Mass Effect being blamed for Connecticut shooting.
- Thread starter Kungfu_Teddybear
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's really actually par for the course with them.Tank207 said:
I hope they do picket, and I hope someone finally murders them and shuts them up once and for all.
I can't say I'm surprised to find people finding something to blame for such a tragedy. But can we just all stop blaming games for every major shooting incident?
wow, how nice of them collect all the idiots in one place, now if only those people were banned from internet maybe they would go out and learn something. no wait, that would actually make more serial killers because they had time to be stupid. no let them rage on the net.
The reason why you don't hear of attacks using anything but a gun or knife is due to availibility. Attacks with a knife are usually more spontaneous, because really, a knife isn't a good mass casualty weapon. With guns availible nobody thinks outside the box they provide usually, which is part of my point. Ban guns and you'll see more methods like I mentioned which can take out hundreds of people as opposed to dozens (if the shooter gets rather lucky) rather easily.Quazimofo said:
As far as your points about gun control, I strongly disagree, I feel we need to dial back the limitations that are placed on guns right now more than anything. The whole point of it being a RIGHT to bear arms is for the goverment to not have a say in the matter. The more "safeguards" for the public you put into the place, the more bureaucracy the goverment can exploit to take guns away from people or to decide who can and cannot be armed. It's not a right if you need Uncle Sam's approval.
The reason for this is that the idea of the right to bear arms is to use them on other people. The idea is that an organized police force can deal with a criminal, or even a group of criminals, but can't effectively deal with a large scale uprising that outnumbers and outguns them. That directly limits the abillity of the goverment to control the people.
It also acts as a protection of sorts against unjust laws, bureaucrats can pass any law they want, but it ultimatly comes down to the cops at the bottom of the chain to actually go out and try and make people obey those laws. This means that some law that has massive public outcry against it is going to be powerless, if the police aren't going to enforce it due to it being a death wish. At the end of the day the police, who are in danger every day to begin with, have to decide "this law is fair, and something that I am willing to risk my life to enforce". It prevents the police from fully degenerating into a goon squad aimed at a defenseless public.
I also believe that widescale public armament is also itself a deterrant. The "lone psycho" doesn't have as much of a chance when "soft" targets are a minority. Some guy walking into a mall with a pair of Glocks is going to get blown to pieces in short order if he tries to pull the kind of crap we've seen in some of these incidents if the people are armed. These problems get so bad because nobody is able to fight back, people survive by running and hiding. Ditto for a situation if we required teachers being armed as part of their job (something that has come up before actually). If all the teachers in the most recent incident were packing, this would have been an ENTIRELY differant incident.
The only limitation I believe on firearms ownership is that people should have to be trained, BUT I believe private training and certification is acceptable.
When it comes to assault weapons and such, I will be honest in saying I've never really given much of a crap. The purpose of a gun is to kill efficiently, it should be able to do this. There is a balance on this through sheer practicality, I mean just because someome can own and transport a .50 machine gun or whatever does not mean it's practical for them to do so. Just lugging an assault rifle around is a pain in tha arse, which is why the low weight (right about 6-8 pounds) of an M-16 is one of it's big selling points compared to much heavier assault rifles like the AK-47. That weight makes a huge differance when your dealing with grunts lugging their weapons over miles and miles. Most "assault weapons" for these purposes are going to be things people can practically carry with them, various compact SMGs and Machine Pistols. If some dude wants to keep an Anti-Material Rifle in his house, I really don't care to be honest, I mean WTF is he going to do with it from day to day? If he ever went berserk with it, one guy isn't going to stand off the police very long, and even if he kills a few people, that's well worth liberty and the safeguards the laws provide.
Also for the record (before someone brings it up) saying the goverment can unleash the military on the populance at any time is only partially true. We have a military made up of volunteers (as opposed to a glorified military caste) and getting the US military to fire on US citizens during a popular (key word) revolt is minimal. If they ever unleashed the sheer ferocity of their entire arsenal on the US people, it would be pointless, sure the rebels might die, but the guys they were fighting would get nothing but a graveyard in a rubble heap. You can't take over the greatest cities in the world if you carpet bomb/shell/drive tanks through all of them to overpowere rebels. Someone wanting to control the US wants things like New York Ciy, one of the greatest harbours/trade cities in the entire world, not a giant rubble pit in front of a bunch of radioactive water.
At any rate, I'm getting further and further afield, but the point is that I believe widescale armament is it's own defense. I also think that all of these psychological checks and such you propose defeat the entire purpose of a right. After all the goverment controls the bureucracy, that rapidly becomes a system it can use to justify disarming whomever it wants, and pretty much ensuring only it's own supporters and such get to be armed... that's EXACTLY why this is supposed to be beyond goverment control.
As far as increasing the mental health system, I have mixed opinions on that subject. On the surface it's a good idea, in practice not so much. Implemented in any way that could influance situations like this it would basically provide an avenue for the goverment to have anyone it doesn't like committed outside of the normal legal system, and without the usual safeguards. We already have problems with things like this, and to be honest for all the horrors that came from it, there were some good reasons why Reagan dismantled the system other than financial.
Let's say your a largely solitary guy that doesn't have friends or family to watch your back, maybe simply because of you age. The goverment finds you inconveinent (maybe they want your house which you don't want to sell for what your being offered by a developer the goverment is doing business with or something like that), they have you committed under claims of "aberrant behavior". The guy who decides whether you get out or not is a doctor receiving funding from those politicians... and it's not like you have anyone to call anyway. These kinds of situations became fodder for dramas (especially period dramas) for a reason.
