I've been watching the news a lot recently and something came to mind: What if after the forensics team fixes the computer of the killer(who will not be named) they find out he was reading your (violent or adult content) webcomic?
How would you feel? Does it prove anything? Would the recent events on the news change the way you write adult/violent content?
How do you feel about the NRA talking about censoring more violence in our society at large?

That US NRA are a joke. An absolute joke.
Guns are the only issue. Games, movies, art in general is a reflection and a magnification of the society that spawns it. At most it reaffirms and reinforces beliefs that are already there.
 
Go back in time and ask a member of the Mongol horde what he was reading or playing on his Nintendo as he rampaged across Asia... :)
Or do an experiment: Give one Mongol warrior an AR-15, show him how to use it... Then give another a PS3 game system with Left 4 Dead on it, and how him how to play.
 - Which one would end up killing more people? ^_^
 
I think that's a simple but effective thought experiment that explains the obvious logic flaws in the arguments of the NRA.
 
People kill people, and guns are the very best technology available to them to accomplish that.

Ocean is right.  If your populace in general values such things as honor and integrity, everyone could walk around with loaded bazookas and we'd all be fine.
.
I like to point to Japan after the Tidal Wave vs New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to illustrate this.  After Katrina, there was unbeliavable amounts of looting, destruction, mayhem, and violence (this has nothing to do with the whether the US Govt should have helped more - the disaster still brought out the worst in thousands regardless of that)
.
On the other hand, in Japan after the Tidal Wave, there was very little looting and violence.  In fact, most of the found items in which the owners were identifiable were returned to those owners if possible.
.
What is the difference?  Easy.  In Japan, personal honor matters.  Even if you've lost everything, you still have honor.  Indeed, you're the only one that can lose it (by giving it up).  In the US, Honor is just a quant byword for too many...
.
btw, Japan has some pretty violent media outlets (movies, games, manga, porn *shivers*) and yet we don't see their populace using that as an excuse for mowing down kids.
.
Now, how to instill honor in a society that has lost it?  That is a bugger right there...

It sounds like you're making the exact opposite point Ozone was making... but it's a very good point! You're definitely on to something, but you missed one salient point when you referred to Japanese "society" versus American "society" bringing out the best and worst in people, respectively. It's not the societies that produce those results, but the cultures of those individuals who live there. It's an important distinction, because culture travels easier. There are very few shootings, or murders of any kind, in Japan any given year, and likewise in the United States very few murderers or murder victims are Japanese. They bring their nonviolent culture with them to the United States. Supposedly lax American gun laws don't suddenly turn them into a bunch of trigger-happy savages.
 
Americans, on the other hand, produce more mass shooters than any other country, but then we also produce more serial killers. But we don't, by any stretch of the imagination, hold a monopoly in either of those categories. As morally and ideologically pleasing as it may be, it's something of an intellectual cop-out to suggest that if America had European-style gun laws, we'd have European-style homicide rates, or even European-style gun prevalence. There are tremendous cultural differences there which you can't leave out of the assessment.
 
(I already responded to the main part of the topic on the other site where this was posted, so I won't get into that again. Just wanted to piggyback off of some thoughts I had reading KimLuster's post.)

Yeah, I misread Ocean abit...
.
I originally took it that he was suggesting that it's mindsets more inclined to killing that result in... well, more killing, regardless of the technology available (ie, his Mongols example). 
.
In any case, my Japanese example was just to show that a particular culture can behave very differently (ie, better) than another culture based solely on personal values, all while having access to the same potentially deadly technology.  (my example used looting instead of killing, but I think the comparison is still valid).
.
And of course it's cultural.  That's sort my point.  Where honor and Integrity are instilled as  cultural values, someone with them will exhibit them even if their country (or a country they move to) is reduced to anarchy.
.
Carried to its logical conclusion, I don't believe any amount of law changes or banning of arms will much change things in the U.S.  No, somehow, the U.S. culture must change so that personal honor matters (you know, the strange notion that randomly killing a bunch of people relfects badly on your character, honor, and family, and that matters...).  I'm not sure it can be done in my generation, if ever.

You were right in your interpretation of the culture point I was making - That's in regards to "violent" video games, movies, and comics not being responsible for real violence.
Gun laws do make a very obvious difference though, that was my other point - You restrict the availably of firearms and then they are not very easy to get a hold off when one idiot thinks they'll show everyone what a loser they are.
 
It's mathematically simple, like 1+1 simple. Saying they don't make a difference defies logic and reality.
One traditional response is - "But they'll get a hold of them anyway"
People will attempt to obtain what they want regardless of laws, but if availability is physically restricted that makes it too difficult and most people give up. All you have to do is restrict the availability of dangerous firearms  and all those millions of people who just pick them up and use them to deal with an argument or work out their petty anger are out of the picture.
 
The thing is not to try and eliminate gun violence all together, just to reduce it. That's achievable.
 
Other traditional arguments:
- Very determined people will get them anyway.
--- Yes they will. But you have to start somewhere.
 
- The populace needs to be armed to keep the government honest.
--- If that were true your country is already fucked. When political opposition and the judiciary fails an armed populace are nothing. Fully organised resistance with military equipment and support of parts of the military or the police or a foreign power is the only hope. Unorganised civilians with their own little guns are nothing but chaff.
 
- The "good guys" need weapons to defend themselves from the "bad guys".
--- No they don't. The difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" is that the baddies shoot first. If you're dead your gun won't revive you.
If you shoot first then you're the baddie anyway.
Other than that it devolves into 80s A-Team action fantasy.
 
- People will just use other weapons.
--- Yup, but guns are better than any other hand weapon developed; you can't outrun them, hide from them, armour yourself against them, and they can be used to kill many, many people quickly at one time.
The only other type of weapons that come close are things like bombs which you cannot easily get, are just as dangerous to the handler and require skill to acquire, build, and use.
Guns don't have any of those issues.

The NRA is funded by the gun industry, so they are biased in favor of allowing people to buy guns. This puts them in the interesting position of trying to get people to buy guns (which is mostly done by fear of other people with guns) yet at the same time trying to say guns are not the problem.
I do not know of any research they have done into what increases violence in people.
However, research has been done that shows violent children shows like the Powerrangers increases violence in children.
There are a lot of factors about what causes gun related crimes. Focusing on one will not even start to solve the problem as will draw attention from other causes. Instead, they should focus on if the guns should be allowed to be sold. When the American Constitution and Bill of Rights was made, muskets were the most advanced guns around. When it takes about half a minute to reload between shots, there were not likely to be many shooting sprees. Also, at the time there was no official police force to protect people, so guns were needed, but less dangerous. Criminals were also killed much more often, so less chance of hardened criminals with guns and nothing to lose.
The first man recorded to go on a shooting spree was a WWII vetran who used guns he brought on the black market.
Unless someone is unable to distinguise between reality and fantasy, comics would not influence them greatly. The only way it could was if it was part of what is called "normalisation" where people come to accept things they consider wrong to be normal. This takes years and they must be immersed in a culture that promotes those things as normal. Just watching the news would probably be worse then reading a violent comic.
About the comparision between New Orleans and Japan, the culture is totally different. In Western countries, we are raised to think of ourselves first and others second. In Asian countries, they are raised to think about the family and community first, and then only about themselves. They also are taught to value politness and respect greatly, as it helps keep the community functioning with less problems. In Western countries we are taught to compeat with others to get what we want.

That's something I've heard more than once from people, from Asian and European backgrounds, that Americans are an unusually competitive bunch of people. I'm not sure that it's absolutely true, but it probably at least says something that so many people make that observation about us.

Though I can't really put it more succinctly than ozoneocean, I will heartilly concur with him.When invading civillizations cut muderous swathes across other continents, there was no Marvel comics and no XBox.
Lunatics will always try to justify their actions by blaming them on GTA or the Terminator movies.  These days it's comics and console games, last decade the trend was to blame movies and years ago it was Beatles albums.
The trouble now is, rather than ignore this clap-trap, the press do the blame aportioning for them and try to get all forms of entertainment banned.
As someone living outside of America, I can only scratch my head in disbelief at the NRA's response to 212's umpteenth high school shooting by suggesting that at least one teacher comes to work packing heat, rather than having tighter gun controls.
From what is read in the media, Adam Lanza - the young man who shot dead 20 children and 6 adults at a local school - was a long-term schizophrenic patient who had access to a number of guns in his home:- This was the cause of the tragic events of that day, not entertainment and literature.
So the next time someone says, 'well that person played C.O.D. or watched The Dark Knight or read comic books', inform them that no amount of book-burning will ever be as effective a life-safer as getting rid of weapons that can kill vast amounts of people in minimal amounts of time.

ozoneocean [..] wrote:
Go back in time and ask a member of the Mongol horde what he was reading or playing on his Nintendo as he rampaged across Asia... :)

I'm bothered I have to point this out since I basically agree with you, but that logic is so, so flawed:  "You hypothesise that a dog is a creature with four legs.  That cannot be because creatures with four legs were around long before dogs". *facepalm*  If A causes B it doesn't follow that C doesn't also cause B.
 
In a way it works counter to your point since it opens the door for: "Mongols were a violent people, but then they were raised from youth in a warrior culture prepared for war.  Since that's not the case in our society, something must be substituting for it.  Hmm, how about games that simulate violence, maybe?".
 
Thing is, I don't buy it.  You just have to watch someone play hours of Call of Duty then freak out when someone accidentally cuts themselves to realise that it doesn't translate.  Our brains know it's not real.  We know that we're training hard to pretend fight, and we know on a basic level that doing it for real is very different.
 
Fact is, the causes of violence are complex.  There are lots and lots of them and they interact with each other.  Does poverty contribute? Probably.  Glorification of crime in the media (Hi Dexter and Gangster Rap! :) )?  Glorification of the military?  General atmosphere of fear and stress? Probably. Probably. Probably.  And easy access to firearms sure doesn't help.  But will a poor, stressed person with a gun raised in a culture that glorifies war, listens to Gangster rap and plays violent computer games turn to violence? Maybe, maybe not.
BTW, if they're looking at banning violent computer games they probably should look at banning contact sports too - they're blatantly ritualised combat substitutes.  I'm sure they're looking into banning Gridiron, right? *the sound of crickets permeates the silence* P.S. To answer the original question: Is it bad that I would probably feel "Yay, more traffic for me!"? >_>
 
Re: the NRA, fact is they're arguing for an untenable postion. People with guns sometimes use those guns to kill other people.  The NRA's position is that guns are a god-given right and intrinsically good.  Therefore they can only point their finger at the "people" part of the equation (which is also a balancing act since they're simultaneously trying to argue that it's just fine for people to have guns).  But you know what they say - guns don't kill people.  Bullets do... :/ Ohey, I think I just discovered the root cause of violence: It's DrunkDuck's quoting/message editing system... -_-