Slashdot Mirror


Video Game Industry Starting To Feel Heat On Gun Massacres

An anonymous reader writes "While much of the scrutiny following the lone gunman-perpetrated massacres at Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT has fallen on the National Rifle Association and its lobbying efforts against gun control, the shooters in both of the aforementioned incidents seemed to have been encouraged by violence in movies and video games. The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used. A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'. In response, the Entertainment Software Association and other lobbyists representing the video game industry have ramped up their Washington lobbying efforts. While still tiny in dollar terms next to the NRA's warchest, this effort seemed to help derail a proposal to fund a Justice Department study of the effects of video games on gun violence, offered as an amendment on the gun control bill by a Republican senator. A spokesman summarized the ESA's position: 'Extensive research has already been conducted and found no connection between media and real-life violence.'"

1,006 comments

  1. The Stupidity, It Hurts! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used.

    Okay, so far none of this has anything to do with video games -- does it? Anyone with their mind set and with extreme determination to accomplish the goal would do the above. Hell, this sounds more like the fantasy football people at my office than the gamers.

    A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'

    So we should ban doctoral theses? We should halt all research? Yeah, if someone is incredibly determined to do something, they're going to make a science out of it and conduct super extensive research. This is true of anything from baseball card collecting to weightlifting to money management to drug dealing. Name a thing. Anything. Now imagine what someone would do if they took it to an extreme level. Yeah, that's what's going on here.

    '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.

    You lost me. This is absolute bullshit. Statements that have more to do with a single person's determination suddenly linked to video games in what should be viewed as illogical stupidity. Oddly this statement can work for anything, weightlifters view their personal records and recorded journals as score sheets. Baseball card collectors view their completed sets and insert sets as score sheets. Farmers that are trying to get the most out of their fields look at their yields like score sheets. I mean, what about sports where you have actual score sheets and stats? Why are we not saying this was the work of an NFL running back or a second degree Taekwondo black-belt?

    He did outside research to carry out an incredibly difficult task? Sounds more like your average software documentation than your average video gamer -- time to protect people from research and documentation.

    Christ if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime. Where is the logic that violent video games were instrumental in this horrible attack? Where is the link between his research and video games? Because it's a score sheet? Ridiculous!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by night_flyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."

      Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.

      How about we just blame the person?

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not about guns and violence. It's a thinly veiled attempt at widening censorship in general and making it acceptable. Seeing that such propaganda itself is so effective, it's hard to doubt that video games do have an effect on people from that standpoint. The solution is to strengthen resistance to propaganda, something that needs to be done from infancy onward.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What did you expect, coherent reasoning from people engaged in moral panic?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed... Seeing a spreadsheet and think it's the work of a gamer? What about a gambler.. or a Sports fan? or an accountant?

      I make work-related spreadsheets way more then game-related spreadsheets... and I certainly feel the work related ones are 'scored' more often then my personal spreadsheets...

      But I will gladly take a PhD for my Doctorate research work in determining the Mean, Median, Std. Dev, ROI, and other stats related to the Slicing Box missions of SWTOR...

    5. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      This is why we "gun nuts" get so frustrated and mouthy.

      You can only fight the stupid for so long before you just... get angry at it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or we could, you know, recognize that firearms are a significant force multiplier that make pulling off massacres like this far more trivial than they would be without these weapons.

    7. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is banning the gun would work to a point (not a position I support btw).

      However, just blaming the person does not work either. There is a different aspect here going on. Gun violence in relation to the rest of the world (where there is no rebellion going on) is huge. Just the gun is not the problem, there is something 'wrong' on a more fundamental level.

      Just banning things is a simplistic overreaction and skips finding the real issues.

    8. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Funny

      When someone goes into a school and kills 20 children with copies of "Grand Theft Auto," call me.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    9. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you understand that only video games have scores? Think of the children!

    10. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a load of crap. The original argument stands. The risks involved in a "mass shooting" are small compared to the legal uses of such tools. If someone wants to commit harm, they will. Bombs, fire, etc. You can't legislate away crazy.

    11. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, OK, we'll protect the first amendment by gutting the second.

    12. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by meerling · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention two more things about that.
      First, since when is a cop qualified to make such and unsubstantiated psychological conclusion and it be seriously considered?
      Second, video gamers, hard core or otherwise, don't make spreadsheets of kills with weapons. That's far more like something a dev does to fine tune popularity and effectiveness of their games arsenal. Sure, there's a few ocd types that'll do something as pointless and unfun as that, but then again, I bet you'll find more government employees making those exact same things right now.

    13. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so far none of this has anything to do with video games -- does it?

      Each time he passed from one room to the next, he dropped the magazine from his gun - empty or not - and reloaded.

      Just like he learned playing Counterstrike.

    14. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by night_flyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    15. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Challenge accepted!

    16. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'"

      Has Officer Donut ever seen a doctoral thesis? You'd have to be going to a pretty shitty school if you can get a PhD for going all OCD on the media clippings file and copying down a spreadsheet full of kill stats...

    17. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters

      Oh, there were no planes filled to the brim with jet fuel or high buildings used in that attack?

      You gun nuts take logic and cast it off at the first possible point during an argument.

    18. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      This is one of several news I got here on Slashdot today in which the summary has nothing to do with the subject. Lately, most of the subjects are simply made up, to attract views.

      I've had enough with Slashdot.

    19. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, stupid games hurt. Nothing of value will be lost if they ban all violent games.

      Seriously, I think we'd get many new game genres if we prevented game designers from creating yet another shooter. What is it with all the shooting games, anyway? How many decades we have to watch the fucking bouncing gun barrel in games? Stupid, unimaginative, repetitive, boring.

    20. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0, Troll

      The legal uses still result in far more accidental death and injury than protection from illegal uses.

    21. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'

      So we should ban doctoral theses? We should halt all research?

      That's the wrong response. Your immediate response should be skepticism that a policeman would even know what a doctoral thesis would sound like, and file the sound bite under "ridiculous hyperbole".

    22. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

      Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.

      The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy. The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.

    23. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Globe199 · · Score: 1, Troll

      What the...? Then we learned and put impenetrable doors between the cockpit and the cabin. Box cutters won't work anymore. Next straw man please?

    24. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by AntEater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The individual who committed the crime is definitely where the blame ultimately lies. What people are looking for isn't merely the blame but some cause that can then be legislated away so that this type of thing can be prevented in the future. I don't believe it'll ever be effectively done but I think that is the ultimate motivation. Our society tends to like to find "things" to blame (guns, music, games, etc) rather than addressing some of the social, family and personal issues that lead to horrible actions like this. Banning things is an easier task and creates the illusion of "doing something" about it.

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    25. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 1, Troll

      Nobody is talking about gutting the second amendment. People are talking about mandating background checks whenever a firearm is transferred to a new owner. And magazines to be limited in the number of rounds that they can hold to a sane number. If you require more than 10 rounds in a magazine in order to get one of them to hit the target, you have absolutely no business operating a firearm.

      Considering the blow back from even modest regulation, it's hard to take you morons seriously.

    26. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, Ok, we'll protect the second amendment by gutting the first.

    27. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jeremyp · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks. And if you want to claim you need guns to defend yourself against the US Government, well it has a nice big standing army with aircraft, helicopters and tanks. How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    28. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      No, that would be too honest.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    29. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't make them look like a tough-guy you don't want to mess with, it makes them look like a violent thug you should deal with before they cause greater harm.

      You obviously shouldn't be allowed to have guns...

    30. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you openly admit to hacking for profit? CRIMINAL!

    31. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Of course you can legislate guns. Bombs are illegal hence they are legislated just as guns should be. People can of course kill people with other tools beside guns like knives, hammers etc but knives and a hammer primary purpose is not to kill people and you can't kill multiple people with them in a short period of time. Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

    32. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still have muskets

    33. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And what was the thesis he was trying to prove?

    34. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's really quite a stretch to observe that Lanza entered data in a spreadsheet and conclude that videos games are even partially to blame for the mass shooting. The only link between a spreadsheet and a video game is that they are both applications that run on a computer.

      Makes you wonder what is really going on here; whose agenda is being furthered by making such a connection and calling it "news."

    35. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You honestly think people don't use bombs because they're illegal? That's rich. I guess we should ban murder, and then no one would do it.

    36. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you quantify the crime that doesn't occur due to fear of being shot upon entry? I don't see how anyone could figure this out but if legal weapons are removed we'll find out our answers the hard way.

    37. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seeing as how you're obviously not a gun owner, I'd say you have no business telling others what they do or do not need. Second, background checks only affect people that are already within the law. What's to stop criminals from continuing to do private sales of illegal firearms? Nothing. Did it stop Adam Lanza? No, because he just took his illegally. I wouldn't give the government the power to track what I do or do not own as far as firearms go. They have no business knowing. I'll stick with my standard capacity magazines, of 17 and 30 rounds, thank you.

    38. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    39. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compared with the number of deaths from firearms in the US, the number of deaths from IEDs might as well be zero. There have been rather substantial attacks, but since regulations were put into place to track the people buying those chemicals, we haven't had another WTC bombing or Oklahoma City Bombing in the meantime.

      The point is that firearms are largely unregulated, it's easy to legally buy firearms without a background check. Whereas with explosives, there are specific licensing requirements and the supply of the components is tracked and monitored much more closely. Yes, one can make ones own explosives, but a lot of those folks just blow themselves up as making them outside of industrial facilities with specific safety equipment is very risky. I know the chemistry involved and there's no way in hell I'd be doing that.

    40. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by pijokela · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You honestly think availability of weapon does not matter at all in these killings? That's rich. I guess we should legalize pipe bombs, machine guns and antipersonnel mines, because people wanting to use them, will use them anyway. Now, like, only criminals have them!

      It's really not that simple. Some measure of gun control is a good thing.

    41. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      The thing with mass shooters is they take responsibility for their actions,there is no standard not guilty listen to my side of the story type thing. Nor do they show any remorse. This is confusing to society, it's just not what people expect from people... which brings up why do people expect anything (2nd Amen. art anyone?).

      So here we are, looking for a motive, what could've gone wrong... blame the parents, blame the schools, blame peers, society... video games?

      what about bb guns (you can learn to shoot w one)? :)

      I'll choose to blame bb guns, it makes about as much sense.

    42. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1

      No you are totally missing the point. Bombs are dangerous and therefore you can't buy one in the supermarket. So easy access to bombs is not available unlike guns. You could make a bomb yes, but that is a lot harder than buying one. So by limiting access to guns you also limit the usage of guns to kill people.

    43. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

      That is a debatable statement.

    44. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize there was a mass murder committed overseas by a guy who had handguns and a backpack full of mags - on an island no less. Shocker, he reloaded on the fly. Limiting mag capacity to some arbitrary number isn't likely to have an impact and an illegal mag isn't hard to build or obtain for someone already breaking the law. They can even be printed...

      Background checks are reasonable to say the least as are waiting periods. Criminals already obtain illegal guns easily, making all guns illegal will simply drive price and ensure an unarmed set of targets, this is foolish in the extreme. At least a few of these guys have built IED although that seems to get less attention. I promise you if guns aren't available IED will be next up - then what? They have proven effective as guerrilla weapons overseas, they will prove effective here against soft targets if these idiots turn to them. Better would be to stop giving them the publicity they need to feed their egos and stop naming them. It's the attention they want which is why this jackass spent so much time researching his peers.

      I cannot help but wonder what the Aussie's are killing one another with now if guns are so truly hard to obtain. In the UK some dork was trying to come up with stab-proof kitchen knives and kids get shaken down for screwdrivers randomly by the police while there are cameras posted everywhere. I guess a gun ban wasn't enough?

    45. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You've devoted a lot of time to mocking the concept that violent fantasy might encourage violent conduct.

      I say that playing violent video games won't make a guy go out and kill people. But, the video games (and movies) probably help to encourage the freaks who are already prone to doing such things. The news coverage seems to have helped this particular shooter to plan his actions. He tallied up the scores, and went for the easiest targets, apparently hoping to get a record score.

      If/when you can definitively prove that violent entertainment DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE to these incidents, then I'll listen to your arguments, and your scoffing.

      Meanwhile, I'll point to the Hitler Youth as evidence that indoctrination can make unacceptable acts acceptable.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    46. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xhrit · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, there were no planes filled to the brim with jet fuel or high buildings used in that attack?

      You gun nuts take logic and cast it off at the first possible point during an argument.


      So you are saying the logical thing to do would be to ban jet fuel and high buildings too?

    47. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters

      And what about hit-and-run accidents?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    48. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      How about we recognize that bad people can do bad things, and no good will come out of ripping things out of our constitution?

    49. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the reason is the same as it's always been. Video Games are basically an innocent cause here but now that the NRA has thrown them under a bus to attempt to save their own skin, politicians are just following along. It's just politics at the expense of everything else everywhere. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, but that's exactly why they do it.

    50. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      How about blaming the people around him? Oh, wait, we can't blame them, they were the poor victims. Boo-hoo.

      Every time I hear about a school shooting I wonder whether it's a shooting spree or more accurately revenge.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    51. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think we should mandate background checks of participants before protests. Think of all the rapes and muggings we could have prevented if Occupy participants were checked out before they were allowed to participate.

    52. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, and we already have gun control. And let's face it, when was the last time someone was murdered with a legally owned machine gun? The second amendment of the US constitution guarantees an access to small arms. Read the court cases. If you don't like it, you can always amend the constitution.

    53. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban spreadsheets!

    54. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

      The thing I ate for dinner last Thanksgiving would disagree.

    55. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if their obsession with games inspires them you can go talk to the victim's families

    56. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by rioki · · Score: 0

      So killing 10 people is OK then? The only thing that 10 round mags means it more reloading. Oh and he wants to commit a crime; he will totally obey the law on the size of the magazine, right?

    57. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.

      The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".

      We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.

    58. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      True. We should outlaw everything that has no "purpose" and only dangers. Let's start with extreme sports, there's exactly zero reason why you should freeclimb that mountain because there's a road up there, ya know? And people do fall, so it's a hazard without a purpose at all, guns may actually serve on in comparison.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    59. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      If we are going to put "force multiplier" into the equation, then we must also account for "force division".

      Why do we have gun free zones again? Why do we go to such lengths to ensure that no law abiding citizen in a gun free zone can possibly fight back when confronted by a gun man? It's almost like we are cooperating with the gun men.

      "You want to shoot up a bunch of people? That's bad, but hey! If you're intent on killing people, we'll just get hundreds of people massed together, where they can't defend themselves. Remember, it's bad to shoot people, but if you are determined, good luck!"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    60. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dunno', ask the Iraqis and Afghan militants how they're faring and in what shape our troops are returning. What moron would invade this country with so many armed citizens? They'd have to glass it. Yes, the armed populace poses a threat to our Govt should they get pissed enough and lets not forget that citizens are also driving all of those fancy weapons too. I hope it never ever comes to that though but the threat does have some teeth.

    61. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by SilentStaid · · Score: 4, Informative

      How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      Oh I don't know, roughly a dozen years or so, give or take. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

    62. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      And magazines to be limited in the number of rounds that they can hold to a sane number.

      Can someone explain to me what part of the 2nd amendment would allow reducing magazine size to 7, but forbid reducing it to 1?

      I mean, if lowering the magazine size to 7 works to reduce shootings, why not just ban magazines and go back to muzzle loaders? Why would that be any more of a violation?

    63. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's easy to sell your own private property to another individual, and it's already illegal to sell to criminals, with steep punishments. I'm not against punishing that crime. I am against you telling me what I can and can't do. Firearms are old tech, anyone can make one with a trip to home depot. They can be stolen too as they often are. You really think gangbangers go to gun shows to get guns? Even then there are background checks for FFLs. And as for explosives, it doesn't take much. You can start with ammonia and go from there, and that's not necessarily a controlled substance. I'd say a flamethrower would be more lethal, but then that's not classified as a weapon, and eve felons can get those.

    64. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by zerosomething · · Score: 1

      You are right but it's no less stupid than thinking that the availably of military style rifles promotes this kind of thing, high-performance sports cars promote reckless driving or that porn promotes sex trafficking and slavery.

      --
      It all starts at 0
    65. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I would be willing to bet, that the background check thing would pass IF you embeded in the bill, very tight restrictions, that required that once the information was used to check if the person could buy the weapon, that that information was immediately and irrevocably deleted and destroyed.

      What bothers so many on the option that is being put forward is that it is to build or would be easy to build, a federal, national registry of guns and gun owners.

      First, we've seen what has happened recently with such things on the state level in some states, this info went public and puts various people in jeopardy, and if nothing else, violated peoples' rights to privacy.

      And second, well, if it came to them wanting to take weapons from the populace, well, this list would be nice.

      I remember during Katrina, cops illegally confiscated peoples' weapons that stayed in the city and were needing them to defend themselves from looters and criminals. A nice computerized list would have made that MUCH easier, and to this day...many of those weapons have never been returned to their owners.

      The govt really has NO business knowing what weapons I own, nor how many. If we want to background check, ok...many would go along with it, but only if there were unbreakable stipulations that this information once collected for use, could be used to build a database of guns and their owners.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    66. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BergZ · · Score: 2

      I think pretty much everyone already does blame "the person" in tragedies like this. That's why (if he was still alive) "the person" would be convicted and imprisoned.
      Nobody has ever suggested putting his gun on trial. Nobody has ever suggested imprisoning his gun.
      The culpability for the shooting has always been on "the person".

      What some people, like myself, have noticed is that there are other people out there who are like "the person". They have similar mental disorders and they also have access to similar arsenals of assault weaponry.
      Blaming "the person" is not enough. It does not solve the problem of all the other nut jobs out there.

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    67. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Except guns are easier to make than bombs, and let's face it, when has that ever worked? People are going to continue killing people. You are only limiting my right to defend myself by telling me I can't do X while criminals will continue to do what they do. Look at Mexico. Complete gun ban, and yet they have massive amounts of murder. Look at Britain. They have a higher violent crime rate than we do, and just because people don't die, doesn't make it less horrible. I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with a gun over having my head bashed in by a junkie with a cricket bat.

    68. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Citations?

      Oh wait - let's be careful about those citations. I can find biased reports on both sides of the issue. I really don't know if there is an unbiased source for reliable statistics. I do know that the liberal side is clearly full of lies. The other side? Maybe they are exaggerating their numbers too. But, if so, the lies are not obvious.

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws? If/when you can find an explanation for that, I might reconsider my position on weapons.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    69. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Do they know what kind of "score sheet" INSURANCE COMPANIES keep? Those guys must be really evil monsters!!! Like in the Incredibles.

    70. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by rioki · · Score: 1

      As that the Syrian rebels.

    71. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

      True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk. Banning things can be doing something about it if the thing being banned is just too damaging vs any possible benefit.

      This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.

      I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason. The possible abuse of pot and the resulting damage vs the number of people who would responsibly enjoy it or use it for medication tilts towards legalization. The risk of damage caused by heroin vs any possible benefit is heavily tilted towards damage. This is also why I dislike rules created to address a single, small, event. All too often people (especially parents) will push for new laws every time someone is killed or hurt. Repeating events should be addressed but not a single isolated event unless the cost of the fix is moderate (e.g. a plane crash due to a malfunctioning part).

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    72. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by rioki · · Score: 1

      Fire axe, as mandated by the IATA? Next stupid idea please?

    73. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you an idiot?

      If somebody is so good of a shot that they're able to kill 10 people with 10 rounds, then clearly the government needs to do a better job of treating it's own special forces when they're let out of the service. More likely, you're looking at 2 maybe 3 casualties with 10 rounds, and a substantially smaller number than with the sizes that are legally permissible at the present.

      Ah yes, and criminals will break the law, so no point in introducing any regulations. That line never gets old. Whether you care to admit it or not, these people get their weapons and gear from somebody. Either they buy it legally, as they do now, or they would have to try and get it past customs. Stealing doesn't work if people don't have them, and trying to get them past customs increases the risk that the authorities will figure it out.

    74. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those crimes were 11 and 13 years ago respectively, meanwhile, it's been what, a few months since our last mass murder. Yes, I apparently misspoke, but only a RWNJ would consider a 11 year track record to not illustrate the point that firearm regulations don't work.

    75. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      3000+ people were killed by people using box cutters

      Oh, there were no planes filled to the brim with jet fuel or high buildings used in that attack?

      You gun nuts take logic and cast it off at the first possible point during an argument.

      Good point. Let's ban airplanes, and limit building heights to ten floors.

    76. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have no proof of it not existing, therefore it must exist! That line of reasoning makes sense.

      I wonder where I've heard it before? It's nice that you leave a little room for discovery and gathering evidence, after working to create FUD, of course.

    77. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because blamIng the person would require the Government and society accept that free will is indeterminate.

    78. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, you don't actually care about making any progress on this front and are attaching impossible to fulfill conditions in order to permit you to pretend to be reasonable.

      I'm all for personal privacy and freedom, but sometimes you do have to give up a little non-essential liberty in order to get real safety. And this is one of those times. Just requiring background checks makes it decidedly less convenient to buy firearms, if you're not legally allowed to have them, and gives that much more chance of people being caught before they've managed to amass an arsenal.

      Compared with other methods of dealing with the problems, a background check is a minor annoyance.

    79. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me where in the 2nd amendment it guarantees the right to have more than just 1 bullet in a magazine?

      That's sort of the point, the 2nd amendment does not guarantee you the right to any number of bullets in a firearm, in fact it doesn't even say anything about firearms.

    80. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Even if that were true, I'd have the same view on that that I would if the TSA actually did protect us from threats: safety is often much less important than security.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    81. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Whether or not I'm a gun owner does not affect whether or not I might be murdered by a gun owner in the future. If you have some recommendations on making it so that gun owners can only kill each other, then the issue of who does and doesn't own a firearm would become relevant.

      Also, for the love of god, learn how to aim, if you need 17 rounds, you're clearly not somebody whose gun skills are very good.

    82. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should outlaw everything that has no "purpose" and only dangers. Let's start with extreme sports, there's exactly zero reason why you should freeclimb that mountain because there's a road up there, ya know?

      There's a big difference between leisure activities that endanger the person pursuing them, and ones that endanger others.

    83. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Please cite sources that indicate your case's validity.

    84. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Did it stop Adam Lanza? No, because he just took his illegally.

      What should have stopped Adam Lanza is his mother not being able to buy the weapons in the first place.

    85. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while you are technically responding to the correct question, i think from context you can imply he meant mass killings *with guns* as any other interpretation doesn't make sense. So, your first example is kind of unrelated to the conversation, though your second is related. Though it should be noted that the number of mass killings is also wildly disproportionate to those in the US. Not to say that it has to do with our gun laws, but I'm just saying that your argument definitely doesn't work as an argument against countries with fewer guns have fewer shootings. So, really, you didn't prove anything (nor did the guy before you either), however, his argument at least has circumstantial evidence, whereas you really don't provide even circumstantial. As a note, I should state that I'm against gun control. I just dislike seeing bad arguments for/against it though. Now, the guy before you could have possibly made a case if a correlation could at least be shown between decrease in mass killings and decrease in gun owernship. If gun violence was already low, they could be unrelated, but one would think the only reason legislation like that would ever be drafted and passed would be in response to something, but that's just guessing because I honestly don't know.

    86. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ShadowOfMe · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one wondering how a "policeman" is qualified to evaluate the quality of the documentation as being Doctoral level research?

    87. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason.

      Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    88. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's stupid rhetoric that serves no purpose. The "Reasonable" background checks are a registry to be kept for indeterminate periods of time, and as the confiscations in New Orleans showed during the aftermath of Katrina, our rights are in danger when there is a registry. How would you like to have a "Reasonable" set of privacy on the internet, where everything you do is cataloged and kept with your username which also happens to be your real name with home address for anyone to search?

      Australia also did not have as many guns, the density, the crime, the drug issue that we in the US have. Why not talk about Mexico and their "Reasonable" restrictions on civilian ownership. Boy, that is a paradise...

    89. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The second amendment was not writen to protect the US from foreign enemies, that was a bonus. Every amendment in the bill of rights was written to restrict the power of the federal government from infringing on the rights of the people. The second amendment was written in DIRECT response to the British government taking away the coloniel arms. They only won the Revolutionary War becuase of supplies from France, and knew that to stop the US government from becomming oppresive, the people had to be armed.

    90. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

      Ow. It Hurts!!!

      My deer hunting rifle has never killed anyone. It must be defective.

    91. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      But, the video games (and movies) probably help to encourage the freaks who are already prone to doing such things.

      Even if it did, so what? What would you do about it, if anything?

      If/when you can definitively prove that violent entertainment DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE to these incidents, then I'll listen to your arguments, and your scoffing.

      I think something similar, only I ask people to prove the opposite. But again, it's not like proving it would make me consider censorship.

      Meanwhile, I'll point to the Hitler Youth as evidence that indoctrination can make unacceptable acts acceptable.

      Fantasy and reality are two different things, and other human beings restricting your freedom and trying to indoctrinate you is rather different than someone playing a video game.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    92. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Bingo!

      I seem to recall that being the cause of the MPAA back in the early days of the VCR... thankfully the courts determined that VCRs while capable of illegal things, there still existed "substantial non-infringing use".

      Alas too many people are outright terrified of firearms that they do not recognize the same.

    93. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Why should she have been prohibited from purchasing weapons? She wasn't a criminal. Were her handguns okay, but the AR not? Did we already forget about Virginia Tech?

    94. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ai4px · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm all for seeing if a person is a full citizen and therefore eligible to exercise the 2nd amendment. But limiting rounds in a magazine? Also, I got to nit pick your assertion that it might take more than 10 rounds to hit a target. 1 warning shot, leaves 9 for multiple assailants.... Sure a little extra range time might be worthwhile, but in the heat of the moment defending my family and home the last thing I want to hear is "click". What is pissing me off right now is that there are laws regarding background checks that are not being enforced... so naturally we need more laws, right? In 2009, Alice Boland pleaded innocent by reason of insanity to threatening the president and members of Congress -- after that she spent time in a Texas prison mental institution.

      None of it was enough to stop the 28-year-old from entering the grounds of a private school in Charleston called Ashley Hall last month and trying to shoot staffers.

      Boland bought her .22-caliber handgun from a dealer in Walterboro SC. A background check failed to identify her as a mental patient possibly because of a rule that allowed the government to drop charges after her guilty plea.

      And we have the right to a speedy and public trial, but some states are not reporting metal health judgements citing HIPA and privacy laws. Well, kids, if the trial is public so is the verdict.

      Me thinks the politicians love laws that aren't enforced so they can pass more and more draconian laws.

    95. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.

      What it is is a bunch of rules that a few men in the 1780s thought were good ideas. Written for the experience that they had of the world in the 1780s. (The American Revolution, the emergence from being a colony, primitive policing, and no standing army.)

      Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.

    96. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to take MY legal and responsibly-owned gun away from ME because someone ELSE might abuse HIS gun.

      Sorry, but I will use every bit of political force I can muster to resist you. Your fear is driving you to deprive me of an important self-defense tool. I don't want to be made needlessly vulnerable to criminals just because your irrational fear makes you think that you will be safer if I don't have a gun.

      You say "Guns primary purpose is to kill people." as if that means that responsible people should not have them. There are real criminals in the world who pose real threats, and we don't have 24/7 personal police protection for every citizen. We *need* to be able to respond with lethal force if we are to deter these criminals. Your disarmament just invites crime.

      I cry over innocent victims just like you do. But I respond to the threat by giving myself the power I need to protect myself from it. I will never accept your silly cowardice-inspired arguments that giving up our weapons will somehow make us safer.

      The world is a dangerous place. Your gun-grabbing will NOT change that.

    97. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws?

      Because of impetus for strict gun control laws due to high violent crime rates. That explains why. Of course, this doesn't tell us anything about the actual effect of gun control laws one way or the other.

    98. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might be murdered by a lot of things. I might be hit by a drunk driver. Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles? Should we simply outlaw drinks with strong alcohol content? Why is this less relevant in your agenda than outlawing a firearm which has less chance of being used to murder you than you being struck by lightning. As for how many rounds my pistol carries, that's none of your business. I decide why I need it, and I'll remind you that it's the standard magazine. Why would I want less? Do you want less horsepower in your car? Do you want to be electronically limited to 75mph? Please tell me, I'd love to hear your reasoning against these common sense regulations of alcohol and automobiles.

    99. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FFS... the Second Amendment wasn't put there to provide for the defense against an external aggressor -- Congress has that authority enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. It's there to provide for the removal of a government gone wrong.

      How long has Al Qaeda held out against the coalition? Never underestimate asymmetric warfare conducted by people who know the ground they're fighting on intimately. I'd like to think that only a small percentage of the military would operate against its people in the event of a revolution anyway, but who knows?

    100. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly astounding comment, you magnificent gentleman. Blaming guns for gun violence is exactly the same thing as blaming some other inanimate object.

    101. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sbditto85 · · Score: 1

      And IEDs (improvised explosive device) are nonexistent and wouldn't do more damage then any gun anyways ... right?

      In the end its still people that cause the problems why not try and address what caused the wound instead of trying to lessen the blow the next time?

      On a more personal opinion, if they're doing doctorate like research I would be inclined to believe that they would be smart enough to find guns no matter how hard you push papper (make laws) at them. I mean their planning on killing people which is way worse then owning an illegal gun so why should they care if they break 2 or 3 laws more.

    102. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Boiled down, Gun control is simply the policy of cutting the antlers off of the antelopes to help keep them safe from wolves.

      Thank you for your answer, but I've found in my experience that the people who fear guns cannot be reasonable in a discussion about gun control.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    103. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between leisure activities that endanger the person pursuing them, and ones that endanger others.

      So NASCAR should be outlawed then I take it? It is clearly a threat to more than just those who are driving the cars.

    104. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear about a school shooting I wonder whether it's a shooting spree or more accurately revenge.

      ISTR that in the case of Columbine it was a bit from column A and a bit from column B. The problem is assorted collateral damage. Once you deem yourself qualified to decide who lives and who dies, and you're making the rules, you might as well make the leap to deciding on any specious basis, because you're already well off your nut.

      I'm not saying I don't get what you're saying, because I was the target of relentless bullying in school from sixth grade forward, until I took the CHSPE at literally the earliest opportunity and GTFO at the age of fifteen...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    105. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.

      How about we just blame the person?

      The problem here is that it is very difficult to ban people.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    106. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by logjon · · Score: 0

      Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles?

      There are actually more than a handful of people willing to support this.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    107. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Ask someone who's not American. Your sense of what's acceptable has gone way out of alignment.

    108. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ai4px · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You do realize that Article 1, section 8 of the constitution says that congress cannot allocate money for more than 2 years for an army, right? We're not supposed to have the standing army we presently have. Standing armies expensive... just look at the cost in the past 10 years. Funny, isn't it, that we seem to always have something go on about every 2 years isn't it? 1989 the USSR failed leaving the US with no standing enemy. By 1991, Saddam had popped up on the radar. Coincidence? Bonus points if you can name all of our military actions since WW2.

    109. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I don't feel the graphic violence in games or in movies is justified. Our society glorifies violence, then punishes people for acting out in a violent manner.

      Censorship? I don't know - we see it happening all around us. Little children are being suspended for such silly things as drawing a picture of a gun. Just today, I read a story of a little girl being interrogated and sent home on suspension. Her crime? She had some rocks, a hammer, and a screwdriver in her backpack. She has recently discovered that cracking open some rocks exposes pretty, shiny things inside. Geodes, I think they are called.

      We're basically outlawing geologic inquisitiveness in little girls, because we can't control the violent members of society.

      Which is worse - a little censorship in violent entertainment, or barring children from researching the world around them?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    110. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the reasoning for the second amendment is so that, should there be a need, a second American Revolution has a better chance to succeed.

      True, the tanks and helicopters are a problem, but look at the difficulties in Afghanistan due to asymmetric warfare, and add in a reluctance on the part of many(probably most) in the armed forces to attack targets in the US(especially the National Guard as they seem to be called up first for domestic uses like disaster recovery, and those are our neighbors and co-workers).

      Then again, as the National Guard needs permission from the Governor to do anything off-base in a given state, it would probably look more like a civil war than an up-rising. (is it even legal to deploy the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines inside the borders of the US? I would not be surprised if there were laws against that too...)

    111. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy. The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.

      I have an idea that shouldn't inflame anybody: let's regulate murder by requiring a background check before anybody is allowed to commit it. The added inconvenience will discourage most would-be-murderers from going through with it. This also has the benefit of discouraging murders regardless of the weapon used.

    112. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can of course kill people with other tools beside guns like knives, hammers etc but knives and a hammer primary purpose is not to kill people and you can't kill multiple people with them in a short period of time. Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

      Per the FBI homicide statistics FBI statistics more people died in 2011 from blunt objects than died from rifles. I reference rifles because that applies to the Sandy Hook shooting which has sparked this topic

      If the goal were to save lives, then certainly one would expect both both rifles and blunt objects to both received equal attention, because irrespective of the intended purpose both pose similar risks to the population. But 'blunt objects' are innocuous and mundane, and thus don't induce the feelings of fear that is cause by a rifle.

      Many people can generally see no logical reason to own a gun, and thus don't believe it is freedom that should continue to be protected.

    113. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1

      Yes people are going to continue to kill people, but not as much because guns make it extremely easy to kill people unlike anything else. Mexico is not useful to compare to because the police and the government themselves are corrupt and working for the drug cartels and so the gun ban isn't being enforced. Britain has one of the lowest gun related murder for exactly that reason.

    114. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should sell your organs to pay for healthcare, so we're even.

    115. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      Given that at least half of the homicides involving guns are the gun owner killing himself and a big part (about half of the other cases) of the other homicides are committed within the household or the near family of the gun owner, the gain-risk-ratio for guns is quite questionable. In about 75% of all cases, gun ownership was mainly causing tragedies.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    116. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by letherial · · Score: 1

      I totaly agree with you

      It couldnt be like the AR-15, no thats not the problem, it couldnt be mental health, that couldnt be the problem...so they make fake lines to make video games the problem

      Anyone who puts the 2nd over the 1st can go fuck themselves with there own gun, and please pulll the trigger while your at it.

    117. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Pixel guns don't kill people. Real guns do. It's pretty simple.

    118. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the reason they're lasting for that long is because they do not engage the military in battle. Every time the Taliban have openly engaged the troops in anything resembling large-scale combat, they lost. They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle, and the only reason we're getting out of there is because we have no reason to be there.

      If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    119. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Countries with strict gun laws have few gun crimes. It's pretty straightforward.

      An assault rifle is a "tool" for killing people. Unfortunately all too many people use it for just that reason.

    120. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 0

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses.

      Clearly spoken by someone who has no understanding of the American system nor it's history.

      We are talking about inalienable rights here, rights that are and were seen as granted by god and that the power of the government (or other men) the deprivation people of are limited.

      Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.

      Actually ignorant people speak of what they do not understand.

      I am not a religious man and yet I understand natural law, odd that eh? What does that say about you?

    121. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      Any amount of time greater than 0 is actually the point. Ask any of the Afghanistani's.

    122. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths than those who don't. it's pretty straightforward. I want fewer gun deaths. I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.

    123. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws? If/when you can find an explanation for that, I might reconsider my position on weapons.

      Because that correlation doesn't necessarily mean that "strict gun control laws" => "high violent crime rates". It could mean "high violent crime rates" => "strict gun control laws". Or even "desperately poor population"=>"high violent crime" and "desperately poor population"=>"Democrats elected for other reasons"=>"strict gun control laws".

      So that's two explanations. Are you reconsidering your position on weapons now?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    124. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between leisure activities that endanger the person pursuing them, and ones that endanger others.

      So NASCAR should be outlawed then I take it? It is clearly a threat to more than just those who are driving the cars.

      You might note that when accidents happen NASCAR acts to reduce the risk of further accidents. You know - move bystanders further from the track, strengthen barricades etc. It's also run on racetracks, in large facilities where the cars can't suddenly go flying out through several layers of wall, across 2km of field and into a nearby house.

      NASCAR cars aren't even street-legal to drive on public roads.

    125. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 2

      There is no longer a need for a militia... blah blah blah

      Interesting how you focus on only one part of the second amendment... or did you forget about the whole second half? You know, the part that says:

      the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

      Or does 'the people' only refer to the militia and/or government? If so... a couple recent SCOTUS rulings would disagree (see Heller & McDonald).

    126. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 0

      I have found the opposite. Time after time I can point out the simple fact that countries with strict gun control laws tend to have fewer gun related deaths. I have generally found that this very simple fact is usually completely irrelevant to gun control opponents, which is usually an indication that I'm dealing with an unreasonable person.

    127. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly don't remember a person being killed with anything physical relating to games.
      Have you ever read off "mass head-smashed-in-with-game-case-ings" any time recently?
      Last I checked, a gun is a weapon, and in America, a fucking child can get a gun without even trying.
      Your argument is retarded.

      At least someone has a chance to break the nose of someone trying to beat them to death with a game case or disc.
      There is no chance doing that with a gun unless you also have a gun.
      Last I checked, it wasn't law that everyone should be forced to have a gun all them at all times or face punishment.
      If it were, maybe then you would have a point. But it isn't, so shut the hell up.
      Guns don't defend some kid shooting up a school, that only applies to home intrusions where everyone keeps their damn guns. So stop using that argument.

      So unless everyone is forced to have a gun, control IS a requirement and severe punishment for those who mishandle them. (especially by allowing anyone else to get hold of such tools, even if it was stolen by someone else, get a damn safe)

    128. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By comparing against countries that do have guns but also have gun laws?

    129. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws?

      Because of impetus for strict gun control laws due to high violent crime rates. That explains why. Of course, this doesn't tell us anything about the actual effect of gun control laws one way or the other.

      Also gun control laws aren't homogenous across the country, and importing from a city 100km away with the current straw-purchasing laws and lack of traceability is trivial. The background check system is so loosely enforced that getting around it is a matter of ticking "no" on the "do you have a mental illness?" question. That gun dealers can't actually be required to do any fundamental checks, or even engage in basic stock control (i.e. under the table sales are effectively undetectable).

    130. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This was the work of a video gamer"

      Demonizing political bullshit, with the purpose of arousing the public to hate a significant part of the population. That Connecticut Cunt should be trialled for inciting hate crimes. Here's the some Central European and Middle American versions of the same sentence: "This was the work of a Jew", "This was the work of a Muslim".

    131. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Petron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Second Amendment isn't for a militia. The government doesn't need permission to arm any military unit.

      The Second Amendment states:
      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      It does not say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      The right of the people shall not be infringed. Why? Because the people who formed the government experienced a government that took away their firearms. The colonies were under the rule of King George and when the peasants were getting uppity, the first thing they did was to disarm them. It is easier to 'govern' an unarmed population. In fact look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). Each one is a reaction to the over step of government under King George. Citizens starting to revolt? Ban their publications (1st), take their weapons (2nd), place soldiers in the homes of bigger trouble makers (3rd), Search people if you think they may be part of the trouble makers (4th), Skip trials for trouble makers (5th)... All of these things were fresh in the minds of the founders when they wrote the Bill of Rights, to ensure their new government would never be come as oppressive as the one they just left.

      So the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the arming a government militia, but to arm people against a possible corrupt militia, or against any other tyrant that may come by (burglar, gang leader, ex-boyfriend that wants to 'teach her a lesson'... etc).

      And while people love to compare gun crime in the US vs gun crime in countries with strong gun control... but also look at crimes without guns. How is breaking and entry, theft, rape, all compare? There was an article I read a while back that discussed why burglaries were higher in (I think the UK) vs the US and the research showed that burglars were afraid of running into a home owner with a gun. (don't have the article handy, was well over a year ago I saw that).

      Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.

      Guns have the same reaction as aircraft. 99.9% of the firearms in the US aren't used in crime. We have well over 280 million. Enough so if we distribute them 88% of the US would be armed. Statistically, you more likely to be beaten to death (or just wounded) by a bat, fists, or knives. But now and then we have the big airline crash that causes people to say "Hey! this is unsafe! who cares about the number, look at the death count at this one incident"

      and for a disclaimer: I do not own a gun. Never have. My father had a couple of hunting rifles, but we only went target shooting. I don't see a need to change the first amendment (ban video games), or the second due to the actions of a very few (statistically speaking). I'd rather punish those few harshly.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    132. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Putting a qualifier like "gun related" next to murder is meaningless. Do you care about murders or are murders with things other than guns alright? As for guns making easier to kill, yeah, I agree with you. That's why I have one, because I want to be able to totally stop someone that tries to hurt me or my family. The violence in Mexico is very bad, but you know what, free citizens might have an easier time if they could shoot back against the criminals and corrupt police, but they don't have that right. I for one don't want to live like that, and there's nothing stopping this government from becoming corrupt at any level. I guess it's okay that Britain has more violent crime, at least they aren't killing people with guns.

    133. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.

      It's not a right to have access to some recreational activity. It's about the right to have access to the tools to protect yourself, your family, and if need be, your society.

    134. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not all retarded, however much you'd like to assume that. The smug belief that you're brighter than 99.whatever percent of the rest of the population does not, in fact, make you any smarter than the harsh reality. Nor does it make individual members of #group any stupider than they really are.

    135. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American, so thank you for validating my opinions. I am, however, in the process of becoming one, and I rather like it better that I can defend myself. So maybe ask someone who has a bit of brains instead.

    136. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in Australia.

      Guns are amazingly hard to obtain. Organized crime generally uses guns to shoot each other, but it's very rare. There have been precisely 0 bombing.

      Isn't that fascinating? That despite the fact that guns are actually a progressively rarer illegal commodity, no one has bothered trying to blow people up?

      I've seen this "oh they'll just use a bomb, look how well dairy creamer works" comes up all the damn time as though it's obviously that easy to make explosives. Hint: it's not. Bombs are heavy, and indirect. They require being placed in advance, being not-noticed, and then actually working not to mention acquiring the materials without getting a friendly visit from the Feds to ask what's up with the multiple credit cards and fertilizer. You might notice that the attempted terrorist attacks using bombs in the US have all been thwarted usually by someone calling in and saying "hey, I noticed a weird package".

    137. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ssn767 · · Score: 1

      My firearms primary purpose are for sporting and to protect. Feed and protect myself, my family, my belongings, and those in imminent danger who do not have the means to protect themselves using the least force necessary. As far as I'm concerned least force necessary can range from a weapon of opportunity such as a hammer up to and including a fully auto firearm which most Americans can legally own.

    138. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sycodon · · Score: 2

      It's probably pretty easy when they aren't shooting back and simply cowering under their desks like good little citizens.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    139. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seeing as how you're obviously not a gun owner, I'd say you have no business telling others what they do or do not need.

      That seems like circular logic to me: You're saying that the only people who can argue about whether people should own guns are people who have already decided to own a gun. It's sort of like saying that the only people who can hold a legitimate opinion about the divinity of Jesus are Christians.

      What's to stop criminals from continuing to do private sales of illegal firearms? Nothing.

      Nothing except proper police work, you mean.

      They [the government] have no business knowing.

      The government has a clear interest in preventing its citizens from being murdered. Knowing who has large supplies of firearms with large capacity magazines would seem like it might help in that endeavor.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    140. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Did you know that basically all the guns in Mexico are bought legally in the US and taken over the border? And that one of the reasons "Fast and Furious" didn't blow up more is that it's been difficult to establish if it was actually illegal for any of the smugglers to buy the guns they did.

    141. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      No, actually not. A number of studies suggest that increasing gun controls lead to higher crime rates, while relaxing gun control laws lead to lower crime rates.

      http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
      http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.png

      Are the numbers on that page slanted somehow? I'm not certain. But, I've seen a number of similar studies and graphs that suggest that site is accurately recording history.

      Let's think, a moment. Say that you're a criminal type. You've found it more lucrative to burgle homes and businesses, than to work for a wage. Stupid, yeah, but obviously some people arrive at just such a conclusion.

      You live on or near a state line. On one side, guns are legal. On the other side, guns are illegal. On the first side, burglarizing a home could result in a face-to-face meeting with an armed home owner. On the other side, that likelihood is almost infinitesimal. If you have the bad luck of meeting the homeowner, he/she will likely be armed with a shoe, or a hammer, or at most, a butcher knife.

      So, which direction are YOU going to go, in search of potential victims? How much risk of being shot during a burglary are you willing to accept?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    142. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks. And if you want to claim you need guns to defend yourself against the US Government, well it has a nice big standing army with aircraft, helicopters and tanks. How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      The second half of you post contains some truth, but your first statement misses the mark. The real conflict is not, Guns Vs Tanks, it is a standing army vs a militia. Are the interests of the people best severed by our military?

    143. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sycodon · · Score: 0

      but sometimes you do have to give up a little non-essential liberty

      Who the fuck are you to tell anyone which of their liberties is essential?

      You sound like that shit bag Bloomberg.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    144. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      The US Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does not guarantee unrestricted access to small arms, and thus allows for reasonable restrictions on their ownership.

    145. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ssn767 · · Score: 1

      Machine guns are legal to own in the US. To own one legaly you have to follow the proper purchase channels and pay the taxes.

    146. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It says a lot of things about individuals being guaranteed a right to bear arms, specifically for military purpose.

      You could argue that "they didnt say anything about ammo", but any reasonable reading of the amendment makes it clear that the "arms" were intended to be usable.

      If you think the amendment is bad, then lets go down the path of amending it proper, rather than trying to cripple it peacemeal and hoping that noone notices whats happening. "I dont like the amendment" doesnt mean you or legislators get to ignore it, or the process of repealing it.

    147. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Informative

      And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

      No, not really. I suspect the worst gun massacre is yet to come, and it will involve the use of a shotgun (with magazine size less than 10 rounds) in a crowded area. 5.56/.223 is a weak round, comparatively speaking. Its goal is to incapacitate (i.e. wound - not necessarily kill) an enemy soldier potentially wearing light body armor at distances of 100-200 yards. It is a poor choice for someone whose goal is to cause as many deaths as possible in the minimal amount of time - a shotgun will be much more efficient for that.

    148. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1

      You don't get it do you? IED would do a lot of damage and that is why they are illegal. By your logic we should just allow any regular citizen to own IED, RPGs, Tanks, Missiles and WMDs because it is just the people and not what they use.

      It's not about breaking the law it is about easy access.

    149. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I might be hit by a drunk driver. Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles?

      That's a very good idea, actually. Sure, it's annoyingly inconvenient, but given that thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers annually (and even larger numbers are injured) that might well be a worthwhile tradeoff.

      And just so we're clear: If drunk driving only endangered your own life, I wouldn't be interested in stopping it. Just like if the only person you could kill with a gun was yourself, I wouldn't care. But that's not the case.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    150. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      And, of course, with 10-round magazines, one can still have several, and change them as needed. Indeed, Lanza himself didn't actually use more than half of the rounds in any of his 30-round mags - he swapped them out before he emptied them.

    151. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't feel the graphic violence in games or in movies is justified. Our society glorifies violence, then punishes people for acting out in a violent manner.

      Well, is that really a surprise? Violence in fantasy and violence in reality are two different things; one results in a real person getting hurt and the other does not. Just because people enjoy violent movies, video games, and other such things, that doesn't mean that they also want real people to get hurt.

      Censorship? I don't know - we see it happening all around us.

      I don't think that justifies it.

      Which is worse - a little censorship in violent entertainment, or barring children from researching the world around them?

      I'm afraid I don't understand the dilemma here. Why can't we have no censorship and not bar children from researching the world around them?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    152. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths than those who don't. it's pretty straightforward. I want fewer gun deaths. I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.

      What about knife deaths? Blunt object deaths? Poison deaths? If a crazy person wants to kill someone, they will find an implement to do it with. Take away guns, and the other methods will fill the gap. Think it'll make mass homicides harder? There's still illegal guns, bombs, and the ever pleasant, chemicals. Of course, if you don't care about total deaths, and just care about gun deaths, it's a different story.

    153. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      And magazines to be limited in the number of rounds that they can hold to a sane number. If you require more than 10 rounds in a magazine in order to get one of them to hit the target, you have absolutely no business operating a firearm.

      If nobody "with any business operating a firearm" needs more than 10 rounds - why do virtually all police and military carry more than 10 rounds in their guns?

      The police are of particular note. They are not soldiers - they are not engaged in war. They simply are prepared for a defensive situation that might pop up on the everyday environment (for any offensive situation that they plan on SWAT would be called in with even higher capacity guns).

