Support NeoGAF

[Yoritomo]

Why can't we talk about both? Saying we can only talk about one or the other is like telling a coach he can only teach offense or defense to his team.

Because gun control will do very little.

As long as we give these people attention it will continue to happen by whatever means necessary.

Making a policy decision like banning assault weapons when the major instrument of violence in the US is HANDGUNS is even stupider. Reacting to an incident that has a very specific pattern by working to eliminate something that has a much much larger knock on effect is short sighted and stupid.

We need to eliminate what CAUSES spree killings. The attention the murdered gets. A gun was a tool in the spree killing it was not the cause. Our society of rubbernecking a disaster has more to blame for this tragedy than our lax gun laws.

 

[Yoritomo]

Do you have a source for that? I would be interested to read it.

It's still not practical.

No more practical than a gun ban.

 

[Messypandas]

seeing this pic on twitter:

how can we explain this? it can't be a "gun culture" in america, could it? i have no idea, but something is wrong and we need to figure it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o#t=95s

 

[dschalter]

Because gun control will do very little.

As long as we give these people attention it will continue to happen by whatever means necessary.

Making a policy decision like banning assault weapons when the major instrument of violence in the US is HANDGUNS is even stupider. Reacting to an incident that has a very specific pattern by working to eliminate something that has a much much larger knock on effect is short sighted and stupid.

We need to eliminate what CAUSES spree killings. The attention the murdered gets. A gun was a tool in the spree killing it was not the cause. Our society of rubbernecking a disaster has more to blame for this tragedy than our lax gun laws.

an assault weapon may not CAUSE spree killings, but it certainly facilitates them. it's a simple distinction.

 

[TimeEffect]

I like to lurk on imdb and there's this one guy who is very pro-gun, and making some rather interesting comments. Would love it if he came on Gaf, Im always interested to see how he would do against some of you anti-gunners. I'm completely outside this debate as a Canadian, but everybody seems to have an opinion on it

 

[Yoritomo]

I won't remember who this guy is. He's a crazy person, not a political martyr.

You'll remember the body count, the fear based imagery, the 24 hour news coverage.

 

[Dude Abides]

No more practical than a gun ban.

I agree a gun ban isn't practical. I've said as much multiple times in this thread.

But your call for censorship is utterly nonsensical.

 

[Hawkian]

We need to eliminate what CAUSES spree killings. The attention the murdered gets. A gun was a tool in the spree killing it was not the cause. Our society of rubbernecking a disaster has more to blame for this tragedy than our lax gun laws.

I don't like sensationalized news coverage either but it would appear to me that you have no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, a crucial component of gun regulation is mental health screening. It is not the responsibility of the media to cater to the propensities of the mentally ill.

 

[Flo_Evans]

IDK... this could actually be our Dunblane massacre.

I am expecting some regulation or restriction to come from this. Even if it doesn't stop a damn thing people are going to pressure lawmakers to do something.

 

[fastford58]

I like to lurk on imdb and there's this one guy who is very pro-gun, and making some rather interesting comments. Would love it if he came on Gaf, Im always interested to see how he would do against some of you anti-gunners. I'm completely outside this debate as a Canadian, but everybody seems to have an opinion on it

Why does being Canadian exempt you from an opinion?

 

[flyover]

Indoctrination. The power of the NRA. The idea that the government will go rogue and we need our weapons. I can understand home defense but the NRA hasn't been about home defense for quite some time, they've been about throwing hurdles down when it comes to any kinds of regulations.

You're right. Just look at this review of the gun that was apparently used today. It's crazy that this beast is sold -- and well-reviewed -- as a tool for home defense.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

The article gives you some interesting insight into the buyer's mind, too. Just... wow.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I agree a gun ban isn't practical. I've said as much multiple times in this thread.

But your call for censorship is utterly nonsensical.

You don't have to censor the event. You just have to censor the name of the criminal. That's something other countries do by default, at least until the trial is over.

It should be done anyway, in my opinion, due to the fact that so many innocent lives have been ruined by having charges brought against them and subsequently found innocent of them.

 

[Mashing]

I've been pro gun for the most part (as a deterrent), but these latest events have certainly made me question my beliefs. If would say that guns should only be legal for self defense in your home and should be illegal to carry anywhere else.

