That is the part that befuddles me with their whole argument. Every other country in the world has these games, movies, and TV... have they seen some of the stuff coming out of Japan and parts of Europe. They all have equally violent games and movies, and they don't have the same problem. And as was pointed out by CrushBug, they are all Rated M games.

They all have "mentally ill" people too... and don't have the same problem. Another argument that makes no sense, given that one of their first actions was to make it easier for "mentally ill" people to get guns. Though as I understand it that hasn't gone into effect yet, it's still the principle of saying "it's mental illness" while making it easier for those you are blaming. Not to mention every version of their attempts to get rid of Obamacare included massive cuts to mental health programs.

The fact that all these people are the same people who scream "right to life" in regards to abortion, and that's why they vote Republican (a party that loves war and the death penalty), is a bit odd since they seem to love their right to own a gun far more than the tons of lives snuffed out by said guns each year. I'd be more or less happy enough, for now, to just end the Dickey amendment and see how the data works out. But no, they still refuse to do that... probably because the NRA has an idea of where that data will go.

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

I'm all in favour of sticking strongly to ones convictions, but politics needs to include compromise. I think part of the current problem in the US is the winner takes all attitude you reference and exhibit that both parties have been playing from since Bush/Clinton days at the least.

Stating that the correct answer on the death penalty debate, war against dictator from whereveristan, public/private healthcare, abortion, federal definition of marriage are ALL non-negotiable moral high grounds where your side will never give an inch and let the country burn if that's what it takes is causing the current chaos. Trump got elected in large part on exactly this course of backlash against not just the political status quo, but additionally the left's steadfast push that all these issues where 'solved' and sacred and must morally never lean back towards the right.

The Supreme Court is why the right will never condemn Trump no matter how vile he is. So long as they hold the Senate and the Presidency, they have a chance to overturn gay marriage and possibly Roe V Wade or at least limit it greatly... of course they remain pro-war, pro-death penalty and anti-affordable health care, but will claim to be pro-life.

"Unaware they were required to testify honestly during prior court appearances for the death penalty case"....sweet zombie Jesus...they are so dumb they actually SAID that?!?
Another prime example of why I can't serve on a jury. When asked about prejudice, I always admit I'm prejudiced against cops because they are trained to lie in their duties, and I don't trust trained liars to ever tell the truth.
This case proves that point quite well.
If only I were dishonest like them I could serve on juries and never convict based on police supplied testimony or evidence...but I'm not.

Another one for your collection.

"Sheriff Sandra Hutchens claims the veteran officers were unaware they were required to testify honestly during prior court appearances for the death penalty case marred by astonishing degrees of government cheating."

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/orange-county-sheriffs-deputies-refuse-to-testify-under-oath-in-jailhouse-snitch-scandal-8139758

Since everyone in his family, and a large percentage of his campaign managers all coordinated with Russia before taking office, and we're recorded illegally making promises to act on Russia's behalf as soon as they took power, he's almost certainly afraid his whole administration will be indicted for treason, a crime that includes the death penalty as a possible sentence. That fear might make even a reasonable person try to hide the crimes, and Trump's no reasonable person. It's surprising he hasn't offered all his staff a preemptive presidential pardon yet, or at least an order to not testify anywhere.

This means, by law, Trump should have his security clearance suspended pending the completion of the investigation, along with his entire staff.

I wish she wouldn't use the term "pro-lifers" when referring to anti-abortion advocates. They support the death penalty (despite Jesus saying it wasn't an eye for an eye, and despite the fact He said "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.…", and more and more that show He wouldn't support the death penalty, even if they had done something, which is their usual defense when defending their support of the death penalty), they love war (though Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" and was clearly against war)... seems the Republican Christians in fact aren't pro-life at all, they are very anti-life, just anti-abortion... which is a fine stance to take if you want, just don't lie and say you are pro-life when you don't give a fuck about that life after it is born... they want to get rid of all programs that help the needy and poor too... though Sodom's sin was not doing enough to help the needy and poor, and many would also note that the Bible is clear that it was also guilty of being hostile to foreigners (though most will also agree that sexual immorality played a role, but it wasn't Sodom's sin by a long shot since the Bible names that specifically as being not helping the needy and poor).

