After Sandy Hook, Senator calls for violent video game probe Gun control remains a politically fraught issue in the US, even after such events as the December 14 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, but one top lawmaker has proposed legislation that could lead to tighter restrictions on firearms – at least the imaginary kind. On Wednesday, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West …
This is just stupid, anyone with any sense can see this is all just for show. If games, movies and other media were the problem then wouldn't many other countries be having the same issues? Canada is right next door and consumes mostly the same media yet has a significantly lower rate of gun violence.
It's time for the US government to grow some balls and do what's needed rather than just pretend to do something,
Possibly many other countries would be having the same problem, if many other countries allowed assault rifles and handguns to be owned and carried in public.
After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people, people with guns. It's pretty hard to kill someone with a punch. Furthermore, the NRA et al say that guns should be used against people perpetrating serious crime, or against a state over abuse of power/a tyranny. If this is genuinely the case, where are the people with guns shooting Police when things like the Rodney King beating happen, why do none of these massacres end in a member of the public shooting the killer, etc. etc. etc. No, I can only conclude that these sorts of guns are for gun nuts.
This post has been deleted by its author
"It's pretty hard to kill someone with a punch."
Actually it isn't as, according to FBI data, hands and feet accounted for nearly 750 homicides in 2010. I'll also point out that in this case a member of the public would be breaking the law just having the means to shoot or even a weapon to beat the killer. What law abiding person would regularly break the law in case of the extremely rare event when a killer breaks the law? Why risk becoming a criminal given the negligible odds of such an event happening? It is negligible by the way given the number of schools and school days in the US, not that it makes it any less painful when it does happen. Add to that most folks who have a firearm own it for personal protection not crime fighting like a comic book superhero.
People don't generally shoot the police because camera phones are a much better weapon against the police. If you start shooting cops you pretty much sign up for a life of harassment hell even if it is found to be self defense. You are trying to paint with Bizarro brushes and label anyone who disagrees with you as a nut but it isn't honest discourse, it's just more of the too typical knee jerk ad hominem fueled by emotion not reason.
Last point, in some instances a member of the public does get involved when they are able but there isn't anything to say if it stopped something more serious or not.
"After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people, people with guns. "
After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people, people with guns, or any other device, be that kinetic (such as a gun) or chemical ... like an explosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Fixed...
That is a very skewed view. In fact, the recent mall shootings in Oregon could have been far worse if the murderer had not been confronted by Nick Meli, a shopper who was legally carrying a concealed weapon. Meli positioned himself behind a pillar and aimed his weapon at the man. Meli couldn't or wouldn't bring himself to pull the trigger, but when the man saw him pointing a weapon at him he ran off and shot himself and nobody else was harmed. True, it did not end with Mr. Meli killing the man, but it was because Meli was normal and did not want to kill people. Nevertheless, he certainly saved the lives of several people that day by confronting the wacko with a weapon. See "Armed civilian at Oregon mall shooting thought about firing at gunman" on MSN.
The reason that you never hear of this is twofold. For one thing, the crazies are looking for soft targets, like schools, where they are sure nobody will shorten their killing spree. For another, the media chooses to downplay the heroic action of Mr. Meli and others because sensationalism of the massacre apparently sells better. Likewise, it seems blaming it on video games is also a good seller.
>It's time for the US government to grow some balls and do what's needed rather than just pretend to do something,
In theory the government is the people, and the people are deeply divided on guns. We shot up the king of England's boys a long time ago when he thought it was a good idea to do what he needed to do.
Just trying to blame guns alone doesn't make sense, Canada has had a much lower rate of mass murders then the U.S. per capita even before guns were banned in most cases there. I'm assuming that this has a historical basis of gaining independence via violence and surviving a very violent civil war. It becomes ingrained in the American ideal that violence is a solution that has worked in the past. Also add in the teaching that American freedom and independence helped saved the world both in WWI and WWII.
Yes, guns are the easy way to commit a mass murder. Take away the guns and you are still going to have a higher number of mass murders in America then other places. There is a cultural need to solve problems with violence here.
Also, Austraila has a gun ban, but it didn't stop this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire
If you'd care to do a bit more research, you'd have found that the Childers Palace was a death trap from a fire safety point of view and had been refused a fire safety certificate more than a year earlier. The reason so many died was that they were trapped. The same outcome could have happened if the fire had been accidental rather than deliberate.
See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828439185.html
If want to bring other countries into thisI, I suggest you research the number of mass gun murders in Australia post-Port Arthur vs a similar time frame in the US, then come back and we'll continue the discussion.
Very true, video games probably only contribute a small amount to the problem, although perhaps it warrants some study. As for Canada, they have significantly less guns per person but more significantly their culture is very different. Gun control will go some way to reducing the damage done in attacks, an outright gun ban would help further (but won't happen and wouldn't stop attacks either). We need to address the culture as a whole, we need to address how people aren't being spotted and given help and we do need greater gun control (seriously how dangerous have deer got that you need an assault rifle? we hunt boar with knife and deer with a bow, predator and terminator were just movies!) but probably around the UK level rather than the Japanese level, we also need to significantly increase police funding. All these things together, over time, should reduce both the number of attacks and the severity. It will not be a simple or quick fix but it does need to be fixed. I don't want to take a hunters rifle away, I don't want to take a home owners handgun away, but I think we need to address the type, concealability, storage, number and power of the weapons some people have. We also need to buy back weapons that are outlawed (fair is fair). Minimum handgun barrel lengths, max magazine sizes, assault rifle bans etc rather than any attempt at an outright ban is probably the better choice in the short term to begin to have an impact.
It is very obvious that you know bugger all about firearms and its legislation in the UK or anywhere else.
Some control of ownership of firearms is obvious; requiring all guns to be registered and civilians to obtain a license before hand also makes sense. The licensing can help stop people with mental health issues and those of violent/criminal tendencies getting them easily.
It is surprising how many people will just not bother getting something if it entails a bit of paper work, and a visit by a firearms inspector (mostly ex-coppers) every 5 years or so.
The total banning guns, like the Labour party did in 1997 with pistols has been actually proven to be a bad thing. It actually encourages some people to go and get them for no other reason than to be seen as tough/hip/etc...
The legislation in the UK is a total mess, with vast numbers of acts and amendments made by politicians with no understanding of the law enacting new laws over the last 90-odd years. A good example being when the Labour govt. spent weeks discussing and voting on “new” laws to stop people using air-guns in public places. The fact that there were already laws covering/prohibiting such activity never dawned on them!
As a side note:
If people are so concerned about the safety of the general public, it would be far more productive to have tougher driving tests (actual driving not academic papers), and require drivers to renew their driving license every 5 years along with mandated eye tests. There are 1000's of people out there who can hardly see beyond their car bonnets let alone seeing some kid in the road.
Or what about fast cars, they have absolutely no real purpose on our roads and when used by the average drivers (ie: twats who think they are the next Hamilton/Moss/etc...) kill far more people every year than guns do in the UK.
Repeat after me: Guns good, Tits baaaaad, Violence good, Tits baaaaaad. Now wave the stars'n'stripes. Good boy. Do it again.
In any case, the act requires government to subsidize a proper study. That's all. It will be interesting if the results of the study show what we all know: Tits gooooooooood, Violence - definitely bad.
I just do not see how this will be presented in a country where the end of the world is declared if half a nipple is seen on live TV.
I agree and I also never did understand Mary Whitehouse lumping sex and violence altogether.
As far as I could see consential procreative sex lead to more people and was more often the cause of joy and happiness .
Violence can lead to less living people, and not a lot of happiness.
So from my point of view Mary Whitehouse was only half right.
Product of a different time I guess. Kids see nearly as much at the beach these days.
Different folks see different problems and adopt differet types of solution. I'm not daft enough to believe I am the only person that is right. When people feel they need a gun next to their bed something is wrong. You just shouldn't have to feel you need that. Yes, if you do then in the short term you should have that protection but I think that is happening because the police (as a whole, not as individuals and likely due to funding) are not able to provide that security. Isn't the best long term fix for the police to provide that? Having a bedroom closet that looks like a pullout for guns and ammo is a short term overreaction and just results in more dead people, criminals we won't miss so much but its the accidental deaths. I have also noticed (only in some states, the opposite in others) thats the open carry folks treat it as a licence to be a twat. Perhaps being less of a twat would mean less need to carry.
Look at Sandy hook, those were legally owned guns, how did the kid get his hands on them if they were secure? Why the assault rifle? It has moved away from being a sport, protection or a way of getting food into some delinquent, macho, disaster in waiting. I remember talking to a NRA member a while back and saying I support your right to own a gun but you need to clean house or there will be a huge reaction at some point and you will lose much more then you need to'. Advocating letting felons get guns is a serious mistake, if the NRA value their freedoms they should be front of the line shouting for felons not to have guns.
