British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S. Rampages?

April 6, 2009 -

With the United States rocked by a series of mass-murder incidents in recent weeks, Dalitso Njolinjo of The Moderate Voice wonders why the influence of video games, music and movies are often blamed for such events:

As an avid hip hop fan... When my favorite rappers veered into subjects of violence and gun play, my thought always seem to lead me to one question, how do they get these guns so easily? ...

I remember the Columbine High School massacre... Instead of having a serious conversation about gun crime and gun control, the majority of the news stories based on sensationalism. ‘The Trench Coat Mafia’, ‘they played violent video games’, ‘they were fans of Marilyn Manson’ and ‘they were fans of Natural Born Killers’... as soon as the conversation did veer towards gun control, the NRA would call foul play and blame someone in pop culture...

Fast forward to the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, what did Fox News ‘journalist’ Bill O’Reilly want to talk about? [rappers]...

 

When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims.


Comments

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

The primary purpose of pepper spray, or a tazer, is to protect, by incapacitating a dangerous individual long enough to subdue them, flee, or get help.  Pepper spray cannot kill.  Tazers only kill through mishaps.  They're not anywhere near as dangerous or hazardous to others as a gun is.

-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known

sac ekimi  estetik arac kiralama rent a car oto kiralama yuz estetigi Smartlipo lazerlipoliz evden eve nakliyat burun estetigi burun estetigi diyet yazgulu

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

What exactly are we attempting to discuss here? That guns are violent weapons, or are we discussing merits (or lack thereof) of gun control, or violent crime in general?

I don't think anyone can make an argument against guns being a violent weapon. They're designed specifically to cause bodily harm. However, the threat of harm also functions as a deterrent. If you know you could get shot, you're less likely to do whatever would put you in such a situation. But guns themselves are neither good nor evil. They're merely a tool used by a person who makes a choice to use or not use violent force with it. The availability or lack of availability simply changes the choice of weapon used to accomplish an individual's goal of inflicting bodily harm. Once a person makes a choice to use violent force, they'll do so with the best weapon available to them. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon that winds up being. There's absolutely no correlation between gun controls and violent crime rates. Both Canada and the UK have strict gun control laws, and both have higher violent crime rates than the US.

Canadian crime rates:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02-eng.htm

US Violent crime rate in 2007

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

UK Crime rates in 2006-2007 (Sept 2006-Sept 2007)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf

Some extrapolation is needed to make a direct comparison between the UK statistics and the figures for the US provided by the FBI. First, the figure used by the BCS excludes crime against individuals 15 and under, which reduces the figure substantially. That aside, they state overall BCS crime rate at 10.1 million (pg 2) for the Sep 2006-Sep 2007 reporting year with violent crime comprising 21% of that figure (pg 5). This works out to 2.12 million violent crimes. The UK had a population of approx 60,975,000 around mid 2007 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6) which means a violent crime rate of 3478.5 per 100k. Compare that to the 466.9 per 100k in the US. Granted, there are plenty of factors which contribute to the differences in crime rates beyond weapon availability. Even so, that's a massive difference in violent crime rate.

So lets go back to the original author: "When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims".

I propose that anyone who wants to go kill another person would find a way to do so regardless of the weapon(s) available to them. The only difference would be the method in which it is done. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens leaves the guns only in the hands of the criminals, who in turn will become emboldened as their victims no longer have the means to retaliate against them. Blaming guns for the crime is no different than blaming video games, rock music, comic books, movies, or any of the other popular scapegoats of the 20th and 21st centuries. In the end, it boils down to someone having the desire to inflict pain and suffering on others, and then acting upon those impulses.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Because guns aren't at fault.

Many of the people that go on shootings obtain their weapons illegally. It isn't like I can walk into my local wal mart and get a high powered assault rifle, nor even a good hand gun.

Regulation is pretty good already. I prefer a good tazer to a gun though, as there's less problems with concealing it.

-Oh, that's right. Most states require you to take classes to be able to legally conceal a weapon - which means you must carry it in bright yellow and black holsters, blah blah blah.

Anyone want to pull up violent deaths in the U.K., compare it to the overall population number in the UK, then do the same for the U.S. and put them together?

My British writer friend, I must ask you this! Have you ever listened to a criminal/mugger's response on what he's most afraid of when he commits his crime? It isn't the police, nor is it a bystander. A criminal's greatest fear is that the victim is armed.

