Tbh, I think experience evolves life. What I'm trying to say is... that when somebody has a aggresive nature, that either can be stimulated or toned down. Certain experiences and methods happened in that somebody's life either stimulate or tone down that aggresive nature; this is different for every person, it's one of those things that make us unique and complicated beings. Anyways, I do think violent games can stimulate aggresion if that persons 'refencechart' (hopefully you know what I mean, can't get the English word for it) is completely messed up due taken experiences in life. Humans are emotional beings, and when you're not stable... you can very easyly be influenced. However, I wouldn't go as far as say 'games create violence' simply because that depends on the person - and luckyly most people have a decent enough sense of mind to know what's right from wrong.

Qft.

You missed my point entirely. The point I'm trying to make is that people love to put the blame on whatever they can. Yes, firearms certainly make killing someone easier, however statistics clearly show that firearms do not contribute to crime. In fact, the FBI's latest crime report shows, that despite gun ownership in the US being at an all-time high, murders are down 43% since 1991, and violent crime has dropped 38%. Also, versus national average, right-to-carry states (states that allow you to carry a firearm in public) have a 28% lower murder rate, 50% fewer robbery incidents, and 24% lower overall violent crime rates.

I'm not trying to sway your opinion on firearm ownership necessarily, but mass media loves to paint an inaccurate picture of things. Let's not point the finger at guns or at violent games. There was something clearly wrong with this guy, and chances are he would have harmed someone in his lifetime, with or without a gun and without ever playing a violent game.

What? Guns don't contribute to crime? Even a single killing with a gun is by definition a "contribution to crime" so I don't get what you're trying to prove here. I seriously can't grasp why people (like you it seems) defend America's gun policy. And statistics can prove just about anything, do you think those gun related killings would be higher if guns were outlawed? I don't.

What? Guns don't contribute to crime? Even a single killing with a gun is by definition a "contribution to crime" so I don't get what you're trying to prove here. I seriously can't grasp why people (like you it seems) defend America's gun policy. And statistics can prove just about anything, do you think those gun related killings would be higher if guns were outlawed? I don't.

Okay, perhaps a better word choice would be "cause" rather than "contribute". If you were somehow to disarm the entire US (technically impossible), yes, murders would drop by some degree. However, other violent crime such as rape would likely rise. Even more so, crimes like burglar would certainly rise by removing a major deterrent factor. I wasn't trying to sway you, only saying that people are blaming the wrongs things, but you had to go there

What really strikes a nerve with me is how much some people want to take away guns. How fair is it to strip the law-abiding populace of a right just because a handful of psychopaths choose to abuse it? Are we just gonna get rid of everything even slightly dangerous? We live in enough of a shelter society as it is. Heck, cars kill far, far more people than guns. But people view cars as essential, and would not dream of taking them away. Yet guns seem less important, so some people are willing to get rid of a "nuisance" for a little extra peace of mind.

Not to mention the impossible act of disarming the US populace without resorting to brutally oppressive measures. And just because there is a law forbidding gun ownership doesn't mean criminals are gonna obey that. Drugs are banned, but they don't seem to be in short supply. India has a strict gun ban law, but that sure didn't stop a small group of terrorists from killing 179 people - basically unarmed sitting ducks. So yes, lets give up any ability of defending ourselves for a false sense of security. Virtually every shooting massacre has occurred where law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to carry guns.

Then there is the economic factor. The firearms industry employs millions of people, directly or indirectly. Cutting them out of the picture would be economic disaster. The job market is terrible here and the only source of reliable income I have found is running a rifle range during the summer. So yes, lets ban guns and screw people like me out the only job we can find. People make a living manufacturing guns, selling guns, hunting and other things.

Finally, an armed populace is a check against government oppression. Many brutal dictators throughout history would not have been able to maintain power if they had not disarmed their populace first. This country would not have even existed if it weren't for armed civilians. It's a part of our heritage, and taking it away carries the chance of sparking another civil war.

What works in your nation doesn't mean it will work in ours. So it would be nice, even if you don't agree, to at least respect our rights and beliefs.

"Locks were made to keep honest people out"

Why did this turn from "priests should stop being hypocrites by owning guns" to "nobody in the U.S. should own guns"? 'Cause didn't hear anyone saying that.

Some dude who won't even let his kid play Halo has absolutely no need for a firearm. It's obviously not for self defense either, because how the hell are you going to thwart burglars if it takes five minutes to unlock your weapon?

It's not that nobody should own guns, rather it's this pervasive mentality in most areas of the country that it's almost vital to own one, even if you have absolutely no reason for it. People all over are packing heat and have nothing to do with it, so crazy shit like this ends up happening. I think it's perfectly fine if some gun-crazy redneck has hundreds of guns stashed around his house, because those are usually the kinds of people that actually know how to use them. Your average guy or girl just ends up hurting themselves with them.