If progressives like Neil McAllister admit that he wasn't a kid, they lose one of their emotional hooks to override logic in their jihad against guns. Just like they ignore that according to the Brady Center Connecticut has the 5th best gun controls in the nation. And amongst the states which surround it, 3 rank higher and only Vermont below the median for the country. So "tough" gun controls didn't help any of those kids one damn bit.
In fact, Wayne Pierre was right: there was only one thing that was going to stop that punk from killing more kids: an armed adult who was already inside the building, prepared and equipped to shoot the S.O.B on sight. Yes, posting armed police officers inside every school would bust already over-burdened government budgets, so that's not really an answer either. But it might point at one that would work: allowing teachers and/or faculty at schools to carry weapons. Concealed carry holders seems like a good point from which to start. Based on police statistics they are more law abiding than your average citizen in the first place. Couple that with appropriate training requirements and you can probably accomplish the same goal at an affordable cost to the government. The only obstacle to this rational solution is the inordinate fear of guns from people like Neil. And apparently most Brits too even though your own current experiences should inform you otherwise.
On Wednesday, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, introduced a bill that would require the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study into the impact that violent video games have on children.
You can be assured that Senator Rockefeller has already identified the paid "consultants" that will be paid to do this study for the NAS.
Remember, a payoff is not illegal if it's authorized in a bill.
No, but they do make a difference, particularly when couple with the prevailing gun phobia from government elites.
There was a study done, don't remember who or where, and it came to one conclusion that in retrospect makes sense: video games train for higher kill ratios than we had before them. You get more points for kill shots in the games, so they train you to take those shots. I don't think that is grounds to ban them, but we do need to recognize the effect when working out how to protect people. The other part of course is that before the mass hoplophobia, you were likely to find guns on campuses. So for instance, on one college campus shooting incident a student was able to retrieve his rifle and kill the shooter before the body count went over 20.
The most important reform we won't get. All of these mass killers (from the Texas Bell tower shooter through Columbine, and now Newton) exhibited pronounced signs of depression, anger, and desire to kill lots of people. What's needed is a better ability/requirement for psychologist/psychiatrists to commit these disturbed people to secure facilities to deal with their issues.
Barack Hussein Obama gave orders to CIA to create the mass murder case.
Just like with the The Dark Knight Rises..the mass murder in a theater a few months ago.
Banning video games is not going to stop a damn thing.
Banning weapons is only going to help criminals. Which is the main goal of Barack Hussein Obama and Democrats party will.
"stolen from the idiots who bought them in the first place!"
Quite true and in this case the idiot happened to be his first victim. Perhaps if she could have seen the real beast inside her, undoubtedly, precious little angel then this might not have happened. This is more about poor parenting than it is about games and guns. Yes, I'm blaming the victim because either her rose colored glasses blinded her from the monster in her home or she was just too busy in her own world to pay attention. I find it impossible to believe there were absolutely no warning signs. Of course it's possible she was as much of a nutter as he was.
@Dire Criti¢
Yes you are talking utter bollocks.
Most illegal firearms are just bought with cash in the USA where that is allowed, everywhere else where there are restrictions they are illegal imports (most illegal guns in the UK are imported from easter europe) or are even manufactured locally. In the 1970 they even had a nickname for them in the states of "Saturday night specials" which were badly made revolvers (typically .38specials) that were made cheap and nasty so they could be just thrown away after use.
Guns are not magical devices, any reasonably competant metal/machine shop worker can make them from scratch, making them illeagal just makes another niche for criminal to make even more money. Just like the "War on drugs" has just made lots of money for organised crime and little else.
Duh! The cash paid to the likes of pawn shops etc? Where the guns that are stolen from idiots are fenced?
You must be one of those idiots from one of the "cold dead hands" states who labour under the myth that having a gun means you are protected and safe.
With clear-minded folks like you leading the way it is TOTALLY unbelievable to see how Barack Hussein Obama could have won.
One, insignificant, oft-quoted, but unlikely, achievement of banning weapons in the US is that Canada might have less murders committed, especially in gang warfare, using weapons smuggled in from the US.
But, obviously, not worth considering since we all know how important home US gun ownership has been in keeping the Commies' out and US citizens safe. I personally tremble, living right next to one of Canada's poorest neighborhoods, whenever I have to walk there without a concealed weapon to defend myself with. Shameful. Obviously, we could cut our already low crime rate by half, or more, if we adopted laws freely allowing obviously intelligent and decent citizens, like you or me, to carry near-military grade weapons. Or at least concealed 9mm pistols.
Did you know that Red Dawn was actually a documentary? Yes, it was. Suppressed, shamefully, just like Capricorn One. Best way to hide a truth is to dress it up as fiction. Standard CIA black ops.
Allright, Franklin, I'll bite.
My post was intentionally snarky & nasty, because Joerg comes across as a bats**t swivel-eyed loon on his post accusing Obama of being behind Sandy Hook.
Exactly the same way I think the 911 Truthers & the Michael Moores are loons for accusing Bush, a man I don't much like, of being behind 9/11. Left wing zealots, right wing zealot, both fanatics to me.
Do you disagree with me thinking Joerg is an idiot for accusing Obama? Or do you think that Obama had something to do with it? Regardless of your views on gun control? Regardless of my views of gun control?
There is really very little honor in accusing the other's side politicians of being an accomplice at a time of national tragedy like this. I find it profoundly, profoundly, disgusting and it denotes a singular lack of decency and civility.
With 9/11 & Bush. With Sandy Hook & Obama.
Direct accomplice in the sense of ordering the CIA to find a nut job and set him loose on the school? No.
Accomplice in the sense that what happened is the inevitable result of their cumulative asinine policies? Absolutely. Politicians are supposed to take the time to sketch out those consequences before they advocate their policies, and we're supposed to hold them accountable when they don't. Unfortunately almost no politicians do the first, and we have too few citizens doing the second.
When any legislation is proposed for "protecting" people right after a mass attack by some deranged perpetrator one must ask a simple question:
Would the proposed law have prevented the incident that just happened. Also would existing laws have prevented it, but were not enforced.
If either of these can't be answered correctly, then what use is the proposed law. It just becomes nice "window dressing" that shows that the politician "cares" and doesn't want to waste a crisis that the whole country (or world) knows about. It is unfortunate that innocents lost their lives, but restrictions on otherwise law-abiding citizens for some specious "do good" reason is a fools game.
In addition there should be a "waiting period" for legislation just like the purchasing of weapons. It would allow the hysteria die down a bit and allow for saner heads to prevail.
Spot on.
Here's a good example of crap legislation (by the last labour Govt.)
Due to some claims made in the media, the last Labour gov. made the purchase/sale/gift of a certain type of air pistol illegal, and made it an offence to own one without having a firearms certificate. Breaking this law makes someone liable for 5 years prison for being in possession of an illegal firearm.
The air guns in question were the self contained cartridge variety (often call "Brocock" after the main manufacturer). The reason being that supposedly you could make chamber adapters for them to shoot 22LR ammunition.
However, the government didn't want to ban them as that would mean having to pay compensation to the owners (these guns typically cost between £450 to £1000 each) and the banning of pistols cost a lot of money. So they passed the law as above and went back on ruining the economy.
In the previous 10-15 years there were an estimated 75,000-100,000 air guns of this type purchased like any other air gun (ie: No registration was needed). However unless you were a keen air gun user and purchased gun-mart or any of the other air gun magazines, you would never know this law had been passed, which probably accounts for the fact that only about 15000 have ever been registered.
So as a result there could easily be 40,000 or more UK citizens who may have possibly forgotten they have these, are now classified as hardened criminals.
Why is it never just the fault of the individual, there always has to be something that forced them to do it. This kind of mentality really gets on my wick.
At the end of the day people need to accept that some people are just plain wrong, they choose to do these things, ultimately because they want to.
If it was down to a particular, game/movie/activity, then there would be a lot more of this stuff happening.
Until people stop trying to make excuses for these people and actually place the blame with the person doing the crime, things are not going to get better.
Beer - because this sounds like a pub rant.
Oh, here we go again. The various stages of FAIL whenever there's a large-scale killing involving guns.
Blame the video games! Err, no, they have the same games all over the world (you can actualy get more violent games outside the US) and no, people aren't grabbing guns & walking into places and blazing away.
Blame Hollywood/violent movies! Err, no. See above. And again, there's less censorship outside the US than in it.
Blame the lack of prayer in schools! Ye gods & small fishes! See above.
Blame Marilyn Manson! I don't really care for his music (I'm old) but I don't think for one second that he's got anything to do with gun deaths.
Blame... err... [INSERT HOT ISSUE OF THE DAY HERE]!
Heavy sigh...
But let's make absolutely sure that we don't talk about the extend of mental problems, the lack of facilities to monitor/track/treat them, the easy availability of guns and a significant percent of the population that thinks guns and violence can be answers to their problems.
Take the countries of Western Europe & Canada, throw in Japan and you have a population roughy equal to America's, with a broad similarity of culture, the same, or similar, foods, drinks, games, movies, books etc and you... don't get the same number of gun deaths.
Guns are (Canda excepted) much, much rarer beasts outside the US and mental health (including Canada now) is much better addressed.
So will the States actually do anything? They should but I'm betting that, 2 years from today, nothing meaningful will have been done & another 20,000 people (in ones & twos, most of them not together) will be dead through gun violence.
You had me until you went all gun grabbing on us.
Mental health should be the focus of this, not guns. Remember the worst ever massacre of school children in the US happened with dynamite.
Besides, it is easy for everyone to gang on the US (and I am not american, I am brazilian) while conveniently not mentioning the Ecole de Polytechnique massacre, Anders Breivik, 300+ (150+ children) slain in the Beslan massacre in Russia, the Realengo school massacre in Rio last year, the crazed guy stabbing children in China this very week and many, many others. Nor the fact that gun-free Britain has a thriving business of kevlar-laced anti-stabbing school uniforms. I am not implying they are all the same, but I am saying what all had in common is deranged sub-humans murdering children, gun laws or yankee nationality be damned.
Just saying, get off the high horse and look around the world.
Sure such mass murders do occur everywhere, but they are far more prevalent in the US. Most countries will go years without an incident like this, the US can't seem to go a few months without another occurrence.
They aren't going to get a gun ban through congress, there are just too many paranoid Americans that think they need a gun for self defense. But they should try to ban semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. That won't prevent another mass murder but it would likely cut down on the number of dead.
Ok, gun grabbing? Canada has LOTS of guns but they don't have anything like the number of gun deaths even allowing for the difference in population levels.
Americans seriously can't handle the large number of guns they have - more than 11,000 deaths a year so taking away the guns would help a lot. Some people might be killed due to the ABSENCE of a gun but you'd save far, far more lives than you'd lose.
Mental Health? Yes, you're right. Americans NEED more mental health facilities.
What's this about kevlar-laced school uniforms? I'm FROM the UK (currently living & working in China) & I've never heard of that. A yahoo search comes up with your post but nothing else like it mentioning the UK.
For the record, I think the Americans should...
A: Get rid of the guns. Period.
B: Expand their mental health facilities. A LOT.
C: Decide that a child's right to go to school without worrying about being shot is more important than their right to bear arms.
'nuff said.
This post has been deleted by its author
Google for stab-proof schhol uniform.
example http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=12471
You said yourself: Canada has a lot of guns and a ot less murders then the US, but in the other hand, it is such an intricante kabuki dog-and-pony show to try to legally own a gun in Brazil if you are not military or law enforcement that virtually no one has them (again: legally) and the number of murders anually is north of 50.000, with a smaller population than the US.
What gives? You think maybe gang and drug related violence must be a bigger factor than gun ownership? I would´nt be so quick to dismiss it. Canada has a higher rate of muslim honor killings commited by parents and relatives of the female victim than Brazil, but I am not calling for the banning of Canadian families. At the same time, US borders are virtually open and drug traffic is rampant. You see my point? Hell, Obama is even arming the drug dealers (google operation Fast and Furious if you don´t know what I am talking about).
"C: Decide that a child's right to go to school without worrying about being shot is more important than their right to bear arms."
Suposeddly they are safe. At least, by your argument they should. The mass killings in the US occur nearly 100% of time in gun free zones. Even major Hassan in Fort Hood chose to strike in the infirmary: one of the few areas inside the fort where guns where not alowed. The TDK Colorado shooter chose the one theather of 7 in his area (and not the one closest to him home) that banned concealed carry to strike. Conicidence? I don´t doubt for a second he included this in his calculations.
If teachers who are already trained and licensed with a concealed carry permit where able to have their guns with them in the school when he attack starts, they would be able to stop the killer before he fully inflicts the mayhem he planned, intead of dieing in a storm of lead like Sandy Hook´s principal.
You can argue all they about shoulda/whoulda/coulda ban guns, but guns are a part of the US and the right to bear arms is constitutionally garanteed. This whole charade is not about gun control. It is about control. The gov. simply does not have the power to outright do it, and trying to cram it down the throat of people by tugging at the heart strings ("it is for the children!") and imposing onerous regulations and nuisance laws will only weaken the constitution and expand gov. powers. Then, what would be next target? Free speech? It´s eerily reminisment of Hayek´s Road to Serfdom....
you nailed it here: "significant percent of the population that thinks guns and violence can be answers to their problems"
... but that begs for question: why? Perhaps popular culture, especially when produced in Hollywood or American game companies etc., has something to do with it? Could it, possibly?
Although I mainly agree with you about limiting access by those with mental health issues and criminal records, you and many other commentators on this board obviously don't know anything about firearms ownership in the UK or elsewhere.
You may be surprised to know that the various shooting sports in the UK puts it amongst the highest participation sports. (ie: people who do it, not just watch it).
In 2010 there were over 140,000 firearms certificates and well over half a million shotgun licenses in issue in the UK.
Shooting sports are also among the safest as well, with more fatalities from ballroom dancing, football, fishing, etc...
As long as you exclude the police, injuries and fatalities caused by legally owned firearms is close to zero most years.
If you included the police shootings, accidental discharges of guns (a police firearms trainer even shot and killed one of his students a few years back) the stat's are not quite so good.
No, you don't. All of those cultures are much more prone to treat the citizen as subject than the citizen as supreme. Couple that change with some of the dreck from Hollywood, the violent video games, and a more generalized if it feels good do it attitude and you wind up with what we have. Also, while those societies may have the diversity across the spectrum, they don't have it within the region. Those territorial boundaries are important. And in Britain, those places where that cultural diversity is going up are precisely the flash points for more violence.
You would have thought if the publicity seeking Rockefeller had time to draft this matter, he would have had time, and have been better employed in drafting a law banning long magazines and requiring bullet purchasers to obtain a permit before being sold ammunition.
I see some heartless enterprising vendor is producing "bullet proof" back packs which h suggest children could hide behind in the event of an attack.
Pretty sick.
What are the odds? senator tell people that the thing everyone loves (guns) actually isn't the problem - it's those terrible, sinful things the bible was talking about that are the issue!
There seems to be a belief that people who perpetrate these murders have a big target above their heads, and creep around in black and white striped outfits waiting to strike... The idea that everyone having guns is a form of "protection" only works as long as you know that no-one with a gun would ever commit a murder.
The reality is that any Freedom Loving American (tm) has the potential to go on a rampage, and whilst the papers and newsstands will proclaim that it was "obvious" that he was going to be a killer, and point to a bunch of meaningless facts that supposedly demonstrate why he was a "bad guy", he obviously seemed normal enough up until the moment he pulled the trigger.
It's the Us and Them mentality that makes people think that guns are the solution, but eventually they'll have to realise that the mass murderers are being recruited from their own ranks of "ordinary decent citizens".
...might be a publicly-funded, freely available, mental health service? And an education campaign to urge people to access it? If someone likely to go off the rails like this has easy access to treatment long before it happens would that not have a more beneficial effect than any kneejerk bans or restrictions?
Free mental healthcare? You commie! Next you'll be suggesting we give our kids a proper education. Climb back in your trabant!
Seriously, yes it would help reduce some of the problems (there is no one solution) and is a worthy suggestion but I can't see it being adopted as it would be viewed as socialist which is viewed as communist which is baaaaaad! The view amongst a sizeable population of the USA is that the government shouldn't do much of anything other than perhaps have a large armed force (because that isn't collectivised security, honest!). Not something I would have too huge an issue with if it was done properly but apparently they only want the government out of peoples lives as long as they conform with their social views i.e. sexuality etc, then its ok for the government to intervene. So yeah, interesting country :-) Plenty of faults but a good place to live with good people.
Milton Friedman explained in very clear terms and Mark Levin´s books go into the philosophical roots and extensive detail on the role of goverment and why US founders considered a good idea to limit it as much as possible. The liberals (left, media, democrats) in there want the expansion of gov. The conservatives (right, new media, Tea Party) want the constitution as it is.
That´s why you get the impression they want goverment to stay out of peoples lives in one issue and want interference in others. It is not a monolithic culture as one would assume if only watching american media.
" In his statement, Rockefeller said, "Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians,and psychologists know better.""
If parent know so much better, then why are they buying violent video games for their kiddies? Because the last time I checked, such games carried certificates which requires the purchaser to be over a certain age.
"Mum, can I have Grand Theft Auto 5? The mean guy in the shop won't sell it to me"
"why not?"
"he says I have to be 18"
"oh, there must be some mistake, its only a video game, and they only make those for kids, don't they?"
And so on.
The rating system is completely voluntary (and games are rated by the ESRB, which is a private not for profit) in the US. Although since almost all retailers will not sell an unrated game, only a few minor publishing houses avoid it. For the same reason, the more grossly-offensive content is removed (or never present to start) to avoid the M or AO ratings.
The ESRB actually admits this:
"A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 found that video games are a constitutionally-protected form of expression, and that laws restricting their sale or rental based upon violent content are unconstitutional. That said, ESRB supports retailers' voluntary policies restricting the sale or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) computer and video games in the United States and Canada to customers who are at least 17 and 18 years of age, respectively (unless permission from a parent has been obtained)."
http://www.esrb.org/retailers/faq.jsp#6
Isn't it just so typically American. Rather than face the obvious (which is if you have a gun in your house, at some point someone is highly likely to use it) and control the cause and restrict gun ownership, they try to tackle other nonsense that has nothing to do with the problem in hand.
Its really, really simple America. If gun's aren't available, the people won't get shot. It really is as simple as that. I appreciate it's not easy with all the rednecks, hillbillys and retards over there, but really, ban guns and suddenly the problem won't happen as much.
I could go on, but there's no point as you won't do it, children will continue to get killed and all American's will continue to be shocked by something that is obvious to the rest of the world.
I quite like American's generally, so I'd really rather you didn't all kill yourselves. Do you think you might be able to see sense this one time? Hope so :)
Stop being sensible, it might catch on then we will all be in the shit! Stuff might get done right, then there will be less to do.
I do advocate greater gun control but to discuss it you have to understand that a decent number of people simply won't discuss it rationally and also you need to look at America's history and its culture. People are brought up hearing about their rights, and rights are awesome. I will stand by the constitution and bill of rights as one of the most important documents of our time. The problem is there was no bill of responsibilities and some folks simply don't want to anything other than what they want to do. There are many responsible gun owners out there, their rights do need protecting, but for some people guns are an insurance policy for being an ass, they're protection, they're a statement on manhood or power. Over here we hunt a lot with bow and knife, partially because its more challenging and fun and partially because the seasons are longer (its also a lot cheaper and less paperwork). For others its about who can create the biggest crater where bambi was. The culture has to change for the violence to decrease, but I think America's past will make that difficult.
It's really not simple though is it? There are hundreds of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo already in the hands of Americans, you could completely ban the sale of all guns and ammo for a 20 year period without massively affecting gun ownership.
I expect that some assault rifles will get banned for future sale as a result of this, but nothing else.
And psychotic meds as well.
We had unrestricted firearms access in Oz during the 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s... and no mass murder attacks.
Then when you get one and the early reports are on the psychological issues and meds of the gunman get pushed aside and the news changes to stir public opinion into hysteria and anti laws pushed you grow quickly jaded.
When years later you get govt report after report that show statistically no impact on crime or suicide rates make the pollies angry and the report givers remind ten that's what separates actual science from public opinion and they ignore it you stay jaded.
Web attacks happen in gun free zones but not in open carry states you wonder, but its never reported.
When full autos have been legally licensed since the 30's in the USA with only 3 incidents in all those years with one of them committed by a Police officer and now the govt goes crazy on them even though it was just a semi-auto used you scratch your head.
It's all public opinion, spin doctoring and pushes by fringe groups trying to push related but slighlty off the mark agendas.
No one ever focuses on root problems, always treat symptoms instead.
Actually I have a question for our American cousins regarding the constitution which is only ever so slightly off topic.
As far as I understand it on of the reasons guns can't just be made illegal is due to the second amendment giving you the right to bear arms.
Does this mean the original constitution was amended to give this right and if so why can't it just be amended again.
Apologies for my ignorance of such matters...
Yes, the Constitution CAN be amended. Get enough votes & you can have an amendment that says... pretty much anything you want.
However, it takes a LOT of votes and, in this day & age, won't happen.
It's worth noting that, had the 2nd Amendment been followed, then the number of gun killings would be way, way down from what it currently is - around 11,000 a year.
The 2nd Amendment begins with (and its beginning is convieniently forgotten by most gun advocates) 'A well-regulated militia...'
So you can have a gun but only if you're part of a government-regulated militia. Which would keep (like almost all armies) the guns in the barracks, not in the soldiers/citizens homes. Which would carry out mental health screening. Which would carry out training and address safety issues and so on...
Of course, they'll never do that and so the killing will go on...
Amendments can be repealed, with another amendment. I believe it's the 31st amendment that brings in prohibition and the 32nd that repeals it.
As has been said, the amendment is a little more wordy than simply stating the right to bear arms. Along with the well-regulated militia, it also specifially states that only in the time of war (but given the USA has only *not* been at war for less than 20 years of it's entire existence).
If anyone cares to, the Constitution and it's early amendments are clearly written by a group of lucid and intelligent gentleman, the prose may be a little off by modern standards but what is written is incredibly clear in it's intentions. Unfortunately, like the Torah, Bible, Koran or any other religious book, the text has been abused and twisted by men to their own ends. If the USA was run strictly as the Constitution is written, the country would be all the better for it.
There was actually an attack in a school in China around the same time as this latest shooting. 20 injured last time I read about it, the guy only had a knife.
Guns aren't the problem, the people using them are. But, unless we're going to turn an entire population into a well balanced nation, let's just take the guns away and whilst it's not curing the problem, it'll certainly help prevent it.
If this Chinese guy had an assault rifle and lots of ammo instead of the knife, would more people have been injured more seriously, and would the death toll have been higher?
That's the point of gun control - there are always crazies out to harm and kill, guns just make it a lot easier to do that to more people than pretty much anything else.
The "self-defence" argument is plainly bollocks as well:
Quick, what's the instant visual difference between a murderous nutter sighting on their next victim and the armed stranger sighting on the murderous nutter?
You've got one second to decide, as do the other armed strangers in the room who are looking at you.
That was my point, though poorly made I'll admit. Because he only had a knife it seems no one died, a vast improvement.
You cannot hope to get rid of all the crazies, or even the normal folk who just flip when life deals them one too many bad hands.
In a way though, I fear the USA may be beyond gun control to the degree of the UK, and would be better off removing automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and then trying to arm as many people as possible that are left. If you can't get rid of all the guns, then unfortunately the 2nd best option is that everyone gets one, so at least such nutjobs get shot before they've racked up the kill count so high. I don't think you'd get any more mass murderers (they all seem to be able to get hold of a pistol or too from a neighbour at worst), but at least they'd not get as far.
ok some facts: The killer was 20 years old, he would have had access to violent games even if the games were banned to minors. Plus he was in his late teens for quite sometime, so he would still have had access to those games. The ban wouldn't have helped in the case of this guy
2) the game the media believe that he liked was "Starcraft"... and I think they just added "Call of Duty"
3) "Nancy Lanza took her son, Adam, to a shooting range and taught him how to use a firearm before he turned a gun on her and shot her dead...
Fifty-two-year-old Nancy Lanza was an avid gun collector...
She said she would often go target shooting with her kids"
source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248645/Nancy-Lanza-Mother-murderer-Adam-Lanza-avid-gun-collector-taught-sons-use-firearms.html#ixzz2FZqK56rn
yup, with all the above facts, a law to control selling games to minors is what we need :-)
and *most* of the time in the UK they can only get hold of hammers , sticks , knives and swords.
Maybe the nutter might use a car to try and run someone over .
These methods are all pretty deadly for the 1 or 2 poor victims the nutter manages to kill .
But most of the rest of the people can run or get out of the way.
It is really hard to run far enough away or get out of the way of a nutter with a gun, so the nutter with a gun will always be able to kill a *much* larger amount of people, and is much more difficult for the police to handle.
I never heard of someone killing someone with a video game, I suppose if you angle the attack right and hit the victim in the temple with the video game box or maybe disk, you could get lucky (or should that be unlucky?) .
As far as I can see guns have just one use and that is for killing. Target practice is just practicing how to hit and kill stuff (admittedly this maybe hunting non-human animals) . Knives , hammers and cars, which whilst they can kill, are useful tools with other purposes. They are also fortunately no where as efficient at mass intentional killing as guns.
You will never completely stop nutters from existing, all you can control is the nutters access to deadly weapons.
I personally much prefer living in a place where nutters have a much harder time getting hold of a gun.
"As far as I can see guns have just one use and that is for killing. Target practice is just practicing how to hit and kill stuff (admittedly this maybe hunting non-human animals) ."
As an owner and shooter of guns in the UK for ~20 years and as a member of society with an acknowledged mental condition (depression), your view is more than a little skewed. I'd say it clearly comes from someone who has never been around guns to any extent - but there isn't enough data to make that assertion.
I used to own hand-guns, until Dunblane outlawed them (the shooter in that case legally had rifles, but illegally had hand-guns, so we banned hand-guns, that the shooter hadn't legally obtained anyway). Knee-jerk reaction right there.
In all those years, i've not come into contact with anyone who has done anything other than shoot targets at ranges (both 25m indoor and 100m outdoor ranges), clay pigeons and enough people who hunt for sport, leisure and for animal culling. None of the probably hundreds of people have gone off on one. At one point, I had 3 rifles and a shotgun in the rifle safe at home and close to 10,000 rounds of ammunition in the ammunition safe - all legal. Look at how I managed to not kill anyone.
The argument we have here is the same as for many other things - a minority misuse something, so we should ban it for everyone. In short, banning guns is a form of censorship.
Quoted " The argument we have here is the same as for many other things - a minority misuse something, so we should ban it for everyone. In short, banning guns is a form of censorship."
This is the single line of defence of every NRA member it seems
"I'm Perfectly normal, so you have no right to take my HUGE Armory (US sp) of guns away from me"
and
"if you try to take me guns, the constitution says I can legally shoot you !"
someone mentioned it above, they read the constitution and it's amendments and took the parts that they thought applied to them.
Logical, but 100% not Right
"I used to own hand-guns, until Dunblane outlawed them (the shooter in that case legally had rifles, but illegally had hand-guns, so we banned hand-guns, that the shooter hadn't legally obtained anyway). Knee-jerk reaction right there."
Dunblane changed everything in the UK. I think it was the first primary school mass shooting. I consider the response was excessive. The man was thrown out of the Boy Scouts as a suspected child molester, which suggests the local police should have arrested him long before he got to the school.
Although IIRC one of the key recommendations (a nationwide database of gun licenses and where and when people had tried to apply for them) was not implemented.
This post has been deleted by its author
evilGav1 , I agree , I'm glad to say 99.9999% of people with guns "don't go off on one". ( as you put it ) , and banning guns is a form of censorship. It is also censoring something that can be deadly, unlike the films and magazines that Mary Whitehouse used to campaign about. I also wouldn't censor the video games this article was originally about either.
What do you propose we do about incidents like Hungerford,Dunblane, Sandyhook ? Nothing ? Are these the price we have to pay ? Or do we have gun control ? I don't see trying to identify these nutters before hand as ever likely to work. You aren't ever going to stop the lone nutcase going off on one, and easy access to guns is always going to make their rampage worse for more people.
For me it is a simple choice, personal freedom to have guns or the freedom for people not to live in fear of nutters with guns, and I support gun control.
Yes that limits my freedom to have a gun , and I have used someone else's gun over a firing range some years ago (before Dunblane got them banned) , and it was fun firing a Magnum .44 and saying go ahead make my day to the bottle of water I shot. I also inherited an air rifle which I haven't used in years. If you want to shoot some paper targets at 20 yards a .22 air rifle with max energy of 12 ft lbs that is only really deadly to very small animals seems fine to me. I don't see how you need high velocity percussion cap .3 of an inch shells designed to cause maximum damage and kill for hitting some paper targets, not over a short range at least, and I personally wouldn't want to kill animals for sport, not unless you're going to eat them. (by the way I am not a vegetarian )
It isn't just due to incidents like Hungerford, Dunblane, Sandybrook that I like gun control, I also like gun control because therefore most of our Police can be unarmed. If there is free and easy access to guns and everyone has one, then the Police are all going to have them, otherwise it would be unfair on them. Then the bad guys and the Police would all probably get a lot more trigger happy, there would be an escalation of risk, and a lot more collateral damage would ensue, more dead people and heartache for the people involved.
The system we have in the UK where you have to have a good reason, and limiting the type of weapon to only those that can be justified seems reasonably fair to me. I don't want just anyone to be able to get a gun, especially an easily concealable handgun ( that is a completely pointless weapon for hunting animals at any sort of distance ) like they seem to be able to do in the US.
As I say , I like gun control, and to be able to walk around realising that the chances I'm going to meet a nutter with a gun are much less, although they might have a knife, which are and always will be easy to get hold of.
"What do you propose we do about incidents like Hungerford,Dunblane, Sandyhook ? Nothing ? Are these the price we have to pay ? Or do we have gun control ?"
Keep in mind the US <> UK.
UK. No land borders. tight restrictions on gun ownership and storage (except shotguns, which is why they were so easy to steal as the armed robbers tool of choice back in the day) before Dunblane.
US. Land borders to 3rd world countries. Multiple gun ownership the statistical norm. Relatively easy to circumvent license checks (gun shows).
I'm not going to say games don't cause violence because I haven't run any studies and only have my opinion. However, why is it that American idiots like the one wanting pointless studies are intent on banning or putting massive limits on games that are already age restricted yet there's no chance of similar penalties and restrictions applying to gun ownership? Why oh why does someone need a gun that can throw out hundreds of rounds a minute? What exactly necessitates such overkill? One bullet can just as effectively kill as 2, 10, 30 etc.
Do I think gun control is the answer? Possibly but I also think it's never going to happen in my lifetime and I'm only 33. Far too many are invested in their weapons and it's part of the culture. I don't have a solution sadly so long as guns are so loved by so many.
"yet there's no chance of similar penalties and restrictions applying to gun ownership?"
To be fair, this case, the killer stole semi-automatic weapons from his 52 year old mothers house.
So I don't think a ban on automatic weapons, age restricted ownership of guns, or only restricting guns to homes would have made any difference in this case.
If there is almost one gun per-person in a country, then a person will have no trouble getting hold of a gun.
You also have FA chance of getting them all back if you decided to ban guns outright.
I imagine the result of trying an outright ban would be riots, with the rioters having (obviously) guns, due to the amount of gun nuts, which might well lead to civil war, at least on a small scale.
Once you have made your ultra-violent bed ,feathered with Guns 'n' Ammo, you pretty much have to lie in it.
>> You also have FA chance of getting them all back if you ban guns outright <<
I see this argument used a lot in these discussions, but it's missing the point. - which is to to reduce the number of guns in circulation over time until legally held ones are very uncommon, and illegal ones are much harder to come by.
Once you've banned them you slowly remove them from circulatiion, with government 'buy back' programs, cash-for guns schemes, 'no-questions-asked' amnesties, etc.
Its probably not going to stop next years massacre. But hopefully it will stop these incidents being so common as the years go by.
When the Americans get around to banning 'violent' video games - and have dealt with the ensuing social trouble, free speech riots and probably killings that result - and the next one of these tragedies occurs because some nutter went off the rails and only had to walk into his front room to pick up a loaded assault rifle, I wonder what'll get blamed then?
Surely they won't blame video games, as the only thing Americans will be allowed to play will be 'My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic' (which will probably be enough to drive anyone into a killing rage).
Violent films?
Loud music?
Lack of prayer?
By the time the video game industry, the film industry and the music industry have left America and moved to Canada or somewhere because they won't have ridiculous legislation banning things that have no bearing whatsoever on the problem they are designed to 'fix', a fairly big chunk of money will be gone from the economy too. It all just snowballs from there.
OK America - we've all had a laugh at your idiotic approach to things, blaming everyone and everything but the root cause of the problem that the rest of the 6 billion people can see. It's time to get a grip.
That was the figure I saw on one news report about US shootings. So 2-3 mass shootings a year.
That appears to be viewed (by the American public) as "acceptable" losses. Although the parents of Sandy Hill and Columbine (and a whole bunch of places people outside the US have never heard of) might differ on that opinion.
Regan repealed the law that banned gun sales through the mail (following the shooting of JF Kennedy) after being shot at by the proverbial swivel eyed loon.
Bush Jnr cancelled the assault weapons law of Clinton.
It would be interesting to see a study of "murder" rates Vs "murder by gun" rates across the G20. The perception is that the US is grossly out of line in this regard. But lets get some actual evidence first. I think Israel might be very interesting. Nearly every house does have an assault rifle in it (except where they keep a heavy machine gun). It's about 1/75 the population packed fairly tightly in a small country so what's it's murder rate?
I'd also like to see a study of the US to find out what happened when armed witnesses were present. Did they engage the shooter and either maim or kill them. That is after all one of the justifications for this attitude, right?
As for the comment "Guns don't kill people, but they sure help," I wonder if Eddie Izzard got that from Shoot Em Up or vice versa? Just about the funniest (and most violent) satire on "gun culture" ever made.
This is where America is right now. I don't think guns can (or should) be banned, but eliminating assault weapons, large capacity magazines (200 rounds to hunt deer. Really?) and requiring better security than keeping it in your sock drawer might be a start. I think the NRA could support that position. Perhaps if people did not perceive the "right" to bear arms as "The right to kill anyone I like" the grave digging business might not be so busy.
Want evidence? Here you go. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/
You'll notice Israel as a whole doesn't own that many guns, you're thinking about the settlers.
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/"
Yes it would appear that the motto of the Republic could be changed to "We come strapped."
"You'll notice Israel as a whole doesn't own that many guns, you're thinking about the settlers."
This did surprise me a bit. I was thinking that Israel has conscripted military service and most citizens spend time in the IDF. I've probably not factored in how many under 18's there are in Israel.
"Once out of the army conscription (21 for males), they don't keep their rifle."
Ah, that explains my mis comprehension. I'd presumed they retained it for refresher training.
Many thanks.
On a side point I thought very devout Jews were exempted military services?
John Smith 19: yes, I understand that some Jewish sects are exempt from military service as long as they are in religious school (called yeshiva if memory serves).
Not sure why I was downvoted up there, all I did was point at some data. If you take decisions as important as gun ownership etc not based on data, then you are a very scary person indeed...
"Not sure why I was downvoted up there, all I did was point at some data. I"
Same here. The tone of my original post may have seemed callus to some, but the fact remains that whatever US public sentiment was after the previous 67 mass shooting it did not translate into action, which was one of my points. Maybe this time will be different as there seems to be some consensus on the matter.
I think we've got another one of those loons* neurodiverse types who can only engage by downvoting, rather than posting a coherent argument.
Let's hope their alternative means of communication is not by shooting people.
*US Congress has enacted a law to strike the word "lunatic" from the drafting of all future legislation. No I'm not joking. New laws cannot describe (for example) the insanely risky lending practices of big US banks as "lunatic." 11 days to fiscal cliff.
Don't know where you got that figure for Israels gun ownership...
Soldiers (18-21) will indeed generally have a rifle, stored in a suitable cabinet at home (whilst at home, during the week they are on base). But not every house owns an 18-21 year old. And not all of them have rifles, most the girls do not, and a lot of soldiers are not combat soldiers, and thus carry no weapon.
Outside of the forces, gun regulation is very very strict in Israel, and without a valid reason (generally employment, needs to be security) you cannot get one.
Switzerland is perhaps where you were thinking, and their rules have changed in the last 5 years, they did have a very large gun death rate prior to these changes (keeping ammo for a town in one/two locations, instead of at home).
Switzerland has one of the highest guns per capita ratio in the world, largely because every male citizen does national service and is *required* to keep the gun serviced and in good order (ratio of a minimum estimated 1:2 gun per capita). Assault rifles are also common place.
Number of homicides in 2009 (last published figures), was 84 amongst a population of 8 million - that's all homicides, not just gun related.
The US has a population around 30 times higher and a gun homicide rate close to 120 times higher or the homicide rate per 100,000 is 4 times higher in the US than Switzerland, a country that *does* have high gun ownership.
"The US has a population around 30 times higher and a gun homicide rate close to 120 times higher or the homicide rate per 100,000 is 4 times higher in the US than Switzerland, a country that *does* have high gun ownership."
I had thought Israel and Switzerland were similar in this regard. My bad.
It's not looking good for the "We have more murders (in the US) because we're just bigger than you" PoV.
Thanks for putting some numbers on the debate. I think a murder rate 4x bigger than the increase in population is what they call "statistically significant," but IANS.
The effect of continually being at war, telling your electorate they're perpetually under attack by mysterious unseen forces, glorifying conflict with Yeehaw-look-how-clever-we-are nosecam videos of bombs flying through 'enemies' pantry windows and woohoo-look-at-the-shockwave-from-that-2000-pounder and the endless bigging up of futuristic military weaponry on the design cards?
Just a thought, y'know, putting an idea out there...
The idea is welcome and valid. The root of the problem lies in a culture which is affected by many things, war, games, (perversely) a lack of a cultural identity (beyond beer good, truck manly, bbq good, which accounts for the drunk driving & obesity epidemics) and many more causes. It won't be quick, but it can be changed over time. There just cannot be any sacred goats anymore, it all has to be on the table. I'm not saying we need to ban games or guns, we just need to restore some balance and moderation. At the moment all the sliders are pushed to 10, things just need to be dialed back a bit. People just don't like hearing real answers because it means bellying up and accepting culpability. The parents that leave their kids in front of the tv / internet / computer need to do their job, the states need to get their acts together and provide proper educations, its a long list! :)
If one were to say violent games were the leading cause of violent actions than my steam game list must mean I am far from the mild mannered Canadian that I say I am.
Bioshock 1 & 2, Crysis 1, 2, Warhead, Wars, Darksiders 1 and 2, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War + every expansion, Fallout 1 through 3 plus New Vegas, Doom 1 through 3 plus the lost missions and the list goes on and on.
Oh dear God...why won't someone stop me!?!
Oh wait, it's because I'm a fully functioning member of the public.
Japan has no mass firearm murders?
Sorry mister red herring!
In Japan killers use large trucks and now down their own people and then when the truck no longer works try get out and start stabbing all their people on the sidewalks.
Or they just let masses of poison gas loose in highly crowded public areas.
Go away, you are not helping find any solutions with your rubbish!
Maybe Japan has truck murders, but you will notice the discussion is about murders committed with guns.
And anyway, I like data, so take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
Japan: 0.3 per 100,000 inhabitants
UK: 1.2
US: 4.2
The kid's mother was a gun nut, he had access to guns, the very guns he used, and as far as I know, there are no games where you shoot pre-teens.
So to me, it seems like the access to the guns was the problem.
Ah, screw it, there's no sense in America, always blame something else.
The only way to kill someone with an XBox is to hit someone with it. It is probably not even very good at that as all the plastic will break and the attacker would probably not get very blows in with it. They probably would not get very many victims either.
If they had a gun and a box full of bullets they would have more success. I wonder if this is an attempt at distraction from the actual devices that are used to kill people.
I wish people would stop referring to the rifle used as an assault rifle. It was a semi-automatic rifle, which by that very definition denies it being an assault rifle!
An assault rifle: A rifle capable of sustained or burst fire. In the US, citizens cannot own automatic or burst fire weapons : These are military weapons. So an assault rifle would not be in the hands of a private citizen legally - no need for a new law there.
I've also seen mention of the rifle being a 'sub-machine gun'. So it fired pistol rounds in burst or sustained fire, then? Erm, not according to the BBC reports. If it did use 9mm pistol rounds, it would still be a rifle due to the size of the gun itself.
So it was a rifle. Magazine fed, yes, and perhaps styled after a military rifle - they do exist after all - but it was a semi-automatic rifle, not an assault rifle.
Most people outside the US do not understand the difference between an assault rifle, a submachine gun or a semi-automatic rifle.
All they see is a bloody big gun that uses the same rounds as a military rifle, and in this case, used to kill 20 little kids for no reason.
I guess this has something to do with the wide spread proliferation of firearms within the US...
Really? So, nobody outside the US has been in the military; nobody outside the US shoots guns for sport/hobby; nobody outside the US studies military history . . . etc etc, continus ad nauseum.
*You* may not know the difference, many hundreds of thousands of people do.
And which military rifle? A US 7.62mm or a NATO 5.65mm round? The former designed to kill, the latter designed to wound (no, i'm not joking).
I think you may have missed my incredibly subtle point there.
Also, are you seriously trying to tell everyone here that a NATA 5.56 is designed to wound people and not kill them? Do you understand what bullets are for? I take it you must be talking about those magic bullets that know when they are about to hit someone in a particularly fatal point on their body and turn into a cloud of wishes just in time...
The type of round used to kill all those little children in Sandy Hook uses the same size bullet as a NATO 5.56. The only difference between the two rounds is the dimensions of the case.
Still want to insist that the 5.56/.223 is a round designed to maim? Or would you like to reconsider your idiotic comment and instead consider that the type of rifle used to fire that round was designed to maim - you know, like the SA80.
Or, if you prefer to continue you moronic escapade, maybe you would like to assert your ideas in front of the poor parents of those 20 dead innocent children instead? I am sure they will be relieved to hear that this type of round was designed to maim and not kill.
You utter knob.
@1Rafayal
You're probably right, but I prefer people to be accurate in their reporting. It's partly the developer in me, partly a military background. It's like someone calling out there's a tank approaching when it's an APC - it's... wrong. It also gives opponents to tighter gun laws ammunition to use against change: Assault guns are banned so why change the law when one was reportedly used? Let people keep their semi-automatics: No one's been hurt by those, have they?
Really irritates me: It's a semi-automatic that was used and that's the issue that needs addressing: Why do civilians need semi-automatic weapons? Limit them to bolt action, or better yet, breach loading (I doubt banning guns entirely would work just yet). Hunting weapons don't need to self-load. Sporting guns don't need to self-load. It might not have stopped the shooting, but it may have reduced the number of deaths.
Regardless, it doesn't bring the kids back. Or the teachers.
You know what - you've hit the nail right on the head.
He didn't use an ASSAULT rifle to massacre twenty six-year old children, six of their teachers and his own mother. It was just a boggo rifle that he only had to walk into his front room, pick up and kill people with
Our mistake - that's perfectly fine then.
Idiot.
@BenR
Oh, dear: You don't appreciate the concept of accurate reporting, then?
People were killed: That isn't fine. That it was a commonly available legally owned semi-automatic rifle that was used is the problem. Calling it an assault rifle confuses the issue. It wasn't an assault rifle: It was a sports rifle. Big difference in gun terms, and in the potential outcome: An assault rifle would have resulted in a lot more deaths, for one.
This doesn't make the deaths that did happen acceptable, but it might make people think about the guns they own: Do they really need a semi-automatic rifle? If they don't, perhaps, just perhaps, they'll surrender the gun and ammunition and that might, just might, stop another incident like this happening.
It doesn't bring back the dead. But accuracy in reporting might just stop this shit from happening again.
Playing realistic violent games of today actually blurs reality and fiction in certain situations. So if you are playing a special ops soldier needing to shoot at heads of your enemy to ensure instant kill, we tend to unconsciously bring this thinking in the real world especially when stressed.
So at the very least ban violent games from the hands of the mentally ill or on psychotic meds. Many mass murders were committed by these folks and in many cases these guys seem to love violent shooting games too. Once reality warps into fiction, schoolchildren and family members stop being real and become a fair target in the minds of the sick.
"So if you are playing a special ops soldier needing to shoot at heads of your enemy to ensure instant kill, we tend to unconsciously bring this thinking in the real world especially when stressed."
Really? Is this a researched assessment or just a subjective statement? I suspect what you mean is that *some* mentally ill people can't always tell reality from whatever their illness is creating in their heads. I know dozens of people who play violent video games, some of them are mentally ill (severe depression etc) and none of them have shot anyone or even gone crazy with a cricket bat.
Are you suggesting there should be a mental health assessment before you are allowed to play a video game?
People have always gone off the rails and committed vile crimes, long before video games and tv and Hollywood were invented. Don't fall for this knee-jerk response and blame something like video games or rock music - anyone who even contemplates making a link between mass murder and pressing a few buttons on an xbox has clearly already made up their mind that the cause is proven. It's just a way of avoiding the real issue and shifting blame on to an easy target, rather than bite the bullet (pun intended).
"People have always gone off the rails and committed vile crimes, long before video games and tv and Hollywood were invented. Don't fall for this knee-jerk response and blame something like video games or rock music - anyone who even contemplates making a link between mass murder and pressing a few buttons on an xbox has clearly already made up their mind that the cause is proven. It's just a way of avoiding the real issue and shifting blame on to an easy target, rather than bite the bullet (pun intended)."
Going back to the 50's the moral panic was about comics
This led to the self censorship of the "Comics code."
The flip side being the legendarily violent and sexual (and sexually violent) Japanese comic box and the fact that murder rates are very low in the country, as is rape.
In the 80's it was videos, in the 90's it was rap music.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Thumbs up to Mooseman for not falling for this line of BS.
In Australia the whole customs and port authorities are in the middle if a large black cloud moment as official after official are being arrested for allowing.
A) large illegal drug shipments and
B) large illegal ***guns*** shipments
And both are tied into large criminal syndicates...
When all those Sydney shootings get done by wankers with illegal guns yet the legal firearm owning community gets the blame and oppressed even more by the blind eye govt.
Welcome to your future USA!
When Israel had a problem with kids being murdered and bombed they armed all teachers with semi-auto hand guns. Guess what? Deadly criminal acts against children stopped! You western world wanks ban guns, guess what? Your crime exists and climbs statistically post implantation of laws banning them.
What sign will prevent you, on anti-depressant medication as feeling a bit loner and looney from killing kid?
1) A sign with a gun and knife with a big red no symbol and words saying weapon free zone?
2) A sign with a symbol of a person aiming a rifle saying all teachers are fully armed and will shoot and kill anyone who attempts to harm our children?
Yeah I figure you would go 1). Now look at your crime ridden scared to walk around on your streets, youth crime out of control rubbish place to live in.
I'm talking about you UK!
"When Israel had a problem with kids being murdered and bombed they armed all teachers with semi-auto hand guns. Guess what? Deadly criminal acts against children stopped! You western world wanks ban guns, guess what? Your crime exists and climbs statistically post implantation of laws banning them."
I'll take a wild guess and expect most of those to be Palestinians or jihadists (no the two are not the same, except to Americans) rather than a random loon.
"Now look at your crime ridden scared to walk around on your streets, youth crime out of control rubbish place to live in. I'm talking about you UK!"
Yes that's right, we in the UK have a huge gun problem, every week we hear of yet another shooting by a nutter going walkabout with his famiy's arsenal of semi-automatic weaponry.......
Yes, we have a few gang related gun deaths every year. What does prevent a "loner and looney " (your words) from killing kids is the LACK OF FLIPPING MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS.
Yes, Israel armed some teachers when jihadist suicide bombers were targetting schools, not because a couple of citizens went crazy.
I detect from your post that you are a member of the "legal firearm owning community" and are jumping up and down in a fury about your precious guns being possibly restricted. But look at it this way - you may be a responsible well-balanced citizen who collects guns, only fires them at a properly run range, keeps them securely locked away when not in use etc etc. However, all it takes is one person to be less conscientious than you and suddenly you have 20 dead chidren. What is the government to do? Government isn't a subtle tool, they can only introduce fairly broad laws to limit or control firearms.
I've seen the whiny comments about the banning of handguns after Dunblane and the frothing panic by gun lovers after Sandy Hook - and frankly my response is "who cares?" Does your hobby matter more to you than the lives of little children?
Well, that is a lovely, balanced and above all well reasoned response.
Oh no, wait, it isn't.
It's the response of someone who wants something banned that wont affect them and that they perceive as a problem that needs banning.
Ok, *some* people drink to excess and cause violence. Ban all drink.
*some* people smoke in a manner that affects others. Ban all smoking.
*some* people abuse prescription medication. Ban all prescription medication.
*some* people use radio controlled aircraft for nefarious activities. Ban all radio controlled aircraft.
*some* people continually drive in a dancgerous manner. Ban all cars.
*some* people endanger pedestrians by cycling on the pavement. Ban all bicycles.
Now, I could continue this list ad infinitum, but hopefully i've covered enough to hit at least one of your hobbies and past-times or at least given an insight so that, maybe, you can match up with one of your past-times. Maybe it might have even pricked you're brains enough into understanding that the law shouldn't be about controlling the majority because of a minority.
"some" people think it;s ok for nutters to be armed with semi automatic rifles...
I fail to see your oh-so-clever point. Smoking drinking etc don't usually kill random passersby etc. You're being a pathetic apologist for your "hobby". Man up, accept the facts. Guns kill people. It's what they were desgned to do from first principles. And before you bleat on about "people kill people", does that argument extend to all forms of death dealing stuff? Why stop at assault rifles? Howitzers are lovely, they don't kill people. Nukes don't either. Yes, I'm being facetious but you started this by being ridiculous.
Really, drinking doesn't affect random others?
That's quite interesting, given around 17,000 people were killed last year by drink drivers and 50,000 injured in the US.
And if smoking *doesn't* kill random people, why is it banned in most public places?
" you may be a responsible well-balanced citizen who collects guns, only fires them at a properly run range, keeps them securely locked away when not in use etc etc. "
Somehow I rather doubt it. I think they are more from the SEL end of the spectrum.
"I've seen the whiny comments about the banning of handguns after Dunblane and the frothing panic by gun lovers after Sandy Hook - and frankly my response is "who cares?" Does your hobby matter more to you than the lives of little children?"
Do you really want to play the TOTC card?
Because that way leads to everyone being imprisoned "Just in case."
TOTC is regularly abused by any twat who wants to control your life in lots of little pointless ways.
However, there comes a point when you have to take a step back from freedom at all costs and look around yourself. If a state has come to the point of even considering arming school teachers or having armed guards at primary schools, I think it's lost the plot. Sometimes you actually do have to think about children.
"TOTC is regularly abused by any twat who wants to control your life in lots of little pointless ways."
My point exactly. When I said Dunblane was the first pre teen school shooting in the UK I actually meant the only one in the UK. I'm not sure how many the US has had, but this is not AFAIK the first.
"However, there comes a point when you have to take a step back from freedom at all costs "
I'd suggest anyone who thinks the British enjoy "freedom at all costs" has either never lived there or not lived there for some time. Otherwise they might like to try exercising that freedom by say applying for a gun license.
I'll repeat the UK situation is not (and never will be) the US situation. It's history is very different from the US.
Stupid gun loving Americans. I reserve the right to say that after losing my brother to gun violence in a major US city! They never caught the guys because the powers-that-be were too busy waging illegal wars to enrich Haliburton and Big Oil!
1. Lets not talk about Mayor's that have tried to sue gun-makers to help pay for the lethal costs to American cities.
2. Lets not mention the corrupt suburban gun dealers that escape jail time.
3. Definitely lets not talk about how easy it is to buy assault rifles at gun-fairs without a single background check...
4. Or the ease with which gang-bangers can get firearms from lax out-of-state gun sales.
Instead lets hire some congressmen and PR asses to blame Tarantino and Halo! As always the real smoking gun is the NRA. The right to bear arms...yeah against children!i
...because last I checked the study that linked video game violence to actual violence was debunked.
Perhaps the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia would like to kill two birds with one stone (if you'll forgive me) by employing a few people to research if causality exists.
I could use the job. That would keep me from playing video games.
Seeing as though the dude stole the rifle and ammo, passing legislation to ban certain guns is silly and meritless. He also carried two hand guns with many rounds of ammo.
What we need to do is arm every adult and then the odds are equal. You want to show up at a school, church or public event and start shooting, expect to die after your first shot because 50 people will be shooting back at you. Teachers in Texas are allowed to be armed and I expect many other schools and people will be armed to protect themselves and others from mentally disturbed people who go on rampages.
BTW, those who think banning guns will resolve anything are naive. If you ban guns then only the bad guys will have them and everyone else will be defenseless. In addition if someone wants to kill people and they can't get a gun, they'll build a pipe bomb. Hell there are plans all over the internet for this and they frequently turn up at schools or public buildings often with deadly consequences. Banning guns is not going to stop or reduce human carnage caused by those who want to kill and injure other people. Proper defensive measures however can reduce the loss of life if the perp is taken out quickly by armed adults who can save many people's lives.
If you want to test this theory, walk into a local tavern filled with cops who just got off work and pull out a gun and see how quickly you are out-numbered about 50 to 1 by the cops with guns. That's how it would be if all adults were properly trained in firearm use and licensed to carry a handgun.
"What we need to do is arm every adult and then the odds are equal. You want to show up at a school, church or public event and start shooting, expect to die after your first shot because 50 people will be shooting back at you. Teachers in Texas are allowed to be armed and I expect many other schools and people will be armed to protect themselves and others from mentally disturbed people who go on rampages."
Time to put him on a diet.
If you can't put your name on the post don't post.
What you are missing here is that most of the people who go barking mad with guns are just that - barking mad to some degree or other. They no longer see people as people, of any consequence or value at all. And they don't actually think about surviving most of the time - yes your 50 armed heroes might blast away at what the NRA calls a "bad guy" (still think you're living in a Hollywood western guys?) but he will nevertheless have probably killed half a dozen people before your good guys are even aware of what's going on. Beside which, can you imagine 50 guns firing at once? You better hope that they are all crack marksmen. I've fired handguns (before they were banned here) - I *know* how innacurate they are at any kind of range. So, heat of the moment shooting by probably panicked people with handguns with dubious accuracy at a person quite happily firing semi auto or auto rifles at you. How many bystanders are you willing to kill to get your "bad guy"?
How does our asshat senator not know that violent video games don't help the potentially violent?
It's not unusual to fantasize about violently letting rip though, being sane, most people don't actually do it. I had a very stressful workplace a decade ago which I reconstructed as a set in Doom. After a bad day at the office I'd sit down at the computer, frag the place and its monstrous occupants with a rocket launcher, then emerge from the study a much more relaxed individual.
So perhaps violent video games might allow the violent or distressed to harmlessly blow off steam. But I can't see any empirical evidence that they encourage them to take their activities into the real world. As a matter of interest the word 'amok' comes from people running that way in pre-xbox Malayan culture.
We know from the military's use of violent video games to desensitize recruits, that video games most definitely have an impact on the psyche of those who are considered stable personality types. There is no reason to believe that the same violent video games would not have a negative impact on those who are less mentally stable. This isn't rocket science and certainly can be properly evaluated via testing.
However we are not always able to identify those who are mentally challeneged and thus we have a conflict. Should violent video games be banned, toned down or allowed to exist in the best form for commercial success in spite of the repercussions to society? No one has shown that there is some redeeming value to graphic violence in video games be it social or financial. Sex on the otherhand does net greater profits for unscrupulous purveyors of video games to youth.
It would be naive to think that video games or guns alone are the problem. The solution to violence is complicated and long term. There are no quick fixes as first you need to change the environment and then the menatality, before there is any hope of reducing violence.
Agreed, there is no quick fix. I would argue however that removing guns from the equation would rather reduce the death rate. I find some video games unpleasant and pointless, I don't enjoy what some call the pornongraphy of violence. I also don't see how one can on one hand point the finger at video games/ violent films (yet again...) while simply ignoring the elephant in the room - this young man went crazy with a gun, it doesn't matter whether it's an assault rifle, a semi-auto rifle or a small pistol. No gun = no shooting.
I'm continually astonished by the American people's willingness to accept that *anything* other than guns is the problem - video games, comics, rock music, you name it. Not guns, oh no.
In reply to an earlier post, of course I'm aware drunk drivers cause huge numbers of casualties, but nobody is suggesting surely that people with remorseless regularity go out and deliberately drive into a group of passers-by or school children? It happens, yes, but it is phenomenally rare. To compare road accidents for whatever cause with deliberate murder by gun is pointless.
" I would argue however that removing guns from the equation would rather reduce the death rate. I"
True.
But in the USA right now that is simply not going to happen. At best there is some consensus (including the NRA, which does matter) that could lead to action that will cut down some of the problems that cause gun deaths. Wheather any of what is politically possible would have changed things in this case is likely debatable but this is a country with 2-3 mass shootings a year at present, which IDK seems a tad high to me.
Guns are not the problem any more than alcohol is the cause of auto accidents. People who make bad choices are the problem. In the U.S. it's a Constitutional right to bear arms so guns are not going to disappear even if they actually passed a law banning them, which they won't. If they banned guns then law abiding citizens would be defenseless against criminals who do have guns.
As we see in Europe where there are fewer guns, mentally unstable people still slaughter children in schools. If people want to kill other people they will find a way be it a gun, knife , bomb or grenade. The NRA made a valid recommendation that all schools have armed security. While I have never supported the NRA their suggestion is appropriate in this day and age. The school security personnel should also be properly trained to deal with both domestic and foreign terror threats, as they are as real today as a heart attack.
"Guns are not the problem any more than alcohol is the cause of auto accidents."
Just curious but you wouldn't happen to run a combined liquor store and gun shop by any chance?
"it's a Constitutional right to bear arms so guns are not going to disappear even if they actually passed a law banning them, which they won't. "
So if no one is talking about a ban and no one would support it why bother to mention it?
"As we see in Europe where there are fewer guns, mentally unstable people still slaughter children in schools."
You really need to do a bit more research on the number of such shootings around Europe and just as importantly the consequences in legislation afterward.
"The NRA made a valid recommendation that all schools have armed security. "
Funny I had heard Americans were big on personal responsibility. So when it's whose doing the shooting it's the "lone gunman," but when it's who has to deal with it that's the Federal government in just about the most expensive way possible. Relevant given the "fiscal cliff" is now 6 days away.
"As with terroristism, until someone can identify every terrorist or whack-job bent on killing innocent people, these tragedies will continue"
As a former US police officer said "Police work is only easy in a police state"
"You can pass all the laws that you desire and it won't keep people from killing other people."
Perhaps not, but it will cut down the amount of damage the average whack job can do.
America really is a special case here. Its stats are completely out of scale to it's size. Perhaps it should be compared to Russia, China or India for death rates (and death rates by hand guns).
"http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/27/16200800-man-pushed-to-death-on-new-york-subway-tracks?lite"
What an interesting compare and contrast.
Nut with guns 26 victims.
Nut on their own (She does sound like she has some mental health issues and I think any regular commuter would have stayed well away from her). 1 victim.
Nut with gun on subway platform. Hmm. Crowed target rich environment + head shots. Could have been quite a body count.
Except it wasn't.
Or were you lamenting the fact that no one took out their guns and took her out?
That would seem more in line with your somewhat extreme views on justice. $150k for file sharing not enough in your opinion IIRC.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
