Another death blamed on games
- Thread starter Kukakkau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's not the game, the kid can't take loosing. Instead of swearing and punching the other kid on the arm, he blows him away with a 12-guage. Sounds reasonable.
I understand what you're saying and I do agree with you, but simply taking all the guns away now would leave the normal people to have no guns, while all the criminals keep theirs. I agree that the second amendment is a bad thing, making everyone able to have guns, but it's necessary now. The cops around my area have told local stores to actually take down their "no guns allowed" signs, because those are the stores criminals would rob. Once again, I agree it's a bad system, but it needs to be taken away carefully and gradually.Fronken said:
So... I think I got this right...
A boy and his brother argued, one of them was acidently killed during a struggle to grab a loaded shotgun. Obviously video Games are to blame.
A boy and his brother argued, one of them was acidently killed during a struggle to grab a loaded shotgun. Obviously video Games are to blame.
I must disagree, the legality of firearms is not the issue, this is not as common of an occurence as some non-Americans are led to believe. Many households keep a weapon in their house for self protection, and for the most part, I am a very firm believer in this as a safeFronken said:
tool for protection. Rather, it was a fault through the irresponsible parents that a 9-year-old boy lay dead than proper gun control.
How is it that throughout the 19th century and most of the 20th century children managed to live in houses full of available rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and we didnt have this sort of thing going on? Yet it happens today and the first thing people scream is "gun control!"
Tell me.. what exactly do you call "gun control?" I think people confuse "gun control" with "remove all guns from civilian hands entirely", because Gun Control simply means regulating guns. Requiring locked cabinets, trigger locks, and restricting some TYPES of automatic weapons is GUN CONTROL.
Saying that no one should even own a SHOTGUN is called a Gun BAN.
Shotguns and rifles and pistols are not illegal. I see no reason why they should be. If anything, gun ownership should have stronger requirements but good luck policing that sort of thing. And yet many households have guns and we dont have an epidemic of children blowing each other away, so I'm going to have to assume that owning a gun is and of itself is not a ticking time bomb to tragedy.
At any rate, banning guns is a pointless endeavor... since most criminals don't obey the law ANYWAY, what would make anyone believe that stronger gun laws would prevent them from having them? The only people who would have guns would be police officers and criminals, and civilians would be completely dependent upon the government or law enforcement for protection, which isnt an ideal scenario in my opinion.
Take Japan for instance... it' s illegal for private citizens to own guns, but gangsters and criminals seem to have plenty of them. And it doesnt stop people from getting shot.
Tell me.. what exactly do you call "gun control?" I think people confuse "gun control" with "remove all guns from civilian hands entirely", because Gun Control simply means regulating guns. Requiring locked cabinets, trigger locks, and restricting some TYPES of automatic weapons is GUN CONTROL.
Saying that no one should even own a SHOTGUN is called a Gun BAN.
Shotguns and rifles and pistols are not illegal. I see no reason why they should be. If anything, gun ownership should have stronger requirements but good luck policing that sort of thing. And yet many households have guns and we dont have an epidemic of children blowing each other away, so I'm going to have to assume that owning a gun is and of itself is not a ticking time bomb to tragedy.
At any rate, banning guns is a pointless endeavor... since most criminals don't obey the law ANYWAY, what would make anyone believe that stronger gun laws would prevent them from having them? The only people who would have guns would be police officers and criminals, and civilians would be completely dependent upon the government or law enforcement for protection, which isnt an ideal scenario in my opinion.
Take Japan for instance... it' s illegal for private citizens to own guns, but gangsters and criminals seem to have plenty of them. And it doesnt stop people from getting shot.
Good point, but they could have been arguing about anything. It doesn't matter if it was video games or not, that kid just shouldn't have a gun!VitalSigns said:
OK. Per your wishes I left your quote out.Fronken said:
You sit here and tell us all that 100 deaths by a car is somehow better and more acceptable than 1 death by a gun simply because a car is designed to travel and a gun is designed to kill? Even in pre-school math we're taught that 100>1. A life is a life, it matters little if it was lost at the violent end of a gun barrel or if it was lost in a violent driving accident.
Go ahead and ask someone who lost a child to gun violence if they'd rather have lost their child in a car wreck, I'm pretty sure the parent would say they'd rather not lose their child at all. But you go ahead and keep your opinions and I'll keep mine.
A car that is frequently used will ALWAYS be more dangerous than a gun that is NEVER used.