I think the kid killing his mother has nothing to do with video games. It can't be... It sounds so stupid and unreal. He must had a some kind of big psychological tragedy or something before. Maybe his parents were too strict on him, they sounded too religious to me.

Heck, cars kill far, far more people than guns. But people view cars as essential, and would not dream of taking them away. Yet guns seem less important, so some people are willing to get rid of a "nuisance" for a little extra peace of mind.

Without actually having an opinion on gun control, you can't really make a comparison between a car and a gun since the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot people.

Tbh, I think experience evolves life. What I'm trying to say is... that when somebody has a aggresive nature, that either can be stimulated or toned down. Certain experiences and methods happened in that somebody's life either stimulate or tone down that aggresive nature; this is different for every person, it's one of those things that make us unique and complicated beings. Anyways, I do think violent games can stimulate aggresion if that persons 'refencechart' (hopefully you know what I mean, can't get the English word for it) is completely messed up due taken experiences in life. Humans are emotional beings, and when you're not stable... you can very easyly be influenced. However, I wouldn't go as far as say 'games create violence' simply because that depends on the person - and luckyly most people have a decent enough sense of mind to know what's right from wrong.

+1!

+1!

+1!

For those who respect games, they release a lot of stress. They also provide safe environments to kill people. We are a very violent species and always have been for thousands of years.

Violence will always be around, we just have a more civilized way of taking care of our urges for destruction.

Kids who want to kill more should learn how to map. so then can kill as much as they want, how they want.

Without actually having an opinion on gun control, you can't really make a comparison between a car and a gun since the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot people.

Erm...hunting? Target shooting? Guns are used far more often for sporting purposes. Rifle shooting does happen to be an Olympic sport after all.

Kids who want to kill more should learn how to map. so then can kill as much as they want, how they want.

lol, like that kid who mapped his school and ended up getting arrested? Poor guy, we live in such a paranoid society

Guns are good if you live in remote areas and have to defend yourself against bears, coyotes, lions, assorted mountain cats, vampires, etc.

Erm...hunting? Target shooting? Guns are used far more often for sporting purposes. Rifle shooting does happen to be an Olympic sport after all.

You're right, and those people have another reason to keep a gun. However, I can't see what all those people who's keeping a pistol in their suburb closet without hunting or target shooting etc would use their gun for except shooting people.

India has a strict gun ban law, but that sure didn't stop a small group of terrorists from killing 179 people - basically unarmed sitting ducks. So yes, lets give up any ability of defending ourselves for a false sense of security.

By your analogy, the people on the planes used in 9/11 should've fended off the hijackers too, but they couldn't because they had no weapons. So much for owning a gun.

Hotels, Planes and other situations where firearms, legal or not, are forbidden can hardly be used as a good way to prove a point on gun ownership.

They got they're weapons in another country, so you can't really apply that case. Neither can you argue that the unarmed citizens would be able to do anything if they owned guns. I've never heard of anyone who takes their guns to Hotels with them.

Guns can be good for the home, assuming you get to them before the Burglar gets you, but you seriously can't apply your analogy to everywhere, because nobody, not even Rednecks, take their guns everywhere.

Say someone breaks into your house and you get your gun. All he would have to do is to run away. It's not like you could shoot him. Your gun wouldn't help at all.

Say someone breaks into your house and you get your gun. All he would have to do is to run away. It's not like you can shoot him. Your gun wouldn't help at all.

It would help, and you just proved it yourself. Just because you didn't shoot him doesn't mean you didn't use your gun.

You used it in the sense that you scared the guy away. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you have to shoot someone. The fact people are intimidated by it (I know someone's going to use this against me / others who are pro-gun) means that it's done it's job and has served it's purpose.

By your analogy, the people on the planes used in 9/11 should've fended off the hijackers too, but they couldn't because they had no weapons. So much for owning a gun.

That doesn't make sense. If someone had been armed on those planes, then they probably would not have been successfully hijacked. That's why they have air marshals now and why pilots are allowed to keep a sidearm in the cockpit.

So I don't know what you were getting at, but my analogy applies to this situation as well.

But he would run away when he saw you even if you didn't have a gun.

But he would run away when he saw you even if you didn't have a gun.

Not all criminals are cowards.

I still don't know what you base that off of.

Say someone breaks into your house and you get your gun. All he would have to do is to run away. It's not like you could shoot him. Your gun wouldn't help at all.

He could could try to run, lol

You pretty much can't get away with killing someone just because they broke into your house, from what I understand. They're in the graveyard and you're in jail.

