The NRA Finally Responds With Its "Meaningful Contributions"

I think you forgot a "not". Kind of changes the meaning!

I meant they are crazy enough to do it [if there was not such overwhelmingly support for south korea from every nation, and china is also not going to be favorable to n.k. hurting south korea]. So they're crazy, but not THAT crazy at the moment.

it is not the best sentence placement
 
But the truth of the matter is that most South Koreans want to tone down the Cold War rhetoric and eventually reunify with North Korea. It is the US conservatives who continue to use the people of SK as their political puppets, especially under Republican administrations. And they know it and don't appreciate it one bit for the most part. That is particularly true among the youth.

North Korea isn't nearly as "crazy" as they continue to be portrayed by Fox News and other far-right media sources. While they are a brutally repressive authoritarian dictatorship, so are many allies of the US. South Korea even largely fit that description until the early 80s.
 
Cops won't do much. There were very few, maybe two, at my middle and high schools, and if a shooter came in, they'd target the cops first. Plus shooters are in the habit of wearing armor nowadays.

BS, this nerdy kid would crap his pants if facing anyone other than a defenseless 6 year old.

All mass shooters are cowards. They all go after gun free zones. I think the NRA comments were pretty stupid, but he was right about the gun free zones. The only people who do these mass shootings are nerds who aren't real men. They could never stand up to an armed person.
 
I'm not sure how relevant this is - it's sort of like someone asking Warren Buffett to pay more to the Feds if he thinks his tax rate it too low. You can be against unrestricted gun ownership while legally owning guns. It's not something I do, myself, but I can at least see how it doesn't invalidate someone's arguments.

I never implied that. But, for the sake of argument, if someone is going say such things, I think it is indeed legitimate to ask them about their own gun ownership. Gives it a perspective you might say.

And fwiw, if Buffet things his tax rate too low then he could indeed pay more if he desired. Romney did. :mischief:

That picture is ********. No one blames the particular gun(s) that was/were used during the incident for any massacre. People blame the proliferation of guns for facilitating massacres by gunmen.

So yeah, an unsurprisingly stupid post.

Someone's not paying attention. Yes, people are indeed blaming the particular gun(s) that were used in this. Its why Bushmaster is now up for sale, and their weapons have been pulled from many sellers shelves.

Plus I guess the whole continuing hullabaloo about 'assault weapons' flew right by you as well, didnt it?

I really love your arguments here... Oh, wait, there aren't any.

Given your experience at doing exactly that I guess you'd know, eh? :rolleyes:

And no, "it" is not about firearm ownership. It's about gun control. So your personal enquiry as to a poster's guns is hardly relevant. But your quesyion was answered regardless. Did you follow up on that? Hardly. Very constructive indeed.

No, the question was never answered. But its cute that you think it was.
 
NRA Board Member, Grover Norquist, who is notorious for wanting the government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub is for putting a cop in every school. I'm sure he is probably advocating a tax cut to pay for it.

The NRA Board is a crazy outfit. You got Grover and then 3 guys who have has "accidental" discharges of their weapons. What a mess.
 
I think there is plenty of reason to intervene in a case like Rwanda.

The reason is the same reason I have to intervene if I were to see someone assaulting someone else. We are obligated not to allow great harm to happen to others when we can stop it, even if that puts us at a certain level of risk. The reason in the Rwandan case is that intervention could have stopped the death of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi Rwandans. If the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives isn't a good reason to do something, I don't know what is.


It isn't always a good idea to intervene in fights. Usually both sides have a valid point, but both sides are usually evil. As such, intervention is usually evil.

And in war, we expand the state, bill people for it without their consent, and throw our soldiers into harm's way without their consent (That they volunteered is besides the point, they volunteered to defend the country, not to be the President's personal attack force.)
No you see it's okay for him to say disgusting, horrible things like this, because anything more than a total lassiez-faire position makes you a statist.

Just to let you know dommy, just because you state your positions in a relatively "calm" manner doesn't make them any less reprehensible.

See:

XZjQi.jpg

Except that I am firmly opposed to the Hitler's of the world and unlike Hitler I support liberty.

Seriously, you just compared me to Hitler:rolleyes:

My positions may be reprehensible. ARGUE THE FREAKING POINT rather than being a jerk all the time.

Yeah, I just lost my "Calm" attitude. Argue with me at at least half the level of discourse I am giving you (Which is really less than half I'm capable of, that's all this stupid conversation is worth) or go home.

The NRA and gun advocates are doing such a poor job of arguing their positions that its honestly damaging my original pro-gun views

It shouldn't. The NRA is ********, they blamed mortal combat for Sandy Hook because certainly we have to blame someone or something other than the killer.

The common sense answer is that a dead man is responsible and that therefore we need say nothing more about it other than to mourn those who have died.
 
It isn't always a good idea to intervene in fights. Usually both sides have a valid point, but both sides are usually evil. As such, intervention is usually evil.

And in war, we expand the state, bill people for it without their consent, and throw our soldiers into harm's way without their consent (That they volunteered is besides the point, they volunteered to defend the country, not to be the President's personal attack force.)

I see a man lying on the floor. Another man stands over him, kicking him. I see the kicks are aimed for the head. I know how this situation has come about. The man on the floor has been quite unconscionably rude. Perhaps that is a valid point for the man who is assaulting him. Perhaps it makes him evil, although I doubt it. None of this really matters. Unless I intervene a person will be seriously, perhaps irrevocably, injured. Whatever the mans crimes, supposed or not, that is not a situation one can accept. I am morally obligated to intervene.

The Rwandan genocide involved the Hutu government and its militias (and many civilians) carrying out a pre-mediated campaign to wipe out the minority Tutsi population. Over the course of a hundred days at least 500,000 Tutsi were killed. Some were killed with guns and some with grenades, but machetes were the weapon of choice. They were cheaper. Murder was not the only weapon used in this genocide. The Hutu controlled media broadcast messages such as "You Tutsi women think that you are too good for us" and "Let us see what a Tutsi woman tastes like." Up to half a million women were raped. In the first instance rape was used to break apart the the cultural bonds holding together the Tutsi's. It furthered the attempt to destroy the Tutsi as an ethnic group. It used, occasionally, was used to more direct effect. It was used as a tool to spread HIV amongst the Tutsi population.

The Hutu government, of course, had a reason for all this. The Tutsi has long held power in Rwanda (albeit not for the last several decades). A rebel group counted many Tutsi amongst its members (although, also Ugandans and other minority groups). Perhaps that is a valid point. Perhaps it makes some Tutsi evil, but I doubt it. I certainly did not make them all evil. In any case, none of that really matters. Unless the international community intervened hundreds of thousands of people would die. We failed to intervene and those people did die. In no sense is that morally permissible. We are not morally free to allow suffering on that scale with trifling justifications like 'both sides have a point'. There is no point which justifies this sort of action.

Your problem looks very much like a form of moral cowardice. You are unprepared to do what you are obligated to do because you don't want to. You hide this with dull, obviously insufficient platitudes like 'intervention is usually evil', 'both sides are evil' and 'it involves the expansion of the state'. In this particular case these things are immaterial. That intervention might fails does not mean we should not try. That there are two sides to an argument does not mean we should allow genocide. And If expanding the state is the only way to save half a million lives we should expand the state. A persons life is more important then tax revenue.

I suppose you will want to respond to this by talking about the liberty of Americans. You might will probably want to say that we could not justify intervention because we could not justify infringing that liberty by raising taxes. I cannot think of many more hollow arguments. Whether a democratic decision to raise taxes counts as liberty-reducing at all, there are far worse thinks then paying an extra 0.2% of your income to the government for a few years. These things include murder. They include the systematic destruction of your ethnic group and rape being used as a tool of war. We should all willingly pay that sum in order to prevent these things. We are morally obligated to do so.
 
South Korea had a cult of personality dynastic leadership communism thing going where the population damned near worship their Great/Dear/Fat leader?
I'm a bit surprised that you have so many issues with people worshiping others given your own apparent religious beliefs.

But that's clearly not what I stated. Now is it?

I also find your use of National Geographic propaganda to be quite revealing. While it isn't exactly a "far-right media source", it frequently does use the same sort of tactics to fear monger and spread disinformation while largely pandering to the same audience to gain higher ratings.

