Obama calls for study into games ‘n’ guns link
US President Barack Obama has called for a study into whether computer games are a cause of gun violence. Obama yesterday (UK time) announced a set of measures to control guns, among them regulations to more promptly trace firearms used in crimes that will probably mean DBAs in the US public sector get a hurry-up. The main …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Follow the chain of logic.
I do, but the availability of guns means the shitheads have an easy time committing these mass murders.
In the developed nations which have controlled guns it's blindingly obvious, just as it was obvious the US healthcare system was a giant for-profit scam at the expense of the people.
The corporate propaganda has been far too effective at conditioning Americans into accepting frequent mass shootings as "a price worth paying" along scapegoating everything but the guns.
Re: @silent_count
Cars have a purpose beyond killing people. Guns don't.
@HP Cynic
Brains have a purpose beyond spouting rubbish but it is the person using it who defines its purpose. If that is the only purpose you see for the gun then you have a huge hole in your knowledge. You will find that hunting does not define people, and it often expressly forbids hunting people. But if like me you are not into killing then go to a target range and get an education. The benefits of shooting are plenty.
Once you try at least shooting on a range then respond to me. Otherwise stick to what you do know because guns is not one of those.
@silent_count
I am not american either. I just wanted to point out the leap in your logic but personally I think average joe should be able to have a gun. Average joe is not a criminal, he lives within the law and the law isnt ment to be there to oppress him. So the legal and perfectly legitimate act of wanting a gun makes perfect sense, as long as they are not a violent criminal or mentally unreliable (not average joe).
To me this applies as enjoying shooting on the range for the many benefits of doing so. It isnt a place for muppets (I havnt even seen any at any of our ranges) who want to spray bullets and destroy. Instead it is a nice atmosphere where you can relax, learn to control your breathing, improve hand/eye coordination, learn patience and generally socialise.
I also understand the self defence part of the argument. A criminal is already unconcerned about the law. So it is very possible (likely) they will be armed with intent. Their choice of weapon is based on requirement/accessibility but even in the UK a handgun can still be obtained reasonably cheap.
The laws absolutely restricting guns takes them out of the hands of the law abiding, the criminal is still armed. However on the other side you dont want to give guns to just anyone because the law should be to protect the law abiding.
Re: @HP Cynic @AC 11:58
'Once you try at least shooting on a range then respond to me.'
I have shot on the range, and the only gun I own is a replica 1642 Tower Pattern musket, complete with rest.
The former was, however, not done with the latter.
I have 'shot' arrows at a target with great pleasure on a 'range', (actually a longbow and other plain bows on improvised butts in a mates back garden) but have never felt the desire to load ball in my musket, despite having easy legal access to Black Powder ( I have a licenced store with 15Kg).
I only own the musket as I use it in re-enactments. (Note, *not* LARP)
I have never understood the insistance of Americans that the Constitution gives them the 'right' to carry high powered hand guns in concealed holsters in public places whilst going about their everyday business.
The poor excuse that an armed citizen deters a criminal attacker holds no water, it merely ensures that the attacker is *more* likely to be similarly armed, as they will anticipate encountering armed resistance.
I think that you will find that the vast majority of 'gun crime' in the UK is involved with gang disputes, where the protagonists expect each other to be armed. Contrast this with burglaries, where the criminal is more likely to be 'armed' with a crowbar at most.
I am posting AC on this, due to the information about by Explosives store.
Re: @silent_count
"Cars kill people but who wants to ban them?"
Stupid diversionary comment. See above.
@AC 13:29
You dont understand shooting a gun but you enjoy archery. Ok there is a difference. Now lets assume you are a child hating little man making up for his lack downstairs by buying bow/arrows and thinking he has any rights as a law abiding citizen to hold such deadly (if misused) weapons (tools). Who would try to understand you because you obviously dont care about anyone but yourself nor are you possibly a good person because you must want to make child killers and children into killers because you deserve no understanding.
I understand your desire to launch arrows at a target and cause no harm. But the above is what I face from people who (as you said) dont understand. But I am tolerant of others pursuits. I dont condone crime. There is a huge difference and great importance over the difference.
If we want to save lives then everyone should be confined to their homes.
Re: @silent_count
"Cars have a purpose beyond killing people. Guns don't"
For many people guns have a purpose other than killing. You're not one of them, hence your reflex to dismiss this usage. What you have said boils down to "I have no use for it, there there is no use"
more scientific study about our members’ products. We welcome more evidence-based research...
Because scientific study and evidence based research has such a great track record with American's, doesn't it? Afterall, it put those Intelligent Design people in their place.... oh wait...
Double blind test
The only meaningful science will be delivered by the double blind test: Half the kids shoot realistically depicted humans and the other half shoot cute bunnies. The doctors follow the game skills and, within a century or so, amass the statistics to tie the games to shooting rampages. Of course, doctors and players have to wear blindfolds to avoid biasing the results.
