Rush Limbaugh Discounts Game Violence Angle in VA Tech Rampage
Rush Limbaugh Discounts Game Violence Angle in VA Tech Rampage
April 18, 2007
Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh downplayed the video game violence angle while discussing the Virginia Tech tragedy with his radio audience yesterday.The discussion began when a caller to Limbaugh's program said:
I'll bet my last dollar in my pocket, that this shooter will be found to have been a compulsive video gamer, and when people are living that kind of lifestyle - and college students do this a lot.
Limbaugh, however, nixed that idea at some length in his response and subsequent comments:
Not every video gamer goes out and murders 33 people on the college campus though. There's more to this than that... it may desensitize people, but it doesn't turn everybody into mass murderers...
People have a tough time accepting a relatively simple explanation for something of this scale. But how many people are playing video games out there? How many millions of people play video games, and how many millions of people have guns?
If you start blaming the video games, you may as well demand video game control because it's the same thing when you start trying to blame guns for this. You have here a sick individual, an evil individual who committed a random act. But if you want to start blaming the video games, this guy was this or that, weeeeell, then you've gotta maybe talk about banning them because that's the same tack that's taken with guns.
Full transcript here.
Comments
I do remember my psychology professor saying something about a psych test where every person they tested was abnormal except for one, who turned out to be a murder.
We all can qualify for a personality disorder.
It is so easy to go back and say there are red flags, but in reality it isnt.
To further support your argument, I'd like to point out that the VT campus was a so-called "gun-free zone". Meaning it was illegal for an ordinary citizen to have a firearm at all. Cho broke this law, obviously, because someone with the intent of committing a violent crime is not going to be deterred by gun control laws. If existing gun bans cannot stop this sort of thing from happenning, why pass more?
The reality is that shall-issue concealed carry laws, which allow for the average citizen to carry a concealed weapon, appear to have the effect of reducing violent crime. Or in other words, more guns will lead to less crime, despite the arguments by those who are pro-gun control.
".. Why am I even replying to some of these comments. Half of them are one shot idiots who drive by spew a comment then never comeback."
Because you're a rational person who feels the need to get his point across, even if the person he's explaining things to has an IQ of 32 and won't understand 3/4s of the words you say.
Something I see written over and over here that seems to be blatantly ignored is that whether guns, or any type of weapon, are banned people who are persistent and driven enough to cause harm will FIND A WAY to cause harm. When you take away means of protection, such as firearms, you take away any chance a civilian has against a criminal. What if a security guard was allowed a gun on VT's campus? Why, he just might have been able to save 32 people's lives, give or take a few depending on reaction time.
Weapons are a double-edge sword, pardon the pun. They can be used to cause harm, or for protection. It all depends on the wielder. Therefore proving the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" saying.
Please, one of you left-wing extremists tell me what the real outcome would be by banning guns? What would you do when a CRIMINAL (you know, those guys who break the LAW) points a banned gun at you and threatens your life?
Well, shit, that would have been a good time to have a gun on you, wouldn't it? But wait, you're a law-abiding citizen who's gun was taken away from the government because of the ban. Now you're in a corner, your back to the wall and a 200lbs man in front of you with the barrel of a glock 19 pointed at your head about 6 feet away.
You're also a 105lbs female. You can't take him down with physical strength. You don't have a sword, and even if you did you don't have the physical strength or training to wield one. If only they made a weapon you could use to protect yourself with that was easy to use, light, and required minimal training to use effectively?
OH WAIT THEY DO. BUT THEY'RE BANNED NOW.
Just to let you know, this scenario ends with you getting raped by the 200lbs man, tossed around a few times to his buddies, then shot in the mouth.
Yeah, guys, let's ban guns.
Why do I have the image of a faceless teenager, with a "Hi my name is Daniel" sticker ,beating his keyboard in impotent rage?
@Begone
Please bother to read the above posts. Please try to understand how medical records are handled in a legal setting. I can claim no insight into how doctor patient privilege works in Europe. In the US however unless you are declared some kind of dangerous crazy in a legal setting, I do not believe that your private medical records can be brought up except in a criminal prosecution. In a civil court setting I think they can be brought into it if volunteered.
However the US legal system treats all criminal with mental conditions that can be controlled or alleviated by medication the same way they would treat any other criminal, even if they were not on their medication at the time the crime was committed. The assumption is that they know the consequences of not taking their medicine. If they choose to stop taking their medication in their "normalized" state then commit a crime, they are fully culpable for their actions and can be punished to the fullest extent the law allows.
If we charge someone with a "mental issue" to the fullest extent of the law then we must also allow someone with a mental issue who gets treatment and is normalized to exercise every right that we give normal people.
We give them the same rights and the same responsibilities.
Oh shit. Once again a culture/mindset issue.
We charge people for crimes committed in an altered mental state across the board if they made a conscious decision to enter the altered mental state while in a "normal" mental state. Someone off his meds is treated the way a DUI is treated. From what little I know of the overall European judicial system, a person off his medication would not be subjected to the same penalties as a normal person would.
I could be wrong please feel free to correct my misconceptions about the European system.
About the US legal system. Yes I know this is not always the case, I'm speaking from a layman's perspective. Yes, our legal system does screw up,I am well aware of that, so please don't try to jump down my throat on that.
.. Why am I even replying to some of these comments. Half of them are one shot idiots who drive by spew a comment then never comeback.
The fact that this guy bought a gun LEGALLY even with his documented mental issues shows that gun laws are far to loose in this country. YES GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM!
True, but there are many people in the anti-2nd ammendment crowd who believe that guns turn otherwise normal people into killers. That is the part of the arguement that echos videogame regulation.
Weapons free society, that is a laughable concept. Thats like saying a shiv free prison. One of the most controlled environments possible and you still have people using weapons on each other. Hell, they don't even need a shiv, they will just beat the hell out of each other.
Whether we like it or not, CRIMINALS WILL FIND WEAPONS. The ones that can't will still use knives, bats, crowbars, ect ect ect. In a "weapons free society" a criminal won't fear have anything to fear from his victims, that will only embolden them.
Criminals don't want a fair fight. Highly restrictive gun control gives criminals one thing less to worry about.
Let me put this differently. The Genocide in Rwanda was committed mostly by people with machetes, not guns. They took people from their homes and cut them to pieces with a very common bladed instrument. The government there had guns, and they just watched.
We only have 2 choices. Give people no option but to be victimized or allow people a chance to protect themselves. Neither is a perfect system. Someone will always fuck up both of them. However a little self determination goes a long way.
Parts of the this post do not apply unless you are European.
saying that guns kill people and video games dont is pointless too my friend. videogames are controlled by the user, what you play them FOR is up to you. guns are controlled by the user, what you use the FOR is up to you too. see where im going with this?
The fact is that Guns DO kill people, no matter what everyone says it is much easer to commit violent crimes with readily available weapons than in a gun (or even weapon) free society.
conservative in the sense of resticting government spending and power, yes, although you get divisions even inside libertarian circles as to the best way to guarantee individual liberties. One example would be the split on the issue of foreign policy. Traditionally libertarianism in general and the Libertarian Party in particular has been not just anti-war on general principles but has pretty much advocated strict Isolationism: minimal diplomatic contacts necessary to keep free trade going, and leave it at that. On the other hand you have groups like the one some have taken to calling "Neolibertarians" who think that Interventionist foreign policy may be necessary in extreme cases, both to preserve domestic individual liberty from external threat and to foster individual liberty in places where diplomatic and/or commercial avenues cannot.
Maybe Dennis finally put the 'ol "BANNED" stamp on his forehead and none of us knew about it. To be honest, some of it was fun, but most of it wasn't. For a while I felt like I was no longer logging in to read the news, I was checking to see what crazy thing he was going to say next.
It was such a major distraction; I'm glad things are back to what amounts for normalcy around here.
Only because I'm using Iron sights. Goodness knows jokes about my inability to sight a scope correctly never get old.
@Yoshiko
That is one of many questions code monkeys don't hear very often.
I sometimes wonder what happened to Daniel. He was such an.... inspiring presence?
Have my sweet, intelligent, hypocrisy-free, reasonable, logical, schizo-free children?
I know, and I've acknowledged that in my posts. However, from how I read the transcript, it seemed like Rush was saying that there needs to be no other explanation than that the guy was evil. When a caller suggested that the killer had a mental disorder, he dismissed that idea. I can't go back and check it again because it seems like the transcript is now reserved for members of the site only? Oh well.
It's good to here him showing the true reason behind this tragedy, a sick, evil, twisted person, not video games.
You should change your name, because your comments are right on target. The notion of dredging through someone's personal life, medical records, etc. tramples all over civil rights. I'm a little shocked that people touting a fairly liberal idea (let's regulate guns differently) can't see that as clearly as you do.
It's also a little shocking to hear people who think it's wrong to point the finger at video games as a scapegoat in the very next breath blaming guns in exactly the same way. Some are couching it in some absurd ("let's scan peoples' thoughts to see if they deserve a gun") or weasel-worded way ("I'm not saying guns should be banned, just nearly prohibited by very strict laws!") to make it seem like they are reasonable. Call it short-sightedness or hypocrisy, but either way it's disappointing.
Let's put guns and video games aside for a moment, and really look at what I think the core of Rush's argument is. There are no simple answers, and therefore no simple solutions when something like this happens. It's natural for people to look for one, but that's a weakness. Other people have already mentioned this, but the message is that people need to be responsible for themselves. That's a simple thing to say, but it's an almost unrealistically difficult thing to put into practice. It may be why we'll never be able to fully prevent this sort of tragedy from happening, and still maintain a free society with all the liberties we enjoy. But that's a price I'm not willing to pay, and I don't think many Americans are either.
The problem with your example is that you're talking about "normal" criminals as opposed to the mentally ill. Spree killers like the ones we're talking about (as well as serial killers) are mentally defective, due in large part to integral physical and chemical differences between their brains and the "normal", fully functional human brain.
Quite simply, it's not a matter of external influence. It's a matter of internal physical and neurochemical pathology.
The first true sign of wisdom is to acknowledge that we actually know very little. Does that make it wrong to form an opinion? No, but it takes strong moral character to take yourself with a grain of salt. It's ok to say "I have no interest in listening to Rush (or NPR) because, from what I've heard of 'em, I don't think I'd enjoy the show."
It is entirely ignorant to hold a unilaterally disapproving view of everything someone does, when you are admittedly basing your "expertise" of that person upon almost pure hearsay.
This applies to Rush, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Thompson, and even the VT shooter equally.
A couple points I'd like to pick out of all the comments so far, not to pick on anyone persay, but just to make people think for themselves a little more:
First... is checking yourself into a clinic because you were worried about suicidial depression a clear sign of insanity? Isn't that exactly what a sane person would do? Get help for a problem? Wouldn't a truly crazy person just lock themselves in a dark room for days on end giggling about purple fairies? There really is no public record of that kind of behavior that can be "checked." Mentally unfit is not black and white, it's a sliding scale, and the government is unfortunately always in the position that they have to take care not to "discriminate" against what would qualify as a handicap or disability in their attempt to weed out the potentialy homicidal. Really, criminal records are a good way to do it. I would MUCH rather sell a gun to someone who was bipolar but never had an overdue library book than someone who was perfectly sane but was convicted of assault a dozen times. In my opinion, the former has demonstrated that they have the personal responsibility to cope with whatever mental condition they are suffering from.
Republicans, in my opinion, are not in the pocket of Christian Conservatives, which I find to be a common misperception. Do they make up a significant portion of the voters? Absolutely, but think about the actual decision makers of the Republican party and how many of them have actually challenged Roe vs Wade in the past 6 1/2 years. What significant legislation has been passed that panders to the rights of Christians at the exlusion of other religions? While true that a lot of Republican candidates use "strong Christian morals" to appeal to voters, consider also that a lot of this started back in the 1960's when Southern Democrats, disillusioned with the "equal rights" being given to blacks by their northern counterparts left the party en-masse in protest. The black vote had always been a significant base for Republicans ever since Lincoln up until that point, but how often were blacks really pandered to in terms of Republican agendas?
Consider your own opinion if moral values are important to you in a politician you vote for. One the one hand, we want them to make non-evil decisions, but on the other hand morality often makes one feel "superior" to those with different, though not necessarily "wrong" values, which is not exactly a fair and equal system. Can someone who is, for example Jewish, segregate thier views on politics and religion enough to support a candidate with christian moral values? What about a Buddhist? Should they or shouldn't they do so when voting? Why or why not?
I do not believe that religious morals influencing politicians is a completley good idea, nor do I believe that it is entirely worthless, even if my own religious views vary wildly from the politician in question.
Republicans are not in the pocket of big businesses. Political parties ARE big businesses, and that goes for Democrats and Libertarians as well. Making blanket statements about how one party does this and another party does that is silly... parties are made of individuals with wildly varying opinions, which change all the time. Party constituents are equally likely to have same amount of values in common with another member of their own party as with a member of the "opposing party". e.g. a Republican who supports abortion has values in common with a Democrat who supports gun rights who has values in common with a Libertarian who opposes legalization of marijuana who has values in common with that same Republican. The values have never been clearly divided, and never will be... people align themselves to parties only based on the few values that are MOST important to them.
And also, think about why one would consider "big business" to be a bad thing? For example Haliburton is constantly criticized for being huge-and-therefore-evil, but really ask yourself, what EXACTLY has Haliburton done that I disapprove of personally, not what I read on a political blog somewhere? I'm not trying to lead anyone towards liking or disliking them... again, just asking people to form their own opinions and acknowledge the the worth (or lack thereof) of what that opinion is based upon.
Anyway, last point... it's just silly to make generalized-statements-as-fact about anything you haven't seen for yourself. The best way to know find out whether Rush made his comments to defend individual freedoms and call for personal accountability, or as merely a round-about way of pushing a gun rights agenda, would be to ask him.
Identifying the extermal stimuli is important if you want to stop these things from happening again. Imagine, hypothetically, that I have a run of bad luck and find my way deep into poverty. Despite my best efforts, I can't seem to get out. So I decide to take my prized handguns and hold up a bank. Simple enough response, right? Take me to prison and keep me there for a few years. Oops, but after my release I'm still broke as hell and have an even harder time getting out of poverty because of my criminal record. So I try my daring bank raid again and get caught once more.
What's the problem? Surely I just made a mistake in deciding to rob those banks. But think about why I robbed the banks. Was it because I owned a gun? No, I used the gun to rob the bank, but I could easily have just mugged someone with a knife or my bare hands. I did it because I was poor and didn't want to be anymore (reasonable enough), but couldn't find a way out. So, my desire to escape the hopeless poverty drove me to get money by any means possible. Reducing poverty and/or increasing the number or support for programs to help people get out of it would result in less people taking drastic measures.
What else? In prison I didn't make any money and didn't learn any skills -- conversely, I probably picked up some antisocial habits while in the slammer. I definitely couldn't have gotten a great job after being imprisoned for armed robbery. So maybe there are ways to change the prison system that could rehabilitate people by teaching them new skills, new ways of thinking, all while still making it clear that prison is not a place you want to be.
Why would I resort to such violent measures, even given my hopeless poverty? Maybe I wasn't raised well enough. Maybe I grew up in a hostile environment. If people are raised properly and in a stable environment, they will be less inclined to commit acts like this.
In the end, while it was very bad for me to rob those banks, and while I should be punished for it, it could have turned out differently if things had been better. Am I coming across clearly?
A student made and brought a pipe bomb into my school last just Wednesday...not to mention the kids at Columbine had bombs as well. But why consider facts when it's easier to just spew forth baseless arguments. I mean, you'd hate to be like the very people who attack video games....oh, wait.
I think part of the point that Vladimir is trying to make is just saying that "They were an evil person, they are the one that bears the responsiblity." doesn't determine the underlying problem.
From the reporting of what facts there are, it's apparent that Cho was a badly damaged person with a lot of anger. It's important to learn how he ended up screwed up so steps can be taken to keep others from ending up the same way.
This isn't to say that he isn't responsible; he chose to reject help and friendly ovetures, and decided to end his life in a manner that took a lot of people with him. But I'd like to know how he ended up someone that was facing that choice so that we'll have a chance of stopping the next one before they harm themselves or others.
That's all Rush tends to point out -- the individual is still responsible for their actions, plain and simple. It really doesn't matter (is not relevant) in determining who's at fault to figure out all of the external stimuli. True, some of the externals are obviously special cases -- like, for instance, the mentally ill. However everything doesn't fall into special cases like that. People need to be personally responsible for their actions, is all.
I Love you guys. Reading your posts, you've said just about everything I was thinking. After meeting and reading of all these completely unreasonable people I was beginning to lose faith in humanity. Thanks for restoring it!
I'd like to say that even if we ban guns, bad people will get them. I am reminded of a story that John Kerry told about a Drug Dealer. When the police raided his home, they found him in bed with an AK-47 next to him. First, last I checked, AK-47s are illegal in this country. Second, he was a drug dealer, he wasn't exactly law-abiding. (Note: he meant this to encourage gun bans)
And to all those "superior" Europeans, I'll bet money you have a black market where you could buy any illegal merchandise you want, including guns.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be held accountable. I think people definitely need to be held accountable for their actions, as long as they are in their right mind. You seem to agree with me that mentally ill people are special cases where they do not necessarily have the ability to think rationally. I also didn't say that the existence or availability of games or guns made him do it.
However, you have to agree that some external stimuli can influence people towards things like this. How else do you explain it? He didn't just wake up one day and say, "I think I've decided to be a cold, murderous nutcase."
And i could be wrong on who said this, i think it was chris rock. But his question in reference to the columbine shootings was, "What ever happened to plain old crazy?" Obviously this kid is a nut and he didn't need video games or anything else to spur him on. reality had a tragic effect on his warped mind and thats about it.
There must be all kinds of biological, emotional, cultural, etc. factors that screwed him up enough to make him decide to do it. To say that the killer chose to kill is to recognize the problem but not actually solve the formula all the way through.
Too bad no one cares about what happened in Bath Township eighty years ago and it goes completely ignored while the media hypes what happen at VA Tech as the "new deadliest act of mass murder". I heard it when I was younger from my grandfather and other people I knew who were around that area of Michigan when it happened. Of course the media will be pounding this into the ground until they either get bored or another story hits that they think they can exploit for ratings.
@Grombar
He lost the weight years ago.
Rush isn't nearly as bad as certain people try to make him out to be. Especially compared to certain people on the other side.
I'm surprised they haven't gone and busted down his family's door to get the "big story" from them.
well the media at the moment is in the process of having their ass handed to them as some rather obvious information about this guy is just now coming out.
This argument as been debated more then once on GP, suprising to see this guy say this, finally! (It's on the link given by GP for the full transcript, a bit pass the middle of the page).
NICS (sorry, typo before, in case you tried to google) checks for criminal convictions, restraining orders, dishonorable discharge from the military, immigration status, or whether a person has ever been judged mentally defective. Actual medical records are off limits due to privacy laws, but generally a judge or magistrate must commit someone involuntarily to a mental institution, so that should show up, in theory. I'm guessing the loony bin they took him to just didn't find he was crazy enough to commit.
exactly. its not a gun issue here. im seeing alot of people who arnt from america claiming it is but in all senses, its not. if anything, its a mental health system issue because people cannot get the real treatment they need. they get pushed in and out of the system and are given quick-fix perscriptions that dont do jack shit. we have the power to do something about that but people are too caught up in the moment and are looking at things in the wrong perspective.
Before others flame you for your comments, I'd like to say I completely agree with you on this issue. Speaking as a political moderate and not a true Rush supporter, I've found the reaction here pretty closed minded and even ironic considering the gaming community's outcry against political officials and psychologists who have no evidence against video games and yet blame them for the ills of society anyway.
We're blasting ignorance and assumptions all the time when it suits us and yet we blatantly flaunt our own ignorance when it comes to understanding political figureheads we're supposed to hate.