------

Con side! : Applying for a gun should require intense psychological screening for everything but semi automatic hunting rifles and shotguns.

I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

A couple of things to say...

*ahem*

1. After looking through all of the arguments on here, I'm only go to say this. Guns and the people who use them need to be more focused on instead of video games that don't even factor in the equation. It doesn't matter if we ban guns or not, what we need to do is focus on the issue at hand.

2. Jack Thompson, I'm surprised your not here on this article ranting at us.

3. Can't we all just get  along?

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

Americans REQUIRE guns to protect themselves from the british. The world sneers at the silliness of the concept. Its clear the british reinvation has already begun. Those rotten-toothed bastards are already launching attacks with words, sentences and paragraphs. The Pan-Atlantic War has already begun.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

The only place should be allowed to own guns is in a videogame.


-- teh moominz --

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

I m gussing no one has read this article yet

Experts: Loss, revenge often drive mass murders

Not related to gun laws or video games but it does apply to the arguement at hand. I always wonder why people are quick to blame the tools or some type of medium instead of looking at the circumstances that caused the situation. Yeah yeah if didnt have a gun then so many people wouldnt be killed. But if the circumstances of constantly bullying, harassment, physical abuse, and so forth were adverted then no one would have been killed. But then again some times no matter what you do there is no helping some people.

I do want to say this, Those who accept more responsibility, must be dealt with harsher punishment than those who do not. If you dont want to deal with the punishment then dont accept the responsibility.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

I'm going to start by asking a question many of you will probably find outrageous and inflamatory, but bare with me because I'm not trying to provoke people here.

The general tone of arguement in this thread is that guns are used to take life. I have to ask:

 

So what? 

 

The purpose of a gun is singular: to kill. But that doesn't invalidate it automatically. Sometimes, as awful as it is, killing is necessary. Stating that because the only purpose of a gun is to kill means that guns should be banned is taking the default position that killing is always wrong. I've seen a lot of people who talk about proptecting oneself without resorting to killing. But it is not the responsibility of a victim to prevent the death of his or her attacker; in a situation where you are being threatened with grave bodily injury or death your only responsibility is to protect yourself to the fullest extent of your ability. Period. It doesn't invalidate a hammer to strike a nail and it doesn't demonize a weapon to kill.

Several arguments here focus on the large numbers of people that guns can kill at one time. While I hardly accept that guns are the only way to kill large numbers of people (see: Oklahoma City, 9/11) I do concede their efficiency in comparison to other common weapons. It is simpler to get a gun and kill in mass numbers in America. (In other places I would refer to car bombs, and IEDs) What I would like to know is what the magic number is. If a person kills someone with a gun we hardly notice. Two people and the local press might pick it up. I don't accept that these tragedies although different in scale are at all different in their impact. Murder is murder whether one or one hundred people are killed. A shooter taking a large number of lives all at once is not more horrible to me than any other murder. Life isn't valuable only in volume.

Finally and perhaps most critically my questions come down to an issue of liberty. The Founders understood that the possibility of government to become corrupt and tyrranical existed. They wanted to insure that the people would always have the tools needed to protect themselves should their government become untenable. To that end they included the second amendment of the bill of rights. It was not intended to provide us with the means to protect ourselves from criminals although that is often a side effect of responsible gun ownership. It was designed specifically to give the people power to defend their freedom. So, what is freedom worth? How do we value liberty? Is it worth more than lives? Perhaps many lives? Should we risk curtailling our ability to protect our freedoms becuase a small group of people engages in criminal behavior that takes life from some of our citizenry? Benjamin Franklin said "Those who trade a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither and will loose both". Is there a point at which the value of life overrides the value of liberty? The Founders didn't seem to think so. The history of our nation would suggest that we as people haven't thought so either; we have fought many wars at a great expense of lives to secure liberty. I personally would trade my life in defense of my freedom; the former is meaningless without the latter.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

I would like to lend by voice to the Gun Control issue...using a simple message from Spiderman.

Gun = Great Power.

Gun + Person = Great Responsibility.

 

TBoneTony

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

(Please don't take offense to my comment. No offense is intended, no matter how sarcastic and bitter I sound.)

This is one of the few issues that I have my opinion on and I won't let anyone debate with me. I don't care how uninformed someone thinks I am in this, because I'm still grieving the death of someone I loved very much. No one is going to be able to convince me that guns are A-OK and shoot rainbows and fucking freedom. Not until my loved one is alive, and I can hold her and talk to her again.

But unfortunately, you can't undo a bullet to the brain and you certainly can't undo cremation. I guess I'm a lost cause, then.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

It's always sad when someone's loved one dies, even moreso when they're taken in a sudden manner.  But simply because a firearm was used to kill them, doesn't make all gun owners and guns evil.  What about the corner store in North Carolina that defended itself from two armed thugs?  What about the black civil rights workers in the 60's who kept revolvers on their dresser, fearing the Klan's retaliation? 

A few bad apples ought not spoil a RIGHT for everybody.  What about all the people who hunt for food?  I know that eating 400 pounds of bear meat for a few months is far more cost effective than buying steak for the same amount of time.  What about the people who use a handgun in defense of their family or friends? Just because something bad happened to your loved one, doesn't mean that guns are bad.

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Never said all gun owners are evil. Never said guns are evil, either. I just said that you're not going to convince me that they shoot rainbows and freedom. If you want to fight for the right to keep and use a tool that was designed to kill, and nothing else, you're going to have to deal with people who have lost loved ones to gun violence. Every time someone says, "But it's my right," I hear, "Sorry your friend died, but her life wasn't worth the monetary price of a gun and my right to own one supercedes her right to live."

That's why I put the caveat that it's my opinion and I won't debate it. Until either the pain fades or you can bring her back to me, I'm not going to hear anything but taunting every time someone tries to tell me that guns are OK. I'm far from the only person in the USA who feels this way, both about guns and the debate. Of course guns aren't evil; they're inanimate and aren't capable of evil, those weilding them are. Of course not all gun owners are evil; unless you've taken a life with one that you had no right to take, it doesn't apply to you. I don't care if you have a gun or not if you're using it properly.

I care about the people who have guns who shouldn't. My friend, whom had three serious suicide attempts in the year preceeding her gun purchase, and all three almost succeeded, purchased a handgun and used it to kill herself the next day.

That should not have happened, period, and you can't convince me that it shouldn't have.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I'm bitter, but I should state outright that it's not personal. But you're not going to convince me that they're okay to give out as easily as my friend got one. There should have been a check beyond criminal.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

And ladies and gentlemen, this thread has now become a flame war :)

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

Oh, Dennis. What have you started. ;)

www.gameslaw.net

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I think it's obvious that the media doesn't care about facts anymore. The simple fact is that these are people who were clearly mentally unstable and had easy access to firearms.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

Because gun control is as stupid as game control

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Guns do not cause crime, and it is a ridiculous notion to say so.  But to the gunophilles here who are trying to put them on the same level as games, shame on you all.  Unlike games, guns actually ARE dangerous.  Therefore they must be approached in a more cautious manner.  Now I believe that any citizen sans a criminal record should be able to buy one.  But my god people, these are dangerous fucking objects!

I am more afraid of these "they are just tools like a screwdriver and are no more harmful than games!" bliss ninnys than the criminals who use the firearms for violent crime.  At least the criminal will have some comprehension of the danger of the object they carry.  The ignorance of the "just a tool" bliss ninnys posses is dangerous.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

Banning guns... It's an idea. It would most certainly lower the danger of mass shootings, since many of those are comitted with legally aquired guns. At the same time, banning guns mean that sane criminals will be empowered because law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves as well. A gun gives a 130 lb woman the advantage over a 250 lb criminal who wants to rape her. Also, hardened crooks will still get guns illegally.

So you have to make a value judgement here--which is worse, empowered sane criminals, or crazy mass-murdering ones?

 

 

If you go crazy then I will still call you Superman.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

"When anyone can purchase a fire arm with such ease and with impunity and thereafter go and take somebody’s life, someone somewhere has failed the victims."

 

this line right there is bull, in many states there are laws in place to prevent these issues, and most crimes are commited with illegal weapons.

the issues aren't with the guns so much as the control IMHO, i do own guns, and i still find it kinda bad i didn't even get screened when i bought them.

but thats rifles, for pistols, in NY, you have to go through some serious stuff to get a license, and i can't say i disagree with the reason behind it, but i think they should do something similar (not quiet as strict though) for rifles.

the most they did was send a thing to the police comps, it responded, and i had my gun since i don't have a record. (for a rifle)

 

IMHO i don't mind licenseing to own guns, but i also stand firm in my belief that the 2nd amendment needs to be upheld, it is NOT for fighitng criminals, its for fighting a corrupt GOVERNMENT.

give up that right and we lose our ability to fight imperical control should they try to instate it (and they are trying, patriot act anyone?)

