NRA Blames Video Games For Violence

Disclaimer: It's Friday and I've been sipping a little liquor (Some might say it's a lot, I disagree)


octoberasian said:
until you find the cause to violent crimes and violent mass shootings and killings. Once you find the cause, only then can these senseless crimes be stopped or lessened.
Click to expand...

I think I found the cause to violence. Look here. Now understand what the world really is, not what they tell you on TV it is. Everyone has a right to defend themselves with current state of the art weaponry. You/them/anyone trying to take away my right to defend myself (no matter what any coward does) from threats big and small are inadvertently becoming a threat. I will not give up my weapons until the biggest threat I ever seen in my life gives up theirs first, that's all governments (they also happen to do the most damage to humanity in some aspects). After all they have the most of everything and they're selfish somewhat evil humans running the damn thing.

It might sound crazy (I don't care) but I'm just a primate living a relatively short lifespan on some mostly water world in the middle of nowhere in space. All I have is my word, passed down morals, average everything, and a means to try and protect my family from threats big and small. Personally, not trying to go tinfoil or anything but I worry about governments way more than I worry about cowards killing the innocent.

Shit, the US government alone has killed hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent citizens both foreign and domestic (mostly foreign) in the last couple decades alone. And that's just from knowing what I think I know. The world is not as pretty as some of your minds paint it to be. Yes, we're moving forward as a species but we're still primates from the animal kingdom, we just dress better, and have some cool tech now. My point is, there will always be these bad things happening until we evolve into higher primates, but these crimes are being over reported now and giving the other weaklings of the species ideas on being more than a nobody.

The truly defective humans are exploiting fear and the media. 1. Stop fearing these things and start better preparing for them. 2. Stop reporting them/over-reporting them or even allowing them to happen in the first place since cowards always attack the weak and vulnerable. Lets cut defense spending by 10% and put 4 cops at each school until the whole "shoot a school up for fame" thing passes.

The same way (some) predators attack the young or the old and sick, these fucks attack our young, weak, and vulnerable. We need to show them what happens when they do! Not baby the topic and panic over it more. They see the panic and know it gets them the reaction they wanted. They feed on this shit. We need to start dropping this fags with head shots and the rest of them thinking about doing this will get the bigger picture. That being it's not acceptable and we'll wipe them from existence.

The only other serious answer is learning more about the human brain and wiping people with these traits from existence at birth. However IMO that's like saying kill off humans all together because look at us, we can ruin anything given enough time, sometimes.

Anyone telling me taking away guns is the answer is looking for the easiest answer, not the best answer. I guess we the people will never get 3D printers worth a damn either because bad things could be made with those too.

I know this saying is so overused but if so, why don't enough people absorb it?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - BF
Click to expand...
 
yelsewshane said:
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Ask yourself would you rather some maniac kill you quickly with a gun or bash you brains in with a baseball bat. I would pefer the gun
Click to expand...

I would prefer to have and use the right to defend myself with current state of the art weaponry, but that's just me. :D
 
yelsewshane said:
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Ask yourself would you rather some maniac kill you quickly with a gun or bash you brains in with a baseball bat. I would pefer the gun
Click to expand...

Lets see a psycho with a bat or a psyscho with a semi automatic rifle carrying 30 rounds..I'll take my chances with the bat, he'll have to at least get to within range. And f I choose flight instead of fight, I can at least outrun him. But no way I'm gonna outrun a bullet.
 
Most of the folks on this forum have their heads on straight and likely enjoy a decent gaming session, so it' should be no surprise that we react adversely when somebody directs criticism at a passtime we enjoy, and which has been the economic engine behind the development of a heck of a lot of technology.

Likewise, it's understandable for Mr. LaPierre to react adversely when a political movement seeks to sieze upon one person's grave misdeeds to slander and mischaracterize something which a different set of people hold dear, and which has provided sustenance and security for countless souls through the ages.

I would submit that, following the murder of innocent children, the most regerettable aspect of this whole ordeal is that our culture has degraded to the point that our collective reaction to the actions of a lunatic is to blame and attack those things that each other hold dear, amplifying and propagating the malevolent ill-will of the evil at its epicenter.

To the extent that we persist in backstabbing each other, rather than each of us as individuals holding ourselves to the highest standards of personal conduct and expecting others to do the same we will find ourselves collectively, as a nation, incrementally deprived of our freedoms, our liberties, our joys, and eventually our lives, whether through taxation or physical molestation.

The enemy here is neither video games nor firearms; it is that which seeks to persuade us that we are not accountable and responsible for ourselves as individuals, and that some benevolent beaurocracy exists which will bring us perfect peace and harmony, nirvana, heaven on earth if only we will surrender ourselves unto it's total control, bit by bit, piece by piece. The enemy often does this by inciting some to demand and coerce the submission of others; through a process of division and conquest it eventually subjugates all.

In an ideal world, we'd all be able to play the most graphically violent video games imaginable and carry personal nuclear weapons with us wherever we went, and not a single soul would ever bring another to harm nor cause even the slightest offense. We do not live in an ideal world however, so until such time as we do, we must bear with the one in which we do live.

Let us cease this reckless passing of the buck and recognize that we, both gamers and firearms owners alike, share a common enemy; the idea that individuals are not responsible for both their own actions, and should rely invariably upon someone (or something) else for protection against the misdeeds of others.
 
Morphy said:
Lets see a psycho with a bat or a psyscho with a semi automatic rifle carrying 30 rounds..I'll take my chances with the bat, he'll have to at least get to within range. And f I choose flight instead of fight, I can at least outrun him. But no way I'm gonna outrun a bullet.
Click to expand...

You're also still no match with a bat vs a gun. :confused:
 
Stiletto said:
"If he didn't have that gun I'd totally kick his ass."

- said by most gun control advocates
Click to expand...

Luckily, if we ban guns, criminals will say, "Damn, I wanted a gun, but I'd be totally breaking the law if I got one".
 
I'm kind of in the middle when it comes to this argument, and there's good arguments on both sides. It's really hard to argue against the right to bear arms to defend yourself, but at the same time, your right to bear arms also means giving that same right to any other wacko out there.

A buddy of mine took me out shooting and let me shoot his SKS and shotgun. I'm not going to lie, it was lots of fun getting to shoot those guns, but at at the same time, it was also bit intimidating and a bit scary holding them. It almost felt wrong holding something in my hands that could so easily end someone's life.

As far as gun laws go I do think they should be at least reviewed. I don't think we should take everyone's guns away, but maybe we should look at restricting the more lethal guns. If AR-15's go bye bye and it prevents another psycho from getting his hands on one, isn't it worth it?
 
While several of your suggestions make sense, I have to take issue with some aspects of this statement:

Gun control and restrictions. - Gun control can't solve all the causes of violent crimes, only lessen them. Allow gun licensing similar to drivers license with yearly tests in both mental competence and gun safety and storage. Background checks will only do so much if a family member has access to the guns, but let that be a requirement especially mandatory on high-powered weapons. Increase punishments for those that do not secure their guns properly. Make every gun owner or potential gun owner take gun safety tests and shooting range tests, and teach them how to properly secure the gun in their own home so that a family member has no easy access to them. Restrict gun sales for customers that have family members with known mental and/or social issues, and make sure those family members get treatment before anyone purchases a gun in that household.
Click to expand...

By this logic, no one should be allowed to have a gun because basically every human being has the potential to kill another human being (people in a coma or other vegetative state might not, at least until they wake up ;) ). The fact that someone in my family or household has an issue does not necessarily mean that I am incapable of being a responsible gun owner; however, if someone in my family or household has an issue with mental health, criminal history, etc. then it is my responsibility to make the effort to ensure that they cannot access the firearms which I own.

Statistics have shown that gun violence is actually decreasing in our society while simultaneously mass killings involving guns are also decreasing. At the same time, the media has increased its focus on those few events which do occur to the point where we feel like it happens ever more frequently. If you really want to stop this kind of violent behavior in society, you need to stop giving the news agencies ratings by gobbling up every crumb they throw out for you, thereby pulling the soapbox out from under nutjobs like that Newtown shooter.
 
I forgot to mention in my last post:

I think this issue needs to be tackled from all angles. These killings don't just occur because of the accessibilities of guns, it's also mental health and society issue.
 
I don't see how an AR 15 is any more lethal than a Les Baer .308, if at all. An AR 15 is just a semi auto .223. So is a Mini 14.
 
Majinhoju said:
As far as gun laws go I do think they should be at least reviewed. I don't think we should take everyone's guns away, but maybe we should look at restricting the more lethal guns. If AR-15's go bye bye and it prevents another psycho from getting his hands on one, isn't it worth it?
Click to expand...

The more lethal guns? I can kill a man with a 10/22 .22 rifle.

My .300 Win Mag hunting rifle can take a man out, too. So can my .45. So can my SKS. So can my shotgun. Guess which one has ever killed a man? None. I do not use my guns for murder. Millions of other American's don't, either.

A psycho will get a hold of any gun. Get rid of AR's, and it will be a .38 special revolver. Keep taking them away and it will be a black powder pistol (like in the old days).
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I don't see how an AR 15 is any more lethal than a Les Baer .308, if at all. An AR 15 is just a semi auto .223. So is a Mini 14.
Click to expand...

Because it's popular and looks like an gun the army uses. Mini 14 would still probably be legal, although there is very little difference between the two (use the same exact cartridge).
 
The problem with conservatives (and liberals) is that they rely far too much on flawed utilitarian (consequentialist) arguments. The liberal argues that guns should be banned because the consequences of that action, in their opinion, is a reduction in gun violence. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the propagation of firearms is a good thing because the consequences of that action are to increase the number of people who can defend themselves against an armed aggressor.

The fundamental problem with consequentialist thinking is that, by ignoring the ethics or morality of the action itself (compared to deontological ethics), a utilitarian argument can be conceived to justify anything, no matter how immoral or unethical. Rothbard put it best :
Suppose there is a violent aversion towards redheads in a society. They are a small percentage of the population and the rest of the population is disgusted to the point of violence against them. Now according to a utiltiarian, it would be just for society to suddenly start killing off these redheads because the basic premise of utilitarianism is the maximization of society's social pleasure.
Click to expand...

At a fundamental level, there are natural rights. Natural rights derive not from the state but from human nature itself. Again, quoting Rothbard :
the nature of man is such that each individual person must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is therefore profoundly ‘antihuman’; it violates the natural law of man’s needs.”
Click to expand...

By extension, individuals also have a natural right to property. Again, quoting Rothbard :
Let us take, as our first example, a sculptor fashioning a work of art out of clay and other materials; and let us waive, for the moment, the question of original property rights in the clay and the sculptor's tools. The question then becomes: Who owns the work of art as it emerges from the sculptor's fashioning? It is, in fact, the sculptor's "creation," not in the sense that he has created matter, but in the sense that he has transformed nature-given matter — the clay — into another form dictated by his own ideas and fashioned by his own hands and energy. Surely, it is a rare person who, with the case put thus, would say that the sculptor does not have the property right in his own product. Surely, if every man has the right to own his own body, and if he must grapple with the material objects of the world in order to survive, then the sculptor has the right to own the product he has made, by his energy and effort, a veritable extension of his own personality. He has placed the stamp of his person upon the raw material, by "mixing his labor" with the clay, in the phrase of the great property theorist John Locke.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether banning guns reduces violence, it is immoral to ban them because the very act of doing such infringes upon the natural property rights of the owner of that firearm. The fact that there are convenient or positive consequences of that action cannot be used to morally justify an action that is inherently immoral (namely, the act of theft and conversion of the property of those who make firearms, those who sell them, and those who purchase them). It is unconscionable to use the acts of a few madmen to justify committing widespread acts of violent aggression upon millions of innocent people.

If anything needs gun control, it is the state that should be restricted and not the individual. It is the Department of Justice, under the illustrious leadership of Eric "The Red" Withholder that supplied violent Mexican drug cartels with firearms, directly resulting in deaths including that of Brian Terry, someone who put his life on the line in service to the state. It is the Department of "Defense" (a laughable title if there ever was one), the US military, and the CIA, under the illustrious leadership of Obama, that routinely murders innocents with drones (a cowards act if there ever was one). While Barack Obama was faking tears during his press conference, in a brazen attempt to hijack a tragedy for his own political gain, not one mention was made of the 64+ children that were murdered by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not one mention of the hundreds of other civilians murdered by drone strikes either.

The founding fathers understood that nothing is more dangerous than a government that can outgun its subjects. The second amendment was not created for self defense (even if that is a useful benefit) but was created precisely to prevent the state from disarming people and thus, enabling easier subjugation.
 
Ur_Mom said:
The more lethal guns? I can kill a man with a 10/22 .22 rifle.

My .300 Win Mag hunting rifle can take a man out, too. So can my .45. So can my SKS. So can my shotgun. Guess which one has ever killed a man? None. I do not use my guns for murder. Millions of other American's don't, either.

A psycho will get a hold of any gun. Get rid of AR's, and it will be a .38 special revolver. Keep taking them away and it will be a black powder pistol (like in the old days).
Click to expand...

Obviously any gun can kill a man. I guess I need to elaborate on my point. What I mean by a more lethal gun is a gun that can output more rounds per minute and hit more targets at once. I just used an AR-15 as an example, I'm no expert in guns.


On your last point, if a psycho entered a mall or school with a black powder pistol, i'm sure death toll would be lower than if he used a semi-auto matic rifle :p
 
damicatz said:
Regardless of whether banning guns reduces violence, it is immoral to ban them because the very act of doing such infringes upon the natural property rights of the owner of that firearm. The fact that there are convenient or positive consequences of that action cannot be used to morally justify an action that is inherently immoral (namely, the act of theft and conversion of the property of those who make firearms, those who sell them, and those who purchase them). It is unconscionable to use the acts of a few madmen to justify committing widespread acts of violent aggression upon millions of innocent people.

If anything needs gun control, it is the state that should be restricted and not the individual. It is the Department of Justice, under the illustrious leadership of Eric "The Red" Withholder that supplied violent Mexican drug cartels with firearms, directly resulting in deaths including that of Brian Terry, someone who put his life on the line in service to the state. It is the Department of "Defense" (a laughable title if there ever was one), the US military, and the CIA, under the illustrious leadership of Obama, that routinely murders innocents with drones (a cowards act if there ever was one). While Barack Obama was faking tears during his press conference, in a brazen attempt to hijack a tragedy for his own political gain, not one mention was made of the 64+ children that were murdered by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not one mention of the hundreds of other civilians murdered by drone strikes either.

The founding fathers understood that nothing is more dangerous than a government that can outgun its subjects. The second amendment was not created for self defense (even if that is a useful benefit) but was created precisely to prevent the state from disarming people and thus, enabling easier subjugation.
Click to expand...

[Nods head in agreement]

Sips more liquor....lol.

Well said!
 
WWsWG.gif
 
Majinhoju said:
Obviously any gun can kill a man. I guess I need to elaborate on my point. What I mean by a more lethal gun is a gun that can output more rounds per minute and hit more targets at once. I just used an AR-15 as an example, I'm no expert in guns.


On your last point, if a psycho entered a mall or school with a black powder pistol, i'm sure death toll would be lower than if he used a semi-auto matic rifle :p
Click to expand...

What is implied in your last statement and a lot of liberal points is that if someone is going to mass murdering, you at least want them to have to work for it? Like he better had been good at knives or something?

The one weapon none of us will never be able to stop is the human mind. It is unstoppable when giving the time to plan, which, every mass murderer seems to have. The human mind. That is the enemy of humanity and also the savior...not to be dramatic but it's true.

A man can get into a mini cooper with spikes in the front of it and mow down kids in a playground. Better yet, if he dressed up in a suit with a construction vest on, put out some signs, takes a K12 circular saw with a brand new concrete blade on it, he can cut down the concrete poles that block vehicles from entering places like malls. A few minutes is all it would take...might raise a few eyebrows but if he looks the part. Then he just grabs a maneuverable vehicle and drives over a couple hundred people inside of a mall.

See what just happened there? The saw isn't your problem. The car isn't your problem. The human mind is. Hell, I say this facetiously but if you get rid of guns so the crazy people can't use them, you are going to force them to invent and become smarter.
 
MasonD said:
Disclaimer: It's Friday and I've been sipping a little liquor (Some might say it's a lot, I disagree)




I think I found the cause to violence. Look here. Now understand what the world really is, not what they tell you on TV it is. Everyone has a right to defend themselves with current state of the art weaponry. You/them/anyone trying to take away my right to defend myself (no matter what any coward does) from threats big and small are inadvertently becoming a threat. I will not give up my weapons until the biggest threat I ever seen in my life gives up theirs first, that's all governments (they also happen to do the most damage to humanity in some aspects). After all they have the most of everything and they're selfish somewhat evil humans running the damn thing.

It might sound crazy (I don't care) but I'm just a primate living a relatively short lifespan on some mostly water world in the middle of nowhere in space. All I have is my word, passed down morals, average everything, and a means to try and protect my family from threats big and small. Personally, not trying to go tinfoil or anything but I worry about governments way more than I worry about cowards killing the innocent.

Shit, the US government alone has killed hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent citizens both foreign and domestic (mostly foreign) in the last couple decades alone. And that's just from knowing what I think I know. The world is not as pretty as some of your minds paint it to be. Yes, we're moving forward as a species but we're still primates from the animal kingdom, we just dress better, and have some cool tech now. My point is, there will always be these bad things happening until we evolve into higher primates, but these crimes are being over reported now and giving the other weaklings of the species ideas on being more than a nobody.

The truly defective humans are exploiting fear and the media. 1. Stop fearing these things and start better preparing for them. 2. Stop reporting them/over-reporting them or even allowing them to happen in the first place since cowards always attack the weak and vulnerable. Lets cut defense spending by 10% and put 4 cops at each school until the whole "shoot a school up for fame" thing passes.

The same way (some) predators attack the young or the old and sick, these fucks attack our young, weak, and vulnerable. We need to show them what happens when they do! Not baby the topic and panic over it more. They see the panic and know it gets them the reaction they wanted. They feed on this shit. We need to start dropping this fags with head shots and the rest of them thinking about doing this will get the bigger picture. That being it's not acceptable and we'll wipe them from existence.

The only other serious answer is learning more about the human brain and wiping people with these traits from existence at birth. However IMO that's like saying kill off humans all together because look at us, we can ruin anything given enough time, sometimes.