To be honest, I also don't think these incidents are a problem with mental illness in any way that matters legally. The way mental illness is supposed to work in the system is for it to only matter if the person on trial is unable to differentiate right from wrong. I think too much liberalism has broadened that too much, and allowed the defense to be used for too many differant things. The guy committing your typical massacre, or a lot of other heinous crimes, knows right and wrong perfectly well, they just choose to do wrong, perhaps feeling they are doing it for the right reasons (such as revenge or justice) which means they should be in the Criminal Justice system, not the mental health system, and facing trial like anyone else even if they otherwise have problems.
I think a lot of the current problems would be better solved by simply de-liberalizing a lot of the Criminal Justice system and allowing common sense to be used... meaning things like profiling. People who scream out about profiling being racist, bigoted, etc... for whatever touchy feely reasons appeal to them at the moment have caused a lot of these peoblems. These "odd" sorts that always seemed to be "disturbing" that go on these shooting rampages and such after lurking around sending out tons of signals are pretty much the problem with not supporting profiling. Sure, we saw it coming a mile away, but couldn't do anything about it because liberals won't let the police harasss these guys. When you only let your system act 100% reactively, it means only taking action AFTER the guy goes on a shooting rampage.
The thing about the law is that it has to apply to everyone, and every situation equally. You either allow profiling or you don't, you can't pick and choose and have it be a fair law. Next time you hear about some black kids dressed like gangstas being harassed, understand that your outrage over their 5 minutes of inconveinence is also what enables the next creep everyone notices scouting a mass murder location to do his thing. Profiles don't always work (some of the worst killers have seemted totally normal, fit in, or even been very charismatic) BUT they do with enough frequency to make a differance, and some of these shootings and such could have been avoided if someone bothered to investigate. While I tend to be surprisingly more judgemental of the school system than the shooters when it comes to cases like Columbine (long story), I'd also point out that people did notice problems, but if there had ever been a formal investigation into it people would have freaked about the kids being "harassed by da man". Of course at the same time if it had ever been formally investigated someone might have also given that school system a seriously needed kick in the pants, because as uncouth as it sounds... I kind of see where the shooters were coming from. You can't allow that kind of victimization to go on and expect nothing to happen (which has nothing to do with the Connecticut shooting, totally differant situation, despite it also taking place in a school).
Such are my thoughts.
Its always the games. Its never the politicians who don't do anything, the parents who don't do anything the teachers that do nothing. People just need a scapegoat to load their failures and irresponsibility unto.
Those people can't be real. This must be a trolling campaign. Nobody is that stupid, it is simply not believable. More likely monkeys on typewriters. Working for FOX.
^this.Maxtro said:
if the shooter like lady gaga too, would we blame her as well? what about pizza, if he liked pizza is pizza to blame? gah, I can stand these ignorant fools. hey people blaming mass effect, you want to know who's really to blame? the shooter.
Hello everyone i would just like to bring attention to this http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/16/lt-paul-vance-misinformation-is-being-posted-on-social-media-sites/
It seems like somepeople are finaly getting fedup with all of the BS that's flying around
It seems like somepeople are finaly getting fedup with all of the BS that's flying around
The only thing Mass Effect can be blamed for is causing massive amounts of facepalming.
My parents blame video games for the shooting though.
However since I have fired guns before and play games...its just silly.
Games dont teach you how to focus your eyes, how to grip a gun, how to control your breathing, your stance...anything really.
Ah well most people in the world are brainless sheep who dance to whatever tune is the loudest at the time.
My parents blame video games for the shooting though.
However since I have fired guns before and play games...its just silly.
Games dont teach you how to focus your eyes, how to grip a gun, how to control your breathing, your stance...anything really.
Ah well most people in the world are brainless sheep who dance to whatever tune is the loudest at the time.
I would totally go with that, blame Lady Gaga! Just incase someone doesn't know why, she's terrible. That's not music what she makes, it's shit in audio form and also the publicity stunts and "bold" shows are just sad and pathetic. It's the perfect example of what's wrong with the modern times. They can rip anyone out of the gutter, make some beep boop crappy songs and make her wear next to nothing and bam, instant success. The people who consume that kind of goop and find if good are the same ones who bash on videogames, the STUPID PEOPLE. Nowadays I very seldom even turn on the telly because nothing of intellectual value is on anymore, just some "Reality TV" shit which is below all standards of quality for TV programming. Watching that WILL make people more stupid and passive. I'm just glad I don't have to put up with such crap anymore. It's all about quality entertainment for me, real music f.e. from 70's and quality documentary on things one can learn from.
GET AWAY FROM ME!!
Shocking! A bunch of obviously opinionated and unintelligent people reacted badly to a piece of irrelevant information that is just barely related to a recent tragedy?! But that NEVER happens!
The good news is there probably aren't actually that many of these people out there, they're just the most loud and obnoxious. The bad news is they're allowed to breed.
The good news is there probably aren't actually that many of these people out there, they're just the most loud and obnoxious. The bad news is they're allowed to breed.
Well I think it was Mass Effect. Maybe if it had a better ending he wouldn't have done what he has done...
I heard he also read the Bible. Probably all the misogyny and violence in there caused him to kill children. The Bible, unlike Mass Effect, condones this act.
I love to savor delicious irony. You call out the people who bash video games while bashing the people who like Lady Gaga. I am no fan of Lady Gaga, but I do have the good sense not to denigrate someone as a person because they do.Istronen said: