How Would the NRA Make a Videogame? It Already Did

[Scorpid]

Most gun owners never buy a gun with the intention of shooting people....i dare say the vast majority that is the last thing they hope they have to do.

We can have a discussion on the glorification of violence in general in our society, from cartoons to movies to games things more action packed tend to excite people hence they have a tendency to watch action cartoons, play action games things that get the blood pumping or the mind working, and we can have a discussion on how people prone to violence can be influenced by these things, but we can also discuss catcher in the rye as motivation for a madman, so any number of triggers can be found for someone that is mentally unstable, and gasp they will tend to find those things.

but should be ban content/guns for everyone because some people will cause harm to others? that is the fundamental question and the answer to both is no unless we want to fuel the gun trade in this nation with bloody consequences for all.

nevermind that pesky 2nd amendment that our founding fathers put in there because duh they had to take arms against a government that wanted to take their arms away. add to the fact we already have laws on the books about guns, things that ban "assault" weapons, if that matters to someone hell bent on committing a violent crime? doubtful.

I agree that guns don't in themselves by their very existance cause more people to kill then say a particular dangerous looking armchair. I also agree that to blame video games is to blame is to passenger seats for car crashes. I also think the general perception of violence being the quick and easy answer to solve problems is too often used and portrayed as consequence free. BUT the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, another man tried to kill a bunch of school children in China but with a knife this time, he managed to kill exactly no one because to shoot a gun is so easy anyone can do it, to wield a knife and kill people and not wound takes training. AR15's and other assault rifles are simply meant for killing other people en masse, it's why they were made. It's that simple. Sometimes giving the unpredictable mad man the means to commit acts like Sandy Hook is enough of a reason to consider the issue. It's delicate I know but we should consider the issue beyond just what people LIKE to do.

So let's assume that the founders intended that people should have access to arms in the place of discourse when governments became tyrannical. If the situation of toppling a dictatorial government did come today the gun would not be the decisive advantage that the US government would have. It would be the Air, naval power, and Intelligence. But NRA accepts that people don't have rights to the f35 or a modern destroyer. Today guns are more of a danger to the citizenry from other citizens then all the guns we could muster together in the US to fight our own government.

 

[Twilight_guy]

So the lesson is not to shot people, but to always use guns to shot inanimate objects? I dunno, but I think the NRA exists for core principles besides shooting target dummies. If they didn't, then video games would be superior to real guns since they couldn't accidentally harm anyone.

 

[chikusho]

Or, you know, a skill based activity that takes time, understanding and experience to do proficiently. For most, it is the same as archery. Even if you are using it for hunting which is technically killing (clearly), it's more about the sport and the skill involved.

If it's the skill of hunting, tracking and/or marksmanship that's really the case, weapons without lethal bullets could easily be developed and used as an alternative. Also, yes, Archery is also pretend killing with a tool designed specifically for nothing other than killing. The difference is that it takes a much greater amount of effort to kill people with a bow and arrow than it does with a gun.

 

[chikusho]

I agree that guns don't in themselves by their very existance cause more people to kill then say a particular dangerous looking armchair.

But they do. Given how childishly easy they are to use, and how immensely powerful they are, having that almost unbeatable edge against someone you hate might make you take the step a lot sooner just because you have the opportunity. Just because of the seething heat of the moment, and the quick vengeance.
Physically engaging someone with the intent to kill might make you pause. Killing someone with poison or ordering a hit takes planning and resolve.

For instance, in the UK, there's been a massive decline of suicides simply because there are less people with access to a quick and effortless death by sticking their head in their very own coal gas ovens, after governments switched to natural gas ovens across the country. If something terrible is easier to do, more people will do it.
If there is a tool designed to make killing easy, effortless and risk free readily available, more people will use it.

 

[Easton Dark]

Isn't Crave the developer that made Kabuki Warriors for the Xbox?

Aha. If any game's going to teach you how to use a gun...

 

[Sylocat]

Oh man, Jack Thompson would love this...