Anyone telling me taking away guns is the answer is looking for the easiest answer, not the best answer. I guess we the people will never get 3D printers worth a damn either because bad things could be made with those too.

I know this saying is so overused but if so, why don't enough people absorb it?
Click to expand...

Aristarchus said:
Most of the folks on this forum have their heads on straight and likely enjoy a decent gaming session, so it' should be no surprise that we react adversely when somebody directs criticism at a passtime we enjoy, and which has been the economic engine behind the development of a heck of a lot of technology.

Likewise, it's understandable for Mr. LaPierre to react adversely when a political movement seeks to sieze upon one person's grave misdeeds to slander and mischaracterize something which a different set of people hold dear, and which has provided sustenance and security for countless souls through the ages.

I would submit that, following the murder of innocent children, the most regerettable aspect of this whole ordeal is that our culture has degraded to the point that our collective reaction to the actions of a lunatic is to blame and attack those things that each other hold dear, amplifying and propagating the malevolent ill-will of the evil at its epicenter.

To the extent that we persist in backstabbing each other, rather than each of us as individuals holding ourselves to the highest standards of personal conduct and expecting others to do the same we will find ourselves collectively, as a nation, incrementally deprived of our freedoms, our liberties, our joys, and eventually our lives, whether through taxation or physical molestation.

The enemy here is neither video games nor firearms; it is that which seeks to persuade us that we are not accountable and responsible for ourselves as individuals, and that some benevolent beaurocracy exists which will bring us perfect peace and harmony, nirvana, heaven on earth if only we will surrender ourselves unto it's total control, bit by bit, piece by piece. The enemy often does this by inciting some to demand and coerce the submission of others; through a process of division and conquest it eventually subjugates all.

In an ideal world, we'd all be able to play the most graphically violent video games imaginable and carry personal nuclear weapons with us wherever we went, and not a single soul would ever bring another to harm nor cause even the slightest offense. We do not live in an ideal world however, so until such time as we do, we must bear with the one in which we do live.

Let us cease this reckless passing of the buck and recognize that we, both gamers and firearms owners alike, share a common enemy; the idea that individuals are not responsible for both their own actions, and should rely invariably upon someone (or something) else for protection against the misdeeds of others.
Click to expand...

These two posts are the best so far and should be read.

MrCaffeineX said:
While several of your suggestions make sense, I have to take issue with some aspects of this statement:



By this logic, no one should be allowed to have a gun because basically every human being has the potential to kill another human being (people in a coma or other vegetative state might not, at least until they wake up ;) ). The fact that someone in my family or household has an issue does not necessarily mean that I am incapable of being a responsible gun owner; however, if someone in my family or household has an issue with mental health, criminal history, etc. then it is my responsibility to make the effort to ensure that they cannot access the firearms which I own.

Statistics have shown that gun violence is actually decreasing in our society while simultaneously mass killings involving guns are also decreasing. At the same time, the media has increased its focus on those few events which do occur to the point where we feel like it happens ever more frequently. If you really want to stop this kind of violent behavior in society, you need to stop giving the news agencies ratings by gobbling up every crumb they throw out for you, thereby pulling the soapbox out from under nutjobs like that Newtown shooter.
Click to expand...

The problem is when you have Newton's shooting suspect's mother that had open access to these weapons. She didn't take any responsibility about her son nor did she seek help. What do we do about those people-- the ones with lack of responsibility for their own children?

Treating the mentally ill is one part of the equation, but unfortunately we cannot force a person to be treated unless we want to violate their individual rights if going by the ACLU.

Gun control is another part, but restrict it too much and it intrudes into the Second Amendment.

Censorship of violence on TV, movies, and games will make us no better than countries that do the same, and will intrude into the First Amendment.

So what needs to be done? How do you take out the human nature out of a human being?

Society as a whole needs to change. No law or regulation can fix that unless you want the government to start censoring everything we watch, read, listen or play.

I have always considered this to be true: The greatest weapon that a human possesses is themselves. It is neither a gun, a knife, or a nuclear bomb. We are capable of so much good but at the same time of so much evil.

Humans by nature are competitive, even the ones that claim to be anti-competitive. We try to not only better ourselves but be better than others. Newton was one of the worse school shootings in US history, someone will try to do worse. The problem is trying to prevent a repeat of history. How do we do that?

It's going to take a multi-faceted approach to this issue, but by in large, if you want to prevent it, it's going to take a large effort from ourselves. Everything needs to be proactive, not reactive. Blaming violence, guns, and mental health issues is reactive. We have to think outside the box, think long term and be proactive about it. But, how do you do that? And, the problem is how do you change a society without impeding or limiting our basic rights and liberties?

People, humans, are the issue. We are all capable of being violent-- with and without a mental health condition. And, to change that, will take a monumental effort, and sacrifices will need to be made. If not, we're going to have another Aurora, Columbine, Newton, or another University of Texas or Virginia Tech shooting.
 
Blakestr said:
What is implied in your last statement and a lot of liberal points is that if someone is going to mass murdering, you at least want them to have to work for it? Like he better had been good at knives or something?
Click to expand...

Yep, that is my point. I understand fully that someone who has the intent to kill or harm will still and substitute one murder weapon for another. But I'm not against limiting their choices.

The NRA feels that we should loosen the gun laws and make guns more accessible. But by their logic we should just allow Iran and North Korea (and any other potentially dangerous country) to freely develop nukes, and then just arm every other nation with nukes so they don't go attacking nuke free zones.
 
Majinhoju said:
I'm kind of in the middle when it comes to this argument, and there's good arguments on both sides. It's really hard to argue against the right to bear arms to defend yourself, but at the same time, your right to bear arms also means giving that same right to any other wacko out there.

A buddy of mine took me out shooting and let me shoot his SKS and shotgun. I'm not going to lie, it was lots of fun getting to shoot those guns, but at at the same time, it was also bit intimidating and a bit scary holding them. It almost felt wrong holding something in my hands that could so easily end someone's life.

As far as gun laws go I do think they should be at least reviewed. I don't think we should take everyone's guns away, but maybe we should look at restricting the more lethal guns. If AR-15's go bye bye and it prevents another psycho from getting his hands on one, isn't it worth it?
Click to expand...

Have you ever held a hammer in your hands? Or a knife? Or an ax or hatchet? How about an ice pick? Or a chainsaw? Or a stick? Or a rock?

I only ask because they've all been misused to kill people. A girl I knew in high school was beaten to death with a ball-peen hammer by a psycho. It was sad, unnerving and tragic but not once did I hear about anyone wanting to control the sale of ball-peen hammers.

FWIW, the NRA also criticized the news media and laid some of the blame on them and I have to say that I agree. These borderline psychotics see the attention garnered by the actions of the other shooters and it's tantalizing. They can become household names in minutes just by squeezing a trigger a few times. The media will pick it up and run it into the ground and they do if it's a huge tragedy like this was.

Thing is, the near miss shootings that were averted by gun owners or security never receive 1/100th of the media attention.
 
Advocates of unrestrained access to guns are waxing philosophical and posing puerile questions masquerading as deep ruminations on human nature. "Well you see, human beings can be very bad and very clever, so there is really no stopping violent-minded evil people. Therefore, let's do nothing!"

It's all unnecessarily hypothetical bullshit. We already know from strict gun laws in Australia and Western Europe that gun control works, period. The per capita homicide rate in those countries is 1/3 to 1/4 of the rate in America (go look it up on Wikipedia).

But you shouldn't need to look it up if your mental faculties are intact: all you need is enough common sense to understand that while there will always be disturbed people, that doesn't mean we should make weapons of mass carnage easy to procure as candy for them. Yes, true zealots will always find a way to get guns, but a lot of murders are committed by people who simply become passionate in the heat of the moment. Stop practically handing out guns to Americans and more Americans might actually use their brains to reason things out or become calm instead of immediately reaching for the easy-to-acquire means to kill.

You need a license to drive a car or ride a motorcycle. You need multiple permits just to build up your own house. But all you need to buy a weapon specifically designed for no other reason than to kill dozens of people in less than a minute are two legs and directions to Dick's Sporting Goods.

Anyone whose brain is not on NRA-induced toxins knows that situation is literally insane. In fact, a poll shows that even 3/4 of NRA members think all gun owners should undergo background checks.

No one should be able to buy a high capacity assault rifle, period. It's beyond retarded to think that anyone "needs" such a weapon for any conceivable valid reason. Not needed for hunting or for self-defense whatsoever. All other gun purchases should be subject to extensive criminal and health checks and a waiting period and come equipped with fingerprint locks so only the owners can operate them.
 
Matrices said:
Advocates of unrestrained access to guns are waxing philosophical and posing puerile questions masquerading as deep ruminations on human nature. "Well you see, human beings can be very bad and very clever, so there is really no stopping violent-minded evil people. Therefore, let's do nothing!"

It's all unnecessarily hypothetical bullshit. We already know from strict gun laws in Australia and Western Europe that gun control works, period. The per capita homicide rate in those countries is 1/3 to 1/4 of the rate in America (go look it up on Wikipedia).

But you shouldn't need to look it up if your mental faculties are intact: all you need is enough common sense to understand that while there will always be disturbed people, that doesn't mean we should make weapons of mass carnage easy to procure as candy for them. Yes, true zealots will always find a way to get guns, but a lot of murders are committed by people who simply become passionate in the heat of the moment. Stop practically handing out guns to Americans and more Americans might actually use their brains to reason things out or become calm instead of immediately reaching for the easy-to-acquire means to kill.

You need a license to drive a car or ride a motorcycle. You need multiple permits just to build up your own house. But all you need to buy a weapon specifically designed for no other reason than to kill dozens of people in less than a minute are two legs and directions to Dick's Sporting Goods.

Anyone whose brain is not on NRA-induced toxins knows that situation is literally insane. In fact, a poll shows that even 3/4 of NRA members think all gun owners should undergo background checks.

No one should be able to buy a high capacity assault rifle, period. It's beyond retarded to think that anyone "needs" such a weapon for any conceivable valid reason. Not needed for hunting or for self-defense whatsoever. All other gun purchases should be subject to extensive criminal and health checks and a waiting period and come equipped with fingerprint locks so only the owners can operate them.
Click to expand...

I agree with the mental health checks, longer waiting periods (I assume that it's to stop a sane person acting rashly) and fingerprint controls but I disagree that you're going to make guns more difficult for law breakers to get. Just law abiders. Law breakers get guns stolen from homes and businesses. Guns that aren't smart enough to know that they're in the wrong hands. And at the rate that these stolen guns reach the streets in the US (I've seen estimates of 500,000 per year) it's going to take a long, long, long time before the supply dwindles.

Then, there's always the black market. They're smuggling drugs, people and guns. If there's money to be made illegally, there's always going to be someone willing to do it.

Make guns totally illegal in the US and we'll make what's happened in Australia since they outlawed them look tame.
 
I'm very disappointed to see the NRA applying the same causal argument fallacies that they have spent so many years fighting gun control proponents on.

They've been saying for decades "guns don't kill people, people kill people," with the point being that people are the problem rather than the instrument...but now they're quite willing to ditch the "people" word and replace it with videogames, TV, movies and music, and use the same broken, kneejerk logic as their opponents. Therefore the NRA cannot be considered to be led by intelligent or "freedom-loving" people by any stretch of the imagination, and thus should be regarded as a complete joke.

i-dXBjSvG-X3.jpg
 
Matrices said:
Advocates of unrestrained access to guns are waxing philosophical and posing puerile questions masquerading as deep ruminations on human nature. "Well you see, human beings can be very bad and very clever, so there is really no stopping violent-minded evil people. Therefore, let's do nothing!"
Click to expand...

Nobody's saying, "let's do nothing!" We're saying "let's try arming responsible civilians more, since there's already eight million of them licensed to conceal carry in this country, and get rid of the 'gun-free zones' that have been the sites of all but one major shooting spree for the last 50 years".

You absolutely even refuse to take that kind of responsibility, so you disregard it as "nothing"...when in fact it is taking control of your safety in the same way that you do every time you buckle your seatbelt. You're not looking to get in an accident, you hope you don't ever get in an accident, but if you do, you're going to need your safety device at that moment.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I don't see how an AR 15 is any more lethal than a Les Baer .308, if at all. An AR 15 is just a semi auto .223. So is a Mini 14.
Click to expand...

clip size is pretty much the main reason why. But rifles like the AR15 have a much higher velocity rounds than something like a 9mm and more shots....also makes for easier armor piercing. Most people don't realize that the majority of hand gun incidences are non lethal..50 cent got shot like 9 times and lived that likely wouldn't of happened with 9 shots with an AR 15 due to the high velocity destroying the surrounding flesh.

People kill people. But guns allow people to kill more people easier. But removing guns from bad people is impossible so no point in preventing good people from having them.

They just need to keep focusing on new more lethal weapons, Mini nukes, Crazy Lab Bird Flu...747's.
 
It is when they have the power of persuasion..... like.. a politician, or a corporation, or a well known association....
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
OFCOURSE! It's not the guns that can kill MANY MANY people in a short period of time!
It's the videos games!
Click to expand...

That gun didn't do anything either. It is a tool. A tool I will have. Legal or not.

Just like weed, speed, cocain, heroine, X, acid, pcp and Cuban cigars.
 
NRA should start a campaign called "I wasn't "...where they introduce volunteers who used a firearm to protect themselves... try arguing against the "I wasn't raped" woman... show the real personal reasons why 2nd amendment is so important..

Note: I am aware but forget frequently that it is more about protecting against governments then individuals.... but in the meantime...
 
Matrices said:
Advocates of unrestrained access to guns are waxing philosophical and posing puerile questions masquerading as deep ruminations on human nature. "Well you see, human beings can be very bad and very clever, so there is really no stopping violent-minded evil people. Therefore, let's do nothing!"

It's all unnecessarily hypothetical bullshit. We already know from strict gun laws in Australia and Western Europe that gun control works, period. The per capita homicide rate in those countries is 1/3 to 1/4 of the rate in America (go look it up on Wikipedia).

But you shouldn't need to look it up if your mental faculties are intact: all you need is enough common sense to understand that while there will always be disturbed people, that doesn't mean we should make weapons of mass carnage easy to procure as candy for them. Yes, true zealots will always find a way to get guns, but a lot of murders are committed by people who simply become passionate in the heat of the moment. Stop practically handing out guns to Americans and more Americans might actually use their brains to reason things out or become calm instead of immediately reaching for the easy-to-acquire means to kill.

You need a license to drive a car or ride a motorcycle. You need multiple permits just to build up your own house. But all you need to buy a weapon specifically designed for no other reason than to kill dozens of people in less than a minute are two legs and directions to Dick's Sporting Goods.

Anyone whose brain is not on NRA-induced toxins knows that situation is literally insane. In fact, a poll shows that even 3/4 of NRA members think all gun owners should undergo background checks.

No one should be able to buy a high capacity assault rifle, period. It's beyond retarded to think that anyone "needs" such a weapon for any conceivable valid reason. Not needed for hunting or for self-defense whatsoever. All other gun purchases should be subject to extensive criminal and health checks and a waiting period and come equipped with fingerprint locks so only the owners can operate them.
Click to expand...

+1 Agree with this 100%.
 
Have to laugh when people say guns aren't the main cause of these terrible tragedies. Although news media also plays a big role with portraying the gunmen as anti-heroes for the next nutjob to copy - sensationalizing gets more papers sold and higher ratings.

Yes the person was mentally unstable, but using a gun to kill people is so much easier than using a knife. Killing someone with a knife is a lot more personal and bloody - I know I'd rather kill someone with a gun than watch the poor victim die slowly from being stabbed. The same goes for the suicide section of these incidents... with the press of a trigger you end it... no pain, nothing. Committing suicide with a knife is nowhere near as easy.

Obviously if someone is determined to carry out horrible things they'll find a way to do them, but you have to admit less people would carry out such things if they didn't have access to firearms.

I'm glad I don't live in the self proclaimed 'leader of the free world', because if teachers have to carry guns to protect your children you don't really live in a free society.

It's sad.
 
I have no problems with greater proliferation of firearms, so long as it is coupled with much stricter background and psychological checks and MANDATORY firearms training for anyone who wants to have one (and possibly regular renewal of that training). I need to be able to make a reasonable assumption that a person carrying a firearm is well trained in its use, and is mentally stable enough to know when and where it is appropriate to use it. I sure as hell can't make that assumption right now.

In that light, I'm all for an increase in law enforcement presence on school grounds and other traditionally gun-free zones. The sight of police cars and uniformed officers patrolling the campus is a much more powerful deterrent than the possibility that a teacher in any given classroom may or may not be trained (and that's really the important part) and armed. You know officers are armed, and you know they will kill you dead if necessary. Yes, that will cost money, but it'd probably be worth it for the greater sense of safety it creates (that, and it'll probably get certain politicians off their vendetta to financially cripple public education, but I digress). I can buy into public volunteers doing the patrolling if they can prove they have a certain level of military and/or law enforcement experience (random person with a rifle need not apply).

As to the actual topic? The NRA can go screw themselves with their transparent attempt at deflection. Though from what I can tell from listening to the radio (the only place I get my news), the media seems more focused on their ideas on increased proliferation of guns than violence in games and movies.
 
King of Heroes said:
I have no problems with greater proliferation of firearms, so long as it is coupled with much stricter background and psychological checks and MANDATORY firearms training for anyone who wants to have one (and possibly regular renewal of that training). I need to be able to make a reasonable assumption that a person carrying a firearm is well trained in its use, and is mentally stable enough to know when and where it is appropriate to use it. I sure as hell can't make that assumption right now.
Click to expand...


I don't know why this isn't the case and why more people wouldn't be for this.
 
King of Heroes said:
I need to be able to make a reasonable assumption that a person carrying a firearm is well trained in its use, and is mentally stable enough to know when and where it is appropriate to use it. I sure as hell can't make that assumption right now.
Click to expand...

So you want your comfort to come before the rights of others to carry based on their own determination that they are suitable to carry a firearm? What they think is unimportant compared to how safe you feel? Much of my training comes from numerous acclaimed self-defense and firearms handling video series. There's no certification or recognition involved. Why should I have to prove to you my abilities? Why is my right to feel safe wearing a firearm subordinate to your wish to know that the nearest person carrying a firearm meets your arbitrary standards? Would you even be able to objectively tell whether a person is suitable to carry one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top