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.'"

132 of 1,006 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

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

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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...
    9. 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...

    10. 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.

    11. 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....
    12. 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."

    13. 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.

    14. Re:The Stupidity, It Hurts! by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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
    22. 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)

    23. 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.
    24. 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
    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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...

    30. 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!
    31. 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.

    32. 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.

    33. 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.

    34. 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.

    35. 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.

    36. 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*
    37. 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.
    38. 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.

    39. 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).

    40. 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?

    41. 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;
    42. 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.

    43. 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".

    44. 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.
    45. 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.

    46. 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.

    47. 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.

    48. 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?

    49. 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.

    50. 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?

    51. 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.

    52. 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.

    53. 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.

    54. 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.

    55. 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"

    56. 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.
    57. 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
    58. 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.

    59. 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.

    60. 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?

    61. 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.

    62. 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.

    63. 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
    64. 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.
    65. 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
    66. 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.

    67. 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
    68. 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.

    69. 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.

    70. 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.

    71. 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.

    72. 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"
    73. 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
    74. 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
    75. 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.
    76. 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
    77. 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.

    78. 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.

    79. 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.

    80. 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.

  2. Guns don't kill people ... by SSpade · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... spreadsheets kill people.

    Ban Excel!

  3. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft Excel?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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 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...
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  11. 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 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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 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...
  14. 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 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

  15. 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 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.

  16. 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 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.

  17. 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!
  18. 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 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...

  19. 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.

  20. 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.)

  21. 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/
  22. 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.

  23. 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".

  24. 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 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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
  28. Re:Another one bites the dust? (well, not yet) by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    "ow to go from a spreadsheet to gamer?"

    EVE Online.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.
  31. 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.

  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.