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 ...
Wow, now I am beginning to question if you are just messing with us. Have you ever tried to shoot someone in the leg or hand at 30 yards? Hitting a MOVING target THAT small is a practice in LUCK. You cant choose to shoot someone in the leg. This isn't some video game where you can pull off shots like that. (A perfect example against JT's Murder Simulator argument, BTW) If someone is threatening at you, and you only have 3 shots before they close the gap, do you shoot to kill, firing all 3 at his torso, the largest part of his body? Or waste those 3 shots, hoping you hit him in the knee or hand?
Not to mention: Opressive militaristic government? Seriously? Guns aren't completely banned yet, so no worries there. Not to mention, you really think that, should the government become all oppressive and shit, that people are going to rise up and fight to overturn it? Have you SEEN the apathy most Americans show towards politics?? Good luck taking on the government and its thousands of troops with your couple hundred buddies and a 12 pack of beer.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
''Good luck taking on the government and its thousands of troops with your couple hundred buddies and a 12 pack of beer.''
lol i dont know why, but i found that image hilarious.
On a side note... PERFECT EXAMPLE HERE:
If knives and cars and fertilizer bombs etc are just as effective, then why do you need guns to be able to protect yourself from an opressive government?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Because knives, cars, and fertilizer bombs are just as effective at killing. But as I've been saying time and time and time and time and time again. Killing is NOT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF GUNS! If I can protect myself without killing, I will do that. However, I cannot protect myself without killing with fertilizer bombs and cars in the same way. If I can prevent those attacking from causing further harm by disabling them, I will do that. And a gun allows for a trained professional to use it in a defensive manner without being lethal. Additionally, the threat of death on top of the non-lethal methods adds another layer of protection in many people's minds. Defending yourself from an opressive government does NOT mean killing everyone in the government.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
"If I can protect myself without killing, I will do that."
"If I can prevent those attacking from causing further harm by disabling them, I will do that."
Why not use a knife, then? Its easier to target where you are going to use a knife, it certainly is less lethal than a gun. Why not protect yourself with a knife?
Oh, wait, because it is less efficient at killing than a gun. Your point is disproven.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Wrong on both counts. I can take a life with a pocket knife just as easily as with my 1911. It makes no difference to me. The only difference is that in protecting myself and a third party, I can act as a barrier so long as I have a firearm, keeping the aggressor farther away from myself and/or my wife. I can do the same thing with a knife.
HOWEVER, when it becomes a multiple aggressor situation (as most muggings are), I am no longer able to defend my wife (or my child, when it comes down to it). I have to engage one, and while doing so, can't do anything to the other. NOW, when facing the same situation with a pistol (my 1911), I can keep them both at bay, and if I need to, can engage them both without leaving my wife's or child's side.
Which one would you rather use?
(PS, I don't really want an answer to that question, you'd probably let them stab or shoot you to death).
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Just being a little nit picking annoyance here but I would say that it's a fair amount of hyperbole to say that you can take a life just as easily with a pocket knife as with a pistol. I know I could certainly defend myself much better, if I had no weapon of my own, against a person with a knife than a person with a gun so it is less efficent in that way, but if I DO get killed I hardly care if it was with a knife or a gun, I'm dead and it sucks. Also just FYI I am aware that someone who is trained with a gun should be able to take someone down without killing them, well assuming they are trained a decent shot that is.
Frankly I think I could kill someone more easily with a pen than a knife for the simple fact they would be less likely to expect it. Well that is if they saw me with either a pen or a knife, if I were to sneak up on someone then a knife would be easier but if I truly intended to kill someone and did get the drop on them which weapon I were to used would not that important. Anyway this paragraph is entirely unimportant but if you read this far you know that already.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Anyone who's done it before can use a knife to kill as efficiently as a gun. Moreso, in fact. Consider the fact that the action of holding a firearm up to fire it is an unnatural action not seen in everyday life, but the action required to put a knife with a three inch blade in someone's kidney is a natural action (swinging your hands while you walk).
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Yes it is simpler, and simple, to kill covertly with a knife, well until the person screams or falls dead I supose, I was thinking specifically in a situation where where the knife is noticed before the attack in which case I think that it would still be more difficult. Thats kinda why I mentioned the pen in the second paragraph, it's really easy to kill someone with almost anything but if someone is aware of an attack I think that a gun would, again assuming the person knew how to use it, be easier for the simple fact of range. At grappling distance a knife might be better, honestly don't know, but I can't imagine why anyone who did have a gun set against someone who was aware of the attack would move into grappling distance. My point was simply that if someone is about to attack me with a knife I can do more things to defend myself than if someone attacks me with a gun.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
And as that person screams, the attention is drawn AWAY from you, TOWARDS that person, thus setting you up for another two or three easy stabs to the kidneys of people in the crowd.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
You really like those kidney stabbings, huh? :)
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
And just before any responce, yes I am partially talking out of my ass, I have never been attacked with a gun or a knife, though I have been cut by an idiot/jackass friend with a sword, it's just I can think of way I could actually attempt to defend myself against someone with a knife but aside from screaming obsenities and running can not think of anything I could do about someone with a gun, again unless then came withing grappling distance which realy defeats the point of a gun.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
And how exactly is it disproven? A gun's effeciency at killing has no bearing as to it's ability to non-lethally protect oneself compared to a knife. In actuality, what I'd be using to defend myself is either 1) pepper spray/mace, which is a propelled substanse fired from a handheld device (sound familiar?) or 2) a tazer, a set of electrical leads thats fired via a gunpowdered handheld device (once again, sound familiar?)
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Oh my GOD
This is like banging my head against a brick wall.
''In actuality, what I'd be using to defend myself is either 1) pepper spray/mace, which is a propelled substanse fired from a handheld device (sound familiar?) or 2) a tazer, a set of electrical leads thats fired via a gunpowdered handheld device (once again, sound familiar?)''
that was your argument FOR needing GUNS to protect yourself? That was in answer to why you needed guns? That youd use 'in actuality' use a taser or pepper spray.
what?.. just WHAT?
so if you have no problem using a taser or pepper spray (and were so nice as to explain what they are for us) then um... WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Also aimed at the prior response:
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
once again, please engage brain activity and actually read the article before posting.
The article is about guns being used for killing, in school shootings.
That implies that the guns being discussed here are LETHAL weapons. As in NOT a taser.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Explain to me how an article talking about a gun being used lethally means that all talk about guns must be about them being used in the exact same manner. (Of course, that's ignoring the fact that the article doesn't actually discuss the lethal aspect of guns, but only guns in general) YOU want this to be a discussion about lethal guns (in spite of your prior request to show how a gun can be used in ways other than killing), but gun control is about so much more than just lethal guns.
And in actuality, I've been avoiding citing the article as it is EXTREMELY poorly written. He clearly has no concept of the US constitution and the bill of rights. I've actually been arguing against the more coherent versions of his points instead of taking what he says at face value.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Help, help! I'm being compressed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Insert Obligatory Star Wars Garbage Compactor Quote Here!
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Listen to them, they're dying R2! Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough, it's all my fault! My poor Master.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
The point of a gun is that it propels a solid substance at lethal velocities. And if you don't know that, please, stop talking.
-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Defending yourself from an opressive government does NOT mean killing everyone in the government.
So.. once again.. why do you need guns to protect yourself from an opressive government?
Your argument is getting confused at this point. So a trained professional can disable somebody? a trained professional like.. umm.. a cop perhaps? So why does that support the notion that anybody should be able to buy a gun in a store? why not restrict access to cops.. aka trained professionals?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
This is how well trained cops are at shooting...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/200007/one_lucky_robbery/
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
yes, because that incident represents cops everywhere.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Many cops are terrible with guns... this just shows how silly it is to trust guns only to cops because they are 'professionals'...
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
There are plenty of trained gun professionals that aren't in the police force. I'm confused as to the point you're making here. Why do we need guns to protect ourselves from an opressive government? Because they are an effective means of defending oneself. Why do you keep insisting that protecting oneself requires the killing of someone else?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
There you go, Deus. You can form your own little American NRA Jihad with Fertilizer Bombs to fight your oppressive government. Its just as effective, according to you.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
So if i say that the pupose of a gun isnt to 'kill' but to 'injure and maim' how does that adress any of the arguments presented by various people here? They still apply..
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Is there a problem with injuring and maiming? Stunt men put themselves at that risk every day. People go skydiving just to get the rush of the risk of injury. There are people out there that cut themselves on a daily basis because it makes them feel better. And just because it's initial purpose was to injure and maim (or even kill), doesn't mean that in today's society it still is the only/main use. Take javelins. There is little to no use for a javelin other than to injure and maim (or kill), yet at this day and age, they are used on a regular basis by atheletes in the javelin throw. Does this not apply to those using guns for skeet shooting, or how about the winter biathalon with skiing and shooting? If you really want to say that injury is something that must be avoided, then there's plenty of entertainment reasons to own a gun. But I don't believe that a gun's primary purpose is to 'injure and maim' anyways... Take a nightstick. Would you complain that it's primary purpose is to injure and maim? They, along with inventions like brass knuckles, are created for the reason of making the owner more effective at hand to hand combat by allowing them to injure and maim with greater effeciency.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
um perhaps because of weighing up the benefits to society against the potential dangers.
Javelins for sport == entertainment.
as for the dangers, I hardly fear that somebody will 'sneak' 100 or so javelins into a school and go on a javelin rampage killing 30+ people. How the heck would you even carry that many.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
And what potential benefits do javelins and bow and arrows provide to society? Or is that about brass knuckles and nightsticks?
And lastly, you're admitting that your fear of being shot is the reason you won't overlook a gun's other uses. Since you don't fear getting stabbed at range by a javelin, you're more willing to accept it's sport and entertainment value. Same with bow and arrow, and those are quite easy for an inexperienced person to misuse.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
no..
as i keep repeatedly saying, its the efficiency with which somebody can do harm with a gun (as opposed to javelins or bows and arrows) that severely flags guns as being conceptually 'dangerous'. Yeah a bow and arrow, and javelins, are dangerous. But not as efficient as say a semi-automatic rifle.
I dont 'fear' being intentionally stabbed by a javelin, because statistically that is incredibly unlikely to happen. Same with a bow and arrow. Far more likely that any intentional injury, will be comitted with a gun.
You keep on talking about a guns comparions to tools such as a knife and hammer, but i hardly see any examples that you have provided to back this up. A knife and hammer have so many uses, and are so commonly used in society today for tasks that they can almost be deemed 'necessary'. Dont kid yourself that guns are anywhere near the same in terms of their uses.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Efficiency? I thought we gave up on that one? I don't know about you, but lighting a building on fire, blowing up a car, or just plain driving through a crowded area is FAR FAR FAR more effecient at killing than a gun can ever hope to be. A single bomb can be cheaply, and easily made, and end up killing targetted people and more people than a gun. No training is required, unlike guns, which do end up requiring at least a partial knowledge of how to deal with aiming, kickback, etc. A bomb is a bomb, and just explodes once prepared.
So, once again, you fall back to the potential use compared to the intended use. At how many non-lethal uses does a gun then become 'necessary' or 'useful' to society? To me, it only needs 1, the ability to protect someone. Clearly you need more than that. Will 2 do it? How about 20? How many uses does a hammer have other than killing that gives it a free pass? Does it have more than guns? How many uses does a saber have? Do those need to be regulated/banned too? Unlike knives, they don't actually have use in modern society. And back to the javelin? Does it have any use to society other than entertainment through sports?
EDIT: Oh, and I keep forgetting to mention. Can you show me the 'effeciency' you keep talking about? Of all school shootings in the US, only 3 have ever made double digit deaths, and vtech was the first to even be over 20. The worst school related massacre was actually done by explosives. Even when looking across the entire globe, I still have a hard time finding more than 10 school shootings where there were double digit kills. Hardly the model of 'efficiency' that you keep making them out to be. I limited it to school schootings because it's too hard to tell for flat out massacres. But I am also including any info I can find on solo killers who went on a rampage. Too many of the massacres are perpetrated by 'army's of sorts or a goup of people. But even then, most non-war based massacres are quite minimal when only guns are used. In effeciency and ease of use, bombs sweep the floor with guns.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
There is a huge problem with Intentional maiming or killing. And a nightstick is much much much less capable of killing. Certainly a nightstick is incapable of killing 32+ people, at least without huge amounts of training.
And really, Javelins? Again, they're a weapon that is incapable of killing efficiently, requires special training to use properly, and in the case of using them as a thrown weapon they require the assailant to physically retrieve them before they make another shot. If anyone were to go out and slaughter a number of people with a javelin, then yes, I'd say that controlling them is something that should be looked into.
Which is really the point in all this. Guns kill, by your admission, 30k+ people a year (in just one country). Javelins kill what, 2?
-- Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
That 30k includes a lot of criminals in fact I would argue that most of these deaths are criminals actively involved in something like the drug war...
A better number is the number of homicides, in USA it is 20,000 (many do not involve guns...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2419456/Knife-crimes-in-Britai...
Population of England = 51.1 million
Population of USA= 306.2 million
Hmm interesting isn't it...
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
lol... JUST LOL
homocide != violent crime.
thats like saying 'well the number of deaths were somebody was blown up with a nuke hidden in their breakfast cereal in the USA was 1, while the number of people who got hurt in any way in the UK was more than that. See i have a point about something! i have a point!'
take a look at the number of homocides in the uk. compare that with the number of homocides in the US. Then compare your figures. Or compare the figures for violent crime in the UK with violent crime in the US. Way to misrepresent something. Tell you what, post that information, then we can continue debating.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
"A gun's primary purpose is to defend, sometimes by killing."
Wow. I didn't realize that when we invaded Iraq, we were just using those guns to defend ourselves. I didn't realize that when people go to school and shoot thier classmates, they were defending themselves.
Talk about twisting logic. Don't kid yourself, though. A gun's primary purpose is to kill, maim, injure. The proper way to use it in civil society might be strictly for defense. However, the gun was designed to kill, and it will always be used to kill. Be it offensive or defensive, the gun's primary purpose is to kill.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
A knife's primary purpose is to kill, maim, injure. The proper way to use it in a civil society might be strictly for cooking. However, the gun was designed to kill, and will always be used to kill. Be it offensive or defensive, the knife's primary purose is to kill.
Hell, since you're so obsessed with the hammer analogy too, I'll throw that in. A hammer is nothing more than an extention of the club, who's primary purpose is to kill, maim, injure. The proper way to use it in a civil society might be scrictly for building. However, the hammer was designed to kill, and will always be used to kill. Be it constructive or destructive, the hammer's primary purpose is to kill.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Actually, a knife's history can be traced back to the initial use of tools by cavemen/neanderhals to to various things. Yes, Im sure they used it during hunting, and I'm sure they used it to kill, but the notion of using something like a knife to cut meat or leather to create cloths is fairly deeply rooted in our genetic history. Guns, on the otherhand were borne from the arms races of the middle ages and the advent of gunpowder. Since thier inception, they have only been used for one thing, and that is killing. Your argument is extremely weak when each of these objects is traced back through its history.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
So, because we've been using knives for non-killing purposes for long enough, that makes them okay? So how long then until guns are treated the same way? Another 100 years? Another 1000? There are plenty of uses for guns other than killing, so by that logic, I'd say guns should already be accepted. Or will it take until we have a better scapegoat to blame, like high powered personal lasers, or directional microwave emitters?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
when a guns predominant purpose isnt to kill, then they will be accepted. Which is why it hasnt happened yet, or why your attempts to compare knives as being equivalent fails.
If something has 100 uses, but only 1 of those is bad, you can say that majoritively, the uses of that tool mean that it is beneficial to society. e.g. a screwdriver. (technically i could kill somebody with one, but its other applications provide huge benefits to society)
A gun doesnt.
What benefits does it provide. What other useful applications does it have? What would society be unable to do without guns?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
stay alive
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Until Gun's can do something useful OTHER than kill, be it for protection or not, they will never be ok. And, if those future technologies are designed to kill people, guess what, they won't be ok either.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Why does protection have to result in killing? Of all the gun incidents every year, the large majority of them don't result in death. In 1 year alone, the US has 477,000 reported cases of crime where the victim said they were faced by an offender with a firearm. In that same time period, there were apporixmately 30,000 deaths related to guns. That means that at most, 6.2% of all gun crime results in death. And that's assuming a 1:1 ration of offenses to kills.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill, maim or injure. That's why it's so good at your precious protection.
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
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
a blade is a tool that has many useful applications within modern society that are not related to killing. It can therfore be said that over a period of time, the purpose of a 'blade' has broadened to encompass many new applications.
a hammer is a tool that has many useful applications within modern society that are not related to killing. It can therfore be said that over a period of time, the purpose of a 'club' has broadened to encompass many new applications, (the hammer extending the concept with specialist design for a particular application).
um can you name me some useful applications of a gun not related to warfare?
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
um can you name me some useful applications of a gun not related to warfare?
Hunting for food, sport, and nusiance removal (i.e. deer overpopulation).
-Gray17
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Hunting for food - largely unnecessary in modern society, except where specific individuals need appropriate tools (e.g. farmers etc), and this could easily be controlled and dealt with on a per case basis. In no way an argument applicable to 100% of the population (hell i doubt even applicable to 1%).
sport - in now way a 'useful' application.
and nusiance removal (i.e. deer overpopulation) - again, this example, although valid, could easily be dealt with in the same way as the first. Only certain licensed individuals need guns for this purpose. The vast majority of the population dont need a gun for nuisance removal.
perhaps i meant useful applications of a gun, valid to the majority of the population. I was thinking along the lines of say, a knife, being used by say 99.9% of the population as cutlery to eat food.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Hunting for food - largely unnecessary in modern society, except where specific individuals need appropriate tools (e.g. farmers etc), and this could easily be controlled and dealt with on a per case basis. In no way an argument applicable to 100% of the population (hell i doubt even applicable to 1%).
Hey, you asked for useful applications. You didn't specify percentages of the population.
sport - in now way a 'useful' application.
Great! Let's ban football, basketball, heck all sports because they aren't 'useful' and result in all kinds of injuries.
and nusiance removal (i.e. deer overpopulation) - again, this example, although valid, could easily be dealt with in the same way as the first. Only certain licensed individuals need guns for this purpose. The vast majority of the population dont need a gun for nuisance removal.
Again, you asked for non-warfare uses. You didn't specify percentages of the population.
-Gray17
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
To tell you the truth I am all for banning sports ... mostly because I think its stupid to pay a jock a million dollars to play a game all day long.
Re: British Writer: Why Are Games, Not Guns, Blamed For ...
Ah, but I don't mean merely banning professional sports. I'm talking about banning it at all levels, professional, school, and recreational.
Afterall, sports are useless, so it should be illegal to play catch with your son at the local park.
-Gray17