But seriously, with almost every kid playing video games (exceptions might almost be an indicator for a socially defunct environment), how do they want to address causality?
“Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds. We don't benefit from ignorance. We don't benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.”
Nice to see that the president isn't deciding anything in advance.
It's nice to see the commentards taking this seriously.
You'll not get such frivolity from me though, as I only played cabinet games from the eighties - so far today i have delivered some newspapers, released some oil from my spy car and rescued a princess that was held hostage by a large monkey on a building site.
Sir
" I only played cabinet games from the eighties"
I've blown up a death star, but I seem to have misplaced my X-Wing otherwise I'd be outta here already.
Resident Evil made Want to Buy a Gun
First person shooters didn't cause me to go and shoot people - but they did raise pique interest in buying my own gun and teaching the kids to shoot. Especially Resident Evil - the guns are just so cool.
The US Army got concerned in the 90s about how so many new recruits were coming in and scoring perfectly on the firing range without ever having used a weapon before. Turns out that Duck Hunt (and games like it) were responsible.
Do video games cause violent outbreaks?...Nah...But they do improve accuracy.
A more realistic study would be looking into the use of psychiatric drugs; I don't think I've heard of any mass shootings where the perpetrators had not been on some kind of anti-depressant other substance that affects brain chemistry. Doubt that would happen because big Pharma is a big political campaign contributor.
"A more realistic study would be looking into the use of psychiatric drugs; I don't think I've heard of any mass shootings where the perpetrators had not been on some kind of anti-depressant other substance that affects brain chemistry. Doubt that would happen because big Pharma is a big political campaign contributor."
Somehow I doubt that'd fly!
Though to be fair, pretty much anything can affect brain chemistry radically; from five beers to the Pill.
Motes and beames
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beame that is in thine owne eye?"
Where, in the USA, do you find the heaviest concentration of large-scale computerized wargaming? The Pentagon.
And where, in the USA, do you find the heaviest concentration of responsibility for shooting, bombing, and otherwise murdering people? The Pentagon.
Of course, the Pentagon does (or at least is supposed to) obey a higher authority - the President. Mr Obama, why don't you take a look in your own eye?
Wheres my plane?
i play a lot of flight sims and can start aircraft such as AT-6, various cessna's. A-10 and the KA-50 helo from the ramp and fly perfectly and legally.
Oddly when i asked to be a pilot they laughed despite explaining if games = killers games should also = pilots right?
Other nations have guns, other nations play games only the USA seems to have the level of mass gun murders causing these issues. Can't be anything about their culture though they are perfect must be the games.
well at least GTA V should be released before any study is finished
"well at least GTA V should be released before any study is finished"
Man, it would be ironic if it's condemned for encouraging violence, seeing as it's a game entirely modelled on American street culture.
That'd be like condemning Dowton Abbey for encouraging upper class English people to speak in upper class accents.
Farmville
And while they are avout it, they should study the link between those who play Farmville often and then go to become actual farmers.
Agenda
The agenda of the politicians is to disarm the population, and to reduce freedoms. That's what has to be critical here, the corrosion of the very constitution that is there to prevent politicians acting corruptly.
Re: Agenda
This may surprise you but the government does not want toi disarm you to make you passive. If they want to make you passive they have a nice little chain to go through:
1. Law enforcement with sidearms
2. Law enforcement with Kevlar/assault rifles/armoured trucks
3.Armed forces with assault rifles
4. Armed forces with tanks/apc's
5. Predetor drones
6. Helicopter gunships and fast jet's
7. cruise missiles
8. Nuclear, Biological or chemical weaponry
Now do you really think your ar-15 having a 30 round or a 10 round clip is going to make much of a difference when the "evil empire" comes after its people? you might get all the way to number 2 on that chain. The right to bear arms is fine but for target shooting/hunting/personal defense you don't need a 30 round assault rifle (if you do need 30 rounds your doing it wrong) and the whole militia against the government doesn't really add up when said government spends more on military weaponry then some nations have entire GDP output.
Re: Agenda
...you don't need a 30 round assault rifle...
Which is a bit redundant. <sarcasm>What good would an assault rifle be if it only held 3 rounds?</sarcasm> The term "assault weapon" under the now-defunct assault weapons ban was by-and-large a BS distinction. It banned the way guns could look and had little to do with their actual function. Yes, some of the law had to do with the ability to accept high-capacity magazines, but if a gun can accept a clip, it typically can take an arbitrarily-sized clip. To me, this indicates that the politicians inflicting enacting the law either received their education from Hollywood, or the law was actually meant to do something other than what was claimed.
I would much rather see laws linked to the function of the items for which the legislation is passed. If we as a society want to restrict the function of guns to self defense and sporting activities, then it makes sense to stipulate that clips can hold no more than a certain number of rounds rather than that they cannot look bad-ass.
