245: Gunners and Gamers

[gatheringsin]

Oh, and he asked for a Sub-Machinegun as well. Oh, sorry "Ess Em Gee". He clearly doesn't know anything about guns then, because I'm fairly certain that any form of automatic weapon is illegal for civilian possession. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

It is perfectly legal for civilian to possess automatic weapons and other such weapons as long as the proper paperworks (ATF Form 4 and Form 5530-20, to include photo and fingerprints) are filed for adjudication and that the local law enforcement permission is granted.

Oh, and additional tax-stamp paid.

Your standard submachine gun will require two tax stamps at $200 each. One for the automatic feature, and one for having a short barrel as well as butt-stock (making it a Short Barrel Rifle).


In case it's not obvious yet, gunner and gamer here. Fired my first shot at the age of 7 on my grandfather's land, learned to game on NES with Mario.

Your argument boils down to one thing: that gun control will not work to prevent gun deaths.

But you're incorrect on the specifics. It's not that ALL gun control will not work. It's that INEFFECTIVE gun control will not.

The point is not gun death, but death resulting from stupidity and "bad people". Take away the guns and those two will continue to threaten the rest of us, at least with guns we have some form of protection against at least one of those causes of death.

 

[darkknight9]

Gun deaths are less necessary than car accidents, since car accidents don't involve the intent to kill.

Gun accidents, pool accidents, airplane accidents, boating accidents, they all don't involve the intent to kill. Accidents share a lack of intent. One may call them unintentional also. I won't argue the validity of vehicular homicide vs gun homicide as murder is murder. But accidents are just that. Accidents.

 

[FFKonoko]

I always thought it was pretty clear that the people arguing about violent videogames causing shootings and such were just mixing up cause and effect.
The choice between:
Violent videogame brainwashes innocent person into being a violent person, who then does violence.
OR
A violent person* enjoys violent videogams before they go through with their violent thoughts.
*Who may not ever follow up, and are frequently 'innocent' people who are just really angry or upset about something.

Random side comments with little point:
My dad did a lot of shooting when he was younger. He cannot play first person shooters to save his life. He does enjoy trying though, but only the more sedate and sneaky ones, like Sniper Elite. He also enjoyed Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, but played it in such a different way to me, hanging well back with a rifle and being extremely patient about drawing targets out. He will never be any good at Modern Warfare 2 or Left4Dead and is also the most relaxed and patient person I know.

 

[DayDark]

I once read a NRA forum, and some guy pretty much got it right, He agreed that the right to bear arms meant that there were more gun related crimes, but that it was the price to pay for the right to bear arms. I'm not really for legal gun ownership, but at least the guy didn't deny anything.

 

[bjj hero]

I really enjoyed your article Russ. Thank you very much. Unfortunately the foaming at the mouth campaigners who would ban guns, games and bad language won't get to read it. It's a shame, they would get to see that NRA members and gamers can be highly literate and reasonable.

Although I'm not a gun enthuiast I am a keen martial artist. I train 4 times a week in both grappling and striking and also happen to love fighting games like Tekken, Streetfighter and King of Fighters.

In the same way that FPS's experience does not carry over to shooting, you will not learn to be a fighter from Tekken and will not get a tight arm bar no matter how often you do it with Jin/Paul.

Having said this, even with my interests that some people would find unsavoury, I don't get into fights (I've had one scuffle in the last 15 years). I have often walked away or talked my way out of confrontations knowing I could fight my way out if needed. I have nothing to prove. If I did get in regular fights I could not keep my job.

I have a responsible job in the Criminal Justice system and regularly work with violent offenders who do none of the "violent" hobbies I love.

Maybe I could have been a gun enthusiast if I'd been born American but right now I have enough trouble fitting the hobbies I have into my daily life without adding more.

 

[iPeg]

Oh god yes! Head on nail. Or vice versa. You might want to check out my website, it's...kind of related pascaleggert.de

 

[flatten_the_skyline]

No. Putting pretty girls in adverts does not drive someone to shoot up a school. As someone pointed out, those boys wanted to do harm, plain and simple. They had access to guns, so they used guns. If all they'd had access to was pointed sticks, they'd have used them instead.

How many people can someone without proper martial arts training kill with pointed sticks?

Your argument doesn't help your case at all.

 

[Ressy]

There are four main types of gun deaths:
suicide
premeditated criminal actions
non-planned "crimes of passion"
accidents

Suicides will happen in about the same numbers regardless of the availability of guns.

Premeditated criminal actions involve someone planning to break the law, as such the legality of the tool used is largely irrelevant, though some amateurs may resort to something else since they haven't found their local blackmarket gun dealer.

