Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons.
Yes, most people do not own assault weapons.
Which gives all the more reason why they should be banned.
They may not account for a fractions of gun related deaths but they are still very dangerous and should not be in civilian hands.
I see no way how a civilian could justify owning one, and before you say "To overthrow the government," remember, the government has tanks and can kill you from the sky.
She had me up until she started on gun laws. Games can provide inspiration for a crime as readily as guns can provide a means. Most of us would agree that that doesn't mean we should blame games when someone goes and shoots someone after playing GTA IV, so why would you blame the gun? Both are merely scapegoats to excuse a violent individual.
Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons. Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents.
I saw the article and went "Oh, FINALLY! Someone understands!" Then she went on to gun laws and I thought, "Oh, never mind".
Blaming guns to defend video games is just as bad as blaming video games to protect guns (and vice versa). All it is is scapegoating. I really do hate that all this has turned into is a "Video game vs guns" debate.
Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons.
Yes, most people do not own assault weapons.
Which gives all the more reason why they should be banned.
They may not account for a fractions of gun related deaths but they are still very dangerous and should not be in civilian hands.
I see no way how a civilian could justify owning one, and before you say "To overthrow the government," remember, the government has tanks and can kill you from the sky.
It's the political definitions that matter, not the common sense ones. I don't always pay attention to it, but I remember my fiance telling me that under one of the proposed laws (might've been a state law, I forget) his hunting rifle would count as an assault weapon because of its scope.
:|
I usually play devil's advocate with him, but I just couldn't at that moment. I just stared at the rifle in question, shook my head, and went back to the internet.
It's the political definitions that matter, not the common sense ones. I don't always pay attention to it, but I remember my fiance telling me that under one of the proposed laws (might've been a state law, I forget) his hunting rifle would count as an assault weapon because of its scope.
I looked up what classified an assault weapon and I saw nothing on a scope being a requirement for a weapons to be an assault weapon. It was mostly things like pistol grips and rate of fire.
Maybe there was another issue like the scope was to powerful or your brother was simply worried.
I'm a cynic who has politically-active friends in California. I assumed she was doing it specifically to bring up gun laws from the get-go.
Pro-gun needs a different scapegoat, so blames games.
Anti-gun wants to scapegoat guns, so supports games simply to pull pro-gun's scapegoat out from under it.
In the painfully black-and-white us-vs-them mentality that is media-based politics, if you're pro-X you're anti-Y and vice versa. Today's X and Y are guns and games.
I was exited at first until I realized fear-mongering over video games was going to be replaced about fear-mongering over guns. So our two options are...
Republicans -> "OMG, Ban the Gamez"
and
Democrats -> "OMG, Ban the Gunz"
The problem with our two party system isn't the low number of options, its that there is no option for not having your rights infringed upon. This is why I don't vote. Perhaps someone can show me a typical ballot and point out the box I am supposed to mark if I don't want someone to screw me over. I don't think that box is on there.
She had me up until she started on gun laws. Games can provide inspiration for a crime as readily as guns can provide a means. Most of us would agree that that doesn't mean we should blame games when someone goes and shoots someone after playing GTA IV, so why would you blame the gun? Both are merely scapegoats to excuse a violent individual.
Furthermore, an assault weapons ban would be especially ludicrous. The VAST majority of gun crime (by which I mean between 99%-100%) is committed with non-assault weapons. Most of them are committed with semi-automatic pistols, most of the remainder with shotguns or bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles that don't qualify as assault weapons. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that those should be banned. I believe I read a statistic somewhere that said something like fewer than 50 murders in which a firearm was used involved an assault weapon since the 1970's. This is the equivalent of advocating that Lamborghinis should be banned because people die in car accidents.
Believing that access to guns causes violence is has illogical as well... believing playing video games causes violence.
As the first facebook comment stated, "guns are tools." Just because someone missuses a tool isn't the tool's fault. After all, it's just an object.
Now before any of you start with, "guns are tools to kill people," stop. Just stop right there. See that attitude? The one you just expressed. The ignorant belief that guns are meant to kill people? That's the mentality that causes violence.
Would I be right if I said, "nuclear weapons are tools for destroying cities"? No, I wouldn't. Why?
Nuclear weapons are NOT meant to destroy cities. They're meant to sit in a solo and look scary. Yeah, they have the ability to do so, but that's just to reinforce the intimidation factor of it. Not that scary if it doesn't work. Launching a nuke is considered to be the absolute last resort. If an ICBM spends it's entire existence just sitting in a solo doing nothing, then it's purpose is complete.
The same is for civilian variant guns in this day and age. Handguns and civilian models of automatic weapons are not meant to be used to shoot people. They're meant to be scary to would-be burglars, prowlers, and such. They're not meant to actually shoot someone. Yeah they can be used to do so, but again that's just to reinforce the intimidation factor. Actually shooting that person trying to break in should, and hopefully is, considered a last resort. If a gun sits in a box, or on a rack, it's entire existence, then it's purpose is complete.
Way back in the day guns, and bows before them, primary purpose was to be fired at game for hunting purposes. However, this is the 21st century. Then need for hunting and gathering has passed for the majority living in first or second world countries. Thus the primary function of the gun has shifted. If you believe otherwise, then frankly that makes me concerned about your mental state.
Now I'll leave with this:
If the "rampant access to guns" is what causes violence and crime, then the "rampant access" to the following also causes violence and crime:
Access to knifes, screwdrivers, or any other sharp/pointed instrument.
Access to hammers, baseball bats, or any other blunt instrument.
Access to automobiles, bicycles, aquatic vessels, aircraft, or any other motorized or non-motorized vehicle.
Access to ropes, cords, or any other lengthy object that can easily be wrapped around a limb.
And of course access to the one tool that most people have with them 24/7, and that we are born with. The human hand.
dont get excited everyone. pelosi most likely wont be there long depending how this tax situation goes. its nice shes on our side, but she is very liberal so im not surprised. plus shes not really that great of a congressperson.
You know, maybe this whole guns vs games thing would simply end if someone took the opportunity to point out the fact that the atomic weapon was invented, developed, tested AND used before any game or gaming console was even thought of.
Then again, I am a wishful thinker.
Oh, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't blame the tools, I blame the people who use the tools.
We live in a time where the idea of "stop pointing fingers in a witch hunt and be reasonable for a second" is worthy of a headline.
Does anyone else find that a bit troubling?
Ok...there are exemplars in all categories regarding guns. Switzerland has massive gun ownership and hardly any gun crime. Clearly it's the people and culture that are different. But banning assault weapons isn't going to do shit. They make up a virtually negligible percentage of gun violence in the US. It's the handgun or shotgun that's just lying around at home that does the killing. Lastly, why shouldn't guns get the blame? They are a factor is far more cases of gun violence than games are, even with the benefit of the doubt.
Nice to see a politician using their head for once, but please, do yourself a favour and read up on their other policies as well. Just saying.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
