Is owning a gun a right or a privilege?

[Calliecake]

Hopefully tomorrow’s school walkout against school shootings will show the country how sick we are about this country’s obsession with guns. It’s a shame we don’t have a president that has the balls to stand up to the NRA.

 

[TooPatient]

And I just want to throw in this report I recently read.
An American Mum was accidentally shot in the back (while driving a car hauling a horse in a horse float) by her 3 year old who was sitting in the back seat.
Apparently she had her 3 year old UNRESTRAINED in the back seat and there was a loaded handgung lying on the floor of the back seat area which he picked up off the floor and shot her with.

This woman on one hand insists that she needs to carry a loaded handgun to protect herself and her family from “would be murderers” and yet she doesn’t even bother restraining her child safely in the car or have a loaded gun in a safe place out of reach of children.

Her irresponsibility could have seen them both killed, not by a “scary would be murderer” but by her own lack of thought and care.

So many illegal acts there. Just a few off the top of my head:

1. It is illegal to have a loaded gun in a car unless you have a concealed carry permit.

2. Even with a concealed carry permit,it is illegal to have a loaded gun sitting in the car (not on your person or several other exclusions).

3. It is illegal to have a gun where a minor can access.

4. It is illegal to drive (even in a parade) with the kid not restrained.

 

[TooPatient]

Ah another politically charged subject I won't get into, for the same reasons I won't "debate" about Trump. But just some facts:

I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment.
I am a firearms collector and hobbiest.
I own five rifles and seventy-seven handguns.
I belong to 3 gun ranges and shoot targets at least once a week.
I reload ammo for over 20 calibers and have an extensive workshop for that purpose. I started reloading in 1972.
I have a carry permit but rarely carry on my person. It just makes the laws for transport easier to follow with a permit.

The hobby is a lot of fun. There are always new load "recipes" to test and it is rewarding to have a positive result.

I think there are improvements that could be made to existing laws, and I don't agree 100% with the NRA's views.

You can cuss me out all you wish, call me names, say WHY, but I am just stating in general where I stand.

Nice collection! I love the older ones and various classic and unusual pieces. I'd love to have a collection like yours one day. Building mine slowly. We have a few beautiful pieces of history that are a real treat to take to the range.

 

[redwood66]

Little kids shoot their parents all the time here. Google search it you’ll get a bunch of results. But people who are avid gun owners DO NOT CARE just like they don’t care about mass shootings in schools etc. Ain’t nobody taking away their 2A!

Now you know that is not true.

 

[Missy]

Little kids shoot their parents all the time here. Google search it you’ll get a bunch of results. But people who are avid gun owners DO NOT CARE just like they don’t care about mass shootings in schools etc. Ain’t nobody taking away their 2A!

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/30/toddler-shootings-guns/

http://www.newsweek.com/guns-kids-third-leading-cause-death-627209

http://time.com/4074648/toddler-gun-violence/?iid=sr-link1

http://time.com/4311066/toddlers-guns-shoot-parents/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ard-when-kids-die-in-gun-accidents/101568654/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html

study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics showed that an average of 5,790 children in the United States receive emergency room treatment for gun-related injuries each year, and around 21 percent of those injuries are unintentional. The study also found that an average of 1,297 children die annually from gun-related injuries, making guns the third-leading cause of death for children in America.

The study also broke down all gun deaths among children by state. Topping the list from 2010 to 2014 were the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Wyoming and Alaska.

Kids and Guns are responsible for the death or injury of over 7,000 children in America each year.

The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist.

 

[Tekate]

If one discusses guns this article is a good place to start.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steven...ang-the-neuroscience-of-the-gun/#52eb8f377eed

 

[Missy]

If one discusses guns this article is a good place to start.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steven...ang-the-neuroscience-of-the-gun/#52eb8f377eed

Thank you Kate! Very informative. For those who don't like clicking onto links:

Addicted To Bang: The Neuroscience of the Gun

“If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you get a population roughly the size of the United States, where, last year, there were 32,000 gun death. Those other countries, which all have a form of gun control, had a total of 112.

