backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by roykahn.. on Jan 18 at 8:47 PM


  (Source: iTunes)
Gun control seems a bit confused on what course of action to take

The tragic massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the narrowly averted school shooting at Taft Bakersfield High School north of Los Angeles, Calif. have gun control advocates -- and Vice President Joe Biden -- calling for stricter new restrictions on Americans' access to guns.  Meanwhile gun aficionados are firing back, pointing to incidents like a woman in Logansville, Georg. who defended herself against a home intruder with a handgun.

I. NRA Blames Video Games for Shootings

Perhaps no organization is as iconic an advocate for access to guns as the National Rifle Association (NRA), a non-profit that represents gun manufacturers and gun-owners.  In recent weeks, the NRA has countered Democrats' calls for a ban on "assault weapons", calling them an affront to the Second Amendment.

The NRA released a statement defending ownership of all manner of guns, commenting, "It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen."

But when it comes to video games, the NRA seems a bit confused.

At a Dec. 21 press conference, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre incited controversy becoming the latest public figure to blame violence on video games.  

Mortal Kombat
The NRA last month blamed Mortal Kombat and other games for acts of public violence.
[Image Source: Midway]

He remarked, "Guns don’t kill people. Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people.  There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people, through vicious, violent video games with names like 'Bulletstorm,' 'Grand Theft Auto,' 'Mortal Kombat' and 'Splatterhouse.'"

II. NRA Releases 3D Shooter for Apple Devices

Given that criticism it seems pretty peculiar that the NRA would release a new shooter-style game on the iTunes apps store for Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPads and iPhones.  Dubbed "NRA: Practice Range" the app is rather mild in that it does not involve shooting at human targets and there is no blood.

NRA Practice Range 1
The Practice Range app let's you fire at vaguely human-shaped targets. [Image Source: iTunes]

The app description states:

NRA: Practice Range also offers a 3D shooting game that instills safe and responsible ownership through fun challenges and realistic simulations. It strikes the right balance of gaming and safety education, allowing you to enjoy the most authentic experience possible.

In addition to target practice with a simulated M9 assault rifle and eight other guns, the game offers "2nd Amendment newsfeeds, gun law information centers and educational materials that you can access anywhere, anytime."

Feedback on the game, which has an average rating of 3 and 1/2 stars was deeply divided.  Joe in BrynMawr opines, "This is fun and informative plus there is no need for eye and ear protection.  A must have for any gun enthusiast and defender of the U.S. constitution."

NRA Practice Range
The app allows you to fire nine guns, including an M9. [Image Source: iTunes]

But given the NRA's curious decision to implicate fantasy gaming violence in the Sandy Hook tragedy, other reviewers are harsher.  Comments PaperShipsOnFire, "Is this some kind of sick joke? The NRA complains about violent games and then releases one a week later. Sure you're not shooting at humans but does it really matter? F***ing ridiculous. I hope this gets pulled off the App [Store]."

And MasonR6 writes, "What a dumb move.  Good luck getting anyone to take your video game theory serious after this."

Studies have shown that shooting games indeed make gun users better shooters in real life.

The NRA recommends the game for children and adults ages 4 and up.

(An important note: the NRA may well have submitted the app months before the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting and its comments last month. With that said, a developer has the ability to pull an app off Apple's App Store at any time.)

Sources: iTunes [NRA shooting app], Politisite [NRA press conference transcript]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

NRA blaming everything but the gun
By johnsmith9875 on 1/15/13, Rating: 0
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 1:39:41 PM , Rating: 1
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Your comment is pure gibberish and thus carries zero weight.
Better you just sit in your chair and not comment at all until you have something valuable to contribute.

Or are you only five years old? If so, you should get your mommies permission before you create an account.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Manch on 1/15/2013 1:43:10 PM , Rating: 4
I don't blame guns.

Somebody has to pull the trigger

I don't blame automobiles.

Someone has to be behind the wheel driving reckless.

FYI

2011

323 out of over 9k gun deaths were by "assault" rifles

496 killed by a hammer

650 killed by a knife

12k by drunk drivers


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By GotThumbs on 1/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Manch on 1/15/2013 2:00:16 PM , Rating: 1
RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Adonlude on 1/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By CalaverasGrande on 1/15/2013 4:50:51 PM , Rating: 4
thank you for prefacing your comments with "libtard..."
It allows me to disregard anything else you have to say.


By tastyratz on 1/18/2013 11:53:22 AM , Rating: 4
I know this is going to make me the mayor of downvote city here but I don't' care.

He did not tactfully word his argument but is completely correct. This is not a VIOLENT video game and does not depict any acts of violence, it depicts responsible target shooting - the pillar os safe and responsible use of a firearm.

I disagree with the NRA scapegoating violent video games for what is obviously a societal and mental health issue, but this is not them being hypocritical either.

A gun is a tool and doesn't kill anyone. A person chooses one of many tools if they have ill intentions.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By othercents on 1/15/2013 2:43:50 PM , Rating: 4
There are so many different ways to kill people, however it is difficult for one person to intentionally kill a large group of people using anything other than a gun. I say difficult since it isn't impossible, but you have to agree that it would be much easier to use a gun or multiple guns.

To change America we need to start with change the rules for purchasing guns. Basically like Canada does it with annual license requirements and registry regardless if it is a private sale or from a store. I'm not certain if they require channel locks or safes to keep the gun in, however I think this is the safest way to keep them especially if you have kids in the house. Canada also has a registry for all guns which shouldn't be too much of a burden for current gun owners.

However, now becomes the debate. Is any restriction (IE. licensing requirements and registration) an infringement on our rights to bear arms? The only reason I would say no is because licensing rules and insurance rules for cars doesn't keep us from being able to drive, only makes sure that everyone driving has a certain level of expertise in operating a car. The same could be said about guns and gun safety.

To understand how this affects fire-arm related death rate here is the rate per 100,000 people per year:

Country -------- Total - Homicides - Suicides - Unintentional - Undetermined
Mexico -------- 11.14 - 10.00 ----- 0.67 ----- 0.47 ---------- NA
United States - 10.2 -- 3.7 ------- 6.1 ------ 0.2 ----------- 0.1
Canada -------- 2.13 -- 0.5 ------- 1.79 ----- 0.28 ---------- 0.01
United Kingdom 0.25 -- 0.04 ------ 0.17 ----- 0.01 ---------- 0.02

While a total ban on guns like the UK has would be ill-advisable given the close proximity to the Mexican cartel (see homicide rate in Mexico), but with the addition of licensing and registration we could see a significant decrease in total fire-arm related deaths.

Other


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 3
FYI.

Canada illiminated its gun registry last year.

It was too costly and didn't have an effect on gun related crimes.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
darn no edit.

Eliminated its gun registry....


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Also, it was only on long guns and did not include hand guns. The law was originally implemented by the liberal party...which shows why it was expensive/ineffective.

Best wishes,


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Da W on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Da W on 1/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By mugiebahar on 1/15/2013 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
You need to check out what your arguing before you bring up certain things, yeah the gun registry is gone that Is true 100%. But before you say something that is so not oranges to oranges please check what you are comparing it too. In Canada we aren't allowed to have assault rifles. We have gun control. We only eliminated the registry on hunting style riffles. Those are for hunting. Yes it probably was a good idea as people hunt a lot in Canada, as we have so much land set aside for that purpose alone. But even still you cannot compare that with assault weapons its not a conservative or liberal thing. It's more common sense. Also we tried something new " in hopes it helps" but after a close look and consideration we changed that particular law. So we tried and adjusted, but we "tried" first of all, second we are not anywhere near as open to guns as the US. Look any educated person agrees, just because you can doesn't mean you should have/own a gun. Does the fact guns help some times, yes. Does it harm more then it helps, yes also. Two wrongs does not make a right. Yes video games and media play a part, but you can't discount or redirect the fact that easy availability does not add to the problem. Can't people compromise on any level? When your constitution was written did G.W fathom a gun that can wipe out a room filled with kids that can be carried and even concealed in their coats? No! In 1904 Toronto had a law that you couldn't leave your horse in front of city hall unattended. Now it would be stupid to try to fight for that particular law to be continued, Likewise society and times change. We have to adapt to the reality we are in. At the time the constitution was written the oppression of Britain was first and foremost. Also you had vast land with wild animals and a very poor sense of law (due to legal and governance was not set up) so yes guns were important for everyday survival. That's far from today, very very far. So instead of complaining about why I can't own a gun that shoots 20 rounds in a row, realize that wasn't what your forefathers fought for. They fought for freedom and rights that they didn't have. Not for things that they feel the are entitled to jut because, with no real reason. Using real common sense is the way forward. If you want to be progressive as a person and nation then use basic common sense and build on that. Every nation has things they need to wok on, so nation is perfect and is free from blame in any regard, but if you stop and think for a second really to some extent it has to be agreed that gun laws need fingers and adjusting in the US.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 4:05:45 PM , Rating: 3
Jesus. You kids need to learn how to form coherent arguments and format your posts.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By mugiebahar on 1/15/2013 4:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry if I confused you, but if you need any clarification I'm happy to oblige. I'll simplify. The argument about Canada is wrong. As it has nothing to do with anything close to any relevancy to the matter. 2nd not having control on guns in a society that claims to be advanced is Irresponsible. Not for the 1000 good people, but for the mentally ill. Laws people claim to fight for " right to bare arms" was written in a different era without assault weapons. So be logical and realize that some laws must be altered to the age and reality that we live in. Any logical person with some sort of reasoning ability would concur to that reasoning and not give a ignorant comment just to make it look like they have anything worth saying when they have nothing worth any value. In reality you couldn't argue the points I laid out but rather used " I know you are but what am I defence." so unless you can argue with any logic and reasoning with Some level of Common sense, and have anything to add to the subject without sounding like a child please think twice.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Etsp on 1/15/2013 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 4
Wall of text is generally hard to read. When you have an extensive and verbose argument, it helps to add line-breaks between the individual subjects that you approach. When you do so, it makes it much easier for a person to read and comprehend your argument.

