Illinois Legislator on NIU Rampage: Don't Blame Guns, Blame Video Games
Illinois Legislator on NIU Rampage: Don't Blame Guns, Blame Video Games
February 17, 2008
In the wake of Thursday's tragic shooting at Northen Illinois University, a state legislator was quick to defend guns while attempting to shift blame for the rampage to other targets - including video games.As reported by the Chicago Daily Herald, Rep. Robert Pritchard (R), whose legislative district includes the NIU campus, said:
[Gun control] doesn't seem to impact the kind of gun violence that goes on. I think we need to broaden the discussion to include what other factors are weighing on these kind of deranged individuals.
I think video games is a part of the problem, television, movies. Just a whole culture of violence.
Comments
Thank you, now I hopefully don't have to explain my insurance point earlier, but just in case.
You MAY be attacked, you may be assaulted, and you may be robbed and if those do happen wouldn't you just love to have a gun with you to even the odds?
Oh and to the rest of jcoit's reply.
Some people do use gun ranges for fun. I have an interview here from one of the lead designers of Black, apparently they tested guns at a gun range to see their physics and one of them said this
"I cannot recommend it more strongly. Given the cost of comparable adrenaline activities - racing sports cars, snowboarding, flying a jet plane - it's incredibly good value and can be done in a couple of hours. The best approach is to progree from pistols as quickly as possible, get stuck in with the shotgun, and then fire every machine gun in the joint. This worked for us. An exciting, exhilirating and periodically terrifying couple of hours."
This is taken from the August 2005, issue of PSM (if only I could get my scanner to work).
" Also, I would think that is someone has a nice and want to rob you they are just going to go for you."
Yeah because having a murder on your hands is much more preferable then a simple mugging, riiiiiiiiight.
"Everyone is clawing for those guns that protect your house from natural disaster and electrical fires. I know I am!"
Yeah and I'm looking for the insurance claim that can summon armed men to my house, to protect me in less than 10 seconds flat even if the power's out.
"There will more than likely never be a call to arms to fight the politicians."
The 19th century says hi, as does the confederate flag (yes I'm well aware they lost but if certain conditions were changed, they could've won).
Oh and of course 1776 and the french revolution say hi also (and the Spaish Civil War).
THERE GOES THE LOGIC TRAIN!
ninganinganinganingaNINGANINGANINGANINGAninganinganinga----...
i blame the American law an fox and this is why
for some odd reasion some clerver amarican in high power diceded that saying ,,, ON record haveing a gund was your god given right * and this makes alot of americans decide there right must be used to its full extent of a fully auto... go figer
Fox ... well not just fox all American news i lived in the usa for about a year and well scare mungoring comes to mind i mean if i took what the news said for tru then every one has bombs in bags and "james bond style poision pens"
ahh well
*so isnt haveing a game your right too?
Because the police can't be there in 5 seconds whilst you're being mugged or robbed, or if some mad men is killing people in front of you.
This is a poor show of gamer activism then.
How many idiots could possibly be in positions of power on this earth?!
At the end of the day, it is stupid of anyone to say "America should just ban guns." The gun is a fundamental part of American society and history, it is viewed as a great equalizer, a small man can fight a large man and win, a poor man can kill a rich man, etc. It is simply unrealistic to expect any nation with such a history of gun use to be able to ban these weapons, since they are so wide spread and many otherwise law abiding citizens would refuse to hand them over.
That said, surely even people who like guns can understand that someone who is obviously mentally disturbed should not be able to walk into a store and buy a bunch of guns? One of the current problems with gun control in the US, infact it seems to those outside to be a problem with ANY control of anything in the US, is that the moment you talk about limiting access via government decree, people start complaining about their rights. This means that you end up with a bunch of deranged school kids or other disturbed individuals able to buy guns.
When people look at these events, they shouldn't be trying to isolate a cause.. the fact he was off his meds wasn't "The Cause". The fact he had guns wasn't "The Cause". The possiblity he played games wasn't "The Cause".
To find out why these things happen, people need to start looking wider. If, as a teenager with obvious problems, he had recieved actual treatment instead of just being forced into taking mind and personality altering drugs the story could have been far different. The culture of fun ownership AND violent media in all forms is definitely an issue, but only goes to highlight a stark fact about American society and history.. it is a violent nation, based and built on war, a nation of great variety who only truly seems to act together against outside or internal threats which its people fear and therefore want to hurt. Central to American history and social behavior is the idea that if someone threatens or hurts you, or takes something from you, or upsets you.. hurt them.