In the wake of recent tragic events, there have been a raft of articles about new reasons for gun-control and the psychological make-up of mass murderers (See NYT or WSJ), but the authors of this piece (co-authored with neuroscientist James Olds) believe there’s a critical component missing from this discussion: the very addictive nature of firearms.

There are a number of different ways to think about this issue, but a decent place to start is Steven Pinker. In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker makes the data-driven argument that violence has been decreasing steadily since the Middle Ages and, across the boards, is now at its lowest point in history. But this isn’t the case with gun violence.

Consider this report (about Oakland, CA) from yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle:

Data compiled by the Urban Strategies Council—which works with, and collects data for, agencies like the OPD—shows the overall number of reported shootings rising in recent years, from 869 in 2009 to more than 1,200 in 2011, the highest since 2003, the earliest year for which they have data. Homicides—which are by and large committed by people with guns—have followed a similar trend. As of early December, 2012, the city had already seen 117 homicides, soaring past 103 for last year and perhaps reaching the highest total since 2008 police say, when 124 people died.

So the question becomes why is violence overall declining, yet gun violence still on the rise? The answer, we suspect, might be dopamine.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, one of the brain’s basic signaling molecules. Emotionally, we feel its presence as engagement, excitement, creativity, and a desire to investigate and make meaning out of the world. It’s released whenever we take a risk, or encounter something novel. It reinforces exploratory behavior. It also helps us survive that behavior. By increasing attention, information flow, and pattern recognition, in the brain, and heart rate, blood pressure and muscle firing timing, in the body, dopamine serves as a formidable skill-booster as well.


But its most famous attribute is as a motivator. It is released when we have the expectation of reward. Once dopamine becomes hardwired into a psychological reward loop, the desire to get more dopamine becomes the brain’s overarching preoccupation. Cocaine, for example, is widely considered the most addictive drug on earth. It does little more than flood the brain with dopamine and block its reuptake (sort of like SSRI’s block the reuptake of serotonin).

But it’s not just drug addiction. Gambling addiction, shopping addiction, sex addiction, **** addiction, coffee addiction, cigarette addiction, twitter and texting too. The list is long. And possibly growing, as now it’s time to talk about dopamine and our current gun addiction.

So what do we really know? Dopamine shows up when we take a risk—and firing a gun is always a risk. It shows up when we encounter something novel and since guns blow things up, well that usually pretty novel. If you’re serious about your guns and use them for target practice or hunting, well that requires pattern recognition and this increases dopamine as well.

Are there direct correlations? Has anyone yet done a PET or MRS scan (the only ways to screen for dopamine in the brain) of people just leaving a firing range? Not that we can tell (though we’ll outline this and a few possible areas of research in a moment). We do know, from copious amounts of video game research, that first person shooter games release dopamine, and this has been linked to everything from learning and rewards to ideas about violence and harm to winning and motivation.

What does all of this really mean? It means that the reason gun violence continues to rise (and the reason gun control legislation remains so hard to pass) is because we are quite literally addicted to our guns.

Two things make this even more alarming. First, because the human brain evolved in an era of immediacy—when threats and rewards were of the lions, tigers and food variety—the dopamine circuitry has an inborn timing mechanism. If the reward follows the stimulus by roughly 100-200 milliseconds, it’s sitting in dopamine’s sweet spot. Firing a muzzle loader—for example—would certainly release dopamine, but it takes too long between multiple firings for a significant reward loop to be created. Firing an automatic weapon, though, sits close to the sweet spot—an assault weapon can fire a round every 100 milliseconds. Meaning not only are guns addictive, but automatic weaponry is far more addictive than most.

Unfortunately, there’s a more frightening downside to consider. As Nora Volkow and her colleagues at the National Institute of Drug Abuse have well documented, the first true taste of a dopamine rush is always the best. After that, there are always diminishing returns. What this means in drug addicts is that the first time someone inhales cocaine feel so outrageously good compared to all the following times and, as a result, a junky will keep escalating their use patterns to try to get back to that original high. The same goes for guns. This suggests that for addicts, the desire to do more damage, cause more harm, and generally unleash holy terror will only increase over time.

