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 …
"Guns don’t kill people. Video games, [...] kill people. […] violence against its own people, through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse."
I have GTA3 on my PS2. It is fun stress relief to whip out the samurai sword and slice people's heads off, or run 'em over. The best bit is if you engage the "follow you" cheat, they'll all come a running toward you. It is quite comic when you murder/death/kill a striking docker, the others run over alternating between rage and wanting to +1 you for life. Hehe, you can even flatten 'em with the tank, and god knows that's the most cumbersome vehicle ever.
This perhaps points to a slightly sick sense of humour; but it in no way implies that I have any intention of harming a person in real life; any more than watching torture-porn (SAW and its many sequels for instance) would make me a psycho-slasher. I'm quite capable of distinguishing between what is real and what is not. Unlike, perhaps, the NRA spokesperson. "violence against its own people"? He does realise, I hope, that said people are just data constructions in a game, collections of pixels. They aren't American citizens, that isn't real blood, and they aren't real people.
tl;dr: Before you complain about those of us with fake weapons (computer games), why don't you sort out the fucktards with real weapons? If I was totally delusional and wanted to take out a class of six year olds, I tell you, I would NOT get very far if I ran into a school, waved my controller all around, and kept pressing the Square button... The kiddies just won't die like that, unless they die of laughter, but that's a difference sense of the word. The people with real actual weapons. They're the ones I'd be worried about. But, wait, that's kinda the raison d'être of the NRA so........
Here's a tip for NRA people all over the US.
*(or mice & keyboards if you're part of the Master Race)
The Second Amendment has many interpretations
As lifted from Wikipedia, the second amendment has had many different interpretations by the founders of the US. All current legal interpretations from several landmark cases, hold the the part about the militia no longer applies and that the 2nd amendment applies purely to the right to "keep and bear arms".
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures
Problem is in the person.
Sandy Brook... he wanted to kill the ENTIRE class, if he didn't have a rifle, he would of used dynamite. I for one am thankful he didn't use a biochemical agent of some sort, the whole town could of been wiped out.
Re: Problem is in the person.
We have a trifecta!
1) Sandy Hook
2) "...would HAVE used...", "...could HAVE been..."
3) Wild suppositions presented as facts.
Re: Problem is in the society
"Sandy Brook... he wanted to kill the ENTIRE class, if he didn't have a rifle, he would of used dynamite. I for one am thankful he didn't use a biochemical agent of some sort, the whole town could of been wiped out."
He had neither the means nor the know-how to use a bomb or a 'biological agent' [seriously: what do you really think a high-school student was going to do to invent a plague that would kill a town?]. He had the means and know-how to use a high-capacity firearm.
The problem isn't a pi$$ed off, moody and isolated teenager. The problem is the people who put him in that place and the fact that he could just open a cupboard and pick up his instrument of revenge.
Go Naive! Go!
Want to prevent _MASS_ murder? Too bad, you can't. Don't be a fool and think you can.
No one can prove that he wouldn't of used dynamite, poison or anything else, but many are so sure that this crime would of been prevented if he didn't have access to rifles. It's like saying the World Trade Center towers would still be standing if the mass murderers didn't have access to plans. Don't people understand, a mass murderer always finds a way!
Dynamite, Styrofoam, Chlorine and Gasoline are much, much cheaper than a AR-15, and anyone can obtain a vehicle. Is this the chaos these people want to see? If these people keep making worldwide headlines about shit like Sandy Brook, the sooner it will come. The not so funny thing about luck is, apparently the bad versions of it can be made. If you can't understand that, then you are fortunate not to be lucky.
Does the serious mass murderer say: "I really want to kill all of you, but I can't find ammo."?
The headline is misleading. Also the Doom comment is off base. Are you seriously comparing a range simulator to a shooter that has you blowing people's heads off? Please try to keep the bias to minimum ok?
FTR, I am a gamer, I enjoy (dispite sucking at) FPS games and I own firearms for defense and recreation.
N U T J O B S
What a bunch of retards
Knowing these guys are armed is quite frightening...
Criminals think like that too. That is why they like unarmed victims. Less hassle
Scary news story..
...about some guy who apprehended a burglar with a shotgun he kept at home: he said that it was "the moment he had been waiting for", which speaks volumes for the attitudes of some of the gun fans - I bet he was overjoyed at the oportunity to use it!
He had a gun for self defence. Someone broke into his home. Yup it sounds like the guy was prepared for the situation. Compare that to if he wasnt armed I wonder how much harm/damage/death would have come to him and his family if he wasnt armed. Instead of a succeeding crime which leads to another successful criminal who may escalate we have a potential victim alive and the attempted criminal caught and hopefully rehabilitated.
What is it US gun owners say? They dont burgle my house I have a gun. They go next door instead.
Guns=power. no guns, no power.
One aspect of gun ownership that supporters seem to forget about is the power trip that it appears to give people - Sure, if we take away guns then it would be *possible* for someone to take out other people with a knife, baseball bat, pencil, etc. But Holding a pencil doesn't give the feeling of invincibility that holding a gun does, it doesn't have the intimidation factor, nor the sense of being in the position of power in a given situation. Replace a gunman with a guy holding a knife, or whatever, and suddenly not only the assailant but the prospective victims no longer see him as having the ability to inflict damage the way he would have with a gun.
When someone goes out to mow down civilians with an assault rifle, they're obviously not expecting them to be packing bazookas - the assumption that is made before they even step outside is that they're going to be the ones in control of the situation, and that they're going to be able to control things - replace the gun with something less intimidating and I'm betting that there will be a lot of people who wouldn't have even tried to massacre people in the first place.
Re: Guns=power. no guns, no power.
"One aspect of gun ownership that supporters seem to forget about is the power trip that it appears to give people"
Yup. Give someone a hammer and everything looks like a nail.
Give someone a firearm to defend themselves with and everything escalated into a lethal confrontation.
Put a firearm in someone else's hands and then people assume their only motivation is to kill.
People literally stop thinking when you give them a weapon. Taking human life becomes the solution to their every imagined problem. It's primal and it's really fucked up. You actually have to physically take the firearm away from them before they start considering other ways out and start acting rationally again. It's really weird.
I've heard many gun-owner tales of how firearms "saved their lives" when in reality and objectively the thing they should have done was remove themselves from the situation instead of escalating it to a potentially lethal confrontation. A lot of gun owners spend far more time and money thinking about where to ambush and kill intruders than they do about buying an alarm system or thinking about how to get their family out of the house.
Re: Guns=power. no guns, no power.
Yup, everyone wants to be a vigilante. And pro-gun advocates seem to believe that if both the "good guy" and the "bad guy" have a gun, then that makes things even and the problem cancels itself out - but there's still the possibility that someone with a gun:
a) Will use it where it's not necessary, which turns them into a "bad guy" according to the nightly news
b) Will freeze up and not use it, in which case the gun hasn't eliminated the perceived threat.
Building on the notion of "taking human life becomes the solution to every imagined problem" is the fact that a gun makes every impulsive action a lethal one. If someone has a gun in the house and catches his wife/girlfriend cheating, it's all too easy to mow down the girl, the lover, the family and finally himself. Whilst he may still act impulsively, and may still kill someone without the gun, it takes a lot more thought - pulling a trigger is in itself removed from the effect of the gun. punching someone to death requires a force equal to the effect - usually people come ot their senses or are at least able to assault someone with varying levels of damage but I've never seen someone "only half shoot" a victim, or vary the level of power in the gun whilst they're killing.
Wow. This is shocking ignorance and blind hatred for something you know little about. I shiver at this part-
"If someone has a gun in the house and catches his wife/girlfriend cheating, it's all too easy to mow down the girl, the lover, the family and finally himself."
I guess you dont have pointy things in your bubble wrapped house then? Or are you so dumb as to think gun owners are homicidal nutters but those without guns wouldnt hurt a fly? The ignorance here has shocked me. I have never read such a stupid statement.
Your a and b choices say a lot about you too. 'a' assumes someone using it when its not necessary. In the UK there are problems around how much force you can use. Its a problem when someone is in a position to kill you but your rights are less than the criminal. 'b' assumes the need to use it, where the presence of a gun can and does save lives. Basically the coward attacking you dont wanna get shot.
You do however show your total bias when you miss out 'c'. The point in your life I hope never comes- where your in actual danger and the assailant is a real actual threat to you or your family. In this position the criminal could be armed with anything and you are wetting your pants because a gun is too scary to think about and some guy is about to do you serious damage. And as you stand there helpless, without a chance or even a clue, you debate what would have to be different to give you a chance to live. Your right to live.
I dont expect this will change your opinion of guns, but I hope this at least informs you of your huge hole in reasoning.
I will point out by the way that the most violent talkers about guns are very often the anti gun nutters. It is they who talk of killing, spree killing, homicidal nutter, etc. Sounds like a fear of self. And if you think its ok to beat your girlfriend for cheating on you then its you who is the problem. And if you are that nuts you will get a knife and you will still be a homicidal nutter. Even when the police arrive after you stabbed her and her family.
I hope you never encounter the manifestations of your own mind. And with people like you around I would feel safer with a concealed personal protection tool and I guarantee I would be prepared to defend myself and my family if you ever became a threat to them.
See the difference?
Re: Guns=power. no guns, no power.
".....but there's still the possibility that someone with a gun:
a) Will use it where it's not necessary, which turns them into a "bad guy" according to the nightly news
b) Will freeze up and not use it, in which case the gun hasn't eliminated the perceived threat....."
Sorry, but you're talking intangibles to try and justify a complete ban. Arguing against (a) is easy - statistically, there is a chance any one of us could kill someone, but I don't see any advocating a complete removeal of direct contact between humans in order to remove that risk. Too big a jump for you? Well, how about considering that statistically, there is a HIGHER chance any one of us could cause a fatal traffic accident, but again you're not advocating the personal owenership of cars is banned and only allow professional drivers to drive.
And (b) is simply too weak for words. That's like saying some drivers faced with an imminent fatal traffic accident could panic, and not take the correct action to avoid the accident. That does occur quite often, and therefore we should again, by your argument, ban personal ownership of cars and only allow professional drivers to drive.
But then there's even a slight problem with the idea of just leaving "professional drivers" to do the driving, as the US's worst bus accident, the Yuba City bus disaster of 21st May 1976, killed twenty-eight children and a teacher, which is more than Adam Lanza killed. So, by your argument, if we're looking to save lives, then cars, buses, planes, ships, even irregular pavement itself (http://kensington.londoninformer.co.uk/2011/04/gentle-giant-died-after-paveme.html) had better be banned.
A few statistics
US gun deaths roughly 40 a year per 100,000 population
UK gun deaths roughly 0.03 a year per 100,000 population
US violent crime deaths 6.5 a year per 100,000 population
UK violent crime deaths 1 a year per 100,000 population
That might give some support to the NRA assertion that without guns offenders might choose other weapons - but taking that into consideration US is still 6 times as dangerous.
NRA also states that road accidents are a significant cause of death - and we don't ban cars...
I use my car daily to go to work, to go shopping, to go visiting. Even in America relatively few people use their gun to shoot friends, family, work colleagues more than once.
The US constitutional right to bear arms dates back, what 200 years? It relates to the arms available then, muzzle loading flintlocks. If the right was limited to those I suspect there'd be rather fewer US firearms fatalities.
Re: A few statistics
".....It relates to the arms available then, muzzle loading flintlocks. If the right was limited to those I suspect there'd be rather fewer US firearms fatalities." The Second Amendment was deliberately vague on what arms could be covered so as NOT to limit the "militia" to outdated weapons that would leave them unable to remove a "tyrannical government".
Re: A few statistics
Sounds like a fairly backwards and poorly thought out amendment then - something that should have had a corollary added many decades ago. There comes a point when the ability to kill 30 people without reloading or even pausing to cock a hammer is stupidly excessive - If you could go back and show the lawmakers a SAW with a 200 round magazine, or an assault rifle, or even an SMG they'd probably consider making the law a bit more specific.
The idea that current weapons are still "in the spirit" of a law made over 200 years ago requires massive leaps of faith that aren't, by any stretch, able to be made with any merit.
Re: A few statistics
".....The idea that current weapons are still "in the spirit" of a law made over 200 years ago requires massive leaps of faith...." You forgot the example of Switzerland - a people's reserve "militia" where every male adult of serving age has a fully-automatic assault rifle with a thirty-round magazine. The difference seems to be that they simpy don't have the same incidence of nutters going on sprees with those guns.
Re: A few statistics
I keep hearing pro-gun types complain when comparisons are made to other countries and their gun statistics - how quickly things change when one of them thinks they've got a valid argument.
Whilst the Swiss keep a militia, it serves *in stead of* a large military force - it isn't there because people like to play with guns, it's there because, unlike the US, they don't spend over half a trillion each year maintaining a full time army/navy/air force/special forces - the role performed by Swiss militia is to defend the country - not to entertain some type of immature (in colonial terms) fear of a new born country being held hostage by its own government.
Also, whilst there may not be as many "nutters going on sprees" in Switzerland, the suicide rate per 100,000 is 24.8 for men, and 11.4 for women. Compare that to the US (where you claim the nutters are) and that rate is 17.7 for men and 4.5 for women (source: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/). Whilst not a concrete indicator of mental health, it nonetheless serves as a demonstration of the fact that there's a great deal of mental health issues in Switzerland - but, as you pointed out, they're not going killing each other before they kill themselves.
Mental health by itself isn't necessarily the issue - it's the culture of the US that needs to change, and tightening gun laws are the only way that's going to happen.
Re: Esskay Re: A few statistics
".....Whilst the Swiss keep a militia, it serves *in stead of* a large military force....." FAIL, FAIL, FAIL! You are completely missing the point - the anti-gun crowd argue that guns = death reagrdless. Switzerland proved that merely having lots of personally held weapons does NOT mean shooting sprees, therefore it HAS to be something to do with culture and the access to weapons for the nutters. Keep the nutters away from the weapons = job done.
"....not to entertain some type of immature (in colonial terms) fear of a new born country being held hostage by its own government....." So, realistically, who is poise to invade Switzerland? Double fail.
".....it's the culture of the US that needs to change...." FINALLY, some sense appears.
".....and tightening gun laws are the only way that's going to happen." But then the sense disappears in a typical bit of PC, jumping-to-a-conclusion. I suggest a better idea would be the long overdue appraisal of schools and how students behave and are allowed to behave for a start. Don't like bullying then deal with it properly, don't sweep it under the carpet. Don't like moody teens getting depressed then find them and treat them. Make firearms training and licences mandatory for all gun-owners by all means but at the same time identify and deal with people that are a risk to society.
Re: Esskay A few statistics
"the anti-gun crowd argue that..." Sorry, who exactly are you arguing with?! Apparently I "fail, fail fail" because you've decided to attack a different argument?! Strawmen don't come any more patently obvious than that.
Switzerland proves that a militia can be an effective *alternative* to an massive armed force - not that people need to keep an AR-15 under the bed in case Obama steals your children. As I said, there's a cultural difference there - the difference means that the average US citizens' "need" for guns is non-existent.
"Who is poised to invade Switzerland" - Hence having a militia, *IN STEAD OF* a massive full time defence force. Your almost schizophrenic use of the word "fail" is becoming woefully ironic.
Your idea is that we should "treat" moody teens - and how exactly? Teens are moody, in no small part, due to hormones. Perhaps we should chemically castrate them all? Get rid of those pesky hormones altogether? Treatment first requires diagnosis - and it's the diagnosis which, around the world, we struggle with. In the wonderful world of internet politics it may be a magic bullet, but in the real world much of the diagnosis you think needs to be implemented simply doesn't exist - it's like claiming that we can stop car accidents if only people would start using flying cars.