Crimes of passion would probably be less deadly if there were no guns, but then again how often does a crime of passion actually involve a gun? The one that happened on the first floor of my dorm earlier this school year was committed by someone on a bad trip using a baseball bat on his roommate. Police shot him (he survived, his victim did not) with non-lethal rounds and then actual bullets to stop him.

Accidents involving guns wouldn't happen, or would happen much less often if there were no guns, this I agree with. Then again, proper training for everyone who purchases a gun legally would also cut the risk of accidents, so proper education and training would be called for here.

As far as the statistics go, the real things to compare would be the pre- and post- ban murder and accidental death rates. Obviously post-ban the gun related death rate would go down, but the real question is if people in general would be any safer, as the point of a gun ban would ideally be to make society safer.

Google up the crime rate, homicide rate, and accidental death statistics for the UK pre and post firearms ban, make up your own mind.

 

[Blackout62]

Wait a second. The picture for the article, I think I have that jacket. 2008 Banana Republic Spring Collection. She's wearing a mens jacket!

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

While, I agree Guns and Games don't instantly mean your going to run out and Gun down the nearest 7-11. Just for your Coke and Chili dogs, the second amendment is simply a useless thing now. It was written during revolutionary times, when England/France/Spain/Mexico could still go ape shit on the U.S. over land and spices. Now a days, attacks on U.S. soil that could result in a potential take over and or loss of land without our right to own a gun is nearly impossible. Sure you can argue 9/11, but honestly would guns really have helped prevent it when the planes were already in the air?

If there's one thing I've learned from my years of history study, its that the bill of rights has a few amendments that simply aren't valid any more. Mainly Quartering soldiers against our will, because again there hasn't been any wars on u.s. soil in a very very long time.

 

[shlom]

I play videogames, I shoot 3 gun ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9YYgfBpIKE ), I keep my guns in a safe, I live in California, and I vote against anti-gun legislation or legislators.

California law says that an M1A is an assault weapon if it has a bayonet lug. We don't have a problem with bayonetting in this state, but we have do have a problem with people surrendering their liberties [and mine, too!] for the illusion of safety.

 

[darkknight9]

While, I agree Guns and Games don't instantly mean your going to run out and Gun down the nearest 7-11. Just for your Coke and Chili dogs, the second amendment is simply a useless thing now. It was written during revolutionary times, when England/France/Spain/Mexico could still go ape shit on the U.S. over land and spices. Now a days, attacks on U.S. soil that could result in a potential take over and or loss of land without our right to own a gun is nearly impossible. Sure you can argue 9/11, but honestly would guns really have helped prevent it when the planes were already in the air?

If there's one thing I've learned from my years of history study, its that the bill of rights has a few amendments that simply aren't valid any more. Mainly Quartering soldiers against our will, because again there hasn't been any wars on u.s. soil in a very very long time.

And yet its odd that in the history of the decision to have the bill of rights those founding fathers that insisted it be included in the package deal did so to ratify the Constitution and to enumerate absolutely those rights which should never be surrendered. Madison originally didn't want a Bill of Rights. He said that the rights, even the unspoken ones, were understood to already come from the constitution. Luckily he changed his mind and worked to have the rights that the majority of the original colonies/states insisted be present attached to the Constitution. That we should be able to speak freely, that we should be able to bare arms for ourselves as people and not strictly for the state, the right to privacy, Grand Juries, Jury trials...

If anything, I think a case could be made that by fighting two wars overseas, and the cost associated with those actions, that taxes here have become the De Facto quartering of a soldier. I'm not saying pull the plug or anything, but someone with a bit more experience could make a compelling argument that the amount of financial strain felt by families is somewhat similar to the cost of quartering....

And you don't need a foreign power to effect an invasion that confiscates land, firearms, and personal freedoms. We have locals that are just as good for such heinous things.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-New-Orleans-Gun-Grab/dp/0970981333/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I373FBFHSIT0C4&colid=32U2UXG7DUU08

 

[darkknight9]

Just for your Coke and Chili dogs...

I just needed to add that a chili dog sounds REALLY good right about now!

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

This is a really great article! Your comparison to racing games was very spot-on and clever.

 

[wikicated]

hey Russ cool new avatar that picture of you reminds me of Kane.

anyways that was a good article, quick question did you have to hire a model for the article picture?

 

[wikicated]

I play videogames, I shoot 3 gun ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9YYgfBpIKE ), I keep my guns in a safe, I live in California, and I vote against anti-gun legislation or legislators.

California law says that an M1A is an assault weapon if it has a bayonet lug. We don't have a problem with bayonetting in this state, but we have do have a problem with people surrendering their liberties [and mine, too!] for the illusion of safety.

"A man who gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin

 

[jdun]

I really don?t want to get into this but there are quite a number of very stupid arguments that made in the forum.

