What’s the “this” here? If you mean movies don’t make people more violent, then fair enough. That seems like something social science can study. But if you mean movies that glorify violence don’t affect collective beliefs and values concerning guns, I’d kindly ask for a cite. I’m not sure that’s actually something that empirical research can investigate and seems to me to be an extremist position that environment doesn’t affect behavior.
And to Jonny’s point that gun manufacturers help fund these kinds of movies because it makes it harder to pass gun control legislation … this shows that at least they believe that these movies help sell guns and promote gun culture more generally.
Like everything in the social sciences it’s complicated and while correlation is often clear causation is hard to establish. I think your delineation seems like a reasonable summary.
There is decent evidence violence in media has short term impacts on people’s aggression levels. Long term it’s seems no.
Culturally it is reasonable to assume it has an effect.
Nonetheless, it’s dangerous to worry about this when the real issue is so obvious in the US.
“Republicans have full control of the government and are a bunch of fascists.”
“Also, only the government should have weapons.”
It’s hard to imagine liberals, myself included, waging some kind of Ukrainian offensive against fascism in the USA that involved something other than dunking on the bad guys online.
I can very much see my kid getting involved with something like this once he’s on his own. My concern about him having a gun is the same as it is with me having a gun: we’re much more likely to use it on ourselves than anyone else.
I don’t have a problem with predators being predators. Meat isn’t going away from the human diet anytime soon. So those hunting for food, fishing etc are just fine. Hunting has been around forever. Literally. Mass homicides for the sake of mass homicides are a new thing. Not connected. And people hunt all over the world. Only in the USofA do 10s get killed at a time with any frequency.
God didn’t design us. There is no fact of the matter about the “natural” diet of humans.
Meat isn’t going away from the human diet anytime soon. So those hunting for food, fishing etc are just fine.
How other people act has no bearing on how you should act. Correct action isn’t a democracy.
Hunting has been around forever. Literally.
Similar to the “everyone else is doing it” argument, the “everyone has always done it” argument has no weight (and it’s also incorrect. Ever been to India?). Traditions can add meaning and a sense of fulfillment to life, but tradition alone cannot determine correct action. Obviously slavery, gun violence, and misogyny are also traditions going back a long time.
Depends what you are asking. The solution is hardly a mystery given every other developed nation on earth has adopted it.
If you are asking is there a political way to make it happen in the US, then the answer is obviously no. Never. There is no amount of death or dead children that will ever make America follow the completely obvious solution.
This is kind of a separate, sometimes divisive issue but just want to piggyback on this and say vegetables are really good and the fake meat industry has made some amazing strides in recent years. We are a meatless household and some of the stuff we buy is honestly really good. Quorn brand has awesome stuff, including a roast I love to cook and put into my packed lunches. Impossible burgers are really good. Beyond and Impossible both have good brats and sausages. And Morningstar has some insane chicken products. Bacon is the thing I haven’t found anyone doing well yet.
If we stop use of all animal products the alternatives for everyday living are going to be petroleum based. The “natural” alternatives are largely not ready for prime time— this is my field of work. Some good projects out there but nothing that is going to make a real dent in overall use of animal products. Food is one thing, but I’m a skeptic when it comes to the world going vegetarian.
Animals eat animals. People are animals. Where is the line? Fish ok? Insects ok? Slavery, rape etc were immoral then and immoral now, regardless of how it was tolerated. Were/are Hunter-gatherers immoral?
Is ok for survival? Your plane crashes and there isn’t much edible vegation.
All of this is immaterial to concept of mass killings.
Fwiw, I am not a hunter, I have fished a few times in my life. Not my thing.
To be clear, not including government//religion driving stuff. I’m talking individuals taking out others en mass in one episode. No jack the ripper, no camps, no inquisition.
I’m asking to force people to be more clear with their messaging. I’m not disagreeing.
The vague generalizing gets really old. Especially when people are fine with completely dehumanizing a group who has fallen prey to propaganda but say nothing about a 49 per min kill rate in John Wick cuz he gives sweet interviews and ,legend has it, he’s a nice guy.
7 year olds awkwardly popping into online fps chat rooms is an American pasttime. So when people act surprised about the violence here, well, I find that surprising.
Acting like there’s an easy button and blamegaming is just another version of white flight.
My concern with my kid being around guns #1 that her bf would shoot her and #2 that it would make it much more likely for cops to shoot her. I’d worry about the second one there for your son for similar reasons.
One thing I tell my kid is that radical political groups are essentially all infiltrated by the police, especially local police.
Yes, but this is all very non-specific. All consumption kills. And, I’ve never hunted, but hunting and eating what you kill > buying dead animals at In-n-Out or Safeway imo.
I think there are two mistakes here. 1. Whether or not the world is ready for universal vegetarianism doesn’t really have any impact on what you do personally and 2. it’s a mistake to think that if we can’t do a lot (“make a real dent”) then we can’t do anything. Even one less meat meal makes a difference to the animal you ate. I think vegetarians fetishize the “purity” of their diet and make a similar mistake about dents. 99% vegetarianism is 99% as good as 100% vegetarianism, but many vegetarians don’t think of it that way.
Is ok for survival? Your plane crashes and there isn’t much edible vegation.
Sure, seems fine to eat animals or other humans as a matter of survival.
Animals eat animals. People are animals. Where is the line? Fish ok? Insects ok? Slavery, rape etc were immoral then and immoral now, regardless of how it was tolerated. Were/are Hunter-gatherers immoral?
One bright line is survival. That’s let’s most animals off the hook because the wolf can’t get a veggie burger.
Trickier cases are the more common ones. The usual line that divides plants and insects and some seafood among other things is the capacity for suffering. If the animal or insect doesn’t have a cerebral cortex, it can’t feel pain and that’s a useful heuristic for “capacity for suffering.” Some people draw the line at the capacity for having desires, but that’s pretty murky imo.