Originally Posted by HuskyMan (Post 3067636)

The technology to identify sociopaths and psychopaths exists currently. It is a type of functional MRI brain scan that uses specialized software. It has been demonstrated on several cable shows and is reliable. Why not put every man, woman and child through a fMRI brain scan and find out who they are? Then, inject them with drugs that will make them passive and send them off to Alcatraz island where they can't do anyone any harm.

The FBI estimates that 1 in 100 people is a psychopath. Run the numbers for your city or town. Why not get rid of them now? Why wait for more mass killings? If we can identify the nuts before they go postal, why not?

Of course, as soon as this idea takes off, the ACLU will move to file suit to stop it.

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3067847)

That was tried in 2001, spurred by the West Paducah, KY school shooting death of 3 teenagers that were praying before school. Perhaps now we have enough concrete evidence to prove it. I'm all for getting rid of those games.

I searched through my son's collection of video games, which are rarely played, and 6 of them fall into the category of what I deem as being too violent. I'm ok with the ones that have you fight some of the historic battles, but the zombie shooting bonus parts of the games are more than a bit disturbing.

Like I said, he doesn't play much video games anymore. 14 months ago, when I gained custody of the kids, the boy was a wreck. He had so much anger and angst in him, that he was ready to explode. After he and I bumped chests a few times, and he picked himself back up off of the floor, he realized that I was going to win, and that the video game time would only come when I felt he earned it. After 6 months of not being allowed to touch his XBOX, he started earning the ability to play, no more than an hour at a time, and no more than 3 times a week. Since then, he's cut himself back to no more than once a week, and only when he's got a friend over.

I personally believe that his mother's practice of allowing him unlimited time playing these violent games were having an effect on him. What was once an angry boy has grown into a calm, respectful young man.

Violence in video games, unfettered internet access, and violence coming from movies and television is one of the biggest blames to the violence going on today, IMHO

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3067887)

a lot of mental disorders appear in the mid to late 20s in people.

Of course, once we round up and suspend all personal freedoms of all US citizens in order to test them and do a brain scan, we might as well put in tracking devices, oh and tattoo their social security number in bar code form on their forehead.
The ones that fail the scan for whatever reason can now be forced labor to build infrastructure and other projects.

In order to protect even the modernization and minor modification of your 2nd amendment rights, you are willing to give up ALL your other rights pretty willingly for some reason. Does not strike me as the brightest idea. Another push for the police state.

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3067847)

That was tried in 2001, spurred by the West Paducah, KY school shooting death of 3 teenagers that were praying before school. Perhaps now we have enough concrete evidence to prove it. I'm all for getting rid of those games.

I searched through my son's collection of video games, which are rarely played, and 6 of them fall into the category of what I deem as being too violent. I'm ok with the ones that have you fight some of the historic battles, but the zombie shooting bonus parts of the games are more than a bit disturbing.

Like I said, he doesn't play much video games anymore. 14 months ago, when I gained custody of the kids, the boy was a wreck. He had so much anger and angst in him, that he was ready to explode. After he and I bumped chests a few times, and he picked himself back up off of the floor, he realized that I was going to win, and that the video game time would only come when I felt he earned it. After 6 months of not being allowed to touch his XBOX, he started earning the ability to play, no more than an hour at a time, and no more than 3 times a week. Since then, he's cut himself back to no more than once a week, and only when he's got a friend over.

I personally believe that his mother's practice of allowing him unlimited time playing these violent games were having an effect on him. What was once an angry boy has grown into a calm, respectful young man.

Violence in video games, unfettered internet access, and violence coming from movies and television is one of the biggest blames to the violence going on today, IMHO

Originally Posted by MagnumPI (Post 3067891)

But if it works, why not? Something needs to be done, and all that sort of stuff would apparently achieve the goal of protecting people who won't/can't protect themselves. You keep increasing the size and scope of the government, it's going to get there anyway. Skip ahead, stop the killing.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 3067071)

Yes, you and your kind. The kind that demands reactionary response by the government for every single event, after the fact. You never have a plan or make a demand before the event, because you don't have sufficient vision to determine the possible events before they occur.

I already gave you one event that will occur. A shoulder fired missile will be used to take out an airliner. But, you and your kind cannot fathom such a possibility and you make no request of the government to take away such a possibility. You simply react to events in your life.............never be proactive.

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3067895)

That is the answer. a complete police state with all power and wisdom invested in the government, and the people relegated to the role of obedient serfs to do their masters' bidding.
Yep. It would be safe.

IMO safety is over-rated.

Originally Posted by Ara T. (Post 3067894)

Yeah, angry young men didn't exist before the advent of violent video games
:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3067412)

I have a family member that has gone through all sorts of hoops in hopes that the proper help would be made available to his son, who has mental issues. The kids has NO conscience, no ability to control himself, and no sense of right and wrong. He steals everything he gets his hands on, is known to pick a fight with the smallest of kids for no reason, and has threatened school staff when given detention for refusing ot turn in his homework...the kids a mess, and so is his dad. Help finally came after a few of us told him to call the cops on his own son for stealing his cell phone. All it took was that to open a whole new world of help for the young man. After 6 years of counseling and finding the right cocktail of medications, he's somewhat normal acting around others.

Personally, I'd rather have him locked away so he can do no harm to others, but it won't happen.

I know my solution is simplistic in design, but it's how I feel about having these crazies walking the streets. Sometimes my simplistic ways upsets my wife...she sees things in shades of gray, while I see things in black and white. I'm not talking about crazy Ned the neighbor that walks out on his front porch in his BVDs, I'm talking about certifiable nutjobs with issues that require medications. Once these people are released back to the public, especially as adults, who's job is it to make sure they continue to take their medications? That's a rhetorical question that doesn't need answered...

Originally Posted by edge (Post 3067900)

Originally Posted by MagnumPI (Post 3067902)

Ah, so the blood is on your hands.
Look, if you accept that the state is there to provide a monopoly on the service of protection, then arguing in favor of more personal security is moot. Now it becomes how does the state do it's job best. This guy gets it:
Paragould Daily Press: Serving Greene County, Arkansas > Top Story

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3067908)

While I'll give you the fact that there have always been angry young men, the escalation of violence in video games and Hollywood has helped desensitize many of these angry young men into not feeling what normal is. Have you seen the graphics of some of these games?? On our 1080p television, it looks like real life.

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3067912)

lets say everything was the same, except the mother had no firearms because she couldn't have them, at least no pistols or auto or semi auto rifles? How would this tragedy have played out?

what if all he could get his hands on was a bolt action .22?

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3067919)

on this and anyone else who has said similar, we totally agree. these games are nothing more than training systems for ultra violent behavior.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3067827)

Hello, we do regulate the use of motor vehicles. People must pass a test to get a license. No reason not to do that with guns.