@smoking gun

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----...

Yes, let's CONTINUE to ignore the fact that he was off his meds.

I meant mad man not mad men, (insert mandatory request for edit button here).

*smacks face on desk repeatedly*

How many idiots could possibly be in positions of power on this earth?!

As those of us from other countries would argue, guns were what enabled him to do what he did. He could not have done these things with a knife on anywhere near the same scale. Many of us also do not believe that it is right to kill someone to protect property, only to protect other peoples lives, and also that the law is not something to be taken into our own hands but rather to be enforced by the proper authorities.

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.

Still, he'd be using a weapon, and then afterwards, people would be wanting the banning of knives as well, and if I'm not mistaken, I think at one point, the UK government did want to ban knives.

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.

Also, I just wanted to throw this in here as well. These people say video games are the problem, jack says that counter strike was part of this. If it was, how come he did not blow the place up? you see, in counter strike, the whole point is to stop the bad guys from planting a bomb, or if you are the bad guy, your job is to plant the bomb. So if the game is an influencing as they say.Why has NO ONE blown a school up from playing counter strike, they only shoot people?

What? is that the only aspect of the game that is influencing? the gun part? this whole thing is just stupid.

@wheelchairman

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?

thats it, i am fed up with this country. i am moving to china where the government recommends games for me to play. where can i pick up my copy of Rainbow Island Online?

@illspirit

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.

yeah, sorry jcoit, i'm pretty tolerant of foreigners not understanding the 2nd amendment, but you are so far lost, it's going to be hard for you to even see the reasoning behind it. If you remove the publics' ability to use a gun, you are removing their ability to fight back. Government is guaranteed to abuse it's power if given the chance (just look at the past 7 years). When the only people with guns are those in power, this just makes the situation worse. If you can't defend yourself against a tyrannical government, you are indeed asking for a tyrannical government. Just because the military has 'better' weapons is no excuse for banning guns. Did the American revolutionaries have the same munitions and technology as the British army? It's about freedom, and personal responsibility. Something one not living in a truly free country can never understand.

@KayleL

"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.

@Hans Moleman

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.

@ Smoking gun

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.

lol we arent trying to criticise, just make a point that its A) mans interpretation of a religious text that can be anything (if not explain to me fred phelps)


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.

Hmm.

So....without guns, people could still shoot each other?
Riiiiiight.

Mr. Pritchard is half right. Universal gun control isn't the answer. That just disarms people who obey the law. Making sure that people with mental disorders show up in the "FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY DON'T LET THIS MAN BUY A GUN" database would be a start.

However trying to blame games and movies is just another shameful attempt to score political points.

Um..... Wow.... Illinois fails miserably when it comes to electing government officials.

and which factors have more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE behind their 'potential' harm?

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.

Sounds like somebody else needs to be added to GTA IV with this whole "Guns don't kill people. Video games kill people" bullshit.

WHAT!?!?!

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.

i dont even think seeing violence is the problem. i think seeing violence as a solution, to solve a problem is what is really driving this sort of thing. you look at things like war, both past and present, where total violence is/was depicted as the only real solution to solve our disputes. real world violence is going to put out a much more powerful message than fictional fantasy violence ever would. fantasy violence cannot create or inspire real world violence, its the other way around: real world violence creates and inspires fantasy violence.

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.

Gah, Idiotnois is just full of morons running that state......

How... Did... Wha...

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.

video games = guns, in that neither are the problem.

I don't universal gun control is the answer to this problem either. Several things need to be adressed though.

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.

@ Bildo

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.

@Bildo: Saying to blame the media instead of guns still misses the point entirely. What causes violence of this sort is not understood at all. By saying that it's the fault of media desensitizing or whatever, these public figures are basically focusing on this one issue as if there's a switch inside everyone turned to 'non-violent' and that the media (and ONLY the media) turns that switch to the 'violent' setting.
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.

Don't blame guns OR video games should be the headline.

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?

LOL!!! That's sounds like a punchline to a joke!!!

Uh, howabout we don't blame either and blame the person who did it.

again emphasis on the fact i DO live in a rough area. And criminals DO have guns occasionally. but i still dont NEED a gun myself.

I do agree that all guns should be destroyed. It won't stop violence, but it will be cut down by alot.

And videogames are not the only things to be blamed on for crimes. Music like heavy metal, and books, and movies were blamed now since videogames have been out people blame on it. They blame on these things because it is really easy. They are scapegoats. The people just want to be on TV or just want to blame something to keep them busy.

ahhh another disgusting pile of filth speaks up

Guns being blamed for a shooting spree? No way thats just madness!
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)

The shooter had a mental condition and he was off of his medication, not to mention that he was 27 years old. Video Games, along with the rest of the pop culture, should not be brought into this at all.

While it's shameless the way he's trying to shift blame, I also mostly agree with the notion that stricter gun control isn't the answer. People will still kill people if they want to. They'll just do it some other way. Banning weapons isn't the answer. Banning video games and restricting freedom of speech isn't the answer. In short, there is almost -no way- you can stop these sort of things from happening. You can't preemptively stop someone from committing a crime. Life isn't like Minority Report. If someone wants to go on a homicidal rampage, odds are they will do it. What we -can- do is try as best as possible to minimize the effectiveness of such rampages - from what I've seen, this particular massacre was handled in a rather timely and effective matter, even given the fact that the shooter readily put an end to everything himself.

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.

@NovaBlack:

(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 videogames are the new weapons of the 21 century right?

@ Tiki

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.

@ Zippy

Guns just make it easier to kill.

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.

@jkjdr

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.

say goodbye to your credibility, pritchard. ...and a lot of votes.

Yeah, I have to agree with Father Time, if you ban one sort of weapon, people will start using others, if they even stopped using the guns/knives to begin with.

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.

Need another editing button. And besides, like Father Time said, if criminals couldn't get their hands on guns, which they would, they'd be using other things like knives, and ban those, they'd be using other things, and so on, so on, so on.

@ father time

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.

@jkjdr

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 think if they gave the teachers guns, these sort of things would not happen as much, and if they did, they could be stopped. We need more guns. I mean, if every drug store, 711, had a gun behind the counter, do you think people would rob it?

did you know? Every time you boot up that xbox/playstation/wii... NO ONE DIES. But when you pull the trigger of an armed weapon whilst aiming at someone... chances are they will!

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.'

@Smoking Gun: Yes, I think that would be true, but before they did that, they'd need to go threw gun training and such, if there is such a thing. They'd definitly need gun licensing.

@brandon

*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)

@Brandon

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.

@Namelos: Thank you.

yeah .. he would use another weapon. but like i said, the argument that you should only prohibit something if it will stop an action 100% isnt a good one.

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.

What are the odds that this guy gets money from the NRA?

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.

@Cidas

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

crap....can some one delete what I just wrote. I clicked submit and did not want to yet lol

District office
2600 DeKalb Ave.
Sycamore, IL 60178
(815) 748-3494 - phone
(815) 748-4630 - fax
bob@PritchardStateRep.com


Springfield Office
200 3-N Stratton
Office Bldg.
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-0425 - phone
(217) 558-1274 - fax
pierceyj@housegopmail.state.il.us

Website: http://www.pritchardstaterep.com/contacts.htm

Oh noes, not in my own state!!!

More on this at 11. Translation: I'll talk more about it when I feel like it.

@Smoking Gun

I don't think it's the policy of the ECA or Gamepolitics to post emails on thier front page, because of people like Jack Thompson.
I will be sending an email as soon as I get back...

NovaBlack, you have no idea what you're talking about.

*You* may not know where to get a gun in the UK, but the criminal apparently have no problem finding them. Since all legally owned handguns were banned and confiscated there in 1997, the rate of handgun shootings has tripled. Yes, the rate is lower than the US, but it was even less BEFORE the ban.

As for the US being more violent, um, actually, your overall violent crime rate is about seven times higher. Last set of complete numbers I checked was for '05 or '06, and the FBI reported just ~1.3 million violent crimes. Where as Home Office reported something like 2.5 million violent crimes in England and Wales . Considering the US population is five to six times larger, the per-capita difference is staggering. Furthermore, the UN considers Scotland the most violent country in the developed world.

Yes, we have a higher murder rate, but that's true even if you ignore firearm related deaths. There are about four times as many stabbing deaths here, and roughly twice as many people punched and kicked to death. Unless we were to ban hands, feet, and all sharp objects, that is unlikely to change.

So, on one hand, there is less violent crime here in general. But on the other, it is more likely to be fatal when it does happen. It could be argued that either A: our criminals are just more "efficient" (for lack of a better, less cynical term), or B: the fact that nearly two-thirds of all homicides involve violent criminals killing other violent criminals (in no small part due to the drug black market), thereby reducing the overall crime rate by limiting recidivism.

Then of course there's the fact that armed civilians defend themselves against (or otherwise prevent) crimes an estimated 708,000+ times per year..

@Illspirit: Thank you for all of that, when it comes to debating and finding all those kinda things, I'm not very good.

Oh, and speaking of Ghandi, he wasn't a fan of gun control either.

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

He didn't lead a peaceful rebellion by choice. That was just the only choice left after they myopically laid down their arms..

Ok, talking about the gun issue in the States.

America has a HUGE amount of firearms already distributed across it's population, not to mention legit gunshops, illegal ventures and what not.

A gun ban would have little effect, as while the occasional dogooder would probably relinguish his weapons(), the not-so-law friendly people wouldn't give two peanut-decorated lumps.

So, in effect, a gun ban would only slightly lessen the amount of responsible gun-owners, and embolden the illegitimate gun-owners, thus making gun-violence spike, then gradually drop over the next 20 or so years.

Same thing happened in England.

HOWEVER, countries with a low spread of firearms across it's population wouldn't find any noticable difference if a gun-ban was introduced, and would see a drop of gun-including crime over the following decades.

@ Father Time

"Have you not heard of firing ranges? Have you never seen the mytybusters? Wouldn’t certain guns (like the tommy gun) be classified as an antique?"

Antiques are the only factor I am going to give you in this lovely scenario. Assuming the antiques are not able to fire and are in no way able to be used to harm another living creature. Firing ranges exist to allow people to practice their gun skills, and unless hunting, what are you really shooting? I mean really.. are you using your gun to shoot the side of a barn. No, you keep it so if someone threatens you, you can better shoot them. In a world with stronger gun control no one would have to worry about the threat of shooting another or being shot.

"Now imagine pointing an unloaded gun at a criminal asking for your money (a criminal armed with a knife) there’s a good chance the criminal will run away or do what you ask if he thinks the gun is loaded."

This reads to me that you are brining an unloaded weapon into a public setting where you are going to get mugged. If you are not putting yourself in a situation where you will be mugged, you won't need to carry a gun, because bringing a gun into a public place, loaded or not, is not smart. Also, I would think that is someone has a nice and want to rob you they are just going to go for you. They are not going to do a little dance and give you a chance to defend. That is what robbers do in movies. It ads drama. In the real world if you are in a dark ally and someone wants your money, they will stab you and take it and your unloaded gun will just be questioned by the cops when looking over your dead body.

"Under that logic I can say “unless you live under a constant state of attack you do not nead house insurance”."

Everyone is clawing for those guns that protect your house from natural disaster and electrical fires. I know I am!

"No I’d rather stay and defend democracy, it’s what our founding fathers would’ve done.

Oh and I don’t subscribe to the philosophy that if you don’t like your country you should leave it. Can’t I stay and make it better?"

What democracy are you trying to defend exactly? How and with what army? Do you really live in a country where you have a fear of your government making a complete 360? I mean, I understand Bush has screwed up and 9/11 could have been completely staged and we never really know what the government is planning. But you're planning for your little gun to do what exactly? Enough free minded people in the well civilized countries of this world are in, relativity the same mind set as you. I am Canadian, and I know that if my government turned around and said "We are taking away your liberties and freedoms, we are attacking our countries allies and you are joining" I would not be the only person to say "wait.. what?" and go up in arms to start and uprising and keep my own civil liberties and rights. Any personal weapon I have will not come in to play because I doubt as a 22 year old animation student, the government will be busting down my doors and threatening my own person. You cannot honestly tell me that if you do have your own gun, the reason you have it is too 'defend democracy from your own government' because your gun is not helping in that situation. There will more than likely never be a call to arms to fight the politicians.
I would honestly stay to make my country better, but with the amount of control some governments have, there are probably many places in the world that could be safer for me if my freedoms came in to question. Being trigger happy to defend myself from some crazy right wing government official is no mentality i condone, but to each their own.

Why does some incompetent moron blame video games every time there's a massacre? BLARG!!!!

What we need to do is make guns not only legal, but mandatory!

@jcoit

Well, from the way things are going in the US, people may start over throwing the government if things don't shape up by the next prez. Its seriously getting bad, very bad.

Disclaimer:

The opinion's expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinions of Smoking gun. Nothing expressed in this post is to be used against him in any way shape or form.

@jcoit

"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."

Do Muslims shouting "Death to America" count?