^ That's a line break.

Another thing that it does is it helps you to organize your own thoughts in a coherent manner, and will assist you in identifying logical fallacies.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By mugiebahar on 1/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Etsp on 1/16/2013 9:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
Er, no, I never did have anything to say about the content of your post. It wasn't worth trying to decipher what you were trying to get at through that horrible formatting. Not only was your argument dismissed, it was ignored entirely.

The comment you replied to was my only comment that related to any of your posts. So no, you never called me out or proved me wrong. I never tried to refute your points, and I don't even know if I would have agreed with what you were trying to get across. I have no clue if you were right or wrong.

I know I AM right in that people see a wall of text comment, and pass it over in favor of the well formatted replies.


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 5:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
Private citizens could own canons when those laws were written. Help for the mentally ill was vastly inferior at the time, too. Unfortunately, you're still relying on your emotional response instead of logic.


By delphinus100 on 1/17/2013 7:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's mostly asking for appropriate paragraph breaks to improve readability.

I know I am...


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 4:36:41 PM , Rating: 4
It sounds like you use the typical lack of logic in your posts that is often used when someone is trying to push their views on others.

"Things change so you just need to get used to the change"
"You need to be progressive"

It's all nonsense. Instead of explaining why your proposed change makes sense or why it would be an improvement you're just boldly stating that it's an improvement and therefore everyone needs to jump on board in order to be "progressive".


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By mugiebahar on 1/15/2013 4:56:38 PM , Rating: 1
Why do NEED a gun? First determine that. Then determine why you would need an assault rifle. You going to hunt with it? No that would be Stupid. So why do you NEED an assault rifle? No answer hmmm, so if an assault rifle plays no real practical use why have them freely available?


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Schrag4 on 1/15/2013 5:21:42 PM , Rating: 3
The 2A isn't about hunting, and it's not about self-defense. It's about the ability of US citizens to fight against tyranny, even if it's tyranny from their on govt. The first step in any govt lording over its citizens is to remove guns from the people so they cannot fight.

I know you'll say this notion is antiquated, and I'll be honest, the thought of people resisting their govt sounds absolutely horrific, and it would be, but I'm afraid someday such an uprising is exactly what it's going to take. Hopefully that won't be for a long, long time, but at that point, those fighting tyranny would absolutely need assault rifles, as you call them.

Besides, maybe I don't really need an assault rifle at the moment, but I CAN hunt with one, and it's a GREAT defense option. If four guys decide to break into my house in the middle of the night, I'd feel a lot better with 30 or more rnds in the mag of an AR15 or AK47 than I would with 17 or so in a handgun (or 7 as NY state is pushing for).


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By gnac on 1/16/2013 4:04:28 PM , Rating: 3
Recent examples of tryanny :
Syria
Afghanistan
Somalia
Mali
Lybia
Egypt
Sudan
Democratic Republic of Congo
Eastern Burma

Everyone was STABLE at one point and now it is not....

I'll take my chances with the odd nut job going rouge to protect the majority from tyranny....


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 5:21:43 PM , Rating: 3
You have posed an invalid argument.

Since we're talking about a right afforded to citizens by the Constitution, I do not need to justify a NEED for a gun. I could just say that I WANT one and I'm able to buy one.

In a free country, the "default setting" is individual freedom. The burden is on the government to justify restricting its citizens. You have total freedom unless the government states a NEED to restrict you in some way. By trying to get me to state a NEED for a gun, you're implying that the "default setting" would be restriction unless I could provide a good enough reason to justify my decision to purchase a gun.

Your invalid argument is very similar to this one:

Don't want the cops searching your house? Why be concerned about your privacy if you have nothing to hide?

The answer to this argument is similar to the previous one: It's not my responsibility to prove my innocence. It is the government's responsibility to prove my guilt. Unless they have something specific that they're looking for they cannot just start searching your house looking for random evidence to use against you.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By mugiebahar on 1/15/2013 5:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm wasting my time on people who claim to be in an advanced society and who clearly resort to barbaric thoughts and arguments. You really want to fight tyranny with 1 gun? You couldn't be a god fearing person can you? Because to even think that taking a life no matter what the occasion is against all things that the bible teaches. So the fact that you choose to read the part that GW wrote about baring arms and then forget the part where it is written " in god we trust " on the money you use everyday as a reminder of their mind set, just ignorant.


By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 6:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm wasting my time on people who claim to be in an advanced society and who clearly resort to barbaric thoughts and arguments.


It sounds like you're just getting frustrated that we have the facts, the law, and the majority of public opinion on our side.

quote:
You really want to fight tyranny with 1 gun?


The actual figures are about 50 million gun owners with about 300 million guns. That's a bit more effective at fighting tyranny than 1 guy with 1 gun.

quote:
So the fact that you choose to read the part that GW wrote about baring arms and then forget the part where it is written " in god we trust " on the money you use everyday as a reminder of their mind set, just ignorant.


The 1st Amendment of the Constitution ensures separation of church and state. That quote was added to money much, much later. It didn't make it on paper money until the 1950's.

By the way, I'm atheist and I don't even own any guns. But I can't help but to shoot down faulty logic when I see it.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Meinolf on 1/16/2013 8:15:57 AM , Rating: 1
When the Constitution is old and needs to be rewritten for today. You think in 400 years that some of the stuff in the Constitution should stay the same?


By webstorm1 on 1/16/2013 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 3
Weird thing about the Constitution - there's a way to change it built right in! They are called amendments and to get one passed you need a lot of support, so we don't get a lot of them. If you thought a change is/was necessary apparently the majority didn't agree with you.


By superflex on 1/16/2013 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
You would think someone who reads tech website would know the USA has existed for 237 years and not 400 years.
Exaggerate much?


By GotThumbs on 1/16/2013 1:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Ok lets be logical.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the idea of banning assault rifles. I don't own one and most likely never will. The key factor your over looking is the use of the term "Common Sense". I fully agree with that use, but the problem is most of the deaths caused with guns in the US is caused by people who simply lack common sense.

As a Canadian who has lived in the US most of my life, I am fully aware/knowledgeable that there is a huge difference between Canada's societies and America's. You can walk through a mall in Canada and say hello to people and they will respond back in a friendly tone. In the US, you are more likely to get a silent and confused look as they pass you by.

I can't tell you if its something in the water or what, but today's American society has lost its grasp on Respect for others, Civility, Common decency and well....Common Sense. It's not that everyone is this way, but its a growing majority. There have been more than a dozen times where I consider moving back to Canada because the logic of this society seems to be going out the window.

The basic issue I have is that the blame is on the guns. Guns are bad...Guns are evil, etc. All rational people know the real problem is the people behind the guns who pull the trigger, but its easier to blame an inanimate object and avoids tackling the real problems, by just trying to ban/control guns. That will not solve the problem, as criminals do not care about or follow exiting laws. Just try and find some statistics for the total number of violent acts committed with guns by legal owners and non-legal owners. You can't because that's not what the politicians what to know. Ignorance is bliss in this country. Laws made in haste with limited facts/knowledge will not the solve problem.

America more and more, loves to wear blinders when making laws or rash judgments. It's simply disgusting how easy people use the term "better to ask for forgiveness than permission". This kind of attitude is spreading down here. We have a government that can't even come up with a spending budget. Common Sense is clearly lacking in D.C. if you didn't already see that. They pander to the media and then forget about it weeks later. America has a short attention span.

Until you've lived in the states and and start relying less on the media spin, you really don't have a firm idea of what it's like. US News is rampant with bias... subtle and some not so subtle. All you have to do is look at the photos they select from dozens of choices.