      These are the exact situations faced by any other civilian in society, yet we're told a 10 round magazine is plenty, while most cops are armed with Glock 22's with a 15-round magazine capacity and always carry at least 2 reloads on the belt (45 rounds in total).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    154. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

      The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets. Am I using them for something other than their intended purpose? No. My grandfather used to go hunting. He killed deer. Was he misusing it because he was not killing people, even though you claim that is their purpose? No. People that say guns are designed for killing people are often the people that do not have any interest in them and do not know much about the other aspects of their uses. If you aren't interested in guns and don't know much about them, fine... but don't make claims about them when your only knowledge of them comes from the skewed statistics from political groups and the media... which is often very inaccurate.

      Some people want guns to be more regulated. I can understand why they would want that... but why don't they focus on enforcing the existing laws as well? I watched one of Feinstein's hearings (she is the CA senator pushing the new gun control laws) in which she had a police commissioner come in and support her bill by answering questions. He pointed out that the background checks stopped thousands ( I think it was roughly 10,000) of people from illegally acquiring guns. That is probably true. However, an opposing senator asked how many of those were actually prosecuted for trying to illegally obtain these guns and the commissioner didn't have any idea. The actual records show that only 18 were taken to court. They would have had to commit a felony by lying on forms that must be completed before a gun shop would even call in a background check. The commissioner responded by stating the police department didn't have time to go after those 'minor offenses' because they were spending their time going after the important ones, such as the murders and robberies caused by guns. I understand that they may not have the resources to go after all of them, but what good are more laws going to be when they won't prosecute the 10,000 obvious felons that were trying to illegally obtain guns? How many of these felons went on illegally obtain the guns through other means to commit the crimes that the commissioner is focusing on? I know there are other mean in which people can try to obtain guns illegally and that people want more laws to try and prevent that. But will making more guns illegal when criminals are not prosecuted with the existing laws in some of the most obvious open & shut cases you can get? I feel that sometimes the 'gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens' argument is overused.... but with examples like this, can you really say that claim doesn't have some validity?

    155. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      The huge problem with what youre saying is that the constitution represents the contract between the government and its people, which grants legitimacy to the people in charge of leading us.

      If the president were to determine that the constitutional limits on his passing laws and declaring war were outdated and that he could ignore them, the people would (hopefully) recognize the attempt as illegitimate-- it violates the contract and the limits that were set.

      We have a very clear process for amending the constitution if / when the people -- with whom the contract was made -- decide that it needs to be modified. All you need to do is convince the majority of society that the rules must change, and it will happen. If you cannot do so, then the contract stands as written.

      Our country is still fairly young, but we have been quite stable over that time, and in general systems like ours which have clear legislative processes which are adhered to tend to be a LOT more stable than those where the government gets to do whatever it wants, because it has decided that the existing constitution is no good. If you wish to prevent our society from turning into an authoritarian one, the only way forward is to stick to enforcing the clear processes we have and not allow the government (or the people) to ignore the contract.

    156. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know we regulate cars and alcohol a huge amount, right? So not sure your point.

      We also require liability insurance. Let's have that for guns.

    157. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      this +1

      soon we are all blaming eachother instead of

      1. the authorities for the sure to happen knee jerk overreaction which innocent scapegoats will be arrested as potential shooters, to calm down the public and show their "effectiveness"

      2. the media for drumming up the hysteria after every fucking shooting in the first place.

    158. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      New York is already backpedaling on the 7 round limit (stating that the virtual non-existence of 7-round magazines is a problem). Its likely to be thrown out on constitutional challenge.

      The Heller decision has already stated that a locality cannot outlaw a class of firearm "in common use". The reality is that 10 rounds is note even remotely "high capacity". Unless they're really small for concealability or fire particularly large ammo, standard handgun magazine capacity runs from 15 to 18 rounds. Based on the common use language in Heller its going to be hard to argue against any mag limit lower than 18.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    159. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man. Why are you so disingenuous about it? Guns are weapons. That's their sole purpose. You can argue weapons can be used defensively, but their objectives is still to maim and kill.

      Have you ever killed a deer with your rifle? It's in fine condition then. Hopefully you lock it away and keep it safe with the ammo in a difference place and such, but not everyone does that, and if you use it to hunt, you won't need a 30-bullets clip. I understand you want to keep your gun, I can even see a gun as being useful if you live in the middle of nowhere and face random bears crossing your land or whatever. There should still a proper amount of legislation for weapons.

    160. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you not see the danger of just deciding one day that we no longer need to follow a provision of the constitution?

      What if the government decides that freedom of the press is likewise dangerous and outdated; do they have your approval to simply ignore it?

    161. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      You might note that when accidents happen NASCAR acts to reduce the risk of further accidents.

      I'm fully aware of that... a similar thing has happened with airshows over the years (as one example of many).

      The difference... is here you and I are talking about accidents vs evil acts... vs the fool above who refers to simply 'endagerment'.

      If there is an accident at a shooting range... steps will be taken to try to make such a repeat even more unlikley (or impossible)... while if someone does something evil with a firearm, we see a knee jerk reaction to clamp down on the rights of responsible owners and users.

    162. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Someone who isnt American doesnt have to contend with our constitution. A government which decides it can ignore the very document which gives it legitimacy is a government which has none.

    163. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure that's exactly what people are suggesting. That document that was written hundreds of years ago might need to be amended, because people and society changes and evolves.

    164. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by znanue · · Score: 1

      You're right, the second amendment needs to guarantee the right of the US citizen to possess space weapons platforms and drones.

    165. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "I'm afraid I don't understand the dilemma here. Why can't we have no censorship and not bar children from researching the world around them?"

      I was pointing out the fact that we do live with censorship. And, the current direction that censorship is taking seems far worse than just getting rid of some stupid games, and even stupider movies.

      I'd rather encourage the children, than to encourage the freak who spends his waking hours immersed in violent "entertainment".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    166. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Ironhandx · · Score: 2

      2 or 3??? Who are you calling a fucking idiot?

      Note: The following is based entirely on my own experience shooting and hunting LEGALLY. The entire scenario is hypothetical and I would never actually do any of the things mentioned hereafter with the exception of hunting and target shooting.

      I'm not special forces, but I do hunt semi-regularly and I've fired off maybe 2-300 handgun rounds throughout my lifetime. If maximum fatalities is my goal I can guarantee you a minimum of 6-7 deaths from 10 rounds from a handgun inside 100 feet. Give me a rifle and I'll make it 8-9 out of 10 inside 100 yards. Reloading a pre-loaded mag into a gun takes maybe 5 seconds. With my aim and fire time thats maybe 1 person that I wouldn't have shot in that time frame.

      The rifle isn't the most likely culprit however. Rifles are easy to see and easy to control. Handguns should be banned outright without special licenses. The magazine size on a rifle has little to no bearing on what will happen if someone decides to go on a mass shooting spree.

      Shit, give me an M1 Garand and I'll get that reload time down to 3 seconds and make 7-8 kills out of an 8 round clip at 100 yards. Probably more in a crowded room where you'll get second victims on a single bullet. Do you feel safer than if I was using a 30 round mag? Do think someone planning a pre-meditated killing spree is actually going to be significantly worse at shooting and completely ignore the fact that accuracy really really matters? You'd probably be better off if he had a full auto weapon and just sprayed. I know I'd only be able to hit 2, maybe 3 out of a 30 round mag for sure on full auto just spraying. Limiting him to semi-auto is just going to make him more conscious of accuracy.

      Thats not to mention that if you banned handguns except with special licenses, he'd be less likely to have one, and someone pretty responsible, like say, a teacher, should be encouraged to go get their license and carry a handgun. Yes, they should have a handgun around your children. Oh the danger of it all! You're already trusting the safety and minds of your children to these people for 5 days of the week. They should have all available tools to help them maintain that safety. You know what most all of the mass shootings have in common? A single somewhat practiced handgun owner could have put them down in a matter of minutes and cut the death toll by half or more.

      Some restrictions should be in place, but most of those are already.

      Even if I'm a bit of an outlier... theres no way in hell that 2-3 out of a 10 round clip in a semi-auto rifle is accurate. They'd have to be firing an AK-47 semi-auto just to get down to 3-4. They could bump-fire the thing and still get 2-3.

    167. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 2

      *shaking head*

      Given that at least half of the homicides involving guns are the gun owner killing himself

      Now you are just confusing terms... Homicide != suicide.

      The anti-gunners usually simply limit it to 'deaths'... murders, suicides, acidental discharges, etc. Easier that way... and far less honest.

      the gain-risk-ratio for guns is quite questionable

      Reputable citation please.

      In about 75% of all cases, gun ownership was mainly causing tragedies.

      Reputable citation please.

    168. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time after time I can point out the simple fact that countries with strict gun control laws tend to have fewer gun related deaths.

      No shit, take away a tool and alternatives will be found. If guns aren't available, I'm going to go kill the guy I hate with a knife. I'm most certainly not going to say "Oh, I hate him so much I'm going to kill him. What, no guns? Aww, I love that guy now." Hate is hate. Guns are flashy and scary, especially to people like you, that's why they're used. But there's nothing that says I can't rush into a room with some basic chemicals, mix them on the spot, and kill everyone there with a poisonous gas. And don't tell me the internet hasn't made it easier to find a decent kill-everyone gas than it is to go get a legal, or even illegal, gun.

    169. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Given that at least half of the homicides involving guns are the gun owner killing himself...

      For ridiculously absurd definitions of the word, "homicide..."

      Killing oneself != homicide. Also, [citation needed].

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    170. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      To be precise, we already have background checks on dealer sales. It's background checks on private transfers that's on the table.

      One system that has been proposed in gun owner circles is to remake NICS using modern tech - make it a public, Internet-accessible database available to anyone. Not just for gun checks, but for any purpose whatsoever. So you can just go to a website, input someone's information that you can reasonably ask the person to provide (name, DOB, driver license, carry permit if any), and you get back a simple page that says whether they are eligible to own a firearm or not. Then make it a felony to sell a firearm to anyone without running this check and verifying the information (i.e. you have to actually ask the person for their ID). Of course, this is not a particularly enforceable law, but it is primarily meant to serve as a deterrent, anyway.

    171. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Collateral damage is pretty much a given, but by the time you already decided that people should die, people who stand in the way between you and your objective become expendable as well. I think it's less feeling qualified to decided who lives and who does not, it's more one where you try to get even, and everyone else better doesn't get into your way.

      I doubt it's some kind of god complex for most, it's more a matter of "this person will die now, come hell or high water".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    172. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No mass murders since Australia confiscated all guns? Well that's fantastic! Let's pay attention to just that one statistic, because things like assault, rape, theft... well, they don't matter if there are no mass murders!

      You anti-gun-nuts love to ignore relevant information than anyone else. I think you're forgetting what happened to the overall violent crime rate in Australia:
      THEY'RE #1 NOW!!!!

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

      I'd show you the page with statistics from BEFORE Australia's gun ban and confiscation went into effect, but you would probably just ignore it like you have every other piece of factual information in this debate.

      Modeling our failing policies after another nation's already failed policies will do no good to us. Instead, we should be looking at how/where other nations failed with balancing public safety and personal rights. Great Britain and Australia make for the two most obvious examples of what NOT to do. Both have higher violent crime rates than the U.S., and both are less effective at dealing with public threats because their police force lacks effectiveness for various reasons.

      Unfortunately, most people in this country either herp too much or derp a lot so they can only follow the tough issues for as long as their miniscule attention spans allow. And the only ones in Washington who are actually interested in doing anything are too busy trying to do away with the Constitution to actually make any effective policies that will prove to be of benefit to their constituents.

    173. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1930-1940s germany had some pretty damn strict gun control laws, and you're right, the gun related deaths were fairly low.

      Oh wait, no they weren't.

      Well at least the mass murders were.... wait, no, better not touch that topic either.

      not an invocation of godwin's law if the example is directly applicable to the topic at hand.

      And on a more serious side note, why would you assume that what works in one culture would necessarily work in another? You don't think that America's existing high crime rate (overall, not just gun crimes), glorification of violence, high levels of gang-related activity, war on drugs, bias towards personal liberty, consumerism/all-about-me mindset, slacktivist bent, predisposition towards (christian, usually) fundamentalism, and so on, might all be valid variances from the countries you're comparing against?

      I think you're ignoring a whole lot of variables in your pseudo-scientific reasoning here.

    174. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Countries with strict gun laws have few gun crimes. It's pretty straightforward.

      But not necessarily violent crimes in general. When you focus on "gun crimes" in particular, you ignore all other violent crimes that involve just as much bloodshed and death, but with different tools being used - which is rather pointless.

    175. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      Sounds like someone slept through history class. If you think all of the reasons for the second amendment no longer exist, then you obviously missed some of them.

      There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks.

      Well, if you don't want to have the means to protect yourself, your house, your neighbors and/or your family from a foreign invading force, then that's your decision, as ill-advised as it may be. Me, I'll need as many options as I can get and have prepared my self to have. I will not be exclusively relying on others for my own protection, my house may not be in a militarily strategic location and could be considered an acceptable loss.

      How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      How long they last is not a relevant question. How could they possibly win is also not a relevant question. They are not relevant because the answers do not matter. What matters is that the people have a right to fight against a tyrannical opposing force, foreign or domestic. They have the right to stand up honorably for what they believe in and fight for it to the death if it comes to that. They have the right to be equipped for that fight for all-in-all they have the right to live. With the right to life comes, without exception, the right to protect that life. The second amendment makes that abundantly clear for all to see - in this country, the people not only have the right to live they also have the right to the means to ensure that their right to live is not taken away. If you really think guns and an armed populace are anachronism, then perhaps you should live with those who think more like you, I hear the UK feels that way and you won't even have to learn a new language. You can leave this free country to the men (and women) who have the courage to accept the price freedom costs for it has only ever been paid for with blood.

    176. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      You don't need an assault rifle to protect yourself and your family. A handgun is all you need.

    177. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. Firearms just mean less prep. With any sort of lead time I could easily pull off a massacre
      with any of the following devices:

      Bombs
      Cars
      Blunt Trauma
      Edged Devices
      Electricity
      Chemicals

      Go ahead, sit there and tell me the guy in CT couldn't have brought in a Baseball Bat and just clubbed
      everyone to death before anyone had time to respond. Go medieval on everyone and bring a MACE or
      Morning Star instead.

      Or build a bomb and drive it right up to the bus lines during dismissal.
      Ram a car through same bus lines.
      Etc. etc.

      Different tool: Same outcome.

      Ask yourself, what's the common denominator here ?

      Answer: People

    178. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      no, the 5.56 is a weak cartrige because the army fucked it up.

      the original 55 grain cartridge, out of the original AR-15 was a great round, and great gun, but money and politics fucked the M16, and its wonder bullet all it.

      If you had an original M16, with the original 55 grain 5.56 round, they had the kick of a .22, and the punch of a .30 cal. It used to rabbit around your insides, chewing you up from the inside, and was very controllable under fully auto.

      Then the army ordered more bullets, and went with the leftover gunpowder, and fucked everything up.

      1. the old powder was more powerful, so the bullets didn't rabbit, they went throught the targets
      2. They were dirtier, and guns jammed, and broke.
      3. the rate of fire increase because of the higher power of the cart causing more malfunctions, and destroying gun internals.

      So they tweaked the internals, made a heavier bullet to go through body armor, and while the modern M16s (A2s and later), and M4s won't jam, or break, the round is really ineffective, doubly so for short barrel m4s, who have lower barrel pressure, and there effective kill range is from 50m-250m.

      The rest of NATO uses 5.56 because we twisted their arms. We have a hard time getting rid of the bullet because its so widely used, it would be very expensive to replace all the guns and bullets of our military and all our allies who use it, but believe me the modern US military has no love for the 5.56

      the 5.56 round is popular with gun enthusiasts because of its military status, and the fact its cheaper than similar rounds due to volume of scale, and availability of military surplus.

      the M16 style guns, the AR15, are very popular because the design is under the Public Domain, and since they are military, very easy to maintain, and there are more mods and customizations for the AK47 and M16 than any other guns combined.

      the AR15 is a "platform" not unlike the linux of guns. Its just a reciever with parts, of which you can customize anyway you want, more so than other guns.

      The AK47 is also popular because its a big caliber, and they are cheap comparitively and ammunition is again very inexpensive due to effeciencies of scale. They are also customizable, and easy to maintain, because again, its a military rifle.

    179. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Anytime I point out that countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths, gun-control opponents change the subject by saying "what about xxx". I don't give a shit about those. Given the choice between walking down the street in a bad part of town in London (say, Brixton) where I have a reasonable chance of being mugged with a knife, and walking down the street in parts of Oakland or Bayview-Hunters point in San Francisco where I could easily get shot, I would choose the former any day. Most people would.

    180. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nor do you need a PC nor cell phone to talk with other people.

      I hate to break it to you... but it's called the "Bill of Rights"... not the "Bill of Needs"

    181. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm all for seeing if a person is a full citizen and therefore eligible to exercise the 2nd amendment.

      2A is not limited to citizens, it says "the right of people". Where constitution limits some right specifically to citizens - like, say, the right to vote - it specifically says "citizens".

    182. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we took your "blame the person" approach, then we would blame drivers and pilots for the majority of vehicular deaths and as a consequence we would have horribly unsafe planes and automobiles. Why spend any money or pass any laws regarding vehicular safety when we can be at moral ease simply blaming bad drivers? Why bother to build safe playgrounds when we can just blame the injured children themselves. Why update building and housing codes when we can just tell people they need to be better prepared for fires?

      I have absolutely no problem with people blaming "my inanimate object" if it's actually at fault. But considering the fact that "my inanimate object" was never designed as nor intended to be used as an efficient maiming machine, nor was it instrumental in mass-murder, I see no justification for blaming "my inanimate object".

    183. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks. And if you want to claim you need guns to defend yourself against the US Government, well it has a nice big standing army with aircraft, helicopters and tanks. How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      There is no longer a need for a militia - the British Crown has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than flintlocks, like cannons, ships, and cavalry. And if you want to claim you need guns to defend yourself against the British Crown, well it has a nice big standing army with cannons, rifles, and ships. How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the British military?

    184. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Whether or not I'm a gun owner does not affect whether or not I might be murdered by a gun owner in the future

      Actually, it very well could, unless you don't include criminals as "gun owners". And when people are shooting at you, you will be glad you had 17 rounds in your magazine.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    185. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question would be, what came first? The violence or the laws?

      Given how dysfunctional most US legislatures are, I'd guess the violence came first.

    186. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      A junkie with a cricket bat? Would he be wearing a bowler hat too? You might want to actually visit the UK sometime.

    187. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      And yet Europe has few knife massacres. Isn't that astonishing? How many mass knife attacks occur in England? How many examples can you point to of people going into a crowded theater and killing 20 people with a knife? I'm curious.

    188. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      There's a few iraqi and afgani groups that say 10+ years...

    189. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Are you saying we no longer have a government? Or are you saying our government cannot be corrupt? Or are you saying that only private business and public government should have guns?

      It doesn't matter. Each of these are pretty stupid arguments. If only one side has guns (and you won't get rid of guns in government hands) then there's a serious problem. We have already seen what happens when a cop goes bad. And we have seen worse. People who think banning guns is an answer are living in a dream land where wishes come true.

      Let's put it out there. Let's say only police have guns. The very moment that is the case is the moment a baseball bat finds its way to a cop's head and his guns go missing. If guns exist, you can't control them. And let's say only the military has guns. We've already seen cases where people in the military sold weapons. I can't imagine that stopping the moment that it is illegal to own guns.

      And let's not forget the 3D printing thing. Recall alcohol and prohibition? I read the stories and the like. The next thing you know, people are making their own guns and sharing them... for lots of money.

      Making a thing illegal has NEVER EVER made it go away. It just created increasingly deadly situations for people. The "war on drugs" is a lesson learned with prohibition which the government simply refuses to acknowledge and accept. The danger and murder associated with the drug trade would pale in comparison to a ban on guns.

      I think you and those like you simply don't think this through. You just stop at "I have a dream!"

    190. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      Countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths than those who don't.

      ... but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates. According to recorded statistics, if we assume accuracy, the US is well below the global average homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000 people, at 4.8. One thing I noted from the aforementioned chart, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between presence/absence of strict gun laws and homicide rates.

      Citing "less gun deaths" in countries with strict gun laws is like citing "low auto-accident rates" in Nambia - complete non sequitur.

      I want fewer gun deaths.

      That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."

      Personally, I'd be happy with fewer intentional homicides, regardless of the method.

      I don't give a shit about your right[s]

      Aaand we come to the crux of the issue, and why nobody with a lick of sense gives a fuck what you gun grabbers have to say.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    191. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Why do you point to 1930s Germany when you can point to gun control in Germany today? I'm curious? You point to events 60 years ago when you can look at gun control in Germany today. Guess what...Germany has very strict gun control laws TODAY. And few gun deaths. And it's no longer a socialist state, in case you haven't been paying attention.

      In 2011, the US had 9,800 gun homicide deaths.

      Germany had 158.

      http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2012/12/gun-deaths-in-germany-and-the-us.html

      Strict gun control = less gun violence. It's pretty clear. I know you anti-gun control people hate to hear it, but its true.

    192. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Sounds nice in theory... but how do you prove that you underwent such a check without creating a registry or an undue burden upon every single firearm owner?

      So tomorrow in order to purchase any firearm... you need to undergo an NICS check... how do you prove that a week, year or decade from now? ... assuming we don't create a registry of each transaction (including make, model and serial #).

      Do you get a receipt as proof then all other electronic records are destroyed (as is required by law today)? What happens if god forbid you lose this piece of paper? Can you think of any other piece of paper which you are issued, with no chance to replace, and that failure to have would result in a crime?

      More so, how would one prove that firearms they legally purchased privately prior to the implementation of such a requirement? Go down to the local FFL and run a check against themselves in order to get the transaction receipt?

      Universal background checks sound nice in theory, but require either a universal registry or risk turning every single legal firearm owner into a potential criminal down the line.

    193. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not I'm a gun owner does not affect whether or not I might be murdered by a gun owner in the future.

      And why is that? Are you trying to say that you are bullet-proof? Well that's nice for you, but for everyone who isn't bullet-proof (like my grandma), owning a gun most definitely can (and in my grandma's case, did) affect whether or not they might be murdered by someone else wielding a gun. In my grandma's case, her gun enabled her to not be murdered by the other dude with the gun breaking into her house.

      Also, for the love of god, learn how to aim, if you need 17 rounds, you're clearly not somebody whose gun skills are very good.

      Considering how you are very clearly not a gun owner, you really have no standing to criticize how many rounds of ammo a person "needs".

    194. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's got a pretty good record of knife massacres going on.

      Also, Englands crime rate involving knives is actually staggeringly high. you DID know that, right?

    195. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It's probably pretty easy when they aren't shooting back and simply cowering under their desks like good little victims.

      FTFY.

      And now I'm sad :(

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    196. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      by "reasonable precautions", you mean "what the anti-gun PACs told me"

      10 round magazines won't change shit.

      extended mags have the advantage in one scenerio, force on force conflicts where both sides are armed. It will have little or no effect on scenarios against unarmed victims.

      There ARE background checks in place.

      The austrialians gave into hysteria after a high profile murder. the fact they gave into hysteria doesn't make this sort of hysteria acceptable.

    197. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      No, gun control is the topic at hand. Whenever I point out that strict gun control = less gun violence, anti-gun control folks try to change the subject to knives. Or bats. or shurikens. Or whatever.

      But those are irrelevant to the question of whether or no we should put into place strict gun control laws.

    198. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      <sarcasm> And I am sure that by comparing this country's statistics related to one subject with the statistics of other countries with different populations densities, cultures, stances on various political and moral topics, availability of mental health treatment, demographics, crime rates (in crimes that are often related to gun violence and crimes that are not), gang activity, methods for punishing crime, and economic climates, you will get you perfectly accurate results. </sarcasm>

      Correlation or Causation?

    199. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree.

      It's true, but you can also work at reducing these proportions, too. For a long time, Swiss have handed every male citizen of a certain age a fully functional assault rifle (a real thing, capable of firing in bursts - not semi-auto look-alikes that have been used for killing sprees in US) and a box of ammo for it to store at home. And the only recorded case of anyone going amok with one of those is a guy who went and started shooting ... in a local parliament. This would indicate that you can significantly reduce the chance.

      Then also, once you have a person willing to carry out "extreme acts", one could reasonably expect them to seek out whatever tools they can use. If you have readily available guns, they will use guns, because it's good enough. If you don't let them have guns, they'll make explosives instead. And so on...

      Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk.

      If by "we" you mean US, then it's perfectly legal to own artillery. It's regulated as a "destructive device", and you need to pay a tax for transfer and have it registered with ATF and pass a background check, but ultimately you can own it and shoot it on your property. I'm not aware of any cases where it has been used for criminal purposes.

      This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.

      The usual problem in these discussions is that many of the anti-gun folk don't really understand much about what they're trying to legislate. AWB is a classic case in point, where the definition of "assault weapon" is simply a random collection of features that have no practical effect on the lethality of the gun. Also see the classic "it is the shoulder thing that goes up" video on YouTube. The limitation on magazine capacity is another pointless bullet point - swapping a magazine is 2-3 seconds, and faster with practice. All these kinds of things go a long way towards convincing gun owners that the laws are either 1) written for no reason other to placate the clueless electorate by "doing something", or 2) intended as a first step towards desensitizing the public for outright ban.

      So, sure, we can discuss reasonable, meaningful compromises and gray areas. But "meaningful" is the key part here. What is your proposal along these lines?

    200. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you know a lot of the drugs in this country are illegally brought over from Mexico and other countries? How you ask? Because laws only stop those who obey them.

    201. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      In about 75% of all cases, gun ownership was mainly causing tragedies.

      I think if three out of every four instances of gun ownership resulted in a tragedy, we would have heard about it.

    202. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sounds nice in theory... but how do you prove that you underwent such a check without creating a registry or an undue burden upon every single firearm owner?

      You don't prove it, and you're not legally required to. The way this would ever be enforceable is by having occasional random straw purchases by impersonating cops to see if the seller does, in fact, run the check and request the documentation. The majority of sales would not be supervised in any way, but if you ignore the rules, you risk getting nabbed with some really harsh penalties.

      Like I said, the point here is to deter people from selling without checks, not to actually ensure that it doesn't ever happen. If 99% of private sales are checked, this goes a long way towards ensuring that guns don't end up in wrong hands.

    203. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I'm a pretty big proponent of the second amendment... and it seems that you, unlike I are failing to read the entire thing.

      The first half refers to in part 'militia'... yet the second half refers to 'the people'.

      What gives? How can I get to the second half if I fail to read the first?

      What's more interesting... is when you read the larger constitution and see how and when the term 'the people' is used... sure doesn't refer to the 'militia' much at all.

    204. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by HycoWhit · · Score: 0

      100,000 shootings a year, 30,000 deaths from those shootings, 17,000 of those are self inflicted. Anyone else think it is strange that those who most often use their gun efficiently, use it to end their own life? Sure doesn't seem too difficult to link gun ownership with a higher rate of mental health issues... i.e. the term gun nut is based in reality. And why discussion with them never work--crazy just doesn't think logically.

    205. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoting religious texts as justification for what violence we accept and inflict on innocent people is insane. It is just some made up claims. It does not follow that words on a piece of paper define reality; at best, words can only describe reality. Declaring something is right or should be the case has no bearing on if it really is. That is a function of reality and the only means to understand reality is through the correct use of epistemological tools, through proper reasoning and evidence.

      The bill of rights is no more a valid means of informing us what we should do than the biblical ten commandments.

    206. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by erroneus · · Score: 2

      And you know? While we are on the subject, let's require people go through a licensing process when they want to have children. If they are pregnant or get someone pregnant without a license, there should be penalties. And when a child is in the family, let's require the parents to train cameras in their homes to ensure the children aren't being molested and raped. It might be annoyingly inconvenient, but there are thousands of innocent children out there who could be saved from having their lives affected.

      Won't someone think of the children?! I mean... not in that way though?

      We can go anywhere you want with thinking like that. How far before we realize that we're already violating the "innocent until proven guilty" thing?

    207. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Gun control is indeed the topic at hand, but you need to define the reason as to why you want more gun control. "Less gun violence" is not a convincing reason, because there's no point in caring about gun violence in particular. It only makes sense to look at violent crimes as a whole, regardless of the tool being used. If restricting or banning guns does not result in an overall reduction of violent crimes, then what's the point of such control?

    208. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why bother comparing other countries, when you've got 50 different states right here in this country to compare? Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have high levels of gun ownership and very liberal gun laws—that's "liberal" in the sense of free—and yet are among the safest states in the U.S. in which to live. The picture is far more complicated than "guns, bad."

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    209. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      With respect to your comment...please see the subject line.

      Really? Do you think that "Arms" is referring to spears and clubs?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    210. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical gun nut. Take the guns away from the masses and their mothers, specifically the assault rifles, you won't get massacres of children. You'll end up with guns in the hand of criminals taking on better armed law enforcement and other criminals. Big whoop.

    211. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      Never mind extreme sports. Have you looked to see how many children drown in swimming pools each year?

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    212. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firearms are NOT largely unregulated. I take it you have never tried to buy a firearm. Unless you are buying a gun (of any kind) from someone selling out of their own private collection, you have to submit to a background check. I assume you're referring to gun shows when you talk about this. Fine. Make it a requirement for all dealers at gun shows to perform (or have someone else perform) a background check on a buyer. But don't go around falsely saying that "guns are unregulated". Here is a list of gun regulations in effect right now:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

      and further regulated at the state level:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

      We already have PLENTY of regulation in place. If anything, we should reexamine what works and what doesn't, and rewrite policies as necessary. We SHOULD strengthen the requirements for background checks. We SHOULD require all firearms sales in public places to involve background checks. We SHOULD determine a way to further incorporate mental health checks into the background checks, but here is where we must be careful as it will be too tempting for anti-gun people to say "ADHD is a mental illness". We SHOULD have stricter laws and stronger prosecution of firearms violations. But what we should NOT do is infringe upon the rights of millions of people who understand the difference between right and wrong, and own a firearm simply because they live in a bad part of town, must travel alone at night, or even if they just think that a pistol is the best form of personal protection. Carrying a gun is not paranoia; it's preparedness.

      Yeah, mass shootings suck. So does every other form of violent crime that can be named. But what is happening here is not a public outcry for justice. This is a fucking joke. The media sensationalizes these stories to the best of their ability and does their best to work everyone up into a fervor so that they can get good ratings for providing coverage. And the politicians are simply trying to win popularity by saying things with which you might happen to agree ("guns are bad", "school shootings are terrible", "people who own guns frighten me"). Whether or not they are using any of this as a stepping stone in other agendas they might have is yet to be seen. What's truly sad is just how many people will stand on the dead bodies of people killed in tragedies such as this so that their ideals can be met. Get off your high horse and blame the ones who actually committed the crimes. Those guns didn't pull their own triggers.

    213. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And the reason they're lasting for that long is because they do not engage the military in battle.

      It is not necessary to win battles in order to win a war.

      They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle

      Neither did the Vietcong. But in the end, they won the war.

      An insurgency on American soil would have one huge advantage that neither the Taliban nor the Vietcong had: The extreme reluctance of soldiers to fire on their own people. Throughout history, native armies sent out to suppress rebellions, have joined them instead.

    214. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mariox19 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that, statistically speaking, hardly any deaths in this country of 300-plus million people occur per year as a result of being on the wrong end of an "assault" rifle, and that most of the gun deaths occur from handguns, right?

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    215. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by SilentStaid · · Score: 1
      So to make sure we better understand you:

      You don't like the way they use guerrilla tactics. And they haven't won a single "strategic or tactical battle." Lastly, the reason that the US is withdrawing is because we want to. Let's dissect this, point by point for giggles and because I have nothing better to do at the moment.

      (1) And the reason they're lasting for that long is because they do not engage the military in battle. (2)Every time the Taliban have openly engaged the troops in anything resembling large-scale combat, they lost. They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle, and the only reason we're getting out of there is because (3) we have no reason to be there.

      (4)If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

      (1) Why would they? Head on, they'd get railroaded. Pot shots, IEDs and perhaps most importantly, propaganda are far and away more effective for their purposes. To assume that because they won't willingly throw themselves into a barely metaphorical meat-grinder they're somehow completely beaten is a logical leap of faith that is easily provable to be false. They're willing to fight, as much as they can without risking losing. Frankly, I respect the way they defend their ideals and home as much as I hate what that means - this from a former US soldier by the way. It's a grudging respect.

      (2) For your reading pleasure, Afghani Taliban Victories: Uzbin Valley., Battle of Wanat, and while in Pakistan South Waziristan.

      (3) Simply put... did we ever? Sure, it was more legitimate than Iraq, but that's not saying much. They've definitely made the cost of staying too high to be worth it. So we killed one guy - now we're leaving, and they're not gone. Their influence has waned, but it hasn't completely evaporated.

      (4) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that regular citizens will have a better chance against the US Government than the Taliban did? Then I want to disagree... Afghani Taliban have been in a constant struggle with $SOMEONE since the 70s. They've had a lot of experience and until the mid-90s, a lot of success. But I digress - if it will be more like Libya or Syria... isn't that what we want? A better fighting chance from having comparable weapons?

    216. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that a non gun owner has no right to attempt to interpret the 2nd amendment is complete and utter hogwash, and completely self serving. I do not need to own a gun to advance an argument for stricter control of guns, which have killed 1 MILLION us citizens since john lennon was killed, and have done almost NOTHING to protect citizens from gun violence. with 90% of citizens in most polls supporting universal background checks, and wiht a significant underclass in this country of people with obvious BAD INTENT around gun control (ie they reserve for themselves the "right" to kill anyone, at any time, for any reason, based on their dislike of others politics or dislike of their government: these people are normally referred to as criminals or terrorists), i would say that pretty much ALL the people opposed to stricter gun control, are, in fact, criminals, and terrorists. There, i said it. since they are also opposed to research on gun violence, they are obviously complete outliers, dangerous, antisocial threats to the common good. NRA leadership=terrorist cell. multiple gun purchasers=deranged maniacs. this is a black and white, venn diagram argument. civilized human beings don't even debate this. the question is: now that we have armed our crazies, how do we fix what we have done? we may have to accept collateral damage and allow the US military to violate the posse comitatus act, (argument: we are in our civil war still, and constitutional rights may be suspended in times of war), and search out and destroy this traitorous element, with the resulting loss of innnocent life any military action involves. I say its worth it. Oh, and maybe take down the republican party via the RICOH act.

    217. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we don't. We have gun nuts and corporations feeding their weapon lust using law skirting designs to put assault rifles into the hands of soccer moms and their deranged socially inadequate kids. Just so they can save the country, no wait, the USA mainland has never been attacked by a country, so these guns are there to kill primary school kids lest they become the enemy?

    218. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      The bill of rights is not a suicide pact.

      Should people be allowed to own a missile launcher? A bazooka with ammunition? How about a fully armed and operational tank?

      If no, what is it about the second amendment that you don't understand when it says "shall not be infringed"?

    219. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      And they haven't had a rare but spectacularly televisable gun crime in all those years.

      FTFY

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    220. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      we'll find out our answers the hard way.

      Oh, we already know what happens to actual crime (not bullshit statistics) when you make it a crime to defend yourself, or even just be prepared to do so; look at the U.K.

    221. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir deserve no liberty or freedom if you are willing to give any up.
      That being said. A bill mandating background checks but not listing the type of firearm purchased is what should be passed. The background check is there to make sure that the person who purchased the gun is able to do so. Every gun owner should be responsible for their firearms, if stolen/lost it needs to be reported immediately, for if a crime is committed using that firearm the legal owner will get in trouble if they did not report said gun missing.

    222. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      I can hit a tight group at 25 yards (dumping the clip in about 5 seconds) with an AR-15 no problem. California also has a 10 round Mag limit on "assault weapons" with a clip lock to prevent fast reloading, though they barely slow me down. I have no special training myself, I just go to the range every now and then with some friends.

    223. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "largely unregulated"

      When's the last time you bought a firearm? Did you notice that regulation in place there? Because it is there. Last time I bought a firearm there was a background check involved. Have you looked at your state/federal firearms laws, because they are almost certainly fairly restrictive. In most cases, as with bombs, it is illegal to build a firearm (not to say the one can make one's own, as with a bomb). And by the way, making a substantial bomb is not that hard... It can be done with nearly unregulated materials such as black power or triple seven and a containment device (read PVC or steel pipe).

    224. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      I do realize that. Which is why I think there should be strict gun control, including for handguns.

      To own a gun in Germany, for example, one must posses a license issued by the police. Target shooters must be members of a legitimate club, must attend a 3-day safety class, and must pass a written and practical exam. Strict limits are placed on the number and types of guns one may own: "Assault weapons" (defined as guns having the "outer form" of a full-auto gun, regardless of actual functionality) are illegal, and the law limits target shooters to a maximum of 8 single-shot .22s.

      Germany had 158 homicides in 2011; the U.S. had 9,800.

    225. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Also, for the love of god, learn how to aim, if you need 17 rounds, you're clearly not somebody whose gun skills are very good.

      No there are situations where there are multiple targets or something where more firepower is needed. For instance several years ago while deer hunting I was heading back in at dusk for the day. Ahead of me across the trail a timber wolf appeared and attempted to drive me back from where I came. At the time I had an SKS with a 30 round detachable mag and was quite glad I did as wolves hunt in packs and this one was trying to drive me back into his waiting buddies. A shot fired in front of the wolf blocking my path drove him off, if it hadn't the next one was going to be going through him. As I continued to walk I could hear the pack not far off the path as they followed me back to the road. In that situation I was glad to have a firearm with a large capacity mag.

      Then there was last deer season when I was walking through the forest and came across a bear with it's ass hanging out of a log, it wasn't hibernating yet (warm fall) and I hustled past quickly and given that the 7.62x39 round isn't very effective against a black bear having multiple shots is a good thing as it would take several to quickly kill a charging bear.

      Even the first time I went deer hunting, 6 years ago, I was glad to have multiple with the SKS shots as I was able to take 2 deer right at the start of legal shooting hours, legally in that area I could take 5. The were right nest to each other and I managed to shoot them both taking one shot each about 3 seconds apart. Each on only ran about 15 yards before they fell over dead. Every deer I have ever shot I only shot once and the longest one ever ran was 50 yards and that was a decent sized 9 pointer.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    226. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your fascination with "gun violence" at the expense of other violence fascinates me. What is it about guns that you have such a special hate for?

      Also, you gun control types always seem to have an excuse for the nations where gun control has failed to curb violence. excuses excuses hand wave hand wave.

      Your failure to answer the second, and more pertinent, half of my post speaks volumes. Suffice to say, your self-righteous condescending attitude is very much not warranted.

    227. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically, USA vs. Emerson 1999 is a good case to look at. See http://saf.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html.

    228. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it very well could, unless you don't include criminals as "gun owners".

      You misunderstand. Clearly the person is bullet-proof. ;)

    229. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if we took reasonable precautions

      That word doesn't mean what you think it means; "reasonable" is a purely subjective term, and thus what's reasonable to one person may be outright insane to another. Therefore, making laws based on "what's reasonable" makes about as much sense as laws based on popular opinion (i.e., none whatsoever)

      ...like background checks

      OK, they already do background checks. What's not reasonable about the current process? What changes to the current process are you referring to as "reasonable?" "Like background checks" doesn't tell me shit about what you intend, and seems intentionally vague - thus, an unreasonable proposition by itself.

      limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds

      Again, what's reasonable about that, or rather, what's unreasonable about larger magazines? Can you provide research that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that infringing the right of the citizens in this manner will have a measurably positive effect on society? What about the military and law enforcement, will they be held to the 10 round standard as well? As the recent episode with Chris Dorner taught us, even the venerable LEOs can be capable of going on killing rampages, so wouldn't it stand to reason their magazine capacity be curtailed as well? Again, your suggestion is far too vague in scope to be considered within "reasonable" spec.

      Just because you're an idiot...

      Attempts at marginalization via childish insults do nothing to assist your efforts, and in fact retard them. Keep that in mind.

      doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations.

      Define "moderate regulations." Specifically.

      the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.

      Funny, you must get your news from somewhere other than, you know, news sources:

      In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)

      And that's not even mentioning the other issues Aussies have had to deal with since the gun ban:

      - In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

      - Rape cases increased 29.9 percent.

      - Some dickhead broke into a girls house and strapped a (turned out to be fake) bomb around her neck.

      - Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent since the ban was enacted.

      So yea, less "mass killings," but shitloads more rape, robbery, and assault. Doesn't seem like that one belongs in the "win" column, now does it?

      The reality here is that doing nothing because criminals would just break the law is a really, really stupid policy.

      Perhaps... but equally-if-not-more stupid is the idea that we must place further restrictions on the Constitutional rights of citizens because a certain subset of those citizens who are ignorant pussies, scared of their own shadows, scream "OMG, Something(TM) must be done!" Bonus points if you shrill some nonsense about doing it "For The Children(TM)."

      The more inconvenient it is to commit the crime, the more opportunities there are for law enforcement to discover the plot and the more likely it is that the plot will just crumble on it's own.

      A better argument for the dissolution of the First Amendment, I have not heard.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    230. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the same Constitution provides a means for adapting! Doing an end run around the Constitution is not the way.

    231. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      You don't get to dictate the person's requirements. You also have no idea what an assault rifle is, so kindly piss off and learn more before you become a rhetoric spouting machine.

    232. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      Actually, the "militia" and the "people" were considered synonymous at the time of the Constitution. That is, the "militia" was every able bodied man capable of carrying and using a rifle.

      The Supreme Court actually did an excellent job of detailing the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller :

      (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

      (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

      (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

      (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

      (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

      (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

      (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    233. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      And yet knives are just as, if not more deadly. They simply lack range.

    234. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      The rate of deaths in England due to knives is staggeringly LESS than that in the US. You did know that, right? England had 332 knife deaths in 2010...The US had 1,704.

      But the US had 8,700 homicides with guns of all types. Guess how many England had?

    235. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The response to a tragic incident in NASCAR, from those involved with NASCAR, is unlikely to be: "To make NASCAR safer, we must add more cars on track".

    236. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Second, background checks only affect people that are already within the law.

      That is a horrible argument. With that same logic we shouldn't bother with driver's exams or licenses, either, we should allow 13 year olds to buy all of the alcohol and cigarettes they want, and forget any security checks at airports, they are terribly inconvenient for those who aren't trying to hijack a plane.

      What's to stop criminals from continuing to do private sales of illegal firearms?

      Law enforcement. That's their job. But only if you actually make it illegal first, duh.

    237. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would you be? How about instead of using the authority of your self-righteousness to justify removing my rights, we do this the old fashioned way of a legislative repeal of the amendment. Can't win that? Too bad little Mao, you'll have to wait til the government model moves to a more authoritarian mode.

    238. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You nailed it, but to what avail? The people in power currently want to blame video games, and I'm sure this person made a shitload of money to make this "science" available. (Quoted because it's obviously not science, but will be called exactly that by propagandists). They will refuse to admit that the real reason we see psychopathic killers is because society has deeper issues than a video game. I find it interesting that they don't blame Hollywood which shows way more blood, gore, killing, anti-social behaviors, and even makes heroes/heroines of the people committing those acts. Music that encourages that behavior is not being blamed either. Nasty musicians are promoted by main stream media, and people are shown (and encouraged) to worship those nasty people. There are plenty of things we need to look at and change, but those are symptoms of a sick society.

      Fact: A great majority of people are ignorant enough to believe everything they are told today. Until we can teach each other to think, society will continue to crumble. "It is imperative for society that the most intelligent of us are the most Honest." by Aristotle is very important here. While I believe that statement to be true, the majority of us that are honest and intelligent need to go teach the masses.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    239. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      No, you are exactly wrong. The U.S. has an epidemic of gun violence. I don't care about knife attacks, because the rate of knife attacks or baseball bat attacks is staggeringly low compared to gun violence. The whole issue of knife attacks is a red herring made up by ant-gun control zealots who cant take the facts at hand: in 2010 8,700 people were killed with guns, while 1,700 were killed with knives.

      That means more than 4 times as many people were killed with guns. So why the hell should I care about knife attacks as much as gun attacks? KNIFE ATTACKS are NOT THE ISSUE. Gun violence is.

      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html

    240. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      baloney. Less guns means less gun violence. If the criminals have a harder time getting guns, as they will with strict gun control, there will be less gun violence. Country after country has shown this to be true.

    241. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that you are mistaken. There SHOULD NOT BE a standing army, rather, the defense of the nation should be held by the militia. This was of course twisted in the 20 century, when the USA decided they wanted to police the world.

      Also, perhaps the reason that there are so many killings/mass murders in the USA is because of the big standing army. We train people to idolize the military, to "honor the troops." You honestly expect that to *not* influence the psyche of America. I expect that our reverence of the violent ways of the military has far more to do with these killings than video games.

    242. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Yet the fervent defenders of the second amendment have no qualms with gutting the first!

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    243. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point is that firearms are largely unregulated,

      Bull-fucking-shit; the thousands upon thousands* federal, state, and local regulations contradict your claim.

      * Doesn't seem like anyone can come up with an exact number (scary thought), but it's generally accepted that there are somewhere between 9,000 and 20,000 gun control laws in effect in the US.

      it's easy to legally buy firearms without a background check.

      Excluding private sellers... Where? From whom?

      P.S. if you're implying that there's something wrong with my father handing his prized deer rifle down to me without giving me a background check, you can go fuck yourself, Chief.

      Whereas with explosives, there are specific licensing requirements and the supply of the components is tracked and monitored much more closely.

      Since when did the government start tracking bleach and ammonia purchases? FYI, the shit under your kitchen sink is far more dangerous to society than the gun sitting on my hip.

      Yes, one can make ones own explosives, but a lot of those folks just blow themselves up as making them outside of industrial facilities with specific safety equipment is very risky.

      Point? Where in the Constitution does it state the our rights are allowed to be curtailed if they become "too easy" to obtain?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    244. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2

      Except guns are not death rays. Go ahead, face 3-5 attackers who are both moving, and trying to kill you. That's NEVER happened, right? The police have no obligation to protect you. They are not responsible for your safety, and, frankly, when the situation calls for it, you will be in the exact same position they are when an attacker wants you harmed, except you'd prefer to believe that lying still will make him hurt you less.

      Screw that. Molon Labe, and stand back.

    245. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Shall not be infringed.

    246. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I'll have you know my cousin was an avid cricket fan and a junkie. Think before you post. Do you think Britain is the only place in the world that plays the game?

    247. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      And who protects you from them? The watchers need watching.

    248. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      In other words, you don't actually care...

      Hey, man, could you try to make it a little more obvious that you intend to dictate the discussion, rather than take part in it? Maybe throw in an ad hominem or two?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    249. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws? If/when you can find an explanation for that, I might reconsider my position on weapons.

      Are you suggesting that gun control laws *cause* violent crime? And you think that the notion that violent crime brings about tighter gun control laws is.. I don't even.. You're fucking retarded.

    250. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know a WMD could be as simple to make as mixing two common chemicals (XXX*) and (YYY*) together and letting the cloud waft over a city. IED are easy to make with every day house hold chemicals too. with a little bit of knowledge one could make a whole host of weapons more deadly then an assault rifle.

      * if you dont know you dont need to know. but you can find out how easily enough. I do not condone the act of making chemical weapons, and any knowledge gained is for educational purposes only.

    251. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were only 26 victims in the newtown shooting. This is clearly not eligible for the title "massacre". The massacre title must be earned, and this does not fit the requirements.

      Twenty thousand people dead, blood and corpses everywhere? Now that's a massacre. Some kid popping a few students at school? That's a mere shooting.

      The virginia tech ``massacre'' was a total letdown. If he had killed every single student and teacher at that school, plus a few cops, I would be much more willing to give him the title.

      It's really a let down, though. Whenever someone breaks the high score, it's only by a few bodies. I want to see a school shooting with deaths in the hundreds. These other attempts are pathetic.

    252. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Countries with strict gun laws have few gun crimes.

      But not fewer crimes - after outlawing guns, Australia saw a 26% increase in rapes alone.

