back to article NRA: Video games kill people, not guns. And here's our video game

Just weeks after the vice-president of the US National Rifle Association blamed video games for gun crime, the outspoken organisation has released an iPhone video game. NRA: Practice Range is a first-person shooter available from the iTunes Store as a free app for iPads as well as Apple smartmobes. It incorporates a live feed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Chad H.

    An NRA spokespersons said...

    "] There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people.. and we don't like having any competition for the role"

    1. Psyx
      WTF?

      Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

      "Guns don’t kill people. Video games ... kill people."

      I hate it when the "The most dumb statement of the day" prize goes so early. There's no way that's going to get topped.

      Ok: Video games do de-sensitive people a bit to graphic violence and breed the kind of muppet that thinks we should equip our Army with Desert Eagles so they can 'pop heads like melons' [qv], but the NRA's defence against "guns kill people" has always been "Nah-nah-nah-nahnah: Not hey don't because it's an inanimate object and needs a person to pull the trigger, ergo it's not the GUN that does it."

      Yet now apparently, my copy of 'Kill Stuff With Guns II' can pop itself out of my DVD drive and nip out to massacre a few kindergarten classes.

      1. Thomas 4
        Meh

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        He is quite correct though - video games *can* kill people.

        I remember from my time in college someone brought in a pirated copy of Doom on CD. My friend already had it and, in a fit of boredom, turned the CD into a ninja star and almost took our lecturer's eye out with it.

        1. RyokuMas Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          Video games do kill people!

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544131/Man-dies-after-7-day-computer-game-session.html

          ... or maybe it's not moving for several days...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        They used to say the same about rap music... as one stand up at the time played out "I was going to kill a cop, but I've never had the appropriate musical accompaniment". Ice T's justification for 'Cop Killer'

        was that the Talking Heads sung Psycho Killer, or Johnny Cash 'shot a man Reno just to see him die' (he didn't, but a lot of people believed he had and served time for it)

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "They used to say the same about rap music..." This is simply playing the PC crowd at their own game, i.e., deflecting their attention to another topic they frequently rant about. If they can turn the argument into one between the PC crowd and video-gamers then the heat is off, they can go shoot whilst the Mary Whitehouses of the World try dragging their children away from the Xbox, PC, Wii, iPhone, etc., etc. I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence, thought they may be unhappy with the depiction of gun-owners and gun-use in games, but then I doubt if many of the "ban guns" vote-chasing policians actually believe what they say.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            This is simply playing the PC crowd at their own game

            Maybe. I don't think that one worked since Eric Clapton made "I shot the sheriff" a hit in 1974..

            1. NogginTheNog
              Coat

              Re: Eric Clapton

              Hey, he was only quoting Bob Marley!

          2. The Indomitable Gall

            "I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence,"

            @Matt Bryant,

            "I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence,"

            Why so sure? You're forgetting the basics of being "invested" in an idea.

            The gun owner says "I am a good person -- I don't kill people". He then conflates his self-identity as a "good person" with his group identity as a member of the firearms community. This group identity is tied to the physical items we call guns. Therefore the firearms enthusiast has to believe that a gun is a good thing, as it is part of his "good person" identity.

            The evidence that he is presented with overwhelmingly indicates that guns are Very Bad Things indeed, and that now threatens his own self-image, as he actually considers the gun a part of his person. Therefore he must convince himself 100% that the problem is elsewhere.

            That's the psychology behind it, and that's what we've got to fight against.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        Video games do de-sensitive people a bit to graphic violence

        I don't think so. If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres. I just can't make that link.

        Unless you already have a couple of missing screws in your social makeup I don't think video games are going to turn you into a maniac.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          @ac - 11:49

          I agree. There is a difference between Battlefield 3 and Budd Dwyer. I've played violent games all my life, and I haven't even punched someone since I was fourteen, not that I've not been in situations where I could have. Budd Dwyer shocked me. Our brains know the difference between a game and reality better than we think they do.

        2. Psyx
          Go

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence"

          - Yeah, they do. Have a look at some pro-gun sites, and a large chunk of these people seriously believe that:

          The point of gun control is purely to take guns off every legal owner while doing nothing about criminals

          Anyone with Liberal political policies wants to come over to their house and take away their guns

          God gave them the right to bear arms

          Drugs are to blame

          Video games are to blame

          Obama is to blame

          The government is trying to take away their guns so it can then take away their rights to vote et al

          Internment camps have already been constructed and foreign nationals trained to guard them, and they will be used to imprison 'patriotic' Americans en masse.

          I enjoy shooting, but it seems increasingly that it seems to politically associate me with far-right, xenophobic nut-cases. And any word in favour of any form of gun control seems to incite comments that the speakers is 'Liberal', 'Commie', 'Socialist' or 'on Drugs', as though enjoyment of hunting is somehow tied to far-right political outlook.

          "I don't think so. If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres. I just can't make that link."

          I believe that the link has been proven in numerous studies. Note that 'desensitising to violence' doesn't mean 'goes out and kills people'. It simply means that violent scenes or conflict cease to illicit the same level of emotional abhorrence as it causes in people not exposed to such things. People might not do things themselves, but they are less revolted by violence and hence probably more accepting of it as a solution in wider matters.

          1. Euripides Pants
            Unhappy

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            "Drugs are to blame"

            See here:

            http://cegant.com/commentary/school-shootings-and-psychiatric-drugs-update

        3. streaky
          FAIL

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "Video games do de-sensitive people a bit to graphic violence"

          Might not actually be true, but even if it hypothetically was - that's not the same as turning people into murderers. Also don't think Hitler was much of a CoD fan, so maybe there's something else at work?

          Also not for nothing but violent games and movies are globally distributed so if it was the case you'd see the same thing occurring globally which would have been Tarantino's response to the silly question had he not been asked it 300 times before I'm sure.

          Actually in the US they're censored more for the cinema audience then tends to happen in the rest of the western world because for some reason Hollywood is terrified of the state doing it, so they try to keep it too clean - so there's an argument that censoring violence makes people shoot each other which is more soundly based in logic.

          1. Psyx
            Stop

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            "Might not actually be true, but even if it hypothetically was - that's not the same as turning people into murderers. "

            It *is* proven to be true, but indeed does not turn people into murderers. As I state elsewhere.

            Cinema violence isn't what gets the censoring in the States in my experience: It's s3x... particularly anything homosexual. Name five Hollywood films where we've seen gay couples kissing. Actually, there's an even bigger hot potato that the US avoids, and that's abortion. Look at how many films and TV plot-lines are about people getting themselves or someone else pregnant despite it being massively impractical for them to be having a family and supporting a child. Now cast your mind back to see if you remember one of the parties even mentioning the fact that abortion is an option. It never gets a mention, and if it does, it paints the speaker as a 'bad person'.

            I digress.

            Violence is an accepted and embraced part of American culture. Firearms are the easy enabler. Pick up this piece of metal and you can show the world that you won't be trodden on any more. Easy access to firearms makes the fantasy trivially easy to enact.

            1. streaky
              Big Brother

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "Cinema violence isn't what gets the censoring in the States in my experience: It's s3x... particularly anything homosexual. Name five Hollywood films where we've seen gay couples kissing"

              Of course - though frankly - Gia, Boys don't cry et al. It's not homosexuality per se that Hollywood has a problem with it's male homosexuality. Then again maybe it's just that the movies don't have a huge mass-appeal on reflection. Plenty of movies about lesbians :)

              Seriously though the number of movies that get a cut NC-17 in the US and later there's an unrated blu-ray release that's identical to the uncut UK cinematic release is starting to get a little shocking.

              The big thing by the way in the US that you basically can't do ever for fear of the world ending is say "Jesus" in the profane. Child rape/murder is fine, so is chopping people up with a chainsaw, and rape but *you may not* say Jesus in the profane. Or not have an American flag appearing at least once in your movie.

              Have a lot of friends in the US who thing the state is evil and cuts everything so I've done a remarkable volume of research on this in the past to shut them up. The BBFC will let you do basically anything as long as there's a point to it, i.e. it's useful to a plot. If you're chopping up kids for the sake of sexual gratification in your movie and there's not even a usable plot in there your movie isn't going to get a rating and shouldn't anyway. This is human centipede's problem - it's just stupid.

        4. Naughtyhorse

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...missing screws in your social makeup

          Thats the truly scary thing.

          The NRA have a point (grudging most) but the far bigger question is;

          What the fuck is wrong with americans-that they cant refrain from murdering one another?

          and given that there clearly is a massive deficit in intelect/morality/education/understanding of cause and effect - why the hell does the government stand by and let these belicose fools arm themselves to the teeth?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...missing screws in your social makeup

            The NRA is more like a trade body for the gun manufacturers. So they are obviously going to try to excuse their product as the cause of death.

            They can say all they like that it is a mental health issue, but some people just flip and can pass a sanity test on one day and go nuts the following day. The human mind is a strange thing we don't full understand.

            So what do you want, crazy people with guns or crazy people without guns? I know what is safer. A gunman with an assault rifle can shoot dead people with ease, a person with a knife can be dangerous but not in such a high kill-rate kind of way.

          2. Jaybus

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...missing screws in your social makeup

            There is simply more media in the US, and far more media coverage than most places. If you go lookup per capita murder rate by country, it will be clear that the US is in fact middle of the road and nowhere near the top, as the abundant media would lead us to believe. In fact, I would argue the other way. There are more than 200 million firearms in 300 million US citizen's hands. One would think that there should be a massacre every 5 minutes. Since there isn't, they must be, generally, a very restrained people.

        5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          ".....If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres....." By your own logic, looking at the number of people that own guns, we should be seeing a dozen massacres a day every day for the argument that gun ownership alone leads to massacres to be valid.

          ".....Unless you already have a couple of missing screws in your social makeup I don't think video games are going to turn you into a maniac." Take that logic one step further and then apply it equally to gun owners and you realise the problem is not the guns or the gun owners per se, it is the people with "missing screws" that we need to deal with.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Matt B - Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            ".....If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres....." By your own logic, looking at the number of people that own guns, we should be seeing a dozen massacres a day every day for the argument that gun ownership alone leads to massacres to be valid.

            I'm confused. Where did I mention a direct correlation between gun ownership and massacres? I was talking about video games, and did not imply that logic carried to another situation, but if you want that argument, I'd say that there is clear link between UNCONTROLLED ownership and problems, because I've lived in enough countries with strict controls to see the effect. This is the disingenuous part of the NRA arguments: nobody wants to take guns away, they merely ask for more control which is IMHO not unreasonable.

            ".....Unless you already have a couple of missing screws in your social makeup I don't think video games are going to turn you into a maniac." Take that logic one step further and then apply it equally to gun owners and you realise the problem is not the guns or the gun owners per se, it is the people with "missing screws" that we need to deal with.

            Never said anything different because I agree with it - to a point. Anyone who has dealt with panics, crowd control and crime knows that we all carry the seeds of doom in us. You cannot undo firing a gun, and especially when emotions run high, a mistake is easily made. You don't need to be a psycho for that, just a normal breathing human being with normal emotions.

            On the topic of ownership, what I find "entertaining" is the argument that they need guns to defend against the state. You either have a democracy, in which case you don't need that, or you don't, in which case it's time to stop pretending..

          2. Tom 35

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            I think it's more like "the people with "missing screws"" and easy access to guns.

          3. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            or...just don't give them access to guns?

            "we should be seeing a dozen massacres a day every day" - look up the figures for gun deaths in the US.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "....look up the figures for gun deaths in the US." Look up the figure for automabile accident deaths, then see if you want to start walking everywhere.

        6. Ben 54

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          If my games really de-sensitise people from violence, my lads would not be so squimish when they see blood. Up to today nor them or my wife can stand to see a wound. and the eldest played all these supposingly violent games.

          Also, games DEFINATELY dont mirror real life, nor can real life mirror games. For one, in a game when you aim, you use BOTH eyes, so you definately dont learn to aim better playing games - in real life you have one eye on the scope (Did i mention steady a scope with the weight of a gun is also not as easy as it seem?). Also, not sure about medical enhancements these days, but i know i definately dont heal after been gunned or stabbed a couple of times just by ducking into cover.

        7. Grogan

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          Sure video games and movies desensitize people to violence, but desensitizing doesn't cross the threshold of irrational thought, leading to massacres.

          "Come on Dad, shoot him in the head! Make it splode!" (said by an 8 year old girl watching Dad play games)

          Said child does know the difference between video games and real violence, but is not traumatized to hear of it. You can tell the kid "those people were killed by a shooter" and she understands. You don't have to cover her eyes and ears.

          That's what desensitizing means. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

          Children in war torn countries grow up desensitized to violence, but that doesn't mean they don't want it to stop.

      4. Code Monkey
        Unhappy

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        "Guns don’t kill people. Video games ... kill people."

        I wish this were true. I tried wiping out my school witha cassette copy of Manic Miner. I got tired before killing even the weediest first year weakling and was easily overpowered by (unarmed) teachers.

        1. Tom 35

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          I seem to remember some guy in China was found dead in a game centre after playing for 36 hours strait... games do kill people!

        2. Annihilator Silver badge
          Go

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "I tried wiping out my school witha cassette copy of Manic Miner. I got tired before killing even the weediest first year weakling and was easily overpowered by (unarmed) teachers"

          And this is why it's imperative that we arm teachers with video games. Or something like that.

      5. P Saunders
        Happy

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        Maybe someone should beat a few NRA members to death with CD cases of Daikatana. That way there would at least be some validation to their claims.

      6. James Micallef Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

        I'm tired of the old trope of "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people".

        It's factually true and yet completely ignores the giant elephant in this particular room. A gun is a tool for killing, pure and simple, end of story. Some are used for killing animals, but most are specifically designed to kill people quickly, efficiently and in large numbers.

        If a killer is on the loose with nothing but his* hands and feet they are going to inflict very little casualties (Chuck Norris aside). If they have a knife, they will seriously wound, and perhaps kill, quite a few people before being subdued, but victims can run from a knife, or defend themselves minimally, or, especially in groups, overpower the attacker. If the killer has a gun (more usually, multiple guns), there is very little possibility of escape or counter-attack, and the results are Columbine, Sandy Hook etc etc.

        The NRA likes to present itself as responsible, but routinely and out-of-hand refuses any responsible limit on gun ownership and use. If I want to own and drive a car, I need a license to prove that I have the technical ability to do so, AND a knowledge of the relevant laws. But in the US anyone can buy a gun without any training or knowledge. In the US ANY misuse of ANY product that leads to injury or death is jumped upon by tort lawyers, but apparently gun manufacturers and distributers are immune from prosecution.

        Introduce a firearms license that can only be issued on formal completion of a course, and which is required for any firearm purchase. Any manufacturer or distributer who cannot provide tracing information of EVERY weapon they sell is legally liable for that. 2nd-hand purchases must be registered, same as cars. If you lose a weapon or it's stolen from you, you have to report it pronto or be liable for it's misuse. (people with a habit of repeatedly 'losing' large batches of firearms to be closely investigated)

        These are all fairly simple to implement on the lines of motor vehicle licensing, and NONE of that is ANY threat to the 2nd amendment** because it still allows anyone to buy and own as many weapons as they choose***.

        *sometimes "her", I guess, but most usually "his"

        ** and that's leaving aside any discussion of whether this amendment is still worth keeping, since it was introduced to prevent state tyranny enforced by arms. This will never happen, we already have state tyranny enforced by lobbyists and lawyers

        ***Yes, I'm not even going into weird things such as why anyone would need an assault rifle to defend their home. Why not allow private citizens to buy tanks and predator drones and be done with it??

        Rant over

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

          "....I'm tired of the old trope of "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people"......" Whilst I agree with the idea of proper licensing, traing, etc., you are still not dealing with the core issue that people with problems, like Adam Lanza, would still be free to go and access a gun belonging to a perfectly capable person. Limiting access to guns for all owners or removing all guns still leaves the Adam Lanzas walking around, what we need to be doing is identifying and treating the Adam Lanzas, so they don't use any weapon to kill anyone.

          1. nichomach
            Stop

            Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

            I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US and even that was carried out with a series of explosive devices (and those were carried out with dynamite and pyrotol which are now controlled explosives).

            Leaving that aside, his central thesis appears to be that if legislation to control and regulate firearms ownership would not absolutely prevent all massacres with 100% certainty, it isn't worth doing; anyone supporting increased regulation must satisfy this burden of 100% certainty. On the other hand, he apparently believes that mandatory screening of schoolchildren and forced psychiatric treatment *is* worth doing. Presumably, he can demonstrate that *that* would be 100% effective? If not, then applying his own burden of proof, *that* is not worth doing either.

            I note that he assumes that there is a test that would demonstrate that someone is "potentially problematic", which appears to be sufficient of a diagnosis in his mind to mandate a number of consequences, from removal of that person's right to own firearms (a right enjoyed by people lucky enough to not be labelled potentially problematic), to psychiatric treatment (rather negating his assertion that noone's rights would be abrogated by such measures). Equating a quick personality test used for basic recruitment screening with that is frankly laughable. There is no "psychopath test" - hell, even the term "psychopath" is hotly contested and not used by most practitioners (it's used neither in DSM V nor in the WHO's ICD) - so I doubt you'll just be able to stick a pin in someone and see whether they produce a psycho-ish culture in a petrie dish.

            No-one (outside of the straw man that Matt's conjured fully formed and armed from his Jovian brow) has argued that gun control is 100% effective in preventing mass killings. What we *can* say is that mass killings are thankfully rarer in jurisdictions where firearms ownership is regulated - here in the UK, we have had three incidents since 1987 (Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria); how many have there been in the US over the same period? That they are more difficult to carry out without access to weapons with a high rate of fire and large magazine capacities. That legislation is no more onerous than the regulation applied to cars and trucks (and that, therefore, those drawing a spurious analogy by attempting to classify those along with guns as "weapons" ought to accept such regulation anyway). That the 2nd amendment has *never* been carte blanche for every person to own any kind of weapon and that it is a gross distortion to pretend that it ever was. That, yes, easy access to mental health services is *also* part of a solution, albeit that that's never going to be 100% effective either.

            You are not going to be able to eliminate the possibility of a mass shooting 100% while there are guns in the world, but you *can* reduce its likelihood and make it more difficult. Better legislation is part of that.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

              "I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US"

              Timothy McVeigh managed it in 1995 with 5,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane. However, as a callous mass-murder (including the deaths of 19 children under 6 years old) perpetrated by a fundamentalist right-wing gun-nut protesting the 'persecution' of other fundamentalist right-wing gun-nuts, you don't hear the Oklahoma City bombing being brought up much by current fundamentalist right-wing gun-nuts in their "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people" rhetoric.

              Anonymous because those 'home defence' .50BMG sniper rifles have a really, really long range...

            2. Psyx
              Thumb Up

              Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

              Upvoted for 'Jovian brow'.

            3. IglooDude

              Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

              "I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US and even that was carried out with a series of explosive devices (and those were carried out with dynamite and pyrotol which are now controlled explosives)."

              I'm intrigued too - the notable 1995 fertilizer/solvent bombing of a federal building killed 168, including 19 preschoolers, maybe he forgot about that one.

          2. James Micallef Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: "Guns don’t kill people"

            "Limiting access to guns for all owners or removing all guns " <won't solve theproblem>

            I agree completely, there's no need to either limit or ban guns (except, I would argue, assault weapons, but lets at least first find a lowest common denominator starting point) as long as they can be registered

            "what we need to be doing is identifying and treating the Adam Lanzas"

            Definitely, better psychiatric screening care needs to be done. Also, psych problems need to be talked about more openly, currently there is a stigma associated with mental problems that is part of the reasons why these problems stay hidden.

            A third major point I would argue is that there is a lot of hate, violence and mistrust in the US. A culture change whereby blood and guts spattered all over TV screens becomes a bit less acceptable and an on-screen nipple or two becomes more acceptable*. This is one that will take a couple of generations, though.

            None of the above is a silver bullet, but all 3 together will certainly improve teh situation.

            * I could argue that sexual repression is a partial contributer to both psych problems and the urge to own and fire large guns, but I guess that's another argument for another time :)

      7. GotThumbs
        Boffin

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        "a bit"

        Wow what a generous gesture you've made.

        Lets forget about the whole gun thing at the moment.