 

[Yoritomo]

I don't like sensationalized news coverage either but it would appear to me that you have no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, a crucial component of gun regulation is mental health screening. It is not the responsibility of the media to cater to the propensities of the mentally ill.

Here's a study where decreasing coverage of suicides by train reduced suicides by train.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8153751

And again the same charlie booker snippet I've posted 3 fucking times now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y

 

[akira28]

seeing this pic on twitter:

don't know how accurate this is, but how can we explain it? it can't be a "gun culture" in america, could it? i have no idea, but something is wrong and we need to figure it out

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

You'll remember the body count, the fear based imagery, the 24 hour news coverage.

Nope. I might be annoyed by the latter and enraged by the former, but we all move on. We always move on. This wasn't some bid for immortality, so talking about it doesn't contribute to it. Maybe some negative self esteemed little brat might think something like this could get him the attention he's always wanted, and copycat. But that won't be because he's mimicking this person's motives. You can't avoid talking about the crime itself, or conceal it from sight just because you 'think' it might cause a confluence of other similar events.

 

[pulsemyne]

That's complete and utter bullshit. Making these murderous little spree killers into unforgettable monsters whose names will be remembered is the reason it keeps happening with more and more frequency. This was not some militia gone wrong, it was a nobody who wanted attention and we're going to immortalize him as a reward.

I was referring to this person in particular. What I meant was that there is a culture in some areas of American society that fuels a sense of distrust with it's government and with other people. It's not a helpful thing. All it does is fuel hatred and mistrust. Europeans criticise our politicians probably more than America does but that's generally all we do.
If you have such disturbed people in your country then it stands to reason that if they cannot get guns then the chances of them killing dozens of people is reduced. Also as for the second amendment well I don;t think the founding fathers thought that one day someone could have access to a hand gun that can fire faster and more bullets than anything was around at their time. If they would have seen that then they may have changed their minds.

 

[Dude Abides]

You don't have to censor the event. You just have to censor the name of the criminal. That's something other countries do by default, at least until the trial is over.

That would be unconstitutional in the US.

Do you have a source for the "most psychologists agree" assertion?

 

[Yoritomo]

I agree a gun ban isn't practical. I've said as much multiple times in this thread.

But your call for censorship is utterly nonsensical.

How about responsible reporting. Making the media understand that they have a DIRECT affect when it comes to perpetuating killing sprees. It doesn't need to be mandated but it's needs to be pushed and understood.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

Japan is 1/3 the population of the US, and WAY more dense.

 

[flyover]

I don't like sensationalized news coverage either but it would appear to me that you have no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, a crucial component of gun regulation is mental health screening. It is not the responsibility of the media to cater to the propensities of the mentally ill.

This book does have studies that support his point of view, to a degree. The problem with his claim is that he's saying that because the media bear some responsibility, we can't even discuss gun control or mental illness as additional (or primary) causes. Only one discussion at a time.

 

[triplestation]

maybe america is more comfortable with violence in their media

i dont fucking know

also there is more than one way to get a hold of weapons

 

[Oppo]

You'd think Americans would be willing to, y'know, try a moratorium on guns, at least handguns/automatics, for a period... say of three years. Even in one state. Just to see what happens.

I've often thought that one of the brilliant notions behind the United States, as a concept that is seldom used, is that individual states can act as "labs" for new laws, for the others to see. Build in a sunset provision, collect some data. Then at least you'd have some sort of answer.

And again the same charlie booker snippet I've posted 3 fucking times now.

I get what you and Charlie Booker are saying but there's no use in haranguing forum members for not acknowledging that clip. I watched it, I agree.

Hell, watching the film Natural Born Killers presents a possibly more persuasive argument to this very point.

 

[Messypandas]

You're right. Just look at this review of the gun that was apparently used today. It's crazy that this beast is sold -- and well-reviewed -- as a tool for home defense.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

The article gives you some interesting insight into the buyer's mind, too. Just... wow.

lol

"Home Defense"

 

[pulsemyne]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

America is not more densly populated than japan. Not even close.

 

[dschalter]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

america doesn't have a particularly high crime rate compared to those places (well, when compared to japan, yes, but it has lower crime rates than several of the european countries). america is less densely populated than the listed countries, though it certainly is larger in overall size.

 

[TommyT]

Japan is 1/3 the population of the US, and WAY more dense.

What's the sword death rate there compared to here?

 

[Hawkian]

Here's a study where decreasing coverage of suicides by train reduced suicides by train.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8153751

You don't even need to have a driver's license to commit suicide by train.

And again the same charlie booker snippet I've posted 3 fucking times now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y

And again, I don't like sensationalized news coverage either, but it would appear to me that you have no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, a crucial component of gun regulation is mental health screening. It is not the responsibility of the media to cater to the propensities of the mentally ill.

You don't have to censor the event. You just have to censor the name of the criminal. That's something other countries do by default, at least until the trial is over.

He's dead. There's no trial. If we're covering the event (which is news; I hope we can agree on this), what does revealing his name or not revealing it do?

 

[Incendiary]

How about responsible reporting. Making the media understand that they have a DIRECT affect when it comes to perpetuating killing sprees. It doesn't need to be mandated but it's needs to be pushed and understood.

Unfortunately, the media is nearly untouchable for the same reasons we have trouble with gun control laws. Media hides behind freedom of speech, NRA hides behind right to bear arms.

The media and gun control laws need to be torched and reworked from the ground up, but everyone who benefits and is currently in charge of how things go right now will actively refuse and/or get in the way of proper change.

 

[Yoritomo]

You'd think Americans would be willing to, y'know, try a moratorium on guns, at least handguns/automatics, for a period... say of three years. Even in one state. Just to see what happens.

I've often thought that one of the brilliant notions behind the United States, as a concept that is seldom used, is that individual states can act as "labs" for new laws, for the others to see. Build in a sunset provision, collect some data. Then at least you'd have some sort of answer.

Full-Automatics are already banned, and have been for 28 years now.

 

[Haly]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

I don't think this word means what you think it means. Of those countries, the only ones less densely populated than the U.S. are Canada and Sweden.

 

[flyover]

lol

"Home Defense"

You can have my synthetic sueded couch when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

 

[Choke on the Magic]

seeing this pic on twitter:

don't know how accurate this is, but how can we explain it? it can't be a "gun culture" in america, could it? i have no idea, but something is wrong and we need to figure it out

Hey that's my revovler. Minus the stars and stripes.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Crime overall in the US has been the lowest it's been in what? 40 years?

 

[Dude Abides]

How about responsible reporting. Making the media understand that they have a DIRECT affect when it comes to perpetuating killing sprees. It doesn't need to be mandated but it's needs to be pushed and understood.

You haven't demonstrated a direct effect. Putting aside the fact that homicide, not suicide, is the issue here, all the suicide study demonstrates is that decreased media coverage was correlated with decreased use of one particular method of suicide. There is nothing to suggest it actually reduced suicides.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

That would be unconstitutional in the US.

Do you have a source for the "most psychologists agree" assertion?

Not on hand, but I can surely provide you with one if you wish. I was watching a CNN piece on Breivik I think(been a while) and they had some criminal psychologists on explaining it. It was pretty interesting. And it's not necessarily unconstitutional. Speech that infringes on other rights is not protected. One could easily make the argument that having ones name dragged through the media and associated with a crime one may not have committed violates your constitutional rights. Additionally, gag orders are often placed on the media relating to trials to prevent sensitive information from being disseminated. There's precedent for it. There would just be massive pushback because ratings.

It may help prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. But comparing it with gun regulation is absurd.

Edit: It was the aurora guy, not the Breivik.

 

[A.R.K]

As a parent of 2 kids in elementary this is just too much to take.

When will America get serious about guns without both sides making it a political issue.

Also I know this will ignite some of you but violent games are being played and movies being watched by kids who are not old enough to comprehend this and think gun/shooting/violence is just cool. I am a gamer through and through but parents need to be really strict about these things. I know some friends who are oblivious to what their kids play due to ignorance. Why are even teens allowed to play M games like COD, BF etc when they are clearly for M audience.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

Uh, are you doing the math on these numbers?

 

[Yoritomo]

You don't even need to have a driver's license to commit suicide by train.


And again, I don't like sensationalized news coverage either, but it would appear to me that you have no evidence for this at all. Furthermore, a crucial component of gun regulation is mental health screening. It is not the responsibility of the media to cater to the propensities of the mentally ill.


He's dead. There's no trial. If we're covering the event (which is news; I hope we can agree on this), what does revealing his name or not revealing it do?

It's not just his name it's how he is perceived. You'll see him linked to images of power and causing fear in others instead of being linked to being a little, small, insignificant, murderous twat.

 

[User Name Here]

I think we would have a school stabbing instead. Increased gun regulation treats the effect and not the cause of whatever caused him to do what he did.

 

[Socreges]

You want to know how legit it is?

Those numbers aren't even fucking accurate from the source they claim to use.

Look at where they are getting those numbers:

GUESS WHAT? "All" homicides include firearm homicides. These are the 2009 numbers. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

FUCK that chart. Fuck anyone who posts it thinking they are making a legitimate point. Fuck the quote on it and anyone trying to draw a parallel between guns and baseball bats. Fuck anyone who implies that gun violence isn't a problem because there are other types of violence (like, oh I don't know, KNIFE attacks).

To be clear, my anger isn't directed at you alphaNoid, but I recognized how bullshit those numbers were on spec and holy fuck is my blood boiling. I need a breather :-/

Yes and they are portrayed in a completely fucking fabricated way. There were not 16,799 "non-firearm" homicides in 2009.

Quoting for new page.

seeing this pic on twitter:

how can we explain this? it can't be a "gun culture" in america, could it? i have no idea, but something is wrong and we need to figure it out

Communitarianism vs Individualism

The United States is an extremely individualistic country. This leads to greater hostility, distrust, paranoia, mental health problems, etc etc. Combine that with widespread gun availability and a particularly violent history....

 

[Hawkian]

This book does have studies that support his point of view, to a degree. The problem with his claim is that he's saying that because the media bear some responsibility, we can't even discuss gun control or mental illness as additional (or primary) causes. Only one discussion at a time.

Definitely agreed on the apparent sentiment.

It's not just his name it's how he is perceived. You'll see him linked to images of power and causing fear in others instead of being linked to being a little, small, insignificant, murderous twat.

I completely agree with you (although maybe take out the word "just"? I don't see what the name has to do with anything, but I may be missing something). I agree that the image of a mass shooter shouldn't be portrayed in a manner that incites FUD by the media. That makes perfect sense.

What does that have to do with gun regulation?

 

[Jay Sosa]

Would it have prevented this particular shooting? No one can answer that.

Would fewer guns lead to fewer shootings overall? Obviously. You'd have to be retarded to think otherwise.

This

Btw: I love GAF. I never have to write an answer myself, I usually just quote someone on the first page

EDIT: Well I wouldn't have said retarded. Stupid is better.

 

[Vilix]

You'd think Americans would be willing to, y'know, try a moratorium on guns, at least handguns/automatics, for a period... say of three years. Even in one state. Just to see what happens.

ABC just asked this of one of their reporters. He said if you cut of the sale of all guns today you would still have 300,000,000 guns out there.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

lol

"Home Defense"

Yea. Defending your home and life is so silly....let's mock it with a caricature...

 

[ronito]

I think that it's funny how most people think gun control has to mean taking away all guns.
I get you all want your guns. Do you need an automatic weapon? How many times do you have to shoot that scary robber that's gonna come for your stuff? 32?

 

[Anticitizen One]

lol

"Home Defense"

holy shit lol

Maybe if you think your home is about to be invaded by the Chinese army

 

[xenist]

Drug war, high crime. Plus America is fucking huge and densely populated compared to all of those places.

You are being either dishonest or oblivious. Pick one.

 

[Hawkian]

Quoting for new page.

Thanks, a lot- I cannot imagine my reaction to seeing someone I know post that on facebook :/

 

[dschalter]

I think we would have a school stabbing instead. Increased gun regulation treats the effect and not the cause of whatever caused him to do what he did.

it's a lot harder to stab 26 people to death than it is to shoot 26 people to death, just recently in china there was a school stabbing with over 20 injured, but only a few dead.

The United States is an extremely individualistic country. This leads to greater hostility, distrust, paranoia, mental health problems, etc etc. Combine that with widespread gun availability and a particularly violent history....

this comment does not make very much sense.

 

[LAUGHTREY]

Yeah, but the type of person who can shoot and kill little kids won't be deterred by laws. If he's that determined, he'll procure what he needs at all costs.

So might as well not even try right?

Fuck me, the attitude that it's already too late to do anything about all the guns in America is laughable.

"If guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns."

"Well, I'm already hungry, too late to do anything about it."

"Welp, too bad about that cancer, might as well just let it happen instead of doing anything about it."

What the fuck? It's a logical fallacy and it needs to be called out as such.