No Link Between Video Games And Murder

[pelo]

You're wrong on one point..without the multitude of incidents like this unfortunately occurring, all you would have is groups like the NRA thumbing their noses at the government without any change. Acting on impulse is the only way that any legislation for this would even stand a chance on passing, with the way these gun groups have a stranglehold on the government.

I'm not wrong, because I'm well aware of that fact. It's what I despise above all else, actually.

26 people die, 20 of them children, and now you have two sides screaming obscenities at each other, both looking to defend their opinion and win whatever political battle they can against the other side, and yet neither of them can put together a single fucking coherent thought.

Trust me, I'm well aware.

 

[octoberasian]

Put it this way:

Every time a shooter's personality is described on news media as shy, introverted, shies away from people, lack of physical contact or friends, social outcast, and often times intelligent, it scares me that in a way they describe the kind of person I am.

My personality literally fits the description of nearly every shooter from Columbine to Newtown. Yet, why have I not committed a crime?

Good parenting.

I've been playing violent video games since the NES days such as River City Ransom all the way up to GTA IV on the PC. I've seen Rated R films when I was as young as 8 years old such as Robocop. Heck, my favorite cartoons were from the 1990s-- the action filled Disney animations that died off once we hit the year 2000.

In 32 years of my life, I have never picked up a gun or shown aggression towards another person. My classmates from high school are alive, except for one who committed suicide a year after graduation. I'm a smart, helpful person and a typical nice guy. I've never been in a relationship and never had children.

My parents taught me a lot of things. They taught me the difference between right and wrong. They taught me that every decision or action I make has a consequence. My parents taught me responsibility and how to be a polite person.

I express any emotional outlet in writing or drawing, or playing games. I have two physical friends but I rarely talk to them. They live two hours away-- one is married with three kids, and the other is engaged and no children. If I don't count the people I talk to online and play games with, I literally have no other physical contact. I also shied away from people in high school. I spent most of my high school life in the library self-volunteering other students there with computer help or research work. I only had one friend in high school, and two close friends since elementary school. I rarely talked to them or hung out with them throughout high school though. I've taught myself to be a gentleman first and foremost. It's been a difficult adjustment trying to work as a tax preparer because of my personality. I'm very soft-spoken and I don't raise my voice. I have the fear I might be screaming at people if I raise my voice. Heck, I've managed to teach myself the right and wrong ways to treat women just by observing others and listening to my friend's relationship worries.

Yet, my personality fits the mold of many shooters that commit these mass killings. Without good parenting, I probably would have turned out to be the next Columbine shooter, or the next Aurora, CO theatre shooter, or the next Newtown shooter.

But, I'm not.

If you want to fix society in general and stop the senseless killings, it's going to have to start at home. Parents are the first teachers a child will ever have. It doesn't matter if you are a biological, foster or adoptive parent, you are their teacher from the day they are born or the day you first met them until they are old enough to make decisions on their own. You teach them what is right and wrong. You teach them how to be a responsible person. You teach them what is the appropriate way to act in front of others, how to be respectful person, and how to learn from their mistakes.

If a parent cannot do that, how can any parent expect their child to grow up to be a respectful and responsible adult? If they notice something is wrong with their child, parents should take a step back and ask themselves: What am I doing wrong? That is the first step. Second step is to ask: What can I do to fix this? Parents should learn to admit they can make mistakes too, that they can't always be right. If you can't admit to your own mistakes, then how can you expect your child to do the same?

The shooter in Newtown cut off ties with his father after the divorce and after he met another woman. The mother shared her love of guns with her son, but failed to help his son get the help he needed. She failed to admit that was a mistake of hers. I don't think expressing anger towards your father by taking your son to a gun range is going to help an already socially awkward and mentally disturbed young man. Children, even from my own experience, express anger towards their parents in certain ways. We throw tantrums, arguments, slam doors, or scream at our parents. It's unfortunate this guy didn't have any other meaningful way to express his anger or built up hatred, or had any other emotional outlet except by firing a gun.

Violent video games don't make a violent person so long as the parent is there to teach them what's right and wrong. The same with violent movies and violent TV shows. They can be a part of the cause, but they aren't the root cause to what's wrong today.

There are hands-on parenting and hands-off parenting. It seems a lot of parents today are taking a hands-off approach. You see these children in Walmart acting disorderly and screaming. You see them walking on the street in loose pants or cut off shorts. You can't just expect sitting your child in front of a TV or computer is going to help your child in any way. Parenting is and always will be a hands-on responsibility. If you cannot raise a child responsibly and effectively, then admit it to yourself instead of allowing that child become the next criminal on the streets. Children are a mirror of their parents in terms of personality and are molded by the environment they grow up in.