        Clear your mind.

        Now think of all the new/recent video games and movies that are being played/viewed by thousands/millions of people. Especially today's young people.

        Games like Call of Duty, Sniper, Sniper 2, Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Borderlands, Hitman, Zombies, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

        There are 205......Yes, 205 Shooter games on X-Box alone.

        Now for the movies : Gangster Squad, The last stand, Django , Killing them softly, The Baytown Outlaws. Unchained, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Dred, Universal Soldier, The collection. etc.

        Do you really think the use of "a bit" is accurate? Please stop lying to yourself, because we knew you were full of it from the start.

        The most dangerous thing about any gun.......is the person holding it.

        Best Wishes,

    2. Andrew Moore

      Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

      Or

      "There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people... and our puppet masters make a lot of money by selling guns to them"

    3. Ian Yates
      WTF?

      Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

      "Guns don't kill people."

      Okay, so I've always understood that this was their idiotic rhetoric that a gun isn't capable of killing someone by itself; hence the normal follow on: "People kill people". The (stupid) argument that the person wielding the (semi-automatic) "gun" is solely responsible for massacre A and they would still have done it if only armed with an egg whisk.

      But!

      "Video games ... kill people." Makes no sense! They've completely screwed their own argument as a video game isn't really even a physical thing... are they now saying that a virtual piece of entertainment can randomly commit homicide, but a device designed to cause physical damage is incapable of it?

      Bizarre. Unsurprisingly.

      1. Chad H.

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        My preferred method is to offer them live time healthcare for the cost of a Wii with Trauma Centre. If FPSes make you a killer, trauma centre must make you a surgeon.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        ".....I've always understood that this was their idiotic rhetoric that a gun isn't capable of killing someone by itself...." So, if you admit you understand it, then why is it idiotic, unless you are saying you are an idiot?

        ".....The (stupid) argument that the person wielding the (semi-automatic) "gun" is solely responsible for massacre A ....." Again, how is it a stupid argument? Adam Lanza went and killed those people in Newtown, and whilst you argue that removing all guns would 100% remove the chance of Adam Lanza committing any murders, that is demonstrably false as he could simply have used another weapon (a car, cooking knives, fireaxe, sharpened pencil, a two-by-four with a nail in it - you want to ban all those potential weapons too?). For example, Andrew Kehoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe) killed 45 people (including 38 schoolchildren) and wounded 58 others without using a gun in one day in May 1927 (and long before video games were even thought of). In the Shiguan kindergarten attack in May 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan_kindergarten_attack) the killer threatened his victims with a knife but burned the kids to death with gasoline, do you want to ban all knives and oil-based fuels too? (BTW, the Shiguan killer didn't own any video games or have a PC or console).

        It is also demonstrably false for the NRA to say arming teachers would have 100% stopped Adam Lanza as he could have shot the teachers or still shot some people before they shot him. It is a simple fact that the only reasonably certain way to have stopped Adam Lanza from killing any of those people would be if Adam Lanza had not been there, for example if he'd been under supervision in a secure psychiatric unit. But that type of reasoning - deal with the problem person before they become the person pointing a gun - does not go down well with the huggy-feelgood crowd who would rather ban guns in the mistaken belief it ensures the safety of the children.

        1. Chad H.
          FAIL

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          @ Matt Bryant, to which I can only repond with the number of massacres since your namesake inspired gun control in Australia vs before shows that gun control has a very real effect on massacre rate.

          Yes, those inclined to do these sort of things have the option of using knives. However knives areuch more difficult to perform these acts with... It is harder to use a knife at rane. You cannot throw a burst of knives, and you have to retrieve them rather than using a high capacity magazine.

          As for arming teachers... Great, you've already solved the next school mass murderers first problem - how to get the gun into the school.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Chad H. Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            ".... the number of massacres since your namesake inspired gun control in Australia vs before shows that gun control has a very real effect on massacre rate....." So you're agreeing that banning guns did not stop massacres.

            ".....how to get the gun into the school." <Sigh> Try reading what I posted. I actually said that I did NOT think that was the answer. In fact, you seem to have skirted right round the real answer of dealing with "problem people" before they become "problem people" wielding a weapon. Is that because you cannot answer that argument, or because you're just another member of the huggy-feelgood crew and your tender sensisbilites filter just stripped that bit of the post out?

            1. Chad H.

              Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

              ".... the number of massacres since your namesake inspired gun control in Australia vs before shows that gun control has a very real effect on massacre rate....." So you're agreeing that banning guns did not stop massacres.

              ---

              Well if you define 0 massacres in the 16 years since (and 13 in the 16 years prior) as not stopping them, sure... Not sure how you could use that definition with a straight face.

              ----".....how to get the gun into the school." <Sigh> Try reading what I posted. I actually said that I did NOT think that was the answer. In fact, you seem to have skirted right round the real answer of dealing with "problem people" before they become "problem people" wielding a weapon. Is that because you cannot answer that argument, or because you're just another member of the huggy-feelgood crew and your tender sensisbilites filter just stripped that bit of the post out?

              -----

              Should we deal with problem people, sure. Problem is, you can never know when an ordinary person is going to become one of the problem people. Even if they do become a problem person, their ability to cause harm is limited through lack of access to a deadly weapon...

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                "....Problem is, you can never know when an ordinary person is going to become one of the problem people...." Oh puh-lease, that is so weak it is beyond desperate! Apart from the several millions psychiatrists, sociologists and other doctors that might have a thing to say about identifying irational behaviour, you forget that human beings are trusted with the lives of hundreds of people every day. Going by your delusional idea of the frailty of the average human being's mind, we shouldn't let people be airline pilots or ocean tankers, or anything where one person could threaten the lives of others, because we're just so damn likely to snap! Complete tosh. Adam Lanza was noted for his extraordinary behaviour before the Sandy Hook killings but no-one outside his family was empowered to say "Should he be assessed to check it is OK he is (a) in a household with guns, or (b) out on the streets?"

                1. Chad H.

                  Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                  Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time? When did you last see a shrink? When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?

                  With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight. They are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job, and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life. If you will agree to similar controls for guns (2 people required to pull the trigger, all gun users to have JAA equivalent medicals, and designed not to kill), I'm more than happy for you to have as many as you like.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Angel

                    Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                    From the "Now Is The Time" pamphlet outlining Obambi's Great Gun Law Revolution:

                    ".....As President Obama said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” Today, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. While the vast majority of Americans with a mental illness are not violent, several recent mass shootings have highlighted how some cases of mental illness can develop into crisis situations if individuals do not receive proper treatment. We need to do more than just keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illness; we need to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before these dangerous situations develop....."

                    All you frothing libtards may start back pedalling now.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Big Brother

                      Re: Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                      Oh, and forgot to mention, Obambi also wants to let the Center for Disease Control look at the causes of violence, including <drumroll> video games! Well, it's his second term now, what does he care if he trashes the pimply male teen vote?

                      1. nichomach
                        FAIL

                        Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                        "Obambi"? "Libtard"? You lose. Automatically.

                      2. Psyx

                        Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                        "Oh, and forgot to mention, Obambi also wants to let the Center for Disease Control look at the causes of violence, including <drumroll> video games! Well, it's his second term now, what does he care if he trashes the pimply male teen vote?"

                        Good... if it gets through the back door the CDC looking at gun-related factors, too. Because up until now there has been no data gathered and no CDC research into it because the NRA and the gun lobby successfully lobbied to PREVENT the CDC from even gathering the data.

                  2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                    "Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time?" No, I suggested we screen kids at stages in schools, which shouldn't be too hard seeing as we already assess them with IQ tests and then make them all do SATs. We can also not only require a screening as part of a gun licence application but also make licences require re-screenings every ten years or at least sign off by the family doctor.

                    ".....When did you last see a shrink?....." None of your business.

                    ".....When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?...." He'd probably tell me to tell you that's none of your business either.

                    "....,With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight....." Yes, but you stated we're all just so ready to go loopy at a moment's notice that there would be a chance BOTH pilots could decide to plant their jumbo in a skyscraper.

                    "...... are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job.....". Psych evals are not mandatory for a pilot's licence, and on long haul flights one pilot can often be in control whilst the other is sleeping, in the head or even eating. And the Exxon Valdez shows what could happen if a ship's captain went off the rails. BTW, how often do really big shipping incidents happen? Or airliner pilots go berserk? Fail!

                    "......and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life....." Are you kidding? Twin Towers mean anything to you at all?

                    1. Chad H.

                      Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                      "Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time?" No, I suggested we screen kids at stages in schools, which shouldn't be too hard seeing as we already assess them with IQ tests and then make them all do SATs. We can also not only require a screening as part of a gun licence application but also make licences require re-screenings every ten years or at least sign off by the family doctor.

                      ----

                      You want to screen that many people every 10 years? Its a good thing that psychological problems take no less than 11 years to develop and screening is 100% guaranteed. No wait, neither of those things are true.

                      ---

                      ".....When did you last see a shrink?....." None of your business.

                      ".....When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?...." He'd probably tell me to tell you that's none of your business either.

                      ---

                      Congratulations, I think you just understood my point. You're proposing that you, and everyone else should be forced to see a shrink every 10 years, but apparently knowing when you did is noones business.

                      ---

                      "....,With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight....." Yes, but you stated we're all just so ready to go loopy at a moment's notice that there would be a chance BOTH pilots could decide to plant their jumbo in a skyscraper.

                      ---

                      Given I am aware of a single event of it happening with ONE pilot in the past 20 years world wide, and have never heard of it happening with 2, whilst I have lost count of the number of massacres LAST YEAR in the US alone, i think you're making a very clear and obvious false equivalence. Especially when JAA medicals are more often than every 10 years.... A JAA medical is valid for a YEAR.

                      ----

                      "...... are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job.....". Psych evals are not mandatory for a pilot's licence, and on long haul flights one pilot can often be in control whilst the other is sleeping, in the head or even eating. And the Exxon Valdez shows what could happen if a ship's captain went off the rails. BTW, how often do really big shipping incidents happen? Or airliner pilots go berserk? Fail!

                      ----

                      On a long haul flight, there are several changes of crew, more that 2 pilots. There is always 2 pilots on duty at any given time. AS for how often do they fail, you're right, its a big fail for you to even bring it up due to their relative scarcity

                      ---

                      "......and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life....." Are you kidding? Twin Towers mean anything to you at all?

                      ---

                      And this is where you once and for all lose the argumen by bringing up an emotive eventt. Planes are built with countless pieces of safety equipment to minimise the risk to life. They are designed to transport. What is your gun designed to do? End life.

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                        ".....Its a good thing that psychological problems take no less than 11 years to develop and screening is 100% guaranteed....." I would suggest even a blinkered fool like you might realise it is better than doing NOTHING, which is what currently happens until AFTER the nut has gone on a killing spree. Well, maybe if we use really short words and some crayons, that is.

                        "..... you're right, its a big fail for you to even bring it up due to their relative scarcity....." But it was YOU that insisted we're all so prone to going nuts. So, your FAIL.

                    2. Psyx
                      Stop

                      Re: Chad H. An NRA spokespersons said...

                      "which shouldn't be too hard seeing as we already assess them with IQ tests and then make them all do SATs."

                      Matt, I understand what you're driving at, but you are doing so without any understanding of mental health issues or psychometric and psychological testing. What your proposing simply does not and will not work.

                      Go back to the drawing board and think of a different solution.

                      "BTW, how often do really big shipping incidents happen? Or airliner pilots go berserk?"

                      I can think of at least two occasions where commercial pilots have deliberately flown a plane full of people into the ground after suffering a psychiatric break due to external factors. They were both pretty normal people up until a few weeks before the event.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            And the power won't get to the teacher's head and turn him/her into a sadistic nut who shoots children in the arm over the wrong answer because?

            Trust me, there are teachers like that. That was one of the main trauma points I went through in school. There was this one crazy rattan-wielding teacher who would beat the crap out of any student not paying attention, or worse, doing completely innocent things like running in the corridors. Complaining to the board of education didn't help- no action was taken.

          3. Jaybus

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            Well....knives, yes, or bombs, arson, motor vehicle onto a crowded sidewalk, etc. Where there's a will, there's a way.

            The idea of arming teachers is not about passing out pistols every morning. The idea is to allow, (not force), teachers to carry concealed weapons and making everyone well aware of the fact that they may be armed, posting warning signs at the door. This is because there is a clear pattern showing that these psycho killers are seeking easy targets such as schools and movie theatres. It seems the psychos aren't so crazy as to attack bars where biker gangs or policemen hang out, prefering school children or at least defenseless people. It actually does make sense to in some way make schools a more difficult target.

        2. Psyx
          Mushroom

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "he could simply have used another weapon"

          http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

          Like that. The difference is that other weapons are less lethal than firearms. None of those children died.

          "for example if he'd been under supervision in a secure psychiatric unit. But that type of reasoning - deal with the problem person before they become the person pointing a gun - does not go down well with the huggy-feelgood crowd."

          He was a fecking teenager, for chissakes. You want to commit every sulky teenager in case they murder people? I hate to break this to you, but every teenager is a sulky moody bastard and prone to outbursts and mood swings.

          Or is it just the introverted ones you want? Maybe the ones from broken homes? Maybe the ones that are bullied by other students. Yeah: It's totally their fault that they are bullied and resent their co-students, so let's commit all introverted bullied teenagers to psychiatric care. Ostracising them more in school society will help a shed-load.

          And who pays for that? It often seems to be the case that those opposed to gun control are also opposed to free healthcare. So do these hordes of teenage introverts have to pay for their own psychiatrists, meds and institutionalisation?

          Look at the US prison population. It's by far the highest in the world and has reached Stalinistic levels. Over 1% of your entire population is under judicial supervision. Now tell me that segregating anyone who might cause a problem in American society is working.

          You say 'huggy feelgood' as though it's in any way a bad thing to be friendly and empathic. If you genuinely feel that, then you should take a good look at yourself. Giving a sh!t about your fellow humans is an admirable trait, not a weakness. It's people who want to solve crime by gunning down criminals and incarcerating anything that doesn't fit their pre-conception of 'normal' who are the the ones who should be mocked.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            Whilst your heart is in the right place, your brain seems not to be.

            "....The difference is that other weapons are less lethal than firearms...." Go Yahoogle Andrew Kehoe. I agree, guns make it easier for a spree, but removing guns will not make sprees disappear.

            "....He was a fecking teenager, for chissakes...." Many people had pointed out his problems before the incident. True, there are those like the Columbine killers that might have been missed in some form of screening, but if banning guns only reduces massacres then screening for "nutters" would seem an equally valid if not moral option.

            "....And who pays for that?...." We seem to be able to pay for an awful lot of medical care (vaccinations for example) already in schools, adding a few cheap psychiatric tests to identify the potentially problematic would not seem beyond the realm of capabilities or the stretch of the government's purse. Such programs have been used by people like the CIA to identify people with "the right mindset" for years, and by law enforcement agencies to screen recruits, so it suggest it would not need a lot of effort to implement either. True, it may not be 100% perfect, but then banning guns has proven anything but in countries where it has been tried, and it would not infringe on the rights of anyone.

            ".....Look at the US prison population....." That's post-event action, and it is wrong to suggest even the minority of US prisoners are psychotic. What we need is pre-event action, such as proper identification of those in need of help. Whilst just about everyone seems to be in favour of screening people for conditions like sickle-cell anaemia, too many people object to psychiatric screening of chidren or young adults as they fear they will be "labelled". To me (I know, in my "uncaring, douchebag-like" way), that's a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has stomped the rider to death.

            "....Giving a sh!t about your fellow humans is an admirable trait, not a weakness....." Surely wanting to protect people (especially schoolkids) from psychopaths, and identifying those with potential mental illnesses before they lead to disasterous events is giving a sh*t? Letting your overwhelming desire for the "good in everyone to shine through" is, however, a touchingly naive weakness, no matter how noble you may think it is. I get that you are a caring person, but often the best decision is not one that can be made with emotion as the primary means of judgement.

            Let's try putting it another way. You are locked in a room with ten people, at least one of whom potentially has a particulalry nasty venereal disease, and you have a kit that is the only way of detecting that disease before it reaches the final stages of infection. The final stages of the diseases is irreversible brain damage, causing violent paranoia and aggression, and there is a chance the diseased will stab someone with the cutlery you have in the room. In essence, you are suggesting not using the kit so as not to cause offence, but instead throwing the cutlery away. And - no - I am not advocating stabbing (or shooting) everyone else in the room first, or that giving everyone their own cutlery to defend themselves would remove the chances of someone eventually being stabbed, I am advocating identifying the diseased and keeping them away from the cutlery so as to reduce the chances someone gets stabbed, without leaving everyone else to eat with their fingers.

            1. Psyx
              Boffin

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "Whilst your heart is in the right place, your brain seems not to be."

              Yes it is. It's fine.

              I just happen to recognise that my right to have fun shooting a weapon is less important than people's rights not to be the victim of gun crime. My right to protect myself with lethal force is less important than my right to not have a firearm pointed at me.

              "Many people had pointed out his problems before the incident."

              So what? He was antsy? Wow: He was a one in a million teenager!

              So... we round up every teen who is pointed out as being sullen and an outcast? Because we had what... a couple of crazy-ass shootings last year, compared to how many teenagers being problematic? Do we want to actually incarcerate or put on medication a hundred thousand teens on that basis?

              If you'd rather incarcerate and forcibly medicate 20% of each generation rather than have some sensible laws about firearm ownership and storage then I don't think it's my brain that's the one in the wrong place, mate.

              "adding a few cheap psychiatric tests to identify the potentially problematic would not seem beyond the realm of capabilities or the stretch of the government's purse."

              Firstly, anyone involved in psychometric testing will tell you that it's not cheap. Or accurate in the case of teenagers who are already very volatile and awash with hormones. Your point is provably untrue. Nice idea, but doesn't work.

              "and it would not infringe on the rights of anyone."

              How is forcing every teen in the country to take psychiatric tests and insisting on treating those that 'fail' with mandatory evaluation, meds, or incarcerating not trampling anyone's rights?

              "What we need is pre-event action, such as proper identification of those in need of help."

              Like locking people up before they commit a crime, on the basis that they might do because the class jocks have been beating the sh!t out of them for years? Seriously?

              In most cases it's a direct result of their environment. Let's isolate the guy who is isolated some more, shall we? That'll help!

              The problem isn't the poor idiot who breaks down and pulls the trigger. It's that he's shoved to that point in the first place by society and that he can easily get hold of a device that makes it trivially easy to enact lethal revenge upon that society. Take away the firearm and he'll sulk in his room and imagine how great it would be to 'show them' perhaps. Give him a firearm and he can enact that.

              "Surely wanting to protect people (especially schoolkids) from psychopaths, and identifying those with potential mental illnesses before they lead to disasterous events is giving a sh*t?"

              Firstly psychopaths don't tend to go in for spree killings of this kind. Psychopath are more resilient and aren't easily reduced to the emotional state that lends itself to running amok. And lots of psychopaths exist just fine without killing people. Psychopathy does not mean that the person will kill. You are basically saying that a mental condition that a percentage point of the population have to some degree should see someone 'treated' before they do anything wrong.

              You seem to want to protect everyone by screening for potential teenage troublemakers and 'treating them' because that's less morally abhorrent to you than gun control. That signifies to me that you think that the right to casually own a lethal weapon is more important as a right than a teenager's right to freedom. I call that ass-about-face preaching about rights.

              "Letting your overwhelming desire for the "good in everyone to shine through" is, however, a touchingly naive weakness"

              Shove it. Sincerely.

              Don't try to lecture me about my brain and then be so dumb as to assume that anyone favouring gun control or opposing your view is a naive and weak hippy of some kind. Your lack of empathy you display in your attitude is not a strength: It's weak, and a trivially easy path to walk. That's nothing to be proud of.

              "You are locked in a room with ten people"

              Why do *I* have the kit? Why isn't the kit there on the table for anyone to use if they want to know for themselves? And your example shows that you have a backwards viewpoint as regards mental health issues. A teenager who is close to a breakdown is not automatically going to become a killer. A teenager with a mental health issue such as psychopathy, depression or whatever is not destined to commit crime.

              "I am advocating identifying the diseased and keeping them away from the cutlery "

              So.. a form of gun control. You want to identify people you don't think should have guns and stop them having them based on them on questionable criteria.

