Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

[AldUK]

it's more the fact that this game exists solely to push the creator's political agenda in favor of gun control

What if I were to tell you that there exists people who don't see everything as a chance to push an agenda? My personal views on the subject are that we, as Humans, should be completely against making murder as easy as pulling a trigger in a state of emotional weakness. It is not 'pushing a political agenda' for me, it is about basic ethics and morality. I was actually furious at Sandy Hook. I mean, seriously... furious. Why? Because innocent kids had their lives stolen from them. That's a huge tragedy and we should all be doing everything we can to prevent that. If by taking away America's murder toys we can save even one child's life then it is worth it.

That's not politics, it's kind of our duty as living, thinking beings.

 

[major_chaos]

I'm ambivalent about the game itself, if he was doing for shock value then whop-de-do he can join the endless line of other internet shock jocks who have long since stopped bothering me. If he actually had a point good for him, I can appreciate a good troll.
That said when I got to this

"these people love to tout their 'self-defense' statistics as the good of guns but when you actually look at what's defined as 'self-defense' its just one person killing another and having to believe their story because there's no alternative," he wrote. "right at the top of the declaration of independence everyone is equal, we all have inalienable rights, the very first of which is LIFE. the concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

I instantly stopped liking the guy

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Just having a quick skim on the wiki, I can't speak lawyer but it sounds a little ... founding fathers to me. "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia." I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

Today, actually. 10 USC § 311.

Anyhow, the Second sadly doesn't have as much case law as things like the Fourth or Fifth amendments. But Heller and McDonald carved out an individual right to traditionally lawful gun ownership.

Just think the conversation should carry on, without people who have a financial investment in it. I know Americans love there amendments and constitutional rights but it's almost 2014, shouldn't they be reconsidered for the modern age?

Congratulations: There is a process to change constitutional amendments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution]. Now, if 13 states disagree with it, it won't happen. Now taking the former CSA, the Midwest, and most mountain region states, you've got no chance of actually changing the second amendment save for a SCOTUS fiat.

Absolutely nothing positive. Except for numerous gun laws in numerous states including some of the biggest changes in the state where the shooting happened, Connecticut. Except for a level of awareness that has not been raised on the issue since Columbine (And probably even stronger, because of the number of victims who were little children). Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Nothing good has come out of this.

Gun control passed in liberal states. Annnnnnd not much else. Florida didn't end it's controversial "stand your ground" law despite all the anger. States floated similar laws in the time and it looks like Ohio might be passing one. Joe "Double barrel shotgun" Biden's advice was widely ignored and moderate legislation floundered in congress. Despite, apparently, 90% of people agreeing with with it, background checks failed. Oh, and now Illinois will have to start issuing concealed carry permits. There's that too.

Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Listen up: I'm tired of explaining the NRA's stance on the terror watch list, but it appears I'll have to do so again

Basically, they argue that you cannot be denied your constitutional rights if you're "suspected" of maybe committing terrorism in the future, because being put on a secret watchlist has little oversight. Simply put, people on the terror watch list have either A) Been convicted of a felony, and are thus barred from owning a gun or B) Not been convicted. Using any level of constitutional scrutiny, banning a person in group B because people think he might be dangerous in the future from exercising a constitutional right would not pass muster unless the government could prove that he was intent on committing a crime.

Except for a turning of opinion on the NRA and the sociopaths running it who would rather let terrorists and murders (but not black people) have guns than be mildly inconvenienced by a background check or an optional trigger lock.

Really? I've skimmed over my NRA range handbook and several of their newsletters and I can find no reference to barring blacks from firearm ownership. I'll have to ask one of my range buddies about this.

Also, as a side note: Trigger locks are kinda meh. Cable locks are better, in my humble opinion, because you can't store a gun loaded that way. If you plan on using it for home defense, it really shouldn't be locked either way.

EDIT: Ah, crap, I forgot to mention the game.

Uhhhh..... I got nothing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Gun control passed in liberal states. Annnnnnd not much else.

Which is still a "positive" effect. I didn't realise we had to address Florida specifically to have any positive effect. but then....

Listen up: I'm tired of explaining the NRA's stance on the terror watch list

If you're tired of repeating a dishonest line, then stop. Don't act like people aren't listening just because you aren't explaining something in line with reality.

Also, as a side note: Trigger locks are kinda meh.

