Feeds

back to article NRA: Video games kill people, not guns. And here's our video game

Just weeks after the vice-president of the US National Rifle Association blamed video games for gun crime, the outspoken organisation has released an iPhone video game. NRA: Practice Range is a first-person shooter available from the iTunes Store as a free app for iPads as well as Apple smartmobes. It incorporates a live feed of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

"I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US and even that was carried out with a series of explosive devices (and those were carried out with dynamite and pyrotol which are now controlled explosives)."

I'm intrigued too - the notable 1995 fertilizer/solvent bombing of a federal building killed 168, including 19 preschoolers, maybe he forgot about that one.

0
0
Boffin

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"a bit"

Wow what a generous gesture you've made.

Lets forget about the whole gun thing at the moment.

Clear your mind.

Now think of all the new/recent video games and movies that are being played/viewed by thousands/millions of people. Especially today's young people.

Games like Call of Duty, Sniper, Sniper 2, Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Borderlands, Hitman, Zombies, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

There are 205......Yes, 205 Shooter games on X-Box alone.

Now for the movies : Gangster Squad, The last stand, Django , Killing them softly, The Baytown Outlaws. Unchained, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Dred, Universal Soldier, The collection. etc.

Do you really think the use of "a bit" is accurate? Please stop lying to yourself, because we knew you were full of it from the start.

The most dangerous thing about any gun.......is the person holding it.

Best Wishes,

0
0
Silver badge

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

I think it's more like "the people with "missing screws"" and easy access to guns.

1
0

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

There is no "mistaken" belief at play here. Nothing "ensures" their safety. Not having hundreds of guns inside a mile radius of every child will however significantly reduce the risk of them being shot at. The counter-argument essentially boils down to: "my right to possess a lethal firearm is more important than any given child's right to keep on breathing". This is the one situation where the normally-idiotic " won't somebody think of the children" cliché is actually anything but.

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

"....Problem is, you can never know when an ordinary person is going to become one of the problem people...." Oh puh-lease, that is so weak it is beyond desperate! Apart from the several millions psychiatrists, sociologists and other doctors that might have a thing to say about identifying irational behaviour, you forget that human beings are trusted with the lives of hundreds of people every day. Going by your delusional idea of the frailty of the average human being's mind, we shouldn't let people be airline pilots or ocean tankers, or anything where one person could threaten the lives of others, because we're just so damn likely to snap! Complete tosh. Adam Lanza was noted for his extraordinary behaviour before the Sandy Hook killings but no-one outside his family was empowered to say "Should he be assessed to check it is OK he is (a) in a household with guns, or (b) out on the streets?"

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

" Over 1% of your entire population is under judicial supervision. Now tell me that segregating anyone who might cause a problem in American society is working."

Yes it is working. Its safer in the states than some other countries, and it feels safer too.

Don't confuse tv programs, the worst areas and the occasional lunatic with ordinary life.

Besides what would you do with people who want to hurt you? Prison is the best place for them.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time? When did you last see a shrink? When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?

With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight. They are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job, and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life. If you will agree to similar controls for guns (2 people required to pull the trigger, all gun users to have JAA equivalent medicals, and designed not to kill), I'm more than happy for you to have as many as you like.

1
1
Bronze badge
Big Brother

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"Cinema violence isn't what gets the censoring in the States in my experience: It's s3x... particularly anything homosexual. Name five Hollywood films where we've seen gay couples kissing"

Of course - though frankly - Gia, Boys don't cry et al. It's not homosexuality per se that Hollywood has a problem with it's male homosexuality. Then again maybe it's just that the movies don't have a huge mass-appeal on reflection. Plenty of movies about lesbians :)

Seriously though the number of movies that get a cut NC-17 in the US and later there's an unrated blu-ray release that's identical to the uncut UK cinematic release is starting to get a little shocking.

The big thing by the way in the US that you basically can't do ever for fear of the world ending is say "Jesus" in the profane. Child rape/murder is fine, so is chopping people up with a chainsaw, and rape but *you may not* say Jesus in the profane. Or not have an American flag appearing at least once in your movie.