Best wishes and thank you for common sense contribution.


By ezorb on 1/17/2013 1:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
As and American Living in Canada:

I can assure you that you as most Canadians have no clue as to why Americans have and need military style guns with high capacity clips. The second amendment is the enforcement clause to the first amendment.

In Canada freedom of speech is an illusion, you can be tried and convicted in and extra judicial court for though crimes (hate speech) this court is not accountable to the supreme court of Canada and is not accountable to the voters, the so called human rights tribunal is the opposite of free speech. The problem here is that the tribunal decides what hate speech is, not a set of laws passed by electable politicians, so they can make pretty much anything they want hateful or not as they see fit.

In the United States free speech is free in ways that people in other western democracies can’t understand, Canada included. In order to keep it that way the population must be so well armed that no government would ever think of oppressing its people with kangaroo courts and such totalitarian nonsense.

It is totally impossible to turn the US into a police state, there are simple too many people with too many guns. Home land security jokes aside, Federal police do not walk the streets with machine guns in the Unites States, a common sight in "civilized" Europe.


By roykahn on 1/18/2013 8:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
OMG. We need a law to ban long paragraphs.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By StevoLincolnite on 1/15/2013 4:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canada illiminated its gun registry last year. It was too costly and didn't have an effect on gun related crimes.


You can't put a price on life.

Australia banned guns in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, gun related deaths fell sharply by about 50% since then. (or 2 thousand people saved every decade.)

Sure, you can still buy them, but you don't exactly have a gun store in every town and you need a permit.

However, Australia was in a far different position than that of the US/Canada which made banning guns possible.

For starters, we don't share land borders with anyone, making smuggling of firearms tough.

Secondly, our constitution doesn't state that we have the right to bare arms.

Thirdly, we had progressed to a point where the majority of the population wanted them gone, except for those who we the people paid to protect us like the Military or Police or needed them specifically for their job. (Pest control, security etc'.)

Honestly, I share the same sentiment as most Australians who saw the before and after effects of gun control, that it was for the best and we are not worse off.

The USA however, is far different, gun control can't work.
You have Mexico just to your south and you haven't even been able to stop drug trafficking, good luck trying to stop guns coming through.

Secondly, people have the right to bear arms through the constitution, you have a massive population who will hold onto their rights and fight for it if need be.

Thirdly, although there is a large chunk of the population that supports gun control, another large chunk opposes it which is in stark contrast to Australia where the majority was for gun control.

Besides, there is a reason why the USA would be a hard country to invade, ever heard of the saying, a gun behind every blade of grass?


By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 5:50:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Australia banned guns in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, gun related deaths fell sharply by about 50% since then. (or 2 thousand people saved every decade.)


One important thing to point out about the study this statistic is based on is that it's comparing murders from 1991 (before the ban) to 2001 (after the ban). The gun homicide rate in Australia fell 44% so gun-control proponents stated that the ban was responsible for this drop in murders.

But it turns out that this isn't the case. 1991 was the height of a late 80's/early 90's worldwide recession and violent crime went up during that time. 1991 was the peak of of gun homicides in Australia as well as the US. As the 90's went on, the economy improved and crime plummeted.

Between 1991 and 2001, gun homicides in the US decreased by 35% and guns were still legal here. In fact, crime of all type went down as the economy improved. If you overlaid the crime trends in the US and Australia you'd see that the peaks and valleys line up, reflecting the fact that economy at the time influences the crime rate.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/frm...

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20serie...


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 7:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Overall violent crime in Au has gone up since then.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Now all that's necessary is to tell us your plan on how the US will get the criminals to register their guns?


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By jimbojimbo on 1/15/2013 5:21:42 PM , Rating: 3
Chicago did so well having been a completely no handgun city for decades but constantly ranked in the top 5 for handgun deaths.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By gnac on 1/16/2013 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 1
You know - they just need tougher laws....and more limitations on the type of guns that can be legally purchased...

The same priciples have already solved the illegal drug trade....


By martin5000 on 1/15/2013 2:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Good points.

As an aside, can I point out that the UK does NOT have a total ban on guns though. In fact its very easy to get a shotgun or rifle licence, you don't even need a particular reason to get a one.

Even when gun control was much less, gun ownership was still extremely low because in the UK there is just no culture of owning guns.


By SPOOFE on 1/15/2013 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
it is difficult for one person to intentionally kill a large group of people using anything other than a gun.

I know, right?!? Without guns, the World Trade Center attacks never could have happened!!!


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Manch on 1/15/2013 3:19:30 PM , Rating: 3
You can kill a lot of people with a semiautomatic rifle and with a semiautomatic handgun and you can hold two very easily. You can kill a shitload of people with a homemade bomb.

Look at my above post at the statistics of "Assault" rifles vs all other gun deaths. No one is going after handguns though. No one is going after fertilizer, potting soil, drano, or the thousands of other household products that can be used to make bombs.

I am a law abiding citizen and I see no reason why they should try to take away my rights because some madman did a horrible thing. I believe there should be better background checks. I believe first time buyers should go to a gun safety class and learn responsible use. I do not believe that the gun registry should be public knowledge. I also believe that if you have criminals or mentally ill people living in your house or have access to your house you should be required to keep the guns locked up.

You're right with the analogy about cars. We have to register them, and I don't see registering my guns as any different.

But, using your car analogy again. I would have a problem if they were to sit there and start telling me that my muscle car is no longer legal because some drunk or crazed @$$hole crashed into an elementary school killing a bunch of kids. Telling me that maybe if he had a lower HP car he may not have ran thru the wall, and killed less kids. Turn around and tell me that's why my rights are being taken away because somebody else, how ever small make try to do the same thing.

The #1 thing that pisses me off though about this whole situation is that more people have been killed by "Fast & Furious" but no one seems to give a crap about those victims. No one is being held responsible for that tragedy, but the administration wants to hold every law abiding citizen with an "assault" rifle accountable for what those crazy f@cksticks did at the theater and the school and take away our guns and our legal right to have them.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By mugiebahar on 1/15/2013 5:05:26 PM , Rating: 1
Yes but making a bomb you need smarts right? Also not many can do that without researching how to make a bomb. And if you do that, you will be marked and flagged ( I know because I have a friend in the back bones of the Internet, certain searches gets marked and you will be watched) not that it is not commonly known either or privileged knowledge that it happens. So in a way there is checks on people trying to make bombs. But sill I wouldn't care if substances that could make bombs were regulated. Why would I care if it saves 1 life? Does human life not matter?


By Manch on 1/15/2013 5:24:04 PM , Rating: 3
not really. You can google it. Watch a vid on Youtube. I don't know about the flagging but they cant do anything without proof of intent. So no, theres not much checks. If they regulated such things, you wouldn't have access to a lot of materials.

While we're at though, since drunk drivers kill more people than are murdered by guns, lets ban cars.


By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 3:42:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Is any restriction (IE. licensing requirements and registration) an infringement on our rights to bear arms? The only reason I would say no is because licensing rules and insurance rules for cars doesn't keep us from being able to drive, only makes sure that everyone driving has a certain level of expertise in operating a car. The same could be said about guns and gun safety.


No, there's a huge, fundamental difference between the two examples you gave. The government has always said that driving is a privilege and not a right. You do not have a right to drive. On the other hand gun ownership is an inalienable right specified in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court.

You cannot compare the two.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By gnac on 1/16/2013 3:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
But CARS or TRAMSPORTATION are not specifically mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution - while "ARMS" are.... Nice try but apples and oranges...


By tastyratz on 1/18/2013 12:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would be relevant to group intentional homicide/suicide/violent assault/etc rates which are not firearm related if you want to compare this.

It is not fair to say that a man killed with a gun would otherwise be alive today. Not including total data slants a bias. Countries like the uk can be incredibly brutal and violent even if it does not always involve a firearm, and countries with dense populations have a higher incident rate. Canada has fewer densely populated cities and as a result less violence in general.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Da W on 1/15/2013 3:06:09 PM , Rating: 1
Handguns, knives, hammers or automobiles don't make mass murders of children in schools. I don't care about any other american death, but waccos that goes into public places and shoot everybody, this gotta stop. Either by killing all crazy people, or banning assault riffles.

Just ask yourself, how many american lives did assault riffles possessed at home by ordinary civilians helped save or defend?

I'm in Canada and i not need an M16 to defend my ass cause i know the likelihood of running on a crazy man with an assault riffle is small. Simple kung fu can save me against most canadian dangers.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Solandri on 1/15/2013 3:29:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't care about any other american death, but waccos that goes into public places and shoot everybody, this gotta stop.

Why? This logic makes no sense to me.

You have something that kills tens of thousands of people a year (automobile accidents). And you have something which kills a few dozen people a year (mass shootings). But to you the higher priority is the thing that kills a few dozen. Why? Because they all happened in one place? Because you see more of it on TV?

The dead don't care how they died. Whether it was because someone ran into their workplace and shot them, or because someone ran a red light and hit them, the end result is the same. They're still dead. 1 automobile fatality = 1 gun fatality.

We should be prioritizing these things in proportion to how many fatalities they cause, not how much coverage it gets on the news.
quote:
I'm in Canada and i not need an M16 to defend my ass cause i know the likelihood of running on a crazy man with an assault riffle is small. Simple kung fu can save me against most canadian dangers.

The U.S. Constitution is predicated on the notion that the greatest threat to individual liberty is the government itself. The right to bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights because the first thing the British tried to do when the then-American colonies started to get uppity was to make it illegal for them to own guns.

The guns aren't for protecting you from some mugger. They're for keeping the government accountable to the people. Now, you can argue that's an outdated notion in the modern world, and I'd be somewhat inclined to agree. But if that's the argument, then there's a clearly defined procedure for repealing a Constitutional Amendment. It's even been used before.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Da W on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
By webstorm1 on 1/16/2013 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
I can't upvote since I've replied here, but I agree with this completely. Also, thank for saying bear arms, every time I see bare arms I imagine flabby arms in a sleeveless shirt - 'Murica.


By Manch on 1/15/2013 3:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
Neither does a semiautomatic rifle you twit. VT & Columbine massacres happened without "assault" rifles, so go ahead look up what guns they use and come on back with all your rage about wanting to ban those too.


By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 3:39:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm in Canada and i not need an M16 to defend my ass cause i know the likelihood of running on a crazy man with an assault riffle is small.


1. Most people in the US cannot buy an M16. They're fully automatic and are illegal unless you have a special license.

2. The likelihood of getting killed by a maniac by an assault weapon is less than the likelihood of being struck by lightning.


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 3:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Kung Fu? Being 12 was awesome.


By LRonaldHubbs on 1/15/2013 3:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Those are interesting statistics, but like all statistics they are also irrelevant. We need to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines now because it feels like the right thing to do.

/sarcasm


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By tayb on 1/15/2013 3:27:14 PM , Rating: 3
I like how you worded the gun deaths as to completely downplay the actual number.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention:

606 deaths by accidental discharge of firearms
19,392 intention self-harm (suicide) by firearms
11,078 assault (homicide) by firearms

2010 only. Motor vehicle traffic related deaths? 33,687.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_relea...

Your automobile example is an interesting one. It's easier for me to obtain a firearm than it is to obtain a drivers license. We restrict who can drive, what vehicles are allowed to be driven, and modifications to those vehicles are allowed. We also routinely take away driving privileges for people who have repeatedly violated the law.

And yet when simple proposals such as requiring background checks, psyche evaluations, or limiting the capacity of magazines are suggested people become angry and defensive. No one is losing their right to own firearms with these suggestions.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By tayb on 1/15/2013 3:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
I will also say that there is a correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer gun related deaths in the US. Correlation does not prove causality and there are many factors at play but the correlation exists nonetheless...


By jimbojimbo on 1/15/2013 5:30:46 PM , Rating: 3
That's funny and completely wrong. Chicago for decades had a no hand gun ban yet the city constantly ranked in the top 5 cities for hand gun related deaths.
If hand guns were banned how could anybody be using them to kill people? Oh yeah, the criminals had them because they don't care anyway. Law abiding citizens didn't have any way to defend themselves though.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Manch on 1/15/2013 3:38:16 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't downplay anything. I'm pointing out the fact that very few of the gun deaths in this country were caused by assault rifles. The overwhelming majority were caused by illegal handguns. Where is the outrage there? People are screaming for the ban of these weapons but it will have very little effect. The previous assault weapons ban did nothing to curb violence. Curbing illegal gun trade will. Taking away the rights of law abiding citizens will not.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By tayb on 1/15/2013 3:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't downplay anything


You were off by about 24,000 firearm deaths. Not sure what your definition of "downplay" is. You also had fun with the wording but that's just nit picking.

Very few of the overall deaths were caused by assault rifles however all of the "massacres" were. Of the 25 deadliest shootings in world the past 50 years 16 of them occurred in the US. Care to guess how many of those used assault rifles? And how many of those were legally obtained assault rifles? Hint: Most and most.

quote:
The overwhelming majority were caused by illegal handguns.


I've seen no studies that corroborate this. Care to share sources?

quote:
The previous assault weapons ban did nothing to curb violence.


That ban was lifted in 2004. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in US history 6 of them have taken place since 2007.


By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 4:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That ban was lifted in 2004. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in US history 6 of them have taken place since 2007.


You do realize that assault weapons weren't banned during the 1994 assault weapons ban, don't you? Manufacturers only had to change a few minor things to make them exempt. AR-15s, which are the subject of the media outcry right now, were legal during the ban. The only difference was that you couldn't include mounts for a grenade launcher or bayonet on it. Since most people never use those things anyway this was a very easy fix.

No offense but you do not seem very familiar with the subject material yet you have strong feelings about it.


By Manch on 1/15/2013 4:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're adding in everything else. My number was for murdered. I could have been more clear but I figured you would have kown that the hammer deaths weren't accidental.

93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.
http://www.gunfacts.info/

page 22 has a lot of the relevant information you need along with the links to the government websites/supt docs but the whole thing is a good read.


By jimbojimbo on 1/15/2013 5:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
So if the amount of mass killings are directly related to availability of weapons I ask you this. In the 1920s anybody could walk into a drug store and buy a Thompson automatic submachine gun with 30 round clip of 100 round circular drum. Anybody. Did these random mass shootings happen back then?
It's society that's causing this. There are some sickos out there that think it's cool and are probably planning another one for the fame. It's sad.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Solandri on 1/15/2013 4:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's good that you brought up suicides. The nearly 2/3rds of U.S. firearm deaths are suicides. "If they didn't have guns, maybe they wouldn't have succeeded at suicide?" you say? Well here are the suicide statistics for OECD countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countrie...

The U.S. is in the middle, below many countries with strict laws on gun ownership. So I think it's pretty clear that prevalence of guns doesn't really affect suicide rate - if someone wants to kill themselves, they'll still find a way to do it even if you ban guns. So you can just remove the firearm suicide statistics from the debate.

Which brings us back to OP's point: Automobile accident fatalities are 3x higher than firearm homicides. If we want to save lives, we should be making it more difficult to obtain a driver's license than a firearm. Oh wait, it is.


By DarkUltra on 1/15/2013 4:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
So more people die from dietary problems in the US, we can forget and neglect other areas of improvement? This ignorant and dumbifying argument have been prevalent for quite a while now.

Make improvements where you can, and there are many in US gun culture that will save lives if you dare to think a bit further.


By jimbojimbo on 1/15/2013 5:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
It should be a felony to drive without a valid license, much like owning a good without registration now.


By woody1 on 1/15/2013 6:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty hard to trust statistics on gun deaths when the NRA works so hard to suppress studies on it. The NRA has used it's influence over Congress to make sure that the CDC can't study the health impact of guns. Likewise, they've prevented the ATF from tracking gun sales.

Clearly, the NRA is engaged in a campaign to misrepresent and suppress the facts. If they have nothing to hide, why would they need to do that?


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Targon on 1/16/2013 9:14:14 AM , Rating: 3
On the flip side, how many individual criminals are responsible for each type of crime. If someone with a knife kills 1-3 people on average, yet someone with an assault weapon kills 9-20 on average, this means that assault riffles will make a criminal that much more effective at harming others. Yes, assault weapons do not make someone become a criminal, but it allows criminals to do that much more harm before being stopped.

Note that all of this discussion is NOT about guns in general, or even normal hunting weapons that require frequent reloading. It is about limiting the damage that someone who is mentally unstable from doing. Things like limiting the size of ammunition clips, and requiring registration of these weapons makes a lot of sense as well, and would not stop a sane person.

As far as automobiles, you may have noticed that there are a lot of restrictions on them, including every one needing to be registered, insurance requirements, and drivers licenses that need to be renewed. There are requirements on the manufacture of automobiles as well, and you don't see people complaining that there are laws in place to keep people from driving 150 miles per hour on public roadways.

So, guns themselves may not be to BLAME, but the NRA and gun advocates keep trying to stop regulations designed to prevent unlawful acts and to limit the amount of harm any one individual might do.


By Schrag4 on 1/16/2013 11:23:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
On the flip side, how many individual criminals are responsible for each type of crime. If someone with a knife kills 1-3 people on average, yet someone with an assault weapon kills 9-20 on average, this means that assault riffles will make a criminal that much more effective at harming others. Yes, assault weapons do not make someone become a criminal, but it allows criminals to do that much more harm before being stopped.


I'm sorry, but I just cannot follow your logic. First off, where did you get this stat that someone with an assault weapon kills 9-20 on average? I'd venture to guess that if you look at all crimes involving what you're calling assault weapons, the average number of deaths would hover between zero and one. If you include cases where the criminal actually shot at anybody, it's probably between 1 and 2. These mass shootings (Aurora and Newtown) are incredibly rare! They're so rare in fact that the gun-control lobby is redefining mass shootings to mean anytime someone fires even a single shot at a group of people in order to beef up their so-called statistics. Even if you include those incidents, the total gun violence including mass shootings has reduced down by roughly half in the last decade, and keep in mind that the so-called "assault weapons ban" sunsetted 9 years ago this year.

Second, you're right, the weapons at the center of the current debate (external magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles) are very efficient. They're efficient when used for evil AND FOR GOOD. If you truly believe there should be no "assault rifles" because bad guys can use them more efficiently, how about we ask the police and feds to stop using them too? Good luck with that. Or how about we ask farmers to stop using fertilizer because they can be used to make bombs very efficiently as well? Remember OKC? No, we took a more sensible approach, and while fertilizer is still available, it's simply more regulated now. Firearms have been heavily regulated for a very long time. There are plenty of gun laws, we don't need more, they simply need to be enforced.


By Fireshade on 1/17/2013 7:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
@Manch
quote:
323 out of over 9k gun deaths were by "assault" rifles
496 killed by a hammer
650 killed by a knife
12k by drunk drivers

Of course these figures are meaningless, unless you put them against the actual amount of existing products in the market, i.e.: how many people have access to them.
If you do that, you will see that guns are the #1 method to kill people in your list.

E.g.: 496 killed by a hammer - how many people own a hammer? I guess at least 150 million.
How many people can drink and have a car at their disposal and how many hours a day do they drive? Again, some 100-150 million.
This will give you a meaningful statistical chance at being killed by a hammer of a drunk driver.
How many people own guns? My guess is 15-20 million. If you consider that drivers spend more time actually driving than gun-owners walking around with their guns, than you can see that there is a bigger chance to be killed by a gun.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By MZperX on 1/15/2013 2:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea how you got rated up but blaming the gun is utterly stupid. It's a tired mindless argument of the intellectually lazy. Inanimate objects cannot be "blamed" for anything by definition.

The source of the problem is people, more specifically homicidal (and increasingly suicidal) maniacs. These people will always find away to inflict pain and suffering if not recognized and stopped early enough. They don't care if guns are outlawed, they will get them on the black market. Or they will use explosives, or chemicals, or <fill in the blank with anything that can kill or maim>.

Shame on you johnsmith9875 . By focusing on the false premise of "guns kill people" and ignoring the actual problem, you and your gun control brethren are all but ensuring that these tragedies will happen again and again. Gun free zones and gun bans never stopped anyone who was hell-bent on murder and destruction. And they never will.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.

I hesitate to bring this up, but how many guns were fired on 9/11 and how many lives were lost.

Tragedies happen each day in each city you all live in, some take a larger number of lives than others, but it should not distract from the fact that there are violent people out there who will find ways to hurt people and not just by using a gun.

Best Wishes,


By mugiebahar on 1/15/2013 4:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but could you not say that since its the people who flew the planes that killed everyone. So thus we don't need any security or background checks n people flying or allowed to enter the cot pit? Yes it's spoke who kill people but really guns serve 1 purpose to hurt. Whether its to hunt or kill its only purpose is to inflict pain when used. Knives can be used to hurt but most knives are for useful purposes, yes alcohol and driving kill. But there again they are not made to kill people, its stupid behaviour that leads to that. So with an object that has only 1 purpose when used is to harm, at least "try" to keep them away from people that should not have them. And yes you can't keep them away from all bad people, but that is NO reason to not even try. If you have nothing to hide, why can't you wait till you have a background check? Why can't we agree a gun with the ability to shoot 20-30 rounds before even reloading s not needed. If you have a threat that needs to shoot 20-30 rounds in a row, chances are you not going to leave without being shot. Because its not like they will wait till you load or grab your gun then start shooting. Criminals don't wait so such a weapon is not needed.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Solandri on 1/15/2013 4:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
I hesitate to bring this up too because I don't entirely agree with it (there are mitigating factors).

But fundamentally, 9/11 happened because we lulled ourselves into a false belief that violence was never a solution. That if a hijacker took over a plane, you just had to do whatever he told you to do, wait for the authorities to make things right, and everything would turn out ok.

Hijacked planes full of complacent passengers will never be flown into buildings again because we've now been cured of that misguided notion. Everyone now knows that if someone hijacks a plane, there's much more at stake than the lives of those on board. The passengers will be willing to die (use violence) trying to prevent it. The people aboard United 93 proved it, as did the people who apprehended the sh_oe bomber and underwear bomber (both were dogpiled by passengers who realized what they were trying to do).

I don't particularly like guns. I've never owned one. I've fired one, and didn't really care for it. But I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of banning them. That too falls into the complacent line of thinking that violence is never a solution. That if we act like docile sheep and just do what the bad man tells us to do, the authorities will show up to save the day, and everything will turn out ok.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Etsp on 1/15/2013 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But fundamentally, 9/11 happened because we lulled ourselves into a false belief that violence was never a solution.
No, we lulled ourselves into the false belief that violence by proxy was a solution, and that funding educational programs and foreign aid was not.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Da W on 1/15/2013 3:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
If the problem are crasy people, what will you do against it? Throw them in jail? You already jail more criminal than most democratic countries, even more than some dictatorship, and look where that got you.
Kill them?
Detect the mass-murder psychopatic gene at birth and chop their hands off?

Yes people kill people, but if you take away their TOOLS they use to do so, it will be harder for them.

Right to bear arms to defend yourselves. AH! A bazooka won't save you if the sniper shoots first.


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By MozeeToby on 1/15/2013 4:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the problem are crasy people, what will you do against it?
A) Work to remove the stigmata attached to mental health issues in general.
B) Increase funding for school councilors, therapists, and psychologists
C) Give teachers, coaches, and administrators proper training to identify mental health problems
D) Give teachers plenty of discretion about who to send to those therapists for review
E) Stamp out bullying in our schools
F) Free mental health care for everyone of any age

This also has the benefit of addressing our nation's mentally ill homelessness problem. A significant portion of the people who live on the streets do so because they have untreated mental health issues.


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 7:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
Stigma. Stigmata is a bit different ;p


RE: NRA blaming everything but the gun
By Da W on 1/15/2013 8:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
Lol
DO A to F in the current fiscal environment BUT DO NOT BAN ASSAULT RIFFLES. THIS IS WRONG!!!
Stupid!


By Schrag4 on 1/15/2013 5:46:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right to bear arms to defend yourselves. AH! A bazooka won't save you if the sniper shoots first.


The right to bear arms is not about self defense or hunting.


By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you blame the gun? A gun is just a tool, an inanimate object.

Tens of millions of people responsibly own guns without ever committing a crime with them. Then when you have a mentally unstable guy commit a tragedy with a gun, people want to blame the gun.


By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Why not blame murderers?


By Wolfpup on 1/16/2013 1:28:38 PM , Rating: 3
I about burst out laughing when Cliff and Sam on the Majority report were warning that the NRA would blame games (again) if something happened like this. Then a week later it does, then the NRA announced their "super important" press release and...it's to blame games lol.

I'm for gun rights (which IMO is the liberal position) but geez, this organization has no credibility when they push all kinds of right wing positions + blame GAMES for people dying. I think long term the way they're acting is actually going to HURT their supposed goals of gun ownership rights, if they don't stop acting stupid, and don't stop mixing in right wing ideas with the guns.


who are these people?
By jwcalla on 1/15/2013 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 3
"The NRA complains about violent games and then releases one a week later."

How is this a violent video game? It's more innocuous than Duck Hunt.




RE: who are these people?
By cknobman on 1/15/2013 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
This is typical Jason Mick sh!t article with his own sensationalistic twist.


RE: who are these people?
By Adonlude on 1/15/2013 4:30:17 PM , Rating: 1
It's not just Mick. Every major liberal new outlet is pushing this as NRA hypocracy while hoping nobody notices the fact that this is not at all a violent video game. This is how the liberal media machine works. Its all to keep up the momentum for gun grabbing legislation.


RE: who are these people?
By TSS on 1/15/2013 5:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Really, no hypocrisy?

Their famous slogan is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Well now you have a game where everybody, *everybody*, without any control or restriction on who gets it, can be taught how to use a gun!

Is it a game to responsible teach you how to use a gun? Is it a game that displays the problems, the horrors of misusing a gun? Does it show you *why* guns aren't toys?