(oh, and since politics has been brought up, here's a brief history of the NRA [http://nsfwcorp.co/zlxfk5], and how its current leadership was once part of an immigrant-hunting squad named "Operation Wetback." Yes, seriously)

 

[Baresark]

Or, you know, a skill based activity that takes time, understanding and experience to do proficiently. For most, it is the same as archery. Even if you are using it for hunting which is technically killing (clearly), it's more about the sport and the skill involved.

If it's the skill of hunting, tracking and/or marksmanship that's really the case, weapons without lethal bullets could easily be developed and used as an alternative. Also, yes, Archery is also pretend killing with a tool designed specifically for nothing other than killing. The difference is that it takes a much greater amount of effort to kill people with a bow and arrow than it does with a gun.

Weapons without lethal bullets have been designed and used for that, but you are kind of missing the point. Those guns that don't use lethal bullets don't shoot or feel at all like the real thing. That is what people become proficient with, and I'm not afraid to say that it's not something anyone can just pick up and do. And Archery to kill being harder than with a gun? Howard Hill is rolling in his grave. That guy could shoot better and easier with a bow than most people can with a gun. I know the analogy you are going for, it's all point and click, but that analogy is complete bullshit. It's cool if you don't like guns, I don't like them either so I don't personally own them. But I have shot lots of guns and practice shooting is nothing at all like "pretend killing". You are just disconnected from reality if that is what you think.

 

[Baresark]

I agree that guns don't in themselves by their very existance cause more people to kill then say a particular dangerous looking armchair.

But they do. Given how childishly easy they are to use, and how immensely powerful they are, having that almost unbeatable edge against someone you hate might make you take the step a lot sooner just because you have the opportunity. Just because of the seething heat of the moment, and the quick vengeance.
Physically engaging someone with the intent to kill might make you pause. Killing someone with poison or ordering a hit takes planning and resolve.

For instance, in the UK, there's been a massive decline of suicides simply because there are less people with access to a quick and effortless death by sticking their head in their very own coal gas ovens, after governments switched to natural gas ovens across the country. If something terrible is easier to do, more people will do it.
If there is a tool designed to make killing easy, effortless and risk free readily available, more people will use it.

It's against human nature. The ease to kill does not make killing easier for an individual. Humans by there nature are cooperative creatures, and by that we see greater benefit in working with a neighbor rather than killing him and taking his things. Weapons that provide ease of killing have been around for a very long time, yet the vast majority of people abstain from murder or needless killing. Just because something is easy does not mean people will do it. You talk aobut what is called thought to be the risk/reward mentality, but that is not how the human mind works. Decisions are not made on a risk reward basis.

And you cannot just attribute the decline in suicides to lack of coal ovens. Do you you have any substantial data to back that up?

 

[chikusho]

Weapons without lethal bullets have been designed and used for that, but you are kind of missing the point. Those guns that don't use lethal bullets don't shoot or feel at all like the real thing. That is what people become proficient with, and I'm not afraid to say that it's not something anyone can just pick up and do. And Archery to kill being harder than with a gun? Howard Hill is rolling in his grave. That guy could shoot better and easier with a bow than most people can with a gun. I know the analogy you are going for, it's all point and click, but that analogy is complete bullshit. It's cool if you don't like guns, I don't like them either so I don't personally own them. But I have shot lots of guns and practice shooting is nothing at all like "pretend killing". You are just disconnected from reality if that is what you think.

I know nothing of Howard Hill, but I assume what you are saying is that X _master archer_ could easily kill with a bow?
Well, X (and by X, I mean _any_) 6 year old kid could shoot his own dad.

Also, sure, they might not feel like the real thing, but if the point of marksmanship was proficiency in hitting a target, I'd value the importance of "feel" to be less important than "not having weapons littering society".