      Personally, I'd rather see a shot-dead rapist, than a loved one get raped. What about you?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    253. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Word of advice: If you think the government should restrict every single thing that might cause you harm, you probably shouldn't be leaving the house to begin with.

      Oh, wait, the house could fall in and kill you... guess yer fucked.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    254. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Actually it only says that there are restrictions to dangerous and unusual weapons. The AR series are neither unusual or dangerous. Furthermore, the case of United States v. Miller states that the second amendment protects the right to weapons in common use by a militia. Seeing as how the organized militia, the National Guard, has access to not only the AR series, but the M16 variant, I'd say that we have a bit of regulation to do away with. Now had we been arguing about RPGs, or mortar shells, you'd have been right, but you're not. Maybe try reading the court cases next time.

    255. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by eth1 · · Score: 1

      By comparing against countries that do have guns but also have gun laws?

      Sure... so where is the country that has the exact same culture, politics, racial issues, etc. to compare to? Otherwise there are way too many variables to pin any differences in violent crime on the presence or lack of gun laws.

    256. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand the point you're making. I oppose both censorship and barring children from researching the world around them. The fact that we have censorship right now doesn't mean more censorship would be a good thing.

      And, the current direction that censorship is taking seems far worse than just getting rid of some stupid games, and even stupider movies.

      The fact that censorship could be worse than censoring some games and movies does not mean that censoring games and movies is not a bad thing.

      I'd rather encourage the children, than to encourage the freak who spends his waking hours immersed in violent "entertainment".

      Are you advocating for this sort of censorship, or what?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    257. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Did it stop Adam Lanza? No, because he just took his illegally.

      What should have stopped Adam Lanza is his mother not being able to buy the weapons in the first place.

      No, what should have stopped Adam Lanza is the same thing that should have stopped Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech - recognition of his condition by authority figures, and appropriate action taken therein.

      BOTH were completely avoidable events, had those in power taken the complaints received seriously.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    258. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the primary function of an airplane? Transportation.
      What's the primary function of a firearm?

    259. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      This is key...the inability to hit someone from a distance.

      Which is one of the reasons why there's a lot less deaths due to knife attacks than due to gun attacks.

      So maybe we should focus on guns.

    260. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past."

      Hmmm... if only there was a way to changed the Constitution to accommodate those changing times. Some amendment process, perhaps...

      Seriously though, the law is the law -- and either it's followed or it's not. You either have order or you undermine the government that was formed under the ideals that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

      It's not about reference to the constitution being as if it's from "God", but that to make willi-nilli changes is COUNTER to the stability a "long established Government" requires to avoid the collapses our Framers/Founders studied in the past. Our laws are not easy to change by DESIGN, but they can be changed when a substantial majority of representatives and states agree. There's nearly 30 amendments which show this is not an impossible act, as well.

    261. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Because more people die due to guns in the US than due to any other type of weapon. It's pretty straightforward.

      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html

    262. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The government has a clear interest in preventing its citizens from being murdered.

      Yea, it's called "Income Protection." other than that, the police and SCOTUS beg to differ.

      Knowing who has large supplies of firearms with large capacity magazines would seem like it might help in that endeavor.

      Except that those with "large supplies," whatever that's supposed to mean, aren't the people who go on killing sprees. So, basically, what you're saying here is, we need to keep an eye on those who need an eye kept on them the least.

      Smart use of resources... /Sarc

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    263. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      After outlawing guns, did they see a decrease in gun-related deaths? I suspect they did.

    264. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The gain is freedom. Noooo, not the "but if the king of England" crap. And certainly not some "the government is out to get me, better prepare for day X" idiocy. The problem runs deeper than the question whether or not I may have a gun. But guns are a perfect example of power, responsibility and the lack thereof that makes a nanny state feel entitled to butt in.

      Guns are capable of killing. Well, DUH, that's what they were built for in the first place. A gun serves, all fluff stripped, no other purpose than to accelerate metal with the intent of hitting something with it. I may be one of the few that like guns for no other reason than them being a testament to the ingeniousness of man when it comes to kill his fellow man, and how much brain power has been put to the effort of making it more efficient and reliable. Seriously, some guns are mechanical wonders. Ever seen a wheel lock at work? They sure are great examples of true craftsmanship. Then again, so is an AK47, though here the genius is in how simple the whole thing is set up. But I ramble.

      What it comes down to is that you have to be aware, when dealing with a gun, that you are in the presence of a not only potentially lethal device but one that was built for the very purpose of killing. In my opinion, being allowed to own one and operate one is a privilege, not merely a right. Or at the very least it should be treated as such.

      Guns need to be handled responsibly. They're not tools to prove anything and most certainly they don't make the great cock enhancers some people use them for. Or, in the words of my old drill sergeant, "if you ever point a gun at me, I sure hope you want to kill me, for god help you I sure want to kill you if you do!" What sounds like the usual macho bullshit actually has some very deep meaning if you look inside it: Never ever point a gun at someone without the intent to kill him, or at least accepting that you will have to. It is not a good tool to "convince" someone, because pointing a gun at me only convinces me of one thing: It's a good idea to kill you first. Guns can quickly escalate a situation. Pointing a gun at me gives me the (moral as well as legal) right to shoot you. I.e. don't point a gun at people you do not intent to kill.

      The key word is responsibility, and the ability to think ahead, to think your actions and their consequences to the end. If you can't do that then sorry, a gun does not belong into your hands!

      Now, fortunately I never had to point my gun at a living being, neither during my stay in the army nor afterwards. So I don't know if I could shoot a man. Personally, I don't really want to know. I like guns, mostly because they are awesome machines. Not unlike some very intricate clocks with a lot of things working together to create a mechanism that performs some task. I wouldn't want to carry one outside of shooting ranges and other well fenced off areas where it is safe to operate them, I guess I'd be deadly afraid that something could go wrong. As odd as it may sound, it would make me feel vulnerable.

      I guess I owe that to my instructor back at the army. He kinda made it obvious that a gun is a deadly instrument and it must be treated as such, that's why he installed something he called the "least deadliness" rule, a rule I still adhere to. A gun must always be in the state of least deadliness that it still allows it to perform the task at hand. To clean it, there is no need to have ammo nearby or even load it. There is no need to load your gun in the barracks because that's not where you shoot it, you shoot it at the range, so you do not load it in the barracks. There is no need to switch the safety pin off or chamber the round before you're settled in at your lane, so you do both not before the very last moment just before you fire. And so on. Don't make your gun any deadlier than it absolutely has to be and do it at the last moment possible. There are no extra points for overachievers in this particular area.

      Well, at least unless you consider perfecting the art o

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    265. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      In about 75% of all cases, gun ownership was mainly causing tragedies. What?!? So the owning of a gun causes a person to commit suicide? Sorry, that is absolutely false and irrational thinking. People that are suicidal are going to be suicidal whether or not they own a gun. In fact I have a couple family members that were in such a state and owned no gun (1 person tried twice, another succeeded their first try). Do you ban razors, kitchen knives, and over the counter medicine because people become suicidal? Do we blame those objects for the person becoming suicidal? No, you don't ban them and believing they "cause" the state of mind is absolute rubbish.

      Someone else stated that you need references on other statements. I believe you are ignorantly repeating propaganda instead of checking facts and actually "thinking" about what you are talking about. Appeals to emotion may be powerful rhetoric to you, but someone thinking rationally recognizes it as a fallacy.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    266. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Petron · · Score: 1

      Adam Lanza destroyed (or tried to) his computer. Why? There was evidence that showed he plotted this attack on it, and it would work against him if he was captured.

      Now if Lanza did premeditate this attack, why would you think his mother being not having guns would have stopped him? He saw her guns as the quickest route to this goals. If she didn't have guns, he would have used another route. Even if all firearms were banned, he could have used Molotov cocktails in the class room. The worst mass killing in the US was not caused by guns, but by a bomb

      Trying to stop crazy people by passing crazy laws... that's crazy.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    267. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and yet those same countries have higher violent crime rates. Would you rather be bludgeoned to death or shot in the head?

    268. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me where in the 2nd amendment it guarantees the right to have more than just 1 bullet in a magazine?

      That's sort of the point, the 2nd amendment does not guarantee you the right to any number of bullets in a firearm, in fact it doesn't even say anything about firearms.

      What part of "Shall not be Infringed" do you need explained?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    269. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.

      How about recognizing that there is a process in place to change the things you don't like? How about recognizing that no good can come of trying to bypass that process?

      How about recognizing that, no matter the method employed to bypass the process of changing the constitution, you enable me to infringe on your right to free speech, enable me to make you STFU about all this. Something tells me you wouldn't like it if you weren't able to push your views on gun control, yet by pushing for them to be implemented outside of the normal process for changing the constitution, you are paving the way for me to do just that.

    270. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Izuzan · · Score: 1

      Actually more people are killed by drunk drivers every year than the number 1 firearm (handguns) and just slightly under the over all firearm deaths. BUT, the firearms deaths in the states are calculated with Crime murders, police shootings, and personal protection. that cuts down the over all illegal use (murder) by a lot. Cant say that with drunk driving that's 11000 a year straight up no other options. Impaired driving deaths make up 1/3rd of the over all car deaths in the united states, so over 30,000 people a year are killed by cars. As a side note. there are 79.7 cars per 100 people in the states, there are 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the states. so if guns were a huge problem, you would think with accidental deaths, homicides, police shootings, and personal protection we should have firearms deaths in the 40,000 a year. but we dont. All these stats can be found on the FBI website, the CDC website, and Wikipedia.

    271. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I think we should mandate background checks of participants before protests

      You mean like when the government issues the permit for the protest?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    272. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah penn and teller's show was one big heaping pile of BS. I find it amazing anyone would take it seriously.

    273. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.

      What it is is a bunch of rules that a few men in the 1780s thought were good ideas. Written for the experience that they had of the world in the 1780s. (The American Revolution, the emergence from being a colony, primitive policing, and no standing army.)

      Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.

      OK, so if you don't like the Constitution's current iteration, there's a legal process to amend it. in fact, that process is the only legal way to alter a right enshrined in the Constitution.

      Good luck with that... unless you're not an American. In that case, mind your own fucking business.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    274. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are ignorant, the end. First, the 2nd Amendment is about owning arms to prevent Tyranny or overthrow an illegitimate government. Not just "self protection". Second, the amount of people killed annually by legally owned firearms is miniscule. Most gun deaths in the US are from illegal arms. If they are illegal, then guess what happens if laws are changed? Illegal guns will still be here and good people will be at the mercy of anyone owning an illegal gun. If you want to see how well that works out, look at crime rates in Chicago or any other "Gun Free" zone in the US.

      Please take your appeal to emotion arguments and shove them right on up your asshole. Facts do not back you on any level.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    275. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      That seems like circular logic to me: You're saying that the only people who can argue about whether people should own guns are people who have already decided to own a gun. It's sort of like saying that the only people who can hold a legitimate opinion about the divinity of Jesus are Christians.

      No, what it means is that you have no idea what you're arguing about, or why certain firearms are preferred over others. So how in the world, would you know what restrictions do or do not make sense? You don't, because you haven't bothered to study the problem. This would be more akin to letting a creationist be the head of the Texas Board of Education.

      Nothing except proper police work, you mean.

      Then why is that not good enough now? Oh, right because they don't enforce the law to begin with. This regulation only works for people that submit to it, not criminals.

      The government has a clear interest in preventing its citizens from being murdered. Knowing who has large supplies of firearms with large capacity magazines would seem like it might help in that endeavor.

      Except that "large capacity magazines" as you seem hell-bent on calling them are not a problem, and they don't get used in murders. And when is the last time criminals registered their stolen firearms? Never, that's when. The government can come and search my house anytime they like if they get a proper warrant. They have no business knowing otherwise. I remember that people on this very site were angry that India would demand the decryption of cellphones, but it's only a violation of privacy when it's something you like, and reasonable when you don't. I didn't murder anyone, nor do I plan to. Leave me and others like me alone.

    276. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I dunno', ask the Iraqis and Afghan militants how they're faring and in what shape our troops are returning. What moron would invade this country with so many armed citizens? They'd have to glass it. Yes, the armed populace poses a threat to our Govt should they get pissed enough and lets not forget that citizens are also driving all of those fancy weapons too. I hope it never ever comes to that though but the threat does have some teeth.

      A side point all the "dur, the military would bulldoze youse and yer guns" crowd miss - the US government is funded by taxation.

      How are you supposed to fund a war against your own taxpayers?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    277. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      A shotgun with rifled slugs (not the .50" sabots) would be really devastating in close quarters. Even buckshot would be really bad but not like a slug as buckshot penetrates less. In close quarters buckshot would not spread out much to increase your chance of a hit so if going for the most devistation a slug would seem to be better. Add in the hydrostatic shock from one massive slug over the buck shot and this would get bad qucik.

      To put things in perspective for those unfamilar with shotguns I will used mine as an example. This is a fairly common pump action shot gun and there isn't anything special about it and was actually fairly low cost at only $225 (it came with a bird barrel, rifled slug barrel, and scope for the slug barrel) on sale 6 years ago. It holds 7 rounds (6 in the mag 1 in the chamber) for 3" shell and possibly 8 if they were 2.75" shell without the plug. I don't own any 2.75" shells so I have never tired to see how much it can hold. This isn't a fancy or high end shotgun and after thinking about it using something like a Saiga 12 would lead to an absolute blood bath, and even those aren't that expensive as I have seen them for sale for around $600.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    278. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      However long it would take. Just ask the Taliban in Afghanistan to validate my estimate.

    279. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What the...? Then we learned and put impenetrable doors between the cockpit and the cabin. Box cutters won't work anymore. Next straw man please?

      Read as:

      ... Then we learned that banning boxcutters wasn't the solution: the solution was to fix the situation so that you couldn't take over a plane, regardless of what weapon you happen to have in your hand

      Now, just replace "boxcutters" with "guns," and "take over a plane" with "infiltrate a school/courtroom/etc..."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    280. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      That is a horrible argument. With that same logic we shouldn't bother with driver's exams or licenses, either, we should allow 13 year olds to buy all of the alcohol and cigarettes they want, and forget any security checks at airports, they are terribly inconvenient for those who aren't trying to hijack a plane.

      No, what you are suggesting is having a driver's exam every time you buy a car, borrow, or rent. That's the kind of idiotic thing you are suggesting. As for allowing 13 year olds to buy alcohol and cigarettes, well that's already illegal, we don't require background checks to give one to your friend or spouse. You'll notice that selling to criminals is a crime, and a felon having a firearm is also a crime. As for airport security, well I don't like to be groped or have nude images of me or my wife taken, but I don't know about your tastes. I would rather not.

      Law enforcement. That's their job. But only if you actually make it illegal first, duh.

      Strange, I could have sworn that criminals having firearms was already illegal. I wonder why the police haven't stopped it. Oh, right because they can't. Maybe if we make it ban it harder it will work, though how you do that is anyone's guess.

    281. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Protect yourself? Are you nuts? The very LAST thing I reach for when I hear someone in my house who doesn't belong there is my gun! I reach for the phone and tell the police to get their ass in gear and move it over to my home.

      What you have at hand is an unknown number of people whose state of armament is unknown. Now, if they are armed, they will HAVE to shoot because else they have to fear that you kill them. Depending on the layout of your house, it may even be sensible for them now to kill you because an orderly retreat is impossible. If they're unarmed and you shoot them, prepare to explain the judge why the excess violence was necessary to defend yourself against unarmed attackers.

      Either way, you can't really win.

      If anything, lock yourself in your bedroom and when they try to get in tell them you have a gun and whoever comes through the door will see proof of it. Alternatively, they can take whatever they find around the rest of the house, I'm well insured.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    282. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      So why implement additional laws when we aren't enforcing the existing ones?

      It is already illegal to sell to someone you reasonable believe not able to legally own a firearm. I've seen plenty of undercover 'stings' about such things (to try to paint the picture that buying a gun at a gun show is too easy)... and yet so few prosecutions.

      The President himself touted numbers as to how many people have been denied purchasing a firearm under the NICS system (we'll assume for the moment that his # was accurate and that not a single denial was overturned or saw the prospective buyer buy a firearm elsewhere)... where are the prosecutions for all of those failed purchases as well?

      When you think about just how many firearms there are in this country... and how easy it is to buy just about any illegal drug... do you really think there would be much fear of illegally selling a firearm? ... unless you don't care about the law in which case it again becomes a burden on law abiding persons and creates more work for those tasked with enforcing laws... which they already ignore.

    283. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime.
       
      Wow. You've played into the hands of the one-party system and their social conditioning.
       
      So something goes wrong and someone uses a gun to dispose of others for reasons that a sane mind can't fully understand and the first reaction is to ban something from people who have no problem with being a resposible user/owner? Maybe it's time we come to the realization, as a society, that something things break and punishing the law abidding doesn't make sense while we can try to find solutions. Why does anything have to be banned? Is that the solution to all violence in society?
       
      Open your mind. You're being led down a path that says that people can't be trusted with freedoms because a fraction of a percentage of those who are free use this freedom in a destructive way. Wanting to lock down the freedom of others because of a handful of losers doesn't make sense. And you already heard Joe Biden say it... "if it saves one life it's worth it." So if he can use that logic to push legislation then where does it stop?

    284. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Westwood0720 · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      There is no longer a need for a militia - the USA has a nice big standing army with which to defend itself and it has much better weapons than assault rifles, like aircraft, helicopters and tanks. And if you want to claim you need guns to defend yourself against the US Government, well it has a nice big standing army with aircraft, helicopters and tanks. How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

      Get the fuck out of my country. Someone threatens my property, my life, or my loved ones I will do whatever it takes to be sure all is safe. You want the government to watch out for you? Call 911 and see what the response time is. I can assure you, when they arrive they'll be taking pictures of you and your dead family. I'll dial 911 AFTER I've taken care of the situation.

    285. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by invid · · Score: 1

      The latest data from here shows 690 intentional homicides in Germany, 14,748 in the United States. That breaks down to 4.8 per 100,000 for the US vs. 0.8 in Germany. Russia had 10.2, and Finland had 2.2. So only being twice as murderous as peaceful Finland is not bad.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    286. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it's interesting that many more people are killed with knives, hammers, etc. than with long guns, no?
      It's fascinating then that we want to pass legislation restricting the right to own long guns, but there's not a peep about knives, hammers, etc.
      Even more interestingly, there's not a peep about hand guns either.

      For those that didn't know, long guns (including "assault weapons", assault rifles, machine guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.) account for roughly 6.3% to 7.2% of all murders, whereas hand guns account for 47.3% to 53.7%. (About 17.9% of all murders are committed using knives, hammers, etc.) These statements are made based on FBI statistics from 2009.

      Also, while I don't have the stats handy, I'd like to point out that a very, very large majority of these handgun crimes occur in urban, inner-city environments. That's code for "it's a black on black gang violence problem". I say this not to dismiss the issue, but to highlight the fact that any legislation proposed that intends to reduce the rate of violent crime should account for this fact.

    287. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by eth1 · · Score: 1

      If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

      If the US government turns the US military against its own population, I'm guessing they'll find that a good chunk of the military will turn against them. I doubt it would be as one-sided as you think.

      The only way that would come close to working is if they used external troops, or brainwashed State A's national guard against "those traitors over there in State B."

    288. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, that's like a city requiring and issuing a permit for a group wanting to put on a gun show. What I'm saying is that we should do background checks on people wishing to engage in protests.

    289. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Free climbing, base jumping and doing other high risky extreme sport activities are illegal in some parts because they do put others into danger or create unwarranted expense. For instance if a free climber is injured because they are not utilizing safety equipment and belayers and now require a rescue team to extract them. It is the same kind of thing as people who ignore evacuation orders for impending disasters, people that disregard firealarms.

      I'm not necessarily against any of those sports and I can see reasons for not evacuating. But asserting that these activities bear no consequences or burden for others is false.

      Of course the same also applies to gun ownership. By owning a gun I do increase the likelyhood that members of my family could be injured or killed with it. However the wife and I have made the decision that in our case the possible benefits for continuing to own firearms outweigh the risks of the same.

      So long as our constitution gives us the right to persue happiness we should never have to prove why we should be allowed to do or own what we wish. It is up to the side attempting to strip those freedoms to prove the opposite. That goes for extreme sports as well as firearms in my opinion.

    290. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between leisure activities that endanger the person pursuing them, and ones that endanger others.

      Like NASCAR?

    291. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the US Constitution does not guarantee access to small arms.
      The word "small" does not occur anywhere in the second amendment.
      But you're right. If you don't like it, you can always amend the constitution.
      Or, conversely, you can appoint supreme court justices that interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall only be infringed a little bit".
      The rule of law, not the rule of man. Riiight, suuure.

    292. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I want a bazooka! And a nuke!

    293. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by emho24 · · Score: 1

      You don't need an assault rifle to protect yourself and your family.

      It's too problematic to secure while I'm away, or I would.

      A handgun is all you need.

      Pfffttttt. That option is being rectified too. Smaller magazine capacities (7?!?!?!). Laws to secure your firearm so they couldn't possibly be used even when you need it the most - see your post, you know the "protecting your family" part?

      My neighbors two doors down were victims of a home invasion two years ago. The entire family was rounded up and bound by three men, and only by the grace of God none were murdered. If you and your pistol can protect you from that, fantastic. Just make sure you never stop training and practicing, firearm skills degrade like no other.

      I use a handgun to protect against home invasions like my neighbors suffered, but I'd use my AR if it weren't so damned hard to secure in comparison.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    294. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic then, maybe everyone should be allowed to keep their own nuclear weapons for "self defense" too. Sound ridiculous to you? Well now you know how ridiculous it sounds for someone to state they want to keep semi-automatic rifles for self defense, to people from countries with realistic gun laws.

      The facts are: Less guns = less gun crimes. Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.

    295. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Sique · · Score: 1

      Ok, in 2010, there were 30,814 firearm related deaths, of those, 19,392 are considered suicide. If someone wants to play around with the numbers, here is the link, provided by the Centers for Disease Control.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    296. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing I can buy RPGs and Mortars and explosives for IEDs to stock up my militia.

      You can't?

      Well, then any type of weapon or explosive, up to an including nuclear arms should be available to any Citizen in defense of their home. Period. Any other infringement is against the second amendment - there can be no curtailing lest we be denied all of our weapons.

    297. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Oops, engage=attend.

    298. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Or we could, you know, recognize that firearms are a significant force multiplier that make pulling off massacres like this far more trivial than they would be without these weapons.

      Hardly. You may not of heard of the Bath School disaster but guns don't make it so. Though a lack of guns sure does help, ever notice that every mass shooting in the US has been at locations where they are "gun free" and in turn where the person who wants to commit those crimes has an idea that they'll be able to inflict maximum carnage with minimal risk to themselves. Yep, even Ft. Hood was an effective gun free zone where the shooting took place.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    299. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Machine guns are legal, we do have gun control and where does your marathon of banning things end? Who are you to decide? If suddenly we have a rash of road rage incidents and many people are killed by people driving SUVs will you support a ban on them since the vast majority of the population who owns them have no real use for them? After all, I have a small car that is just as good as many SUVs on the road in snow and ice. A station wagon pretty much has the same capacity for cargo and people... lower cars don't roll over as much and are normally more fuel efficent. Why on earth should anyone have an SUV after all? Maybe if we got SUVs off the road we can start to bring automobile accident deaths down to the same level as today's homicides commited by firearm.

    300. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical idiotic gun nut/troll response. Yes, you can kill people in various ways; well done for pointing that out! However, a gun makes it a hell of a lot easier than most of the other methods, and far less dangerous for the shooter. Some would say the gun is the cowards way to kill people, and most people are cowardly - especially gun nuts.

    301. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I see something of an either/or here.

      Do we continue to censor our children, out of some misguided fear of guns and weapons? Or, do we try to minimize the potential dangers of violent "entertainment"?

      As for advocating censorship - no, I'm thinking out loud, really. I don't know the answers. One thing I know for certain, is that I don't like the way children are being punished for "acting out", as the educators would put it.

      Have I mentioned that the terrorists have won? Americans are so damned afraid of violence, they are willing to put children in court for petty "offenses" such as wearing jewelry shaped like a gun.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    302. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      But they have also ruled that we have a right to the same arms that are appropriate for use by a militia . The US government even argued that this was the case and that is what the second amendment was meant to protect (see point 4). So according to the existing rulings and law derived from them I am constitutionally allowed to own things like:
      M2 machine guns (the big .50 cal belt fed one)
      M16s (the selective fire ones, not the semi auto AR15 ones)
      what ever the current 9MM pistol is that is standard issue every where
      various .50 cal Barret rifles (sniper rifles)
      various Mosin-Nagents and their derivatives
      Various AKs
      various RPGs
      Various .30 cal medium machine guns
      Thompson sub machine guns
      Hell even a Davey Crockett recoilless gun (Yes, Virginia, you are constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon)

      I could continue but at this point you get the drift. So while they have ruled that the government can restrict some small arms they have said that it clearly protects a specific set of arms. So it might not protect your little AR15 but it would protect ownership of my SKS or Mosin-Nagents as they are and have been used by various militias. Same thing with my shotgun which is the same model that is currently used by the US military, even though it is a low end pump action one that is fairly common.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    303. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse, do you know what the I in IED even stands for? Improvised. Where there's a will, there's a way.

      Estes model rockets could be modified to carry a payload.
      Explosives are still made often enough that you know it's possible.

      For the record, I'm not advocating any of this, I think people talking about that kind of conflict not as a hypothetical scenario are harmless crackpots at best and dangerous at worst. But there's no need to be illogical about any of it.

    304. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      You're right: we should ban planes. Or at least ban planes ladened with jet fuel.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    305. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

      Or we could, you know, recognize that firearms are a significant force multiplier that make pulling off massacres like this far more trivial than they would be without these weapons.

      Only when no one else has firearms.

    306. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Squiddie is going too light on you. Driving kills innocent bystanders. Even when drivers are using the car as designed, people get killed. If we are going to ban devices that kill innocent bystanders, the automobile (including buses) are first to go.

    307. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing a finer detail here: it's the cockpit windows that the terrorists used here to identify the buildings that they flew into. We should really be banning windows.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    308. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if we want to be very literalistic, then no private citizen has the right to bear arms. It's not that the 2nd Amendment gives a _militia_ the right to bear arms, but rather, in the case that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, that right is granted to the people. However, a well-regulated militia is not necessary (as determined by whomever is giving the argument, or lawmakers, whichever is more convenient) to the security of a free state.

      It's not possible for a militia, armed legally in the US, to overthrow the US government. For that, a militia would need comparable firepower to the US military, so private citizens would need access to Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles, drones, tanks, etc. Thus, a well-regulated militia cannot perform the duty of ensuring the security of a free state and individuals shouldn't be granted the right to bear arms based on the necessity of such a militia.

    309. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      You DO realize that the entire point of the second amendment was to protect the people's ability to rise against a tyrannical government, like the people who wrote it had just done?

      The modern equivalent of what the framers intended would be full military hardware, including tanks and drones, not just a really pointy stick. I'm betting that if they understood just how far military technology would advance, they may have rethought things a bit, but the intent was for the people to have the ability to be just as armed as the government.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    310. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

    311. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Nothing except proper police work, you mean.

      Well, there we go. You have successfully proven your point that gun control is a terrible idea.

    312. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's intentional. See, they use the massacres from 'Gun Free Zones,' to push the idea of how bad such things are.

      See, if only two people are shot, before the shooter is taken down...that's not much of a headline, and not much for creating outrage. But if a gymnasium filled with elementary school students are shot up like cows in a slaughter house, well, it instantly becomes a national headline, and also that much easier to generate outrage. "How can our children ever be safe if the killers knew how to disable the lock down system / locked themselves inside the auditorium during a school assembly?" -> no thinking on the part of these people.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    313. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      5 seconds to reload sounds very slow to me. I know I did reloads faster than that in a full prone position with crappy M16A2's that were only used on the range. That included having to roll over a bit to get at the magazine pouch. Doing a reload while standing or kneeling with an open magazine pouch should take 2 seconds or less. I'm not even well practiced I was only firing 100 rounds once every eighteen months.

      Slow reloads have always been one of the things that annoy the hell out of me in video games that aim for any sort of realism. If me as a rank amateur can reload a weapon in a couple seconds why does the trained soldier I'm playing in the game take three times as long when they should have fast reloads down to a science.

    314. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah good point. Because there's no way a bunch of heavily armed guys in an 80 tonne tank could possibly coerce a garage owner into refuelling it for free...

    315. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an irrelevant thing. People who decide to kill use the easiest most effective thing available.

      That happens to be a gun.

      You cut off the available gun tail, you see a transition to less effecient alternatives, and less likely to kill people things.

      People arguing for gun control claim this is effective because they've mitigiated some of the risk. Risk defined as human mortality in this case.

      They utterlly ignore that they've basically engaged in a thermodynamic-type energy transfer ... some of that light became heat. Burglarly, Robbery, assault with bats, knives...

      People arguing against it say pro GC is bullshit because they are now fucking defenseless against someone with a knife.

      (And you *really* should read on the history of the legality of lethal defense before arguing any further, it's one of the strongest points the anti GC crowd has, but most of them don't bother to research firearms history enough to even understand the common law origins of right to lethal defense).

      Pro GC then fall into two camps:
      * fucking idiots who claim that's what the police are for (yes, I slander them. But I assert people who say call the police desrve it)
      * intellectuals capable of working with statistics that realize/assert/conclude ownership itself poses a causal threat to safety.

      The Con GC crowd doesn't have a duty to address the idiots.

      The intellectuals commit the correlation/causation problem, but of course -- they have no better data to work with because con GC got the research outlawed. Not only can they not actually prove causation (of course they can't, it's not fair to hold that against them) -- but they lump gun owners into "redneck" stereotypes, without candidly addressing the rarity of the problem.

      The statistic increase in mortality with ownership *is* relevant and strong (and utterly consistently fails to actually normalize across demographic lines. Don't bother pointing to studies, I've yet to find one that isn't foundationally flawed) -- but it doesn't actually account for the positive impacts of ownership! Even the FBI uniform reports showing an increase in the chance of being harmed when defending with a gun don't prove the contrary -- because just like some of the awful rape statistics -- most defensive uses of a firearm are *NEVER* reported.

      And so the cycle continues.

      Anyway -- people who use the word "common sense" should be thrown out of the argument for strawmanning it. And you should be tossed out for a failed reduction-ad-absurdum and straw manning.

      Also -- pipe bombs, machine guns, and AP mines *ARE* legal. Although there are very specific conditions, forms, and time periods involved. You should know that.

      And when I think about the parts of the life I have walked -- I'm pretty sure I've *met* more criminals that own scary full autos than people who own them lawfully. Funny thing though, the penalties on that are so severe that anyone who has such a thing would rather die than be caught with it. You really don't see a lot of full auto crime.

      (Footnote -- if you're like my many Canadian friends who think the US shootings happened with a machine gun, you're a damned fool no matter how many postgread degrees you have -- you should should shut up until you obtain an actual education on firearms. Reading blogs and wikipedia doesn't count)

      Oh, I'll agree some measure of gun control is a good thing -- but you think gun control means magazine limits, registrations, and background checks.

      Sorry -- not acquiescing to that. While every one of those is trivially demonstrable as impeding a criminal in a rampage, you haven't actually shown that it doesn't impede the hundreds mllion lawful owners in a greater sense.

      If you think the only purpose of a gun is to kill, you're probably just an idiot making an argument. Yeap, an idiot.

      Period. Not smart, not educated, not reasoned. You're somebody spouting sound bytes.

      Many firearms are desig

    316. Re: The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Xarin · · Score: 1

      It sounds like they should study the effects of high capacity spreadsheets on violence. If we had limited spreadsheets to 8 rows Lantza would not have been able to carry this out.

    317. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because then they'd switch to demolitions instead of firearms. That'll cut down on the casualties.

      Amazes me that a century ago a 14 year old boy could own a rifle, bring it to school, and no one would bat an eye. Nowadays, they bring in a SWAT team if a kid uses a cellphone that is the wrong shape.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    318. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Guess who won in Libya.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    319. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Why do you ignore the statistics that show the impact to overall violent crimes when guns are banned? Where people can use guns to defend themselves, violent crime rates are very low. In places where guns have been banned, the rate of violent crime greatly increases. Australia reported this exact thing after banning and burning guns. In Australia, every gun toting criminal was replaced with 3-4 knife or club wielding criminals. Logical trade off? Go ask a victim. Many of those victims used to own guns, and have been vocal about how stupid the ban was and is. You probably don't want to read or listen to any of those people though, I mean their story would not back your illogical belief that guns are a problem. Do you think it matters to the woman whether she was raped at gunpoint or after being beaten senseless by a baseball bat?

      You also neglect how many of these reported statistics ignore gun crimes. For example in the UK if a person is convicted of murder with a gun, the crime gets reported. In the case of an unsolved crime or failure to convict the gun murder is not counted. Why would they manipulate numbers in this way, except to keep people ignorant?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    320. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      No, what you are suggesting is having a driver's exam every time you buy a car, borrow, or rent.

      Oh, I see... you don't register every car you buy? Though I do like where you are going with that - require someone to take a gun safety class/test before owning a firearm (renewable periodically). Good idea!

      You'll notice that selling to criminals is a crime, and a felon having a firearm is also a crime.

      Seriously? That's the POINT of background checks! What do you think, the seller should just ask the buyer, "hey, are you a felon?" I'm sure that will work...

      As for airport security, well I don't like to be groped or have nude images of me or my wife taken, but I don't know about your tastes. I would rather not.

      Current security mechanisms are another topic, but I sure as hell support airport security in general.

      Strange, I could have sworn that criminals having firearms was already illegal.

      No, it's not illegal for a "criminal" to have a firearm - that is, unless it's unregistered and that person lives in a place where registration is required! It may be illegal for a felon to have a firearm, but to be a felon they were already convicted so a lot of good that does...

    321. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

      A slashdot friendly answer to silly magazine restrictions (annoying ad before article view):
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

    322. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I see something of an either/or here.

      Do we continue to censor our children, out of some misguided fear of guns and weapons? Or, do we try to minimize the potential dangers of violent "entertainment"?

      I don't really see the either/or, so my answer would be neither of those.

      Americans are so damned afraid of violence, they are willing to put children in court for petty "offenses" such as wearing jewelry shaped like a gun.

      And having the government fondle everyone who wants to get on a plane.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    323. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      The point of the Second Amendment wasn't to protect the USA. It was to protect the citizens FROM the USA.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      The "security of a free state" does not refer to the security of a nation from outside threats, but to the security of the people to HAVE a "free state". The people who wrote it had just fought a bloody war of revolution against a tyrannical state government, and they believed that the people may need to do so again in the future.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    324. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm, taking a quick survey of the people who have shot up schools / movie theaters / etc., it appears NOT to have been a sudden decision. It's not like it was a Friday night, and they went "Oh shit, I need to shoot someone up, and I need to do it by Monday!" These people made their decisions MONTHS in advance. Many of them had multiple weapons on them, up to and including homemade bombs. So...limiting magazine size / firearm access may, unfortunately, have the perverse effect of increasing the number and yield of the bombs used. And of course, once those bomb-making skills become in vogue, that spike in bomb-making may never drop down again...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    325. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sure... so where is the country that has the exact same culture, politics, racial issues, etc. to compare to?

      Canada, and our gun murder rate has been doing nothing but climbing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    326. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      In other words, you don't actually care about making any progress on this front and are attaching impossible to fulfill conditions in order to permit you to pretend to be reasonable.

      What is unreasonable about doing background checks while at the same time, ensuring said information isn't going to be made available to scope creep, and create a national gun registry?

      If all you are asking for is reasonable background checks, that's one thing, but are you insisting on a national gun registry too? If so, for what purpose?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    327. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      1) My point here is that militarily, there is no comparison. This in turns means that victory rests on a single difference: they're fighting at home, we are fighting abroad. We're fighting until they don't shoot at us anymore, they're fighting until they don't see us anymore. The only thing they have to do is make the deployment uncomfortable enough so that we decide it isn't worth the cost. To do that, they don't need to win anything. They can lose every single engagement, and still achieve their goal. If we look at the original scenario, you're facing an entirely different problem: both the military and the rebels are fighting at home. At that point, you need operational victories to have the opponent leave the area.

      2) I don't consider South Waziristan as a place where the US army operates. There might be occasional inroads, but it's not an operation theater. As for your other two examples - and I'm well aware of plenty other similar battles - they make my point: in both situations, Taliban fighters were ultimately forced to retreat, and lost at least as many fighters as they killed. There was no gain of area control, and there was no logistical gain. Militarily, the engagements were at best a wash.

      3) We were in Afghanistan to kill or capture bin Laden. The rest was just a side show. It's very unfortunate that we forgot that goal within ten minutes of setting foot there. Yes, at some point, there was the idea that we can turn Afghanistan into a stable state, but even that was half-assed, and a pipe-dream anyway.

      4) No, I'm actually arguing the opposite. The last time that a local rebellion won against a local military force was in Cuba, and even that is stretching the definition of local. In Libya, the local army was castrated by foreign air power. Until that happened, the rebels were getting crushed. In Syria, the fight has degenerated into a civil war, with a winner being uncertain and faced with foreign fighters and AQ affiliates in the country, a destroyed country to rebuild and foreign interests interfering right and left. That's not much of a win.
      As a matter of fact, Libya and Syria show that rifles are absolutely no match for the heavy weaponry that is deployed by a military force. Until the rebels acquire heavy weapons themselves, or until someone else removes the heavy weaponry from the field, rebels can only hope that enough of the military joins their side that the numbers are evened.

      And that's the important part: what will preserve the US from turning into a tyranny is not JoeBob and friends with their AR-15s. It's soldiers and law enforcement refusing to shoot at their fellow Americans. And that is true whether the fellow Americans have flowers in their hair or guns in their hands.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    328. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might as well take it a step further, and require everyone to wear a harness/vest that keeps track of track of how deeply they're breathing too. Need to limit CO2 emissions. I'm sorry, you've reached your CO2 limit for today, no more exercise, restricting chest / lung intake now...

    329. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

      How long do you think the militia with the weapons it is legally allowed to own is going to last against the US military?

      Well, how long did the Afghanistan militia hold out against the might of the Soviet military, followed by the might (not to mention "shock and awe") of the US military? Or do you think that we are pulling out because we "won"?

    330. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.

      Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.

      The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".

      We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.

      Why bother amending it, when it is sooooo much easier to ignore it? We The People don't seem to put up much of a fuss when they do, so they'll keep right on ignoring it.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    331. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws? If/when you can find an explanation for that, I might reconsider my position on weapons.

      Have you considered the possibility that strict gun control laws are more likely to be enacted in cities with high violent crime rates? (I've no idea whether that's true.)

      How about the possibility that the laws have been enacted but not meaningfully enforced?

      I'd love to see a proper study: Compare rates before and after gun controls were enacted or repealed (if they've been repealed anywhere). Compare to comparable cities where gun laws remained the same over the same time period. Take into account the degree to which those laws were enforced. Control for demographics and other factors known to influence crime rates. Look at rates of both all violent crimes and just crimes in which guns were used (Do strict gun laws make criminals switch to different weapons?).

    332. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when it's time for the military to come after the Executive Branch, then what?

    333. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No 7 floors! :)

    334. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

      With, it will be noted, a huge influx of guns - including the heavy things even you Americans can't get - from neighbouring countries, and from defecting army units.

      In other words, you do not need a permanently armed civilian population to fight a revolution; the main thing is the popular will.

    335. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      I know many people who own firearms - several hundred at least. (Hint: in rural areas, many people hunt... using firearms.) I don't know anyone who's ever been involved in any kind firearm tragedy.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    336. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I suspect someone, somewhere has already added up all the hours kids "waste" playing video games, and tallied up how many "lifetimes" it costs.

    337. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Do you not see the danger of just deciding one day that we no longer need to follow a provision of the constitution?

      Given that I come from a country that doesn't have one, and gets along just fine, no. A democracy doesn't need a constitution. If a democracy says that something is right now, than that's more valid than some people in the 1780s thinking something was right for them.

    338. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      So, the UK has banned handguns, and has no constitution. Yet it gets along just fine. It has a quarter of the murders of the US for a start.

    339. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.

      You lost me. This is absolute bullshit.

      Clearly, EVE Online is to blame for mass shootings, as it turns our young people into spreadsheet-happy accountants!

    340. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see... you don't register every car you buy?

      Only if you drive it in public roads.

      Though I do like where you are going with that - require someone to take a gun safety class/test before owning a firearm (renewable periodically). Good idea!

      Funny, they don't seem to require that to purchase a car. So no, not a good idea. If you're going to carry, though. I agree take a class, and get a license. The government has the right to regulate that when in public, but stay out of my house and what I own.

      Seriously? That's the POINT of background checks! What do you think, the seller should just ask the buyer, "hey, are you a felon?" I'm sure that will work...

      Sellers already do background checks. Private sales are different, and yes if you are caught selling to a felon, that's a crime. A lot of people do background checks to protect themselves. In either case, criminals sell to each other, and that isn't going to change. Guess what? That's where they get their illegal guns, not gun shows as some people would have you believe.

      It may be illegal for a felon to have a firearm, but to be a felon they were already convicted so a lot of good that does...

      Well, the thing about that is that it's at least fair. If you've proven you aren't responsible, you should be punished when you try to acquire an item that we know you are not responsible with. You shouldn't be punishing me for what I may do. That's just policing thoughtcrime.

      Current security mechanisms are another topic, but I sure as hell support airport security in general.

      And I support enforcement of gun laws already on the books. I don't see why I should limit myself for the sake of "security" seeing as I'm not the problem, though.

      No, it's not illegal for a "criminal" to have a firearm - that is, unless it's unregistered and that person lives in a place where registration is required!

      But it is illegal. If you are committing a crime, which is at the point that you become a criminal, it is another crime to have a gun with you. So yes, it is illegal, and will give harsher punishments.

    341. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, you are exactly wrong. The U.S. has an epidemic of gun violence. I don't care about knife attacks, because the rate of knife attacks or baseball bat attacks is staggeringly low compared to gun violence. The whole issue of knife attacks is a red herring made up by ant-gun control zealots who cant take the facts at hand: in 2010 8,700 people were killed with guns, while 1,700 were killed with knives.

      You're missing the point. You're assuming that if you tackle gun violence, the rate will go down. It will not - you will just see knives used more to commit the same crimes.

      Look at Australian gun stats before and after their (very extensive, with a mandatory buyback program even) gun ban in 1996 if you want evidence.

    342. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're just being stupid for stupid's sake, just like that Oregon congressman who thought the CO2 emissions from people bicycling around the city was comparable to the CO2 output of cars.

    343. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The person is always influenced by things that they have no control over. Everything should be burnt. Burn the games. Burn the books. Burn the parents. Give everyone guns (guns are OK without the nasty games).

    344. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Hold the phone! You mean to tell me that observational data is not perfect and must be interpretted with sufficient context? I never considered that before in my life, and formulated my opinion based entirely on loose statistical correlations and have refused to considered co-factors. I mean it when I say you are making a poignant assertion regarding my own ignorance.

      Or maybe we can attempt to control for as many factors as possible and see what falls out. Yeah, maybe observational evidence isn't totally worthless just because it's not absolute like experimental data is.

    345. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I'd love mandatory breathalyzers, because it'd create a huge number of strong supporters of good, reliable, widely-available public transportation almost over night.

      Seeing some city bars and damn near all outside of city centers shut down in the first couple of months would be a major wake-up call for cities with shitty public transit.

    346. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No, what should have stopped Adam Lanza is the same thing that should have stopped Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech - recognition of his condition by authority figures, and appropriate action taken therein.

      What exactly are you suggesting doing with people with Asperger's Syndrome?

    347. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So why implement additional laws when we aren't enforcing the existing ones? It is already illegal to sell to someone you reasonable believe not able to legally own a firearm.

      Because "reasonably believe" is an extremely weak requirement when it comes to dealing with a complete stranger. Basically the only thing that you're required to do is to ask for their driver license or other state ID, to ensure that they are the residents of the state where the transaction is taking place.

      The President himself touted numbers as to how many people have been denied purchasing a firearm under the NICS system (we'll assume for the moment that his # was accurate and that not a single denial was overturned or saw the prospective buyer buy a firearm elsewhere)... where are the prosecutions for all of those failed purchases as well?

      Why should there be prosecutions for failed purchases? In many cases, people don't even fully understand that they're banned from owning a gun, until a background check fails on them. Either way, the transaction doesn't go ahead when the check fails, and so they don't get the gun - so no crime has occurred.

      When you think about just how many firearms there are in this country... and how easy it is to buy just about any illegal drug... do you really think there would be much fear of illegally selling a firearm? ...

      It will deter legal gun owners from selling their guns without running a background check. Which, in turn, will reduce the number of criminals that obtain their guns by buying them from legal owners, where all they need to show is a state ID. Yes, they can still turn to someone who makes a living by selling guns illegally, and that are likely to not be legally obtained to begin. However, the price of those will be higher (because of the associated risks), and so fewer will be able to afford them.

    348. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      First, the US is not Germany. What works in Germany won't work the same way in the US. The US is a much bigger country and has far more different ethnicities mixed up in one big pot - which leads to lots of homicides all on its own, with and without firearms. There's also many other factors.

      Second, the statistic on firearm homicides as releates to gun control means absolutely nothing if you don't also have the statistic on how many of those homicides were commited with illegal firearms. I'd be willing to bet a nice chunk of change on the speculation that the vast majority (I'd bet possibly 90% or better) of those homicides in the US are with illegal firearms. I'd also posit that's a far more reasonable assumption than the inverse.

      So find me a statistic that clearly shows the US has more homicides per capita with legal firemarms than Germany does. Until then, your argument for more restrictive gun control means nothing.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    349. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      In the context of using guns against people, the gun's primary purpose is to intimidate people. The vast, vast majority of the time police and criminals use a gun, no bullet is ever fired. But the person it's pointed at is intimidated into standing down (either give up to the police, or give up their wallet to the criminal). And the gun has served its purpose without firing a single shot, and most certainly without killing anyone.

      Even in a military context, the main purpose of a gun isn't to kill people. It's to wound them. A dead soldier is just a body, and possibly an incentive for seeking revenge. A wounded soldier is baggage which has to be carried back for medical treatment (thus tying up two more soldiers - one to carry him back, and one to treat the wounds). And while he's laying there screaming in pain, he's demoralizing his fellow soldiers.

    350. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 0

      Canada is not analogous to the US. I'd like to request a citation on your data as well. Is this perceived or factual? Also, it is rediculous to focus on the means rather than the motivation. Violent crime rates overall have been steadily dropping. I frankly would rather be shot dead than stabbed to death, but as long as my chances overall of either are becoming less likely, we are moving in the right direction. Canada also has socio-economic issues that contribute to its pockets of violence - Toronto Community Housing properties seem to be the sites of many of the shootings in recent memory, and on the west coast the drug trade is driving deaths of people "known to police". I would hazard a guess that the drug trade is also a contributing factor in the majority of deaths in the US that aren't the statistical outlier media spectacles of lone rampages.

      Yet no one will will be intellectually honest and discuss drug policy changes, or extending a social safety net to those in need that might reduce the levels of desperation in the vulnerable in our society.

    351. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Oh, I have no problem with the process for amendment of the constitution. As you say it's a legal document, and there are legal processes to change it.

      My post was simply directed at idiots that talk about the constitution as if it were a religious document. As if things should be a particular way BECAUSE it's in the constitution. In reality that's no different from saying a thing should be a particular way because that's the law. In both cases it overlooks the opportunity for change.

    352. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."

      Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.

      How about we just blame the person?

      How about you stop taking the parent's post out of context. What part of the qualifying lead-in "IF you want to talk about restricting and banning things" did you manage to not comprehend? Nowhere does he advocate banning of objects, so fuck off with your snide remarks.

    353. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Declaring something is right or should be the case has no bearing on if it really is. That is a function of reality and the only means to understand reality is through the correct use of epistemological tools

      If you really understood those "epistemological tools", then you would understand the futility of your claim above. Morality is merely declaring something right or wrong. Reality on the other hand is fundamentally amoral. There's no "really is" to distinguish between different moral systems or determine one is more valid than a second.

      he bill of rights is no more a valid means of informing us what we should do than the biblical ten commandments.

      Validity is an illusion here. Abandoning established rules and laws, means we go fully into "might makes right" where the actions and decisions of the strong become the suffering of the weak. Maybe you're just fine with that, but the point of law, from the very beginning, was to constrain the power of the strong and to punish those who harm others.

      Abandoning the core of law means that we would live at the whim of the strong. While some can argue that current law throughout the world favors the strong anyway. I doubt many would claim that abandoning law altogether would lead to a better outcome.

    354. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for this post. Needs to be voted up.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    355. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      What's the per-capita "gun death" rate in Mexico? Better yet, let's scope it to homicides, as "gun deaths" is somewhat of a weasel term.

      Compare firearm-related per-capita homicide rates in Mexico (where firearms and ammunition are tightly controlled and regulated) with those in the US. Better yet, compare with per-capita homicide rates in the US, excluding places that tightly regulate and control firearms, such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York.

      If you don't give a shit about our rights, do the rest of us a favor and GTFO of our country (assuming you're in it). And if you're not in it, then do us a favor and piss off.

    356. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Wookact · · Score: 1

      You are missing the central argument there. Their contention is that you have the same number of violent killings, because the lack of guns has led to criminals using other weapons. Gun activists position is that getting rid of guns will not decrease the rate of senseless violence.

      While I agree that the rules are poorly set up right now, I must state that they have an excellent argument there, and I do not believe you have thought it out fully. If lowering gun violence does not lead to less overall violence, then there is little reason to enforce gun ownership more strictly.

    357. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      The violence, obviously. Violence predates guns by millennia. So do laws against violence. But almost certainly the violence came first, as there's really no reason to make laws to prevent something that doesn't exist.

      Honestly, did you even think before you asked?

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    358. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by SteffenM · · Score: 1

      You DO realize that the 2nd amendment states that the people's right to keep and bear arms is predicated on them maintaining a "well regulated milita", right?

      The 2nd amendment does NOT condone everyone and their uncle hoarding a fucking ARSENAL so they can have masturbation fantasies of going all Neighborhood-Commando when the Federal Government finally decides that the lives and safety of the general public are no longer a concern of the State so or course they'll send out platoons of shock troopers over hill and dale to mow down the poor defenseless chattel, or some other idiotic conspiracy-theory reason.

    359. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sbditto85 · · Score: 1

      The chemicals that can make an IED aren't illegal because they are commonly used for other purposes. By your logic we should make cars, any common chemical that could possibly sorta be kinda used in a an IED or anything that has caused death illegal or HEAVILY restricted, and in some cases they are others not so much.

      I actually enjoy guns for other purposes then killing people, or killing anything for that matter. They are fun to practice marksmanship or shot targets with.

      My point is you cant legislate away stupid or homicidal. Most laws only really affect those that follow them.

      IED's may be illegal but that doesn't mean you can't make one or that people wont. All it does ensure is that if they make one and use it (and don't kill themselves) then they could have another charge added to their long list of laws broken.

      Question for you: Do you think that guns have no legislation at all? That I can just go buy any gun that I want? Its like most of the weapons you listed, I have to have the permits etc etc to even think about owning any of those items the same applies to certain guns. Some guns are near impossible to own legally and thats for a good reason. The guns that are legal now I see no problem for law abiding citizens to own.

    360. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As best I can tell, cops need more than ten rounds in their sidearms because they can't aim worth a damn.

      Also, because when a group of five or so of them decide to shoot an unarmed person they want to get to fire their weapons as many times as possible, since that's the whole reason they became police officers in the first place. Hell, sometimes they'll reload and keep shooting because it's just so fun, and how often are they going to get to discharge their weapon off the range? Gotta make the most of it.

    361. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes please.

    362. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look back at what you wrote. It's an ad hominem. I'll paraphrase you: "Seeing as how you possess quality X, I'd say opinion Y which you advance is invalid." Here, X is the quality of not being a gun owner, and Y is the opinion that people do not need more than 10 rounds.

      Furthermore, it's short-sighted to say that it is impossible to take illegal firearms off the market. It is true that it is hard to remove illegal firearms from the system by oneself, but that's taken care of by wear and tear- guns require a fair bit of maintenance and any machine has a certain lifetime. Merely preventing additional firearms from entering the market by regulating manufacturers is enough to ensure that in the long term, most illegal firearms would be out of the market.

    363. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      You forgot the bit about "if need be, your society." If you need to understand the rationale behind this, look at any of the Arab countries who have recently decided "enough with our tyrant leader." Do you believe any of them could have been successful in casting off their oppressors without access to assault weapons? And are you truly so naive as to believe we couldn't end up with the same kind of oppression here?

      The second amendment, at the most basic levels, exists to ensure "the security of a free state." If this isn't something you care about, then feel free to move to a less free state.

    364. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so you ban all firearms. Then the next nut will build a few Molotov cocktails out of cheap stuff lying around the house, and throw those into a crowded theater.

      So what's your next move? Ban all empty bottles and gasoline?

    365. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      True, but you also have to be realistic about the risk you take by allowing a population with a known percentage of people who will likely carry out extreme acts. You will never eliminate this. You have to balance the needs and desires of the 98% (for example) who won't abuse the privilege of, say, owning a rifle with the 2% who will shoot someone. The damage caused by that 2% may be acceptable to society as a whole even though the individual victims would disagree. Now we don't allow people to casually own explosives or artillery because the need vs the risk is far more tilted towards risk. Banning things can be doing something about it if the thing being banned is just too damaging vs any possible benefit.

      This concept of balancing risk vs need is always a problem in gun control discussions. The first thing gun supporters freak out over is any restriction is seen as a desire to ban all guns. All sorts of wild scenarios get tossed about and reality gets ignored. We've managed to get along without people owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, etc. There is a need or reasonable desire for rifles, shotguns, etc and the cost of allowing them to be owned seems to be acceptable (though access is too liberal it seems). It isn't all or nothing, it is a gray area like most things in life.

      I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason. The possible abuse of pot and the resulting damage vs the number of people who would responsibly enjoy it or use it for medication tilts towards legalization. The risk of damage caused by heroin vs any possible benefit is heavily tilted towards damage. This is also why I dislike rules created to address a single, small, event. All too often people (especially parents) will push for new laws every time someone is killed or hurt. Repeating events should be addressed but not a single isolated event unless the cost of the fix is moderate (e.g. a plane crash due to a malfunctioning part).

      Your black and white position on cannabis/heroin (di-acetyl-morphine) is simplistic. In some EU countries, heroin is made available to addicts. Properly crime and IV disease transmission plummeted rapidly. With drugs, there should be no illegality, just levels of control, if that.

      We got on for 6000 years with opium, with the main problem starting with the British controlling it and forcing Chinese addicts to subsist on it making them (the British) rich. Along similar but less damaging lines the British also introduced tea to India (well not tea itself but how to drink a bunch like a Brit) then sold it to them! The British were one of the biggest bullies and thieves of the 19th/20th centuries.

    366. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      What country would that be, then? I am surpirsed to hear that there are democracies out there without any kind of founding charter or ground rules.

      Im equally surprised that you apparently have no qualms in a government violating laws without process simply because it has deemed them "bad".

    367. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because one "mass" murder of 20 people is worse than a hundred individual muggings/stabbings, right?

      Your arguments are based on nothing but emotion and FUD, and it's becoming more and more apparent.

      By far the majority of deaths on American soil from mass murders did not involve guns at all.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    368. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the only things that give any sort of legitimacy to Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS. Without them, none of those leaders have any more claim to governmental power than anyone else.

      So be very careful when advocating ignoring the constitution, because there is very little difference between that and requesting a full blown revolution.

    369. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sickens me that this was actually modded up to a 4. "Guns primary purpose is to kill people." - This is what happens when people allow their feelings to dictate rationale thought.

    370. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the document that grants legitimacy to the government seems like a thoroughly bad idea for everyone, including those in power.

    371. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's face it, when was the last time someone was murdered with a legally owned machine gun?

      There is lots of room for a healthy firearm black market when the country is flooded with firearms.

    372. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Do you not see the danger of just deciding one day that we no longer need to follow a provision of the constitution?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cowboys_(Cochise_County)#Weapon_ordinance

      Ordinance No. 9
              "To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons" (effective April 19, 1881).
              Section 1: "It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise [except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand] within the limits of the City of Tombstone.
              Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.
              Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance."

      Imagine the fuss such an ordinance would create today.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    373. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My post was simply directed at idiots that talk about the constitution as if it were a religious document. As if things should be a particular way BECAUSE it's in the constitution.

      So then it was directed at absolutely no one? Because no one here is supporting the 2nd amendment simply because it is in the constitution, but rather for the reason it is in the constitution.

    374. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Its not about how things should be, its about what should be enforced. Unless I have been misreading your posts, you have been advocating legislating away the second amendment WITHOUT going through the amendment process, which is colloquially known in our country as "unconstitutional".

      I might also note that it is generally dangerous to comment on how another country's constitution should be modified when you are apparently not a citizen of that country; it is for their citizens to determine, not you, and there is a high likelyhood that you are not familiar with the history and reasoning behind our laws as they are, nor with the culture behind it. If you intend to comment anyways, at least be upfront that you are not American, rather than avoiding mentioning that.

    375. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

      It's worth pointing out that the rebels won in Libya. And when the Soviet Union was collapsing and everything was unraveling, the old fogeys in the Kremlin ordered the military to attack those protesting in a last-ditch effort to hang on to power. The soldiers refused to fire on their own fellow citizens. In Tienanmen, the army units initially occupying the city (i.e. the ones driving the tanks) were from the Beijing area. They too refused to fire on their fellow citizens. The massacre didn't happen until the government replaced them with army units from the rural provinces who'd been nursing a grudge over pampered, rich city folks getting most of the government's funding for a decades.

      For this type of disincentive to work, it has to be possible for both sides to become bloodied. If one side holds all the cards, the other side just folds. That's what kept the Communists and the Nazis in power for so long - citizens opposed had no hope of winning, so they didn't even bother trying. It's only when faced with the prospect of a real battle with both sides taking casualties, that both sides start to ask each other "Is this really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to negotiate a civilized peace?"

      That's the real point of the Second Amendment - it's not there to allow the citizens to win an outright war against the military. It's there to give them enough teeth so that if the government should ever order the military to fire on the people, those in the military don't simply choose to follow orders because it's the easiest choice.

    376. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      England: 332 knife deaths, population 5,3013,000
      US: 1704 knife deaths, population 311,591,917

      England: 1 in 159678 chance of dying by knife.
      US: 1 in 182859 chance of dying by knife.

      Englanders therefore are approximately 14.5% more likely to die by knife than Americans, averaged out.

      Now, what are the total per-capita homicide rates between the nations? Forget what tool was used, and forget total numbers, it's the per-capita that matters.

    377. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      As of 2010, Mexico had 11.07 firearm-related deaths per 100K people, compared to 10.2 for the US. As of 2007, Mexico had 15 guns per 100 people, compared to 88.8 for the US. So slightly higher firearm-related deaths percapita, but far fewer guns.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    378. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak like a naive person who has never faced real oppression or financial troubles. You always do when you spout off about 2nd amendment stuff. It's pretty sad. Ignorant people cling on to the past?

      You're the ignorant fool for forgetting it or thinking it irrelevant.

    379. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by dandelionblue · · Score: 1

      France already does require all drivers to carry breathalysers.

      And 300 people, on average, are hit each year by lightning, while in 2011 8500 people were murdered with a firearm. So no, you are not more likely to be struck (even non-fatally) by lightning than murdered with a firearm.

    380. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Stradivarius · · Score: 1

      Times do change, and we have an amendment process by which the Constitution can too. In practice we also have a system of judicial interpretation that often has the same practical effect as amendments (for better or worse, perhaps both).

      But just as some ignorant people refuse to adapt to new circumstances, other ignorant people insist on repeating their ancestors' mistakes. The Constitution has lasted a long time (unlike its predecessors and some contemporary constitutions in other nations) because it was designed around fundamental insights into human nature. Insights that in most cases remain true today.

      It no doubt has flaws (some of which have been addressed through amendments). But its success means we ought to at least understand where it's worked. where's it's not, and WHY before we casually dismiss one of the great accomplishments of practical politics as merely a few rules from the 1780s.

    381. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a US government worth overthrowing by violence won't obey rules of engagement. No number of private small arms would do any good. It's a bit tougher to run around plinking enemy soldiers when their response isn't just to try to find you and kill you, but also to find out who you are and start hurting people you care about, or to just bomb the shit out of every nearby town. Kind of kills morale. Leads to widespread informing by people who don't want to be bombed because rebels bought some food in their town.

      It's a bit different in other states, because powerful outside forces (the US, Europe) can support uprisings and sometimes even enforce no-fly zones with impunity. We can say "don't play too rough or we'll crash your little party", while sending guns and supplies over the border. No-one can do that to the US in the foreseeable future, and likely no-one would try.

      Only hope would be widespread defection among the military. The second amendment hasn't been useful as the "ammo box" option of democracy for decades, at least.

    382. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There he goes again. How is this insightful?

      So a guy that decides to climb a snow-covered mountain gets trapped and a group of trained professionals have to risk their lives rescuing him. It's a leisure activity that endangers others but that doesn't involve *gasp* those eeeeevil GUNS! so let's ignore it.

      I shoot trap (the clay pigeon comes out when you say pull). How is my trap shooting endangering anyone? Oh right. It's not. But don't let your numerous logical inconsistencies get in the way of your ignorant gun-hating.

    383. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by czth · · Score: 1

      I still wouldn't be in favor of them (if someone's no longer locked up why continue to infringe their rights? - especially if they weren't violent), but such a bill might do even better if, in addition to guaranteed destruction, the checks were free (the government wants the checks; why should I have to pay for them?) and guaranteed to give a result in a timely manner or automatically passed (so they can't effect a ban on private sale by stalling on implementing the system or implementing it poorly) and, on a failure, they were required to divulge precisely why (without giving any sort of runaround) and allow for an appeals process (same as for dealer sales). The state is fully of tricky evil bastards, and you have to nail their foot to the floor so they don't use such a requirement as an excuse to infringe even further than adding such checks already would.

    384. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not I'm a gun owner does not affect whether or not I might be murdered by a gun owner in the future. If you have some recommendations on making it so that gun owners can only kill each other, then the issue of who does and doesn't own a firearm would become relevant.

      Also, for the love of god, learn how to aim, if you need 17 rounds, you're clearly not somebody whose gun skills are very good.

      You are not very intelligent, are you? Are you capable of understanding these words that I typed? I will wait while you wipe the drool off your chin so it does not drip onto the keyboard while you respond.

    385. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by czth · · Score: 1

      Where does it say "small arms"?

    386. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by czth · · Score: 1

      Firearms are a subset of arms. You fail basic set theory.

    387. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The UK DOES have a constitution:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

      All countries have SOME social contract which gives their government legitimacy; even monarchies have a contract. Ours is our constitution, and the fact that we HAVE the constitution means that it must not be violated.

      Its not that no country can exist without a constitution (though I would argue thats arguing naming semantics), but having one sets ground rules that MUST be followed or else the government loses its right to exist-- it will have broken the contract.

      You might likewise argue that some contract between two families that has existed for centuries is outdated and should be altered; but such a contract can only be altered with the joint agreement of both parties. To do otherwise would be to violate that contract. It is the same with our constitution; every American born and naturalized in the past 200 years was born into this contract, and implicitly agrees to it by paying taxes and voting. The only proper way for that contract to be altered is by the consent of the people-- that is in fact the principle underlying all modern democracies.

    388. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, as if cultivating the, "The South Shall Rise Again!" bullshit below the Mason-Dixon line for the last ~100 years hasn't been doing just that.

    389. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you don't mind living in caves.

    390. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      One assumes that the "bear" part of the second amendment means man-portable, or at least that's how it's been interpreted historically.

    391. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the AR-15, as the gun you want to outlaw. You're not going to get killed by one, as for France, who the hell cares? They're not exactly a model to follow. They also force you to disclose encryption keys because you "might be a pedo." So excuse me if I don't think of France as the model nation.

    392. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the rapers and muggers I know of didn't actually participate in the protest. I think that was much more a failure of the local PD to properly serve and protect the protestors from the local bums.

    393. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      You can't reload that fast because it would break balance, oddly enough - not all realism is fun. That's why it's fun to shoot your buddy in the literal face in Counter-Strike, but probably not as fun when you see that in real life.

    394. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty pathetic what passes for "insightful" around here. More like one gun-hating dork with mod points trying to have his ignorant thinking heard.

    395. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but what were children in a school doing with copies of Grand Theft Auto? GTA3 was rated M and all current successors have been similarly rated.

      I also have to wonder which edition this person might use. Is Rock Star Games planning a special edition at some point where the box is made out of sheet metal? Perhaps one where the DVD (or BD-ROM) has had its edges carefully sharpened?

    396. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Hell if you want to follow the batshit express all the way down the line all those mass killers? Had penises therefor the answer is obvious, ban everyone with a penis.

      How many tens of millions of FPS players are out there? Hell does anybody have the figures on how many copies Medal Of Honor or Call Of Duty sold? yet you could put every mass murderer in a HS gym and have seats left over. There is "correlation does not equal causation" and there is pulling something out of your ass, this obviously is the latter. Considering that the same dipshits in congress tried to get Night Trap, a fricking lame B movie game that wasn't as gory as the movies them old farts watched in the 50s drive ins banned? Should tell you all you need to know.

      So now that I have pointed out how damned stupid this line is, let me tear into the other stupidity this has caused, liberals and gun laws. hey liberals? One flaw in your logic, you see criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW hence why we call them criminals, duh! How long has your drug war been going on now, yet I can score dope in less than an hour pretty much anywhere in this country? Do you HONESTLY think scoring an AK47 would be ANY harder than scoring an 8 ball? The ONLY people your stupid gun laws affect are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS because the criminals are fucking criminals, they don't care about your laws against rape, robbery, and murder, you honestly think they are gonna give 2 shits about your fricking gun laws?

      This is why, and I really fucking hate to agree with a libertarian because I'm as far from libertarian as one can get and remain on the same planet with them, that Rand Paul is right and we need a new party, but I would go one further and say we need TWO new parties, he and the other libertarians can have their new "Tea GOP" or whatever they want to call it while the rest of us can have the "Common Sense Party" where things such as logic will be demanded of candidates and words like science and common sense won't be fricking dirty words!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    397. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The UK DOES have a constitution:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

      Then don't point me to a Wikipedia article that presents various theories about what collection of documents might be considered a constitution. Point me to the actual constitution. The document.

      There isn't one.

      For sure they talk about constitutional law. But that just means laws, agreements and understandings about how the democracy, the law, the monarchy and such like institutions run. There are no fundamental principles written down anywhere. There's nothing analogous to the US constitution.

    398. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What country would that be, then?

      The UK. And yes I've read your other post. But still the UK has no constitution.

      Im equally surprised that you apparently have no qualms in a government violating laws without process simply because it has deemed them "bad".

      Strawman.

    399. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Ok, in 2010, there were 30,814 firearm related deaths, of those, 19,392 are considered suicide. If someone wants to play around with the numbers, here is the link, provided by the Centers for Disease Control.

      Your figures don't match up with the figures I got from that link (31,672 firearms deaths), which contradict other figures offered by the CDC, including their own "top ten causes of death" list.

      Kinda shitty statistic system, considering they can't even keep them straight internally...

      According to FBI statistics, there were 12,664 homicides in 2011 (a steady decrease over the past several years), 8,583 of which were "firearms related..." interesting side note, there were 1,587 murders with "firearms, type not stated;" more than rifles, shotguns, and "other" guns combined...

      WTF? If it's not a pistol, shotgun, rifle, or 'other' type of gun... are people going around killing each other with cannons?

      Since the main part of the current gun debate is regarding rifles, I feel it's important to point out that knives [1,694 murders], blunt instruments [496], and body parts (i.e., hands, feet, foreheads) [728], murdered more people in 2011 than rifles [323] did.

      BTW, yes, you read that right - more people used their fists and feet to murder, than clubs and bats. Crazy, I know.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    400. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Unless I have been misreading your posts, you have been advocating legislating away the second amendment WITHOUT going through the amendment process, which is colloquially known in our country as "unconstitutional".

      I've not done anything like that. Why don't you just read what my posts say rather than trying to fit them into some particular argument you want to have.

    401. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      -Anonymous Coward

    402. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US military turns against its own population, it will be much more like Syria or Libya.

      And the rebels in Syria have been winning...

    403. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      It only says that congress can't pay for the army more than two years in advance. There is nothing about not having a standing army. Currently they approve the defense budget every year.

    404. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, they bring in a SWAT team if a kid uses a cellphone that is the wrong shape.

      Check out the new Motorola Glock, powered by Android.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    405. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The Constitution has lasted a long time (unlike its predecessors and some contemporary constitutions in other nations) because it was designed around fundamental insights into human nature. Insights that in most cases remain true today.

      Actually I'd say it's more true to say the nature of US citizens has been moulded by the constitution rather than the other way around. Remember that article a couple of weeks ago that said US citizens are about the worst people to do psychological studies on, because they were so unusual? They tend to be outliers on the bell curve.

      Well it occurs to me that a lot of the differences might be explained by the US citizen's almost religious belief in a document that no one else in the world shares. It isn't designed around human nature - it's just become intertwined with the American way of seeing things.

    406. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I remember during Katrina, criminals with badges illegally confiscated peoples' weapons that stayed in the city and were needing them to defend themselves from looters and other criminals.

      FTFY.

      A thief is a thief, no matter what bits of shiny he pins to his shirt.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    407. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      We already have PLENTY of regulation in place. If anything, we should reexamine what works and what doesn't, and rewrite policies as necessary. We SHOULD strengthen the requirements for background checks. We SHOULD require all firearms sales in public places to involve background checks. We SHOULD determine a way to further incorporate mental health checks into the background checks, but here is where we must be careful as it will be too tempting for anti-gun people to say "ADHD is a mental illness". We SHOULD have stricter laws and stronger prosecution of firearms violations. But what we should NOT do is infringe upon the rights of millions of people who understand the difference between right and wrong, and own a firearm simply because they live in a bad part of town, must travel alone at night, or even if they just think that a pistol is the best form of personal protection. Carrying a gun is not paranoia; it's preparedness.

      Perfectly stated. As a firearm enthusiast, I fully support the measures you've recommended, as they are, truly, common sense.

      Which, of course, means they'll be completely ignored by the political class, as doing the right thing is secondary to doing what they think might get them re-elected.

      Shame, that.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    408. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Because "reasonably believe" is an extremely weak requirement when it comes to dealing with a complete stranger.

      You say that... but then I see what you did there... you removed the part from the quote where I said:

      I've seen plenty of undercover 'stings' about such things (to try to paint the picture that buying a gun at a gun show is too easy)

      In such stings... the undercover cop tends to say things like "I don't know if I could pass a background check" or "I'm buying this for a friend who has had some problems with the law"

      Even if such statements do not make the seller believe they are dealing with someone seeking to act illegally, they are still prosecutable (which again,just doesn't happen much) because in court, a 'reasonable' person would believe the person is not able to own/buy.

      Basically the only thing that you're required to do is to ask for their driver license or other state ID, to ensure that they are the residents of the state where the transaction is taking place.

      Depends on the state... here in Washington state I can buy a handgun or long gun out of the back of someone's trunk with not even a handshake, hell, we saw just this during a recent Seattle gun buy back program... it was a veritable street bonanza of private buyers outbidding the police on city streets. Of course doing so is rather silly (for both parties), but it is perfectly legal.

      A smart person will often ask to see a WA CPL or WAC membership (a local gun club) to demonstrate the person has had a semi-recent background check... but again, what does showing a drivers license prove? Oh yes... that they can drive!

      Why should there be prosecutions for failed purchases?

      It depends on the reason for the failure.

      Again... local police are very rarely involved in such rejections to determine of the failed buyer was learning this for the first time or just keeps trying.

      In many cases, people don't even fully understand that they're banned from owning a gun, until a background check fails on them.

      I'll tell that to my system administrator... next time we detect a few failed attempts to enter our systems, I'll ask them not even to look to see if the source is known or not, plus tell them they should not not involve police... we'll just assume the person doing so was not doing so malicously.

      Either way, the transaction doesn't go ahead when the check fails, and so they don't get the gun - so no crime has occurred.

      Not always... and for two reasons:

      1) There are three different responses NICS gives... "Proceed", "Delayed", and "Denied"... only in the case of an explicit "Denied" does the transaction stop right there. Should a "Delayed" be the response, a waiting game begins and if the ATF doesn't get back to the FFL within 3 business days, the FFL can treat it as a "Proceed" and make the transfer.

      So again... it depends upon WHY a person is denied (or delayed).

      2) It is a felony to provide false information on a 4473. Even if we were to say... 50% of of NICS checks did not result in an immediate "Proceed", a good chunk actually come back as good eventually (either because checkee couldn't be immediately identified but later is, or a "Delayed" times out)... what % do you think of those are honest to goodness people who know they cannot buy a gun, but are too stupid to not to realize that the check very well may flag them? I can't give it a %, but a quick look at a newspaper from time to time indicates it is a a non-zero # where someone who was denied at an FFL (for cause) find a firearm another way.

      I'd like to know that number... but again, because local PD are not involved and we see virtually no prosecutions for such a thing, or attempts to make sure they do not get one later.

      It will deter legal gun owners

    409. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It has founding charters, and Im not sure why you insist that its form be identical to the US's. Perhaps I HAVE been misreading your posts, but perhaps you should word things more carefully, as a number of others have likewise interpreted your posts to advocate disregarding the amendment process.

      If thats not your intention, Im not clear why you have been arguing when my point has pretty plainly been that there is but one valid method of altering the second amendment in the US.

    410. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      After outlawing guns, did they see a decrease in gun-related deaths? I suspect they did.

      What the fuck does that matter? Their violent crime rate increased.

      The fact that you think reducing "gun deaths" is more important than reducing violent crime makes your true agenda shine like a beacon.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    411. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."

      MS Excel??

    412. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.

      No, ignorant people ignore the past.

    413. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      "I guess I owe that to my instructor back at the army. He kinda made it obvious that a gun is a deadly instrument and it must be treated as such, that's why he installed something he called the "least deadliness" rule, a rule I still adhere to. A gun must always be in the state of least deadliness that it still allows it to perform the task at hand. To clean it, there is no need to have ammo nearby or even load it. There is no need to load your gun in the barracks because that's not where you shoot it, you shoot it at the range, so you do not load it in the barracks. There is no need to switch the safety pin off or chamber the round before you're settled in at your lane, so you do both not before the very last moment just before you fire. And so on. Don't make your gun any deadlier than it absolutely has to be and do it at the last moment possible. There are no extra points for overachievers in this particular area."

      Friend, I'm no fan of guns but this comment from your drill instructor is an excellent one. Thanks for sharing.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    414. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Of course, after reading some of your other posts, I could be completely misinterpreting your premise...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    415. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Our modern day western table manners are an imperfect solution to people who had a bad habit of stabbing each other over the dinning table, gun control is no different.

      Nobody would seriously argue that we should ban sharp pencils, similarly nobody would support the right to bear WMD's. Everyone falls somewhere between those two extremes. As an Aussie I think the recent proposals in the US to limit magazine sizes were perfectly reasonable, quite likely unworkable because of the culture and porous borders, but nonetheless a sane and reasonable proposal.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    416. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.

      What it is is a bunch of rules that a few men in the 1780s thought were good ideas. Written for the experience that they had of the world in the 1780s. (The American Revolution, the emergence from being a colony, primitive policing, and no standing army.)

      Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past.

      So what you're saying is that, as technically marches on, we've managed to give citizens some other device/technology/system that provides them with parity of force with any/all attackers regardless of muscle mass, stature, or physical disability?

      If so, tell me where I can get it, and I will gladly trade all of my firearms in for it.

    417. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't think idiots like you need access to the internet, but here you are.

    418. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1

      You really don't get my point. Is it possible to ban all chemicals and cars, because there is a possibility that they are used for bombs. No because they are useful for other purposes than killing. Guns have no other purpose than to kill people. You might argue that you need one for hunting, sure, but then you don't need to own anything more than a shotgun with a maximum of 3 shells.

      Here is the problem with current gun legislation: When you want to own a car you need to get a drivers license and you need to pass a test, you need to have your car centrally registered with the government, your car needs to have an identifiable registration number, you need to have the car regularly inspected, when you sell your car to another individual he needs to have a drivers license to use it and you need to fill out a transfer of ownership to that person. Why is this? It is partly because a car is a dangerous thing to use, and you can kill people with it.

      The same things needs to be in place for gun ownership.

    419. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Sure... so where is the country that has the exact same culture, politics, racial issues, etc. to compare to?

      Canada, and our gun murder rate has been doing nothing but climbing.

      Canada has the same culture, politics and racial issues as the USA?

      BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

      Wait...seriously, now....

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    420. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Don't be obtuse.

      Many, many people complained to the school that not only was Cho a danger, but he had outwardly and blatantly stated his intention to murder his fellow students. The school administrators didn't listen, didn't care, and we see what resulted.

      Adam Lanza was no different - many people, prior to the incident, pointed out to his mother and authority figures that the kid was unhinged and needed professional help. And, just like with Cho, no one who mattered listened.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    421. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1

      You are using the slippery slope argument, which is bullshit. Heavily regulating guns doesn't increase bomb makers.

    422. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Aside from the point that it takes more than fueling tanks to win a war against your own people... what makes you think the guys in the tank are going to be fighting on behalf of the politicians?

      Have you ever actually talked to an enlisted man, let alone ask what he would do if ordered to fire on his fellow Americans? Obviously not.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    423. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The response to a tragic incident in NASCAR, from those involved with NASCAR, is unlikely to be: "To make NASCAR safer, we must add more cars on track".

      True.
      But for the flipside, if a NASCAR driver goes crazy on the track, and intentionally drives into the stands and kills a bunch of people, it's unlikely that the political talking heads would say "This driver was a video gamer. We must ban racing in video games...."

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    424. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Which is why I'm writing my congressman today to see about banning any car that can go faster than 5MPH and isn't high-vis yellow.

    425. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care who murders you, just as long as it's soon. You are so fucking retarded, how does it not hurt to be you 24/7?

    426. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Umm, no.

      A skilled soldier could easily manage 3 shots per minute, A VERY skilled soldier could manage more than ten per minute.

      Note by the by, that the "Founder's Intent" for the First Amendment did NOT include computers (they didn't exist then), nor anything written using them. Or even automated printing presses (didn't have those either).

      So, do you really want to go with that excuse for eliminating the Second Amendment, since it could easily be used for the First?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    427. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sbditto85 · · Score: 1

      Guns have no other purpose than to kill people. You might argue that you need one for hunting, sure, but then you don't need to own anything more than a shotgun with a maximum of 3 shells..

      Have you ever even gone hunting? I have and you sir do not understand it.

      Relating to cars NOT if you only drive them on your land. I do not need to license my car OR have a drivers license to drive them on my own land (think farmer) as for registration thats mainly to account for stolen vehicles etc. As for guns you ALSO have to fill out registration etc when buying certain guns. My .40 is registered to me and if i ever want to sell it I will FOR SURE pass that registration off to the person who buys it, then I am not liable for what happens with that gun. See there already is that system in place!

    428. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me where in the 2nd amendment it guarantees the right to have more than just 1 bullet in a magazine?

      That's like saying the internet isn't covered by the first ammendment because it doesn't involve a physical printing press. Point to where the first ammendment says anything about web servers?

    429. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In such stings... the undercover cop tends to say things like "I don't know if I could pass a background check" or "I'm buying this for a friend who has had some problems with the law". Even if such statements do not make the seller believe they are dealing with someone seeking to act illegally, they are still prosecutable (which again,just doesn't happen much) because in court, a 'reasonable' person would believe the person is not able to own/buy.

      These kinds of stings are only useful to deter people who would be willing to sell even in the face of evidence (or reasonable suspicion) that a person is ineligible to buy. I mean, c'mon, it's not like any actual felon would say something like "I don't know if I could pass a background check" when privately buying a firearm.

      So yes, these are prosecutable, and they deter people from selling to buyers who would sell such silly things - which is basically none of them except for undercover cops. On the other hand, requiring background checks for private purchases (with an occasional sting) would also deter people from skipping that check. Which covers much more realistic, and much more common scenarios.

      Depends on the state... here in Washington state I can buy a handgun or long gun out of the back of someone's trunk with not even a handshake, hell, we saw just this during a recent Seattle gun buy back program... it was a veritable street bonanza of private buyers outbidding the police on city streets. Of course doing so is rather silly (for both parties), but it is perfectly legal.

      .

      It doesn't depend on the state, since the whole "reasonably believe" thing is a federal requirement. Yes, there are no hard guidelines as to how you would satisfy that, but if you don't even ask them for ID, you may have a hard time proving reasonableness in court later, if it comes to that.

      A smart person will often ask to see a WA CPL or WAC membership (a local gun club) to demonstrate the person has had a semi-recent background check... but again, what does showing a drivers license prove? Oh yes... that they can drive!

      It proves that they are (or at some point were) a resident of the state in question. It is not legal to for a person to buy a firearm outside of their state of residence, and if the seller has reasonable suspicion that they are not a resident, it is illegal for him to sell.

      There are three different responses NICS gives... "Proceed", "Delayed", and "Denied"... only in the case of an explicit "Denied" does the transaction stop right there. Should a "Delayed" be the response, a waiting game begins and if the ATF doesn't get back to the FFL within 3 business days, the FFL can treat it as a "Proceed" and make the transfer.

      You don't need to tell me that. I own a dozen different guns, and since I'm not a citizen or an "immigrant alien", pretty much all of my checks are "delayed" (and then "proceed" in 1-2 days, though I also had one "denied" that turned out to be a clerical error on their part).

      The point about it being a felony to lie on 4473 is a good one. And yes, it would be nice if they follow up on that if someone says they're not a felon, but NICS flags them otherwise, and they do not dispute it (or fail that dispute).

      Remind me... are there any legal items in this country that we require a background check to sell or give to someone?

      I can't think of any, but it's mostly because we either make things legal or ban them outright. With guns, the consensus seems to be that banning them outright is over the line, but we do want to try to deter certain categories of people who are likely to use them in an inappropriate way from owning them. It sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

      Any chance you could cite a source that says that requiring everyone to undergo a background check would reduce the # of guns available to illegal users? I can't

    430. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Gription · · Score: 2

      I notice the media never mentions that their chase for ratings (not news but newsertainment) is basically advertising for crazy people to do crazy things.

    431. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Actually, the "militia" and the "people" were considered synonymous at the time of the Constitution. That is, the "militia" was every able bodied man capable of carrying and using a rifle.

      Still is synonymous. Read the Militia Act sometime.

      Yes, I'm a member of the Militia. So are my brothers, my neighbors, and basically everyone else of legal age.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    432. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      It depends on the gun but most of the ones I've used 5 seconds IS a bit generous. I basically went high to stop bitching from people.

      The M1 garand with pre-loaded clips in an ammo pouch can get to sub 1 second reload times if you're good enough. That thing was a masterpiece.

    433. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bremic · · Score: 1

      Many of the countries with strict gun control have a violent crime rate is significantly lower than the US.

      The problem isn't that gun control raises the rate of violent crime, it's that piecemeal gun control leads people who can get guns easily and then go to places where they are more certain that the people they are using the gun against won't also be armed.

      If you want to reduce violent crime in the US, then you need to get comprehensive gun control that will, over time, see less instruments of point-and-click death delivery in the hands of citizens. If you don't want to reduce violent crime, then open up access to all "arms" (including explosives, and assault weapons) and see what happens.

      The problem I have with most gun enthusiasts is that they are firm defenders of being able to keep guns themselves, but happy to reduce the amount of guns the people they don't like have. I get it, I just don't like it.

    434. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how you blow a gasket every time some kook with an MBA starts trying to tell you how to develop software?

    435. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I haven't researched it myself, but at a guess I'll bet there's a substantially bigger gap if we compare homicides instead of "firearm-related deaths." I suspect (but at the moment have no data to back this up) that Mexico has a significantly higher homicide-by-firearm rate and a significantly lower suicide-by-firearm rate.

      Even without narrowing the scope to homicides, we see that a country with about 83% fewer guns per capita has a firearm-death rate about 8.5% higher than the US. I won't say gun laws are the causative factor here, there's substantially more factors that play into it, but it's clear from this that a simple "reducing the number of guns will reduce the firearm death rate" argument is also not valid.

      I think when one starts to compare gun laws vs. crime rates in enough countries, it becomes pretty clear that they're not strongly related. There are contries with very liberal (where liberal = non-restrictive) gun laws, and some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. There are others with extremely restrictive gun laws and extremely high violent crime rates, and then there are countries (and even areas within countries) where things are the exact opposite (restrictive with low crime rates, and liberal with high crime rates). Then there are a bunch of countries in the middle with regards to both. The simplest conclusion? Guns can be used to commit crimes, and they can be used to stop it, and there's probably not much true correlation between gun laws and crime rates. It's much more likely that crime rates are due to cultural and socio-economic issues. Television, movies and video games may or may not play into this. It probably does to some extent, though likely not as much as parenting practices and other adult influences during a child's development.

    436. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does the 2nd amendment mention 'citizens'? Or where else does the constitution say that it only applies to citizens?

      The word used is 'the people'. The only place the original constition mentioned 'citizens' was under qualifications for political office (which shows that the founders weren't averse to using the term, and in those places where they used "the people" instead, it's reasonable to assume they didn't mean just "citizens").

    437. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's Australia. Here in the United States, people actually do blow people up with bombs. (At abortion clinics, black churches, Oklahoma city, mail bombs, etc...) Two little girls in the house I used to live at were murdered when it was burned to the ground with a firebomb.

      No, the attempted terrorist attacks with bombs haven't all been thwarted, I don't know where you are getting your information. You must just not be counting home grown terrorists and be focusing purely on foreigners. (Who, admittedly, have been having a run of bad luck.)

      The obvious question, though, is if you live in Australia, why do you even care?

      Trust me:

      1. There's actually going to be armed rebellion if the Feds really do try to take away guns. You probably don't think so, which is your prerogative. Law enforcement and the political authorities have better information.

      2. But they aren't actually seriously going to try to take away guns, anyway, for much the same reason as the actual serious and really scary problem of our gigantic nuclear arsenal is never dealt with. (Seriously, I'll never understand people worried about a few piddling firearms when The Death of the Earth is waiting behind the curtain.)

      3. If they did take away guns from civilians, guns would start "disappearing" from police stations and military bases, as well as start coming across our porous border with South America (Mexico yes, but trust me, stuff gets in all the way from Columbia). It would be a particularly good business for Organized Crime because they'd have massive public support and wouldn't even worry that what they were doing was morally wrong. (You may think that Organized Crime is not still a force in the US, you'd be very wrong about that.)

      4. I don't understand why you even care, since you live in Australia. We don't allow guns on planes, so no one is going to fly to Australia and start shooting at you.

    438. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by russotto · · Score: 1

      The legal uses still result in far more accidental death and injury than protection from illegal uses.

      Sure, most of the death and injury caused by illegal uses aren't accidental.

    439. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about recognizing that their constitution was written by men who had been disarmed by their government (King George)?

      People who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

    440. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain so doesn't have more violent crime. (Source.)

      For FSM's sake, stop believing what you hear from talking heads on TV, or read on websites sourced from the Daily Mail.

    441. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably pretty easy when they aren't shooting back and simply cowering under their desks like good little children.

      Fixed that for you.

    442. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      It's also worth pointing out that the rebels won in Libya only after Ghaddafi's heavy weaponry and air force was taken out by NATO flights. Before that, they were an inch away of being run out of the country. The other common thread in your examples is that the army decided to not fire on civilians - even if the civilians were completely unarmed.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    443. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Si · · Score: 1

      You do know 322 is not a rate, right? Neither is 1,704. Taking population into account then, we have rates of 53 million/ 332 =~ .6264 knife deaths per 100000 people for England (not the UK, just England), vs 314 million / 1704 =~ .5426 deaths per 100000 people for the US.

      That's right, you stand a higher chance of being killed in England with a knife than you do in the US.

      Your point being what, again?

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    444. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      Were the shotgun invented today, it would never be made available to the general public. The amount of damage a shotgun can do has to be seen to be appreciated. It is truly an awesome and disturbingly effective close-range weapon, and there is a reason even SWAT teams still carry them... because nothing beats them at short range.

      This is century's old technology. And absolutely nothing is better at short range. I'd rather have a shotgun at short range than a fully automatic AK.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    445. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Gription · · Score: 1

      People really get emotionally involved with their 'need' for gun control. They base their decisions on fear which is a horrible way to formulate any useful action.
      ... "Bad thing happen. It happen with gun. Me fear gun... Make guns illegal!"
      This works out to the "Ostridge head in the sand" theory which works out to "Wish it away" and ignores most of what is going on. People have become so disconnected from realities of life that they don't recognize that we live in the safest time in human history and they are now OBSESSED with the feeling of safety. They fail to come to grips with the idea that they are 100% mortal and that hiding from that will not solve anything real except you can hang on to your false feeling longer.

      Lets look at the big fear that has attacked the media that a huge number of people are gobbling up:
      Oh no, the "Helpless Victims". Our hearts go out to the "Helpless Victims". We have a new interview with one of the "Helpless Victims".
      Let's look at the key part of this-> "Helpless Victims", "Helpless" "Victims". The phrase "Helpless Victims" is telling you something.

      You don't get "Victims" without having the "Helpless" part there with it. The problem wasn't that they were victims. That is the symptom. The problem is the "Helpless" part. Having the government declare that you must be helpless by law is insane. The "government" won't be there to save you when bad things happen. They probably won't even be able to punish (of real questionable value) whoever victimized you.
      The ostridge crowd we cry but we want to stop violence. News flash: Violence works. Ask the lions and gazelles on the Serengeti. Ask governments:
      When push comes to shove: violence ends up being the last answer.
      In everyday life if you don't want to be subjected to unwanted violence you need to prepare yourself because you can't stop someone/something else from inflicting harm on you by wishing it away.

      As a MORTAL person of some capability and self control you have some responsibility to protect those less capable then you from harm. This is what we have lost in our modern world world. (Along with an adult conscience decision to accept a minute increase in risk in exchange for the responsibility of liberty.)

    446. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      The reaction to someone saying that we should do more thorough background/psychological checks on NASCAR drivers, however, would probably be accepted. Similar calls to shore up loopholes in background check laws for guns (like at gun shows) have been met with cries of oppression.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    447. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People against trying to close these background check loopholes because it's a violation of the Second Amendment seem to always forget the "well regulated militia" part.

    448. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... How about Nazi Germany, USSR, Soviet China, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

      You'd have to see the equivalent of ten Newtowns a day for about 1900 years to reach parity with the death toll caused by the most deadly organizations we've endured in the last 100 years...corrupt governments, that is.

    449. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      People that say guns are designed for killing people are often the people that do not have any interest in them and do not know much about the other aspects of their uses

      You make some good points, but all I could think of when I read that line was Homer using a gun to shoot open his beer can.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    450. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "well regulated militia" is so difficult to understand?

    451. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck does a policeman know about quality research? Ever seen a police officer with doctorate?

    452. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The smug belief that you're brighter than 99.whatever percent of the rest of the population

      Do some people actually think that's an impressive accomplishment?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    453. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to australia, its a nice country.

      Thing about most crime, is that is it commited in the big cities. I don't recall seeing very many hooods, ghetto's, or projects in australia.

    454. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you end with "ignorant people cling to the past".

      You seem to be implying that following our constitution is ignorant. If you have a problem with the United States of America, its constitution, or its laws, then by all means feel free to leave.

    455. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probally found this on his computer https://encyclopediadramatica.se/High_Score that is where the video game connection comes in.

    456. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "As if things should be a particular way BECAUSE it's in the constitution."

      Um... yes... Things should be a particular way BECAUSE it's in the constitution. It's not a list of "suggestions".

    457. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You can't legislate away crazy.

      Yes, but it's not a crime to belong to the NRA.

      The use of third grade arguments notwithstanding, I take it that you must approve of citizens owning any and all possible types of weapons, because your logic applies universally. If guns do not kill people, people kill people, then we must remember that those devices we dropped on Japan didn't kill anyone, the person who pushed the button to drop it was the only killer in the bunch.

      Further complicating the logic is if a person steps on say a blasting cap that did not go off during a mining operation a day after the mining operation happened, and was killed. It can happen, and there was no intent to harm a person. So did the exploding blasting cap kill the person, or did the person who set the blasting cap, or the person who pushed the button to set off the detonation? Because by your logic the blasting cap, could not have killed the person. Unless you want to argue that the person was not killed at all, because Only people kill people.

      Before you go on, I own several firearms, and support the second amendment.

      What I do not support is the infantile behavior of some of my co-owners.

      Guns don't kill people, People kill people

      People with rocks kill people, let's outlaw rocks!

      A former friend went into a white hot mouth foaming rage screaming at me in a restaurant because I had the audacity to note that if a person wanted to kill as many people as possible, their best option was to do it with a AR-15 or one of the Bushmaster variants. His response was a profanity laced rant about banning automobiles because people are killed in them, and then some more rage about guns not killing people, plus some nasty comments about my patriotism.

      If gun lovers want to be treated like adults, they have to act like them. And that includes not playing third grade playground semantic games about what kills what, odd arguments about banning everything that might kill anything, and start using logic.

      Video games have been known to not cause people to become violent for a while now. Once upon a time your own LaPierre supported universal background checks, yet now it is a bad thing.

      After listening to the line in the sand arguments put forth by the NRA and its supporters, it appears that the only thing they will accept is that there is nothing to stop a person with psychological problems, or criminal issues from owning anything, and the only permissible action is to wait until people are killed. We always hear the supporters speak of crazy people, but they will never allow them to be weaponless until after they've proven beyond a doubt they shouldn't have been using them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    458. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Wait... I think we're talking past each other.

      I'm against end-runs around the constitution which weaken and divide our republic. I'm against finding "rights" in the constitution that were never there to begin with.

      If some new right or regulation is needed or if some old right needs to be removed, there's a process for that. But, until that process unfolds, things should be a particular way "BECAUSE" it's in the constitution.

    459. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That boat has fucking passed, boy (hint: booze).

    460. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      They've been at least partially repealed in Canada.
      Our long gun registry (LGR) was recently scrapped. Unfortunately, too recently to show any difference between before and after, so you'll have to wait a while for that.
      What you may be interested in, however, is an editorial about the LGR in the National Post, which is a conservative paper, but only mildly so.
      http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
      It's definitely strongly against the LGR, but is very logical and factual in its reasoning, without the usual emotional knee-jerk reactions that the subject normally evokes on both sides.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    461. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Ok, so 100k shootings a year, in a country with how many guns?
      Your figures are meaningless. How many suicides are there in the non-gun owning population? Are the percentages comparable?
      If there are 250 million guns, and only 17,000 suicides, that's not really a high percentage, is it? I don't honestly know how many guns there are in the USA, and I'm not even necessarily arguing against gun control.
      I'm merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    462. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      If you click on the first link you'll see that out of Mexico's 11.07 firearm-related-deaths per 100K 10.0 of them are homicides and .67 are suicides. Meanwhile, of the US's 10.2, 3.2 are homicides and 6.3 are suicides.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    463. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Canada has the same culture, politics and racial issues as the USA?

      The last 15 years or so? Yes, or have you never visited a city larger than 8k people here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    464. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/04/homicides-statistics-canada-2011.html

      Not really that hard to find, Toronto it isn't the housing projects it's the influx of immigrant gangs. Used to be that other gangs like Hells Angels would actually keep it under control, the unintended consequences of the government cracking down solely on biker gangs is that the immigrant gang problem has exploded. As for violent crime rates? It's coming more to a point of leveling off right now then dropping if you're paying attention to the trending.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    465. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      When someone's home is broken into it gets reported to the police usually, at which time a statement is taken from the resident. Many of these statements include "When he saw me holding a firearm he fled" and the like.
            Statistics from these statements indicate guns are used more often in self defense than in killing + suicide + accidental death.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    466. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      It's hardly straight forward, there are cultural differences, reporting differences, and the simple fact that guns aren't the only method of killing.
          Factor in that an unarmed victim is a criminals favorite kind....
            A better check would be to compare the various states, less variation in culture and reporting differences.
          States with less restrictive laws have lower crime rates and fewer cases of dying by gunshot wound.

            Mycroft.

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    467. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're referring to long since debunked study. Among other issues it discarded any data from: households without a gun, where no one had been killed or seriously hurt gun, and where a gun had been used in self defense. In short to show-up in the study against it's bias someone had to be shot who lived in a home with a gun no-one was using, and even some of those where excluded.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    468. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2

      Pardon my descent into trivia, but it's my understanding at one time suicide was officialy labeled as self homicide on death certificates under cause of death.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    469. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet it used to be "you don't need a handgun to hunt, lets ban them", isn't it rather interesting how when it comes violating peoples rights the reason always changes to attack the current defense even when it invalidates the last excuse.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    470. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to understand, it's just overly simplistic and wrong. Just compare the various states, compare states with strict gun laws to those with liberal laws. Guess which states a safer from violence, including where firearms are used.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    471. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      And so are elderly grandmothers, she should buck up and go fist to fist with the two 20 year old guys who broke into her house to find crack money.
          Go home troll.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    472. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jabelli · · Score: 1

      No, no it's not. The USA also has something like five times the population. The raw numbers are meaningless. If you take your numbers you quoted above and divide by the population figures taken from Wikipedia, you get 0.54 per 100k for the US and .51 per 100k for the UK. Hardly "staggeringly LESS."

    473. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jabelli · · Score: 1

      Argh, replying to myself. I used UK numbers, not England only. If you quoted England numbers only, then those below are correct, the actual rate is higher in England than the US. My point that the raw numbers are meaningless stands.

    474. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Actually not that crazy, if your are holding a gun or blunt object like a bat or knife you know it's deadly and behave with that in mind. However many not into the martial arts fail to realize just how easy it can sometimes be to kill unarmed, and what started out as a punch thrown in momentary anger turns into homicide.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    475. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Except that reverses the order of events, gun control laws preceded the increase in crime.
          On the other side states that have become more permissive of gun ownership have had reduced crime.
          The most effect laws for reducing crime seem to be "Shall Issue" c.c.w. laws.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    476. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Except that crime goes up as criminal find more helpless victims and goes down as the criminals find their odds being shot goes up.
          The numbers strongly indicate the "retards" are correct.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    477. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Yes because every time a group of people are slurred it has a basis in reality.
          I'm sure Goebbels said the same thing.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    478. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by JubilantShank · · Score: 1

      This is a flawed analogy. A breathalyzer completely prevents a drunk from using a car, while allowing those who are capable of driving to use the car without restriction. What you're proposing by limiting magazine size is more like limiting all car gas tanks to 3 gallons, regardless of the driver, because if you need than 3 gallons to get where you're going, you obviously don't know what you're doing.

      Either way, it should be obvious that there are no good analogies for the gun control debate.

      The debate is far, far more complicated than {more gun == more murders}. Frankly, there are no truly good models to look at. Americans are different than Europeans, and Australians, and Mexicans, and Canadians. I'm not being racist, or nationalist, the fact is that every culture behaves differently. For example, it is often said that most of the guns used in Mexico are purchased in the USA, making it seem as if the US's relatively lax gun control laws cause the crimes committed in Mexico. This is a fallacy. Canada also borders the US, and the Canadian border is nowhere nearly as controlled as the Mexican border. Yet, Canada does not have a massive violence problem cause by US guns. Canada is, overall, a pretty safe place to live. So, the logical conclusion is that there are far more complicated forces at play.

      Canada has a universal health care system, the US has a jumbled mess of different systems and compromises. Perhaps this has something to do with the lower violence?

      Canada also has a lower population density. Perhaps that is also a factor?

      Frankly, in my opinion, America has a health care problem. Specifically, a mental health care problem. It's hard for those who need help to get it. There is a very negative stigma attached to discussing any type of mental health issue. People will think you're weird, or strange, or dangerous (maybe in some cases you might be). I would wager that there'd be a lot fewer suicides if people weren't afraid to talk about being depressed. It's not about where guns are available - look at Japan, they have a lot fewer guns than we do, and a lot more suicides. It comes down to culture. I comes down to health care. It comes down to the stigma on mental issues. It comes down to the availability of weapons. It comes down to the response speed of the cops. It comes down to poverty. It comes down to class issues. It comes down to racism. There is no simple answer. Life is complicated, people are complicated, and the world is complicated. Make an effort to see without the blinders of fear on your eyes (oh no! Guns!).

      I'm a gun owner, and I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong. Who knows, maybe reducing the magazine size will reduce the rate of violent crime? But maybe, just maybe, the issue is far more complex than you think it is. Who knows, maybe the gratuitous violence that tends to pervade parts of our culture is actually a factor? But I would wager a bet any day of the week that a change is the way we handle mental health issues and how we deal with poverty will produce a larger change in violent crime than just about anything else.

      Try not to be so narrow minded. Before you attack anyone else's rights, why don't you take a look at the killers, instead of their tools. Because, let's be honest, if someone is seriously contemplating killing as many people as they can, but is unable to because they don't have the tools, we've still lost. It means that our society has produced someone so screwed up that they just want to kill people for no particular reason. Even if they can never accomplish their goal, something is seriously, seriously wrong.

      Look at the killers. Look at the traits and issues they have in common. Then, try to make an informed decision.

    479. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Civil War pretty much ended the period of strong state militias serving in place of a national army. Not only was their quality inconsistent, their primary loyalty was often to the state rather than the nation.

      Even without the USSR, the US has numerous opponents of varying capabilities and sizes. We are technically still at war with North Korea, China has twice as many members in their armed forces as the US, and even Brazil has almost as many as the US.

    480. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Si · · Score: 1

      So.. a slug would be better than buckshot because buckshot wouldn't spread enough to increase the chance of a hit? How much is that single slug spreading? You really think you've got a better chance of multiple lethal shots with it vs. #1 buck?

      Hydrostatic shock only affects the (single, at most two from a slug) victim, so with even a reasonable spread, hydrostatic shock from buckshot will affect more people than from a slug.

      From your description I'm guessing you have a Mossberg, probably a 12ga 500. A very capable gun and very scary in the hands of someone even moderately skilled in its use. You'll also realise that firing a bunch of slugs is going to take its toll on the shooter very quickly - the phrase I believe is "a shotgun kills on one end and wounds on the other". I'd favour #00 or #1 buckshot for maximum devastation in a crowded area with improved capacity for rapid fire, over slugs that make a big boom, tear a big hole in something, and give you a big thump in your shoulder for your troubles. Remember, the ballistic impact (that pesky half emm vee squared) depends on the mass of each projectile (approx 9 .38 calibre pellets in #00 buck), not the total mass of the shot, but the recoil depends on the total mass.

      Oh, and that more shallow penetration? The slug is gonna tear a big hole, for sure, but at close range it's going right through your target. Those little pellets of buckshot are gonna bounce around and cause massive trauma inside, that's if they don't also punch *multiple* holes through.

      And one parting shot (ha!) - I'd take the extra round over the magnum shells, thanks, but to each his own - reloading a 7- or even 8-shell shotgun is no quick task.

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    481. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There IS a way to change the constitution - it just requires 2/3 of the legislature to pass and then 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify the change. There is a reason that bar has been set so high - see the 18th amendment for a good example of what could possibly go wrong...

    482. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Two falsehoods, 1) the us is NOT Germany we collect statistics differently just to start with, and 2)in the U.S. strict gun laws usually precede increase in violence and inverse, liberalization of gun laws, is followed by decreased violence.
            I have no clue why hoplophobes insist on comparing the U.S. to different countries with different reporting and statistical methodologies, different cultures, and various pretty clear warning signs against attempting the simplistic comparison the always use. Especially given the wealth of data here in the US that is much closer to an apple to apples comparison. Other than the obvious reason that it usually argues strongly against their biases.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    483. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Si · · Score: 1

      Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?
       
      BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!

      I'm so glad you thought your argument through with such clarity.

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    484. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citing "less gun deaths" in countries with strict gun laws is like citing "low auto-accident rates" in Nambia - complete non sequitur.

      That's not a non sequitur. It's a tautology (it is inherently true by the nature of the premise).

      A non-sequitor would be citing 'less gun deaths' and attributing it to more bananas.

      but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates.

      What in the holy hell does that have to do with a discussion on violent crime and gun control? THAT is a complete non-sequitur. "There was a typhoon in Sri Lanka, therefore civilians should be able to purchase tomahawk cruise missiles"

      the US is well below the global average homicide rate

      Congrats, you beat out warzones and failed states in terms of murder. Nicely done.

        Now if you'd care to compare yourself to other first world nations...?

      Aaand we come to the crux of the issue, and why nobody with a lick of sense gives a fuck what you gun grabbers have to say.

      You are everything I expect a libertarian to be. A fool who always believes himself the cleverest man in the room.

    485. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The population of the UK is STAGGERINGLY less than the US as well. Per capita they had more knife deaths than the US (using your numbers and the population of both countries) of course I'm assuming you meant UK by England, If you actually meant just England, then the difference is even bigger.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    486. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Si · · Score: 1

      I know you'll never see this as you posted anonymously, but it would be rare to meet a responsible (well-regulated) gun owner who is against closing the gunshow background check loophole. I could however imagine many gun *sellers* weeping as all that business goes away...

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    487. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Si · · Score: 1

      There is no need for a healthy firearm black market when the country is flooded.. oh what the hell, you're anonymous so you'll never realise the logical fallacy of your "argument".

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    488. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter"

      You already have this in spades. I sometimes wonder if anyone is paying attention. Copyright extension is just one of the few laws that have already gutted the constitution.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Extension_Act

      At this point in time the constitution is largely just a piece of paper since human beings thought processes do not work properly. Most thought is unconscious:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

    489. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long do you think any citizenry without arms is going to last against its national military? How did those chaps over in the Arab Spring fare without their guns against their goverments? Oh that's right, they had guns, and they fared just fine.

    490. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the point. Majority of these mass shooters are novices (save for that Korean guy and he used handguns anyway). So going by statistics, the limited capacity magazine will dramatically reduce their kill rate.

      For an advanced shooter, as you've pointed out - low capacity magazine means squat. So I ask - what's your beef if such law was introduced other than being inconvenient at the shooting range?

    491. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Personally I think the Army could score quite a few brownie points, both with gun enthusiasts as well as gun opponents, if they went out and offered free gun safety trainings. They know (out of self interest, ya know...) how to handle these things safely, they have to do so at a daily base. And I really think it might shake an idiot or two up to have a drill sarge bark into their ear.

      I'd actually go as far as making it a requirement if you want one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    492. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Onuma · · Score: 1

      I like how you've worded your response. I am going to use/paraphrase this, when the necessity arises.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    493. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. We need to ban planes, jet fuel, and high buildings immediately to preserve our freedoms.

    494. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add enough cars and you'll get a traffic jam. No more speedy or exciting than your average rush hour. Lookie there, NASCAR is safer through adding more cars.

    495. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. That argument, yet again. The reverse slippery slope argument, the one which goes all the way up to WMDs. You know, you only insult your own intelligence by trotting that one out.

    496. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jwdb · · Score: 1

      P.S. if you're implying that there's something wrong with my father handing his prized deer rifle down to me without giving me a background check, you can go fuck yourself, Chief.

      Damn right there's something wrong with it. How often do we hear "never saw it coming" and "can't believe he'd do something like that"? Parents are often blind to their kids' failings.

      If you're gonna do background checks at all, it should cover *all* transfers of ownership. No point in doing it half and half, because then the crazies will just use the loopholes.

    497. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Guess we should give up on murder being illegal then.

      Seriously how do people keep writing that sentence down and feeling clever about it?

    498. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You can't legislate away crazy.

      No, but you don't have to facilitate their craziness. If a paranoid schizophrenic complaining about the voices in his head telling him to behead his mother walked into a DIY shop, they hopefully wouldn't sell him an axe.

      And a gun's a lot more dangerous than an axe.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    499. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Just because you can't make society 100% safe doesn't mean you should abandon all attempts to make it safer.

      I know the rugged individualists on slashdot will just say that safety is a bad thing anyway since it involves "state interference" and that a bit of danger keeps us interested, the only sensible response to which is the customary "go and live in Somalia then".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    500. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

      No, not really. I suspect the worst gun massacre is yet to come, and it will involve the use of a shotgun (with magazine size less than 10 rounds) in a crowded area. 5.56/.223 is a weak round, comparatively speaking. Its goal is to incapacitate (i.e. wound - not necessarily kill) an enemy soldier potentially wearing light body armor at distances of 100-200 yards. It is a poor choice for someone whose goal is to cause as many deaths as possible in the minimal amount of time - a shotgun will be much more efficient for that.

      That is just an argument for not letting most people have shotguns either.

      The whole assault rifle/magazine size issue is a red herring anyway. You could go on a perfectly deadly shooting spree with a large calibre automatic pistol, but any talk of handgun control is, of course, taboo in the US.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    501. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So yea, less "mass killings," but shitloads more rape, robbery, and assault. Doesn't seem like that one belongs in the "win" column, now does it?

      Even if there was a direct correlation between restricting access to firearms and in increase in overall violence (i.e. assuming we completely forget that causation!=correlation) I would say that a reduction in fatalities at the cost of an increase in lower level violence was definitely worth it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    502. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Thats not to mention that if you banned handguns except with special licenses, he'd be less likely to have one, and someone pretty responsible, like say, a teacher, should be encouraged to go get their license and carry a handgun. Yes, they should have a handgun around your children. Oh the danger of it all! You're already trusting the safety and minds of your children to these people for 5 days of the week. They should have all available tools to help them maintain that safety. You know what most all of the mass shootings have in common? A single somewhat practiced handgun owner could have put them down in a matter of minutes and cut the death toll by half or more.

      Personally, I wouldn't want someone carrying a gun teaching my children, but I know you Americans love your Rugged Outlaw fantasies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    503. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets.

      Right. And the primary purpose of an nuclear missile is to propel a warhead to hit what the firer wants. It is designed to be ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. The UK has many nuclear weapons, and guess what? The only thing we have ever blown up is targets.

      Your argument is totally specious.

      Now, guns can be used to kill animals as well as people, granted. Hunting is a legitimate use, and can quite easily be controlled by only giving hunting licenses to people who need them, have training and aren't insane.

      But to say that is a basic human right to have guns so you can go target shooting is just ridiculous.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    504. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The govt really has NO business knowing what weapons I own, nor how many.

      So what right does it have to know what explosives, tanks, assault helicopters and nuclear weapons you have?

      Oh, that's right, it's to keep the rest of us safe from maniacs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    505. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Look at Britain. They have a higher violent crime rate than we do, and just because people don't die, doesn't make it less horrible. I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with a gun over having my head bashed in by a junkie with a cricket bat.

      You'd rather be shot dead with a gun than hit with a cricket bat? You're a loony.

      In a fight, I'd rather take my chances against someone with a bat than a gun. And, no, I don't want to walk around armed all the time myself, thank you very much.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    506. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      How do you quantify the crime that doesn't occur due to fear of being shot upon entry? I don't see how anyone could figure this out but if legal weapons are removed we'll find out our answers the hard way.

      How do you quantify the number of crimes where the criminal feels he has to be armed, and has to use violence early in order to subdue a threat from a potentially armed victim?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    507. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      If I was a burglar/criminal and lived somewhere where most potential victims were armed, is it more or less likely that I would go armed myself?

      I'd say it would be practically certain that all criminals would carry guns.

      So any potential confrontation is highly likely to involve someone getting shot and quite likely killed, which is why you have such a high murder rate in the US.

      In somewhere like the UK, the most likely outcome is the burglar running away when confronted.

      Same with fights outside pubs, most likely you'll have a few punches thrown and some cuts and bruises. Unless there's a psycho involved, death is a rare occurrence. Whereas if you have two drunk people each with a gun, the result is almost inevitable.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    508. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between leisure activities that endanger the person pursuing them, and ones that endanger others.

      So NASCAR should be outlawed then I take it? It is clearly a threat to more than just those who are driving the cars.

      The spectators are there willingly. As far as I am aware NASCAR attendance isn't compulsory.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    509. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Not forgotten, just understood, unlike what those who would trample on the rights protected by the second amendment.
          The founding fathers saw the militia as the entirety of the free adult male population, The first congress passed as one of it's first laws a law making that clear.
          The modern "militia" in the form of the national is significantly different from what a militia was intended to be initially, primarily in that one has to sign a contract to be involved, and undertakes a wider scope of activities and duties.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    510. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.

      It's not a right to have access to some recreational activity. It's about the right to have access to the tools to protect yourself, your family, and if need be, your society.

      You're missing the (admittedly weak) argument being used, namely that guns aren't just for killing people.

      People here are trying to equate guns with a hammer or saw, i.e. just tools that can be used for all sorts of things, and only coincidentally for killing someone. It's like saying that because you could use nuclear weapons to clear land for engineering purposes, therefore they have more than one purpose and so should be freely available.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    511. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I want fewer gun deaths.

      That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."

      Actually, yes I do want fewer bank robbers (and police) being shot if possible. But that's fairly irrelevant. No one's saying that you can prevent 100% of criminals from acquiring weapons, any more than you can with terrorists. But that doesn't mean we allow terrorists to freely import machine guns, rocket launchers and so on.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    512. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about recognising that your constitution was not written by God and brought down from the mountain by Moses. Nor is it a universal truth of the physical world discovered by mathematicians or scientists.

      Oddly enough, that is recognized within the document itself which is why there are rules for changing it within that document. Seriously, if you do not want to follow the rules, change them. You can't just dismiss the "supreme law of the land" just by disparaging it. Yes, I realize you are not American and can not change them... so just stop adding your two cents in if they include breaking the law merely because you, who are not subject to it, do not like it.

    513. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles?

      Sounds fair enough to me.

      Do you want less horsepower in your car? Do you want to be electronically limited to 75mph?

      Again, why not?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    514. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I rather like it better that I can defend myself.

      You only need guns to defend yourself when (a) everyone else has guns and (b) civilisation has collapsed.

      Good luck with your End of Days apocalyptic fantasies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    515. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The primary excuse used to try and grab guns is to reduce violent crime and deaths. The other means for criminals and violent people to act on their violent urges are very germane, as these are the means people will turn to. This deceptive attempt to avoid the unpleasant reality that removing peoples ability to defend themselves may not make them safer (In the us crime in general goes down the more people are allowed to own and carry firearms).
          You keep trying slant and restrict the argument in your favor with these poor attempts at deception and derailment.

          Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    516. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think we should mandate background checks of participants before protests. Think of all the rapes and muggings we could have prevented if Occupy participants were checked out before they were allowed to participate.

      1. There is nothing special about protesters or Occupy participants.

      2. We don't have pre-crime.

      3. You can rape or mug without any additional equipment.

      4. I don't understand your analogy in the slightest.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    517. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think that counts as blasphemy on slashdot.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    518. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the issue is violence and crime, if you reduce one avenue is it not logical (and supported by evidence) that others will be used?

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    519. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle

      Neither did the Vietcong. But in the end, they won the war.

      In the end, the Vietnamese people won the war. The US was only ever nominally protecting the people against communists; the fact is that it was up to the Vietnamese people, not the US, whether they wanted a communist government.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    520. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      But not less violence, what is your malfunction that you can't understand that? Are people killed by guns the only ones killed? Is every other death and assault somehow not real to you? Or are you just trolling?

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    521. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      An insurgency on American soil would have one huge advantage that neither the Taliban nor the Vietcong had: The extreme reluctance of soldiers to fire on their own people. Throughout history, native armies sent out to suppress rebellions, have joined them instead.

      Untrue. Look at the British Army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. If someone shoots or blows up one of your fellow soldiers, they are the enemy, whether they speak the same language (with a different accent) or not.

      In a US insurgency, the insurgents would obviously be characterised as terrorists by the government. A quick reminder of 9/11 and you're away.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    522. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      And LESS than a quarter the population.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    523. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      =>

      1. There's actually going to be armed rebellion if the Feds really do try to take away guns. You probably don't think so, which is your prerogative. Law enforcement and the political authorities have better information.

      /quote>

      So, by your own admission, gun owners of America are essentially an unstable group who are willing to murder cops and US soldiers if peaceably asked to surrender their weapons?

      I mean, I want to make sure I've got this very right: You believe the 20% of the population who are gun owners, would in fact start an active campaign of murder and intimidation of government workers, police and US servicemen, if they could no longer own guns.

    524. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      godwin at a depth of 2, remarkable

    525. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.

      I imagine the rapist would overpower the woman first, tie them up and search for their 'pinky'.

      And what happens to all the women in the military who are raped?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    526. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason.

      Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?

      As with guns, it's not the people who hurt themselves that we're worried about. Heroin addicts fuck up their families, children and society at large. Some of that is economically-driven and could be reduced by making it legal, but I still wouldn't let a full time junkie have kids, or expect their parents to mop up after them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    527. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Arms refers to every arm of the soldier however terrible according to the founding fathers. It most assuredly includes fire arms, as well as clubs spears swords and so on.

      Mycroft.

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    528. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Look into the history a bit more. A militia is the people, and well regulated means well trained. And arms is 'every arm of the soldier, however terrible'.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    529. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      A man with the username Mycroft ought to be aware that it's measured as a murder rate. And is thus independent of population size.

    530. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You illustrate my point nicely. Thanks.

    531. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by kbg · · Score: 1

      Quick question, hope you can clear this up for me.. were bombs illegal *before* they were legislated, or did the act of legislation result in their illegality?/quote>

      What does this matter at all? Something that isn't banned is legal, but if it is banned then it illegal.

      BTW none of my hunting friends have ever used their guns to kill people, so does this mean just *their* guns' primary purpose is not to kill people? So only some guns' primary purpose is in the killing of people? Who gets to decide which? What if I bought a hammer and *only* used it to kill people? Then surely *my* hammer's primary purpose is.. killing people!

      I am not talking about specific individuals, I am talking about guns in general. And no your killer hammer primary purpose is not to kill people because it was designed to bang nails not to kill people. This isn't such a hard concept to grasp.

    532. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      But that's lot logically different from prohibition era people saying you shouldn't drink alcohol because it's the law. The constitution just being a form of law, but with higher hurdles to change. It's just a restatement of the law, it's irrelevant to the debate of whether alcohol SHOULD be available.

    533. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the Australians have permanently traded away a significant bit of their personal liberty for a 0.0000001% increase in safety. No thanks.

    534. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      I'm not an american, but tell me what the hell the difference between whoever is teaching your children now vs the same person + a gun. Probably the best bet would be a thumbprint desk safe for it, not actually carrying it on their person but you get the idea.

      Its not really a outlaw fantasy or anything, its just facts. Crime in the U.K. involving guns actually increased after their gun ban.

      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

      You should inform yourself instead of making knee-jerk emotional reactionary decisions.

    535. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Probably false assumptions: 1) That 100% of the US army (or an effectively high enough percentage so as to make no difference) will side against their own.
      2) That small arms and guerrilla tactics are useless against a better armed army, history says otherwise.
      3) That none(or effectively none) of this superior armament would wind up captured or otherwise in the possession or use of the citizens (we dropped single use handguns into occupied France durring WWII with instructions on how use them to do just that) .

      Mycroft

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    536. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are YOU an idiot? Restricting the size of magazines sold doesn't magically shrink all magazines in existence to that size. Old ones will still exist, and a determined person is going to either be able to obtain an old one, obtain one from another country, or build one themselves. This is a person who spent years methodically planning out his mass killing in order to try and maximize the number of murders. He had never broken any laws previously, and any mental illness he may have had went completely undiagnosed and untreated, so a gun registry would also have no effect on him. Passing laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens while simultaneously having no effect on stopping or preventing the crimes they are supposed to stop or prevent is idiotic.

    537. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Apparently it is hard to understand. It's seems a lot of people mistakenly believe it's a limit or excuse to limit the second rather than a singularly important reason and encouragement it is. These same people also seem to fail to understand the meaning of militia (every able bodied free man of sound mind), or of arms ("Every sword of the soldier, however terrible").

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    538. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing special about protesters or Occupy participants.

      You mean like there's nothing special about gun owners?

      We don't have pre-crime.

      Then why restrict gun ownership at all? Is that not the definition of pre-crime?

      You can rape or mug without any additional equipment.

      Funny, you can murder without any additional equipment, too.

      I don't understand your analogy in the slightest.

      Background checks on protest participants would be seen as a impediment of the constitutionally guaranteed right for those people to air grievances against their government, and an unreasonable violation of their right to privacy. The analogy is that the same would be true for background checks on gun owners. He tried to pick something that he thought a "liberal" poster would get mad about having background checks for in order to make the point about how gun owners feel about background checks.

    539. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The point of the spread of buckshot vs a single slug was that at a close range the buck shot can be treated as a single projectile for aiming purposes and given that why not just use a slug instead. At a distance of a few 10s of feet buckshot spreads out a few inches I think it is close to 5 but that isn't much.

      Even out to 25 or 30 yards a slug is going to go through a man sized target (I have seen this with deer) but a most slugs I have seen are hollow point and they expand massively which really increases tissue damage. The slug is going to cause a lot of cavitation as it passes through but the buckshot would shred more tissue but it will lose energy quicker. Either way it is going to be a bad day for what ever is on the receiving end of either one.

      From what I have read on hydrostatic shock it seems to be more dependent on the size of the projectile than total energy or number of projectiles. I have shot deer with both slugs and with rifles and a clean shot to the vitals with a shot gun the deer is usually stunned and disoriented for a few seconds and then because they bleed out so much they just tip over where as with a rifle they run a little bit once they hear the sound, then tip over dead.

      As far as recoil knocking someone around yes shotguns have a lot of kick, especially when shooting slugs but it isn't unreasonable. As far as the pain from it I haven't had issue as it seems a lot of people don't shoulder it correctly or tight enough. When shooting clays with my friends we go through 2 or 3 boxes of clays (1 each) and I have never been soar after doing so and neither have my friends.

      Yes my shotgun is a Mossberg 500 and has worked wonderfully for deer and pheasant hunting. I use the 3" shell loaded with #2 or #3 steel when pheasant hunting as that is the best low cost replacement for the lead pheasant loads according to the MN DNR study from a few years back. As the steel shot spreads less (it distorts less as well) I use an open choke early in the season as the birds flush so close and eventually will go down to a modified for late season hunting as they will flush much farther.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    540. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      It was stated as more, not more per capita, if something other than what was said was meant it should have been stated that way.
        Also I had just replied to someone deliberately giving totals that make knife crime look worse in the US when the per capita numbers show the opposite.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    541. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So what right does it have to know what explosives, tanks, assault helicopters and nuclear weapons you have?

      Actutally, they way the Constitution reads...they really don't.

      It wasn't all THAT long ago, that every day citizens, with no special licensing could own fully automatic weapons in the US.

      Just curious, you're not from the US, why does this seem to bother you so much? I believe you're in the UK, and if you're happy with the laws there, cool, but curious why you seem so interested in how we conduct our own business and laws and lifestyle here? Our gun laws don't affect you at all there in the UK...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    542. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns primary purpose is to kill people.

      The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets. Am I using them for something other than their intended purpose? No. My grandfather used to go hunting. He killed deer. Was he misusing it because he was not killing people, even though you claim that is their purpose? No. People that say guns are designed for killing people are often the people that do not have any interest in them and do not know much about the other aspects of their uses.

      So the only uses you've identified are killing things (not just people seemed to be the point of your thought) - and practicing killing things (i.e. shooting at targets).....

      You have still failed to identify a single use that does not center around killing things....

      Please provide one possible reason to propel a bullet (at extreme speeds I notice you forgot to mention) at a target that does not involve killing or practicing to kill?

      You can tell me that your practicing is relaxing etc. and that's all as true as you want - but it's still practicing to shoot at a living target - practicing to wound or kill, no matter what other beneift you get from it.

      Unlike a hammer, or a nailgun or any other nearly banned item that could actually be used for constructive or destructive purposes in a useful way - a gun cannot be used for anything that does not revolve around killing or practicing killing.

    543. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      They are meant as a deterrent, however the deterrent does not stop people who feel that the threat/risk of being caught is either less than the chance of success, or those who simply don't care because they never bothered to work out an exit strategy.

      Guess what. The guys who never bothered learning how to land an aircraft never planned on landing it. Many of these folks plan on dying in their attempt. The minute they are confronted with equal force, they off themselves, and we are supposed to disarm? Please. Don't talk about being clever. I think you have no idea about the definition of the word.

    544. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother.

    545. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The huge problem with what youre saying is that the constitution represents the contract between the government and its people, which grants legitimacy to the people in charge of leading us.

      The only problem here is that you and anyone else actually thinks that matters - another problem might be that it doesn't actually matter.

      In theory of course it's important - but in reality no-one is going to stop believing in the authority of the state because they have broken that 'contract' - if you want proof then turn round to face reality cause it's been bent and broken hundreds of times and you're still giving them control over you...

    546. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      How about we just blame the person?

      The person's dead or behind bars, so blaming him won't stop the next massacre, since it will be committed by a different person, nor can we lock everyone up pre-emptively. On the other hand, blaming guns collectively and locking them up (banning them) will stop the next would-be shooter from having anything to shoot with, thus making a succesful massacre a lot harder to pull off.

      That - prevention - is the motive behind blaming guns (or video games, for that matter): it's not about who's name should cursed, it's about how to stop these constant mass shootings from happening. The reason the gun control opponents try to shift the focus on moral culpability is to avoid coming right out and saying that they value their right to own guns over schoolkids getting shot. And when put into spot, they try to shift the blame on other culprits - suich as video games - instead.

      Not that any of this matters. At some body count there will be disarmament. The questions are: how many people die getting there, what will the political fallout be, and how will the culture shift once the average American is forced to give up his fantasy of living in a frontier?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    547. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Heroin addicts fuck up their families, children and society at large.

      I don't believe families, children, or society should get to control what someone puts in their body. I'd rather have more crime and higher taxes than a ban on such drugs, if those were truly the only choices.

      but I still wouldn't let a full time junkie have kids

      For me, it would depend on how bad the kids' living conditions were. I don't think taking away children from people who can't even take care of them is a bad thing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    548. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by unclei · · Score: 1

      ... but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates. According to recorded statistics, if we assume accuracy, the US is well below the global average homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000 people, at 4.8. One thing I noted from the aforementioned chart, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between presence/absence of strict gun laws and homicide rates.

      Citing "less gun deaths" in countries with strict gun laws is like citing "low auto-accident rates" in Nambia - complete non sequitur.

      While the US is well below the global average, it's worth noting that it's well above the average in most of europe. The global average is skewed high due to high murder rates in Africa and South America. From the link you provided:
      US: 4.8
      UK: 1.2
      Germany: 0.8
      France: 1.1
      Spain: 0.8
      Norway: 0.6
      Finland: 2.2
      Greece: 1.5

      How much of that difference is gun control laws in these countries and how much is cultural differences is a question to which I don't have an answer. But please, let's compare apples to apples. Being "better than Namibia" (17.2) isn't good enough for me.

      --
      Andrew
    549. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yep. My only quibble is with your use of the word liberal. It was insightful to put it in quotes. In this debate I see the liberals on the side of gun rights. The Liberals? Not so much.

    550. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This was intended to explain why "reasonable precautions" is not reasonable at all. About the only thing that makes sense in the current batch of proposals is tighter / universal background checks, and harsher penalties for skirting them ("straw purchase" etc).

      You can go on a perfectly deadly shooting spree with practically any firearm, except, possibly, for a muzzle-loader (one of the famous shootings in UK involved a bolt-action .22!). But that's not sufficient grounds for banning them.

      The reason why handgun control is off limits is because of all guns, handguns have the most obvious universally applicable utility value - they're the ultimate self-defense tools. Anything you can do to regulate them without jeopardizing that role is mostly useless for preventing their use in sprees (not that it matters much, anyway, since sprees are a very small proportion of all murders committed with firearms).

    551. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      You only need guns to defend yourself when (a) everyone else has guns and (b) civilisation has collapsed.

      No, not really. A group of men trying to rape my wife are going to get shot, whether armed or not. A thief that breaks into my house will be shot, armed or not, and any group of punks that threatens me with a knife or any other object that might harm me is going to get shot. I don't need them to be armed to defend myself with deadly force. The point is taking the advantage. I'm not about making this a fair fight.

    552. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Squiddie · · Score: 1

      You'd rather be shot dead with a gun than hit with a cricket bat? You're a loony.

      No, but since criminals already have guns, I'd rather shoot back.

      In a fight, I'd rather take my chances against someone with a bat than a gun. And, no, I don't want to walk around armed all the time myself, thank you very much.

      Well, you're free to do so. You shouldn't make me take the chances you want to take, though. If you don't want to be armed, don't be. I will still carry my pistol, and I'm still going to use it if it is needed. Be sure to tell me how it goes if you ever get attacked by multiple assailants.

    553. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

      "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."

      ~~~

      How about you eat a bowl of shit and go fuck yourself?

    554. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides_involving_firearms

      60% of firearm deaths are suicide. Suicide, homicide...six in one hand, half a dozen in the other...

    555. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      And you illustrate the point of another poster regarding you talking from ignorance.

    556. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "it's irrelevant to the debate of whether alcohol SHOULD be available."

      The 'debate' that it should or should not be available is irrelevant so long as it's in the constitution. The 'debate' SHOULD be whether it should be *IN* the constitution or not. Again, the constitution is not a list of suggestions. And attempts to bypass or end-run the constitution do nothing but weaken our republic and put our rights in jeopardy.

      "The constitution just being a form of law, but with higher hurdles to change."

      This is a gross mischaracterization of the constitution. It's the foundation on which all other laws must sit. You cannot have a law that contradicts the constitution.

    557. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf

      Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in
      the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the
      reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but
      not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution
      effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm
      homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

      Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass
      shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the
      same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of
      reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

    558. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      And if their obsession with games inspires them you can go talk to the victim's families

      Inspiration is only relevant when someone is sane. The act of shooting 20 or more children pretty much places someone outside that definition. That aside, it seems like mass murderers seem to take inspiration not from video games but from other mass murderers.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    559. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are three states that are pretty rural, hence high gun ownership. Also rural areas tend to have lower levels of gun crime, hence safety. Nothing to do with with strength or laxity of gun laws everything to do with social and environmenal factors. Are you suggesting changing the social and environmental factors of the whole of the USA to be like these three states.

      Compare to different countries because thay have a mix of social and environmental factors and or weak gun laws. This allows one to look at the effect of laws in better isolation.

    560. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by bungo · · Score: 1

      There have been precisely 0 bombing.

      Well, I remember the Russell Street bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Street_Bombing/

      It was back in 1986, so that was quite a while ago. I can't remember any others though, so 1 is pretty close to 0, except for Angela Taylor.

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    561. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      You were talking about funding. I replied specifically about the fact that funding is irrelevant in a war situation. If people want ammo, rations, or fuel to avoid being killed, then they'll take it by force. I didn't mention anything about motivation or allegiance, you're just trying to change the tune to dodge the issue.

    562. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you a minimum of 6-7 deaths from 10 rounds from a handgun inside 100 feet.

      Hardly. Only if your victims stand stock-still and don't shoot back. Handgun accuracy is measured in single digit to low double digit yards, not at 100 feet. You may be quite accurate on a range against a faceless piece of paper or in the wild against an unsuspecting animal, but not against people. If you were shooting at people, you'd be so amped up on adrenaline* that you aim would be all over. Nice bluster, though.

      *Assuming you're not a sociopath or whatever the latest term for soulless killer is these days.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    563. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Because of impetus for strict gun control laws due to high violent crime rates.

      Clearly those strict gun control laws have not worked given those city's continued high rates of violent crime.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    564. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I had a mandatory gun safety class in [gasp!] high school. It was part of health class.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    565. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      OK, so I'm back to saying thank you for presenting a good demonstration of what I'm talking about.

    566. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How much of that difference is gun control laws in these countries and how much is cultural differences is a question to which I don't have an answer. But please, let's compare apples to apples.

      No problem.

      So... which countries, other than the US, have armament ownership enshrined in their constitution as an inalienable right? We'll start there.

      Comparing apples to apples sounds like it makes sense, until you think about how many different kinds of apples there are.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    567. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      Which is why I think there should be strict gun control, including for handguns.

      I had little doubt you would say this. That's why, we who are ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, don't believe a word of the present assurances that "nobody is coming for your guns." The present gun control proposals are not the end; they're intended as the beginning. And as much as the gun control crowd wishes to the contrary, we're all wise to that.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    568. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Sparton · · Score: 1

      Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?

      Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).

      In theory, letting people do whatever to themselves is fine. In practice, connections run deeper than that.

    569. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's not ignorance though. I know exactly what the constitution is. I simply have a different perspective on it, because I wasn't brought up with it as a near-religious relic.

    570. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not special forces, but I do hunt semi-regularly and I've fired off maybe 2-300 handgun rounds throughout my lifetime. If maximum fatalities is my goal I can guarantee you a minimum of 6-7 deaths from 10 rounds from a handgun inside 100 feet. Give me a rifle and I'll make it 8-9 out of 10 inside 100 yards.

      Yup, that's the fantasy. In reality, your gun jams after you spooge all over it.

      You claim to be an master marksman after having shot a few hundred rounds. You are delusional. Try again after you have shot a hundred thousand rounds.

    571. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The human body, she is a fragile vessel.

      Surprisingly so, in many cases.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    572. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100k shots? that means going to the range 2x per week for 5yrs. no way the GP has the discipline

    573. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you are just confusing terms... Homicide != suicide.

      True, when kids kill themselves with their parents' guns, that's not officially counted as "gun crime". That doesn't make the kid any less dead. Nor does it stop "gun ownership=family protection" from being a bullshit proposition.

    574. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      You were talking about funding.

      Yes. And at, what, 16,000,000,000,000 and counting in annual expenses, how long do you think the federal government would be able to continue to operate if the people who provide that $16 trillion stopped paying?

      You're missing the point, and it seems intentional.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    575. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).

      The person themselves might steal, so ban the entire substance? People's feelings might get hurt, so ban it all? The second one, I feel, is far more ridiculous than the first, because anything could be undesirable to someone.

      I much prefer freedom to safety here, and your 'They might commit a crime in the future because of the drugs' mentality is as unconvincing to me as the TSA's security theater (and that's essentially what the drug war is, anyway).

      In practice, connections run deeper than that.

      But how we respond to certain information is up to us, and there is no universal law saying that heroin must be banned just because of the reasons you listed; it is people's desire for an unattainable level of safety that keep substances such as that banned.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    576. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants.

      Guns have two purposes: killing things and practicing to kill things.

    577. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      P.S. if you're implying that there's something wrong with my father handing his prized deer rifle down to me without giving me a background check, you can go fuck yourself, Chief.

      Damn right there's something wrong with it. How often do we hear "never saw it coming" and "can't believe he'd do something like that"?

      The only time I ever recall hearing anything like that was when Jeffrey Dahmer was caught. BTW, Dahmer didn't use guns.

      Anyway, anecdote != evidence.

      If you're gonna do background checks at all, it should cover *all* transfers of ownership.

      Well, considering how that plan is completely unworkable, unenforcable, and would turn a large portion of the population into criminals overnight, I don't see it happening.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    578. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So... less rapists getting shot > less women getting raped.

      Got it. Good to know where you stand... far, far away from me and my loved ones, preferably.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    579. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Um, OK, strawman much?

      Or, at least, I'd call it a strawman, if I had the slightest idea what you're on about.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    580. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by loneDreamer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've said this before, and I'll say it again. When I moved to the US one of the things that I immediately noticed is how violence seem a valid approach to conflict solving (at both the individual and nation scale) and is constantly defended and praised. It's not about guns, it is about the social context of the people using them. In some places desperate people might kill themselves, here if you think life has wronged you you might as well take as many as possible with you. It's your right. You are a hero.

    581. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun....

      It means you've given the rapist easier access to a gun. Most rapes occur when the victims are intoxicated or otherwise already vulnerable.

    582. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the highest violent crime rates in the US of A are in cities with the strictest gun control laws?

      Many reasons, one of which is that it doesn't matter what the gun laws in a city are if someone can just drive half an hour and get easy access to firearms.

    583. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, blaming guns collectively and locking them up (banning them) will stop the next would-be shooter from having anything to shoot with

      Would it?

      The reason the gun control opponents try to shift the focus on moral culpability is to avoid coming right out and saying that they value their right to own guns over schoolkids getting shot.

      I value other people's freedom to own guns and would rather risk having shootings happen than ban guns. That was easy.

      And when put into spot, they try to shift the blame on other culprits - suich as video games - instead.

      I bet it's all the fault of that damn rock 'n' roll music people are listening to nowadays.

      At some body count there will be disarmament.

      I doubt that.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    584. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, there's a crime epidemic in sydney's underworld, with a constant stream of shootings and executions.

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Read that paper, maybe it will teach you a thing or two about the realities of gun control.

    585. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were some bomb plots intercepted and prevented (i live in sydney) by the police. They also at one point removed all the rubbish bins in train stations, for quite a while, until now, there are clear ones that you can see what's inside. There has been a surge in organised crime shootings, particularly in sydney. One thing you will notice though, is that the socio-economic and socio-cultural influences have made a lot of these shootings go away with general prosperity.

      Arson is probably the more likely replacement method, since it attracts maniacs in similar ways, i think the government understands this somewhat better, so they tend to not publicise the fact through the media, so as not to glorify it, in the eyes of other deranged people. But when it comes to guns, since politicians generally want all firearms banned, except for ones they have access to (police, military, security guards), they seem to be more than happy to stand on the graves of the victims to push their agenda.

    586. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I could point out how you misunderstand and misrepresent our constitution.

    587. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by sd4f · · Score: 1

      But homogeneous laws haven't really done anything for Australia (except suicide via a firearm, which didn't reflect any change on overall suicide at all). Organised criminals have been importing firearms, and not even from the USA. If crims want guns, they'll get them. Crims have a nasty habit of not obeying laws.

    588. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      There's none so blind as those that won't see.

    589. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Adrenaline maybe, that combined with the fact that I'd never do it anyways, but I can place 10/10 shots inside a 6" target from 100 feet no problem at all from any decent handgun... its not bluster. 100 feet IS low double digit yards. Roughly 33 yards to be more precise. I chose that number specifically because hand guns get really really bad beyond 100 feet. At least for me. I have also seen people who I assume are first time shooters not hit 2'x3' target sheets at ALL from 20 feet, so ymmv.

    590. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      The reaction to someone saying that we should do more thorough background/psychological checks on NASCAR drivers, however, would probably be accepted. Similar calls to shore up loopholes in background check laws for guns (like at gun shows) have been met with cries of oppression.

      That's because the constitution doesn't say "A well-regulated race series, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to drive in NASCAR shall not be infringed."

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    591. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      How does a 10 round magazine greatly inconvenience a crazed murder? The fact that he has to do 4 magazine changes instead of 2 doesn't change much.

      New Zealand didn't ban firearms in the same time frame as Australia - and they also haven't had a massacre in all that time (and they are demographically very similar to us).

      You forget all the studies that show that the stringent firearms regulations didn't change much in Australia (except making it hard for normal legal owners to pursue their sport). The drop in firearm murder rate was happening well before the bans and buybacks and didn't change because of it.

    592. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      I live in Australia.

      Guns are not that hard to obtain. It is incredibly time consuming and inconvenient - but not hard.

      The rate of firearm ownership in Australia is now much higher than it was in 1996 (the big ban/buyback year).

      Have you considered that since we are one of the most highly educated and wealthy nations in the world that maybe this manifests itself in low murder rates? Our low murder rates certainly don't have anything to do with a lack of firearms.

    593. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      The US has approximately 6 times the population of England.
      1704 knife deaths for 313,914,040 people is 1 death per 184,222 people.
      332 knife deaths for 53,013,000 people is 1 death per 159,678 people.

      Assuming your total knife death figures are accurate, as I haven't looked them up, England's knife death rate is actually over 15% *higher* than the US, not, as you say, "staggeringly less."

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    594. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by catprog · · Score: 1
      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    595. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by catprog · · Score: 1

      http://www.theage.com.au/national/australians-restock-the-gun-racks-20130113-2cnmu.html

      AUSTRALIANS own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre,

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    596. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a militia. This is a dramatically different intent from bearing small arms for personal defense. The second arises as a side effect of the former, which has a much broader scope. It should be perfectly legal for a municipality or even an HOA to buy an APC and conduct regular training with it. I will agree and even argue that an APC has no sensible role in peacetime self defense or policing.

    597. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      (Ironically, Canada does not currently have in place a coherent system that tracks violent criminals on probation or parole — instead choosing to track law-abiding, licensed duck hunters, farmers and recreational sport shooters.)

      This is one of the reasons I'm more supportive of universal background checks, than of any other aspect of gun control. Here, in the states, we don't track nutcases at all, and tracking of violent criminals is ineffective.

      "An Access to Information request discovered that 4,438 stolen firearms had been successfully reregistered without alerting authorities. Apparently, the thieves had resold the firearms to new owners who (unsuspectingly) had subsequently registered them. This is a classic database problem: garbage in, gospel out."

      Excellent article, thank you!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    598. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      The gunman rose from his chair at one of the tables in the Broad Arrow Cafe,removed the AR15 and spare magazine from a sports bag, immediately killing Mr Yee Ng with a shot to the upper neck, and Miss Chung with a shot to the head. Swiveling on the spot and firing from the right hip, the gunman fired at Mr Sargent who was wounded in the head, then killed Miss Scott with a shot to the head. The gunman continued through the Broad Arrow, next killing Mr Nightingale with a shot to the upper neck and Mr Bennet with a shot to the upper neck, with the latter bullet passing straight through and hitting Mr Ray Sharpe in the head with fatal results. Next Mr Kevin Sharpe was killed by a shot to the head and was also hit in the arm, with shrapnel and bone fragments from the second intermediate strike on Mr Kevin Sharpe then apparently wounding Mr Broome, and possibly Mr and Mrs Fidler.

      Still firing from the hip the gunman swiveled and killed Mr Mills and Mr Kistan with single shots to the head, with shrapnel and skull fragments from those shots apparently wounding Mrs Walker, Mrs Law, and Mrs Barker. Again the gunman turned, shooting and wounding Mr Colyer in the neck, before swivelling and killing Mr Howard with a shot to the head. Next he shot Mrs Howard in the neck and head with fatal effect. The gunman turned back, killing Miss Loughton with a shot to the head, and wounding Mrs Loughton in the back. Moving towards the rear of the building the gunman shot Mr Elliot in the head, causing serious injuries.

      ELAPSED TIME 15 SECONDS...

      The above sequence is the best the forensic scientists could deduce from the crime scene and there may be small variations, but in the final analysis they matter little. What does matter is that at this precise juncture the gunman had killed twelve victims and wounded a further ten in 15 seconds flat, using only 17 rounds fired from the right hip. Such a staggering performance is on a par with the best combat shooters in the world, and two retired counter-terrorist marksmen ruefully admitted they would be hard pressed to equal such awesome speed and accuracy. Both agreed that attributing such a performance to an intellectually-impaired invalid with an IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions, amounts to nothing less than certifiable insanity on the part of Bryant's accusers. In military terms a fatal shot to the upper neck counts as a head shot, so for all practical purposes those who died during the first 15 seconds were killed by head shots fired with lethal accuracy from the gunman's hip.

      Next the very professional gunman moved towards the area of the souvenir shop and killed Nicole Burgess with a shot to the head, then shot Mrs Elizabeth Howard through the chest and arm with fatal consequences. Swivelling around,the gunman killed Mr Lever with a shot to the head, and killed Mrs Neander with another shot to the head. Temporarily distracted, he fired back into the cafe area and wounded Mr Crosswell. Turning again he shot Mr Winter twice, killing him with a shot to the head. On his way back to the souvenir area the gunman wounded Mr Olson, then proceeded to the kill-zone near the locked door where he killed Mr Jary, Pauline Masters, and Mr Nash, all of them with single shots to the head.

      At this stage the gunman had killed twenty and wounded another twelve with a total of 29 rounds. He then stopped firing and changed magazines in a most professional way.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    599. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Pot, meet kettle.

    600. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where did he get the research from, or more to the point who did the reporting and archiving on these other mass shootings?

      Wait for it......... The MEDIA/PRESS... And by media, that word has several applications music, video games, film, TV.
      More to the point the ---News--- media....... add Magazines, Newspapers, Internet, Books..

      I am not disagreeing with you, I do agree 100% with your take on this terrible report. You have to be on LSD and Meth (hell must be on bath salts) to make such an out of mind and body leap into video games as the sole/major source.

    601. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      It is ignorance. More than that, it's bigotry. . Your language reeks of it. "near-religious relic"? Really?

      "I know exactly what the constitution is."

      And yet you continually demonstrate the opposite. Hence the claim from me (and others) that you are ignorant on the subject. I would suggest, if you are an intellectually honest person, to take some time and consider this might be true.

    602. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm from Mexico and I know of people who have been victims of violence.

      Your argument that having access to guns so we can shoot back to other people or the police is very naive.

      Just look at the violence between drugs gangs, all sides have access to heavy weapons (not just guns) and they continuously have shootouts, there is no deterrent having weapons. It just escalates the conflict into bloodbaths (have you seen "El blog del Narco"?).
      Some common (what you would call a "law abiding") people in Mexico have access to guns (yes illegally) and when there is some conflict it is really easy for it to explode from yelling into an actual shooting (care to read the press in Mexico of those cases). Guns help evolve a conflict into a tragedy more quickly than without them.
      The violence is Mexico is very real and tragic, sadly most weapons found in Mexico come from the US. That's corruption.

    603. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.

      And I don't give a shit about your irrational fears. Fortunately for me, there were some intelligent people in charge when the country was founded that put protections in place to prevent ignorant cowards such as yourself from cutting of your own nose to spite your face.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    604. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      When you have 60 million people rebelling we call it civil war.

      If you're talking about murder and intimidation then it goes both ways. If the USA government wanted to enforce gun confiscation they would use murder (i.e. you fight for your beliefs and you will die) and intimidation (i.e. you peaceably hold onto your firearms and you'll go to prison) to achieve this.

    605. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by harlequinn · · Score: 1
    606. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      None of course. But you wouldn't use a knife, you'd use a sword. And going back in history the sword (long knife) was the ultimate killing tool for thousands of years. It's still just a tool though. It's a shard of metal that gives us a mechanical advantage. I bet your average male could, with a small amount of training, kill a lot of people very quickly with a sword.

    607. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I'm not an american, but tell me what the hell the difference between whoever is teaching your children now vs the same person + a gun.

      At least SOME of the children would pay attention if they knew the teacher had a accessible loaded firearm.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    608. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      More than that, it's bigotry. Your language reeks of it. "near-religious relic"? Really?

      You are acting ever more like it's a religion. You're now offended that I don't share your views on the US constitution, and call it bigotry. Exactly what happens with religious believers to blasphemers.

    609. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing about that phrase. Both the pot AND the kettle are black.

      (Aside: Where black means bad. Not sure if that has racist connotations, or whether it's purely about soot and cleanliness, without a thought to race.)

    610. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing the percentage of weapons sent by Mexico to the US for tracing with the number of weapons actually confiscated. Pretty much all the firearms sent back are confirmed to be from the US. However, if Mexico confiscates a stash of full-auto AK-47, or other true military-grade weapons, they don't usually send them to the US for tracing, because they didn't come from here. They start looking at deserters from their military, deals from China and North Korea, and other South American countries. Weapons smuggling is still one of the largest black markets, right up there with human trafficking and drugs.

    611. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you beat your kids too... what a douchebag.

    612. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

      Sigh. Yes you're right. At some point a tank driver would find his credit card being declined at Shell petrol station, turn round to the rest of the army dudes and say "well that's it I guess guys, time to give up and go home." - The End.

      I'm going to leave you alone now; you're giving me a headache.

    613. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

      I'll just leave you with this clue though. People keep money in banks. Govt could theoretically seize bank assets (look at Cyprus, doing it LEGALLY). Even if they needed cash - which they wouldn't - they could get it at any time. I'm sure you still won't understand what I'm saying, but at least I tried with you. That's all I can do.

    614. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handguns aren't going to be banned, deal with it. There are more and more states steadily introducing shall-issue concealed carry licenses, and crime continues to be lower for it. Name one massacre that has happened outside of a "gun free zone" within living memory and you'll have a point here.

    615. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function.

      From Wikipedia History of the firearm:

      The direct ancestor of the firearm is the fire lance, a black-powder–filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower; shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames.[4][5] The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang.[6] The De'an Shoucheng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens.[7]

      It appears that the first recorded use of a firearm was indeed to try kill people :-)

    616. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      mh, the 99.9999% of people playing video games since youth and never shooting anyone are as usual left out of the comparison. I can personally say i've been gaming since that atari gamed yars revenge, there have always been guns in the house since i was a kid (not mine ofcourse, i dont need that even if i can appreciate the beauty of some pieces) and i have never, ever even when pissed off and scorned, insulted and deep-down hurt taken one out to shoot anyone at all. Add me to the 99.9999999998% others who never did and the arguments are nil but i'm afraid that's not how these moral knights of the crooked table work these days. Everything going awry today can more or less be brought back to generation conflict. Something to do with time going its usual pace but society progressing or at least moving in different directions in some kind of exponential way as technology gives the opportunity to advance faster all the time (not mentally thought) and people stuck in the sixties (as i like to call it) don't get it anymore. A bit of a crude way of explaining, maybe kurzweil could voice it better than i do since he make a living from prophecies like that but i'm drifting. The point was the point about all those gamers who never shoot someone

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    617. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "You're now offended that I don't share your views on the US constitution,"

      I'm no more offended that you don't understand the constitution than I am if you didn't understand the purpose of rebar in construction.

      "You are acting ever more like it's a religion."

      No more than I have faith that rebar will strengthen concrete structures -- and to take shortcuts would weaken the structure. Have you studied the constitution? Not the DOCUMENT, but the process and debates that proceeded and followed? The federalist papers? Antifederalst papers? The constitution of Mass?

      If you haven't and make the proclamations you do, then you are a bigot. You assume "Oh, well we can talk about changing this law or that law and it's easy to discuss". No, its not. If what you are discussing violates the constitution, the discussion NEEDS focus on amending the constitution for whatever reasons if necessary.

    618. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jwdb · · Score: 1

      My point, as is often confirmed by but not exclusively by anecdotes, was that parents are often poor judges of their children's failings. Or am I mistaken in this?

      Question is, of course, is the government any better in practice?

    619. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      My point, as is often confirmed by but not exclusively by anecdotes, was that parents are often poor judges of their children's failings. Or am I mistaken in this?

      In that you made a generalization, and that all generalizations are false by default, yes, you are mistaken. As with most things, it all depends on the parent.

      Question is, of course, is the government any better in practice?

      That is a fair question, though I'm not certain we really want the answer confirmed...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    620. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by jwdb · · Score: 1

      In that you made a generalization, and that all generalizations are false by default, yes, you are mistaken. As with most things, it all depends on the parent.

      I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying your dad specifically is unqualified, because that is indeed not something I can judge from a generalization. I am saying that the law should be based on a generalization, specifically the one that parents are often poor judges of children. I'm not making the generalization that parents are poor judges, but taking it as a given and applying it to the general populace.

    621. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bloodsong · · Score: 2

      Ummm, there are many provisions being ignored in the second amendment. Like the entire clause that states "well regulated militia". Last I checked, being a member of a state-run (i.e. well regulated) militia was never a requirement for possessing a firearm. Perhaps it should be. The entire argument about the background checks only regulating those that are already within the law, non-starter, please don't bring it up again, makes you look dumb after the drop off in ownership and violent crime that came out of Australia's gun ban gets pointed out. Finally, all rights in the Constitution of the United States come with provisos. None are absolute. Freedom of Speech? Can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of the press? When was the last time you saw a paper printing the latest locations and plans already drawn up on troop movements during a time of war. Guns are not God, they can, and SHOULD be limited.

    622. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Don't try to use todays slang. There has been language drift. "Well Regulated" means using the same equipment and ammunition as the regular military and other Militias.

      And no they didn't have a standing army, but they did have a military in "times of emergency". The civilian militias were the reason they could do without a standing army (theoretically).

      Also, if you want to see an account of a real democracy in action, read about the French revolution. Particularly the part just before Napolian got into power. Ick!!

    623. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. "Regulated" means "equipped" in the context of the era. A well-equipped militia. Under current U.S. law, the reserve or unorganised militia comprises every male of fighting age (17-44 inclusive) who is not in the National Guard or naval militia, plus former military members up to age 65. I am in favour of background checks since as far as I know a background check has never stopped a lawful CCW holder or other gun owner from utilising a firearm, whether or not the arm was discharged, to defend themselves. (It may have happened, but like I said, "as far as I know".)

      2. Guns are limited, that is why we cannot own Gatling guns or machineguns. As seen here (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8), positively-identified handguns outnumber non-handgun firearms for murders by more than 2.5 to 1. In other words, the problem is not "assault weapons" (itself a politically-legislated misnomer that has no definite technical meaning - in some places if you guntape a bipod to the end of a pistol it's considered an assault weapon, never mind the fact that a bipod-equipped pistol isn't terribly useful) or "military-style weapons", "AR-15-style weapons", etc.

      3. See also Section 21 of the Pennsylvania state constitution which reads in its entirety "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

      4. From 2000 to 2010 in the U.S., guns accounted for only two-thirds of murders. (Between 67 and 68 percent if you're a stickler for fractions.) What about the other third?

    624. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Bloodsong · · Score: 1

      If you are going to kick me about "modern slang", learn to spell Napoleon.

    625. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Sorry, haven't seen him in a while...

    626. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      So what do you do if the police don't show up? Remember, they are under no legal obligation to arrive in a timely manner or even help you if they do. Let the bad guys load your house into a U-haul? Sorry, but not everyone has the luxury.

  2. Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

    So games are the clearly the first scapegoat. What next?

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They've been the scapegoat since Columbine.

    2. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft Excel?

    3. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, in case you missed it, firearms (including those who buy, sell, an manufacture them) were the first scapegoat.

    4. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by buzzsawddog · · Score: 2

      YES!!! Microsoft Excel is CLEARLY the problem here. Excel is the clear problem! If we ban Excel and more exactly Microsoft out problems will go away...

    5. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Astr4y · · Score: 1

      Marijuana.

    6. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So games are the clearly the first scapegoat.

      Second, after the gun.

      What next?

      I can tell you what won't be next - blaming the dickhead that actually committed the crime.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not a big fan of guns or gun rights, but I'm pretty sure that games are not the first scapegoat, guns were. And while I haven't been paying attention to NRA press releases, I haven't heard much noise about the gun industry trying to shift the blame onto videogames either. So I don't see how videogames will be left holding the bag, unless we let pro-censorship groups (I think they call themselves concerned parents organizations or something like that) run wild with it.

    8. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So games are the clearly the first scapegoat. What next?

      It seems logical. Just look at how many massacres occur in Japan. Oh, wait!

      How about movies? I guess that doesn't work out.

      Hmm, how about violent comics? Nope.

      I'm running out of ideas. What could possibly be different about Japan that accounts for their low gun murder rate? I'd mention gun control, but that would just be crazy!

    9. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Anarchists?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1
      ftfs:

      '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'

      wtf!??!?!??! how to go from a spreadsheet to gamer? might as well go from spreadsheet to accountant, the logical jump makes no sense!

      also, keep in mind there are games with no guns in them - I'm playing through Arkham City right now, and Batman doesn't kill anybody!

    11. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      They also have a society where casual capitol punishment was commonplace into the modern era. You could quite literally get summarily executed for not bowing low enough.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

      Folks, we have a winner.

      Shares in Microsoft? GTFO.

      Over protective mothers, I've found the Antichrist.

    13. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA(via LaPierre) has repeatedly pointed blame at games. The reason you haven't heard noise about the gun industry trying to shift blame is that that gun industry stays quiet and funds the NRA to be their mouthpiece. That way they don't have to take the hit of looking insensitive or inflaming the public or gun control activists themselves. Instead, they get to have their statements appear to be grassroots speech from the public. The NRA hasn't been focused on the consumer for years, they are an industry publicity and lobbyist organization.

      I'd like to make it clear that I'm specifically not advocating for or against anything on censorship or firearms in this post. I am only giving an explanation for why nothing has been heard as far as gun industry noise.

    14. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I royally fucked up. Yes firearms are definitely the first scapegoat. (Hey, I'm not 'merican so they're not the first thing that comes to mind!)

    15. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      If there's really no connection, why is EA opposed to research in that area? It would seem to me that more studies exhonorating video games would be a good thing.

      I have a problem with scapegoating, but I also have a problem with prohibiting scientific research that might tell us what the actual problems are.

    16. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should pay more attention to the NRA's statements then, because that is what they chose as their scapegoat.

      If you want to specifically say the first scape-goat of the pro-gun lobby is "video games" then fair enough, do so, but you should learn what they're doing.

    17. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since Christians seem to credit God for everything, blame him next for inventing guns in the first place.

    18. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      "ow to go from a spreadsheet to gamer?"

      EVE Online.

    19. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have, one of the first things I saw the NRA do after the last school shooting was to blame video games, and mental health.

      Between blaming video games, and lobbying to block laws that impose greater background checks on gun sales (what? didn't they just blame people with mental health problems for these massacres?) it seems obvious the NRA has one interest - ensuring the gun lobby can sell more guns, even to crazy people.

      Whatever the reason for people getting to the point where they carry out these massacres whether it's guns, games, mental health, alien mind implants or whatever other theory you have, one things is clear and that's that the NRA is an evil and hypocritical organisation who on one hand blames mental health, and on the other tries to block laws that would go some way to blocking sales of guns to people with a history of mental health problems whilst also trying to deflect attention onto the video games industry.

      The first thing tells me they don't really care what the real cause is, they just want to sell more guns.

      The second thing tells me that they've got something to hide.

      Neither of these things paints a picture of an organisation that has anything of value to say on the subject, yet if US politicians continue to listen to them, video game players will be the next victim of their extensive lobbying - in this respect, the NRA is a pro-censorship group, whatever they might scream about the constitution when it suits them.

    20. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Forgiven... this time.

      Don't let it happen again.

      j/k

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by trdrstv · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Clippy helped at all with it.

    22. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I... whelp, that seals it. Fuck the NRA and the gun industry totally and completely then. I'm still not quite to the point of donating money to pro-gun-control groups, but just barely.

    23. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, in many cases, blaming the dickhead is silly, they're mentally ill. What did they do to cause that? Do they really have responsibility for not being mentally competent?

      In any case, ask yourself what lead to them being a dickhead. Let's say somebody stole some bread, to feed their starving children. Damn them, let's completely focus on that person, while ignoring how the only baker for miles refuses to sell bread at a price the poor man could afford!

      Sometimes addressing root causes is more important than worrying about the dickhead. Most of the time they're thrown in prison anyway, and the crimes continue, so what's the point?

    24. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      (I am an NRA member; I likely won't be next year because of the things that you've pointed out.)

      The problem with the NRA is largely similar to that with Republicans - it has a large number of members who are not particularly extreme, and then a smaller but extremely vocal group of people who oppose any and all restrictions on firearms in general. That smaller group also tends to be much more politically active, and is much better at having their voice heard. This group has, essentially, dictated the NRA public stance on issues. For example, NRA opposes background check because they oppose the gun registry (which they believe to be an inevitable outcome of those checks), and they oppose the registry because that group is convinced that any such registry will then be used to confiscate their guns.

      That said, the moderates are finally starting to wake up. I know of quite a few people who were NRA members but told them to FOAD this year solely because of LaPierre's mad ramblings about video games and violent mass media in the Newtown press conference. A couple more joined that club after NRA has invited Glenn Beck to run the annual meeting this year For myself, I have unfortunately sent my check to prolong the membership a month before all that crap, but they won't be getting any of my money or other support next year, that's for sure.

      Which, frankly, is rather unfortunate, because they still do plenty of useful things to do - like teaching gun safety, or establishing a network of specialists on various gun-related issues. Even the pro-gun advocacy part of it could have made sense, if it wasn't completely hijacked by the local equivalent of the Tea Party movement.

    25. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the NRA

      4.5 million dues paying citizens won't be fucked by you. The gun industry puts in tens of millions into the NRA. Membership dues alone account for over $100 million and the subscriptions and advertising revenue (the NRA is a big magazine publisher) account for the rest.

      The NRA is mostly just people, their dues and their magazine subscriptions. In terms of lobbying the NRA isn't absurdly huge; the NRA is #50 on the OpenSecrets.org "Heavy Hitters" list. The AARP spends ten times more in direct lobbying. The reason the NRA has power is the size of its roster; there are a lot of eager voters signed up that appear at polls to punish gun grabbers, when necessary.

    26. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by lightknight · · Score: 1

      The food. HFCS made them do it.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    27. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

      Mass murder and stealing to feed your family are not even remotely similar, asshole.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    28. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh.

      I was relucant to give money to the NRA, but I did.

      I did this because while the EFF and ACLU are not as strong as I would like, organizations like the ACLU speak against the 2nd amendment -- as do many many others today.

      Worse still, many people sit there and throw around disgusting terms like "common sense" and "reasonable" against a constitutional item that very clearly ends with the phrase "shall not be infringed." The only one of them that does.

      I don't think of the constitution as some sacred document. But it's the law. It's the one and only thing that protects us-- and it has no force of god behind it. Just the respect of society.

      If the other 9 amendments are to be honored, then the second must also. By amendment if need be -- just like we did twice with prohibition.

      The meaning of it is crystal clear, and the only people arguing it are behving with utter disingenuity...

      While you may call the NRA batshit crazy, and I while I object to them throwing the first under the bus to defend the second -- as a lobby, NRA has one mission and one mission only -- the 2nd amendment.

      I don't object strongly enough not to support them.

      The first is not and likely never will be under the same threat the second is.

      And I consider all ten in that bill of rights indispensible.

      Enough that I will support the strongest ally of the second if it undermines the first just a little.

      I don't like to make that choice -- but it's the one the world has left me with.

    29. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      I don't have much love for the NRA. And in this case the NRA spokesperson is going beyond the vast majority of the members beliefs that more background checks are acceptable. But I really don't think the malevolence you prescribe to them is there, at all. They are first and foremost a political mouthpiece, where the other-side will not budge one bit, and a middle ground is going to be reached, so politically they have no motivation to give. If they give, the other-side will not give, and the end result will not be as favorable to there members.
      Also the best sales technique for guns has been increased regulations, and increased talk of regulations, the assault weapons ban is given credit for more than doubling the amount of assault weapons in this country, not the decrease of sales.

    30. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      organizations like the ACLU speak against the 2nd amendment -- as do many many others today.

      What organizations other than the ACLU are you thinking of? Not the EFF obviously.

      And the ACLU doesn't speak against the 2nd amendment. They have a different interpretation, specifically that the 2nd allows for militias, not individuals with guns, but I don't think they do anything to try to TAKE AWAY from the individual right to guns.

      While you may call the NRA batshit crazy, and I while I object to them throwing the first under the bus to defend the second -- as a lobby, NRA has one mission and one mission only -- the 2nd amendment.

      You seem to object to the ACLU for supporting every amendment BUT the second, but then praise the NRA for ONLY supporting the second.

      And I consider all ten in that bill of rights indispensible. Enough that I will support the strongest ally of the second if it undermines the first just a little.

      The first amendment is your defense against a tyrannical government. The second is not. You can't afford any guns that would be much of a threat to a tyrannical government in control of the military, or even police force today.

    31. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The first amendment is your defense against a tyrannical government. The second is not. You can't afford any guns that would be much of a threat to a tyrannical government in control of the military, or even police force today."

      I think this is an important point, if we've learnt anything from revolutions, especially recent ones it's that they tend to fall into two camps:

      1) The military leads them and hence they're successful, often with little bloodshed. This applies in both coups and popular revolutions like in Egypt/Tunisia - the military was key, and I suspect any possible US revolution would occur like this.

      2) The military is strongly government controlled, but the people are oppressed and suffering enough that they'll rebel regardless. Libya is an example, where sheer number of annoyed people was enough to overrun a military base and access arms stored within. This revolution could've still failed were it not for foreign intervention but as you say, the foreign intervention was with weaponry the 2nd amendment wont let you access, like nuclear subs firing cruise missiles, heavily armed jets with AGMs.

      In either scenario the 2nd amendment would have little relevance, either people are willing to give their life for revolution and they'd obtain arms either through smuggling or raiding military police supplies, or it's going to be military led anyway. When it comes to revolution what the constitution says goes completely out the window, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal to bear arms, if you're that desperate you'll acquire them one way or another anyway.

    32. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by dobbshead · · Score: 0

      "It looks like you're planning a massacre... would you like help?"

  3. Guns don't kill people ... by SSpade · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... spreadsheets kill people.

    Ban Excel!

    1. Re:Guns don't kill people ... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Somehow I knew this was all Bill Gates' fault...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Guns don't kill people ... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Oh god, what have they done . . . all those spreadsheet users.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  4. Dum dum dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'

    Ok, that's some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

    1. Re:Dum dum dum by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      Yeah, What gamer seriously puts down the controller long enough to A) do research and B) create a detailed excel file? This is obviously the work of a grad student or scientist. We should burn them all at the stak.... hold on someone's at the door.

    2. Re:Dum dum dum by Talderas · · Score: 1

      EVE players but we know Lanza didn't play EVE. EVE players usually end up on the receiving end of massacres, like in Benghazi, than going on them.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:Dum dum dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, What gamer seriously puts down the controller long enough to A) do research and B) create a detailed excel file

      Ever play Eve?
      Or World of Warcraft and use the Elitist Jerks forum?

    4. Re:Dum dum dum by sa666_666 · · Score: 1

      Don't give them any ideas. Then again, with the amount of anti-intellectualism in the US lately, it seems they already have the idea.

    5. Re:Dum dum dum by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You've never been through DARE then.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Dum dum dum by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Some time ago a normal looking guy tried to bum some money from me, supposedly for a cup of coffee. Instead I offered to go into a deli with him and pay for his coffee, which he declined. I talked with him some more, and he told me how he asks strangers for money daily, but not because he needs the money. It's a game of points to him. One dollar is one hundred points. I realized that he obviously had some deeper mental issues, and after (unsuccessfully) trying to explain to him why he shouldn't do that to people, I left him.

      To all outward appearances this guy seemed 'normal', but he did have his own weird point scoring game inside his head that he plays on people. (And I thank God that the 'points' he plays for are really just pennies.)

    7. Re:Dum dum dum by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I have three spreadsheets for FFXI. But I have not killed anyone... yet.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    8. Re:Dum dum dum by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'

      Ok, that's some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

      Always remember that people blame video games in ways that are a substantial number of years behind the times. Has anybody actually kept a 'score sheet' since the days when mapping out your masochistically difficult roguelike RPG on graph paper(because the game damn well isn't going to do it for you, fucking wimp) was a thing?

      If this were actually 'the work of a video gamer' it would be a list of achievements with names derived from witty allusions to what was required to unlock them...

    9. Re:Dum dum dum by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      EVE players but we know Lanza didn't play EVE. EVE players usually end up on the receiving end of massacres, like in Benghazi, than going on them.

      Isn't EVE a honeypot that attempts to neutralize potential white-collar criminals by giving them opportunities for epic fraud... With Spaceships!

    10. Re:Dum dum dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EVE players but we know Lanza didn't play EVE. EVE players usually end up on the receiving end of massacres, like in Benghazi, than going on them.

      But Vile Rat was a Goon. He should have been on the giving end of a gank than the receiving end.

    11. Re:Dum dum dum by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      You, sir, have a lot of patients.

      I played FFXI for a couple weeks after lvl 10 it's impossible to do anything on your own. I would end up waiting for people from all over to join up to do some leveling, but by the time everyone was there it was 2 hours later and people started leaving, then we'd have to find replacements. I spent three nights trying to put a group together when I finally gave up, which is a shame because it seemed like it would have been an awesome game.

      If you can deal with that, it's no wonder you haven't killed anyone... yet.

    12. Re:Dum dum dum by Omegawar · · Score: 1

      Actually this was true for a long time but I started playing again about two years ago and they made it much easier to play solo. I leveled a Monk to 30 solo except for the subjob quest, a high level player helped with getting the skull. I then quit because of real life. But just recently started playing again for the new expansion. It is even easier to get by solo now.

    13. Re:Dum dum dum by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Yep, the game evolved with the times, partially because its own playerbase was growing up (those who started in high school or college all invariably have careers and/or kids now), but also because the MMO market as a whole evolved and the grindfest MMO model is out of favor.

      Prior to the introduction of easy leveling (Fields of Valor and Grounds of Valor, then Abyssea), I managed to sqeak five jobs up to level 75. After they made gaining experience a good deal easier, I finished all the jobs out to the new level cap of 99, just because I could. I only really play three or four of them with any regularity, though.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    14. Re:Dum dum dum by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Some time ago a normal looking guy tried to bum some money from me, supposedly for a cup of coffee. Instead I offered to go into a deli with him and pay for his coffee, which he declined. I talked with him some more, and he told me how he asks strangers for money daily, but not because he needs the money. It's a game of points to him. One dollar is one hundred points. I realized that he obviously had some deeper mental issues, and after (unsuccessfully) trying to explain to him why he shouldn't do that to people, I left him.

      To all outward appearances this guy seemed 'normal', but he did have his own weird point scoring game inside his head that he plays on people. (And I thank God that the 'points' he plays for are really just pennies.)

      He may have looked normal but I bet that 500 points got him a rock of crack, a shard of meth, a bag of heroin or a bottle of cheap wine. The game where you want to win but no one ever does.

    15. Re:Dum dum dum by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      He may have looked normal but I bet that 500 points got him a rock of crack, a shard of meth, a bag of heroin or a bottle of cheap wine. The game where you want to win but no one ever does.

      Like in 'War Games', the best way to win at those games is not to play. This guy I spoke of, his eyes seemed clear of drug/alcohol abuse, though I could tell he had some form of mental illness, gave me the creeps after just a little conversation with him. One of those types who are 'detached' from empathy for other people, kind of like Lanza, and I wouldn't want that creepy guy having access to killing weapons of any kind. The weird part is he looks outwardly 'normal'.

      Perhaps the genie's too long out of the bottle with guns in the U.S. Maybe the best we can do now is, as someone here suggested, have liability insurance for gun ownership. Lanza's mother should have had her weapons properly secured in a gun safe or some other way, especially when she was well aware of her son's mental condition. Unfortunately she chose to 'live by the gun', and in an ending fitting of a Twilight Zone episode, died by the very gun she bought to protect herself.

      Over 30 die from guns in the U.S. every single day, none die from drones. True fact.

    16. Re:Dum dum dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean just like companies selling you crappy products and then evaluating the points at the end of a fiscal quarter?

  5. Follow the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Violent video games are really hurting the sales of violent movies, since they offer a much better $/hour conversion, generally. I'm sure Hollywood et al, is seeing the $4 billion profit of the video game industry and want some of that action. I'd try to stifle my competition as well, if I had enough lobbying clout to persuade Congress on policy. This happens in every industry.

  6. a spreadsheet is a violent video game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.howtogeek.com/80096/open-office-easter-egg-play-space-invaders-in-calc-2/

  7. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blaming Guns is stupid and blaming video games or movies is stupid. Nothing anyone has proposed would stop some people from just snapping and using any means they have to kill innocent people. If he didn't have guns he could make a bomb ala Oklahoma City... that bomb killed 168, injured more than 600 and cost less than $5,000 to do.

    1. Re:Stupid by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Columbine was supposed to be perpetrated with bombs. Many people forget that.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  8. We need a mirror by Rufus+Firefly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the only ones to blame is our collective self. Violent media--TV shows, movies, video games, death metal, etc.--are an expression of our society's extreme unfocused anger, not the cause. Silly politicians and your simple solutions to complex problems.

    1. Re:We need a mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violent or angry media can also be a relatively healthy outlet for anger (and, by extension, violent impulses). As a teenager, I would frequently listen to hard rock and metal when I was angry and needed to vent some aggression. It worked very well, and it was in no way destructive to society.

      As I grew older, I grew out of and/or resolved the root causes of most of my anger. I also listen to hard rock and metal rather infrequently now.

      I have no idea how common this is, but I suspect I am far from the only one who used media in this way. It may be unhealthy for a few, but I feel it was beneficial to me when I was younger. And of course, you specifically said violent media, which may be a much smaller subset than the just 'angry' music I found value in.

  9. Still pointing fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Score sheets are prior to video games.

    1. Re:Still pointing fingers by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Score sheets are prior to video games.

      No shit, the last time I filled out an actual score sheet was at a golf course.

      Which, obviously, means that all golfers are potential mass killers... Isn't that right, Mr. President?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  10. so i guess we should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    outlaw spreadsheets.

  11. The work of a video gamer? by dgharmon · · Score: 0

    "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'."

    Video games don't kill people, guns do. It's the arms manufacturers who should be held to account. Any lawyers out there up for a class action suit.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:The work of a video gamer? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Since there were huge numbers of murders and massacres before the gun was invented, there isn't much of a legal case here.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'."

      Video games don't kill people, guns do. It's the arms manufacturers who should be held to account. Any lawyers out there up for a class action suit.

      Yep, video games, spreadsheets, guns - anything but that person who actually committed the crime...

    3. Re:The work of a video gamer? by andydread · · Score: 1

      Drivers don't kill people, cars do It's the car manufacturers who should be held to account. Any lawyers out there up for a class action suit.

    4. Re:The work of a video gamer? by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cars are dangerous objects in the hands of the incompetent. This is why anybody who drives a car has to demonstrate a level of competence before they are allowed to use one on the public road. Is it too much to ask the same for gun owners (where use = carry)? Also, do gun owners in the US need to carry insurance? Because I think they should be required to.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    5. Re:The work of a video gamer? by andydread · · Score: 1

      sure and make it a felony for parents to provide mature rated games to teenagers punishable by years in prison.

    6. Re:The work of a video gamer? by heypete · · Score: 1

      Cars are dangerous objects in the hands of the incompetent. This is why anybody who drives a car has to demonstrate a level of competence before they are allowed to use one on the public road. Is it too much to ask the same for gun owners (where use = carry)? Also, do gun owners in the US need to carry insurance? Because I think they should be required to.

      You don't need a license to merely own a car or to operate it on private land. You do need one to drive on public roads.

      Most states require a license or permit before one can carry a gun in public. That's not terribly unreasonable. The few that don't require a permit (Vermont, Alaska, Arizona I know for sure, not sure about others) do not have significantly different rates of otherwise-lawful people misusing guns carried in public.

      The primary cause of death/injury/property damage for vehicles is accidental. Insurance covers accidental acts, so that makes sense. The primary cause of death/injury/property damage with firearms is intentional and criminal. Insurance does not cover such acts, so having "gun insurance" doesn't make much sense. Most homeowners/renters insurance already covers liability due to accidents that take place on the property. Umbrella liability insurance covers accidents that occurs elsewhere. I wouldn't object to reasonably-priced insurance being part of one's carry permit, but merely for ownership? Not really reasonable.

    7. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every car owner is required to be registered with its owner. No exceptions. It hasn't stopped crime performed with cars, but it forces a criminal to think twice about using their own car to commit a crime.

    8. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars are dangerous objects in the hands of the incompetent. This is why anybody who drives a car has to demonstrate a level of competence before they are allowed to use one on the public road. Is it too much to ask the same for gun owners (where use = carry)?

      This would have ameliorated the tragedy at Sandy Hook how? Mr. Lanza wasn't the owner of the guns used in the crime, so he presumably wouldn't have been obligated to demonstrate competency to anybody.

      Also, do gun owners in the US need to carry insurance? Because I think they should be required to.

      I think that video game owners in the US should carry insurance. I say this as someone who is neither a fan of nor an owner of video games. Therefore, my opinion prevails.

    9. Re:The work of a video gamer? by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      How does this analogy hold up? The gun crimes that occur every year, do you think the majority of them are the result of inexperience, recklessness, and bad judgment, or do you think they're the result of the deliberate intent of criminals?

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    10. Re:The work of a video gamer? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      Does the government make you have Libel insurance before you can own a printer, blog, or slashdot account? After all you could write something offensive against someone and get sued. You should have insurance for that.

      Having to have mandatory gun insurance would meet the same fate as having to have mandatory libel insurance for buying a printer: both interfere with one's constitutional rights.

      On another note you can buy Self-Defense liability insurance from the NRA. Provides reimbursement of up to $250k for civil trials and $50k for Criminal with a lot of caveats. I carry the policy incase I'm ever in a situation outside of my home. My state law is pretty clear: if they are in your home and not supposed to be: shoot 'em. It's justified against criminal and you're absolved of any potential civil liability as well under that Castle Doctrine. But if I was walking on the street and I was forced to defend myself, well different story.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    11. Re:The work of a video gamer? by dbc · · Score: 1

      Most states that issue carry permits have a training requirement.

      If you take a dispassionate look at the statistics, those with carry permits are far less likely to hurt you accidentally (or on purpose, for that matter) than police. As a friend just said, "If you want to shoot random people and cars without cause, why not just join LAPD and do it legally?"

      Police in the USA are involved in violent crime (and property crime) at *exactly* the same rate as the general population. Carry permit holders, however, have about 1/20 the rate of involvement in crime compared to the general population. See the FBI stastitics.

      As to insurance... which other constitutionally enumerated right requires that you buy insurance before you exercise the right? It's not a small point -- people of low income tend to live in bad neighborhoods because that can't afford the rent for a better place. A tax or insurance requirement on any means of protecting one's life falls disproportionately on those that need self-protection the most. Or, maybe you are saying that you can't have a license to write a blog unless you buy libel/slander insurance?

    12. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      license? insurance? ohh, nevermind you're a socialist...

    13. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that think, people who drive cars should take 20 hours of class every other year. From my experience driving, a lot of people need refreshers on how to safely handle a car.

    14. Re:The work of a video gamer? by IVI4573R · · Score: 1

      Driving a car is not protected by the Bill of Rights. I have no problem with requiring drivers licenses and registration on cars, but if an amendment to the Bill of Rights said I have an unalienable right to drive a car then those regulations would be limiting my rights and would be unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights trumps all other laws and regulations, period.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    15. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving is a privilege. Guns are a right. There is a difference

      Besides, all that Insurance, tags, and all the other bullshit is for safety? MONEY

    16. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right to a car? Nope. Right to a weapon? Yep. "Gun insurance" would just be a way of keeping poor people from owning a weapon. Coincidentally Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit. It would appear to me that the only people carrying after your proposed insurance scheme would be the ones that want to take them away from everybody else. This what creates the "tinfoil hat crowd". In the abstract, doesn't that seem sort of suspicious?

    17. Re:The work of a video gamer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they aren't. That relates to the reason I don't carry a gun, although I support those that do. A criminal is not allowed to profit by their crime, but the family of a criminal euthanized in the pursuit of their illegal career is.

  12. I'm sure his chart would show this, ironically. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Numbers don't lie.

    There is no increase.

    There is no increase.

    There is no increase.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:I'm sure his chart would show this, ironically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increase or decrease, let's talk about the number of actual gun crimes compared to the number of violent video games sold.

      What's that, you say? Millions of people play violent video games, but there are a handful of shootings each year?

      (I'm not talking about muggings or domestic violence, I mean these high-profile cases where some nut grabs a gun or three and kills a bunch of people he doesn't know.)

  13. Starting to feel the heat? by BMOC · · Score: 1

    I always felt the flamethrowers were OP.

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
  14. And a connection would matter why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Extensive research shows that the 1994 assualt weapon ban had no link on reducing violent crime either.

    In fact research tends to show that the more guns around the lower the crime.

    The reality is that these laws are not about reducing crime or saving lives; they're emotional reactions that are to limit our freedom.

    1. Re:And a connection would matter why? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Certainly you aren't going to change much by banning the weapons that are the least likely to be used in the bulk of actual murders. Although the dirty little secret there is that nobody cares about poor minorities killing each other. That's where most of the gun crime is. It's tied up in criminal turf wars far away from view. This particular incident is notable in how visible it was and how it involved the children of rich people who have the means to flee the places where most gun crimes occur.

      As soon as people go back to associating gun crime with poverty, the righteous indignation will cease.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:And a connection would matter why? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, you can always filter out the comments of anyone who conflates 'gun crime' with 'mass murders' and think the solutions are the same.

      People who can't distinguish the two in their head rarely have anything interesting to say on the topic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:And a connection would matter why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the dirty little secret there is that nobody cares about poor minorities killing each other. That's where most of the gun crime is. It's tied up in criminal turf wars far away from view.

      No, nobody cares if two criminal elements try to kill each other. They're all criminals. If they blow themselves away they'd be less criminals around. They aren't targeting the general public, so our safety isn't in danger. Minorities or not has nothing to do with it. We're not in danger from a feud between two groups we're not part of.

  15. I can't keep my kids from being killed by guns... by tutufan · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but at least I can keep them from being virtually killed by virtual guns.

  16. Media coverage by thepike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If we're going to blame some form of popular media, it should be the news media, in my opinion. Sure, you can argue that maybe video games desensitize people to violence and (apparently) allow people to keep score (ban Parcheesi too, or cribbage), but I would say that the constant coverage of killers and whatnot on the news is what makes it worse. I have no evidence to back this up, but it certainly gives people ideas about what to do or how to do it, as well as showing them that if they do this sort of thing they're going to live on in news coverage long after they're dead. If these are, as often portrayed, lost souls reaching out for something (in a very inappropriate way), what better way to go than to emblazon your name across all news outlets?

    1. Re:Media coverage by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      There is some indication you could be right, just look at the phenomenon of the copycat killer.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:Media coverage by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      And the copycat suicides that happen in a school or town when young people get in the news for killing them selves. Those don't make the news so much anymore, so the kids have to resort to more extreme measures to get their suicide into the news.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  17. Blame something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is another knee jerk reaction to these recent mass shootings.

    NONE of these shooting would have been prevented with ANY of the legislation that is being proposed by lawmakers. Assault weapons ban, large magazine capacity, even extending background checks to cover the mentally ill. Take a look at every mass shooting we've had recently, and then take a look at all the proposed legislation. Ask yourself: What in these bills would have prevented any of these from happening?

    Assault weapons ban: Wouldn't have stopped any of them as all the proposed legislation would grandfather in existing owners.

    Large magazine ban: Would also grandfather them in.

    Mental health checks: These weapons were stolen from legitimate users or bought legally. You MIGHT have gotten Aurora stopped. But even then, there's a whole lot of "what if's" in that scenario.

    No gun control advocate wants to face the harsh reality: In a free and open society, sometimes bad people do bad things, and there's nothing you can do to stop them until it's too late.

    1. Re:Blame something! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea. Most mass shooters use body armour. The Constitution protects the right to bear arms, but not the right to wear armour. Banning body armour would give armed citizens a better chance to take down shooters.

      If that's not possible how about giving armed citizens the ability to defeat body armour? A lipstick sized explosively formed penetrator weapon should do the trick.

      I'd like to think I'm suggesting this for the greater good of society but to be honest the idea of Jane Q Public carrying one of those in her handbag fills me with fiendish, nihilistic glee.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Blame something! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I hope you're kidding, because that's an even worse case of banning self-defense than banning firearms or carry.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Blame something! by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but to amplify, these mass shooting are not very common, but grab a lot of headline space. Bruce Schnider writes extensively on the topic of "security theater", which is what the majority of the legislation boils down to.

      --
      Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
    4. Re:Blame something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "NONE of these shooting would have been prevented with ANY of the legislation that is being proposed by lawmakers... Assault weapons ban: Wouldn't have stopped any of them as all the proposed legislation would grandfather in existing owners. Large magazine ban: Would also grandfather them in."

      Then don't grandfather them in. Round them up and destroy them. Next?

    5. Re:Blame something! by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      You can probably make your own body armor...

  18. More laws is not the answe by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many laws did Lanza break before even firing a shot in Sandyhook?

    he murdered his mother, stole her guns, used guns in the commission of a crime, premeditated the murder, had guns on school property, and broke into school property, yet he was not apprehended for any of those crimes.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:More laws is not the answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If video games are illegal then only criminals will have video games.

      ("Mom, can I get Call of Duty?" "Goodness no! That's far too dangerous! Here, have a gun instead.")

    2. Re:More laws is not the answe by fermion · · Score: 0
      The reality is that we need to be allowed to enforce the laws we already have. This is where the NRA makes it mistakes. Allowing the laws to pass so it looks they are responsible, then buying lawmakers so that those laws are not funding or regulations are created so the agencies cannot enforce the laws.

      OTOH, Lanza likely broke no laws. He did not own the guns, so the fact he might have been crazy would not have helped. Anyway I do not believe that he was crazy. It is just the defense blaming the evil video game companies and the evil urban rap music for turning a nice upper class kid into a killer. The fact that the mom had an arsenal had nothing to do with it. Lets just put him in a cushy mental ward and take care of him for the rest of his life.

      But some laws might make sense. Universal background checks and keeping tracks of arsenals might have helped. Maybe if the FBI had the ability to keep track of sales and went by the house and asked the mom why she needed an arsenal it might have lead to helping her paranoia or victim mentality. Helping her might have helped the kid. But we can't keep track of who owns a gun because of second amendment issues. OTOH, the second amendment does not allow me to go out and buy a tank, but I can buy a hummer and Mac Ten separately. Although I am not sure of the latter. Because even though the NRA wants everyone to own guns, they are still the normal conservative control freaks, so they want to limit who owns what kind of guns. They don't want their member being blown away.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:More laws is not the answe by night_flyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      its not the NRAs job to enforce the laws on the books, that's the justice departments job... Chicago has the highest gun crime rates in the USA, they have some of the tightest restrictions and of 90 cities they rank 90th in gun law enforcement.

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    4. Re:More laws is not the answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole "criminals won't follow the law, so why bother" argument is total nonsense. Yes, I suppose if there were no laws defining "crimes" there would technically be no criminals. People murder, steal cars, rape children, etc. and get away with it all the time, so why bother with laws against those?

    5. Re:More laws is not the answe by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      when you punish the law abiding to stop criminals, it usually has the exact opposite effect

      Prohibition in the 20s to stop alcohol lead to the rise of the mafia

      Pseudoephedrine restrictions lead to more (and stronger) meth coming in from Mexico

      Strict gun laws in Chicago leads to it having the highest gun crime rate in the USA

      Most recent massacres have taken place in "Gun Free" zones

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    6. Re:More laws is not the answe by swb · · Score: 2

      The NRA is constantly lobbying for the EXISTING gun control laws we already have to be enforced. One of the first things that eliminated in a plea bargain are felon-in-possession violations or laws that make it a crime to commit a crime with a firearm. Seldom or never are felons convicted of a crime involving a gun ever indicted or prosecuted in federal court on the federal versions of these crimes.

      Many of the newer gun control laws suggested, even the so-called compromise laws, are overbroad and rely greatly on discretion by the police and prosecutors to keep from prosecuting law abiding gun owners. In many cases they seem not directed at crime control but in making legal gun ownership burdensome and complicated, often creating a "catch 22" situation where doing normal, legal things with a gun (transporting it to a firing range) become potentially criminal (because you deviated from your trip to buy gas, for example).

      I don't know why you think having the FBI pop by your house and ask you about your arsenal could ever be interpreted as helpful, and I'm pretty sure the FBI is not in the business of being supportive of your child rearing efforts.

      I have never heard of the NRA being against any kind of gun owership. I don't think the NRA advocates for or has a position on individual ownership of destructive devices (canons, rocket launchers, etc) but they certainly are supportive of LEGAL ownership of any and all firearms.

    7. Re:More laws is not the answe by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Anyway I do not believe that he was crazy.

      I am sure he was mentally deranged. Whether he was not being able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct if due to a mental disease or defect (the criminal defense of insanity in Connecticut) is unlikely.

    8. Re:More laws is not the answe by jsrjsr · · Score: 2

      You keep talking about the "arsenal" that the Mom had. How many guns do you have to own before you have an arsenal? 'Cause I suspect most hunters own more guns than she did.

    9. Re:More laws is not the answe by krovisser · · Score: 2

      But some laws might make sense. Universal background checks and keeping tracks of arsenals might have helped. Maybe if the FBI had the ability to keep track of sales and went by the house and asked the mom why she needed an arsenal it might have lead to helping her paranoia or victim mentality. Helping her might have helped the kid. But we can't keep track of who owns a gun because of second amendment issues.

      The BATFE knows exactly who has bought any weapon from a FFL'd dealer via the required 4473 form. Note that this does not include private sales in some states (yet). They are, by law, to keep these records for no more than 48 hours or something like that, but have admitted to keeping them indefinitely for "statistical" purposes.

      Add the whole gun round up after Katrina, our government's multiple abuses of Census data (that was also supposedly protected) and now I can't see why anyone would not have some sympathy with the NRA's causes.

      If you want to get rid of guns, repeal the 2nd. Don't start making useless but feel good laws that pave the way to the government abusing people's rights, that shall not be infringed.

    10. Re:More laws is not the answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're too stoopid to talk. stfu

    11. Re:More laws is not the answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the second amendment does not allow me to go out and buy a tank

      Stop getting your facts from Piers Morgan. Purchasing a tank is just like purchasing any other motor vehicle. Hell, the destructive device registry is still open, so you could even get a tank with a functional cannon.

    12. Re:More laws is not the answe by mariox19 · · Score: 2

      Where do you come up with such things? It is a major talking point of the NRA that we should already be enforcing the laws we have, rather than passing new ones. It's the polticians—like the good governor of my home state, New York—who rush to pass laws for the purpose of getting on television and having something to write home to their constituents about. Rarely is any thought given to how effective any law will be or the on-going costs of enforcing laws. And, meanwhile, just to continue this, we load up our prisons with non-violent offenders because of the drug bogeyman and return unreformed, violent criminals to society while they are still in their prime years. If we want to reduce crime, we'd do some serious thinking about it, and not jump on the bandwagon of what "everybody" knows.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    13. Re:More laws is not the answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can't have it both ways, to lobby against the laws and then say we should have laws.

      ATF can't inventory guns dealership, which means they can sell to terrorist and never take it off the books.

      ATF has no permeant leadership, so there is no one to create a long term plan to both protect our right to own guns and protect our right to be protected from those who like to kill people.

      ATF can't share records, must destroy 20 days so when a criminal or terrorist tries to buy guns, they can try again and there is no record of the repeat offense. We have no idea who is trying to game the system.

      On straw purchases only buyer is liable and the standard for conviction is high enough so that people seldom get convicted. Again, if purchase records were kept, then we might know about these staw purchasers. If we had universal background checks, which many people think we do, and the NRA strongly implies we do when they say "apply current laws", then much of this would go away.

      You are a typical example of this misdirection. Blame the justice department for not enforcing the laws. Choose a atypical example to show that gun regulation does not work. Hope enough dumb people believe you and aren't smart enough to check the facts. This is exactly what Romney said the liberals did.

    14. Re:More laws is not the answe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did all those things about 5 minutes before the massacre started, you disingenuous fuck.

      He would have been able to buy as many guns as he wanted under your precious second amendment.

      Why do you love your guns so much? Seriously, do you get a hard on when you hold them?

      You M16 / Glock loving psychos are some nasty brew of bloodlust, contrarianism, anti-intellectualism, selfishness, and misanthropy.

      Get help, get rid of your guns, or even work to amend the 2nd amendment out of existence.

    15. Re:More laws is not the answe by Jonner · · Score: 1

      How many laws did Lanza break before even firing a shot in Sandyhook?

      he murdered his mother, stole her guns, used guns in the commission of a crime, premeditated the murder, had guns on school property, and broke into school property, yet he was not apprehended for any of those crimes.

      All of that is true, but more importantly, the lone gunman on a rampage scenario is extremely rare. As terrible as the deaths at each event like Sandy Hook are, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the ways most people die violently. The perpetrator of those murders even made sure he couldn't do the same again. Preventing all future events which bear some resemblance to that one is not possible and the effort would be better spent on combating gang violence, unnecessary wars and car accidents.

  19. The Arms Trade is Big Business .. by dgharmon · · Score: 1
    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:The Arms Trade is Big Business .. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      $1,000 billion

      What's that got to do with anything?

      It's not like the high school masscres were performed with a stealth jet firing precision guided munitions launched from a nuclear aircraft carrier, all the while being backed by an escort fleet and supplied by the mother of all logstics chains.

      They've all been done with things on the level of effectiveness of a $150 barnyard built AK-47.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  20. that is going to far by nten · · Score: 4, Funny

    I propose a 7 macro limit.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:that is going to far by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      You have to get a background check to write VBA code

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:that is going to far by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      You have to get a background check to write VBA code

      Considering some of the Office macros I've run up against, this would be a fantastically good idea.
      Well, a background check plus a serious licensing requirement at the level of a multi-engine aircraft pilot's test.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re:that is going to far by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      won't stop the bad guys as long as they can do full auto recalculation. probably even semi-auto recalculation is just too dangerous for civilian use.

    4. Re:that is going to far by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You have to get a background check to write VBA code

      You have to admit that a mental health evaluation would be reasonable.

      At least afterwards.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:that is going to far by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Ever since he showed me how to PIVOT in Excel without the wizard, I've been keeping an eye on him...

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    6. Re:that is going to far by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      With a little practice, I can Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V fast enough that it won't matter, anyway.

    7. Re:that is going to far by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      ah, you're one of those bump-firing recalculators. let's hope the Bureau of Accounting, Tabulating and Filing doesn't find out about that little trick

    8. Re:that is going to far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you need a mental health evaluation if you even think about writing vba

  21. Why not research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a video gamer, I do not want anyone to take away something I enjoy, but I cannot understand the problem with studying their affect on people. If it was couched as a cost saving effort, i.e. don't study something we already spent money studying, I would agree but I think we should be increasing the funding for all of these studies. How do movies, music, video games, watching CSPAN, etc, etc, etc, affect how we perceive and react to the world around us.

    Don't let the effort to protect video games or any other art form stop researchers from studying these aspects of the human psych.

  22. I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "if you want to talk about restricting and banning things, look at the actual tools that he actually used to succeed in carrying out this horrible crime."

    Ah yes, you don't like your inanimate object blamed, so you want to push the blame off on some other inanimate object.

    How about we just blame the person?

    Wrong. It's about banning speech. If you could show me that the game disc it was printed on had cadmium on it and that it flaked off and was dangerous to human health, I would advocate banning that particular game disc. If you can prove an inanimate object is the reason people are dying, I'll go along with your ideas on restricting it. What I will not agree to is banning books, movies, music, software or anything that represents an "idea" just because you're afraid of those ideas. If I buy a game and download it online, there is no inanimate object. It's information.

    Yeah if all game discs could explode and send a piece of metal or lead into someone's chest, I would be interested in heavily restricting the sale of it. Your apples to oranges comparison of "inanimate objects" could also apply to nuclear weapons, C4, ricin, etc. Have fun living in that society! Comparing guns to information just shows that people don't understand the first amendment's importance as being a civil right and are all for only the second amendment that was written when guns were muskets. You can have all the muskets you want at the level of technology that was present when the second amendment came into effect.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by night_flyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      oh the good old musket argument... well lets be sure to hold the 1st amendment to the same standard ... technology available at the time of the writing of the 1st amendment Typewriters? Nope! Video games? Nope! Movies? Nope! Internet? Nope! Recorded voice/music? Nope! Television? Nope! Telephone? Nope! By your lame argument, the founding fathers never could have foreseen a world with that kind of technology so it is not protected under the 1st amendment either.

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh the good old musket argument... well lets be sure to hold the 1st amendment to the same standard ... technology available at the time of the writing of the 1st amendment Typewriters? Nope! Video games? Nope! Movies? Nope! Internet? Nope! Recorded voice/music? Nope! Television? Nope! Telephone? Nope! By your lame argument, the founding fathers never could have foreseen a world with that kind of technology so it is not protected under the 1st amendment either.

      And yet you persist in your comparison of words -- a civil liberty -- to bullets! How can you be so daft? This is apples to oranges beyond grade school proportions.

    3. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you don't have he right to protect yourself?

      who's going to protect your precious 1st amendment rights?

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    4. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Considering the fact that it's the conservatives that are typically the most hostile towards the first amendment and hostile towards even modest firearm regulation, I would have to suggest that maybe firearms aren't what's protecting our first amendment rights.

    5. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      But my speaking freely doesn't end your ability to speak freely. Your shooting someone however ends their rights forever.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly not a bunch of gun-nuts.

    7. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      The King of England called the Colonies a bunch of gun-nuts as well. Those gun-nuts gave you your freedom to begin with.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    8. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      conservatives that are typically the most hostile towards the first amendment

      Citations? Hate speech and harassment laws typically come from the so-called "Progressives"

    9. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But my speaking freely doesn't end your ability to speak freely. Your shooting someone however ends their rights forever.

      EXACTLY! You get it! We need to have the ability to protect ourselves from anyone who would seek to take our life/liberty/and the pursuit of happiness away from us.

      Or were you advocating us giving our weapons away so an oppressive regime can take our rights from us?

      Keep in mind England was once that regime and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a certain North American country could become that regime.

    10. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are, of course, implying the mere possession of a gun makes one a guaranteed murderer. You are also implying that a home invader has a right to the "free speech" of dispossessing the home owner.

    11. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Those gun-nuts gave you your freedom to begin with.

      Actually, that would be the French, whose navy, troops and money made the revolution successful. There were also some prussian drill sergeants who worked miracles with the american troops.

      You know, if you're interested in actually giving credit where credit is due, and not elevating some rag-tag, undisciplined civilians into god's own army.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I see you fail to see the difference between free speech (a concept) and a gun (a tool). In other words, technology, in the case of the first amendment, is merely a transportation mechanism for the concept discussed. Technology, in the case of the second amendment, is what the second amendment is all about. This means that the second amendment is defined by the technology present when it was passed. This does not apply to the first amendment.

      A friendly reminder: an analogy is useful to explain a situation or a concept to someone who has no experience in that particular field. It is counter-productive when discussing the fine points of how to deal with a situation, as an analogy, by definition, is not the same as the topic discussed.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure the NRA is the place to turn when making sure that the KKK and the NAACP have the same right to march in peace. It's totally not the ACLU.

      In case you didn't get the sarcasm: lawyers, judges, juries and an independent judiciary protect your amendments. This fantasy that everyone with a gun is what keeps the Constitution alive needs to stop.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    14. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means that the second amendment is defined by the technology present when it was passed.

      Reactive powder is ignited and thrusts a projectile at high speed towards a target. The technology has been refined but it hasn't changed. Nor has the reason for the existence of the Second Amendment changed.

      Now if they get portable rail guns working we can readdress your straw-man.

    15. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And rockets are nothing but fire directed into a special direction, so really, they're the same thing as the fires cavemen built to heat their caves. Seriously, at least try to pretend that you're interested in an actual discussion.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    16. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like Susan B Anthony or Martin Luther King.

      Rights don't come from the barrel of a gun. Only death.

    17. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's why we have laws against shooting people. I haven't heard of anyone arguing against those.

      (we also have laws against libel and slander, by the way)

    18. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have all the muskets you want at the level of technology that was present when the second amendment came into effect.

      The primary intent of the second amendment was to defend against a tyrannical government.
      Muskets for the civilian population would be fine, so long as there is no standing army with armament superior to the musket.
      Of course, for the second amendment's intent to be heeded, we'd need civilian ownership of surface-to-air missile batteries, blue-water navies, and even nuclear warheads.
      That being said, I thought this was supposed to be a nation ruled by laws, not by men. Fat chance of that happening until we repeal the second amendment.

    19. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and he laws have adapted to cover those mediums. You have libel and slander laws. Harassment, discrimination and hate speech laws. Privacy laws. Use of a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. Stalking. Copyright infringement and DMCA.

      It seems the first ammendment has adapted in NUMEROUS ways to account for changes in technology abusing society in new ways (or the old ways more effectively). Gun laws however are still stuck in the mindset of the middle ages, just like their owners and advocates.

    20. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I? You obviously aren't!

    21. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of these posts talk up the free speech issue. So far I haven't heard serious talk about banning video games in the US. But there should be discussion about what level of exposure is appropriate for developing minds, particularly among the various players in the media industry - video game makers and their employees, retailers and app stores, online services, reviewers. It doesn't have to be a free speech issue, it can be a *responsible speech* issue. The majority of kids are apparently not adversely affected by prolonged exposure to 3D FPS type games, even hyper-realistic games with substantial carnage. But there are kids like Lanza (think of him when he was in elementary and middle school) who are affected, and obviously it doesn't take a big percentage to create disaster. Lanza and Holmes, the Aurora shooter, were both surprisingly intelligent, easily in the top five percent of their peer group and perhaps higher. Of course that made them even more dangerous to society, not the least because they were careful not to tip off what they were hoping to do. Lanza didn't have a record of mental illness and apparently wasn't even on prescription drugs.

      I'm not surprised by the reaction on this board because many Slashdotters are avid gamers, but still it's disappointing that the idea that video games could be part of the problem is rejected out of hand the customary volleys of sarcasm and ridicule usually reserved for Microsoft and the RIAA. Props to Samzenpus for having the guts to post it to try to get a discussion rolling, even though he doesn't necessarily agree with Lupica. When a veteran of the Connecticut police department passes on his thoughts to the Daily News, he's ridiculed - not too bright, eats donuts, etc. Haha, doesn't he mean the politicians should ban MS Excel. Who would be more convincing than a police officer close to the case, an academic? A television commentator? Anybody could be taken down with stereotypes by a crowd of posters whose minds are already made up. At least it wasn't lost on some posters here that the same types of arguments - even the exact same jokes, like the one about Excel - can and are being made by the NRA's supporters from the right.

    22. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (forgot to add)
      - AC submitter

    23. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Zirbert · · Score: 1

      Considering the fact that it's the conservatives that are typically the most hostile towards the first amendment

      Interesting hypothesis. I'm not as well-versed in the U.S. side of the border, but here in Canada defense of free speech comes almost exclusively from the right / conservative (note the lowercase "c") side. Google Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Kathy Shaidle, etc. Heck, read my crummy, long-neglected little blog. Attacks on free speech up here come far more often from the left, paving the road to Hell with the best of intentions.

      My outside-looking-in impression of the U.S. of A. is that the situation is similar down there. The idea that some ideas (not actions) are not tolerable seems to be heard far more from the left.

      -Zirbert
      http://zirbert.blogspot.com/

    24. Re:I Don't Care About the Physical Game Itself by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      The second amendment is no more defined by the technology of the time than the first.
            The first does say press, the second only says arms, this is a close to reference technology as either gets.
      In the first they clearly meant the recorded word, in the second they meant "every arm of the soldier, however terrible".

      Mycroft

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  23. Looking at methods, not motivations. by concealment · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't know the cause of school shootings, so they're trying to chip away at the methods used to achieve them. Banning guns, video games, heavy metal, etc. all fit into this in that people perceive these as being contributing factors to why people shoot up schools.

    But what makes them want to shoot up schools? I'd say there are two issues here:

    1. Mental health, especially undiagnosed mental health issues. In this society, all you can do if someone has issues is either pay for them to get treatment, or start a process that's going to get them confined in mental institutions.

    2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.

    In this society we have an ugly tendency to assume that methods and not inner motivations, including ability and mental health, are important. We think that memorizing facts is more important than having mental ability; we look at whether people are obedient to social norms rather than whether what they're doing is right.

    These types of situations suggest our society has some pathological need to avoid looking at our motivations. Perhaps we're afraid we'll find nothing but making money, watching TV, and eating Taco Bell.

    I hope not.

    1. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by hduff · · Score: 1

      2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.

      You get your own graphics and theme music so it is so worth it.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    2. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These types of situations suggest our society has some pathological need to avoid looking at our motivations. Perhaps we're afraid we'll find nothing but making money, watching TV, and eating Taco Bell.

      I hope not.

      Not society, people. And we'll find plenty of other stuff and none of it is very flattering.
      Since we have not means to read another persons mind a lot of modern psychology involves analysis of the self. After doing so it is hard to think highly of oneself or other humans ever again.
      While chemically complex, we are pretty trivial beings.

    3. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      1. Mental health, especially undiagnosed mental health issues. In this society, all you can do if someone has issues is either pay for them to get treatment, or start a process that's going to get them confined in mental institutions.

      Any time anyone mentions making health care (let alone mental health care) more accessible in this country for people who need it everyone starts screaming; "SOCIALISM IS EVIL! HOTDOGS AND APPLE PIE! COMMUNISTS ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR FORD TRUCK! FIREWORKS!", and other random capricious propaganda.
      Then a school shooting happens and people start screaming we need to make health care more accessible for people who need it.

      You just can't win either way.

    4. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      making money, watching TV, and eating Taco How dare you take the founder of Slashdot in vain!

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    5. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > 2. Media coverage, because if you shoot up a school and get a high enough kill count, you're going to be on the front page of CNN etc. for weeks.

      The media has no one to blame but themselves because they continue to ignore the wisdom of Charlie Brooker's brilliant commentary and psychiatrists such as Dr Park Dietz; they would rather profit from sensationalism instead of acting with integrity.

      Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

    6. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it's the diagnosed ones on these big pharma poisons that are really twisting off and killing people. for some reason the medical examiner in lanza's case won't realease the pharmacology report on lanza. besides that i tend to agree with your post.

    7. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but I think you're leaving bulling off the list.

      I don't think we've seen any "popular jock" kids as perpetrators. I think the perps have a low "stake in conformity" coupled with unaddressed mental health issues.

      --
      Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
    8. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by Jonner · · Score: 1

      People don't know the cause of school shootings, so they're trying to chip away at the methods used to achieve them. Banning guns, video games, heavy metal, etc. all fit into this in that people perceive these as being contributing factors to why people shoot up schools.

      What's much more troubling than the fact that once in a while someone decides to shoot up a school is the fact that such a rare event seems to deserve much more attention than the fact that people murder other people every day because they're in a different tribe or have something the murderer wants. Is it because we can all relate to the movations of violent gangsters and thieves but not to those of lone gunmen in mass shootings?

    9. Re:Looking at methods, not motivations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why look at motivations when you can attack the methods or other low hanging fruit for shock value, sound bite and easy political leverage?

  24. work of a video gamer by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was the work of a video gamer

    Fuck you. Your detective work is the work of an imbecile.

    1. Re:work of a video gamer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creating detailed spreadsheets and doing all that research sounds like way too much effort for most video gamers I know.

      The whole point of video games (Versus say, pen & paper RPG) is that the computer does the annoying calculations for you.

    2. Re:work of a video gamer by loufoque · · Score: 1

      It's the work of a gamer, but not necessarily that of a video gamer.
      I can agree that hunting people is a game to deranged people, that doesn't mean video games are any more reprehensible than any other scoring or competitive game, including sports.

    3. Re:work of a video gamer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does Excel.

    4. Re:work of a video gamer by RavenousRhesus · · Score: 2

      Doesn't wikipedia already have something like this spreadsheet? Yes, they do. I guess only people who play video games use Wikipedia.

    5. Re:work of a video gamer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive him. He learned how to do detective work playing "Lara Bow" videogames.

  25. blame Bruce Willis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Bruce Willis is personally responsible for much of the gun violence in this country. I know that after watching the movie looper on a plane recently, I was ready to hurt everyone involved in its production. Just kidding feds.

  26. No Influence; Proof Within by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Video games do not disproportionately influence people to kill each other.

    How do I know, aside from my 20+ years of gaming experience, and lack of homicidal intentions?

    The fact that the largest mass killing in US History predates video games by about 100 years.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize that pointing to a single specific incident as 'proof' of *anything*, one way or another, is (scientifically speaking) totally retarded?

    2. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by Hatta · · Score: 1

      More innocent people died in Iraq than in all mass shootings in the US ever. If you're really worried about deranged killers, let's focus on the ones in the Oval Office.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I will assume in your anecdotal case you are not mentally disturbed. What happens when a socially isolated schizophrenic becomes obsessed with gaming?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, as much as we all hate war. Wars are not Mass Killings. They are acts of a Government against another Government in an organized matter. Now that doesn't mean they are good, honestly they are worse than "Mass Killings" but a massacre is normally when someone or some government commits violence against a victim or victims that don't fight back in any meaningful way. Or as defined a massacre is "An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people: "the attack was described as a cold-blooded massacre"." The American Civil war was horrible but it was definitely not indiscriminate in it's violence. You would have an easier time arguing that WWII was indiscriminate I mean a Nuke is the ultimate indiscriminate weapon.

    5. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I will assume in your anecdotal case you are not mentally disturbed. What happens when a socially isolated schizophrenic becomes obsessed with gaming?

      Uh... you blame their behavior on the social isolation and schizophrenia, maybe?

      I fail to see the point of your post.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I doubt even the most fervent anti video gamer will admit that gaming by a well adjusted person will make them kill. I am guessing their concerns lay with people on the fringe of sanity.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      And, just like the gun grabbers, they ignore the root of the issue (mentally-ill people not getting treatement), instead choosing the "easy" route of fucking everybody else out of their rights.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:No Influence; Proof Within by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you, I was just trying to point out that personal anecdotes about being a well adjusted gamer aren't really meaningful unless you are preaching to the choir.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  27. But what kind of gamer? by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

    The New York Daily News' Mike Lupica reported last week that investigators of the Newtown case found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres, including the number of people killed and the make and model of weapons used. A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.

    Come on, a gamer wouldn't do that kind of research unless they were playing MMOs, or *maybe* a hardcore RPG. If he played shooters he would have just accused the other killers of hacking and tried to build an aimbot in retaliation.

    (I am a bad person.)

    --
    Visit the
  28. Shutup by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    There is no link between violence and video games! If there was a link between violence and video games then there would be a link between other genre's of video games like fantasy and human acts, last time I checked no one ever made a turtle cart and raced around town throwing banana's on the ground. I'm sick of hearing how video games are linked to violence. if your sick enough in the head to go a shoot a school then your going to do it regardless of if you play some james bond or battle field. Maybe instead of blaming the games you could blame everyone else who doesn't step in to help these sick assholes before they kill. How about teachers who turn a blind eye cause violence or parents who don't punish create violence, because I can promise that before the video game could have an effect people have already given up.

    1. Re:Shutup by FunPika · · Score: 1

      last time I checked no one ever made a turtle cart and raced around town throwing banana's on the ground

      I wouldn't be so sure about that.

      --
      After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
  29. sounds like something from "criminal minds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "this is no ordinary spreadsheet...
    (dramatic pause) ...this is a score sheet!"
    dundun daaa!

  30. Here piggy piggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give the poor cop a break. He is very obviously suffering from withdraw from not having any donuts that day.

  31. a person can be smart.. by houbou · · Score: 1

    but people are morons. Instead of taking personal accountability for these issues, they blame the video industry. The problem is excess or in this case, who needs a military grade assault weapon? Banning video game isn't the issue. People need to stop making kids they can't raise and be good parents for. And those who have kids, stop using your TV as your baby sitter. Sheesh..

    1. Re:a person can be smart.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...The problem is excess or in this case, who needs a military grade assault weapon?"

      This comment drives me nuts. First of all, it's not a "military grade assault weapon", that would be an M-16/M-4 (something that has a select fire switch). Secondly, the last time I checked, the first 10 amendments, including that pesky 2nd were called the Bill of Rights, not the "Bill of Needs".
       

    2. Re:a person can be smart.. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The problem is excess or in this case, who needs a military grade assault weapon?

      WTF are you talking about? What military grade assault weapon do you you mean? Lanza did not use any weapons capable of fully-automatic fire. He did not hold down the trigger and spray the place with lead.

      An AR15 (the 'AR' stands for Armalite, the maker) is a semi-automatic rifle just like millions of others that have been around and in civilian hands for a century. They stuck a handle on top, and attached some black plastic stocks and foregrips in place of ones made of wood.

      You cannot legally buy any fully-automatic weapon made after 1986.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

      Fully-automatic weapons made prior to 1986 that are legal are heavily regulated, monitored/tracked, and taxed.

      Before you go all gun-ban-y, you should watch this.

      Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-lNiIDsFM

      What happened in Oz after their gun ban: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5nFFpBcruI

      I will never, ever, register or surrender my weapons. If that means going to prison or dying defending my right to self defense and to protect and defend my home, family, fellow man, and property, so be it. Better to die standing than live on your knees.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:a person can be smart.. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      If you think government should confiscate firearms based on your subjective assessment of our "needs", why can't the same argument be made about video games? Obviously you don't "need" them, so ban them.

  32. It WAS just a spreadsheet. by hduff · · Score: 1

    JUST A SPREADSHEET.

    But we should ban spreadsheeting, you know, because of the children.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  33. Smart cop? by vvaduva · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I have a problem with a cop's ability to judge the quality of research as "PhD quality."

    1. Re:Smart cop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don' worry, he has mail order degrees in murderology and murderonomy.

    2. Re:Smart cop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, tell me about it. In a PhD you're supposed to contribute something new to your field. This jackass just did the same old shit.

    3. Re:Smart cop? by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      It's especially difficult since the NRA long ago manged to ban US government funding of research into gun violence. So I doubt any PhD's exist in this area.

      This spreadsheet may be the most detailed summary of gun violence available to US law makers.

    4. Re:Smart cop? by Zinho · · Score: 1

      So, a Master's degree, then?

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    5. Re:Smart cop? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      So, a Master's degree, then?

      Hey, I have a Master's Degree and applied to be a cop, you insensitive clod!

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Smart cop? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Correction. The NRA lobbied specifically against funding of research into gun violence by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

      Such funding is ridiculous because the fundamental implication is that firearms should be treated like a "disease". Gee. If that's the case, I wonder what their research would recommend as a possible "cure"?

    7. Re:Smart cop? by Art+Challenor · · Score: 2

      So, which agency is being funded to study the effects of gun violence?

      We keep hearing the mental health is a problem - seems intuitive, but intuition tells you the world is flat.

      Would background checks make a difference, or are they just extra bureaucracy?

      If you don't like the CDC doing the research, pick AND FUND and organization that will. Without real information it's impossible to know what solutions might exist. If you're confident of your position, as the NRA appears to be, then the research will back it up and you'll stop having to lobby to maintain the situation. They'll always be people who disagree, but you have a much stronger case with the facts on your side.

      Without this research, it's basically impossible to determine how to decrease gun violence - everything is speculation. So, unless they have something to hide, the NRA should be fully supporting research.

    8. Re:Smart cop? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I think I have a problem with a cop's ability to judge the quality of research as "PhD quality."

      Yeah, we just need an actual PhD to judge the Connecticut cop's work "n00b quality". Problem solved!

    9. Re:Smart cop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDC researches morbidity and mortality factors of all kinds, you stupid twat.

  34. Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . and somehow, they didn't go around tearing hair out, gouging eyes or putting someone's head in a vice.

    Because they knew that was TV, and it wasn't a grand idea to try it out on your kid sister.

    If video games cause a kid to go postal, there is something else wrong with the kid.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  35. TFA here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408

    It actually wasn't Lupica (the reporter) saying these things - it was a cop he was interviewing. And yes, there are some stretches the guy makes attempting to link the situation to games, although some aren't so far fetched (tactical reloading, etc...)

    Overall agree though - the problem with Lanza wasn't video games. It was insanity.

  36. Or how about by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we blame the lack of mental health services? I don't particularly care about gun control one way or another, but I am tired of people ignoring root causes. In every one of these shootings there have been signs of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia has been shown to be a brain chemistry problem. Fixing it is very, very, very expensive. Even the guy from Aurora (who's dad had lots of money) would be pressed. You need a lot of very specific treatment. So we waste time talking about violent games and guns and anything else but actually paying to identify and treat these people because that would take tax money, and as we all know we're perpetually Taxed To The Max (TM).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fixing it is very, very, very expensive. Even the guy from Aurora (who's dad had lots of money) would be pressed. You need a lot of very specific treatment."

      For one thing, you're conflating signs of Schizophrenia, a very specific and complicated diagnosis, and signs of general mental disease, which is almost as vague a category as diseases. For another, there is no known cure for Schizophrenia, what treatment options there are often come with horrendous life altering side effects, often without completely managing symptoms, and how the disease itself functions is not fully understood. Hell, our understanding of how anti-psychotics actually translate to symptom relief is murky at best.

      "I don't particularly care about gun control one way or another, but I am tired of people ignoring root causes. In every one of these shootings there have been signs of schizophrenia."

      The system of gun regulation in place is absolutely a root cause of the social disease of mass shootings. I admire your pointing out how much mental health needs to be addressed, but regardless of whether your for more regulation or less, access to guns is a central issue in gun violence. In every one of these shootings, there have been signs of guns, too.

    2. Re:Or how about by Aserrann · · Score: 2

      The system of gun regulation in place is absolutely a root cause of the social disease of mass shootings. I admire your pointing out how much mental health needs to be addressed, but regardless of whether your for more regulation or less, access to guns is a central issue in gun violence. In every one of these shootings, there have been signs of guns, too.

      Didn't you hear? There was dihydrogen monoxide in their system as well. We should look into its link to violent crimes...

    3. Re:Or how about by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      we blame the lack of mental health services?

      Well, he should have had insurance then. If he was not responsible to buy health insurance then it's entirely his own problem. People should look after themselves. If he'd been responsible then he would.... not gone on a killing spree... so surely er...

      we blame the lack of mental health services?

      Are you a communist or something???????

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Jared Loughner had schizophrenia. He was the only one of the recent shooters. Holmes had a personality disorder, and Lanza had autism. None of these conditions is associated with elevated risks of violence except schizophrenia, which has a very slight increase in risk, especially immediately after diagnosis.

      Mental illness has not been demonstrated to associated with gun crime. While it is associated with mass shootings, those cases are a very tiny fraction of gun crime that occurs elsewhere by people who don't meet the diagnostic criteria of having a mental illness. 96% of violence is committed by people who don't have mental illnesses.

      Being violent is an evolved behavior, especially in cases of mating control and acquiring resources. One third of chips die in battle. Less humans die, but let's not pretend that the only ones who are violent have mental illnesses. Everyone has the potential to be violent and the only way to stop the violence is to remove the potential.

    5. Re:Or how about by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The difference is that schitzophrenia is well documented to make people turn murderous.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. This is a fucking lie and slanderous. Go ahead and try to provide a citation. What you will find if you do a search on this is that schizophrenia by itself does not really affect violence. Only when schizophrenia is comorbid with substance abuse will the violence significantly go up. And the amount of violence is the same as substance abusers who don't have schizophrenia. So if you meet a person with schizophrenia who is not a substance abuser, they are not a threat.

    7. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the guy from Aurora (who's dad had lots of money) would be pressed

      That was Holmes. Lanza's parents had money too; the mother pulled $220k/year in alimony and never sought treatment for her kid although she knew it was needed.

      anything else but actually paying to identify and treat these people because that would take tax money

      Yes, it would. I remember asking why the asylums in my home town were abandoned. There are these huge hospitals and campuses all over the country that are abandoned and I found it astonishing. The grownups had no intelligible answers.

      Since then I've learned about it. We use to warehouse people with mental problems. It was cost effective and it kept head cases out of the general population. Then we invented pressure groups that thrive on litigating cases of abuse, neglect and injustice the costs ballooned. When the costs became infeasible we emptied the asylums. Now the head cases are among us, some of them compiling spreadsheets and slobbering over their parents' guns.

      The bottom line is this; we are not going to surrender another 5% of our GDP to the medical industry to treat all the head cases to ACLU standards. We just aren't. We won't be disarming all the healthy people either. So we can either live with the mass killings or re-evaluate our standards of care.

      There are ugly things in this world. They will express themselves no matter what.

    8. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a communist or something???????

      Liberals were happy to close the institutions, putting people in insitutions is mean and made them feel bad. Conservatives were happy to save a few million bucks.

      Bipartisianship at its finest.

    9. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we blame the lack of mental health services? I don't particularly care about gun control one way or another, but I am tired of people ignoring root causes. In every one of these shootings there have been signs of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia has been shown to be a brain chemistry problem. Fixing it is very, very, very expensive. Even the guy from Aurora (who's dad had lots of money) would be pressed. You need a lot of very specific treatment. So we waste time talking about violent games and guns and anything else but actually paying to identify and treat these people because that would take tax money, and as we all know we're perpetually Taxed To The Max (TM).

      What really needs to be said is that some things you basically cannot treat with a "reasonable" amount of resources. These people need to be kept from society at large. That or we as a society live with the risks.

    10. Re:Or how about by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like schizophrenia is actually a 'fixable' problem, that it can be cured reliably.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but it's not that simple. People who seek mental health care are for all intents and purposes punished for it.
      For many jobs and anything else that requires a background check, there is no difference between someone with a (treated) mental health issue and a felon.

      To make this post extremely controversial, let me give an example. In the United States the second amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony is not allowed to own a gun. It is another felony to do so. With the recent laws on mental health, it is a felony for someone with a (treated) mental health issue to own a gun.

      I'm going to avoid ranting about felons having there constitutional rights violated, and not being able to vote. Rather, I'm going to ask you this question. Who wants to VOLUNTARILY be treated as a felon, and what parent wants there child treated the same or worse than a CRIMINAL.

    12. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Non-american here)

      "as we all know we're perpetually Taxed To The Max (TM)" - is this sarcastic or no?

      I'm genuinely curious.

    13. Re:Or how about by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Very sarcastic. It's a phrase one of my friends uses. He works for a school district as a driver. His entire family are teachers. He voted against a tax raise that was meant to pay for his own wages. He means well, but he doesn't know any better. He pays child support, and lumps that deduction into his taxes mentally. If he really stops and thinks he knows better, but it takes an effort. He's not the only one too. It's very common.

      It doesn't help that what taxes he does pay are very regressive and hit him harder than a rich man would.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    14. Re:Or how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adam Lanza was receiving psychiatric care. There was a theory floating around at one point, don't know about its current status, that what triggered him was the suspicion that his mom was trying to have him committed.

      There is no silver bullet. Not even "mental health services" can stop every case.

  37. You're partially right by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lanza killed a lot of young children. It's the sort of thing the news media eats up because 1) it involves children which immediately gets the attention of every parent int he country and 2) Lanza had serious emotional issues (and psychological ones too).

    It's the type of story no one can ignore and let's face a sad reality. Most people are fucking drama queens. That's why Oprah is successful, why Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch have TV shows. That's why The Young and the Restless has been on TV for 40 friggin years and produced over 10,000 episodes. People or nosey pricks that need to get involved in everything.

    Kids see this and realize "Hey, I can get tons of attention by doing the same thing!" Video games aren't directly to blame. Bad, no, piss poor parenting is to blame. Video games have just made kids a hell of a lot better at it. They now know how to frag large groups of people because they do it on CoD and Halo. It's like free training for emotional disturbed people.

    The solution isn't easy. You have to first make sure that these kids are being found and helped before they become killers. In almost every case people describe the killers as sweet kids pushed too far by home, school and life stresses. If you know a kid like this fucking help them! In addition to this, start cracking down hard on the little fuckers that are bullying in school. I knew plenty of these assholes growing up. Most of them are now rich and successful because they learned bullying pays off. They climbed the corporate ladder being the pricks their parents raised them to be.

    The problems are societal. It's not the guns killing people. It's society eating itself. People blaming it on any one thing need to go fuck themselves. They are part of the problem.

    1. Re:You're partially right by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Video games have just made kids a hell of a lot better at it.

      [Citation Needed]

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:You're partially right by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Lanza killed a lot of young children. It's the sort of thing the news media eats up because 1) it involves children which immediately gets the attention of every parent int he country and 2) Lanza had serious emotional issues (and psychological ones too).

      And once the deed is done, you'll have the "world" spending days talking about you, trying to "understand" your motives, and why didn't the "world" treat you better, etc.

      It's acting out a fantasy; and it's interesting how often foiled wannabe mass murderers choose to shoot themselves after being wounded by armed responders.

  38. Holy shit. by coniferous · · Score: 1

    "'[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'.

    Does this remind anyone else of Jack Thomson?

    Bullshit reasoning, and totally fished out of someones ass conclusion.

    1. Re:Holy shit. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Leave the "video" part out, and I think the guy is right. This murdering freak was clearly "keeping score" and treating this like it was a game.

  39. Fund a study on newspapers and tv news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're the ones that provide the stats for previous mass killings, the weapons used, etc. The regular media are the ones providing the data for this killer's "research" into massacres in the *real*world*. If video games provided anything at all, it would be misleading and inaccurate because they aren't the real world.

    Yet it's obviously video games that receive the attention, not Microsoft Excel, the sources of the data he collected, or (more logically) the various failures of the local police and medical system to find and treat a person with serious mental health issues and malicious intent, or the failure to ensure that weapons and ammo were secured at his house. Blaming video games is so much easier, because goodness knows there were never any mass murderers before video games showed up on the scene.

  40. Perfect Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the perfect article; it gives everyone a chance to proselytize for the things they support and/or rail against what they oppose.

    Gun rights advocates get to blame video games!

    Video game lovers will blame guns!

    Video game-loving gun rights advocates blame other stuff!

    And people who blame guns and video games will just keep on keepin' on.

    Oh, and don't forget the "laws don't stop criminals" crowd!

    It's like one big fatalist circle jerk.

  41. I'm going to get Police Academy PhD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow I think I'm going to get a PhD at a Police Academy. It looks like it just requires a "huge" spreadsheet with 100s of rows of data!

  42. Oh, the humanity.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people only go after video games when this happens? Is it because they've already lost headway in the case against movies, books, and other forms of glorification of guns and murder in media?

    Why is it that people glorify the fight to have and carry and use firearms, but fight against their glorification in fantasies designed to keep people from stressing out enough to WANT to use their guns in real life?

  43. Censor what? by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do you watch the news in America? All economic discussion regardless of who does it is from a corporate/conservative standpoint of low taxes, few regulations and minimal government intervention (except for bailouts). Yeah, there's some liberal bias in social issues. But what the hell does that matter in the real world. In economics there is no dissenting opinion. What in Gods name do they need to censor? They already have control over everything that matters. If I control your economy I control you. You're not free unless your economically secure.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Censor what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      In economics there is no dissenting opinion. What in Gods name do they need to censor?

      Goes to show how effective the censorship is. All dissent is regarded as wacko and kept off the air. We have the same problem regarding war. The (quite phony) 'liberal bias' is nothing but venting which serves the purpose of defusing any possible widespread anger and action and it provides the illusion of choice (fair and balanced, right?). The fight begins at home with the family. The fascists already know this and are well versed in the science and psychology of manipulation.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  44. We need to re-focus video game violence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... back to defeating headcrabs with crowbars.

  45. Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We don't want to do anything that may jeopardize our political career by limiting access to firearms, so let's start blaming video games and violent movies. Never mind the fact that this media is available globally and the US seems the be the only country having a sizable problem with firearm related violence or that the firearms flowed freely for so long that we will never be able to "put the toothpaste back into the tube".

    Nothing like pretending we are going to solve all our problems legislatively to keep us in office.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    1. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by loufoque · · Score: 2

      You're saying this as if it would be a good thing to prevent people from building or owning certain things.

    2. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Yes. It would be a great thing is we could keep certain things out of the hands of the mentally infirm. The trick being how to do it without punishing those who are not a risk to themselves or others (mostly others).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Who do you think you are to claim people are too stupid to own certain things? You're being judgemental.
      Let people have their freedom.

    4. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Why do you make extreme assumptions to justify some libertarian view?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Because it makes no sense to restrict ownership of anything at all. It is liberticide.

    6. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article wasn't written by someone pushing his /POLITICAL/ career. It was by someone promoting his /PROFESSIONAL/ career.

      Video games have, over the last thirty years, jumped from an esoteric pastime enjoyed by the very young, to a major media industry. It rakes in more money than the music, movie or publishing industries (individually, not combined). More and more people are playing video games. Their influence is increasingly growing. More of the population's discretionary income and time is being fed into games. And since both time and money are limited commodities, this means that less and less time and money are going to the other industries, including newspapers. Furthermore, increasingly the people who regularly /read/ these publications are the older generation, who also happen to be those least likely to play computer games.

      So basically we have an industry threatened by a new form of mass-media and with an audience that does not understand this new medium; is it any surprise that newspapers (and, to some degree, television news) demonize video-games? It's totally to their benefit to do so. Which isn't to say it is some sort of grand conspiracy, but reporters who blame games will be more often read, their stories more often promoted by the editors, their papers more likely to find an audience and stay in business.

      In other words, when it comes to any discussion of video-games, it's best to take articles from newspapers with a grain of salt. They have no idea what they are talking about, and little incentive to learn.

    7. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back in your cubicle and do some calculus you fucking dolt. Adults talking here.

    8. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess your not one of the adults.

    9. Re:Welcome the diversionary tactics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fool acting his part.

  46. new studies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - A new study reveals that gun massacres will stop if you ban video games
    - A new study reveals that gun massacres didn't exist before the introduction of video games
    - A new study reveals that gun massacres were committed by people wielding guns 100% of the time

    It's a joke, I didn't conduct any of these studies! :-) Since you've been reading this, which one of the studies would seem accurate and thus, hold a solution for the problem in your view?

  47. They did this with Dungeons & Dragons by AllenABQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For anyone old enough to remember. D&D was maligned in its glory days as an sinister force that warped its players into becoming suicidal/homicidal recluses unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. There were even "true crime" novels written about people who played the game, and it turned them into murderous psychopaths. This was all total bullshit, of course. Having played numerous RPGs with pen and paper and then later going on to study acting, the very thing these games were maligned for was a grossly simplified (and more rule-based) version of what any theater major would do on a daily basis in a university actor training program. I can't recall an abundance of actors that went on mass killing sprees, even when performing in shows like "Annie Get Your Gun".

  48. It blows my mind... by bennini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It blows my mind that anyone (especially American lawmakers) would seriously consider banning video games before banning guns.

    1. Re:It blows my mind... by log0n · · Score: 2

      If the only tool you have is a hammer [gun], everything starts to look like a nail [something you should shoot].

    2. Re:It blows my mind... by FunPika · · Score: 2

      It is simple, a very sizable chunk of voters will give a shit if their precious guns are taken away, very few will give a shit if "those new-fangled video games for kids" are taken away. Given another sizable chunk of voters who want to "protect the children" and are likely dumb enough to be convinced that taking the later away will do as much as the former to protect the children, what do you think a politician who is interested in having a job beyond their next election do?

      --
      After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
    3. Re:It blows my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been?

    4. Re:It blows my mind... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They are considering no such thing. They are pretending they would do that as a form of pandering. Eventually it will be decided that it is unconstitutional and nothing will be done. The whole thing will cost us all a lot of money and be a big jerkoff waste of time distraction from real issues like congress selling us up the river.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:It blows my mind... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      It is simple, a very sizable chunk of voters will give a shit if their precious guns are taken away, very few will give a shit if "those new-fangled video games for kids" are taken away.

      That's where they are wrong. The first generation of kids that grew up with "violent" video games has long since grown up, and they vote.

    6. Re:It blows my mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd argue that most of those who have grown up don't give a shit about call of duty games.

    7. Re:It blows my mind... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes - because they played Doom, Half-Life etc.

  49. Doctoral level spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research'

    Translation: "It had some space age gibberish called VLOOKUP! He even hacked into excel and made it say GUNS at the bottom instead of Sheet1."

  50. Why not attack the real problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    which is a lack of freely available mental health resources. Imagine if the shooter had access to the meds needed to manage the illnesses he had, instead of the equivalent of a football coach yelling at him to Walk It Off. It's expensive though, and they only way to make sure it's universally available is through the gov't (read: Socialized Medicine). Also, you'll have to accept some waste in there. Generally 1 to 3% of the program, but the numbers will look big because the costs are.

    On the plus side, you get to have your guns and not get shot.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Why not attack the real problem by minogully · · Score: 1

      On the minus side, the public will never really know for sure that the use of the mental health resources prevented mass killings (though for me personally, I have no doubt that they would).

      People who get the help and don't kill anyone may not have killed anyone anyways. And then there's the fact that certain individuals who need the help won't get it, either by slipping through the cracks or by deliberately avoiding getting help, and the mass killings will likely continue for these people regardless. So then the public perception is that the mental health resources are not doing anything.

  51. Let's see by log0n · · Score: 1

    Who to blame.. video games, where guns aren't real, or NRA, where guns are real.

    Figures. Some people still believe in magical mystical all powerful heavenly deities, others still that the earth is flat.

    1. Re:Let's see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who to blame.. video games, where guns aren't real, or NRA, where guns are real.

      Figures. Some people still believe in magical mystical all powerful heavenly deities, others still that the earth is flat.

      Hmm... Didn't know the NRA sold or possesses weapons - guess I'll have to join up to get me some. You sure you weren't thinking about the NSA? Or FDA? Or really have a clue?

      Of course, if I wanted to learn the realities of what guns do, actually firing ones at shooting ranges would give real data. As opposed to video games, which are completely unrealistic and fantasies about what guns do... which an armchair psychologist could conclude means that video games create a fantasy environment that people try to twist into real life.

      Or we could see that both are not to blame. Yes, a good cup of coffee instead seems more likely right now.

  52. Dumbest thing I ever heard in my life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will people as a whole accept that correlation does not equal causation, cause and effect can sometimes be confused, etc.

    What makes this whole thing all the dumber is that everything that is said about video games now was once said about: music, T.V., dancing, and NOVELS, for crying out loud.

    Can we as a race please wise up and quit being morons about this? You cannot blame persistent longterm societal problems on popular entertainment!

  53. Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny thing is that more people probably die from health related issues because they play too many video games than by being murder by the handful of psychos that were pushed over the edge by video games.

  54. Can't be true by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    If this were true, then at least half of the people that play Eve would be sociopathic killers.....actually, this would explain a lot.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  55. In the lens of the "Sim City" debacle by dave8060 · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that (a) the noise around Sim City and (b) the stellar success of Minecraft as the "Indie Gem of the Decade" shows that amongst the really invested gamer community there is a HUGE draw towards NON VIOLENT/CREATIVE games that the industry has been lazy to acknowledge. the transient excitement of shooters have their audience. Media may indulge your proclivities but as decades of female non-involvement in the industry have shown (in the past) they cannot create them. You cannot, for instance, expect a really stellar "Ponies with Barbie" game to turn a bunch of gamer guys into cross-dressing Bronies. (which would be awesome...) It can, however, influence the emotional association you have with a given set of behaviors. And it would be totally fatuous to ignore the degree with which media - games and other A/V material - associate heroism with violence.

  56. One real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One big problem is the media that reports on those killings by only focusing on the killer, thus encouraging other wannabee killers. They should spend less time talking about the killer and more time talking about the victims.

    1. Re:One real problem by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      I strongly agree. If you read the linked article (I saw it last week), one of the cops even said that we should stop referring to these people as "Mass Murderers" and start calling them "Glory Killers". Too bad that the media companies wouldn't agree to limit their coverage. Maybe use the name and the picture once or twice. Then, a policy of no more pictures and referring to him only as "the killer" or "the (child) murderer".

      No. Instead, the name gets used hundreds of times on national TV, the picture is shown on every TV station, news web site and major print publication, giving these scum EXACTLY the infamy they are trying to achieve. I'd put MUCH more blame on the MainStream Media than I would on video games or guns or music.

  57. This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The arguments against video games are as absurd as the argument against guns. Let's paraphrase the talking points, shall we?

    "You don't NEED video games"
    "Is the safety of our children less important to you than your sill right to bear pixalated arms? YOU MONSTER!!1!11!one!!1!!!"

    If we're going to go after the guns and the games, let's be sure that we nanny up on violent movies. Gotta be thorough.

    1. Re:This is stupid by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      and music, cant forget that (like Charles Manson obsession with the Beatles "Helter Skelter")

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  58. I do not blame the gaming industry... but... by gosand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't *blame* the gaming industry any more than the gun industry or the entertainment industry for these shootings.
    If it wasn't an AR-15 it would have been a rifle or shotgun or something else. If there were no guns, obviously shootings wouldn't happen but violence would still exist. But that isn't the world we live in, and we make violence "easy". And before that little switch in your brain flips and you think for a second that I am saying we should ban or take away ANYTHING (guns, video games, movies) then you are 100% wrong. More laws are not the answer and are far from it.

    What I think needs to change is our attitudes towards violence. OUR attitude. EVERYONE has a part to play in this, and it has to be voluntary. The NRA needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that providing access to any type of firearm with no restrictions or checks will make it much easier for everyone to have guns - and that includes people who really shouldn't have them. (and yes, I know that determining WHO that is would be nearly impossible). But we have to try. Movies/TV/Entertainment companies (including video gaming industry) needs to understand that they DO glorify violence. We are inundated with violence, from FPS games to movies to TV shows. I don't watch any of them, but there are entire series of TV shows around horribly violent acts (CSI, etc). If you can step back for a second and look at it all holistically - it is very saddening.

    I think that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show said it well when they said we have to change our attitude and culture around guns. They likened it to smoking. The message has to change, the overall general attitude towards things. Think about these trials that occur, like the Jodi Arias trial. It was a horrible murder, but let's be honest - in this country and world it happens a lot. But there are shows that are dedicated to follow the trial, to examine it, to discuss it in such desensitizing detail that it is sickening. I really don't get the whole obsession that people have with violence. It's why I quit watching the local news. Over time, I think that it really starts to alter your way of thinking about the world. If any of you have kids, especially boys, then there are nerf guns and foam swords and killing this and that, good guys vs bad guys... again, nothing new. But that can't be our only message that they see, and it is harder and harder to shield them from that. My own kids had to go through a "shooter" drill at school, and that is how they learned about the Newtown shootings. They are in K and 2nd grade!

    What I would really like to see is the video gaming industry to take some kind of responsibility for this - not because they are at fault, but because it is the right thing to do. And not by slapping ratings on games, or limiting sales to minors, or anything like that. But by really taking an internal look at what they are producing and self-regulate it. They have the power to influence through what they do, and I think the message being sent is a very harmful one.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:I do not blame the gaming industry... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't *blame* the gaming industry any more than the gun industry or the entertainment industry for these shootings.
      If it wasn't an AR-15 it would have been a rifle or shotgun or something else. If there were no guns, obviously shootings wouldn't happen but violence would still exist. But that isn't the world we live in, and we make violence "easy". And before that little switch in your brain flips and you think for a second that I am saying we should ban or take away ANYTHING (guns, video games, movies) then you are 100% wrong. More laws are not the answer and are far from it.

      What I think needs to change is our attitudes towards violence. OUR attitude. EVERYONE has a part to play in this, and it has to be voluntary. The NRA needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that providing access to any type of firearm with no restrictions or checks will make it much easier for everyone to have guns - and that includes people who really shouldn't have them. (and yes, I know that determining WHO that is would be nearly impossible). But we have to try. Movies/TV/Entertainment companies (including video gaming industry) needs to understand that they DO glorify violence. We are inundated with violence, from FPS games to movies to TV shows. I don't watch any of them, but there are entire series of TV shows around horribly violent acts (CSI, etc). If you can step back for a second and look at it all holistically - it is very saddening.

      I think that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show said it well when they said we have to change our attitude and culture around guns. They likened it to smoking. The message has to change, the overall general attitude towards things. Think about these trials that occur, like the Jodi Arias trial. It was a horrible murder, but let's be honest - in this country and world it happens a lot. But there are shows that are dedicated to follow the trial, to examine it, to discuss it in such desensitizing detail that it is sickening. I really don't get the whole obsession that people have with violence. It's why I quit watching the local news. Over time, I think that it really starts to alter your way of thinking about the world. If any of you have kids, especially boys, then there are nerf guns and foam swords and killing this and that, good guys vs bad guys... again, nothing new. But that can't be our only message that they see, and it is harder and harder to shield them from that. My own kids had to go through a "shooter" drill at school, and that is how they learned about the Newtown shootings. They are in K and 2nd grade!

      What I would really like to see is the video gaming industry to take some kind of responsibility for this - not because they are at fault, but because it is the right thing to do. And not by slapping ratings on games, or limiting sales to minors, or anything like that. But by really taking an internal look at what they are producing and self-regulate it. They have the power to influence through what they do, and I think the message being sent is a very harmful one.

      "I think that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show said it well when they said we have to change our attitude and culture around guns. They likened it to smoking."

      Jon Stewart borrowed this mode of thinking from the current administration's justice department (the same one that ran illegal guns across the border and sold them specifically to gang members and drug dealers. Also the same justice department that would deny your right to due process by attacking you with a drone).Changing society's view of a gun to associate with everything negative isn't the answer, it's indoctrination, and it's wrong.

      Video games aren't the problem. Guns aren't the problem. Violent movies are also not the problem (although they fit the same category you describe of those that "need to take responsibility for this"). The problem is that parents need to be parents to their children and teach them the difference between right and wrong. The problem is that people in the world need to view human life as precious, and learn to treat each other's lives with respect.

    2. Re:I do not blame the gaming industry... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I think needs to change is our attitudes towards violence.

      Oh, I agree, we should definitely change our attitudes towards violence. When video games revolve around actual, physical violence in the real world, call me. Until then, go fuck yourself you proselytizing twat. Funny that you should bitch and moan about DEM VIDYA GAMES yet you have no problem with violent movies, violent TV shows, violence being glorified in the media, and so on. No, surely the blame lies squarely at the feet of the video game manufacturers for making those ungodly devil machines, they must be forced take responsibility for shit you've made up out of whole cloth, yep!

    3. Re:I do not blame the gaming industry... but... by gosand · · Score: 1

      "I think that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show said it well when they said we have to change our attitude and culture around guns. They likened it to smoking."

      Jon Stewart borrowed this mode of thinking from the current administration's justice department (the same one that ran illegal guns across the border and sold them specifically to gang members and drug dealers. Also the same justice department that would deny your right to due process by attacking you with a drone).Changing society's view of a gun to associate with everything negative isn't the answer, it's indoctrination, and it's wrong.

      Video games aren't the problem. Guns aren't the problem. Violent movies are also not the problem (although they fit the same category you describe of those that "need to take responsibility for this"). The problem is that parents need to be parents to their children and teach them the difference between right and wrong. The problem is that people in the world need to view human life as precious, and learn to treat each other's lives with respect.

      But part of the problem IS the parents... parents are the ones watching all those damn crime shows / movies / News / and now parents play VIDEO GAMES. You can tell your kids all day long what is right and wrong... but if you sit around and play FPS on a giant screen tv and they see you excited and having fun, they absorb that. So I agree with you.. but parents - and quite frankly our government - are part of our society. Yeah - our government needs to change too. When I say we all need to change I mean ALL. I don't know how exactly, it isn't an easy or quick thing to do. It's a slow process that got us here and it will prob be a slow one to reverse. What kills me is that everyone gets so defensive and doesn't even want to talk about changing. I don't understand what people fear so much about admitting that we all have a responsibility and spend more time trying to pinpoint what everyone ELSE can do about it. Bottom line is our legal and governmental systems can't change it, it has to come from our society in general and if overall we aren't willing to admit there is an issue, it won't change.
      You miss 100% of the shots you never take.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:I do not blame the gaming industry... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the video game industry take responsibility for violence?
      Is violent crime rising? No.
      Is there a proven causal effect between video games and violent behaviour? No.
      Is there a correlation between violence in video games and violent crime? No.

      Violent crime has been falling for decades - this started before video games existed and has continued to fall despite the existence of video games.

    5. Re:I do not blame the gaming industry... but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He (Lanza) used handguns (not an AR-15).

  59. I bet Batman has a HUGE COCK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batman doesn't kill anybody!

    Batman's a liberal pussy. Hell, he takes guns away from criminals^Wpeople.

  60. Re:Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

    When I was young my parents made sure that if I was going to play video games with violence in them that I understood that it was pure fantasy and disconnected from the real world.
    Parents of kids these days see video games more as a baby sitter, and these kids are left to have their mental state molded by what they watch and play rather then having a parent there to help them to realize where fantasy ends and reality begins.

  61. How may doctoral papers has he read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How may doctoral papers has "The Connecticut policeman" read in his life?

  62. It would be nice if... by ilsaloving · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You know, it would be really nice if the US started putting more effort into early identification and treatment of these whackjob crazies *before* massacres happen. But that will never happen because American culture demands mental illness be swept under the rug.

    It would also be nice if American culture would start focusing more on actually being nice to one another, and by extension, the rest of the world. But that will never happen because American culture revels in greed and self-importance, and there's no room for being nice when you're busy amassing more wealth than your next door neighbour.

    So this is going to keep happening. Innocent children will continue to die, everyone will wring their hands and bemoan how bad the world is and how video games caused it or movies caused it or purple goldfish caused it, and in the end nothing will change.

    1. Re:It would be nice if... by space_jake · · Score: 1

      A good start would be not to refer to those with mental illness as "whackjob crazies".

    2. Re:It would be nice if... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      My level of politeness is in inverse proportion to the body count.

  63. Re:Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . and somehow, they didn't go around tearing hair out, gouging eyes or putting someone's head in a vice.

    No, they do much worse. Those kids entered politics.

  64. proven fact by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    most of the hundreds of millions of gamers and violent movie watchers turn into either homicidal maniacs or maiming brawlers. before we had violent movies and game there weren't any mass murders, genocides, wars maimings nor fist fights.

  65. MARK IT AS ZERO! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?

    -- admitted Zionist Walter Sobchak, gun owner

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:MARK IT AS ZERO! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Shut the fuck up, Donny.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  66. Pyramids by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    All I have to say is that the first Egyptian Pharaoh was named Q'bert.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  67. So, only video games have scores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one would ever track scores for professional sports or anything like that. No one would record statistics on deaths, injuries, etc in a war. And his noodly appendage knows no one would ever give awards or medals for having the highest score in anything but a video game.

    1. Re:So, only video games have scores? by Enderandrew · · Score: 2

      Some people partake in gamification, in which they turn everything into contests. They look to score points in any ways they can. Inspiration for gamification can come from sports, gambling, video games, board games, or whatever. Some people just have really competitive personalities.

      When someone is so mentally ill that they're willing to kill random children, that is a problem. Combine that with gamification, and you're got a really big problem. But both of these are problems that should be addressed on the mental health front.

      In this particular case, he may have actually been inspired by a video game. But that doesn't mean video games are bad. Several killers have cited "Catcher in the Rye" as an influence. That doesn't make books inherently evil.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  68. It isn't training. by neoshroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >They now know how to frag large groups of people because they do it on CoD and Halo. It's like free training for emotional disturbed people.

    You can't rocket jump in real life. Video games are not realistic. Firing a gun in a video game is nothing like firing a gun in real life. Guns are crude, noisy, horrible, low-tech devices. No matter how much you play a video game, it isn't going to do much for your real-life accuracy. At most, video games can be a form of mental preparation, desensitization or even glorification, but very rarely an actual teaching tool.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:It isn't training. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact one can argue that anyone serious about this sort of killing has much better teaching tools readily available. Online, in the movie theaters, libraries, and perhaps just down the street with the local thugs.

      The silliest thing to do would be to bar people from their mental outlets and NOT address the real issue. The slippery slope argument is always looked at from one perspective, and not the other. It's a slippery slope in all directions when you are looking down from the top of the hill.

  69. 27b/6 by mevets · · Score: 1

    ....
    Blaming a gun for someone being shot may be like blaming a fork for making Rosie O'Donnell fat but limiting her access to the cutlery drawer couldn't hurt. ....

  70. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what did they blame before video games?

    Video games have as much got to do with gun violence as fashion has got to do with rape

    1. Re:Whatever by Takatata · · Score: 1

      what did they blame before video games?

      Comics?
      Rock 'n' roll?
      Books?

      Whatever was new and incomprehensible for old people.

    2. Re:Whatever by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" music video was blamed for a school shooting. The odd thing is that the video is supposed to be about a suicide, not a murder, but is frequently misinterpreted. I believe they asked the band to testify during the trial as the defense team blamed the band for the murders.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(song)#Controversy

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  71. Remember: by Takatata · · Score: 1

    Not weapons kill people, video games kill people.

  72. We must hang together or hang seperately. by dbc · · Score: 1

    As Franklin said: "We must hang together, or certainly we shall hang separately."

    This infinite loop of "Don't take my guns, take his video games." Follow by: "Don't take my games, take his guns" must stop. Let's look at root causes. Mental health care in the country is a disaster. We did not have mass shootings when we had mental health hospitals. They were shut down because too many people were being committed that should not have been. But now we have people sleeping under bridges because they won't take their meds or don't have access to meds.

    Lanza's tharapist reported him as a danger. Her superiors couldn't be bothered to act on that information. Now, what if your child broke an arm paying intramural flag football and student health services said: "Hey, well, I'm just headed out on vacation, can you come back in two weeks?" How would you react? Let's maybe take mental health issues at least as seriously as an ankle sprain, mmkay?? There is somthing called "forced outpatient treatment". You live at home. But... there is follow up to make sure you take your meds every day, or else.

    Anyway, to circle back to my point, we have seen a serious errosion of civil liberties in this country. The video gamers and the gun owners are *both* under attack for sensless reasons. We must defend each other, not blame each other, because neither is to blame. Let's focus back on civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, and reject nanny-statism. Together.

    1. Re:We must hang together or hang seperately. by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      So... we should recommend that mass murders will decrease if we make everyone train with video games, so they'll be better prepared when they're attacked by a video gamer? :-D

      I've recently done some on-the-job training on workplace violence. Fortunately for us, all of the "real" research I've seen profiling the character and warning signs for mass murderers (of any weapon, not just guns) makes little to no mention of video games.

      http://www.drtomoconnor.com/4050/4050lect07.htm

      They do mention guns... mass murderers tend to have some real or imagined grievance that they intend to correct using something that gives them some form of power. Weapons and guns give you power. Video games... not so much.

      Another common thread is that mass murderers do their research. They are found to have researched the "score" and techniques of other mass murderers before they equip for and plan their own jaunt. This is not a game, this is research, and it is also an established pattern. Maybe they'll use some video games as simulators as part of their training and preparation... so does the military. But it's not the video games that make them kill.

      So if you don't want to be profiled as a mass murderer... don't research on other mass murderers, and then plan and stockpile weapons ;-P

    2. Re:We must hang together or hang seperately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Franklin said: "We must hang together, or certainly we shall hang separately."

      And he said it to a group of men who had overcome adversity and accomplished great things in life, not to overgrown kids who spend their time playing shoot-em-up video games in their mom's suburban basement.

  73. spread sheet by Mozai · · Score: 2

    "They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer."

    What? No; gamers use unlockable achievements. You know who uses spreadsheets? Accountants. This was the work of an accountant.

  74. Letter to my elected officials by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    This is the letter I sent to my elected officials. Each sent me a form letter back in response on their views on the 2nd amendment that made it clear none of them read my letter.

    --------

    As a parent, I found the events in Sandy Hook Elementary truly frightening. As a society, we should look for solutions to prevent gun violence. However, the discussion I'm seeing in Washington D.C. pointing back repeatedly to video games is not only off the mark, but it is harmful. When we point the finger in the wrong direction, we obfuscate the real issues, preventing them from being addressed. And we punish unfairly.

    No one has ever found a link video games and aggression beyond vague correlations that don't stand up to basic logic and reasoning.

    Violent crime has actually decreased since 1994 while video games are being played more. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

    Juvenile crime is actually at a 30-year low.

    72% of Americans play video games. There does not appear to be any clear correlation to violent behavior.

    Violent video games are just as popular, if not more-so in countries like Japan, Germany, Canada, England, etc. without any correlation of violent behavior.

    The talking point that video games give people the courage to commit crimes they wouldn't otherwise could be applied just the same to music, books, movies and television shows. It is flawed logic to begin with, but video games should be viewed the same way as these other mediums. They are self-regulated with ratings to allow parents to make informed decisions about what games/shows/movies, etc. are appropriate for their children.

    I served in the Marine Corps. Playing Halo is not the equivalent of military training and I find it laughable that people make such claims.

    In the immediate aftermath of the Columbine school shooting, President Clinton and his wife were both quick to blame video games. Hillary Clinton made it a core issue of her tenure in New York, trying repeatedly to pass federal legislation to criminalize the sale of violent video games to kids (a problem that doesn't exist given that each study has shown most retailers will not sell M rated titles to children - http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm). If they had instead focused immediately on the actual issues, perhaps we wouldn't have had as many school shootings since then.

    The more time that we waste in Washington D.C. blaming the wrong parties, the more we perpetuate the actual issues. Doing so is disrespectful and a disservice to those who have lost loved ones to such violence.

    I am hoping that we can count on you as a leader to steer the discussion to where it needs to go (responsible gun control, mental health advocacy, reasonable security measures).

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  75. No!, no they are not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Far from "feeling the heat", Obama's intelligence departments are actually funding computer games set in various proposed future war zones. Team Obama encourages gamers to re-enact the holocausts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and prepare for future genocide in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China.

    Obama's people have various rules the game companies must follow in order to receive 'funding' (some in the form of grants and tax-breaks, most in 'brown paper' bags).
    - The forces of the West must be the 'good guys'.
    - Whoever they are currently murdering must be the 'bad guys'.
    - The 'bad guys' should be referred to as 'terrorists' whenever possible
    - The 'good guys' must be shown engaging in torture, and ignoring the Geneva Convention whenever possible.
    - Foreign war zones should usually be set in major cities, and show as much devastation as possible.
    - The most destructive new weapon systems should be depicted as 'exciting'
    - Civilians, and portray of the effects of war on ordinary people, must be shown as little as possible
    - the player must be left with the feeling that "war is cool" and a sense of anticipation for future wars created
    - games must contain NO anti-war sentiment at all.

    As with Hollywood, the US State Department usually has more success funding games produced by the smaller or less successful companies, but also as with Hollywood, this is gradually changing. Two CIA projects, 'Argo' and 'Zero Dark Thirty' were both competing at the Oscars for 'best movie', and 'Argo' of course, won (despite being a truly putrid example of the genre). Call of Duty takes top spot each year on the consoles, BUT its direct propaganda analogue, Medal of Honor, was a massive bomb. Most war shooters funded by the CIA are just cheap rubbish produced by sharks.

    The original FPS games had as little to do with real-world violence as 'Tom and Jerry'. Even today, popular games like 'Borderlands' are fun 'shooters' where the hero is a 'freedom fighter' fighting against a ruthless military bloc. It is these games, of course, that provide an ideological problem.

    The big publishers have to go wherever the success is, so coercing the existence (or lack) of certain types of games is nigh on impossible. Fun shooters (as opposed to war propaganda shooters) form a rock-solid genre, and are a clear equivalent to the Hollywood popcorn blockbuster films associated with the Summer.

    The greater part of the attack on video games is the usual cynical attack on any current interests held by young people. It is easy for politicians to sell the message to older people that "you don't do this, but the kids do, so there must be a problem". Of course, this time, the thing- gaming- is also a significant interest of a much older demographic. We've long since moved past the concept of "putting away childish things". We no longer fall for that manipulation.

    However, females, one half of the population of course, mostly resent males gaming, especially as they get older. There are exceptions, but far too few to matter. America is a female dominated society, as was Nazi Germany- a fact most ignore because of the apparent dominance of males in key jobs. Women got booze banned, and men loved their booze more than they love computer games today. The message sold to females by Team Obama is "if they want to play with war toys, bring back forced conscription".

  76. More importantely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can run away fro somebody with a knife or an axe. In fact the guy running with the melee weapon has more chance to wound himself / tripping. You can't really runaway that well when somebody shoot at you.

    1. Re:More importantely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      serpentine, serpentine, serpentine, serpentine

  77. What do they have to find? by X!0mbarg · · Score: 1

    In the reference above, the quote:
        'Extensive research has already been conducted and found no connection between media and real-life violence.'
    is almost as bad as saying:
        "There is no direct link to fast food restaurants available food choices and obesity"

    OK, maybe a bit extreme, but if these shooters are practicing and building tactics in spreadsheets and FPS and plotting out tactics, weapons and scoresheets, maybe it's time to have a serious look at them.

    I am surprised that nobody has (yet) found a mock-up of any of the target schools made with one of the myriad game editors and level construction tools. Maybe then someone might finally see a more direct connection. Since there is an underground culture built around FPS, there stands to reason there is a database somewhere of potential or past target environments, and "Sample Models" or areas to choose from. . . They might even make for good tactical analysis tools for defending such places, and serving as training tools for professionals in dealing with such an attack.

    Sounds almost like a good game foundation:
    "Save the local Mall-plex from a handful of Crazed Shooters, while minimizing casualties and property damage! Get high score! Bag more crazies than your buddies! Best score for Least Ammo Expended, Least Property Damage and Most Innocents Saved! Bonus Points if you save the example with a write-up for local authorities to use in the event of a Real Incident!"

    Politically Incorrect? Definitely. If it's used to save lives, does that change anything? What happens if (when) it gets into the "wrong hands", though?

    I still have a few user-made maps for Unreal Tournament. The Castle of Laputa is one of the more extensive ones, but surely plotting out a local university campus or massive mall-plex is not impossible.

  78. Ban Excel, not video games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly spreadsheets are the problem here.... it was a stretch for them to jump from spreadsheet -> score sheet -> games -> video games

  79. Attrition... by turp182 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A US based militia in a conflict against the government could last as long as Afghanistan or Iraq wars. These wars were/are wars of attrition. They last until the aggressor decides to leave.

    How long would an individual last? Hard to say, not very long in direct combat. But our wars are no longer direct with large armies meeting on the field.

    How long would such a war last? Until the government decides to stop it.

    The key question: Have we killed all of the insurgents and terrorists? No. It's a war of attrition, it goes on forever until one side decides to give up (people who live in the war zone will never give up, something the US has a problem understanding in my opinion).

    Winning isn't possible, other than "The only winning move is not to play" (Wargames).

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  80. Worldwide gaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Violent video games are played everywhere, but these massacres happen mostly in USA.

  81. A slightly different issue here by concealment · · Score: 1

    Any time anyone mentions making health care (let alone mental health care) more accessible in this country for people who need it everyone starts screaming; "SOCIALISM IS EVIL! HOTDOGS AND APPLE PIE! COMMUNISTS ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR FORD TRUCK! FIREWORKS!", and other random capricious propaganda.
    Then a school shooting happens and people start screaming we need to make health care more accessible for people who need it.

    You just can't win either way.

    I can see how this is frustrating.

    However, what I'm talking about here is more that we don't view mental health care as something that can occur outside a casual context or a criminal context.

    The casual context is having $200/hour to spend on your psychologist for what's basically mediated discussion.

    The criminal context is that the only other option is to declare someone a threat to society and basically imprison them.

    I don't know how the funding works out, but there needs to be something that's more like a hospital stay, but without the stigma of being called crazy and without the possibility of law enforcement involvement.

    As far as how to pay for health care, it seems complicated: the more we regulate and socialize, the more expensive it gets. One solution is to regulate much less and see if we can simply lower the cost to the point where people can pay for this. Another is to encourage pharmaceutical companies to continue providing low-cost generic versions of their own drugs to people with less than buckets of money. Something tells me that this one is a "think outside the box" type issue.

  82. Gun control is an important step in the USA by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

    I strongly believe that gun control is part of the solution to reduce this kind of violance without affecting hunters and other hobbiest. The other more important task is to get better support to those in need of mental help. I know bullies leave a mark especially if your one to treat others with respect but then get pushed around by the local morons.

  83. Can't blame them... by AndrewX · · Score: 1

    Anyone that's played a lot of EVE Online or The Witcher could be forgiven for mistaking a spreadsheet for a video game.

  84. I don't see it as being quite that bleak. by concealment · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since we have not means to read another persons mind a lot of modern psychology involves analysis of the self. After doing so it is hard to think highly of oneself or other humans ever again.
    While chemically complex, we are pretty trivial beings.

    That reminds me of this essay:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/sorry-but-your-soul-just-died-1276509.html

    However, I'd say there's a few counter-arguments.

    1. We can become less trivial. Our culture encourages triviality through consumerism, or individualism, or egoism or something like that. Narcissism? It's an -ism, and it means we're basically "amusing ourselves to death" as Neil Postman says. We could fix that.

    2. Compassion. I imagine most people think dogs are trivial. I love dogs. They are pure-hearted. Compassion encourages us to not worry so much about triviality.

    3. Discover new worlds. There are other planets, new challenges, possibly other dimensions to explore. Maybe we're just bored and underchallenged, like students at public high schools?

    Maybe not as impressive as I hoped it would be when I first thought of this message, but there it is.

  85. Irony by concealment · · Score: 1

    You get your own graphics and theme music so it is so worth it.

    If someone would consider making a video game about the event, with its own devil-worshipping heavy metal soundtrack, I might consider it.

    Actually, I wouldn't. Pointless tragedy crushes my soul. I'd be more likely to fake one to mock the media circus than actually pull off a mass shooting. School shootings especially always seem to me like the emotional equivalent of a truckload of dead kittens.

  86. Can media influence for good? Yes, Bad? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movie directors, writers, actors are quick to say "Oh no our artforms can not influence people to commit evil". When asked the same question in a positive light (i.e. "Can your work influence people to do good?") they are of course quick to say "Why yes, of course."

    Fact is we live like we train. We get used to blood and gore from horror movies, we get used to watching people suffer and laughing at it, then why is it a surprise that kids are like this now in real life? Viz the recent rape of the girl that was carried from house to house and urinated on, humiliated etc. and all the kids thought it was funny.

    Of course what we see, listen to, experience helps form us. That's why you want to hang out with the people you want to be like.

    The issue of violence and evil in our society has no quick fix, it's part of human nature, and the more we nurture and encourage evil the more prevalent it will be.

    BTW I enjoy a good shooter and action movies are one of my favorite genres. I'm an adult though, with kids of my own. I see how even cute Wii games affect their behavior and I limit what they can play and watch. We mostly play games together, and only those that don't desensitize them to hurting people. We try to encourage empathy in them.

    When they're adults they can choose what to watch and do and hopefully we'll have trained them in the right way, but until then, absolutely these things affect behavior and absolutley they are not for my kids.

    Note that most of these mass shooting perpetrators are mentally ill. You can thank the ACLU for making it nearly impossible to have the mentally ill commited. Adam Lanza killed his mother because she was trying to have him commited. Why is it ok for the insane to roam the streets - the majority of our homeless folks were kicked out of mental wards due to cost cutting measures.

    We need these folks back in an institution where they can receive the long term care they need.

    1. Re:Can media influence for good? Yes, Bad? No. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You can thank the ACLU for making it nearly impossible to have the mentally ill commited.

      I know, who cares about petty things like 'rights'? What we need is more safety!

      But really, how is it the ACLU's fault?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  87. Difference between reality and fantasy by harl · · Score: 1

    For video games to be a cause the shooter has to have a basic flaw. They have to be unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

      To be unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy is insanity. That is the cause of the violence not some silly game.

    Every new art form goes through a blame period. Remember when rock and roll was blamed for causing people to rape and kill?

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  88. war on guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think the war on drugs is a failure? So what makes you think the war on guns will be any more successful?

  89. No relation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no correlation between violence and games, just like there isn't one between violence and movies, violence and books, violence and comics, violence and .

    In every case the mass shooters were people who were significantly disturbed. The Columbine kids had absentee parents who didn't care what they did. The Sandy Hook kid was a autistic psychopath who had his life micromanaged by his mother.

    Did these people play videogames? Sure. So do all other boys and girls around their age.

    Consider how many people play video games now. If videogames cause violent shootings, shouldn't we have a lot more violent crime taking place? We don't. You'd think PAX would be a mass meeting of psychopaths if the video game violence link was true.

  90. Re:Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly I've seen more than my fair share of kids acting out WMA or "Kung Fu" type moves having seen similar on TV and in video games. I've not yet witnessed one removing a spine however - not yet! It is pretty disturbing to see kids acting this out I have to say...

  91. When will CNN acknowledge responsibility? by eviljav · · Score: 1

    Some people will commit atrocities for fame and attention.
    CNN gives fame and attention to people who commit atrocities.

  92. Good, games are partially to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are games completely to blame? No but they are a good portion of it.

    Kids emulate what they see, hear and experience. That's how kids learn about the world. Most people who are against banning video games are adults and don't think of what they are like from a childs point of view. Adults who are for gaming will also use their adult minds to circumvent anything they want and can argue for them because its what they are passionate about and passion doesn't make you right.

    Kids need to play, exercise, be social with other kids, learn, explore and so on. In no possible way are games a benefit to kids.

    1. Re:Good, games are partially to blame. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      No but they are a good portion of it.

      Really? Then it's strange how millions of people can play violent video games and yet very few people go on killing sprees.

      Kids emulate what they see, hear and experience.

      But it's unlikely that they'll go murder someone, regardless of the circumstances. Kids are also capable of separating what is obviously fiction from reality, and the ones that aren't can be educated by their parents; it doesn't take much intelligence to realize the difference.

      Kids need to play, exercise, be social with other kids, learn, explore and so on.

      Thanks for your opinion.

      In no possible way are games a benefit to kids.

      They're fun to some people; there's a benefit.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  93. Learning "useful" skills by Big+Nemo+'60 · · Score: 1

    The Connecticut policeman mentions an interesting detail. Apparently, Lanza replaced the magazine of his rifle every time, before entering another room, even if the magazine in the rifle was not empty yet. The policeman suggested that he had learned this trick by playing first person shooters. While this would be difficult to prove, it sounds plausible. Playing FPSs may not have made Lanza a killer, but might have made him a somewhat more effective one.

    That said, while I do not condone gratuitous violence in video games (or other entertainment media for that) I do not believe censure would do any good (news media covering this kind of events probably are much more harmful); I also believe that more effective controls over the acquisition and possession of firearms would be appropriate, regardless of these tragic events (the existing rules are way too easy to circumvent), but I do not really believe this would stop a determined psychopath.

    While we are at this, I also believe better mental health services should be put in place, also regardless of these events, nevertheless I expect most mass shooters would just "fly under the radar" (I can not find it right now, but someone pointed out that, according to current criteria, most of the mass shooters involved in recent episodes would *not* qualify for compulsory psychiatric treatment *before* they went on a killing spree.)

    So... does anything work? Can we "fix" this just by changing some rules? I would say no. Rules cannot fill in for the loss of moral values.

    As another poster mentioned, this is society eating itself. Sometimes I really wonder whether it is still redeemable.

    --
    In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
  94. How do we solve problems? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    with Science! Jokes aside, it still all comes down to money. Research can be done on brain chemistry and how the brain functions. But it's expensive and it isn't profitable. You can't get companies to do it. It takes gov't action because you need a body that's not interested in short term goals. You need somebody that can think 50 to 100 years out, and that can absorb billions in waste with little negative impact.

    That said, it's still an easier problem to solve than guns in America. Mostly because you can throw money at it and solve it. You can't say the same for gun control. For one thing, politically it's a loss. You've got millions of single issue voters who'll do anything to keep their guns. For another you've got too many guns in the wild to easily control them and too much boarder to keep smugglers out (although that's something we could throw money at to solve). Mostly it's a losing issue. Guns are a part of too many American's lives. They turn into a voting block at the drop of a hat, and they'll support any policy whatsoever so long as it preserves their guns. If you really push gun control you'll not only lose, but you'll see a lot of other nasty legislation from the bastards that those 'gun nuts' elect just to save their guns.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  95. Stop listening to the media and special interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we take away the guns, they will use knives. If we take away the knives, they will use poison. If we take away the poison, they will use sticks. Take away the stick, they will use stones.
     
    Banning guns of any type will do little to nothing in curbing violence from people who are unstable and sick. Can games influence ideas? Perhaps, but the person is already dwelling on this and deeply hurting. The real money and effort should be in seeking these individuals out and getting them help. Will do a lot more good than banning anything!

  96. That's a bad attitude by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    "There are ugly things in this world. They will express themselves no matter what."

    It's defeatism. You've already given up. You know, the world doesn't have to be an awful place. There's really no reason for it to be. Instead of looking and the world and saying it can only get worse (conservatism) try looking at the world and saying it will get better (progressive).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  97. source of the spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who wrote it? Was Adam Lanza even the original author? What specific things about Sandy Hook were on the spreadsheet? I mean, pulling data together about the type of weapons used in mass murders would be something that would interest anyone developing gun control legislation. Or a grad student.

    Note that a 7 by 4 spreadsheet is about a 35 page document, not small, but including a line for each of 500 victims takes up space. Hugh is being used as a biased term in this case.

  98. The Spreadsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you suppose it looks anything like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers?

  99. Put the blame where it lies by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Put the blame where it lies: at the feet of the news media. Months of talking about each mass shooting makes the shootings sound like grand evil achievements. The news media does it to get eyeballs for ad sales, but the result is that screwed up attention-seeking crazy people reenact them to be "immortalized". The news needs to stop feeding to trolls.

  100. The elephant in the room by Meeni · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its always about video games. Video games this, video games that. But what about TV?

    I have kids, and honestly, the content of most young programs are just shocking, when you think twice about it. They have removed all sexual innuendo because that would make fundamentalist Christians choke on their breakfast, but the thing is full of ninjas slicing one another with blades of all sort, beating up, etc. Violence is always the solution to pretty much every problem thrown at the characters.

    And if we just consider Hollywood production and its love affair with gun and explosions...

    But then, it must be the video games fault. Mmmkay.

    1. Re:The elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TV isn't causing a rise in violent crime any more than video games are.

      How do I know? Because there *isn't* a rise in violent crime. Violent crime is falling and has been for decades. The exact same decades in which TV, film and video games have become increasingly violent. I'm not claiming the violence in TV, film or video games have caused that drop in violent crime, but they obviously can't have caused a rise in violent crime that doesn't exist.

    2. Re:The elephant in the room by Meeni · · Score: 1

      TV has been around for quite some time now. And violence on TV has been around for almost as long (somewhere during the 70's, maybe even earlier). Society did become more violent during the 70's. Probably not -only- because of TV, but maybe it participated. Now, as you say, violent videogames (which have been around for almost 20 years now) have not demonstrably increased violence. Maybe because TV is already promoting violence, maybe because videogames are not as effective a promoting violent rolemodels, maybe something else ??

  101. Superbowl and War Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, the ritualized worship and celebration of war, violence and all things military has no effect whatsoever on the public's attitude. If 20 brown kids with funny accents get smoked by drones, well, ... terrorists and stuff. This country is losing its fucking mind - poverty and wealth distribution of a banana republic. No public health care like the rest of the civilized world. Hey, I wasn't born with a college fund, and my only way up is the military, and all my politicians are owned, but I'm free!

    1. Re:Superbowl and War Porn by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Hey, I wasn't born with a college fund, and my only way up is the military, and all my politicians are owned, but I'm free!
      Excellent points tovarish! Let's go forth and round up the Kulaks, and bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  102. Computer Phobia by bobwalt · · Score: 1

    "A Connecticut policeman told Lupica 'it sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research', and added, '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'." A great many middle Americans distrust and fear computers. They don't understand them, they don't want to work with them, and they distrust people who do. We all know and have worked with people who have this type of attitude. Then we couple that attitude to middle America's dislike of games. Many Americans feel games are for children, adults shouldn't play games they have to work. The fact that these same people spend their leisure time vegetating in front of a TV watching a paid entertainer play a game does not count. You see that is not playing because "playing" is not an adult activity and they are adults. In these people's mind playing computer games are not only irresponsible it is somehow wrong and abnormal. So here we have a cop investigating a mass murder in which the suspect used a computer, this cop sees a spreadsheet which reminds him of a game he connects computer, abnormal evil, and something game like and comes to the conclusion that the suspect must be a computer gamer. What is ironic about the whole thing is that the countries with the highest percentage of games tend to have the lowest murder rates.

  103. It is. It can by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just not yet. But one thing we have learned in the last 50 years: The human brain is a machine. A very, very complex machine. But a machine like anything else. With enough time and effort we can understand it. In our society time/effort == money.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It is. It can by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a nice hypothesis. And it's much older than 50 years. And the biggest problem in the field of psychology isn't the lack of money, it's the lack of researchers who know how to follow good scientific principles.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  104. Re:Media coverage -- you're on to something here by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    The media definitely has played a role in the recent mass shootings. I've heard it said that modern terrorism didn't happen until after the advent of mass media. I believe that the media is making poor choices "glamorizing" these events, but it's about impossible to craft a law stopping is and still maintain a free press.

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  105. First, they came for the guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The anti-gun crowd is playing a long game, and they're just getting started with violent media.

    Video games have been blamed for worsening violence before, and the compromise solution was ESRB ratings.

    Now that's not enough, so they'll push for more "common sense" restrictions, and people will grumble, but it will be better than having to put games through a board of review before publication, so it'll become the norm, and people will calm down for a while.

    Over time, the restrictions will get more and more onerous, and eventually games with any amount of violence will have such a difficult and expensive time getting approval that no one will be able to make something like CoD.

    And it's all because some busybody thinks they know what's good for you and society, and wants to blame your hobby for the things that are wrong with society.

    Just like they're doing with firearms right now.

  106. No . . . by Domint · · Score: 1

    '[Mass killers such as Lanza] don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer'

    No, this was the work of a crazy person.

  107. Insurance and contributory negligence by HycoWhit · · Score: 1

    Gun owners always want to be responsible. So why is contributory negligence never used in gun crime? For example--who owned the gun used by the 17 and 15 year-old who shot the baby in GA? If the gun owners that allowed their weapons to be used in crime where held accountable--we would see far less careless storage of guns. i.e. Just because a gun is stolen--the gun owner is still responsible because their inability to secure the weapon allowed for the theft.

    In addition, there is the link between gun ownership and suicide--the majority of all gun deaths are self inflicted. How about periodic mental health screenings for all gun owners? Maybe keep them from hurting themselves and others on the way out...

    1. Re:Insurance and contributory negligence by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      People are often held accountable for supplying weapons used in crimes. After the Columbine shooting a man was prosecuted for selling the killers a handgun (illegal to sell to someone 21).

      What does "secure the weapon" mean? My firearms are at my home with doors and windows locked. Am I being "careless"? If some criminal batters the door down with a sledgehammer and steals my firearms, you think I'm responsible for "allowing" them to be stolen? Nonsense.

      There's no generally accepted link between firearms and suicide. The only agreed upon conclusion is that people who "attempt" suicide by firearm are more successful than those who "attempt" suicide by other means. Which raises the question about whether failed "attempts" were even genuine.

  108. Politicians must look busy by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    Politicians have to look like they're doing SOMETHING if they want to get re-elected. It doesn't matter so much how effective legislation is as long as they tried.

    Banning video games, hi-cap mags or mean-looking black rifles won't stop those bent on violence from hurting others.

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  109. Question: Root causes of voilence in society by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    How much do we have to blame ourselves, as a nation, for saying through our actions that it's OK to solve problems with violence?

    We don't like murders so we put them to death.*
    We don't like traitors so we put them to death.*
    We don;t like rapists so we put them to death.*
    We don't like serious misconduct by solders. There are 14 capital offenses in the US military.**
    We don't like terrorism suspects so we kill them with drone strikes.
    We don't like the actions of a country, so we invade them.

    Aren't we sending a message in real life, versus a fictional portrayal in movies or video games, that it's OK to kill people that you're fed up with?

    * varies by jurisdiction
    ** some only during a time of war, not sure if wars undeclared by Congress count

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  110. 10 round magazines won't stop a massacre by drnb · · Score: 1

    And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.

    No. When going up against unarmed civilians it does not matter whether you have 30 round or 10 round magazines. Magazine swaps are so fast that potential victims won't have time to flee or defend themselves. Very sad, but true. The large capacity magazines only matter when going up against police and military and laying down suppressive fire to keep their heads down while team mates maneuver.

    Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.

    And Switzerland has many hundreds of thousands of actual assault rifles and so called assault weapons in private hands. Perhaps it is not the guns themselves. Background checks, proper training and storage ... these are things that we should do. However banning rifles and magazines, that is just security theatre.

  111. That's not that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    UK rape rate : 28.8 per 100K, USA, 27.7 per 100K , BUT UK 5 years ago was 23 per 100K USA was 32 per 100K. So there are more variation between years than there are between coutnry.

    USA burglary was 702 out of 100K I can't find a statistic for UK one say 600K burglary total population is 63 milliom so that's 952. The problem is that the crime definition do not match.... Example : look at violent crime the one the owner attempt to protect from : If you look at aggravated assault statistic the picture is more differentiated USA :386 per 100K (that include a lot more than murder) if you remove all crime where no injury happened, particularly only when hospitalisation or hospital visit is required or doctor visit as violent crime You get less than 250 per 100K.

    This is pretty jsutified as FBI only count rape, manslaughter, robbery , and aggracated assault as violent crime , MUCH LESS categories than the UK do count.The British definition includes all âoecrimes against the personâ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all âoesexual offensesâ and that make a lot of difference.

    This is highly misleading to look at simple statistic, and in fact for the home theft, if you dig down you will find out that a LOT is n ot even reported in the US, and a lot more crime are considered burglary in the Uk for insurance purpose. Same for violent crime.


    UK is not more violent that the US and you are far more likely to get in a violent crime as homeowner in the US than UK , and the reason is simple : gun.

  112. technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame the spreadsheets!

  113. lets put some numbers on this shall we? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2013/03/mass_shootings.html

    go ahead.. triple the number if you want. Then divide by how many people have lived since 1983. More people have probably doing home depot repair projects.

  114. Non Rational Actor by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Lanza is a copycat killer. He killed children because Anders Breivik killed students. Anders Breivik killed students for political reasons. (the students were at a polictical camp) Also trying to find a reason for something a crazy person does is foolish. A metally ill person may not have rational reasons for thier actions. I have a relative who had phycotic episodes before thier doctor found the correct medication. I found my relative walking down the middle of the street with a butter knife. They were on their way to a friends house to convice them to stop smoking. Brain chemistry, hormones, "Don't Smoke" propaganda, and lots of confusion is what lead to that incident. My family doesn't show violent media to this person. No guns, sharp things, or alchohol is kept in the house. (medicine locked up)

  115. Because on the other side nobody is putting any heat on the gun industry because they seem to be making record profits.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  116. Cherry Picking Stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but not less violence, nor less deaths in general. Japan, for example, has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, as well as one of the highest suicide rates. According to recorded statistics, if we assume accuracy, the US is well below the global average homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000 people, at 4.8.

    Um, Japan's rate is 0.4 compared to the US's rate of 4.8. Your own link shows that ... yet, of course you cherry pick your statistics and go on about suicides because that fits your narrative of who's more violent ... how is this drivel modded up?

    1. Re:Cherry Picking Stats by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Um, Japan's rate is 0.4 compared to the US's rate of 4.8. Your own link shows that ... yet, of course you cherry pick your statistics and go on about suicides because that fits your narrative of who's more violent ... how is this drivel modded up?

      Japan is also a completely different type of society, such that comparing Japan and the US is like comparing apples and oranges.

  117. Selection Bias. Yet Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should drop 'the right to bear arms' and replace it with 'the right to an education including the concept of selection bias'

  118. And then they came for you... by emt377 · · Score: 1

    ...and there was no one else left to lift a finger.

  119. Re:Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, there WAS a huge problem with kids maiming and killing each other by imitating the Three Stooges and older Warner Brothers cartoons. It directly inspired children killing their siblings by slamming their heads in suitcases, hitting them in the heads with frying pans, drinking poison, and picking up dad's gun and shooting them in the face. Not even kidding. I am a supporter of free speech and gun rights, but media does influence (at least) kids to imitate what they see.

  120. The Stupidity, It Hurts! by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    At the time the second amendment was written to reload a gun you had to spend a good minute reloading it with a very long stick. I support your right to have as many manually-reloaded muskets as you want, as the Founder's intended!

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  121. Convenience of the Moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The gun fuss is not just about guns.. If we agree that a basic right can be altered or eliminated simply because of problems of the moment then essentially we would have no Bill of Rights or Constitution at all. They would be meaningless. And to a great degree that is what the fuss is all about when the government tries to get a toe hold on the right to limit the actually carrying and use of guns.
                              It is far from being a regional issue. Keep in mind that early on western towns sometimes banned gun carry in the city limits. And it did seem like the thing to do back then as drunken cowboys shooting in the streets just to announce their presence was a lousy state of affairs. But look at what follows such a seemingly sensible alteration of our rights. Many people get excluded from the right to carry. Guns start getting altered to please the law. Law abiding people stop wearing guns and if they do so they are forced to carry less effective guns that can be well concealed in their clothing. Criminals become bold and brazen as the likelihood of being shot while committing a crime drops lower and lower. Bullies are able to prosper. People take chances with strong narcotics as being gunned down for acting intoxicated becomes a criminal act. And people become rude and crooked knowing that violence is pretty much off the table for a wronged party.
                            We simply need less gun laws than we already have and should rethink the justifications for violent responses. Stand your ground is just a beginning. Maybe with luck we will be entitled to shoot a lot more worthless people.

  122. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..found a huge spreadsheet in the Lanza home where 20-year old Adam Lanza had methodically charted hundreds of past gun massacres...

    Great, that sounds like fairly strong evidence that his minds not together, so we can focus on dealing with mental illness now!
     

    They believe it was a score sheet. This was the work of a video gamer.

    Well, fuck.

  123. Psychology is going away by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and being replaced by neuroscience. Eventually we'll look back at psychologists the same way we look back at witch doctors & mystics now: At best well meaning and misguide people without enough information.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Psychology is going away by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I hope you are right.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  124. Excel is evil. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I've been saying it for years, MS Office is evil. Seriously though, the fact that this guy was shouted down is a "good news" story, it's rare evidence of sanity in the US political system.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  125. Video games don't use violence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the last 30 years, the amount of violent crime has drastically decreased. This downward trend predates and the existence of violent video games, and has continued in the face of them. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that, next to whatever societal factors actually affect the levels of violent crime, any effect violent video games have is so small as to be insignificant.

    (Ditto sexual violence and the widespread availability of internet porn).

  126. High Score by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    It boggles my mind that no one bothered to link to an actual high score chart.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  127. Google 'Sandy Hook actors' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for Christ's sake...

    Are you people really stupid enough to believe this Jew nonsense? The Jew-owned media tries to disarm it's 'goyim' (cattle) and you go along with their lies? Robbie Parker? Gene Rosen? Veronique Posner?

    Or this laughable interview with that sick faggot Anderson Cooper:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvmzIP1gZ6k

    And you can't see it's FULL OF JEWS? Gun grabbing Jews who have taken over your entire country, and you idiots actually defend these scum?

    http://nodisinfo.com/Home/2013/01/21/sandy-hook-hoax-six-actors-now-confirmed/

    http://www.knowthelies.com/node/8525

  128. Re:Children used to watch "The Three Stooges" . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's new since those days is the model of society in which empathy is, if not actively discouraged, at least despised, and you're only expected to look after yourself.

    Watch Adam Curtis's excellent documentary (3 parts, 1 hour each) "The Trap".

  129. just an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ban real guns in an enforceable way. let people keep their video .games.

  130. nothing for those who can READ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our founders wrote in many places that they meant all able-bodies adult men who did not have religious objection to carrying arms

    The problems lefties have with this is that they are too lazy or ignorant to know the full context but many of their gun-toting opponents are VERY aware of the full context and routinely go into court to remind the judges.

    The US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly decade-after-decade that the term "the people" in the Constitution must be interpreted consistently AND they have regularly paid attention to what the founders wrote in other documents where they explained what they meant when they were creating our nation. The founders openly wrote and spoke about the right of the people to own both rifles and pistols at least as good as the ones the army had...

    You win that "militia" argument on places like CNN or MSNBC where the audience is shallow and ignorant, but you lose every time in the serious places that truly matter.

  131. I don't know by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but with your dinky M16 look alike and little or no training, it's not going to be you. This isn't Red Dawn, and if a bunch of weekend warriors go up against trained soldiers, they lose. Focus more on the freedoms that matter (your economic freedom, meaning your economic security) and less on something the just doesn't matter anymore.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  132. I'm all for banning windows, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wont that upset Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer?

  133. Ban Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spreadsheets are evil and used by murderers!

  134. Vídeo game é vida by Arctic+Combat · · Score: 1

    Eu tenho sites sobre jogos, curto muito um dos meus sites: http://www.arctic-combat-brasil.com/

  135. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If depictions of violence have no negative effect on people, why do we rate movies as G, PG, R? Just let kids see it all, no harm.

  136. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    If those maniacs didn't have access to firearms, they would have shattered PS3 disks and used the shards to stab people to death. Ban violent videogames now!

  137. Gut the FIrst Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To save the Second one.

    Of course, if you don't have the First Amendment, WTF do you have to fight for on with the SECOND?

  138. Ambulance Drivers, Bridge Builders, and Hitmen by francesccrow · · Score: 1

    We have the most militant police officers in the world. If the state wants to reduce wrongful death, they should look at the man in the mirror first. Guns are tools for killing. And we strap them to people we call "civil servants." Clearly, our issues with violence are much deeper than our legislation.

  139. Media induced murder by Molochi · · Score: 1

    He obviously saw Money Ball and was channeling the character Peter Brand.

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  140. Depends on the type of schizophrenia. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like schizophrenia is actually a 'fixable' problem, that it can be cured reliably.

    There's actually a growing body of evidence that common parasite Toxoplasmosis can cause schizophrenic symptoms in humans. For those people for whom their schizophrenia is due to Toxoplasmosis infection, treatment with drugs designed to control Toxo makes their schizophrenia go away.

    This doesn't cover everyone with schizophrenia, but it is a step towards a reliable cure of some forms of the disease.

    Links for the interested.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Depends on the type of schizophrenia. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fascinating

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  141. Large Knives on the other hand... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    That's not a knife, THIS is a knife...

    Sorry sorry, I had to.

    Also "Organized crime"? You mean the Nation of "Australia"? Bunch of convicts and criminals! :)

    I kid I kid!

  142. Canada Perspective by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Can't say I disagree all that much on any point.

    However from a Canadian perspective:
    Most guns used in crime: Handguns.
    Most handguns used in crime: illegally obtained.
    Most illegally obtained handguns: From the US.

    So we have a bit of a strange dichotomy up here where due to our gun control laws, obtaining a legal gun for a Canadian citizen is a bit hard. For criminals, obtaining an illegal US gun is not as hard as it could be. Which makes it harder to make laws up here regarding guns, as proponents will point this fact out. Perhaps we need to do a better job preventing smuggling, but then again we have the biggest border, which the most travel and trade of anyplace.

    Many Canadians are getting pretty weary of the US ordering this or that law in their own interests, while at the same time watching Canadian citizens getting killed on the nightly news using US guns smuggled into our country and anytime someone says anything about it, its all "think of the unarmed children!"

    As an aside I recall seeing a TV program that traced most of the Mexican cartels guns back to the US as well.

    So not exactly something that only affects the US in a vacuum. The US is effectively spluging guns all over its neighbors, and I doubt Canada or Mexico really appreciate it much.

  143. Violent video game regulation may be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Giving an argument that video games cause violence any weight is silly. Currently.

    Up until now, at worst, they've just been a violent influence. Movies, music, literature, the types of friends you hang out with, what your family is like, which school you go to, your work environment, etc., can all be sources of violent and/or unhealthy influences, and video games are not necessarily any worse than any one of them. Singling them out is scapegoating, and obviously so.

    However, VR is now right around the corner (at least, the real beginning of it), and as much as I dislike the necessity, it may actually be necessary to regulate stricter provisions when it comes to buying certain types of violent games to prevent children from accessing them. And even more importantly, better warnings and information for parents purchasing said games for their children, so that many of them will actually have a better understanding of what it is exactly that they're purchasing.

    Keep in mind I'm specifically arguing in favor of stronger ID checks when purchasing mature games that have a VR tag (i.e. compatible with a device such as the Oculus Rift), and even more importantly, some type of program required for instructing adults of the type of content the game they're purchasing contains.

    Because violent video games are about to get a whole lot more real in the near future. And the arguments against them as well. We should be prepared to acknowledge that there will be some legitimacy to them at that point.

    A 12-13 year old playing Call of Duty is controversial enough right now as to whether the kid is mature enough to handle that type of content on a television screen. But in a short couple years away the game actually makes them feel like they're in that war zone, and they get acclimated to it in a virtual world?

    I'd rather be prepared for that before it happens and have stricter rules in place for it, then stick my head in the sand until then because I don't want to be inconvenienced and wait until the aftermath of negligent parents and the ensuing political rampages.

  144. blame games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video games do not kill people! this is a case of blaming everything but the thing. if u take video games out of society, u will still have gun violence and murders. if u take guns out of society, there will be no gun violence or murders. simple logic. but the real problem is: why is america so attached to their guns? to me this qualifies as a mental disorder(unhealthy attachment to an inanimate object), and for this reason most gun owners are mentally disturbed and probably shouldnt possess any firearms.I like guns. thats why I dont own any. I get my firearms fix with "call of duty","gears of war","halo",etc.Therefore, video games prevent gun violence. besides, the science is on our side.

  145. It's not the videogames... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the MK Ultra mind control.