In the NIU shooting, guess what's first to blame?

[John Galt]

Ok, so I basically see 2 arguments: the gun-advocates say they need the protection a firearm can offer, and you got the gun control-advocates, who say guns make it easy to kill people.

Now, my question is, what the hell is going on in the US, what the hell is so bad, that you need a firearm to protect yourself? I don't mean to say that no-one should have a gun, I'm just asking what's so bad about the neighbourhoods in the US which require the civilians to arm themselves, to not call the police?

Nothing is that bad over here. We don't need guns, but as a society we don't want to give them up. I personally own a .22 carbine and consider it a fun hobby(almost a luxury) going down to the range and ripping up a paper target. I don't think I should lose that right because some people are crazy and use guns to kill.

I think our love of gun ownership also stems from our increasing distrust of government. There is a growing sentiment that our civil rights are being violated and our government is slipping towards fascism. And what better way to give us a false sense of enpowerment and security? A gun.

I do however think we should run background checks on people who try to purchase guns. So long as your not a minor, on medication, or a convict, then I feel you should be able to purchase a gun.

 

[stompy]

I think our love of gun ownership also stems from our increasing distrust of government. There is a growing sentiment that our civil rights are being violated and our government is slipping towards fascism. And what better way to give us a false sense of empowerment and security? A gun.

Ok, I see your point, and I think it's sound, but shouldn't a lack of trust in government be dealt through diplomatic means?

Oh, and John Galt, heh, Ayn Rand.

**Edit: Sorry, just read through your post again, and about the whole ' but as a society we don't want to give them up' bit, so, yeah, consider this point redundant.**

 

[m_jim]

Now, my question is, what the hell is going on in the US, what the hell is so bad, that you need a firearm to protect yourself?

Well, stompy, I suppose that it depends on where you live. Crime is starting to get out of hand and the cops are unable to stop it. There were at least a half dozen bank robberies in my town last year alone. Personally, I've had some friends held up at gunpoint and had a gun pointed at my car as I drove by. I don't own a gun, but I can certainly understand why someone would want one. And it doesn't have anything to do with video games.

 

[PurpleRain]

Say, here's a funny idea. People shoot people with guns? Take away the guns. Stabing people is so much harder to do.

 

[Glitches are cool]

But as I pointed out before, the right to bear arms is protected in our constitution, so we can't just take them away.

Which is stupid.

 

[xMacx]

What I'm thinking, however, is that he already produced these fantasies? And that games like counter-strike not only catered to these fantasies, but appeased the possible urge to realize them. I mean, if I were a murderous psychopath, I'd love to play a game where one of the objectives is to kill people. To me, using the common 'blame videogames' logic, this conclusion makes just as much sense ? if not more.

This theory was proposed as the catharsis hypothesis (http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Catharsis) and has generally been disproved by the three-factor model of excitation transfer theory. Catharsis sounds logical, but generally turns out not to be true.

 

[PurpleRain]

But as I pointed out before, the right to bear arms is protected in our constitution, so we can't just take them away.

Which is stupid.

Pfft. A piece of paper seems to be holding your country back. But that could be said with the bible as well.

 

[Fire Daemon]

It's amazing that if an objective person were to compare the number of school massacres in the US to the number in, just as an example, Australia, they'd find that there are none here. And it's not because we play videogames if you know what I mean. It's because the last time there was a gun massacre our PM and the general public were sensible enough to PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER AND REALISE GUNS MAKE MASSACRES EASY, NOT VIDJAGAEMS. And then banned them.
Jesus hell this gets my goat. It's not even the videogames as scapegoat part. It's just that some people with a hobby are unwilling to give it up to save thousands of people a year. Hey wait, that last sentence sounded familiar.

Its funny how everyone calls John Howard a bastard no matter what he does.

Anywho I was wondering what the origianl poster wanted to acheive with this post. Everyone knows that videogames are not responsible. Does the innocence of games need to be constantly proven by internet goers?

And is to hard to give a bit of emotion to the people who have been killed. Whenever there is a shooting everyone on this forum starts attacking each other, the liberals (who the hell are liberals) and the Gun Nuts. People die from shootings but in the verbal (written) insults people seem to have forgotten this.

Frankly the results of Shootings make me look down on society more then the fact the shootings take place.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Just to put fuel on the fire (its ok I'm wearing flame retardent pants), Canada has more guns per person then america but about 100 times less murders. Guns arnt to blame here. I think its something deeper, more hidden and much more menacing then guns. Is it a state of fear, a lack of morals, little regard for the sanctity of life...I don't know. Does anybody know? I don't think so but I would like to find out why it is America that has so much more murders by gun then any other nation.

To the opinion that Guns will help you defend your country from invasion;

That is complete bullshit. Any soldier worth his salt will not ask or want a civillian to fight alongside him/her. To serve in the military you need training. Learning to look down a sight and keep the gun dry is not training. Any gun enthusiast that has never had military service will not survive in a fire fight. And will sure as hell not know what he/she is doing.

 

[PurpleRain]

Just to put fuel on the fire (its ok I'm wearing flame retardent pants), Canada has more guns per person then america but about 100 times less murders. Guns arnt to blame here. I think its something deeper, more hidden and much more menacing then guns. Is it a state of fear, a lack of morals, little regard for the sanctity of life...I don't know. Does anybody know? I don't think so but I would like to find out why it is America that has so much more murders by gun then any other nation.

While I was reading that I was thinking about that little cartoon of the bullet in Bowling for Columbine. Pretty much fear of natives, the british, each other, communisum and it seems like now the Middle East. From the media that I've seen (it's media so not exactly 100% correct, so don't hold me to this) America seems like a fearful god-worshiping country. Down here I've never feared over anything to want me to go out an aquire an arms licence. I honestly don't see the point of owning a gun. I've never feared taht terrorists are going to break into my house and kill me.

 

[Kikosemmek]

And what better way to give us a false sense of enpowerment and security? A gun.

That's one thing I disagree with you about. Having a gun is in no way a false sense of empowerment, but a practical one. The 2nd amendment of the Constitution declares it a right for an American citizen to bear arms with the likes of minutemen militia rebelling against the British in mind. Suppose our government does decide to do away with all discretion and bully people into submission? Had we no guns, we'd be helpless. If a neighbourhood of a hundred had 10 armed men who formed an organized militia, no force will take away the people's liberty, and that's really what it ends up being about.

Every totalitarian regime starts out by outlawing different types of guns, until the establishment owns all the firepower and the masses are left with slingshots. They don't want you to have a .45 next to your bed when they come for you at night.

All this nonsense about excessive gun-control passes right over my head. I won't bullshit you: I believe violence can be a very direct and effective course of action, at times. Luckily, an ordered society of laws saves much potential mischief by way of court settlements and rules of engagement, but that doesn't mean the society itself can't change. When the establishment ceases to please the masses, only revolution, by peaceful (electing someone else, impeachment, etc) or non-peaceful means, is the answer, if the people's well-being is of concern. I'm being a realist. What if this society of laws turns on its citizens? Should they all kneel submissively? I think not.

This leads me to my main point: the only false sense of power we have as I see it is that we, the people, control what happens in Congress or at the White House. We do not. This is not a democracy, but a republic, and we may only help shape the government as a people, but not embody it. The moment we give it our blind trust is the moment we ready ourselves for total domination. Take everything with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Do you think the guy at NIU shot these people because he had access to guns, or because he was mentally ill/internally conflicted? He couldn't have shot them if he had no guns, but this does not mean or even imply that simply having a firearm incites people to violence. It is unfortunate that people died, but to tell you the truth, I am not affected at all by this incident because I knew none of them. Were I to be directly affected then I still wouldn't pick a fight back using the legal system. This is a social issue, not a legal one. I wouldn't give up my right to a firearm for the lives of a million people. I wouldn't give up the right of a fellow citizen whom I disagree with to debate me openly even if it costs me my own life. Protecting the Constitutional amendments which have been wisely granted to us is the prime duty of every American as a citizen. Every time there is a law that conflicts in any way with the Bill of Rights shows you more and more that people have lost contact with the purpose of their government.

 

[Facey McFace]

Ugh, seriously what is wrong with them. I can't say anything that hasn't been stated before but i wish they'd stop the blaming of the games. Maybe if their was cold hard evidence like he'd run in dressed as a spectre or screamed BOOM HEAD SHOT constantly then maybe people would take this more seriously.

 

[xMacx]

And what better way to give us a false sense of enpowerment and security? A gun.

That's one thing I disagree with you about. Having a gun is in no way a false sense of empowerment, but a practical one...Suppose our government does decide to do away with all discretion and bully people into submission? Had we no guns, we'd be helpless. If a neighbourhood of a hundred had 10 armed men who formed an organized militia, no force will take away the people's liberty, and that's really what it ends up being about.

Your statements reinforce John Galt's point. He argues that guns provide a false sense of security. You argue that having a force of 10 armed men per hundred residents, "no force will take away the people's liberty."

If there were 10 of you versus a trained group of military personnel, your militia would get pwned faster than you could load your gun. Thinking that you and your 10 man militia are going to defend against the government with your trusty .22 is a great example of both false empowerment and false security. High five on proving Mr. Galt's point.

 

[Spartan152]

The one thing I truly hate about Jack Thompson is that everything he says is a lie.

http://kotaku.com/357305/dissecting-jacks-lies-niu-shooting

No one "trains" on a video game, and if they do, there're messed up in the head to begin with. Second off, everyone in his dorm played Counter Strike, not just him. He wasn't the only one to play it at NIU, what with a million copies sold. Games don't desensitize violence unless you're desensitized to it to begin with. I've been playing video games that are pretty violent, and I still react naturally to Real World Violence. if you can't distinguish between the two, you should never play a video game. Jack Thompson is such an idiot. and Larouche is just a dumber version of Thompson who just hasn't done his research, though admittadly Thompson hasn't done a lot of research either. Internet facism?! come on...

 

[Spartan152]

The one thing I truly hate about Jack Thompson is that everything he says is a lie.

http://kotaku.com/357305/dissecting-jacks-lies-niu-shooting

No one "trains" on a video game, and if they do, they're messed up in the head to begin with. Second off, everyone in his dorm played Counter Strike, not just him. He wasn't the only one to play it at NIU, what with a million copies sold. Games don't desensitize violence unless you're desensitized to it to begin with. I've been playing video games that are pretty violent, and I still react naturally to Real World Violence. if you can't distinguish between the two, you should never play a video game. Jack Thompson is such an idiot. and Larouche is just a dumber version of Thompson who just hasn't done his research, though admittadly Thompson hasn't done a lot of research either. Internet facism?! come on...

 

[Talisker]

The one thing I truly hate about Jack Thompson is that everything he says is a lie.

He's a lawyer. Thats what he does.

He's going to keep making this noise as long as people will listen to him.

 

[TomNook]

Say, here's a funny idea. People shoot people with guns? Take away the guns. Stabing people is so much harder to do.

That would just take the guns away from the law abiding citizens.

 

[Mairsil the Pretender]

And what better way to give us a false sense of enpowerment and security? A gun.

That's one thing I disagree with you about. Having a gun is in no way a false sense of empowerment, but a practical one...Suppose our government does decide to do away with all discretion and bully people into submission? Had we no guns, we'd be helpless. If a neighbourhood of a hundred had 10 armed men who formed an organized militia, no force will take away the people's liberty, and that's really what it ends up being about.

Your statements reinforce John Galt's point. He argues that guns provide a false sense of security. You argue that having a force of 10 armed men per hundred residents, "no force will take away the people's liberty."

If there were 10 of you versus a trained group of military personnel, your militia would get pwned faster than you could load your gun. Thinking that you and your 10 man militia are going to defend against the government with your trusty .22 is a great example of both false empowerment and false security. High five on proving Mr. Galt's point.

Well, there could be another defense aspect as well. Imagine if, for whatever reason someone decided to invade the USA. (china has the numbers required.) It would be a deathtrap for any invading country. now, these days, what with the nukes and all, no one would do it. their invasion boats would be shot down or something.

I dont think that 10 armed men could ever defend anything from a courrupt military. But, where I live, nearly everyone could get access to a bolt-action rifle, and quite a few could use it competently. maybe 60%+ of the population has been out deer hunting at one point or another, and lots of people have more than one gun. hooray for wisconsin.

 

[TomNook]

http://www.derrickcomedy.com/2007/08/21/self-defense/

 

[Kikosemmek]

Your statements reinforce John Galt's point. He argues that guns provide a false sense of security. You argue that having a force of 10 armed men per hundred residents, "no force will take away the people's liberty."

If there were 10 of you versus a trained group of military personnel, your militia would get pwned faster than you could load your gun. Thinking that you and your 10 man militia are going to defend against the government with your trusty .22 is a great example of both false empowerment and false security. High five on proving Mr. Galt's point.

I disagree with you. I believe that if at least ten percent of the population could cooperate and form armed militias, then the government would have a huge mess on its hands. Fascism only occurs when the people are easy to corral. The most powerful tool for this is fear, but if every person resisted physically, the fighting would put the government down- no army can withstand the wrath of the people, if the people resist. This occurred in many occasions in history, where people were not even armed. With arms, a direct resistance is even more empowered, because physical protection is of great importance to any person. Your reasoning that resisting any force which at face value is very intimidating is hopeless simply allows for this fear to control you. Would you give in and submit to a regime which seeks only to exploit you and the people you love? How about exterminate you in a gas chamber? Do you ever remember reading anything about an organized German resistance during the rise of the Third Reich? Not me.

The American revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the French revolution, and the war in Iraq should be very good examples of what happens in a region where the people willingly take up arms and resist an aggressor, foreign or domestic. In all those examples, untrained civilians went right up against well-disciplined, westernized armies, and won. The example of Iraq is still controversial, however, so I won't claim that the 'insurgents' have won, but we definitely haven't either. If you compare the firepower, discipline, and numbers of the men and women stationed in Iraq to those of the Iraqi resistance, you will question your reasoning as to how those measly ten men out of a hundred can pose a challenge to a disciplined war machine.

No, the military can never stand up to a direct resistance by the people. You merely have to ask yourself which people really put up a resistance. Most conquests occur when the people are divided. American presence in Iraq has the rift between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis to thank for its existence. The American state in itself has the rivalries and divisions between native American clans to thank for its own existence. British colonized India had the warring prince-states to thank for its existence. 'Divide and conquer' rings a bell?

Fascist governments have the docility and disorganization of the masses to thank for their existence. Don't assume anything is powerless before you read up on what happens. Those ten men would be wasted by the military only if they are the only ten men in the whole country who would resist, but I meant unity of force through an organized, motivated militia, and that is something which no one can touch. It is much easier to conquer a multitude of entities of lesser power than a single large one with significant power. Having readily accessible arms is the first step toward an organized mentality of a powerful public, something which we are losing steadily, and this alarms me.