Study Once Again Concludes Video Games Don’t Make You Violent
In a surprise to absolutely nobody who has ever dealt with the topic of crime, violence, and video games, a new “longitudinal intervention” study concludes that playing video games does not make players more aggressive.
[su_quote]Our participants played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto V, the non-violent video game The Sims 3 or no game at all for 2 months on a daily basis. No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. Also, no effects were observed between baseline and posttest directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. The present results thus provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games in adults and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective on the effects of violent video gaming.[/su_quote]
Look guys, it’s over. Video games do not make people more violent and they are certainly no valid scapegoats for crimes. Although it’s not the first time that scientific evidence has rejected the thought, the release couldn’t have come at a better time. US President Trump famously spoke out against video games in the wake of the most recent Florida school shooting. Not that he seems to care a lot about facts anyway, but we’re sure more educated folks appreciate the information.
It’s amazing how hard you have to work for the cold hard truth nowadays, isn’t it? Lockboxes are evidently evil, but the industry and lawmakers are slow to adjust. In the meantime games aren’t, but it’s just so easy to use them as bullshit reason for whatever societal issues you might have. So sad!
Neverwinter UN:Blogged is always looking for writers to contribute to the blog. If you are an active player and search for a way to spread your opinions, analysis, diaries or reviews to more than 40,000 regular visitors, then don’t hesitate and get in touch with us on our contact page or message board! We are currently especially looking for console and PVP content, but that’s not exclusive. There is no frequency requirement, you post how often you want.
I think in some particular cases violent videogames can be a catalyst or a trigger to violent behaviour. The effect on the person might be the same as putting a pedophile watching Hentai of little school girls, it won’t help him a bit. Of course the problem is on the mental state of the player, there lies the real issue. If sick people can have access to ever more incredibly immersive videogames this might trigger them much more easily to realize their fantasy, or loosing themselves up in violent behaviour.
The same debate could be applied to guns in the US I suppose, where everyone can very easily buy a deadly weapon. If a person has severe anger and personality issues but no deadly weapons, he will not go out and commit mass murder. If a person has violent behaviour issues but doesn’t play violent videogames that might trigger him to do something unwise, he may not be more easily triggered to behave violently. I have no evidence or experiments to back what I’m saying up, it’s only common sense thinking. The same rational can be applied the other way around I suppose, where violent videogames are a therapy to soothe someone’s pain, I’m open to that possibility although I find it unlikely.
My dad suffered from post-traumatic syndrome so I know what are people who get triggered and the difference of behaviour between PTS and average normal people.
The question would be: Do people with issues just tend to play violent video games or do people without issues get them while playing violate video games. All evidence we have point towards the first, if at all.
2 months tested on adults.
.yeah not really accurate then is it vs a child playing over several years.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Unfortunately this is exactly the type of ignorance that brought us to where we are today. Statistical validity is what you want to look up on google.
Firstly it’s been reported that 80% of mass shooters are not gamers.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-mass-shooters-showed-no-interest-in-video-games-researcher-says/
That sounds pretty convincing but it’s even more convincing evidence when you consider 42% of Americans play video games. So society’s interest in video games is much larger than the smaller group of mass shooters.
Secondly look at crime rates around the world (not just America) where video games are just as available. Do we see rises in crime related to the growing popularity of video games globally?
Why aren’t they focusing on the correlations between violent criminals that are known? Because real solutions are a bit more difficult than slapping a ratings label on a video game.
Just looking in the US, violent crime rates are down 51% since 1990. Has video games decreased popularity since 1990?
No since 1996 video game sales has risen 215%
We compare video game popularity over time, we look at crime statistics and there is no correlation.
@joe brummeyer Video games are rated, ESRB exists for a reason. http://www.esrb.org
I’m not apologetic of more regulations but I understand the problem is not as simple as you want it to be. For huge majority of the people video games aren’t a problem and everyone agrees on this fact, however it’s because of those small percentages that do get affected by it that it gets more complicated. I think if someone has mental issues and reacts greatly to videogames in a negative way he should be forbidden of playing such games. Should there be a law about it? Has there been any known case like this? I don’t know. Soccer hooligans are known for making disturbances and displaying violent behavior, should we blame the game for their behaviour? Obviously not, yet there has been some cases that the stadium has been forbidden to them by court order. Background checks before purchasing guns exist for a reason. Not saying the same should apply to violent videogames, but in some cases they might make sense. Keep always in mind I’m talking about very specific rare cases, and my reflection is not about the norm, is about the exceptions.
I also want to point out violent behaviour does not always translate to a crime rate. For example exposing someone openly by stalking his or her facebook and other social medias with the purpose of ridicule and bullying is a form of violence, yet it seems banal and trivial by today’s internet social activity standards and no one even bothers too much about it. Statistics even less.
Even if you assumed there is a correlation between video games and violence (which statistics says there isn’t). Then you have to decide who’s role it is to limit the access to the video games. As it exists now that responsibility lies with the parents. If the parents are failing in their duty to raise moral adults, does the government need to intervene? Does the government have the right to intervene?
You also get into the debate of when does a child become an adult. At least in the US, adulthood as is determined by law is inconsistent. So even when you try to regulate something you then have to start determining who it applies to and when. Example, in the US you can sign a contract at 18, join the military at 17 but being drafted is 18 if your male, pay taxes at any age, get a job at 14, smoke tobacco at 18, drink alcohol at 21, buy a handgun at 18, buy a rifle at 21, have sex depends on region and varies between 16-18. For the purposes of health insurance your not an adult until 26. and you can be tried as an adult for a crime as early as 13. but not vote until your 18. It’s maddening and only gets more confusing the more things get regulated.
Shocking scientific study concludes violent video games may REDUCE real-world violence by providing a safe outlet for aggression
https://www.weirdsciencenews.com/2018-03-15-scientific-study-violent-video-games-reduce-violence.html
Violent video games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto do NOT make players aggressive in real-life
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4293490/Violent-video-games-not-affect-empathy.html
Violent i always thought video games make you fat and lazy. Who ever is running this study and sucking up the tax payers money to fund it needs to be shut down. Before i go get my Atari 2600 and crack him upside the head 😀
PutzBoy: yeah, it’s not easy to answer. and a subject always open to debate. For such regulations to come forward and be in place, first there has to be a confirmed correlation to base the fundamentals of the new law upon and we’re far from there, in the US or Europe. Then, it must be applied. How to define the limits? Would background checks make any sense to buy a videogame, to control a very small percentage of potential dangerous individuals ? Anyway, this is really not on the table of discussion of goverments right now. If anything, there should be regulations on gun control first before looking at videogames, specially in the USA. Guns kill much more than videogames.
The USA already has gun control laws. Each time there is an incident they go back through the list of ineffective actions against inanimate objects and avoid talking about the real issues. Look at the last few major media covered mass shooting events.
Parkland – Obvious case of government failure to enforce existing laws and societal failure to listen to this kid’s obvious pleads for help
Sutherland Springs – Failure of government to put the shooter on the list so he wouldn’t have been able to legally acquire the guns
Las Vegas – No laws proposed would have prevented this guy from completing this mass shooting. He was over 21 with a clean record (no red flags on a background check).
But even then mass shootings are not really the issue since deaths from mass shootings are statistically insignificant (the stories just get a lot of attention), making up just 2% of firearm deaths. Further to that the CDC report completed at the request of Obama post Sandy Hook showed that more lives are saved by guns than taken.
If people cared about lives they should be discussing the rising suicide rate and violent crime rates. Heck depending on your beliefs on what constitutes life you can even look at abortion rates in the US. Abortions in the US occur 10 times as frequently as gun murders.
Perhaps we just don’t value life anymore
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
VOX referencing the Guardian, why not throw in some OK, Star, and the Globe
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/23/why-is-vox-doing-violence-to-gun-statistics/#4897fd987c52
The reports are biased because it comes from the Gun Violence Archive which skews numbers intentionally to bias reports. A good example is that it reports mass shootings as 48 YTD when there has only been 6. Because the government defined mass shootings as require 4 or more deaths excluding the victim. Gun Violence Archive counts 4 or more people injured. Similar factual anomaly’s exist throughout the hit peace as data is hand picked from sources and it flip flops between quantities and percentages to skew results. Or it says gun laws reduce suicide which is false, they have only impacted gun related suicides in Australia. You can go through each point in the article and find the same bias because Vox is not a credible news source and bias is rampant in anything they create.
In any regard, there is no way to remove guns completely from the United States. It is impossible to seize them all, it is impossible to prevent them from entering the country illegally, simply put in fantasy of removing guns is simply that, a fantasy. As it should be
As stated the real problems are a lot more complex than pointing at inanimate objects. Why is no one talking about http://abcnews.go.com/US/utah-student-allegedly-brought-bomb-school-backpack-detonate/story?id=53579163
Any news site report is biased if you look closely, only very few are truly independent and even so, editors are journalists always have an incline to a political party or a view of how the world should be, or can be improved. Someone else quoted dailymail – also remarkably not known for its credibility – so I took the liberty of pasting that report from Vox, which I admit I did not know the news site before. However, I saw the exact same correlations been presented between gun ownership, states with fewer gun laws and increase in numbers of violent cases with guns in france24 website, a 100% state-owned television news network. This means that the french govt shares this view and is very likely based on facts – the results shown came likely from another source/study. If you want to deny that correlation and be an ostrich, and reject everything solely based on the credibility of a news website there is not much more to be discussed then. Even if some numbers might be inflated or not 100% accurate that is not a reason to throw everything away and claim it is entirely false and nothing to be investigated more deeply, that’s just too easy to do.
Obviously the issue is a lot more complex than applying tougher restrictions on access to guns, starting with the mental state of the person. But just because that bomb episode isn’t being widely discussed as much as gun control, should not mean we should not discuss or not do anything at all. If we think by that logic, why not discuss the military complex in the USA and the black projects that retain a lot of information and knowledge to solutions of world problems, and make sure no independent thinker/researcher gets funded, or discloses his findings to the public? Why not discuss the famine in Africa and elsewhere, the corruptions from governments and whatnot and basically every files/topics released on Wikileaks ?
There are a lot of problems in the world, and things must be taken care of…. *cof, discussed one by one.
I’ll try and see if I can find the english version of the piece of news I was talking about in france 24 website.
but they won’t be taken care of because they are not government issues, they are societal issues. the western world is turning its back on systems of morality and thus everything is defined by legal vs non-legal. A government without a moral compass behind it is powerless to handle the real issues and its up to the society to face the issues or as you say “ostrich” from them. Children spend 6.5 hours a day in front of a television per the BBC, is that a government issue or a societal issue? The fragmentation we are seeing in the western world is societal not regulatory.
There are far higher correlations between societal indicators/demographics with violence than with laws limiting gun access. The cities with the highest murder rates in the country are in high regulatory ranked states
#1 St. Louis – ranked 27th
#2 Baltimore – ranked 3rd
#3 Detroit – ranked 17th
#4 New Orleans – ranked 46th
#5 Newark – ranked 4th
#6 Milwaukee – ranked 16th
#7 Washington DC – not ranked because its not in a state, but the gun laws are some of the most stringent in the country
#8 Chicago – ranked 10th
#9 Kansas City – ranked 27th
#10 Cincinnati – ranked 23rd
#46 Phoenix – ranked 50th (this is where i live and is the 6th largest city in the US)
As you can see of the top 10 cities by murder rate, only 3 (two in the same state) are in states in the lower 50% of gun law stringency
This old YouTube video about says it all.
https://youtu.be/U0hAhi8-lgc
Putzboy and the wild wild West playing the largest living bird yet known, the troll is strong and deep on this one. I’ll leave you be.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868
Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.
If somebody wants to put in cause these studies and results and their validity, please, by all means, go ahead. I’m done.
Bert, I’m by no means an expert but there is some key caveats in this report that I think bear consideration.
“Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates”
The report basically says if I’m going to kill somebody, I’m going to use the tool best tool I have available and doesn’t lend itself to what would be a more important argument in gun control of fewer guns means less homicide.
Especially when the data has been normalized for indicators such as (with control for differences in factors associated with homicide e.g., urbanization, race/ethnicity, unemployment, poverty, crime, and alcohol use). My points are that control factors are what needs to be evaluated. Lets reduce murder and lets get people help that need it. The look at video games is precisely that but it turns up dead ends because video games are not indicators in violence.
If you lower the gun related homicides and replace them with knife related homicides like you see in Australia you’ve gained nothing and continued to ignore real issues.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/knife-killings-on-the-rise-in-australia-as-gun-murders-fall-says-new-criminology-report/news-story/8abb94fcce1a98675f771b2d183875f9?sv=14d584765e3aff67b531dab6d5c213b
If suicides continue to be viewed as escapes from an unsatisfying life we are failing to help people. All we’ve done is replace the gun with a razor blade.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/27/australias-suicide-crisis-has-peaked-to-a-terrifying-new-height_a_21480647/
I was expecting that argument as a reply, and it’s a fair point. We should not only help those who need but also restrict the access to guns based on the correlation more guns = more gun deaths, more tighter control to guns = fewer gun-related deaths and violence, more guns = more suicides, guns allow people to kill themselves much more easily therefore limiting access to leathal suicide methods is powerful to prevent suicides.
Right now, the topic is about correlations and if a correlation is found the next logical political step is to impose a restriction to improve the negative results found by the study. This does not mean that other problems outside of the variables studied in the correlation studies are not also involved and should not be discussed and taken care of. They could even be a priority in the quality of life improvement of the population as far as I’m concerned, it won’t take away the fact that less accessiblity to guns to prevent homicides based on those correlations must be tackled.
The Bill of Rights btw is completely archaic and out of date, if you ask me. It should be revised and updated to modern times and spirit.
You haven’t shown a correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. So based on your points there is no action to be taken as it relates to gun control.
This is precisely why no meaningful changes to gun control happen. The evidence is not there. Almost universally Americans will agree that controls should be put in place to prevent mass shootings but when possible controls are reviewed no one agree on anything that will meaningfully improve the situation.
Off topic: I totally disagree with you about the bill of rights. It has been revised and updated. The Bill of Rights is not a fixed document and can be further modified should america choose to do so.
Here, i did it for you. No correlation between gun ownership, murder rate, or gun controls
https://imgur.com/LR4sG2Z
https://imgur.com/78Rg7Xa
It occurred to me that I was being lazy and didn’t calculate the correlation so here they are
Correlation Categories
Gun Ownership to Murder: 0.250303806
Gun Law to Gun Ownership: 0.620257549
Gun Law to Murder: 0.247401212
As you can see there is a moderate correlation between relaxed gun laws and increased gun ownership. Gun Ownership and murder and gun laws and murder show very weak correlation (statistically insignificant).
I would hesitate using correlation as a means to justify action and rather look at it as an area for further scrutiny. ex. I’m quite positive the correlation between men and murder is much greater than any of these metrics but I’m not sure banning men is a solution many are looking for.
The correlation is between gun ownership and gun violence and/or deaths. If you think the Charleston skinny kid who barely knows how to open a church door or the Florida hotel casino sicko would have killed as many people as they did as easily if they had no access to guns by other means of violence such as knives, bombs or bare hands, then indeed gun restriction laws are meaningless to be discussed to you. Pulling a trigger of a gun to wreak mass havoc is much more easier and in some cases deadlier than other methods who are tougher to execute. Guns are lethal and easy to inflict damage, hence the restrictions and gun controls. No need of studies or a PhD to conclude that, and all I’m saying is America is awfully lax when it comes to purchasing a firearm. I should inform myself out of curiosity what I need to do in countries in Europe to get myself a gun, now that I think of it.
So what specifically would you propose changing? No one is for allowing good people to die at the hands of bad people but no one can agree on what would make a difference. If you and I could find common ground on this subject in this context perhaps there is hope on the issue. But as it stands now, I think there is no hope because the real issues are cultural and I don’t see where work is being focused culturally to fix it.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Stolzenberg/publication/261099889_Gun_Availability_and_Violent_Crime_New_Evidence_from_the_National_Incident-Based_Reporting_System/links/00b7d53338b0aa8c98000000/Gun-Availability-and-Violent-Crime-New-Evidence-from-the-National-Incident-Based-Reporting-System.pdf
BTW under the current background system the Charleston kid should not have been able to get a gun. That was another failure of the government, consistent with the Sutherland Springs (26 killed), and Parkland (17 killed). I’m assuming you meant the nightclub shooting in Orlando by Florida casino, let me know if that is incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/10/421789047/fbi-says-background-check-error-let-charleston-shooting-suspect-buy-gun
In the Orlando Nightclub incident he easily could have been prevented from buying a legal gun. He had a history of domestic violence. If it had been reported to the police he would have not passed a background check (assuming the federal government did their job properly which can be questioned given what happened in Charleston, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland). We don’t know what else could have prevented it because the FBI has never released a full report that I have seen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/opinion/to-stop-violence-start-at-home.html
I meant the Las Vegas mass shooting in Mandalay Bay, my mistake. There are so many mass shootings in America that get to mainstream news that I get lost and confuse them. I don’t have any thought-out solutions on my hand to deliver nor I feel that much concerned, I’m only in favour of a tougher, tighter gun restriction laws. Pretty sure plenty of democrats in US and citizens who after each shootings want to see things changed have many proposals to the firearms access problem.
None that I’ve seen that make any since. The arguments are typically
1) Common sense gun reform – which is vague
2) Bumptock ban – can easily find DIY instructions on the internet that don’t require special tools, skills, etc to build for less than $20
2) Re-institute the 1986 assault weapons ban – which went away because it didn’t work in the first place
3) What about Australia? – it won’t work in America and is debatable if it worked in Australia, it did reduce mass shootings but the effects on gun murder rate and on the overall murder rate are both questionable.
4) Gun confiscation – impossible
The end result will be the School Safety Act currently passing legislation, no deep dives on how government keeps failing us during these incidents, and the same gun controls with some minor changes made locally.
And the social problems will continue to be fringe topics without proper attention (i.e. those control factors from your earlier reference). Because the topic will always avoid the hard questions, it will remain focused on inanimate objects and numbers and not how to help real people
Less mass shootings is already a win to me. How to help real people? Give them good education, a job, a shelter and a good healthcare and judiciary system and it will reduce drastically gun violence and violence in general – easier said than done, right ? Even if everyone had the best help of the world there would still be mass shootings for the simple fact that guns are freely available and there will always be someone who snaps and goes on a rampage. If we can agree on less guns means less mass shootings then it’s a win to me and worth doing that in my opinion. I don’t understand why the first amendments of your constitution allow people to gear up with firearms at-will in the 21st century. Militias made sense in the 18th century, I think the population has evolved greatly since and don’t need them anymore, you are not in a civil war. The modern time spirit is completely different. Alas things won’t change or don’t seem to change, and you will have to live with mass shootings more often than that terrifying event should ever take place. Instead of 4-5 people getting killed with a knife you’ll get likely more often 20-50 people killed by firearms.
Less mass shootings is already a win to me. How to help real people? Give them good education, a job, a shelter and a good healthcare and judiciary system and it will reduce drastically gun violence and violence in general – easier said than done, right ? Even if everyone had the best help of the world there would still be mass shootings for the simple fact that guns are freely available and there will always be someone who snaps and goes on a rampage. If we can agree on less guns means less mass shootings then it’s a win to me and worth doing that in my opinion. I don’t understand why the first amendments of your constitution allow people to gear up with firearms at-will in the 21st century. Militias made sense in the 18th century, I think the population has evolved greatly since and don’t need them anymore, you are not in a civil war. The modern time spirit is completely different. Alas things won’t change or don’t seem to change, and you will have to live with mass shootings more often than that terrifying event should ever take place. Instead of 4-5 people getting killed with a knife you’ll get likely more often 20-50 people killed by firearms instead.
Sorry @Bert, I don’t think you can I will ever reach alignment on this because for me the method of death is irrelevant. I want to see less death. If all you care about is people only dieing in small numbers at a time and the overall amount of dieing isn’t important, it’s very hard for me to empathize with you because the logic is hard for me process.
We’ve confirmed that the US doesn’t lead the world in mass shootings. I’ve illustrated to you how more lives are saved guns than taken by guns per the CDC.
You have no view on how to resolve the issue. Not even on how to identify and help the “always be someone who snaps and goes on a rampage”.
Less guns does not correlate to less death which is the only point that really matters to me.
The first amendment protects free speech. Another archaic concept
The second amendment protects gun rights. The intent is to allow give the citizens the ability to protect themselves which includes against our own government. The reason the second amendment will stay intact is that no one would want to go door to door to collect the guns. The leading argument you get from second amendment protectionists is the belief that guns protect all other amendments and ensures the government doesn’t turn tyrannical. You can review the federalist No. 46 which gives a detailed justification from James Madison (one of the writers of the Bill of Rights) on why it was included. Now you may believe this has no role in modern society, but we are only two years removed from precisely that happening.
There have been 7 mass shootings that exceeded 20 people since 1950. One was stopped by an armed civilian (gunman should not have been able to buy a gun, but the government failed to add him to the list so he was able to pass the background check). One was the result of police hiding while the shooters had their way (similar to the situation in Parkland where at least 4 police failed to apprehend the shooter). Current gun laws would have prevented at least 2 other.
Point being that although there are 7, at least 3 should never happen given current laws and an assumption that people get on the list to be flagged by background checks. At least one other is the result of police not apprehending the shooter, protocols have been updated to prevent this from reoccurring assuming the police aren’t hiding in a stairwell for the whole world to see on CCTV.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966
No, I did not say the overall amount of deaths is not important. I said if you can prevent a higher number of mass shootings and deaths through firearms by a tougher regulation and access to guns then it should be done. If a mass killing of 10 or 20 by firearm can be reduced to a knife fight of 3 or 4 deaths or even, who knows, no fight and no deaths at all, it’s an improvement.
If from the start your country had a legislation similar or identical to the country I live in, I’m convinced you folks would not have so many cases of violence and deaths related to guns and firearms. Here the norm is guns and firearms are prohibit, and the exception is to allow someone to have a license to legally hold firearms.
“Requirements for the granting of a license
Through this law several licenses are created, taking into account the needs of the applicant and the intended use of the weapon. It is established that the granting of a license to use and carry a weapon depends on the cumulative verification of several requirements, in addition to the physical and mental fitness of the applicant, certified by a physician, not to have been convicted in court for any of the crimes foreseen in the diploma, and the list of criminal types that until now prevented a license from being extended. It is established that the granting of a license for the use and carrying of weapons of classes B1, C and D depends on the frequency of a training course exclusively provided by the PSP. These technical and civic training courses should provide the necessary lessons for the handling of a firearm, such as its custody, cleanliness, firepower and projectile effects, as well as having a civic dimension, giving lessons general conditions so that the applicant and candidate for a license to use and carry a firearm know the legislation to which he is subject, the rules of conduct to be observed, the notions of first aid and the basic accident, especially when they are at home. Through this selective process, which includes the final examination approval of the responsibility of a jury appointed by the PSP, the bonds of trust that the State needs to deposit with the applicant citizen to grant him a license to use and carry a firearm, accident risks are reduced and it is ensured that the renewal of the license depends on the regular frequency of a shooting race where the applicant performs at least 100 shots per year and on the frequency of a refresher course every five years.”
Source: http://armas.mai-gov.info/fundamentacao/requisitos-para-a-concessao-de-licenca/ (government offcial website)
Google translation
PSP is the state police, Public Security Police.
“Technical requirements
The scheme now proposed aims to modernize and update the legal regime regarding trade and the use and possession of weapons. Being a regime substantially different from that which it has regulated so far, it nevertheless maintains some of the basic principles of that regime, accepting what has been shown to be in line with the national reality and the functioning of the arms trade market for citizens . The solution adopted seeks to adjust the legal regime to the latest technological knowledge and ballistics studies, creating, on the basis of scientific criteria, a strict setting of permitted gauges. It innovates in the European legislative scenario, by establishing specific safety rules in the possession, custody, use and possession of a weapon, establishing a compulsory attendance of a previous course of technical and civic training for the applicant of a license of as well as the requirement to hold civil liability insurance. The legal regime of the use and possession of a weapon is humanized and the diploma is removed from a mere and extensive technical-administrative normative set, by means of the insertion of clear rules of behavior for all the holders of arms, legislating from the formation the applicant’s initial possession of a weapon, the purchase of that weapon, his custody at home and away from him, and finally, the concrete use that can be given to him. It is understood that the request for the authorization of the possession of a weapon must always be duly justified by the interested party, and the State, through the Public Security Police, is the entity that legally controls and supervises the weapons, decide, through the assessment of objective requirements, whether the citizen is sufficiently qualified to be trusted for that purpose. The granting of a license to hold or use and carry a weapon creates, in addition to the initial moment, the establishment of a permanent relationship of trust between the citizen and the State, the latter being sanctioned, in particular by revocation of his license and seizure of the weapon, whenever they break their social suitability or prevaricate in their behavior. The State, whenever there is justification for the request made by the citizens and if all other requirements are met, will allow them access to the weapon, making them responsible and demanding a special social behavior as citizens holding a weapon.”
Source: http://armas.mai-gov.info/fundamentacao/requisitos-tecnicos/
Google translation
To obtain a license you not only have a background check but you must have approval by a doctor that you are suitable to hold guns, and have to go through a course administered by the state police that teaches you all the good practices and the new law you are subjected to as a gun holder. You can’t simply go to a gun show and in 10-15 minutes after a quick check purchase a firearm like you buy a t-shirt. You also have to inform the purpose of what you want to do with the gun, and the police holds the rights to verify you are suitable to be granted a license through other means such as testimonies and whatever else. Basically it’s an administrative concession and a lot more restrictive.
I don’t know why gun confiscation in the case of a change in the law is impossible. It takes a lot of effort but can be doable. This is indeed a problem in my opinion to new legislation, guns and firearms are already so disseminated in american society that there will be little impact in more restrictive laws – what to do with those who already own one or many firearms?
Anyhow, these are my thoughts on the subject. I don’t feel at all that much concerned as I said before because I am not directly affected by it.
@bert reducing a method of death but not reducing death makes no sense. You may be okay with giving away your freedom, but most people trade freedom, you propose no trade only giving unless you can show that the trade results in a good. But you’ve failed to do that stating that a knife death is preferable to a gun death.
Comparing Romania to the US is just silly. 90% of your country has the same ethnicity. Romania has strong restrictions on immigration that ensures a lack of ethnic diversity. The US has 43 million legal immigrants and 11 million illegal immigrants (estimated). The population of the US grows .7% a year while Romania declines .06%. The US is 41 times the size of Romania and has 13 times the population. The indigenous people of Romania was wiped out thousands of years ago. Your society has relied on government for protection for hundreds of years America has not and is still distrustful of government (recent failing hasn’t helped). Romania also doesn’t have free speech. We are not talking apples to apples here and you can’t overlook culture.
Buying a gun in the US is nothing like buying a tshirt, lol. You are subject to a federal background check which includes verifying your mental capacity to handle a gun. Will your country grant you the right to own a gun for the purpose of opposing your government? If not, then you are talking about a restriction in freedom.
Gun confiscation won’t work because civilians in America own 70 times the number of guns as the military. Even a buy back system like the aussies used only resulted in 1/6th of the guns being turned in. Do you think reducing the guns by 1/6th in the US is a meaningful change?
And you have felt concerned enough to respond 13 times, which I appreciate because others that have read the conversation has learned at least a little about the complexity of the problem.
Yep, the problem in the US is very complex and with stubborn folks like you who often distort what others have said and try to make a point by looking at very exceptional cases and turn them into what the norm is or will be when it’s convenient to them only adds a layer to the complexity of the problem and its resolutions because I think a lot of NRA fans think like you. My point was about giving a suggestion of what a tigher gun control could look like. I also gave a simple solution to an utopian world, which is a solution to a lot of societies problems: more education, more employment, good healthcare and justice systems. There are no simple solutions to be slapped at gun violence with results 100% garanteed like you seem to only want to hear and know it’s impossible. Why not apply then locally some of the proposed solutions where you might think it could work? Then observe the results and do the conclusions. If they were positive, repeat that model to other areas adjusting the model to the their realities if needed.
You and everybody seek to see overall deaths reduced, I want on top of that mass shootings to stop because I firmly believe if the perpetrator-to-be does not have access to firearms he will in most cases likely do less damage by other methods if any at all. That might realistically not be impactful in the overall deaths over a year in USA but may save many lives in that particular case; that for me is enough to do something about guns and firearms.
Gun restriction won’t never stop homicide and violence.
Anyway, have it your way. Maybe in another 250 years America will change its militia-like 2nd amendment of the constitution.
I don’t see any distortions. You have made one argument which is that fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. I asked what difference it makes if it doesn’t decrease the rate of death providing evidence that fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths. I’m assuming we agree that there is no correlation between fewer guns and fewer deaths. So you returned by stating but less people will die by guns. You gave 0 suggestions of what a tighter gun control approach would look like, except you analysis that your country has different laws and if America had not been born from civilians fighting tyranny and therefore had not seen the value in it. They may have not included those protections as a part of their contracts.
The US is designed to apply laws locally. In fact that was how the US was originally designed. The federal level only focuses on the items in the constitution. Then locally things can be done so that it allows for regions to administer things that fit closer to their culture. You already see that within the US as it relates to guns. You can see that illustrated her (although I’m not a fan of the guardian the chart is easy to review): https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states
With that each state can become a test bed of new ideas. If the new idea is effective it will be adapted by other states. Also note that laws aren’t just done by state. Within a state you have counties that has their own laws and within a county you have cities that has their own laws. This is particularly important in places like California for example who have very big cities but also very rural areas who’s needs may be very different and even conflict.
Focusing on mass shootings is noble but it doesn’t address the real issues and no one has put forth information that can reasonably be expected to reduce mass shootings with the exception of:
1) Getting rid of Gun Free Zones (areas where guns are restricted and therefore targeted by these people because its easy). 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
2) Better background checks, which as mentioned mass shootings are rare and yet we have had multiple instances where background checks would have prevented it but the government failed to add people to the list.
3) Improved response by police. No more standing outside until the shooters gun get jammed.
Fun Fact: Less than 20% of gun violence is committed by people with legally obtained guns. So making it more difficult to buy a gun will not necessarily result in a significant decrease in gun deaths since they are already being obtained through other means.
Fun Fact: 80% of gun violence is related to gangs. Should we be focusing on Americas gang problem or Americas mass shooter problem (<2% of gun deaths)?
I hope America never changes it stances on the bill of rights. In fact I wish it would return to more strictly following the constitution. You would see more of that testing policy locally at play but that is way to big of a rant for here.
Friends from the US, TV reports and wikipedia confired: At a gun exhibition you can buy weapons (even semi automatic riffles designed to kill lots of people in short time) without any check. Cash, no questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
That would be a great starting point.
The “gun show loophole” is an issue but not near as big an issue as the media leads people to believe.
Here is the ATF’s description of who needs a license to sell a firearm. https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
The intent is for limited sales without the intent of it providing an income. ex. I can sell my old gun to my neighbor but I cannot go to the swap meet every weekend and sell guns. If a person is selling guns for income and are not licensed, they are breaking the law.
All sales must be made in compliance with local, state, and federal laws. So if I’m going to sell a gun to an individual I must ensure the person is of age, from within the state in which I’m selling the gun (since guns cannot be sold person to person with the intent of it being taken across state lines, this is where the Chicago excuse that people buy guns from neighboring states to get around local laws break down), and it must be a legal gun.
Also this is where the local law ideology @bert referenced come in. there are currently 22 states (and DC) that have laws to close the “gun show loophole”. http://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
That’s just at the sate level. Additional laws can be put in place at the county (ex. Florida) and city level. there are also local laws that protect the “gun show loophole” http://tucson.com/ducey-signs-law-banning-background-checks-on-private-gun-sales/article_9de2f670-2fd5-5231-99ca-bccfad46eb76.html
Essentially citizens can speak with their vote to determine what they agree or disagree with. BTW in the charts that i created above, those additional laws at the state levels is what contributes to the Gun Law Rankings.