You keep assuming that mental instability is the only issue - that the only reason anyone goes on a shooting spree is because, if we looked hard enough, we'd find a big mark on their forehead that said "TREAT ME". The reality is that a lot of shootings are impulsive - and people act impulsively all the time - but when you add guns in to the mix, impulsive actions become deadly. It's not mental instability - it's the way people are. For example, I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as an arrogant arsehole in your last post, but you thought someone was wrong on the internet, got fired up, and machinegunned away on your keyboard, presumably foaming at the mouth whist the letters F-A-I-L were forced into the PCB, without so much as a pause for thought.
Treatment isn't something that can be implemented quickly - particularly in the US, where the concept of giving help to people who need it is obviously a commie construct designed to steal their precious bodily fluids. Removing guns from the equation immediately eliminates a large part of the threat from people going on a shooting spree, and even if a keyboard warrior gets fired up enough to complain about having his guns "taken away" for 7 pages on an internet forum, well I think thats a small price to pay for the safety of millions of american children.
Re: Esskay A few statistics
"....Strawmen don't come any more patently obvious than that....." What, like the rediculous straw man that guns must be taken away from legal owners because just having guns in their hands means they will murder people with them? The Swiss example demonstrates that the guns do not present the problem, and that having even more deadly weapons than the semi-auto carbine used by Lanza does not mean more chance of attacks happening, and it also shows that a militia is not such a far-fetched idea even in countries that have full-time forces (e.g., the UK has the Territorials which are a similar concept) BECAUSE a full-size force, similar to that raised during a full-blown war, would cripple the economy.
".....Your almost schizophrenic use of the word "fail" is becoming woefully ironic...." Your use of words like schizophrenic, which you obviously don't know the meaning of, is not helping your "arguments".
"..... Teens are moody, in no small part, due to hormones....." Great, so having shown how little you know about firearms and militias you now want to start on biology? This should be fun! Oh, BTW, are you saying that the "moody teens" in Switzerland, who all know their fathers have an assault rifle yet never steal it and shoot anyone, have massively lower levels of the same hormones? Beyond silly.
".....You keep assuming that mental instability is the only issue .....The reality is that a lot of shootings are impulsive - and people act impulsively all the time....." So there are no mentally-ill people in Switzerland? Oh, and for you to claim it is just impulsiveness then ordinary people (because we all have impulses) would be shooting each other daily. Oh, BTW, the Columbine kids did not act on impulse, they planned their actions, gathered the weapons, and manufactured explosive devices for their spree. Adam Lanza didn't just impulsively pick up a gun and kill everyone in the room, he took weapons and ammunition and drove to the local school and specifically targeted a classroom of children. His actions, even if he conceived them originally in a rage, were planned and carried out, i.e., premeditated. If he was going beserk and wanting to shoot anyone then he would just have gone into the street and started shooting at anyone and everyone.
".... if we looked hard enough, we'd find a big mark on their forehead that said "TREAT ME"....." Yeah, all those psychiatrists in the World, they just throw dice to make diagnoses - duh! Seems that we have no problem in courts deciding if people are legally sane, insane or "unfit".
".....I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as an arrogant arsehole in your last post, but you thought someone was wrong on the internet, got fired up, and machinegunned away on your keyboard...." Hmmmm, maybe you should calm down and go read what you posted. You have just come up with the most rediculous reflexive arguments that have been thoroughly debunked in a flash, and you're accusing me of machinegunning my keyboard? A little look in the mirror might be in order.
"....Treatment isn't something that can be implemented quickly - particularly in the US, where the concept of giving help to people who need it is obviously a commie construct designed to steal their precious bodily fluids....." Oh puh-lease, leave your tired political prejudices out of it. It seems that if a court orders someone to undergo treatment it happens, so all the screening would need is that, after the complete analysis has been made after the initial tests, a court order is issued to put the "problem person" into treatment. We already do this, it's called sectioning, and it happens when someone is judged a danger to the community, the problem is we usually don't do it until after they have commited a crime. Oh dear, another one of your frothing rants debunked in a flash - I would suggest you pause to actually think before your next post.
