British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S. Rampages?

With the United States rocked by a series of mass-murder incidents in recent weeks, Dalitso Njolinjo of The Moderate Voice wonders why the influence of video games, music and movies are often blamed for such events:

As an avid hip hop fan… When my favorite rappers veered into subjects of violence and gun play, my thought always seem to lead me to one question, how do they get these guns so easily? …

I remember the Columbine High School massacre… Instead of having a serious conversation about gun crime and gun control, the majority of the news stories based on sensationalism. ‘The Trench Coat Mafia’, ‘they played violent video games’, ‘they were fans of Marilyn Manson’ and ‘they were fans of Natural Born Killers’… as soon as the conversation did veer towards gun control, the NRA would call foul play and blame someone in pop culture…

Fast forward to the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, what did Fox News ‘journalist’ Bill O’Reilly want to talk about? [rappers]…


When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    It’s always sad when someone’s loved one dies, even moreso when they’re taken in a sudden manner.  But simply because a firearm was used to kill them, doesn’t make all gun owners and guns evil.  What about the corner store in North Carolina that defended itself from two armed thugs?  What about the black civil rights workers in the 60’s who kept revolvers on their dresser, fearing the Klan’s retaliation? 

    A few bad apples ought not spoil a RIGHT for everybody.  What about all the people who hunt for food?  I know that eating 400 pounds of bear meat for a few months is far more cost effective than buying steak for the same amount of time.  What about the people who use a handgun in defense of their family or friends? Just because something bad happened to your loved one, doesn’t mean that guns are bad.


  2. 0
    JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    Never said all gun owners are evil. Never said guns are evil, either. I just said that you’re not going to convince me that they shoot rainbows and freedom. If you want to fight for the right to keep and use a tool that was designed to kill, and nothing else, you’re going to have to deal with people who have lost loved ones to gun violence. Every time someone says, "But it’s my right," I hear, "Sorry your friend died, but her life wasn’t worth the monetary price of a gun and my right to own one supercedes her right to live."

    That’s why I put the caveat that it’s my opinion and I won’t debate it. Until either the pain fades or you can bring her back to me, I’m not going to hear anything but taunting every time someone tries to tell me that guns are OK. I’m far from the only person in the USA who feels this way, both about guns and the debate. Of course guns aren’t evil; they’re inanimate and aren’t capable of evil, those weilding them are. Of course not all gun owners are evil; unless you’ve taken a life with one that you had no right to take, it doesn’t apply to you. I don’t care if you have a gun or not if you’re using it properly.

    I care about the people who have guns who shouldn’t. My friend, whom had three serious suicide attempts in the year preceeding her gun purchase, and all three almost succeeded, purchased a handgun and used it to kill herself the next day.

    That should not have happened, period, and you can’t convince me that it shouldn’t have.

    Like I mentioned in my first post, I’m bitter, but I should state outright that it’s not personal. But you’re not going to convince me that they’re okay to give out as easily as my friend got one. There should have been a check beyond criminal.

  3. 0
    F__ked up says:

    I m gussing no one has read this article yet

    Experts: Loss, revenge often drive mass murders

    Not related to gun laws or video games but it does apply to the arguement at hand. I always wonder why people are quick to blame the tools or some type of medium instead of looking at the circumstances that caused the situation. Yeah yeah if didnt have a gun then so many people wouldnt be killed. But if the circumstances of constantly bullying, harassment, physical abuse, and so forth were adverted then no one would have been killed. But then again some times no matter what you do there is no helping some people.

    I do want to say this, Those who accept more responsibility, must be dealt with harsher punishment than those who do not. If you dont want to deal with the punishment then dont accept the responsibility.

  4. 0
    Miang says:

    I’m going to start by asking a question many of you will probably find outrageous and inflamatory, but bare with me because I’m not trying to provoke people here.

    The general tone of arguement in this thread is that guns are used to take life. I have to ask:


    So what? 


    The purpose of a gun is singular: to kill. But that doesn’t invalidate it automatically. Sometimes, as awful as it is, killing is necessary. Stating that because the only purpose of a gun is to kill means that guns should be banned is taking the default position that killing is always wrong. I’ve seen a lot of people who talk about proptecting oneself without resorting to killing. But it is not the responsibility of a victim to prevent the death of his or her attacker; in a situation where you are being threatened with grave bodily injury or death your only responsibility is to protect yourself to the fullest extent of your ability. Period. It doesn’t invalidate a hammer to strike a nail and it doesn’t demonize a weapon to kill.

    Several arguments here focus on the large numbers of people that guns can kill at one time. While I hardly accept that guns are the only way to kill large numbers of people (see: Oklahoma City, 9/11) I do concede their efficiency in comparison to other common weapons. It is simpler to get a gun and kill in mass numbers in America. (In other places I would refer to car bombs, and IEDs) What I would like to know is what the magic number is. If a person kills someone with a gun we hardly notice. Two people and the local press might pick it up. I don’t accept that these tragedies although different in scale are at all different in their impact. Murder is murder whether one or one hundred people are killed. A shooter taking a large number of lives all at once is not more horrible to me than any other murder. Life isn’t valuable only in volume.

    Finally and perhaps most critically my questions come down to an issue of liberty. The Founders understood that the possibility of government to become corrupt and tyrranical existed. They wanted to insure that the people would always have the tools needed to protect themselves should their government become untenable. To that end they included the second amendment of the bill of rights. It was not intended to provide us with the means to protect ourselves from criminals although that is often a side effect of responsible gun ownership. It was designed specifically to give the people power to defend their freedom. So, what is freedom worth? How do we value liberty? Is it worth more than lives? Perhaps many lives? Should we risk curtailling our ability to protect our freedoms becuase a small group of people engages in criminal behavior that takes life from some of our citizenry? Benjamin Franklin said "Those who trade a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither and will loose both". Is there a point at which the value of life overrides the value of liberty? The Founders didn’t seem to think so. The history of our nation would suggest that we as people haven’t thought so either; we have fought many wars at a great expense of lives to secure liberty. I personally would trade my life in defense of my freedom; the former is meaningless without the latter.

  5. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Like I said before, I live in Wisconsin. I like our Gun Laws. I like the idea that when travelling, you must keep your gun in a locked case, until you get to whatever destination are going to. (Target Range, Hunting Grounds) There are still going to be bad eggs out there, but Like I said before, it makes me feel much safer to know that there aren’t "Law Abiding" citizens out there with the potential to shoot me because I pissed them off.

  6. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    " I do fail to see the "challenge" in killing a deer from a long range with a rifle"


    Then you’ve never hunted. And people do hunt ofr sport. My father does so almost every year.

  7. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    I would like to lend by voice to the Gun Control issue…using a simple message from Spiderman.

    Gun = Great Power.

    Gun + Person = Great Responsibility.


  8. 0
    SounDemon says:

    I live in Maine, so I guess that would qualify as the "hinterlands". And my argument was that your idea of "honk honk, killing is wrong, honk honk" is invalid; hunting is a legitimate reason for killing, self-defense is a legitimate reason for killing. Guns are also used for target shooting, something I do whenever I can; you TOTALLY IGNORED my points and made a straw man. Nice going.

  9. 0
    illspirit says:

    So do you pee your pants every time you see a police officer with a gun? Statistically speaking, CHL holders are less likely to commit a violent crime than the police and the general public.

    What does being an atheist or gay have to do with anything? While I can’t speak for Texas, I am an atheist who carries a gun, so you’re not going to offend me by being an atehist. And something tells me these guys and gals won’t shoot you for being gay. 😉

    Oh, and by the way, there are 36 other States with a "shall-issue" policy for concealed handgun licenses, another 9 who "may issue" such licenses, and 2 which don’t require any permit. Unless you’re in Illinois or Wisconsin, you may be standing next to someone with a "killing machine" right now. Besides, Texas isn’t even the one with the highest rate of licensing..

  10. 0
    JoshuaOrrizonte says:

    (Please don’t take offense to my comment. No offense is intended, no matter how sarcastic and bitter I sound.)

    This is one of the few issues that I have my opinion on and I won’t let anyone debate with me. I don’t care how uninformed someone thinks I am in this, because I’m still grieving the death of someone I loved very much. No one is going to be able to convince me that guns are A-OK and shoot rainbows and fucking freedom. Not until my loved one is alive, and I can hold her and talk to her again.

    But unfortunately, you can’t undo a bullet to the brain and you certainly can’t undo cremation. I guess I’m a lost cause, then.

  11. 0
    gamegod25 says:

    I think it’s obvious that the media doesn’t care about facts anymore. The simple fact is that these are people who were clearly mentally unstable and had easy access to firearms.

  12. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You act like women aren’t raped and mugged today, with or without the use of guns. That falls under the argument that guns prevent more crime than they create, which, honestly, is a laughable suggestion. Most rapings/muggings are surprise attacks anyways. Good luck to any one, even someone as strong as myself, to be able to realize what is going on, manage to fend off the attacker(s) for long enough to draw a weapon, and be able to fire it accurately and quickly enough to kill or disable my attacker(s). Thats not counting that that gun could JUST as easily find it’s way into the attacker’s hands, at which point he is pissed at me for drawing a gun in the first place..

  13. 0
    insanejedi says:

    Oh, so your not afraid because you are more powerful than someone else! That explains everything. You are just afraid that the power might equalize and you no longer the strongest guy in the city. Because of that, a gun ban would be all in your favour because your a 300 pound guy that can take care of himself. What about the 75 pound skinny woman that works at a bar? What if she get’s raped or mugged comming back from work by a person that is as big and strong as you are? What is she going to do? Just because you can take care of yourself, doesn’t mean everyone else somehow can.

    One of those checks and balances is the Right for the People to Bear Arms, there’s a reason why it’s there.

  14. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Looked at tranqs too. Unfortunately, they’re not nearly as effective at the whole non-lethal portion, while still remaining effective a dropping a target. Different people have different tranq requirements, and we have yet to find a substance that can reliably drop a large subject with little to no risk of ODing a smaller subject. Makes the spy’s tranq pistol a little less cool knowing it’s not nearly as realisitic as movies/games make them out to be. It was always one of my favorite guns.

  15. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    He said it wasn’t a planned ambush.  Chances are high that it was done at the spur of the moment.  And again, as people have said, this is a moot point as he no longer could purchase firearms legally.

  16. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I’m not afraid of getting beat up because I am a 6’2", 300lb guy who can be quite intimidating when the situation calls for it. I’ve only been in 4 fights my entire life, all 4 of which were in high school. Not to mention, its much easier to survive a fist fight/beating than it is to survive a gun-shot.

    That being said, I never said ALL government was working in the best interest of the people, but I am confident in saying that OUR government will always be working in the best interest of the people. There are enough checks and balances to really prevent a level of totalitarianism like that in North Korea or Iraq..

  17. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    1) Where did I portray the UK as anarcy, death and violence? I made a statement about a statistic that was 100% true and without any commentary. Until recently, the years following the ban showed an increase in gun related crime.

    2) 25 whole years? Wow… I’ve got that under my belt without ever using or being in a situation where i would have, and I consider that to be child’s play. I know people who have lived in NY for almost 60 years and have never once used, or been in the situation where they would have used a gun. What does that prove? Nothing. Crime is a relatively rare phenomenon in the large scheme of things, and most people don’t end up ever being a victim of anything more than a petty crime, let alone a violent one.

    3) How many times have I seen a gun that wasn’t in a store, or on display in a museum, or in the posession of police/millitary? None. Zero. Nada. If I saw a gun, I’d call the cops, regardless if there’s concealed carry permits in the area. Do you really think that there’s just a sea of people with guns? That the entire US is like a spegetti western with cowboys and shootouts at the quick-e-mart? I’m trying to find some exact statistics on it, but I can’t seem to right now. But I believe it’s somewhere between 2-5% of the population has a gun. It’s hard to tell with number of guns per person, guns per household/family.

  18. 0
    insanejedi says:

    If you are so afraid of people shooting you in the face when you mouth off to someone, why aren’t you afraid about being punched and beaten up when you mouth off to someone?

    Right because the government is ALWAYS in the best interest of people, it’s not like in the history of the world has there been a political leader that didin’t put his own interest ahead of its people. I should sit back and let the next Ivan the 4th come by and do whatever he wants because the Government is always built for me!

    You realize the second amendment was built around my second point, do you?

  19. 0
    Sukasa says:

    Actually, it’s nice to see a Colonel in the military is interested in gaming and coming here.  Back when I was in the army, most of the upper leadership that I interacted with never touched a game.  Anyway, you do make valid reasonable arguments.  Anti-gun people really should take a gun training and safety class.  However, anti gun control groups could probably be more understanding that some laws are needed.  There should be a middle ground where both sides can sit down and agree on guns(which be nice if a middle ground can be found on most political issue throughout the country).  

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a mandatory gun training and safety class at 18 (or older age) for all citizens (unless medically exempted) and those who own a gun(s), a training and safety class every 5-10 years (whatever is reasonable) and perhaps even issue a “gun license”.  Perhaps a medical check to make sure someone is mentally capable of owning and using a gun (if for example, someone is medically/mentally unable to drive a car, we aren’t going to issue them a driver license and they will find it difficult to buy a car).   Perhaps more should be done to make sure that people who are NOT suppose to own a gun, like the shooter from PA, doesn’t have them.  However, that tends to be a law enforcement problem and we generally underfund law enforcement and corrections programs (not enough cops/prisons).  Perhaps a stronger “neighborhood watch” program where all citizens in a neighborhood do more to watch for trouble in the area and work with a law enforcement officer(s) who is responsible for that area(ie more law enfocement officers and smaller more spread out police stations are needed).  You could even call it a “militia” program where all participants (mentally sound, etc) are issued a semi-auto AR-15 and help make sure their area is relatively safe.

    Anyway Colonel, keep up the good service in the marines.  While I was in the army, it was always interesting to work with the marines stationed where I was serving.


  20. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Power Hungry? Paint with a broader brush, why don’t you? I hear they are selling ones where you can paint an entire wall in pass, might be good for you. 

    Guns for sport are fine. Hell, even hunting is fine. Carrying Handguns around a city for so called "Protection," no so fine. I am perfectly fine with target shooting, sport shooting and all of that, but the moment you step out your front door with a loaded gun in your pocket or holster, rather than a locked case that you’d open upon arriving at the target range, you’ve crossed the line from sport to possibly endangering the lives of innocent citizens.

    I can tell you are one of those guys who seems to think that the government is just out there to get you, rather than protect you like it is actually built to do.

    Oh, and for the record, I can hardly be considered power hungry. I’d rather just be left alone to live my life the way I see fit, and NOT be worried that if I happen to mouth off to one of you gun nuts, I’d be shot in the face.

  21. 0
    sirdarkat says:

    I would like to state yes I have shot a gun, yes I was in the Army (damn jarheads just kidding) and as such I got to fire a lot of crap (this would be the answer to the have you taken a course).  I also got to blow a lot of crap up and got the fun of learning how to disarm land mines (mousetraps for the lose).  Even with all of this knowledge I still hold that guns are created for one thing and one thing only to kill (land mines, tanks, etc are also included but harder to get for normal citizens).  They have no purpose beyond that.

    I would suspect that I am "anti-gun", I am all for regulations, checks and balance, and basically keeping the damn things out of nutbags hands.  I also understand that the marines (and many other military units) can be mobilized as "peace keeping" forces even if that force was deployed to a US town.  I also understand that frankly the firepower the marines have would level a US town before it even had a chance to react and that the population that do own guns would be nothing more than annoying flys on the wall.  (Now granted with this in mind, I do believe the rest of the US would riot and fight back by the way you will find me in the Ozark Mountains if this ever occurs).



  22. 0

    Yeah, even I think it’s a pretty cool idea. Proliferate rubber bullets and tranks, maybe make them cheaper if possible (to provide an economic incentive). Not bad. Pretty decent middle ground.

  23. 0
    Chuma says:

    The issue is that legally owned firearms are targeted for theft too and sold on the black market.  I used to have a link to an article that had stats on the % of which are used in crime.  I recall it being quite a higher percentage than I was expecting.  If I can find it again I shall post it.

  24. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     Actually Bullet control is perfect everyone can have a gun but no one can have any bullets none nadda zip zero no ammo for you.


    That or make the damn things cost 50 bucks a pop.

    Dude I would put a cap in your arse but frankly baby got to eat tonight but next week its soooo on.

  25. 0
    Erik says:

    Guns do not cause crime, and it is a ridiculous notion to say so.  But to the gunophilles here who are trying to put them on the same level as games, shame on you all.  Unlike games, guns actually ARE dangerous.  Therefore they must be approached in a more cautious manner.  Now I believe that any citizen sans a criminal record should be able to buy one.  But my god people, these are dangerous fucking objects!

    I am more afraid of these "they are just tools like a screwdriver and are no more harmful than games!" bliss ninnys than the criminals who use the firearms for violent crime.  At least the criminal will have some comprehension of the danger of the object they carry.  The ignorance of the "just a tool" bliss ninnys posses is dangerous.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  26. 0
    insanejedi says:

    You realize that rifle shooting and pistol shooting are actual sports in the olympics right? What about Javlins? They were designed as for the sole purpose of killing and Javlin throwing is now a very popular sport in the olympic games. Boomerangs were designed for killing too. What are you going to do about those?

    And you may not like the idea that every Americian can vote but any alternative will diverge into facisim. First Amendment? Everyone can say any what lie they want. Is it necessary? Yes.

    Sorry for saying this, but I think your just another power hungry liberal.

  27. 0
    Chaltab says:

    Banning guns… It’s an idea. It would most certainly lower the danger of mass shootings, since many of those are comitted with legally aquired guns. At the same time, banning guns mean that sane criminals will be empowered because law-abiding citizens can’t defend themselves as well. A gun gives a 130 lb woman the advantage over a 250 lb criminal who wants to rape her. Also, hardened crooks will still get guns illegally.

    So you have to make a value judgement here–which is worse, empowered sane criminals, or crazy mass-murdering ones?