No! it's a shooting range! Let's have fun and shoot at indiscriminate targets that definitly do not show pain when they are hit! More points for responsibility? no, more points for accuracy! From ages 4 and up, it's especially important you learn how to shoot before you even learn what morals are, let alone the right ones.

If the NRA had any balls , *any* balls at all, they'd release a Spec ops: the line style of game, where instead of the shooter, you're a victem trying to escape a school overrun by psychotic kids trying to kill you. Along the way you'll meet terrified classmates, shell shocked teachers and ofcourse, lots of bodies! You don't get to shoot even one shot during the entire game. Perfectly possible to design interesting mechanics and drive the point home that it's not the guns causing this grief but the people behind the guns, and offer ways on how they might be helped/prevented from ever doing this again. Would it be a game for everybody? No, but the people who'd play it are either put off by it or start showing abberant behaviour that's obvious enough so they can be helped and prevent such a thing from *really* happening.

But then again, that would go against everything the NRA stands for: Gun sales. They stand for gun sales. Ever since the school shooting gun sales have exploded, some stores are even completly selling out. The longer they can keep this in the news, the better. Negative PR for them doesn't matter, infact, why not protect yourself from the NRA with this nice gun over here?

So in the end, the NRA is right. People are causing this. Because regular folks have gotten tunnelvision and now proclaim that if one thing goes away (guns, drugs, video games, bankers, bonusses, paper money, you name it), it'll magically vanish all the other problems along with it, it's only a matter of which slice of the same rotten pie you're getting. Wether you're for or against the NRA or guns, it's not going to solve the problem if either gains more ground.


RE: who are these people?
By AntDX316 on 1/16/2013 12:28:50 AM , Rating: 1
I doubt violent video games cause more violent crimes.

People get their violent fix and relief from these games. Personally, I don't see certain games as violent but more of team based success process fun. That is all.


RE: who are these people?
By rs2 on 1/16/2013 12:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
The content of the game doesn't matter. The problem is with the NRA making the claim that violent games cause real-world violence in the first place. They deserve to be taken to task for that alone. The silly game they put out is irrelevant, really.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to advocate destroying the First Amendment through censorship in order to preserve the Second Amendment and then walk around like you love our country and its Constitution more than anybody else.


RE: who are these people?
By Samus on 1/16/2013 1:24:15 AM , Rating: 4
Anyone who actually things the second amendment is at all logical this day in age needs their head checked. The Constitution is an imperfect document. Knowing this, and that times would change, the creators made it highly modifiable.

The second amendment needs heavy modification. When it was drafted, the thought of firearms that could shoot more than one bullet per minute was inconceivable. No industrialized first-world country has the gun laws (or lack thereof) that We have. That needs to change.

Nobody needs a collection of AR15's with extended magazines in their home, and if they want to 'collect' them, they can have the barrels filled with cement and display they how they want.

But anybody collecting a non-antique weapon...also needs their head checked.

I am an NRA member, I have been for 15 years, but after continually shooting themselves in the foot after Sandy Hook, I won't be renewing my membership. From saying "we need more guns in schools" to "videogames cause violence" they are becoming as big an oxymoron as the CIA. Blaming the Obama Administration for "killing people" is a pretty low blow as well.


RE: who are these people?
By rs2 on 1/16/2013 2:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, I agree.

My only point is that scapegoating violent games (or movies, or TV shows) in order to draw people's focus away from guns is stupid and wrong.


RE: who are these people?
By Schrag4 on 1/16/2013 8:53:47 AM , Rating: 1
Those firearms that shot once per minute were the cutting edge assault rifles of their day. The constitution isn't about protecting your notion of what "makes sense" for a person to own. An AR15 is simply a tool, and a halfway decent one at that. If our government really became tyrannical, we would ABSOLUTELY need AR15 and weapons like it. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, including those who penned the second amendment, restricting our rights to own such weapons goes a long way toward making tyranny very easy for our government.

quote:
Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

? Benjamin Franklin

quote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson

Nobody is hoping that it comes to that - it would be horrific. But if our government tries to take away our ability to keep them in check, I'm afraid that's what it's going to come to. Those people who stand up for the second amendment aren't the ones provoking the issue, they just want to be left alone.

I suppose I need to get my head examined, along with a huge percentage of the population, oh, and don't forget the founding fathers.


RE: who are these people?
By Asetha on 1/16/2013 1:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile there is a game where you can snipe the President of the NRA. Where's the article deploring that, Jason?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/...


Hold up
By Manch on 1/15/2013 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 5
Not that I agree with the NRA about violent video games are the cause of madmen shooting up little kids but, a target practice app that teaches about gun safety and responsible practices is not violent. You cant compare it to a game like bulletstorm that is filled with gratuitous violence. Bulletstorm is a lot of fun btw but I would not let a kid play it.

I don't see the NRA being hypocrites here.




RE: Hold up
By DanNeely on 1/15/2013 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The first, and most important, rule in any firearms safety class is to only point a gun at something you want to destroy and never at a person. The screenshots here show two standard shapes of paper target.


RE: Hold up
By inperfectdarkness on 1/17/2013 6:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the NRA is exceedingly two-faced. What this essentially boils down to is that the NRA is desperate to prevent any efforts to stymie the 2nd amendment--even if it means throwing the 1st amendment under the bus.

I, for one, favor CCW's being authorized for teachers (provided they pass all the checks, the program is voluntary, and has no bearing on continued employment); but let's be fair. The NRA seems to have its head up its ass. If our constitutional rights are under seige, the correct response is NOT assailing the few remaining rights we have. The NRA should be verbally attacking the source of our declining rights: the opportunism in the federal government.


Second Ammendment
By zarcate on 1/16/2013 3:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
They should allow only the type of guns that were used when the second ammendent was written.




RE: Second Ammendment
By Schrag4 on 1/16/2013 3:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Who are "they?" The second amendment is there to allow people to keep "them" in check. Do you really think they could do that with single-shot muskets?

Repeat after me: "The second amendment is not about hunting and it's not about self-defense."


RE: Second Ammendment
By zarcate on 1/16/2013 5:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
And you think M4 and AK47 will keep "them" in check? You would needs tanks and fighter jets if that's the intention. Sorry but as a non-american I just don't get it.


RE: Second Ammendment
By Norseman4 on 1/17/2013 8:55:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
[A]llow only the type of guns that were used when the second ammendent [sic] was written.


The type of 'guns' at the time included top of the line military grade field pieces, so based upon your comment ...

I think you are nuts for thinking that 'the people' should be completely uninfringed in owning a Paladin.

If you meant to say the type of weapons ... again Ma Deuces ownership are rightfully, strongly regulated. (Unlike your apparent desire.)

Then again, your statement for allowing people to own top of the line military grade weaponry, was what the founders wanted. Since, really, how could even muzzle-loaded long rifles of that time ensure the 'security of a free state' when the writers of that beautifully crafted sentence, within some of their lifetimes, had seen some of the dramatic improvements of those firearms. (Rifling was not common yet, but some of those men were well aware of the benefits.)

So, OK, I'm nearly with you ... let the citizenry own (keep) and carry (bear) top of the line military weaponry (Arms), but lets try and keep them from violent felons and those under mood-altering medications.

Damn, still wouldn't have stopped McVeigh.


No one mentioned
By KoS on 1/15/2013 4:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
The tolerate left came up with a shooting video game. It seems everyone is ok with this one, since it targets the NRA.

"New Video Game Allows Players to Murder NRA President"

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/...




RE: No one mentioned
By KoS on 1/15/2013 5:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
Also...here is a interesting read. Congressional Research Service produced report on gun control legislation in Nov 12. It can be found here...http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

According to it, the amount of guns have increased , yet the murder rate using guns have gone down from a period of 93-2011.


RE: No one mentioned
By KoS on 1/15/2013 5:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Also...here is a interesting read. Congressional Research Service produced report on gun control legislation in Nov 12. It can be found here...http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

According to it, the amount of guns have increased , yet the murder rate using guns have gone down from a period of 93-2011.


two faced
By Nortel on 1/15/2013 1:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get it, a 10 year old can walk into Indigo, buy 50 shades of grey and read it cover to cover without anyone batting an eye. That same kid tries to buy Call of Duty, or go to see Gangster Squad or a XXX magazine and is denied. Why is the medium of the content to blame?

There are dozens of Tom Clancy novels where gun violence is as common as adjectives. Turn that novel into a video game and now there is a 18+ rating. Movie? Rated R, and they have to cut out the theater shooting scene.




RE: two faced
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 1:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Granted, but how many 10 year olds are reading Tom Clancey books and how many are playing Call of Duty, Halo, Sniper, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

If you don't have first hand knowledge of these games....I highly recommend you go on YouTube and watch some of the game play.