If people truly want to stop these things happen, they need to bring about change far more extensive than just banning guns, or video games. They need to actually change the culture in which they are living, they need to stop the sensationalism, the "easy fix" attitude towards medication, and even their political climate before this sort of stuff will stop happening.
Blaming games? Moronic.
Blaming guns? Short-sighted.
Who fires the gun? A mentally diseased kid. If he didn't have a gun at hand (say, if guns were prohibited), then he'd just run for the nearest sword/knife/weapon/home-made explosive.
There are other weapons than guns. Treat the bloody person using 'em and stop the damn witch hunt.
Still, I don't go with gun control, now, background checks and stuff, I will, but you will never change my mind on outright gun banning.
As soon as I have the proper time (going out very soon...), I am going to find this man's email and write something off. However, I am not in his district so my words won't have as much influence. It would be MUCH better if we had people writing to him from his area. I hope you all do the same too. But, for sanity's sake (or at least mine), leave Jack Thompson our of your mailings! :)
What? is that the only aspect of the game that is influencing? the gun part? this whole thing is just stupid.
Like I said before they guy was taking medication and was doing great, if that shows up on the registry how are the gun store owners supposed to know that one day he'll stop taking his medication and then snap?
And skeet shooting. I wasn't aware clay was senteitn.
All that I was saying, in that instance, is that some may go to a shooting range to better their use with a gun for that purpose. Police officers do not go to shooting ranges to practice shooting traffic signs from the window of their cruiser, they do it so they can be more effective in a situation where they may have to shoot, and harm, another individual.
I would like to point out, and apologize that I may have been a bit hasty with that analysis. Guns used for hunting and other said sporting events should be allowed. If kept for "protection" or for eventually being turned on another human being have no cause or need in this world, unless you live under a constant state of serious attack.
My apologies.
"How often are guns used to protect people by a non-law enforcer or non-military person? Not very often.
Show me those statistics please.
"most people who are killed in there household (where people could get their gun to ‘protect’ themselves) are killed by their own gun"
Show me those statistics as well.
"If you give scissors to one classroom of first graders, and they all behave, that’s just fine. But if a good chunk of another class of first graders are using that scissors to stab people’s eyes out, you would remove the scissors from the classroom. Even if you only give it to the good behaving kids, a violent kid could come by, steal the scissors, and start stabbing."
So by your logic, we should not let people drink because they might drive. Even the ones that obey the law, and don't drink and drive, we should take there drinks a way to because someone may steal there drink and then drive and kill someone.
At the end of the day, its just BS.
"Now, I’m not trying to take a stance on gun control by saying this, but really, statistics like that aren’t a whole lot of good. What about countries like, say, Switzerland, which maintain heavily armed neutrality? Pretty much everyone there has firearm training and access to at least 1 firearm."
Okay, I nearly missed this reasonable response in the haze of the other 2. You are right Kawauso, but you partially answer your own question here. The Swiss population does military service and is therefore trained to use guns and show the power and damage that they can cause. I believe in part this helps with the care and ownership of rifles and such.
"There are more violent crimes, period, in the U.S. than the UK. There are more violent crimes in the U.S. than a lot of developed countries. The level of gun “control” in the States can’t help with violent crimes, I’m sure, but I don’t think if gun ownership in the U.S. became illegal over night it would really change much."
This is true. Overnight not much would happen. There would still be a large amount of illegal weaponary out there needing to be confiscated and taken off the streets, but it would happen slowly and surely. I'll go on to how I think it would be best introduced in a minute.
It also doesn't address the wider reason of why Americans commit more violent crime as you say. I think this is a social problem from a number of factors. You have gang problems, a disparity between the rich and poor, a fundemental lack of caring for the poor (living on minimum wage in the UK is hard but possible - in the US it is nigh on impossible due to healthcare and lack of support from Government etc), general fear instilled into the population from News and Government to keep its population in check... None of these reasons are address by gun control alone.