".....for the safety of millions of american children." Oh, so you're all about the safety and it has nothing to do with politics? Strange, I don't see you asking for cars to banned, maybe that's because you use one? How about cigarettes, those little cancersticks cause more death and illness and cost the States more in healthcare costs than guncrimes and car accidents combined, so why aren't you too busy shrieking about banning smoking rather than guns? In fact, if you're all about the children, why are you even posting here and not dedicating your time to saving the fifteen children that die EVERY MINUTE in the Third World from preventable diseases that cost just a few dollars to vacinate against? Or is it just that your carefully cultivated and manipulated "outrage" hasn't been pointed in that direction yet? Cretin.
Re: Esskay A few statistics
All these comments about banning cars etc are plain ridiulous - you're taking a weak argument to extremes to justify your shaky case for maintaining weapons in public hands. We all know that people die in car accidents, although the numbers are dropping in relative terms every year. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The whole issue with Sandy Hook et al (another 2 shootings of multiple victims since then have made it to the news) is that is was NOT accidental. Comparing the 2 is like comparing cheese with wombats, and equally futile.
Your devil's advocate stance is becoming tedious - is there any depth to which you won't sink to trawl for a response? Perhaps if the gun lobby in the US spent its budget on providing clean water and innocuations then there would be a drop in 3rd world childrens' mortality. But I see you don't consider that possibility.
The argument for keeping semi automatic weapons at home boils down to "cos I want to". There is no sane reason for doing so.
Re: Mousebrain Re: Esskay A few statistics
"All these comments about banning cars etc are plain ridiulous...." Why, because they destroy the argument about saving lives being the pretext? Face it, the media hype these attacks up - "defenceless, white kids get shot, evil gun-owners must be to blame, see our report at ten" - but I guess defenceless black kids in the Third World just don't make as good copy, what with it being so far from American living rooms. Especially when the answer to their issue is to put your hand in your pocket and help someone you will never meet.
".....We all know that people die in car accidents, although the numbers are dropping in relative terms every year....." Still trying to justify your denial? What, are people that die in car accidents somehow less worthy than people killed by gun-crime? How about kids killed by drunk drivers?
".....is that is was NOT accidental....." So the drunk that decides to drive drunk, or the guy that speeds, both are criminal acts that can lead to the deaths of others and both are deliberate acts. Do they "count" less because they didn't actually set out to kill someone? The result is the same - dead people. Oh, hold on a sec, I see why you recoil at the idea - you are a car user! So sorry to have suggested you should give up your perfectly legal and probably competent ownership of your car just because other people aren't as competent as you.
".....Comparing the 2 is like comparing cheese with wombats, and equally futile....." You mean just damaging to your crusade against gun-owners? At the end of the day, if a kid gets killed in a car accident or a kid gets shot in a spree, they are both equally dead. But car accidents aren't unusual, they happen every day so they don't make the news - who cares about the drip-drip kill-rate of car accidents when we the media can go nuts about a rarer school shooting? The fact more people die every year in car accidents compared to gun-crime is "ridiculous", right?
".....Your devil's advocate stance is becoming tedious...." Obviously being asked to think for yourself is a bit much effort for you.
"......Perhaps if the gun lobby in the US spent its budget on providing clean water and innocuations then there would be a drop in 3rd world childrens' mortality....." How about the "clean energy" lobby's money? Or what about unions, why don't they spend their money on Third World medicine? Why don't you?
".....The argument for keeping semi automatic weapons at home boils down to "cos I want to". There is no sane reason for doing so." Your argument for banning firearms at home boils down to an irrational fear of guns and a hatred of gun-owners, based on propaganda fed to you by politicians looking to manipulate you. It is you that has provided no sane argument.
The right to bare arms should be revoked during summer time, what with all the cancer resulting from extensive exposure to the sun...