  28. 0
    GrimCW says:

    "When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims."


    this line right there is bull, in many states there are laws in place to prevent these issues, and most crimes are commited with illegal weapons.

    the issues aren’t with the guns so much as the control IMHO, i do own guns, and i still find it kinda bad i didn’t even get screened when i bought them.

    but thats rifles, for pistols, in NY, you have to go through some serious stuff to get a license, and i can’t say i disagree with the reason behind it, but i think they should do something similar (not quiet as strict though) for rifles.

    the most they did was send a thing to the police comps, it responded, and i had my gun since i don’t have a record. (for a rifle)


    IMHO i don’t mind licenseing to own guns, but i also stand firm in my belief that the 2nd amendment needs to be upheld, it is NOT for fighitng criminals, its for fighting a corrupt GOVERNMENT.

    give up that right and we lose our ability to fight imperical control should they try to instate it (and they are trying, patriot act anyone?)

  29. 0
    Ouroboros says:

    While I enjoy being chided by an Englishmen as much as the next Yank, I think it might be time to point out a the fact that, despite which side of the gun control debate you are on, there is a myriad of factors that make this a much thornier problem to regulate in the USA then in the UK. The UK is largely culturally and racially homogeneous, the USA is anything but. Geographically, the UK is slightly smaller than the state of Oregon; the USA is slightly smaller then the continent of Europe. The UK has roughly 8 times less people than the USA. The UK has had a history of gun control going back to 1824; the US didn’t start tackling the issue until the middle of the 20th century.

    If Mr. Njolinjo would like to propose some ideas on how we would get the whole USA to buy in on wide-sweeping gun legislation and police up the undoubtedly enormous black-market for guns after the legislation is enacted, by all means I would love to hear it. However, his comments were about as helpful as telling a man on fire: “By God man, you’re on fire”; that is to say, not one fucking bit.

  30. 0
    insanejedi says:

    When the hell are we going to get to the real issues and stop fracking scapegoating because were all lazy?


    Shut up, seriously! Any of you people that are against video game legaslation yet let gun legaslation let through because it redirects the attention should be ashamed of yourselves. You don’t care about protecting your rights and freedoms, all you care is your video games, and this goes to anyone else protecting their one pocket at the expense of others. Everyone’s so concerned about taking sides and scapegoating that no one is really looking at the REAL issue. What happened to personal responsibility, parenting, and moral responsibility? Gun’s, music, games never made kids psycotic. All of these kids who shot up schools were treated wrongly by bullying, parental abuse, or parental neglect. Why don’t we take active measures to make parents accountable, punish bully’s, to have kids that grow up with a good and well nurtured early life? I’ll tell you why, it’s beacause everyone thinks thats too hard and runs off making crazy laws and saying crazy statements scapegoating whatever the hell they can get their hands on so that they can pretend their doing something.

    You want something done right, do it the RIGHT way.

    Wanna reduce crime? Put more police officers on the streets and increase penalties for repeat offenders so they can’t be put back on the next day. Gun control, video game legeslation, and all that other stuff is just a sugar pill for parents and politicians to make them feel better for themselves when in fact the’ve done nothing.

  31. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You call me a coward, because I am uneasy when I know if I go to Texas, chances are the people next to me are all carrying legalized killing machines? God forbid I tell ’em I’m an Athiest, or better yet, that I’m one of them thar Homasexzuals.

    If Cars/Liquor/VideoGames were all designed to kill, Hell yeah, I’d be in support of banning each and every one of them. But, they are not, so you can’t draw that equation.

    I don’t support banning fun in the name of safety. I DO support restricting access to machines designed for the sole purpose of killing.

    And, to tell the truth, I don’t like the idea that everyone in America can vote. I would support a measure put in place that would require at least a baseline knowledge of each major candidate and of the issues at hand in the current election. Realistic, no, but have you seen some of the people out there? There are still folks out there that think Obama is a Muslim, who was sent here by Al Queda, and that all Gays should be executed. Do you really think they have any business VOTING? Thats not to say the issue isn’t on the liberal side of things too. There are plenty of folks out there who would blindly vote to ban video games just because of the bad things they hear.

  32. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:

    While I agree with your point stressing the fact that the US and England are not carbon copies of each with one having a charming accent and the other lacking one.

    When you’re examining statistics of crime in England, you also have to take into account the massive presence of a camera surveillance system that is unlike anything the US population has experienced.  I don’t know enough of what the Brits think of that system or even the impact it has on their everyday lives but it merits being mentioned because it can and has been used to track down criminals. 

    Which brings up the socio-economic differences involved in gun crime vs. knife crime.  Once again, I’m not an expert in this by any means and I’m sure someone could correct my argument if it’s based on faulty knowledge.  If we’re talking about the effectiveness of gun bans in preventing murders, isn’t that also based on the willingness of a population to comply with bans or even existing laws?  Someone mentioned illegal drugs and we can put in all sorts of things including underage drinking, driving without a license, etc.  Many things that could have potentially fatal consequences because the person perpetrating the crime is circumnavigating the law in order to do so.

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  33. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    are you serious?

    replacing lethal ammo with non-lethal ammo (but equally effective in its purpose), is ‘banning fun’?

    what are you talking about?

    How is using a gun to shoot people at a school , or shoot an attacker ‘fun’.

    You are exactly the kind of person that represents the prime reason why replacing lethal ammo with non lethal alternatives are a GOOD idea.

  34. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Although i have disagreed with previous posts you’ve made, ive got to hand it to you, i 100% agree with this.

    non lethal ammo, that could disable but reliably not kill, would be a fantastic development.

    If this sort of ammo was freely available whilst lethal ammo was restricted, citizens are in exactly the same position as with lethal ammo (i.e. able to fire a gun at an attacker) without any chance that the gun can be used to kill in other circumstances (e.g. school shooting)

  35. 0
    State says:

    America’s love affair with guns is undoubtedly a problem and it’s amazing how many countries who realise that gun control is now the way to go.

    The sole purpose of a gun is to kill (whether human or animal) and America’s belief that it is a fundamental right has led to more deaths than were necessary. Yet another one of these pointless rights (such as the right to free speech that works in principle but doesn’t in reality and isn’t even fully enforced in law) where the belief in such a right overrides any sense.

  36. 0
    IBOgre2006 says:

    Yes, lets substitute everything in the world with less lethal alternatives. No SUVs or Pickup trucks. No muscle or sports cars. They tend to have more accidents and when they are involved in accidents there are higher mortality rates. No spirits, maybe even no booze in general. Drink grape juice asshole. Its a safer drink. Violent games may cause violent behavior. Play Hello Kitty Island Adventure instead. ETC ETC ETC.

    Banning fun in the name of safety is the mindset of cowards incapable of living with freedom. Your insistance of not living in a place where CCW is allowed is a sign of how big a coward you are. You say you have no trust in humanity. HA! Guns arent the worst of your problems. You must hate democracy. How the hell can you trust these people with a vote?

    -Host of Guns, Gaming and Government Radio Show

    -"My Kind of Trinity"

  37. 0
    USMC Colonel James Slate says:

    I have been a long time reader of this blog/news website, and this is the first time I have ever felt it necessary to be pulled into one of these debates.


    For those arguing for gun control, have you ever fired a gun before in your life? If you’re answering yes to this, then have you ever taken a gun course?


    For those arguing against gun control, have you ever fired a gun before in your life, and if you answer yes, then have you ever taken a gun course.


    This may sound rather stupid, but a large portion of those arguing against guns, have never seen the side that those arguing against it have.

    Someone mentions armor piercing rounds in one of their posts, you don’t buy these, normal people, like Fred and Joe don’t go out and purchase a box of M995 AP 5.56×45 at your local walmart, and you don’t find it at gun shows, the only people with AP rounds are my men, and criminals that get their weapons from the black market, which can be found at your local poorer part of town when you know the right people that know the right people that run the right guns and ammo from the right places in the right countries that got them from the right countries over seas that have them from the right manufactures and the right thieves, gangsters, and higher ups that stole or purchased them.

    I am an officer in the military of the United States, and I am tired of this BS of gun control vs non gun control, let me pose a situation to you… what if our president, and I’m a Marine, I’m the presidents men, I can be deployed anywhere, anytime, without Congressional approval, didn’t know that did you? But, what if I am deployed to a United States city and I’m ordered to remove any terrorists, and some how, this whole city has been deemed terroristic.  The people of the United States, the ones with guns, and the ones with out any formal training are the ones that you’ll look up to to save you if this country goes crazy.  There are little over 500,000 of me, and if only 1% of the United States owns guns, then that means that I’m outnumbered at the very least, 30 to 1, this is assuming that all military have training in each class of fire arms, which they do not.

    For all your gesturing, the United States gives you the right to keep and bear arms, apparently countries in Europe does not, I can’t speak for them, I can only gather that from the people that have been talking here.

    Back to the topic on hand, using the logic of why are games not guns blamed, then why are drinks, not cars blamed, or why is anything general blamed with something any more general.

    In the real end, the reason to keep guns, is because of this, "Why didn’t he call the police?" this is the true difference between the shepard and the sheep, if you have to even ask yourself what that means, then you don’t understand, and you probably won’t.

    Now, go out there and shoot a gun, take a class, learn to handle a weapon so that you can at least say, I’ve used a weapon, I know what I’m talking about sometimes, for those on the other side, take your gun out, put it on the table, put all of them on the table, put your ammo on the table, look at all of it, and try to tell yourself that all these weapons are for hunting.  A gun is a weapon, it is a tool, it is like anything else that is a tool, if it is used incorrectly, someone gets hurt.

    This entire post will be completely disregarded by the anti-gun people because I’m in the military, and I’m biased, and this post will most likely be disregarded by a large portion of gun people, because I’m in the military and so I don’t know what it’s like to defend my family from an invader.

    But I wrote it anyway.

  38. 0
    IBOgre2006 says:

    The ammo argument is B.S. Consider this, a citizen wishes to practice to be a safer gun user. He wants to be both accurate and skilled. This requires repitition and repition requires a ton of ammo to make sure you are really tha skilled. Now there is a gangbanger who wants money or some other thing from another person. How many bullets does the gangbanger need?

    Thats right, one bullet is all that is needed to do the job. Regulating the quantity of ammo is regulating the private citizen, it doesn’t do jack to the criminal.

    -Host of the Guns, Gaming and Government Radio Show

    -"My Kind of Trinity"

  39. 0
    Firebird says:

    Because each country is sociologically the same….

    There are too many demographics (particularly in the US) to know whether any solution is the RIGHT solution.

    Why not ban food? Particularly fast-food, since it seems the #1 cause of death in US is by heart disease and stroke? Granted its not about a crime against another human being… its was usually delt w/ equal emotional regard to guns in the past.

    I am not calling you out, because as you put it, the ban worked for the UK.

    But in a place as diverse as the US, there is really no easy solution, and no right/wrong opinion.

  40. 0

    Take out the guns and you’d still feel unsafe in Atlanta, guns aren’t the problem, the problem is crime and the causes of it, instead of a gun someone could just as well use something else.

  41. 0
    Valdearg says:

    That is the most logical argument I’ve seen from you yet, Deus. I will wholeheartedly agree that limiting lethal ammo and supplanting it with non-lethal ammo would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

  42. 0
    Valdearg says:


    When they arrived at the home, Sciullo was immediately shot in the head. Mayhle, who was right behind him, was also shot in the head.

    "It appears he was lying in wait for the officers," Harper said."


    Yup. They weren’t ambushed.. Not at all.

  43. 0
    Krono says:

    (is Jack on vacation or something?).

    He’s busy annoying people in Utah about his latest failed brainchild. So yes, he’s on vacation from trolling GP.


  44. 0

    In some situations trying to defend yourself with a firearm can be a crappy idea, and can just make things worse, but in other situations it can save your life. If a person is going to own a firearm, they need to be taught how to judge when to submit and get their shit back later, and when to end it on the spot.

    In some situations a mugger may just take your money and leave, while in other situations, a person may be more inclined to simply kill you. In such a case, a person wants to be able to defend themselves.

  45. 0
    illspirit says:

    What the hell is this guy even talking about? There are thousands of news articles and blogs floating around right now blaming guns and the "gun lobby." There’s also a subset of these calling for the arrest and/or killing of all NRA members and "the right" in general for being enemies of the state or some such nonsense. I’ve yet to see anyone blame video games for any of the recent shootings (is Jack on vacation or something?).

    And for that matter, the vast majority of people who usually blame games for violence are also anti-gun..

  46. 0
    Father Time says:

    The numbers of stopped crime because of armed victim are great but I fail to see your logic.

    So a gun isn’t best in every scenario of ‘criminal attacks’ but it is good in some scenarios is it not?

    As for school shooters they can always use explosives (one guy did and racked up a bigger death toll than the Columbine boys, this being one person with explosives vs. two people with guns) of the home made variety or they can get guns from the black market.

    Teachers (or in the case of colleges, students as well) being allowed to carry concealed weapons can also stop wanna be school shooters and it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  47. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Okay, two things.  

    1) CNN’s article reports that this was in response to his mother trying to get the police to evict him from the house.  His MOTHER made the call, not him, and it wasn’t a planned ambush like you seem to think.

    2) He was legally barred from owning firearms.  He had been dishonorably discharged from the military for ASSAULTING A DRILL SERGEANT, which means he both A) committed a violent misdemeanor and B) was dishonorably discharged.  Which leads me to question who bought the guns for him… his mother maybe?

  48. 0
    saregos says:

    Really?  Excepting some special cases where people live out in the hinterlands, I hardly see hunting as necessary.  It’s still killing, and while I’m not an animal rights person per se, I do fail to see the "challenge" in killing a deer from a long range with a rifle.  Use a bow if you want the challenge.

    As for using a gun in self defense, I’d like to see a statistic of how many crimes have resulted in a person being injured because they went for their gun (as opposed to the criminal getting what they want, leaving relatively peacefully, and being apprehended later).

    And removing the tool for the job will not, granted, remove the motivation to murder.  What it will do is remove the efficiency of that murder, and prevent an easy massacre.  An untrained individual with even a sword is not nearly as dangerous to others as an untrained individual with an gun, and in actuality a truly untrained individual with a sword has a fairly high probability of injuring themselves.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  49. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Another point to make: the guns themselves are even less to blame than the ammo. There are now shotgun shells that can be fired from a standard shotgun, but provide a non-wired taser that is just as effective as previous genearion tasers. Guns are constantly evolving, and killing as a result of firing may eventually become a thing of the past anyways.

    Much like armor piercing rounds, I feel like it would be a much easier compromise to make lethal ammunition harder and harder to get. The public still has their ability to defend themselves with guns, yet the risk of accidental deaths is at very least extremely mitigated.

  50. 0
    SounDemon says:

    I will end this argument once and for all.

    Guns are both tools and weapons. I hear a lot of people here honking about "It’s only purpose is to kill." But in some cases, killing is okay. Hunting is an excellent example, using a gun in self-defense or against a criminal OR SCHOOL SHOOTER with a gun is also sanctioned killing. People can (and do) target practice with them.

    BUT REMOVING THE TOOL FOR THE JOB WILL NOT PREVENT THE UNDERLYING DESIRE TO MURDER. I use "murder" here because it is different than killing. Murder is unjustified, whereas killing is a neutral concept. Banning guns will not solve anything at all.

    In fact, the fear of getting shot is an excellent crime prevention method, which is why Switzerland has a low crime rate.

    So STOP NOW.

  51. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     Frankly in a fight I would rather the person have a knife then a gun, I have a chance with in a knife fight one you have to catch me and two you have to get close to me.  A gun is a simple point and click interface to make people you don’t like go away.

  52. 0
    Father Time says:

    All together now

    The Columbine boys got their guns illegally.

    More gun laws wouldn’t have sopped Columbine.

    Although I wonder what would happen if the colubmine boys didn’t use guns BUT their home made explosives worked.

    They tried to blow up the cafeteria during lunch time, what if the bombs worked killing most of the people inside.

    This would’ve resulted in a bigger death toll obviously but what would’ve been the publics reaction?

    Doom and rap would’ve been even less plausible scapegoats and gun control wouldn’t have been brought up.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  53. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    um nicely ignoring the fact that while ‘knife crime’ is heralded by the media as being responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the UK, comparitively, violent crime is actually pretty low in the UK.

    Not high as you would like to portray.

    Take the statistics for a city like London, and a comparitively sized city like new york.

    Deaths due to violent crime are significantly higher in New York (proportionally) than in London. So.. technically the ban has worked well in the UK.

    Ive lived here for 25 years and never once had to use, or ever been in the situation where i would have  used a gun. 

    And it also brings to light the weakness of the ‘if we ban guns from lawful citizens, all the criminals will run amok unchallenged’ argument. In the uk its REALLY easy for police to detect criminals with guns, because as soon as somebody is spotted with a gun, they can be arrested, as there are few valid reasons for them to carry one. Also a community can easily spot when something is amiss. Is somebody obtains a gun, you pretty much know its uses are for no good.  

    In 25 years i havent found my life threatened by criminals running unchallenged with guns.


    Granted, in a country where guns already are presnent i so many homes, a ban wouldnt be as easy (or necessarily practical) to enforce.

    However, please dont paint the UK as a picture of anarchy, death, and violence. You are SO wrong.

  54. 0
    mdo7 says:


    hurrah, a common sense.  Thank you for pointing out that games or any medium are not the cause of massacre.  It was the gun, mental problems, and other factors that can make a person goes into a shooting rampage.


    Jack Thompson claiming this guy is paid by video game and also saying that Jiverly Voong was a Counter-Strike, and Grand Theft Auto fan in 3…2…1

  55. 0
    Joker says:

    Um, as a rule "automatic rifles" are, as a rule, illegal to own.  You need a very special license for those.  Perhaps you meant ‘semi-automatics’?  And I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of thise incidents are commited with handguns of some sort and not long guns (aka rifles).

    I’ll say it again, simply banning or making something illegal simply keeps it out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.  Criminals will still have firearms!

  56. 0
    Chuma says:

    England isn’t a valid example really as even prior to the ban we do not have a culture of mass ownership of guns.

    Personally, I think if the issue were as simple as 1 thing then it would have been sorted already.  People like Jack want it to be that simple but as soon as that fails to make a difference, they will go on to the next thing and the next.  It makes more sense to blame the availability of the tool of distruction than a piece of violent imagery, but banning guns wouldn’t solve the problem either, merely changing the problem instead.

    Personally I DO think removing Automatic rifles would be a positive step to help to try and curb the scale of such killings, but that alone would not prevent them from happening.

  57. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Knife crime is an issue, yes. But Those people are going to try to kill anyways. Wouldn’t it make sense that they keep to knives, rather than giving them guns to kill 20 times the number of victims?

  58. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Because the ban on guns in the UK is working so well. You know, if you ignore the fact that gun crime ROSE in the following years (until 07, when they posted the first decline in gun crime since the ban). And also ignoring the fact that knives are actually responsible for the majority of crime in england, not guns, even before the ban. 

  59. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Because guns can be controlled. Psychological Health and parental responsibility (as we have seen evidenced by the 6 year olds who are allowed to play GTA) can not be controlled.

  60. 0
    Joker says:

    A point that continually is buried is that no matter what sort of laws or regulations you place on firearms, those measures will ONLY affect law-abiding citizens.  The jokers that want to perform illegal acts will not be affected.  Period.

    To those the claim it will get them off of the street, I point to illegal drugs.  They’re everywhere even though ‘illegal’, so how would it be different with firearms?

    Perhaps if one of their victims were trained and permitted to carry, a different outcome would be reported.  It happens all over the country.

  61. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I posted this above, but Im going to post it here too, because I think it actually is a pretty good example of what I am arguing against when I argue for stricter regulation, even outright banning, of certain types of guns.,2933,512560,00.html

     "Poplawski feared ‘the Obama gun ban that’s on the way’ and ‘didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,’ said Edward Perkovic, his best friend."

    I knew something like this was going to happen from the moment I heard people saying "Obama’s going to take our guns, buy as many as you can! I want to protect myself and my family from the government!":

    This guy had an assault rifle and several legally purchased, powerful handguns, and ambushed police as they responed to a call about his dog.

  62. 0
    Sigvatr_ says:

    While I think guns are pretty cool and shooting them is a lot of fun, I think handing them out to citizens is more trouble than it’s worth.

    At the moment I live in Australia. Very, very few people have guns here. They are extremely difficult to get. That being said, I feel safe living here.

    I used to live in Atlanta, Georgia and walking out at night time was scary. You didn’t feel safe because you know people out there have guns, and gun related murders happen all over the place.

    Knowing that there were guns in America didn’t make me feel safe. They made me not want to go outside, and that is a freedom I don’t like being deprived of.

  63. 0
    guzidem says:

    The primary purpose of pepper spray, or a tazer, is to protect, by incapacitating a dangerous individual long enough to subdue them, flee, or get help.  Pepper spray cannot kill.  Tazers only kill through mishaps.  They’re not anywhere near as dangerous or hazardous to others as a gun is.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

    sac ekimi  estetik arac kiralama rent a car oto kiralama yuz estetigi Smartlipo lazerlipoliz evden eve nakliyat burun estetigi burun estetigi diyet yazgulu

  64. 0
    Durgin says:

    What exactly are we attempting to discuss here? That guns are violent weapons, or are we discussing merits (or lack thereof) of gun control, or violent crime in general?

    I don’t think anyone can make an argument against guns being a violent weapon. They’re designed specifically to cause bodily harm. However, the threat of harm also functions as a deterrent. If you know you could get shot, you’re less likely to do whatever would put you in such a situation. But guns themselves are neither good nor evil. They’re merely a tool used by a person who makes a choice to use or not use violent force with it. The availability or lack of availability simply changes the choice of weapon used to accomplish an individual’s goal of inflicting bodily harm. Once a person makes a choice to use violent force, they’ll do so with the best weapon available to them. It doesn’t matter what kind of weapon that winds up being. There’s absolutely no correlation between gun controls and violent crime rates. Both Canada and the UK have strict gun control laws, and both have higher violent crime rates than the US.

    Canadian crime rates:

    US Violent crime rate in 2007

    UK Crime rates in 2006-2007 (Sept 2006-Sept 2007)

    Some extrapolation is needed to make a direct comparison between the UK statistics and the figures for the US provided by the FBI. First, the figure used by the BCS excludes crime against individuals 15 and under, which reduces the figure substantially. That aside, they state overall BCS crime rate at 10.1 million (pg 2) for the Sep 2006-Sep 2007 reporting year with violent crime comprising 21% of that figure (pg 5). This works out to 2.12 million violent crimes. The UK had a population of approx 60,975,000 around mid 2007 ( which means a violent crime rate of 3478.5 per 100k. Compare that to the 466.9 per 100k in the US. Granted, there are plenty of factors which contribute to the differences in crime rates beyond weapon availability. Even so, that’s a massive difference in violent crime rate.

    So lets go back to the original author: "When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims".

    I propose that anyone who wants to go kill another person would find a way to do so regardless of the weapon(s) available to them. The only difference would be the method in which it is done. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens leaves the guns only in the hands of the criminals, who in turn will become emboldened as their victims no longer have the means to retaliate against them. Blaming guns for the crime is no different than blaming video games, rock music, comic books, movies, or any of the other popular scapegoats of the 20th and 21st centuries. In the end, it boils down to someone having the desire to inflict pain and suffering on others, and then acting upon those impulses.

  65. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    Because guns aren’t at fault.

    Many of the people that go on shootings obtain their weapons illegally. It isn’t like I can walk into my local wal mart and get a high powered assault rifle, nor even a good hand gun.

    Regulation is pretty good already. I prefer a good tazer to a gun though, as there’s less problems with concealing it.

    -Oh, that’s right. Most states require you to take classes to be able to legally conceal a weapon – which means you must carry it in bright yellow and black holsters, blah blah blah.

    Anyone want to pull up violent deaths in the U.K., compare it to the overall population number in the UK, then do the same for the U.S. and put them together?

    My British writer friend, I must ask you this! Have you ever listened to a criminal/mugger’s response on what he’s most afraid of when he commits his crime? It isn’t the police, nor is it a bystander. A criminal’s greatest fear is that the victim is armed.


    Con side! : Applying for a gun should require intense psychological screening for everything but semi automatic hunting rifles and shotguns.

    I will not buy securom games. and

  66. 0
    shady8x says:

    Am I allowed to shoot out the tires as you speed away, and then shooting at the gas tank if you are still alive?


    Also i get to be able to shoot out a lock in the house and come after you…


    Seriously your bullet proof glass idea doesn’t work unless you lock yourself in a bullet proof room… I agree that panic rooms are useful to have in a house… but their are rather expensive… a gun is cheaper to defend yourself with… also if you think a car or house stops a gun then what is your problem with guns???

  67. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    ok but i get to have the power of living in a 3-dimensional world, where i can be INSIDE an object (e.g. a car or house) with bulletproof glass.

    Have fun walking around and around all day long.

  68. 0
    shady8x says:

    I agree, even aspirin can kill you, eat 20 pills and you are gone… why, about 1,000 people per year die from coffee so yes anything can kill you… everything is lethal or less lethal than somehting else…


    Lets ban everything or it will kill us!!! Think of the childrenz!!! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!


    I can see why some would want guns banned, cause after guns are banned we can ban everything else without getting killed in the riots to follow…


  69. 0
    shady8x says:

    From a distance guns are better but from a blow delivered they aren’t, but what would you rather have:

    a)get shot once by an average gun owner

    b)get stabbed once by an average knife owner

    c)get run over by a car once by an average car owner

    Your highest chances of survival would be A… yet it is somehow more efficient? explain this one to me…


    Also my previous post had nothing to do with either cars or knives so does that mean you agree with my point and want to talk about something else or what?

  70. 0
    shady8x says:

    Those ones are more efficient to kill large numbers of people. I never said that  guns should be around because its easier to kill with them… I have consistently argued against it…

    The gun is more efficient for defending yourself and others…

    unless you are saying that you can defend yourself with cars or homemade fertilizer bombs…

    as for knives, I always carry one with me, however for defense its a lot easier to scare an attacker away with a gun then a knife… killing an attacker with either is similar in chances of success but the point is not to kill but to survive…


  71. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    sure those things happen.

    But with realtion to the bomb argument, ifd argue its FAR easier for something to go wrong with a homemade bomb (e.g. it doesnt work, or goes off accidentally)


    Furthermore… how is challenging the idea that guns are more efficient than cars , knives, and homemade fertilizer bombs, an argument as to why guns ARE needed? surely if these other methods are just as efficient and less error prone as you claim, then you have no problem using these instead of guns right? whats that i hear? *flip* *flop**flip* *flop*

  72. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    the methods listed included knives and cars.

    explain how my point was invalid.

    you think guns are not as efficient at killing as cars and knives?

  73. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    lol… JUST LOL


    homocide != violent crime.


    thats like saying ‘well the number of deaths were somebody was blown up with a nuke hidden in their breakfast cereal in the USA was 1, while the number of people who got hurt in any way in the UK was more than that. See i have a point about something! i have a point!’


    take a look at the number of homocides in the uk. compare that with the number of homocides in the US. Then compare your figures. Or compare the figures for violent crime in the UK with violent crime in the US. Way to misrepresent something. Tell you what, post that information, then we can continue debating.

  74. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    And as that person screams, the attention is drawn AWAY from you, TOWARDS that person, thus setting you up for another two or three easy stabs to the kidneys of people in the crowd.

  75. 0
    shady8x says:

    That 30k includes a lot of criminals in fact I would argue that most of these deaths are criminals actively involved in something like the drug war…


    A better number is the number of homicides, in USA it is 20,000 (many do not involve guns…)

    Britain‘s wave of knife crimes has topped 22,000 in the last year, official figures show today.


    Population of England = 51.1 million

    Population of USA= 306.2 million

    Hmm interesting isn’t it…

  76. 0
    shady8x says:

    Hey NovaBlack

    the ‘only criminals will have them’ is not a scaremongering idea… if guns are illegal than anyone who owns them is a criminal… that is simple fact…

    also I am originally form Russia. Guns are illegal in Russia… yet a lot of people have guns… not all of them are bad guys… but most good people are left helpless against the countless gangs with machine guns… and they are helpless against the cops(militsia) which aren’t much better then the gangs and mafia…

    as for the origninal purpose of a gun well just like a club or a blade(knife), the original purpose was to allow soldiers to kill other soldiers… when it comes to civilians these have mainly been used for self defense…(I always keep a knife near just in case…)

    aslo a gun is a rather inefficient killing device, you have to be good at aiming(most criminals aren’t while those that have concealed carry permits are) to kill someone or shoot repeatedly(if automatic weapons were used in crimes then I would want them banned, but they aren’t)… while a knife(if you get close enough) is far more lethal…

  77. 0
    shady8x says:


    "so.. why are the military armd primarily with guns?is it perhaps because using guns is easier and more efficient than the methods youve listed? If so, then your argument falls flat on its face."

    uhhh no. The military uses guns because bombing a building to get a single shooter and dozens of civilians is not a tactic used by armies of nations who’s representatives are elected…(well usually)

    So you can’t blow up every building, then your tanks can’t go up the stairs so you send soldiers up there… and while it is not the most effective way to fight, it is one of the better ones… (after you threw in a few flash grenades and some tear gas…)

  78. 0
    Geryon says:

    And just before any responce, yes I am partially talking out of my ass, I have never been attacked with a gun or a knife, though I have been cut by an idiot/jackass friend with a sword, it’s just I can think of way I could actually attempt to defend myself against someone with a knife but aside from screaming obsenities and running can not think of anything I could do about someone with a gun, again unless then came withing grappling distance which realy defeats the point of a gun.

  79. 0
    Geryon says:

    Yes it is simpler, and simple, to kill covertly with a knife, well until the person screams or falls dead I supose, I was thinking specifically in a situation where where the knife is noticed before the attack in which case I think that it would still be more difficult.  Thats kinda why I mentioned the pen in the second paragraph, it’s really easy to kill someone with almost anything but if someone is aware of an attack I think that a gun would, again assuming the person knew how to use it, be easier for the simple fact of range.  At grappling distance a knife might be better, honestly don’t know, but I can’t imagine why anyone who did have a gun set against someone who was aware of the attack would move into grappling distance.  My point was simply that if someone is about to attack me with a knife I can do more things to defend myself than if someone attacks me with a gun.

  80. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Anyone who’s done it before can use a knife to kill as efficiently as a gun.  Moreso, in fact. Consider the fact that the action of holding a firearm up to fire it is an unnatural action not seen in everyday life, but the action required to put a knife with a three inch blade in someone’s kidney is a natural action (swinging your hands while you walk).

  81. 0
    Father Time says:

    "Don’t take my stuff away to help the less fortunate and save lives."

    Do you know what it’s called when you take from the rich and give to the poor?


    Some people do not want to be forced to pay for the poor. Some people do though and they give to charity.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  82. 0
    Geryon says:

    Just being a little nit picking annoyance here but I would say that it’s a fair amount of hyperbole to say that you can take a life just as easily with a pocket knife as with a pistol.  I know I could certainly defend myself much better, if I had no weapon of my own, against a person with a knife than a person with a gun so it is less efficent in that way, but if I DO get killed I hardly care if it was with a knife or a gun, I’m dead and it sucks.  Also just FYI I am aware that someone who is trained with a gun should be able to take someone down without killing them, well assuming they are trained a decent shot that is.

    Frankly I think I could kill someone more easily with a pen than a knife for the simple fact they would be less likely to expect it.  Well that is if they saw me with either a pen or a knife, if I were to sneak up on someone then a knife would be easier but if I truly intended to kill someone and did get the drop on them which weapon I were to used would not that important.  Anyway this paragraph is entirely unimportant but if you read this far you know that already.

  83. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    Well, seeing how he killed a grand majority of his victims at close range while they were cowering, then yeah, I think he could have gotten close to that number.  At close range, a man with a knife is more deadly and dangerous than a man with a gun.

    Also, have you even looked at cases of knife killing sprees?  2?  Really?

  84. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Efficiency? I thought we gave up on that one? I don’t know about you, but lighting a building on fire, blowing up a car, or just plain driving through a crowded area is FAR FAR FAR more effecient at killing than a gun can ever hope to be. A single bomb can be cheaply, and easily made, and end up killing targetted people and more people than a gun. No training is required, unlike guns, which do end up requiring at least a partial knowledge of how to deal with aiming, kickback, etc. A bomb is a bomb, and just explodes once prepared.

    So, once again, you fall back to the potential use compared to the intended use. At how many non-lethal uses does a gun then become ‘necessary’ or ‘useful’ to society? To me, it only needs 1, the ability to protect someone. Clearly you need more than that. Will 2 do it? How about 20? How many uses does a hammer have other than killing that gives it a free pass? Does it have more than guns? How many uses does a saber have? Do those need to be regulated/banned too? Unlike knives, they don’t actually have use in modern society. And back to the javelin? Does it have any use to society other than entertainment through sports?

    EDIT: Oh, and I keep forgetting to mention. Can you show me the ‘effeciency’ you keep talking about? Of all school shootings in the US, only 3 have ever made double digit deaths, and vtech was the first to even be over 20. The worst school related massacre was actually done by explosives. Even when looking across the entire globe, I still have a hard time finding more than 10 school shootings where there were double digit kills. Hardly the model of ‘efficiency’ that you keep making them out to be. I limited it to school schootings because it’s too hard to tell for flat out massacres. But I am also including any info I can find on solo killers who went on a rampage. Too many of the massacres are perpetrated by ‘army’s of sorts or a goup of people. But even then, most non-war based massacres are quite minimal when only guns are used. In effeciency and ease of use, bombs sweep the floor with guns.

  85. 0
    Krono says:

    Ah, but I don’t mean merely banning professional sports. I’m talking about banning it at all levels, professional, school, and recreational.

    Afterall, sports are useless, so it should be illegal to play catch with your son at the local park.


  86. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Explain to me how an article talking about a gun being used lethally means that all talk about guns must be about them being used in the exact same manner. (Of course, that’s ignoring the fact that the article doesn’t actually discuss the lethal aspect of guns, but only guns in general) YOU want this to be a discussion about lethal guns (in spite of your prior request to show how a gun can be used in ways other than killing), but gun control is about so much more than just lethal guns.

    And in actuality, I’ve been avoiding citing the article as it is EXTREMELY poorly written. He clearly has no concept of the US constitution and the bill of rights. I’ve actually been arguing against the more coherent versions of his points instead of taking what he says at face value.


  87. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Wrong on both counts.  I can take a life with a pocket knife just as easily as with my 1911.  It makes no difference to me.  The only difference is that in protecting myself and a third party, I can act as a barrier so long as I have a firearm, keeping the aggressor farther away from myself and/or my wife.  I can do the same thing with a knife.

    HOWEVER, when it becomes a multiple aggressor situation (as most muggings are), I am no longer able to defend my wife (or my child, when it comes down to it).  I have to engage one, and while doing so, can’t do anything to the other.  NOW, when facing the same situation with a pistol (my 1911), I can keep them both at bay, and if I need to, can engage them both without leaving my wife’s or child’s side.

    Which one would you rather use?

    (PS, I don’t really want an answer to that question, you’d probably let them stab or shoot you to death).

  88. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     To tell you the truth I am all for banning sports … mostly because I think its stupid to pay a jock a million dollars to play a game all day long.

  89. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     A simple counter point to a fetilizer bomb is do you know how to build one??? I don’t where as I do know how to use a gun pretty simple straight forward.

  90. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    There is no good argument against legally owned automatic weapons, that’s the problem.  Do you know how much they cost?  Do you know how much it costs to register?  Do you know that if you take it out of the state it’s registered in, it can be illegal?  Do you know that legally owned automatic weapons are NEVER used in crimes?  There’s no good argument against them. 

    Why should the many suffer for the actions of the few?  If that’s the case, let’s ban doctors.  They kill people all the time, mostly by accident.  Hell, 1 in 3 people who go into a hospital with a serious injury or illness don’t come out. 

    As for health care and taxes, why should I pay half the money I EARN every year to give EBT cards to people too lazy to try and work?  I have no problem with helping people in need, but the government is the wrong group to do it.  The government fucks up almost everything it touches.

    By the way, contrary to the popular belief, every life in the world doesn’t matter.  This comes from the same idiotic PC school of thought that says everyone is a winner.  Truth is, people like crackheads do nothing but leech money from the state and their relatives, and the only worth their life has is as a cautionary tale.  So I don’t understand why we should pay extra money so they can destroy themselves.

  91. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Of the dozens upon dozens of points i’ve made, you take 1, and determine that makes all my other arguments invalid. That’s some quality deduction skills you have there. Man, we’ve had strawman arguments brought against my points, we’ve had loaded questions… I guess it was just time before the attacks became ad homenim.

  92. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    "Today a demented ex-student stormed a school and tranquilized 32 individuals, before turning the gun on himself and tranquilizing himself’."

    So… once again you bring up a point, and then when i argue against it, you say it’s not what we were arguing about. And you have the audacity to call me a troll?

    But if you REALLY want me to bring guns back into the discussion, why is it that you don’t hear anything about the 500,000 crimes a year in which a gun was used and no one was killed? Because there’s nothing to blame guns on. No one really cares of someone lost their wallet, or was forced to give up their car. But because someone was killed, THAT is the story. Not the gun.

  93. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    So… because you want to, you just exclude all other forms of guns? No where in the article is it making a distincion about lethal vs non-lethal. You chose to narrow the argument to only a section that you can actually defend, when in actually the 2nd amendment is SO much more than that. Gun control is not a black and white issue, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. When discussing lethal guns and their pitfalls, it is also necessary to discuss the non-lethal aspects of guns.


    But let’s take a step back here. First, I was asked to show why guns should be allowed at all. Then I was asked to show how they can be used for things other than killing. Then I was asked to show that killing wasn’t the primary purpose. And now that I’ve shown that, i’m being told that guns that kill are the only ones that we’re talking about. If that’s the case, then clearly asking me to show how guns can be used other than killing is a loaded task. If by your definition, guns must kill, and then you ask me what a gun can do besides kill, there’s nothing that can satisfy your question.

    As I’ve said before, take a step back from your ‘guns are evil’ mindset, and think for a minute that there can actually be some good that comes from a gun. Regardless if you try to narrow down the definition to your liking.

  94. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    once again, please engage brain activity and actually read the article before posting.

    The article is about guns being used for killing, in school shootings.

    That implies that the guns being discussed here are LETHAL weapons. As in NOT a taser.

  95. 0
    Krono says:

    Hunting for food – largely unnecessary in modern society, except where specific individuals need appropriate tools (e.g. farmers etc), and this could easily be controlled and dealt with on a per case basis. In no way an argument applicable to 100% of the population (hell i doubt even applicable to 1%).

    Hey, you asked for useful applications. You didn’t specify percentages of the population.

    sport – in now way a ‘useful’ application.

    Great! Let’s ban football, basketball, heck all sports because they aren’t ‘useful’ and result in all kinds of injuries.

    and nusiance removal (i.e. deer overpopulation) – again, this example, although valid, could easily be dealt with in the same way as the first. Only certain licensed individuals need guns for this purpose. The vast majority of the population dont need a gun for nuisance removal.

    Again, you asked for non-warfare uses. You didn’t specify percentages of the population.


  96. 0
    NovaBlack says:


    as i keep repeatedly saying, its the efficiency with which somebody can do harm with a gun (as opposed to javelins or bows and arrows) that severely flags guns as being conceptually ‘dangerous’. Yeah a bow and arrow, and javelins, are dangerous. But not as efficient as say a semi-automatic rifle.

    I dont ‘fear’ being intentionally stabbed by a javelin, because statistically that is incredibly unlikely to happen. Same with a bow and arrow. Far more likely that any intentional injury, will be comitted with a gun.

    You keep on talking about a guns comparions to tools such as a knife and hammer, but i hardly see any examples that you have provided to back this up. A knife and hammer have so many uses, and are so commonly used in society today for tasks that they can almost be deemed ‘necessary’. Dont kid yourself that guns are anywhere near the same in terms of their uses.

  97. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Also aimed at the prior response:

    Please show me where a definition of gun requires that the projectile is solid? And where does it say it has to be lethal velocities? Once again, I ask the question, if the person who was shot doesn’t die, does that mean it’s not a gun that was used? Or if it must have the potential of death, then doesn’t that mean that tranqs and tazers are guns? Both, if administered improperly, or at higher than normal usages, are fatal. Yet there seems to be a belief that a taser isn’t a gun. 
    A taser is a gun. Plain and simple. If you really want to go a step further, then i’ll go with the taser Xrep shotgun rounds. Would you ever consider a SHOTGUN to not be a gun? How about if it’s only firing taser rounds? Or how about the rubber buckshots. The gun is the gun. What it is firing is the ammo, and doesn’t define the gun.

  98. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Hunting for food – largely unnecessary in modern society, except where specific individuals need appropriate tools (e.g. farmers etc), and this could easily be controlled and dealt with on a per case basis. In no way an argument applicable to 100% of the population (hell i doubt even applicable to 1%).

    sport – in now way a ‘useful’ application.

    and nusiance removal (i.e. deer overpopulation) – again, this example, although valid, could easily be dealt with in the same way as the first. Only certain licensed individuals need guns for this purpose. The vast majority of the population dont need a gun for nuisance removal.


    perhaps i meant useful applications of a gun, valid to the majority of the population. I was thinking along the lines of say, a knife, being used by say 99.9% of the population as cutlery to eat food.

  99. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    And what potential benefits do javelins and bow and arrows provide to society? Or is that about brass knuckles and nightsticks?

    And lastly, you’re admitting that your fear of being shot is the reason you won’t overlook a gun’s other uses. Since you don’t fear getting stabbed at range by a javelin, you’re more willing to accept it’s sport and entertainment value. Same with bow and arrow, and those are quite easy for an inexperienced person to misuse. 

  100. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    But the problem is not the device itself, it’s the intent of the user

    so.. its perfectly aceptable for me to argue that i should be allowed access to .. say…. a rocket launcher, as long as i only ‘intend’ to protect myself, and ‘disable’ an attacker?

  101. 0

    Oh I don’t know, seeing how you can stalk and kill people with a knife and do it silently, he could very well have killed just as many people, more if he wanted and could have easily done it. Easier than with a gun since that loud "bang" is fairly noticable..


    Or he could have taken five minutes and looked up how to make a pipe bomb and killed A LOT more people.

  102. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Really, this is where I believe we’re moving to as well. But I don’t understand how I’m changing the definition of a gun. They have and always been a device used to propell a projectile. Over the course of time, that has eventually evolved into a lethal killing machine. But at the same time, has also evolved into a piece of sports equipment, and a non-lethal protection device. But the problem is not the device itself, it’s the intent of the user. And much like how everyone accepts the javelin and bow and arrow as a means of entertainment, I believe guns will eventually be viewed in the same way. Maybe it will take an even more deadly weapon, or maybe a cheaper version of a current weapon. But it’s the person behind the gun making the decision of how to use it that is the problem, not the gun itself.

  103. 0
    vellocet says:

    "4 people were hospitalized, my friend had 2 teeth knocked out, and at least 2 arrests were made? No one died, no one was seriously hurt, no one had any major charges brought up against them."

    Probably because no gun was involved. 

    Probably would have been a completely different story if there were guns.  Probably would’ve made national headlines.  Probably would’ve been blamed on videogames (not football).

    Oh yes… and probably would have been young people dead.

  104. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Lol, Austin, After all of these arguments you put out on GP, you are just the stereotype of stereotypical Conservatives. Do you have Mark Lavigne’s (SP?) Book, yet? I’m sure you’d love it. My god, I could literally copy and paste your arguments straight from the mouths of Conservatives Blowhards (Hannity, Limbaugh) Everywhere. 

    THAT being said, you do make SOME good points, and believe it or not, I actually enjoy debating with you. Regardless of how incendiary my comments sometimes are.

    Look, I’ll admit that there are plenty of reasons for responsible people to own guns. Collecting, target shooting, hunting, Whatever. And some of my arguments against legally owned automatic weapons may have been off the mark, but what really bothers me about the conservative point of view on a LOT of issues is the: "We don’t care if other people are dying, as long as we get our way" mentality.

    On Taxes, gun control, health care, its the same mentality. "Don’t take my stuff away to help the less fortunate and save lives." I find it hard to believe that some people just lack the empathy and compassion to realize that every life in the world matters, regardless of how they have lived thier lives, and whether or not they need help..

  105. 0
    vellocet says:

    Jack Thompson: "This could have all been avoided if everyone listened to me and we banned that comic book ‘The Sandman’.  He trained on that comic day and night to put people to sleep"

    (He then proceeds to sue Sealy and other bed makers.  He sends porn to the makers of Nytol and praises the efforts of Starbucks in promoting wakefulness)

  106. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    And what point did I make there? The quote you used was a word for word copy of a previous poster, except swapping protection/killing and army/police. If you want a more detailed reasoning behind the sentece, fine… Just because you CAN kill with a gun, doesn’t mean you should, or will.

  107. 0
    Krono says:

    um can you name me some useful applications of a gun not related to warfare?

    Hunting for food, sport, and nusiance removal (i.e. deer overpopulation).


  108. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Learn the difference between causal and casual. Being killed in a house is a casual relationship. The house had nothing to do with the death (not counting fires, earthquakes etc). The cars themselves are object being used to kill someone. These are not deaths in a car, these are deaths caused by the car.

    And actually, most gun deaths are NOT homicide. Most are suicide. And of those, how many go into the situation with the idea "i am going to kill these people". Are the murders intentional? I’m willing to be that most robbery murders did not have the intent of killing anyone, but ended up doing it when things went wrong. How do you compare vehicular manslaughter to 2nd degree murder?

  109. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Guns are not lethal by definition

    Did you read the article befor you posted?

    If not go back and read it.

    Its about school shootings. The problems causedby killers having access to guns for the purpose of killing people in a school shooting.

    So in the context of this entire discussion, yes, guns ARE lethal by definition.

    those are the guns we are discussing the access to.

  110. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Oh my GOD 

    This is like banging my head against a brick wall.

    ”In actuality, what I’d be using to defend myself is either 1) pepper spray/mace, which is a propelled substanse fired from a handheld device (sound familiar?) or 2) a tazer, a set of electrical leads thats fired via a gunpowdered handheld device (once again, sound familiar?)”

    that was your argument FOR needing GUNS to protect yourself? That was in answer to why you needed guns? That youd use ‘in actuality’ use a taser or pepper spray.

    what?.. just WHAT?

    so if you have no problem using a taser or pepper spray (and were so nice as to explain what they are for us) then um… WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF?


  111. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    um perhaps because of weighing up the benefits to society against the potential dangers.


    Javelins for sport == entertainment.

    as for the dangers, I hardly fear that somebody will ‘sneak’ 100 or so javelins into a school and go on a javelin rampage killing 30+ people. How the heck would you even carry that many.

  112. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Why would you? People get injured every day, why would this be any different. Did you hear about the guy who got beat up outside my local bar? Or did you hear about the local highschool football game where 4 people were hospitalized, my friend had 2 teeth knocked out, and at least 2 arrests were made? No one died, no one was seriously hurt, no one had any major charges brought up against them. There’s no way it would receive national (or international) attention. It’s just another crazy guy doing crazy things that freaked a few people out. The reason you have the news story, is because he KILLED people. It’s the KILLING that is the story, not the gun. Yet, sensationalists would have you believe that it’s the gun they’re reporting on, and that the gun killed 32 people, not the insane man behind the gun.

  113. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     LOL Rock on that just painted a great picture.


    I can see it now

    Police: Sir Im sorry but your daugther well she was well .. she was glued sir

    Father: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ::sobs::

    Police: I’m sorry for your loss you will have to wait 2 weeks while we get the glue remover in.

    Father: Who could have done this WHO TELL ME DAMMIT WHO!!!!! ::shaking with anger::

    Police: We believe his name was Khan.

    Father: KKKKHHHHHHHAAAAANNNNNN KKKKKHHHHHAAAAAANNNNN!!!! ::fists raised to the air::



  114. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Feel free to call me a troll. But that’s easy to do when you just ignore their actual arguments, and latch onto small pieces that you don’t like. Yes, I know we’re not talking about glue guns and calking guns, but I’m making a point. Guns are not lethal by definition. They must be used in a lethal manner. And to continue that line, the guns themselves are even less to blame than the ammo. But when you put lethal shots into the definition of guns, of course it makes guns that much harder to defend. Because you’re completely ignoring all the other aspects of guns that you don’t enjoy. Rubber buckshots are a non-lethal way of taking down a criminal. A step further than that is the Taser Xrep, which is a wireless taser round that can be fired from standard issue shotguns. And tranquilizer guns are quite the effective method of non-lethal protection. Do you really think that a would-be criminal is going to check twice if the gun you’re holding fires bullets or tranq darts or taser capsules?

    Maybe I went a bit too far in the gluegun comparison, but it’s an exaggeration to dramatize the point of ignoring all the non-lethal guns that exist in the world. And how by narrowing down the argument to only lethal guns, you’re ignoring a huge subset guns, even in the traditional sense of the propellent being gunpowder.


  115. 0
    NovaBlack says:


    Reporter: ‘We managed to interview some of the victims..’

    Reporter: ‘so can you describe your ordeal?’

    Victim   : ‘Yeah one minute i was just having class as normal, then the nutjob came storming in. Thats the last thing i remember. When i awoke i felt re-energised and refreshed’


  116. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority of deaths were caused by AIRSTRIKES AND MORTARS.  YOUR argument has fallen flat on its face.  The rifle is a useful tool in as much as allowing for safety of a team or forward observer until they can direct missile strikes, bombs, or artillery onto the target.  


  117. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Once again, you prove how little you know.  Automatic weapons legally bought are NEVER used in crimes.  There’s been ONE case, and I believe that was a cop who stole it. 

    Also, there’s no reason for anyone to own a sports car, or anything other than a four door sedan, but they do.  Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, especially when you prove time and again that you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.

  118. 0
    saregos says:

    Actually, that would be hilarious.

    "The whole classroom was forcefully subjected to a nice, long nap today.  The suspect is being charged with aggressive sleeping."

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  119. 0
    saregos says:

    The point of a gun is that it propels a solid substance at lethal velocities.  And if you don’t know that, please, stop talking.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  120. 0
    vellocet says:

    Okay… now that I’m throwing my hat into the ring.

    You make a remark about it being a strawman argument (though I don’t agree that it is) and then turn it around and make it an argument about semantics.  I don’t think that anybody here thinks we’re debating glue guns, or even nail guns.  To suggest that we are just shows how specious your argument is.

    Anyhow.  I am not against gun ownership (even though I myself hate guns), under the condition that the person who owns the gun is responsible.  And to be responsible (my opinion), one must be healthy, educated and feel safe.

    Unfortunately, when people are denied health care, are told that creation is scientific fact and are constantly told that they’re going to be killed by every one and every thing, we shouldn’t even be thinking about letting them have firearms.  Give those people guns and it’s a recipe for disaster.

  121. 0
    saregos says:

    There is a huge problem with Intentional maiming or killing.  And a nightstick is much much much less capable of killing.  Certainly a nightstick is incapable of killing 32+ people, at least without huge amounts of training.

    And really, Javelins?  Again, they’re a weapon that is incapable of killing efficiently, requires special training to use properly, and in the case of using them as a thrown weapon they require the assailant to physically retrieve them before they make another shot.  If anyone were to go out and slaughter a number of people with a javelin, then yes, I’d say that controlling them is something that should be looked into.

    Which is really the point in all this.  Guns kill, by your admission, 30k+ people a year (in just one country).  Javelins kill what, 2?

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  122. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    And how exactly is it disproven? A gun’s effeciency at killing has no bearing as to it’s ability to non-lethally protect oneself compared to a knife. In actuality, what I’d be using to defend myself is either 1) pepper spray/mace, which is a propelled substanse fired from a handheld device (sound familiar?) or 2) a tazer, a set of electrical leads thats fired via a gunpowdered handheld device (once again, sound familiar?)


  123. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    hahah there ‘just as effective’ dont you know.


  124. 0
    saregos says:

    The primary purpose of a gun is to kill, maim or injure.  That’s why it’s so good at your precious protection.

    The primary purpose of pepper spray, or a tazer, is to protect, by incapacitating a dangerous individual long enough to subdue them, flee, or get help.  Pepper spray cannot kill.  Tazers only kill through mishaps.  They’re not anywhere near as dangerous or hazardous to others as a gun is.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  125. 0
    NovaBlack says:



    you SERIOUSLY think its relevant in this context that guns can have rubber buck shot or there are guns like tranquilizer guns?

    you know full well that guns ‘killing people’ is the whole context of the article.

    You dont hear about a rampage where a madman stormed a school and shot everyone with rubber buckshot or ‘ Today a demented ex-student stormed a school and tranquilized 32 individuals, before turning the gun on himself and tranquilizing himself’.



  126. 0
    Valdearg says:

    The argument is limited to the lethal guns because those are the guns we have been discussing the entire time. Surely then, given your argument, you’d join me in requesting that all LETHAL guns be banned, therefore leaving you your glue gun and your tranquilizer?

  127. 0
    saregos says:

    You just made our point for us.  "YOU may use it for killing, but I can assure you, our police force does not."  Police are properly trained in how to handle and use a firearm.  They’re trained in how to use a lethal weapon in a non-lethal manner.

    And in the heat of the moment, I’m sure so many americans have had it drilled into their heads "Aim for the testicles!!!!"

    Yeah… no.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  128. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    So you SERIOUSLY think that this article is asking why glueguns arent blamed and games are?

    you SERIOUSLY can say with a straight face, thats what you think the article is talking about, that you think that a gluegun would be accurately reprasentative of the ‘gun’ being debated in the context of the article ?

    you dont recognise that PERHAPS when the word ‘gun’ is banded about, that perhaps the context of the discussion can perhaps mean that there is an implication as to just what type of ‘gun’ is being talked about?

    It certainly isnt glueguns.

    And to say that guns (in the context of firearms that fire bullets to kill things) are then somehow justified because a ‘gluegun’ is useful is just a baffling leap of logic.


    Tell you what, you find me an example of somebody going on a school rampage using a gluegun, since thats the context of the guns being discussed in this article.

    Until you do.. im done talking to you, and ill classify you as a T R O L L .

  129. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    There are plenty of trained gun professionals that aren’t in the police force. I’m confused as to the point you’re making here. Why do we need guns to protect ourselves from an opressive government? Because they are an effective means of defending oneself. Why do you keep insisting that protecting oneself requires the killing of someone else?

  130. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     Really 0.o your arguments are so thin that you are grasping at the word gun being in nailgun to defend why people should be allowed guns?  Really, I’m calling this one guys Deus is fucking with us.  

  131. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Is there a problem with injuring and maiming? Stunt men put themselves at that risk every day. People go skydiving just to get the rush of the risk of injury. There are people out there that cut themselves on a daily basis because it makes them feel better. And just because it’s initial purpose was to injure and maim (or even kill), doesn’t mean that in today’s society it still is the only/main use. Take javelins. There is little to no use for a javelin other than to injure and maim (or kill), yet at this day and age, they are used on a regular basis by atheletes in the javelin throw. Does this not apply to those using guns for skeet shooting, or how about the winter biathalon with skiing and shooting? If you really want to say that injury is something that must be avoided, then there’s plenty of entertainment reasons to own a gun. But I don’t believe that a gun’s primary purpose is to ‘injure and maim’ anyways… Take a nightstick. Would you complain that it’s primary purpose is to injure and maim? They, along with inventions like brass knuckles, are created for the reason of making the owner more effective at hand to hand combat by allowing them to injure and maim with greater effeciency.

  132. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "If I can protect myself without killing, I will do that."

    "If I can prevent those attacking from causing further harm by disabling them, I will do that."

    Why not use a knife, then? Its easier to target where you are going to use a knife, it certainly is less lethal than a gun. Why not protect yourself with a knife?

    Oh, wait, because it is less efficient at killing than a gun. Your point is disproven.

  133. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Defending yourself from an opressive government does NOT mean killing everyone in the government.


    So.. once again.. why do you need guns to protect yourself from an opressive government?

    Your argument is getting confused at this point. So a trained professional can disable somebody? a trained professional like.. umm.. a cop perhaps? So why does that support the notion that anybody should be able to buy a gun in a store? why not restrict access to cops.. aka trained professionals?



  134. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Actually, you made the strawman argument here. A gun, by no definition is something used for the express purpose of killing. There are many many guns, including glue guns, calking guns, tranquilizer guns, tazers, handguns, rifles, blowguns. Instead, you’re limiting the argument to "guns that fire bullets that kill people". Well.. in that case, how can anyone argue. Clearly, by definition, guns are only things that kill people with bullets. So does that mean that when a pistol is fired into someone’s arm, and it doesn’t kill them, it’s not a gun? How about a tranquilizer gun? Or how about a rubber buck shot? Or how about tear gas bullets?

  135. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    way to misrepresent the statistic.

    Even More people die in the home, than the 41-43k you quoted there. Does that mean homes are more effective killing tools than guns?.. NO.

    The argument was clearly that more people are intentionally killed using guns, as weapons, than using cars and fertilizer bombs as weapons. There ill spell it out for you if its easier.

  136. 0
    vellocet says:

    I don’t think that’s a fair argument.  Car deaths are usually ACCIDENTAL.  A few are intentional.  Conversly, if someone is killed by a gun, USUALLY it’s intentional.


  137. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Because knives, cars, and fertilizer bombs are just as effective at killing. But as I’ve been saying time and time and time and time and time again. Killing is NOT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF GUNS! If I can protect myself without killing, I will do that. However, I cannot protect myself without killing with fertilizer bombs and cars in the same way. If I can prevent those attacking from causing further harm by disabling them, I will do that. And a gun allows for a trained professional to use it in a defensive manner without being lethal. Additionally, the threat of death on top of the non-lethal methods adds another layer of protection in many people’s minds. Defending yourself from an opressive government does NOT mean killing everyone in the government.

  138. 0
    Valdearg says:

    First of all, changing the definition of a gun will not work here. The guns we are talking about are the guns that oh so many Americans Own. That being said, if non-lethal options are better, lets ban the sale of Live Ammunition in favor of non-lethal ammunition. I’ll go for that. If everyone wants guns for protection, than lets use beanbags instead of bullets. Less people die, you are all still protected, everyone is happy.

  139. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Actually… statistically, there are actually more deaths due to cars than guns. Guns have about 30k deaths a year, while cars have 41-43k a year.

  140. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Really? So all the research and development by the police into non-lethal guns is what now? Do you consider tazer’s guns? How about the tear gas guns that riot police use? YOU may use it for killing, but I can assure you, our police force does not. Protection is NOT the science of killing the person attacking you. Some people clearly don’t understand that, which does result it needless death. However, just because you CAN kill someone with a gun doesn’t mean you are supposed to, or that is what it is used for. Hell, there are even sound guns, heat guns, and a gun that makes the water in your skin boil. No matter how hard you try, it’s next to impossible to kill a healthy adult with a sound wave gun. Guns can protect in many ways other than killing. And then there’s always the whole aspect of shooting someone with a bullet in a non-lethal fashion.

  141. 0
    Valdearg says:

    There you go, Deus. You can form your own little American NRA Jihad with Fertilizer Bombs to fight your oppressive government. Its just as effective, according to you.

  142. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Why does protection have to result in killing? Of all the gun incidents every year, the large majority of them don’t result in death. In 1 year alone, the US has 477,000 reported cases of crime where the victim said they were faced by an offender with a firearm. In that same time period, there were apporixmately 30,000 deaths related to guns. That means that at most, 6.2% of all gun crime results in death. And that’s assuming a 1:1 ration of offenses to kills. 


  143. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    ”Good luck taking on the government and its thousands of troops with your couple hundred buddies and a 12 pack of beer.”

    lol i dont know why, but i found that image hilarious.


    On a side note… PERFECT EXAMPLE HERE:


    If knives and cars and fertilizer bombs etc are just as effective, then why do you need guns to be able to protect yourself from an opressive government?

  144. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    oh please…

    way to miss the point.

    A Nailguns purpose is not to kill someone. the objects being discussed in this article are ‘guns’ in teh sense of guns that fire bullets that kill people and you know it.

    A GlueGun is also a ‘gun’, but you know full well that isnt what is being disucssed here. Its a straw man example.

  145. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Wow, now I am beginning to question if you are just messing with us. Have you ever tried to shoot someone in the leg or hand at 30 yards? Hitting a MOVING target THAT small is a practice in LUCK. You cant choose to shoot someone in the leg. This isn’t some video game where you can pull off shots like that. (A perfect example against JT’s Murder Simulator argument, BTW) If someone is threatening at you, and you only have 3 shots before they close the gap, do you shoot to kill, firing all 3 at his torso, the largest part of his body? Or waste those 3 shots, hoping you hit him in the knee or hand?

    Not to mention: Opressive militaristic government? Seriously? Guns aren’t completely banned yet, so no worries there. Not to mention, you really think that, should the government become all oppressive and shit, that people are going to rise up and fight to overturn it? Have you SEEN the apathy most Americans show towards politics?? Good luck taking on the government and its thousands of troops with your couple hundred buddies and a 12 pack of beer.

  146. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    So if i say that the pupose of a gun isnt to ‘kill’ but to ‘injure and maim’ how does that adress any of the arguments presented by various people here? They still apply..

  147. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    when a guns predominant purpose isnt to kill, then they will be accepted. Which is why it hasnt happened yet, or why your attempts to compare knives as being equivalent fails.

    If something has 100 uses, but only 1 of those is bad, you can say that majoritively, the uses of that tool mean that it is beneficial to society. e.g. a screwdriver. (technically i could kill somebody with one, but its other applications provide huge benefits to society)

    A gun doesnt.

    What benefits does it provide. What other useful applications does it have? What would society be unable to do without guns?

  148. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Until Gun’s can do something useful OTHER than kill, be it for protection or not, they will never be ok. And, if those future technologies are designed to kill people, guess what, they won’t be ok either.

  149. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Protection through KILLING. You must be damn stupid not to understand that a gun is a weapon, not a tool. It is a weapon designed to KILL. THe majority of technological advancements for guns have been to increase the effectiveness in which they KILL people. YOU may use it for protection, but I can assure you, our military does not, nor do so many others out there who would use it to KILL.

  150. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    once again.. twisting the argument.

    using the scaremongering idea of ‘only criminals will have them’, making out like the world will end, with criminals running the show, with law abiding citizens powerless. 

    I havent even said guns should be banned. 

    I was merely arguing the purpose of a gun, no matter how you try and dress it up, is to kill.  I then argued against your weak examples where you said that knives and hammers were equivalent to guns, in their effectiveness and aplications. which they are not. So rather than refure this, you change the argument to one that suits you.

  151. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Um i actually didnt say anything about preventing law abiding citizens from having guns, so your changing the argument.

    I was just stating the fact that a guns purpose is to kill, and to kill efficiently. Which is why statistically there are more killings with guns than with cars or home made fertilizer bombs. Because its easier to just get a gun, point, and shoot.

  152. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Of all the places to shoot someone, why does it have to be a lethal shot? The threat with a gun will protect you from pretty much anyone in the world. A shot to the leg will stop even the most hardened of criminals. And a shot to each hand can just basically incapacitate any assailant. And that’s completely ignoring the defense it provides the entire country from an opressive millitaristic governemnt on a daily basis.

  153. 0
    Valdearg says:

    V-Tech is just a good example of a long, long line of gun tragedies that could have been avoided given the non-existence of guns.

    Yes, a fertilizer bomb could have been used, but since guns are so easy and efficient to use, why go through the trouble?

    Not to mention, it takes a lot of planning, knowledge, and the ability to plant and detonate the bomb without detection that definitely makes it more difficult to kill using that form of weapon, rather than a gun.

  154. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    So, because we’ve been using knives for non-killing purposes for long enough, that makes them okay? So how long then until guns are treated the same way? Another 100 years? Another 1000? There are plenty of uses for guns other than killing, so by that logic, I’d say guns should already be accepted. Or will it take until we have a better scapegoat to blame, like high powered personal lasers, or directional microwave emitters?

  155. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Protection. The end all, be all of gun usefulness. Without the general law abiding public being able to obtain guns in a legal manner, only criminals will have them. Additionally, without the masses having access to guns, there is little to nothing stopping the military from taking over, or for a way to prevent the government from opressing it’s people. And that’s why the 2nd amendment must move with time. We can’t limit the ‘newer’ guns because they’re more dangerous, we must leave them legal (albeit restricted and regulated). Our founding fathers knew that at any point in time, we may need another rebellion, and they knew that keeping guns legal was a way of limiting the power of a militaristic government.

  156. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Actually, a knife’s history can be traced back to the initial use of tools by cavemen/neanderhals to to various things. Yes, Im sure they used it during hunting, and I’m sure they used it to kill, but the notion of using something like a knife to cut meat or leather to create cloths is fairly deeply rooted in our genetic history. Guns, on the otherhand were borne from the arms races of the middle ages and the advent of gunpowder. Since thier inception, they have only been used for one thing, and that is killing. Your argument is extremely weak when each of these objects is traced back through its history.

  157. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Why is v-tech so important to you? If you want a specific example of a way it would have been easier for him to kill more people and assure his own death in the process, I already have. Fertilizer bomb. It is easier to obtain all the require components of a plan to blow up a building than to shoot up the building. The legal trail is 100% clean, no waiting periods, and given that v-tech was premeditiated, in the time between him buying the guns and the shooting, he could have easily built and planted a bomb.

    And why do you feel that guns don’t limit the options of a potential killer. That is the ENTIRE point of concealed weapon licenses. Non-passion based crimes are generally limited to areas where people don’t own guns. But you will hear time and time again, about how a would be robber was thwated by the gun behind the counter, or concealed guns carried by patrons. Sure, they could have ended up making it worse, but the fact of the matter is that if a criminal is the only one with a gun, and KNOWS they’re the only one with a gun, they are in quite a bit of control. And criminals will ALWAYS get guns, so preventing law abiding citizens from getting them does nothing but make their lives more dangerous.

  158. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    a blade is a tool that has many useful applications within modern society that are not related to killing. It can therfore be said that over a period of time, the purpose of a ‘blade’ has broadened to encompass many new applications.

    a hammer is a tool that has many useful applications within modern society that are not related to killing. It can therfore be said that over a period of time, the purpose of a ‘club’ has broadened to encompass many new applications, (the hammer extending the concept with specialist design for a particular application).

    um can you name me some useful applications of a gun not related to warfare?

  159. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    A gun’s primary purpose is to defend, sometimes by killing

    it is?. Um.. how else can it be used to ‘defend’ other than killing?

    how does it prevent an assailant from harming you?. Is it as effective as a bulletproof vest for stopping bullets? Is it as effective as a knifeproof vest for stopping blades?

    I really dont agree that a guns ‘primary purpose’ is defence. Yeah it can be used in the process of defence.. but you surely cant believe that is its primary purpose?

    The very fact that this item was originally designed to propel bullets over a distance to hit a target surely is counter intuitive to the idea of primarily being used for defence.

    It is generally accepted that guns were invented by china in the 14th century for use in warfare. Yes, a part of warfare is typically ‘defence’, with one amry attacking another, but i fail to see anything that suggests only the defengin armies used guns.

  160. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Jesus fuck mothering christ. The only person who ever used a legally owned automatic firearm in a crime was a Cop who stole it from someone if memory serves.

  161. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Ah but therin lies the point.

    guns are designed to be effective tools for a wide variety of situations.

    You say fire is more effective. What if the area was wet? What if it had rained recently. What if the area was bogs/marshes? You’d have to bow to the environment.

    if the terrain was wet, would that stop a bullet from killing the deer?

    Im not ‘warping the argument’ to my own liking. Im just absolutely confused why you cant admit the fact that guns are inherently, by their very design and purpose (and by their very design requirements) more effective than other methods that are available.

    You seriously thing a car would have been just as effective in V-tech? You yourself admit that the car would be just as effective if ‘used in the right area’. Again.. this fact alone would limit the options of a potential killer.

  162. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    A knife’s primary purpose is to kill, maim, injure. The proper way to use it in a civil society might be strictly for cooking. However, the gun was designed to kill, and will always be used to kill. Be it offensive or defensive, the knife’s primary purose is to kill. 

    Hell, since you’re so obsessed with the hammer analogy too, I’ll throw that in. A hammer is nothing more than an extention of the club, who’s primary purpose is to kill, maim, injure. The proper way to use it in a civil society might be scrictly for building. However, the hammer was designed to kill, and will always be used to kill. Be it constructive or destructive, the hammer’s primary purpose is to kill.

  163. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    I can burn down the forest. It is the most effectient way of killing that I can think of. I can pretty much guarentee I can kill more animals than anyone with a gun, in a much shorter amount of time.

    You keep taking an argument, and warping it to your own liking, and then refuting that statement. Take a step back and actually think your thoughts through instead of allowing your ‘guns are evil’ blinders keep you from actually debating.

  164. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    A nailgun? OOhh… that’s 2 for 1 there. It’s a gun thats primary purpose is CLEARLY not for killing, and a way to build a house without a hammer.

  165. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Now you’re just dancing around the argument. Saying ‘the fact is’, and then when refuted, saying ‘well, the REAL fact is’.

    But to refute yet another of your arguments. A gun’s primary purpose is to defend, sometimes by killing. By making them better at defending the owner of one, it makes them better at killing as well. But, going back to cars, the same can be said about them. One of the side effects of making cars better at transporting people (faster top speeds, quicker acceleration, sturdier frames), is that they too become more effecient in killing people.

    Killing as the ‘true’ nature of a gun is just a way of concentrating on the one aspect of them that you don’t like while ignoring the rest. I can just as easily say, the true nature of a knife is to kill. I acknowledge cooking, and whittling, but that does not alter the nature of the knife. 

  166. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Oh god, no. Lol. Sorry, just had a vision of a team of hunters trying to tear through the woods in thier giant trucks. Lol. Left! LEFT! The deer just went LEFT! 

    Its too bad trees would make that difficult. :(

  167. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Because thats just as easy or painless as blowing your brains out. Choosing the right tool for the job is almost as important as the job itself.

  168. 0
    NovaBlack says:



    If what DeusPayne says is true…


    then why dont hunters go hunting using a car?

    Why not run down the deer? I mean its just as effective right? And you dont need to be a good shot, or pay for bullets, or worry about limited ammo.

    Oh no wait… its because a car isnt as effective or  more importantily, efficient, for killing prey.

  169. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    lol awesome analogy!!

    really nice way to illustrate the point.

    Sure i could use a rock and bash the nails in, but anyone who says itd be just as easy or effective is kidding themselves. Otherwise youd see ‘nail bashing rocks’ sold in stores, and selling just as well as hammers.

  170. 0
    Valdearg says:

    This is actually a really good point.

    Using a car to kill is like using a rock to hammer a nail. It will work, in a pinch, but its much easier, albeit more expensive, to use a hammer. Just like it is easier, albiet more expensive, to use a gun to kill.

  171. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Yes, because driving off a cliff, or into a wall at 100mph, or slitting your throat during your dirve… they’re all out of the question.

  172. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    .. umm…

    a cars primary purpose is for transportation. it can be used to kill something but thats not what it was designed for.

    a gun’s primary purpose is to kill. Thats what it was designed for.

    Yes i acknowledge collecting, and hunting etc. however that does not alter the nature of the gun.

    Let me ask you, why do you not see hundreds of stories on the news about people murdering other people using a car as a weapon? (not saying it doesnt happen.. just that it rarely happens)

    Why are there (statistically) far more murders commited using guns, than with cars?. I mean its ‘extremely easy’ right? Just as effective right?

    Or could it be that no matter how you spin it, the fact is that guns will always be a more appropriate ‘tool’ for killing that a car. Thats the problem.

  173. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Might I remind you that most people don’t do that because it results in them going to jail. Many people opt for mass murder using Guns because in the end, you can just off yourself to avoid the consequences.

  174. 0
    Valdearg says:

    An outright ban wouldn’t necessarily be in order, but stricter regulation of handguns and the outright ban on automatic weapons would be a start. There is no reason for anyone to own an automatic weapon. They are just too dangerous.

  175. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Today, right this very second, it is EXTREMELY easy for any single person in this country to get in a car, and run over dozens of people, potentially hundreds in the right situtation before getting caught. How is this any different than the licensing and registration process of guns. Yet there’s no outcry to the ‘magnitude’ of crime that can be commited with cars. Why? Because we’re all willing to accept that a few bad apples shouldn’t ruin it for the rest of the responsible adults in the world.

  176. 0
    sirdarkat says:

    Might I also remind you that the stance on hijacking up to that point was to be compliant and do whatever the hijackers say.  Theres a reason one of those planes didn’t reach target, the men and women aboard figured out that this was not a simple just sit there and do nothing situation it was a time to fight.  I would also like to point out that there have been several situations in which someone freaked out on a plane and the passagers took that person down since that day.  The reason why; the sit there and do nothing mentaility is gone.

  177. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Exactly. Why spend the careful planning and learning of the skills to build a bomb, plant it, and detonate it without detection when you can just buy a gun? Or why drive through a farmer’s market, garunteeing that you go to jail, rather than buy a gun, kill 32 people, then kill yourself so you don’t have to suffer the consequences?

    Guns are immensely easier, more affordable, and more efficient than any other method out there, which is why something needs to be done.

  178. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    so.. why are the military armd primarily with guns?

    surely they could save much research and development costs by using the methods you’ve just mentioned?


    is it perhaps because using guns is easier and more efficient than the methods youve listed? If so, then your argument falls flat on its face.

  179. 0
    NovaBlack says:



    sometimes i feel like im the only person who acknowledges this fact. Its so frustrating.  Typically though you get people then arguing that the person would have killed just as many people with a knife. Ignoring the fact that the whole reason behind developing guns for military use and advancing the rechnology behind them has one purpose. To make killing more efficient. Simple as. Hence the military dont go into a warzone armed solely with knives. Oh or you get the ‘bomb’ argument. However I fail to accept that making and successfully using a bomb is just as easy as using a gun. I mean its 1) point. 2) squeeze trigger.

  180. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Yes, and the 646 people killed by Timothy McVeigh with products available at your local Home Depot? Or how about the dozen or so people that can be killed in a single driving of a car through a friendly farmers market? Might I bring up that no guns were used to hijack the planes that ended up killing close to 3000 people? Guns are just one of many many many many many ways to kill a person, and not a terribly effective means in the big scheme of things.


  181. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:


    You can’t go banning everything because crazy people will misuse it.


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  182. 0
    lumi says:

    Exactly.  The guns aren’t the cause for the tragedy, they’re the cause for the magnitude of the tragedy.  Two separate issues; we need to address one for prevention, and one for mitigation, of future such events.

  183. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "A gun’s primary purpose is to defend, sometimes by killing."

    Wow. I didn’t realize that when we invaded Iraq, we were just using those guns to defend ourselves. I didn’t realize that when people go to school and shoot thier classmates, they were defending themselves.

    Talk about twisting logic. Don’t kid yourself, though. A gun’s primary purpose is to kill, maim, injure. The proper way to use it in civil society might be strictly for defense. However, the gun was designed to kill, and it will always be used to kill. Be it offensive or defensive, the gun’s primary purpose is to kill.

  184. 0
    shady8x says:

    Funny, I like guns because I also hate death… and I like the fact that my family members wont get their lives cut short because someone is at a low point in their life… because if they try they can be stopped…

    I would very much like to see everyone realize what you have, unfortunately I live in the real world… Here there are a lot of people at a low point, and some of them don’t realize what you have until it is much too late… those people will get guns no matter what law is in place, but if the law stops me from getting one then my home is left defensless…

  185. 0
    JustChris says:

    There’s a difference between quickly thinking and quickly reacting without thinking anything through. Cops should be trained more to assess a situation in very time-critical moments, not develop Pavlovian responses to a situation.


  186. 0
    Im_not_Herbert says:

    “The possibility of ONE life lost as a result of gun violence is enough for me to be morally opposed to guns in civilized society as a whole. Until you can guarantee that every, single person who has a CCW permit will never commit a gun crime, then you can take your "acceptable" regulation and statistics and shove it.”


    Until *you* can guarantee *my* safety and the safety of everyone else, *you* can take your morally superior attitude and shove it.  *You* are a large part of the problem in the U.S. – people so scared of what *someone* *somewhere* *might* do that you advocate throwing *everyone* to the wolves.  You that scared of guns?  Fine, don’t own one.  You think you are going to make me live under rules resulting from your fear?  Think again.


    Take a look at the stats.  In the U.S., areas with the strictest anti-gun laws are the most dangerous.  Areas with the easiest right to carry laws are the safest.  People who go through the time, trouble, and expense to obtain a CCW are a particular breed- and they *know* the ramifications if their gun is used, or even displayed, in an inappropriate manner.  They go to great lengths to safeguard their privilege to carry, but are not at all afraid to protect the lives of those around them if need be.  In short, they are well willing and able to accept the *responsibilities* of gun ownership, unlike many, who just sit around whining about their rights while conveniently ignoring their responsibilities.


    “I never liked CCW, and I refuse to travel to locations where it is legalized. Something about knowing that that person you beep at because he cut you off could be carrying a gun makes me quite uneasy.”


    People who have earned a CCW are exactly the ones you should *not* fear.  It is the clown driving beside you that is carrying *illegally* that you should worry about.


    “…I’ve had to deal with having a piece of crap asshole pull a gun on me once, because I "disrespected" him. For all I know, he could have been one of the people who would be allowed to carry under CCW.”


    I would be willing to bet far more than I have that he wasn’t.


    “It’s not like I couldn’t go get a CCW permit in the near future, with the full intention of being able to carry a gun just because it’s "cool" or I’d be able to threaten people with it.”


    Actually, it is.  The process is designed to weed out people like that.  Some fall through the cracks, to be sure, but the first time they wave their gun around in a threatening manner, it gets taken from them, their CCW gets taken from them, and their freedom gets taken from them.


     “My speech is never going to get an innocent bystander killed, whereas guns are very, very capable of it.”


    Really?  Never heard of the concept of inciting someone to violence?  Based on what you’ve said, it would seem that you are the kind of person willing to exercise a right- that of free speech- without much regard to the consequences- pissing people off.  You, sir, are much more dangerous than I, because I actually accept the responsibilities that come along with the right to free speech.  In other words, sometimes I just keep my ****ing mouth shut.



    Your Yak is Weak!

  187. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Yeah. Because, you know, calling someone an idiot is akin to shooting them..

    That being said, why do you think I am so anti-gun? It certainly isn’t because I LIKE death.. In fact, its the opposite. I despise the idea of cutting someone’s life short. The only time I had ever strayed from that line of thought was back when I was at the low point in my life. Upon thinking about it now, however, I realize that no matter what people did to me, they don’t deserve to have thier lives taken from them.

  188. 0
    shady8x says:

    Wow you are so civil that I am kinda glad that you don’t have nor want a gun cause you would kill a lot of people…

    Then again you did admit to having wanting to murder your class mates when you were younger so I guess that shouldn’t come as a surprise…

  189. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    Getting the crap kicked out of one’s self CAN lead to death. A friend of mine was recently knocked unconscious in a fight and into a coma; dying a week later from a blood clot in his brain.

    No guns were involved. What was? Brass knuckles. And they’re already illegal.

    Permits won’t stop people from getting firearms. And the lack of firearms won’t stop people from committing horrible acts.

  190. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Heh, you seem to think the cops fired a warning shot, or even a single shot.


    Cops aren’t trained to do that. Ever seen a police shoot out? They will almost always empty the first mag as quickly as they can.

  191. 0
    shady8x says:

    I never liked CCW, and I refuse to travel to locations where it is legalized. Something about knowing that that person you beep at because he cut you off could be carrying a gun makes me quite uneasy. I’ve never trusted human beings to be responisble enough to be allowed to carry weapons. On the other hand, I don’t advocate the outright ban of all guns, but tighter regulations are in order.



    I am safer in states with concealed carry laws… those people that get them are 6 times less likely to be violent and if they are near me when somebody goes nuts with a gun or a knife or a club or any weapon, then there will be someone there to protect me… also as soon as I have some extra cash, I will be getting one myself for protection of myself and others…

    Ever notice how massacres happen in ‘gun-free’ zones? Take away the right of citizens to defend themselves and you get massacres… by the way the school shooting disasters started after laws to make it illegal for teachers to carry guns in schools came out… hmm I guess those are just coincidences…

    You can feel safer all you want, but as for me, I want to BE safer not FEEL safer… there is a difference…

  192. 0
    The Hangd Man says:

    I’m in complete agreement with you on the enforcement issue. I don’t mind the checks and paperwork. Even in CA I’ve been to several gun shows with very lax checks on gun purchases. There are already many laws involving the purchase, sale and transfer of guns. In the Bay Area, the enforcment of the gun laws is so stringent that it it punishes many legal sellers for the slightest of infractions, yet a two hour drive inland and there’s practically no issues at all.

    I also believe that regardless of how easy or difficult it is to obtain a weapon (of any sort) when tragedies such as V-Tech or Columbine occur, we should focus less on the how it occured, and more on the why. Understanding what leads to school shootings and recognizing those signs and getting that person the help they need, is a far better deterrent to these types of crimes, than blanket bans on the ancilliary elements of the event itself. Bans on guns, knives, games and rap music will not prevent these events from happening. Understanding the root causes and treating those, will.


    I hate broccoli/ and think it totally sucks/ Why isn’t it meat?

  193. 0
    Paladin says:

    You need to really understand something right now, before you’re obvious ignorance gets you killed. IF YOU PULL OUT A WEAPON, ANY WEAPON, AND THREATON AN OFFICER OF THE LAW, THEY ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU DEAD. The same goes for civilians. And by any weapon I mean literatally anything that can be used as a weapon, a knife, a gun, a broken pool que, and so on. The laws of self defence only require that the shooter reasonably feels that they are in mortal danger. Pulling a toy on an armed person is just asking to get yourself gunned down, and rightfully so. If the kid ended up getting shot 40 times, maybe he should have dropped the knife and lay on the ground after the first shot.

  194. 0
    Angry Pixel says:

    If if they didn’t know it was real, forty rounds is overkill no matter how you look at it.  Plus they should disable to perpetrator first and there are several ways to do so.  Killing is always an officer’s last resort.  If an officer shoots first and asks questions later, there is a very big problem there.

  195. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, one of the great things about CCW is that the instructors don’t have to pass you, even if you ace the test.  If you’re the kind of person who they don’t think is responsible enough to have a CCW, they won’t pass you.  I’ve seen it happen, and the instructor who did it was ex-SWAT, so he called the NRA instructors and they blacklisted the guy.

  196. 0
    shady8x says:

    "booze – actually provides a useful service to Society."

    ok you are officially insane…

    Lets see what the causes of death in US are now shall we?

    Alcohol 100,000

    Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347       (alcohol is involved in 50% of traffic deaths).

    Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000  (this includes if a person defending self had the gun and the murderer had a knife so this isn’t the number of people killed by guns, also includes criminals killed by guns of law abiding citizens defending themselves or others(like cops due sometimes)

    Homicide 20,308 (60% of these involve alcohol and by the way many of these(if not most) don’t have anything to do with guns…)

    ok, now tell me again how useful it is… in comparison to alcohol, guns are a safe thing to hand out to anyone who wants one… not that they are its just that alcohol is way worse yet you call it "useful to Society"…

    Oh by the way, criminals like the person who pulled their gun on you(supposedly) get their guns ILLEGALLY…

    I am from Russia originally, we have 100% gun control. Guns are illegal for non-government persons… also everybody how wants to, OWNS A GUN… because making something hard for law abiding citizens to obtain only creates illegal markets for it… and all who disregard the law get their guns anyway(except they are much more likely to break other laws since they are already breaking some…)

  197. 0
    shady8x says:

    Few years back the son of a family friend was talking in a phone booth (yes they still exists). Some cops came from behind him and saw that he was in a phone booth, had something in his hand and had his back turned to them… to make a long story short… they shot him 10 times because they ‘thought’ he had a gun (and was holding it to his ear with his back turned to them in a threatening way i guess). They still have their jobs and some random kid is dead…


    yes, only cops should have guns because they are infallible like… like… like god…

  198. 0
    Father Time says:

    You can use a gun for things that don’t realte to death.

    Some people find target practice entertaining and shooting is even in the Olympics.

    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  199. 0
    Valdearg says:

    We’ve already Covered this below. Guns are tools designed for one thing, and one thing only. That is causing the death of whatever it is aimed at. Planes,Cars,booze, they all were designed for other things and actually provide a useful service to Society. Just because some people are killed as a consequence to Planes, Cars, and booze, it doesn’t offset the positive things they do.

    Like I said, guns: Designed to cause death, your argument stuff: NOT designed to cause death.

    You can’t equate the two.

  200. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Did they know it was just a plastic knife? Did the kid lunge at them? Cops are put in situations where they have to make split second decisions to determine whether they live or the suspect dies. IMO, if you DON’T want to be killed by a cop, DON’T make them feel threatened.

  201. 0
    Father Time says:

    Something like that happened in Canada.

    There was a unneccessary force case that ended with someone dead, the police demanded people’s phones, the court ordered the police to give them back and the phones had evidence proving the police lied about what happened.

    Good news is that with newer phones you can e-mail those videos and photos to yourself and to friends (I think).

    About brutality there is no guarantee that cops won’t abuse power period. That and there’s the whole only letting government have guns business which is a really bad idea.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  202. 0
    Father Time says:

    What are you going to use to defend your right to free speech? The constitution? Oh but wait it also says we get to own guns and you don’t really like that one.

    Oh and innocent people get killed by cars, by boozed up or drugged up people and airlines if/when they crash.

    But with all those things (and guns) it’s possible to use them and not kill innocents, so why is it all right to take them away from responsible users?


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  203. 0
    Father Time says:

    What happens if you just happen to say something that pisses off a non-CCW permit holder, and that non-holder just decides that the world would be better off without you?

    He could beat you to death, strangle you, stab you run you over with his car etc.

    That logic would be like getting rid of cars because people can and do get road rage.

    It’s punishing the many for the sins of the few.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  204. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Hmm…..There was a case not too long ago where SEVERAL COPS fired FOURTY PLUS rounds into a teenager that had a plastic knife. If that isn’t police MURDER (it’s beyond brutality) I don’t know what is.


    I’ll agree to not carry a gun around when I see that all criminals AND cops don’t carry them around. I trust no human, not even ones with badges, because I know what power can do to people, and I know what desire can do to people.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  205. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You act as though restricting guns would somehow prevent getting the kids the help they need as well. Its not a black and white thing. However, by restricting the access to the C4, as you put it, these troubled kids, SHOULD they make a bad choice, would be stuck choosing between a firecracker or a book of matches. By restricting guns, we limit the kid’s choices to things like guns or clubs/bats, rather than a gun, which is capable of killing many, many more students.

  206. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    "Free speech is alive and well, and I exercise it to its fullest extent."

    So is the right to bear arms, but apparently you have a problem with that one.  So, if you really don’t like the fact that it is our moral right to possess tools capable of defending ourselves, then "you are definitely in the wrong country."

  207. 0
    Valdearg says:

    What makes you so sure? Its not like I couldn’t go get a CCW permit in the near future, with the full intention of being able to carry a gun just because it’s "cool" or I’d be able to threaten people with it. Just tell the people that your whole reason for wanting a CCW permit is to "protect" yourself. Take a few classes, take a test or two, then BAM, CCW permit, even though I could have different reasons for wanting the gun.

  208. 0
    insanejedi says:

    So instead of actually bringing help to the kids, we instead ban guns and feel better about ourselves?

    The thing is we should get rid of the detonator instead of the of the explosive. It seems like a bad analogy but it actually works. C4 can only go off if you have the detonator, if you ban C4 then you use nitroglycern, or use propane or whatever else you can get your hands on. Guns are only tools, instead of scapegoating the medium to express it, we should be targeting on the core of what is expressing it in the first place. Guns don’t need your help because gun’s can’t do anything on their own, kids need your help.

  209. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Someone pulling a gun on you because you ‘disrespected’ them?  No way are they a CCW permit holder.  Chances are, they were the kind of person the CCW permit is designed to protect citizens against.

  210. 0
    lumi says:

    I would expect that in the two weeks between definitively putting his plan into action (starting the process for acquiring a gun) and acquiring the gun to go on a rampage, there’s a definite shift in activity.  Someone could certainly notice.

  211. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I’m Hardly Naive because I live in Wisconsin and don’t like the idea of people carrying weapons. In fact, I’ve had to deal with having a peice of crap asshole pull a gun on me once, because I "disrespected" him. For all I know, he could have been one of the people who would be allowed to carry under CCW.

    Its people like that who make me question whether or not its a good idea to ALLOW people to legally carry guns. I am the kind of person who will generally be respectful to others, yet, if you piss me off, or I don’t like you, I won’t hesitate to show it. I piss off a lot of people. I do it because it is my right to say what I please, no matter who is listening, and because, honestly, if you get all riled up because I happened to say something you didn’t like, then you are definitely in the wrong country. Free speech is alive and well, and I exercise it to its fullest extent. So, that being said, what happens if I just happen to say something that pisses off a CCW permit holder, and that holder just decides that the world would be better off without me?

  212. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Considering I am one of the 70% of people who could legally buy a firearm in the United states, I could easily have made a different choice than I did back when I was in a fairly depressive state a few years back.

    I was THIS close to "punishing" those people in my school who made my life a living hell, before killing myself. I wanted to die, but not before bringing those that drove me to that point with me. LUCKILY, I made a different choice, graduated, and moved on with my life. I am past that point in my life and live a happy, healthy lifestyle, but this argument brings up the question, aside from my own concience and my concious choice to just try to soldier on, what would have stopped me from procuring a firearm and ammunition? What would have stopped me from executing a terrible act?

    In fact, to this day, I can’t bring myself to classify people like Cho and the Columbine kids as monsters or sick individuals. I see them as people who could have been helped, but instead, just snapped. What they did was terrible, no doubt, but, I’m sure they had to deal with the same shit from classmates as I did. Its a shame they didn’t seek out help.

    Note: I never talk about this to anybody, because People are probably going to class me as a nutcase, when in fact, I am an intelligent, logical individual who was just in a bad, depressive state of mind. I can assure you, though. There are tens of thousands of kids out there who feel the same way I did. And my arguments come from the fact that if half of them are excluded from buying firearms, thats still thousands of ticking time bombs, just waiting to go off..

  213. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Yes, Actually. I LIVE in Wisconsin. And honestly, if CCW was permitted here, I would move. Like I said before, I don’t feel comfortable in a place where people are allowed to carry instruments designed specifically to cause death.

  214. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I agree. This is why we apparantly have a knife crime crisis in the UK. Banning guns has doubtless saved lives, but it has also just caused one weapon to be replaced with another as the main one in violent crimes.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  215. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, that stops about 30 percent of Americans who could otherwise buy firearms simply for felonious charges or misdemeanor assault.  We haven’t even taken into account dishonorable discharge disqualification or adjudication of mental defect, or the restraining orders.

  216. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    A lot of the people involved in school shootings are either A) too young to buy their own firearm, which makes it a parental problem or B) show evidence of being mentally defective or have actually ben adjudicated as such.

  217. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     Quite a few the one I remember that stands out the most is a guy walking around with a huge ass rifle with a sign on his back with the price.

  218. 0
    Zero Beat says:

    My main complaint is when investigations into police brutality is conducted by cops.  There is a sense of brotherhood among police.  I would prefer a private firm does this, though that would raise issues concerning due process.

    My secondary complaint is that they often demand that people hand over their cell phones, as they did in the BART shooting.  That reeks of "we did something wrong and want to destroy evidence."


    And I could go off on that BART shooting and how it was most likely murder, but that’s a discussion for when I’m not so hungry.


    "That’s not ironic. That’s justice."

  219. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    So what, you stay in California, Chicago, New York City, and Wisconsin?

    I don’t know if you realize this, but the crime rate for CCW permit holders is FAR lower than that of the average populace.  It’s 600% lower than the crime rate for NYPD officers.

  220. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I never liked CCW, and I refuse to travel to locations where it is legalized. Something about knowing that that person you beep at because he cut you off could be carrying a gun makes me quite uneasy. I’ve never trusted human beings to be responisble enough to be allowed to carry weapons. On the other hand, I don’t advocate the outright ban of all guns, but tighter regulations are in order.

  221. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    Live with it.

    There has to be a point where you stop trying to control every possible thing in life and realize that you can’t fix every possible thing.

  222. 0
    Father Time says:

    Still doesn’t guarantee one cop doesn’t murder someone.

    Although it’s strange that you advocate banning guns or CCW if one person can’t handle it.

    That’s like banning violent games if one psycho can’t handle them.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  223. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    I’m not talking about policy brutality. I’m talking about a cop making a bad decision with a gun, or hell just going in guns blazing at the wrong house.

  224. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     and they should they really should be a lot of dealers don’t do it and if you just show up with a sign saying I’m selling such and such for such and such no background is done at all.  

  225. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    I can say the same for violent or over sexualized media it has no other purpose but mental fapping, there comes a time when you have to realize humans can not be absolutely managed as long as their is a few extra inches of rope they will always hang them selfs or each other.

    For thoughs who decry but we can save lives;

    The price of freedom is the cost of lives in the name of personal stupidity vs the cost of lives at the price of fascism through culling to protect order.


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  226. 0
    Valdearg says:

    99% of the cases of Accused Police Brutality turn out to be just hot air. In fact, I can think of a few cases that I’ve seen where the victim deserved it, yet the cops got punished. The ONLY case of a cop going bad with a gun in recent memory is the one where he shot that subdued guy in the subway and all those people started to riot, and even then, I don’t know all the details to it.

  227. 0
    Krono says:

    As various places have demonstrated, reducing the amount of guns on the market does not help reduce violence.

    The only way you’ll actually get a reduction in assaults/murders is to address the underlying social/cultural issues.


  228. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    How many people were killed in gang warfare and drug disputes last year? I hate to break it to people, but these tragedies only get noticed because they are not a "normal" thing. They also grab headlines and pull the heartstrings.

    No one gives a damn if 10 people die in a crackhouse in LA.

  229. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    There are no "online stores" for guns in the united states. They must be an FFL who shipps to and FFL who is legally required to do a background check.

  230. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    "The possibility of ONE life lost as a result of gun violence is enough for me to be morally opposed to guns in civilized society as a whole. Until you can garuntee that every, single person who has a CCW permit will never commit a gun crime, then you can take your "acceptable" regulation and statistics and shove it."

    Oh let me try

    The possibility of ONE life lost as a result of gun violence is enough for me to be morally opposed to armed police in civilized society as a whole. Until you can garuntee that every, single person who is a cop will never commit a gun crime, then you can take your "acceptable" regulation and statistics and shove it.

    You know what the best part is, if someone with a CC’er fucks up they tend to go to jail. If a cop does it he tends to get paid administrative leave, heck sometimes the department even gets together to help cover it up.

    Cops have some of the most stressful jobs in the goddamned world. Its depressing as hell. Yet we give them guns and the authority to use them at thier discretion(their job requires that).

  231. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     Once again might be a local thing but I don’t believe my state has any law stopping a person who takes drugs to help them mentally from purchasing a gun.

  232. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     The reason why people blame guns (a moot point in all truth do to it is just a tool) is that its a tool for one purpose killing.  There is no other reason for a gun to exist.  It doesn’t cut up my meat (hell it doesn’t even kill the animal to get me my meat a friggin bolt does that), it doesn’t build my house, it doesn’t help up those annoying plastic shell coverings; it has no utility other than killing.  A knife actually has a purpose beyond killing it has a utility that can be used in every day where as a gun does not.  

  233. 0
    djnforce9 says:

    From what I read in the articles regarding school shootings, a lot of the people that do them originally had no criminal record whatsoever (or any history of violence). Therefore, even if a background check is performed, they will turn out clean and the gun will be sold to them anyway. Afterwards, they will then proceed to do their davastating crime before ending their own life in certain cases.

    Maybe in addition to the criminal background check, a psychological test should follow to ensure that the person purchasing the firearm is "right in the head" so to speak. Criminal record being clean just means they haven’t done anything wrong "yet".

  234. 0
    Valdearg says:

    If you are taking drugs for mental illness, you aren’t going to be allowed to purchase a gun. A lot of the people who legally purchase guns and commit crimes aren’t going to show a large amount of mental issues. In fact, they might not give you any reason to believe that they will eventually snap and go on a killing spree. Look at the friends and family testimonies of people who have gone on a spree.

    "He was always such a nice kid!"

    "I am totally astounded and surprised that he did this. I had no Idea he was capable"

    "John Doe was always a really cool guy. He cared about his kids and loved his wife. Its beyond belief that he would be able to kill them all!"

    Note: These arent actual testimonials, but they are examples of the common response to things like V-Tech or columbine.

  235. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    "Now, thats not saying that the people who choose to fire the weapons aren’t to blame, but, if the weapons were harder to get, don’t you think there would be a smaller number of tragedies like V-Tech or Columbine?"


  236. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    What about the possibility of a life saved?  You seem to only focus on the possibility of CCW holders going crazy and shooting someone.  Not only is that grasping for straws, as such a thing is as rare as Jack Thompson making sense, but it completely negates the possibility that CCW holders can save lives, which is something that happens with a much greater frequency.

    You also seem to not realize that the avalability of guns doesn’t play a factor in these large shooting sprees.  Hell, one just happened in Germany where it’s near god damned impossible to get a gun for legal reasons.  Then, you have a country next door that has a the largest gun ownership per capita in the western world (Switzerland), and they have no such kind of crimes, and in fact have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.  And the absence of guns in no way makes you safe from murderers.  Not a year ago GP reported on a crazed Japanese kid who stabbed and killed quite a few people in Akihabara before killing himself.  How come a topic like that gets so little attention, when if the word stabbed was changed to shot, it’d spark media controversy?

    Don’t you see that blaming guns is no different than blaming video games?  Do you blame a hammer when you hit your thumb with it?  Do you blame your car for running out of gas?  So then why blame a gun, a tool, for killings?  It makes no sense.  The gun isn’t what kills people, it’s people who kill people.  Blaming guns is simply the last resort of people desperate to not look at the fact that we have substantial problems in our society, and it’s these problems that cause gangs as well as the grand majority of violence, and it won’t decrease till we stop blaming guns and start blaming ourselves.

    We failed to protect those people killed in the recent shooting sprees.  The fault is on our shoulders, not guns.

  237. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    uh… do you have a citation of a medical document that states somebdy is mentally ill for 18 years before they commit one of these crimes?

    You do realise that somebody could manage mental illness with medication right?

    You do realise therefore that it often takes only a short period of time (say several weeks) for the effects of not taking medication to have a significant impact on an individual right?

    So then you agree that somebody who is managing their illness successfully, and then say stops taking medication, and becomes ‘symptomatically’ mentally ill over the period of several weeks is a possibility?

    So you acknowledge therefore that somebody who knew this person may spot over a relatively small period of time (say … 2 weeks?) that this persons behaviour has recently become unusual and cause for concern?


    so.. which part of that wasnt logical?

  238. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Because they’ve gone at least 18 years without anyone noticing that they need help, yet, somehow, miraculously, someone is going to take notice in the 2 weeks they have to wait to recieve the gun that they are ultimately planning to go on a rampage with.

    Yup, totally logical. /sarcasm

  239. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    Yeah…. but lets say it takes 2 weeks for a seriously disturbed person to actually manage to get a gun due to tighter controls.

    Surely thats 2 weeks extra for somebody to spot thats something is amiss, and that the person is in need of help, and uiltimately increases the chance that an event like this can be prevented.

  240. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Or, we could take the step to try to reduce the amount of guns out there on the market. A large percentage of gun crimes are committed with legally purchased firearms.

  241. 0
    sirdarkat says:

    Fine lets claim everything you just said about my post is true.

    To bad I can go to the gun show this weekend and BUY A HANDGUN WITH NO BACKGROUND CHECK.

    As others have pointed out gun laws or a local matter I live in a red state want to know how easy it is for me to get a handgun read the above post.

  242. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    There is no preventative solution to school shootings or active shooter situations. That’s the sad truth.  That was also a topic of discussion at the ACJS annual meeting in Boston this year.  Anything we do has to be responsive. 

  243. 0
    Valdearg says:

    The ability for that person to do something terrible is there, though. Yes, a vast majority of people who have CCW permits are honorable, law-abiding citizens. However, everybody is prone to a moment of weakness or anger, and when that person experiences that moment, the situation changes from somebody getting the crap kicked out of them and, at worst, an assault charge, to somebody’s loved one losing thier life and a murder charge instead. All because of one small moment of weakness on the gun holder’s part. The possibility of ONE life lost as a result of gun violence is enough for me to be morally opposed to guns in civilized society as a whole. Until you can garuntee that every, single person who has a CCW permit will never commit a gun crime, then you can take your "acceptable" regulation and statistics and shove it.

  244. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    For me, locally covers three states that I live in, plus another six that I commonly travel to.  However, I also look into these things quite often as part of my work.

  245. 0
    lumi says:

    That rules out such a tiny fraction of the population.  The problem is that in so many cases there’s no record of how unstable or violent a person is until after they acquire the gun and go on a rampage…

  246. 0
    lumi says:

    I like how you tagged a "locally" or "varies from state to state" qualifier on all your statements.  So basically there’s a 49:1 chance that everything the above poster said was true.  Locally, in his/her state.

    And regardless of all that, many of the people who end up going on these shooting sprees either 1) don’t have a criminal record (yet), or 2) are getting guns from friends, family, neighbors, etc.  You don’t need to buy a gun to obtain a gun.

    The article makes plenty of valid points.  It is easy to get a gun in this country in the grand scheme of things.

  247. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I don’t have any of those things, much like 99.9% of the rest of America, includng people capable of doing things like V-Tech. Thats not going to stop people from buying firearms with the sole goal to kill innocent people.

  248. 0
    Valdearg says:

    If law enforcement was unaware of any illegally obtained weaponry, which, they usually are, considering I’m not going to go purchase a weapon, give it to a buddy who wants to shoot up a school, then tell the police "Oh, yeah. I totally gave him that gun," how are they supposed to enforce anything? They can’t do the job alone. Yes, the parents need to step up and raise thier kids better, but we all know THATS not going to happen. There will always be shitty parents out there to raise criminal children. So, whats the solution now? How do we prevent these things from happening, given that we can’t be 100% aware of all firearms in the country, and we can’t rely on the parents? Whats the next step?

  249. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Fair enough.  What’s to stop people from doing the same thing even with stricter laws?  The only people that stricter laws affect are the innocent.  What next?  Maybe we should stop citizens from obtaining CCW permits?  Nevermind that a CCW holder is 6 times less likely to commit a crime than a NYPD officer.

  250. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    You also have to not have any misdemeanor assault charges, any restraining orders, in some places you can’t be going through a divorce, you have to not have been adjudicated mentally defective at any time before, you have to not have a documented history of substance abuse, etc.


  251. 0
    Valdearg says:

    But what’s stopping the people who have no previous record’s from getting them? Aside from having to wait a week or two before going on thier suicide runs? Not a damn thing. So, for all of your logical and sane regulation, its not going to prevent bad things from happening, expecially when a completely batshit crazy individual with no record or evidence that he is batshit crazy wishes to buy a gun.

  252. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    How about we enforce the laws on the books?  V-tech would have been prevented had those laws been enforced.  Columbine would have been averted if law enforcement hadn’t been basically worthless, or if the parents had done some goddamn parenting.  Same with the last shooting in Germany.


  253. 0
    Valdearg says:

    It IS that easy, though. I have a couple friends who own about 10-15 handguns EACH, because they are consider themselves "Collectors," and whenever they have they cash, they just go out and purchase another one. It is literally just like purchasing anything else, except you have to fill out a few extra peices of paperwork and not have a felony conviction.

  254. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You make it sound like so many of these people who obtain these guns have had any reason in the past to have them denied, or, failing that, that they couldnt just call some people and buy a gun from the shady guy down the street for $500, not to mention just stealing the weapons outright.

    Many of the people who commit these atrocities have never committed a gun crime before and are perfectly capable of passing any psychological assessments and getting the guns on thier own. I mean, if I wanted,  I could go out to the nearest legal firearms dealer, fill out some paperwork, wait the recommended time period, take my gun, and go shoot some people. It would literally be that easy.

    Now, thats not saying that the people who choose to fire the weapons aren’t to blame, but, if the weapons were harder to get, don’t you think there would be a smaller number of tragedies like V-Tech or Columbine?

  255. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, at least locally, wal-marts have either A) stopped the sale of firearms of any kind (pellet guns and paintball guns and airsoft guns obviously don’t count) or B) some have become FFL dealers, meaning that they have a trained employee who calls NICS for the background check.  Way to be uninformed though.

    Pawn stores also cannot legally sell handguns without either having an FFL license themselves, which requires them to do a background check, or without sending the firearm to a real gun shop, where they will run the background check through NICS.

    As for handguns, they are varied from state to state, but most states make you wait for a week while they register the handgun with local police and other law enforcement.  They also run a background check through NICS, which takes between five to twenty minutes depending on your personal record.

    Let’s have some better research there eh?

  256. 0
    Magic says:

    I’ve seen this debate rage several times and it usually comes down to Americans stating that gun control is actually regulated (Rather than the likes of the satirical Ammu-nation in GTA games)but I’m going to bite: if it’s not as apparently easy to obtain a firearm in America, then how did the killers behind the recent massacre’s acquire them?

  257. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     Actually depending on the weapon you can just go down to the conor store and throw a few in the shopping basket.  I can walk into a wal-mart and purchase a hunting rifle or a pump shot gun with little to nothing slowing me down other then filling out a form that says Im going to use this for hunting I wont give the item to someone else and that I am not a criminal.  There is no background check there is no wait a certain amount of days; I walk out of that store with a shotgun and how do I know this my brother just bought a new one.

    Handguns are just as easy though might take a few more steps, pawn stores typically don’t do background checks and if yours do you can always get around them by going to a gun show and buying the gun right there.

    Guns are easy to get in America, not that I have a problem with that; I mostly have a problem with open carry laws that restrict me from just walking around with a gun strapped to my hip =P.

  258. 0
    Im_not_Herbert says:

    You know, there are people in this world this very minute proving that a relative few very determined, lightly armed, mobile forces can worry the best equipped, best trained military in the world.

    100 million pissed off and armed Americans?  The Army stands little chance.



    Your Yak is Weak!

  259. 0
    ayvah says:

     Everyone seems to be misunderstanding why guns are so useless in fighting a government. Wars are won with hearts not soldiers. 

    That is, if the military exists in its current state, then civilians will stand no chance. They WILL stand a chance if they win the hearts of the soldiers, and thus turn the military against the government. Giving guns to civilians is useless in the information age.

    We "won" the war in Iraq, but our soldiers just kept pissing off the locals and so more soldiers have died holding the country than invading it. The country will never be stable unless we win their hearts.

    This is the whole reason that Ghandi was able to win independence for India.

    Guns in the hands of civilians just helps to fuel paranoia, and puts too much power in the hands of a few individuals when it should be in the hands of communities. (Better a knife rampage than a gun rampage.) Guns should be kept away from civilians, and cops should get extensive training in nonviolent conflict resolution so that they don’t have to unholster their guns.

    Of course, there’s a long road to travel before it’s even possible to ban guns (without it ending up like The Noble Experiment).


  260. 0
    Gift says:

    Actually the VC consisted of more than just native South Vietnamese, futhermore they were armed and supported by external hostile powers and fought exactly the kind of guerilla war I’m suggesting.

    The Taliban, well they were the Mujahideen, again armed and supported by external powers and fought a guerilla war. I’d suggest watching the rather amusing, yet saddening, dramatisation of Charile Wilson’s efforts in this regard. I’d also point out that even now, NATO forces kick the taliban to pieces when there is a direct confrontation it’s exactly why the taliban don’t choose to take NATO head on.

    So if you bothered to read what I said properly (not very bright are you? 😉 ) I’m not dismissing Civilians out of hand. Rather I’m saying that if you’re serious about resisting the government, militas should be better armed and in different ways to conventional armies . Should you ever need to overthrow an administration by force of arms, you’d do it with guerilla/terror tactics, bombing police/army/government officials and fading away until you bring them down. (The focus on automatic weapons, is therefore a bit of a red-herring.)

    Incidently this was one of the reasons the Home Guard was set up and trained in the UK during WW2, in case we were sucessfully invaded, we’d bathe the country in blood until it was washed clean again. Want real security? Beef the second amendment up, so you can legally access more weapons, and better yet supply training to go with them.


  261. 0
    shady8x says:

    First of all, we have seen how good our military is against militias in Iraq… as in: not that good…

    If one at of every hundred americans decided to rebel, this nation would be pretty much screwed… unless they decided to form a regular army in which case they would get killed pretty quickly…

    An armed revolution within a decade or two is not out of the question… though hopefully it wont come to that…

    Also why should women no longer have a right to vote?!?!?!?

    also @

    "The first amendment is outdated.  Doubly so in it’s current form.  It needs to be updated or removed (just like any other outmoded clause in the constitution, i.e. womens’ right to vote), as the realities of modern technology have made it’s current form nonsensical, and just in general this idea of "I need to speak so I can defend the U.S. Constitution" should hold very little water without the support of such an outdated amendment."

    Fixed it for ya…

  262. 0
    shady8x says:



    """Now, I’m not saying one way or another if tighter regulation is in order, but since when did anyone need a fucking automatic rifle for hunting or self defense? Who the hell are you expecting to break into your home? John Rambo?""""


    In my neighborhood a few years back, a couple of well armed criminals decided to rob a sickly old lady’s house… They were shot dead by the old woman with her semi-automatic weapon…

    As for people that live on our south border well there is a war down in Mexico that is spilling over to US so you expect mexican drug dealers…

    In large cities, you expect gangsters that push the stuff for the cartels…

    Hopefully though, you expect nobody and simply keep it just in case cause you live in a nice neighborhood…

  263. 0
    Paladin says:

    Not very bright are you?

    The Viet Cong were just a civilian militia and look what they did.

    The Taliban were a civilian militia and look what they did to the Russian army. The list goes on.

    There are a lot of factors that spell victory or defeat in an armed conflict . Dismissing a civilian militia out of hand just because you have a shinier army is the surest way to get your ass kicked.

  264. 0
    Gift says:

    "So since our rights are not "feasable" in today’s military environment, we should just relenquish those rights?"

    You could of course trade those rights in, the idea that a militia could go toe to toe with a professional army is hilarous. Trade in the the automatic weapons for the right to explosives, you need to road-side bomb your way to freedom. 😉 I suppose you could reserve the right to hold on to sniper rifles, you know, in case you want to go the dissident republican route?

    At the very least the second amenedment needs updating to allow for a more effective militia with more firepower.


  265. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    No outside force has been able to conquer the territory within afgansitan in thousands of years.  Alexander, Persia, Rome, Europe, Russia have all failed.  What exactly makes you think that now will magically be the time when a foreign invading force can capture the area?

  266. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

    "I’m sorry, do you really believe that any militia americans could form currently has a chance in hell against the U.S. army?"

    Ah yes, cause the US military is so superior that determined militarized loacals stand absolutely no chance in stopping them.

    …Oh wait.  Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq…

    Your argument fails in its first sentence.  That’s actually quite an accomplishment there.

  267. 0
    lumi says:

    "I love how jackasses always say ‘the second amendment is outdated’ but no other amendment is."

    Um, reread the post.  He specifically cited other outdated examples in the Constitution.

  268. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Your prime minister is a moron. No offence. The war in Afghanistan is winnable, provided we get enough support from our allies, in fact, it is neccessary to suceed there, where we should have truly focused on in the FIRST place, to really hinder Al Queda. Don’t get me wrong, I am Anti-War, but I realize that sometimes conflict IS necessary to make the world a better place.

  269. 0
    insanejedi says:

    Yea, because the Americians totally won the Vietnam war when they had M14’s and 16’s as well as F4 phantoms with the best military training money can buy. Oh wait…. They lost to a bunch of peasents making holes with sharp bamboo sticks.

    And last I checked our Prime Minister said we coulden’t win the war in afghanistan. A coalition of the best forces in the world with the best body armour, the best tanks, the best training, the best weaponary STILL cannot win against a bunch of crazy religous fundementalist.

    Do not underestimate the power of guerella warfare.

  270. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I love how jackasses always say ‘the second amendment is outdated’ but no other amendment is. 

    A motivated citizenry is more than capable of taking on the US Military.  Once again, there are things one can make with parts from home depot capable of rendering a tank unusable.  Just because you can’t figure out how to do it doesn’t mean nobody else can.  Do you recall the fight the Montagnards put up against the VC and NVA during Vietnam?  They did that armed mainly with Crossbows.

  271. 0
    Hitodama says:

    Your right about the Military being vastly better equipped, but a civil war of that magnatude wouldn’t be quite so straightforward. Don’t underestimate the ingenuity of people. Also, what are the chances of the military remaining unsplintered after such a cataclysmic event? There would likely be quite an amount of defectors and possibly some foreign support. Many factors would go into such a situation.

  272. 0
    saregos says:

    I’m sorry, do you really believe that any militia americans could form currently has a chance in hell against the U.S. army?  Yeah, perhaps we have the "right" to form a militia, but anyone who chooses to exercise that right is suicidal.  To paraphrase you, what good will assault rifles do us when we are fighting against tanks?

    An armed revolution just isn’t something I could see ever happening in the US ever again. Certainly not if the civilians are armed only with legal weapons.  The idea of state militias is an outdated concept, will never be used, and honestly should be removed so we can get some sense of logic into the debate on guns.

    The second amendment is outdated.  Doubly so in it’s current form.  It needs to be updated or removed (just like any other outmoded clause in the constitution, i.e. womens’ right to vote), as the realities of modern technology have made it’s current form nonsensical, and just in general this idea of "I need moar guns so I can defend the U.S. Constitution" should hold very little water without the support of such an outdated amendment.

    — Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

  273. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    but since when did anyone need a fucking automatic rifle for hunting or self defense? Who the hell are you expecting to break into your home? John Rambo?

    No one. But the second ammendment gives us the right to form a militia. If when the time comes that a militia is needed, what good will hunting rifles and shot guns do us when we are fighting against military grade weaponry?

    That is why we need automatic weapons. So by outlawing auromatic weapons, you are destroying our right to form a well armed militia.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  274. 0
    Topknot says:

    Uhhh no… not really if you use a little logic and common sense.

    Nobody took a game case and caved in someones head with it but LOTS of people take guns and use them to kill people with. Thats a BIG difference.

    So far, people have only made opinion based links between games and violence but you can draw a straight_fucking_line between guns and violence, complete with diagrams and all the additional material you need. Hell, I’ll even throw you in a nice little pie chart if you would like.

    Now, I’m not saying one way or another if tighter regulation is in order, but since when did anyone need a fucking automatic rifle for hunting or self defense? Who the hell are you expecting to break into your home? John Rambo?

    If you make these things readily available then its more part of the problem than GTA and anyone with a scrap of logic would see that.

    Handguns and Hunting rifles aside, why the need to sell automatic weapons? How many deer need ‘x’ rounds a second shot into their faces before they die?

    I can cut a steak up with a steak knife, I dont need a Samurai sword. I’m not in feudal Japan fighting for my village.

    The posted speed limit in my country is 60mph on a normal road, I dont need a car that can do 240mph.

    There are certain things in the world that have no real practical reason and would not be missed if they were further restricted.

    It does not take a genius to figure out you dont have to ban ALL weaponry, but banning/restricting access to ‘some’ of this stuff would go a long fucking way to solving some problems.. not all of them obviously but it would help a LOT.

    If I were the type to make sweeping generalisations I’d say Americans and Americans alone shouldnt be allowed to own, carry or even be near firearms. Other countries have similar firearm laws and yet dont rack up half as many shooting incidents.

  275. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    So since our rights are not "feasable" in today’s military environment, we should just relenquish those rights? Just because I may not stand a chance in a battle for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, I shouldn’t bother?

    Is that what you are saying? To me that is just stupid. Why give up? Why surrender before hand, not knowing what the outcome is?

    I for one would never surrender my rights just because it may not be feasible to defend them.  Iwould rather die defending my rights and the rights of others than live knowing I surrender the rights that would have bettered my life and the lives of others.

    Hey, if you don’t want to defend your rights, that’s fine by me. But don’t expect me to just stand idly by while you take away my rights.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  276. 0
    shady8x says:

    Ok, that was an oversimplification, but then so is you statement…

    The only thing they would do is sell to other countries… but since we are their biggest market… they would be severly harmed… and as other nations legalized… the cartels would either disappear or become legitamite businessmen like the tobacco companies(either way its not like they could ever kill as many people as the tobacco companies…)

    Also cartels and their leadership are taken out all the damn time… the reason new ones arise just as fast is the profitability of the illegal markets… if there was no profitability the new ones wouldn’t arise while old ones either went legit or got wiped out…

    So in short yes, end drug war, end cartels…

  277. 0
    lumi says:

    "The drug cartels would disappear tomorrow if we ended the drug war"

    That is a disturbingly naive sentiment.  Even if we suddenly legalized all narcotics, you think the cartels would go anywhere?  Hell, if the U.S. Government started selling narcotics itself, you think they’d go anywhere?

    They’d go back to their storehouses to grab some bigger guns to address the new competition.

  278. 0
    ezbiker555 says:


    1. After looking through all of the arguments on here, I’m only go to say this. Guns and the people who use them need to be more focused on instead of video games that don’t even factor in the equation. It doesn’t matter if we ban guns or not, what we need to do is focus on the issue at hand.

    2. Jack Thompson, I’m surprised your not here on this article ranting at us.

    3. Can’t we all just get  along?


  279. 0
    Keith K says:

    Americans REQUIRE guns to protect themselves from the british. The world sneers at the silliness of the concept. Its clear the british reinvation has already begun. Those rotten-toothed bastards are already launching attacks with words, sentences and paragraphs. The Pan-Atlantic War has already begun.

  280. 0
    shady8x says:

    You mentioned it but you didn’t get there all the way…

    Drugs are illegal, there is a war on them, therefore they are very profitable to sell.

    The drug cartels would disappear tomorrow if we ended the drug war, so would most of the gun deaths in this nation since the gangs and the rest of the pushers would be out of a job and have no mone y to buy guns…

    You are right, bans would do nothing. When guns where banned in washington the gun crime rate skyrocketed…

    IF guns were made illegal then the drug cartels would also become the gun cartels… and good people would be left defensless…

    also automatic weapons have never been used in a crime except by cops…

  281. 0
    lumi says:

    I read your entire post, agree with many of your points, and feel you expressed them clearly and civilly.  Now I have a request.

    PLEASE use line breaks next time.  Wall of text == painful =(

  282. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Last I checked the assault weapons that are legal come with more frees (like a few hundred) basically they are priced out of the ahnds of most people.

    But it comes down to guns are not the problem remove them and bats and knifes will be next….well thats not quit accurate as the black market would have so many guns for sale anyone could get one cheaply if they are willing to go to jail.

    So meh there is nothing much you can do but make permits  harder to get through better info gathering and make gun crimes harder. (like remove trigger finger).



    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  283. 0
    Doom90885 says:

    I’m going to paste a response I made on newsvine following the recent shootings that took place.

    I’m on the middle of the fence about weapon bans namely because I do feel sympathy for those who own weapons and use them and stores them responsibly having to suffer for the actions for the others. HOWEVER this issue MUST be addressed and some form of action must take place. Drugs are illegal yet it doesn’t stop ppl from selling and obtaining them. I support a gun ban on paper but I do feel that a ban would actually make them more sought after due to vast # of weapons on the streets that will never be accounted for. But I am so sick and tired of a country that hands out weapons like toys and then is shocked and appauled when this happens. What is it that’s so shocking? My theory is that to many folks their gun is a mental steroid that in their possession they think they are invincible. Take it away their balls of steel melt into liquid s**t. I will add I do support the right to protect your home and loved ones but I do feel the average American does not have the mental or emotional maturity to own a weapon. We still have knives and melee weapons but they can’t cause nearly as much destruction as a low class firearm. Having said that, I do not blame the guns for these actions as they are inanimate actions but I do believe they are the main component for much of this problem and without that component many of these killing sprees probably would be avoided. Its sad that more ppl are concerned about gun rights than maybe possibly putting an end to senseless violence and death that has become all too common here. We got those Mexican drug wars and we bash them for being monsters but where is 90% of their arsenal coming from? Here! How often you hear about these incidents in other developed/civilized countries? But in the U.S. that’s what scapegoats are for namely video games and TV. Most people against video games for being murder simulators what’s their stance on tools made just for killing? None. IDK how these ppl can carry their agenda with a straight face. Another example is throughout the U.S. pit bulls are banned in certain areas. Why? because People use them for guarding drugs and fighting and see them as a public threat. Less than 100 people have been killed by pit bulls in the last 25 years. Not counting injuries and nonfatal bites. The death toll by guns is signifigantly higher. Obviously 1 is a bigger problem than the other yet the wrong one is banned under the name of "public safety" because if all pit bulls are banned and killed tomorrow, few would care but mention taking all guns and OMG everyone goes nuts and I blame the government for playing into this and going after a safe target than the taking action against the much greater problem so they can be reelected. But like I said how a gun ban probably wouldn’t stop criminals and other ppl from acquiring them, the pit bull ban hasn’t stopped the bad ppl from getting these dogs; it stops the good responsible ppl who treat them well, which is why I think a gun ban is probably only on good paper unless someone has a magic wand. I can maybe understand the selling of handguns for protection iffy on shotguns shotguns and hunting rifles for hunters but will someone be kind enough to explain why in the hell do our citizens need assault rifles and other similar weapons? That is just sick. To conclude this problem is getting way out of control and we either need to work on a solution of some kind or stop complaining about how horrible it is when these things happen. Simple as that.

    In Scapegoats We Trust

  284. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Don’t get too excited.  There are plenty of NRA nuts here who have already started turning this into the longest thread ever with the same points being made over and over ever as if saying them enough times will make them true.

  285. 0
    Nullanon says:

    Common sense, maybe, but intelligence about the particulars of how to obtain a firearm in America is not his strong suit, considering he makes it out to be as easy as walking down the the corner store and throwing a few in my shopping basket.

    I agree, though this is nothing new, American media has always been based on sensationalism more than even the god-given truth.

  286. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Sure you do research as a certified journalist.  There’s so much to hate about a man who fought for civil rights, helped fund efforts to keep firearms in the hands of African Americans during a time when they were very much in danger, and of course the man who played Moses.
    What do you research, liberal blogs?

  287. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

    I never said I was a member of the NRA. And I don’t watch Michael Moore (you’re right in believing he’s BS, at least). 

    But yes I do research as a certified journalist. And I stand by what I said.

    Thank you for "informing" me.

  288. 0
    Monte says:

    "whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united"

    you don’t have to tolerate him, but you should be respectful as the creed suggests

  289. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    He is dead.  But during his life, he did great things.  For example, he lead the civil rights movement in Hollywood.  How would people react if some jackass was saying that he wished he could’ve killed MLK?

  290. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Yup, you sure are following THIS creed:

    "NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

  291. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Andrew, I’d appreciate you not censoring me.  If he is, as he claims, a Marine, he should know about the support and funds that the NRA gives to many wounded soldiers abandoned by the VA and the government.  Furthermore, to suggest he would kill Charlton Heston, one of the leading civil rights advocates in Hollywood during MLK’s time, is moronic.

    In otherwords, I will not be dialing back on the harshness.  The man is a dumbass.

  292. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Yeah, the person in question had been dishonorably discharged due to ASSAULTING A DRILL SERGEANT, making him incapable of legally purchasing guns. 

  293. 0
    Brokenscope says:

    He couldn’t legally own any of the guns he had seeing as he had been dishonorably discharged from the military.

    He was afraid that some agency would figure come and get his guns from him and put him in jail.

  294. 0
    Valdearg says:

    This is what happens when you allow people to legally purchase firearms..,2933,512560,00.html

     "Poplawski feared ‘the Obama gun ban that’s on the way’ and ‘didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,’ said Edward Perkovic, his best friend."

    I knew something like this was going to happen from the moment I heard people saying "Obama’s going to take our guns, buy as many as you can! I want to protect myself and my family from the government!":

  295. 0
    shady8x says:

    uhhh "After illegally acquiring the weapons, Harris and Klebold sawed off the barrels of the shotguns, shortening the overall length to below 25 inches, a felony under the National Firearms Act."

    They broke the law to get the weapons… so what is your point? The law already prevents them from getting the weapons so we make another law that also prevents people like them from getting the weapons?

    What if the new law works just as well as the last one???

    Most criminals that use guns for crimes, get them ILLEGALY.

    We already have all the laws we need but no law will stop a determined psycho…

    also why are knives the alternative? why not gasoline and matches? surely those are easier to get…

  296. 0
    lumi says:

    I don’t think anyone is saying that "guns are the reason this happened".  I believe the sentiment being expressed is "the fact that guns are so readily available is the reason this was as bad as it was."

    Think about this: if Klebold and Harris had gone on their killing spree with knives instead of guns, do you think they would have been able to kill or injure as many people as they did?

  297. 0
    Truec says:

    I’m not sure I approve of using guns as a scapegoat anymore than I do games.  Both excuses absolve the crazy son of a bitch who pulled the trigger of any wrongdoing.

  298. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    You’re a **** and I don’t believe you’re a member of the NRA.

    That was the annual meeting.  NRA meetings are planned YEARS in advance.  You also seem to have missed Charleton Heston’s full speech.  Maybe you should go look it up, instead of watching Michael Moore’s bullshit movie.

    Here is a transcript from the meeting.  Obviously, it’s partial, but its exactly as I remember the meeting.  Also, the Cold Dead Hand remarks were made a year later in Charlotte, NC, where I was once again present, and they were made after he was given a particularly beautiful flintlock rifle.

    Here’s part of the transcript from the meeting in Colorado.

    "NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

    Don’t come here? We’re already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

    So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

    "NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

    Kindly **** or become more informed.

    AE:  Let’s dial back on the harshness a bit.

  299. 0
    Vake Xeacons says:

     Problem is so many more people speak up about "2nd Amendment rights" than those for games. 

    "Congress shall pass no law restricting the people’s freedom to rightfully bare arms if the state wishes to form a militia."

    I’m a retired Marine. I am a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I wonder about the logic of guns in this day in age. Guns may not kill, but that is their one and only purpose. 

    I used to support the NRA until Columbine. I didn’t blame guns for the rampage, but what Charleton Heston did after that was unconscionable. Pulling an NRA convention in some tiny mountain town barely a month after a school shooting? And he rubbed in in Columbus’s face. He was worse than Jack Thompson, ***

    AE: That last bit was over the line.

  300. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You act like the Seung-Hui Cho, could have killed 32 people at V-Tech with a knife.. My god. The bottom line is, Yes, the person behind the gun is ultimately at fault, but the guns are the catalyst, enabling this person to kill 32, instead of 2.

  301. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    "someone somewhere has failed the victims"

    Yeah, and you know who it is? The person who pulled the trigger. It very well could have been a knife, or a fertelizer explosive, or their very own hands. THEY were the person who took a life, not some inanimate object.

  302. 0
    sirdarkat says:

     It also doesn’t help that the most vocal voices against games are typically right wingers (there are some left ones too so don’t think this is a I hate righties post); for the most part right wingers hate games but love guns.  In fact it might even explain why they are against games, blame the games so people wont rally against the guns.

  303. 0
    Ganjookie says:

    The whole right to bear arms issue, in an organzied miltia, comes into play here.  So anything that says guns are bad will be rallied against.  Since gamers and game developer organizations do not have the same power of the NRA it is easier to blame us.  IMO TBH.


    Trevor Gray

Leave a Reply