Donald Trump thinks there should be rating boards for movies and video games.

[CallmeBerto]

Video games don't cause violence. Porn doesn't cause violence. Movies don't cause violence. I believe it some combination of a bad up bringing combined with some people just being born screwed up in the head.

Some people just need to be put somewhere so they can never hurt anyone again not giving drugs and hope for the best.

 

[kuwanger]

he's not asking for a ban on games and movies, though. He's proposing that there should be a ratings board that will rate games and movies based on their content. What a brilliant man.

What's the point, though? I mean, ratings all amount of child-centered rules on acceptability based upon age up until 18. At their core, though, they're a way of making everything R/M/AO rated to require an adult to purchase (at least in principle) and to effectively shift blame onto parents by removing claims of "I didn't know" to shift blame onto companies.

So, my point is really the fact that 99% of it is just blame shifting to bring up ratings and video games/movies. It seems a perfect reasonable step to then for Trump to parlay blame shifting from his affairs to the labels being used on the people he had affairs with. That's the real eye catcher. We're obviously not talking about Disney movies and Mario games.

the implication then being it could be a call for legal creation/enforcement of some ratings

The thing is, we already have that: contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It is, after all, only the R/M/AO ratings that are really being talked about. So, unless he's proposing new rules that apply to adults, then really it's hard to devil's advocate what he's saying meaningfully.

It's the toxic American high school culture to blame. Banning guns will stop absolutely nothing because the Columbine guys literally had bombs.

"It's the toxic American culture to blame" would be more accurate. I do find it morbidly amusing, though, that after 9/11 there weren't a bunch of representatives saying: "We can't really do anything about the terrorism problem. I mean, they have guns and bombs and are willing to hijack air planes. Clearly they're motivated, so there's nothing we can really do about it."

I guess school shootings are okay because it didn't involve skyscrapers falling over and thousands of people dying in one go. Or we think we can target (foreign) terrorism and eliminate it, but trying to weed out local dissent and shootings is just too hard; I mean, the US clearly has a policy that substantial collateral damage on non-Americans is okay, but any collateral damage on Americans in the US is a big no-no. I do sort of get it. It's just odd to, in defense of not regulating guns more, not at all approach the situation in any other way to try to address it. Instead, it's a hunt for excuses.

 

[leon315]

he also thinks ALL teachers shall equipped firearms when they go to school
Jesus Christ, the 1st time i heard about this i lol so fukken hard, i loled all the shiii out so from my ass...

Guys, you know it's really hard as such creative as Trump.

 

[spacemaninspace]

I'm really surprised that everyone here is acting like blaming video games on gun violence hasn't been the standard response to tragedy since the 90s. Expecting 70 year olds to understand modern-day entertainment like video games is the last thing I thought I would see here, but I guess I was wrong.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I'm really surprised that everyone here is acting like blaming video games on gun violence hasn't been the standard response to tragedy since the 90s. Expecting 70 year olds to understand modern-day entertainment like video games is the last thing I thought I would see here, but I guess I was wrong.

The 70 years old of today were the 50 years old of the 90s, one would expect something to change.
But actually, if it is not video games they will sure find another scapegoat, they have good publicists.

 

[linuxares]

Well Trump is like 30 years behind his prime, so it's even any surprise by now?

 

[kuwanger]

he also thinks ALL teachers shall equipped firearms when they go to school

To be fair, he did further clarify he wanted the teachers that were well trained with firearms. You know, it'd be crazy to just let any teacher in school with a gun... Speaking of which, if the whole problem is students killing students, shouldn't we be arming the students? I mean, that's the standard logic used, right? You arm the people who are threatened so the gunmen thinks twice about going in with guns blazing. Also, then they'd all have to be more polite. Just like how the whole Russia-USA MAD situation is like.

 

[CallmeBerto]

He didn't say ALL he said those who already have training in firearm; so around 20%.

Would be better just to make the schools safer by having a security guard or 2 at every school. Or we just accept that bad things happen and move on.

 

[spacemaninspace]

Having teachers be specially trained to be armed with firearms is a really good idea. A lot of people seem to have misinterpreted the idea as just giving every teacher a gun. Don't be stupid, of course that wouldn't be the case.

If there's ever a shooting in school, then having someone nearby with special training with guns would be a huge advantage and would drastically decrease the casualty rate.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Speaking of which, if the whole problem is students killing students, shouldn't we be arming the students? I mean, that's the standard logic used, right?

Good point. Elementary school should start with military education and gun training.
Kids should be provided official guns to be carried inside the school for protection.
And they should be subject to psychological tests many times a year, and expelled and sent to a mental institution if they don't pass. If they could end up being a load for society then better cut them clean early anyway.
Sounds like the perfect solution. /s

I should copyright this in case it ends up as a presidential tweet tomorrow. It may result in good moneys!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Having teachers be specially trained to be armed with firearms is a really good idea. A lot of people seem to have misinterpreted the idea as just giving every teacher a gun. Don't be stupid, of course that wouldn't be the case.

If there's ever a shooting in school, then having someone nearby with special training with guns would be a huge advantage and would drastically decrease the casualty rate.

That's a good idea. But actually having to teach might distract them from their protection role. What about calling this people "security forces" and putting them inside the school any fucking way. That makes sense to me.

 

[spacemaninspace]

To be fair, he did further clarify he wanted the teachers that were well trained with firearms. You know, it'd be crazy to just let any teacher in school with a gun... Speaking of which, if the whole problem is students killing students, shouldn't we be arming the students? I mean, that's the standard logic used, right? You arm the people who are threatened so the gunmen thinks twice about going in with guns blazing. Also, then they'd all have to be more polite. Just like how the whole Russia-USA MAD situation is like.

considering children can't legally own or use guns, no, that wouldn't be the logical solution.

 

[sarkwalvein]

considering children can't legally own or use guns, no, that wouldn't be the logical solution.

All is open to the law makers, it's their fault if they don't act swiftly! /s

 

[spacemaninspace]

what would be easier, trying to pass a bill that allows for children to own and be trained with guns or passing a law that gives grown adults in teaching positions the ability to have and be trained with guns. are you trolling?

 

[sarkwalvein]

what would be easier, trying to pass a bill that allows for children to own and be trained with guns or passing a law that gives grown adults in teaching positions the ability to have and be trained with guns. are you trolling?

It would be easier to assign security forces to schools that are common targets in America, why the trolling?

 

[spacemaninspace]

that's not what i asked

 

[sarkwalvein]

that's not what i asked

Don't tell me you didn't notice in my series of posts that I am making fun of the "kids with guns" solution and I am specifically stating that putting security forces in schools would be a better option.

I won't believe you if you say you wasn't able to catch what I was saying.

 

[hobbledehoy899]

I should copyright this in case it ends up as a presidential tweet tomorrow. It may result in good moneys!

I don't know how it works is Germany, but in the United States everything copyrightable made since 1988 is copyrighted by default.

 

[spacemaninspace]

Don't tell me you didn't notice in my series of posts that I am making fun of the "kids with guns" solution and I am specifically stating that putting security forces in schools would be a better option.

I won't believe you if you say you wasn't able to catch what I was saying.

Great argument guy, I love the snarky attitude. You win!

 

[sarkwalvein]

Great argument guy, I love the snarky attitude. You win!

But it was like that from the start. I was not trying to win, you misinterpreted my posts.
Just read them, I was not exactly of your same opinion (because I think truly trained security forces were needed there instead of teachers), but I was totally against the idea of kids with guns.

Don't get annoyed with me, there's no snarky attitude there. In any case you were not paying attention.

PS: I guess I should have added "/s" at the end of some of those posts. Fixing that.

 

[kuwanger]

considering children can't legally own or use guns, no, that wouldn't be the logical solution.

Why? Are they not Americans? Oh, right, as non-adults we designate their rights upon guardians to be metered out at their discretion and as they feel is so warranted. Well, so long as a student is at school, the school has temporary guardianship of the student, so they can designate the student has a right to possess and use a firearm.

Seriously, though, it's interesting that according to you children can't legally own or use guns for one main thing: who defines who is or isn't a child? If we go by what was the standard that was true at the founding of the US, there were definitely 7 year olds who hunted and had their own guns. But let's just set it at 10 years old.

Good point. Elementary school should start with military education and gun training.
Kids should be provided official guns to be carried inside the school for protection.
And they should be subject to psychological tests many times a year, and expelled and sent to a mental institution if they don't pass. If they could end up being a load for society then better cut them clean early anyway.

If you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. I do not believe a military education would be a good thing to push on all Americans because it frames the world in the context of the military being a solution to most, if not all, of life's problems. Gun training sounds reasonable, though. As for psychological tests, if they couldn't adequately test Nikolas Cruz, I don't have any real hope they'll do a good job with even younger children. The people most capable of passing will be the sociopaths.

More to the point, sending children to mental institutions is no sort of solution any more than our current prison system is any sort of solution to crime. It's merely a system to contain people as we see fit. By the same token, people who are in mental institutions and prisons are "a load for society" precisely because they're locked up. So, we inherently try to cut as many corners on actually engaging with the people to cut costs--and line the pockets of those who build/run the places.

It's just as broken as NCLB and Core40. They present goals and incentives, but they don't provide mechanisms and means to achieve those goals. Instead, the ones who fail are punished and somehow that magically is supposed to fix things. The focus becomes to teach for a test and regurgitate the right answer, not to understand. This whole debate should not be about proposing solutions and then incorporating supposed steps to get there. It should be about finding the problem and then taking steps to reach a solution, even if it's unclear what the final outcome will be.