Linda Steet in her book Veils and Daggers: A Century of National Geographic's Representation of the Arab World, Street criticizes perceived

masculinist rhetoric, the one-directionality of its cross-cultural contact, its claim of objectivity and representations that build layers of a... world hierarchy. [12]

Lutz and Collins in their book Reading National Geographic argue that National Geographic is intimately tied to the American establishment and "cultivates ties to government officials and corporate interests".[13] Rothenberg suggests that National Geographic, as a part of mainstream popular culture, has historically helped to articulate a particularly American identity in opposition to "both old Europe and primitive non-Western regions... an identity of civic and technological superiority but yet, a distinctly benign and friendly identity".[14]

The book Reading National Geographic notes how photos are sometimes electronically manipulated.[15] In one photo of bare-breasted Polynesian women, the skin color was darkened.[15] Women with light skin have but only rarely appeared topless in the magazine.[15] The book also documents how NG photographers have encouraged their subjects to change costumes when their clothing was seen as "too drab" for the magazine.[15] Summarizing an analysis of NG photographs from 1950 to 1986, the authors argue the following themes: "The people of the third and fourth worlds are portrayed as exotic; they are idealized; they are naturalized and taken out of all but a single historical narrative; and they are sexualized. Several of these themes wax and wane in importance through the postwar period, but none is ever absent."[16]
They are far too kind calling this a documentary instead of a POV. Their bias is quite evident in the first few seconds from their use of scary rhetoric, music, and sounds. It reminds me of their "documentaries" on the "war on drugs".

I think they would be far better served providing a much more even-handed presentation of the facts without trying to suck in a far larger audience that isn't really interested in becoming more educated, but to have their own preconceived notions, stereotypes, and prejudices confirmed for them.
 
Someone's not paying attention. Yes, people are indeed blaming the particular gun(s) that were used in this. Its why Bushmaster is now up for sale, and their weapons have been pulled from many sellers shelves.

Plus I guess the whole continuing hullabaloo about 'assault weapons' flew right by you as well, didnt it?

Paying attention to what? Fox News?

Even if what you're saying is true (gotta love the free market, right?), I still struggle to see how that picture is relevant to the thread. 'Assault weapons' are a broad category so the logic of arguing for their ban or regulation is not the same. If someone used a crowbar to kill 20 children, arguments for crowbar control would not be taken nearly as seriously because it's a one-off incident. Arguing for assault weapons ban or regulation is an argument against the proliferation of such weapons, which facilitate multiple and recurring massacres by gunmen.

But I'm fairly sure you will still not get the point.
 
Given your experience at doing exactly that I guess you'd know, eh? :rolleyes:

Takes one to know one:

No, the question was never answered. But its cute that you think it was.

Formal answered your question, but I guessed you missed that, seeing as you're busy with bringing up irrevelant stuff.. eh? (Could add some roll-eyes here, but that would be childish as well as irrelevant to a discussion.)

Speaking of arguments:

I'm not sure how relevant this is - it's sort of like someone asking Warren Buffett to pay more to the Feds if he thinks his tax rate it too low. You can be against unrestricted gun ownership while legally owning guns. It's not something I do, myself, but I can at least see how it doesn't invalidate someone's arguments.

which is a good point. Still waiting for your answer on that one. (The point, not the implied or unimplied suggestion.)
 
I see a man lying on the floor. Another man stands over him, kicking him. I see the kicks are aimed for the head. I know how this situation has come about. The man on the floor has been quite unconscionably rude. Perhaps that is a valid point for the man who is assaulting him. Perhaps it makes him evil, although I doubt it. None of this really matters. Unless I intervene a person will be seriously, perhaps irrevocably, injured. Whatever the mans crimes, supposed or not, that is not a situation one can accept. I am morally obligated to intervene.

The Rwandan genocide involved the Hutu government and its militias (and many civilians) carrying out a pre-mediated campaign to wipe out the minority Tutsi population. Over the course of a hundred days at least 500,000 Tutsi were killed. Some were killed with guns and some with grenades, but machetes were the weapon of choice. They were cheaper. Murder was not the only weapon used in this genocide. The Hutu controlled media broadcast messages such as "You Tutsi women think that you are too good for us" and "Let us see what a Tutsi woman tastes like." Up to half a million women were raped. In the first instance rape was used to break apart the the cultural bonds holding together the Tutsi's. It furthered the attempt to destroy the Tutsi as an ethnic group. It used, occasionally, was used to more direct effect. It was used as a tool to spread HIV amongst the Tutsi population.