Be a good parent first, and your child will follow after you. Plain and simple.

It is unfortunate that many children don't have that luxury of a good parent. If you feel you cannot raise a child, and you use your child as the receiving end of your own failures in life or your own frustrations in a relationship, then either, one, change yourself, or, two, give the child up for adoption. No child deserves a bad parent, a broken home because of divorce, or an abusive home. A single parent can be a successful parent if he or she puts the effort into it, and takes it upon themselves to raise their child to the best of their ability without the help of another parent. Find more constructive ways to let your child express themselves, talk to them if they have problems, be a part of their life, and be their friend and a parent at the same time.

Blaming video games, movies, or TV shows is never going to work or solve the problem. Neither is excessive gun control, censorship, or any other restrictions to our own freedoms and rights. It'll never solve the issue of what's wrong today..

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

4) Whenever they call for more gun-control, the most extreme members come out and start mentioning bans, confiscation, etc which just leads to more gun buying. The stores are getting cleaned out yet again after this incident.

Cleaned out by who? I'm willing to bet it's the most extreme people that would feel the need to go out and buy more guns after this.

I live in NYC and I don't feel the need to walk around packing heat.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

I'm not wrong, because I'm well aware of that fact. It's what I despise above all else, actually.

26 people die, 20 of them children, and now you have two sides screaming obscenities at each other, both looking to defend their opinion and win whatever political battle they can against the other side, and yet neither of them can put together a single fucking coherent thought.

Trust me, I'm well aware.

The federal assault weapons ban expired on September 14, 2004. What has happened since then, in this country? That was the last notable federal legislation on any gun control over the last 8 years. Do you really think any change would occur to prevent mass shootings without horrific incidents like this with the way the NRA has the government wrapped around their fingers.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I think given a certain type of person, the kind that would be violent anyway regardless of the media consumed, would be affected by video games. They would be more desensitized, and in a more "fantasy" style world where they want to live the game (getting ideas for something spectacular). Or the kid that wants to Genghis Khan. Or watches TV and wants to be Cobra Commander. Or Lex Luthor. You can blame all the media, and it does have an impact, but it ALL comes down to the person. All of it. Why can some psycho play games and go kill in a style like a game but most other gamers put the controller down and go play or go to work with ZERO inclination to even pick up a weapon and go on a rampage? It's not the games that is the cause. It's the mental stability of the person.

However, I think that the 99.99% majority of gamers are NOT this type of person. Games do make a good scapegoat, though. Movies were good before the games. Books, too.

They want something inanimate to blame. You HAVE to put the blame somewhere. People don't just up and kill other people without something causing it. You cannot say some guy was just psycho.

Guns? They are just another inanimate object to place blame on. Yes, they are easy to use and a point and kill type of fashion. But, put in the hands of the 99.99% of non-psycho people, they are not going to kill someone. You still have that one thing that is never the variable - the psycho. He's psycho regardless of the media consumed or the means of killing. That is where the blame needs to lie.

 

[Phoenix333]

Stupid point you say, but logical and valid. You can kill many people with guns very easily. Make it harder or impossible to get guns and you reduce the chances of that occurring.

You've clearly never seen what a firebomb can do. One Molotov could have killed everyone in that room just as easy. Napalm is pretty easy to make, and the results are just as horrific as a shooting, if not more so. Home-made explosives, a car driven through a crowd of people... nails driven through a baseball bat... people that want to kill people will ALWAYS find a way to do it.

Banning guns will not prevent this from happening again. There are a lot more gun laws on the books than there were in 1940, yet there are more massacres like this now then there was then. In fact, I can't remember any school shootings like this from that era. They even had ROTC in schools where teens brought real weapons to school campuses on a routine basis. More laws have not stopped anything, so that's not an effective solution. Fewer guns hasn't solved anything as guns were just as common back then and less restricted, so guns in and of themselves are not the cause of this problem. What has changed since then? I would say look at human behavior. Look at when these events did not occur and how society was, and look at how society is now. The difference between the two is where the answer lies. Find what changed to cause people to start going off the mental cliff and you'll start on the road to finding a real solution, not a feel-good gesture of "doing something" that in the end solves nothing. Oh, I know. That's a lot of hard work, but nobody ever said solving society's ills was an easy task.

 

[kbrickley]

This debate is getting pretty heavy ... we might need to SkibbelKat or someone to post a cat pic to calm the stormy waters

Gun control is problematic in the US since there are so many guns available currently. It also doesn't solve the root problems that crazy people will commit acts of violence occasionally.

Another thing we might want to look at (although it is even more problematic than gun control) is the US facination with violence. Many countries restrict violence in the media but have more open attitudes to sex than the US. Maybe we need to tone done our violent media a tad and open our puritanical minds more on the sexual front (kind of the make love not war approach).

