@Skizz

Great idea if you know nothing about guns. I mean that honestly because it does sound like a great idea at first. But a range is open for a limited amount of time and you go to do what you went for, to shoot.

If you cant take the gun home then you require the club to have additional facilities for cleaning and maintenance. While a lot of people will just clean, there are those (still quite a few) who will need to disassemble the gun. We can all buy the tools but then more storage is needed, or tools can be supplied but thats a lot of variations of various tools for various model guns from various countries.

Then there are customisations which people do to the trigger/sights/etc. Sometimes the gun needs taking to a shop/workshop other times its a home job. If your comfortable pulling apart and rebuilding the gun you may not be comfortable not doing it yourself. Just as a mechanic may service his own vehicle.

So I appreciate the idea but it doesnt work.

Then there is the right to self defence in the US. People still die through many ways to die, but criminals still shoot people and more violent crimes are committed as is often the way when only the criminal is allowed to be armed. Wanting to disarm potential victims is counter intuitive.

Re: Alpha Tony

"Possibly, but then..."

You miss the point of the post, which was to point out the absurd stupidity of the NRA's hypocritical and laughable position regarding video games as opposed to their own hobby.

"which could be thought of as games." - Which doesn't make it 'good', by-the-by. Pretty much by definition, being part of a society where it is required that some of us have to realistically train to deliberately take the life of others is not 'good' when considered objectively. Necessary: Yes. But it's never a 'good' thing. Police snipers who put bullets into brain stems do not have a 'good' job.

"So, no, for self-defence training you should learn with a target meant for the job." - That's not really self-defence training. Don't mince words. Self-defence training is how to avoid the situation in the first place and/or to GTFO of it. Drawing a weapon with the intention of precisely placing shots to kill someone as fast as possible means that the 'self defence' part has kinda failed, and that you're into the realms of 'killing the other guy training'.

Again: There are situations where that's the last-ditch resort, but that's what it should be. Putting firearms in the hands of people suddenly seems to turn it into the first option all too easily. So let's not mess around and try to call it 'self defence' in order to try to make it morally all just peachy in our minds.

@Matt B, Re: @Alpha

"......Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range?...." And what if you bought the gun for self-defence - going by statistics, in the States the place you're least likely to need to defend yourself is the range!

Am I the only one noticing that you just completely ignored the point Alpha was making? He simply stated that people who just have guns for the explicitly stated purpose of making holes in innocent targets on a range could leave the gun there. In many countries this is actually the preferred approach to gun ownership, but it does present other problems (cleaning, storage, extra security against burglaries etc).

As for needing a gun to "defend yourself at home", that's exactly the kind of circular argument that the NRA continues to promote against the evidence of other nations where registration and even reduction of ownership was brought in, knowing full well that more uncontrolled guns means the chances of an armed assault increase, thus conveniently fuelling sales. Not exactly a surprise.

Incidentally, why do you need to defend yourself at home? No police around? Bad place to live (above the statistical mean)? Have you considered moving as an option? Expecting terrorists?

Re: @Skizz

@ AC

Are you then saying that in states where carrying concealed weapons is permitted there is no criminal gun activity?

Re: @Mooseman

No but in the UK we have gun crime and really sick home invasions where old people are raped/robbed/harmed. We have people killed in their own homes but generally we dont want to discuss the lack of home defence. Instead we call in the police after the event.

We also have issues with other weapons because they are easier to obtain, but we have victims with no hope of self defence.

The argument can be made very simple- will it stop crime by disarming potential victims and make them easier to harm/rob/rape? The police are necessary but they dont stop these crimes. They come in after the crime. So who is going to save you when the criminal is already illegally armed and your legally disarmed. Who survives? Who has the best chance to survive?

Re: @AC@Mooseman

Are you genuinely from the UK AC? I'm not convinced you really are, but if so then you are in a really, really tiny minority. British people are overwhelmingly in favour of strict gun control and I guarantee you that if you asked 1000 at random ~99% would say that relaxing gun control here would make them feel less safe.

@Alpha Tony

I am in the UK but I do know I am in the minority. A friend introduced me to shooting and I admit to having the same clueless numpty beliefs that they were gonna be nutters with huge guns wanting to blow shit up. However I have been to a few ranges and have yet to see a single nutter. Not one person I expected to see has yet materialised and the story is the same for a lot of people who got introduced to shooting.

In the UK we are badly misinformed. We see stories of shootings but much less about the many violent crimes we have come to accept. But thats ok because its not a gun and guns are bad coz thats the general consensus.

I feel bad having a go at those anti-gun without a clue (most against shooting) people because its just that they havnt a clue and regurgitate the rubbish they have been told. A very good example is of my family. None of them shoot and are absolutely against it except my grandad who was in the army and my grandma (other side) who has handled air guns (but wont shoot). My mother is absolutely blind, like a lot of anti gun nutters, and assumes only nutters go shooting and its too scary for her to think of shooting. My dad disapproved on similar grounds until after 3 years of offering he went. I think he expected to prove me wrong but when he came back it wasnt the experience he expected.

He has been to the range twice with me and isnt really interested, because he found my semi-auto air pistol more enjoyable than having to reload the rifles each shot. However he actually tries to persuade my mother to go because she is so badly wrong it is shocking.

So I agree with you about what you say. But I know the reason why it is true and why it is wrong. Imagine the country being 99% creationist and you are part of the 1% who know better? This is why I recommend people go to the range before commenting. There will still be people against guns, but they will actually have a reason. There will also be a massive relaxation as people realise that what they oppose is a monster under the bed that exists in their minds.

Shurikens!

Out of boredom I once used a hole punch on the entire edge of a CD. It turned out to be a little more dangerous than I'd expected.

Re: Hyper violent "Worms"

Send in an exploding sheep.

Problem solved.

>>I been gaming for years, including the hyper violent "Worms" series of games, can't recall ever going out and killing anybody though

Your argument is like a nonagenarian smoker claiming that because they haven't developed cancer, smoking doesn't kill.

Wassa matter JDX, get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

@JDX

'Worms'... its a variation on Scorched Earth with small cute worms and tongue in cheek references to war films. In terms of graphic violence, its on a par with plastic toy soldiers. However, it might tempt you to smack the smirk off your mate's face after he's just bungie-roped across the map to uppercut your last worm into the sea.

@Matt Bryant - fuck no, I'm a motorbikerist, walking is for car owners. Anyhow, I figured I'd look at some figures.

In 2011 a massive 32,367 people in the US died due to automotive accidents. By 2015 it's estimated that deaths by firearm will top 33,000 (cars get safer, guns get more deadly) so over the next 100 years as cars get safer (and start to drive themselves improving safety again) the number of people dying will steadily drop so over 100 years.... far less people will die from car accidents than will die from firearm related incidents, including but not limited to, using a gun as a hammer.

Fatal flaw in argument

Are a lot of 'fatal automobile accidents' a result of someone hitting a pedestrian with a car?

12 million Americans will die because of guns

it's not anough i say!

only serious

Re: Fatal flaw in argument (Cars...)

The difference of course with Cars is that Cars are designed to minimise the risk of injury to both bystanders and occupants

The same cannot be said for those targeted by a gun.

Car safety??

@David, as cars get safer (and start to drive themselves improving safety again)

You're on a tech site and utter the assumption that v1 of that software will be bug free? That's almost as brave as not wearing a bullet proof vest when Matt is around :)

".....and start to drive themselves...." So you'll only be walking until they start driving themselves then?

As I pointed out, I don't drive cars, nor do I shoot people, or own a gun, but I have no desire to actually get my car licence (I'm happy with my motorbike licence). Your argument was that more people die in car accidents in the US and that over 100 years more people would have died from car accidents than from shooting accidents. My counterpoint was that in 2 years more people in the US will die from gun related incidents than from car related incidents.

Your entire argument about cars is a moot point, cars are getting safer and safer all the time, hopefully within 100 years the annual fatalities from motor vehicles will be in the triple or even double digits in the US whilst the gun related fatalities will still be in the six digits per year. Or in other words, the argument about cars killing more people doesn't hold any water and is about as logical as blaming videogames for violence.

"Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?"

I think you missed the important word in your own post there Matt - "ACCIDENTS"

Life isn't 100% safe, we all tend to die of something. I would prefer it not to be some tw@t with a gun who thinks his right to bear arms is more important than other people's lives.

Re: What irks me about their argument

I just wonder what it'll actually take for culture to change

I doubt the culture is capable of change.

This happens over and over again and each time, there's outrage and shock and horror for a short while, and then they get distracted by something else and forget about it until the next atrocity is committed.

America, as a culture, just seems to accept that the cost of having their lax gun laws is that every now and again, a school full of kids or teenagers has to be wiped out. And the powers that be in America seem to be perfectly happy with that concept.

but the only place where regular mass shootings occur...

If we're focusing specifically on school shootings, I don't think either guns or games can be blamed because other countries have high gun ownership. It's something about the US' collective psyche.