The Hutu government, of course, had a reason for all this. The Tutsi has long held power in Rwanda (albeit not for the last several decades). A rebel group counted many Tutsi amongst its members (although, also Ugandans and other minority groups). Perhaps that is a valid point. Perhaps it makes some Tutsi evil, but I doubt it. I certainly did not make them all evil. In any case, none of that really matters. Unless the international community intervened hundreds of thousands of people would die. We failed to intervene and those people did die. In no sense is that morally permissible. We are not morally free to allow suffering on that scale with trifling justifications like 'both sides have a point'. There is no point which justifies this sort of action.

Your problem looks very much like a form of moral cowardice. You are unprepared to do what you are obligated to do because you don't want to. You hide this with dull, obviously insufficient platitudes like 'intervention is usually evil', 'both sides are evil' and 'it involves the expansion of the state'. In this particular case these things are immaterial. That intervention might fails does not mean we should not try. That there are two sides to an argument does not mean we should allow genocide. And If expanding the state is the only way to save half a million lives we should expand the state. A persons life is more important then tax revenue.

I suppose you will want to respond to this by talking about the liberty of Americans. You might will probably want to say that we could not justify intervention because we could not justify infringing that liberty by raising taxes. I cannot think of many more hollow arguments. Whether a democratic decision to raise taxes counts as liberty-reducing at all, there are far worse thinks then paying an extra 0.2% of your income to the government for a few years. These things include murder. They include the systematic destruction of your ethnic group and rape being used as a tool of war. We should all willingly pay that sum in order to prevent these things. We are morally obligated to do so.


And thus make the world hate us more, and it never ends.

It, quite frankly, is not our job to police the world.
 
An unsurprisingly self-centred response.

Perhaps the world would 'hate you more' for intervening in Rwanda. That is not, I should note, how this has usually gone. When western powers have intervened for good humanitarian reasons that has been far more likely to generate good will than ill. Kosovo and Libya are two good examples, notwithstanding occasional events in the other direction. Interventions which have lead to ill will -such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan- have not been undertaken for good humanitarian reasons.

But in any case, suppose intervention did generate ill will towards your country. That hardly absolves you from a moral obligation to intervene. When one intervene's in a fight the person who was winning does not tend to take intervention well. That does not mean one shouldn't intervene. In a case like Rwanda, in which intervention might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, that it could just possibly lead to some ill will (and unlikely at that) does not absolve you of the moral obligation to intervene. You are arguing that, because intervention might be slightly burdensome, there is no such obligation to intervene. But because doing what is right might come at some cost to oneself does not mean one need not do it. Morality doesn't work like that. That something is hard does not mean one has no obligation to do it. In the Rwandan case, it is shocking that you think the cost of some possible ill will outweighs hundreds of thousands of lives. It is, as I said, thoroughly self-centered. And morality, I am afraid, is not centred on benefiting you.
 
Formal answered your question, but I guessed you missed that, seeing as you're busy with bringing up irrevelant stuff.. eh? (Could add some roll-eyes here, but that would be childish as well as irrelevant to a discussion.)

Perhaps I did. Can you link it for me?
 
I'm not sure how relevant this is - it's sort of like someone asking Warren Buffett to pay more to the Feds if he thinks his tax rate it too low. You can be against unrestricted gun ownership while legally owning guns. It's not something I do, myself, but I can at least see how it doesn't invalidate someone's arguments.

I think this is one of those cases where we can learn some good practices from the military. Here's a comment from a thread on reddit:


Assuming this is accurate, what does that say about how the military regards responsible gun safety procedures? Why doesn't the NRA advocate to the JCS and other military policy makers about how they should relax their rules, because *freedom*?
Quoted simply for reference






I never implied that. But, for the sake of argument, if someone is going say such things, I think it is indeed legitimate to ask them about their own gun ownership. Gives it a perspective you might say.

And fwiw, if Buffet things his tax rate too low then he could indeed pay more if he desired. Romney did. :mischief:
I was really hoping you'd shed light on the bit I quoted from a reddit thread. It speaks specifically to the military protocols for weapons s and ammo handling. Is that accurate? I honestly don't know.

And Romney is irrelevant, since most of the US wanted him to release his taxes - which he refused to do. You and several other Republican supporters defended that decision, claiming his taxes didn't matter. If you really think that then a video game forum poster's gun ownership history is even less relevant. He could be and times survivalist hoarder and that wouldn't change the substance of his arguments *one whit*.



Speaking of arguments:



which is a good point. Still waiting for your answer on that one. (The point, not the implied or unimplied suggestion.)
I'm still waiting to hear about how the US armed services handle weapons safety. I think it's extremely pertinent to the conversation at hand, especially since as fat as I know the nra first advocate for relaxed restrictions on military property. Isn't that odd?
 
And Romney is irrelevant, since most of the US wanted him to release his taxes - which he refused to do.

Actually, he did release his tax returns from the last few years. What he refused to release was stuff decades old and not really pertinent to the election.

As I see Forms gun ownship today as germane to the discussion i'll tell you what. I only want to know what he owns today - not what he owned a decade ago. Does that fulfill the criteria of you trying to use Romney's tax returns as some kind of bizarro explanation of why someones personal gun ownership might not be pertinent? I hope so.

I think its legitimate to ask anyone commenting on this topic as to what their gun ownership is. This is supposed to be a simple discussion, not some formalized political campaign issue. If I were at a bar with a friend talking about this, sure i'd ask them what they owned (if I didnt already know). I fail to see why you object to that so stenuously. I guess you think it harms your overall argument in some fashion. /oh well.

You and several other Republican supporters defended that decision, claiming his taxes didn't matter.

I'm pretty sure I didnt comment on it all that much other than to point out on his voluntarily choosing to pay a higher tax rate in order to fulfill a promise he made on paying taxes.

If you really think that then a video game forum poster's gun ownership history is even less relevant. He could be and times survivalist hoarder and that wouldn't change the substance of his arguments *one whit*.

Actually, more than a few around here thought Romneys older tax documents very relevant. IF you really think that they did, then of course the firearm ownship of someone commenting on such an issue should be relevant as well.

See how the logic of your own point works against you? :lol:

I'm still waiting to hear about how the US armed services handle weapons safety. I think it's extremely pertinent to the conversation at hand, especially since as fat as I know the nra first advocate for relaxed restrictions on military property. Isn't that odd?

I know that military regulation is quite restrictive on personal weapons on military property. Far more so than they are in local civilian communites. In fact, its a crime to even bring a registered firearm onto a military base undisclosed. We have people get cited for that all the time at the front gates of JBLM. Thats probably what the NRA was advocating for, because of how much more restrictive military base access is on non-military firearms.
 
An unsurprisingly self-centred response.

Perhaps the world would 'hate you more' for intervening in Rwanda. That is not, I should note, how this has usually gone. When western powers have intervened for good humanitarian reasons that has been far more likely to generate good will than ill. Kosovo and Libya are two good examples, notwithstanding occasional events in the other direction. Interventions which have lead to ill will -such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan- have not been undertaken for good humanitarian reasons.

But in any case, suppose intervention did generate ill will towards your country. That hardly absolves you from a moral obligation to intervene. When one intervene's in a fight the person who was winning does not tend to take intervention well. That does not mean one shouldn't intervene. In a case like Rwanda, in which intervention might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, that it could just possibly lead to some ill will (and unlikely at that) does not absolve you of the moral obligation to intervene. You are arguing that, because intervention might be slightly burdensome, there is no such obligation to intervene. But because doing what is right might come at some cost to oneself does not mean one need not do it. Morality doesn't work like that. That something is hard does not mean one has no obligation to do it. In the Rwandan case, it is shocking that you think the cost of some possible ill will outweighs hundreds of thousands of lives. It is, as I said, thoroughly self-centered. And morality, I am afraid, is not centred on benefiting you.

The problem is that all wars involve some form of coercion. It involves taking our tax dollars, by force, sending soldiers overseas, by force (They signed up to defend this country, not to invade other countries). And it further fosters the idea that it is our job to babysit the world. And it makes conflicts worse.

Do you think an intervention in Rwanda would have been "Worth it" to any American soldiers who were maimed or killed?

Ethics are not utilitarian. Sending our troops to their deaths and plundering the American people to pay for it is no more ethical just because it might help more people than it hurts. You never have the right to hurt some segment of people to help some other segment of people.
 
As a follow up to Forms implication that legislation heals all things, just read this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/history-gives-mixed-grade-to-impact-assault-weapons-ban/

Congress is poised to launch into a contentious debate next year over reinstating the assault-weapons ban.

In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support.

But crime trends over the past few decades offer a mixed verdict on whether renewing the ban would reduce the kinds of mass shootings that have spurred calls for its re-enactment in the first place.

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.

Add to that the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns, and the gun lobby enters this debate with some potent statistics.

"You had that for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn't make any difference," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre argued in an interview Sunday. "I think that is a phony piece of legislation, and I do not believe it will pass for this reason."

At the same time, gun control advocates note that modest decreases in assault-weapon crimes were recorded during the ban. A revived version won't stop gun crime in America, but, advocates argue, it could spare some lives from the violence on America's streets, in its schools and in its homes.

"You see the enormous killing power that's out there on the streets for virtually anybody to buy or obtain," Feinstein said last week.

A look exclusively at mass shootings -- the acts that typically prompt calls for more gun control -- shows a negligible impact from the Clinton-era ban.

Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

After the ban expired, the average number of mass shootings every year continued to tick up slightly. The numbers were published over the summer in the Journal Sentinel, and counted a mass shooting as any murder where four or more people were killed at once.

The pro-gun-control Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence argues the ban had more of an impact than it's given credit for. The group claims that in the five years before the ban, the affected weapons made up 4.8 percent of crime guns traced by ATF officials. Since the ban, that number dropped to 1.6 percent.

"This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market," the group claims.

Feinstein's office also claims the ban can be traced to a 6.7 percent decline "in total gun murders."

Even so, as the NRA points out, only a "tiny fraction" of crimes involve assault weapons no matter how it's measured. And a number of factors are at play, covering everything from policing to the state of the economy. According to the Justice Department, gun-related homicides overall have declined since they peaked in 1993. That decline is mostly attributed to a drop in murders involving handguns, which fell from nearly 14,000 in 1993 to close to 9,000 a decade later.

Both sides of this debate have pointed to several reasons why the assault-weapons ban was limited in its effectiveness. Aside from the fact that handguns are the most prevalent in violent crime, the assault-weapons ban included an array of exemptions.

To qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle had to have a detachable magazine and two or more of five specific features -- including a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount. Some gun makers simply modified their weapons to avoid qualifying under this definition.

A November report by the Congressional Research Service noted that opponents argued the banned guns "were potentially no more lethal than other semiautomatic firearms."

In addition, the law allowed people to keep semiautomatic weapons that they had before it took effect. The saturation of firearms in the country limited the impact of the ban. If the same law were passed today, that means more than 300 million firearms -- or one gun for every person in America -- would still be floating around.

It's possible that drafters of a new bill will try to modify it going forward. But any assault-weapons ban already faces dim prospects in the Republican-controlled House. An even stricter ban has even dimmer prospects. Indeed, Feinstein announced last week that her newest proposal would exempt more than 900 weapons.

Everything from mental health to school security to the entertainment industry is likely to be examined in the weeks ahead. LaPierre has rejected calls for gun control, and he urged the country to scrutinize the video game industry, while ramping up school security -- LaPierre wants an armed officer in every school.

Others, though, say gun control in some form has to be part of this discussion.

"There are countries that have mental illness, that have video games. They don't have the problem with guns the United States has," Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein said. "That's the big variable."

Btw, i've seen some of that date on assault weapons vs handguns before, and what I read was the same thing. 'Assault weapons' (i.e. military style semi-autos with at least a 20 mag ammo capacity) are only used in a very small fraction of crimes like this - by far handguns kill far, far more people nation wide than any other type of firearm. 'Assault weapons' get on the news because of specific incidents while handguns kill thousands upon thousands more. Heck, the guy that just killed these kids also had 2 semi-automatic pistols on him, so why are people crying about assault weapons and not pistols?
 
I think there should be a constitutional amendment that nothing can be banned for 1 year following any incident which is given more than 10% of the attention in the 24 hour news for one week or more.

"There are countries that have mental illness, that have video games. They don't have the problem with guns the United States has," Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein said. "That's the big variable."

Though I'm glad to see the Democrat Goodstein knows who keeps his lame butt in office.

Seriously, above all, video games are not the problem. It's an incredibly transparent scapegoat, and most of the people in favor of banning them wanted them banned before Sandy Hook. Some of them wanted violent games banned before Columbine, in fact.

If the NRA manages to get a bunch of games banned I swear on my own life that I'll spend every politically active impulse I have for my remaining days doing nothing but supporting gun control.
 
Back
Top Bottom