 

[chikusho]

It's against human nature. The ease to kill does not make killing easier for an individual. Humans by there nature are cooperative creatures, and by that we see greater benefit in working with a neighbor rather than killing him and taking his things. Weapons that provide ease of killing have been around for a very long time, yet the vast majority of people abstain from murder or needless killing. Just because something is easy does not mean people will do it. You talk aobut what is called thought to be the risk/reward mentality, but that is not how the human mind works. Decisions are not made on a risk reward basis.

Of course the ease of kill makes killing easier. Murder is often impulsive, and I can guarantee that impulse comes stronger when you can exert deadly force onto anyone of any make, status or build.

And you cannot just attribute the decline in suicides to lack of coal ovens. Do you you have any substantial data to back that up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201012/can-obstacle-prevent-suicide

Or, if you're the ready type.

http://www.crisis.org.cn/UploadFile/ReadParty/10-Restriction%20of%20access%20to%20methods%20of%20suicide%20%28E%29.pdf

Also, the above study links firearms in the home with increased risk of suicide as well. Figures.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Now THIS is the filthiest kind of pornography.

Hey at least it isn't "Bikini Babes with Guns". Such a weird fetish.

 

[cerebus23]

Most gun owners never buy a gun with the intention of shooting people....i dare say the vast majority that is the last thing they hope they have to do.

We can have a discussion on the glorification of violence in general in our society, from cartoons to movies to games things more action packed tend to excite people hence they have a tendency to watch action cartoons, play action games things that get the blood pumping or the mind working, and we can have a discussion on how people prone to violence can be influenced by these things, but we can also discuss catcher in the rye as motivation for a madman, so any number of triggers can be found for someone that is mentally unstable, and gasp they will tend to find those things.

but should be ban content/guns for everyone because some people will cause harm to others? that is the fundamental question and the answer to both is no unless we want to fuel the gun trade in this nation with bloody consequences for all.

nevermind that pesky 2nd amendment that our founding fathers put in there because duh they had to take arms against a government that wanted to take their arms away. add to the fact we already have laws on the books about guns, things that ban "assault" weapons, if that matters to someone hell bent on committing a violent crime? doubtful.

I agree that guns don't in themselves by their very existance cause more people to kill then say a particular dangerous looking armchair. I also agree that to blame video games is to blame is to passenger seats for car crashes. I also think the general perception of violence being the quick and easy answer to solve problems is too often used and portrayed as consequence free. BUT the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, another man tried to kill a bunch of school children in China but with a knife this time, he managed to kill exactly no one because to shoot a gun is so easy anyone can do it, to wield a knife and kill people and not wound takes training. AR15's and other assault rifles are simply meant for killing other people en masse, it's why they were made. It's that simple. Sometimes giving the unpredictable mad man the means to commit acts like Sandy Hook is enough of a reason to consider the issue. It's delicate I know but we should consider the issue beyond just what people LIKE to do.

So let's assume that the founders intended that people should have access to arms in the place of discourse when governments became tyrannical. If the situation of toppling a dictatorial government did come today the gun would not be the decisive advantage that the US government would have. It would be the Air, naval power, and Intelligence. But NRA accepts that people don't have rights to the f35 or a modern destroyer. Today guns are more of a danger to the citizenry from other citizens then all the guns we could muster together in the US to fight our own government.

and sandy hook was a "gun free zone" presumably to keep people form having guns there, maybe if someone had a gun there this monster would never have killed a single child. because once again people bent on doing evil will be able to get a gun in this country. you can make all the laws you want, make all the gun free zones you want, how are you going to get guns off the street? how well have we gotten drugs off the street after 40 years of war on? how did we do with alcohol?

they will be running guns over the mexican border if there is enough profit in it, gangs and mob will be happy to sell them to whoever wants them, they will be as plentiful as drugs are in this nation now, and ask you kids how easy it is to score some pot, imagine if they could get a tac 9 or ak 47 as easy as a joint, and that the way things would be the minute we try and rid the country of guns wee more crime.

how about we require teachers and school administers to go through gun training, get licensed to carry and then schools would not be easy targets for random psychos looking to make a name.

 

[WanderingFool]

So... anyone hear the story about how the NRA thinks if there were more guns being carried in places like schools, there wouldnt be anymore shootings?

Seems kind of relevant to the discussion... [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-defiance-newtown-draws-swift-harsh-reactions-article-1.1225243]

 

[Scorpid]

Most gun owners never buy a gun with the intention of shooting people....i dare say the vast majority that is the last thing they hope they have to do.

We can have a discussion on the glorification of violence in general in our society, from cartoons to movies to games things more action packed tend to excite people hence they have a tendency to watch action cartoons, play action games things that get the blood pumping or the mind working, and we can have a discussion on how people prone to violence can be influenced by these things, but we can also discuss catcher in the rye as motivation for a madman, so any number of triggers can be found for someone that is mentally unstable, and gasp they will tend to find those things.

but should be ban content/guns for everyone because some people will cause harm to others? that is the fundamental question and the answer to both is no unless we want to fuel the gun trade in this nation with bloody consequences for all.

nevermind that pesky 2nd amendment that our founding fathers put in there because duh they had to take arms against a government that wanted to take their arms away. add to the fact we already have laws on the books about guns, things that ban "assault" weapons, if that matters to someone hell bent on committing a violent crime? doubtful.

I agree that guns don't in themselves by their very existance cause more people to kill then say a particular dangerous looking armchair. I also agree that to blame video games is to blame is to passenger seats for car crashes. I also think the general perception of violence being the quick and easy answer to solve problems is too often used and portrayed as consequence free. BUT the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, another man tried to kill a bunch of school children in China but with a knife this time, he managed to kill exactly no one because to shoot a gun is so easy anyone can do it, to wield a knife and kill people and not wound takes training. AR15's and other assault rifles are simply meant for killing other people en masse, it's why they were made. It's that simple. Sometimes giving the unpredictable mad man the means to commit acts like Sandy Hook is enough of a reason to consider the issue. It's delicate I know but we should consider the issue beyond just what people LIKE to do.

So let's assume that the founders intended that people should have access to arms in the place of discourse when governments became tyrannical. If the situation of toppling a dictatorial government did come today the gun would not be the decisive advantage that the US government would have. It would be the Air, naval power, and Intelligence. But NRA accepts that people don't have rights to the f35 or a modern destroyer. Today guns are more of a danger to the citizenry from other citizens then all the guns we could muster together in the US to fight our own government.

and sandy hook was a "gun free zone" presumably to keep people form having guns there, maybe if someone had a gun there this monster would never have killed a single child. because once again people bent on doing evil will be able to get a gun in this country. you can make all the laws you want, make all the gun free zones you want, how are you going to get guns off the street? how well have we gotten drugs off the street after 40 years of war on? how did we do with alcohol?

they will be running guns over the mexican border if there is enough profit in it, gangs and mob will be happy to sell them to whoever wants them, they will be as plentiful as drugs are in this nation now, and ask you kids how easy it is to score some pot, imagine if they could get a tac 9 or ak 47 as easy as a joint, and that the way things would be the minute we try and rid the country of guns wee more crime.

how about we require teachers and school administers to go through gun training, get licensed to carry and then schools would not be easy targets for random psychos looking to make a name.

Criminals buy and use guns against other criminals. They don't sell them to kids, because kids aren't usually looking for things to shoot. And they don't go on killing sprees against the general public.
You know what would protect people better then every man woman and child having a firearm? If no one could have a firearm. Most industrial countries ban firearms for that reason. Besides there is no proof that having a firearm makes you safer. In Georgia two cops were gunned down shortly after Sandy hook and they were trained and knew what they were responding to, they had more firepower but they still got killed because a crazy guy with a loaded AK is still a crazy guy with a AK. So to argue that some guy who could be age 20 - 60 with no training to expert walking around a mall one day with his conceal and carry perment is going to go action hero and whip out his SigSaur when he hears the first sound of gunshots seems unlikely. It's more likely he'll shoot someone else or get himself shot. And oh lets not forget that a crazed gunmen is probably going to bring MORE firepower then a sigsaur. Would you say then therefore our response be that people should carry their own assault weapons in public? You know what gunmen don't bring? RPG's because those are banned and illegal even though is a shit ton of them out there.
The US is not the wildwest, the wildwest was the wildwest because the law there was sketchy and sparse. We now have some of the best trained least corrupt police forces in the world and some people believe it's better we should all walk around malls armed to the teeth still.

 

[Baresark]

It's against human nature. The ease to kill does not make killing easier for an individual. Humans by there nature are cooperative creatures, and by that we see greater benefit in working with a neighbor rather than killing him and taking his things. Weapons that provide ease of killing have been around for a very long time, yet the vast majority of people abstain from murder or needless killing. Just because something is easy does not mean people will do it. You talk aobut what is called thought to be the risk/reward mentality, but that is not how the human mind works. Decisions are not made on a risk reward basis.

Of course the ease of kill makes killing easier. Murder is often impulsive, and I can guarantee that impulse comes stronger when you can exert deadly force onto anyone of any make, status or build.

And you cannot just attribute the decline in suicides to lack of coal ovens. Do you you have any substantial data to back that up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201012/can-obstacle-prevent-suicide

Or, if you're the ready type.

http://www.crisis.org.cn/UploadFile/ReadParty/10-Restriction%20of%20access%20to%20methods%20of%20suicide%20%28E%29.pdf

Also, the above study links firearms in the home with increased risk of suicide as well. Figures.

Thanks for the material, it was a good read. The second one anyway, I would never consider the New York Times a good source of news, personally. They have an agenda that is fairly easy to see from a glance. But the psychology report was really good. I'm not afraid to say that I do stand corrected on that. And it would quite frankly be ridiculous for me to argue that the availability of a weapon to kill yourself with "on the fly" so to speak. In regards to other part of what I said. There is definitely a number of people who will murder on a strong enough impulse and a gun will make it easier. But I was speaking of the vast vast majority of people. I have been around guns my whole life, my family owns guns, my friends own guns, I have shot lots of guns, but I don't own any. I don't like them, they don't make me feel good. The idea that a life could be taken so easily with it makes me uncomfortable. That said, out of everyone I ever met who owns a gun, I know none of them would brazenly take someones life in the heat of any moment. The shoot them recreation and sport. It is completely illogical to not let these people have the thing they enjoy having if they have not ever used it in such a way. They have not threatened anyone, they have not considered shooting anyway, if they get into fights the thought of their firearm never enters their mind. This is the vast majority of people who own guns. It simply does not make sense to remove the right for these people to own and operate their weapons.

The majority of people would not consider taking a life as a valid means to an end, is what I was talking about when I was talking about human nature. Not even in the heat of the moment. The ease in which you can take someones life with a gun is not the same as being easy with the idea of taking another human life. The media does a fantastic job at blowing these things out of proportion, where there is no news, they will make news. The constant news of things like what happened in Newtown Connecticut creates what is called an availability cascade. That essentially means that the more you are shown these horrible acts, the easier it is for you to recall them on the fly, and the worse a given situation seems. Gun violence and death happens, no one can deny that. But is it as out of control as it seems? In most places, it is not. That is what the availability of this kind of information does. The homicide rate of guns in the US per 100k in 2011 was 3.7, the traffic related death rate was 12.3, one looks way worse than the other to me. But you are never shown those numbers side by side because it makes one look significantly better than the other. I would prefer them both to be zero, personally. It is far easier to kill a crowd of people in NYC with a car than it is a with a gun, but we are not arguing the same thing for automobiles.

The thing that I find annoying about the whole gun arguments and how people throw statistics around, is they just leave out other statistics that are relevant. Everyone talks about death rates by guns, murder rates, etc. It is hardly the biggest killers in first world societies with guns. Vehicle deaths are three times that number. No one is trying to outlaw cars. I guess it's just the hot button nature of the topic that annoys me. Anyway, it's been fun man. Thanks again for the reading.

 

[Baresark]

Weapons without lethal bullets have been designed and used for that, but you are kind of missing the point. Those guns that don't use lethal bullets don't shoot or feel at all like the real thing. That is what people become proficient with, and I'm not afraid to say that it's not something anyone can just pick up and do. And Archery to kill being harder than with a gun? Howard Hill is rolling in his grave. That guy could shoot better and easier with a bow than most people can with a gun. I know the analogy you are going for, it's all point and click, but that analogy is complete bullshit. It's cool if you don't like guns, I don't like them either so I don't personally own them. But I have shot lots of guns and practice shooting is nothing at all like "pretend killing". You are just disconnected from reality if that is what you think.

I know nothing of Howard Hill, but I assume what you are saying is that X _master archer_ could easily kill with a bow?
Well, X (and by X, I mean _any_) 6 year old kid could shoot his own dad.

Also, sure, they might not feel like the real thing, but if the point of marksmanship was proficiency in hitting a target, I'd value the importance of "feel" to be less important than "not having weapons littering society".

There you go, making assumptions. The truth is, while almost half of Americans in the Continental US own guns, you do not see them, or hear them the vast majority of the time. In most place you literally need to be reminded they even exist. We do not have "weapons littering society". Statistics can be misleading because they make you think you know something about that which you know nothing. And I'm thinking that you believe (and feel free to correct me) that people who shoot regularly are participating in some sort of power fantasy (after all, they are pretending to kill another person, right). But that nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but a society where the vast majority of people are completely responsible with their guns does not breed that kind of person. I have been to hunting stores, I've been too lots of shooting ranges and I have never seen anyone act with any kind of malice or pretend like they were shooting people, or even be anything besides courteous to the people around them. You see, that is the reality of a society where people are armed that you do not see. Everyone is courteous to each other. You go to a sportsman store, everyone is courteous and respectful. You go to a hunting club or shooting range, everyone is courteous to each other. You go where guns are not allowed, a lot less courtesy. But it's cool, you looked at a few statistics and decided we must have guns just laying around in the streets.

My point with bows was meant to show the same mentality exists between them. But you are either someone who has shot neither gun or bow and therefore is not able to make any decisions of value, or you are a psychopath who has shot one or both and pretended you were shooting people. In most of human society, bows were used for hunting for food or as a thing to master. In ancient Japanese culture, mastership of bow was held in just as high a regard as mastership with a sword. Mastering either of those things were synonymous with mastering yourself. But I'm sure you only see them as tools to kill and not a means for anything else. I am a pretty fit guy. I hit a punching bag for 12 round, 5 days a week, so I must be imagining or practicing to pummel someone by your logic. And if you believe that, you are a misguided individual.

 

[Baresark]

So... anyone hear the story about how the NRA thinks if there were more guns being carried in places like schools, there wouldnt be anymore shootings?

Seems kind of relevant to the discussion... [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-defiance-newtown-draws-swift-harsh-reactions-article-1.1225243]

You could not have picked worse news source. They have literally picked tiny bits out of the whole situation. They didn't say armed guards, they said an armed police officer in schools, as in one single armed police officer. They do the same thing with the New Jersey state Motor Vehicle Commission, there is literally one single armed police officer always present in case something bad happens. And on top of that, there is a rather large student run drive that resulted form the Virginia Tech massacre where students believe guns should not be strictly prohibited on campus. The same thing happened with the Ft Hood shooting. As ridiculous as it sounds, on base soldiers are not allowed to have guns, only the MP. And that guy started shooting where there were no MP's around. If the soldiers present who were trained to handle firearms were allowed to be armed, it would have turned out very differently. The truth is, if there had been an armed person in either Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook Elementary the day these travesties happened, some lives might have been saved that day, and to deny that is just naive. The automatic answer for a lot of people is to do that harder thing which is take away all the guns. When you take away the gun from law abiding citizens, you are only leaving the criminals armed. The criminal will not surrender his piece, but the law abiding citizen will be compelled to.

Also, I feel it's worth noting that when they blamed video games is also the same time they made this statement. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.

 

[Scorpid]

So... anyone hear the story about how the NRA thinks if there were more guns being carried in places like schools, there wouldnt be anymore shootings?

Seems kind of relevant to the discussion... [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-defiance-newtown-draws-swift-harsh-reactions-article-1.1225243]

You could not have picked worse news source. They have literally picked tiny bits out of the whole situation. They didn't say armed guards, they said an armed police officer in schools, as in one single armed police officer. They do the same thing with the New Jersey state Motor Vehicle Commission, there is literally one single armed police officer always present in case something bad happens. And on top of that, there is a rather large student run drive that resulted form the Virginia Tech massacre where students believe guns should not be strictly prohibited on campus. The same thing happened with the Ft Hood shooting. As ridiculous as it sounds, on base soldiers are not allowed to have guns, only the MP. And that guy started shooting where there were no MP's around. If the soldiers present who were trained to handle firearms were allowed to be armed, it would have turned out very differently. The truth is, if there had been an armed person in either Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook Elementary the day these travesties happened, some lives might have been saved that day, and to deny that is just naive. The automatic answer for a lot of people is to do that harder thing which is take away all the guns. When you take away the gun from law abiding citizens, you are only leaving the criminals armed. The criminal will not surrender his piece, but the law abiding citizen will be compelled to.

Also, I feel it's worth noting that when they blamed video games is also the same time they made this statement. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.

More guns do not solve gun violence, if you want proof then go look at WWI. Reasonable politicians sat all together all over the contienent of europe and went to a war they didn't believe would ever happen because they had belief that if they maintained the balance of power europe with sheer weight of force that threat alone would not cause anyone to pull the trigger.
Virgina tech might have ended differently if so and so was armed? Mad men are mad men, they aren't shooting up schools and theaters because the thought of dieing scare them. Mad men also come prepared because they're the ones that decide the exact time and place of their action. You could park an entire armored division outside every gathering place in the country and you'd still find those bat shit crazy asshole simply going some where else while we live in a police state.

The only SURE way to stop someone like that is to take away his means of perpetrating such acts. People don't need to have assault rifles because despite what you might like to believe the kid at sandy hook was using his rifle for the exact purpose of it's creation, more so then his mother did by keeping it locked away in some metal vault to be admired on the weekends at the gun range. Of course I'm not blaming her I'm simply pointing out that scrambling to deny that the assault rifle is designed for something other storming a building and killing as many people as possible is impossible. It's what it was made to do and the NRA are simply trying to avoid the fact they're efforts are partially responsible for that.
I'm not against guns the country was brought up on the myth of the gun, that by having it you are empowered. But giving every person that has the interest in it a assault rifle should scare the hell out of people and Sandy Hook showed us why. Founding fathers couldn't predict today when they wrote the 2nd amendment, they were imagining muzzle loaded single shot black powder rifles at worse or the bayonet, not guns who's damage is calculated in Round per second instead of rounds per minute.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

I'm amazed at how well that worked. Now we're all talking about video games and cops in schools. They got the assault weapons ban off the discussion table almost immediately. Classic misdirection!

<- NRA Benefactor Member

 

[Ashley Blalock]

Sadly the NRA is doing what others are doing of just blaming one thing and pretending like the fix is easy by having some other group take all the fallout for the fix. The solutions are far more complex as we have to look at a mix of reforms to guns, mental health, and culture. To get a real fix both liberals and conservatives are going to have to give a little on what they believe in.

Honestly they are just as bad the people shouting well smaller clips would solve the problem. As if 5 people getting killed would have been acceptable but 26 was just too many. Even one child killed by a madman with a flintlock pistol would be one child too many.

If these people were to take on the problem of drunk drivers killing people I'm sure one side would be shouting that we need to ban anything that might impair your driving while the other side would be shouting we need to ban all cars.