              That's interesting. So moody teens don't get to go near guns, but paranoid survivalists who stockpile firearms because Obama is going to invite the Commies over can keep them? And those guys who have a room full of firearms and gleefully plan how to legitimately commit murder in retaliation for a mere attempted burglary are totally ok to own firearms, too?

              And yeah: Throwing the cutlery away will help, because then if things go wrong, people think of other solutions. Because that's the problem with having a big stick/gun/army: Give someone one and it suddenly becomes the first thing they think of using. It's the old give someone a hammer and everything becomes a nail syndrome.

              House broken into: Murder the perp.

              Bullied at school: Kill classmates.

              Mugged people sometimes fight back: Carry a pistol

              Might get mugged: Carry a pistol

              Firearms don't enable defence; they stop people thinking clearly and tend to immediately escalate situations into a lethal confrontation.

              1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

                Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                @Psyx

                Beautiful, simple, coherent, sane. May ye have many more upvotes - you got mine.

            2. Tom 35

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "We seem to be able to pay for an awful lot of medical care (vaccinations for example) already in schools, "

              They really are cheap and have a quick payback in saving on medical care when people don't get sick.

              "adding a few cheap psychiatric tests to identify the potentially problematic... Whilst just about everyone seems to be in favour of screening people for conditions like sickle-cell anaemia, too many people object to psychiatric screening of chidren or young adults"

              Sickle cell has an accurate test with a yes/no answer. There is no cheap test that can accurately give you a yes/no result (or an expensive one for that matter). So if they say someone has the potential of maybe going nuts what do you do? Lock them up just in case? They are already kicking people out on the street who need treatment. It seems the same people who want everyone to buy guns, also want to cut spending on medical care.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Tom 35 Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                ".....Sickle cell has an accurate test with a yes/no answer...." Psychoanalytical tests exist that score the respondent over a whole test, then if your score is in a certain range you are likely to be a psychopath (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2943160.stm). There are similar tests for depression, autism, Aspergers.... It's not the impossible speed-of-light rocket science you want to think it is.

                ".....So if they say someone has the potential of maybe going nuts what do you do? Lock them up just in case?...." How about simply send them to a psychiatrist for a proper evaluation? Oh, no, we couldn't possibly do that, it's not like there are already thousands of psychiatrists in the States....

            3. Ian Yates
              Stop

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "You are locked in a room with ten people, at least one of whom potentially has a particulalry nasty venereal disease, and you have a kit that is the only way of detecting that disease before it reaches the final stages of infection. The final stages of the diseases is irreversible brain damage, causing violent paranoia and aggression, and there is a chance the diseased will stab someone with the cutlery you have in the room. In essence, you are suggesting not using the kit so as not to cause offence, but instead throwing the cutlery away. And - no - I am not advocating stabbing (or shooting) everyone else in the room first, or that giving everyone their own cutlery to defend themselves would remove the chances of someone eventually being stabbed, I am advocating identifying the diseased and keeping them away from the cutlery so as to reduce the chances someone gets stabbed, without leaving everyone else to eat with their fingers."

              This is such a poor analogy. To make it more accurate:

              * The cutlery should be, say swords: not essential, designed to cause damage

              * The "kit" should have a high chance of false-positive and false-negatives: psychiatry is not infallible and requires the practitioner to use their subjective experiences to diagnose many cases

              * Not everyone with the disease need reach the "final stage": far more people with mental illness do not react violently

              So, in this analogy, why would you say that also locking the cutlery/sword away and only lending enough out as needed is more preferable to only relying on an unreliable test but letting everyone do what they want with the cutlery/sword?

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                "....The "kit" should have a high chance of false-positive and false-negatives:...." I see you have to "break" the conditions in your desperate attempt to evade the admission (as Obambi himself as finally admitted) that the problem is the nutter and that finding and treating them is key to stopping them develop into a nutter that goes on a shooting spree. If you still feel the need to (pointlessly) argue the points due to your ingrained prejudice against firearms, please address your dribbling to Mr B. Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

                1. Ian Yates

                  Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                  "I see you have to "break" the conditions"

                  What are you on about?

                  You created the conditions with your skewed analogy, I merely adjusted them to more accurately fit the actual problem. The "kit" you picked up on was (in your version) infallible, but in real life psychology/psychiatry are far from that.

                  If you actually read my post you'd see that I agree that the nutter was the cause of the incident, but to argue that guns aren't a catalyst in exacerbating the total damage done is an "ingrained prejudice" of its own.

                  If you argue that everyone should be allowed to own semi-automatic assault rifles, why not fully automatic? Why not grenades, rocket launchers, tanks? It's an argument of reductio ad absurdum, but where is the line?

                  As someone who has enjoyed firing rifles and consider myself good at it, I still don't understand why any person needs more than one firearm, nor why limiting it to a pistol, shotgun, or manually cocked rifle is a problem. Also, ammunition limiting. Why are questions not asked when someone buys 12,000 rounds of ammunition?

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Stop

                    Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                    ".... You created the conditions with your skewed analogy, I merely adjusted them to more accurately fit the actual problem....." So if it's a created analogy, how can your "adjustments" be more accurate? What you mean is you changed them to favour your argument rather than face the moral issue the scenario raised. A perfect example of the anti-gun crowd's denial. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating that.

                    "....If you actually read my post you'd see that I agree that the nutter was the cause of the incident, but to argue that guns aren't a catalyst in exacerbating the total damage done is an "ingrained prejudice" of its own....." So, millions of guns in America, but how many Adam Lanzas go on a spree? And are you still going to deny the best way to have prevented Adam Lanza killing anyone would have to been keeping Adam Lanza away from the public? Arguments about not infringing his rights seem rather hollow after you so unquestioningly demand the trampling of others' rights.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            " Over 1% of your entire population is under judicial supervision. Now tell me that segregating anyone who might cause a problem in American society is working."

            Yes it is working. Its safer in the states than some other countries, and it feels safer too.

            Don't confuse tv programs, the worst areas and the occasional lunatic with ordinary life.

            Besides what would you do with people who want to hurt you? Prison is the best place for them.

            1. Psyx

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "Yes it is working. Its safer in the states than some other countries, and it feels safer too.

              Don't confuse tv programs, the worst areas and the occasional lunatic with ordinary life.

              Besides what would you do with people who want to hurt you? Prison is the best place for them."

              If you have to jail as many people as Stalin and still have a violent society, then something sure as hell isn't working.

              Prison sentencing is now so harsh and poverty so rife that there is no motivation for potentially non-violent criminals not to go armed and willing to use a firearm. If you're doing 15 years for burglary anyway, why not carry a firearm? If the guy you're robbing probably has a firearm, what's the motivation to not carry one yourself? If you're doing 15 years if you get caught, then why go meekly when you can just kill someone and escape? I'm not saying let criminals all run free an unpunished, but clearly the US penal system is not working on some level. I never thought I'd say it, but overly harsh sentencing can have the opposite effect than desired.

              "Besides what would you do with people who want to hurt you?" - Don't confuse a criminal with someone who wants to hurt you. Those are usually two different things. A criminal acts from self-interest and probably just wants some material gain. They aren't usually in it just to hurt people. Now we remove that from the equasion we're left with a stark question of "what do you do with someone who wants to steal a thousand dollars of stuff from you?" and a reasonable answer is not "Give them ten years in jail"... one or two maybe, but that's not how the US penal system works these days. If every crime results in serious time, then they all become equal in the minds of criminals whose only measure of morality is the personal consequence if they get caught. The moment that threatening someone with a firearm becomes pretty much the same as just robbing them the entire system starts to fail.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Unhappy

                Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                ".....If you have to jail as many people as Stalin....." Sorry, but if you're going to compare to Stalin then at least actually go read up on him first. During his Great Purge alone, the remaining NKVD's records show they were executing on average over 1000 people a day, and the NKVD wasn't even the only group killing and imprisoning people. That 1000 a day is not including those farmers beaten to death by Stalin's soldiers for hiding food or refusing to leave their lands, or teachers and other intellectuals that died in the Gulags or from ill-health after leaving the Gulags. Approximately 500,000 people were expelled from the Communist Party alone before and during the Great Purge, of which two-thirds are thought to have died either in prison or through execution. Without accurate records it is hard to say how many people Stalin was responsible for imprisoning, torturing, killing or all three together, but some put his "final score" at 6 million citzens of the Soviet Republics killed, out of eight million imprisioned. Somehow, I don't think the US prison system quite measures up to that.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Stop

                  Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

                  I have to say that, for a change, I agree with Matt *partially*.

                  The reality is that in a free society, we have to accept that sometimes, someone somewhere is going to do this kind of thing. It is the price we pay for that freedom. It is precisely the same argument against freedom-killing terrorist laws. If a terrorist wants to make a bomb and blow people up, then they will do it regardless of the law. The *only* thing that stops this being a bigger problem than it already is, is our inate tendancy to *not* want to do it, our natural abhorrence of that act. And regardless of what some people would like to believe, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it other than create the kind of society that doesn't drive people to want to perform these unspeakable acts.

                  Despite the fact that some people believe that guns are primarily for killing (and in the main of course, they are), a lot of people shoot them at clubs for fun. It is a legitimate activity and I would feel very uncomfortable telling someone that they have to give up that freedom for some dubious affect it might have on psychopaths hell bent on murder. I might go as far as restricting the storage of guns used for leisure at prescribed high security lockers at gun clubs. I can see no reason why leisure weapons need be kept at home, since it is not lawful to use them there, at least in the metropolis. I see some room for discussion in this area.

                  *However*, I don't ascribe to the need to screen teenagers for "psychotic tendancies". It is wholly unreliable, and knowing full-well how our lords and masters are, the poor kid who showed up a false positive on that kind of test would be buggered for life. It is legitimate to take note of strange behaviour exhibited by anyone which might suggest that they have problems. Screening for potential future behaviour sounds too much like pre-crime for comfort to me and I don't think we want to go down that road.

        3. magrathea

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "But that type of reasoning - deal with the problem person before they become the person pointing a gun - does not go down well with the huggy-feelgood crowd who would rather ban guns in the mistaken belief it ensures the safety of the children."

          I don't think most of them even believe that really. This issue has more to do with power, control; making others tow your line. The worrying thing is that the reasoning used (if it saves a child's life it must be worth it) has no limits

        4. Tom 35

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          "he could simply have used another weapon (a car, cooking knives, fireaxe, sharpened pencil, a two-by-four with a nail in it "

          If I was say a fireman arriving at a fire and you were sitting on a hill overlooking the fire, I'd much prefer you had a sharpened pencil then an AR15.

          If Adam Lanza's mom didn't have an AR15 she would likely still be dead, but a lot of other people would still be alive.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Tom 35 Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            "....If Adam Lanza's mom didn't have an AR15 she would likely still be dead, but a lot of other people would still be alive." Another one desperately avoiding the fact that Adam Lanza not being there because he was under proper psychiatric supervision would have been even more effective, probably preventing even the death of his mother.

        5. James Micallef Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          @Matt Bryant - NO ONE is making the argument that stricter gun controls would have 100% stopped Adam Lanza, but even if they had a 50% or even 10% chance of doing so, the laws would be worth it. Secondly, he could have used a car, knife, axe etc, BUT he would have killed or injured a few people at most, not a few dozen. I take your point that it's possible for psychos to kill by other means, but why make it easier for them?

          Regarding psych evaluation, I agree completely that more care needs to be taken to this side of the equation. The problem isn't me being huggy-feely about anything, it's that many cases are borderline and it's not possible to do a coplete psych evaluation on every citizen, just in case. But it IS possible to have at least a minimal evaluation of everyone purchasing a gun. And yet I suspect that if this became a requirement for gun ownership, the NRA would scream blue murder.

          So, simple question - do you agree that people buying firearms should be screened, or do you prefer teh current situation where anyone including known psychos can buy firearms?

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

            ".....NO ONE is making the argument that stricter gun controls would have 100% stopped Adam Lanza, but even if they had a 50% or even 10% chance of doing so, the laws would be worth it......" In which case screening would seem just as if not more effective, and have the benefit of identifying and helping those with mental issues that might not turn them into killers but still make them likely to be miserable and later kill themselves (dare I say it, like Aaron Swartz).

            "....do you agree that people buying firearms should be screened...." Yes. I don't see the need to pass a psychiatric assessment as breaking the Second Amendment, it should be possible to ban someone in the States from owning a weapon on "grounds of insanity" as that would probably make them "unfit" for service in a "militia" anyway. In some States you already do need a license and I fully support the extension of that to all States. I also would like to see a mandatory training course with a registered instructor (many gun clubs would give this for free or a nominal fee if it ensured they could carry on operating) or local law enforcement officer, as this would also help spot the unsuitable owners. An appeals system with full psychiatric examination could be used if there was a worry of say racial prejudice on the instructor's part.

            BUT, if that screening does not extend to the household, then all those controls would not stop people like Adam Lanza - the guns he used were legally owned by his sane mother. You need to screen the kids, simple as that. If the cost is massive then set a reasonable tax on gun and ammo purchases. And by reasonable I do not mean a punitive one designed to make gun ownership an activity only for the rich as the Columbine kids and many other of the school shooters had plenty of money.

            1. James Micallef Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              @Matt Bryant - as an aside, apart from the actual gun arguments - It's a pleasure once in a while to be able to confront someone on a topic where we don't agree on everything but can air arguments out without resorting to name-calling and aggro, and even manage to agree on a couple of points

            2. Ian Yates

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "In which case screening would seem just as if not more effective, and have the benefit of identifying and helping those with mental issues that might not turn them into killers"

              Haven't read all of the replies, but I actually don't think many people would disagree that such people do need to be identified and treated before they become a danger to anyone.

              But just taking in to account the cost and logistics of such an endeavour, which would be easier: limiting the number and type of guns people can own, or screening everyone in the country for potential mental health issues (which would require regular rescreening)?

              Lets say (for argument) both reduce the chance of massacre equally, which would be cheapest to implement and maintain?

              In an ideal world, I'd say that both would be great, but I just can't see a universal government mental health screening process being feasible.

              Isn't doing something better than nothing? Are there any real legitimate arguments against preventing ownership of assault rifles, or limiting the number of guns to 1 per licensee?

            3. Psyx
              Stop

              Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

              "You need to screen the kids, simple as that."

              EVERY child is volatile. Every. Single. One.

              So... ban every parent having firearms in the house?

        6. DF118

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          There is no "mistaken" belief at play here. Nothing "ensures" their safety. Not having hundreds of guns inside a mile radius of every child will however significantly reduce the risk of them being shot at. The counter-argument essentially boils down to: "my right to possess a lethal firearm is more important than any given child's right to keep on breathing". This is the one situation where the normally-idiotic " won't somebody think of the children" cliché is actually anything but.

        7. Mooseman Silver badge

          Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

          Nice of you to start with personal attacks. It's not about ensuring the *absolute* safety of children, it's about relative safety. There are always nutters around who will do their best to damage or kill. Without easy access to firearms this does become a bit harder to do. You quote 2 multiple murders that didn't include guns. OK. Now list all the attacks with guns in the same period that killed 2 or more people, I think you might spot a flaw in your argument.

          If Lanza had been in a "secure unit" then no, he wouldn't have killed anyone. He was a quiet kid and a bit of a loner up till the point he went postal (look up that reference if you like) - are you now proposing anyone who is a bit quiet of doesn't have many friends should be under psychiatric supervision or locked up?

          Glad to see you don't swallow this video games BS though.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

      "There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt an corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people... with foreign guns. If you're going to shoot Americans, at least BUY American! If you use an unregistered foreign firearm we're out of a job!"

      1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
        Coat

        Re: An NRA spokespersons said...

        Get a Desert Eagle and pop heads like melons.

        OK, I'm already out, don't shove.

  2. Admiral Grace Hopper

    I'm intrigued to see that it's only iOS users who are thought to need this app.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. sabba
      Paris Hilton

      That's because NRA members don't have sufficient digits...

      ...to operate a keyboard!!

    3. Law
      Trollface

      "I'm intrigued to see that it's only iOS users who are thought to need this app."

      That's a blessing, already enough pointless crap in the play store without the NRA dumping stuff in there too.

  3. John Smith 23
    WTF?

    Go for it NRA !

    Stand up for your princples, of being anti video games....er ?

    1. JDX Gold badge

      They are against games where you shoot PEOPLE. A game where you practice shooting paper targets at a simulated gun range has nothing to do with that.

      1. Alpha Tony

        'They are against games where you shoot PEOPLE'

        Really? Then why do a lot of gun ranges have a picture of a man on the target?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Alpha Tony

          "....Then why do a lot of gun ranges have a picture of a man on the target?" Because if you are teaching people to shoot in self-defence then it is the correct target to teach them bullet placement with. Your rediculous non-argument is like saying Olympic tae-kwondo atheletes should never spar against other people, just in case it makes them likely to go kick someone in the street. Epic fail of the mindless PC drone variety.

          1. Alpha Tony

            @Matt

            I wasn't saying they should not shoot at targets with people on them Matt, I was just comparing that to shooting people in a computer game. In most games the people you shoot are trying to kill you, so it is simulated self-defence, just like your target shooting.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: @Matt

              ".....I was just comparing that to shooting people in a computer game. In most games the people you shoot are trying to kill you, so it is simulated self-defence, just like your target shooting." But you are not playing the game to learn self-defence techniques. Or if you are then you're already in trouble, TBH. Agreed, if you are just shooting on the range for fun and not learning bullet placement or practising/demonstrating self-defence techniques, then shooting at man-shaped targets could be a possible cause for concern. But I don't remember ever meeting anyone that said to me "I play CoD so I know what to do if an armed criminal breaks into my house".....

              1. Psyx
                Pint

                Re: @Matt

                ~"But you are not playing the game to learn self-defence techniques. "

                So violent video games are ok if I say "It's ok: I'm learning how to kill people in the event of my house being burgled."

                Gotcha.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: Re: @Matt

                  "....So violent video games are ok if I say "It's ok: I'm learning how to kill people in the event of my house being burgled."...." Strange, but I don't remember that scenario in CoD.

                  But you could always ask the nice people at the MPSTC at Gravesend if you can have a go on the CO19 training simulator. Of course, to do that you'd have to join the Met Police, pass your probabtion, then apply for the Initial Firearms Course, which is probably a bit too much effort for the average gamer. Possible incentives are you get to dress in riot gear and have petrol bombs thrown at you!

          2. Naughtyhorse

            Re: Alpha Tony - meet omega bryant

            epic fail

            by your own.....logic

            Teaching people to shoot a target with a person on it, trains them to shoot people. PERIOD.

            self defence/se (lol) has nothing to do with it.

            The sparing argument is equally spurious as in such an event - the sparee is available after the event to face the consequences of his/her actions - which the legaly held, gun toting, fuck you cruel world, nra member fuckwits who _routinely_ commit these outrages never are.

            epic fail of the facist redneck nutjob variety.

            quelle surprise!

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Alpha Tony - meet omega bryant

              ".....Teaching people to shoot a target with a person on it, trains them to shoot people. PERIOD....." Agreed. No, seriously, don't have a fit as I am actually agreeing with you. If I want to teach someone to shoot for competition I use a competition target. If I'm shooting a shotgun then it's at clay pigeons. I'd only currently use a man-shaped target if there were no other range targets available.

              ".....self defence/se (lol) has nothing to do with it......" I actually can't remember the last time I shot at a man-shaped paper target, but that was what I was taught with when I was taught bullet-placement against an armed opponent as self-defence. Sometimes foul language alone just won't get the job done.

              ".....nra member ....." I would suggest you be very careful about insisting that all those shooters are NRA members, the NRA has a very active legal department and don't take kindly to libel or slander. However, the statement is very revealing as to your uninformed, bigoted opinions.

              ".....epic fail of the facist redneck nutjob variety....." Adam Lanza was not a redneck, neither was Marc Lépine (Canada), Ove Conry Andersson (Sweden), Thoma Hamilton (Scotland), John Higgins (New Zealand), or Alaa Abu Dhein (Israel) to name just a few. You might want to read up on the latter as that attack was ended by an armed student shooting and killing the attacker. Oh, no you won't, as that was just the Eeeeeevul Jooooooos, and you already exposed your equally groundless prejudice against Jews in a number of your earlier diatribes in other threads. In short, this is just another case of your overwhelming desire to rant at anyone that disagrees with your POV, regardless of facts. Consider yourself slapped down. Enjoy!

          3. Psyx
            WTF?

            Re: Alpha Tony

            "'....Then why do a lot of gun ranges have a picture of a man on the target?' Because if you are teaching people to shoot in self-defence"

            Got it.

            So computer games where you shoot people are bad because they teach you to kill.

            But computer games where you shoot round targets are ok.

            Teaching someone to shoot people-shaped targets is ok because you learn how to defend yourself by killing someone.

            And teaching someone to shoot round targets isn't very good, because it fails to teach people how to kill people properly.

            But teaching people to kill people with a pretend computer-gun is bad, still.

            I totally get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: Alpha Tony

              ".....So computer games where you shoot people are bad because they teach you to kill....." No. Do they de-sensitise you to violence? Possibly, but then if you want to ban on those grounds we'd have to look at banning all mentions of violence, which means even Wagner's operas, Marley's "I shot the Sheriff" and Shakespeare are equally deserving of banishment.

              ".....But computer games where you shoot round targets are ok....." Why not? Are you suggesting a campaign against the archery game on Wii Sports?

              ".....Teaching someone to shoot people-shaped targets is ok because you learn how to defend yourself by killing someone....." Yes. For a civillian being taught self-defence they may use nice terms like "incapacitate" but the reality is you are being taught to shoot places where fatal wounds will most likely result. Equally, if you are planning on shooting deer, you should be trained with an appropriate target that has the right aiming points marked. But if all you're doing is range shooting then round targets should be fine.

              "......And teaching someone to shoot round targets isn't very good, because it fails to teach people how to kill people properly....." Rapper 50 Cent was shot nine times with a "9mm handgun" by a street gangster who scored nine hits out of nine bullets fired, which is actually quite good shooting and should have been more than enough, but 50 Cent is a walking example of where bullet placement was not taught. In his case a good thing, but if it was an armed intruder in your house you might want to be sure you were going to "incapacitate" him or he may get lucky and kill you Would you want to give him the chance? So, no, for self-defence training you should learn with a target meant for the job.

              ".....But teaching people to kill people with a pretend computer-gun is bad, still....." The NRA game is not designed or intended to teach people to shoot other people, quite the opposite. But modern soldiers and SWAT teams are taught tactics and even bullet placement with simulators which could be thought of as games.

              1. Psyx

                Re: Alpha Tony

                "Possibly, but then..."

                You miss the point of the post, which was to point out the absurd stupidity of the NRA's hypocritical and laughable position regarding video games as opposed to their own hobby.

                "which could be thought of as games." - Which doesn't make it 'good', by-the-by. Pretty much by definition, being part of a society where it is required that some of us have to realistically train to deliberately take the life of others is not 'good' when considered objectively. Necessary: Yes. But it's never a 'good' thing. Police snipers who put bullets into brain stems do not have a 'good' job.

                "So, no, for self-defence training you should learn with a target meant for the job." - That's not really self-defence training. Don't mince words. Self-defence training is how to avoid the situation in the first place and/or to GTFO of it. Drawing a weapon with the intention of precisely placing shots to kill someone as fast as possible means that the 'self defence' part has kinda failed, and that you're into the realms of 'killing the other guy training'.

                Again: There are situations where that's the last-ditch resort, but that's what it should be. Putting firearms in the hands of people suddenly seems to turn it into the first option all too easily. So let's not mess around and try to call it 'self defence' in order to try to make it morally all just peachy in our minds.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Alpha

          Military and self defence targets with the purpose of helping a soldier or someone who wishes to be prepared to defend themselves/family to get a good grouping in the right areas to stop an assailant.

          Personally I prefer knock down targets and paper targets with scoring rings to improve my accuracy as I go to the range for a relaxing shoot. Something I find very good at relieving stress. Not because I can shoot something to bits, that will only work you up. But instead to control your breathing, improve your concentration, practice hand-eye coordination and do so in a respectful and enjoyable environment.

          If any gun nutters come in (never seen one) they are directed to the door. Instead I see people who shoot for a variety of pleasant reasons as a social event in a nice environment.

          1. Skizz

            Re: @Alpha

            "Personally I prefer knock down targets and paper targets with scoring rings to improve my accuracy as I go to the range for a relaxing shoot. Something I find very good at relieving stress."

            Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range? No need to take it home with you. You get to keep the right to let off a few rounds, everyone else gets the right to stay alive - sorted!

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: @Alpha

              "......Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range?...." And what if you bought the gun for self-defence - going by statistics, in the States the place you're least likely to need to defend yourself is the range!

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Matt B, Re: @Alpha

                "......Well, if that's all you want to do, then why not leave the gun at the range?...." And what if you bought the gun for self-defence - going by statistics, in the States the place you're least likely to need to defend yourself is the range!

                Am I the only one noticing that you just completely ignored the point Alpha was making? He simply stated that people who just have guns for the explicitly stated purpose of making holes in innocent targets on a range could leave the gun there. In many countries this is actually the preferred approach to gun ownership, but it does present other problems (cleaning, storage, extra security against burglaries etc).

                As for needing a gun to "defend yourself at home", that's exactly the kind of circular argument that the NRA continues to promote against the evidence of other nations where registration and even reduction of ownership was brought in, knowing full well that more uncontrolled guns means the chances of an armed assault increase, thus conveniently fuelling sales. Not exactly a surprise.

                Incidentally, why do you need to defend yourself at home? No police around? Bad place to live (above the statistical mean)? Have you considered moving as an option? Expecting terrorists?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Skizz

              Great idea if you know nothing about guns. I mean that honestly because it does sound like a great idea at first. But a range is open for a limited amount of time and you go to do what you went for, to shoot.

              If you cant take the gun home then you require the club to have additional facilities for cleaning and maintenance. While a lot of people will just clean, there are those (still quite a few) who will need to disassemble the gun. We can all buy the tools but then more storage is needed, or tools can be supplied but thats a lot of variations of various tools for various model guns from various countries.

              Then there are customisations which people do to the trigger/sights/etc. Sometimes the gun needs taking to a shop/workshop other times its a home job. If your comfortable pulling apart and rebuilding the gun you may not be comfortable not doing it yourself. Just as a mechanic may service his own vehicle.

              So I appreciate the idea but it doesnt work.

              Then there is the right to self defence in the US. People still die through many ways to die, but criminals still shoot people and more violent crimes are committed as is often the way when only the criminal is allowed to be armed. Wanting to disarm potential victims is counter intuitive.

              1. Mooseman Silver badge

                Re: @Skizz

                @ AC

                Are you then saying that in states where carrying concealed weapons is permitted there is no criminal gun activity?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Mooseman

                  No but in the UK we have gun crime and really sick home invasions where old people are raped/robbed/harmed. We have people killed in their own homes but generally we dont want to discuss the lack of home defence. Instead we call in the police after the event.

                  We also have issues with other weapons because they are easier to obtain, but we have victims with no hope of self defence.

                  The argument can be made very simple- will it stop crime by disarming potential victims and make them easier to harm/rob/rape? The police are necessary but they dont stop these crimes. They come in after the crime. So who is going to save you when the criminal is already illegally armed and your legally disarmed. Who survives? Who has the best chance to survive?

                  1. Alpha Tony

                    Re: @AC@Mooseman

                    Are you genuinely from the UK AC? I'm not convinced you really are, but if so then you are in a really, really tiny minority. British people are overwhelmingly in favour of strict gun control and I guarantee you that if you asked 1000 at random ~99% would say that relaxing gun control here would make them feel less safe.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      @Alpha Tony

                      I am in the UK but I do know I am in the minority. A friend introduced me to shooting and I admit to having the same clueless numpty beliefs that they were gonna be nutters with huge guns wanting to blow shit up. However I have been to a few ranges and have yet to see a single nutter. Not one person I expected to see has yet materialised and the story is the same for a lot of people who got introduced to shooting.

                      In the UK we are badly misinformed. We see stories of shootings but much less about the many violent crimes we have come to accept. But thats ok because its not a gun and guns are bad coz thats the general consensus.

                      I feel bad having a go at those anti-gun without a clue (most against shooting) people because its just that they havnt a clue and regurgitate the rubbish they have been told. A very good example is of my family. None of them shoot and are absolutely against it except my grandad who was in the army and my grandma (other side) who has handled air guns (but wont shoot). My mother is absolutely blind, like a lot of anti gun nutters, and assumes only nutters go shooting and its too scary for her to think of shooting. My dad disapproved on similar grounds until after 3 years of offering he went. I think he expected to prove me wrong but when he came back it wasnt the experience he expected.

                      He has been to the range twice with me and isnt really interested, because he found my semi-auto air pistol more enjoyable than having to reload the rifles each shot. However he actually tries to persuade my mother to go because she is so badly wrong it is shocking.

                      So I agree with you about what you say. But I know the reason why it is true and why it is wrong. Imagine the country being 99% creationist and you are part of the 1% who know better? This is why I recommend people go to the range before commenting. There will still be people against guns, but they will actually have a reason. There will also be a massive relaxation as people realise that what they oppose is a monster under the bed that exists in their minds.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I wasn't aware pixels, textures, and models were considered "people" now.

        No wonder old people look so jaggy, flat, and talk about the war so much. They were probably in Wolfenstein 3D.

  4. Shonko Kid
    Go

    "the most authentic experience possible"

    If it's that good, you won't be needing real guns anymore.

    Problem solved.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: "the most authentic experience possible"

      ".....you won't be needing real guns anymore...." I'm told Second Life is a perfectly good environment for those that can't hack it in the real World, so I asume my pointing that out means we'll be spared anymore comments you?

  5. David Webb

    I been gaming for years, including the hyper violent "Worms" series of games, can't recall ever going out and killing anybody though, could be a bit on the difficult side to kill someone with a game though, unless the disc was really sharp like a shiruken. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people, so they should keep guns legal (as is their right) but make bullets illegal, problem solved (over the next 100 years, 12 million Americans will die because of guns, compared to less than 1,000 Japanese......)

    1. Flawless101
      Joke

      Worms is probably a bad example, have you never felt your blood boil like you had just seen the white whale when one of the NPCs hits you with a bazooka while you are in a cave, with two S bends then a hairpin at the end.... then they do the same with a grenade.

    2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Shurikens!

      Out of boredom I once used a hole punch on the entire edge of a CD. It turned out to be a little more dangerous than I'd expected.

    3. Crisp

      Re: Hyper violent "Worms"

      Send in an exploding sheep.

      Problem solved.

    4. JDX Gold badge

      >>I been gaming for years, including the hyper violent "Worms" series of games, can't recall ever going out and killing anybody though

      Your argument is like a nonagenarian smoker claiming that because they haven't developed cancer, smoking doesn't kill.

      1. The BigYin

        Wassa matter JDX, get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          @JDX

          'Worms'... its a variation on Scorched Earth with small cute worms and tongue in cheek references to war films. In terms of graphic violence, its on a par with plastic toy soldiers. However, it might tempt you to smack the smirk off your mate's face after he's just bungie-roped across the map to uppercut your last worm into the sea.

      2. Law
        Trollface

        @ JDX

        It's getting to be like this almost every article. :)

        http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3slapk/

    5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      ".....over the next 100 years, 12 million Americans will die because of guns...." Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?

      1. David Webb

        @Matt Bryant - fuck no, I'm a motorbikerist, walking is for car owners. Anyhow, I figured I'd look at some figures.

        In 2011 a massive 32,367 people in the US died due to automotive accidents. By 2015 it's estimated that deaths by firearm will top 33,000 (cars get safer, guns get more deadly) so over the next 100 years as cars get safer (and start to drive themselves improving safety again) the number of people dying will steadily drop so over 100 years.... far less people will die from car accidents than will die from firearm related incidents, including but not limited to, using a gun as a hammer.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Fatal flaw in argument

          Are a lot of 'fatal automobile accidents' a result of someone hitting a pedestrian with a car?

          1. David Webb
            Coat

            Re: Fatal flaw in argument

            No sir, most of them are the result of people shooting the person driving the car which then causes it to crash (statement may or may not be true or false.....)

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Fatal flaw in argument

            Of course there were plenty of pedestrians killed by cars, 5600 killed and 80,000 injured each year in the US alone (one half are under the age of 15). If you meant "how many were DELIBERATELY run over" then please try and pretend there has NEVER been a case of anyone using a car as a weapon (I'm guessing there's a lot of pretence going on in your life). Ignoring road-rage incidents alone, we have plenty of premeditated use of vehicles as weapons - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-release-full-details-of-14-victims-of-hitandrun-rampage-through-cardiff-that-killed-woman-32-8218877.html, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7734033/Minicab-driver-deliberately-ran-down-pedestrian-who-squirted-drink-at-his-cab.html, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389183/Driver-deliberately-ploughed-nightclub-crowd-injuring-20-jailed-indefinitely.html

            Please think more before tryping.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon
              Facepalm

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument

              Matt, are you suggesting then that all the other road fatalities are deliberate in order to be counted? Or that all gun killings were deliberate? Perhaps you like building straw men in your spare time.

              "I'm guessing there's a lot of pretence going on in your life"

              Seriously, just fuck off with the personal diatribe, admittedly you are a first class troll but you are also just plain boring, you have no style.

              "Please think more before tryping."

              FFS :)

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Fatal flaw in argument

                "Matt, are you suggesting then that all the other road fatalities are deliberate in order to be counted? Or that all gun killings were deliberate?...." No, I was merely pointing out that more people died in car accidents, so if the whole idea of banning guns is to save lives then banning cars is even more appropriate. Well, that's if you're a politician pretending the whole thing is about saving lives. You might even wipe away a pretend tear at the press conference.

                ".....you have no style....." Touchy, aren't we! Let's try some Obambi-style politician speak:

                I am deeply and profoundly disturbed to find that you are struggling to deal with the complex issues raised by the realisation that not everyone shares your disregard for the rights of legal gun-owners. Whilst it is not the time or place to talk about failures and responsibilities, I know that high emotions often lead to disagreemnt when discussing such fundamental issues as the topic in hand. I empathise with your struggle to comprehend and I am moved to say that I will personally ensure that I will do everything in my power to ensure your discomfort doesn't last a moment longer than the situation requires.

                Is that complete brush-off stylish enough for you?

            2. Psyx
              Holmes

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument

              "Please think more before tryping."

            3. James Micallef Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument

              "how many were DELIBERATELY run over"?

              I'm sure SOME were deliberately run over, but a lot less automobile deaths are deliberate than accidental. With firearms, only a few casualties are accidental and most are deliberate.

              Also, people need a license and insurance to drive a car, so why not to own firearms?

            4. Chad H.

              Re: Fatal flaw in argument (Cars...)

              The difference of course with Cars is that Cars are designed to minimise the risk of injury to both bystanders and occupants

              The same cannot be said for those targeted by a gun.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Fatal flaw in argument (Cars...)

                "The difference of course with Cars is that Cars are designed to minimise the risk of injury to both bystanders and occupants...." Going by the accident figures, there are still more people dying in car accidents than are kileld by guns in America, so if your only concern is saving lives then cars would seem the obvious one to ban. Or would that upset too many voters?

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          ".....and start to drive themselves...." So you'll only be walking until they start driving themselves then?

          1. BorkedAgain
            Trollface

            Another difference with cars...

            ...is that cars are designed to carry people and payloads from one place to another. That's their purpose, and it's what they do well. If used as a weapon (or even if causing injury through accident) it's as a side-effect of their primary purpose - the fact that they are heavy and move fairly quickly and hence have potential to do damage.

            Guns are designed to kill people. That's what they're for, and it's what they do best. Okay, you can use one to hammer a nail into a wall, or to abseil down a ventilation shaft, or to scratch an itch in the small of your back, but you're not using the tool to its best effect. It's designed to be used to kill people with the greatest ease and efficiency possible.

            There you go, Matt. More lovely troll food. Mmm...

          2. David Webb

            ".....and start to drive themselves...." So you'll only be walking until they start driving themselves then?

            As I pointed out, I don't drive cars, nor do I shoot people, or own a gun, but I have no desire to actually get my car licence (I'm happy with my motorbike licence). Your argument was that more people die in car accidents in the US and that over 100 years more people would have died from car accidents than from shooting accidents. My counterpoint was that in 2 years more people in the US will die from gun related incidents than from car related incidents.

            Your entire argument about cars is a moot point, cars are getting safer and safer all the time, hopefully within 100 years the annual fatalities from motor vehicles will be in the triple or even double digits in the US whilst the gun related fatalities will still be in the six digits per year. Or in other words, the argument about cars killing more people doesn't hold any water and is about as logical as blaming videogames for violence.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Car safety??

          @David, as cars get safer (and start to drive themselves improving safety again)

          You're on a tech site and utter the assumption that v1 of that software will be bug free? That's almost as brave as not wearing a bullet proof vest when Matt is around :)

      2. Naughtyhorse

        12 million Americans will die because of guns

        it's not anough i say!

        only serious

      3. Psyx
        Facepalm

        "Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?"

        What kind of straw man kind of argument is that?!

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Psyx

          ""Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?" What kind of straw man kind of argument is that?!"

          A perfectly valid one if you are pushing a handgun ban as a way to save lives.

          1. Psyx
            Mushroom

            Re: Psyx

            No, Matt: It's not.

            It's a stupid, diversionary straw-man. At least try to remain vaguely coherent.

            And as an aside, we have a handgun ban here. Funnily enough there have been no mass shootings involving handguns since. So it seems to have worked.

      4. Mooseman Silver badge

        "Far more people will die from automobile accidents, so I presume you'll be swallowing your own medicine and walking everywhere form now, right?"

        I think you missed the important word in your own post there Matt - "ACCIDENTS"

        Life isn't 100% safe, we all tend to die of something. I would prefer it not to be some tw@t with a gun who thinks his right to bear arms is more important than other people's lives.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          ".....other people's lives." So the only "other people's lives" that count are the ones that get murdered? Wow, isn't that convenient. But doesn't it give the lie to the statement the idea of banning guns is to save lives.

  6. Flawless101
    Meh

    What irks me about their argument

    Here's a good read by Erik Kain,

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/01/15/killing-pixels-why-the-nra-shooting-range-app-wont-you-violent-but-neither-will-call-of-duty/

    If you can't be bothered to click through this is basically the crux of it,

    "My primary quarrel with the NRA on violent video games is simply this: violent video games are everywhere but the only place where regular mass shootings occur (at schools, theaters, etc.) is the United States."

    I just wonder what it'll actually take for culture to change.

    1. DJ Smiley
      Facepalm

      Re: What irks me about their argument

      Indeed.

      Israel. No mass shootings of children by raging teens for over 10 years!

      1. g e
        Coat

        Re: What irks me about their argument

        Only cos they're not allowed to drive tanks into Gaza at that age...

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: What irks me about their argument

          "Only cos they're not allowed to drive tanks into Gaza at that age..." So you base your denial of a verifiable fact on anti-Semitic prejudice? Great example of why the conversation should be left to the adults.

          1. James Hughes 1

            Re: What irks me about their argument @Matt

            I believe the Gaza comment was what's commonly known as a 'joke' *

            A bit like the NRA.

            * "something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act"

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: What irks me about their argument @Matt

              "I believe the Gaza comment was what's commonly known as a 'joke' ...." OK, so if black people were the subject - say something equally stupid and slanderous as "black kids don't stab white kids because they can't afford the busfare over to the white kids' neighbourhoods" (don't laugh, I actually heard that once in London) - you still wouldn't consider it as probably motivated by prejudice?

          2. funkymonkey
            Facepalm

            Re: What irks me about their argument

            Comedic criticism of Israel doesn't equal anti-semitism, muppet

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: Re: What irks me about their argument

              "Comedic criticism of Israel doesn't equal anti-semitism, muppet" See my previous example of substituting black for Israeli, see how much you approve then.

          3. Naughtyhorse

            Re: What irks me about their argument

            how anti semitic?

