http://gamingtrend.com
August 21, 2014, 06:19:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: NRA Blames Video Games For School Shootings  (Read 2275 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2012, 02:14:25 AM »

Quote from: Ironrod on December 25, 2012, 04:32:39 PM

Quote from: TiLT on December 25, 2012, 10:13:48 AM

The argument is always a variant of "this is too ingrained in our culture. It can never be changed". That's just plain ignorant and wrong. As long as there is commitment to change, change will happen. It never happens quickly, but it happens. Unwillingness to even try makes any issue spiral deeper into darkness.

"Ingrained in our culture" is not the same as "enshrined in our Constitution." Americans will never lose our national Wild West mentality as long as gun ownership is (literally) a God-given right.

Now to undercut my own point, we have always drawn lines over what type of guns one may own legally, and I'm not personally averse to moving that line significantly. The 2nd Amendment was a lot simpler when the most advanced personal weapons were muzzle-loading muskets. Plus some states, including my own, already have weak gun cultures and more restrictive laws. Tellingly, though, we do not have appreciably less gun violence than the permissive states do. 

Been away for several days, so I apologize if this has already been discussed, but as a non-American, I've always found that part of the constitution to be very odd, taken out of context of the era it was written in. Owning a gun sounds more like a privilege than a right, but from my perspective, Americans have been so used to it that they can't see their culture without it. I think that facet of the culture will inevitably need to change, and there will be many spinning their wheels and crying murder, but culture will find a way to evolve beyond it.

Btw, very impressed how the discussion is remaining civil here despite the controversial nature of the subject.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2012, 03:51:44 AM »

It does seem a bit of an odd duck when compared to the rest of the Bill of Rights, but along with more universally agreed upon amendments like the first, the common thread is the idea that our government should not be able to oppress or restrict us the way the British government did. They can't stop us from expressing our thoughts, they can't stick soldiers in our homes, they can't judge us unjustly (in a legal sense), and they can't stop us from being able to fight back.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3611


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2012, 01:40:31 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on December 25, 2012, 08:23:51 PM

Quote from: Isgrimnur on December 25, 2012, 07:31:19 PM

AA, my point isn't about the skills of a shooter, trained or otherwise. The point is that there is little difference that the choice of weapon makes regarding whatever ability the shooter does have.

It's more to illustrate why a ban of a certain type of weapon frame is irrelevant to the amount of damage that a shooter can inflict.


Yes, and I'm saying the damage per second curves between a Colt .45 revolver, a Glock 9mm, and an M16 carbine only start to flatten out at the highest tiers of training and natural talent.


Quote from: Isgrimnur on December 25, 2012, 11:41:52 PM

AA, I'm not concerned about an open field.  Most of these incidents are at close range. Without some sort of citation or evidence, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the weapon selection would make any difference, especially when the rampages are generally over when the gunman ends himself or law enforcement arrives.


Jared Lee Loughner exhausted a 33-round magazine to shoot nineteen people in Tuscon, Arizona.  He was stopped, not by Wayne LaPierre's "good guy with a gun," but by victims on the scene when he was forced to reload.  It would have ended 23-bullets sooner with the Glock 19's default magazine.

I've tried to determine the logistics of you using a Colt .45 revolver to shoot nineteen rounds into nineteen separate targets, moving or not, within about thirty seconds.  While no one I've spoken with is prepared to say it's strictly impossible, they all agree they'd be fascinated by the attempt.  Either way, in Loughner's place, I doubt any amount of dexterity with a speed loader would have afforded you a seventh shot.

As far as other citations or evidence, I would submit that SWAT teams gearing up for close range engagements do not seem to agree with the idea that weapon selection makes no difference.  They deploy with an array of shotguns, submachine guns, and carbines on the grounds that the tactical benefits are worth the added weight and expense.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21052



View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2012, 03:12:07 AM »

Ok, let's pretend we ban all firearms and some sort of insane secret police action removed all guns from America.  The next mass killing will be when somebody chains the doors of a movie theater and sets the place on fire, or perhaps a pair of glass jars with nails mixed with explosives, or maybe etc., etc. etc.     Banning weapons is not going to stop people from doing bad things.  Banning clips of any size won't stop people from doing bad things. 
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6423


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2012, 11:23:52 AM »

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on December 29, 2012, 03:12:07 AM

Ok, let's pretend we ban all firearms and some sort of insane secret police action removed all guns from America.  The next mass killing will be when somebody chains the doors of a movie theater and sets the place on fire, or perhaps a pair of glass jars with nails mixed with explosives, or maybe etc., etc. etc.     Banning weapons is not going to stop people from doing bad things.  Banning clips of any size won't stop people from doing bad things.  

This is an argument that bears little relation to the situation at hand. You can't stop terrorists or arsonists by banning guns. I have no idea what even made you think we were debating that. What you can stop is the person who snaps and does something crazy, the kind of person who perhaps picks up somebody else's gun (or his own) because it was easily available. You know, the kind of person who has to use a knife in other countries because that gun isn't available to him.

Also, getting rid of guns doesn't require an "insane secret police action". It requires laws that keep people from obtaining guns, and then public amnesties all over the US where guns can be handed in with no negative consequences or questions asked, with perhaps a monetary bonus. Then repeat that every year for a long while, with big ad campaigns to make the average American aware that these things are available to use. You have to realize that the US is so fucked up on the gun front already that any solution will take time and effort, and it won't be easy. There would be new school shootings within the first few years that would cause a massive outcry in the media that the gun cleaning effort has failed. Any movement to fix the issue will have to be strong enough to survive that. The only thing that can change overnight is attitude, and we've already seen that happen with the school shooting. The rest... well, you guessed it... takes time.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 11:25:23 AM by TiLT » Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3611


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2012, 12:28:40 PM »

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on December 29, 2012, 03:12:07 AM

Ok, let's pretend we ban all firearms and some sort of insane secret police action removed all guns from America. 