Say someone breaks into your house and you get your gun. All he would have to do is to run away. It's not like you can shoot him. Your gun wouldn't help at all.

The quickest way to find out if someone has a gun is to threaten them. And more than likely, if someone breaks into your house, they will have some kind of weapon. The only exception is if you can catch the my him off guard, EG: behind them.
Also, I don't know where you get off saying "it's not like you can shoot him". You would have to be an idiot not to shoot him, and let him get away.
Again, it's just stupid to think that the criminal has no weapon. If they pull a gun, not have but pull a gun, on you, you can kill them under self defense. Alternatively, if they are only armed with a knife, or the unlikely event of being unarmed, you can, and probably should, shoot them in one foot so you can safely reach a phone. Criminals aren't protected by that sort of thing-- you would not be charged with assault in this case.
Potatis, you need to stop thinking in this little bubble. Almost everyone and their dog owns a gun in America, and 99% of the population thinks nothing of it. Its part of the culture.

That doesn't make sense. If someone had been armed on those planes, then they probably would not have been successfully hijacked. That's why they have air marshals now and why pilots are allowed to keep a sidearm in the cockpit.

Thats exactly my point. You can't use situations where citizens wouldn't have firearms (such as a Hotel) in order to prove a point. Also, you say airliners have air marshals and armed pilots now right? I don't doubt that the Hotels and other locations in India will have tighened security now. This is what I meant by my previous analogy.

You pretty much can't get away with killing someone just because they broke into your house, from what I understand. They're in the graveyard and you're in jail.

Sorry, if some <expletive> <highly offensive slur> broke into my house, it's game on. I don't even own a gun, so hopefully my 9-iron would be enough = /

Hopefully i'd get a temporary insanity plea or get out early for good behavior, else you're right i'd have to sew up my bum bum. (Residents of Florida and Texas need not worry about this)

edit: btw, jews did wtc.

If the guy who broke into your house was armed, you could easily plea self defense.

You would have to be an idiot not to shoot him, and let him get away.

Are you serious? You care more about your stuff than about another person's well-being? What if the bullet kills him?

If he's willing to break into my house and take my stuff, then he obviously cares more about my stuff than his well-being, so why shouldn't I?
Also, a shot to the foot won't kill. Period. Even with a high calibur, there aren't enough large arteries/veins that run through the foot to cause any mortal damage.
I'm all about circumstantial morals, but there's never any practical reason to break into someone's house and steal. There's always a better alternative if you are that desperate. They deserve it for being so stupid.

You can always go for the knee-cap too. and both arms. They won't be getting up or shooting you anytime soon.

I like you saw1833.

Way to blame tools used in the process for its consequences.

yeah, like this one:

Anyway, I don't see who's blaming tools here. This is a battle of morals.

My God, Cpt. Terror, that is one epic piece of artillery.

If he, himself, can not judge right from wrong, than he can die in jail and I hope he does.

No, if he, himself, cannot judge right from wrong he has a serious mental condition and deserves mental care, not jail time. His insanity case basically wrote itself the moment he shot both his parents for not being allowed to play a game.
Everyone posting stuff like "I hope he dies/rots/gets life", whatever, sort of scares me. This is clearly a case of insanity, and being so, the defendant cannot be held completely responsible for his actions. Yes, he needs to be institutionalised and receive some help, but jail time won't solve anything, except getting him off the streets - something institutionalising would do too.

Regarding gun control...

In fact, the FBI's latest crime report shows, that despite gun ownership in the US being at an all-time high, murders are down 43% since 1991, and violent crime has dropped 38%. Also, versus national average, right-to-carry states (states that allow you to carry a firearm in public) have a 28% lower murder rate, 50% fewer robbery incidents, and 24% lower overall violent crime rates.

What you need to do is compare countries without a history of incredibly liberal gun laws to the US. I suspect you'll find stricter gun policies go hand in hand with lower murder and violent crime rates.
Outlawing guns now would likely not have much of an effect on violent crime in the US, seeing as how every criminal already owns a gun - there's already an established culture of gun ownership. However, enabling stricter gun control over a longer period of time would probably help... good luck making that case in the US, though.

TL;DR countries with better gun control > the US.

However, enabling stricter gun control over a longer period of time would probably help... good luck making that case in the US, though.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!......Heard of the National Rifle Association (NRA)?......They will make sure it never happens, their political influence and power is incredible.

Yes, he needs to be institutionalised and receive some help, but jail time won't solve anything, except getting him off the streets - something institutionalising would do too.

I dunno, this kind of falls under the umbrella for me for pedophiles and rapists, and other offenders of such unspeakable crimes.. When you commit a crime so heinous--in this case killing your damn parents--, I think the issue should be one of public safety. (the public and the gene pool are safer if you're not around anymore)

I guess i don't personally see the point of preserving someones well-being who blatantly disregards someone elses, insane or not. As to what to do, i like the movies like Escape From NY (starring Mr. Kurt Russell) where they just dump the crazies and mother rapers on an island and let them do whatever they like.

)

[/end christmas eve rant]

(the public and the gene pool are safer if you're not around anymore)

Well put. I agree with the idea of keeping such genes out of the human DNA system, but I didn't want to suggest I believe in a Hitler esque eugenics campaign against anyone of mental incapacity.

If life in prison or a death sentence helps achieve this, I'm all for it.

TL;DR countries with better gun control > the US.

Most countries also have a considerably less violent culture. You're making a very shortsighted comparison here. Sweden doesn't have the gang violence problem the US has. So as long as we have an issue with cultural violence, I'm gonna take measures to protect myself.

Also, an unarmed public is just asking for a corrupt government to walk all over them.

Sweden doesn't have the gang violence problem the US has.

Oh, right. We totally have no gang voilence, at all. Especially not in Gothenburg, no way. cough

I admit it's not as crazy as it in the US, but that's simply because there are more people in the US. But it is still a significant problem in Sweden.

Also, an unarmed public is just asking for a corrupt government to walk all over them.

You say that, but when a government does start getting corrupt, the public very rarely has little weapons. If history has taught me one thing, countries have a tendency to be flooded with weapons when a revolution occurs.

A revolution would happen many, many years after an established corrupt government. A lot could happen to arm the citizens with the help of outside sources in that time.

Captain Terror and Luke, you're basically Hitler, fyi.

Also, an unarmed public is just asking for a corrupt government to walk all over them.

Give me one example of a modern democracy that's been turned into dictatorship because of a lack of firearms. Mind, most western democracies employ a much stricter gun control than the US. For the rest of your post, did you even read mine? And not just the TL;DR part.

Death sentence makes everyone as guilty as the murderer.

I made a fat edit to my post but potatis went and ruined it as I was typing. Asshole.

Anyway, yes, the US has a much more violent culture than other countries - and I'm making the case that it wouldn't be as bad if there had been stricter gun control from the beginning. I know you're all very proud of your founding fathers trying to protect their people from the govt., but the scenario doesn't really apply to modern society. We don't have imperial Brits running around trying to take over anymore. There is a price to pay for liberal gun laws; just compare the US to most other western nations in terms of violent crime and you'll notice the difference.

When you commit a crime so heinous--in this case killing your damn parents--, I think the issue should be one of public safety.

Closed medical care. I reiterate: insane people cannot be held completely responsible for their actions, but should of course be removed from society as a matter of public safety. The judicial system doesn't really hold up with insane people; our whole concept of justice is based on people being held responsible for their actions. If you've got a mental condition and really can't separate right from wrong, you can't be treated the same as a sane person. The crime is still as heinous, but the criminal is less responsible.

There is a price to pay for liberal gun laws; just compare the US to most other western nations in terms of violent crime and you'll notice the difference.

Depends on where you are. Everyone has a gun where I live, but the violent crime rate here is comparable to foreign cities of the same size. There is very little gang violence here, while cities like LA, New Orleans and DC have severe gang-related violence and also very strict gun control laws (DC even had an outright ban until recently). Yet these cities all have very high murder rates. I'm not saying there aren't consequences to gun ownership, but there's a lot more to the picture than just that.

Death sentence makes everyone as guilty as the murderer.

Do we have to get all touchy-feely about criminals? They get what they deserve, it's called justice.

for man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death.

• Mr. Miyagi, Karate Kid Part II

When you kill a person you take away its rights to free speech and to vote and that should never happen in a democratic country.

I'm not saying there aren't consequences to gun ownership, but there's a lot more to the picture than just that.

Of course. But increased gun control is one of the factors that will likely bring crime down (again, over a longer period of time).

Do we have to get all touchy-feely about criminals? They get what they deserve, it's called justice.

First off, we were talking about insane people, who really don't deserve punishment at all. Second, the death penalty is as unethical as murder.

ZL, in America gun control laws really don't lower our violent crime rates at all. We've implemented gun bans for decades now, yet crime rates continue to rise. It sucks.

Also, gun ownership is a guaranteed right no less protected than freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to vote. Also, we are granted the right to overthrow our government should it violate those rights, and replace it with a new one that will protect them. Without the right to bear arms, we are at the mercy of our government when it should be the other way around.

I'm not being a crazy conservative here (I'm very liberal), I'm just being realistic. It's really not as simple as "Ban guns, lower crime" for us.

So the right to own guns is as important as free speech... and heroin?

So the right to own guns is as important as free speech... and heroin?

Hurr.. wha?