and what angle would that be?
YOU said mike ward was "rightly sued" for basically calling a kid ugly,and i asked for you to explain how this is a legal matter.

or is it your contention that because mike ward "punched down" instead of "punching up" IS the legal precedent?

what if he spoke on how ugly patton oswald is?
or ridiculed michael j fox's parkinsons?

would THAT be acceptable?
or would that be acceptable,but just in poor taste?

and you still haven't addressed how this young boys reputation has been ruined.from what i have been reading it was not his reputation,but how mike wards joke had become semi-popular and the kids in his school started busting this young boys balls to a degree where school was becoming an anxiety riddled event for the young man.

why aren't his school mates also being fined?
i mean,if we are going to bring in the state to handle every and all social issues..let us at least be fair.

and what about the people in the audiences that found the joke funny?
aren't they contributing to the continuation of this young mans suffering in school?

see,i think you are viewing this as a bullying situation (my assumption),and you are viewing this young man as a victim.a victim to bad jokes done in poor taste,and maybe you are correct,but jokes are subjective..NOT objective..and there is no tangible evidence that this young mans reputation has been affected.

it is the INTENT of the joke that should be scrutinized,and that is something that is also subjective and an issue we all deal with on an individual basis.the legal system should NEVER be used to decide such arbitrary and subjective material,because now you setting precedent and punishment based on "feelings",and this tactic can be easily abused.

so you may "feel" mike wards jokes are offensive and damaging,and that in your country mike ward should be executed for his crimes (fascist much?).

but remember...that pandoras box door swings BOTH ways,and the abuse can come from a direction that you,and i for that matter,would be appalled in its application.

and to even suggest that this is not a free speech issue is incredibly naive'.
if you think being charged in a civil case,and having to show in court multiple times to defend "joke" with the possibility of even MORE financial hardship,will not affect how a comedian approaches his routine and the jokes he writes,you are simply NOT thinking this whole situation through and the unintended consequences of situations such as these.

this is most certainly a free speech issue.

let me give you a hypothetical,but using the same parameters.

the wesboro baptist church goes to protest an abortion clinic,and are met with counter protesters.

the counter protesters begin to chastise and berate the westboro people.ridicule their stance on abortion and their religion.so much so that one of the younger westboro children becomes distraught,and anxious and begins to cry.someone films the exchange and posts to youtube,and it goes viral.

now the young westboro kid is being harassed in school,being picked on and being called names.the young kid is so vexed and humiliated that he avoids school at every step and is having self esteem issues.

so much so that the westboro church decides to sue the counter protesters in court.

what do you think the outcome should be?
should they even be allowed to sue?
and if so,should the young westboro kid receive damages?
or should those counter protesters receive the death penalty in your country?

do you see what i am saying?
you getting what i am laying down?

because free speech means that you are free to express yourself,but you are NOT free from offense,and offense is subjective.what offends YOU might not offend ME,and vice versa.

free speech means you are free to express every little thought that pops into your pretty little head and share with the world,and i am free to ridicule you relentlessly if i so choose.

and i will.
with gusto.

I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle.

Why should this comedian feel like he needs to take the low hanging fruit of making fun of a disabled boy?
He doesn't. He shouldn't.
Everything he cops after that is fair game.
He's lucky he didn't get the death penalty for making fun of a disabled boy, because that's the minimum sentence in my country.

@gorillaman

It's almost as if some countries have different cultural values than the United States. For example:

Japan:
--Distributing pornography is illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine (under Article 175 of the Penal Code, which defines pornography as showing the naughty parts of a man or woman, hence mosaics on all Japanese porn)
--Domestic violence and rape laws are often unenforceable
--LGBT community has almost no legal recourse in the face of discrimination of virtually any kind (housing, work, banking, etc.)

America itself has its share of bat-shit insane laws (from the rest of the world's perspective at least) such as legalized death penalty, and "well-intentioned" Christians are still fighting to deny gay people the right to marry in court at this very moment.

Should we come to the conclusion that Americans and Japanese people are "bad people" because these laws exist? Or maybe, as Ahmed Ahmed suggested, we should stop lumping huge groups of people (in the case of Muslims literally millions of people from an extremely culturally diverse group of countries) together and assuming they're all alike and believe exactly the same things?

There are systems other than democracy which have the kind of cheques and a balances you are referring to.

Just that not all of them place that power indiscriminately in the hands of the demos. e.g. a Meritocratic system expects its voters to earn their votes by demonstrating competence in a given field (those qualified in healthcare can vote to choose administrators of health etc.)

Democracy as we know it is a deeply unsophisticated way of attending to the problems you describe. There are alternatives that may well prove better, were we to actually try them.

It's pretty clear actual unlimited democracy doesn't work as no country in the modern world uses it. So it appears it's only the recourse to peaceful regime change that's important here, not necessarily the means by which it is achieved.

But even then, that blow off valve is usually defined in pretty narrow parameters and the political landscape carefully maintained by societies elites. Were it not, the aforementioned repeal of the death penalty and such would likely have doomed the ruling regime to be replaced by something more representative of the demos's backwards attitudes.

Hell I could even conceive of ways to just apply enough of that same veneer of democratic accountability to Sophocracy, technocracy and Noocracy, without resorting to a full blown meritocracy or oligarchy. One need only define the parameters that limit the demos in a way which demands leadership candidates have requisite qualities/qualifications.

It really could be very similar to what we have now, but with the parameters shifted to define a different sort of viable candidate.

It's already a hybrid of elite and demos, just redefine the elite and let the demos keep the blow off valve within the new parameters.

And then one day in the future perhaps, leaders will not always have to be emotionally flawed humans?

Again democracy cant decide the death penalty, abortions, taxes, religion, defense spending and all the other puny details. Democracy can choose leaders, agendas and assign responsibility.

Noocracy is just a new name for despotism, you let inteligent people have their way, the first thing they do is take care of themselves. Stupid people must have a fair representation. Experiments are being conducted to just let them think they have a fair representation, but I am afraid they may not be that stupid. I mean I hope they (we) are not.

Democracy is fairly simple and straightforward - either there is a way to change the ruler or there is not. Putin cant lose. Erdogan cant lose. Chinese communist party cant lose. Castro cant lose. Not democracy. Obviously the details of implementation are very nuanced, like if there are only two parties is that democracy? Etc.

Basically if the ruler makes it impossible for himself to be deposed peacefully democracy ends.

So let us assume some artificial system to pick perfect leaders could be devised. They would have no responsibility (after all they are the best possible leader) no compassion (everyone else is stupid) and no motivation (Im no. 1 so why try harder). Add a secret police and Stalinist Russia is born.

The ignorant herd is painfully hit and miss, but so is the stock market. This is still preferable to any dictator, even a clever one.

Will it? Or might the ignorant heard instead frequently shit all over something that lies beyond their own foresight, self interest and/or ill considered sensibilities?

By way of example, the abolition of the death penalty was opposed by the majority population in the UK up until about 2015 (it was introduced in 1965)

Likewise with equal voting rights, the abolition of slavery, child labour and so on (though I don't have numbers/dates for those to hand).

I realise the question of democracy is more nuanced than that, but there are enough examples of progress despite popular opinion to seriously call it into question.

I just can't help but shake the notion that the most successful and free democratic societies tend to be those most limited by political elites within them. (this can of course work both ways)

I will agree however that the illusion of democracy certainly seems to do wonders for keeping the baying pitchforks at bay.

A cycle of violent revolution does not seem at all preferable I agree. Clearly we are going to need a bit of both, a meritocratically regulated Noo perhaps? (i.e. earned but readily accessible votes for the demos to influence an elite Noo)

Though of course the problems with establishing that are also legion. I suspect that ultimately unless/until we create a mind greater than our own (A.I. or somesuch), it's always going to be a bit of a shit sandwich.

I don't think the systems are usually the real problem. I think it's just that people as groups are bloody awful.

All hail the mighty Noosphere!

Edit: I'm using Noo here to refer to the higher functions of the hypothetical collective brain. Strictly speaking everyone is part of the theoretical Noo and the anticipated harmony which it would/could grow into.