Gun Myths:
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=39

1. Police are not there to serve and protect. Not in the USA and probably most of the world. They are they to ENFORCE THE LAW and MAINTAIN THE GENERAL PEACE. In the USA you can?t sue the police for failure to protect. In other words if you got killed or hurt by a criminal it is not the police fault for failure to protect.

Police aren?t bodyguards. Police don?t work for you. Police work for the government and enforce government laws. You own safety is in your own hand.

2. Rights and Privilege. The difference between rights and privilege are: Rights are in the foundation of the law, ie constitution. Rights are very hard to take away. In the USA you need 2/3 Senate, 2/3 House, 2/3 State (in some state government 2/3 of the state congress must sign off on it), and the President must sign it. In other words it is almost impossible to repeal any rights in the constitution. Government can?t tax rights. Government can?t license rights. Government can?t force you to take a test in order to receive that right. Government can?t take away your rights on a dime if they wanted too.

If it is not stated on your constitution it is not a right. It is a privilege. For example driver license is a privilege. The government can take it away for any reasons or no reason at all. You have to pay a fee/tax and go take a driving test in order to get your license. The government can pass laws through simple majority to change how the privilege works or get rid of it entirely.

Politicians are lying when they said it is a right but that right isn?t in the constitution. Any right that isn?t in the foundation of the social contract, ie the constitution isn?t a right. It is a privilege.

3. In the USA, the SCOTUS has ruled that guns are individual rights. Just like the Freedom of Speech.

4. Our founding fathers made gun right the second most important rights in the US Constitution behind Freedom of Speech. The second amendment protect the 9 other amendments from the government.

Our founding fathers gave us a way to protect ourselves and if needed to change the government.

Our founding fathers trusted the people judgments much much more then the government.

5. Gun control doesn?t reduce crime. It actually increases crime.
For example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece

5. Guns are use more in protection then in crime. Three to five times more every year. Millions American prevent themselves from being a victim every year.

 

[RelexCryo]

Russ Pitts, you are awesome.

Sadly, I am a "casual" gun owner. I bought a smith and wesson 500 for hunting and target shooting, and a mossberg 930- same reason. I read a book on handgun safety (necessary in California) but since people are not allowed to carry guns on their person in California- since we are only allowed to use them for target shooting and hunting- I never bothered getting much training in using it. My logic was that since I am not going to carry it around, and would only use it for hunting/target shooting, I would be fine as long as I only loaded it at the forest/shooting range, and never aimed it anywhere but my target until after I unloaded it, I wouldn't need it.

I would like to learn more, to become more of a hardcore gun enthusiast- but time and distance limitations keep getting in the way. Gonna have to schedule a training session eventually though- see if there is any safety tips I may have missed.

 

[RelexCryo]

I really don?t want to get into this but there are quite a number of very stupid arguments that made in the forum.

Gun Myths:
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=39

1. Police are not there to serve and protect. Not in the USA and probably most of the world. They are they to ENFORCE THE LAW and MAINTAIN THE GENERAL PEACE. In the USA you can?t sue the police for failure to protect. In other words if you got killed or hurt by a criminal it is not the police fault for failure to protect.

Police aren?t bodyguards. Police don?t work for you. Police work for the government and enforce government laws. You own safety is in your own hand.

2. Rights and Privilege. The difference between rights and privilege are: Rights are in the foundation of the law, ie constitution. Rights are very hard to take away. In the USA you need 2/3 Senate, 2/3 House, 2/3 State (in some state government 2/3 of the state congress must sign off on it), and the President must sign it. In other words it is almost impossible to repeal any rights in the constitution. Government can?t tax rights. Government can?t license rights. Government can?t force you to take a test in order to receive that right. Government can?t take away your rights on a dime if they wanted too.

If it is not stated on your constitution it is not a right. It is a privilege. For example driver license is a privilege. The government can take it away for any reasons or no reason at all. You have to pay a fee/tax and go take a driving test in order to get your license. The government can pass laws through simple majority to change how the privilege works or get rid of it entirely.

Politicians are lying when they said it is a right but that right isn?t in the constitution. Any right that isn?t in the foundation of the social contract, ie the constitution isn?t a right. It is a privilege.

3. In the USA, the SCOTUS has ruled that guns are individual rights. Just like the Freedom of Speech.

4. Our founding fathers made gun right the second most important rights in the US Constitution behind Freedom of Speech. The second amendment protect the 9 other amendments from the government.

Our founding fathers gave us a way to protect ourselves and if needed to change the government.

Our founding fathers trusted the people judgments much much more then the government.

5. Gun control doesn?t reduce crime. It actually increases crime.
For example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece

5. Guns are use more in protection then in crime. Three to five times more every year. Millions American prevent themselves from being a victim every year.

You are also awesome. I am bookmarking this page.