The issue is NOT the fact that guns are common in the U.S. I already gave an example earlier of Switzerland where all men over the age of 20 are required by LAW to own an actual assault rifle and ammo for it (which by the way is designed specifically to kill other people, unlike the rifles/shotguns common for hunting or target practice in the U.S.). So if assault rifles designed to kill people are so common in Switzerland why don't they have the problems we in the U.S. have?
By your anti-American view I'm guessing you must think the Swiss guns are safer? Maybe they shoot NERF pellets or something? I'd think the true reason is the Swiss who own those guns are far more concerned with safety and proper storage of their guns than the father in this news article. Again this shows it's not a problem of having guns, but rather a problem of that particular father being stupid in the care and storage of his gun, and he lost a son because of that stupidity.
So call me stupid all you want, and in return I'll allow myself to be /boggled that someone out there in Sweden feels that a tremendously huge number of vehicular related deaths is perfectly ok and shouldn't change, but that a much lower number of accidental gun related deaths should be stopped at all costs.
This is an unfortunate event. But as you have all stated Video Games are not to blame. Okay the father was a bit irresponseble with the gun but what really got me upset was the fact the ammo was in the gun when the boy found it.If you're going to have a gun at least keep the ammo seperate. Also would it have hurt to try and educate your kids in gun saftey.
Accidents will always happen, but lets face it, there are some things we need in order to live in the modern world, knifes for example is one of the things that are dangerous but we actually need for eating purposes (etc), a car is another one of the dangerous things we need in order to get around and ship goods across the country, a gun (that is manufactured for the sole purpose of killing) however is not something that is needed past the hunting extent, hunters need guns in order to gather meat, that i know, everyone knows that, but the average joe does NOT need a gun, as proven by the entire country of Sweden.Kuala BangoDango said:
Yeah, the parent was stupid to leave the gun out in the open, im not arguing you on that, but the parent is not the only person who is behind accidents like this one, call me old fashioned but when it comes to problem solving, the best way is to go to the root of the problem, and what is that?
Virtually non-existant gun laws.
If you make it easy as hell to get a gun, ofc everyone will want one, it would be the same here in sweden probably, which is why it would be a bad idea to even start one, but seeing as the american stupidity started way back it cant just be stopped like that, doesnt work, but a gun trade-in program or something, start removing guns from the public, because lets face it, not everyone needs to be able to have a gun, it's just stupid.
Police, military and security guards, those are the 3 i can think of right now that should be armed, those are the ones who are supposed to stop criminals with weapons anyways, not some vigilanty bullshit.
Were else would you settle a minor disput with one? Why isn't the father being charged with neglect? He left the shotgun out, other wise they wouldn't have gotten thier hands on it. This is just a case were two stupid kids are fighting over a gun because they want to play with it, and thier dumb father left it out LOADED. They're just using video games to mask the fathers neglect.Caliostro said:
Let's see... What's wrong here.
How did he manage to get the gunWhy was the gun loaded?Where were the parentsKids are impulsive and often don't think of the consequencesApparently the discharge was accidental, meaning the kid wasn't killed over a video game OR ANYTHING. He was killed because of a lapse of judgment, not maliciousness or overt aggression (the complaint often pointed at videogames)How is it objective reporting to repeat the word "game" and show a controller as its subject icon? I can just imagine growing up with our local police blotter section being headed by an NES controller
Remember how, before video games were "linked" to violence, they attributed this to lack of gun safety?Heck, before video games became the hot topic, remember when they blamed Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson, King Diamond, Ozzy, comic books, subliminal messages, dime novels, poor toilet training as a child (ala Freud)...my brain shut down... any others?The kid apparently feels guilt over it, thereby eliminating the notion that video games turn people into ruthless, desensitized killersI somehow managed to play Street Fighter and worse for years and I've yet to kill anyone
How did he manage to get the gunWhy was the gun loaded?Where were the parentsKids are impulsive and often don't think of the consequencesApparently the discharge was accidental, meaning the kid wasn't killed over a video game OR ANYTHING. He was killed because of a lapse of judgment, not maliciousness or overt aggression (the complaint often pointed at videogames)How is it objective reporting to repeat the word "game" and show a controller as its subject icon? I can just imagine growing up with our local police blotter section being headed by an NES controller
Remember how, before video games were "linked" to violence, they attributed this to lack of gun safety?Heck, before video games became the hot topic, remember when they blamed Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson, King Diamond, Ozzy, comic books, subliminal messages, dime novels, poor toilet training as a child (ala Freud)...my brain shut down... any others?The kid apparently feels guilt over it, thereby eliminating the notion that video games turn people into ruthless, desensitized killersI somehow managed to play Street Fighter and worse for years and I've yet to kill anyone