So what DOES gun control curb? It prevents mass killings from being so easy. You can outrun knives, use protection, keep people at range with objects or even tackle them and remove the knife from them. A gun would negate these things in an enclosed space. It also reduces the ease and instant death that a gun brings.
I personally would introduce certain restrictions and background checks and ban some weapons. An outright ban wouldn't be popular or work. My proposal is to ban automatic weapons completely. There is no argument for having these for any purpose by the civilian population besides titiliation. Semi Automatic weapons and Shotguns need to be heavilly guarded against and reasons for ownership offered, documented and a representative come to look at how the gun is secured and stored when not in use.
That leaves handguns. Here I would have anyone who wants to own one require a background check into mental health conditions, previous convictions and maybe even be forced to do a course at a local gunclub. This would take time to compile and to secure. All this information is available to the Government anyhow, it would just need someone to look it up. And I wouldn't allowed gunshop owners access to this information, I would just have a seperate licensing government body to do the background checks and confirm/deny gun sales to each person on an individual basis with an Appeals panel available for disputes and clarifications.
I believe this is a reasonable and fair way to gun control in the US that doesn't prevent the "right to bear arms" but DOES place some degree of responsibility on the ownership of them.
Thoughts?
everyone knows that the Palestiniasns from young are taught to hate, its in their school curricllum and videos and palestinian new's service everyday. of which quotes can abundantly be found on the internet.
As far as Israel taking land. the day they were given a piece of the desert in 1948 of which no palestinian occupied nor wanted, it was a bunch of sand- the next day they were invaded by Arab countries and they were forced to fight to live.
each time a people attack and when they lose, Israels land expands as the spoils of war often go.
as far as history- Islam refuses to acknowledge that King David - Solomon built the temple and it was called the land of Israel. even Jesus and the Jewish people lived there (under roman occupation) 2000 years ago. and parts of the wall of Herods second temple are there long before any palestinians became refugees and were sent there from arab lands.
one would do well to learn some history from historians that have no religious bias, then to listen to what people want them to think for an agenda.
So when one religion talks about killing it is morally reprehensible but when yours does that is okay?
Furthermore you say "well the verse in the Bible does not teach that we kill them. pay attention to what it actually says." Well I read it and note #32 "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them”.
Religious texts are old and written at a time of differing moral and social norms. That is as true for Muslims as it is for Christians.
no need to call me a 'freaking moron'. When people start to shout descriptive insults like that based on no point it generally means they are shouting because they have no argument to shout instead.
umm did i EVER say they where out of context? no, my point is yeah the quotes you have stated clearly ARE in there.
the point was that it is hypocritical to point at a religious text and criticise it , whilst holding another religious text behind your back containing many equally aggressive, outdated, or morally unscrupulous things.
my point was made by pointing you toward mr phelps and his whole obsession with the bibles god hates homosexuals thing.
if you want some quotes to prove the point :
"Ex 15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
Ps 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Isa 13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.
Ho 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
and specifically to homosexuals
Gen. 13:13; Gen. chapters 18 and 19; Jude 7; 2nd Pet. 2:6
The people in these cities were completely destroyed by fire and brimstone because their sin was “very grievous”, they were “wicked sinners before the Lord,” they had a “filthy manner of life,” and they gave “themselves over to fornication” and went after “strange flesh” (sodomy) among other sins. They “are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
so... yeah... there you go. you can find abhorrent materials in many religious texts.
and that most religious texts have parts in them that are outdated. If you honestly are goint to argue thats not true, fine but you are deluded.
Most of the AK-47 assault rifles functioning in the world today were constructed in the 1950s and simply kept maintained. They were acquired by terrorists and other criminals after the fall of the Soviet Union when weapon stores were either looted or sold off. That was nearly twenty years ago and we're still feeling the ripples from it. Think to yourself how many times you see a Kalashnikov rifle used for crime on TV. My point is that even if we banned the sale of guns entirely now, they would remain active on the black market trade for an unpredicatbly long period of time.
This is not like the "Domino Theory". This is a worst case scenario that would easily play out.
America is fascinated with death and violence. Movies like Saw and Hostel show how notions of sadistic violence can be entertaining under the proper circumstances. So long as the average person can remain emotionally detached from murder, it is no different to them. Why else would so many kids on the internet parody and make fun of the victims of the World Trade Center. Entertainment in general has given us a very immature attitude about weaponry and we have no intentions about changing that attitude.
In closing, I would like to say that I'm not a cynic who supports gun ownership because he believes that we're doomed no matter what. Quite the opposite. I would just like to underscore how little people care beyond initial shock when things like this happen. The legendary "it'll never happen to me" attitude is probably to blame. The only way to counteract this kind of selfish criminal act is to teach our youth to know better from the start. While Super Nintendo and Metallica won't create murderers, they won't raise honor students either. Do your best to influence a young life in a positive way. We're all in this together.
So....without guns, people could still shoot each other?
Riiiiiight.
However trying to blame games and movies is just another shameful attempt to score political points.
i for one belive there is more scientific evidence in the 'potential harm' of a bullet fired from a gun than the evidence for 'potential harm ' from video games.
duh. and im not even einstein. One has a DIRECT CAUSAL LINK eg bullet killed person. and one has a correllation (in the same way as the correllation between ice cream sales and shark attacks). duh *head slam*
please please please politicians, just use some common sense. i really dont get the statement that gun control seems to have no effect. if there are NO GUNS AVAILABLE they cant do anything but literally THROW BULLETS.
yes some guns will still be available. but not as readily. and the stricter the controls, the less likely a mentally ill perosn can get hold of one.
I wasn't aware military death beams were already portable enough to fit in a handheld device. The only ones I knew of were the size of a house, required vats of highly toxic chemicals and or EXTREMELY high voltage, and required a huge truck or an airplane to move around, no apparently those are being put in video game controllers.
Ok, now that my inner idiot is done, I will say this guy is jumping on a wagon that has four flat tires and steers like a shopping cart with an extra wheel and the engine misfires and stalls, a lot. Better get our and crank the engine again.
Remember kids! Guns = Good. Video Games = Bad.
and in order for fantasy violence to come into existance, it needs a source to draw itself from beforehand, it cannot do this by itself. we need to target the problem at its source, which is our portryal of it in the REAL world. we are rasing ourselves with the mindset that violence is justifiable provided it leads to serve a common good. and this is exactly where the problem is and why we are still going in circles.
Oh, yeah, Jack just claimed it's because people aren't reporting it. lol What a tool.
great grammar.
Okay, he came as close to saying "Guns don't kill people, video games do." as you can without actually saying it. Now, I don't believe gun control would help, since people planning to kill don't exactly seem to like laws anyways. Blaming video games while completely refusing to even look into exactly how the killer got the weapons with his history of mental illness is insane. Laws don't work if they are not enforced, so far most of the school shootings in my lifetime have been done with guns acquired illegally, and they all have had other reasons that negate the need to blame video games.
Also, how does this make any sense? He went to boot camp, but games taught him how to kill.
"I think video games is a part of the problem, television, movies. Just a whole culture of violence."
He did not single out videogames in any way. The title to this story is a bit misleading and instead should read:
"Illinois Legislator on NIU Rampage: Don't blame guns, blame the media."
Sure he mentioned videogames was part of the problem but I think it's refreshing (I know thats sad) to see he is not using videogames as a scapegoat like so many others.
Do the story justice and give the Rep. some respect, the headline should be altered.
Never mind the fat that the state tried to pass what was found to be an unconstitutional law and (emphasis mine) still owes money in court fees that the taxpayers have to pay!
Then again, this guy's a Republican. Of course he's going to blame games and other popular entertainment and not guns!
It makes me wonder who NIU's presdient is going to be more apt to listen to; his students like Mark of Cain or JT, Blago and Pritchard?
Media glorification of violence is one facet of the debate. Another is the woefully inadequete information and knowledge that people have about mental illness and the potential side effects of stopping your meds cold. There are many factors involved and we should be talking about all them instead of the kneejerk "leave my videogames alone" arguement. All media needs to be discussed, same as the man's mental illness, his meds, the ease at which someone can purchase a gun online and many other issues.
If no one is ever willing to talk openly and honestly nothing will ever get solved.
Sure, he does also mention television and movies as well. However, he put video games out there in the spotlight more by giving the nod mostly to them. That in a sense still places more of the blame on video games.
But I don't think there is anything to fully blame on a culture of violence. I've said it before, I'll say it again. More then gun control, more then any type of violence, there are just people who lose touch with things and go into this horrible place and are capable of horrible things. But what makes this even worse is he isn't a raving disturbed person like Cho. He seems like he's normal. People want to find the or any pattern they can so they can feel like there is some predictable nature to this and you can pick out the troubled kids and either cordon them off or stop them in time.
The problem is not simply that they're blaming video games. The problem is that they're looking for an oversimple solution to a complicated problem of violence. These people don't realize that you could ban all video games, movies, and television shows deemed inappropriate for anyone over the age of 6 and it wouldn't eliminate tragedies like this.
At the same time, Rep. Pritchard's claim that gun control is not the problem in this case is, however misguided, accurate. The NIU shooter had a state firearm license and was looking at a career in the prison system. The government couldn't have kept guns away from him any more than you could video games. Unfortunately, the gun lobbyists still feel the need to defend themselves when things like this happen. It's just a shame that they feel the need to attack video games in doing so.
It's been widely reported that the shooter went off his medication before this incident. Why can't they just settle on that? Could pharmaceutical ninja-lobbyists be responsible?
Oh and the gun control issue is harder then people make it out to be. Sure the guy had mental problems but he was on medication which seemed to be working, how was the gun store owner supposed to know that the guy would come off his medication then go nuts, or was he supposed to assume everyone with mental illnesses will stop taking their medication then go nuts?
"please please please politicians, just use some common sense. i really dont get the statement that gun control seems to have no effect. if there are NO GUNS AVAILABLE they cant do anything but literally THROW BULLETS. "
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. If we ban guns, criminals will just get their guns from the black market (which they sometimes do all ready) and meanwhile every law abiding citizen won't have guns to defend themselves.
Where do you think people get heroin cocaine and (non-medical) marijuana, from the black market. It was the same black market that filled the U.S.A with booze during the 1920s even though it was illegal.
Oh and of course there's the notion that for every ojne mass murderer there are hundreds probably thousands of people who have guns and don't kill people. Banning guns would be punishing a lot of people for the sins of a few.
Im sorry but i live in the uk, and have managed to live for 25 years without ever NEEDING a gun on a day to day basis. As far as a 'constitutional right' the right to bear arms comes from a time when we didnt live in an alleged 'civilised' society, where bears and indians and bandits where nearby everyday.
This clearly isnt the case now. Anyone saying they NEED a gun, im sorry i just CANNOT agree. plain WRONG. i live in a rough area too. but i dont NEED a gun. If you got rid of 99% of the guns then people wouldnt 'just get hold of legally owned guns anyway' and gun control WOULD have an effect.
I HONESTLY have NO CLUE how on earth id be able to get hold of a gun in the uk. seriously. absolutely no clue. if i was ever (god forbid) mentally ill, then at least i wouldn't be able to take out 15 people with a gun or whatever. Im sure id get taken down quickly if i was only armed with say a baseball bat. Not saying guns cant be gotten hold of. but its ALOT harder.
yeah but if lots of people get handguns to defend themselves, then the criminals are still criminals and still go to the black market and instead of handguns , just get rifles. it just escalates.
perhaps people wouldnt be able to defend themselves as easily but i bet half the time the criminals would rob somebody, and if they completely co-operated and didnt resist, the thief would take the stuff and leave and nobody would get shot. And massacres like this would be alot more difficult to actually plan and commit. I get that people shouldnt have to co-operate and let their things be stolen, but in 25 years ive never NEEDED to use a gun. And.. im still here.. ive had things stolen.. but the police have done their job, and yeah it sucked it wasnt nice, and it shouldnt happen, but i got insurance for the stuff and didnt NEED a gun.
Thats true, but if robbers think that you're armed, they're probably not going to mess with you, now, if you take the UK's laws, or Canada's laws, then the crooks will know that the civilians are not armed, and that makes you a prime target for them.
I think gun control laws are very unnecessary, despite what the politicians say and such.
Besides its a well know fact that hundreds of people are nickle and dimed to death each day by videogame companys.
So instead of buying your five year old son that lethal super mario galaxy why dont you just buy him a glock instead? remember guns are safe, and fun!(buy him some smokes while your at it)
I wish it was illegal to be a complete idiot...(sigh)
But really, the bottom line that no one is comfortable with is that you -cannot- stop violent crimes from happening. They have always happened. They will always happen. Unless you can fundamentally alter human behaviour (and even if it were possible, would anyone have the right?) you can't stop individuals from behaving violently. It's sad, yes, but there's almost nothing that can be done about it.
P.S. - Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the ready availability of weapons in the US isn't a factor. I'm just saying that banning said availability isn't the answer, the same way banning videogames is not. Perhaps stricter gun control would be a good thing - these whackjobs never seem to have too much trouble acquiring weapons, despite being clearly disturbed individuals.
But taking away guns will reduce these attacks, and make them less severe.
If I had a gun and went to a crowded place, it would be easy to just shoot a bunch of people. Let's say I didn't have a gun, so I used a knife. It would take much, much more time and energy to kill the same amount of people.
(Warning: a little offtopic)
While effective gun control would *theoretically* reduce the levels of gun violence in the US, it just won't work. Probably.
The way I see it, you're trying to disarm a huge population of people who have been brought up in a culture where the 'right to bear arms' is just a matter of course. Even if you could convince the majority of the population to ditch the second amendment, the 1% who cling desperately onto their security-blanket guns would be very hard to deal with.
Coming from a country where guns are extremely hard to come by, it's easy to see the *benefits* of gun control, but the implementation seems so difficult that - perhaps, who knows? - it may never happen in a firearm-happy country like the US.
So just because YOU never needed a gun you then assume that millions of people you've never met (in a country thousands of miles away from where you live), would not need a gun. That's not stupidly illogical or making broad generalisations at all. I mean clearly everyone must go though the same life experience you do and therefore you can preach to people you've never met about what they would need.
Oh and there are more reasons to own a gun then just self-defense. If our government ever became tyrannical then us citizens would be armed and then we could rebel against the tyranny and set up a new democracy.
If the Americans in 1776 couldn't get guns we wouldn't have won the war.
So that's precisely why we have this in the second amendment,
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state"
Its true Guns are not the problem either, the problem is you have politically correct fascists that refute logic at every turn, they think a world devoid of thought and free will is the best.
To blame media and dismiss guns is quite silly and down right scary, take away all our rights and you still wil have crazy people being crazy and stupid people being stupid..
The 1% might disagree, but majority always wins
@ Father Time
This is a different day and age. Why do random people need guns when we have the police? Of course, I'm just talking about the USA, I don't really know what it's like anywhere else.
Hence why the rate of gun crime over in the UK is SO LOW.
Knives are the real problem here, that and the general social culture of drunken yobbishness.
Guns just make it easier to kill.
Why doesn't the UK ban knives (as a weapon).
How would that possibly work? Could I not use a steak knife as a weapon?
Although it's pointless really, ban guns criminals use knives or black market guns. Ban knives and guns and the criminals will start using blunt objects.
And no you can't ban blunt objects that would literally be impossible to enforce and painfully counter-productive (just think of all the things found on a construction site that would constitute blunt objects).
And of course if you don't want to use blunt objects you can use chainsaws, broken glass, your bare hands, explosives, rope etc.
Finally some common sense, seriously it's not the fact that we have the right to drink or own cars that cause people to drink and drive it's the fact that some people drink and drive.
yeah but look at the crime figures..
the US actually has a HIGHER percentile rate of violent crime (and resulting death) than the uk and canada. SO the argument that criminals know your not armed n rob everyone just isnt true! factually!
Sorry folks, but strict gun control doesn't work, and yes, this kinda person needs to be written to, at least if you live in that state, to which I don't.
@NovaBlack: I don't think thats true actually true, I'm going to pull a Jack Thompson, ugh, and well say that I think thats false. But I still believe that if criminals think that you're armed, they won't mess with you, unlike in the UK and Canada where they know you're not armed and will mess with you.
I follow politics a lot, and I have come to the conclusion, that all of them are idiots. Thats not a lie, they really are all idiots. The R's are stupid, the D's are stupid. They have all lost there connection with reality. Everyone running for the prez is going to make the country go bankrupt (more then we already are). Well, not to sure about huckabee, don't know his plan. But basically, they are all crazy.
sorry if i caused offense.