Why?  I don't know of anyone, politician, pundit, or average citizen, who is proposing such a thing, and if such a person exists they have not been posting in this thread.  We might as well pretend M. Knight Shyamalan's The Happening came true and gunfire was the only thing that could slay the wind.

Canadian, Australian, Japanese, and European gun control laws actually exist.  We don't have to pretend what their effects might be; we have decades of data to show us that...

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on December 29, 2012, 03:12:07 AM

The next mass killing will be when somebody chains the doors of a movie theater and sets the place on fire, or perhaps a pair of glass jars with nails mixed with explosives, or maybe etc., etc. etc.

...has no statistical precedent to back it up.  Those societies have lots of lewd music videos and violent video games too, so unless someone would like to argue that Americans are uniquely primal and depraved among the cultures of the world, I don't know why we'd assume such a thing.


Quote
Banning weapons is not going to stop people from doing bad things.  Banning clips of any size won't stop people from doing bad things. 


Yes: cashiers will still steal from the till, cars will still be driven drunk, and gay teens will still be bullied.  We'd just have fewer mass murders.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15520


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2012, 05:10:05 PM »

My wife just read me an article that says sales of ammo and weapons have dramatically skyrocketed in anticipation of a ban.

Also, sales are through the roof for something called a bulletproof backpack.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3611


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2012, 06:27:45 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2012, 05:10:05 PM

My wife just read me an article that says sales of ammo and weapons have dramatically skyrocketed in anticipation of a ban.


Did she happen to note which year the article was written in?  Panicked ammunition stockpiling has been the status quo for about four years now, with the NRA and weapon vendors exploiting every new murder spree and harmless U.N. treaty as a blockbuster marketing campaign.

You might think that after years of falling for the exact same scare tactic, gun owners would start to wise up.  Fortunately, Wayne LaPierre was on hand to explain that President Obama's complete disinterest in gun control was actually damning evidence of his desire to repeal the Second Amendment:

Quote from: The Washington Times
While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.

"We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."


So there you have it: the only thing more dangerous than a Democrat seeking something as innocuous as closing the gun show loophole is one who spends four years relaxing existing gun control laws.  What a happy coincidence that the gun industry has not only been able to expose Obama's weirdly circuitous plot, but to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2012, 08:15:14 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on December 29, 2012, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on December 29, 2012, 03:12:07 AM

Ok, let's pretend we ban all firearms and some sort of insane secret police action removed all guns from America.  The next mass killing will be when somebody chains the doors of a movie theater and sets the place on fire, or perhaps a pair of glass jars with nails mixed with explosives, or maybe etc., etc. etc.     Banning weapons is not going to stop people from doing bad things.  Banning clips of any size won't stop people from doing bad things.  

This is an argument that bears little relation to the situation at hand. You can't stop terrorists or arsonists by banning guns. I have no idea what even made you think we were debating that. What you can stop is the person who snaps and does something crazy, the kind of person who perhaps picks up somebody else's gun (or his own) because it was easily available. You know, the kind of person who has to use a knife in other countries because that gun isn't available to him.

Also, getting rid of guns doesn't require an "insane secret police action". It requires laws that keep people from obtaining guns, and then public amnesties all over the US where guns can be handed in with no negative consequences or questions asked, with perhaps a monetary bonus. Then repeat that every year for a long while, with big ad campaigns to make the average American aware that these things are available to use. You have to realize that the US is so fucked up on the gun front already that any solution will take time and effort, and it won't be easy. There would be new school shootings within the first few years that would cause a massive outcry in the media that the gun cleaning effort has failed. Any movement to fix the issue will have to be strong enough to survive that. The only thing that can change overnight is attitude, and we've already seen that happen with the school shooting. The rest... well, you guessed it... takes time.


Exactly.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it would ever go away completely, but with Countries that have gun control laws in effect, it has been reduced quite a bit. The big thing is with how Americans view guns in general, which is something that will need to change over time. I think it's the only Country I've seen that is so adamant about gun rights, with those owning guns so proud of it. Both the attitude and the perception towards guns need to change in order for the country to change.
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12458


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: December 29, 2012, 08:43:42 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2012, 05:10:05 PM

My wife just read me an article that says sales of ammo and weapons have dramatically skyrocketed in anticipation of a ban.

Also, sales are through the roof for something called a bulletproof backpack.

My cousin is co-manager of a gun shop here in Salt Lake.  His exact words during a discussion about this topic on Christmas Eve were, "It's awful, but every time there is a mass shooting we expect our average revenues to at least double or triple during the following 2-3 weeks."
Logged

My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Default
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 367


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2012, 04:46:03 PM »

Quote from: Rumpy on December 29, 2012, 08:15:14 PM



Exactly.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it would ever go away completely, but with Countries that have gun control laws in effect, it has been reduced quite a bit. The big thing is with how Americans view guns in general, which is something that will need to change over time. I think it's the only Country I've seen that is so adamant about gun rights, with those owning guns so proud of it. Both the attitude and the perception towards guns need to change in order for the country to change.

I've been arguing quite a bit about this with my son, the 19 year old neo-con. After bringing up the example of the Chinese guy who stabbed 22 children, his reply was "He wasn't very good with a knife."  retard Guns make it insanely easy to kill a lot of people in a very short time with high capacity magazines. The point is taken about bombs, but there isn't the cultural imperative to own explosives.

The perception toward guns can and will change, but it with take time. There is hope and I point to the change in attitudes toward smoking. Most smokers accept that they have to light up outside if they want a cigaret. When I was a kid, there was cigaret smoke everywhere...
Logged
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2012, 08:50:29 PM »

Quote from: Default on December 30, 2012, 04:46:03 PM

The perception toward guns can and will change, but it with take time. There is hope and I point to the change in attitudes toward smoking. Most smokers accept that they have to light up outside if they want a cigaret. When I was a kid, there was cigaret smoke everywhere...