Similarly, I have reservations concerning the implementation of a mental health qualification on background checks. It is not that I don't want to keep weapons (guns, swords, bombs) out of the hands of the severely mentally ill. Rather, I feel the emphasis should be on general treatment, something that had its state support largely defunded during the Reagan administration (or perhaps under Bush I). Generally, therapists and other mental health professionals are not trained to predict who among their patients are likely to commit a violent crime, gun-related or otherwise, and those that are so trained do not have a very good track record for correct identification. I believe treating the population as a whole to mitigate the underlying issues is more likely to have good results, but focusing so tightly on gun violence-related mental health issues (versus mental health issues as a while) does an disservice to those in need of care.
Finally, if this is a societal issue, then we need to work to change our society. Using the legislative process can be effective in this (civil rights laws), but just as often is counter-productive (prohibition) - use with care and in conjunction with other methods. This is in contrast to the very loud and public posturing by all parties currently involved in the legislative debate on the subject. Some initiatives are broadly supported and should be passed (universal background checks rather than allowing exemptions). Some are logical, but I have not heard much public debate (place the same requirements on purchasing ammunition as on purchasing a firearm). Many just make people crazy (require all guns to be registered, require a license to own a gun), which under other proposed provisions would make those same folks unable to own a firearm.
Re: Agenda
Which is why you use laws like most over countries have rather then claim its "assault weapons" as is currently the fight in America.
For example in the UK aside from all the other laws about applying for a gun license there are ones such as shotguns having a maximum capacity, rifles having a minimum barrel length and restrictions on fire modes (semi auto or manual, no burst).
If registering for a gun license makes you crazy then you definitely shouldn't have one (or ever deal with the DMV/DVLA). Making sure guns are adequately stored (so they don't get stolen or grabbed in an argument) is hardly crazy and still upholds your right to bear arms.
Here's what will happen
If they actually do the studies correctly they will find
1: A short term boost in aggression while playing the game
2: Aggression subsiding after playing game
3: Tightened endorphin levels during and after
4: Heightened neural response during and after, with prolonged play this will become permanent rather than a few hours.
5: Those with existing mental health issues may transfer videogames onto the real world.
Conclusion
People with mental health problems like SPD / ASBD etc will be the ones at risk of going off their rocker. These same people are the ones who will likely go out and buy guns to kill people.
Correct Solution
Begin background checks which will prevent people with a history of those disorders from buying firearms, have it so people must be screened for mental health issues before purchase of firearms.
USA Solution: 1
Ban everyone from buying videogames because less than 1% of the population has a less than 10% chance of going more postal than before. Still let these people buy guns
USA Solution 2:
Do nothing.
A possible solution?
Well, there have been many amendments to the US constitution, some as recent as 1992, so why not add a new one to clarify the right to bear arms since the ambiguity of the original is often used by groups like the NRA to justify gun ownership. Perhaps a clause to only allow "the security of a free state" as a reason to own a gun. So unless the "security of the free state" is at risk, there'd be no reason to carry or own a gun! I fear, though, that the lawyers would still find a good way around it.
Of course, the current amendments do allow a US citizen, if they feel that the government is a threat to the free state, can storm the White House / Congress / whatever it's called, with a gun a shoot members of the government!
Epidemic of violence ? Violent crime dropped right through the 20th century and is still dropping, if video games or movies caused it then they are rather bad at it since they were causing it before they existed!
They should look closer to home, like the fact they sell tools designed for nothing but to kill living beings to any tom dick or harry!
Alright then...
I'll agree to this...
...if violent movies, violent books and highly aggresive songs are also included. If not, then f*** off.
So the NRA say that to save their guns, video games should be banned.
So it is ban guns or ban video games? Have the NRA just shot themselves in the foot? Perhaps this is just what is needed to get guns banned.
Nobody mention the elephant in the room OK?
The elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about is how the "gun violence" is almost exclusively the province of gang-banger "disadvantaged youths". They don't PLAY video games. Computer exposure might actually improve their job prospects. They don't obey laws, least of all the ones that prohibit them owning guns. DUH.
Political hacks don't want to solve problems, including so-called "gun violence". They only exploit them to further their political objectives. The facts don't matter, like how "gun violence" is highest where guns are banned. Opening up private concealed carry always results in a DECREASE in violent crime. So inconvenient for the anti-gun lobby...
Re: Nobody mention the elephant in the room OK?
"They don't PLAY video games."
Yes they do!
I'm not going to explore the link to violence stuff, but urabanised youths love blowing the crap outta stuff on the X-Box. Computer gaming is no longer the hobby of just geeks.
Re: Nobody mention the elephant in the room OK?
You put one gun in the wrong person's hand and tens of people die.
Right or wrong?
I moved to Brookline, Boston US in 1994. That year someone wandered into multiple Clinics in BROOKLINE and shot people.
America = perpetual LOCAL gun violence.
Guns give people a sense of complete equality, a gun equalises; no matter what the size of your opposition, a gun will stop and drop them for good.