Have a lot of friends in the US who thing the state is evil and cuts everything so I've done a remarkable volume of research on this in the past to shut them up. The BBFC will let you do basically anything as long as there's a point to it, i.e. it's useful to a plot. If you're chopping up kids for the sake of sexual gratification in your movie and there's not even a usable plot in there your movie isn't going to get a rating and shouldn't anyway. This is human centipede's problem - it's just stupid.

0
0
Silver badge
Angel

Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

From the "Now Is The Time" pamphlet outlining Obambi's Great Gun Law Revolution:

".....As President Obama said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” Today, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. While the vast majority of Americans with a mental illness are not violent, several recent mass shootings have highlighted how some cases of mental illness can develop into crisis situations if individuals do not receive proper treatment. We need to do more than just keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illness; we need to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before these dangerous situations develop....."

All you frothing libtards may start back pedalling now.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

"Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time?" No, I suggested we screen kids at stages in schools, which shouldn't be too hard seeing as we already assess them with IQ tests and then make them all do SATs. We can also not only require a screening as part of a gun licence application but also make licences require re-screenings every ten years or at least sign off by the family doctor.

".....When did you last see a shrink?....." None of your business.

".....When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?...." He'd probably tell me to tell you that's none of your business either.

"....,With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight....." Yes, but you stated we're all just so ready to go loopy at a moment's notice that there would be a chance BOTH pilots could decide to plant their jumbo in a skyscraper.

"...... are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job.....". Psych evals are not mandatory for a pilot's licence, and on long haul flights one pilot can often be in control whilst the other is sleeping, in the head or even eating. And the Exxon Valdez shows what could happen if a ship's captain went off the rails. BTW, how often do really big shipping incidents happen? Or airliner pilots go berserk? Fail!

"......and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life....." Are you kidding? Twin Towers mean anything to you at all?

1
1
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

Oh, and forgot to mention, Obambi also wants to let the Center for Disease Control look at the causes of violence, including <drumroll> video games! Well, it's his second term now, what does he care if he trashes the pimply male teen vote?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

"Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time?" No, I suggested we screen kids at stages in schools, which shouldn't be too hard seeing as we already assess them with IQ tests and then make them all do SATs. We can also not only require a screening as part of a gun licence application but also make licences require re-screenings every ten years or at least sign off by the family doctor.

----

You want to screen that many people every 10 years? Its a good thing that psychological problems take no less than 11 years to develop and screening is 100% guaranteed. No wait, neither of those things are true.

---

".....When did you last see a shrink?....." None of your business.

".....When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?...." He'd probably tell me to tell you that's none of your business either.

---

Congratulations, I think you just understood my point. You're proposing that you, and everyone else should be forced to see a shrink every 10 years, but apparently knowing when you did is noones business.

---

"....,With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight....." Yes, but you stated we're all just so ready to go loopy at a moment's notice that there would be a chance BOTH pilots could decide to plant their jumbo in a skyscraper.

---

Given I am aware of a single event of it happening with ONE pilot in the past 20 years world wide, and have never heard of it happening with 2, whilst I have lost count of the number of massacres LAST YEAR in the US alone, i think you're making a very clear and obvious false equivalence. Especially when JAA medicals are more often than every 10 years.... A JAA medical is valid for a YEAR.

----

"...... are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job.....". Psych evals are not mandatory for a pilot's licence, and on long haul flights one pilot can often be in control whilst the other is sleeping, in the head or even eating. And the Exxon Valdez shows what could happen if a ship's captain went off the rails. BTW, how often do really big shipping incidents happen? Or airliner pilots go berserk? Fail!

----

On a long haul flight, there are several changes of crew, more that 2 pilots. There is always 2 pilots on duty at any given time. AS for how often do they fail, you're right, its a big fail for you to even bring it up due to their relative scarcity

---

"......and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life....." Are you kidding? Twin Towers mean anything to you at all?

---

And this is where you once and for all lose the argumen by bringing up an emotive eventt. Planes are built with countless pieces of safety equipment to minimise the risk to life. They are designed to transport. What is your gun designed to do? End life.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"We seem to be able to pay for an awful lot of medical care (vaccinations for example) already in schools, "

They really are cheap and have a quick payback in saving on medical care when people don't get sick.