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

While I enjoy being chided by an Englishmen as much as the next Yank, I think it might be time to point out a the fact that, despite which side of the gun control debate you are on, there is a myriad of factors that make this a much thornier problem to regulate in the USA then in the UK. The UK is largely culturally and racially homogeneous, the USA is anything but. Geographically, the UK is slightly smaller than the state of Oregon; the USA is slightly smaller then the continent of Europe. The UK has roughly 8 times less people than the USA. The UK has had a history of gun control going back to 1824; the US didn’t start tackling the issue until the middle of the 20th century.

If Mr. Njolinjo would like to propose some ideas on how we would get the whole USA to buy in on wide-sweeping gun legislation and police up the undoubtedly enormous black-market for guns after the legislation is enacted, by all means I would love to hear it. However, his comments were about as helpful as telling a man on fire: “By God man, you’re on fire”; that is to say, not one fucking bit.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

When the hell are we going to get to the real issues and stop fracking scapegoating because were all lazy?

WAHHHH IT'S DAH GAMES, WAHHH IT'S DAH MUSIC, WAHHH IT'S GUNS.

Shut up, seriously! Any of you people that are against video game legaslation yet let gun legaslation let through because it redirects the attention should be ashamed of yourselves. You don't care about protecting your rights and freedoms, all you care is your video games, and this goes to anyone else protecting their one pocket at the expense of others. Everyone's so concerned about taking sides and scapegoating that no one is really looking at the REAL issue. What happened to personal responsibility, parenting, and moral responsibility? Gun's, music, games never made kids psycotic. All of these kids who shot up schools were treated wrongly by bullying, parental abuse, or parental neglect. Why don't we take active measures to make parents accountable, punish bully's, to have kids that grow up with a good and well nurtured early life? I'll tell you why, it's beacause everyone thinks thats too hard and runs off making crazy laws and saying crazy statements scapegoating whatever the hell they can get their hands on so that they can pretend their doing something.

You want something done right, do it the RIGHT way.

Wanna reduce crime? Put more police officers on the streets and increase penalties for repeat offenders so they can't be put back on the next day. Gun control, video game legeslation, and all that other stuff is just a sugar pill for parents and politicians to make them feel better for themselves when in fact the've done nothing.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I have been a long time reader of this blog/news website, and this is the first time I have ever felt it necessary to be pulled into one of these debates.

 

For those arguing for gun control, have you ever fired a gun before in your life? If you're answering yes to this, then have you ever taken a gun course?

 

For those arguing against gun control, have you ever fired a gun before in your life, and if you answer yes, then have you ever taken a gun course.

 

This may sound rather stupid, but a large portion of those arguing against guns, have never seen the side that those arguing against it have.

Someone mentions armor piercing rounds in one of their posts, you don't buy these, normal people, like Fred and Joe don't go out and purchase a box of M995 AP 5.56x45 at your local walmart, and you don't find it at gun shows, the only people with AP rounds are my men, and criminals that get their weapons from the black market, which can be found at your local poorer part of town when you know the right people that know the right people that run the right guns and ammo from the right places in the right countries that got them from the right countries over seas that have them from the right manufactures and the right thieves, gangsters, and higher ups that stole or purchased them.

I am an officer in the military of the United States, and I am tired of this BS of gun control vs non gun control, let me pose a situation to you... what if our president, and I'm a Marine, I'm the presidents men, I can be deployed anywhere, anytime, without Congressional approval, didn't know that did you? But, what if I am deployed to a United States city and I'm ordered to remove any terrorists, and some how, this whole city has been deemed terroristic.  The people of the United States, the ones with guns, and the ones with out any formal training are the ones that you'll look up to to save you if this country goes crazy.  There are little over 500,000 of me, and if only 1% of the United States owns guns, then that means that I'm outnumbered at the very least, 30 to 1, this is assuming that all military have training in each class of fire arms, which they do not.

For all your gesturing, the United States gives you the right to keep and bear arms, apparently countries in Europe does not, I can't speak for them, I can only gather that from the people that have been talking here.

Back to the topic on hand, using the logic of why are games not guns blamed, then why are drinks, not cars blamed, or why is anything general blamed with something any more general.

In the real end, the reason to keep guns, is because of this, "Why didn't he call the police?" this is the true difference between the shepard and the sheep, if you have to even ask yourself what that means, then you don't understand, and you probably won't.

Now, go out there and shoot a gun, take a class, learn to handle a weapon so that you can at least say, I've used a weapon, I know what I'm talking about sometimes, for those on the other side, take your gun out, put it on the table, put all of them on the table, put your ammo on the table, look at all of it, and try to tell yourself that all these weapons are for hunting.  A gun is a weapon, it is a tool, it is like anything else that is a tool, if it is used incorrectly, someone gets hurt.

This entire post will be completely disregarded by the anti-gun people because I'm in the military, and I'm biased, and this post will most likely be disregarded by a large portion of gun people, because I'm in the military and so I don't know what it's like to defend my family from an invader.

But I wrote it anyway.

-Idiots, the lot of them - SSGT -Yeah, but they're our idiots - ME On the topic of congress

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Actually, it’s nice to see a Colonel in the military is interested in gaming and coming here.  Back when I was in the army, most of the upper leadership that I interacted with never touched a game.  Anyway, you do make valid reasonable arguments.  Anti-gun people really should take a gun training and safety class.  However, anti gun control groups could probably be more understanding that some laws are needed.  There should be a middle ground where both sides can sit down and agree on guns(which be nice if a middle ground can be found on most political issue throughout the country).  

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a mandatory gun training and safety class at 18 (or older age) for all citizens (unless medically exempted) and those who own a gun(s), a training and safety class every 5-10 years (whatever is reasonable) and perhaps even issue a “gun license”.  Perhaps a medical check to make sure someone is mentally capable of owning and using a gun (if for example, someone is medically/mentally unable to drive a car, we aren’t going to issue them a driver license and they will find it difficult to buy a car).   Perhaps more should be done to make sure that people who are NOT suppose to own a gun, like the shooter from PA, doesn’t have them.  However, that tends to be a law enforcement problem and we generally underfund law enforcement and corrections programs (not enough cops/prisons).  Perhaps a stronger “neighborhood watch” program where all citizens in a neighborhood do more to watch for trouble in the area and work with a law enforcement officer(s) who is responsible for that area(ie more law enfocement officers and smaller more spread out police stations are needed).  You could even call it a “militia” program where all participants (mentally sound, etc) are issued a semi-auto AR-15 and help make sure their area is relatively safe.

Anyway Colonel, keep up the good service in the marines.  While I was in the army, it was always interesting to work with the marines stationed where I was serving.

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I would like to state yes I have shot a gun, yes I was in the Army (damn jarheads just kidding) and as such I got to fire a lot of crap (this would be the answer to the have you taken a course).  I also got to blow a lot of crap up and got the fun of learning how to disarm land mines (mousetraps for the lose).  Even with all of this knowledge I still hold that guns are created for one thing and one thing only to kill (land mines, tanks, etc are also included but harder to get for normal citizens).  They have no purpose beyond that.

I would suspect that I am "anti-gun", I am all for regulations, checks and balance, and basically keeping the damn things out of nutbags hands.  I also understand that the marines (and many other military units) can be mobilized as "peace keeping" forces even if that force was deployed to a US town.  I also understand that frankly the firepower the marines have would level a US town before it even had a chance to react and that the population that do own guns would be nothing more than annoying flys on the wall.  (Now granted with this in mind, I do believe the rest of the US would riot and fight back by the way you will find me in the Ozark Mountains if this ever occurs).

 

 

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For U.S.

America's love affair with guns is undoubtedly a problem and it's amazing how many countries who realise that gun control is now the way to go.

The sole purpose of a gun is to kill (whether human or animal) and America's belief that it is a fundamental right has led to more deaths than were necessary. Yet another one of these pointless rights (such as the right to free speech that works in principle but doesn't in reality and isn't even fully enforced in law) where the belief in such a right overrides any sense.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

What the hell is this guy even talking about? There are thousands of news articles and blogs floating around right now blaming guns and the "gun lobby." There's also a subset of these calling for the arrest and/or killing of all NRA members and "the right" in general for being enemies of the state or some such nonsense. I've yet to see anyone blame video games for any of the recent shootings (is Jack on vacation or something?).

And for that matter, the vast majority of people who usually blame games for violence are also anti-gun..

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

(is Jack on vacation or something?).

He's busy annoying people in Utah about his latest failed brainchild. So yes, he's on vacation from trolling GP.

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I've yet to see anyone blame video games for any of the recent shootings

Where the Hell have you been?

______________________________ Because I have NO Life... :P I introduce the following. PSN User ID: FirebirdXR (Yes, I use that moniker often) Xbox Live ID: FirebirdLR (Don't bother, It's a Silver Membership) *Limited Time Only* I put both because I

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Another point to make: the guns themselves are even less to blame than the ammo. There are now shotgun shells that can be fired from a standard shotgun, but provide a non-wired taser that is just as effective as previous genearion tasers. Guns are constantly evolving, and killing as a result of firing may eventually become a thing of the past anyways.

http://www.taser.com/PRODUCTS/LAW/Pages/XREP.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44KVZLxm8a0

Much like armor piercing rounds, I feel like it would be a much easier compromise to make lethal ammunition harder and harder to get. The public still has their ability to defend themselves with guns, yet the risk of accidental deaths is at very least extremely mitigated.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Although i have disagreed with previous posts you've made, ive got to hand it to you, i 100% agree with this.

non lethal ammo, that could disable but reliably not kill, would be a fantastic development.

If this sort of ammo was freely available whilst lethal ammo was restricted, citizens are in exactly the same position as with lethal ammo (i.e. able to fire a gun at an attacker) without any chance that the gun can be used to kill in other circumstances (e.g. school shooting)

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Yeah, even I think it's a pretty cool idea. Proliferate rubber bullets and tranks, maybe make them cheaper if possible (to provide an economic incentive). Not bad. Pretty decent middle ground.

Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Looked at tranqs too. Unfortunately, they're not nearly as effective at the whole non-lethal portion, while still remaining effective a dropping a target. Different people have different tranq requirements, and we have yet to find a substance that can reliably drop a large subject with little to no risk of ODing a smaller subject. Makes the spy's tranq pistol a little less cool knowing it's not nearly as realisitic as movies/games make them out to be. It was always one of my favorite guns.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

That is the most logical argument I've seen from you yet, Deus. I will wholeheartedly agree that limiting lethal ammo and supplanting it with non-lethal ammo would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Yes, lets substitute everything in the world with less lethal alternatives. No SUVs or Pickup trucks. No muscle or sports cars. They tend to have more accidents and when they are involved in accidents there are higher mortality rates. No spirits, maybe even no booze in general. Drink grape juice asshole. Its a safer drink. Violent games may cause violent behavior. Play Hello Kitty Island Adventure instead. ETC ETC ETC.

Banning fun in the name of safety is the mindset of cowards incapable of living with freedom. Your insistance of not living in a place where CCW is allowed is a sign of how big a coward you are. You say you have no trust in humanity. HA! Guns arent the worst of your problems. You must hate democracy. How the hell can you trust these people with a vote?

-Host of Guns, Gaming and Government Radio Show

-"My Kind of Trinity"

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

You call me a coward, because I am uneasy when I know if I go to Texas, chances are the people next to me are all carrying legalized killing machines? God forbid I tell 'em I'm an Athiest, or better yet, that I'm one of them thar Homasexzuals.

If Cars/Liquor/VideoGames were all designed to kill, Hell yeah, I'd be in support of banning each and every one of them. But, they are not, so you can't draw that equation.

I don't support banning fun in the name of safety. I DO support restricting access to machines designed for the sole purpose of killing.

And, to tell the truth, I don't like the idea that everyone in America can vote. I would support a measure put in place that would require at least a baseline knowledge of each major candidate and of the issues at hand in the current election. Realistic, no, but have you seen some of the people out there? There are still folks out there that think Obama is a Muslim, who was sent here by Al Queda, and that all Gays should be executed. Do you really think they have any business VOTING? Thats not to say the issue isn't on the liberal side of things too. There are plenty of folks out there who would blindly vote to ban video games just because of the bad things they hear.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

So do you pee your pants every time you see a police officer with a gun? Statistically speaking, CHL holders are less likely to commit a violent crime than the police and the general public.

What does being an atheist or gay have to do with anything? While I can't speak for Texas, I am an atheist who carries a gun, so you're not going to offend me by being an atehist. And something tells me these guys and gals won't shoot you for being gay. ;)

Oh, and by the way, there are 36 other States with a "shall-issue" policy for concealed handgun licenses, another 9 who "may issue" such licenses, and 2 which don't require any permit. Unless you're in Illinois or Wisconsin, you may be standing next to someone with a "killing machine" right now. Besides, Texas isn't even the one with the highest rate of licensing..

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Like I said before, I live in Wisconsin. I like our Gun Laws. I like the idea that when travelling, you must keep your gun in a locked case, until you get to whatever destination are going to. (Target Range, Hunting Grounds) There are still going to be bad eggs out there, but Like I said before, it makes me feel much safer to know that there aren't "Law Abiding" citizens out there with the potential to shoot me because I pissed them off.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

You realize that rifle shooting and pistol shooting are actual sports in the olympics right? What about Javlins? They were designed as for the sole purpose of killing and Javlin throwing is now a very popular sport in the olympic games. Boomerangs were designed for killing too. What are you going to do about those?

And you may not like the idea that every Americian can vote but any alternative will diverge into facisim. First Amendment? Everyone can say any what lie they want. Is it necessary? Yes.

Sorry for saying this, but I think your just another power hungry liberal.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Power Hungry? Paint with a broader brush, why don't you? I hear they are selling ones where you can paint an entire wall in pass, might be good for you. 

Guns for sport are fine. Hell, even hunting is fine. Carrying Handguns around a city for so called "Protection," no so fine. I am perfectly fine with target shooting, sport shooting and all of that, but the moment you step out your front door with a loaded gun in your pocket or holster, rather than a locked case that you'd open upon arriving at the target range, you've crossed the line from sport to possibly endangering the lives of innocent citizens.

I can tell you are one of those guys who seems to think that the government is just out there to get you, rather than protect you like it is actually built to do.

Oh, and for the record, I can hardly be considered power hungry. I'd rather just be left alone to live my life the way I see fit, and NOT be worried that if I happen to mouth off to one of you gun nuts, I'd be shot in the face.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

If you are so afraid of people shooting you in the face when you mouth off to someone, why aren't you afraid about being punched and beaten up when you mouth off to someone?

Right because the government is ALWAYS in the best interest of people, it's not like in the history of the world has there been a political leader that didin't put his own interest ahead of its people. I should sit back and let the next Ivan the 4th come by and do whatever he wants because the Government is always built for me!

You realize the second amendment was built around my second point, do you?

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I'm not afraid of getting beat up because I am a 6'2", 300lb guy who can be quite intimidating when the situation calls for it. I've only been in 4 fights my entire life, all 4 of which were in high school. Not to mention, its much easier to survive a fist fight/beating than it is to survive a gun-shot.

That being said, I never said ALL government was working in the best interest of the people, but I am confident in saying that OUR government will always be working in the best interest of the people. There are enough checks and balances to really prevent a level of totalitarianism like that in North Korea or Iraq..

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

Oh, so your not afraid because you are more powerful than someone else! That explains everything. You are just afraid that the power might equalize and you no longer the strongest guy in the city. Because of that, a gun ban would be all in your favour because your a 300 pound guy that can take care of himself. What about the 75 pound skinny woman that works at a bar? What if she get's raped or mugged comming back from work by a person that is as big and strong as you are? What is she going to do? Just because you can take care of yourself, doesn't mean everyone else somehow can.

One of those checks and balances is the Right for the People to Bear Arms, there's a reason why it's there.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

You act like women aren't raped and mugged today, with or without the use of guns. That falls under the argument that guns prevent more crime than they create, which, honestly, is a laughable suggestion. Most rapings/muggings are surprise attacks anyways. Good luck to any one, even someone as strong as myself, to be able to realize what is going on, manage to fend off the attacker(s) for long enough to draw a weapon, and be able to fire it accurately and quickly enough to kill or disable my attacker(s). Thats not counting that that gun could JUST as easily find it's way into the attacker's hands, at which point he is pissed at me for drawing a gun in the first place..

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

are you serious?

replacing lethal ammo with non-lethal ammo (but equally effective in its purpose), is 'banning fun'?

what are you talking about?

How is using a gun to shoot people at a school , or shoot an attacker 'fun'.

You are exactly the kind of person that represents the prime reason why replacing lethal ammo with non lethal alternatives are a GOOD idea.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

I'm still terrribly curious where I can actually buy the "armor peircing" ammo people have been crying about for years.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

The ammo argument is B.S. Consider this, a citizen wishes to practice to be a safer gun user. He wants to be both accurate and skilled. This requires repitition and repition requires a ton of ammo to make sure you are really tha skilled. Now there is a gangbanger who wants money or some other thing from another person. How many bullets does the gangbanger need?

Thats right, one bullet is all that is needed to do the job. Regulating the quantity of ammo is regulating the private citizen, it doesn't do jack to the criminal.

-Host of the Guns, Gaming and Government Radio Show

-"My Kind of Trinity"

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

 Actually Bullet control is perfect everyone can have a gun but no one can have any bullets none nadda zip zero no ammo for you.

 

That or make the damn things cost 50 bucks a pop.

Dude I would put a cap in your arse but frankly baby got to eat tonight but next week its soooo on.

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

It's right next to the freely available automatic weapons...

Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...

So true!  What we need is BULLET CONTROL!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDC-XQG1ifo&feature=PlayList&p=B1E88659AF...

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@MP - Looked up hitbox, thanks.07/24/2014 - 9:40pm
Matthew WilsonI agree, but to me given other known alternatives google seems to the the best option.07/24/2014 - 6:30pm
Andrew EisenTo be clear, I have no problem with Google buying it, I'm just concerned it will make a slew of objectively, quantifiably bad changes to Twitch just as it's done with YouTube over the years.07/24/2014 - 6:28pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt yahoo has the resources to pull it off, and I not just talking about money.07/24/2014 - 6:15pm
SleakerI wouldn't have minded a Yahoo purchase, probably would have been a better deal than Tumblr seeing as they paid the same for it...07/24/2014 - 6:13pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's the golden age of Hitbox, I guess.07/24/2014 - 6:08pm
Matthew Wilsonagain twitch was going to get bought. It was just who was going to buy it . Twitch was not even being able to handle the demand, so hey needed a company with allot of infrastructure to help them. I can understand why you would not want Google to buy it .07/24/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew Eisen"Google is better than MS or Amazon" Wow. Google, as I mentioned earlier, progressively makes almost everything worse and yet there are still two lesser options. Again, wow!07/24/2014 - 5:43pm
Andrew EisenI don't know. MS, in my experience, is about 50/50 on its products. It's either fine or it's unusable crap. Amazon, well... I've never had a problem buying anything from them but I don't use any of their products or services so I couldn't really say.07/24/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonGoogle is better than MS or Amazon.07/24/2014 - 5:33pm
Sleaker@AE - I've never seen youtube as a great portal to interact with people from a comment perspective. like ever. The whole interface doesn't really promote that.07/24/2014 - 5:28pm
Andrew EisenNor I. From a content producer's perspective, almost every change Google implements makes the service more cumbersome to use. It's why I set up a Facebook fan page in the first place; it was becoming too difficult to connect with my viewers on YouTube.07/24/2014 - 4:50pm
Sleakerwonder if anyone is going to try and compete with google, I'm not a huge fan of the way they manage their video services.07/24/2014 - 4:41pm
Andrew EisenIt happened. Google bought Twitch. http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/24/googles-1b-purchase-of-twitch-confirmed-joins-youtube-for-new-video-empire/07/24/2014 - 4:28pm
MaskedPixelanteI hope Nintendo actually follows through with the DS Virtual Console, that sounds like it could be cool.07/24/2014 - 2:15pm
james_fudgePeople don't deny it persay, they bristle at the idea that it's a "problem" that nneds to be "fixed."07/24/2014 - 2:15pm
Papa MidnightRacism and Misogny are heavily prevalent in the gaming and online arena. Getting people to actually admit that, however...07/24/2014 - 11:42am
Papa MidnightThat very thing is somthing that anyone who has been subjected to racial-based targeting online could actually state that they've experienced.07/24/2014 - 11:41am
Papa MidnightPerfect example: "I have yet to talk to a man who has had to call a police officer due to a stalker, only to be told nothing can be done until they are physically assaulted."07/24/2014 - 11:40am
Papa MidnightNot that said communities are mutually exclusive. Even the very first comment on that last article equates women in the gaming industry with being the n-word. Despicable, aetestable, and (sadly enough) this is not an uncommon presence in either community.07/24/2014 - 11:35am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician