U.S. Senator Takes Pro-NRA, Anti-GTA Stance

[anti movie bob]

I wish these old stupid backwards ass politicians would die out already

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

So easy access to weapons and mental health problems isnt the problem, its video games thats the real reason. Ok, so when GTA5 is released i expect thousands of nutcases shooting up schools and malls and everything else. I bet more people have killed in the name of religion, relationship issues, road rage or a plain "you spilt my drink" attitude.

I dont get the whole attitude with some americans. Gun control doesnt mean ban. If you are a responsible person, have no mental issues, criminal background then you have nothing to worry about. Its like people in the UK bitching about speed cameras, if you dont speed aka break the law, then you have nothing to worry about. lol

 

[Jamese054]

I think 'Popcorn' by Ben Elton's quite relevant here ;
"so far no one has claimed responsibility"
http://www.gramotey.com/?open_file=1269021757#TOC_id3052681

 

[blackrave]

Actually, the shock and impact of the bullet puncturing the body and severing nerves and blood vessels sustaining the ecosystem that keeps the subject alive kills them, not the bullet. The bullet may instigate this phenomena, but it needs to be explosively discharged, usually through a hollowed out tube, to perform this task. This tube is mounted on a frame which houses a mechanism to discharge the bullet through the tube, which when properly aimed, is directed towards the target and causes said rupturing of blood vessels and severs the aforementioned nerves on impact. Whether it kills the subject is highly situational and dependent on where the bullet enters: the puncturing of a place like the skull will more likely kill the subject than the puncturing of an arm. It's possible to survive either if treated correctly: most of the time however, the subject will suffer from a hemorrhage and die before treatment can be provided in the headshot case.

One more thing: I'm not one of those hippie types either: I own a personal sidearm by necessity due to the fact that I live in a bad neighborhood. Knowing how to own, operate, and store such things responsibly is key to preventing incidents like the Connecticut case from happening again.

I guess that we're both right, seeing as the bullet still 'kills' the person by enacting destruction on vital bodily systems. But the bullet must be launched from a gun. And the gun must be operated by a human. Ergo, all three kill people.

Man, you're both soooooooo wrong
REASONS kill people
.
.
.
.
.
.
What? Don't stare at me like I'm insane.
I don't need a gun or any weapon at all to kill another person.
I just need a really good reason.

P.S. Or one could say that people kill people. It's also true.
P.P.S. I know how to solve mass shooting problem. LET'S BAN PEOPLE!!!

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Neither guns or games should be banned, but I see his reasoning. Guns save more lives than they take in the US. They are used thousands of times every day to protect innocents.

Grand Theft Auto is just violent entertainment. It's violent entertainment that I have a damn fun time with, but that is what it is.

But that's not true. I (THINK) that there in about 1.5 percent of gun related crime, a citizen with a gun saves the day. That is an absolutely tiny number, and far more people are killed due to nuts with guns.

I can't find a more recent statistic, but in 1995 it was found that guns were used in self defense 2.5 million times per year on average in the United States by a study called "The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" by Professors of Criminology Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

Those statistics aren't likely entirely correct today, and I have heard complaints that it has a bit of a broad definition of defensive use, but unless those discrepancies drop defensive use from millions to less than 11,000 then guns are used defensively much more often than offensively as around 11,000 die from guns every year. You'll note this is vastly less people than who die from car accidents, tobacco, alcohol, obesity, preventable disease, ect.

Then there is the fact that it is very easy to get illegal things. I have illegal plant matter within a few feet of me in a drawer. If I so wanted I could get access to just about any illegal thing that exists with a couple phone calls. Criminals will be able to get guns. It might take a little longer, but they'll have them (and it will be easier for underage people to get guns as criminal suppliers don't card). In the long run, the question to ask before deciding whether to outlaw or keep a gun is this - do you want to give criminals a monopoly on deadly force? There are more criminals than there are police, but there are more law abiding citizens than there are criminals. Why not take advantage of the numbers provided by allowing citizens to be armed legally?

But it still doesn't take a genius to know that if NRA representatives got shot then maybe then they'd see why assault rifles (at the very least) should be banned and violence should be kept in video games and away from fellow human beings.

Probably not, because if you shot at someone in the NRA they would use a gun to defend themselves, and probably drop you before you actually fired off a shot that hit them at all (considering that you're anti-gun, I doubt you've trained accuracy much), because that's what happens when you try to shoot a citizen with a concealed carry license and training with his firearm - you take your rightful place six feet under for your efforts.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Joe Manchin.

Joe. Manchin.

Joe. Man Chin.

Joe MAN CHIN.

Are you sure his name isn't Roll Fizzlebeef? Or maybe Slab Bulkhead? Butch Deadlift?

OT: Ban GTA??? Ugh, that is [i/]so[/i] 2005, girlfriend.

 

[Your Gaffer]

Some of these guys still think its the 90's and that video games make an easy scape goat. That is just not true today like it was 10 years ago.

WoW players are getting elected to public office. The average age of gamers is somewhere in the 30's. More people play games today, across a wider section of society, than ever before. You don't see anyone calling out violent books, and violent movies and TV shows are rarely called out.

This scapegoating means nothing, will go nowhere, and just makes the elected official who spouts them look like a dumbass.

 

[Falsename]

And let's say you're right and that sick people would only use other weapons of destruction..... why not take guns away anyway? What do you lose?

I lose an effective means to protect myself.

If you want guns because "sick people will just kill anyway" then you're ignorant. Join the rest of the world.

A firearm saved my life. If it weren't for guns, I wouldn't be able to join the rest of the world at all.

All you need to do is compare other countries with stricter gun control to yours and you'll know that you're wrong. There's no two ways about it, this isn't one opinion vs another, you are wrong.

Other countries don't need guns for the populace to feel safe, America simply has a love affair with firearms and they're not willing to let go of them.

If a child in the playground is throwing rocks, the solution isn't to give the other children rocks aswell.

Sure, there might be a very small number of people who managed to use a gun in the appropriate way, but that wouldn't even compare to the numbers of incidents that just wouldn't have happened outright. Prevention is a more effective tool that any gun.

Sorry but you're wrong. Statistically proven.

 

[Sylveria]

I think that Ronald Regan said it even better than I could.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/393049_307355569382101_763328734_n.jpg

Its funny how the republican right holds R.R. as some patron saint.. except when he says things that contradict with whatever agenda they want to push. Kinda like they do with the bible.

 

[Falsename]

-snip-

 

[Falsename]

All you need to do is compare other countries with stricter gun control to yours and you'll know that you're wrong.

No, I'm not. If I didn't have access to a firearm, I'd be dead. The person I held at gunpoint even said it straight up when questioned, he was going to kill me.

Sure, there might be a very small number of people who managed to use a gun in the appropriate way

and what do you have to say to us?

Sorry but you're wrong. Statistically proven.

This is my life I'm talking about. If it makes me biased, so be it. I'm alive because I was legally allowed to use a firearm as a private citizen. All the stats in the world don't change that anymore than my one poor little pitiful life changes a statistic.

Try not to take what I say now too personally.

See things from a wider perspective than yourself. You saved yourself from a man with a screwdriver, congratulation, but the accessibility of guns also allowed a certain someone to go an a massacre at a school.

Consider two options:
1. Is a a world where you have a gun to protect yourself and you did in fact save yourself from screwdriver weilding menaces, but there are also mentally disturbed people/extremists/gangs and other unsavoury people with just as much access to weapons. One even more powerful that what you used to defend yourself.

2. Is a world where guns are far less accessible. All those rather questionable people don't have guns, but neither do good people such as yourself. Maybe you were robbed and killed, maybe you weren't. You can never tell with how a situation will play out if indeed it's factual.

I know which option I'd take.

The easy access you have to firearms is exactly what lead to the recent horrific incident in your country. It's a 'for the greater good' thing than 'I wanna protect myself'. There are other ways to protect yourself after all.

Don't take what I've said as a personal jab at you, it's not. It's trying to show you the wider view of the rest of the world than just how guns affect you and make you feel safe.

The whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" phrase is false. People do kill people because they HAVE easy access to firearms. And just because you use that easy access for your own defense that sure as hell doesn't mean that's what everyone else is doing.

 

[Sylveria]

And let's say you're right and that sick people would only use other weapons of destruction..... why not take guns away anyway? What do you lose?

I lose an effective means to protect myself.

If you want guns because "sick people will just kill anyway" then you're ignorant. Join the rest of the world.

A firearm saved my life. If it weren't for guns, I wouldn't be able to join the rest of the world at all.

All you need to do is compare other countries with stricter gun control to yours and you'll know that you're wrong. There's no two ways about it, this isn't one opinion vs another, you are wrong.

Like Norway? They have some darns strict gun policies, surely that means they never have some nut with a gun go on a rampage OH WAIT it did and he killed more people than we did in the mass shootings the US had in the past 2 years combined. That was one guy with illegally acquired arms, IEDs, and a whole boat of crazy.

 

[Falsename]

And let's say you're right and that sick people would only use other weapons of destruction..... why not take guns away anyway? What do you lose?

I lose an effective means to protect myself.

If you want guns because "sick people will just kill anyway" then you're ignorant. Join the rest of the world.

A firearm saved my life. If it weren't for guns, I wouldn't be able to join the rest of the world at all.

All you need to do is compare other countries with stricter gun control to yours and you'll know that you're wrong. There's no two ways about it, this isn't one opinion vs another, you are wrong.

Like Norway? They have some darns strict gun policies, surely that means they never have some nut with a gun go on a rampage OH WAIT it did and he killed more people than we did in the mass shootings the US had in the past 2 years combined. That was one guy with illegally acquired arms, IEDs, and a whole boat of crazy.

Saying it doesn't happen is a bit of a desperate attempt to win an argument. No one can say with certainty what will or won't happen.

But you can't tell me that ALLOWING that crazy person access to guns would have HELPED the situation!

And no don't say that "someone else with a gun could have taken him down first" because that's not a well thought rebuttle. That's a condition Americans (sorry to play on a stereotype) have that they want to be a hero and save the day. Guns kill, they don't save.

 

[Falsename]

You're kidding, right? What about that gunshow loophole?

Prepare for a shock; I detest that loophole. I want it closed.

Gunshows have to be cracked down on.

Reports (foreign reporters) have gone to America and have shown how easy it is to by high powered, fully automatic rifles.

So they....

A: Went through the lengthy screening process
B: Filled out all the paperwork and forms
C: Was purchasing a full automatic made before 1986.
D: Paid all the taxes required on the weapon.
E: Bought the specialized safes for the weapon (standard gun safes are not up to code to hold it).
F: Registered themselves with the multiple law enforcement agencies that are required to be notified of your possession of the weapon and it's serial number

Oh wow. I thought I was debating with an intelligent person with differing opinions. Turns out you're another (imagine a word that's insulting) who will give up guns "When dey pry 'em from ma cold, dead hands! Also, Da Gov'ment is gonna attack it's people we gotta be ready fo' 'em when dey come!"

Wrong again.

Government has nothing to do with why I own a firearm. I explained. I live in a country where the police can legally sip coffee and watch while I get murdered. I live in a country where things like a 911 call are a roll of the dice as to whether or not someone will help. I live in a country where even if the police do help, they'll take hours to get there when I have seconds to live. I live in a country where a restraining order doesn't even have to be enforced. I live in a country where the only people the police are legally required to protect are prison inmates.

THAT'S WHY I OWN A FIREARM. I do not buy into this militia "we gotta fight da gub'ment" claptrap. Get it?

Another Yank who wouldn't give up his guns even if he was ordered to.

I'll tell you what.

You get my country to legally require the police to respond to a call for help, to actually protect the citizens and live up to that "Serve and Protect" written on the cars, to actually enforce legal restraining orders, and you know what? I'll surrender all three of my firearms.

How's that grab you?

Just to clarify they didn't go through the proper channels, they just said to a few people... "Where can I buy a gun". Few minutes later he was showing off a fully automatic rifle in his car to the camera.

And how's that grab me? It doesn't; logical facts bounce off your stubborn shell like tennis ball off a racket. You're not debating you're just yelling at people for not believing in your own opinions. I'm done arguing with you.

In the end logical people know the harm of firearms.
Enthusiasts will continue to fight against logic so they don't lose their toys, because guns are cool and fun!

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but after everything that's happened recently (past few years) if your opinion hasn't been changed it says more about what kind of person you are than what you believe.