            AFAIK hamas do not posess any tanks.

            if they did there would be peace in the middle east (no israel see)

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: What irks me about their argument

              ".....AFAIK hamas do not posess any tanks. if they did there would be peace in the middle east (no israel see)" Whilst I agree that HAMAS don't have any tanks, and if they did they would probably use them in another vain and self-defeating attack on Israel, I would have to point out that when Israel was created it didn't have any tanks (the first ones were pinched from the Brits after the Arabs attacked) or proper military aircraft (again, not until after the conflict started), yet won against Jordan, Syria and Egypt which had plenty of tanks and aircraft. And that in the wars since, despite being numerically outnumbered, in tanks, aircraft and men, in 1956, 1967, and 1973, the Israelis won despite having to fight on two fronts. So, even if HAMAS was to get tanks, I don't think your fervent wish for genocide would come true.

              Anyway, since you all seem to like a good joke, here's one that did the rounds based on a real event in 1967. An Israeli soldier returned alone to Israeli lines after an action in Gaza with thirty-seven PLO fighters as prisoners (actually happened). The joke that went round afterwards was that more PLO would have been captured but the Israeli soldier had her period!

              1. Psyx
                Pint

                Re: What irks me about their argument

                "was that more PLO would have been captured but the Israeli soldier had her period!"

                Yay: All this and casual misogyny and racism, too.

                You are the gift that keeps on giving!

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: What irks me about their argument

                  "....Yay: All this and casual misogyny and racism, too......" Hey, it wasn't my joke, but they veiled insult was meant for the PLO, whose fighters were so convinced of their manliness and superiority it really hurt their pride to be captured by part-time women soldiers. So maybe you should be pointing your PC cannon at those PLO bastions of misogyny and racism. And their supporters.

          4. Psyx
            FAIL

            Re: What irks me about their argument

            "anti-Semitic prejudice?"

            Seriously? You're trying to drag that one in somehow?

            There aren't enough Fail icons in the word to reply in a just manner.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What irks me about their argument

            "Only cos they're not allowed to drive tanks into Gaza at that age..." So you base your denial of a verifiable fact on anti-Semitic prejudice? Great example of why the conversation should be left to the adults.

            1 - whoosh. It was a (fairly black) joke, nothing more. I note with interest you don't dweeb about the original comment that this was a reply to. Why? Didn't support your prejudices?

            2 - "conversation" Your current argument style isn't a debate or conversation, I'd qualify it more as a rant.

            3 - "the conversation should be left to adults" - agree, but it makes me wonder why you continue to post. That is the strongest argument against yourself you have brought so far. If you could bring yourself to actually join the debate instead of just spouting a pre-chewed bit of crud when you come across a trigger word I think you could create a meaningful discussion. As it stands, you seem to favour bringing in drilling equipment when you're already in a hole, and that tires quickly. As far as I can make out, you're either an NRA shill or someone who sells psychiatric treatments..

      2. Psyx
        Holmes

        Re: What irks me about their argument

        "Israel. No mass shootings of children by raging teens for over 10 years!"

        That's because raging teens have other targets for violence, along the lines of fully-grown men of <insert opposing faction here>

        Plenty of teens in the area do get themselves involved in lethal violence. It's just that it has a bit more direction to it, because whereas a school shooting ostracises the shooter, having a go at opposing political targets enhances the perp's reputation.

    2. jai

      Re: What irks me about their argument

      I just wonder what it'll actually take for culture to change

      I doubt the culture is capable of change.

      This happens over and over again and each time, there's outrage and shock and horror for a short while, and then they get distracted by something else and forget about it until the next atrocity is committed.

      America, as a culture, just seems to accept that the cost of having their lax gun laws is that every now and again, a school full of kids or teenagers has to be wiped out. And the powers that be in America seem to be perfectly happy with that concept.

      1. g e
        Black Helicopters

        Re: What irks me about their argument

        I suspect it's less about the swivel-eyed foamings of the NRA or public outrage every time these horrendous scenarios get repeated and more about how much money flows from arms companies to government.

        That (imho) is what fuels the inaction of government to legislate.

    3. JDX Gold badge

      but the only place where regular mass shootings occur...

      If we're focusing specifically on school shootings, I don't think either guns or games can be blamed because other countries have high gun ownership. It's something about the US' collective psyche.

      1. Andrew Moore
        Mushroom

        Re: but the only place where regular mass shootings occur...

        When I've been in countries that have gun ownership (like the US, Canada, Switzerland) I always ask people why they have a gun. Normally the answer is because it's a legal requirement (Switzerland) or they use it for hunting or sometimes it's for protection.

        But when I ask the same question to an American they nearly always go misty eyed and explain some scenario where they come across a shooting in progress (usually in a shopping mall or schoolyard) and they are able to save the day by whipping out their concealed weapon and gunning down the shooter.

        I'm not really against gun ownership EXCEPT in the US.

        1. Bush_rat
          Thumb Up

          Re: but the only place where regular mass shootings occur...

          "When I've been in countries that have gun ownership (like the US, Canada, Switzerland) I always ask people why they have a gun. Normally the answer is because it's a legal requirement (Switzerland) or they use it for hunting or sometimes it's for protection.

          But when I ask the same question to an American they nearly always go misty eyed and explain some scenario where they come across a shooting in progress (usually in a shopping mall or schoolyard) and they are able to save the day by whipping out their concealed weapon and gunning down the shooter.

          I'm not really against gun ownership EXCEPT in the US."

          From my experience with gun owners in oz, the only reasons I've ever heard for guns have been

          A) I'm a farmer

          Or

          B) I'm a cop or similar public guard

          Your statement is to true my friend, too true...

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: What irks me about their argument

      ".....Erik Kain....." Mr Kain used to like to bang on about how school shootings only happen in America, until it was pointed out to him that they happen in many countries as shown here:

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

      Of course, I couldn't possibly suggest that Mr Kain's minor modification of his argument to "regularly happen" has nothing to do with the money from the lecture circuit, publishing articles, or the like.

      "....I just wonder what it'll actually take for culture to change." The example of Mr Kain just goes to show the anti-gun culture is impervious to logic.

      1. Flawless101
        Trollface

        Re: What irks me about their argument

        The anti-gun culture is impervious to logic? That's a good one.

  7. g e
    Holmes

    What a bunch of fatuous assclowns

    Anyway, I've been playing too much Mario. Off to jump on some heads now while I look for gold coins on the High Street.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: What a bunch of fatuous assclowns

      Hey, when did the NSS icon appear? Have I been in my cave that long?

  8. Kevin Johnston

    Curious morals

    I will never understand the various stances taken by groups in the US where violence of almost any form is considered legitimate media and has elevated ambulance chasing to an art-form but where normal human interaction which might result in 'naughty areas' of flesh being visible is abhorent.

    If you make violence appear to be commonplace in society then the social mores which should deter it are irrevocably broken.

    1. lotus49
      WTF?

      Re: Curious morals

      Spot on.

      The brief visibility of Janet Jackson's nipple was the most complained about event ever broadcast on US TV. God forbid that children (for whom, of course, nipples were designed in the first place) should see a nipple. Regular intense violence is fine though.

      This is warped beyond reason.

    2. Nick Roberts

      Re: Curious morals

      You have to understand how their culture has developed. The US originally began by people with non-standard religious beliefs trying to achieve religious freedom. Frankly, some of those beliefs were utterly barmy by European standards, typically extremely Puritan, but became effectively standard in a world where effectively, middle-of-the-road beliefs didn't exist. And the world they had moved to was by nature violent - it was frontier law all around. Thing is in Europe, much of this was also true, but quite a few hundreds of years earlier; in the US, the Wild West and civil war is still within cultural memory in a way that the dark ages aren't for us over here. Beliefs have been shaped very differently in the US by those shared experiences to the way our common European experiences have shared ours.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Curious morals (@Nick Roberts)

        "You have to understand how their culture has developed. The US originally began by people with non-standard religious beliefs trying to achieve religious freedom. Frankly, some of those beliefs were utterly barmy by European standards, typically extremely Puritan, but became effectively standard in a world where effectively, middle-of-the-road beliefs didn't exist. And the world they had moved to was by nature violent - it was frontier law all around. Thing is in Europe, much of this was also true, but quite a few hundreds of years earlier; in the US, the Wild West and civil war is still within cultural memory in a way that the dark ages aren't for us over here. Beliefs have been shaped very differently in the US by those shared experiences to the way our common European experiences have shared ours."

        No excuse. Australia was settled by convicts, yet we have 17 murders per 1 million people, while the United States (settled by God fearing Puritans) has 48.

        1. Swarthy Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Curious morals (@mutatedwombat)

          That only proves that Puritans are more dangerous than hardened criminals.

          Makes sense to me.

          1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
            Coffee/keyboard

            Re: Curious morals (@mutatedwombat)

            That only proves that Puritans are more dangerous than hardened criminals.

            Bwahahahaha. I need to buy a few extra keyboards so I can put them in rotation..

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Simple..

      In other words, guns don't kill people, t*ts do..

  9. Crisp

    Guns don’t kill people.

    I'm sure they make the job a lot easier though.

    1. Omgwtfbbqtime
      Boffin

      Re: Guns don’t kill people.

      Yep, so does a shovel, with the added benefit of you can use it to help dispose of the body afterwards.

  10. Michael H.F. Wilkinson
    Mushroom

    The NRA clearly need no lessons in shooting themselves in the foot

    Next they will complain about restrictions on weapons like those on the left

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: The NRA clearly need no lessons in shooting themselves in the foot

      How is it shooting themsleves in the feet when half the posts here (and no doubt comments elsewhere) have deflected away from gun ownership to "do violent games cause violence"? The NRA is just playing the same game as the politicians.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon
        Trollface

        @Matt

        You seem to be implying that because most of us are questioning the details that we have lost sight of the larger picture.

        I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that you are being artificially superior and a touch condescending.

        Heaven knows what insightful posts you have made to reach silver badge level when I consider that most of the posts I see with your name on attract a large portion of downvotes.

        1. Naughtyhorse
          Happy

          Re: @Matt

          matt has a very supportive array of duplicate accounts

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon

            Re: @Matt

            Fuck knows where he gets the time, just had a squiz at his profile...5090 posts since 2007!

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: Sir Runcible Spoon Re: @Matt

              "Fuck knows where he gets the time...." It's all in the procedures. And the lash. I find that, after a few tastes of the lash, the minions become very good at following procedures.

              I even have time for a quick bit of maths - say an average of five mins for each post, over five years, works out at less than three posts a day, or fifteen minutes, so less than the average worker spends having a fag or getting coffee. Apologies if you find that posting is so much more of a challenge that it eats up more of your time. Can't see how, going on the content of your posts, but I suppose we can take comfort in that we all have/had mothers that loved us regardless.

              1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                Re: Sir Runcible Spoon @Matt

                The only reason I have for disliking you Matt is because you constantly use personal insults to reduce other people's points, even when they haven't made any (such as asking a question).

                There has even been the odd occasion where I actually agree with you, I just don't like the way you do it - it's demeaning (to yourself). That you don't find it so only reveals your love for the sound of your own keyboard. No-one else seems to give a shit but you keep sending it out anyway.

                Are you actually trying to convince people of your point of view?

                Your constant use of straw-man arguments and diatribe just makes me wish for an ignore button. You could be spouting the wisdom of Buddha for all I know, but your never going to get any kind of message across other than 'I'm a self important tit".

                You are the El Reg troll and you make less sense than amanfrommars, the original.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Sir Runcible Spoon @Matt

                  Your constant use of straw-man arguments and diatribe just makes me wish for an ignore button

                  You really *have* been out of touch too long :). If you look at the handle next to a comment, you'll see a sort of silvery grey face (looks a bit like what you'd make during halloween, but silver). That *is* an ignore button (hover over it with a mouse and you'll see the associated tag).

                  However, my experience with idiots is that you need to keep an eye on them..

                2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Re: Sir Runcible Spoon @Matt

                  Whatever. Still waiting for you to post an actual argument. Not holding my breath.

                  1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                    Re: Sir Runcible Spoon @Matt

                    "Still waiting for you to post an actual argument"

                    Argument about what exactly? I have opinions, but they're generally poorly informed so I tend not to gob-off all over the place. I usually just make comments, just chit-chat on my favourite tech-site you know?

                    I wasn't aware I had signed up to the net's version of Plato's philosophical debate class on current affairs.

                    Thanks be to <$X> for AC - I had not spotted that.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: @Matt

          "You seem to be implying that because most of us are questioning the details that we have lost sight of the larger picture....." Yes. You can also go Yahoogle it - the "ban violent video games" schpiel is already ramping up. Quick test on Bing, "violent video games should be banned" = 10.5m hits; "guns should be banned" = 3.1m hits. Like I said, deflection.

          ".....I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that you are being artificially superior and a touch condescending......" So if I unquestioningly agree with you I guess I get to be actually superior without being condescending at all? No thanks, I'd rather retain my ability to think for myself.

          ".....Heaven knows what insightful posts you have made to reach silver badge level ....." Oh dear, another topic where you haven't done your homework. All it takes is 2000 upvotes, so even if someone acrues a large number of downvotes from sheeple like you, it is still possible over the course of a long period (and I've been posting at El Reg for yonkeys) to get there. Believe it or not (and you probably don't), not all El Reg readers share your "ideals". Going on voting patterns in the US and UK, it would seem lots of Brits and Americans in general don't share them either.

          Now, if El Reg instituted something along the lines of a badge where you had to maintain a positive ratio of up votes to down votes (effectively a brown badge for brown-nosers) then some might be more diplomatic and worry about the delicate sensibilities of you sheeple. But I'm not the type to stomach lowering myself to that level for a badge, I couldn't compromise my principles that much unless it was for serious money!

      2. Naughtyhorse

        Re: The NRA clearly need no lessons in shooting themselves in the foot

        RTFA!

        it's _about_ violent video games!

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

    Superbly sums up the powerful vested interest groups, the NRA rep in it is spot on.

    Oh how the septic tanks love their Guuurrrrrrrnnns.

    PS NRA they didn't have video games in the first world war so explain that feck-wits. The gun was designed for one purpose only, killing.

    1. FartingHippo
      Thumb Up

      Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

      +1 for reminding me of a great film

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

      ".....Oh how the septic tanks love their Guuurrrrrrrnnns....." Oh how the clueless love to hate those that shoot.

      ".....The gun was designed for one purpose only, killing." Your statement is disproven by the simple example that not every US policeman that carries a gun ends up shooting anyone during their whole career, not by a massive margin, and even when the average US policeman still has to draw his weapon in the line of duty, even in violent cities like New York in the Eighties, he was still only likely to pull the trigger one-in-four times. Which implies the other three times the gun was not required (unlikely as they had strict rules over when to draw) or the sight of the armed policeman ready to fire was sufficient to end the confrontation. It also implies that in the one-in-four confrontations that the New York policemen did use their weapons their own lives or those of inncoent citizens were protected as well as crimes prevented. And let's not even start on the number of soldiers that carry guns daily yet never fire them in action during their careers.

      Try thinking rather than just blindly accepting what you have been spoonfed.

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

        The gun was designed for one purpose only, killing..

        of course it was, either that or it's a fucking messy and inefficient can opener

        dolt

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Alert

          Re: Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

          I am at a loss. I have to upvote Naughtyhorse, for the love of <insert your fictional supernatural fairybeing of choice> what is going on?

          Mind you, I suspect he still does not understand that a gun does not need to be fired to be used for a purpose. Think nuke missiles and MAD - we haven't had to use any of those missiles, have we?

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

            You're right there was nothing like the threat of nuclear holocaust to make us all sleep in our beds easier.

            I still fondly look back on being a child and watching when the wind blows and threads.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ? @Matt Bryant

        Matt, I was probably shooting guns before you were pissing in your nappy. My stepfather was national champion in the formal 20 yard pistol shoot at Bisley. I no longer use firearms or see any use for them in society as they are extremely dangerous and are only for killing.

        Want to go target shooting then use a pellet gun and shout bang to give the same effect.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ? @Matt Bryant

          "Matt, I was probably shooting guns before you were pissing in your nappy....." If you say so.

          ".....My stepfather was national champion in the formal 20 yard pistol shoot at Bisley....." If he is still alive, can I ask what his opinion was of his (and my preferred) shooting sport being banned by Blair? Also, did he or any of his fellow competitors that you know of take their sporting weapons and kill anyone? If not, then why do you grudge them or me the sport if it had no adverse affect on anyone else?

          "......I no longer use firearms or see any use for them in society......" Again, your opinion.

          ".....as they are extremely dangerous and are only for killing......" Not with the proper procedures and controls, and did your stepfather use his sporting weapons to kill anyone?

          "....use a pellet gun...." Just to give it a go, I did try air rifles for a bit, but it just wasn't the same as TR on the range. At Bisley, thanks. Besides, any air rifle that can kill a rabbit at 30m is potentially lethal to human beings, so surely you should be encouraging me to just use the NRA's game instead?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ? @Matt Bryant

            Asshole.

            Now fuck off, there's a good chap.

      3. Psyx
        WTF?

        Re: Anyone Seen Thank You For Smoking ?

        ".....The gun was designed for one purpose only, killing." Your statement is disproven by the simple example that not every US policeman that carries a gun ends..."

        No, it's not. How was the gun specifically designed for intimidation? If that was a key design requirement, police would be carrying IMI hand cannons with barbed bayonets and three laser sighting aids.

        It is USED for intimidation, but no aspect of the design process for police handguns is based around making people who have one pointed at them more likely to comply with demands to put their hands up.

  12. GreggS

    Video games kill people?

    When was the last time the news reported a loner walk into a school campus and start throwing copies of GTA at pupils causing multiple deaths?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Joke

      Re: Video games kill people?

      Dunno, but I have to wait forever for Hari Krishna's to line up properly for a big multiplier.

  13. Steve I
    Go

    For that authentic NRA experience...

    ...are there sections in the game where you can kiss and caress your gun, and make sweet, sweet love to it...?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: For that authentic NRA experience...

      Gimme a break. You'd have to clean and oil it again..

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon
        Trollface

        Re: For that authentic NRA experience...

        Do you get to name your gun?

        This is my rifle..this is my gun..

        This is for random slaughter of schoolkids...this is for fun..

        Doesn't really work does it?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: For that authentic NRA experience...

          Sjeez, *that* is dark. Respect..

          The rhyme works if you change it to

          This is my rifle..this is my gun..

          This is for slaughter...this is for fun..

  14. Bill the Sys Admin
    Mushroom

    Blaming society's problems on other things, videos games have nothing to with this.

  15. Bonce
    FAIL

    Safety tip

    "Always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction" isn't all that clear a message as safety tips go.

    As long as it's pointing away from ME, that's OK, right?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Safety tip

      I thought that when I saw the picture too.

      I always thought it was..

      "Don't point your gun at anything you don't want to shoot"

      ..but I guess this wouldn't send the message they were after.

  16. wowfood
    Childcatcher

    Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people

    Actually did a project on the first 2 parts at uni. Video games don't kill people, the majority of studies into video games and desalinization to violence were flawed studies monitoring blood pressure / heart rate and other triggers when calm, and then within minutes of playing games while the heart rate etc were still going to be elevated. What they then measured was the differences. From a standard heart rate etc figures rose to elevated levels, meanwhile after playing games the levels renamed the same as they were already elevated.

    The same applies to media and in some cases even gripping books can have the same effect, but it's only short term.

    This isn't to say that there aren't those who are susceptible to suggestion, but these people have underlying conditions such as schizoid personality disorder which is more to blame than the games themselves, games / other media just make the underlying condition worse.

    Not to mention the very small numbers of people used to conduct the studies, normally fewer than 10. Although it's hard to conduct an unbiasd study since if you study something you'll go in with one view, it's very easy to pick them apart afterwards.

    Furthermore studies have actually shown that in numerous individuals videogames especially violent ones provide a release for pent up rage and frustration, leaving the user calmed after playing which leads to fewer acts of violence by these individuals.

    What I'm getting at is this. Videogames do not cause violence in and of themselves, in certain cases they can prevent violence, or lead to fewer violent incidences while in others they can exacerbate underlying conditions which could lead to heightened levels of violence It's a 50/50 split.

    The only major point is that of that split (it's not really 50/50) everyone can be affected by the calming nature, and those who might have it exaggerate another condition, that condition should be diagnosed and treated anyway, if they are diagnosed and treated there would be no issues. Even in those who aren't diagnosed or treated problems may never occur. If anything I'd say it were a failing of the mental health assessment people go through when younger (when many of these symptoms might be prevalent but ignored)

    Here's a good though on controlling violence, One day a month,have children speak to a counselor, all children not just those who seem troubled, do this from the moment they hit 10 until they leave. I could almost garuntee this would help lead to more people being correctly diagnosed early on when behavioral therapy would be more useful than medicinal.

    1. FartingHippo

      Re: Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people

      "desalinization to violence"

      That's why gamers love Pringles.

      1. wowfood
        Facepalm

        Re: Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people

        "desalinization to violence"

        This is why I need to check what autocorrect does.

    2. Efros
      Pint

      Re: Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people

      The cathartic effect of playing video games is palpable, a few minutes of slaughter in Quake Arena put paid to those pent up spleen busting feelings about applying extreme violence to the vital parts of the boss. Similarly in days before gaming, Dirty Harry movies were great for this sort of release, other 'dirty' movies were for other sorts of release... obviously.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Video games, the media and Obama’s budget kill people

        No, no, no. Our Friday afternoon game sessions were strictly network stress and latency tests..

  17. Khaptain Silver badge
    Devil

    The NRA has nothing to do with amendments or rights, it is the lobbying engine for some "extremely" successfull enterprises. That gun law is the equivalant of a Captilistic Orgasm, it is a money printing machine.....

    There's no need to "Think about the Children" all you have to do is "Think about the PROFIT"..

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What if?

    We manage to ban guns and remove them totally from society?

    a would be killer will use an axe or a kitchen knife.

    so we ban them.

    then they use a screwdriver or a pen.

    so we ban those too.

    Banning things does not stop the root cause of these killings, someone has suffered a short circuit in their brain which has caused them to want to destroy.....

    I'm in favor of better checks and more regular checks of licensed firearm owners and stricter penalties for illegal possession/use of firearms.

    1. Piro Silver badge

      Re: What if?

      Thing is, guns are distinct from those other things because you can kill from a distance without any real personal involvement.

      Pointing a device and pulling your finger inwards a few mm and running away is not exactly as hard an experience as grabbing someone and repeatedly plunging a blade into them, feeling their hot blood spurt on you, their gurgles and screams and so on.

    2. Nick Roberts

      Re: What if?

      Maybe, but a school murderer is unlikely to be able to kill as many innocent kids with a pen than with an assault rifle. It's all about balance, and the current US balance is simply crazy to anyone European.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. cyborg
      Boffin

      Re: What if?

      "Banning things does not stop the root cause of these killings, someone has suffered a short circuit in their brain which has caused them to want to destroy....."

      That violence is a necessary tool for survival which has tensions with civilised living does not make it a "short circuit". The actions of sociopaths cannot be easily reduced to a simple cause an effect though so rarely gets talked about because arguments trolling about what particular piece of media technology, low art, economics or weapons technology is to blame is much easier.

    4. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

      Re: What if?

      Does it need to be repeated AGAIN?

      Okay. Knives and screwdrivers, just like cars, have uses other than killing things. Fuck.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: What if?

        As someone recently remarked, if you've already got knives, screwdrivers, cars etc., why do you need guns as well?

      2. Sir Runcible Spoon
        Joke

        Re: What if?

        "Okay. Knives and screwdrivers, just like cars, have uses other than killing things. Fuck."

        Agreed, but can you not also pistol-whip someone into submission without killing them?

        On a more serious note, I tried to buy some plastic cutlery a few weeks back at one of the self-service tills and it flagged up an alert for someone to come over and authorise it.

        PLASTIC KNIVES - they don't even cut sausages, how the fuck am I going to kill someone with it? I'd be better off letting my fingernails grow, sharpening them to a point and dipping them in poison....hmmmm...

    5. Jonathon Green
      Thumb Down

      Re: What if?

      Aria: "What if?

      We manage to ban guns and remove them totally from society?

      a would be killer will use an axe or a kitchen knife.

      so we ban them.

      then they use a screwdriver or a pen.

      so we ban those too.

      Banning things does not stop the root cause of these killings..."

      We've had some experience with (more or less) this scenario here in the UK and while you're quite correct on the last point it would be quite hard for a crazed lunatic with an axe or kitchen knife to run the bodycount up anywhere near the Sandy Hook score of 26...

      Lisa Potts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Potts) was a very brave and determined young woman, she sustained serious injury as she faced down a nutter with a machete intent on butchering the children in her care but I doubt she'd have fared as well against the same nutter with an assault rifle...

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: What if?

        Ahem!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks

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

        Not school-related, but showing that killing people in large numbers does require a gun:

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

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

    6. DiBosco
      Facepalm

      Re: What if?

      Your argument is nonsense.

      The difference between a gun and a knife is that by the time you've managed to empty around of ammo into a boat load of children, the nutter with knife might, *might* have got one kill before before being overpowered. And an axe? Seriously? "Oh hello headmistress, you don't mind me walking into school with this nob-off axe, do you now? I'm hear to chop firewood. Honest."

      The thing about better checks on ownership is a nonsense. The latest head case to run riot in a school took his dear ol' mom's weapon stash to wipe out the poor little mites.

      I know the pen is mightier than the sword, but, well, it really fuckin' isn't.

      The difference between a gun and screwdrivers, pens and knives is that a gun is made for the sole purpose of killing living things. There's absolutely no need for a normal person to carry one. You cling on to your precious second amendment like a religious fanatic who holds dear bizarre and outdated laws that maybe made sense hundreds and hundreds of years ago in [even more] misogynistic times. The weird thing about it is that the amendment has been taken out of context and become a twisted excuse to carry implements of death around with you.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What if?

      You don't always need a gun to take a gunman down

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Re: What if?

        "You don't always need a gun to take a gunman down...." Unfortunately, it seems that in several such cases, such as Professors Kevin Granata and Wally Grant in the Virginia Tech massacre, teachers attempting to intervene and reason with other killers were simply gunned down. So, whilst the Sandy Hook Elementary School story is good news, it shouldn't be used to assume that every killer can be talked out of their actions.

    8. Omgwtfbbqtime
      Flame

      Re: What if?

      "We manage to ban guns and remove them totally from society?

      a would be killer will use an axe or a kitchen knife.

      so we ban them."

      You will take my axes from me over my cold, dead body.....

      sorry what were you saying?

    9. Chad H.

      Re: What if?

      A screwdrivers primary purpose is to unscrew screws

      A guns primary purpose is to do bodily damage. It is designed to maximise lethality.

      An axe or a knife are difficult to use at range, cannot be thrown in bursts, and require retrieval rather than speedy reload. A gun howerver is a multiplier.

      If you don't have a real need for a gun, you shouldn't have one. We do however need knives (to cook), pens (to write) and screwdrivers (to, err, screw) in regular life.

    10. Isabello
      Holmes

      Re: What if?

      Compare & contrast...

      Nutter goes berzerk at a school, with a gun, in the US, where guns are readily available:

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

      vs.

      Nutter goes berzerk at a school, with a knife, in China where gun ownership is severely restricted:

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

      US 26, PRC 0 (for the NRA members, just to be clear, a high score is a fail here)

      Guns just make it that much quicker and easier...need I say more?

      Actually I'm going to - guns are designed to kill, but some guns are designed *specifically* to kill people. You don't hunt with a Glock 17, or an AK47

    11. Naughtyhorse

      Re: What if?

      except the loons commiting mass slaughter by and large hold legal guns.

      you could always check to see thay arent nutcases before selling them a gun - that would require background checks - thats tantermount to wiping ones arse on the bill of rights and selling the country to the russians.

      also the kind of nutter that embarks on this scheme - inevetably ends up killing themselves - hard to imprison a corpse.

      the problem is much deeper rooted in american society - look at 'the merkin dream' or 'merkin exceptionalism' then think about the corruption that has been endemic in american society since the mayflower. hardly a surprise when you spend 20 years telling someone they can achieve anything and they are gods chosen people, then sentence them to flippin burgers for 30 years it's hardly a surprise that they get a bit pissed off about it. and given their status as 'special' why shouldnt they murder 20 innocent 6 year olds... fuck em.

      now find a way to fix _that_, and they can have all the guns they want, no problem.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: What if?

        ".....now find a way to fix _that_, and they can have all the guns they want, no problem." The example of Switzerland (every male of conscriptable age having a loaded, fully-auto assaut rifle at home, yet no-one ever murdered with one) seems to bear that idea out. But the US politicians seem more intent on avoiding that and going for the easier "ban guns" idea.

      2. Mooseman Silver badge

        Re: What if?

        " I wanna buy a gun!"

        official: "why sir?"

        "to, uh hunt stuff"

        offical: " ok sir so why do you need a semi auto rifle and armour piercing rounds?"

        "uhhhhh in case the deer is wearing body armour?"

        offical: "do you do a lot of hunting in the city sir?"

        Simples.

    12. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: What if?

      @Aria - upvote for this "I'm in favor of better checks and more regular checks of licensed firearm owners and stricter penalties for illegal possession/use of firearms.", but the rest of your argument re kitchen knives makes no sense

  19. SuperNintendoChalmers
    Joke

    Hang on, Hang on

    Guns do have other uses than shooting people! You could club someone do death with one for example, HA got you there you filthy lefties.

    1. wowfood

      Re: Hang on, Hang on

      Don't forget herding cattle and erm... OH Alarm clock, guns could make excellent alarm clocks.

  20. Alpha Tony

    The real tragedy here

    is that they are threatening to send Piers Morgan back.

    1. Keep Refrigerated
      Paris Hilton

      Re: The real tragedy here

      The guy who created the petition - Alex Jones - was recently interviewed with Piers Morgan on his show. Jones started going berserk and yelling about 1776. At one point I thought he was going to whip out a pistol right there and shoot Piers or just pistol-whip him to death.

      Then I felt conflicted, I mean, if that had happened, would I have cheered, or would I have been saddened? I just don't know the answer...

      1. Psyx

        Re: The real tragedy here

        "At one point I thought he was going to whip out a pistol right there and shoot Piers or just pistol-whip him to death. Then I felt conflicted, I mean, if that had happened, would I have cheered, or would I have been saddened? I just don't know the answer..."

        It's like when Jeremy Clarkson punch Piers in the face all over again...

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Odd topic

    The problem with discussing guns is the dependence on the crowd. Unfortunately the topic is so badly polarised that the processing part of the brain is shut off. For the 'anti-gun' nutters plenty is said about innocents killed by guns but there is a huge hole where reasoning should be concerning lives saved by guns. The idea of discussing the good seems to be completely alien and impossible to understand. For these people a gun is for killing people and nothing else. Which truly shows that these people are the nutters who should be watched carefully for their homicidal impulses they obviously cant contain. The ignorance of sport (which doesnt even call for the killing of anything on a shooting range) show their lack of knowledge or complete lack of braincells. I see this especially here in the UK.

    The massively paranoid 'give us the huge guns' nutters are the small segment of gun owners/users which the anti-gun nutters focus on. The idea that black helicopters will drop their own troops against them is a fear from old experience but ignores how their freedom is eroded in different ways which calls for no violence. These people seem to think they are protecting themselves from an army instead of an assailant. Demanding the equipment of the army in case that day every comes.

    So when there is a solid line that any acceptance at all for the gun means you must be a nutter which leaves only those strictly against guns on the other side makes the NRA's job pretty difficult. The simple truth being that laws against violent criminals and the mentally ill could be tightened up while self defence and sport should not be oppressed by paranoid anti-gun nutters.

    At least this game offers safety tips for shooting. Compare that with games and films where ammo is unlimited and spraying bullets is the way to do it.

    1. Esskay
      Thumb Down

      Re: Odd topic

      The laws being passed by Obama are explicitly targeting the "give us the big guns" group (and they' not a minority, they've got massive political and financial backing).

      Sport shooting is a great idea IMO, I see it as being like any other sport, probably on the same level as motorsport.

      But just like motorsport, it's something that should be restricted to a closed, monitored setting. In any case, the issues being discussed in the article aren't talking about banning sports shooting, they're about getting assault rifles out of people's homes. The fact that legislation even has to be passed in order to do such a thing is pretty sad.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Esskay

        Actually the topic is about computer games and gun incidents which is why I accurately described the split, at least in the UK. There are those who absolutely, unbending and unthinking who rabidly hate anyone who considers the existence of the gun. You can see these peoples comments all over this topic. It doesnt matter how clear thinking you are or middle ground, you are an evil SOB because you want all children to die and go to hell because your gun must be making up for a shortage down below (etc etc etc).

        I am glad you seem one of the more middle ground people in your suggestion and it is very sad that people with screws loose can buy and own guns. I do dislike the gun discussion applied to the US because the US is a collection of states with different rules. The states allowing guns for self defence seem to do better than those tightly regulated, but there are other states that are way too lax. With proper checks on who is buying the gun I think a lot of trouble will be avoided. Also the idea of allowing some guns for self defence.

        I used to think assault rifles were excessive in the US. Then I saw a programme on gun violence in one of the more restrictive states. (it was ross kemp) talking to a gang who showed a variety of illegal assault rifles and explained how they drive to someones house and shoot the place up. From the perspective of a victim I think I too would prefer an assault rifle.

        A neighbouring state allowing concealed carry had a drastically less gun crime. Explained simply by (from memory) "you wouldnt draw because anybody and everybody around you could be armed". In an assault being bigger, stronger, numerous, etc is an advantage. But the gun is a great equalizer. Tall, short, big, small the gun will stop you in your tracks. And just the presence of one can (does) save lives

    2. Mooseman Silver badge

      Re: Odd topic

      You miss your hand gun don't you?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Mooseman

        Yeah, well spotted. I would love to take a hand gun the the range. A hand gun is a totally different experience to a rifle. I also know many more law abiding and perfectly normal people who miss them too. But they got banned from the law abiding. Shame we all take the punishment for the few criminals. If the law applied laws like that as standard we wouldnt go out because then nobody could commit a crime!

  23. Dave 126 Silver badge

    But there weren't any guns in Mortal Kombat, were there? Or did I fail to unlock a secret character who behaves like Indiana Jones when he brings a gun to swordfight?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @dave

      Striker MK3/ultimate MK3. He also used grenades. Not as good as throwing a ball of ice though or a harpoon.

  24. Evil Auditor
    Stop

    NRAspeak

    And "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" is NRAspeak for point it at the next black person?

    I wish I could laugh at the irony NRA showed here.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: NRAspeak

      I almost felt bad, because I laughed at this.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: NRAspeak

      "..... is NRAspeak for point it at the next black person?...."

      Oh dear. That "right on", bigoted remark is simply sad. I suppose you would have been all for taking away guns from these NRA members and leaving them defenceless then?

      http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2960

      Please read and then post an apology.

  25. Electric sheep
    Linux

    Just curious

    Why you say "Adam Lanza shot dead 20 children and 6 adults" rather than "some gun crazed loony shot" and then list the 26 names?

    The more publicity his name gets the more chance there is that some like minded loon will try and better him.

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Thumb Up

      Re: Just curious

      This is rather a valid point and unlikely to get much airtime sadly.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    How incredibly insensitive of the NRA just after a bloody school shooting. Will they ever learn?

    1. Efros

      They did the same sort of thing following Columbine, they have no compassion or decency.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Jim Booth

      How incredibly insensitive of you to complain that they defend themsleves just after a bloody school shooting. Will you ever learn?

      1. Mooseman Silver badge

        Re: Jim Booth

        The worst part is I find myself having to agree with Michael Moore and Piers Morgan.

  27. WonkoTheSane
    Trollface

    "Weird Al" Yankovic was right...

    This NRA spokesman appears in the movie "UHF":-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgSOCYhwLJ8

  28. MJI Silver badge

    Have they played any games?

    Glorify violence - well I have played enough and to be honest they don't, Bulletstorm as an example - that is just an OTT shoot everything that attacks you, simply entertainment, no way are you going to go and shoot things in real life after that.

    I play a few other FPS and online gaming is like a bunch of friends paintballing, not real, just fun.

    1. Evil Auditor
      Joke

      Just fun?

      Until you really are pissed off by those fucking campers!

  29. King Jack
    FAIL

    Penn & Teller

    Penn and Teller did a show on video games vs the real word. They took a 10 year old boy who enjoyed war shooting games and gave him a real gun to fire. On the firing range and under supervision the kid was in tears in minutes. The gun had weight, it kicked back when fired, it made a loud noise. The boy didn't like the feeling of aiming a real gun at real things. The gun didn't reload or auto assist in aiming. No way was he ever going to mistake a game with killing real things.

    There is no relation to real guns and video games. They both use a completely different skill set. Most sane people know the difference between a TV and reality. But it sounds good to blame games.

  30. ukgnome
    Coffee/keyboard

    NRA said what!

    New keyboard and a screen wipes please.

  31. ginger_tosser
    FAIL

    The right to bear arms

    The 2nd amendment that these gun loving nutters hang onto so much only mentions the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't explicitly state any and all weaponary. I'm sure there are plenty of USA right wing nutters that would love to keep and bear bombs, chemical & biological weapons etc but strangely the US government has banned their ownership by the general public. Surely they can legislate against guns too and just let them keep and bear bladed weapons if they are that keen to keep their 2nd amendment.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

      There is a history behind the Second Amendment that you Brits seem to deny at every turn.

      Your forebears foolishly thought they could tax us Americans to death without having any legal recourse or representation. We then showed them that they were wrong and tossed them out.

      To prevent that from happening again, our forefathers wrote an amendment whose intent was that every citizen has the right to defend themselves from an unjust government as well as criminals.

      It does not say what type of arms we are allowed to carry since they obviously knew that merely defining them was also restricting them.

      Later interpretations defined what arms were allowed, but that is the slippery slope that everyone talks about and here in New York State, they have just violated the Constitution with the latest legislation that cannot be complied with by existing gun owners.

      This new law has effectively turned millions of legal gun owners into unwitting criminals.

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

        hmmmm

        you seem to be missing the word millitia from this response.

        i wonder why?

        on another note - is tax free tea worth 30,000 dead a year, i mean, im as much of a fan of a cuppa as the next man (assuming the next man is not professor elemental https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eELH0ivexKA) but 30k people in boxes - bit of a high price if you ask me. fortunately i dont have god making my rules for me, so im free to make up my own.

      2. James Micallef Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

        " our forefathers wrote an amendment whose intent was that every citizen has the right to defend themselves from an unjust government as well as criminals."

        How sad that many 2nd-amendment lovers don't even realise that their unjust government does not need weapons to screw them over, and that they cannot use weapons to defend themselves from being screwed over by lobbyists, politicians and lawyers

      3. Psyx
        Stop

        Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

        "There is a history behind the Second Amendment that you Brits seem to deny at every turn."

        Balls. We're fully aware of it. It's just not a very good reason. It comes down to two salient points:

        1) We can't change it because it's written on a bit of fairly old paper.

        2) We have to have guns to protect ourselves if we think the government is being mean.

        3) We have to have guns to protect our country if we get invaded.

        Point 1 is just absolute tosh. Times change and the Constitution has been changed to reflect that at all. Hanging onto laws just because they exist is backwards. If we were doing that then we'd be literally believing and enacting every mandate of the Bible.

        Point 2 is a joke. Try declaring the government unjust and tyranical and taking up arms against it and you'll be locked up for life and branded as a terrorist. The idea that the government of a country that spends more on defence than most of the world put together and has the world's most sophisticated highly budgeted internal security service will be overthrown by armed militias is patiently absurd.

        Point 3 is moot. If the world's most sophisticated army doesn't prevent your continent being over-run, then private gun owners won't.

        Any argument against gun control involving the Second Amendment is pretty irrational. It's a diversion from the main points and has no real relevance.

        Gun Control is about just that. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about that. Indeed: There are already plenty of laws about concealed carry, the type of firearms allowed, preventing felons having weapons, cool-down periods et al. Simply restrictions on storage, registration et al have ZERO bearing on Second Amendment Rights unless they heavily impact the right of legitimate users to own firearms.

        1. Micky Fite

          Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

          Seriously? The whole reason there is a US Constitution is we declared the legitimate, standing government to be "unjust and tyranical" and took up arms against it.

          Denying it happened doesn't mean it can't happen again. I am not advocating it, just point out a fact. There is also the issue of self-defense (please research murders per capita in the US and the UK and get back to me on that).