RE: two faced
By cknobman on 1/15/2013 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well I can attest that my 10 year old was reading Tom Clancy novels.

He checked them out from his schools library. Tom Clancy has written some smaller novels that can capture the attention and be understood by a younger audience. The books are in fact quite bloody and full of violence.


You left a couple of keywords out of the title
By grooves21 on 1/15/2013 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 3
It should read: "NRA Blames VIOLENT Video Games for Violent Crimes, Then Releases NON-VIOLENT Shooter Game"




By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 3:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
That would only be correct if Mick didn't have an agenda.


target practice app
By bobsmith1492 on 1/15/2013 1:46:14 PM , Rating: 3
Such moral ignorance:

"Sure you're not shooting at humans but does it really matter?"

This is the problem that leads to fatal violence. People don't have a moral compass that differentiates between target practice and mass killing. Target practice is entirely benign.

There's no story here as target practice is NOT violent.




RE: target practice app
By superflex on 1/17/2013 9:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
So the NRA is right blaming video games and movies?


Really?
By AFMatt on 1/15/2013 3:50:49 PM , Rating: 3
A target shooting game is somehow associated with games people are erroneously blaming on killing? Their premise is games that invoke violence on the screen, ie killing people and other human-like beings with firearms, transfer over to real life. Not a harmless paper target shooting game. That's like saying trap and shoot clubs make people kill people! Not that I buy the whole idea behind blaming games, but it is one hell of a stretch to scream at the NRA for releasing a game like this.

I am a proud gun owner (not NRA member, however). I use my firearms for hunting, target shooting and, not that I ever hope to need to, home protection. I've also been a player of FPS games since Doom was released. Never once have I thought of, or even remotely considered going out and killing real people (outside of Iraq, if needed). I am sick and tired of people desperately grasping for some scapegoat to blame on people killing other people. There are plenty of other reasons that no one wants to admit. Bad parenting, mental issues, etc. The easy way out is to blame everything else.




RE: Really?
By AFMatt on 1/15/2013 3:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
*trap and skeet shooting clubs..
dang it!


The US problem....
By krazeyivan on 1/15/2013 2:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Its obviously the games right.........politician said so!

In the US as far as I can see you have incredibly poor mental health services that have no early identification programs and treatment. The US is very much (looking from the outside in) setup to direct mentally ill people to prison rather than psychiatric hospitals. Your population like others will have depressed people that are suffering but are unwilling and unable to visit a doctor or get real help - obviously all this ties into your whole health care services debate as mental health funding probably gets cut first. Who wants to care for/spend money on whack jobs (mental illnesses are frequently stigmatised)
Obviously its a bigger issue than can be debated here but ignoring the ease and availability of very powerful weaponry available in the US and its relation to gun crime is just ignoring facts - surely you can still have your precious second amendment while also tightening control of who gets weapons i.e. handguns to defend your home IMHO should be the limit of what joe public should get. If you need more power for a farm or the “wild” it should be more difficult to get them i.e. not with opening a bank account! - Why sell massive military weapons you would never use? Just allow these sort of weapons in properly controlled gun shooting ranges if people wish to keep the eye in. Would less deaths happen with tighter gun control - yes it would, you have to tie in monitoring illegal weapons and lots of other things but there are definite steps you could take.
Things evolve and change so keeping very outdated laws that are no longer fit for today does not make sense
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I’m sure in the 18th/19th century the government was kept in check by its citizens from this but if the unthinkable and crazy happens and the government of today really wanted to take anything from its citizens it would be a cert in happening.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) --- hate to break it to you but your getting smashed all over financially by people in shiny suits that are above any laws now as they pretty much make them




RE: The US problem....
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously its a bigger issue than can be debated here but ignoring the ease and availability of very powerful weaponry available in the US and its relation to gun crime is just ignoring facts -


It is you who is ignoring the facts. Either that or you just don't understand them.

I bet like most of those in favor of banning "assault weapons", you're under the impression that most homicides are committed by them. However the truth is that about 75% of gun homicides are committed with pistols while less than 3% are committed by assault weapons. Yet when people claim they want to stop gun crime, they go after those dreaded "assault weapons". Why is that?


By MZperX on 1/15/2013 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 3
The NRA complaint was against *violent* video games. I'm not familiar with the game released by the NRA but there is no violence in the screenshots attached to the article. Shooting at targets is not violence.

While the jury is still out on the effect on people's psyche, it is undisputable that there are tons of movies and games with graphic depiction of depraved violent acts. Beheadings, disembowelment, dismemberment, torture, massacres, etc. All in gory high definition details.

Now, I don't believe it makes a difference for otherwise well adjusted adults. It might be a factor in shaping children's perceptions about the world if parents allow their kids to play such games (at which point it is a failure of parenting more than an issue with the game itself). It might also be a factor in influencing already unstable individuals.

Bottom line is there's nothing hypocritical about pointing out the entertainment industry as a source of endless violent content, while releasing a benign target shooting game (which has about as much "violence" in it as Wii Play games).




Whats an M9 "assault rifle"?
By Jeager66 on 1/15/2013 4:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked an m9 was a military issue Beretta 92 fs 9mm PISTOL not an "assault riffle"




By AmishElvis on 1/15/2013 4:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
Among other things it's an Olympic sport.

You stupid jackass.




huh
By p05esto on 1/15/2013 9:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
I just lost a TON of respect for DT for running this article. The NRA game teaches safety, respect for guns and the proper way they are to be used. Most other video games kill people in horrible and violent ways. The NRA should be commended for being responsible with guns, unlike most video games.

I'm not against video games, but a little common sense does tell you that if you fill your mind with violent movies, music and games your heart will follow and you will become immune to it. Think of the first really scary move you saw, it stuck with you. The more you see the less the gore affects you. Even if you don't believe it we as society are becoming more and more violent and I totally believe that entertainment is the #1 reason for the increase in general violence. Watch any rap video and then watch the thugs go out and dress, act, talk and behave the way they do in the videos.

Be honest with yourselves.




News FAILl. There is no irony.
By CZroe on 1/15/2013 9:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
While I do not agree with the NRA's stance on violent video games, there is no irony here and insinuating such only reduces my respect for DailyTech. It is not "like" the games they implicated. It is "like" the very practice they encourage you to do in real life. You are very much DIScouraged from actually doing the things you do in a fantasy violence game. That is the defining difference. Calling it "ironic" is just as groan-worthy as the reviewer who called it "violent."

"The NRA complains about violent games and then releases one a week later."




If you aren't part of the solution...
By KFZ on 1/16/2013 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, seriously, show some dignity and change the headline to be accurate or bump the article. If you believe the NRA is being hypocritical or even demeaning in the wake of recent events, how do you exonerate yourself from aggrandizing this non-story and twisting it into propaganda?

Say what you will about those in the blame game but you went ahead with yellow journalism and fallacious attacks of your own.




wii
By chloefish on 1/15/2013 9:28:44 PM , Rating: 1
I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing, Great70dotcom




wii1
By chloefish on 1/15/2013 9:30:13 PM , Rating: 1
I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing, Great70 DO T com




Another DT troll thread
By Cluebat on 1/16/2013 8:18:06 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe you can brag about the activity (ZOMG over 100 posts!), but hopefully the editors will notice that most poster would like to see you digitally frogmarched off of this blog.

http://www.chronicle.su/editorial/hate-editorial/j...

Unethical tripe.




It's target shooting
By superflex on 1/16/2013 1:37:20 PM , Rating: 1
This app is harmless, unlike the app where you can shoot the NRA director in the head, provided by the hypocritical anti gun lobby.
Funny how Mick failed to mention that in his hit piece on the NRA.
What a pussy!




What is the outcry about?
By 91TTZ on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 1:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!!!

Lets see a side by side view of the NRA's video game and say Call of Duty, Zombies, Halo, Borderlands, DMC (Devil May Cry), Hitman, Gear Wars, Sniper, Sniper 2....I could go on and on and on....

There is zero comparison and anyone who has actually seen any of the video games most of today's youth are playing....its a wonder we haven't had even more tragedies.

There's nothing worse than a society of ostriches burying their heads from THE FULL REALITY.

People have little respect for the police today (there are bad people in every career). The general public knows very little of what police have to deal with on an hourly basis. I challenge all of you to do a ride-along with your local police to see with your own eyes...what our society has become.

Police cannot be everywhere all the time. You may need to defend your own life or the life of a loved-one with out the help of the police. Are you prepared for that? The president has armed men guarding his children's school. Do you think your children are less valuable?

BTW. If you really want a better understanding of where your president comes from....Watch Obama's America: 2016. It's not a bashing but a true account of the people who helped shape our current presidents global ideals. Even the poorest within our boarders are wealthy compared to other nations....and our president is focused on that. There are 3 predictions made at the end of the film.....and they have all become true.

By the end of 2016, we will have 20 trillion dollar deficit.

Best wishes on surviving the next four years.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By rs2 on 1/16/2013 12:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and anyone who has actually seen any of the video games most of today's youth are playing....its a wonder we haven't had even more tragedies.


Seriously? The real wonder is how a post claiming that video-game violence causes real violence was voted up to a 5. Such claims are nonsense and have been thoroughly disproved.

And that's the answer to the rest of it as well. It doesn't matter if the NRA's game features shooting at targets, zombies, or police officers. What matters is that they decided to run around spouting nonsense about how gunplay in video games causes shootings in real-life.

They deserve to be harangued over that no matter what their video game does or does not do. Just for spreading untrue BS, and basically advocating that we destroy the First Amendment via censorship in order to protect the Second. The rest is irrelevant.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/15/2013 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The game clearly does not involve shooting at people or zombies or any other living thing. It looks like you shoot at targets.
And what video game do you play that involves shooting at LIVING things?? O_O

I know the Japanese have come up with some pretty crazy "reality" games...

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painstation

...but that one is new to even me... My games you shoot animated blobs of pixels, not anything living.
quote:
I think the real motivation behind the controversy is that some people just want to ban guns altogether, and anything that reminds them of guns or shooting (even shooting at paper targets at a range) should be banned in their opinion.
Yes, let us paint everyone's opinions on the top with a broad brush.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By Manch on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/15/2013 2:02:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really Jason? Obviously no actual characters in a videogame are alive. You're splitting hairs to try and defend your $h!t article.

There's a big difference between a game that tries to teach you about gun safety and a game that's just gratuitous violence. I don't see anything wrong with either but you cant call them the same.
The NRA blamed public violence on video games and other media works. Read the transcript of their speech if you don't believe me.

I am fundamentally opposed to that premise.

I am also opposed to banning handguns and rifles.
quote:
There's a big difference between a game that tries to teach you about gun safety and a game that's just gratuitous violence. I don't see anything wrong with either but you cant call them the same.
Sure you can... they're all the same. They're GAMES. As in not real.

The only person who would mistake a video game for reality is a severely mentally ill person. And such an individual could just as easily mistake anything for anything else. It's not the game... it's their mental illness. There's a clear difference.

You can whine all you want, but the NRA's commentary was ignorant and a tired repetition of wrong ideas, a la the pro-censorship crap Tipper Gore was peddling two decades ago.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By Lifted on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By theapparition on 1/15/2013 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly the solution is to ban people. That would fix us.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By Manch on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By ClownPuncher on 1/15/2013 7:43:45 PM , Rating: 4
I don't understand the fascination the anti gun lobby has with the AR-15. It's just a semi automatic small caliber rifle.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By Devilboy1313 on 1/15/2013 10:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually blaming games and then releasing one is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

If I say mobile phones cause cancer and should be banned and then bring out my own brand of mobile .. that's hypocrisy.

If I say speeding kills and I get caught doing 100 in a 30 zone, I'm a hypocrite.

I agree with some, if not most, of what you said ... but a hypocrite is a hypocrite and the NRA on this count is being one.

------------------------------------------------- --------------

Guns don't kill people. Criminals, mentally ill and stupid people kill people. But if you got rid of them, most of America would be empty :)


RE: What is the outcry about?
By cknobman on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By cknobman on 1/15/2013 1:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
No edit really sticks.

injection should be injecting


RE: What is the outcry about?
By Da W on 1/15/2013 8:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you just stop wasting your life here and move on to other things.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/15/2013 2:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
You have got to be kidding. The game lets you shoot paper targets, not images of [simulated] living things. The difference is painfully obvious.

Also, the 'human shaped' targets as you call them, better known as silhouette targets, are used in real life to train with defensive weapons like handguns. Of course a training/safety game is going to have you shoot such targets, because otherwise it wouldn't be realistic.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By GotThumbs on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:19:05 PM , Rating: 1
Jason,

How about putting a Call of Duty scene instead of kungFu to represent all the first person shooter games out there.

Nice try to mellow out the violence in today games.

Bloggers really are the bottom of the barrel.

They always seem to have missed that communications course where that covers honest/unbiased reporting standards.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By 91TTZ on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: What is the outcry about?
By rangerdavid on 1/15/2013 2:29:38 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, some people want to ban all guns. Take a moment to learn why.

Some people what to ban certain kinds of guns. Take a moment to learn why.

Some people want to lift all bans on all guns. Take a moment to learn why.

We can't live in a functioning democracy if our citizens are not wise, reasoned, and informed. If you actually do the above, I think you'll be able to form a reasonable opinion about should and should not be done to curb gun violence.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2013 2:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
A gun is not violent. Just as a bat is not violent. It's what a person chooses to do with that object.

If you trip and fall to the ground, do you blame the ground for hitting you?

Deflecting blame/responsibility away from ones-self onto a person or object is a child's way of thinking.

Maybe we should start expecting more from all within our society, like getting back to greater self-responsibly for ones own choices/decisions in life.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By Ammohunt on 1/15/2013 9:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Deflecting blame/responsibility away from ones-self onto a person or object is a Liberals way of thinking.


There fixed that for you.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By 91TTZ on 1/15/2013 3:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with everything that you said. I'm very familiar with firearms since my dad was a range officer and ran a rifle range.

Most of the information cited in the media seems to be cherry-picked to draw the most emotional reaction. But there seems to be a lack of logic in nearly every article that I read. Some of it is intentional while other nonsense is just due to a simple lack of understanding of the topic.

For instance, one article I was reading asked the reader to ask themselves why guns like the AR-15 are legal when they shoot bullets that can pierce a cop's bulletproof vest. This implied that there was something special about the rounds an AR-15 fires that makes it extra powerful and therefore should be banned.

But if the reader had knowledge of the topic they'd instantly see that the statements are ridiculous. The truth is that nearly all rifles can shoot through a bulletproof vest. Most bulletproof vests are only certified to stop pistol rounds. The truth is also that the AR-15's rounds aren't especially powerful. Most deer hunting rifles fire much more powerful rounds. A .30-06 delivers nearly twice the energy that a .223 does.

Also, I have friends (who have no knowledge about guns) about their opinions and it seems that the media has shaped their opinion on "assault weapons". I showed them a picture of an SKS with a wood stock and they agreed that that's not what they want banned. Then I showed them a picture of an SKS with a black plastic stock and they strongly felt that this is what should be banned. When I told them that they're the same gun, they were confused.

I think most of the emotion in this argument is coming from the side that simply does not understand much about firearms. If they did they'd probably feel differently about them.


RE: What is the outcry about?
By Jim Vanus on 1/16/2013 12:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
To your very well made points, I would like to add:

The US Constitution doesn't grant rights. It acknowledges the rights that we already have. Our form of government is based on the principle that the government has only the authority ceded to it in the Constitution. Dox: Read the Constitution. Read Madison's writings on the Bill of Rights.

The burden of proof in regard to gun control is on the government, not the citizen, as is the case with any assumption of government power that violates the Constitution.

Our founding documents clearly make the case that governments are not to be trusted. It's only due to ignorance of these documents that people don't understand the significance of our government's attempts to ignore/override/breach the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Is the Constitution outdated? Read it and the writings of its creators before you decide. Actually, the answer to this question matters little because the Federal government pretty much ignores it and operates as a democracy rather than a republic, thus negating the protection afforded us by the Constitution. (A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.)

Governments have a very poor record of keeping their citizens safe, as evidenced by Russia, Nazi Germany and China, each of which killed 10's of millions of their own citizens after confiscation of all citizen-owned firearms.

As you pointed out, fully automatic weapons have been mistakenly lumped in with the term assault weapon. As a result of the 1934 National Firearms Act, every owner of an automatic weapon is registered with the Federal government. If one is stolen, the owner must immediately report the theft or be held accountable.

I suppose that one could make the argument that the lack of crime involving automatic weapons is due to registration, but criminals and the insane will not submit to a registration process.

The big difference between hunting rifles and military-style rifles is the increased magazine capacity, although 10-round magazines are offered for some of them. To further confuse the issue, AR-style rifles have become quite popular for hunting.

Homemade bombs are a much cheaper way to kill a crowd of people. Info on how to make them is freely available on the Internet.

A firearm is a tool which can be used for hunting, target shooting, competition, warfare or murder, depending on the motivation of its owner. Elimination of mass killings requires understanding of this motivation. Before defining a solution, understand the problem.

The media is complicit in a campaign to make this a very emotional and divisive issue. Instead of thoroughly investigating the circumstances of each incident and the motivation of the perpetrator, the media is an advocate for breaching the Constitution by promoting registration/confiscation of all firearms.


Let's recap
By KFZ on 1/15/13, Rating: -1
"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki