February 17, 2008 -
In the wake of Thursday's tragic shooting at Northen Illinois University, a state legislator was quick to defend guns while attempting to shift blame for the rampage to other targets - including video games.As reported by the Chicago Daily Herald, Rep. Robert Pritchard (R), whose legislative district includes the NIU campus, said:
[Gun control] doesn't seem to impact the kind of gun violence that goes on. I think we need to broaden the discussion to include what other factors are weighing on these kind of deranged individuals.
I think video games is a part of the problem, television, movies. Just a whole culture of violence.
Comments
Okay, he came as close to saying "Guns don't kill people, video games do." as you can without actually saying it. Now, I don't believe gun control would help, since people planning to kill don't exactly seem to like laws anyways. Blaming video games while completely refusing to even look into exactly how the killer got the weapons with his history of mental illness is insane. Laws don't work if they are not enforced, so far most of the school shootings in my lifetime have been done with guns acquired illegally, and they all have had other reasons that negate the need to blame video games.
Also, how does this make any sense? He went to boot camp, but games taught him how to kill.
"I think video games is a part of the problem, television, movies. Just a whole culture of violence."
He did not single out videogames in any way. The title to this story is a bit misleading and instead should read:
"Illinois Legislator on NIU Rampage: Don't blame guns, blame the media."
Sure he mentioned videogames was part of the problem but I think it's refreshing (I know thats sad) to see he is not using videogames as a scapegoat like so many others.
Do the story justice and give the Rep. some respect, the headline should be altered.
Never mind the fat that the state tried to pass what was found to be an unconstitutional law and (emphasis mine) still owes money in court fees that the taxpayers have to pay!
Then again, this guy's a Republican. Of course he's going to blame games and other popular entertainment and not guns!
It makes me wonder who NIU's presdient is going to be more apt to listen to; his students like Mark of Cain or JT, Blago and Pritchard?
Media glorification of violence is one facet of the debate. Another is the woefully inadequete information and knowledge that people have about mental illness and the potential side effects of stopping your meds cold. There are many factors involved and we should be talking about all them instead of the kneejerk "leave my videogames alone" arguement. All media needs to be discussed, same as the man's mental illness, his meds, the ease at which someone can purchase a gun online and many other issues.
If no one is ever willing to talk openly and honestly nothing will ever get solved.
Sure, he does also mention television and movies as well. However, he put video games out there in the spotlight more by giving the nod mostly to them. That in a sense still places more of the blame on video games.
But I don't think there is anything to fully blame on a culture of violence. I've said it before, I'll say it again. More then gun control, more then any type of violence, there are just people who lose touch with things and go into this horrible place and are capable of horrible things. But what makes this even worse is he isn't a raving disturbed person like Cho. He seems like he's normal. People want to find the or any pattern they can so they can feel like there is some predictable nature to this and you can pick out the troubled kids and either cordon them off or stop them in time.
The problem is not simply that they're blaming video games. The problem is that they're looking for an oversimple solution to a complicated problem of violence. These people don't realize that you could ban all video games, movies, and television shows deemed inappropriate for anyone over the age of 6 and it wouldn't eliminate tragedies like this.
At the same time, Rep. Pritchard's claim that gun control is not the problem in this case is, however misguided, accurate. The NIU shooter had a state firearm license and was looking at a career in the prison system. The government couldn't have kept guns away from him any more than you could video games. Unfortunately, the gun lobbyists still feel the need to defend themselves when things like this happen. It's just a shame that they feel the need to attack video games in doing so.
It's been widely reported that the shooter went off his medication before this incident. Why can't they just settle on that? Could pharmaceutical ninja-lobbyists be responsible?
Oh and the gun control issue is harder then people make it out to be. Sure the guy had mental problems but he was on medication which seemed to be working, how was the gun store owner supposed to know that the guy would come off his medication then go nuts, or was he supposed to assume everyone with mental illnesses will stop taking their medication then go nuts?
"please please please politicians, just use some common sense. i really dont get the statement that gun control seems to have no effect. if there are NO GUNS AVAILABLE they cant do anything but literally THROW BULLETS. "
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. If we ban guns, criminals will just get their guns from the black market (which they sometimes do all ready) and meanwhile every law abiding citizen won't have guns to defend themselves.
Where do you think people get heroin cocaine and (non-medical) marijuana, from the black market. It was the same black market that filled the U.S.A with booze during the 1920s even though it was illegal.
Oh and of course there's the notion that for every ojne mass murderer there are hundreds probably thousands of people who have guns and don't kill people. Banning guns would be punishing a lot of people for the sins of a few.
Im sorry but i live in the uk, and have managed to live for 25 years without ever NEEDING a gun on a day to day basis. As far as a 'constitutional right' the right to bear arms comes from a time when we didnt live in an alleged 'civilised' society, where bears and indians and bandits where nearby everyday.
This clearly isnt the case now. Anyone saying they NEED a gun, im sorry i just CANNOT agree. plain WRONG. i live in a rough area too. but i dont NEED a gun. If you got rid of 99% of the guns then people wouldnt 'just get hold of legally owned guns anyway' and gun control WOULD have an effect.
I HONESTLY have NO CLUE how on earth id be able to get hold of a gun in the uk. seriously. absolutely no clue. if i was ever (god forbid) mentally ill, then at least i wouldn't be able to take out 15 people with a gun or whatever. Im sure id get taken down quickly if i was only armed with say a baseball bat. Not saying guns cant be gotten hold of. but its ALOT harder.
yeah but if lots of people get handguns to defend themselves, then the criminals are still criminals and still go to the black market and instead of handguns , just get rifles. it just escalates.
perhaps people wouldnt be able to defend themselves as easily but i bet half the time the criminals would rob somebody, and if they completely co-operated and didnt resist, the thief would take the stuff and leave and nobody would get shot. And massacres like this would be alot more difficult to actually plan and commit. I get that people shouldnt have to co-operate and let their things be stolen, but in 25 years ive never NEEDED to use a gun. And.. im still here.. ive had things stolen.. but the police have done their job, and yeah it sucked it wasnt nice, and it shouldnt happen, but i got insurance for the stuff and didnt NEED a gun.
Thats true, but if robbers think that you're armed, they're probably not going to mess with you, now, if you take the UK's laws, or Canada's laws, then the crooks will know that the civilians are not armed, and that makes you a prime target for them.
I think gun control laws are very unnecessary, despite what the politicians say and such.
Besides its a well know fact that hundreds of people are nickle and dimed to death each day by videogame companys.
So instead of buying your five year old son that lethal super mario galaxy why dont you just buy him a glock instead? remember guns are safe, and fun!(buy him some smokes while your at it)
I wish it was illegal to be a complete idiot...(sigh)
But really, the bottom line that no one is comfortable with is that you -cannot- stop violent crimes from happening. They have always happened. They will always happen. Unless you can fundamentally alter human behaviour (and even if it were possible, would anyone have the right?) you can't stop individuals from behaving violently. It's sad, yes, but there's almost nothing that can be done about it.
P.S. - Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the ready availability of weapons in the US isn't a factor. I'm just saying that banning said availability isn't the answer, the same way banning videogames is not. Perhaps stricter gun control would be a good thing - these whackjobs never seem to have too much trouble acquiring weapons, despite being clearly disturbed individuals.
But taking away guns will reduce these attacks, and make them less severe.
If I had a gun and went to a crowded place, it would be easy to just shoot a bunch of people. Let's say I didn't have a gun, so I used a knife. It would take much, much more time and energy to kill the same amount of people.
(Warning: a little offtopic)
While effective gun control would *theoretically* reduce the levels of gun violence in the US, it just won't work. Probably.
The way I see it, you're trying to disarm a huge population of people who have been brought up in a culture where the 'right to bear arms' is just a matter of course. Even if you could convince the majority of the population to ditch the second amendment, the 1% who cling desperately onto their security-blanket guns would be very hard to deal with.
Coming from a country where guns are extremely hard to come by, it's easy to see the *benefits* of gun control, but the implementation seems so difficult that - perhaps, who knows? - it may never happen in a firearm-happy country like the US.
So just because YOU never needed a gun you then assume that millions of people you've never met (in a country thousands of miles away from where you live), would not need a gun. That's not stupidly illogical or making broad generalisations at all. I mean clearly everyone must go though the same life experience you do and therefore you can preach to people you've never met about what they would need.
Oh and there are more reasons to own a gun then just self-defense. If our government ever became tyrannical then us citizens would be armed and then we could rebel against the tyranny and set up a new democracy.
If the Americans in 1776 couldn't get guns we wouldn't have won the war.
So that's precisely why we have this in the second amendment,
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state"
Its true Guns are not the problem either, the problem is you have politically correct fascists that refute logic at every turn, they think a world devoid of thought and free will is the best.
To blame media and dismiss guns is quite silly and down right scary, take away all our rights and you still wil have crazy people being crazy and stupid people being stupid..
The 1% might disagree, but majority always wins
@ Father Time
This is a different day and age. Why do random people need guns when we have the police? Of course, I'm just talking about the USA, I don't really know what it's like anywhere else.
Hence why the rate of gun crime over in the UK is SO LOW.
Knives are the real problem here, that and the general social culture of drunken yobbishness.
Guns just make it easier to kill.
Why doesn't the UK ban knives (as a weapon).
How would that possibly work? Could I not use a steak knife as a weapon?
Although it's pointless really, ban guns criminals use knives or black market guns. Ban knives and guns and the criminals will start using blunt objects.
And no you can't ban blunt objects that would literally be impossible to enforce and painfully counter-productive (just think of all the things found on a construction site that would constitute blunt objects).
And of course if you don't want to use blunt objects you can use chainsaws, broken glass, your bare hands, explosives, rope etc.
Finally some common sense, seriously it's not the fact that we have the right to drink or own cars that cause people to drink and drive it's the fact that some people drink and drive.
yeah but look at the crime figures..
the US actually has a HIGHER percentile rate of violent crime (and resulting death) than the uk and canada. SO the argument that criminals know your not armed n rob everyone just isnt true! factually!
Sorry folks, but strict gun control doesn't work, and yes, this kinda person needs to be written to, at least if you live in that state, to which I don't.
@NovaBlack: I don't think thats true actually true, I'm going to pull a Jack Thompson, ugh, and well say that I think thats false. But I still believe that if criminals think that you're armed, they won't mess with you, unlike in the UK and Canada where they know you're not armed and will mess with you.
I follow politics a lot, and I have come to the conclusion, that all of them are idiots. Thats not a lie, they really are all idiots. The R's are stupid, the D's are stupid. They have all lost there connection with reality. Everyone running for the prez is going to make the country go bankrupt (more then we already are). Well, not to sure about huckabee, don't know his plan. But basically, they are all crazy.
sorry if i caused offense.
I do actually know alot of american culture, i travelled with a backpack around the USA on greyhound buses for 4 months. Again i never NEEDED (note NEED , im not saying prefer) a gun.
as far as " If our government ever became tyrannical then us citizens would be armed and then we could rebel against the tyranny and set up a new democracy.", umm.. how often does that happen to warrant needing guns on a day to day basis..... hmm and have you never heard of ghandi?
there are other ways besides violence my friend.
"If the Americans in 1776 couldn’t get guns we wouldn’t have won the war."
exactly the point i made earlier. it is no longer 1776. Time and civilisations move on. Just because we had slaves once upon a time, to build alot of the foundations of the cities we now live in doesnt mean we should have them now just because we once did.
We don't want to go that same route with gun control.