@ Smoking Gun

Maybe they need to elect an official who will make some serious positive changes. Get their heads out of Survivor and the Simple Life for 5 minutes and make an educated decision about the individual they choose to be the face of their people. Someone who will not lead the U.S. into a mind set where they are living in a state of threat. If you are not protecting themselves from "terrorists" then they are protecting themselves from their own government. Is that really democracy?

@ LeeL
My apologies. I just made note of my hasty remark and that if being used for sporting activities guns should be acceptable, but cautiously regulated. I personally feel (a matter of opinion) that a gun's main purpose is for negative attacks. It is generally why people purchase them. It is nice that you have taken a smart approach to your gun ownership and would never intend to turn it on another individual.

@ Smoking gun

It depends, are they knocking at your door and have you alerted proper authorities? If they are shouting it from another country, it is not an slight against you, it is an attack on your country which is a result of negative choices made by your country in the first place.
haha.

@jcoit: Negative thinking? Go read Jefferson (as in Thomas Jefferson. Maybe you've heard of him)

@darknessdeku: How long would that mall attack last if everyone was trained and armed?

@jcoit

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, and I say this respectfully, but you have no idea whats going on out there.

1. Obama's plan will put us 845 billions dollars MORE over the budget then we already are. And he will most likely win.

2. Gold is going up and and the dollar is going down. So now we have to pay more for everything. And on a side note. The government took the USA off of the gold standard in the 60's. Which means money is not based on gold any more, its based on...nothing. So you know that $10 you have in your pocket? It's not REALLY worth anything. It's just paper with a $10 on it. It's an illusion. But for some reason we still use it to trade. Strange...

3. Interest rates are going down, good huh? no not really, because the price of bonds have gone up. You see, the more people that buy bonds, the
Interest rate goes down, but the price of the bond goes up. People are storing there money in bonds so to speak. How come? well look above. We are heading into a depression, which the government is trying to stop.

4. The government is sending out rebate checks to help stimulate the economy. They want you to spend the money. What they really should do is give tax cuts to small businesses. So they can expand and make more jobs. The government is just going to buy us a little time, and will end up making the whole thing last longer, like they did the first time around.

So there, thats just the government, I could go on and talk about terrorism, the borders, but ill stop there.

@sqlrob

All I am saying is that if you are 'pre-planning' to fail, you will. If you hand someone a gun and say "shoot me when I screw up", of course you will screw up! Do they really thing, small-time Buisness-man McGui is really going to take out the next Government official who decides he is going to go rouge? It is more likely he is going to turn that gun on someone else rather than having your own Government need to be overthrown.

@illspirit

Good to know those facts. Thank you :)
Unfortunatly I still feel the world could potentially cleaner and safer place without them. Also that study is strictly for self defense, it doesn't take into account the many who are hurt by people who purchase guns with intentions of hurting others. If it were better screened, maybe those 150-200 instances wouldn't have happened. I know my "regulation" idea is completely unconstitutional and nearly impossible. I just think if we lived in a world where we all worked toward one goal and a greater benefit for all, it would be ideal. Rather than blowing out innocent's brains and blaming it on video games.

According to Home Office Statistic for the UK, Just 59 people died between 2006/07 as a result of Firearms.
Link: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

Statistics for America are hard to come by it seems, but it is worth noting that in 2006/07 for Washington DC ALONE, there were 169 gun related deaths.
Link: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,|.asp

That means there were 3 times a many gun related deaths in Washington DC than the WHOLE of the UK... Now tell me that gun control doesn't work!


While I would love to give you some up to date statistics for the whole of the USA, I cannot find any recent ones. The best I can come up with is 1999/2000...
"In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day."
Further more...
"In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries."

Link: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

That means that over 100,000 people suffered at the hands of guns... in a population of about 3,000,000. Thats about 3% of the population.

Again I say, Do you think that America DOESN'T have a gun problem??? Personally I think these school shootings are the tip of the iceberg and merely hint at a general endemic problem. Clearly having a population that can "defend itself" isn't working.

@jcoit

If there was a magic button to make firearms (and the ability to make them) disappear, I might be inclined to press it myself. But, then again, I could probably hold my own in a sword fight or something against an an equally armed attacker. Whereas women, the elderly, and such would be at the mercy of larger/stronger opponents when it comes to melee weapons. Not to mention the odds of a single person against a group of thugs..

As for the number of people on the other side of the gun in those studies: According to the FBI's 1994 crime report, there were 16,305 homicides and 528,575 assaults/robberies involving firearms. Using the average of studies (which spans a time before and after the violent crime peak in '93) which places defensive gun uses at ~708,000, that leaves us with roughly 150,000 more defensive uses than criminal. If we use the lowest number, pushed by the gun-ban lobby, of 108,000, that would still be more than the number of murders.

Likewise, only ~60% of homicides and ~45% of robberies involve criminals with firearms, so there is a large gray area there where citizen would be up against a knife or something regardless of gun laws.

@Chuma

The UK is moving towards sharia law. Those deaths in the US will look like nothing soon. Besides, doesn't the UK have like tons of riots from the Muslims? I know they where setting cars on fire and all that. If anyone needs guns right now its the UK. By the way, under sharia law, if you ware finger nail polish, they got off your finger...or maybe it was your hand. Not sure, but hey, at that point, who cares?

Just to add to the debate I leave you guys with this quote by Thomas Jefferson

"what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "

@ Chuma

Apples and oranges are different colors. ;)

Yes, 59 people were shot to death in the UK last year, but only 47 were in 1996, which was the year before the ban! If the gun-control was so successful, that number should go down, not up. Likewise, non-fatal attacks with handguns rose from 279 in 1996 to 1,024 in 05/06, only falling slightly to 792 last year. Even excluding the largest number, that's still more than a 200% increase. And, again, if gun-control works, why did it go up after the ban?

Most up-to-date US crime stats can be found here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Those stats from the gun-control group include accidents, suicides, shootings by law enforcement, and probably people who tripped over a gun and hit their head. In 2006, there were just 10,177 homicides involving firearms. And this is down from a peak of 16,305 in '94, "despite" adding over 2 million privately owned firearms per year.

Oh, and, funny you should mention DC as if that proves something. They ban *all* functional firearms. It's easier to legally purchase in gun in England than it is in DC..

How often are guns used to protect people by a non-law enforcer or non-military person? Not very often. Americans today don't live in a time where the British come and invade homes, [most] live on farm lands, and only have one cop to protect a whole town.

I live in a city near Toronto. I don't see news reports of murders, rape, or terrorist threats on Canadian soil. If you come to metropolitan Canada, good luck finding a gun. I know there are still violence in my city, but nothing worse then a couple of stab wounds.

Removing guns does a lot. Besides, most people who are killed in there household (where people could get their gun to 'protect' themselves) are killed by their own gun. So wouldn't it be safer if you didn't had a gun for the murderer to kill you with?

I heard about the argument about how some countries has ton of guns, but near to zero shootings. My defence is good, that country doesn't have a problem. However, America has many people that would use guns in a crime. They are to many untrustworthy people to allow guns to be easily accessible.

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.

@chuma "That means there were 3 times a many gun related deaths in Washington DC than the WHOLE of the UK… Now tell me that gun control doesn’t work!"


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.

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.

Also, if congress (or who ever for that mater) tried to ban guns, that would be the end of them.

did you know it is scientific FACT that Nolan Bushnell sent Pong back to the past to give violent technology to them?

he rewrote history that day, plunging all of mankind into a downward spiral of death so disturbing Lucifer himself wept.

I have to say, we have fairly strict gun control laws here in Australia (it takes roughly a year after application before you can have one at home, and require a locked cabinet approved by the police and must store the firing pin seperately), and there are very few, if any school shootings.


We still, however, have video games :P

about the knife argument and how hard it would be to kill some one. not to hard if you know how to throw knives. hell you can but ninja stars and sharpen the blades.

"I think video games is a part of the problem, television, movies. Just a whole culture of violence."


and I think your an ignorant prick. so that makes us about even.

That series of *thud*s you just heard was me banging my head on my desk in response to this guy.

@ smoking gun
"Smoking gun Says:

February 17th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
@jcoit

Do Muslims shouting “Death to America” count? "


*sigh* i dont even know wher to start. now who is generalising. Just to put into perspective your idea of 'constant state of attack'.. try doing this..

check how many deaths have been caused in the past 10 years from islamic terrorists

now check how many deaths arise from smoking and/or alcohol in the last 10 years.

yeah its actually a pretty darn small number isnt it. Its just the way the media constantly renews and pushes this climate of fear upon people.

@smoking gun

''The UK is moving towards sharia law. Those deaths in the US will look like nothing soon. Besides, doesn’t the UK have like tons of riots from the Muslims? I know they where setting cars on fire and all that. If anyone needs guns right now its the UK. By the way, under sharia law, if you ware finger nail polish, they got off your finger…or maybe it was your hand. Not sure, but hey, at that point, who cares?

''



um now who hasnt got a clue what reality is like.. where do you get these ideas? we are NOT moving toward sharia law (in facft recent events have shown the HUGE opposition for ANYTHING like that)

and muslim riots all the time... what..? really you have a very narrow stereotypical view of muslims. perhaps you should do some research

Somking Gun said:

"The UK is moving towards sharia law."

No, it isn't You are just totally taking out of context something that the Archbishop of Canterbury said in order to make an extreme and STUPID statement. He has roundly been mocked and ridiculed for his comments as there is no way Sharia law will make it into UK law. However what he was trying to imply is that Muslims could have their own law to govern such things as divorce.

It amazes me how much ignorance and biggotry there is amongst people whenever they hear the word Muslim...

"Those deaths in the US will look like nothing soon. Besides, doesn’t the UK have like tons of riots from the Muslims? I know they where setting cars on fire and all that."

Yes because all Muslims go around rioting in the UK on a regular basis... *rolls eyes*

"If anyone needs guns right now its the UK. By the way, under sharia law, if you ware finger nail polish, they got off your finger…or maybe it was your hand. Not sure, but hey, at that point, who cares?"

Another strawman argument straight out of the Jack Thomspon playbook. HEY EVERYONE WE NEED GUNS OR THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS WILL GET US!

... I guess some people DO beleve eveything they see on Fox News huh?

@NovaBlack

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2232,n,n

And as for the riots. I was asking a question, maybe it just seemed like a lot because the news plays it on a loop for a week.
There are other matters on the UK, but quite frankly, I can't remember them completely, it must have been a wile ago. So ill shut my mouth about it.

By the way, I have done research on the Muslims, Heres some quotes from there peaceful book.

“To participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause” (Al Bukhari vol. 1:25)

Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage:…..

Sura 9:5: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.”

Sura 9:39 “If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place”

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other….

War is prescribed to you: but from this ye are averse.” (Sura 2:212).

“Hadith, the body of traditions relating to Mohammed and now supplemental to the Koran: He (Abu Hurayah) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews. (Sahih of Muslim, quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Quran by Ali Akbar, Bismi Publishers 1992, p.44)”

P.S. I was not saying all Muslims where causing riots. I was just saying there where Muslims rioting.

Smoking gun said:

*A lot of stuff about Sharia Law refusing to acknowledge all the people stating that what the Archbishop said was abotu Divorce and financial matters and not the wholesale introduction of such laws into UK law. Not to mention that he was completely wrong and the opinion of 1 man doesn't make a fact... Something Smoking gun should have learnt from JT on this very website*

You can quote as much as you want from Sharia Law. It doesn't help your argument from ignorance.


"P.S. I was not saying all Muslims where causing riots. I was just saying there where Muslims rioting."

And then used the fact there were riotting Muslims to project an image that we should all be scared of Muslims and need guns to protect ourselves. By your logic we should all be equally scared of residents of Los Angeles because they had riots once, even though this was clearly about protest and race relations.

@smoking gun
Do you happen to know the context of those quotes? Or did you just grab them off the internets? I can do the same thing to Judaism or Christianity...

@Hans Moleman

Yes I do, and like I said, Mohammed led 27 invasions, and killed mostly Jews. He practiced what he preached.

@ Smoking Gun

"And all those quotes but for one was from the qur’an, you know the one they all read? the one they believe?"

You ever read The Bible? I suggest you look upi your Leviticus before you cast aspersions on a people based on random quotes from their religious texts. Bear in mind that the US is run by Fanatical Christians.
Because according to your philosophy, the Bible has told all Christians to:

Kill anyone who tells you to convert to another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
Kill the inhabitants of any town then sack it, if even one person living there tries to convert another to a different religion. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Kill all Gays (Romans 1:24-32)

So quit your idiocy dullard.

@smoking gun
the 56% of Palestine taken by the Jews in 1948 was inhabited by 500,000 Jews and 438,000 Palestinians, leaving 46% for 818,000 Palestinians; this includes spoils of war. 1.2 million called Palestine home. 750 000 were displaced.

@ smoking gun

thanks for pointig to the article about the archbishop of canterbury.

Id like ot point out (As already clearly stated) that this article reflects comments the archbishop said regarding sharia law. The archbishop actually has no say on what laws get passed in the uk, its not his job, hes essentially a random individual who thought he'd make a comment

Oh and thats the same comment youve already been told was met with widespread ridicule and anger, and it was clearly shown sharia law would NOT BE ACCEPTED COMPLETELY into the uk. As you have already been told.

Youve literally posted the article we actually were talking about, the follow up to which completely prove our point for us!

How is it possible to be so blind to the fact that guns kill. Of course they kill thats what they are made for, they have no other purpose but to kill and injure people or at best animals. Of course a car kills and a knife kills but neither of these have the main purpose of killing, death is the outcome of unintentional or intentional miss use. A gun the moment you pull the trigger you are intending to kill or maim someone.
Look at the statistics for any country that has strict gun control and they speak for themselves. Japan has about the same number of gun deaths in a year that the US has in one day Japan has 130 million people the us about 300 even if you factor that in its still TINY. and of those deaths the vast majority are gang related and dont involve civilians. Shooting rampages are pretty much unheard of. There are plenty of people going nuts and killing other people but can you kill 5 people in a packed uni lecture hall with a knife? i doubt it. so i rest my case guns kill. mentally instable people kill more people if they have the means to. whether video games triggered it is not even the point.

Maybe you could avoid the gun control issue by making each bullet cost a grand a piece.
Then those American nutjobs ( those that shoot up schools, not general americans of course...) would have needed far more money than they probably had to do so much damage.

Your average Jo could buy 6 shiny bullets for his 'Home Protection' and he'd be sorted.....
If you knew your bullet cost $1000 you'd have to be damn sure you wanted to shoot that person huh :)
Im sure its an unrealistic suggestion from a Brit who is thousands of miles away from a country that 'NEEDS' guns.
I play COD4 and have never used violence, and so far not Needed a gun.

@ chuck .. yeah or the killer may have shot 'anyone else with a gun' first, seing as he had the element of suprise, taken that persons weapon and then had more ammo to pump into innocent civilians.

Every time one of these idiots opens their mouth, a democrat gets five votes.

Although I must admit, he is HALF right. Gun control doesn't solve anything, and we should be open to more ideas rather than "GUNS KILL PEOPLE".

I'll admit we have a violent culture, but if that culture is the only thing that causes these rampages, well, you'd find a lot more of them.

Guns don't kill people, Halo kills people.

I don´t complete understand what really means "the right to have and bear arms" in USA. I´m from Mexico, and I understand if I have the constitutional right (if I were an american) to have a gun to defend myself, that means I can have a gun and bring it with me in public places like my office or subway?

I don´t like guns either, but I think people can have one if it is their right and choice. The problem is even when people have the right to have weapons, that doesn´t mean people will be always careful or even they won´t try to abuse of that right (Homer Simpson style).

While I tend to be of the mind that gun control laws mainly serve to disarm the law-abiding citizens and makes life easier for criminals to be able to use guns in illegal ways (without the worry that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can shoot back at them), and therefore I don't really subscribe to the notion that gun control laws really impact most crimes (and only potentially help with negligence on the part of the owner). At the same time, I don't think that the Illinois legislator is even remotely correct about his stance that video games are even "part" of the problem.

So lemme get this straight: he tries to blame video games, despite that it has been proven TIME and TIME AGAIN that it has NO connection to increased violence?It has been done before, and is described by two words:

EPIC.

FAIL.

What you think you found is nothing compared to the qur'an. and I do apologize for calling you names. You really ticked me when you said something along the lines of "random religious text" I thought I made it clear a couple of times i was from there own book.

“Ex 15:6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy."

now if you read a few verses before that it says.

"4 Pharaoh's chariots and his army
he has hurled into the sea.
The best of Pharaoh's officers
are drowned in the Red Sea. [a]

5 The deep waters have covered them;
they sank to the depths like a stone.

6 "Your right hand, O LORD,
was majestic in power.
Your right hand, O LORD,
shattered the enemy."


They are talking about Pharaoh's chariots and how they where drowned in the red sea. You know when they parted? You must of heard this story before. But your not a Christian so you don't believe this happened, so there for why are you even talking about it? Not to mention that it was out of context.

Next.

"Ps 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

1 By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down, yea, we wept
When we remembered Zion.
2 We hung our harps
Upon the willows in the midst of it.
3 For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song,
And those who plundered us requested mirth,
Saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How shall we sing the LORD’s song
In a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget its skill!
6 If I do not remember you,
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
Above my chief joy.

7 Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, “Raze it, raze it,
To its very foundation!”

8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,
Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
9 Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock!

As you can see, it was taken out of context. They are talking about the enemy.

And I will seriously come back and answer the rest later when I have more time. But so far, your not looking so good. But you would save me a lot of time if you would read a few verses back.

@smoking gun

I don't really want to get into a bible quote war, but explain this from Leviticus:
....
16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
....
Sounds like don't help the disabled to me, but then again im not a Fred Phelps clone... so what do I know?

or how about this?
...
1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.

5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.

6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.

7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.

8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,

9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;

11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:

13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons' due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded.

14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons' due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel.

15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.

16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,

17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

20 And when Moses heard that, he was content.
....

Torching children for lighting incense? :S

Or how about God's punishment for women eating from the tree? Subservience to men... its a good thing Christianity doesn't follow such a literal translation now...

All religion is open to interpretation, Islam is no more inherently evil than Christianity... evil comes from man's interpretation.

oh n again (im sure you will) point me out where im clearly so wrong, but didng god advocate the flooding of the planet to kill everyone to start again

e.g. Noahs ark.

Pretty vengeful god there. If you cant deal with a problem kill them all.

And dont tell me for a second that EVERYONE that died was a sinner and deserved it.. what .. on the entire planet?

So.... getting back to gun control... ?

Gun control should be tighter, more stringent than it is in the States. I mean the state should keep records of people with dangerous mental instability. That way they could be denied access to guns until such time as deemed mentally stable. This isn't the fault of video games or violent society but someone who was mentally unstable and shouldn't have been able to own a gun in the first place. Don't try and blame it on violence in media and society because thats just crap. Like I say its easy access to guns combined with minimal checking standards for anything from a pistol to an assualt rifle with little to no limits placed on them. Take a look around you the US is the only country with these school shootings occur with any kind of frequency.

"Gun control should be tighter, more stringent than it is in the States." Honestly, if you were insane and in the mood to shoot someone, do you think some silly extra regulation would convince you not to obtain an illegal firearm? Schwitzer, I do actually agree with you about keeping records on mental illness in regard to ability to obtain weapons, as even legal guns are sometimes used to kill by the original purchaser. But, "minimal checking standards"? Do you know what you're talking about? I'm from Massachusetts, and it is up to the local police chief to decide if you can even get an FID card and legally have a gun in your home. I would honestly love to know for sure that a few law abiding citizens had firearms under their clothing as I stand in line at the bank, or pay the cashier at a 7-Eleven. What is so wrong with that? Also, do you know what an "assault rifle" is? There are "no limits" on them? You sir, are on crack. There is no limit to your stupidity. Go read about gun laws for a change before fitting the typical liberal stereotype that gives ammunition to the morons at Fox News.

I don't think this guy is really focusing on video games. He says himself that America is a "a whole culture of violence." Check most forums on the internet, the majority thinks it's cool and funny to talk about killing woman and drop kicking old ladies. The average movie or TV show isn't considered action packed without one shooting or death, and yes, video games are quite violent, and while they have not caused every single killing/shooting/suicide that politics like to blame on, I can confidently say that video games have contributed to some shooting more than once. Whenever I check the first 5 comments in GP, the first is usually sarcastic with "well yeah, that totally makes sense," or a blame game on media.

And about the gun control: there have been instances where when a robbery or a shooting was about to take place, the other people who owned guns themselves saved the day. Gun control is different than banning guns themselves. Again like what the others said, gun control should look into the buyer's medical history for possible insanity or other potential traits that make the person a danger, and harsh measures should be put upon those who black market guns who in probably 70% of the cases, are the providers for the killers. While it wouldn't stop school shootings like these completely from ever happening, its a start and can perphaps make it more difficult for the sick fuckers to pull off a shooting.

Hey, Nelson. Could you come here for a second? We need your signature laugh, oy.

  _ __)\____________________________________/7_
  (// ))))) `\||
  / ((((( )`
  (______________________________________________/
  \ ________ ______________________________/
  ) /#######/ )\ / )/
  / /##(\)##/ / \( //
  / /#######( (\______.ad`
  / /#########) )------``
  / /#########/ /
 / /###(/)###/ /
( (#########/ (
 \____/_______\)
  `