I do actually know alot of american culture, i travelled with a backpack around the USA on greyhound buses for 4 months. Again i never NEEDED (note NEED , im not saying prefer) a gun.
as far as " If our government ever became tyrannical then us citizens would be armed and then we could rebel against the tyranny and set up a new democracy.", umm.. how often does that happen to warrant needing guns on a day to day basis..... hmm and have you never heard of ghandi?
there are other ways besides violence my friend.
"If the Americans in 1776 couldn’t get guns we wouldn’t have won the war."
exactly the point i made earlier. it is no longer 1776. Time and civilisations move on. Just because we had slaves once upon a time, to build alot of the foundations of the cities we now live in doesnt mean we should have them now just because we once did.
We don't want to go that same route with gun control.
in response to
"I realize that those of you who live in Europe don’t agree with our second ammendment rights but that’s really beside the point. In our country a citizen has the inalliable right to keep and bear arms. We have that as a means of protecting our families and homes against violent intruders and other threats to our liberties. The right to own a gun isn’t what caused this man to go on a killing spree and I’m getting sick of hearing that arguement. "
Very well. but if you keep on doing what you've always done , you'll keep on getting what you've always gotten. Like people have pointed out, in this case Guns werent the major issue, it was a mentally ill student. but had he not had second ammendment rights, then perhaps he wouldnt have had a gun to kill people, it IS a contributing factor.
like i said , people had a RIGHT to have slaves. does that mean it is right? no. history clearly tells us that sometimes rights bestowed upon a nation decay with the passing of time until they arrive at a time and place so dissimilar to that originally envisaged , that the nation decides that the rights should be changed.
Im not saying for a fact that time has now, i can see it is a very multi dimensional intricate debate. All im saying is dont turn round n say we CANT discuss it because you have a RIGHT. rights can (do and will) be examined from time to time. and i dont think thats a bad thing.
''I still don’t think that we should have strict gun control laws, they just don’t work. Besides, politicians already want the UK’s rating system over here on video games, and we all know how that works, don’t we?
We don’t want to go that same route with gun control.
''
like ive already said. check out gun crime rates FACTUALLY in the uk and tell me strict gun controls do absolutely nothing to reduce gun crime.
Also it helps if gun stores do background checks... hmm 'a guy with a history of mental disorders, should we sell him a firearm? Aw why the hell not? Its not like he could hurt anyone or anything... oh wait.'
really agree with your point of view there mate
well said!
*sigh*
"it doesnt work with guns"
um perhaps you misread... ill try again. try comparing the gun crime rates of the UK with the US and tell me it doesnt work. (and by 'work' i dont mean eradicate, i mean has a noticeable effect)
Honestly though, just outright banning guns still isn't going to work, the old phrase, criminals are going to get guns no matter what sticks.
Completely agree. In fact, in some of these schools, it should be required that all teachers carry guns. But they will never do that because these people think backwards.
still i have to agree with wheelchairman2 . Like i said, i wasnt saying take away everyones rights, i was just saying perhaps they need to be enforced better. I cant see any argument against background checks and refusal of sale to those with mental health problems (if they could indicate a propensity toward violence).
it still makes it harder. Its still an obstacle in their path. I mean tell you what, just because terrorists can get hold of bombs anyway do we just stop doing checks and restrictions on who gets hold of dangerous chemicals?
yeah he would have used something else no doubt. but if i was at that school that day i would have preferred him to have a knife to a pair of guns anyday.
I'm a proud gun owner, and would never turn them on a human being (unless said human being was breaking into my house).
Someone above suggested that someone with past psychiatric problems should be banned from buying a gun. I concur with this wholeheartedly.
If a law of this sort had been in place AND been properly enforced, this horrible tragedy and the V-Tech shooting might very well have not happened.
That is all.
I was going to make a video called "Bias: Slanted, Screwed up, & Stupid"
But my video editor stopped working so I could not do it. I was going to go through everything.
But I'm all for taking action, and standing up for my rights. But the thing is, we need someone to rally us together. If gaming politics or ECA or anything, gave these peoples emails out, we would right them. After all,Michael savage dubai ports deal
there are other ways besides violence my friend. "
Yes I have heard of Ghandi, but do you really think that would work nowadays, I mean it certainly worked for the hippies in getting us out of vietnam and making marijuana legal didn't it.
Oh and it doesn't happen very often but that doesn't mean it Can't happen, if hi