Connecticut School Massacre - Death-Toll currently at 26

[FatherXmas]

Oh that town suspended the collection and burning now that there was a "dialog" about it.

Connecticut still had an identical ban on "assault-style weapons" that the federal government had.  That riffle was legal.

The owner of the gun was fully checked out and licensed.  She was the first and often forgotten victim of this incident.

The funny thing about the law, either the old federal or that state's was what defined an "assault-style weapon", many of the features listed are of limited or no impact on the lethality of the weapon.  It's like coming up with a list of features to define a "European-style sedan".

1) It was semiautomatic.  Fully automatic or with a fire selector switch is handled earlier in the law and is an outright ban or a lot more restrictive license.

2) It took clips.

3) It could not have two or more of the following.

a) a folding or collapsible stock
b) a pistol grip
c) a bayonet mount (really?)
d) can use in rifle fired grenades (this isn't the under barrel grenade launcher)
e) has or can accept a flash suppressor

My "really?" has more to do with the idea that something like the inclusion of a bayonet mount can define a "bad" gun from a "good" one.  And where do you get rifle grenades?  It's not like Carbela's or Bass Pro Shops carry them.  And if you are ingenious enough to make your own you probably could modify any rifle to then use them.

Someone suggested people wouldn't be so frightened by the "black evil gun" if it had a wooden stock and simply looked more like a hunting rifle than looking like, but not, a military rifle.  Or something like this. 

Honestly the problem is people don't want to face the fact that these tragedies are the exception rather than the rule.  Students bringing in a gun to shoot other students or teachers is one thing but a "random" stranger going into a elementary school to shoot up the place isn't even remotely on anyone's threat radar.  Nothing that the politicians and pundits can suggest, outside of banning private ownership of guns, could have prevented that.  A determined individual can cause great destruction and mayhem in a free society if he so chooses.  That's the cost of a free society.

Now since there isn't a solution that would actually make a difference in this case we turn to the causes.  Sadly "broken" person isn't an acceptable reason so something must be the cause hence the discussions about violent media and games.  So they will be the scapegoats and like guns, by people who don't understand why would anyone enjoy those games or enjoy target shooting.

This will probably get nuked but I had to say my peace.

[FatherXmas]

Gosh, that could lead to the government looking at video games with just as much scrutiny as they do guns. I'm reminded of how video games were often vilified. One of the most classic examples is Lawnmower Man, using virtual reality to teach a chimp to wield firearms, and then using it to turn an innocent boy into the next Carrie. Wargames gives us a naive kid who thinks he's just having fun but almost destroys the world in the process. But there were many lesser known examples, random cop shows and low budget films that went with the same theme. And they all had a similar story. Somehow a kid would end up being driven to destructive ends after playing a game (often this was intended by the developer). If the government were to study the teaching power of games, and finds out that it has an even more power than traditional medias, what kind of limitations would that put on gaming? Could a game like Red Faction then be viewed as unintentional subliminal programming that can turn children into dissenters? Could it be treasonous to give people a video game that lets them shoot U.S soldiers? Video games could actually be outlawed if this went far enough? Though it's not likely because of the size of the industry, and the economic impact it would have. But considering the fact that most of our existing laws are only there because of a tiny percentage of troublemakers, it's quite a realistic outlook.

Ender's Game

[TimtheEnchanter]

Someone suggested people wouldn't be so frightened by the "black evil gun" if it had a wooden stock and simply looked more like a hunting rifle than looking like, but not, a military rifle.  Or something like this. 

I'm actually amazed that's even allowed. Sometime back in the 80's it became illegal for toy guns to look too realistic (after there were one too many accidents with cops shooting children). I still have the old all-gray NES light gun. The thing still looks like a toy to me. Nevertheless, Nintendo ended up swapping one of the gray tones with day glow orange. And that was the beginning of the neon sidearm era.

So what's stopping crooks from painting their real weapons obnoxious colors and then getting the drop on someone who assumes its just a toy?

Honestly the problem is people don't want to face the fact that these tragedies are the exception rather than the rule.  Students bringing in a gun to shoot other students or teachers is one thing but a "random" stranger going into a elementary school to shoot up the place isn't even remotely on anyone's threat radar.  Nothing that the politicians and pundits can suggest, outside of banning private ownership of guns, could have prevented that.  A determined individual can cause great destruction and mayhem in a free society if he so chooses.  That's the cost of a free society.

Now since there isn't a solution that would actually make a difference in this case we turn to the causes.  Sadly "broken" person isn't an acceptable reason so something must be the cause hence the discussions about violent media and games.  So they will be the scapegoats and like guns, by people who don't understand why would anyone enjoy those games or enjoy target shooting.

Everything has always seemed to be more about the perception of security rather than the reality of it. Maybe they just need to teach everyone Duck & Cover again.

[FatherXmas]

I'm actually amazed that's even allowed. Sometime back in the 80's it became illegal for toy guns to look too realistic (after there were one too many accidents with cops shooting children). I still have the old all-gray NES light gun. The thing still looks like a toy to me. Nevertheless, Nintendo ended up swapping one of the gray tones with day glow orange. And that was the beginning of the neon sidearm era.

So what's stopping crooks from painting their real weapons obnoxious colors and then getting the drop on someone who assumes its just a toy?

Which made the whole toy gun business silly.  I grew up with realistic looking cap guns as a child.  I even have an awesome motorized quirt gun that looks like a machine pistol and takes clips of water, back before the whole orange ring law.  TV production crews now take Nerf riffles and paint them to black/gunmetal so they can pass a near future scifi weapons.  And honestly, police officers can't afford to assume anything about a lethal looking device in someone's hands.  Color doesn't matter.  A ring around the barrel tip doesn't matter.  If it gets pointed toward them or other people they will shoot center mass.  But again this was an ineffective solution pushed by politicians over a tragic event that "sounds" good on the surface.

And here is a page with lots of other paint jobs (yes most are camo of one type or another).  Here's another.

[chasearcanum]

Gosh, that could lead to the government looking at video games with just as much scrutiny as they do guns. I'm reminded of how video games were often vilified. One of the most classic examples is Lawnmower Man, using virtual reality to teach a chimp to wield firearms, and then using it to turn an innocent boy into the next Carrie. Wargames gives us a naive kid who thinks he's just having fun but almost destroys the world in the process. But there were many lesser known examples, random cop shows and low budget films that went with the same theme. And they all had a similar story. Somehow a kid would end up being driven to destructive ends after playing a game (often this was intended by the developer). If the government were to study the teaching power of games, and finds out that it has an even more power than traditional medias, what kind of limitations would that put on gaming? Could a game like Red Faction then be viewed as unintentional subliminal programming that can turn children into dissenters? Could it be treasonous to give people a video game that lets them shoot U.S soldiers? Video games could actually be outlawed if this went far enough? Though it's not likely because of the size of the industry, and the economic impact it would have. But considering the fact that most of our existing laws are only there because of a tiny percentage of troublemakers, it's quite a realistic outlook.

Sometimes overly-defensive reactionary gamers are JUST AS BAD as the side they mock:

Virtual sand tables.

When I was in the service and we were planning an op, we'd craft a sand mound to be roughly the same terrain as we'd go through and use things like dixie cups and cigarette butts to mark "this is the objective.  This is the enemy.  This is the path we'll take." etc.   Now there are "virtual sand mounds" that let commanders model the entire thing in a 3d game's first person shooter and let his men have both birds'eye view and the perspective on the ground, very close to what they'll see on the ground.   Some of these have pretty sophisticated tools, like being able to model a region based on digital mapping data or even build an entire town mockup based on data from an embassy car equipped with stereoscopic cameras and gps (a precursor to google maps streetview, in a way).

So, after several years of development, the question came up, "We can do X with this.  How much can others do just using COTS (commercial, off the shelf) material?"  Some funding got allocated to research this, the media picked up on it, jazzed up the headline to get readers, and suddenly I saw the gamers in such ridiculous mouth-frothing hysteria that "anti-gamers are saying terrorists are using video games to train terrorists!", "RIDICULOUS!", "Call of duty will not make you a sharpshooter" and TOTALLY going off on unrelated tangents misunderstanding the whole issue.

It was rather embarrassing to admit to being a gamer*

Goddamn it, be proud that they they recognize  the power of the medium and want to use and foster the development.  As national security experts, the question of the enemy's capabilities is always high on their lists, so its only natural that after they say "ok, this is what we can do.... what can THEY do?"


... and to be pretty honest here, appearing "familiar in your environment" is a good way to not stick out.  The "gps/stereostopic" embassy car making environments for CAVE VR I mentioned was used in ...diplomatic arenas... long before I ever heard of its use in the military.  If you could do get accurate enough maps to do a mockup of... say... a real airport.


*not the most embarrassing moment, I'll save that for later.

[TimtheEnchanter]

Isn't there an official government-made virtual army training game out there now that anyone can log in and play?

[chasearcanum]

Isn't there an official government-made virtual army training game out there now that anyone can log in and play?

There was "america's army" IIRC.   http://www.americasarmy.com/  Not sure of its current status.   That was more of a "welcome to the army" game.  The actual wargames get much more... robust...

It's used mostly for recruitment and as a "proof of concept,"  but I know it was used at least for some battlefield-robotics systems once.  The robot was modeled in the engine with realistic behaviors and we interfaced the system with the robot's controller, so soldiers could get practice sessions in without actually risking breaking the little beasties.