It seems Americans just can not imagine life without the absolute power to utterly-destroy their opposition even when their opposition is a teacher or a road-rage opponent.
Bang! done ... that's video game logic right there.
@tuxtester
Wait wait wait. So you moved to brookline boston in 1994. You speak of a single incident of a nutter, I will point out in the UK we had some nutters detonate bombs on the tube and a bus. Is madrid they had a bomber on a train. but your one incident shows... not much.
From that one example you then say perpetual local gun violence. But you start with the word America. America is a collection of states as the EU is a collection of countries. Different laws and cultures across a large area of land. So your comment is not only an assumption of 1 place you mention, but it is outright wrong.
You then talk of the good of a gun, the great equaliser. Where WHEN a criminal decides to take you on his advantage is much less than say in the UK. In the UK an assailant attacks someone weaker than him because thats what they do. They dont go after someone stronger or more likely to harm/kill them. So when the land is even nobody stands on a hill. If you get mugged would you want to be at a severe disadvantage and your life is in the attackers hands coz duh law sez? Or would you prefer you had a chance. That onlookers would have the ability to help you? Or would you like to be in the UK's situation where people walk by without interfering most of the time and only the criminals are armed. Coz of der uman rights?
The reason I reply to your comment is because you comically explain the lack of logic as video game logic. And I figured some people would benefit from an explanation as to why your statement is so funny.
Re: @tuxtester
"If you get mugged would you want to be at a severe disadvantage and your life is in the attackers hands coz duh law sez? Or would you prefer you had a chance. That onlookers would have the ability to help you?"
You know what: I'd rather hand over my wallet and my phone than escalate the confrontation to a lethal one, and potentially end up murdering someone, having my own firearm used against me, or potentially hitting a bystander. And no: I don't want an onlooker pulling a firearm at night and pointing it at someone standing 2 feet from me. Once again: I'd rather hand over my wallet.
Anyone who would rather kill someone and maybe get killed for $50 and thinks that it's a great idea to carry a firearm for just such an eventuality really needs to take a good hard look at their priorities.
Killing someone to DEFEND your wallet is just as fecking stupid as being willing to kill someone to take it. This is the problem with firearms: Hand one to someone and they turn into a drooling Rambo-inspired idiot, who seems to consider the firearm as a first and reasonable response to every situation. It's not.
For the cost of a handgun and enough practice to comfortably use it while walking home pi$$ed on a Saturday night and facing a mugger you could afford to lose at least half a dozen wallets getting mugged anyway. Carrying a firearm on the street for defence against theft is a false economy and one that's just as likely to get you shot as not.
@Psyx
Are you a god or something? Able to change reality to suit? You think you can negotiate with someone who breaks in and starts raping your partner (or old people in the UK)? How do you do that again?
When someone decides they dont like the look of you so out come the knife or whatever (maybe even a gun) your gonna negotiate somehow? Wow I think you should run courses for the many victims who had to suffer and die because you obviously know something others dont.
You might think like a drooling rambo inspired idiot but you may not feel anything if put in such a situation you cant talk your way out of. And of course the nutter who kills/harms you gets to move on to the next person and you get the pleasure of explaining to the police what happened, if you can still talk.
Your false economy is false logic. Maybe someones more likely to get shot but your less likely to be the one harmed, but more likely to have a chance of self defence.
In your scenario you must assume the criminal is armed. Because they are criminal and prepare for the upper hand. You are gonna be violently attacked (no negotiation). Would you like the chance to defend yourself or is your life not worth it? Do you deserve the right to life? Is your right to life worth less than the criminals right to harm you (stop talking soft about just taking your stuff and leaving you alone. Talk about the real situation this applies).
Re: @Psyx
"Are you a god or something? Able to change reality to suit? You think you can negotiate with someone who breaks in and starts raping your partner (or old people in the UK)? How do you do that again?"
If someone breaks into my home, I will hit them with a stick, in the certain knowledge that they will not be carrying a firearm, because tight gun control ensures they won't have one.
"When someone decides they dont like the look of you so out come the knife or whatever (maybe even a gun) your gonna negotiate somehow?"
Yes: I'm going to GIVE THEM MY WALLET. What kind of fucking idiot pulls a gun on someone for the sake of a wallet??! Are you really so attached to $50 that you would KILL someone over it. If so, then the only difference between you and a murderer is that you are only happy to kill if it's legal. Morally speaking you are as every bit as violent as someone on the other side of the law, and you shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm in public, because you are clearly psychotic.
If this is such a big threat and as much of a certain-to-happen situation as you claim. then I can't see how you've reached an adult age without being attacked or had a street confrontation without resorting to shooting them. How did pulling a firearm go for you?
Because if it has never happened to you, you're essentially discussing a myth and yet telling me that it's bound to happen. Your scenario is a false one.
I hate to shatter your reality, but the job of a mugger isn't to kill people and then be ruthlessly hunted down for manslaughter. It is to obtain your money for the minimum amount of fuss, and then to go and spend it and have fun. Muggers don't stab/shoot/kill people who hand over what they want and don't try to get clever. Did your 'self defence' training fail to mention that point in it's eagerness to teach you how to kill people legally?
"Wow I think you should run courses for the many victims who had to suffer and die because you obviously know something others dont."
I probably should. Maybe I could undo some of the damage taught to people who spend ages learning how to kill mugger on a 25m range by teaching them to spend the money on a alarm system and learning how to avoid trouble in the first place instead of blindly walking into it with the stupid over-confidence that a firearm brings.
I've been in plenty of trouble in my time, had lots of scuffles, and managed to avoid much, much more. I've wandered around some very shitty places and had a lot of potentially dangerous encounters. Yet never once have I needed to pull a gun on a criminal and never once have I been in a situation outside of work where I believe I'd have been safer with a firearm concealed on my person. So before you try to lecture me about situations, just how many times have you pulled guns on muggers because it was the only 'safe' and available course of action?
"You might think like a drooling rambo inspired idiot but you may not feel anything if put in such a situation you cant talk your way out of."
That sentence makes no sense. At all.
"Your false economy is false logic. Maybe someones more likely to get shot but your less likely to be the one harmed, but more likely to have a chance of self defence."
No it's not.
And isn't it something like 20% of US police who are shot are shot with their own firearm.
Tell me how I can safely pull a firearm (while drunk) on an armed attacker who is in physical contact with me, at night, and safely use it without there being at least a one-in-four chance of getting shot by his gun or mine?
Statistically, I would be better off NOT having a firearm and resisting, because at least that way the attacker will not see me as a lethal threat so will be more inclined to hit me with the firearm than use it.
"In your scenario you must assume the criminal is armed. Because they are criminal and prepare for the upper hand."
Yeah: with a knife, because muggers in countries where there is decent gun control don't tend to have access to guns.
"You are gonna be violently attacked (no negotiation)."
That's a stupid scenario in the first place.
Why? To rob me? Muggers DON'T DO THAT. So it's a personal attack, because I looked at them funny in a club or something? Then why am I walking home somewhere quiet enough that someone can pull a blade without someone saying something? Why didn't I just RUN THE FUCK AWAY? Self-defence starts a long while before someone pulls a weapon.
"Would you like the chance to defend yourself or is your life not worth it?"
I'll defend my life by not being stupid enough to be in such a fucking stupid situation.
I'll defend my life by having the awareness to see a situation developing or the potential for one and avoiding it.
I will defend myself for not being isolated on the streets and attracting attention of others and by not walking alone.
I will defend myself by running the fuck away rather than MURDERING someone in 'self defence'.
I will defend myself by handing over my wallet if someone points a knife at my neck.
I will defend myself by not being a stupid, mouthy dick who provokes an attacker.
I will defend myself by not seeming like a lethal threat to the attacker, so they retaliate in kind.
I will defend myself by physical force against a foe who is already in arms reach, instead of being stupid enough that I can outdraw someone from a concealed holster in the time it takes them to shoot me in the face. It'd take less time to break their elbow than to get a firearm out of a holster anyway.
If I have to try to use a firearm in the above situation, I am an idiot and have failed at 'self defence'.
"Talk about the real situation this applies)."
There really isn't statistically a situation where this is particularly likely to apply. It's a situation that gun-nuts make up in justification to carry a firearm in public. And if I am in a situation where I'm likely to be mugged, then it means that I'm walking home late, drunk, on my own... and I strongly believe that anyone carrying a firearm while drunk should be arrested anyway, regardless of if they have a licence, because it's a retarded thing to do.
The whole idea of carrying a concealed firearm for street defence is breathtakingly stupid.
@Psyx
Ok so your not rambo, your the hulk? I hope you expect your comment to be shredded because any intelligent person here is probably gonna(if its not beneath them). I will however educate.
So your certain the criminal (illegal activity, breaking the law, dont care) wont have a gun. What happens when you are proved wrong? Lets start with gang initiation? Here in the UK it happens (remember the kid shot by mistake?). But your ok, the hulk is indestructible.
Then we move to you calling me psychotic because you burned your straw man. Didnt you complain someone else did that yesterday? In a situation that you cant negotiate out of, not your fantasy, but an actual violent encounter you have no chance (sorry you do coz u hulk... smash). I am not nuts because I would defend myself while you would choose to die/be harmed. You assume an option you dont have. Then try to make me out to be nuts.
You keep talking about defending your wallet. Is that as far as your brain works? Are you saying of all victims of violent crime are to blame because they didnt run or comply with a violent attacker (this aint just your wallet, what about rape, murder or generally out to harm you?). But you say you wont put yourself in that stupid position, so you actually defend criminals because the victim put themselves there?!?! You are the nutter.
Your rant has shown you to be completely unrealistic. Sorry
Re: @Psyx
"Ok so your not rambo, your the hulk?"
How about you bother replying to some of my points? Why am I the Hulk for starters? Because I feel that I can defend myself adequately in a street-fight without shooting someone?
"So your certain the criminal (illegal activity, breaking the law, dont care) wont have a gun. What happens when you are proved wrong? Lets start with gang initiation? Here in the UK it happens (remember the kid shot by mistake?). But your ok, the hulk is indestructible."
I've never been held up with a firearm, nor has anyone I've known. So you're basically talking about something that's ridiculously rare. And against that chance, you want people to walk around drunk with concealed firearms. That's absurd. Your solution to one-in-a-thousand muggings is to allow pi$$ed up Chavs carry pistols on a Saturday night? And that reduces street violence how?
"Then we move to you calling me psychotic because you burned your straw man."
Bullshit. What straw man? Learn what these terms mean before throwing them around.
And yes: If you believe that it's fine to kill someone for $50, then you are psychotic, sociopathic or psychopathic... or (more likely) living in Hollywood world, where it's ok to blow people away over something trivial. It's not.
"Didnt you complain someone else did that yesterday?"
Yeah..that's because it actually was a straw man. Responding to your question in a blow by blow manner isn't. You can't call something a straw man simply because you have no rational reply.
"In a situation that you cant negotiate out of, not your fantasy, but an actual violent encounter you have no chance (sorry you do coz u hulk... smash)."
As I already SAID, in my experience, 95% of violent encounters can be avoided, defused or negotiated without recourse to force. If it came down to force, I would use any means required to defend myself. Why exactly would I have 'no chance'? Again: There is no fscking way that a concealed firearm offers me any protection at that point because their weapon is already drawn and pointed at me. You want me to say "hold it there while I get my pistol out"? Please explain how you draw a firearm from your purse or shoulder-rig when someone has a gun at your face or a knife at your neck?
Would you actually fight them, if all they wanted was your wallet?
"I am not nuts because I would defend myself while you would choose to die/be harmed. You assume an option you dont have. Then try to make me out to be nuts."
If you happily kill someone because you didn't want to give them $50 you are nuts.
I am happy to defend myself, but taking a life is not defending myself: It's killing someone. I will fight brutally to save my own life, but carrying a firearm on the streets to do so is just ridiculous.
"Are you saying of all victims of violent crime are to blame because they didnt run or comply with a violent attacker"
No.
"(this aint just your wallet, what about rape, murder or generally out to harm you?)"
You are talking about a ridiculously bizarre and rare situation. How many people do YOU know who have been raped or murdered on the street at gunpoint? Actually? I hope you carry a parachute while walking over bridges in case you fall off, wear a crash helmet when walking under ladders and take this level of contingency in every level of your life if you believe that guarding against such an unusual situation warrants such preparedness.
"so you actually defend criminals because the victim put themselves there?!?! You are the nutter."
I never said that. Instead of just making sh!t up, how about you reply to my questions in a rational manner?
Just how much street crime have you experienced and how many people got shot? Have you ever been mugged? Had a gun pointed at you at any point?
Re: @Psyx
So the short summary of your position is "I have enough street smarts to see problems coming, and am fit and tough enough to deal with anything I can't avoid. In my situation the chance of my needing a gun looks like it'll be in behind being struck by lightning".
Well done, gold star. Bit of a pity that the situation varies, isn't it? Here's an interesting one. No relation, no acquaintance, no indication anything was the matter, no desire for money. Just... her phone? Didn't even demand that, just wailed on her. Evidently an out of the blue flip-out. If the train had been close, it might have finished with her being struck and killed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-man-arrested-in-subway-assault-in-philadelphia-20130118,0,2712387.story
The awareness bit is too hindsight to discuss. Should she have had a gun? Don't know, a force multiplier of some sort certainly would have been nice. Oh, the point? Some prefer the option to be prepared but not need, rather than need but not be prepared.
Brisk business in tasers, there?
@Psyx
Sorry but you have no points. I gave you an absolute situation. Real and physical that you cannot get out of. It was a question of your morality/right to live. Instead of answering (which you demand of me) you rewrite the situation to suit what you can handle. That is why I called you hulk because you assume no weapon can harm you because you would never be faced with a weapon. It has no basis in reality but you effectively stated you were invincible and would hit em with a big stick. Comical but not real. You also state you have the ability to defend yourself and project your dumb assumption to everyone. Even though the majority cant. You are unrealistic.
You also say you never been faced with a firearm, but what about a weapon of any form? Or even an opponent who is bigger/more aggressive? Again are you some suped up green monster? Most people are not. So you again show your unrealistic expectation that everyone can defend themselves.
Your straw man was the rewriting of a real situation to a wussy situation which could be resolved with money. Thereby assuming that for me to think a firearm could have a defensive use (which it does) would mean I am nuts and want to shoot people. Yet you still fail to answer the scenario I gave you. Where a bribe wont work. Where you are in actual danger.
I like the statement about your experience. I assume you have been through every type of trauma suffered by violent crime victims? Or do you live in a nice place and assume the world is as nice as the little utopia with poodles? Even then you must ignore news as some violent crimes are reported. But you seem to think all of them could be avoided if the victim didnt put themselves in that situation and that all victims could defend themselves. Based on your comments.
However I am a little confused. You offer this awesome advice that victims are to blame for the crimes, then say they are not to blame. So either they could avoid real violent crime (which they cant) which is not just a gimme ya wallet job but an actual intent to harm, or you are saying potential victims do not have the right to be equipped to defend themselves. Your choice. Now justify.
If you think I am talking of rare and ridiculously bizarre situations then you obviously dont read the news and must live in a lovely area. But because you dont know any better does not mean I am "making sh!t up". Feel free to reply in a rational manor and actually answer questions if you demand the same of me.
As to your final questions-
>Just how much street crime have you experienced- A little. It has also affected friends, neighbors and I have witnessed some too. Most entertaining was watching a skin head with what looked like a gun robbing a betting shop. Entertaining because I was looking in from the outside as he went in, bobbed about at speed, then legged it. Dunno if they got him but I gave an unmasked description to the police.
>and how many people got shot? None. 2 stabbings, 1 threatening behavior with a gun (robbery), various assaults (some the police turn up to, others they dont) and some bare handed while others used a blunt object.
>Have you ever been mugged? No. Some relatives have but not me personally.
>Had a gun pointed at you at any point? Yes
And I am in the UK I will point out.
Re: @Psyx
"Here's an interesting one. No relation, no acquaintance, no indication anything was the matter, no desire for money. Just... her phone? Didn't even demand that, just wailed on her. Evidently an out of the blue flip-out. If the train had been close, it might have finished with her being struck and killed."
Maybe, but it faces all of the same issues as before: Could she have got it out in time, would it have been used against her. A firearm is not a cast-iron defence against violence, and at most makes it an 80/20 thing on who takes a bullet.
And in order to permit that person to carry a pistol, you have to make it legal for everyone to carry a concealed weapon inpublic on a Saturday night. The net overall loss is going to far outweigh the game. I think that we can all clearly see and understand the repercussions just by walking past a nightclub at kicking out time and thinking "How much safer would this be if everyone was armed with a lethal weapon".
Re: @Psyx
"Instead of answering (which you demand of me) you rewrite the situation to suit what you can handle."
If a mugger pointed a gun in my face at less than a foot away with an intent to use it, I would attempt to side-step, while putting on a wrist lock and getting the firearm pointed in a safe direction. It takes less than half a second to do if well practiced, and is FAR faster than drawing a firearm. And it's easily trained for by practicing with someone who tries to pull the trigger on a toy gun before you can do it. Are you happy now? No, because apparently basic self-defence training makes me some kind of 'hulk' or 'rambo' in your eyes. Whereas you seem to think that with less training, you'd be better off with a concealed firearm and that someone carrying a gun on a friday night with the intent to kill anyone who tries to mug them *isn't* rambo
Are you of the opinion that people with less than a few days training should be allowed to carry concealed firearms in public?
They'd be far safer spending that time learning non-firearm related techniques. Guns are not a magical equaliser. Guns escalate any situation to a lethal confrontation.
"you effectively stated you were invincible and would hit em with a big stick."
When I said 'stick' I was being flippant. I meant the bokken that I keep by the bed. I daresay this admission will make me rambo again, because you are so fixated on the idea that gun=solution to all violent problems.
"You also state you have the ability to defend yourself and project your dumb assumption to everyone. Even though the majority cant. You are unrealistic."
So you think that someone with less self-defence training than me would be better off trying to pull a firearm at a mugger with a gun in their face?
I hate to break this to you, but in close quarters a firearm is not a great equaliser. It cannot effectively be used without a lot of training. Unless you have that training, you are carrying a weapon that is more likely going to be used to shoot you than the other guy. End of story. Look, or type 'police officer shot with own gun' for yourself into google:
http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/
And that's professional officers trained in weapon retention and close-quarter scuffling. You think you'd fair better after four beers in a dark alley?
"You also say you never been faced with a firearm" - I've never been *mugged* with a firearm or seen one on the UK streets. I've been attacked with knives in the UK though, and those aren't fun. But anyone not within arm's length can be ran away from. Anyone closer than arms length isn't going to give you time to get out a weapon. Again: Explain how your untrained ass pulls a firearm on a mugger who has a knife pressed against you without getting stabbed. You still haven't really thought about that very much.
Hell: Watch a few youtube videos of bodyguards taking people down at close range: They don't even TRY to access firearms, and resort to 'bundling' attackers.
"You offer this awesome advice that victims are to blame for the crimes, then say they are not to blame."
I'm saying that in many occasions victims could have avoided the situation or mitigated the risk. If you think that's the same as saying 'that's the victim's' fault, then there is no point trying to talk to you further. Victims are not 'at fault', just the same as if I get rammed by a truck on the way to work and am injured severely because I didn't wear a seatbelt that the accident is 'my fault'. Clearly it isn't because someone else still perpetrated the events.
Many risks can be reduced and mitigated, but that does not make the remaining risk in the hands of the victim.
Again: If you put a concealed firearm in the hands of every drunk chav on a Saturday night, how does that make our streets safer?
To marginally reduce the risk of violent attack in specific circumstance, you would seriously rather put firearms in the hands of every drunken idiot who wants one? The accidental shootings alone would FAR outnumber the existing shootings in the UK each year.
Re: @Psyx
So definitely hulk- "If a mugger pointed a gun in my face at less than a foot away with an intent to use it, I would attempt to side-step, while putting on a wrist lock and getting the firearm pointed in a safe direction". The thing is I imagine you would probably wet yourself while trying to bribe them with your wallet as they beat the hell out of you, just because your so blinkered to think it never happens. If you are that good then well done, you are above average in the country which means most people wouldnt have a chance.
"When I said 'stick' I was being flippant. I meant the bokken that I keep by the bed.". Your an evil child hating monster because you have a weapon next to your bed. Actually isnt it pre-meditated if you keep a weapon next to your bed? But worse than that you assume superior strength/ability because your the hulk. But you forget about everybody else (the majority) where that may not and probably wont be an option.
But you think everyone should learn self defence. Forgetting the number of frail/disabled you are training everyone to fight. But all is not equal when it is size/strength which wins, so you fix NOTHING. The gun is the great equaliser that puts frail/disabled/small/weak on an even ground. It gives a chance to those that had none. And your mistaken belief that it is an escalator of violence ignores the countless fights that didnt happen because he could be/was armed and so the aggressor backs off. Not a dream, a fact.
"I hate to break this to you, but in close quarters a firearm is not a great equaliser." 12 ft I believe. Under the assumption that both parties are aggressors, undrawn weapons practiced at retrieving. This is where you fail again. Where is the concealed gun if there is one? Reach for the purse/wallet, what are they reaching for? House is being burgled, weapon is pre-drawn, firearm wins. Being followed down the lonely street, have time to prepare, firearm wins. Many others but it blows your argument away (pun intended).
As for police killed by own weapons, people are harmed by their own DIY. Are you saying you would prefer to give those officers almost no chance of self defence and watch them die sooner when they dont have the necessary equipment to do their jobs? Are you chuck norris or do you assume every victim is a cage fighter while criminals are weaklings?
"I'm saying that in many occasions victims could have avoided the situation or mitigated the risk. If you think that's the same as saying 'that's the victim's' fault, then there is no point trying to talk to you further. Victims are not 'at fault', just the same as if I get rammed by a truck on the way to work and am injured severely because I didn't wear a seatbelt that the accident is 'my fault'. Clearly it isn't because someone else still perpetrated the events." This statement negates completely a previous comment you made. You claimed you wouldnt be victim to violent crime because you would avoid it or give em £50. A deluded view which harmed your credibility.
"The accidental shootings alone would FAR outnumber the existing shootings in the UK each year." If we remove all cars we can stop car deaths! When cars come back more car deaths happen! See the relationship? Your not reducing crime, nor protecting victims, nor helping anyone. You are reducing gun crime. So you dont care about violent crime, or death by violent crime- you only care about the gun. That is obsession.
You cry about drunken idiots but yet they attack with bottles, knives, etc and much violent crime occurs by arming these people who go on to attack each other and innocents. But those innocents are to blame in your eyes because they should learn self defence, even if they are up against knives, bottles, etc and could be with their kids, elderly or themselves be elderly or disabled.
Just to toss in an interesting thought
Some reading for those that might like to enlighten themselves.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
There are *some* interesting studies out there on what is precipitating all this crap. The above is only one, and one that made me think.
Gun violence in the US, however is unique in that it is so high relative to the population. Put that way, and noted against the right to bear arms, it can *appear* in simplistic form that the access to arms is part of the issue. The amount of effort required at this point to try and pin down the *real* causes is likely to be beyond the capacity of the governments (Federal, state, municipal) of the day to *want* to approach. It could substantially invalidate the social structure that the US chooses, and suggest changes in the society that neither the populace, nor the commercial and governmental structures would survive.
Play a violent video game and then become a killer. How?
That's Al Gore thinking. I.e. Sky is blue, your car is blue, therefore your car is made of sky.
But give someone a gun and EVERYTHING is a target.
Wanna play with firearms then join the Territorials/Reserves or the full time military. Sign up for a couple of years and you will not only get training with firearms but you will also get paid to use them.
Waste of time and money.
The 'mericans don't care about each other never mind someone elses kids.
Nothing will happen and they will continue to buy up guns, as many as possible.
Boys with toys, what else can you say?
This topic is closed for new posts.