So what should we do? Not allow anyone who has suffered from depression buy guns? Should people with ADD/ADHD not be allowed to buy guns? What if someone is iffy, one doc thinks they are nuts another doctor doesn't think they are nuts. What do you do then? Do we tell a former veteran with PTSD that he can't own a gun because of his mental state?
Does the government have the right to dig into your personal life to see if you can own a gun? I know the background checks for the internship I got this summer included a low level clearance, so the FBI has my internet records right now, they may have my library records, and my telephone records.
Does the government have the right to do something invasive like that when someone wants to exercise a right outlined in the constitution? I want that job, that job isn't a guaranteed right to me, I had to give them permission to snoop on me.
In the end what it boils down to is your view on human life. Your view on what a human has the right to do in relation to him/herself. Your view on the governments role in a persons life. Your view on safety versus liberty. The fact of the matter is were not going to change each other opinions. You think the US has a backwards system of gun ownership, I see Europe's gun laws as a violation of inherent liberties. It boils down to the fact that I have a different point of view, one that will most likely never change.
"Rush Limbaugh was the last person I was expecting to hear a reasoned, sensible and reserved opinion from on anything, let alone this kind of thing."
"Im shocked…maybe he is only 99.5% scum after all..."
"I never expected to think something “positive” about Rush Limbaugh…"
etc, etc...
You people are so close minded. You say this and think this stuff about Rush, but I would be willing to bet that you have never listened to one of his shows. You hear from someone that he is a right wing moron, and that's all you think you know about him or his views.
Actually listen to him and you will realize most of what he says is logical. You lefties will never grasp logic, so maybe it's pointless. It's just like what Rush is saying about VT. People always look for something or someone to blame, and they never come to the realization that the actual source is to blame. Liberals always try to make the crimal the victim is some way.
Meant to say....
Liberals always try to find a way to make the criminal the victim.
"He passed the full NCIS/FBI background check to buy the Glock."
Question: what is involved in the NCIS/FBI background check? is it just a check to see his recond for past criminal activity, or does it dig deep into his background, like his life and mental state?
The thing is, there are some things popping up in reports that sounds like, as Thad pointing out, would have set off some red flags and mae the seeler think twice about selling him the gun. Certain things like one story that says that he was admitted breifly to a mental institute about 2 years ago under the count of being possibly suicidal... Another talks about the destrubing works of writing he made... and while a sane person can write such things, given somekind of background check on him or mental test on him, this guy probably would have set off a few flags that says he shouldn't be given a weapon...
So do those NCIS/FBI background checks take that all into account, and thus at the time he did prove himself stable and sane enough to own a firearm, or do they do just a background check for past crime, of which in my opinion, does not really suffice to say one is responcible/sane enough to own a firearm
I think Libertarians are excellent on social issues, but I'm also a fan of the whole safety net idea. Furthermore, I think true laissez-faire capitalism is a bad idea that ultimately leads to the erosion of the middle class in favor of a few rich people.
In summary:
Republicans are way too in the pocket of the Christian Right and big corporations.
Libertarians have some nice-sounding ideas which in practice are economically harmful (although I'd vote Libertarian over Republican).
The Green Party... slavery reparations. Once again, sounds very sweet, but it's a bad idea on all sorts of levels.
The Democrats are complicated... on the downside some of the major contenders (like Hillary especially) are the worst sort of panderers, constantly trying to woo social conservatives by vilifying movies and video games. They also tend to buddy up with the RIAA (although Republicans do a lot of that too). But there's a big grassroots movement within the Democratic party to take the party back from the panderers and start working on real reform, and I'd like to see where that goes before I jump ship.
To add some sarcasm, now I hear that the murderer commited VA Tech massacre because his girlfriend dumped him. So let's ban, or at least legislate love relationships.
another good angle to bring up that proves my point that these "safety nets" are not failsafe. people fall through the cracks. its a part of life that people are just going to have to eventually accept.
Tell me about it. most murderers probably don't even know what videogames are!
"It could NOT have happened without guns being involved."
Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
"I know new facts in this case are still coming to light, but from what I understand, this guy should have set off some red flags. Had a full background check been performed, he may not have been allowed to purchase those guns."
He passed the full NCIS/FBI background check to buy the Glock.
how can you do background checks on metally deranged when most of the people who are mentally deranged go undiagnosed in this country? you want your source problem thats it right there. people cant get the help they need because people who have power to give it too them are too out of touch with reality.
if we had a working mental health system that people could get not only treated but actually afford without insurance and all that crap, then there wouldnt BE as many mentally deranged people that do these things.
its not a video game issue, its not a gun control issue, its a mental health system issue. and frankly, ours sucks. teen suicide and depression rates are off the charts and none of them get properly treated because there is no treatment available to them when they need it. this shooter, like most others, commited suicide in the end. a sane, normal minded person would never think of such a thing. they get put in the system as just another number and loaded up with the cheapest perscription drug avalible and never get look upon at an invidual basis like they truly need to be. this guy apparently had serious anger towards women and rich people. guns and games are not a root factor of where that anger came from, its obviously from some serious experiences this guy had been through at some point in his life that created such anger. guns and videogame are irrelevant on this issue. you ban either or both of them and this problem is still going to be here. the sad thing is, is that no one seems to realize this or even worse, admit it.
Do tell, how would banning guns - and actually getting it to the point where this guy couldn't get ahold of one - keep this lunatic from killing some number of people?
The problem is this guy decided he was going to take his hate out on other people. Changing the method he used is only going to change the number of injured and dead up or down. The real problem is that he chose to go out and kill people.
I was making a point about unjustified hatred. I was not comparing anyone to a nazi.
Look, I own an M1 carbine, two shotguns, a .9mm, and I play 'Gears of War' at least three hours every day, yet I have NEVER been tempted to go out and snuff out a human life. The media and politicos are not a second too late on scapegoating inanimate objects for the crimes of one hate-filled lunatic. Just watch, this'll be like the Columbine aftermath all over again: more government intervention in our private lives, blaming games and movies, stripping the law-abiding people of their basic right to self defense, etc. 1999 was a bad year for us gamers but my gut tells me this is going to be worse, even if it can be proven that Cho was not into video games.
Yes, let's just have more government intervention in our lives, more Gestapo "law enforcement", and less personal freedom. That'll make everything better (sarcasm mode off).
He could have also have been stopped a by a single armed and trained student, or teacher. However, once again laws designed to protect people from the evil guns created an imbalanced playing field. The only person with the gun was the criminal.
Hitler hated Jewish people, I wonder what Eli Wiesel and Co. Will have to say.
Oh... wait.... sorry, I forgot that irrational hatred existed.
@brokenscope: Ever hear of Godwin's Law?
he could easily kill thirty, if not more, with a bomb.
On another note, some of the recent chatter suggests the letter left by the gunman stated anger and fustration over Christianity. I wonder what JT & co will have to say about that if it turns out to be true.
This massacre could have happened without video games being involved. (In fact, I don't think there's any evidence that video games WERE involved.)
It could NOT have happened without guns being involved.
I understand the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, and I understand personal responsibility and responsible gun use. But let's be honest, guys, this could not have happened if the killer hadn't had a gun. He couldn't have killed thirty people with a knife. He sure as hell couldn't have killed thirty people with a PlayStation.
I'm not suggesting guns should be banned. If you're a responsible gun owner, hey, great. But if you're mentally deranged, there should be background checks.
I know new facts in this case are still coming to light, but from what I understand, this guy should have set off some red flags. Had a full background check been performed, he may not have been allowed to purchase those guns. He still would have been crazy, but he would have been a crazy guy WITHOUT a gun. A crazy guy without a gun is a lot less dangerous than a crazy guy WITH a gun.
Again, I'm not saying ban guns. However, I AM saying it's perfectly reasonable not to sell them to mentally ill people who show a strong likelihood of endangering themselves and others.
I see that as simple and straightforward. Can someone please explain to me what I'm missing?
Everyone, heads between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye, the apocalypse is nigh.