One last issue (and I can't think of any easy or practical ways to address it) is that people under 25 or so are inherently dangerous to themselves and others. The latest studies indicate that their risk/reward portions of their brains haven't fully developed and they make bad choices and can be swayed or affected by their peers and society more. Although it would be very difficult to manage, maybe the violent materials need to be more restricted for users under the age of 25.

 

[ballistic90]

I hate how it takes 26 people to die, 20 of them young children, for people to stand up and state their opinions, regardless of what side of the coin they're on. What I will say, though, is that it also makes it increasingly more difficult to rationally tackle an issue like this when both sides, or one side, is infuriated by the event. It's difficult to think clearly when you're angry and you act on impulse - it's just not a smart way to pass legislation. Unfortunately, people and politicians are fucking retards and will only consider such actions when it slaps them across the face. It's paradoxical and ferries to the forefront human apathy, ignorance and flat out stupidity.

What should happen - and I feel this without reasonable doubt - is that we should at least demand background checks on every single weapon sold in this country. If we're willing to pass something like the Patriot Act and restrict our freedoms to that drastic an extent as a guttural response to enacting a surveillance program to defend ourselves from potential terrorist attacks, we should at least make sure those same terrorists and lunatics don't get their hands on weapons as well.

I think we're all past the point where we're disappointed with the US government, but, personally, I'm most disappointed in the idiots that live in this country above all else.

I advocate for laws that allow police to investigate gun owners that frequently buy guns, for them to come up "stolen" days later and are involved in murders by convicted criminals. Current gun laws in some states prevent cops from prosecuting these people at all, even though they are obviously acting as a buyer for people who shouldn't have guns. Some suggested laws include having people who's guns are stolen report it to the police as soon as they find out, and flag them in background checks if it's a frequent occurance. Then... something.

Honestly, background checks aren't working very well. Most killings like these are performed by people who don't have a history of this kind of violence. Background checks may catch someone who's already committed a crime, but they're not designed to stop these shootings. Psychiatric evaluations could in theory PERHAPS prevent these shootings, but that would be expensive and time consuming, and there's no guarentee they'd stop anyone.

My opinion is that people need to stop glorifying guns and treating them like toys or fantasizing about them. The people who carry a pistol with them everywhere isn't really doing it for his protection, he's doing it because he wants to play out a fantasy of shooting a criminal. Your number one priority for a mugging is survival, not killing the other guy. Consider that coming from a guy that grew up in a community where guns are so common, that people still barter with them (my father traded a shotgun for this huge, old piece of woodworking equipment. Still had a rifle and another shotgun).

I grew up in a community where guns outnumbered people by about 2 to 1, but there's never been a shooting. Despite how many times people would visit, get drunk and shoot targets, there's been no homicides, and maybe 2 accidental injuries. Nobody even considered turning a gun on another human being. I think there's some value to that, that maybe people need to investigate what that difference is and it might offer up another piece to the shooting puzzle.

 

[GaryJohnson]

The federal assault weapons ban expired on September 14, 2004. What has happened since then, in this country?

Since 2004 the violent crime and homicide rates in the U.S. have gone down 15%.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Cleaned out by who? I'm willing to bet it's the most extreme people that would feel the need to go out and buy more guns after this.

I live in NYC and I don't feel the need to walk around packing heat.

I don't think it's because they want to feel safe. I think it's because it's a matter of time (probably not a lot) before the new gun control laws are introduced and you can't buy them anymore (or not as easily). I'm picking up 2 new AR15 lowers next week and a dozen 30 round magazines. I have no reason other than I like the AR's, and I'd like to build another one or two within the next year or two. I need to buy then sooner rather than later because of these tragedies. It's not for 'packing heat', but because market conditions may be about to change and I may not be able to get them again.

 

[Stiletto]

So long as there are weapons to be had you'll have these types of horrible incidents, but that has nothing to do with why ~40% of guns sold require absolutely no background check. None at all. I agree with you, crazy people will kill others, but what that has to do with making people we KNOW are crazy go through a background check (which will almost certainly stop them from accessing a weapon easily), I have no idea. That's the sort of law that wouldn't hurt anybody but those who shouldn't have weapons anyway. How in the hell would anybody be against that?

I'm going to use slippery slope. What constitutes a mental disorder sufficient enough to prevent the purchase/ownership of a firearm? Right now it's limited to being involuntarily submitted to a mental health institute, which does make sense. However, a lot of chatter is going on about the mental defects that the Connecticut shooter had, either being autism or a severe case of Asperger's. Should people with those maladies be prohibited from owning weapons? Some people think so, but I know people with Asperger's, and while they're annoying and tiresome, they have as much right as anyone to defend their lives. How about people with depression? We certainly don't want them blowing their brains out. Maybe they should be prevented from having weapons so that we prevent lots of suicides.

My point is that there are always "reasonable" explanations for all kinds of restrictions of liberty, as best expressed by someone earlier who mentioned the Patriot Act. I have no problem with those "reasonable" explanations being offered, but let's make sure that we don't freak out or label someone "extremist" just because they disagree that the ideas are "reasonable".

 

[Phoenix333]

The federal assault weapons ban expired on September 14, 2004. What has happened since then, in this country? That was the last notable federal legislation on any gun control over the last 8 years. Do you really think any change would occur to prevent mass shootings without horrific incidents like this with the way the NRA has the government wrapped around their fingers.

How many NRA members do you know of that have committed massacres with rifles that were prohibited under the 1994 AWB? The NRA is not interested in protecting criminals. They're interested in protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens from the government. The NRA has actively lobbied for harsher penalties for criminals that use firearms during commission of a crime. Your average NRA member isn't the problem. I know people that own enough weaponry and ammunition to outfit an entire squad. Not a single one has ever committed a criminal act. Is it their fault for this? Why should they lose their rights because of someone else's criminal misuse of a firearm? How about your computer? People use computers to look at child porn, steal identities, steal money, and commit fraud. Should you lose the ability to use computers and the internet because some people use them for criminal acts? That's the problem with looking for the easy fix. You punish the people that are doing nothing wrong, and you do nothing to stop those that don't care.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

You're never going to stop the psycho. The psycho isn't going to tell when he's ready to pick up the guns, kill you and kill a bunch of random people. The psycho isn't going to throw firebombs or molotov cocktails or build a bomb out of miracle grow, those take too long and don't kill as quickly.
Gun is easiest way to kill lots of people quickly.

 

[Stiletto]

An armed officer is most likely nothing but the first dead person in a situation like this.

Based on what? Declaring trained, armed peace officers as useless against criminals doesn't seem particularly rational. I know that talking heads dismiss the notion of private citizens with lawfully carried weapons as being of any use(which, by the way, they are), but when you declare the police useless, then you're sounding pretty irrational. What, do we need the military to protect us from some nutjob with a gun?

And again: explain how you're going to use the law keep guns out of the hands of people who are willing to break the law.

 

[MasonD]

Guns are so last century fuckers. We should start killing each other the new age way our own government uses on everyone they don't like...targeted drone strikes! See? It totally solves this fucking problem with guns! After all there's no crime if all that's left after a drone strike is a hole in the ground. Duh!

Oh wait, at least 2% (give or take 1-2%) of humanity will always be blood thirsty (tyrant) fucktards that need to be overthrown with the force of the people, oh, yeah, shit, we'll always need guns then and anyone not wanting "the people" to have them must love having no actual real freedom. Fuck you! Come and get them!

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald McDonald

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm very saddened these little kids died and I would've stood in front of any of them or knifed the little coward faggot that shot them in the back of the neck given any 2-3 second window but taking away our guns in any form will only make our lives worse down the road. After all, a healthy government should understand who is in charge. There is a bigger picture to look at here and it's way bigger than some kids in a class room. And again, I would've miserably stood in the way of them, I've at least got to see my mid 20's and I demand everyone be given a similar chance, everyone! Including the the kids our government killed in air strikes as it sits over here calling for....whatever Obama says he is going to call for. Obama has indirectly killed thousands fold more than this little coward faggot did. Just saying.

 

[ballistic90]

Put it this way:

Every time a shooter's personality is described on news media as shy, introverted, shies away from people, lack of physical contact or friends, social outcast, and often times intelligent, it scares me that in a way they describe the kind of person I am.

My personality literally fits the description of nearly every shooter from Columbine to Newtown. Yet, why have I not committed a crime?

Good parenting.

I've been playing violent video games since the NES days such as River City Ransom all the way up to GTA IV on the PC. I've seen Rated R films when I was as young as 8 years old such as Robocop. Heck, my favorite cartoons were from the 1990s-- the action filled Disney animations that died off once we hit the year 2000.

In 32 years of my life, I have never picked up a gun or shown aggression towards another person. My classmates from high school are alive, except for one who committed suicide a year after graduation. I'm a smart, helpful person and a typical nice guy. I've never been in a relationship and never had children.

My parents taught me a lot of things. They taught me the difference between right and wrong. They taught me that every decision or action I make has a consequence. My parents taught me responsibility and how to be a polite person.

I express any emotional outlet in writing or drawing, or playing games. I have two physical friends but I rarely talk to them. They live two hours away-- one is married with three kids, and the other is engaged and no children. If I don't count the people I talk to online and play games with, I literally have no other physical contact. I also shied away from people in high school. I spent most of my high school life in the library self-volunteering other students there with computer help or research work. I only had one friend in high school, and two close friends since elementary school. I rarely talked to them or hung out with them throughout high school though. I've taught myself to be a gentleman first and foremost. It's been a difficult adjustment trying to work as a tax preparer because of my personality. I'm very soft-spoken and I don't raise my voice. I have the fear I might be screaming at people if I raise my voice. Heck, I've managed to teach myself the right and wrong ways to treat women just by observing others and listening to my friend's relationship worries.

Yet, my personality fits the mold of many shooters that commit these mass killings. Without good parenting, I probably would have turned out to be the next Columbine shooter, or the next Aurora, CO theatre shooter, or the next Newtown shooter.

But, I'm not.

If you want to fix society in general and stop the senseless killings, it's going to have to start at home. Parents are the first teachers a child will ever have. It doesn't matter if you are a biological, foster or adoptive parent, you are their teacher from the day they are born or the day you first met them until they are old enough to make decisions on their own. You teach them what is right and wrong. You teach them how to be a responsible person. You teach them what is the appropriate way to act in front of others, how to be respectful person, and how to learn from their mistakes.

If a parent cannot do that, how can any parent expect their child to grow up to be a respectful and responsible adult? If they notice something is wrong with their child, parents should take a step back and ask themselves: What am I doing wrong? That is the first step. Second step is to ask: What can I do to fix this? Parents should learn to admit they can make mistakes too, that they can't always be right. If you can't admit to your own mistakes, then how can you expect your child to do the same?

The shooter in Newtown cut off ties with his father after the divorce and after he met another woman. The mother shared her love of guns with her son, but failed to help his son get the help he needed. She failed to admit that was a mistake of hers. I don't think expressing anger towards your father by taking your son to a gun range is going to help an already socially awkward and mentally disturbed young man. Children, even from my own experience, express anger towards their parents in certain ways. We throw tantrums, arguments, slam doors, or scream at our parents. It's unfortunate this guy didn't have any other meaningful way to express his anger or built up hatred, or had any other emotional outlet except by firing a gun.

Violent video games don't make a violent person so long as the parent is there to teach them what's right and wrong. The same with violent movies and violent TV shows. They can be a part of the cause, but they aren't the root cause to what's wrong today.

There are hands-on parenting and hands-off parenting. It seems a lot of parents today are taking a hands-off approach. You see these children in Walmart acting disorderly and screaming. You see them walking on the street in loose pants or cut off shorts. You can't just expect sitting your child in front of a TV or computer is going to help your child in any way. Parenting is and always will be a hands-on responsibility. If you cannot raise a child responsibly and effectively, then admit it to yourself instead of allowing that child become the next criminal on the streets. Children are a mirror of their parents in terms of personality and are molded by the environment they grow up in.

Be a good parent first, and your child will follow after you. Plain and simple.

It is unfortunate that many children don't have that luxury of a good parent. If you feel you cannot raise a child, and you use your child as the receiving end of your own failures in life or your own frustrations in a relationship, then either, one, change yourself, or, two, give the child up for adoption. No child deserves a bad parent, a broken home because of divorce, or an abusive home. A single parent can be a successful parent if he or she puts the effort into it, and takes it upon themselves to raise their child to the best of their ability without the help of another parent. Find more constructive ways to let your child express themselves, talk to them if they have problems, be a part of their life, and be their friend and a parent at the same time.

Blaming video games, movies, or TV shows is never going to work or solve the problem. Neither is excessive gun control, censorship, or any other restrictions to our own freedoms and rights. It'll never solve the issue of what's wrong today..

Movies and video games can't make someone do something, they have to allow the movie and video game to convince them to do it. The decision is always up to the person that does the shooting. And being shy and introverted doesn't mean you're going to kill people. I'm shy and introverted and so is my wife.

However, there's a different reason for me as to why I'd never kill someone. To me, video game characters aren't real and can never be real. They're coding, pixels, vectors, complex models, triangles, and all that. I can play almost any disgustingly violent game and not bat an eye, but I could never watch a movie like SAW or Hostel. Even though those people are actors, I have a hard time separating the special effects in my mind from the actors, and sometimes, myself. It also makes me think twice before I would intentionally injure someone. It's probably symptoms of some mild neurological impairment, but I'm comfortable with it as it feels like an internal safeguard. Of course, that part of my brain shuts off if someone threatens me or my wife, but even then I'm more likely to use my bare hands than a weapon.

 

[Stiletto]

You're never going to stop the psycho. The psycho isn't going to tell when he's ready to pick up the guns, kill you and kill a bunch of random people. The psycho isn't going to throw firebombs or molotov cocktails or build a bomb out of miracle grow, those take too long and don't kill as quickly.
Gun is easiest way to kill lots of people quickly.

So that's why the Columbine kids had pipe bombs that they were chucking into rooms, and two propane tank bombs? That's why the biggest US school massacre of the 20th century was accomplished with explosives?

What I'm saying is yes, they do get bombs. Timothy McVeigh sure did. He didn't think a gun was quite what he wanted to achieve what he desired.

They will always find a way. The answer lies not in forcing them to choose a bomb instead of a gun. The answer lies in being prepared for whatever they bring to a school/college/mall/etc.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

How many NRA members do you know of that have committed massacres with rifles that were prohibited under the 1994 AWB? The NRA is not interested in protecting criminals. They're interested in protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens from the government. The NRA has actively lobbied for harsher penalties for criminals that use firearms during commission of a crime. Your average NRA member isn't the problem. I know people that own enough weaponry and ammunition to outfit an entire squad. Not a single one has ever committed a criminal act. Is it their fault for this? Why should they lose their rights because of someone else's criminal misuse of a firearm? How about your computer? People use computers to look at child porn, steal identities, steal money, and commit fraud. Should you lose the ability to use computers and the internet because some people use them for criminal acts? That's the problem with looking for the easy fix. You punish the people that are doing nothing wrong, and you do nothing to stop those that don't care.

I know none at all. I do not own any guns, never fired a real weapon, and don't feel the need to bear arms as a civilian with both domestic protection provided by local governments and foreign protection provided by the federal government. I don't have an irrational thought in the the back of my mind that the government is going to come knocking down my door and take my rights away. The 2nd amendment argument related to the 1700s, 1800s and is antiquated.

 

[SkribbelKat]

This debate is getting pretty heavy ... we might need to SkibbelKat or someone to post a cat pic to calm the stormy waters

Nope, even cats can't fix this thread. Skribbels everywhere feel it is terminally broken.

 

[Stiletto]

The federal assault weapons ban expired on September 14, 2004. What has happened since then, in this country? That was the last notable federal legislation on any gun control over the last 8 years.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect for 10 years. It hasn't even been a decade since it was ended. Do you think the powers that be have an eight-year time limit before they can get in liberty-restricting legislation?

By the way, do you even know what the AWB banned? Bayonet clips, telescoping stocks, and barrel shrouds. Almost everything that legislation focused on was nothing more than cosmetic. If your AK-47 didn't have any of the crap that the bill banned on it, it was perfectly legal to own.

I was really glad, too. We were saved the misery and heartache of those drive-by bayonet attacks in the ghetto.

 

[Jagger100]

The easy accessibility of guns in this country certainly makes it easier for someone to go ahead and decide they want to go and kill a bunch of people for no reason.

Now I know there's going to be a bunch of NRA 2nd amendment honkeys running in here crying foul over that statement but if the tard didn't have access to guns how was he going to run into a school and kill 26 innocent people? That along with Colorado batman movie, Arizona Gabby Giffords, Indian temple in Wisconsin, Va Tech kron chong il dude...would not have happened. Agreed?

If you can buy a gun legally you can buy it out of the trunk of a car. If you're determined to kill 20 people and yourself, is a trip to the bad part of town really out of the question?

And ask yourself, why are these places nearly alway schools and some cases churches, etc. But not parks, Chuckie Cheeze, etc. Because schools are guaranteed to be gun free. Most schools staff are guaranteed disarmed by policy and they are easy prey.

When did this guy kill himself? When the cops showed. He wasn't unstoppable anymore.

With a controlled place like a school, you could put on steel doors and use security so you could debate alternatives. But disarming uncontrolled places is the best thing these freaks could hope for.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Based on what? Declaring trained, armed peace officers as useless against criminals doesn't seem particularly rational. I know that talking heads dismiss the notion of private citizens with lawfully carried weapons as being of any use(which, by the way, they are), but when you declare the police useless, then you're sounding pretty irrational. What, do we need the military to protect us from some nutjob with a gun?

And again: explain how you're going to use the law keep guns out of the hands of people who are willing to break the law.

Ok, if I was going to shoot up a place, I would take out the lone officer sitting at his desk first, he's dead he can't call for back up, I can go on my merry way and go postal, now what?
If you said put a squad of cops there that would be better, but garrisoning even just one police officer in every building in this country does not seem feasible.

 

[Stiletto]

I don't have an irrational thought in the the back of my mind that the government is going to come knocking down my door and take my rights away.

In other words, you refuse to believe that government agents will ever come to your door and take your guns away. Like they did in New Orleans during Katrina. Ignorance and naivete are anything but "rational", bud.

The 2nd amendment argument related to the 1700s, 1800s and is antiquated.

This statement deserves nothing more than lol.

 

[Stiletto]

Ok, if I was going to shoot up a place, I would take out the lone officer sitting at his desk first, he's dead he can't call for back up, I can go on my merry way and go postal, now what?

That's your thinking. You, apparently, are not a psychopath. You assume that a psychopath thinks exactly the way you do. Why?

Additionally, most shooters start the minute they enter the school. Might have something to do with walking through a school carrying lots of weapons and ammo and other shit tipping off the people around you.

If you said put a squad of cops there that would be better, but garrisoning even just one police officer in every building in this country does not seem feasible.

It doesn't seem feasible? You mean like liaison officers that are quite common in most schools, but are usually prevented from carrying a weapon like every other cop because schools are "gun free zones"? Yeah, totally unfeasible.

 

[MantisIT]

The failed parents will always try to blame something or someone other than themselves...

They're the same as the people that blame guns for gun related crimes.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect for 10 years. It hasn't even been a decade since it was ended. Do you think the powers that be have an eight-year time limit before they can get in liberty-restricting legislation?

By the way, do you even know what the AWB banned? Bayonet clips, telescoping stocks, and barrel shrouds. Almost everything that legislation focused on was nothing more than cosmetic. If your AK-47 didn't have any of the crap that the bill banned on it, it was perfectly legal to own.

I was really glad, too. We were saved the misery and heartache of those drive-by bayonet attacks in the ghetto.

Firstly, I used that as an example of the last time any notable legislation at all was passed by the federal government,
secondly, you are just reading what you want to read and are making a mockery out of the truth.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was only a small part (title XI, subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The Act created a flowchart for classifying 'assault weapons' and subjected firearms that met that classification to regulation. Nineteen models of firearms were defined by name as being 'assault weapons' regardless of how many features they had. Various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns were classified as 'assault weapons' due to having various combinations of features.

The Act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban.

 

[Stiletto]

I don't have an irrational thought in the the back of my mind that the government is going to come knocking down my door and take my rights away.

By the way, watch what you think is irrational being reported on ABC World News. I would have given you the longer video, but I figure you'll see that it was put together by the NRA and refuse to watch it, so here I give you prime time network news so that you'll feel less challenged by what you're watching.

But yes...after the Hurricane in 2005, National Guard troops, in conjunction with the NOPD, went door-to-door with rifles drawn and confiscated all firearms from all citizens, including a little old woman with an unloaded revolver, who they saw fit to tackle because she was such a "threat". They handcuffed people and made them wait while they searched houses, cars, etc and took every weapon, then threw them into leaky trailers where many of the weapons still sit today, and their owners are unable to get them back.

But hey...tyranny is a 1700s, 1800s thing. Right?

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

It doesn't seem feasible? You mean like liaison officers that are quite common in most schools, but are usually prevented from carrying a weapon like every other cop because schools are "gun free zones"? Yeah, totally unfeasible.

Good, then maybe you can explain to us why there wasn't one of those in Sandy Hook elementary school playing superman to stop the rain of bullets, and while your at it, put one in every building in America or in every room or enclosed area of public gathering.

Your point about schools doesn't deter anyone from walking into a dark movie theater and doing the same thing. You still consider it feasible?

 

[Stiletto]

Firstly, I used that as an example of the last time any notable legislation at all was passed by the federal government,
secondly, you are just reading what you want to read and are making a mockery out of the truth.

I notice that your quote doesn't include the features that made weapons "assault weapons". The only mockery here is your pretense of knowing anything about the law. Let's check out what made a rifle an "assault weapon":

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Who knew that our children were dying on the streets left and right due to those pesky pistol grips and flash suppressors? WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

And that postal worker with the grenade launcher...what was his name? I forget.

Clueless politicians make worthless law, as they have for a long time. If you rely on them to protect you, you deserve the lack of protection they provide.

 

[Stiletto]

Good, then maybe you can explain to us why there wasn't one of those in Sandy Hook elementary school playing superman to stop the rain of bullets, and while your at it, put one in every building in America or in every room or enclosed area of public gathering.

Every building or in every room? Rather an irrational suggestion on your part. I'm just talking about anywhere declared a "gun free zone", since it ceases to be a gun free zone the moment a maniac brings a gun into it and starts shooting. A lot of good that fucking sign did, eh?

Your point about schools doesn't deter anyone from walking into a dark movie theater and doing the same thing. You still consider it feasible?

I wasn't making the case that we should put cops everywhere. You were. I suggested it only for schools because they're public buildings to begin with, and because the vast majority of teachers would probably refuse to even come near a gun because they're scared of them.

 

[DeathPrincess]

So i'm going to have to come up with a whole new defence?!

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

By the way, watch what you think is irrational being reported on ABC World News. I would have given you the longer video, but I figure you'll see that it was put together by the NRA and refuse to watch it, so here I give you prime time network news so that you'll feel less challenged by what you're watching.

But yes...after the Hurricane in 2005, National Guard troops, in conjunction with the NOPD, went door-to-door with rifles drawn and confiscated all firearms from all citizens, including a little old woman with an unloaded revolver, who they saw fit to tackle because she was such a "threat". They handcuffed people and made them wait while they searched houses, cars, etc and took every weapon, then threw them into leaky trailers where many of the weapons still sit today, and their owners are unable to get them back.

But hey...tyranny is a 1700s, 1800s thing. Right?

So they took the weapons away because of tyranny? Do you think the government did that because they planned to round up all the people and enslave them later on and didn't want them to fight back? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Maybe, just maybe, they took them away because of all the looting going around and they didn't want hundreds of guns unaccounted for in the streets?

 

[Stiletto]

So they took the weapons away because of tyranny? Do you think the government did that because they planned to round up all the people and enslave them later on and didn't want them to fight back? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Maybe, just maybe, they took them away because of all the looting going around and they didn't want hundreds of guns unaccounted for in the streets?

So, even when government does what you say will never happen, there's still an excuse?

You're a good boy.

 

[BladeVenom]

Your point about schools doesn't deter anyone from walking into a dark movie theater and doing the same thing. You still consider it feasible?

The Aurora movie theater shooting happened in a gun free zone. There were closer movie theaters to the killer, but he chose the one with a no gun policy.

We got gun control in 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_free_zone Making sure that everyone in a school was unarmed, except the crazy person shooting kids. You got gun control, and it's made it easier for crazies to kill children.

While in Israel, when they wanted to stop school shootings, they used armed guards.

 

[Stiletto]

Maybe, just maybe, they took them away because of all the looting going around and they didn't want hundreds of guns unaccounted for in the streets?

And, by the way...after pointing their rifles at US citizens, they had to tie people up and make them wait while they took their guns. How were these guns going to become "unaccounted for" when the goddamn US military had to restrain these people to get their guns away?

 

[Ducman69]

I saw on the news how they were trying so hard to explain the school shootings, and violent video games came up again and again and again.

There are so so many that play first person shooters religiously, and yet have no desire to sign up for the army to get shot at in Afghanistan nor go shooting their mothers and then head off to shoot dozens of innocent little kids.

Out of a population of 300 million, every once in a while you will run across a sadistic person or psycopath. That does not mean that you need to fix the other 299,999,999 people as there is nothing wrong with them or their hobbies. These psychos we find out almost always have some kind of medical disorder.

And people also don't seem to understand that security and freedom really don't go hand in hand. If you have a free society, you sacrifice security and this is unavoidable. If you want a really secure society, where schools are like fort knox and there's no right to privacy or self-defense or anything whatsoever in a police state, you can help prevent a lot of crimes (not all though since murder-suicides are VERY difficult to prevent, since the attacker does not fear any legal reprisal).

STOP TRYING TO MAKE SENSE of the tragedy, just accept its a tragedy, be respectful that the tragedy did NOT occur to you, and offer your sympathy and condolences to the victims. Beyond that, accept that shit happens and sip on a warm bowl of STFU.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

I notice that your quote doesn't include the features that made weapons "assault weapons". The only mockery here is your pretense of knowing anything about the law. Let's check out what made a rifle an "assault weapon":

You don't know how to read then. I bolded the part you forgot to read or failed to comprehend. THE KEY PART BEING AUTOMATIC or SEMI-AUTOMATIC along 2 additional accessories, not just being it has a fucking bayonet on it.

Criteria of an assault weapon. Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the typical accessory features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational feature of 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of accessory features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. [/SIZE]Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of accessory features from the following list of features:


A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

 

[zero1945]

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. They sold the exact same guns, they just changed the way the gun looked slightly.

The guns were still sold. This goes back to what I was saying before: Gun control advocates as a whole know extremely little about guns.

 

[Ur_Mom]

So i'm going to have to come up with a whole new defence?!

No. Your personality keeps people at least 200 meters away. You're good. (That was satirical, BTW)

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

So, even when government does what you say will never happen, there's still an excuse?

You're a good boy.

Any sensible person with a reasonable mind can come to the conclusion that it was done as a precautionary measure for the safety of everyone.
So what did happen, what are you trying to say, the government took the guns away and now the people aren't free anymore?