Obviously, considering the scope of these ideas, a bit more research needs to be done. Besides the aforementioned PET/MRS scan, there are an even simpler tests. L-Dopa, the Parkinson’s drug, increases the level of dopamine in the brain. You could give subjects L-Dopa (compared to people given, say, naloxone, which blocks the opioid reward system) and have them fire guns at a range. After a set period of time, you can then see how much money they’d be willing to spend for another 30 minutes on the range (compared to controls). Our guess, the folks with more L-Dopa are gonna spend far more money.

The larger point is that if we’re really going to have a high-minded discussion more honest discussion about the role we want guns to play in the future of America, then acknowledging (and further researching) the addictive nature of bang seems a critical place to start.

For similar content, subscribe to Steven's email newsletter here.

*This article co-authored with Dr. James Olds, Director of the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University.

 

[redwood66]

If one discusses guns this article is a good place to start.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steven...ang-the-neuroscience-of-the-gun/#52eb8f377eed

Comparing legal gun owners to drug addicts and then using "automatic" as the sweet spot with the word assault thrown in there. People who know nothing would read that immediately correlate the so called "assault" weapon with this. Automatic weapons are highly regulated for the general public already and you have been told that numerous times.

And people release dopamine during many activities especially sports. The article says we don't know if what we say is true because we haven't tested but we believe it to be true. And so what if people get a good feeling out of going to the range? It is fun to test your abilities and I enjoy it. That doesn't make me an "addict" which immediately puts a negative connotation on it - but that was the point of the article wasn't it? Besides, anyone who owns weapons and doesn't spend time at the range to become proficient in handling and shooting is not doing their part as a responsible gun owner. Muscle memory is an important part of being proficient.

As far as Oakland, from experience, the preponderance of people killing each other (or innocent bystanders) there are gang bangers. Given the size of the city that is a pretty low number of shootings and homicides in comparison to other large metropolises.

These kinds of articles are why things will never change because it causes each side to retreat to their prospective corners with no room for any real movement. JMHO my friend.

 

[Calliecake]

The majority of American people want common sense gun laws. Ban assault rifles that make it possible to kill many people in a a few minutes and limit the amount of bullets in a magazine. Gun should be registered in a national database. The gun show loopholes need to be closed. No one is saying take all guns away.

I wish those who feel their right to have a gun should be more important than any other persons right to live their life, had to spend one month living the life of those who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

If you cared Redwood, you would be trying to bring about change. In the past you have said no to any change regarding gun control. The young people are going to bring about change in this country and more than half of us will be standing with them.

 

[redwood66]

People should do what they believe to be right. Stand firm in your convictions. And no I have not said no change but you don't seem to remember correctly. Stop with the "If you cared" BS. You are smarter than that.

 

[Tekate]

People can get old automatic guns and that wasn't the point of the article per se the point is that maybe we should work on the high people get from shooting a gun.. I have said and I stick by the idea that shooting a gun makes a person feel powerful and in control.. that is a high.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16412910/automatic-guns-las-vegas-shooting

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cult-and-especially-expensive/article/2636302

Sure people get a dopamine high from all different things, like shooting a gun, working out.

The article seems logical to me. One because I have shot a gun a few times and didn't get anything out of it, it didn't give me a rush, BUT from the first cigarette to my last I loved it and as the years rolled by I loved it more and smoked more. My husband could be a gambling addict, he walks into a casino and once I lost him for 4 hours in Vegas... me I played slots a bit then got bored.

The problem with guns is the ability of people to be rash and hurt others, or commit suicide.

I wouldn't take this Forbes article personally. Just an opinion by a guy at Forbes.

Oakland is changing slowly, gentrification.

Comparing legal gun owners to drug addicts and then using "automatic" as the sweet spot with the word assault thrown in there. People who know nothing would read that immediately correlate the so called "assault" weapon with this. Automatic weapons are highly regulated for the general public already and you have been told that numerous times.

And people release dopamine during many activities especially sports. The article says we don't know if what we say is true because we haven't tested but we believe it to be true. And so what if people get a good feeling out of going to the range? It is fun to test your abilities and I enjoy it. That doesn't make me an "addict" which immediately puts a negative connotation on it - but that was the point of the article wasn't it? Besides, anyone who owns weapons and doesn't spend time at the range to become proficient in handling and shooting is not doing their part as a responsible gun owner. Muscle memory is an important part of being proficient.

As far as Oakland, from experience, the preponderance of people killing each other (or innocent bystanders) there are gang bangers. Given the size of the city that is a pretty low number of shootings and homicides in comparison to other large metropolises.

These kinds of articles are why things will never change because it causes each side to retreat to their prospective corners with no room for any real movement. JMHO my friend.

 

[redwood66]

People can get old automatic guns and that wasn't the point of the article per se the point is that maybe we should work on the high people get from shooting a gun.. I have said and I stick by the idea that shooting a gun makes a person feel powerful and in control.. that is a high.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16412910/automatic-guns-las-vegas-shooting

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cult-and-especially-expensive/article/2636302

Sure people get a dopamine high from all different things, like shooting a gun, working out.

The article seems logical to me. One because I have shot a gun a few times and didn't get anything out of it, it didn't give me a rush, BUT from the first cigarette to my last I loved it and as the years rolled by I loved it more and smoked more. My husband could be a gambling addict, he walks into a casino and once I lost him for 4 hours in Vegas... me I played slots a bit then got bored.

The problem with guns is the ability of people to be rash and hurt others, or commit suicide.

I wouldn't take this Forbes article personally. Just an opinion by a guy at Forbes.

Oakland is changing slowly, gentrification.

It is personal to gun owners though and that is the crux of the whole issue. People who are anti-gun want to demonize gun owners and that is what this article does, just like many others. Can you understand how this does not help further any kind of rational conversation?

The Vox article is mainly about bump stocks and reiterated what I said about regulation on automatics. If you modify a weapon to be fully automatic you are already breaking the law. The WE article is correct.

 

[telephone89]

Slightly off topic, but as the school walk out is today I found this interesting.

Some school districts have said they will discipline students who participate in the walkouts.

Students who leave classes in New Richmond, Ohio, for instance, will receive an "unexcused tardy," the district said. For students in Montgomery County, Maryland, walking out will count as an unexcused absence.
In the Atlanta suburb of Cobb County, Georgia, the school district said it will take disciplinary action -- ranging from Saturday school to five days' suspension, per district guidelines -- against students who walk out, citing safety concerns.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/national-school-walkout-gun-violence-protests/index.html

What kind of BS is that? They are gone for 17 minutes but could get suspended for 5 days? Ugh.

 

[Matata]

People who are anti-gun want to demonize gun owners and that is what this article does, just like many others. Can you understand how this does not help further any kind of rational conversation?

The conversation might become more rational if gun owners stopped repeating the rhetoric that non gun owners are "anti-gun" when it's been stated repeatedly in discussions here that reasonable and effective gun regulation is the goal.

 

[redwood66]

The conversation might become more rational if gun owners stopped repeating the rhetoric that non gun owners are "anti-gun" when it's been stated repeatedly in discussions here that reasonable and effective gun regulation is the goal.

You are right, not all here are anti-gun and I apologize for lumping those few into the pot. But I did not say all non gun owners are anti gun. It remains to be seen what a group can decide is reasonable and effective.

 

[TooPatient]

Slightly off topic, but as the school walk out is today I found this interesting.



What kind of BS is that? They are gone for 17 minutes but could get suspended for 5 days? Ugh.

Pretty standard. When I was in HS, being more than 5 minutes late to class counted as an unexcused absence. That was automatic Saturday school.

 

[Missy]

Slightly off topic, but as the school walk out is today I found this interesting.



What kind of BS is that? They are gone for 17 minutes but could get suspended for 5 days? Ugh.

Yeah I am with you @telephone89. That *is* BS. Dissuading protests. It's not right.

Pretty standard. When I was in HS, being more than 5 minutes late to class counted as an unexcused absence. That was automatic Saturday school.

Wow not where I went to school. Thank goodness. That is super strict @TooPatient

 

[Tekate]

Demonize? I have never thought that, ever. I didn't think the piece above is trying to explain to people who don't enjoy/care/want a gun, why others do.

We tried banning alcohol and that didn't work. So banning all guns won't work.

It is personal to gun owners though and that is the crux of the whole issue. People who are anti-gun want to demonize gun owners and that is what this article does, just like many others. Can you understand how this does not help further any kind of rational conversation?

The Vox article is mainly about bump stocks and reiterated what I said about regulation on automatics. If you modify a weapon to be fully automatic you are already breaking the law. The WE article is correct.

 

[redwood66]

Demonize? I have never thought that, ever. I didn't think the piece above is trying to explain to people who don't enjoy/care/want a gun, why others do.

We tried banning alcohol and that didn't work. So banning all guns won't work.

Maybe demonize was too harsh in this particular article's case. But I take exception to the comparison to addicts because that indicates a problem that needs to be overcome. I agree banning guns won't work.

 

[telephone89]

Pretty standard. When I was in HS, being more than 5 minutes late to class counted as an unexcused absence. That was automatic Saturday school.

Were you also threatened by the cops if you were late?

Police in the Atlanta suburb of Marietta patrolled Kell High, where students were threatened with unspecified consequences if they participated in the walkout. At least three students walked out anyway. A British couple walking their dogs went to the school to encourage students but were threatened with arrest if they did not leave.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-students-walkout-protest-gun-violence-nra-1.4575661

Sorry but that is disgusting behaviour and totally unacceptable. I commend these students for standing up for themselves and their dead fellow classmates.
Funny how (eta) *some* Americans are quick to protect the 2nd amendment but not the 1st????

 

[Missy]

Were you also threatened by the cops if you were late?



Sorry but that is disgusting behaviour and totally unacceptable. I commend these students for standing up for themselves and their dead fellow classmates.
Funny how Americans are quick to protect the 2nd amendment but not the 1st????

Yeah it is totally disgusting behavior. Horrifying. I wouldn't group all Americans together here but will say people tend to support what *they* want and will rationalize why. And it often makes no sense. But that IMO are what people in general do no matter where they live.

 

[TooPatient]

Were you also threatened by the cops if you were late?



Sorry but that is disgusting behaviour and totally unacceptable. I commend these students for standing up for themselves and their dead fellow classmates.
Funny how Americans are quick to protect the 2nd amendment but not the 1st????

Wow! That is awful. Our consequences were laid down in the handbook and followed closely. No exceptions for any reason. (excused with a parent not were different) We all knew what we would face if we chose to skip class or whatever.
(Our rallies and stuff were planned for before/after school or on "in service" days so we could all go without facing the penalty of missing school.)

The approach to the couple on campus was VERY not okay, but I can definitely see keeping campuses closed as having non-students makes it harder to keep track of who should and shouldn't be there. If that is the aim, it should be made clear that only those with business at the school (parents, whatever) need to check in at the office and everyone should be held to that.

 

[telephone89]

Wow! That is awful. Our consequences were laid down in the handbook and followed closely. No exceptions for any reason. (excused with a parent not were different) We all knew what we would face if we chose to skip class or whatever.
(Our rallies and stuff were planned for before/after school or on "in service" days so we could all go without facing the penalty of missing school.)

The approach to the couple on campus was VERY not okay, but I can definitely see keeping campuses closed as having non-students makes it harder to keep track of who should and shouldn't be there. If that is the aim, it should be made clear that only those with business at the school (parents, whatever) need to check in at the office and everyone should be held to that.

I could give the situation with the british a couple a pass, as I do understand a safety issue of randos on campus (even if it was totally OTT). But cops patrolling the school to stop kids from protesting? Thats total bullsh*t.

 

[TooPatient]

Here is a question to think about...
Would people still feel the same way about the schools' reactions if it was for a cause they didn't agree with?

What if some kids chose to go to an NRA rally and miss a part of the school day without a signed parent note? My answer would be that they broke the school rules and needed to face the same penalty (Saturday school or suspension) as they would for any other unexcused absence.

The schools have attendance requirements. The students know this (often in the form of a school handbook they have to sign and acknowledge) as do the parents.

Freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our country. It should never be infringed. Ever.

That said, the schools need to have fixed policies that they follow. Students can coordinate to do these events after school or on a non-school day. They also can choose to do it as they are while knowing they will have to face the consequences as laid out in the school policy. (Note that I do NOT agree in any way with threats of additional action!)

 

[telephone89]

Yeah it is totally disgusting behavior. Horrifying. I wouldn't group all Americans together here but will say people tend to support what *they* want and will rationalize why. And it often makes no sense. But that IMO are what people in general do no matter where they live.

Absolutely right, I should not have said that, and I apologize as obviously from this thread there are many many other americans who do not feel that way. That was my error!

 

[TooPatient]

I could give the situation with the british a couple a pass, as I do understand a safety issue of randos on campus (even if it was totally OTT). But cops patrolling the school to stop kids from protesting? Thats total bullsh*t.

I would tend to agree with you.

The only way I can even begin to accept the patrolling as okay is if the school is like a few I have heard about from local parents. Kids "protesting" in these schools often escalates to seriously violent behavior. If the patrols were at a school where that was a concern and if they were just standing by as students protested to make sure they were around in case it turned violent (in a place where violence had been an ongoing issue), then I might say they were justified in being there. Anything other than that (barring additional details) is not right.

 

[telephone89]

Here is a question to think about...
Would people still feel the same way about the schools' reactions if it was for a cause they didn't agree with?

What if some kids chose to go to an NRA rally and miss a part of the school day without a signed parent note? My answer would be that they broke the school rules and needed to face the same penalty (Saturday school or suspension) as they would for any other unexcused absence.

The schools have attendance requirements. The students know this (often in the form of a school handbook they have to sign and acknowledge) as do the parents.

Freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our country. It should never be infringed. Ever.

That said, the schools need to have fixed policies that they follow. Students can coordinate to do these events after school or on a non-school day. They also can choose to do it as they are while knowing they will have to face the consequences as laid out in the school policy. (Note that I do NOT agree in any way with threats of additional action!)

I'm going to bet kids have taken longer bathroom breaks than 17 minutes. Do they have a timer and also get suspended for 5 days? It is not skipping class, it is missing a portion of it.
Unless their protest was hateful (ie neo nazi rally), I don't see the issue with kids missing 20m of school.

 

[TooPatient]

I'm going to bet kids have taken longer bathroom breaks than 17 minutes. Do they have a timer and also get suspended for 5 days? It is not skipping class, it is missing a portion of it.
Unless their protest was hateful (ie neo nazi rally), I don't see the issue with kids missing 20m of school.

Definitely depends on the school. The one I attended had a security guard and resource officer. They and the principal would wander through the halls and restrooms and would assign detention if you were "using the bathroom" (as in not really using but used it to get out of class). Each instructor had policies too. Some were as strict as allowing two bathroom breaks per semester and no more than 5 minutes (any need for an exception could be taken up with the teacher or school nurse or parent note) or detention was assigned.

Yes, I did go to a rather strict school! I'm not saying it is necessarily right, just that it is what some schools do and I'd rather they have a predictable rule system rather than one that you don't know what to expect.

ETA: our classes were each 45 minutes long so missing 20 minutes was serious!

 

[Tekate]

Well, my son takes exception to the fact that he's addicted to video games, but he is.. he says he does it for relaxation.. his brother says "dude you're addicted" ... I don't even think it matter really, whether a person is 'addicted' to guns, I have no interest, desire, care or want Red to have a gun or shoot a gun, been there done it. I'll leave guns to those who want them.. but as I said and have always said, banning them won't work, strict laws would help.

Maybe demonize was too harsh in this particular article's case. But I take exception to the comparison to addicts because that indicates a problem that needs to be overcome. I agree banning guns won't work.

 

[redwood66]

Well, my son takes exception to the fact that he's addicted to video games, but he is.. he says he does it for relaxation.. his brother says "dude you're addicted" ... I don't even think it matter really, whether a person is 'addicted' to guns, I have no interest, desire, care or want Red to have a gun or shoot a gun, been there done it. I'll leave guns to those who want them.. but as I said and have always said, banning them won't work, strict laws would help.

On the video games. I think society is addicted to electronics/smartphones as well. It might prove to be a bigger problem than we can even imagine. Time will tell. BTW I don't want you to have a gun either.