Yes, exactly. I know it will be hard and that there will be lots of resistance to the idea, but I think it's a necessary change. The smoking example is a good one. Used to be you'd find it everywhere, and I'm finding it less and less common to find smoking areas in restaurants. Also went to a new hotel recently, and they had a non-smoking policy anywhere in the building. I think the issue with the resistance is the idea that it's such a monumental task that it couldn't possibly be done, and the fear of change. A gun shouldn't be a right, neither a need. Amendments are there for changes in the constitution, and I believe that the "right to bear arms" has outlived its usefulness, and that a new amendment might be in order. Change will be hard, but it won't be impossible.

I remember a news story that still resonates with me to this day, about a father who took his son to a gun fair and allowed for him to fire, I think it was, a semi-automatic, and he was killed due to the recoil which he couldn't handle. This wouldn't have happened in the first place if there wasn't so much an emphasis on guns in American culture, where it's often seen as socially acceptable.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 09:24:24 PM by Rumpy » Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9204


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2012, 09:40:17 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2012, 05:10:05 PM

My wife just read me an article

And this brings up another tragic topic:  adult illiteracy.   Won't you give so that adults like Bullwinkle can learn to read?

 Tongue
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15520


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: December 31, 2012, 04:21:27 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on December 30, 2012, 09:40:17 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2012, 05:10:05 PM

My wife just read me an article

And this brings up another tragic topic:  adult illiteracy.   Won't you give so that adults like Bullwinkle can learn to read?

 Tongue


 icon_lol

She did not say when the article was from, by the way, but it did come up on her Flipboard, which aggregates recent stuff, unless it was pulling from Facebook and an older article that someone else posted.  I'm sure it's common after each scare.

Apparently, my niece, who is 10, received a real bow and arrow for Christmas.  My nephew, 12, got some sort of non-hunting rifle.  My sister's husband's (I don't like to think of him as my brother-in-law) rational was that they needed to learn to protect themselves.  They live in a gated community on a sizable hill in Colorado.  What are they protecting themselves from?  Bullies?  Or does he think they're going to be carrying that shit to school "in case"?  Also, they were going to get him a crossbow.

When they were discussing it with my new step-brother (no problem there), who takes his kids to the range, and I think goes hunting with them (or will someday), he got a concerned look on his face.  They were asking him what the best targets were to set up in the back yard.  He said that before they even thought about that, they should go to the 4 - 8 hour training course on gun safety.  They seemed to think that would be too much of a hassle.

My other brother-in-law mentioned that a nephew of his (who is under ten) received an assault rifle. 

What the fuck?
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 31, 2012, 05:02:23 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 31, 2012, 04:21:27 PM

My other brother-in-law mentioned that a nephew of his (who is under ten) received an assault rifle. 

What the fuck?

Ok, I'll bite. Why does this freak you out? Because its an assault rifle? Or just the idea of giving a 9-year-old a rifle?
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15520


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: December 31, 2012, 05:11:51 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on December 31, 2012, 05:02:23 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 31, 2012, 04:21:27 PM

My other brother-in-law mentioned that a nephew of his (who is under ten) received an assault rifle. 

What the fuck?

Ok, I'll bite. Why does this freak you out? Because its an assault rifle? Or just the idea of giving a 9-year-old a rifle?

Why does a grade school kid need an assault rifle?  Ever?  At all?

Look, I understand that shooting a powerful weapon can be an incredibly exciting experience.  I personally wouldn't take my young child to fire one, but I get that it can be quite cool (if potentially deadly, see previous post which mentions that exact scenario).

So take your kid out to a range that will allow it and fire away.  Then come home and be safe. 

Also, you know what kids love to do with extreme Christmas presents?  Show them off to other kids.  You know who sure as hell wouldn't want another kid showing their child the kick ass gun they just got as a present?  Me.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8972


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2012, 05:41:28 PM »

Quote from: Rumpy on December 29, 2012, 08:15:14 PM

Quote from: TiLT on December 29, 2012, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on December 29, 2012, 03:12:07 AM

Ok, let's pretend we ban all firearms and some sort of insane secret police action removed all guns from America.  The next mass killing will be when somebody chains the doors of a movie theater and sets the place on fire, or perhaps a pair of glass jars with nails mixed with explosives, or maybe etc., etc. etc.     Banning weapons is not going to stop people from doing bad things.  Banning clips of any size won't stop people from doing bad things. 

This is an argument that bears little relation to the situation at hand. You can't stop terrorists or arsonists by banning guns. I have no idea what even made you think we were debating that. What you can stop is the person who snaps and does something crazy, the kind of person who perhaps picks up somebody else's gun (or his own) because it was easily available. You know, the kind of person who has to use a knife in other countries because that gun isn't available to him.

Also, getting rid of guns doesn't require an "insane secret police action". It requires laws that keep people from obtaining guns, and then public amnesties all over the US where guns can be handed in with no negative consequences or questions asked, with perhaps a monetary bonus. Then repeat that every year for a long while, with big ad campaigns to make the average American aware that these things are available to use. You have to realize that the US is so fucked up on the gun front already that any solution will take time and effort, and it won't be easy. There would be new school shootings within the first few years that would cause a massive outcry in the media that the gun cleaning effort has failed. Any movement to fix the issue will have to be strong enough to survive that. The only thing that can change overnight is attitude, and we've already seen that happen with the school shooting. The rest... well, you guessed it... takes time.


Exactly.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it would ever go away completely, but with Countries that have gun control laws in effect, it has been reduced quite a bit. The big thing is with how Americans view guns in general, which is something that will need to change over time. I think it's the only Country I've seen that is so adamant about gun rights, with those owning guns so proud of it. Both the attitude and the perception towards guns need to change in order for the country to change.

I will never understand two sides of the pro-gun argument:

1) It won't solve *everything*, so it's not worth doing at all!
and
2) If we had MOAR guns, things would be better.

This two arguments are completely asinine and counter to the results in literally every country with reasonable gun control.  They are better off when it comes to gun violence and fatalities, period.

Now the argument that guns are a part of American culture, 2nd Amendment, 'our freedoms', etc... I am fine with those.  Just don't try the idiot logic of 1 and 2 above.  Please.  You sound stupid.

Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2012, 07:26:04 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 31, 2012, 05:11:51 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on December 31, 2012, 05:02:23 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 31, 2012, 04:21:27 PM

My other brother-in-law mentioned that a nephew of his (who is under ten) received an assault rifle. 

What the fuck?

Ok, I'll bite. Why does this freak you out? Because its an assault rifle? Or just the idea of giving a 9-year-old a rifle?

Why does a grade school kid need an assault rifle?  Ever?  At all?

Look, I understand that shooting a powerful weapon can be an incredibly exciting experience.  I personally wouldn't take my young child to fire one, but I get that it can be quite cool (if potentially deadly, see previous post which mentions that exact scenario).

So take your kid out to a range that will allow it and fire away.  Then come home and be safe. 

Also, you know what kids love to do with extreme Christmas presents?  Show them off to other kids.  You know who sure as hell wouldn't want another kid showing their child the kick ass gun they just got as a present?  Me.

Ok, so it's the assault rifle part that shocks you?  So first, there's not really any such thing as an assault rifle.  The closest thing to a definition is more or less that it's a rifle that looks like a military fully automatic rifle.

I don't know what the kid in question actually got, but a very likely candidate is an AR-15 chambered for .22LR ammo.  The .22LR type of bullet is just about the smallest, weakest bullet out there.  When you fire it, there's hardly any recoil--it's almost like shooting a BB gun as far as the kick.  It's still dangerous, and lethal, but it's far less powerful than a 9mm handgun, and way less powerful than a real rifle bullet.

.22LR guns are really popular for kids or beginner shooters because of the extremely light recoil.  The ammo is also crazy dirt cheap compared to everything else.  When they teach shooting to Boy Scouts, a very common rifle to use is the Ruger 10/22.  It's also a very common first gun for young ones to own.

But back to the .22LR AR-15.  If this is the gun he got, it would look something like this:



In the other corner, the 10/22 rifle that a Boy Scout would be trained to use and might even own, looks like this:



Way less scary looking right?  More like a hunting rifle than an assault rifle?  Many a squirrel have fallen to the Ruger 10/22.

In terms of lethality, though, both are exactly the same.  Both have standard 10 round magazines, both fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger, and both can be equipped with extended magazines with 20 or 30 rounds.

So if your qualm is with a 9-year-old being given an "assault rifle," well, that doesn't really mean anything different than if the 9-year-old had been given a "rifle." 

If you have qualms with him being given a gun, period, well that's it's own separate conversation. 
Logged
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: January 01, 2013, 01:26:10 AM »

Quote from: gellar on December 31, 2012, 05:41:28 PM


I will never understand two sides of the pro-gun argument:

1) It won't solve *everything*, so it's not worth doing at all!
and
2) If we had MOAR guns, things would be better.

This two arguments are completely asinine and counter to the results in literally every country with reasonable gun control.  They are better off when it comes to gun violence and fatalities, period.

Now the argument that guns are a part of American culture, 2nd Amendment, 'our freedoms', etc... I am fine with those.  Just don't try the idiot logic of 1 and 2 above.  Please.  You sound stupid.



Yep yep. I think we're all in agreement there smile  The idea that the answer to everything is guns is ludicrous. All it does is create a vicious circle. More guns? Oh no, need more guns to protect against those out of control with guns! Pretty soon you'd have cities looking like military camps. Reasonably, the only ones that really have a need for any guns are law enforcement, military, and perhaps the hunter with a license. Although, I realize there are some tough neighborhoods where there are already armed guards. But it seems to be the easy way out for everywhere else. So yeah, I don't understand the pro arguments either. They're really grabbing at something trying to remain relevant, but they've missed the boat by far.


As for the other discussion, for me, it's the aspect of a kid getting a gun (any kind of gun other than a pellet or BB gun, really)  at that age and being encouraged that freaks me out. Kids are still very impressionable at that age and they don't often know any better, so if their parents encourage them,  they'll eventually learn that guns are OK or that's "cool" to use them, which is exactly the kind of thing I've talked about in guns being socially acceptable. So, the whole idea in general just doesn't sit well with me, I guess.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 02:16:42 AM by Rumpy » Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15362


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM »

Quote
No access to those kinds of weapons will also severely limit the black market

Worked for illegal drugs!  retard

But what type of new laws are you guys advocating?  Is this just an assault rifle ban (which I'm fine with)? But guy with a handgun can do as much damage (see VA Tech).  So a ban on all guns?  What about all the guns in the populace already?

New gun laws won't stop guns from being illegally acquired which is the case in both the shootings.  

That said, as a gun owner, the requirements for getting them are ridiculous.  Getting a C&C permit easy peasy. I'd be all for far more comprehensive shooting tests and annual recerts, mental health exams etc.  That said, i'm not sure how that stops either shooting from happening.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 02:12:06 AM by ATB » Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3262


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: January 01, 2013, 02:21:04 AM »

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

Worked for illegal drugs!  retard

New gun laws won't stop guns from being illegally acquired which is the case in both the shootings.  

I hate this argument. Guns and drugs are illegal in most of Europe, but they don't have the shootings we do. Why?

(I am not for banning guns, I own one, just don't think this is a legitimate argument.)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 02:24:02 AM by Lee » Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6423


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 01, 2013, 10:36:56 AM »

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

But what type of new laws are you guys advocating?  Is this just an assault rifle ban (which I'm fine with)? But guy with a handgun can do as much damage (see VA Tech).  So a ban on all guns?  What about all the guns in the populace already?

As mentioned several times throughout this thread, access should be severely (and I do mean severely) limited for anything that is semi-automatic or fully automatic. It's very hard to commit mass murder with something that has to be manually reloaded. As to how to handle guns already existing out there... just go read my earlier posts. I don't want to post that response a third (fourth?) time.

Quote
New gun laws won't stop guns from being illegally acquired which is the case in both the shootings.  

Which shootings are those? The shooting which lead to this debate didn't have any illegal weapons involved, IIRC. The guy's mother owned them legally, and the son took them from her. If her access to guns was limited, the son probably wouldn't have been able to get guns either. But yes, you are correct to a certain degree. Even in Norway the most hard-boiled of criminals have access to guns. Note that these are the criminals that go after banks and armored transports. They never go after civilians, and they only do one heist before withdrawing. Any gun appearing in other situations is usually a normal rifle, and they aren't used for mass shootings. The big exception is the Utya shooting in 2011, where the shooter had spent significant effort (even putting his own life at risk while seeking out criminal networks in other countries) to obtain those guns. That's the kind of thing no law can prevent, and nobody expects it to. You want to stop the casual obtaining of guns that you see today, and the only way to do that is to severely limit access for everyone who doesn't have the most pressing of needs.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3611


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: January 01, 2013, 11:30:49 AM »

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

Quote
No access to those kinds of weapons will also severely limit the black market

Worked for illegal drugs!  retard


Ever notice how swift the Conservative movement is to cite the War on Drugs as an example of failed government policy while discussing anything except the War on Drugs?


"We can't promote responsible (gun ownership / energy efficiency / healthcare / literacy)!  Look at the failed War on Drugs!"

"Maybe you're right on that one.  It would remove a terrible burden on our justice system if we legalized marijuan-"

"OVER MY DEAD BODY!"


There are lots of problems with the comparison.  Guns are not addictive narcotics, compelling rational people to sacrifice every penny they have to finance a black market, and are more difficult to smuggle as relatively few people can smuggle boxes of hollow point rounds in a body cavity.  It's just interesting that Conservatives are so casual about publicly mocking a government policy they only wish to expand.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: January 01, 2013, 02:23:47 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on January 01, 2013, 10:36:56 AM

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

But what type of new laws are you guys advocating?  Is this just an assault rifle ban (which I'm fine with)? But guy with a handgun can do as much damage (see VA Tech).  So a ban on all guns?  What about all the guns in the populace already?

As mentioned several times throughout this thread, access should be severely (and I do mean severely) limited for anything that is semi-automatic or fully automatic. It's very hard to commit mass murder with something that has to be manually reloaded.

Access to fully automatic weapons is already severely limited. Manual reloading isn't the advantage of semi-automatic weapons; I think you might have meant to say magazine-fed. You can have manually-loaded semi-automatics, for instance a semi-auto shotgun.

I'll agree that magazine-fed weapons are probably the fastest firearms to reload, but I'm not sure if this particular tragedy would have been any different had Lanza used a different type. A revolver, a pump-action shotgun, even a break-action shotgun (only fires two shots), I just don't see it making any difference in Newtown when the victims are so thoroughly helpless. Other shootings, maybe. "Sniper" type mass shootings, though, I don't think would be helped with semi-auto bannings. Bolt action rifles for that would be just as bad or worse.
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6423


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 01, 2013, 02:52:50 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on January 01, 2013, 02:23:47 PM

Access to fully automatic weapons is already severely limited. Manual reloading isn't the advantage of semi-automatic weapons; I think you might have meant to say magazine-fed. You can have manually-loaded semi-automatics, for instance a semi-auto shotgun.

A semi-automatic shotgun places another cartridge into the chamber automatically, allowing you to fire a shot with every pull of the trigger. That's what I mean. Whether or not it uses a clip/magazine is irrelevant.

Quote
I'll agree that magazine-fed weapons are probably the fastest firearms to reload, but I'm not sure if this particular tragedy would have been any different had Lanza used a different type. A revolver, a pump-action shotgun, even a break-action shotgun (only fires two shots), I just don't see it making any difference in Newtown when the victims are so thoroughly helpless. Other shootings, maybe. "Sniper" type mass shootings, though, I don't think would be helped with semi-auto bannings. Bolt action rifles for that would be just as bad or worse.

Would the tragedy have been averted if automatic or semi-automatic weapons were not available to the general public? Maybe not. But you're assuming the situation would have been the same. I'd say the chances of the murderer's mother being a "gun nut" and owning plenty of firearms would have been severely reduced. Chances are she wouldn't even have bothered with standard rifles, particularly if they required her to be an active hunter to own them (which is reasonable IMO). The free access to automatic (and semi-auto) weapons normalizes them in the public's eye, massively increasing the odds that someone is going to collect them legally.

See, the mistake many gun proponents are making is that they're assuming guns would be just as popular after a prolonged period of non-access. Look at other countries who have created bans. Gun popularity has fallen there. The same goes for other things that are banned. Smoking is no longer anywhere near as popular as it used to be. In Norway, where smoking requires you to be outdoors (well away from doors to public buildings) or in your own home after a law change in 2004, has resulted in a dramatic reduction in smokers, to a mere 17% in 2011 from 33% in 1996. Where smoking used to be "cool", it's now generally shunned and smokers are often looked down upon. Even the failed prohibition in the US, which was mismanaged to the extreme, resulted in a halving of alcohol consumption in the 1920s, and an overall reduction from pre-prohibition levels until the 1940s, well past the date when the prohibition was lifted.

These things change people's attitudes to the thing that is banned. There is often heavy resistance to these kinds of bans, but afterwards, once everyone gets some distance from the issue, people tend to agree that the change was for the better. Then, slowly, the law becomes less important as the public itself stops seeking the thing that was banned.  
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15362


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: January 01, 2013, 02:58:33 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on January 01, 2013, 11:30:49 AM

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

Quote
No access to those kinds of weapons will also severely limit the black market

Worked for illegal drugs!  retard


Ever notice how swift the Conservative movement is to cite the War on Drugs as an example of failed government policy while discussing anything except the War on Drugs?


"We can't promote responsible (gun ownership / energy efficiency / healthcare / literacy)!  Look at the failed War on Drugs!"

"Maybe you're right on that one.  It would remove a terrible burden on our justice system if we legalized marijuan-"

"OVER MY DEAD BODY!"


There are lots of problems with the comparison.  Guns are not addictive narcotics, compelling rational people to sacrifice every penny they have to finance a black market, and are more difficult to smuggle as relatively few people can smuggle boxes of hollow point rounds in a body cavity.  It's just interesting that Conservatives are so casual about publicly mocking a government policy they only wish to expand.

-Autistic Angel

Feel free to address anything else I said... or did you stop reading? Because I said none of the above...

Quote
"It's just interesting that Conservatives are so casual about publicly mocking a government policy they only wish to expand."

I don't even know what this means.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15362


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: January 01, 2013, 03:03:58 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on January 01, 2013, 10:36:56 AM

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

But what type of new laws are you guys advocating?  Is this just an assault rifle ban (which I'm fine with)? But guy with a handgun can do as much damage (see VA Tech).  So a ban on all guns?  What about all the guns in the populace already?

As mentioned several times throughout this thread, access should be severely (and I do mean severely) limited for anything that is semi-automatic or fully automatic. It's very hard to commit mass murder with something that has to be manually reloaded. As to how to handle guns already existing out there... just go read my earlier posts. I don't want to post that response a third (fourth?) time.

Quote
New gun laws won't stop guns from being illegally acquired which is the case in both the shootings.  

Which shootings are those? The shooting which lead to this debate didn't have any illegal weapons involved, IIRC.

My point was that he took guns that were not his. Thus the laws have no bearing on the events that happened. You cannot stop people who do wrong from doing wrong...fences only keep the good guys out... Same thing with the fireman sniper.  Which is why I asked what new laws folks in the threads were advocating.  In both these cases the existing laws were followed, and it didn't prevent anything. Logically, then and as you've stated, a complete ban seems to be the only thing prescribed...?
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: January 01, 2013, 03:16:28 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on January 01, 2013, 02:52:50 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on January 01, 2013, 02:23:47 PM

Access to fully automatic weapons is already severely limited. Manual reloading isn't the advantage of semi-automatic weapons; I think you might have meant to say magazine-fed. You can have manually-loaded semi-automatics, for instance a semi-auto shotgun.

A semi-automatic shotgun places another cartridge into the chamber automatically, allowing you to fire a shot with every pull of the trigger. That's what I mean. Whether or not it uses a clip/magazine is irrelevant.

You threw me off when you said 'manually reloaded.'  I could be wrong, but generally that means putting more ammunition into a weapon that has run out of ammo. What you're saying, I think you'd call it "manually cycling."

Whatever you want to call it, though, other types of actions other than semi-auto can still be very quick to fire. A revolver, in particular, can fire off its rounds just as quickly as a semi-auto handgun. A pump-action shotgun can still be fired very quickly. Even a bolt-action rifle can easily fire a round a second.

Quote
Quote
I'll agree that magazine-fed weapons are probably the fastest firearms to reload, but I'm not sure if this particular tragedy would have been any different had Lanza used a different type. A revolver, a pump-action shotgun, even a break-action shotgun (only fires two shots), I just don't see it making any difference in Newtown when the victims are so thoroughly helpless. Other shootings, maybe. "Sniper" type mass shootings, though, I don't think would be helped with semi-auto bannings. Bolt action rifles for that would be just as bad or worse.

Would the tragedy have been averted if automatic or semi-automatic weapons were not available to the general public? Maybe not. ...  The free access to automatic (and semi-auto) weapons
Automatic weapons are not available to the general public in America.

And just to make sure you don't think I'm ignoring the rest of what you wrote--I'm pretty much just trying to stick to fact-checking and sharing information in these discussions. Well, I guess that does mean I'm ignoring the rest of what you wrote, but not because I didn't read it. slywink
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6423


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 01, 2013, 04:16:28 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 03:03:58 PM

My point was that he took guns that were not his.

And my point was that he wouldn't have been able to with strict gun laws.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15520


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: January 01, 2013, 05:07:23 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on December 31, 2012, 07:26:04 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 31, 2012, 05:11:51 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on December 31, 2012, 05:02:23 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 31, 2012, 04:21:27 PM

My other brother-in-law mentioned that a nephew of his (who is under ten) received an assault rifle. 

What the fuck?

Ok, I'll bite. Why does this freak you out? Because its an assault rifle? Or just the idea of giving a 9-year-old a rifle?

Why does a grade school kid need an assault rifle?  Ever?  At all?

Look, I understand that shooting a powerful weapon can be an incredibly exciting experience.  I personally wouldn't take my young child to fire one, but I get that it can be quite cool (if potentially deadly, see previous post which mentions that exact scenario).

So take your kid out to a range that will allow it and fire away.  Then come home and be safe. 

Also, you know what kids love to do with extreme Christmas presents?  Show them off to other kids.  You know who sure as hell wouldn't want another kid showing their child the kick ass gun they just got as a present?  Me.

Spoiler for Hiden:
Ok, so it's the assault rifle part that shocks you?  So first, there's not really any such thing as an assault rifle.  The closest thing to a definition is more or less that it's a rifle that looks like a military fully automatic rifle.

I don't know what the kid in question actually got, but a very likely candidate is an AR-15 chambered for .22LR ammo.  The .22LR type of bullet is just about the smallest, weakest bullet out there.  When you fire it, there's hardly any recoil--it's almost like shooting a BB gun as far as the kick.  It's still dangerous, and lethal, but it's far less powerful than a 9mm handgun, and way less powerful than a real rifle bullet.

.22LR guns are really popular for kids or beginner shooters because of the extremely light recoil.  The ammo is also crazy dirt cheap compared to everything else.  When they teach shooting to Boy Scouts, a very common rifle to use is the Ruger 10/22.  It's also a very common first gun for young ones to own.

But back to the .22LR AR-15.  If this is the gun he got, it would look something like this:



In the other corner, the 10/22 rifle that a Boy Scout would be trained to use and might even own, looks like this:



Way less scary looking right?  More like a hunting rifle than an assault rifle?  Many a squirrel have fallen to the Ruger 10/22.

In terms of lethality, though, both are exactly the same.  Both have standard 10 round magazines, both fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger, and both can be equipped with extended magazines with 20 or 30 rounds.

So if your qualm is with a 9-year-old being given an "assault rifle," well, that doesn't really mean anything different than if the 9-year-old had been given a "rifle." 

If you have qualms with him being given a gun, period, well that's it's own separate conversation. 


Pug, you're doing this thing where you're pulling out details that are very specific and detailed in such a way that it's like putting a shiny bauble in front of the argument.

The assault rifle thing that I had a problem with was an aside at the end of a longer issue (to which I'll add that I know that kid, and he should not be allowed near weapons).

Additionally, while I do have a problem with the idea of anyone giving a kid any gun that was designed for killing humans specifically, I further have an issue with a parent that gives a kid a menacing looking one that is designed to say, "Look how kick ass you look with this life-annihilating device, Timmy, imagine when you grow up and can get a real one!" 

What caliber it is and its potential use in terrorizing the squirrel population is irrelevant.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8793



View Profile
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2013, 05:13:09 PM »

Gun laws will never be able to address bad parenting.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2013, 05:43:27 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 01, 2013, 05:07:23 PM

Pug, you're doing this thing where you're pulling out details that are very specific and detailed in such a way that it's like putting a shiny bauble in front of the argument.

The assault rifle thing that I had a problem with was an aside at the end of a longer issue (to which I'll add that I know that kid, and he should not be allowed near weapons).

I'm actually not trying to push my own opinion at all; I just think these discussions are better served if both sides understand what we're talking about.  There's so much misinformation out there.  If it seems like I'm ignoring the larger argument, well, I am.  I'm pulling out the specific details to make sure we're all talking about the same specific details.

It seemed as if you had the common misconception that assault rifles are a thing that exists, and that they're somehow more dangerous than regular rifles.  I was just trying to address that.  I think this something that people need to get right, not because I want to preserve my right to buy an AR-15 (I'm not really interested in one) but because if people focus on assault rifles as the bogeymen, they're not going to be fixing anything.  For example, during the 1994 assault weapon ban, a friend of mine legally bought a semi-auto AK-47.  It had a straight grip instead of a pistol grip, and didn't classify as an assault weapon.

Quote
Additionally, while I do have a problem with the idea of anyone giving a kid any gun that was designed for killing humans specifically, I further have an issue with a parent that gives a kid a menacing looking one that is designed to say, "Look how kick ass you look with this life-annihilating device, Timmy, imagine when you grow up and can get a real one!" 
It sounds like you do indeed have an issue with people owning guns that have a certain cosmetic appearance.  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I'm sure some people buy AR-15s because they "look menacing" or make one look kick-ass, but my guess is most people buy them because it's an American pride thing, because they like it, because they're just really popular in general, because there's such a huge aftermarket for personal customization, or just because it's a really proven, reliable platform.

I can only speak to it so much, because like I said, AR-15s don't really appeal to me personally. 

Quote
What caliber it is and its potential use in terrorizing the squirrel population is irrelevant.
You said that 'shooting a powerful weapon can be an incredibly exciting experience.'  I brought up the caliber because it seemed like you weren't aware that an "assault rifle" could come chambered in the least powerful caliber.  I also brought it up because the Ruger 10/22 is quite possibly the most likely gun for people to find acceptable for kids to be allowed to try (if they can accept the idea of a kid holding a gun at all).  The only thing more likely to win acceptance is a .22LR rifle that can only hold a single round. 

If the 10/22 is acceptable, then the only thing making an AR-15 in .22LR unacceptable is its appearance.  You've now made it clear that the visual appearance does make a difference for you, but at the time it sounded like you thought there was an actual substantive difference in the lethality of an 'assault rifle' versus a 'regular' rifle.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15520


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2013, 06:09:04 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on January 01, 2013, 05:43:27 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 01, 2013, 05:07:23 PM

Pug, you're doing this thing where you're pulling out details that are very specific and detailed in such a way that it's like putting a shiny bauble in front of the argument.

The assault rifle thing that I had a problem with was an aside at the end of a longer issue (to which I'll add that I know that kid, and he should not be allowed near weapons).

I'm actually not trying to push my own opinion at all; I just think these discussions are better served if both sides understand what we're talking about.  There's so much misinformation out there.  If it seems like I'm ignoring the larger argument, well, I am.  I'm pulling out the specific details to make sure we're all talking about the same specific details.

It seemed as if you had the common misconception that assault rifles are a thing that exists, and that they're somehow more dangerous than regular rifles.  I was just trying to address that.  I think this something that people need to get right, not because I want to preserve my right to buy an AR-15 (I'm not really interested in one) but because if people focus on assault rifles as the bogeymen, they're not going to be fixing anything.  For example, during the 1994 assault weapon ban, a friend of mine legally bought a semi-auto AK-47.  It had a straight grip instead of a pistol grip, and didn't classify as an assault weapon.

Quote
Additionally, while I do have a problem with the idea of anyone giving a kid any gun that was designed for killing humans specifically, I further have an issue with a parent that gives a kid a menacing looking one that is designed to say, "Look how kick ass you look with this life-annihilating device, Timmy, imagine when you grow up and can get a real one!" 
It sounds like you do indeed have an issue with people owning guns that have a certain cosmetic appearance.  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I'm sure some people buy AR-15s because they "look menacing" or make one look kick-ass, but my guess is most people buy them because it's an American pride thing, because they like it, because they're just really popular in general, because there's such a huge aftermarket for personal customization, or just because it's a really proven, reliable platform.

I can only speak to it so much, because like I said, AR-15s don't really appeal to me personally. 

Quote
What caliber it is and its potential use in terrorizing the squirrel population is irrelevant.
You said that 'shooting a powerful weapon can be an incredibly exciting experience.'  I brought up the caliber because it seemed like you weren't aware that an "assault rifle" could come chambered in the least powerful caliber.  I also brought it up because the Ruger 10/22 is quite possibly the most likely gun for people to find acceptable for kids to be allowed to try (if they can accept the idea of a kid holding a gun at all).  The only thing more likely to win acceptance is a .22LR rifle that can only hold a single round. 

If the 10/22 is acceptable, then the only thing making an AR-15 in .22LR unacceptable is its appearance.  You've now made it clear that the visual appearance does make a difference for you, but at the time it sounded like you thought there was an actual substantive difference in the lethality of an 'assault rifle' versus a 'regular' rifle.

We're spending a lot of time on this aside.

Before continuing, I do want to complement you on remaining relatively rational, pug (apart from comments about my ignorance disguised as comments specifically not about my ignorance  icon_razz).

My problem is specifically with the parents buying a child a cosmetically menacing weapon.  I said nothing about adults owning such weapons.  Any issues I have with adults owning weapons fall into a much broader category of gun control in general.  But a parent isn't buying that weapon for their child because of the after-market resale value.

My "shooting a powerful weapon" comment was meant to apply to firearms as a whole.  As opposed to, say, a bow and arrow (though a certain surge can certainly be felt there, as well).  The word "powerful" was meant as a descriptive element to emphasize where the thrill was coming from.

If I were trying to draft a legal document about the banning of specific weapons, then, yes, my using the term "assault rifle" should be validly questioned.  In a one-sentence aside where it was used to quickly evoke an idea, it probably isn't worth the effort.

Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3611


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2013, 06:12:11 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:58:33 PM

Quote
"It's just interesting that Conservatives are so casual about publicly mocking a government policy they only wish to expand."


I don't even know what this means.


When Conservatives need an example of expensive government regulations that have failed to completely eradicate an endemic societal problem, they reliably turn to the War on Drugs.  Example:

Quote from: ATB on January 01, 2013, 02:10:09 AM

Quote
No access to those kinds of weapons will also severely limit the black market

Worked for illegal drugs!  retard


Then, whenever Liberals discuss the most modest rollbacks of the War on Drugs, like decriminalizing marijuana, Conservatives start screaming about moral corruption, gateway drugs, and stoners who put roasts in the high chair and babies in the oven.

In other words, when giving examples of how well Conservatives understand the limitations of governmental regulation, you might not want to start by reminding everyone how miserably Conservative-led regulations have failed.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11311


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: January 01, 2013, 07:53:07 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 01, 2013, 06:09:04 PM

We're spending a lot of time on this aside.

I see it as an important aside.  Just like TiLT is far from being alone in thinking that people in the US can easily buy fully automatic weapons, so too are misconceptions about assault rifles hugely prevalent.  At least TiLT is coming from a perspective outside the country, but even people in the country get it wrong.  Who can blame them?  The terminology gets messed up all the time in the news or from politicians, and with the frenzied pace of today's social media sharing, one half-fact or piece of misinformation can balloon like a game of telephone into something people think of as reality.

Quote
Before continuing, I do want to complement you on remaining relatively rational, pug (apart from comments about my ignorance disguised as comments specifically not about my ignorance  icon_razz).
Thanks, I appreciate that.  But even whatever you're interpreting me as trying to call you ignorant, I'm also honest-to-goodness not trying to do that either.  If I explained something you misunderstood, then super!  If I explained something you already knew, then also super!  Glad you were informed.

Quote
My problem is specifically with the parents buying a child a cosmetically menacing weapon.  I said nothing about adults owning such weapons.  Any issues I have with adults owning weapons fall into a much broader category of gun control in general.  But a parent isn't buying that weapon for their child because of the after-market resale value.
I think the mentality you're worried about does exist, and I agree it's bad, but I don't think it's tied to menacing-looking weapons.  I think anyone who's going to teach a "fuck yeah, let's blow up some shit" mentality when introducing their kids to firearms is going to be equally irresponsible whether they're showing the kid an AR-15, a Ruger 10/22, a BB gun, or a firecracker.

A good parent, though, is going to introduce firearms to their kid safely and responsibly, and will ingrain safe handling fundamentals.  If a kid like that decides they want their own rifle at age 9, and the parent thinks the kid is responsible enough to have one, I just don't see how a menacing-looking rifle is going to suddenly indoctrinate the kid toward violence any more than a wood-stocked non-scary rifle would.  I guess we just disagree on this point?

Quote
My "shooting a powerful weapon" comment was meant to apply to firearms as a whole.  As opposed to, say, a bow and arrow (though a certain surge can certainly be felt there, as well).  The word "powerful" was meant as a descriptive element to emphasize where the thrill was coming from.
[thereisasmileyfacedon'ttakethisseriously]My only qualm here is in describing shooting a .22 as feeling powerful. slywink  I've had burps that felt more violent.[/thereisasmileyfacedon'ttakethisseriously]
Logged
Hrothgar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1529


Do you Talk Strategy?


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 02, 2013, 12:29:23 AM »

While I'm sure this is interesting, is there any reason this hasn't been moved to P/R Nonsense?  If no one else has requested it to be moved, I will.  Thanks.
Logged

Cheers,
Hrothgar
Live gamertag & PSN name: HrothgarGG
I'm updating my website again.

"No, not alone."  -- War, Darksiders
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.185 seconds with 94 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.035s, 2q)