taser naked 11 year old autistic girl.  I cannot put in print what I think should be done to this half-man in a police uniform.  It involves chains, a utility knife and several elephants.

I think cops use tasers too freely.  I think they should never use a taser since they sometimes cause cardiac arrest.  But if you cannot ban them outright, then I'd say they are appropriate when a blow from a baton is warranted.  Is it warranted to strike a 95 year old man with a baton?  Fuck no.  Is it warranted to strike a naked 11 year old autistic girl walking down the road?  Fuck no.  So why do they do it?  Because they can.

This is where I kind of buy into the gun-nuts argument about having guns to protect us from the government.  In this case by "government" I mean "police".  While I think the loons who protest with assault rifles strapped to their backs are assholes, because they are, I would understand if Occupy protesters showed up packing due to the levels of police brutality they faced.  It would be justice of a sort, I think, for all those cops in riot gear ready to curb stomp some hippies to suddenly be facing the business end of about 500 guns.

However, we all know how that work out. See link below for more on that.


Do you have a bias against police officers, screwtape?

Absolutely.  I didn't used to, though.  It is a recent thing.  Has to do with our increasingly militarized police force and how the law allows them to more or less kill whomever they like without consequence.[1] I'm not the only one who thinks that.  TomDispatch.com  has numerous essays on police militarization. 

Add to that how post 9/11 the entire country has been more or less happy to throw away their civil liberties for a smidgen of perceived safety and you have a recipe for me going paranoid.




edit; corrected or --> of
 1. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 07:31:01 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12438
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #262 on: July 30, 2013, 02:18:08 PM »
In movies with some suspense or danger, there is always a character who goes to investigate the strange noise outside at night or follows the bad guy into the abandoned warehouse. Alone, often unarmed. When my daughter sees this she always yells, "He's being stooopid!" :o

It has become a joke in our family to the point where my husband and I yell it when we are watching movies without her.

If the Zim-TM interaction had been a movie, my daughter would have been beside herself. Because they were both "being stooopid". And one of them had a loaded gun. And it was no movie. :(

It probably will be a movie, officially or unofficially.

 Got to make money off the suffering and actions of others.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #263 on: July 30, 2013, 03:22:17 PM »
In movies with some suspense or danger, there is always a character who goes to investigate the strange noise outside at night or follows the bad guy into the abandoned warehouse. Alone, often unarmed. When my daughter sees this she always yells, "He's being stooopid!" :o

It has become a joke in our family to the point where my husband and I yell it when we are watching movies without her.

If the Zim-TM interaction had been a movie, my daughter would have been beside herself. Because they were both "being stooopid". And one of them had a loaded gun. And it was no movie. :(

It probably will be a movie, officially or unofficially.

 Got to make money off the suffering and actions of others.

-Nam

Yup. And there will be protests on every side of the issue.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #264 on: July 31, 2013, 07:09:40 AM »
Respectfully, I would put a gun in a different category, personally.  It has no other purpose other than to kill.  A person who feels the need to carry a gun for any reason at all, has no other position to stand on.

So all the cops out there doing daily work intend to kill, just because they carry loaded guns? Because that's the argument that the Gawd is putting forward.

Quote
Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood patrol automatically puts one in the position of very few choices: show you have a weapon, draw the weapon, fire the weapon.

Unless, of course, one just holds a suspect/perpetrator at gunpoint, without firing. Do you think that never happens? My guess is it happens fairly frequently, in both private and public arenas. But only a fool would try that tactic with an unloaded weapon.

For the record, I'm not defending Zim either. I think he made a huge, tragic mistake. Whether on accident or on purpose, I don't presume to know.

Regardless of any specific result, a gun is purely designed to kill.  Carrying a loaded gun means that one implicitly recognizes that end result - as well, in training, my understanding is that you do not pull out a loaded weapon unless you are fully prepared to kill.  Out side of cops, who trains people to pull out their gun and simply brandish it?

I am not trying to defend anyone, simply making a point about the purpose of a gun.  In fact, I have been told by more than one CHL friend that they are told to de-escalate first, before even brandishing a weapon.  After all, if one decides to pull out a gun, they are also risking their own life.  It's not as if carrying a gun guarantees a good outcome for the carrier - they are literally risking their own life, and I think sometimes people forget that.

The practical reason for carrying a gun goes straight to the ability and intent to kill if necessary - that is the fundamental argument I am making.  I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #265 on: July 31, 2013, 07:25:24 AM »
With all due respect, jetson, and speaking as someone who doesn't own (never mind carry) a gun, the reasoning you are putting forward here is flawed.  I have self-defense training that would allow me to kill a person with my bare hands - the purpose of those techniques is to kill someone.  Does that mean that, by having learned them, I have no position to stand on?  I 'carry' them around with me all the time, since I'm trained in them.

That is the fault in your logic.  A person carrying a gun is responsible for the use to which they put it, as is anyone who knows or has something that is potentially lethal.  But that does not mean that when they 'carry' it, they intend to go out and kill people with it.  Indeed, I would much prefer never to have to use techniques like that against another person.  But the time may come when I have to, to protect myself or someone else.

If I had someone on top of me, beating my head into the ground (or into a concrete sidewalk), and I retaliated, killing them, I'd be responsible for their death.  But the fact of the matter is that self-defense training is fundamentally about knowing how to act as forcefully as possible in order to defend yourself - and then putting restraints on that forcefulness so you don't use it unless it's necessary and you use no more of it than necessary.

And it's certainly true that Martin did not deserve to die.  But he could have made better choices as well.  Simply going into his house and calling the police, for example, rather than hanging around outside for whatever reason.

I am also trained in personal self defense.  I am trained to first leave, as opposed to risking my personal safety, or my life, before anything else.  I would feel ZERO shame in walking, or even running from a confrontation.  I would also feel ZERO regret in giving someone my personal property if it meant my life was spared.  Personally, I don't buy into the ridiculous idea that we need to have a "Stand your ground" law, which basically means we don't have to give in to thugs, or robbers. 

I get why it appeals to some people - the idea that we need to be vigilantes, to some extent, in order to show those bad guys a thing or two.  I believe that if I had no other choice, I would be more effective in defending myself than I would be without the training I have.  But I am not foolish enough to believe that I will always win (I know you are not making that position).

I never said that the intent of carrying a gun is to kill, I said it is the inevitable purpose of carrying - to kill.  To say otherwise is very naive, in my opinion.  Having a gun on your person is a calculated measure to have the ability to kill another person.  Bottom line, as I see it, is that a gun is very specific, regardless of intent, training, or wether it is actually loaded.  Cars kill people, but they are not built for the purpose of killing people.

BTW - in my self-defense training, the idea of actually killing a person is at the bottom of the list.  The goal is to disable, and leave.  Killing is a last resort, as I'm sure you would agree.  There is no specific intent to kill another person in my training.  With gun training, it is very specific - to kill.  I'm not aware of gun training designed to do anything else?  Are there gun training classes where they teach you not to shoot to kill?


Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #266 on: July 31, 2013, 07:37:35 AM »
Regardless of any specific result, a gun is purely designed to kill.  Carrying a loaded gun means that one implicitly recognizes that end result

Just as having a fully charged fire extinguisher implicitly recognizes that one may have a fire.  Not that one is planning to have a fire, or wants to have a fire, or anything else like that, simply a recognition that fires do happen and one should be prepared for one in case it happens to oneself.  That's all.

Quote
- as well, in training, my understanding is that you do not pull out a loaded weapon unless you are fully prepared to kill.

Which is not the same thing as actually carrying out the killing.  In most cases, as has already been discussed, it does not.

Quote
Out side of cops, who trains people to pull out their gun and simply brandish it?

Do you really think that cops are trained to have more restraint with their sidearms than private citizens?  Because they're not, I assure you.  In fact, private citizens exhibit quite a bit more restraint with their firearms in self-defense situations than cops do.  Cops know that they have much broader discretion on killing people and are much more likely to be excused for it than private citizens, and private citizens know that as well.  And yes, brandishing first before you fire -- assuming circumstances permit it, that is -- is part of defensive gun use training.

It sounds to me like you may not know a great deal about how self-defensive gun uses usually play out in real life.  You may find the "Armed Citizen" informative in this regard.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Sample story:  "A pair of armed robbers entered a Kangaroo convenience store in Mount Pleasant, S.C. and demanded money from the clerk. Despite the clerk complying with the demand, one of the criminals fired at the employee while leaving, grazing his arm. However, also inside the store was a Right-to-Carry permit holder, who drew a pistol and confronted the robbers as they were leaving. Upon seeing the armed citizen, one of the criminals surrendered and waited for police to arrive, while the other fled on foot only to be captured by U.S. Marshals the next day. Following an investigation, law enforcement officials now believes the duo is responsible for a rash of convenience store robberies in the Mount Pleasant area. "

This type of scenario -- where the gun is brandished but not fired -- is quite a bit more common than the RTC holder shooting a perp, although obviously that happens as well.

Quote
The practical reason for carrying a gun goes straight to the ability and intent to kill if necessary - that is the fundamental argument I am making.  I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

Ability, yes, intent, no.  I don't do that there are some smogbrained Eastwood wannabes out there who carry because they intend to kill someone, but they're the exception.  Most people who carry a gun, carry a gun because they recognize that killing someone may someday be a necessary evil, not because they crave the experience and look forward to it.  I'm sure there are some freaks who think it's fun to go to the dentist and get cavities filled as well, but for most of us, it's just something that we endure because we know that the alternative would be even worse.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #267 on: July 31, 2013, 08:32:58 AM »
Piano,

On the use of the word "intent", I want to be more clear.  I am not referring to any form of premeditated, cold blooded, calculated killing.  I am referring to the facet of the purpose of a gun, to kill.  Unless a person is trained to shoot and not kill?  Is that something that is literally taught in classes?  Shoot, but try not to kill?

Perhaps I am not being as clear as i should be in my argument.  I think there a lot of people who get a gun, and then get the CHL using the "just in case" reasoning.  But the end result cannot change. Guns are designed specifically to kill, and the person buying the gun must understand this very important piece of the equation, don't you think?

I consider myself a passive, non violent person.  I did not get involved in Martial arts for self defense, I got into it for physical fitness, and to be a partner to my son at the time.  A result of my taking it all the way to a second degree black belt, is that I learned a lot about self defense along the way.  In two weeks, I will be demonstrating one possible method of disarming a gun pointed at a driver.  Perp points gun into open window threatening the driver.  In that scenario, there are few, if any, options in my opinion.  Nonetheless, if there is a chance, it might be worth it for the driver to make an attempt at disarming. 

I have thought a lot about personal safety, and what I would do if confronted.  I don't have a good answer.  And I am personally very reluctant to think that carrying a gun is the answer, mainly because even with the best training, you are ultimately putting your own life at risk.  Maybe I'm just naive as hell on all of this stuff.  And don't misunderstand, I know there are people with the training and confidence that satisfies them personally on carrying.  Good for them, but they would be very naive to believe that they have solved the problem just by carrying.




Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #268 on: July 31, 2013, 08:52:33 AM »
Unless a person is trained to shoot and not kill?  Is that something that is literally taught in classes?  Shoot, but try not to kill?

No... a lot of people think that that's the case, but it isn't.  What's taught is that firing is the absolute last resort, but that if you do fire, you cannot shoot to wound -- you have to shoot to kill.  There are various reasons, both tactical and legal, that shooting to wound is unwise.

Quote
Perhaps I am not being as clear as i should be in my argument.  I think there a lot of people who get a gun, and then get the CHL using the "just in case" reasoning.  But the end result cannot change. Guns are designed specifically to kill, and the person buying the gun must understand this very important piece of the equation, don't you think?

Yes, this I agree with completely.  If you carry a gun for self-defense, you have to be ready for the possibility, however unlikely it actually is (and the odds actually are pretty slim), that you'll have to kill someone someday.  The ramifications, on so many levels, of taking another human life are extremely grave, far more than even I had realized when I first started getting into firearms.  There's the risk of prison, of civil liability, or even of simply not knowing yourself as well as you thought you did and not being able to handle the killing as well as you thought you might have.

Quote
I have thought a lot about personal safety, and what I would do if confronted.  I don't have a good answer.

I can see that, and I appreciate it.  It's hardly an easy question.

Quote
And I am personally very reluctant to think that carrying a gun is the answer, mainly because even with the best training, you are ultimately putting your own life at risk.  Maybe I'm just naive as hell on all of this stuff.  And don't misunderstand, I know there are people with the training and confidence that satisfies them personally on carrying.

There are simply some people who, for whatever reason, should not carry a gun -- I would never attempt to deny this.  Among other things, if you're of the mindset that you wouldn't be able to handle shooting someone, or you doubt your ability to be able to use one effectively, or whatever, then you are absolutely one of the people who shouldn't.  If you think you wouldn't be able to use a gun properly, then you're very likely right.  It's like that line from "Bull Durham".  "If you think you're on a winning streak because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you're wearing women's underwear, then you are!"

Quote
Good for them, but they would be very naive to believe that they have solved the problem just by carrying.

Would that the world were so simple that a gun on your hip worked like a magic talisman.  If it did, there would be no debate on the subject.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12324
  • Darwins +675/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #269 on: July 31, 2013, 12:16:19 PM »
let me just add:

And I think you should read the articles you link more carefully.  In it, they said he had a metal shoe horn at first, but that he went for a butcher knife, and that's when the police used that stun gun on him.

You are correct.  In one article I read, that was not mentioned.  In the other, it was but I missed it.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #270 on: July 31, 2013, 12:54:32 PM »
In fairness, you do have a point - unless this is an extremely fit 90-year old man, they shouldn't have needed to taze him.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #271 on: July 31, 2013, 01:30:39 PM »
I should add something that may sound odd.  I am a fairly new addict to Call of Duty, the first person shooter game.  If nothing else, I have learned more about weapons than I knew prior to playing.  I can't claim any expertise, but I have a new understanding as it relates to military use of weaponry.

It has made me think more about weapons in my real life.  I have no conclusions that guns are useful, or that I need one, but I am thinking about the topic, and what it might entail.

From this knowledge, I think I have a better understanding of what it might mean to have certain limits on what private citizens should be allowed to own. 

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #272 on: July 31, 2013, 01:59:22 PM »
Care to elaborate?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #273 on: July 31, 2013, 02:14:10 PM »
I should add something that may sound odd.  I am a fairly new addict to Call of Duty, the first person shooter game.  If nothing else, I have learned more about weapons than I knew prior to playing.

It's an extremely bad idea to "learn" about firearms from video games.  It's on par with learning about firearms from watching movies.  Virtually everything you see is wrong.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #274 on: July 31, 2013, 03:25:18 PM »
^^^Agreed. Unfortunately, there will be a Zim vs TM video game, if there is not already.

I cringe when I see my young male relatives shooting and shooting at anything that moves on their video games. The games they like don't encourage any thought or reflection, just fast reaction times. The scenarios are so rigid and contrived. No discussion, no alternative to shooting fast, shooting first, or being shot. If you don't shoot, you don't win. It looks like the "stand your ground" mentality in recreational form. Lots of dead bodies are needed to win the game.

Only no ambulances, no emergency rooms, no permanently disabled people, no funerals or bereaved friends and family members. Maybe the games should include a required "explain why you shot 200 people to their folks" portion in order to get your score.....
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #275 on: July 31, 2013, 03:38:26 PM »
I should add something that may sound odd.  I am a fairly new addict to Call of Duty, the first person shooter game.  If nothing else, I have learned more about weapons than I knew prior to playing.

It's an extremely bad idea to "learn" about firearms from video games.  It's on par with learning about firearms from watching movies.  Virtually everything you see is wrong.

Agreed - and I would not advocate such a thing as useful for reality when it comes to game use of weapons versus actual use.  However, when it comes to learning differences between assault rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, light machine guns, semi and fully automatic, etc., I see no reason to think that the game is so misleading as to not be helpful at some level.  Many of the weapons in Call of Duty are based on actual weapons, and thus represent fairly accurate information.  There are some weapons that are more creative, and thus not attached to real world capabilities.




Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #276 on: July 31, 2013, 03:48:34 PM »
Only no ambulances, no emergency rooms, no permanently disabled people, no funerals or bereaved friends and family members. Maybe the games should include a required "explain why you shot 200 people to their folks" portion in order to get your score.....
And how many games do you think you would sell with such an obvious moral bent to them?

I'm not trying to be rude here, and you do have a point that video games tend to emphasize the action part of the game and skimp on the consequences.  But games that do things like you're suggesting tend to be games that fail miserably.  They're intended for entertainment - your mileage may vary as to the value of that entertainment - and who wants what amounts to a lecture or a morality lesson for entertainment?  If the idea of the game is to shoot things, who wants to spend hours writing up fake explanations to virtual characters as to why you did what you did?

I've seen games which do at least try to incorporate something more than a "shoot everything that moves" mentality.  For example, there are numerous arcade lightgun games where if you shoot something you're not supposed to, your score is penalized, or you actually take damage.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #277 on: July 31, 2013, 04:17:56 PM »
Agreed - and I would not advocate such a thing as useful for reality when it comes to game use of weapons versus actual use.  However, when it comes to learning differences between assault rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, light machine guns, semi and fully automatic, etc., I see no reason to think that the game is so misleading as to not be helpful at some level.

The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal.  It's like the difference between a racing game on a console and actually driving a sports car.  The game's creators may have done some research, or even a lot of research, into how the different cars accelerate, decelerate, and so forth, but even so, what you'll learn about the real-life Ferrari from driving the simulation on your Xbox is minimal and highly distorted.  You never learn how to change a flat tire, for example, you never have to fill the tank or change the oil, and so on.  The parallels to firearms are obvious, or at least they are to someone who shoots at all.  (No offense intended, I hasten to add; I've never owned a car, and I chose the comparison quite deliberately.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #278 on: July 31, 2013, 04:25:15 PM »
I know young guys would never play a game that made them feel bad for shooting people. I know that games with morals don't sell-- I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously about that.

But the result of playing shooting games hour after hour has to have some effect in an environment where real guns are widely available[1] and young people aren't taught real ways to deal with conflict non-violently.

They have very violent video games in Japan, but they don't have real guns in over half the households, or a cultural tradition of solving interpersonal problems with violence, either. :-\
 1. I personally know lots of people who have guns in their homes. I am sure every US person on this site knows where they could get a gun within a day or two if they wanted one, either from someone else or from a store or pawn shop.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #279 on: July 31, 2013, 04:49:01 PM »
Agreed - and I would not advocate such a thing as useful for reality when it comes to game use of weapons versus actual use.  However, when it comes to learning differences between assault rifles, sub machine guns, pistols, light machine guns, semi and fully automatic, etc., I see no reason to think that the game is so misleading as to not be helpful at some level.

The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal.  It's like the difference between a racing game on a console and actually driving a sports car.  The game's creators may have done some research, or even a lot of research, into how the different cars accelerate, decelerate, and so forth, but even so, what you'll learn about the real-life Ferrari from driving the simulation on your Xbox is minimal and highly distorted.  You never learn how to change a flat tire, for example, you never have to fill the tank or change the oil, and so on.  The parallels to firearms are obvious, or at least they are to someone who shoots at all.  (No offense intended, I hasten to add; I've never owned a car, and I chose the comparison quite deliberately.)

I know very little about real guns.  Playing the game has made me think about them more than I used to - even to the point of considering some real shooting lessons with me and my son.  My martial arts instructor offered to take us to a gallery for safety lessons, and actual shooting.  I don't think we will be buying any guns at this point, but it would be interesting to learn with real weapons and ammunition.

nogods - you bring up another topic that is important.  What do FPS games do to the minds of people who play a lot?  Do they have a measurable effect on reality versus game modes?  I have not heard of credible research that supports the thought that video games lead directly to actual violence, but I suspect there must be at least some correlated data - maybe?


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #280 on: July 31, 2013, 05:18:31 PM »
I can't link to anything, but I have read some articles. Nobody can show any direct link between the games and real violence AFAIK. These games are tremendously popular around the world and other high video game places like Canada and Japan don't have the kind of gun violence we have. There is more data on linking lots of tv watching to antisocial behavior than video games, esp. in kids with issues to begin with. 

It has more to do with the opportunity for people with substance abuse, bad judgement and/or mental issues to get their hands on a real loaded gun. They tend to be young and male, the same population that plays a lot of video games.

I read a piece on military using video games in training as a way to reduce the normal reticence people have to shooting others. (Someone with military training will have to weigh in here.) The chilling part of the article that I remember was the fact that field commanders in every war situation have had a hard time getting soldiers to actually fire their weapons. A desirable trait in normal civilian life will get you killed on the battle field.

The idea was that using video games would make the idea of shooting on command a reflex, automatic and without conscious thought. Nice. Especially when these people come home, some traumatized and with PTSD. How are they supposed to unlearn that reflex? I have had too many students, ex-military, with some level of trauma, just from what they saw, let alone what they did.[1]
 1. One of my students says her boyfriend saw several tours in Afghanistan and now can't sleep without his loaded gun under his pillow. And there are kids in the house.... :o
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12438
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #281 on: July 31, 2013, 05:44:33 PM »
I've played Resident Evil 4 over 200 times. Does it make me want to go out and kill people? No. Undead people, maybe, but not the alive ones.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12324
  • Darwins +675/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #282 on: August 01, 2013, 07:29:39 AM »
The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal. 

That depends.  I landed a glider in real life primarily from hours spent playing Jane's USAF shooting down MiGs.  It was a ride with a pilot in the back.  He let me fly a bit and was surprised how good I was.  After my half hour was up he let me land, which I did expertly.  He did not let me shoot down any other gliders, however.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #283 on: August 01, 2013, 07:46:43 AM »
The amount of accurate information one can glean from such sources is pretty minimal. 

That depends.  I landed a glider in real life primarily from hours spent playing Jane's USAF shooting down MiGs.  It was a ride with a pilot in the back.  He let me fly a bit and was surprised how good I was.  After my half hour was up he let me land, which I did expertly.  He did not let me shoot down any other gliders, however.

I can see how that would work, yes.  Everything about the operation of the glider would be contained in the game with the possible exception of spin training, and there's very little to maintaining a glider vis-a-vis a powered aircraft -- no oil to change or anything like that.  I still stand by my original point, though... I have yet to see any kind of FPS game that requires you to clean your gun after any significant length of time spent shooting.  Which is not surprising -- any game with that as a "feature" wouldn't sell five copies.  (Cleaning your gun is a gigantic pain in the ass, in case you didn't know.  A messy, tedious, time-consuming business, but also one which is unavoidable.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12324
  • Darwins +675/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #284 on: August 01, 2013, 07:58:22 AM »
I still stand by my original point, though...

I would mostly agree.  A video game is going to have limited educational value.  But I think Jets' point was there are *some* things you can learn, depending on the accuracy of the game. 

Cleaning your gun is a gigantic pain in the ass, in case you didn't know.

Yup.  I've cleaned a rifle, a shotgun (semi-automatic) and a glock 9mm in my time.  Not fun.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #285 on: August 21, 2013, 09:37:44 PM »

BTW - in my self-defense training, the idea of actually killing a person is at the bottom of the list.  The goal is to disable, and leave.  Killing is a last resort, as I'm sure you would agree.  There is no specific intent to kill another person in my training.  With gun training, it is very specific - to kill.  I'm not aware of gun training designed to do anything else?  Are there gun training classes where they teach you not to shoot to kill?

The goal of traditional martial arts is to train oneself to defend oneself without destroying others.  I agree.

As to the "guns are made to kill" argument, you are right.  However, you ignore the fact that legally and ethically a gun user is obligated to use deadly force only in the face of deadly force.  You tout your martial arts training (of which I have some also).  In training for my concealed carry permit, we were taught that raised voices could be countered with raised voices, shoves with shoves, fists with fists, and deadly force with deadly force. 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12438
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #286 on: August 21, 2013, 10:05:14 PM »
You push me, I beat the shit out of you--that's what I learned.

You shoot me and I live, I shoot you and you die.

That's what I learned.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #287 on: August 21, 2013, 10:15:38 PM »
Actually, raised voices can be countered with soft voices, and shoves and other physical attacks can be countered with blending.

The point itself is valid, though.  Deadly force shouldn't be used just because it's available.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #288 on: August 22, 2013, 07:36:49 AM »
(Cleaning your gun is a gigantic pain in the ass, in case you didn't know.  A messy, tedious, time-consuming business, but also one which is unavoidable.)

This brings back memories.   :P  Also when I was in the military we were timed as  to how fast we could take apart & reassemble them.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Zimmerman Verdict
« Reply #289 on: August 22, 2013, 07:37:55 AM »
Actually, raised voices can be countered with soft voices, ...

When I worked in collections we were trained that if someone started to raise their voice we should lower ours.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 07:40:13 AM by LoriPinkAngel »
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.