NRA blaming everything but guns.

http://www.theliberaloc.com/2012/12/21/nra-blames-society-videogames-for-ct-school-shooting/

Demons. Right. Mental illnesses are found all around the globe, in more or less the same proportions as in the US.

There' s nothing "shadow" about it. I' ve got another dirty little truth for you, Mr Lapierre : http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-gun-club-shooting-video-game-2012-12. Not to mention Asians and Europeans play video games at least as much as Americans.

And somehow you keep romanticizing the right to own a gun. Where' s the difference ? Cause I don' t see any.

As opposed to the NRA who faces its own moral failings instead of blaming the media. Wait ...

Then Mr Lapierre jumped to the usual NRA fallacies, "moar guns = moar security" and "moar guns in schools". Good job NRA, stay classy.

To get back on what I said about violent video games, that they are played all around the world, same goes with violent music, books, movies and news. If I had to point a clear difference in the US media it would be the way they treat news : the first amendment allow their journalists to outright lie, they aren' t hold to any ethical line (hello Faux News). Pointing fingers with made up or religious "facts" instead of having a rational debate is the way of the bully. "Yay, I stood my ground like a real Amurican ! Did you see his face when I insulted him lol ?" Right. And they call that journalism. What a brilliant role model.

But then to be fair it looks like a majority of Americans can see through this bullshit, so ... in the end the huge proportion of American civilians owning a gun still strikes me as the main, undeniable factor that sets their country apart.

 

I really enjoyed when he brought up an obscure game like Splatterhouse. Like, really? "This game from the 80's is what all the cool kids play on their pinball contraptions. It must be the cause of violence." Also, when he brought up Kindergarden Killer, I never even heard of this game. It was so outright ******ed. After some digging, I found out it was a 10 year old flash game that I'm pretty certain all of 4 people played. The tactics he used in the speech were shameful and his argument was appalling. "Use guns to beat guns." What kind of logic is that? I really hate the NRA, but they're just really too powerful. And as sick as I am of hearing about the Connecticut shooting, I really am hoping that this will lead to some major changes in gun laws and regulation. Especially when you have Wal-Marts that sell assault rifles.

 

Really ? o_O
I didn' t know that ... X_x

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/news/wal-mart-dicks-guns-connecticut/

 

By my guess, they were picking video games with the most violent/criminal title names. Which is ridiculously biased, and unrepresentative, but as usual i'm not surprised by this type of argument anymore.

This is effectively propaganda, it's misusing facts, diluting evidence and manipulating their audeince's ideas by directly setting an antagonising mood. I hate organisations like this, they are the reason for so many public perception problems of things they don't understand. And i absolutely dispise that news outlets have little to no accountability for these inaccuracies.

Really this whole crap about 'video games are causing this' is old, meaningless and wrong. We've had worse serial killers, shootings and killers before the invention of 'violent' video games. I asked my dad the other day (after he pretty much implied games will cause people to kill people) to name me five well known serial killers. All were 80s and before, none of whom were blamed for video games. The fact is, it is a part of some people that causes them to act out murder, and more often then not, it is the influence of society that leads them to this.
Honestly the worst atrocities committed by humans all predate video games by at least half a century of time. Most of it occuring with authorisation from others.

 

What baffles me even more is that they don' t even hide it, yet some people trust them anyway.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

 

It's more the fact that if you only listen to one source of information, one outlet that tells you the facts, thne what else is there to believe?
Like kids that are told things like the existence of the tooth fairy. Your parents tell you it's true, your teeth get taken and replaced with money or something, what else is there to believe?
It is fair to say that video games are violent. They can definitely be violent, more so then many other media outlets, however it doesn't mean it causes people to act violent. But if you're told they do cause it, and they obviously do show violent things, what else is there to believe?

The intelligent are informed. The masses are, evidently, not informed.

I remember Milgram, studied him in Psychology. That's a very true account of human action influenced by authority and society. I also remember that video...
Milgram's experiment - as my South African teacher always highlighted - explains why so many normal German citizens at the time of Hitler went with the Nazi party. They were told to follow, influenced by the authority and threat placed by Nazi control, even though many were against it and didn't want it,t hey were influenced to go along with it anyway.
This attributed to everyone perceiving anyone of South Asian and Middle Eastern decent (heck, even just tan skinned ethnic groups) after 9/11 of likely being terrorists. That's because society told us that was the case, not because it was true.

 

Surprisingly, it seems even 9/11 didn' t turn Muslims into the most distrusted minority in the US.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/panic-over-the-unknown-america-hates-atheists/

 

"An armed society is a polite society" is what rednecks like blurting out. Even if this would be true, I wouldn't want to be a part of a society that is polite only out of fear. Pointing the finger at violent video games is just another example of this lazy, convenient logic: it's easier to just blame the games instead of parents who fail to teach their kids the difference between reality and fiction.

I've always wondered if I would ever see the day that an atheist would become president of the US. Guess I know the answer now.

 

Lol, best way to sum it up :

 

well hold the trolley here theres no need to blame guns here either because a gun on its own is nothing more than a fancy paperweight. its only the person behind it that makes it dangerous. the person clearly had mental problems and should have had those dealt with and if he had any remaining family that refused to force his treatment after it was made clear they should be held immediately responsible for the crimes their humanoid semi devolved chimp did in short its the person who did it not video games nor the gun/s. because video games are mearly entertainment/art and a gun without a user is no more dangerous than a chunk of plastic/ceramic/metal etc i could go on but i believe my point is made. the nra is talking out of their psuedo political ass and the people blaming the guns are just looking for an excuse and besides gun laws change nothing because criminals dont follow laws. its the same boat as prohibition denial creates desire if nothing else banning guns will only drive criminals to do more gun related crimes because who is going to stop them? the police? yeah try again it takes too long for them to arive and by then it will be far too late then to actually stop the crime. some deity? please dont hold your breath the closest thing to a deity that would stop them is light yagami and he is fictional. so the only answer is for someone already there to stop him so yeah guns arent the problem the less than capable semi humans who can get them is a simple mental health check and forced medication of the highly likely criminally insane could fix this /rant

 

A person is only as dangerous as his weapon allows him to be though. I assume you' d rather have to face someone waving a knife than someone holding an assault rifle. I never said guns were the source of violence, I merely pointed out they increase its consequences.

Aren' t grenades banned ? How often do you hear of someone throwing grenades around ? Does the Connecticut shooter strikes you as a crime lord who has access to the black market ? A few criminals may manage to find guns no matter what, but a ban would undeniably make it harder for them to find one.

More importantly it would make it incredibly more difficult for Mr Average Insecure Bully, Ms Oops I Forgot To Lock The Drawer and Mr Unnoticed Loony. I' m already not too happy knowing they exist, I' d be even less happy to let them have easy access to guns.

Guns aren' t banned in my country mind you, but they aren' t easy to buy, they aren' t advertised at all, and I don' t think we allow assault rifles here.

But as I just said it would reduce the number of potential criminals who would actually find a gun. You should take a look at England and Japan statistics.

That' s why making it hard for people to find a gun to begin with, or at the very least not an over-powerful one, strikes me as a good idea.

 

actually i wouldnt wish to face anyone thats why i go everywhere either armed or with someone armed so conflict can't start but thats beyond the point. the reason no one really uses grenades is not because of the prohibition its because of the cost especially since dynamite is incrediby easy to find/make one would rather have multiple trys you see. not only that since the guns are already out its no stretch to say that somehow recalling them would not only be difficult but would increase the bootlegging of existing firearms for example where i live there are many with unreggistered firearms so good luck taking those. now for the statistics many gun crimes are afterthoughts not primary thoughts in america so its not that we have an overabundance of crazies we just need better control of them as ive stated of course less politely because nothing gets done politely. but for example the alcohol prohibition virtually created the mafia, and i dont know about you but i dont want a redneck/mexican assault rifle/shotgun mafia no thank you prohibition solves nothing in the long term i believe we need a better and more focused solution like more available mental screenings and compulsory ones for "at risk" persons this would keep guns out of bad hands and also put responsibility of "at risk" people who are helped to duck these screenings by their families on their families like say a mother helps her unstable son duck the test if her son commited murder charge her with accessory. that i believe with even the ground more or at least until a better solution could be created

 

You ignored my point actually, but you allow me to make another : apparently knowing many people carry guns around made you paranoid. Who would have thought ? Yeah, let' s give guns to the paranoid people, what a brilliant idea !

Making a powerful gun is incredibly more complicated than making alcohol or dynamite though. No, potato guns don' t count. I merely used grenades as an example to illustrate that if something is prohibited (let' s say you wanted one for some reason) then it' s far less easily accessible. You conveniently skipped my remark about how the Connecticut shooter found his weapon.

How about non-retroactive measures ? I know, it would be slowly effective but so ****ing what ? I' m getting tired of hearing this. Of course there isn' t any Harry Potter instantaneous solution. Hell, JK Rowling made sure this was the kind of problem magic couldn' t poof away in her books, but if it works in the long run then it' s good enough for me.

And btw, I agree that a complete ban probably wouldn't be a realistic approach in the US, at least for now. I was thinking about banning the powerful ones, curbing the amount of guns one can buy, make people jump through a lot of hoops to get them, ban gun advertising etc ...

Let' s say those screenings were efficient, which they aren' t, what are you gonna do, brand them with an "at risk" yellow star ?
As if they didn' t feel ostracized enough already ... I propose we also brand gun owners with a star, just to up the paranoia to uncanny levels !

 

oddly enough no im not paranoid about others having guns i just dislike confrontation and a gun is an instant confrontation ender not only that im not saying any schmuck could make a gun but there are videos on how to make crack online so its not impossible to say one couldn't make a simple enough video that a relatively average person could make a decent firearm given time and even if they couldn't what would stop the rising gun cartels that sold guns to others whether they were well made or just pure crap. banning things has never solved much at least in america but more careful regulation is key and maybe add some more potent penalties to where people are inclined to remain in control of their guns for example where i live there is an open carry gun law and as such many people don't commit gun crimes for fear of retaliation and it seems to work great the states with very strict gun laws typically but not always have high gun crimes especially if they are in proximity to a state with loose gun laws cont.[DOUBLEPOST=1356345999][/DOUBLEPOST]sorry bout that ps3 doesnt like me typing too much now as i was saying we need to find a way to reduce gun crimes and there are only 3 practical solutions in my opinion. 1 we loosen the gun laws to give criminals something to fear and if nothing else slow them down. 2 we add in potentially expensive mental screenings for gun owners and their immediate family no scan no buy. 3 we attempt to add criminal deterrent by stationing more police at locations like schools with orders to shoot to kill any gun toting psychopaths. of course there are other options but i feel they would either be too slow to be effective or would require military intervention and honestly we dont need the military involved because things would get rather messy i believe

 

I edited my post, probably too late for you to notice, but yeah, I was thinking more about curbing measures than about a complete ban. All the independent statistics I' ve seen show that the less guns there are the less gun victims there are (which, duh), so I' m not sure where you got your statistics from. Apparently firearms are responsible for almost as many violent deaths in America as all other methods combined and account for more than 75% of all instances involving multiple fatalities : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm

 

i honestly thought there was no immediate need for a statistic for my last statement because i thought it was common knowledge that the largest concentrations of gun crimes are either in urban areas doubly so if nearby a loose gun law state and in areas with incredibly tight gun laws it increases under the same criteria because if you look at the data these 2 places have the highest concentrations of the total crimes the most common of the 2 being urban due to mostly gangs and crippling poverty but the motive isnt up for debate so ill stop here

 

That' s what you' ve been doing for years and yet your crime rate keeps increasing. This argument is nothing new, we know it doesn' t work, whether you realize it or not you' re advocating for escalation

I already explained how problematic that is, you didn' t address my objections in any shape or form. Just carefully track who bought what and stop selling guns in convenience stores, it' s cheaper, easier, and more ethical.

It' s better to base your reasoning on statistics and facts than on "common sense". Science 101. The fact that your common sense sounds awfully like textbook NRA arguments should raise a bias alarm. And you missed my point.

 

You're comparing guns and drugs too much, they are completely different forms of crime.
First, you mentioned the prohibition not stopping alcohol consumption. This is true. But the reason people broke this law was not because of simply breaking the law, but because of the effects of the alcohol. It is an addictive substance, something that someone comes to rely on to feel 'good' or better, and will continuously take it try and achieve this. Alcohol is a non-durable good, this means that once you've used it, you can't use the same one again, a bottle of alcohol will empty eventually and you can't keep drinking the same bottle. So you have to buy another bottle, and another and another, that's the reason alcohol is in such high demand, because yu have to buy more. It's why bootlegging was so popular during the Great Depression in America, with the huge rates of unemployment and severely low happiness caused many to turn to drink in order to feel better.
Guns are not addictive (apart from a few societal demographics that don't follow this trend), on the whole people don't rely on guns to make themselves feel good or better about themselves, that the act of buying them will some how bring on a buzz that will mean they keep having to buy them over and over. Guns are durable goods, you buy it and you can keep using it multiple times over and over. You don't need to buy a new gun each time you fire a shot from it. So why would someone need to keep buying illegal guns?The only gun running still supplied by organised crime syndicates is directed towards other crime syndicates looking to buy guns. Gun runners don't sell to the public because there is no great profit there, they look for groups who will buy them, namely organised crime. So even if they were to sell to the public if guns were legalised there would be no profit, no reason for them to do it.

Secondly, you compare home made drugs to home made guns. Now, you're comparing engineering to chemistry here, we're talking about a set of skills completely different from one another.
Drugs are relatively easier to make, all you need is the right equipment and chemicals to make them. Marihuana is grown through plants, a really easy and cheap way to make drugs. Cocaine is also fairly easy and cheap to make, you need equipment bought from online science supplies and chemicals that can likely be bought from specialised chemical suppliers, with easy enough loopholes to get around if you're smart enough.
Guns on the other hand are far more difficult to make. I have a friend studying for an engineering degree, and he has built numerous contraptions before that and he said with his knowledge he could likely make a gun in a number of ways. He could outfit a toy gun with real bullets, but it would only be good for maybe half a dozen shots before destroying itself, not to mention the likelihood of backfiring plastic towards the user. The only proper gun he could make would be at best a single shot with materials he could get his hands on, but it would cost in the range of £200+ whilst a military grade home made gun would be near impossible to make since it requires expensive equipment and high grade materials he just doesn't have. He said that honestly the guns built at home wouldn't be dangerous enough to cause more then a few fatalities, ones bought online or in shops would be much better for killing and way more dangerous.

Drugs are addictive, always need to be replenished, dangerous only to the user's health and relatively easy to make. That's why we can't fight it easily.
Guns aren't addictive, you only would ever need one, dangerous to the user and everyone around them and are difficult to make. This can be fought against. We have more opportunities to fight gun crime then drug crime, especially since gun crime is much more violent and fatal.

I also can't believe your disregard for mental health people who you label as gun nuts. That's offensive and prejudice to instantly label anyone with mental health problems as liable to commit murder or harm. Not to mention extremely immoral to forcibly give drugs to people who aren't dangerous simply because they could be, on that logic everyone should be placed on some sort of sedative because we all have the capability to kill.
Your blatant disregard for human life is appalling. You're agreeing with almost every point that the NRA has said about gun crimes apart from video games causing it.

All I keep hearing is the American mindset in that it can't change so why bother?
Martin Luther King changed the world because he wanted to. If you desire change, if you act on it, America, then you can do it. Just make it happen.

 

ok ok i get it im a severe minority here but first let me say this im not now nor will i ever be affiliated with the nra. i despise organizations with political agendas so any argument i make with them is my own opinion and if it sounds like them its merely a coincidence especially given my political views are typically very liberal with only 2 exceptions guns and war. those two it could be said that my beliefs are radically different than the norm. now first to address the claim that i labeled all mentally unstable people as "gun nuts" this is not true but it may be my run on sentences that may have given way to a misinterpretation. I meant to say that i am uncomfortable with people that have any mental disabilities or people with mental disabilities in their homes buying guns of course i said it much ruder because i believe being polite and expecting anyone to care what you say is a bit of an oxymoron. that being said crime is crime period and saying that i over compare alcohol and drug crime to gun crime, well yours comes off a little hypocritical about the american spirit being changable the things that the anti gun people and what mlk did are two totally different things what mlk did was try to end persecution and discrimination of african americans and it was a very honorable persuit. but what the anti gun people are trying to do is create persectuition of people who enjoy guns like myself. for example the nearest police station is well over 45 minutes from where i live so obviously people around my location can't trust the police to solve their problems so we need a way to solve them guns are just a great way to stop them because without a gun you are at a horrible disadvantage compared to someone who is armed and i dont know about you but i never want to be at a disadvantage. the solutions that i put forward would protect people who want to own guns while preventing the people who don't need them from getting them. are they extreme yes i will say that but they are heartfelt beliefs and i know they would accomplish something. and yes im not a great valuer of human life because i believe that some people can be replaced easily especially when you look at the big picture. like i have said i don't have anything against people with disabilities but i dont believe that banning guns is the answer because as long as there is atleast 1 person with the intent to cause harm with a gun they are at the very least a neccesary evil, and the reason i brought up the crack making is that if a strung-out braindead crack user can make a powerful drug with mixing compounds it stands to reason that if one simplify the process an average man could make a semi complicated gun. now to address the ethical concerns behind my solutions is it any less ethical then wanting potentially law abiding citizens who want to purchace protection to be rendered helpless. and i dont care who you are you could be a black belt in 77 martial arts but you still lack the ability to stand against even a simple gun so why risk the chance. i would rather spare a criminal than punish an innocent because there is no amount of criminal lifes are worth even half an innocents.