"adding a few cheap psychiatric tests to identify the potentially problematic... Whilst just about everyone seems to be in favour of screening people for conditions like sickle-cell anaemia, too many people object to psychiatric screening of chidren or young adults"

Sickle cell has an accurate test with a yes/no answer. There is no cheap test that can accurately give you a yes/no result (or an expensive one for that matter). So if they say someone has the potential of maybe going nuts what do you do? Lock them up just in case? They are already kicking people out on the street who need treatment. It seems the same people who want everyone to buy guns, also want to cut spending on medical care.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

And the power won't get to the teacher's head and turn him/her into a sadistic nut who shoots children in the arm over the wrong answer because?

Trust me, there are teachers like that. That was one of the main trauma points I went through in school. There was this one crazy rattan-wielding teacher who would beat the crap out of any student not paying attention, or worse, doing completely innocent things like running in the corridors. Complaining to the board of education didn't help- no action was taken.

0
0
Unhappy

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"Drugs are to blame"

See here:

http://cegant.com/commentary/school-shootings-and-psychiatric-drugs-update

0
0

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

Sure video games and movies desensitize people to violence, but desensitizing doesn't cross the threshold of irrational thought, leading to massacres.

"Come on Dad, shoot him in the head! Make it splode!" (said by an 8 year old girl watching Dad play games)

Said child does know the difference between video games and real violence, but is not traumatized to hear of it. You can tell the kid "those people were killed by a shooter" and she understands. You don't have to cover her eyes and ears.

That's what desensitizing means. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Children in war torn countries grow up desensitized to violence, but that doesn't mean they don't want it to stop.

2
0
FAIL

Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

"Obambi"? "Libtard"? You lose. Automatically.

1
1

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

Nice of you to start with personal attacks. It's not about ensuring the *absolute* safety of children, it's about relative safety. There are always nutters around who will do their best to damage or kill. Without easy access to firearms this does become a bit harder to do. You quote 2 multiple murders that didn't include guns. OK. Now list all the attacks with guns in the same period that killed 2 or more people, I think you might spot a flaw in your argument.

If Lanza had been in a "secure unit" then no, he wouldn't have killed anyone. He was a quiet kid and a bit of a loner up till the point he went postal (look up that reference if you like) - are you now proposing anyone who is a bit quiet of doesn't have many friends should be under psychiatric supervision or locked up?

Glad to see you don't swallow this video games BS though.

1
0

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

or...just don't give them access to guns?

"we should be seeing a dozen massacres a day every day" - look up the figures for gun deaths in the US.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"Yes it is working. Its safer in the states than some other countries, and it feels safer too.

Don't confuse tv programs, the worst areas and the occasional lunatic with ordinary life.

Besides what would you do with people who want to hurt you? Prison is the best place for them."

If you have to jail as many people as Stalin and still have a violent society, then something sure as hell isn't working.

Prison sentencing is now so harsh and poverty so rife that there is no motivation for potentially non-violent criminals not to go armed and willing to use a firearm. If you're doing 15 years for burglary anyway, why not carry a firearm? If the guy you're robbing probably has a firearm, what's the motivation to not carry one yourself? If you're doing 15 years if you get caught, then why go meekly when you can just kill someone and escape? I'm not saying let criminals all run free an unpunished, but clearly the US penal system is not working on some level. I never thought I'd say it, but overly harsh sentencing can have the opposite effect than desired.

"Besides what would you do with people who want to hurt you?" - Don't confuse a criminal with someone who wants to hurt you. Those are usually two different things. A criminal acts from self-interest and probably just wants some material gain. They aren't usually in it just to hurt people. Now we remove that from the equasion we're left with a stark question of "what do you do with someone who wants to steal a thousand dollars of stuff from you?" and a reasonable answer is not "Give them ten years in jail"... one or two maybe, but that's not how the US penal system works these days. If every crime results in serious time, then they all become equal in the minds of criminals whose only measure of morality is the personal consequence if they get caught. The moment that threatening someone with a firearm becomes pretty much the same as just robbing them the entire system starts to fail.

2
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

"which shouldn't be too hard seeing as we already assess them with IQ tests and then make them all do SATs."

Matt, I understand what you're driving at, but you are doing so without any understanding of mental health issues or psychometric and psychological testing. What your proposing simply does not and will not work.

Go back to the drawing board and think of a different solution.

"BTW, how often do really big shipping incidents happen? Or airliner pilots go berserk?"

I can think of at least two occasions where commercial pilots have deliberately flown a plane full of people into the ground after suffering a psychiatric break due to external factors. They were both pretty normal people up until a few weeks before the event.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

"Oh, and forgot to mention, Obambi also wants to let the Center for Disease Control look at the causes of violence, including <drumroll> video games! Well, it's his second term now, what does he care if he trashes the pimply male teen vote?"

Good... if it gets through the back door the CDC looking at gun-related factors, too. Because up until now there has been no data gathered and no CDC research into it because the NRA and the gun lobby successfully lobbied to PREVENT the CDC from even gathering the data.

1
1
Stop

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"You are locked in a room with ten people, at least one of whom potentially has a particulalry nasty venereal disease, and you have a kit that is the only way of detecting that disease before it reaches the final stages of infection. The final stages of the diseases is irreversible brain damage, causing violent paranoia and aggression, and there is a chance the diseased will stab someone with the cutlery you have in the room. In essence, you are suggesting not using the kit so as not to cause offence, but instead throwing the cutlery away. And - no - I am not advocating stabbing (or shooting) everyone else in the room first, or that giving everyone their own cutlery to defend themselves would remove the chances of someone eventually being stabbed, I am advocating identifying the diseased and keeping them away from the cutlery so as to reduce the chances someone gets stabbed, without leaving everyone else to eat with their fingers."

This is such a poor analogy. To make it more accurate:

* The cutlery should be, say swords: not essential, designed to cause damage

* The "kit" should have a high chance of false-positive and false-negatives: psychiatry is not infallible and requires the practitioner to use their subjective experiences to diagnose many cases

* Not everyone with the disease need reach the "final stage": far more people with mental illness do not react violently

So, in this analogy, why would you say that also locking the cutlery/sword away and only lending enough out as needed is more preferable to only relying on an unreliable test but letting everyone do what they want with the cutlery/sword?

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

".....Its a good thing that psychological problems take no less than 11 years to develop and screening is 100% guaranteed....." I would suggest even a blinkered fool like you might realise it is better than doing NOTHING, which is what currently happens until AFTER the nut has gone on a killing spree. Well, maybe if we use really short words and some crayons, that is.

"..... you're right, its a big fail for you to even bring it up due to their relative scarcity....." But it was YOU that insisted we're all so prone to going nuts. So, your FAIL.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Tom 35 Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

".....Sickle cell has an accurate test with a yes/no answer...." Psychoanalytical tests exist that score the respondent over a whole test, then if your score is in a certain range you are likely to be a psychopath (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2943160.stm). There are similar tests for depression, autism, Aspergers.... It's not the impossible speed-of-light rocket science you want to think it is.

".....So if they say someone has the potential of maybe going nuts what do you do? Lock them up just in case?...." How about simply send them to a psychiatrist for a proper evaluation? Oh, no, we couldn't possibly do that, it's not like there are already thousands of psychiatrists in the States....

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"....look up the figures for gun deaths in the US." Look up the figure for automabile accident deaths, then see if you want to start walking everywhere.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

".....If you have to jail as many people as Stalin....." Sorry, but if you're going to compare to Stalin then at least actually go read up on him first. During his Great Purge alone, the remaining NKVD's records show they were executing on average over 1000 people a day, and the NKVD wasn't even the only group killing and imprisoning people. That 1000 a day is not including those farmers beaten to death by Stalin's soldiers for hiding food or refusing to leave their lands, or teachers and other intellectuals that died in the Gulags or from ill-health after leaving the Gulags. Approximately 500,000 people were expelled from the Communist Party alone before and during the Great Purge, of which two-thirds are thought to have died either in prison or through execution. Without accurate records it is hard to say how many people Stalin was responsible for imprisoning, torturing, killing or all three together, but some put his "final score" at 6 million citzens of the Soviet Republics killed, out of eight million imprisioned. Somehow, I don't think the US prison system quite measures up to that.

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

I have to say that, for a change, I agree with Matt *partially*.

The reality is that in a free society, we have to accept that sometimes, someone somewhere is going to do this kind of thing. It is the price we pay for that freedom. It is precisely the same argument against freedom-killing terrorist laws. If a terrorist wants to make a bomb and blow people up, then they will do it regardless of the law. The *only* thing that stops this being a bigger problem than it already is, is our inate tendancy to *not* want to do it, our natural abhorrence of that act. And regardless of what some people would like to believe, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it other than create the kind of society that doesn't drive people to want to perform these unspeakable acts.

Despite the fact that some people believe that guns are primarily for killing (and in the main of course, they are), a lot of people shoot them at clubs for fun. It is a legitimate activity and I would feel very uncomfortable telling someone that they have to give up that freedom for some dubious affect it might have on psychopaths hell bent on murder. I might go as far as restricting the storage of guns used for leisure at prescribed high security lockers at gun clubs. I can see no reason why leisure weapons need be kept at home, since it is not lawful to use them there, at least in the metropolis. I see some room for discussion in this area.

*However*, I don't ascribe to the need to screen teenagers for "psychotic tendancies". It is wholly unreliable, and knowing full-well how our lords and masters are, the poor kid who showed up a false positive on that kind of test would be buggered for life. It is legitimate to take note of strange behaviour exhibited by anyone which might suggest that they have problems. Screening for potential future behaviour sounds too much like pre-crime for comfort to me and I don't think we want to go down that road.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"....The "kit" should have a high chance of false-positive and false-negatives:...." I see you have to "break" the conditions in your desperate attempt to evade the admission (as Obambi himself as finally admitted) that the problem is the nutter and that finding and treating them is key to stopping them develop into a nutter that goes on a shooting spree. If you still feel the need to (pointlessly) argue the points due to your ingrained prejudice against firearms, please address your dribbling to Mr B. Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

0
1

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

"I see you have to "break" the conditions"

What are you on about?

You created the conditions with your skewed analogy, I merely adjusted them to more accurately fit the actual problem. The "kit" you picked up on was (in your version) infallible, but in real life psychology/psychiatry are far from that.

If you actually read my post you'd see that I agree that the nutter was the cause of the incident, but to argue that guns aren't a catalyst in exacerbating the total damage done is an "ingrained prejudice" of its own.

If you argue that everyone should be allowed to own semi-automatic assault rifles, why not fully automatic? Why not grenades, rocket launchers, tanks? It's an argument of reductio ad absurdum, but where is the line?

As someone who has enjoyed firing rifles and consider myself good at it, I still don't understand why any person needs more than one firearm, nor why limiting it to a pistol, shotgun, or manually cocked rifle is a problem. Also, ammunition limiting. Why are questions not asked when someone buys 12,000 rounds of ammunition?

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

".... You created the conditions with your skewed analogy, I merely adjusted them to more accurately fit the actual problem....." So if it's a created analogy, how can your "adjustments" be more accurate? What you mean is you changed them to favour your argument rather than face the moral issue the scenario raised. A perfect example of the anti-gun crowd's denial. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating that.

"....If you actually read my post you'd see that I agree that the nutter was the cause of the incident, but to argue that guns aren't a catalyst in exacerbating the total damage done is an "ingrained prejudice" of its own....." So, millions of guns in America, but how many Adam Lanzas go on a spree? And are you still going to deny the best way to have prevented Adam Lanza killing anyone would have to been keeping Adam Lanza away from the public? Arguments about not infringing his rights seem rather hollow after you so unquestioningly demand the trampling of others' rights.

0
0

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

Well....knives, yes, or bombs, arson, motor vehicle onto a crowded sidewalk, etc. Where there's a will, there's a way.

The idea of arming teachers is not about passing out pistols every morning. The idea is to allow, (not force), teachers to carry concealed weapons and making everyone well aware of the fact that they may be armed, posting warning signs at the door. This is because there is a clear pattern showing that these psycho killers are seeking easy targets such as schools and movie theatres. It seems the psychos aren't so crazy as to attack bars where biker gangs or policemen hang out, prefering school children or at least defenseless people. It actually does make sense to in some way make schools a more difficult target.

1
0

Re: An NRA spokespersons said...missing screws in your social makeup

There is simply more media in the US, and far more media coverage than most places. If you go lookup per capita murder rate by country, it will be clear that the US is in fact middle of the road and nowhere near the top, as the abundant media would lead us to believe. In fact, I would argue the other way. There are more than 200 million firearms in 300 million US citizen's hands. One would think that there should be a massacre every 5 minutes. Since there isn't, they must be, generally, a very restrained people.

1
0

I'm intrigued to see that it's only iOS users who are thought to need this app.

0
4

This post has been deleted by its author

Paris Hilton

That's because NRA members don't have sufficient digits...

...to operate a keyboard!!

1
1
Law
Trollface

"I'm intrigued to see that it's only iOS users who are thought to need this app."

That's a blessing, already enough pointless crap in the play store without the NRA dumping stuff in there too.

0
1
WTF?

Go for it NRA !

Stand up for your princples, of being anti video games....er ?

1
1
JDX
Gold badge

They are against games where you shoot PEOPLE. A game where you practice shooting paper targets at a simulated gun range has nothing to do with that.

2
12

'They are against games where you shoot PEOPLE'

Really? Then why do a lot of gun ranges have a picture of a man on the target?

14
1
Anonymous Coward

I wasn't aware pixels, textures, and models were considered "people" now.

No wonder old people look so jaggy, flat, and talk about the war so much. They were probably in Wolfenstein 3D.

3
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Alpha Tony

"....Then why do a lot of gun ranges have a picture of a man on the target?" Because if you are teaching people to shoot in self-defence then it is the correct target to teach them bullet placement with. Your rediculous non-argument is like saying Olympic tae-kwondo atheletes should never spar against other people, just in case it makes them likely to go kick someone in the street. Epic fail of the mindless PC drone variety.

3
28
Anonymous Coward

@Alpha

Military and self defence targets with the purpose of helping a soldier or someone who wishes to be prepared to defend themselves/family to get a good grouping in the right areas to stop an assailant.

Personally I prefer knock down targets and paper targets with scoring rings to improve my accuracy as I go to the range for a relaxing shoot. Something I find very good at relieving stress. Not because I can shoot something to bits, that will only work you up. But instead to control your breathing, improve your concentration, practice hand-eye coordination and do so in a respectful and enjoyable environment.

If any gun nutters come in (never seen one) they are directed to the door. Instead I see people who shoot for a variety of pleasant reasons as a social event in a nice environment.

5
0

@Matt

I wasn't saying they should not shoot at targets with people on them Matt, I was just comparing that to shooting people in a computer game. In most games the people you shoot are trying to kill you, so it is simulated self-defence, just like your target shooting.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Alpha Tony - meet omega bryant

epic fail

by your own.....logic

Teaching people to shoot a target with a person on it, trains them to shoot people. PERIOD.

self defence/se (lol) has nothing to do with it.

The sparing argument is equally spurious as in such an event - the sparee is available after the event to face the consequences of his/her actions - which the legaly held, gun toting, fuck you cruel world, nra member fuckwits who _routinely_ commit these outrages never are.

epic fail of the facist redneck nutjob variety.

quelle surprise!

7
3
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Alpha Tony

"'....Then why do a lot of gun ranges have a picture of a man on the target?' Because if you are teaching people to shoot in self-defence"

Got it.

So computer games where you shoot people are bad because they teach you to kill.

But computer games where you shoot round targets are ok.

Teaching someone to shoot people-shaped targets is ok because you learn how to defend yourself by killing someone.

And teaching someone to shoot round targets isn't very good, because it fails to teach people how to kill people properly.

But teaching people to kill people with a pretend computer-gun is bad, still.

