No, this was caused by bad parenting take your Nintendo preaching propaganda someplace else.
Comment has been collapsed.
innocents
you shoot ultranationalist terrorist
sense
Comment has been collapsed.
You can also play AS the terrorists and shoot innocents. Blaming this incident on video game violence is pointless but it's not like Call of Duty is meant to enforce strong moral values. It's a video game meant for entertainment. This kid is obviously fucked up and would have snapped if she tried to take away his copy of To Kill a Mockingbird too. Giving your 14 year old son his own rifle is stupid but that doesn't make it the parents' fault. Mentally stable people do not have the capacity to aimlessly kill someone.
This is very sad and blaming the mother is just plain tasteless.
Comment has been collapsed.
We don't know the whole situation but most of the time it is majority the parents fault simple as that.The parent has the responsibility to teach and raise their child, he may have been unstable but it is also their job to monitor things like that and get them medical help, it says in the story that she knew about his emotional problems and has been threatened before.She gave a kid that she KNEW had threatened to KILL her access to firearms, does that not seem stupid to anyone?
Comment has been collapsed.
She obviously shouldn't have given the kid a firearm but there is a difference between being irresponsible and being at fault. You're saying that the child's obvious mental health issues are the parents' fault. Not every murderer/rapist/etc had shitty parents that mistreated or neglected them. Some people have serious mental health problems and they may not have been evident or even present during their upbringing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pfft. No one would snap if someone took away their copy of To Kill a Mockingbird.
It was boring. The only eventful part was when Bob Ewell got killed. Even then, there was way too much buildup for the climax, and the book only allowed about 20 pages to conclude from the climax.
I know it'f off topic, but still. Coulda chosen another book as an example :3
Comment has been collapsed.
So unarmed civilians on airport player was shooting in mw2, were actually ultra-nationalist terrorists? Stop using ">" like noob when you don't even know what you talking about.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're aware you can (and had to in several different releases, dependant on location) not shoot them, right? You could also.. skip the level.
Comment has been collapsed.
the game tells you if you want the play the fucking level or not, even if you play it you dont need to shoot the civilians in order to pass it, stop calling me noob when you dont even know where you are standing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Man, you make me laugh hard. The level is still there, being optional is same thing as not being there at all? Dafuq? Since when? And "like noob" ain't the same as saying "your are noob". But obviously you are trying hard to convince us about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
i never said it wasnt there, im sure a lot of sensible people or parents who care about their children for a little bit would block out this level, but i guess their parents just did not care at all which makes me kinda wrong in some sense.
im sure that saying something like you are a noob and you are like a noob does not really change a lot to even care about, and i dont understand why you try to discuss this.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they had they likely would have pulled some idiotic argument comparing something stupid to guns like the two are in any way the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for calling us "insane". Do understand that some of us consider this to be flaming.
I grew up with guns. There were always guns in my house and I was often home alone because my parents worked. I've never hurt anyone. I've never tried to hurt anyone. I never thought playing with guns was a good idea (mostly because I was raised to respect this sort of thing).
Comment has been collapsed.
Speaking as someone with a background in Psychology and Child Psychology who see kids every day on the job, a large part of "the problem with kids, these days" stems from bad parenting. After that, social environment. After that, a long list of things. The type of video games your kid plays is so far down the list, and has such a minor influence on the development of his or her character that it is barely worth mentioning.
Of course, environment plays only a part. Bad circumstances can yield good people just as good circumstances can yield bad people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. I played violent videogames when I was his age, and I turned out fine. I was just raised to be incredibly calm, empathetic, and mature. I wish folks would stop trying to blame rotten behavior on a single factor. You cannot simplify such a complex issue. -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny, because I played violent games as a kid and have no urge to kill, actually I am one of the most peaceful people I know, I get mad when someone kills an ant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Until you get really angry and morph into The Hulk. HILLARYCLINTON SMASH!!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
I ate the hulk(He asked me, its cool guys), absorbed his powers but have them under control, I only call upon them when I can't egt the pickles open.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same. I spent a good portion of my pre-teen/teen years enjoying violent movies and games, and I'm incredibly peaceful. The only way I'd hurt someone is in self-defense, and even then I'd probably feel like shit afterwards.
Comment has been collapsed.
pls. Looka at Japan for example. Violent games, rape simulators, and yet low crime number...
Comment has been collapsed.
"A 14-year-old boy has been charged with first degree murder after shooting his mother with a .22 caliber rifle he received as a present. " if you give a 14 year old a gun (or allow him to get a gun) then that's the biggest problem.
the game was just the trigger. not the cause. it's bad parenting to allow a 14 year old to have a gun. and to have him play games like that. (they're 18+ for a reason ffs)
Comment has been collapsed.
Bad parenting, the parents bought a .22 caliber rifle as a birthday present when he was 10.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, now that I think of it, there are a lot of kids that go hunting at an early age. Could the gun possibly have been for that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably, but that is kinda young and I am pro gun saying this...but thats just my opinion, I am sure some kids are fully ok with that sorta thing...but yeah not something I would do if I was a parent, maybe at age 13+...and thats a BIG maybe.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's fine. but don't buy a kid a gun that they have constant access too. it should be locked up and they shouldn't be able to open the lock. this is such a basic safety rule with guns.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got my .22 Ruger rifle at a young age like that, and you don't see me on the news as a rapist/murderer... People need to stop blaming guns for everything, it's the PEOPLE! not the TOOL!
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, then let's ban knives, plastic (suffocation), heavy objects, and power tools. Because hell, it's the tool, not the person, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, not to mention anything that could be used to fuse a dangerous chemical! Let's get rid of all that shit! Wait, what do we got left?
Comment has been collapsed.
We'd have nothing, because almost everything in existence can be used for evil.
Comment has been collapsed.
We need to ban Earth from being legal. Rocks can be used as assault projectiles and have you seen what people can do with cliffs?
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, nobody outside the US will ever understand your arguments, so many get killed by Guns not by other Tools. In my Country nobody except the Police and Hunters is allowed to have Guns. BTW it's a lot easier to kill with guns than kill with a spoon. Kids go Hunting? How disturbed is that?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's also very irresponsible to have weapons openly accessible at any time in a house. If you increase accessibility the chances increase. Simple as that, and it takes way more effort / conviction to stab someone with a knife to death than to pull a trigger. --> easier accessible...
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, someone with the right training and motivation could probably kill with about the same amount of effort as a 14 year old can with a .22.
And seriously? A German is going to preach about gun control? Doesn't Germany have some of the laxest gun control in the world?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pro-guns, but you're thinking of Switzerland, not Germany.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except those tools are used mainly for other purposes. The main purpose of a gun is to kill.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the gun itself does not decide "Hey, I feel like killing someone!" And the main purpose of a gun is not to kill people but animals
Comment has been collapsed.
I know right? My gun literally just sprouted legs and arms and shot me by itself, I mean seriously.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which part? Again, I say you can't blame a gun for a killing someone. And yes, guns are often intended to kill people, but the main purpose is typically not so. The majority of guns (excluding army, etc.) are bought for either hunting or self-defense.
Comment has been collapsed.
I found a poll made by the NRA stating that 41% of gun's owners own firearms for hunting. And the end result of self-defense with guns is killing.
But that's besides my point. You were saying that "the main purpose of a gun is not to kill people but animals" which just isn't true and is very naïve. Now you qualify what you were saying but imo it's still significant of a state of mind i often come across. The truth is, most people don't need guns anymore to defend themselves against animals and if guns are still made and bought it's for killing people. And you can coat it all you want but killing is killing no matter the reasons. Oh and if i'm wrong and/or come across rude i apologize, not my intention at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, you don't come across as rude, its fine. However, I still respectfully disagree with you. To start with, self-defense, although regrettably implies violence, does not necessarily entail killing. Secondly, by killing animals I do not mean defense, but refer only to hunting, which is still HUGELY popular in many regions, especially where I live. I do not condone killing in any way, and it is often done with a gun, but I still think that murder is not the primary use or purpose of a gun.
PS- I don't own a gun myself and don't plan to :P
Comment has been collapsed.
the tool was there, sitting not doing anything, it was the will of the man (or boy) that lift it up and put it to bad use, guns dont just suddenly grow legs and shot people randomly you know, unless you take a lot of weed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I did not mean to give that impression, from what I think the kid was spoiled. You are right people need to stop blaming guns it is just a temporary scapegoat that makes them feel like they did something.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, but if there were no tools then these people can't carry out the act
Comment has been collapsed.
