D.A.R.K.[CotC] wrote:
A.D.C. wrote:This leaves several arguments such as resolving societal issues which lead to crime as in...
What about complete accidental acts? I've seen cases of three year olds kill others because they found this cool looking object that makes loud noises and showed it to somebody. You can't expect somebody as young as that to know right from wrong. So is this the parent's fault, even if the gun isn't theirs? (sometimes it is, and I think they are at fault for it too)/
And how about those people that really are somewhat not right in the head and say they were reinacting scenes from video games? Lots of people have taken this as a stepping stone to suing the video game companies for making violent video games. In my oppinion the fault lies in the person who couldn't tell from reality and virtuality.
Accidental incidents statistically do not challenge intentional criminal events. I would also postulate that accidential incidents with firearms are less than traffic accidents per year, perhaps even less than deaths aboard other forms of travel, trains, planes, and boats for instance. Not that death of an innocent should be disvalued in any way; rather, to simply outlaw something for accidential causation is flawed thinking, even backwards.
As avid a rights feind as I am I believe strongly in personal responsibility. It is my responsibility to secure and station my weaponry, cutlery, even MY CAR KEYS and the ways I use these things in an adult manner. Conversly I should be held responsible for irresponsible security and stationing. Innocents then do not die by accident but due to adult irresponsibility.
For those that are not right in the head this becomes an individual freedom issue. What qualifies one as being wrong or thick in the head, and what is the qualitative measure of that deficit? This becomes an assessment and functional evaluation in the psycnhiatric arena which may or may not be appopriate. I know many clients who own and operate firearms responsibly, so not all psychiatric concerns negate individual firearm freedoms. This would become the practice of establishing a criterion of exclusion and this is a dangerous area, but IMHO necessary. A depressed and suicidal person is one that could be excluded, but for how long? So this is a big bag of tricks this question is...
As for violence in video games training someone to become a killer I also believe this is a psychiatric issue. Certain personalities may have difficulty dealing with boundaries, and for them certain games, books, movies, and other things might be taboo. For others it does not apply. So the brush can't be as broad as some would like; nor should some discount that repeated and continual exposure to "things" will result in detestation and increased familiarity. The indicator becomes not the game or the act of violence but the individuals perception and mental health.
Again, the mental health of the individual behind the act is the key. Outside a complete social system which provides food, clothing, shelter, monies, medical, dental, and life skills, in a large metropolitan center in the United States for instance, the statistics will be different than a comparible population base elsewhere. To compare population base only, without sampling all other variables is an incorrect study and the use of faulty data. So to say in Canada this is true because 10 million live here, and in a similar city in the U.S. 10 million live here, AND THEY HAVE GUNS, is like comparing apples and oranges. In the end the mental health of the individual is left, or in the case of the accident the irresponsiblity of an adult, not some inanimate object like a gun.
