http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/nra-vs-old-video-games-sales-numbers/60257/ the NRA has discovered the reason for all these mass shootings. and surprisingly its not the insistence of the NRA to arm babies as they leave their mother's vagina. no its something that infinitely increases violence in a far more direct manner. violent video games. we all know that every person who has every played any video game that has the slightest violence in it( i'm looking at you mario) as a body count in double digits and the really hardcore gamers who play FPS and violent fighters easily surpass the triple digit mark for bodies. i mean who would of thought something that study after study showing games have no effect on violent crime would be wrong while trying to shove as many guns into as many hands regardless if the reciepients intend or are able to use them properly could have any effect on such horrible instances. ok now that the gamer in me has gotten the snark and sarcasm out of me lets get to the meat of my argument. ok the NRA rather than admit its insistence that their be any sort of responsibility or accountibilty when it comes to gun ownership and usage has a negative impact on society they would rather attack a hobby that has been conclusively shown to not create these mass shootings so as to avoid taking responsibility for the harm their ideas have caused. the simple fact when their is any propossal that could even have a chance of reducing tragedies such as sandy hook the NRA will be at the forefront protesting them. the simple fact is once again a right wing orginization is attacking others rather than take responsibility for things that could have been prevented had they not been hell bent on pushing their agenda damn the cost. the sad part is new laws will be passed on mature rated violent video games( perhaps even an AO rating which is even more a kiss of death that an NC-17 rating is for movies) while laws restricting guns or making it harder for the damaged and/or violent to use guns to lash out at the world will be opposed by this ignoble and dishonorable group.
It's getting harder and harder to pick out the most absurd comment to come out of the Sandy Hook incident but the whole "gaming" thing certainly ranks up there somewhere. Source. (one of many googled at random)
It was video games, of course it makes total sense! Video games reduce crime! The very fact crime in the USA has been going down since the 1990's and video game playing has gone up and up since then proves that at the very least video games aren't causing enough crimes over some other factor which has been reducing crime and at best that video games are part of the reason crime is going down!
It is down right amazing the lengths the NRA will go to avoid admitting it's guns for everyone Policies have negative impacts.
Any politician that utters the words "Gun Control" is doomed to fail. The only hope for Ethics and Politics to mesh up is extended terms in office. Let Every presidential term be 8 years with a maximum of 16, or at least an increase of sorts. Let's pretend the world would END if Kyoto terms were not met. People would still vote for the least tax cuts and policies that would leave them the most money. The world would end. A republican society fails to help the greater good in many causes as most Voters educate too slowly to lead the country.
I'd love to say this is just grandstanding by the gun-toting right, but even liberals are getting in on the act. One of the senators getting in on this is Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat. I mean, okay, so he's a Democrat from West Viriginia, but still. Even David Axelrod made some comments about how violence is depicted in the media.
Nah. It's not video games or violent movies. It's because you're all girly men and you need real manly men with buckets to take down a shooter.
Well, it's an interesting premise. I'm not sure how one would remedy it. Presumably it would be equivalent in costs. But it's possible that an a male teacher would have tackled him. Or maybe they would have run away. I don't know how her premise could be implemented.
He was tackled by the principal and school psychologist and both are dead. It was her line about "huskier 12 year olds" that got me. No, really.. Imagine making "huskier 12 year old boys" go and tackle a shooter because well, they're male and all. But no, in her mind, public schools and society in general are turning men into sissy's and that it is only real men who can apparently survive being shot from a semi-automatic and be able to not only tackle him, but disarm him as well. And then the janitor with his mop bucket could have also disarmed him... Because when faced with a man armed to the teeth with a semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols, all you need is a mop bucket and a penis.. Her premise is simple. So there you go boys. Your penis makes you unstoppable and apparently able to survive being shot multiple times.. Between her and the NRA, it is hard to tell who suffers the most from mental retardation.
I like the idea of treating guns likes cars: require a registration on every gun, a license to use a gun and gun insurance. They got the balls, they got to use 'em! Think about it: "balls" define courage in our social slang, while 'pussy' means cowardice!
You can't. Cars are a privilege, guns are a Constitutional right. But the language there carries a side of the matter apparently invisible to those not personally in touch with the American faction involved: the "nanny state" hassles imposed on cars and drivers is exactly the kind of stuff even reasonable adn otherwise amenable gun owners are worried about. The fear of guns being treated as cars are, as leverage points for imposing petty tyrannies on their operators, as the focus of absurdities, worthless expenses, stupid impositions, and bureaucratic hassles, is one reason otherwise sensible people seem to be willing to side with nutjobs and simply reject all parts of that camel pushed into their tent, regardless of justification. My childhood family could not have driven to church legally under current law, in our family car that was all we could afford - and my dad was the preacher. We are required to burn extra gasoline (more carbon dioxide, etc) in my area to make up for the expensive and rust vulnerable catalyitic converters we are also required to buy, because in California nitrogen oxides are worse for air quality than sulphur oxides (the opposite of my area). You can lose your driver's license for not keeping up with the child support court assigned when you had a job. You have an explosive bag aimed at your thumbs and face, capable of killing your children in the front seat, capable of causing permanent hearing loss,and you can't remove it regardless of whether you wear your seat belt or not (which makes it redundant for safety) or are a musician whose entire career now rides on a minor rear-end bump in the snow. These guys own cars. The DMV is famous among them. What that comparison is, is a threat. It will not persuade anyone not already in line.
Well then we can just fine people for not having those things rather then "impound" their gun, that should get around the 2nd amendment. As for the nanny state many other countries have stricter gun laws and less gun violence, why is it such a slippery slope that we will end up with total socialist dystrophy just by having stricter gun laws, they aren't!
I'm sure you are aware that if we put aside all the histrionics the issue boils down to politics. The fundamentalist right can not afford to show "weakness" by allowing gun control of any kind to appear viable. Nanny state aside, Americans take their guns seriously and react on a very emotional level when confronted with facts, logic and evidence on point. An entire social paradigm shift would be required to to make headway here. It's possible that Sandy Hook will prove to be the tipping point but I wouldn't hold my breath. Americans need (and should retain) the right to possess their beloved firearms... but assault weapons? Really? Please... This country needs to wake up and smell the coffee. There is a distinct difference between keeping a shotgun to shoot squirrels and varmints or even carrying a 9mm Glock for self defense and amassing an arsenal of semi/full automatic assault riles. No different than any other American, I do not want to surrender my hunting guns or my sidearms but I recognize the need for a balance. Secure the weapons or lose them. How hard is that? Why is this so very hard to form a consensus on?
wow, how horrible that SOCIETY expects something back from people, ie RESPONSIBILITY and a contribution to the facilities they use. You know? user pay? THAT'S what registration is for, to pay a portion of the roads that those car owners use As for licensing, how terrible that we expect people to actually know how to use the machines they use in a safe manner before giving them open slather
And I agree an assault rifle ban is more like to come about then gun licensing, but honestly its effect on gun use will be minor, only a few percentage points of gun crimes in the USA are committed with those weapons. At the very least could we have nation gun registration, all guns, registered?
Guns don't cause crime. America has millions of gun owners and most of them never use their guns to commit crimes. Violent video games, movies and TV shows don't cause crime, either. Millions of people enjoy these every day and never go on killing sprees. Crazy people are going to do crazy things regardless of the inanimate objects politicians try to ban.
Strawman. No one has ever said that guns cause crime. What guns do--particularly semi-automatic ones--is make crime easier and more efficient. For example, if you want to kill everyone in the room, are your odds of success higher with a butcher knife, or an assault rifle? You can't just pretend that guns have no role in this. You can't simply exchange a gun for a knife or a brick and say that they're just tools of crazy people, because one of those tools makes the act of being crazy a lot easier.
I'd like to see a gun registry, but again, without some major concessions from the gun lobby, how does anyone enforce a meaningful penalty? The most likely short-term answer is a ban on assault rifles, which I would count as a victory. I'd be queasy as hell about losing my right to own one, but I'd understand the logic. And, frankly, it would make mass shootings all the more difficult. Most of those events--from Sandy Hook to the the movie theater shooting--feature semi-automatic weapons.
How would gun registration have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting? And anyone who is even remotely competent with a gun could have achieved a similar body count with a couple of revolvers and shotguns. I'm a gun owner and life member of the NRA and I actually agree that banning all guns would reduce shootings. It's just logic, in the same way that banning alcohol would reduce DUIs. The problem you face is convincing millions of gun owners to forfeit their rights over something that an overwhelming majority of them wouldn't do in the first place.