          1. Peter 82
            WTF?

            Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

            Really confused here.

            2 mins of research got me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

            which indicates there are 4 times the number of homicides per captia in the USA versus the UK. So how does this support using guns as self defense?

            Doing a little more research... Maybe we should compare cities. I thought I'll try wiki again but the page for cities by muder rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate doesn't list and uk cities. It lists 4 US cities with murder rates of 58,48,35,31 though. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London London has between 2.2 and 1.9 for the last few years.

            1. Peter 82

              Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

              Dammit! I thought I'd checked that post for spelling mistakes. The last paragraph should read:

              "Doing a little more research... Maybe we should compare cities. I thought I'll try wiki again but the page for cities by murder rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate doesn't list any UK cities. It lists 4 US cities with murder rates of 58,48,35,31 though. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London London has between 2.2 and 1.9 for the last few years"

            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

              ".....which indicates there are 4 times the number of homicides per captia in the USA versus the UK. So how does this support using guns as self defense?...." That's like saying because there are more rapes in London than Exeter we should give up on having police in London.

      4. Triggerfish

        Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

        Some points here.

        1. If you're government decides to turn into a Syrian type regime, then I have to point out that an assault rifle is not going to do much against a main battle tank, or helicopter gunship, or even a well trained infantry who are on full assault.

        2. If another country manages to defeat one of the largest military superpowers on the planet, and invade. Well see point 1 really, and if you think the guerrilla tactics of plinking away at an occupying army who have gone to the effort of defeating such a large well trained army as would be required for this, considering the expense and ramifications they would already have dealt with to go through such a operation.

        Do you honestly think they would suddenly go "oh hmmnm maybe we should go home"?

        3. Red Dawn was a movie.

      5. Mooseman Silver badge

        Re: The right to bear arms (does not define those arms for a reason!)

        "There is a history behind the Second Amendment that you Brits seem to deny at every turn.

        Your forebears foolishly thought they could tax us Americans to death without having any legal recourse or representation. We then showed them that they were wrong and tossed them out."

        Uh, you were "brits" too. Don't confuse history with Hollywood. You also forget to mention the French who provided just a bt of help.

        "To prevent that from happening again, our forefathers wrote an amendment whose intent was that every citizen has the right to defend themselves from an unjust government as well as criminals."

        As ratified by Congress and Jefferson - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        Also to defend against tyrannical government and put down slave revolts.

        Please note the key words "A well regulated Militia"

        If you define a tyrranical government as one that doesn't want you to carry semi automatic weapons I think there is something wrong.

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Joke

      Re: The right to bear arms

      Couldn't the powers that be just re-interpret it to mean that everyone is entitled to own bear arms (as long as they have to collect them themselves without the benefit of firearms).

  32. Toothpick
    FAIL

    The NRA .....

    ... Going on the offensive because they have no defence.

  33. Fading
    Holmes

    Games do kill people.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544131/Man-dies-after-7-day-computer-game-session.html

    QED

  34. hplasm
    Thumb Up

    The NRA .....

    Going on the offensive because they are offensive

  35. SirDigalot

    From personal experience

    Moving to the land of the "free" My wifes family has a lot of gun nuts in it, their main points are "if the government falls who is going to protect you" and no other amendment or right has any form of regulation put on it like the second amendment has. (they ignore, unlike the swiss, the beginning part of the 2nd which can easily be inferred that in order to have the right to bear arms you must be in a well regulated militia, but that is just one interpretation of 300 year old language)

    I also laugh a little knowing these same people for over a decade now, that while they may be awesome sport and target shooters, if it came to the crunch and they were being shot at, then they would be about as useful as tits on a bull since they are not trained in any shape or form to deal with bullets coming the other way i.e. at them ( I find it hilarious that one of them actually does those scary haunted tours, if you are scared by a dark house and a mouse running across the floor then you stand no chance in a real situation) but again that is personal experience. There are many well trained people out there who can hold their own when it comes to walking the walk, and, as has been shown with many statistics (even though the NRA has spent tons of money and years trying to hide the gun ownership/use stats from being made easily available) show that the ones who DO respond in a violent shooting situation are the ones trained as first responders (ex police etc) NOT the joe schmoe who thinks he is bruce willis or Rambo.

    There was also a recent chart put up by a (center right) blogger Andrew Sullivan that showed the correlation between per capita expenditure and video game use and shootings per country, it showed that many civilized countries spend more on all types of video games and have multitudes of scale less shootings then America.

    Also when the NRA and nut-farm like to point out that criminals don't care about regulation, they are correct, and then they point out like this most recent shooting that the guy did all these illegal things ( like shoot his mom, steal her car etc) the fact is they totally gloss over the fact she was NOT a responsible gun owner in anyway, which usually is the case, and while there are many responsible owners the majority of the vocal crowd are in no way responsible.

    I am not anti-gun, in any way, in a few months I will be doing my conceal carry course, I like responsible owners, I am not scared that the government is overstepping it's bounds in anyway by trying to esure that only those who are intelligent ( I think this scares a lot of the loudmouths) and sane (another scary one here) and sober(bugger there goes the neighbourhood) enough to own a gun, you need a licence to drive a car, you need insurance to drive a car (hell if you are buying a house you need insurance or they wont give you a mortgage! houses don't kill people) so why not require both for a gun?

    alternatively force everyone who wants to be a responsible owner to join the military, or the militia make it highly regulated, make them go on mandatory courses, basically bring back conscription with NO deferments, and, I think, if we did that, there would be much less American saber rattling around the world since they would all know that it would be all of our kids that potentially are going to be on the front lines.

    on another note, steam has made sure video games are no longer dangerous, since you cannot kill people by throwing a download at them - yet...

    1. Hellcat
      Thumb Up

      Re: From personal experience

      This is the most sensible comment I've ever read on the whole topic of gun control. It's a true shame that it languishes here on page 3 of the register's commentard's posts.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      yeah, bring back the draft

      Especially for all 'anti gun' nuts.

      I survived Parris Island, let's see the oppo's do the same, cos then at least their arguments will be based on experience.

      "This is my rifle...." etc.

      1. pepper
        Paris Hilton

        Re: yeah, bring back the draft

        Paris, because I thought what you mentioned was some sort of disastrous battle, alas its merely a training ground.

    3. Bush_rat
      Trollface

      Re: From personal experience

      Instead, surely we could just take the second amendment literally, "the right to bear arms". Ok here's a bear arm, hell you can have 2.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anybody knows by now guns don't kill people, rappers do.

    Is there a more discredited organisation on the planet than the NRA? What kind of messed up country would give that oh-so-obvious bunch of sister-fuckers any credence whatsoever, let alone be scared that they might have an effect on election results.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: AC, 12:56 GMT

      ".....oh-so-obvious bunch of sister-fuckers...." It always amuses me to hear the uninformed accidentally smearing people they probably think of heroes, such as:

      Ted Nugent, rock guitarist;

      Lee Ermey, NRA board member and the actor who played the sadistic drill sergeant in "Full Metal Jacket";

      John F Kennedy, President, kinda ironic given the whole Grassy Knoll thing;

      Theodore Roosevelt, President, and a big fan of hunting;

      Michael Moore!!! <<< yes, the really annoying, fat, leftie, conspiracy junkie;

      Tom Selleck, famous moustache (and apparently an actor);

      Chuck Yaeger, national hero pilot;

      Leigh Anne Tuohy, the woman portrayed by Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side";

      Karl Malone, famous basketball player;

      Susan Howard, "Dallas" actress and NRA spokeswoman.

      But just to make you really spit and spin, there are two US presidents that have quit the NRA after disagreeing with the NRA's policies - Nixon and Bush Snr. I bet you're squirming at the thought of being in agreement with them! Enjoy!

  37. Simon B
    Mushroom

    "Guns don't kill people" - In that case, can the idiot that said that load a gun, point it at yourself, pull the trigger and fire the weapon in to your forehead. Now, can you tell me how well you feel? Hello? hello? Oh, you're dead! How can that happen, guns don't kill people!! What a fucking moron.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Simon B

      "....load a gun, point it at yourself, pull the trigger and fire the weapon in to your forehead...." Or why not just hold the gun to your forehead and see if it fires itself? Oh, because it won't do so unless it's got a really rubbish mechanism and accidentally discharges, it requires someone - a person! - to pull the trigger.

      ".....What a fucking moron." I assume that is your signature/footer? Most apt, though I must insist you use some form of birth control as the thought of a moron like you breeding is very alarming.

      1. Bush_rat
        Facepalm

        Re: Matt Bryant

        Wow, matt you've really outdone yourself. If it weren't bad enough that you are clearly a gun nut who's smeared this article with your insanities you also, coincidently or maybe your parents planned your childhood so you'd become a spree killer, share almost the exact same name as Martin Bryant, the sole reason Australia has gun control laws that stop wackos and nutters like you and Martin from destroying the hole bloody place. 35 people dead, 35! Children, mothers, fathers even the frickin elderly. Yeah I'm happy for Americans to have guns, just not Americans like you. Police officers, army troops, people who are not just properly trained, but also clearly identify themselves as people who carry guns.

        It's truly amazing to even fathom that people like you still exist today, I'd hoped that evoluti- oh wait, why would I mention evolution to a gun toting American, sorry "god" would have gotten rid of the imperfections that turn what would be an amazing planet of people into a self murdering hole.

        Really, just take your 2nd amendment and shove it up your 2nd ass of a mouth. Just be careful, I hope your expensive shinny rifle doesn't misfire and blow your brains out, oh how that would be a shame.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Bush_rat Re: Matt Bryant

          LOL! No, please, do rant some more! I can't think of anything more likely to make a sensible person considering the issue pause and think, that maybe the anti-gun lobby are motivated by more than just "safety", than seeing your ranting, shrieking post.

          "....If it weren't bad enough that you are clearly a gun nut...." <Yawn> So everyone that actually wants to shoot for a hobby is a "nut" by your calm consideration? Good. I think I'd rather be a "nut" in your estimations, seeing as you obviously are a completely illeducated, know-nothing, bandwagon-humping, poitical fashion-victim, without a clue about firearms.

          "....almost the exact same name as Martin Bryant...." It's a nom-de-plume, from an in-joke that obviously didn't reach Trendville. Ah well, the joke probably wouldn't have travelled well anyway, not as it required a modicum of intelligence to understand.

          ".....Australia has gun control laws that stop wackos and nutters like you and Martin from destroying the hole bloody place...." Britain has very strict gun laws too, but I have firearms. I also haven't used them to kill anyone. In fact, no-one I have met at any of the rifle clubs and shooting competitions, here or in the States, has ever used their legal firearms to murder anyone. But your careful and in-depth analysis seems to have convinced you that we're all budding serial killers..... Hmmm, I think the real problem lies somewhere between your bile-speckled keyboard and the headrest of your chair. But don't let that stop you as your posts are childishly amusing.

  38. Steve Todd
    Stop

    Tell you what

    I'll challenge the NRA guy to a duel. He can have a video game and I'll have a gun. Wonder if he'll go for that one?

  39. Another User
    Trollface

    Enforce tough sentences on Video game players!

    According to the NRA it is overdue that police monitors online games and catches these miscreants.

    Next on the agenda are thoughtcrimes. Minority report will be implemented at a later stage.

  40. The Brave Sir Robin
    Coat

    They'd better ban Team Fortress 2

    'cos there's bound to be a mass outbreak of teenagers beating people to death with wet fish.

  41. Steve I
    Go

    Anyone rememebr the TV show 'Benson'..?

    Cast Member: "Remember Benson, guns don't kill, people kill."

    Benson: "Yeah - people with guns."

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    The way I see this...

    Now, I'm but an outsider mind you; in my country its not even legal to own a gun unless you have special permission to do so.

    But I can't help get the idea that the only reason these muppets never blame gun related crimes on the people who commit them is because they might still be potential customers (yeah, I know how sick this can sound).

    This is just so frickin' ridiculous. I guess its only a miracle that the hundreds (more likely thousands) of people who play or played Skyrim didn't start smithing their own swords and started on a killing spree of livestock and other people ("they were obviously bandits, my deadra told me so!").

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: The way I see this...

      ".....But I can't help get the idea that the only reason these muppets never blame gun related crimes on the people who commit them is because they might still be potential customers....." ShelLuser, apart from the fact Adam Lanza was not a gun-owner, one of the things the NRA commented on after the Sandy Hook killings was that more focus needed to be on the dangers of people like Adam Lanza from society, rather than blindly punishing gun-owners (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20815130). Of course, the NRA aren't stupid and know an appeal to logic is not going to work with the anti-gun mafia, so they decided to deflect attention to "vidoe game violence".

  43. Steve I

    Even the old 'Constitution' argument sounds weak...

    ...I mean - "I need my gun - I might need to overthrow the government`? (or 'guvmint', 'gunnerment' etc)

  44. RISC OS
    Pirate

    Why is it that...

    ...american gun nuts want to shoot guns and kill people who threaten the USA but very few sign up... and the ones that do soon start crying that they shouldn't get involved... because it hurts when they get shot.... and that they (the troops) should be brought back to the USA.... where guns don't hurt people.

    hmm... "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is agood man with a gun"... so what happened in 'nam? Iraq? Afganistan? Were all the US soldiers bad people?

  45. Justice
    Trollface

    He is right...

    I beat three people to death with a cassette copy of Manic Miner for the 48k Spectrum.

    Horrid business.

  46. Amorous Cowherder
    Facepalm

    What a load of old cock!

    No idea how string the urge is to sneak around my office building dressed in rather tight fitting, black leather armour, picking people off with my magic fire-enchanted bow and arrows...oh wait that was just me playing a character in Skyrim!

  47. DJO Silver badge

    Guns don't kill people, small pieces of supersonic lead do

    Restrict access to ammunition. Laser etch every shell with a number which is registered to a gun owner and also charge $50 to $100 dollars per cartridge but sell replacements for cost if the empty shell is returned. Also sell them unnumbered and cheap at ranges only for use at that range.

    Anyone with any unnumbered shells or the wrong numbers loses their guns for ever - after all Americans do not believe in criminals rehabilitating themselves so once they broken the law once they can never again be trusted.

    $50 to $100 per round means you can defend yourself if that’s the sort of thing you worry about, the replacement system means you can hunt but you cannot build up a huge stockpile.

    cue a load of downvotes from Americans.........

    1. asdf
      Thumb Up

      Re: Guns don't kill people, small pieces of supersonic lead do

      not from this American, neat idea even if no way it ever gets implemented.

  48. James Gosling
    Megaphone

    So long as Americans continue...

    So long as Americans continue to keep loaded guns under pillows, in their underwear draw, handbag or concealed on their person accidents are going to happen. So long as guns and ammunition are stored together lethal weapons are going to fall into the wrong hands. So long as military grade weaponry is sold for "duck hunting" or some other bullshit massacres are going to happen. And I speak as someone who is in favor of responsible gun ownership, and irresponsible gun ownership and lax gun controls are they key to Americas gun problem. Cross the border to Canada and gun crime is a rarity, even though there are still plenty of guns.

    1. asdf
      FAIL

      Re: So long as Americans continue...

      Here's the thing most people who haven't spent more than week in the USA don't get. I have lived in some of the reddest of the red states where gun ownership is near a majority and even then virtually the only time I ever see people armed are police officers. I have heard gun shots in an urban setting maybe single digit times in my life and I have lived in some very rough neighborhoods. Its not like Iraq over here. The media coverage just makes it seem so. We have 300 million+ people. You are bound to get a few retards blow up and do crazy shit. Hell it happens everywhere look at the central European and his incest sex dungeon. Gun laws might make some sense but the lack of mental health infrastructure is probably equally to blame. I just wish people commenting on the US actually come here before saying shit.

  49. mcinsane

    if video games trigger violence...

    If video games cause violence, then Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" must certainly be responsible for teen suicide. Let's go after the game makers and the schoolteachers!

  50. Majid
    Devil

    It is completely true!!

    I once saw a guy go into a gamestore, then he took a gamebox, took out the disk broke it in two, and stabbed the guy behind the counter in the heart!

    Games are bloody dangerous I tell ya.. They should be forbidden!

  51. heyrick Silver badge

    Hmmm...

    "Guns don’t kill people. Video games, [...] kill people. […] violence against its own people, through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse."

    I have GTA3 on my PS2. It is fun stress relief to whip out the samurai sword and slice people's heads off, or run 'em over. The best bit is if you engage the "follow you" cheat, they'll all come a running toward you. It is quite comic when you murder/death/kill a striking docker, the others run over alternating between rage and wanting to +1 you for life. Hehe, you can even flatten 'em with the tank, and god knows that's the most cumbersome vehicle ever.

    This perhaps points to a slightly sick sense of humour; but it in no way implies that I have any intention of harming a person in real life; any more than watching torture-porn (SAW and its many sequels for instance) would make me a psycho-slasher. I'm quite capable of distinguishing between what is real and what is not. Unlike, perhaps, the NRA spokesperson. "violence against its own people"? He does realise, I hope, that said people are just data constructions in a game, collections of pixels. They aren't American citizens, that isn't real blood, and they aren't real people.

    tl;dr: Before you complain about those of us with fake weapons (computer games), why don't you sort out the fucktards with real weapons? If I was totally delusional and wanted to take out a class of six year olds, I tell you, I would NOT get very far if I ran into a school, waved my controller all around, and kept pressing the Square button... The kiddies just won't die like that, unless they die of laughter, but that's a difference sense of the word. The people with real actual weapons. They're the ones I'd be worried about. But, wait, that's kinda the raison d'être of the NRA so........

  52. Kaltern
    Boffin

    Here's a tip for NRA people all over the US.

    Guns kill.

    Gamepads* don't.

    *(or mice & keyboards if you're part of the Master Race)

  53. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Second Amendment has many interpretations

    As lifted from Wikipedia, the second amendment has had many different interpretations by the founders of the US. All current legal interpretations from several landmark cases, hold the the part about the militia no longer applies and that the 2nd amendment applies purely to the right to "keep and bear arms".

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

    Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures

  54. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Problem is in the person.

    Sandy Brook... he wanted to kill the ENTIRE class, if he didn't have a rifle, he would of used dynamite. I for one am thankful he didn't use a biochemical agent of some sort, the whole town could of been wiped out.

    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Problem is in the person.

      We have a trifecta!

      1) Sandy Hook

      2) "...would HAVE used...", "...could HAVE been..."

      3) Wild suppositions presented as facts.

    2. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: Problem is in the society

      "Sandy Brook... he wanted to kill the ENTIRE class, if he didn't have a rifle, he would of used dynamite. I for one am thankful he didn't use a biochemical agent of some sort, the whole town could of been wiped out."

      He had neither the means nor the know-how to use a bomb or a 'biological agent' [seriously: what do you really think a high-school student was going to do to invent a plague that would kill a town?]. He had the means and know-how to use a high-capacity firearm.

      The problem isn't a pi$$ed off, moody and isolated teenager. The problem is the people who put him in that place and the fact that he could just open a cupboard and pick up his instrument of revenge.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Trollface

        Go Naive! Go!

        Want to prevent _MASS_ murder? Too bad, you can't. Don't be a fool and think you can.

        No one can prove that he wouldn't of used dynamite, poison or anything else, but many are so sure that this crime would of been prevented if he didn't have access to rifles. It's like saying the World Trade Center towers would still be standing if the mass murderers didn't have access to plans. Don't people understand, a mass murderer always finds a way!

        Dynamite, Styrofoam, Chlorine and Gasoline are much, much cheaper than a AR-15, and anyone can obtain a vehicle. Is this the chaos these people want to see? If these people keep making worldwide headlines about shit like Sandy Brook, the sooner it will come. The not so funny thing about luck is, apparently the bad versions of it can be made. If you can't understand that, then you are fortunate not to be lucky.

        Does the serious mass murderer say: "I really want to kill all of you, but I can't find ammo."?

  55. Micky Fite

    The headline is misleading. Also the Doom comment is off base. Are you seriously comparing a range simulator to a shooter that has you blowing people's heads off? Please try to keep the bias to minimum ok?

    FTR, I am a gamer, I enjoy (dispite sucking at) FPS games and I own firearms for defense and recreation.

  56. Winkypop Silver badge
    Alert

    NRA

    N U T J O B S

  57. Potemkine Silver badge

    What a bunch of retards

    Knowing these guys are armed is quite frightening...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Potemkine

      Criminals think like that too. That is why they like unarmed victims. Less hassle

  58. Steve I
    WTF?

    Scary news story..

    ...about some guy who apprehended a burglar with a shotgun he kept at home: he said that it was "the moment he had been waiting for", which speaks volumes for the attitudes of some of the gun fans - I bet he was overjoyed at the oportunity to use it!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Steve I

      He had a gun for self defence. Someone broke into his home. Yup it sounds like the guy was prepared for the situation. Compare that to if he wasnt armed I wonder how much harm/damage/death would have come to him and his family if he wasnt armed. Instead of a succeeding crime which leads to another successful criminal who may escalate we have a potential victim alive and the attempted criminal caught and hopefully rehabilitated.

      What is it US gun owners say? They dont burgle my house I have a gun. They go next door instead.

  59. Esskay
    Holmes

    Guns=power. no guns, no power.

    One aspect of gun ownership that supporters seem to forget about is the power trip that it appears to give people - Sure, if we take away guns then it would be *possible* for someone to take out other people with a knife, baseball bat, pencil, etc. But Holding a pencil doesn't give the feeling of invincibility that holding a gun does, it doesn't have the intimidation factor, nor the sense of being in the position of power in a given situation. Replace a gunman with a guy holding a knife, or whatever, and suddenly not only the assailant but the prospective victims no longer see him as having the ability to inflict damage the way he would have with a gun.

    When someone goes out to mow down civilians with an assault rifle, they're obviously not expecting them to be packing bazookas - the assumption that is made before they even step outside is that they're going to be the ones in control of the situation, and that they're going to be able to control things - replace the gun with something less intimidating and I'm betting that there will be a lot of people who wouldn't have even tried to massacre people in the first place.

    1. Psyx
      Thumb Up

      Re: Guns=power. no guns, no power.

      "One aspect of gun ownership that supporters seem to forget about is the power trip that it appears to give people"

      Yup. Give someone a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

      Give someone a firearm to defend themselves with and everything escalated into a lethal confrontation.

      Put a firearm in someone else's hands and then people assume their only motivation is to kill.

      People literally stop thinking when you give them a weapon. Taking human life becomes the solution to their every imagined problem. It's primal and it's really fucked up. You actually have to physically take the firearm away from them before they start considering other ways out and start acting rationally again. It's really weird.

      I've heard many gun-owner tales of how firearms "saved their lives" when in reality and objectively the thing they should have done was remove themselves from the situation instead of escalating it to a potentially lethal confrontation. A lot of gun owners spend far more time and money thinking about where to ambush and kill intruders than they do about buying an alarm system or thinking about how to get their family out of the house.

      1. Esskay
        Thumb Up

        Re: Guns=power. no guns, no power.

        Yup, everyone wants to be a vigilante. And pro-gun advocates seem to believe that if both the "good guy" and the "bad guy" have a gun, then that makes things even and the problem cancels itself out - but there's still the possibility that someone with a gun:

        a) Will use it where it's not necessary, which turns them into a "bad guy" according to the nightly news

        b) Will freeze up and not use it, in which case the gun hasn't eliminated the perceived threat.

        Building on the notion of "taking human life becomes the solution to every imagined problem" is the fact that a gun makes every impulsive action a lethal one. If someone has a gun in the house and catches his wife/girlfriend cheating, it's all too easy to mow down the girl, the lover, the family and finally himself. Whilst he may still act impulsively, and may still kill someone without the gun, it takes a lot more thought - pulling a trigger is in itself removed from the effect of the gun. punching someone to death requires a force equal to the effect - usually people come ot their senses or are at least able to assault someone with varying levels of damage but I've never seen someone "only half shoot" a victim, or vary the level of power in the gun whilst they're killing.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Esskay

          Wow. This is shocking ignorance and blind hatred for something you know little about. I shiver at this part-

          "If someone has a gun in the house and catches his wife/girlfriend cheating, it's all too easy to mow down the girl, the lover, the family and finally himself."

          I guess you dont have pointy things in your bubble wrapped house then? Or are you so dumb as to think gun owners are homicidal nutters but those without guns wouldnt hurt a fly? The ignorance here has shocked me. I have never read such a stupid statement.

          Your a and b choices say a lot about you too. 'a' assumes someone using it when its not necessary. In the UK there are problems around how much force you can use. Its a problem when someone is in a position to kill you but your rights are less than the criminal. 'b' assumes the need to use it, where the presence of a gun can and does save lives. Basically the coward attacking you dont wanna get shot.

          You do however show your total bias when you miss out 'c'. The point in your life I hope never comes- where your in actual danger and the assailant is a real actual threat to you or your family. In this position the criminal could be armed with anything and you are wetting your pants because a gun is too scary to think about and some guy is about to do you serious damage. And as you stand there helpless, without a chance or even a clue, you debate what would have to be different to give you a chance to live. Your right to live.

          I dont expect this will change your opinion of guns, but I hope this at least informs you of your huge hole in reasoning.

          I will point out by the way that the most violent talkers about guns are very often the anti gun nutters. It is they who talk of killing, spree killing, homicidal nutter, etc. Sounds like a fear of self. And if you think its ok to beat your girlfriend for cheating on you then its you who is the problem. And if you are that nuts you will get a knife and you will still be a homicidal nutter. Even when the police arrive after you stabbed her and her family.

          I hope you never encounter the manifestations of your own mind. And with people like you around I would feel safer with a concealed personal protection tool and I guarantee I would be prepared to defend myself and my family if you ever became a threat to them.

          See the difference?

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Guns=power. no guns, no power.

          ".....but there's still the possibility that someone with a gun:

          a) Will use it where it's not necessary, which turns them into a "bad guy" according to the nightly news

          b) Will freeze up and not use it, in which case the gun hasn't eliminated the perceived threat....."

          Sorry, but you're talking intangibles to try and justify a complete ban. Arguing against (a) is easy - statistically, there is a chance any one of us could kill someone, but I don't see any advocating a complete removeal of direct contact between humans in order to remove that risk. Too big a jump for you? Well, how about considering that statistically, there is a HIGHER chance any one of us could cause a fatal traffic accident, but again you're not advocating the personal owenership of cars is banned and only allow professional drivers to drive.

          And (b) is simply too weak for words. That's like saying some drivers faced with an imminent fatal traffic accident could panic, and not take the correct action to avoid the accident. That does occur quite often, and therefore we should again, by your argument, ban personal ownership of cars and only allow professional drivers to drive.

          But then there's even a slight problem with the idea of just leaving "professional drivers" to do the driving, as the US's worst bus accident, the Yuba City bus disaster of 21st May 1976, killed twenty-eight children and a teacher, which is more than Adam Lanza killed. So, by your argument, if we're looking to save lives, then cars, buses, planes, ships, even irregular pavement itself (http://kensington.londoninformer.co.uk/2011/04/gentle-giant-died-after-paveme.html) had better be banned.

  60. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A few statistics

    US gun deaths roughly 40 a year per 100,000 population

    UK gun deaths roughly 0.03 a year per 100,000 population

    US violent crime deaths 6.5 a year per 100,000 population

    UK violent crime deaths 1 a year per 100,000 population

    That might give some support to the NRA assertion that without guns offenders might choose other weapons - but taking that into consideration US is still 6 times as dangerous.

    NRA also states that road accidents are a significant cause of death - and we don't ban cars...

    I use my car daily to go to work, to go shopping, to go visiting. Even in America relatively few people use their gun to shoot friends, family, work colleagues more than once.

    The US constitutional right to bear arms dates back, what 200 years? It relates to the arms available then, muzzle loading flintlocks. If the right was limited to those I suspect there'd be rather fewer US firearms fatalities.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: A few statistics

      ".....It relates to the arms available then, muzzle loading flintlocks. If the right was limited to those I suspect there'd be rather fewer US firearms fatalities." The Second Amendment was deliberately vague on what arms could be covered so as NOT to limit the "militia" to outdated weapons that would leave them unable to remove a "tyrannical government".

      1. Esskay
        Facepalm

        Re: A few statistics

        Sounds like a fairly backwards and poorly thought out amendment then - something that should have had a corollary added many decades ago. There comes a point when the ability to kill 30 people without reloading or even pausing to cock a hammer is stupidly excessive - If you could go back and show the lawmakers a SAW with a 200 round magazine, or an assault rifle, or even an SMG they'd probably consider making the law a bit more specific.

        The idea that current weapons are still "in the spirit" of a law made over 200 years ago requires massive leaps of faith that aren't, by any stretch, able to be made with any merit.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: A few statistics

          ".....The idea that current weapons are still "in the spirit" of a law made over 200 years ago requires massive leaps of faith...." You forgot the example of Switzerland - a people's reserve "militia" where every male adult of serving age has a fully-automatic assault rifle with a thirty-round magazine. The difference seems to be that they simpy don't have the same incidence of nutters going on sprees with those guns.

          1. Esskay
            Facepalm

            Re: A few statistics

            I keep hearing pro-gun types complain when comparisons are made to other countries and their gun statistics - how quickly things change when one of them thinks they've got a valid argument.

            Whilst the Swiss keep a militia, it serves *in stead of* a large military force - it isn't there because people like to play with guns, it's there because, unlike the US, they don't spend over half a trillion each year maintaining a full time army/navy/air force/special forces - the role performed by Swiss militia is to defend the country - not to entertain some type of immature (in colonial terms) fear of a new born country being held hostage by its own government.

            Also, whilst there may not be as many "nutters going on sprees" in Switzerland, the suicide rate per 100,000 is 24.8 for men, and 11.4 for women. Compare that to the US (where you claim the nutters are) and that rate is 17.7 for men and 4.5 for women (source: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/). Whilst not a concrete indicator of mental health, it nonetheless serves as a demonstration of the fact that there's a great deal of mental health issues in Switzerland - but, as you pointed out, they're not going killing each other before they kill themselves.

            Mental health by itself isn't necessarily the issue - it's the culture of the US that needs to change, and tightening gun laws are the only way that's going to happen.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Esskay Re: A few statistics

              ".....Whilst the Swiss keep a militia, it serves *in stead of* a large military force....." FAIL, FAIL, FAIL! You are completely missing the point - the anti-gun crowd argue that guns = death reagrdless. Switzerland proved that merely having lots of personally held weapons does NOT mean shooting sprees, therefore it HAS to be something to do with culture and the access to weapons for the nutters. Keep the nutters away from the weapons = job done.

              "....not to entertain some type of immature (in colonial terms) fear of a new born country being held hostage by its own government....." So, realistically, who is poise to invade Switzerland? Double fail.

              ".....it's the culture of the US that needs to change...." FINALLY, some sense appears.

              ".....and tightening gun laws are the only way that's going to happen." But then the sense disappears in a typical bit of PC, jumping-to-a-conclusion. I suggest a better idea would be the long overdue appraisal of schools and how students behave and are allowed to behave for a start. Don't like bullying then deal with it properly, don't sweep it under the carpet. Don't like moody teens getting depressed then find them and treat them. Make firearms training and licences mandatory for all gun-owners by all means but at the same time identify and deal with people that are a risk to society.

              1. Esskay
                Facepalm

                Re: Esskay A few statistics

                "the anti-gun crowd argue that..." Sorry, who exactly are you arguing with?! Apparently I "fail, fail fail" because you've decided to attack a different argument?! Strawmen don't come any more patently obvious than that.

                Switzerland proves that a militia can be an effective *alternative* to an massive armed force - not that people need to keep an AR-15 under the bed in case Obama steals your children. As I said, there's a cultural difference there - the difference means that the average US citizens' "need" for guns is non-existent.

                "Who is poised to invade Switzerland" - Hence having a militia, *IN STEAD OF* a massive full time defence force. Your almost schizophrenic use of the word "fail" is becoming woefully ironic.

                Your idea is that we should "treat" moody teens - and how exactly? Teens are moody, in no small part, due to hormones. Perhaps we should chemically castrate them all? Get rid of those pesky hormones altogether? Treatment first requires diagnosis - and it's the diagnosis which, around the world, we struggle with. In the wonderful world of internet politics it may be a magic bullet, but in the real world much of the diagnosis you think needs to be implemented simply doesn't exist - it's like claiming that we can stop car accidents if only people would start using flying cars.

                You keep assuming that mental instability is the only issue - that the only reason anyone goes on a shooting spree is because, if we looked hard enough, we'd find a big mark on their forehead that said "TREAT ME". The reality is that a lot of shootings are impulsive - and people act impulsively all the time - but when you add guns in to the mix, impulsive actions become deadly. It's not mental instability - it's the way people are. For example, I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as an arrogant arsehole in your last post, but you thought someone was wrong on the internet, got fired up, and machinegunned away on your keyboard, presumably foaming at the mouth whist the letters F-A-I-L were forced into the PCB, without so much as a pause for thought.

                Treatment isn't something that can be implemented quickly - particularly in the US, where the concept of giving help to people who need it is obviously a commie construct designed to steal their precious bodily fluids. Removing guns from the equation immediately eliminates a large part of the threat from people going on a shooting spree, and even if a keyboard warrior gets fired up enough to complain about having his guns "taken away" for 7 pages on an internet forum, well I think thats a small price to pay for the safety of millions of american children.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Esskay A few statistics

                  "....Strawmen don't come any more patently obvious than that....." What, like the rediculous straw man that guns must be taken away from legal owners because just having guns in their hands means they will murder people with them? The Swiss example demonstrates that the guns do not present the problem, and that having even more deadly weapons than the semi-auto carbine used by Lanza does not mean more chance of attacks happening, and it also shows that a militia is not such a far-fetched idea even in countries that have full-time forces (e.g., the UK has the Territorials which are a similar concept) BECAUSE a full-size force, similar to that raised during a full-blown war, would cripple the economy.

                  ".....Your almost schizophrenic use of the word "fail" is becoming woefully ironic...." Your use of words like schizophrenic, which you obviously don't know the meaning of, is not helping your "arguments".

                  "..... Teens are moody, in no small part, due to hormones....." Great, so having shown how little you know about firearms and militias you now want to start on biology? This should be fun! Oh, BTW, are you saying that the "moody teens" in Switzerland, who all know their fathers have an assault rifle yet never steal it and shoot anyone, have massively lower levels of the same hormones? Beyond silly.

                  ".....You keep assuming that mental instability is the only issue .....The reality is that a lot of shootings are impulsive - and people act impulsively all the time....." So there are no mentally-ill people in Switzerland? Oh, and for you to claim it is just impulsiveness then ordinary people (because we all have impulses) would be shooting each other daily. Oh, BTW, the Columbine kids did not act on impulse, they planned their actions, gathered the weapons, and manufactured explosive devices for their spree. Adam Lanza didn't just impulsively pick up a gun and kill everyone in the room, he took weapons and ammunition and drove to the local school and specifically targeted a classroom of children. His actions, even if he conceived them originally in a rage, were planned and carried out, i.e., premeditated. If he was going beserk and wanting to shoot anyone then he would just have gone into the street and started shooting at anyone and everyone.

                  ".... if we looked hard enough, we'd find a big mark on their forehead that said "TREAT ME"....." Yeah, all those psychiatrists in the World, they just throw dice to make diagnoses - duh! Seems that we have no problem in courts deciding if people are legally sane, insane or "unfit".

                  ".....I'm sure you didn't mean to come off as an arrogant arsehole in your last post, but you thought someone was wrong on the internet, got fired up, and machinegunned away on your keyboard...." Hmmmm, maybe you should calm down and go read what you posted. You have just come up with the most rediculous reflexive arguments that have been thoroughly debunked in a flash, and you're accusing me of machinegunning my keyboard? A little look in the mirror might be in order.

                  "....Treatment isn't something that can be implemented quickly - particularly in the US, where the concept of giving help to people who need it is obviously a commie construct designed to steal their precious bodily fluids....." Oh puh-lease, leave your tired political prejudices out of it. It seems that if a court orders someone to undergo treatment it happens, so all the screening would need is that, after the complete analysis has been made after the initial tests, a court order is issued to put the "problem person" into treatment. We already do this, it's called sectioning, and it happens when someone is judged a danger to the community, the problem is we usually don't do it until after they have commited a crime. Oh dear, another one of your frothing rants debunked in a flash - I would suggest you pause to actually think before your next post.

                  ".....for the safety of millions of american children." Oh, so you're all about the safety and it has nothing to do with politics? Strange, I don't see you asking for cars to banned, maybe that's because you use one? How about cigarettes, those little cancersticks cause more death and illness and cost the States more in healthcare costs than guncrimes and car accidents combined, so why aren't you too busy shrieking about banning smoking rather than guns? In fact, if you're all about the children, why are you even posting here and not dedicating your time to saving the fifteen children that die EVERY MINUTE in the Third World from preventable diseases that cost just a few dollars to vacinate against? Or is it just that your carefully cultivated and manipulated "outrage" hasn't been pointed in that direction yet? Cretin.

                  1. Mooseman Silver badge

                    Re: Esskay A few statistics

                    All these comments about banning cars etc are plain ridiulous - you're taking a weak argument to extremes to justify your shaky case for maintaining weapons in public hands. We all know that people die in car accidents, although the numbers are dropping in relative terms every year. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. The whole issue with Sandy Hook et al (another 2 shootings of multiple victims since then have made it to the news) is that is was NOT accidental. Comparing the 2 is like comparing cheese with wombats, and equally futile.

                    Your devil's advocate stance is becoming tedious - is there any depth to which you won't sink to trawl for a response? Perhaps if the gun lobby in the US spent its budget on providing clean water and innocuations then there would be a drop in 3rd world childrens' mortality. But I see you don't consider that possibility.

                    The argument for keeping semi automatic weapons at home boils down to "cos I want to". There is no sane reason for doing so.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: Mousebrain Re: Esskay A few statistics

                      "All these comments about banning cars etc are plain ridiulous...." Why, because they destroy the argument about saving lives being the pretext? Face it, the media hype these attacks up - "defenceless, white kids get shot, evil gun-owners must be to blame, see our report at ten" - but I guess defenceless black kids in the Third World just don't make as good copy, what with it being so far from American living rooms. Especially when the answer to their issue is to put your hand in your pocket and help someone you will never meet.

                      ".....We all know that people die in car accidents, although the numbers are dropping in relative terms every year....." Still trying to justify your denial? What, are people that die in car accidents somehow less worthy than people killed by gun-crime? How about kids killed by drunk drivers?

                      ".....is that is was NOT accidental....." So the drunk that decides to drive drunk, or the guy that speeds, both are criminal acts that can lead to the deaths of others and both are deliberate acts. Do they "count" less because they didn't actually set out to kill someone? The result is the same - dead people. Oh, hold on a sec, I see why you recoil at the idea - you are a car user! So sorry to have suggested you should give up your perfectly legal and probably competent ownership of your car just because other people aren't as competent as you.

                      ".....Comparing the 2 is like comparing cheese with wombats, and equally futile....." You mean just damaging to your crusade against gun-owners? At the end of the day, if a kid gets killed in a car accident or a kid gets shot in a spree, they are both equally dead. But car accidents aren't unusual, they happen every day so they don't make the news - who cares about the drip-drip kill-rate of car accidents when we the media can go nuts about a rarer school shooting? The fact more people die every year in car accidents compared to gun-crime is "ridiculous", right?

                      ".....Your devil's advocate stance is becoming tedious...." Obviously being asked to think for yourself is a bit much effort for you.

                      "......Perhaps if the gun lobby in the US spent its budget on providing clean water and innocuations then there would be a drop in 3rd world childrens' mortality....." How about the "clean energy" lobby's money? Or what about unions, why don't they spend their money on Third World medicine? Why don't you?

                      ".....The argument for keeping semi automatic weapons at home boils down to "cos I want to". There is no sane reason for doing so." Your argument for banning firearms at home boils down to an irrational fear of guns and a hatred of gun-owners, based on propaganda fed to you by politicians looking to manipulate you. It is you that has provided no sane argument.

  61. MayorBoris
    Joke

    title

    The right to bare arms should be revoked during summer time, what with all the cancer resulting from extensive exposure to the sun...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021