A weapon is not the only way to kill someone, stop trying to use scapegoats the fact remains that he is mentally unwell.
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, let's get rid of plastic, people suffocate others with it. Let's get rid of all sharp objects, people are stabbed to death by them. Let's get rid of anything heavy, peoples heads are smashed in by them. Hell, LET'S ALL WEAR BUBBLE WRAP!
Comment has been collapsed.
actually that is an amazing idea, if that happened we would all be much safer
Comment has been collapsed.
Someone will use the bubble wrap to kill people then.
The simple solution is everyone needs to have there legs, hands, and teeth removed, and all be put on machines that feed them (and do everything else needed for the person to live). Hopefully by the time everyone on earth is like that, there will be an AI that can repair the machines and whatnot if they break. The last person will have to program a robot to cut his legs and whatnot off, so then nobody can kill each other anymore. Problem solved.
We will have to hope the robots don't kill us, but oh well if they do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shooting puppies. What the hell do you think the reason is genius?
Comment has been collapsed.
HOW DID YOU FIND OU-... I mean, I don't know what you're talking about... ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
To shed the blood of the innocent, take over the world, and show my dominance by shooting babies in the head... TO HUNT ANIMALS YOU IDIOT!
Comment has been collapsed.
You dont need to become so agressive, I was asking you a serious question...
I'm against guns, but maybe you could've enlighten me with a good reason.
But since you are just being an agressive person insulting everyone who gives a sign of their right to be against guns, then I have no respect for you.
and with that I've said what I wanted to say and I'll leave it at that.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/3059/ - I don't quite get the joke in this one but I do think Katanas are awesome.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing wrong with buying a .22 rifle for a kid. It has nothing to do with parenting, out of all the kids in similar circumstances, this one actually did something this crazy. There was just something wrong with this kid that no parenting would fix.
Comment has been collapsed.
A child killing their parent in a fit of rage happens relatively often, and most of the time they didn't meant to do it at any point. Heck, many of us say they want to kill someone at some point, but don't really mean it. However, this kid? The article says he killed his mom after he failed to rape her. Rape isn't something you can do by accident. This kid was very clearly disturbed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like how big of a deal the article makes about the game, they're clearly suggesting the kid learned this violence from it. The Call of Duty part of the story is irrelevant. The kid didn't do this because his mom took the game away. He did it because he was insane. Taking the game away is just what made him snap. It could have just as easily been his mom telling him to clean his room or go study.
Comment has been collapsed.
using my detective skills i deduce that the game was probably what he channeled all his insanity into, so with his only way of letting out his rage gone he went bonkers and killed his mother
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, but I still felt like the article was suggesting he was violent because he played the game, rather than he played the game because he was violent. The fact that he killed her after he took away the game is not important, and I felt like they put way too much emphasis on it. You hear stories like this all the time. A man killing his wife and family because his wife cooked his food too long, and other small things. They always concentrate on the details too much, it feels like they're trying to tell us that if you take away your kid's video game, or if you burn your husband's supper, he might attack you. Really, this happens because people are crazy, not because they got their game taken away.
Comment has been collapsed.
holy shit really? man, i hope north korea blows us up with nukes then, so the whole human race will end because humans are such cruel creatures
Comment has been collapsed.
You clearly know nothing about the world around you. Humans are no more or less evil or cruel then any other species of animal on the planet. Chimps have been seen murdering family and or friends for no apparent reason. They have also been seen raping as well as participating in necrophilia. Humans just have a much larger capacity for cruelty, but at the same time, we have a much larger capacity for compassion.
I find it funny that you complain about human cruelty and that because of it we should all be remove planet, by that train of thought, you are wishing death on everyone you personally know, thus you express your own cruelty.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Daily Mail (or The Daily Fail to those of us with brains) is a British newspaper with a penchant for sensationalist scaremongering and scapegoating. If it had happened in the UK they've have blamed Islamic immigrants before telling you breathing too much gives you cancer.
Some things should be taken with a pinch of salt, a story in the fail needs a bucket of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
That explains why all the other articles linked to on that page have such sensationalist headlines. Ugh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I've never heard of the Daily Mail, so I can't say anything about them. But I really don't think it would be any different with almost any major media source. The media loves finding reasons why people do things, rather than just saying that they did them. The recent Boston bombing is a good example. You can still see the news channels talking about the bombers' past, trying to figure out what caused the two to do it. It's ridiculous that they actually care, when they could be giving real news instead. They love finding things to blame, and in this story, the violent video game was an easy choice. I know media sources do this kind of thing all the time, I just wish they wouldn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
You misunderstand. The Daily Mail is as sensationalistic as a news paper can get. Also, why are they the source link to a crime that happened in America?
Comment has been collapsed.
Now I see what you mean. I looked up the same story on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/noah-crooks-911-call-killed-raped-mother-gretchen-crooks_n_3202568.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
I thought this was presented much better than the one originally posted.
Comment has been collapsed.
At least it wasn't The Sun. There'd be 'sexy' pictures of the mother, accusations of the father being a paedo (because in The Sun's eyes EVERYONE is even if there's not even a grain of evidence to even slightly suggest it) and there'd fit in something racist too ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't blame it on the new generation, but i would say that the world isn't an easy place to grow up in anymore. Things just are so complicated now, for the young kids at least. Yet, for the case of this kid, i'm confused. Confused dinosoar is confused.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you would think so but you would be wrong.
A psychopath would not feel nor show remorse, he would have tried to cover up what he did, maybe get rid of the body, maybe do it up to look like a robbery or something and blended, thats why psychos do.
Now obviously the kid is bug nuts crazy but a psycho he is not.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is sad. Back when I was 12, my mom took away the PC and banned me from playing Digimon World. I was mad as hell.
I expressed my anger by drawing picture of a pig and wrote some bad word on the wall at the living room.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought that was the general age range for CoD players
Comment has been collapsed.
While I dont really see a problem with underage kids playing certain games, contra is not nearly has graphic as a CoD game is IMO.
For the record though, I was playing games like conker's bad fur day and mortal kombat at a young age and I havnt murdered anyone... yet. I actually seem to be a lot more well adjusted then most everyone else IMO, but I digress.
Comment has been collapsed.
He didn't say anything about the games graphics, he said it was more graphic. (In his opinion, I would disagree; CoD IMO is far less graphic than quite a few other games out now)
Comment has been collapsed.
No, he wasn't. He was comparing adult oriented games that children play in this generation vs the adult oriented games he played as a kid.
Comment has been collapsed.
So he *wasn't comparing CoD to Contra, not to other modern games. I disagreed with his point, I didn't try to correct it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Allow me to explain. You kill an enemy in Contra with a futuristic laser/fire ball - he goes puff and dissappears. You kill an enemy with CoD with actual bullets - he sprays blood all over the place and falls down with a cry of pain. See the difference?
Comment has been collapsed.
Same, I have no problem with 9-10 year olds playing certain higher rated games but not CoD OR GTA
Comment has been collapsed.
Sad thing is, this case will be cited in the future by "video games cause violence" advocates. There's tons of violent acts and murders that happen every day that have various causes; you can't point at all those causes and say they all cause violence in people. No one can say for 100% certainty that video games don't affect people but neither can they say for 100% certainty that it does. It's a correlation with no evidence of causation. Maybe if his mother said "if you don't get better grades in school I'm never making you homemade doughnuts again" he might have snapped too. You have no way of telling. Unlikely, sure, but 100%? No. It might just have been the mental state he was in at the time. He might have reacted that way to anything negative towards him.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its easier to point the finger at what appears to be an immediate cause and effect then something more buried and long term such as genetics and their setting. Before video games, violence was blamed on music, before that it was blamed on books, before that it was blamed on other people, and before that it was blamed on the supernatural, IE witches and spirits. Its just another mark in our human history.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish we (as a society as a whole) could over come the "it's this popular thing here! That's the problem!" and actually take time to find the REAL problem. If we identify that, maybe we could actually do something about it and start to prevent more terrible behavior in the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol he tried to rape his mother and you're looking at his nose? :/
Comment has been collapsed.
He should rot in a jail cell forever but thats not gonna happen. Neither the gun nor the game has anything to do with what he has done. He would have used a knife if there wasnt a gun around. He probably didnt have many friends so he wasted all his time playing video games and when that was taken away he went nuts.
Comment has been collapsed.
This will still be used on gun control, when will they learn that a gun is the most convenient to use and if they take that away knives are the next convenient thing to use.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its quite a bit different to kill someone with a knife then a gun. A knife is wholly more emotional and requires a bit more thought. A 13 year old doesnt possess enough upper body strength to go and kill 10+ people with a knife, a 2 year old however has enough strength in their finger to pull a trigger. In the amount of time it takes for someone to stab you once, the average person could have pulled a trigger 2-3 times.
It always makes me chuckle when people go on about gun control, "well if we banned all the guns then people would use knives or something else". By that logic, chemical weapons and nuclear ordinance might as well be purchasable at your local walmart then.
Forgoing all of the above, gun control does not mean banning of all guns, it just means exactly what it is, better control. I really wish people would stop implying that its strictly some government agenda to ban all of your guns so they can control you or w/e. If people weren't so stupid with their guns, there would be no need for regulations, point and fact, this person should have had the gun locked in a safe or at the very least had the ammunition separate from the gun itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
a 2 year old however has enough strength in their finger to pull a trigger
Please, show me a 2 year old holding a rifle.
And while I understand your argument about better gun control and agree with it, there are still a lot of people who think that all guns should be banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well spoken PPG13. Logical and calmly. Its just so sad when people take this debate to extremes on both sides, ensuring nothing will ever get accomplished except people arming themselves more and more.
One thing I bring up in these debates from time to time is the same day that kid killed 20+ children in Newtown with his automatic rifle, a man in China stabbed 20+ people with a knife. NONE of those stabbed died. While over 20 people under the age of 6 had to be buried with closed caskets cuz they were literally blown to bits.
Knife, fist, any other manner of other kinds of attacks can be contained and stopped much sooner than if someone has these weapons in their possession.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your appeals to emotion and use of scare words is rather transparent and, for that matter, insulting.
I find that gun control advocates like to invoke Newtown (and before it, Virginia Tech, Columbine etc.) as a way to shut down conversations. It's hard not to look like "the bad guy" when you're not swayed by "small children being literally blown to bits!!!!!".
The objective and honest truth is that events like Newtown are absurdly rare. More children died on American highways on the same day than died in Newtown due to shootings and we don't blink an eye at this. Do we try to ban assault cars? No? Why the hell not? Nobody needs a car that can drive faster than 55MPH.
Please don't muddle issues with blatant appeals to emotion.
Now, in reply to your point, I really see this as "woulda coulda shoulda." If Lanza had an extra X chromosome, he'd be a woman. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as simply outlawing guns and therefore nobody will have guns. That has simply proven itself to not be true.
as for your theory that "people arming themselves more and more" is a bad thing, let me ask you this - how many mass shootings happen at gun shows, firearm sporting events, or police stations? Why is it all these mass shootings happen at "gun free zones" where people are arbitrarily denied their human right to self-defense?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because a close range weapon is exactly the same as a long range weapon in every way right?
oh wait not its not stop comparing things that arent comparable.
Comment has been collapsed.
You forgot the fact that he's 13 and mentally ill
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't claim being a fucking retard "mentally ill." I see this so much when I read American news, people pleading insane and getting away with prison stints and psychiatric help. If you kill somebody with intent to kill you deserve to get executed. I say with intent, a car accident where you hit a patch of ice and lost control is not intent, for example.
I really wish the death penalty was still widely used. Would cut so much tax money on these prisons where criminals get fed better then somebody who worked his ass off and ended up homeless.
Comment has been collapsed.
intermittent explosive disorder
Just because someone does something you dont like doesnt suddenly mean they are free from mental illness. Personally I would rather someone do 5 years for a crime and be medicated for their disability than 10 years and released drug/therapy free.
Comment has been collapsed.
The ignorance in your post is so funny.
By definition, mental retardation is a disorder and not a choice. So your attempt to differentiate between that and "mentally ill" is pointless. He's already been diagnosed with a condition so why the fuck would you want to kill him? But yeah, you're right, lets just execute a minor because he's mentally ill.
I agree with the death penalty, but I most certainly do not agree with it being used for crimes committed by mentally ill people, regardless of age.
Comment has been collapsed.
It shouldn't matter if the person is "sick" they killed somebody. Using their "sickness" is the worst excuse I have ever seen. They do not deserve to be treated, they deserve to die, and I firmly believe they should be killed in the same manner is which they killed.
You stabbed somebody? Stab them. They tried to rape somebody and shot them? Actually rape them and shoot them and see how they fucking like it. I have zero, ZERO faith in the human race. Murder should be dealt with swiftly and without chance of "recovery" they simply do not deserve it.
I may sound twisted and warped, but holy shit some of the things people do in this world. Those people should not be allowed to live. On a side note, I actually feel the same way about war, I really don't understand this world, and frankly I really don't want too.
Comment has been collapsed.
They tried to rape somebody and shot them? Actually rape them and shoot them and see how they fucking like it.
lol. Who will be the one to perform this punishment? I argue that anyone who would do this is just as sick as the perpetrator.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dems da rules bro. Deal with it. Maybe a bit overboard with the raping part and all, but my point still stands. Cruel and sick people should not be treated as if they need help, they should be treated as the sick people they are.
The kid is clearly not able to function in society, so they give him therapy and drug him for a few years. What is to stop him from snapping and killing again? Nothing. Deal with the current problem, and the possible future problem. The kid also doesn't have to live the next few years in a shit hole being reminded how sick he is. End it now, ease peoples mind, and save some damn tax money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I totally remember when death sentences totally stopped violence and crime in america.
Oh wait...
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't believe I'm actually reading this. Just to clarify, you think that a mentally unstable person (who couldn't help the way they acted) should be killed for murder? In this case in particular, the kid has been diagnosed as being sick. So he isn't using any excuses. You think he should be killed for an action that he had limited or no control over? What if he was your son? Could you condemn his death even though he wasn't in control? Don't be so quick to kill someone, no matter how shitty the human race is, or how little faith you have in people.
Rapists getting raped. Torturers being tortured. How are we any different than the people who committed these crimes? Like I said, I'm all for the death penalty, but reciprocating the crimes of those who have been convicted is just flat out wrong. There has to be a moral high ground that society can stand on, otherwise we're just as bad as the worst criminals out there.
There are plenty of good people in this world, but your pessimistic attitude will always hide them from you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I commend you for actually managing to construct a well articulated response to his post. I couldn't make a decent reply without it being filled with expletives and ad hominems.
Comment has been collapsed.
If my son commented murder, or any family members for that matter I would immediately disown them. Whatever happens to them at that point is not my concern. A bit bleak, but I will not associate myself with somebody who is proven to have committed a murder I don't even talk to my cousin who was in Afghanistan.
I agree with your second point, and I may have went a bit overboard with the "you get what you do" thing. But in all honesty, I really don't care the kid has some mental illness. It does not excuse the fact he committed murder, and he should killed for it and be used as an example.
Maybe there would be less murder in our society if people feared for their lives if they kill somebody. Some people don't fear jail, or a correction facility and I do not believe people who are ill have no sense of what they are doing.
Comment has been collapsed.
People who've been diagnosed with a mental condition aren't able to think or react to situations in the same way that most people can. Most murders associated with a mentally unstable person don't have motives or reasons. This is why it's pointless to set an "example". There would be no change in the amount of murders related to people with mental conditions.
"I really don't care the kid has some mental illness. It does not excuse the fact he committed murder, and he should killed for it."
The end result is never the only thing that should be considered. For example, murder in the second degree/accidental killings. If you're speeding in your car to get to work and accidentally kill someone, should you be killed? According to your statement, you should.
Why do you think your cousin went to Afghanistan? In fact why do you think most people join the military?
Fear of consequence is not something that most killers consider. Jealous husbands who kill their cheating wives usually act on impulsive rage rather than rational thinking. Mentally unstable people who commit murder usually won't even know what the word consequence means. A paranoid homeowner who shoots unarmed robbers after they break into his home will actually use fear to murder them. It's not that simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you kill somebody with intent to kill you deserve to get executed.
You're saying the people that operate the death chamber should be executed
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure the guy who got a sick fuck off the streets and dealing the justice the murderer deserves is doing the world a favour.
I am a super laid back and peaceful man, I don't get angry or frustrated easily, but things in this world are fucked up. I have been stabbed FOUR TIMES, I have even been shot at (thankfully not hit.) But have NEVER had the urge to kill somebody. There is something seriously wrong with people who have those thoughts.
Comment has been collapsed.
You said anyone with the intent to kill and kills should be killed. Are you making exceptions now?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope. He simply forgot to include "with malicious intent". Don't sweat the little things in someone's wording.
Comment has been collapsed.
this society is going down the drain, sometimes i feel like we have become some kind of plague in the eyes of the earth, and its using all his forces to get us out because of crap like this. like when our bodie sends white blood cells.
Comment has been collapsed.
People are still blaming the guns and not the behavior of people?
Plus, people that are going to use guns for dark intentions will still have illegal means of obtaining them after a hypothetical gun ban, thus hurting people that use them in self-defense more than the murderers and criminals. Even if guns magically disappeared, we'd just see a sharp increase in vehicular assault, stabbings and bat usage (among other, much more brutal ways to die).
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's not the guns, people will blame the video games
Comment has been collapsed.
That sure explains the criminality rate in America and all the gun related deaths every year.
Oh, wait...
Comment has been collapsed.
Because making guns illegal to obtain will stop people already doing illegal behavior from using them, amirite?
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny. You only ever hear the full on gun ban from the people that cant live without them.
from everyone else you hear sensible gun control, or look at this horrible event related to guns and then crazy people start shouting "it would be a gun ban" and "you cant take my gun"
do the world a favour and grow up a little
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even use firearms of the sort and am against gun bans.
Besides, the problem with the concept of control is that, in general, it's not going to help all that much. We let people with DUIs or vehicular homicide still obtain renewed driving licenses, so why should we expect an even better level of secure background checks when it comes to guns?
Like I said, it will do little to improve a situation that already has guns aplenty.
Comment has been collapsed.
It strikes me that a list of people not allowed to buy guns would probably end up being as about as effective as the "no-fly list".
Expecting any law to be perfectly enforced with no mistakes or errors is an utter fantasy. We have to look at similar laws that have already been implemented and ask how they're done in the real world. And yeah, I oppose proposed gun-ban lists and universal background checks against these lists for the same reason I thought - and still do think - that the "no-fly list" is a bad idea. It doesn't work and it harasses innocent people. I'd hate to have my right to armed self-defense suspended because I share a name with a criminal on the other side of the country or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with "sensible" "common sense" gun legislation is that it is neither sensible nor common sense.
The most popular "common sense" legislation amounts to total bans on ownership in certain areas (good luck owning a handgun in Washington DC - more on that in a second) and total bans on certain categories of guns based on arbitrary and in some cases cosmetic criteria.
The truth of the matter is that this "common sense" legislation does nothing but harass law-abiding gun owners. It took me three months to clear an "instant" background check here in Maryland for a handgun. No joke - I bought a SIG Sauer P229 for my birthday on January 31st (my birthday is Feb. 9th). I only got it on April 27th. So when people call for universal background checks, I want to slap them silly. I should have to go through this hassle for private purchases between private individuals? No, screw that.
As for "assault weapons" bans (the other popular category of "sensible" legislation), they ban arbitrary categories of features, such as barrel shrouds. Barrel shrouds, mind you, are a SAFETY FEATURE designed to keep a shooter from burning is freaking hand off after half a magazine.
There's also bans on "high capacity" magazines, which take most firearm's STANDARD capacity and arbitrarily redefines them as being "too much".
And even with the flaws in these laws, the real crime is that they are not enforced perfectly - what law is? In Washington, DC, in 2008 the Supreme Court overturned their total ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional. So, they passed a "sensible" regulation that you had to take a course to prove you were safe to own a gun. That's "sensible", right?
Here's the rub - nobody is authorized to teach the required course, thus effecting a total ban on handguns. These "sensible" laws are written and enforced in bad faith, they don't lower crime (DC is one of the most dangerous cities in America), and they make it hard on us law-abiding gun owners.
So, yeah, we oppose them.
Also, as food for thought: If I have not been convicted of any crime (that is, due process of law), by what right can the government restrict my ability to do anything that does not harm or coerce other individuals?
Comment has been collapsed.
You should stop hanging out with the NRAs talking points, ill give you a little hint, your first point is bullshit. No one is talking a ban except the NRA and some really dumb politicians any time someone suggests a little gun control.
And a victim complex already, what fun. How does sensible gun laws make you feel like a criminal? How? by that logic people who collect things that are a bit harder to get should feel like criminals because they cant walk into wherever they want to get one.
Oh I see, so you couldnt instantly get a device whose only purpose is to kill so you feel like a criminal.
Why should you have to go through that process for private sales? because fucking crazy people who actually want to kill people know they dont have to and use that. Because sometimes not instantly handing over a device that can kill people en masse from a distance ISNT a good idea.
if that makes you feel like a criminal seek mental help because you have an underlying guilt complex.
And thats irrelevant "oh no, the legislators have a classification, better pretend its evil and senseless because that makes my life easier".
Fun fact for you, do you know when police stop crazed gunmen? when they are reloading. do you know when people escape? when they are reloading. Making people safer, now a bad thing because you want the ability to shoot 30 times at once, there is nothing arbitrary in it you just didnt actually research the bill and spent too much time apparently reading the NRAs website because they made the same false claims.
Actually that is pretty sensible. Whats wrong with a safety course before you allow someone to have a device that is made and manufactured to kill? oh thats right, its inconvenient for you so it must be a bad idea, I guess car license requirements are a bad idea too right?
Didnt think I would fact check you did you? Washington DC gun safety courses, its an online course you take before registering the firearm. Yeah, no way to take that course at all, and no way at all for anyone to conveniently take it whenever you have a few minutes.
Basically you oppose them based on lies you believe becuase you refuse to fact check and being incredibly lazy. Never mind human lives your convenience is at stake.
Guns are dangerous, you dont see them freely allowing people to have arsenic whenever they like. If you have a problem with regulating a dangerous device you really do need a bit of mental help.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you actually read my post? First off, quit talking about the NRA. I don't support the NRA because I think they're insane and a disservice to rational gun owners. I'm not alone - honestly, only a tiny minority of gun owners support the NRA. Plus, they finance the Republican party with their donation funds, and screw that. So your constant denouncing of the NRA's positions are falling on deaf ears.
Next, nobody is talking a complete ban? "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Senator Feinstein, on 60 Minutes. Watch it here.. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed an exception allowing people to use firearms to defend themselves in their own home. If you can't defend yourself in your own home, where can you?
Next, about Washington DC - You totally ignored my point about laws not working how they're intended, but how they're enforced. Go on, try to actually buy a handgun in Washington DC. Being a Maryland shooter in the area, I think I have a lot more experience to suggest that it's de facto impossible to own and carry a handgun in DC. The state of Maryland in general is what is called a "may issue" state, which means the state government does not have to issue you a license even if you meet all legal requirements - and that effectively means you're screwed unless you're a celebrity or a Senator. The same is true in Washington DC, where they routinely deny requests as a matter of course.
Next, regarding so-called "assault weapons" - perhaps you are the one confused by talking points, are you? Can you tell me what the features of an "assault weapon" are and, individually, why those features are dangerous? Because I think this legislation is an outright sham. Things like collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds do nothing whatsoever to make a gun more dangerous. The thing is, they look "scary". And you know what? The gun control lobby agrees with me! "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." In the words of at least one gun-control advocacy organization, "assault weapons" bans only work because they look scary. Here are two examples of what truly constitute "assault weapons".
Next, do you actually have any statistics that suggest that private gun sales cause a significant amount of criminal shootings? Just because you assert something does not make it true. Sorry, but most criminal shootings are carried out by firearms that are stolen or purchased illegally. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics the vast majority of offenders got their guns from an illegal source or from their friends and family. Almost all of the rest got theirs from retail purchasers and pawn stores (who do NICS checks). A measely 0.7% of guns used in crime came from the ever-popular "gun show loophole" boogeyman. So, sorry, but your assertion is just flat out not held up by the facts. And these aren't "NRA talking points," these are statistics collected by the government itself.
As for "my convenience", I think it's a huge problem when I have to wait months to be approved to exercise a Constituitional right. That is not a matter of "convenience". At that point, it's just plain harassing gun owners. And given Maryland's horrific crime rate in the cities, it's done absolutely nothing to combat crime. So, yeah, I oppose bills that propose to harass me for peacefully exercising a Constitutional right. Sorry if my civil liberties trump your appeals to emotion.
Oh, and denouncing anyone who disagrees with you as needing "mental help" does nothing to persuade anyone that you're the mature, rational, and calm side of a discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, not at all, which is exactly why I responded to every point you made, because I didnt read what you wrote. Ill stop talking about the NRA when you stop aping their talking points.
Oh Im sorry, I figured we were talking about a recent event in an issue that actually mattered, had I known we could go as far back as we liked to cherry pick one person that happens to conform to what you want to say I would have been way crazier in who I talked about.
Your citation features a state senate in which obama would have literally no swing save for party loyalty. And quite literally what it says is it restricts ownership to people who violated this law who ALSO have a charge against them involving a home invader that cannot be confirmed to have been justified or not.
Oh goodie, your personal experience is totally proof of something. That is not how evidence works. and your entire problem is they dont have to issue you a license for a gun. seriously, that is your big issue? that they allow for discretion on the part of the government? Your huge issue here is they dont just hand out guns to everyone that asks, and you expect me to take you seriously.
I dont care who agrees with you that is irrelevant, a simple appeal to authority, you are changing your complaint mid discussion, thats a no no. Your original complaint was quite literally that they have their own classification on this one issue and thats so horrible because if they can classify things they can control certain firearms that are more dangerous than others. If they are too vague talk to your senator about trying to redefine them so they are more reasonable instead of just complaining that they are too vague.
That is true, assertion does not prove the point, too bad you didnt understand my point. The point of course was that they are entirely unregulated and so is not tied at all to actual criminal statistics which would be impossible to actually prove because private sales are entirely unregulated. The gun show loop hole isnt a boogeyman, its a real thing. Private sales are entirely unregulated and I couldnt care less what percentage are actually used in criminal actions, and by the way you ignore entirely where those "illegal" guns come from, which are of course private sales from one nut bag to another, just on the streets where there is no question of motive.
Now find me a statistic that guarantees that no gun from a private sale has ever murdered someone, and THEN you have the right to say requiring background checks from private sales is needless and serves no purpose. The simple fact is regardless of statistics, right now anyone can walk right in and buy whatever they can afford and walk right out, no questions, no fuss, no paper trail, no nothing. Prove to me that your statistic doesnt ignore that possibility, prove to me this has not happened and THEN you may have a point.
Right so the entire thing boils down to you deserve it now because you want it now. Let me ask you something, are you a free standing and well regulated militia? no I hear you saying quizzically, then it is not a constitutional guarantee.
Now even adding the states whose courts were fucking stupid and said any male of a certain age was a free standing and well regulated militia, does waiting for a month or two in any way infringe this right in an unreasonable manner? given the danger guns can pose the answer here is no. Its like the RIDE stops in Ontario Canada during times of heavy drinking, its not an unreasonable infringement because its a danger to others. This point is entirely moot no matter how you look at it.
Oh please learn to read, I didnt say you need mental help for disagreeing with me. I said you needed mental help for the frankly stupid claim that a sensible gun control makes you feel like a criminal. Thats a serious underlying complex you should seek help for. I made this quite clear when I actually said it so your cherry picking does you no good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps the reason you're incapable of empathizing with my arguments is that you think I'm merely parroting other peoples' arguments. I am not. These are my sincerey-held beliefs. Please have the common decency to treat them as such. I don't accuse you of merely mindlessly parrotting what the Brady Campaign tells you, do I?
Cherry pick one person that happens to conform? Do you think this is a past issue? Do you not realize this is the same Senator Feinstein who penned the 2013 assault weapons ban proposal? And the current sitting president? When you claim that "nobody wants to take our guns" and I tell you that the EXACT senator who wrote the last AWB proposal claims to want exactly that, with a freaking video, that is not "cherry picking" anything! It's not like I just took a random person off the street, here. That is an actual sitting Senator who writes real laws about guns. Who, in fact, wrote the last assault weapons ban. Quoting her on assault weapons is in no way, shape, or form cherrypicking.
As for my huge issue that the government arbitrarily denies my Constitutionally protected right - um, yes, that is a HUGE issue. What if you had to have a license to express political opinions, and the government arbitrarily denied you a free speech permit? Sorry, but some of us actually believe in things like civil liberties. If I have not been found guilty by due process of law, by what right can the government deny my rights anyway? Even if one cedes that the government has the right to license a Constitutionally protected right (I do not, and I support Vermont-style Constitutional carry.) that still makes "shall issue" the only morally allowable thing. Oh, and it isn't just my subjective experience.
As for assault weapons, you ignored my charge that these features are arbitrary, and missed the point of my pointing out that even their supporters agree that they confuse the public as to their real intent. The truth is, an assault weapon is a perfectly ordinary rifle that "looks scary." And no, my complaint is that they ban arbitrary features that do nothing to make a weapon more dangerous. I'll now ask you, AGAIN, what those features are and why they make a gun more dangerous. You seem to be avoiding this question. Not surprising, I guess, since even the politicians who introduce gun control acts and assault weapons bans demonstrably don't know what they are. Again, it is NOT cherrypicking to quote the very politicians who introduce these measures.
As for illegal sales - they're already illegal, yet they happen anyway. How would harassing us legal gun owners with months-long background checks change that? And I don't have to prove anything in regards to your perfectionist fallacy. Prove to me that background checks have never, ever, not once accidentally denied an innocent person's rights. I'd rather a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent person get jailed. If you're comfortable with trampling on the rights of innocent men in a witchhunt that has never proven effective here in the States, well, it's you who should be shut out of a discussion, not us law-abiding citizens.
"Right so the entire thing boils down to you deserve it now because you want it now."
No, and that's not what I said at all. But, yes, I do deserve my property when it legally becomes my property. As for this incredibly wrong, and well-refuted argument, "Let me ask you something, are you a free standing and well regulated militia? no I hear you saying quizzically, then it is not a constitutional guarantee." sorry, but you're objectively wrong here. According to the Supreme Court. Turns out that the words "the people" mean the same thing in the 2nd Amendment that they do in every other amendment. Sorry, but that's just the law of the land. Oh, and as an aside, "well-regulated" does not mean politically regulated, it means the 18th century meaning of the phrase, i.e. "armed to regulation," that is, armed in accordance with the military standard. This was also ruled by the Supreme Court, ironically in the case that controlled short-barreled shotguns and rifles for not being of military regulation. Guess what? In 2013, that's the AR-15 (more rightfully, it would be a version with three-round burst).
"Now even adding the states whose courts were fucking stupid and said any male of a certain age was a free standing and well regulated militia," You do of course mean 10 USC § 311 which is not any state court, but the US Code.
As for infringments being okay when it's a danger to others, that is exactly when they are most NOT okay. That's the same kind of justification that gets crap like the Patriot Act passed. "Anyone who would trade essential liberty for some temporary security deserves neither." We don't have Constitutional protections for when rights are popular, but for when they are unpopular.
As for your last point, "I didn't say you needed mental help for disagreeing with me, I said you needed mental help for disagreeing with me on this issue." No, except yes?
What you said was "If you have a problem with regulating a dangerous device you really do need a bit of mental help." What you said one post later was "I said you needed mental help for the frankly stupid claim that a sensible gun control makes you feel like a criminal." These are two different sentences.
Comment has been collapsed.
A single senator who backed a bill that no one thought would pass, that failed miserably, yeah really relevant, and a claim about the president that your source didnt prove.
Sorry but talking isnt able to kill people. this may have escaped your notice but guns are dangerous devices invented and refined for the purpose of killing things. A small wait time is far more than reasonable.
I ignored nothing about assault weapons, and literally told you how to fix it if you actually cared enough to bother. You find it so arbitrary stop complaining to people that arent in your government and go complain to people that are.
Harrassment: a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented. Sorry but not getting what you want the instant you want it isnt harassment.
False comparison, innocent until proven guilty is in no way equal to I want a gun, therefore I deserve a gun. Failing a background check is not having your rights trampled on, the fact you can say that just proves you dont actually understand rights. And how do you know they are innocent? special knowledge fallacy right there, you are basically implying the fact they want a gun proves they deserve a gun.
Actually thats exactly what you said. having to wait for a gun was trampling on your rights, the chance you might not get one right then was trampling on your rights. It came down to you want one so you should get one no questions asked.
Well refuted arguemnt huh? Look mac, you need to understand something about the american legal system, it is codified. Not every country has a completely codified legal document like yours does. It is literally all in the wording. The wording is quite clear, militias can exist if they are well regulated, no one said politically regulated it meant a controlled and trained force, not just anyone that wants one.
The only thing that changed was they started saying everyone is a militia because of reasons. Stupid reasons, poorly thought out reasons, but reasons.
Oh I see, gun sales should be unregulated because somehow unregulated gun sales are a right and not dangerous in the least, you do not understand what the quote you just said actually means. The man was refering to actually useful rights, free speech, free expression, free association, not the "right" to buy dangerous weapons entirely unregulated just because you feel like it. You are not one to talk about rights needing to be protected when you live in a country where the only right the majority of the people care about is the right to a gun while the rest are peeled away. Ever sent an email? the government has that on record, done anything vaguely suspicious? your government has the right to stick you in Guantanamo bay for no reason at all, without trial for the rest of your life, citizen or no.
Wrong again. At this point im pretty sure you are just trolling with this, because this is the second time I have to correct you on the same stupid thing you said.
Saying gun control makes you feel like a criminal is an underlying guilt complex is not calling you insane for disagreeing with me. Once again, that would be like saying people with licences for cars should feel like criminals because cars are regulated. Or people who collect anything should feel like criminals because they are hard to get. your argument is based entirely on some underlying guilt complex.
The words are different, the meanings are the same, especially when I add it the part you left out
Sentence 1 (that would be the first sentence for those already lost) references gun control and your hatred of gun control, and the part you left out from a touch earlier "And a victim complex already, what fun. How does sensible gun laws make you feel like a criminal? How? by that logic people who collect things that are a bit harder to get should feel like criminals because they cant walk into wherever they want to get one." again with the cherry picking and when I went back to look im fairly certain you rephrased it to boot, its still pretty pathetic. Next time I catch you doing it this discussion is over, I wont play vehicle for an agenda.
Sentence 2 (thats the second one) looking at the actual quote from what I said its saying the exact same thing.
Which is the very clear point that if a little sensible gun control makes you feel like a criminal you have an underlying guilt complex and should seek treatment. Nowhere was it said you were crazy for disagreeing with me, hell telling you to seek help doesnt even mean you are crazy, sane people seek mental help all the time but never mind that. As I said, you have a guilt complex, and should seek treatment.
That guilt complex of yours has no bearing on this discussion and is entirely irrelevant. Even if you dont have one I dont care, and neither would anyone else in an honest discussion, that you feel like a criminal when you cant instantly get what you want, especially when what you want is a dangerous weapon.
Now knock it off with the circular reasoning (the previously mentioned: you deserve it because you want it therefore you deserve it and therefore you want it), the appeals to emotions (they are trampling rights), and any other fallacies, they dont add to your argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
"A single senator who backed a bill that no one thought would pass," Maybe because people like us opposed it? And you do realize we had an assault weapons ban before, right? It's ludicrous to tell me I shouldn't expect a bill to pass or worry about it when it already passed once within our lifetimes. Senator Feinstein is a major force in the gun control movement, citing her very words is not "cherry picking."
Next, a wait time is NOT reasonable, and three months (again, that's how long it took me to get my own handgun) is not "small", and as I argued in another post in this thread, inanimate objects do not have moral intent. Yes, guns are weapons and designed to kill, but so what? It's okay for police officers to have them, right? If it is, then the gun itself is not bad, but rather the intent behind it. And this isn't 1984, you can't police intent. Fearing guns because "they're designed to kill!" is childish mysticism, it only makes logical sense if the guns somehow are imbued with intent of their own, which is of course silly. You should not fear things based on what they're designed to do, but on what they actually do. You look both ways before crossing the street (I hope) even though cars aren't designed to kill. What they're "designed" to do is morally irrelevant.
Now, what makes you think I've never advocated against assault weapons bans? Of course, the state of Maryland is openly hostile to guns and gun owners. However, you don't see me telling you to shut up and go write to a senator, do you?
Now. AGAIN. Please outline the features of an "assault weapon" and why those features are dangerous and should be controlled. If you do not answer this question, don't bother replying at all, because I will wait.
Next, this is not about "getting what I want right now," and it is not about instant gratification. This is about being unreasonably hassled and delayed in the acquisition of MY damn property. This is about being harassed and hassled by an anti-gun state government for peacefully exercising the "wrong" rights while having done nothing wrong and being guilty of no crime. This is about dishonest senators who in one breath say they'd like "Mr and Ms America to turn them all in" and in the next say "nobody is coming to take our guns." This is about senators who introduce gun control bills and, when questioned, admit they don't know what the features they seek to control actually do. Even if you're in favor of gun control, that should offend you - no, that should scare you. The fact that a Senator could introduce a law and then cheerfully admit not knowing what it does should be terrifying.
As for failing a background check, this merely proves you did not understand me. A may-issue state like Maryland can and routinely does deny firearm carry permits even if you are legally allowed them, which means passing a background check. So going off about failing background checks is a complete non sequitur. I'm talking about people who meet all legal requirements to own and carry a weapon (to keep and bear arms) and are denied anyway. I'm talking about my not having the right to carry a weapon in my own defense despite passing a background check, having taken the Maryland PD online course, having taken state-approved training and safety courses, and being licensed to carry in other states.
Yes. I believe that I should be allowed to do what I want, no questions asked, so long as I am not harming or coercing other individuals. I believe the government has no right to interfere in what I do in my private life. This goes beyond guns, too, I also believe prohibition of illegal substances is also wrong, as is prohibiting abortion, gay marriage, prostitution, and other choices that don't harm others. I believe that the government literally has no right to do these things.
"Well refuted arguemnt huh? Look mac, you need to understand something" No, YOU need to understand something. Again, there is VERY clear wording in our nation's highest court that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. I even provided a citation of that wording. That is the law of the land. You don't get to ignore it because you dislike it. That is American law. American law literally spells out that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter if you disagree. That is the law. I cited the exact Supreme Court case that established it, which you ignored and repeated what you already said.
Some of us believe the "right" (in your sarcasm quotes) to bear arms is actually important and useful, just like free speech. In fact, how dare you declare that my right to armed self-defense is not "actually important"? You don't get to pick and choose Constitutional rights, and neither does the government. And I'd just like to repeat that these privacy violations - which I agree are horrendous - were put in place based on your "it's okay if it keeps people safe" logic. Patriot Act is a bitch, isn't it? But it's keeping us safe from terrorists! If it keeps us safe, it's okay, isn't it? No? Why such hypocrisy, then? It's okay to suppress some rights to keep us safe, but not others? Please expalin this discrepancy.
Finally, please stop with the "guilt complex" crap. It's a completely facetious argument, barely more than a thinly veiled insult. I'm not the one calling you insane, stupid, idiotic, guilty, or needing of mental help. You've repeated this stuff incessantly and haven't made your point about it. This sort of "Anyone who believes X is inherently mentally ill" BS is exactly the same sort of thing repressive governments have used all the time to suppress dissent.
Don't believe that's where this will lead? Tell me if you don't agree that
A: People who don't believe in firearm regulation (gun rights advocates) are mentally ill requiring treatment
and
B: Mentally ill people should not be allowed to purchase firearms
Believe both of those? Congrats, you just outlawed most gun owners. THAT is why people like us oppose you.
In my last paragraph, I copied and pasted your sentences directly. I did not "rephrase" anything. It really feels like you're throwing accusations out as red herrings, and I am not going to respond to them. If there is a discrepancy between my quote and your actual text, don't just insinuate that there is, actually go and point it out. You literally claimed that anyone who opposes these so-called "sensible" gun control bills needs "mental help." Right here: "If you have a problem with regulating a dangerous device you really do need a bit of mental help."
Comment has been collapsed.
I said knock off the fallacies. Post Hoc opening.
A wait time on a dangerous weapon is reasonable. Its more than reasonable. Its quite sensible, again this argument stems from the ever popular circular reasoning. You want it now therefore you deserve it now because you want it now. I said stop with the fallacies.
Fair point, a rarity so far, design doesnt always prove intent. Problem is by design or intent guns are dangerous. Even people who do not intent to use them as weapons can kill people. This is where discretion on the part of whoever is doing the background checks comes into play. Having to have patience isnt an infringement of your rights.
Next paragraph is more circular reasoning topped with a dash of appeals to emotions. your feelings are irrelevant. I said knock it off with the fallacies.
So? Do you not understand discretion? do you not understand what may issue means? once again circular reasoning, you deserve one becuase you want one therefore you deserve one.
When I put right into quotation marks I was refering to your self proclaimed right to not have to wait. to get what you want when you want it because you want it. I was mocking your fallacies, I was mocking your frankly ridiculous claims that not getting what you want instantly is trampling on your rights.
You want a dangerous weapon, fine, your countries laws allow it. It doesnt make your claims that any form of gun control infringes on your rights any more valid, it doesnt make your call for completely unregulated guns any more valid, and it certainly doesnt make your claim that them not being easy to get makes you feel like a criminal any more valid.
My logic was not its okay if it keeps people safe, that is a straw man fallacy. My logic was quite literally unregulated gun sales are stupidly dangerous, therefore a background check is valid. You took that and whined once more that background checks are violations of your right because you keep pushing that claim forward like its an established fact.
You get one more fallacy then this discussion is terminated, I will not waste my time when you just keep repeating yourself endlessly with the same false claims again and again, as I said I will not be a vehicle for your agenda.
Hardly an insult, its your logic. Making guns in any way regulated or harder to get makes you feel like a criminal, there is logically no reason for it to do so, therefore the problem is with you, also this claim is tired and boring. YOU feel like a criminal so the laws should conform to what YOU want them to be because thats the world YOU want.
See now that right there is whats called Ad Hom. I point out the fallacy with your argument, you pull out the rather insulting claim that I am the same as an oppressive government all because quite literally gun control makes YOU feel like a criminal. Another pathetic appeal to emotions with an ad hom toped on just because you think that makes it more valid a claim. Final fallacy, I will finish this response but that is it, I have given you plenty of opportunities to be honest but it is just fallacy after fallacy and I will not tolerate it.
Once again, that is not what I said, straw man fallacy. Your premise for that paragraph was false, your conclusion was false, that is how that works. I said you need to get over your guilt complex, that, once again, is not saying you are crazy for disagreeing with me, get over it, you keep hanging onto a claim I disproved ages ago like its taken as read, thats just wrong.
I quoted myself more directly than you did, you quite literally skipped entire groupings of what I said to make your point more valid, I proved you wrong on that point again, let it go.
Now as I said above, I allowed for far too many fallacies and far too much dishonesty from you, I was far too lenient and should have done this on the previous post. Discussion ends here, because quite simply when one party (being you) focuses entirely on fallacies and false claims there is no discussion. I throw you a bone, let you make more fallacies than I should have before calling a stop to this, and you repay me by continually pulling a straw man and countless other fallacies.
Take your agenda to someone who cares.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now. AGAIN. Please outline the features of an "assault weapon" and why those features are dangerous and should be controlled. If you do not answer this question, don't bother replying at all, because I will wait.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didnt say they should be illegal. But you need some FUCKING HEAVY CONTROL ON IT. Background checks, psychoanalysis of the people who want the guns. Make it also that they need to be LOCKED UP while not in use and possession by freaking minors to be illegal.
Besides, your point is moot. I dont see the huge death numbers caused by guns in the USA in countries with stricter gun control. All I see is less gun violence and less crime.
Also, read this
Yeah, guns are not a problem. At all. Clearly.
Comment has been collapsed.
While there should be control, it's borderline too late to really do much about the amount of guns already out there. Background checks and psychoanalysis should be done, but it's not foolproof and the latter can be ambiguous. Things like this will still happen and can still happen with other instruments.
Besides, they can't actually maintain a law about locking up firearms without entering people's homes to check for proof. In addition, it would be moot to have possession by minors be illegal since it could be placed under the parent's name by the guardian (much like how parents can purchase M-rated games for children, but the children themselves can't purchase them).
Regarding your tumblr link . . . freak accidents happen. An article earlier this year reported that someone died to a ground level backflip due to breaking their neck, things happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like what kind of psychoanalysis? How will you assure us that this psychoanalysis will not be abused by anti-gun politicians (like actually happens with other laws. Don't believe me? Try buying a handgun in DC, over five years after the Supreme Court ruled Washington DC's handgun ban to be illegal. You WILL find some legal snag that won't allow you to purchase one)? How do you reconcile this with the fact that psychology is not an exact science? Where do you draw the line between sincerely-held beliefs and craziness? I don't trust the government - does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to own guns?
How do you assure me that these universal checks and reigstrations won't be used against me, or be used to deprive me of my property - things that are actually happening in places like New York?
And by what right does the government have to deny anyone their rights if they have done nothing wrong (due process of law)?
Finally, there are plenty of states with high gun ownership for low crime (Canada, Switzerland) and plenty of states with strict gun control and high crime (Mexico). And on that note, it's really unfair to compare the United States as a single entity, when it is in reality a union of 50 states, each of which have wildly different gun laws. It's not fair to lump in south central LA or Chicago or Washington DC (all high gun control areas I might add) with rural states with high gun ownership and low crime.
Also, your link is merely anecdotal evidence, sorry. In reality, gun accidents are really not a serious problem, statistically speaking. Don't take my word for it, take the CDC's.
Comment has been collapsed.
They gonna blame the game aren't they... you do know even people without access to a computer/console their entire life do stupid stuff and murder, etc (it's even worst due to no safe outlet)! The kid probably has problems to start with and his games where just keeping it bottled up if anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
tomorrow: breaking news, call of duty turns kids into rapers and killers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not everyone in the states is a fucking retard and it would be nice if people would stop generalizing the US as nothing but fat and ignorant bible thumpers. The people in charge are easily controlled by a vocal minority which often include helicopter mom's with nothing better to do after they get done putting their 5 kids to bed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like how you say to stop generalizing (the US) and then you do exactly that (the politicians/people in charge)...
Comment has been collapsed.
Except that 310m vs 536 "in charge". And of the 536, maybe 50 people are the ones who actually call the shots, design asinine laws/changes, and basically dictate to us what is proper or not. So it is different as I see it. Though of course that doesnt mean EVERY one in congress is a retard, but damn do they let some retarded shit get passed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have to agree with that. That's what happens when you have a bunch of old farts, out of touch with technology, running the country. Oops, I may be generalizing :P
Comment has been collapsed.
nobody's saying your entire country consists of idiots. what's undeniable is there's a disproportionately large percentage of inbred uneducated swine in what's unfortunately still the centre of the world economically and culturally. i think the fact that fox news is actually popular enough to remain on the air speaks for itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
"disproportionately large percentage"
Which countries are you comparing to? I would say this percentage is relatively constant across most first world countries...
Comment has been collapsed.
average iq in america is dragged down a lot by the south. i don't live there but my american friends tend to make fun of the south themselves. half of america believes in creationism. more conservatives believe in it than they do in global warming. a third of americans can't find america on a map. worst of all is guns... it's very difficult to believe the tenacity with which so many americans defend their gun rights. it's as if they don't know that america is more dangerous than fucking thailand in terms of homicide rates. i'm talking statistics; american iq is lower than a lot of first world countries.
Comment has been collapsed.
I live in the South. I must be a redneck, fundamental, creationist hick with an IQ of 50. I must be pretty dumb compared to you, except that I actually use proper capitalization and syntax.
I'm just going to ignore the fact that you cite no sources for the extreme generalizations and "statistics" you use and focus on one little portion of your frankly ignorant, low IQ post: why did you use Thailand as an example for homicide rates?
Comment has been collapsed.
oh please, we're on the internet and i'm writing a post for a gamer readership, not a uni dissertation; your points are sadly petty. i don't particularly care about my grammar on the internet because readers often find it easy to digest short sentences, which also happen to be easier to type than long ones. and my lack of citations again stems from the fact that i'm writing for online readers. i feel that anyone with a smidgen of care for the subject of any online discourse would make an attempt to discover the truth for themselves, since it's just a click away. if i were to tell you that the world homicide rates were obtained from the unodc, and that i learnt the iq by country from a study by lynn and vanhannen, would you be content to believe me without further research?
since you're presuming to call me unintelligent i assume you understand how an "average" works? i'm not saying all american southerners are idiots, but it's clear from some examples that some very ignorant and frankly ludicrous ideas linger in the area. it's scary that rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly have enough of an audience to command a radio and tv audience respectively; these men would be living on the streets in most places. sure, hitler may have enthralled germany at one point, but at least he was a decent orator.
i used thailand as an example because it's a developing country with plenty of shady activity and violence. the fact that america, the worlds' no.1 power, has a comparable if not worse homicide rate than thailand is obviously appalling.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was asking for a source for your statement that the US has a "disproportionately large percentage of inbred uneducated swine." You are the one that started with the attacks against the US - the South in particular. I cannot see any reason at all why my first reply would seem malicious or flame-baiting to you. Your reply does nothing to address my question - if anything, your reply is the one that is petty for the unprovoked attacks against my country.
I don't know why you act so conceited. Funny thing is, people here make fun of the UK for the exact same reasons - that the UK is full of inbred uneducated swine that support internet censorship, police states, etc. It's not as if the UK has a much higher average IQ than the US. Two points is nothing to brag about.
If you are going to argue semantics, I never called you unintelligent. I called your post ignorant, which I still believe is true.
Comment has been collapsed.
i felt insulted when you said "low iq post", as anyone would. iq doesn't relate to things; it relates to people. i may or may not be intelligent in truth but i'm obviously going to defend myself if provoked unnecessarily.
tbh i'm not proud of the uk either. i believe it's full of idiots as well, again more so than many other developed countries. yes, it's got a nanny state thing going on and apparently it's the worst state in the west in which to grow up as a child according to unicef. i wasn't aware that the uk was particularly in favour of internet censorship however. as far as i'm aware the uk censors child porn, and adheres to the dmca which originates in america. we also recently blocked some torrent sites. obviously i'm against censorship of any sort but i haven't personally been bothered by the censorship here yet.
my point is really not to do with my country being better than yours; it's about my dismay at how many stupid people there are who express dangerous views in such a culturally influential country such as yours. obviously to some extent my views are going to be off-kilter because i don't live in america and my opinions are based at least somewhat on propaganda but i do keep in touch with political news in america and general cultural news. if i have a negative perception of the south, it's going to be because that's the prevailing attitude in america. and obviously only the bad news gets reported globally. mostly my perception comes from polls done around election time (again i'm aware of the dangers of trusting such data), but polls that suggest republicans are more willing to believe in creation than global warming aren't encouraging. america's the 25th place in terms of maths education. far too many americans can't place america on a map. most americans can't say why the cold war happened. and so on. these are off the top of my head, but it's not difficult to find examples of why a lot of people wouldn't consider america as a whole a very intelligent nation. the south i particularly nominate as depressing because of things like abortion, racism, sexism, and other generally fundamentalist antiquated attitudes. not that i believe most southerners are bigoted fools, but too many of them are (i can't remember facts off the top of my head but every time i hear about some intolerant governor or school making ridiculous remarks about homosexuality or equal rights or something they're always from alabama or mississippi, etc. - they've been voted in by the people afterall).
now if you could take a moment to actually give me a different idea of the south then by all means do. i'd be grateful to learn new things, and i'd happily revise my opinion. as it is though it's just been far easier for me to find disparaging statistics about the south and america in general. it doesn't help that america is the central hub of christianity. if anything my biggest problem with america is the christian problem it has.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does a country have to lead in every single category to be considered the best? Sure, there are dumb people here and I'm not going to dispute that, but the US also has many of the smartest people in the world. The US leads, by a long shot, the scientific publication output and number of citations, and is 2nd in number of citations per paper [1]. Nobel laureates? Almost triple of the next highest country [2]. Seven of the top ten universities in the world [3]. It's funny how the only information that seems to go to other countries are the negatives.
I don't disagree that a majority of the "dumb" in the US is from the Southern states, but the South also has the largest research park in the world and is home to most of the US space program, among other marks of intelligence [4],[5].
By the way, most scientists prefer the term "climate change" over "global warming"
And I still don't think your reply of, in essence, "America is full of retards and gun violence" has anything to do with my original question asking for a source for your statement that the US has a "disproportionately large percentage of inbred uneducated swine." Sounds to me like you are deflecting the question, perhaps because you are wrong?
Comment has been collapsed.
Just posting to applaud you here. Us Americans get a bad wrap. When us Americans say this crap about other nationalities, it's (rightly) regarded as bigotry and ignorant xenophobia.
Glad to see at least some of us still bother to stand up to bigots. Far too many of 'em think it's somehow okay when they do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's not a big deal, but climate change and global warming are different things.
yes, i fully understand there are plenty of very intelligent people in america and the south. i don't think it's even possible that the richest and third most populous country in the world could do worse than produce a heck load of intelligent people.
"disproportionately... uneducated" is something i can't prove, as you've shown. however there's no doubt the prevailing attitude even in america is that the deep south is home to backward ideas, such as those regarding abortion, gay marriage, race equality, gender equality, and so on. polls and local politicians highlight this, and to be honest even if i find a person to be generally very educated and intelligent in other areas i find it absolutely impossible to respect someone who pushes ridiculously antiquated and uneducated ideas such as those above. the uk by comparison backs gay marriage by a convincing majority, and less than 7% of people here support a ban on abortion. until the attitudes on certain things change i'm probably not going to change my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, I just thought you were interchanging the terms. I think most polls now avoid using the term "global warming"
Fair enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, a lot of the world likes to point to the US as the sole cause of their problems. Its quite common for a description of an American to include, "inbred uneducated swine", quite often. Even though every other country has just as many "inbred uneducated swines".
Comment has been collapsed.
That's just an argument for legalizing kinder eggs, not criminalizing other inanimate objects.
Comment has been collapsed.
your comparison makes no sense though. even if we accept that people in africa kill and rape for less, that would be a relatively normal occurrence given the environment. that's putting things in perspective. fact is this kid grew up in a first world country, and not only is a video game one of the most trivial and inconsequential things in life, but also he tried to rape and then successfully murdered his mum with a gun she bought him for his 11th birthday. i don't think your comparison works very well.
Comment has been collapsed.
North Africa is more commonly associated with the Middle East because it's part of the Arab World. When I say "Africa", people know what I'm talking about.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are actually two of the more dangerous countries in Africa. Primary reasons being the wealth of South Africa and the hyperinflation of Zimbabwe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Southern African countries aren't as stable as you think they are.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's some bad parenting right there. The games are rated M for mature and clearly he was not mature enough to handle it. What is particularly annoying is how this will add fuel to the fire for the likes of nancy grace or jack thompson.
Comment has been collapsed.
The content of the game could have made no difference. I would not be shocked if something like this has happened before for a parent removing something like My Little Pony, Barbies, or Pokemon from a child. You seem to imply by your statement that the content of the game is to blame some how, and not the removal of the game was the trigger. Every child throws a tantrum if you remove something they enjoy no matter what it is.
I would cite the lack of gun safety as a higher problem then buying of a violent game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I blame the bad parenting far more than I would a game, but it is easy to put them together and make a sensationalist story that hurts all of gaming and I expect no less than that from some news outlets.
Comment has been collapsed.
People still give a shit about Jack Thompson? I thought he'd quieted down after being disbarred and subject to multiple lawsuits.
Comment has been collapsed.
I meant it more as in people like him, but I wouldn't put it beyond him personally using a story like this as a way to get back into the spotlight.
Comment has been collapsed.
1,535 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by sonatamyasa
176 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by NB264
242 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by osztihun
469 Comments - Last post 59 minutes ago by manueluis
47,173 Comments - Last post 59 minutes ago by FranckCastle
94 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by FranckCastle
26 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by dohlicious
223 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by ThePonz
165 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Ev4Gr33n
6 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Eefrit
106 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by Lifedreamer
57 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by webdak
9 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by fernandopa
39 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by MyrXIII
Source
Have I mentioned I have no faith in humanity? Especially these younger generations.
Comment has been collapsed.