><
why is it that people automaticaly assume that gun control = total ban on guns?

Also, i agree that it was just stupid of the UK to ban guns, especialy when you consider that australia just placed restrictions after port arthur happened and it basicly put an end to crazy people shooting places up. most gun deaths in australia are suicide, but very few suicides are from guns. And most of the homicides are from gangland killings that have origins that predate the gun control laws.

sorry if i am repeating, but people seem to have trouble getting that even minor restrictions may ctualy reduce gun deaths. A gun buyback amnisty that covers illegal weapons would help to get a number of illegal weapons off the street.

I agree with everything apart from the amnesty. The knife amnesties in the UK have universally been met with no reduction in knife crime.

That just reminded me about the What knife do you carry? thread. Some of the posts in there were a little worrisome.

We've already determined that it's easy to acquire firearms illegally. Increasing restrictions would, in my opinion, be a knee-jerk reaction and would not be effective.

Remember what was said about the state of Vermont? The guns themselves are not the problem.

Saying that "everyone should be given guns" is the same thing as "rapists, serial murderers and thieves should have guns". Giving someone a gun doesn't mean s/he can automatically become Lucky Luke and stop evil guys from being evil.

And of course, knowing human nature in general people things would pretty soon result in anarchy. Or perhaps a gunarchy would be a better word for that.

Oh well, guncrazy warmongerer methods for guncrazy warmongerers :downs:

(I'm not for total ban of guns, that would be insane. Only reasonable people should be allowed to have them. How would that work in practice? Well hallelujah, find it out in History of the Human Race: Deleted Scenes!)

I'd like to see how Jack Thompson puts the cause of this on computer games after the videos, pictures and voice recording were released.

Well, he's a charlatan (and unlike most murderers I use this word correctly) so I imagine his answer is to not talk about it at all.

No video games found at all:
http://gaygamer.net/2007/04/warrant_reveals_no_games_in_ch.html

The Phelps to protest:
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=OJ1936391F&news_headline=religious_group_to_protest_at_virginia_tech_funerals

So that takes care of Jack Thompson. Now we just need to get rid of the Phelps.

Even Jack Thompson is tolerable compared to those Godbotherers.

darn godbotherers.

Fortunately, now that NBC has releasesd Cho's comments in which he claims he has "die(d) like Jesus Christ" all the people who were still holding out hope that he was a Muslim get to shut up as well.

It bothers me how a religious group which claims to follow Christ can act like a bunch of jackasses about people being murdered. It reminds me of medieval thinking.

Amazing. FOX might actually run out of stereotypes to perpetuate.

The Westboro Baptist Church is all Fred Phelps and his family. They don't follow God, they follow Fred. It's basically a cult.

Oh, and Jack's not giving up yet, but Chris Matthews wants none of his bull****.

Oh dear God i'd love to see that man in the street so I could punch him in the mouth. It's not because he's having a go at games (and once upon a time I was rather into them) it's because he's just making stuff up that it riles me so much.

What a toolbox.

mantrain smash?

Are any Counter strike players actually calm? And I don't imagine Cho Seung-Hui did a lot of jumping while screaming "***!"

Silly JT.

Cho wasn't using a deagle or an AWP, so it had nothing to do with CS.

No dual berettas too. They were the shiznit.

He used a glock, which any seasoned cs player would know, is not the gun of choice when looking to kill a large number of people.

All asshattery aside, I would love to see JT explain how you "rehearse" this sort of thing on de_dust. And that whole thing about how the other guy trained on the Columbine Massacre game... wasn't that some crappy flash based game anyway? How the hell does that count for anything?

The best thing about it is the fact that he looks at this tiny handful of individuals that have killed other people and blames it all on videogames. Yes, he "specializes" in school shootings, but did he ever take into consideration the reason most of the school shootings coincide with violent videogame playing is due mainly to the fact that the majority of america's youth plays ****ing videogames?

It's designed in the style of old Super NES RPGs, for ****'s sake.. It couldn't possibly help you train to do anything but press arrow keys.

I wonder how many violent incidents have resulted from television appearances by disingenuous jackasses.

JT blaming videogames based of the fact that most school shooters have played violent videogames is like saying that most school shooters drink soda. Who doesn't at this age?!

No wait guys. I think he's right. You see, a few months ago, I played the new Cheese slicer 300 demo. . .And look what happened to me!!!

I play enough fps games to get a decent number of game companies sued if I ever went on a rampage. I play them pretty constantly, and after a while, I'm usually pretty good at them. I still suck at Stalker, but I have been too busy lately to get any good at it (shut up, landfish).

Interestingly enough, I have played over 100h of Battlefield 2, which is far more realistic than CS:S, and when my brother and I went to the shooting range last weekend, I did merely Ok. Each of my targets had 2 or 3 holes in the -0, 4 or 5 in the -1, and only about 2 or 3 in the -2. Not all that good. And these were standing still, which I'm sure most of the students this wacko shot were not. My point is, being that I play a lot of FPS games, wouldn't you reason that I would be able to go in to the range, pick up that .44 magnum, and shoot two full cylanders into either of the -0 areas on the target? I didn't think so.

Maybe it's because I didn't play all the way through GTA:SA.

I saw these graphs in articles about video games and violence, and thought that they were funny. The numbers were from the Department of Justice and pretty much say it all.

Man Jack Thompson is STILL saying Cho was "immersed" in CS even though there is NO evidence he has played since high school.

And I refuse to believe you can "train" on a video game. I've killed jillions of people in video games, but I would freak out if I shot someone in real life.

Rofl, like playing counterstrike can help you move around quickly and calmly and shoot people accurately. This guy is seriously making stuff up. Its good someone put him in place a little more.

After read they're quotes, I have to wonder.. are they all twelve?

Yeah it's not like there is a precedent of gun violence. In regards to Vermont so a 1/50 success rate is good enough? Australia and Japan have strict gun laws and the rates of gun crime and homicide are lower than the US.

I've already stated the guns weren't the problem, people are. But until people can be trusted not to be morons, access to dangerous things (like guns, drugs etc) should be restricted. Say it with me: gun control is not about banning guns, it's about proving responsibility. I don't know why you wouldn't want to make people undergo training, extensive background checks and cool-off periods before they're allowed to own a gun.

If access to illegal firearms is easy, isn't that what you're paid to do something about? Wouldn't doing something about that make your job easier? Your defeatist attitude certainly wont be making anyone safer.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/hardball/clip-jack-thompson-gets-hardballed-253501.php

Jack Thompson saying CS is the cause of all this, and floundering as he's shown to not know what he's talking about.

Where did I say that I do not want people to take firearms training? Quote me.

There are already waiting periods in place to purchase handguns. As far as your 'responsiblity' comment -- what about alcohol? That kills more people in this country than legal firearms do. We have much more of a DWI problem here than an illegal firearms problem.


We don't have that problem up here. So, to answer your question, no it isn't.

omgoldnewz

Well it depends on how much responsibility you want. Background checks, ok, and a class, cool, but seriously, after so much hassle, you're looking at the law of decreasing returns. I mean, yes guns are dangerous, but it's very easy to take care of them if you're at all responsible or intelligent. If you don't catch on soon, you won't catch on at all.

Yeah but alcohol usually kills the end user, not 32 of his colleagues.

Unless that's some mighty fine tequila you're drinking

(Unless DWI is drink driving, but then that's another culture problem and it's about to overtaken by driving whilst holding a cell/mobile phone anyway)

sad, but so true. ; ;
i hope the phelps have something valuable in their house get hit by a small meteor. (as small meteors are actualy cold when they hit as the hot parts get ablated off in the atmosphere)

fox news will never run out of stereotypes to perpetuate. they could even invent one if they wanted to.

Waiting period? But I guess you're right. If it doesn't concern you directly, then it's not worth caring about.

No. My point is, I can go to a gun shop and get a gun with the requisite background checks and taxes and such for a lot of money and a pretty good wait. Or I can go buy one out of the back of a van for less money and no wait.

Which one do you think gun related laws would affect?

See my point?

The problem isn't gun laws. You don't get it, I'm all for sensible gun laws. What I'm not for is things like the assault weapons ban or basically any Brady law. So many gun restrictions are inane and stupid, and only take focus away from ways we could REALLY keep deadly weapons out of criminals hands. My big point is, background checks and such aren't going to do **** for most crimes, and they waste resources that could help take care of Dave who sells guns out the back of his station wagon.

but if you had a gun buyback program with an amnisty, dave could give his weapons in and get the money all at once. he would do it because unless he was doing it for the mafia, he would find it easier than selling them one at a time and risking a bust by the police. I also think that gun manufacturors are making far too many guns than are needed. because the amount of guns in the US, if you include the ones in stores, is probably so great that if it were any other market using that method, they would have run themselves out of buisness due to arket floodage.