I totally get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

5
0

Re: @Alpha

"Personally I prefer knock down targets and paper targets with scoring rings to improve my accuracy as I go to the range for a relaxing shoot. Something I find very good at relieving stress."

Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range? No need to take it home with you. You get to keep the right to let off a few rounds, everyone else gets the right to stay alive - sorted!

3
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: @Matt

".....I was just comparing that to shooting people in a computer game. In most games the people you shoot are trying to kill you, so it is simulated self-defence, just like your target shooting." But you are not playing the game to learn self-defence techniques. Or if you are then you're already in trouble, TBH. Agreed, if you are just shooting on the range for fun and not learning bullet placement or practising/demonstrating self-defence techniques, then shooting at man-shaped targets could be a possible cause for concern. But I don't remember ever meeting anyone that said to me "I play CoD so I know what to do if an armed criminal breaks into my house".....

0
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Alpha Tony - meet omega bryant

".....Teaching people to shoot a target with a person on it, trains them to shoot people. PERIOD....." Agreed. No, seriously, don't have a fit as I am actually agreeing with you. If I want to teach someone to shoot for competition I use a competition target. If I'm shooting a shotgun then it's at clay pigeons. I'd only currently use a man-shaped target if there were no other range targets available.

".....self defence/se (lol) has nothing to do with it......" I actually can't remember the last time I shot at a man-shaped paper target, but that was what I was taught with when I was taught bullet-placement against an armed opponent as self-defence. Sometimes foul language alone just won't get the job done.

".....nra member ....." I would suggest you be very careful about insisting that all those shooters are NRA members, the NRA has a very active legal department and don't take kindly to libel or slander. However, the statement is very revealing as to your uninformed, bigoted opinions.

".....epic fail of the facist redneck nutjob variety....." Adam Lanza was not a redneck, neither was Marc Lépine (Canada), Ove Conry Andersson (Sweden), Thoma Hamilton (Scotland), John Higgins (New Zealand), or Alaa Abu Dhein (Israel) to name just a few. You might want to read up on the latter as that attack was ended by an armed student shooting and killing the attacker. Oh, no you won't, as that was just the Eeeeeevul Jooooooos, and you already exposed your equally groundless prejudice against Jews in a number of your earlier diatribes in other threads. In short, this is just another case of your overwhelming desire to rant at anyone that disagrees with your POV, regardless of facts. Consider yourself slapped down. Enjoy!

0
2
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Alpha Tony

".....So computer games where you shoot people are bad because they teach you to kill....." No. Do they de-sensitise you to violence? Possibly, but then if you want to ban on those grounds we'd have to look at banning all mentions of violence, which means even Wagner's operas, Marley's "I shot the Sheriff" and Shakespeare are equally deserving of banishment.

".....But computer games where you shoot round targets are ok....." Why not? Are you suggesting a campaign against the archery game on Wii Sports?

".....Teaching someone to shoot people-shaped targets is ok because you learn how to defend yourself by killing someone....." Yes. For a civillian being taught self-defence they may use nice terms like "incapacitate" but the reality is you are being taught to shoot places where fatal wounds will most likely result. Equally, if you are planning on shooting deer, you should be trained with an appropriate target that has the right aiming points marked. But if all you're doing is range shooting then round targets should be fine.

"......And teaching someone to shoot round targets isn't very good, because it fails to teach people how to kill people properly....." Rapper 50 Cent was shot nine times with a "9mm handgun" by a street gangster who scored nine hits out of nine bullets fired, which is actually quite good shooting and should have been more than enough, but 50 Cent is a walking example of where bullet placement was not taught. In his case a good thing, but if it was an armed intruder in your house you might want to be sure you were going to "incapacitate" him or he may get lucky and kill you Would you want to give him the chance? So, no, for self-defence training you should learn with a target meant for the job.

".....But teaching people to kill people with a pretend computer-gun is bad, still....." The NRA game is not designed or intended to teach people to shoot other people, quite the opposite. But modern soldiers and SWAT teams are taught tactics and even bullet placement with simulators which could be thought of as games.

0
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.