Very lame. I've been a member of the NRA by a yearly basis for about 4 years now. I pay the lowest yearly membership that you can. I've seen a number of things and certain political endorsements I haven't been too thrilled with but I think this takes the cake. I'm done.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
NRA Blames Video Games For Violence
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
What about the scenario where the kid goes into the teacher's desk and retrieves their gun and shoots it off in the classroom. Teacher goes to the bathroom or is helping little Johnny and the next thing you know some kid is waving the toy he found. Little kids like to experiment with toys and are determined to mess with things no matter how many times you tell them.
Or maybe we should have gun training for 5 year old kids so they know not to mess with the teachers pistol. I guess that's a solution. The only person with a gun in school should be the police officer stationed at that particular school.
I'm sure a loaded gun wouldn't be sitting in an open drawer.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
No, Violent video games did.
Now we're getting somewhere!
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
So you would do what? Lock the drawer? That could likely prevent the gun from being reached when it was needed. Do you keep the gun on the teacher's person? That's dangerous too, and it could be taken from them if they are around kids.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
To play devils advocate, I don't think they're completely wrong. The amount of violence that people are exposed to, through any media (The News, Games, Movies, Music, etc), probably does account for a small roll in things like this.
Thats not to say that it will turn an good kid into a killer, but I can see where it 'could' push a troubled person over the edge, give them ideas or delusions of grandeur. With that said, however, I think it's short sighted to say that any one thing is to blame for these things. Crazy people will be crazy, regardless of what they're exposed to. It seems to me that parents, social workers, doctors, teachers (etc) should be better educated to spot warning signs that someone might do something like this and be proactive about it. As we currently stand, it seems like something is ONLY done once it's too late.
Thats not to say that it will turn an good kid into a killer, but I can see where it 'could' push a troubled person over the edge, give them ideas or delusions of grandeur. With that said, however, I think it's short sighted to say that any one thing is to blame for these things. Crazy people will be crazy, regardless of what they're exposed to. It seems to me that parents, social workers, doctors, teachers (etc) should be better educated to spot warning signs that someone might do something like this and be proactive about it. As we currently stand, it seems like something is ONLY done once it's too late.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
Oh, and forgot to mention... the NRA is clearly deflecting this (and honestly, they shouldn't even have to... they're not responsible for what happened) away from themselves and onto the next scapegoat.
Why is it only the deranged gunman that will get the surprise shot out, and not either the armed police officer, or the armed teacher? Why do we assume that every murderous nutjob is going to think more clearly and react more quickly than normal people?
Right. Because the gunman won't think "wait, this school has armed teachers...maybe I should try another one". And before you predictably roll your eyes and scoff, I should point out something.
All mass shootings since the 1950s, claiming 3 or more victims, (with one exception)were carried out in "gun-free zones". Are you going to claim it's a big coincidence that shooters with big body counts on their minds go to places where they know they'll be the only one with a firearm?
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
Actually it's the media that promotes mentally unstable people going on a shooting spree, here is a video that explains what is going wrong with these incidenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5uwAo8lcAC4
It would only take 10% These areas are picked because the shooters can be reasonably confident that nobody will shoot back. If you thought 10 of the 100 teachers on campus was going to pop one in your ass you'd likely find an easier target.
MIghty Hooligan
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2012
- Messages
- 56
I will agree that guns have only one purpose, however let us not forget that it is guns that has over the years given many the power to protect themselves that may not have been able to without them.
What about the scenario where the kid goes into the teacher's desk and retrieves their gun and shoots it off in the classroom. Teacher goes to the bathroom or is helping little Johnny and the next thing you know some kid is waving the toy he found. Little kids like to experiment with toys and are determined to mess with things no matter how many times you tell them.
That's why you'd have to require training for teachers to carry firearms, just like training is required for anyone who carries a firearm in their job. If a teacher is reckless, they no longer get to carry. If a teacher doesn't want to carry, don't force them. Simple enough.
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
That is true, but my post is about the comparison between a gun and a car being a very faulty one.
Then, as you just admitted, guns have purposes besides killing things. They're also designed to damage things, like the bodies of assailants. Since 85% of gunshot wounds are survived, they do this pretty well.
There's nothing more satisfying than when an opponent completely loses their shit and gets personal for no other reason than that they are being argued into a corner.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Of course you would need to secure a weapon. I, personally, wouldn't be giving guns to teachers. Maybe a Principal, a security officer and Groundskeeper Willie.
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
So where would this end? If a gunman doesn't want to shoot up a school because of the people carrying guns, they'll shoot up the playgrounds or the parks or the pre-schools. Will we have roving bands of armed citizens to protect us after shootings happen in the streets?
And where was this logic when the shooting at the theater happened during the Dark Knight Rises showing? It's because that WOULDN'T WORK. The shooter was more than capable of purchasing riot gear that would have protected him from most small arms fire, and was using tear gas.
And from all this, all you can think of is "More guns". Wow. Just wow.
It might well be. Some states require that all weapons in your home be locked up when not in use. "Excuse me, Mr. Rapist/Burglar/Nutjob...could you possibly wait while I unlock this safe, take out my handgun, load it, rack it, take off the trigger lock, and disengage the safety? Thanks loads!"
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,707
Do violent video games draw people towards violence, or are violent people drawn to violent video games ...
He hasnt been argued into a corner, he validly pointed out a terrible analogy.
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,022
OFCOURSE! It's not the guns that can kill MANY MANY people in a short period of time!
It's the videos games!
It's the videos games!
Well of course it's reactionary. Just like a person who would walk into a police department, he still would take down a few with him. Of course the CCH owner in the Oregon mall confronting the shooter was reactionary too and look what happened there. The only other shot fired by the shooter after that was one...to take himself. All I'm pointing out is at this point you absolutely cannot take guns out of society. It is impossible now. And if you do ban guns the ones who will have them then will be government officials of some sort and criminals. Stuff happens.....there will always be crazies. Guns can just as readily defuse a situation as quickly as they can start one.
So wait...you're imagining a situation where gunman are discouraged from shooting up schools, and you consider it a bad thing?
Wow. Just wow.
And those roving bands of armed citizens already exist, smart guy. There are 49 states with legalized concealed carry. Latest GAO estimates eight million concealed carry permit holders in this country.
For reference, our army has just over one million personnel. Where are the wild west shootouts with all those crazy armed citizens, eh?
Funny thing about that theater...
It wasn't the closest to where he lived.
It wasn't the biggest theater in town, where there would have been more people to shoot.
...but it was the closest "gun-free" movie theater.
Think about that.
Says the guy who is afraid of what might happen if deranged people stop shooting up schools.
Telling someone to grow up and to "not vomit BS" is a valid point in what universe?
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
Argued into a corner? Holy shit, you are delusional. You do realize that guns are designed to KILL their targets, and that if the recipient doesn't die it's entirely by mistake, right? Bullets spin, and that serves two purposes: 1) it increases both range and accuracy. 2) it tears up and rips through the tissue of the body as it goes through. By comparison, you're much more likely to survive having a 9 inch spike shot into your skull than you are a bullet.
The statistic that 85% of gunshot wounds are survivable is a really bad statistic because it is per bulletshot wound. You'd better hope your assailant decides to give up after 1 shot miraculously (or you play dead, which in some cases, can save your life). Secondly, that includes gunshot wounds that enter parts of the body that would have no chance or little chance to kill you. That includes getting shot in the arm, foot, stomach, shoulder, lower face, which unless you bleed out won't likely kill you. Of course, if you do, then it's the bleeding out that killed you, not the "bullet".
Naw..that would make sense.
Truth is, even you banned every gun, the kooks would just use
something else to do the crazy.
What about this list?
http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2008/10/23/the-butcher’s-bill-–-non-gun-mass-murders/
The kooks need treatment, thats where are efforts should be now.
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
So wait...you're imagining a situation where gunman are discouraged from shooting up schools, and you consider it a bad thing?
Wow. Just wow.
And those roving bands of armed citizens already exist, smart guy. There are 49 states with legalized concealed carry. Latest GAO estimates eight million concealed carry permit holders in this country.
For reference, our army has just over one million personnel. Where are the wild west shootouts with all those crazy armed citizens, eh?
Funny thing about that theater...
It wasn't the closest to where he lived.
It wasn't the biggest theater in town, where there would have been more people to shoot.
...but it was the closest "gun-free" movie theater.
Think about that.
Says the guy who is afraid of what might happen if deranged people stop shooting up schools.
Your solution is to have them kill people somewhere else. That's a terrible solution.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...403x403/75527_545211678841085_656943787_n.jpg
Car analogies are lame and yet this made me chuckle anyways.
Car analogies are lame and yet this made me chuckle anyways.
durandal1707
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 3
Yeah, because 6 year olds concealed carry all the time. All this would do is make the teacher the primary target. The teacher could have been armed in this last case and it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. The guy was prepared. He opens the door, takes out he teacher and presto no more threat.
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,022
Brilliant Idea. Because teaching ticense coincides with gun license. If you don't want to carry a gun, then no teaching for you.
Next up let's arm the popcorn servers at the movie theaters.
At first one could think this, until you come to the realization that just as many humans were killed annually before any of these technologies ever existed (of course the increase in the population of humans has to be factored into this). Shit, I'm positive sick fucks did this kind of shit with swords in year 0. The mayans supposedly killed like 60,000 people before in some short amount of time just to celebrate their newly built temple. Things like this have happened since the beginning of animals. Humans are literally animals, animals can literally be killers. Protection of ones life is a natural right! With any means accessible.
There will always be humans that are crazy, point, blank, period. The only way to prevent this is to start finding genetic traits in the DNA and ridding the population of people with murderous tendencies. Yeah, playing god, I'm sure this will go well too!
Last thing, so if there are no guns for legal citizens, how would I stop some an almost 7 foot giant from trying to kill me/breaking into my house/robbing me/raping me/etc? Isn't that the reason why we humans created weapons in the first place? To try and stop the big bad motherfuckers from constantly taking and killing from the little motherfuckers!
No guns, great, now the biggest and baddest fucks will just go back to slamming people on their necks. Last thing, some crazily trained up MMA fighter/solider could've killed those kids just as quickly with his bare hands or a spear or a brick or a toilet seat cover. Just saying.
...and if a student gets the teachers gun, he could be the next
perpetrator, or harm himself.
I think guns in school is a BAD idea.
Put one or two cops out front is what I suggest.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Where are you getting this stuff from?
Depends on what kind of bullet you're talking about. Do you know the difference between hollow-point ammunition(which is intended to cause more damage) and full metal jacket ammunition(which is mainly intended for range practice)? Are we talking HydraShok rounds? How about shotshells or frangible ammo? You're acting like every bullet is exactly the same.
In addition, guns are not designed to kill anything, as you've already stated. They're designed to focus an explosion in one direction to push out a metal projectile that will pierce and penetrate dense objects. If it's the head, then yes it will probably kill you. If it's the torso, it will likely kill you. If it's any of your limbs, it's unlikely to kill you. 85% surviving their wounds is not "entirely by mistake". It's the difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to wound".
Wait, I thought that if a bullet doesn't kill you, it's entirely by mistake, not anything to do with where or with what you're shot! So confusing, but you're the firearms expert. Keep on keepin' on.
[facepalm] Yes, because there's just one teacher in an entire school, the rest are kids.
Your solution is not to deter them from going to schools to kill people. That's the worst solution possible.
http://www.onenewspage.com/n/US/74rki10hv/Worst-School-Massacre-Was-Bombing-in-1927.htm
The Bath School Massacre in 1927. 45 people dead, 38 of them children. No guns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...omsday-rumors_n_2313876.html?utm_hp_ref=world
On December 14th, same day as Sandy Hook, this guy stabbed 23 kids up pretty good. Thank God no one died there. No guns involved.
The Bath School Massacre in 1927. 45 people dead, 38 of them children. No guns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...omsday-rumors_n_2313876.html?utm_hp_ref=world
On December 14th, same day as Sandy Hook, this guy stabbed 23 kids up pretty good. Thank God no one died there. No guns involved.
Way to not read where I said "if they don't want to carry a firearm, don't force them".
Yes, because anyone who is a popcorn server is clearly intellectually and physically incapable of properly carrying a firearm. Well, I mean...unless they're one of the 8,000,000 or so who do that outside of work. But when they're at work, man, you gotta follow those gun-free zone signs! If you bring a gun in, well...nobody's going to stop you because they don't have one.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
I agree and you're absolutely right. However, I doubt it's a coincidence how much more common it's gotten over the last 30-40 years.
These things happened back in the 1700's even (school shootings) but it wasn't nearly as common as it seems to be today. I saw an interesting statistic, which I can't find now unfortunately (figures), showing the number of shool shootings from the early 1900's all the way up to the 1980's and it was a REALLY small number... however, from the 80's to current, the number was just staggering in contrast. I'll try to dig it up
Point being, something changed... guns existed back then and were much easier to get, but these types of things were few and far between. Today... in many places, guns are much harder to get (and in some cases, pretty much impossible) due to gun laws and regulations... but shootings are becoming more common.
Hate to beat a dead horse...but up until a few decades ago, there were no "gun-free zones".