I don't care if they're 'meh' or not. The NRA had a temper tantrum when gun companies started optionally including them. And no matter how you may try to spin it, it wasn't because the NRA was concerned that they lacked efficacy.

I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

The US military is a militia. Within our framework, they are defined as such.

What if I were to tell you that there exists people who don't see everything as a chance to push an agenda? My personal views on the subject are that we, as Humans, should be completely against making murder as easy as pulling a trigger in a state of emotional weakness. It is not 'pushing a political agenda' for me, it is about basic ethics and morality. I was actually furious at Sandy Hook. I mean, seriously... furious. Why? Because innocent kids had their lives stolen from them. That's a huge tragedy and we should all be doing everything we can to prevent that. If by taking away America's murder toys we can save even one child's life then it is worth it.

That's not politics, it's kind of our duty as living, thinking beings.

'Pushing an agenda' has been Fladerised to meaning 'saying something I don't like.'

It's really weird that media that have existed for centuries or millenia and have used that time as social commentary or promotion of ideals are now considered bad for pushing an agenda. I know games are the newcomer, but it's still funny as hell.

It's sort of like that Fox News chick who was complaining that Seasame Street used to be about sharing and stuff but now it's about socialism.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Which is still a "positive" effect. I didn't realise we had to address Florida specifically to have any positive effect. but then....

Gun control passing in a liberal state isn't news. And it happens regularly without any real reason behind it. Or, to be more specific, without any particular tragedy behind it

If you're tired of repeating a dishonest line, then stop. Don't act like people aren't listening just because you aren't explaining something in line with reality.

So you're OK with denying people the right to purchase firearms because they're suspected of future crime, even though such a stance would be laughed out of court of such shaky standards were applied to any other constitutional right?

I don't care if they're 'meh' or not. The NRA had a temper tantrum when gun companies started optionally including them. And no matter how you may try to spin it, it wasn't because the NRA was concerned that they lacked efficacy.

Do you have a source on the NRA being upset at "optional" trigger locks? Because what I find are objections over mandatory trigger lock storage (which the court ruled against in Heller anyways.

The US military is a militia. Within our framework, they are defined as such.

I actually posted that under the US code the military is different from the militia.

 

[Darklord008]

Going to try to avoid the obvious political debate happening here, but I do want to mention a thing I noticed that I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned (I didn't read all the comments): The "Gun Control" path is really not representing gun control at all. If the gun is just locked in a safe, that's just responsible ownership of a firearm, the way most gun owners act. If there wasn't a gun at all, and it said something along the lines of "Because of laws enacted after the last tragedy, nobody owns any guns", it would be gun control. As it stands, not only is this....Debatably OK, it's inaccurate.

 

[Fox12]

"The concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

What a dumb ass. If he followed his history then he would know that the whole liberal philosophy concerning civil liberties is that you have inalienable rights... until you infringe upon another persons human rights. If someone tries to kill you then of course you have the right to defend yourself. I don't even consider this a guns rights issue. If you want to advocate gun control, fine, but the idea that self defense is morally wrong is horrible.

Incidentally, I prefer the idea of having an armed citizenry in order to protect the rights of the people. The constitution doesn't protect peoples gun rights so that they can shoot deer, it protects those rights so they can shoot tyrants.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

Oh fuck this guy all he wants is attention. All anyone is going to do is say that all gamers are asshole killers when they see this shit. It is not helping anyone it is just getting him press.

I agree even if this guy was just trying to make a game about gun control he has done it in the worst way as it the news will only see the basic idea say he is a sick fuck and declare gamers a killers.

 

[Simple logic]

Here is my question to all who defend and play the game. What joy is there to be had in shooting defenseless characters? What pleasure is brought about by delving in to the macabre realm of killing children?

One could argue that shooting at Nazis in a WW2 sim or blasting away a horde of zombies is the same thing, but I would disagree. In a WW2 sim or a zombie survival game both have a noble motive for your actions. Both are survival and one is to stop an evil of some kind.

One could say "look at COD or Battlefield! Surely that is senseless violence!" Again I would say in both games you are playing as a soldier who, by inference, is trained and employed to kill for his country. You are playing a role that, though thin as this line is, is honorable in its own way. You are a soldier who took a vow to defend and protect his country and is fulfilling his promise by following his leaders instructions.

These few examples are in stark contrast to the game of sandy hook shooting, or the V-tech shooting game and those like it. In these games there is nothing honorable nor redeeming in anyway. The player must kill children, defenseless teachers, and other victims. One must ask a simple and horrifying question: What is more horrible? The tragic death of innocents caused by one man or the celebration and reenactment of these tragedies by thousands who hold it up as a good game?

We as gamers wonder why people point to our media as the fount of real world death and despair, yet ignore or defend games that publicly and cheerfully use violence on the defenseless. We must see that even a simple flash game can cause a lot of harm and cause evil far beyond what we can conceive.

I ask again: What joy do you receive by shooting children or those that have no chance to defend themselves? Is there an answer to this question that puts you in a good light and what does it say about the larger gaming community? We need to ponder this and find out what we plan for our future.

 

[Chris Moses]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but if you aren't...

Force me to carry a gun and I will shoot 5 or more people and then myself.

I will be dead and you can all choke on the irony of your "safety measure". Maybe I cant say this will happen with 100% certainty but it will be a thought that will cross my mind multiple times with me having all too easy access to carry it out.

I VOLUNTARILY and of my own initiative got rid of my guns after my first brush with suicide involving them, and thanks to the gun nuts we do not and will not have sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like me. You just have to trust that me having the barrier of going out to buy another gun and then abiding whatever cursory waiting period and/or background check (I don't have a record of criminal activity or involuntary psych-ward commitment so I am sure I'd pass) is enough to keep that from happening.

Scary isn't it?

Your solution is a ideological fantasy that is just as likely to cause more gun deaths than prevent them. Every fist fight or potential fist fight will turn into "I felt threatened by him so I shot him."

I have no problems saying that it would have been better for George Zimmerman to have a broken nose (and even a concussion, as it's rather hard to beat a person to death) than to have a dead Treyvon Martin. And I would much rather live in a world where people are free to enter into fisticuffs without having to worry about getting shot or shooting back.

I am partially sarcastic(mainly because I don't actually living in US, or just because I want to see nation engulfed in the greatest game of battle royale), And I understand those situation. I would come very close to shooting one person if I have to carry a gun around.

But that would at least disprove that NRA claim that guns are making America safer, right?

If this stupid crap is getting his name other there he's doing something right. I'm almost temped to try this myself. Would anyone here be insulted if I created a game where you had to step into Hitler's shoes and plot to take over the world? Or maybe torture people? What level of controversy is necessary to sell my poorly designed garbage games?

Hitler is soo thing of the past. I recommend something that has to do with feminism.

Well, let me establish right here and now that my own experience and perspective, as I have expressed it, is anecdotal at best. On the other hand, I know I am not alone...

I cant deny that there have been times when guns have saved lives. As an earlier poster said

Baresark- Fact: guns take lives. Fact: guns save lives. Fact: Murderers use guns. Fact: people defend themselves from murderers with guns using guns themselves.

Ideally, I'd like to see the US in regards to guns becoming like Great Britain where the cops don't even need to carry them. But, I also understand that is an extreme and ideological approach and it's NEVER a good thing to try to force that kind of thing. Yet, I also can see merit in being able to hunt (I did so as a kid) and to be able to defend your home.

What I specifically came here to debate/oppose (as you can see from my number of posts) is this equally extreme and ideological idea that somehow society will be better/safer if we required everyone to carry a gun. For one thing we are ALREADY living in a time of historically LOW crime rates.

I have given this a lot of thought and I have debated it several times. Sparing you all the multi-page exposition it would take to explain everything in detail, here is the fairest and most balanced solution as I see it:

Magazine limits between 7-10 rounds (maybe as many as 15 for rifles). Registration and licensing required for the sale and ownership of ANY firearm. A background check, psychiatric evaluation and history review being required for the issue and renewal of said license. We also need a way to track or look for crooked gun dealers that sell guns illegally. It'd been determined that only 1% of gun dealers are guilty of this. If we could somehow track inventory and/or sales it should be fairly simple to shut them down. But currently there is legislation that actually prevents us from tracing them and stopping it.

That's it. People get to keep all their favorite guns, even the ones that are or look like military grade weapons.

"But that wont prevent 100% of gun crimes!" people will scream. Let me ask you this. What law and subsequent punishment has ever prevented that law from ever being broken? None, no law, ever. Even during the age of iron maidens, the rack, impaling, and burning people at the stake. People still broke those laws and the most brutal punishments imaginable weren't enough to stop them. So, unless you are arguing that we should remove the rule of law from society entirely (like that wont make things worse) let's put to bed this PREPOSTEROUS argument definitively. If law abiding gun owners are so keen on obeying the law, they would obey these laws. If not, then they cant really claim to be all that "law abiding" can they?

It is ridiculous that 90% of people agree with background checks, but the minority of 10% can kick and scream so loudly that we cant even get this simple and minimal of measures passed. For all those that think we need guns to stop tyranny... How is 10% preventing 90% from doing what they feel is necessary anything but tyranny? Suddenly the tough rhetoric and veiled threats fall silent... How can we even trust you as guardians against tyranny when you call a twice democratically elected official a "tyrant" and miss something so obvious?

An argument can be made to keep guns out of the hands of the people lest they be co-opted into the army of a REAL tyrant. I am not going to stand behind that argument. I am just saying it can be made...

Yeesh, looks like I still managed to make a long winded exposition. Sorry about that and kudos to anyone for plowing through it.

 

[marurder]

Having played the game on NG before it was pulled and reading the comments (and the authors responses) many people on NG didn't like it either (the message, not art or style). Most objections (on NG) were about *the event* rather than message or style. Also Tom on NG was contacted about it (for removal) from the parents of some of those who died.

One of his comments revolves around when youtube has something bad, the uploader is targeted by mass-media, but when NG has something, Newgrounds as a whole is called a cesspit (sic).

I disagree with it being taken down. Especially since nothing has been done to prevent it happening again.

 

[Chris Moses]

"The concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

What a dumb ass. If he followed his history then he would know that the whole liberal philosophy concerning civil liberties is that you have inalienable rights... until you infringe upon another persons human rights. If someone tries to kill you then of course you have the right to defend yourself. I don't even consider this a guns rights issue. If you want to advocate gun control, fine, but the idea that self defense is morally wrong is horrible.

Incidentally, I prefer the idea of having an armed citizenry in order to protect the rights of the people. The constitution doesn't protect peoples gun rights so that they can shoot deer, it protects those rights so they can shoot tyrants.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

 

[SamTheNewb]

This person is pushing a political agenda. He's admitted to as much in the past when he did the same for the Virginia Tech shooting. So it's not a question of whether or not he is....he is. He's said that he is. I'm not sure why people in this thread keep trying to insinuate that he's not politically motivated when he's essentially admitted that he is. So can we stop this dishonest charade?

Yet, this simple fact, that it is a politically motivated piece of media, means that this piece of work, for whatever it is worth, is worthy of protection from censorship. And with that said, I will say NO. We we will not try to stop it.

 

[Billy D Williams]

How does this game differs from any movie about horrible events
I would argue that this game is less insulting that that 9/11 movie
Not that I really care for any of those

Well, I thought United 93 was a hell of a movie. Not a fun one and one I'd never want to watch again, but a damn fine movie.


Anyhow, why do we even care? Whether he's doing it for shock value or really is trying to make a point, so what? Nobody will listen to what he's trying to say, nobody is ever going to be persuaded by this, and its all just so... stupid.

 

[GabeZhul]

"The concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

What a dumb ass. If he followed his history then he would know that the whole liberal philosophy concerning civil liberties is that you have inalienable rights... until you infringe upon another persons human rights. If someone tries to kill you then of course you have the right to defend yourself. I don't even consider this a guns rights issue. If you want to advocate gun control, fine, but the idea that self defense is morally wrong is horrible.

Incidentally, I prefer the idea of having an armed citizenry in order to protect the rights of the people. The constitution doesn't protect peoples gun rights so that they can shoot deer, it protects those rights so they can shoot tyrants.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

Congratulations, you just managed to bring religion into a gun control + video game censorship debate. It's like seeing a person being mauled by a bear and a lion at the same time and then throwing a hungry wolf at him as well... -.-

Also, I am not exactly sure why you are pointing at the Bible of all things. I mean, the New testament is so-so, but even that has some pretty iffy passages, and the old testament is so full of insane cruelty, murder and insanity it's not even funny...

But on topic: ... meh. I really couldn't care less. My country has practically the same gun control laws that #72 outlined, and we have practically no gun-related crimes. As such I can't really imagine how this entire gun-culture of yours even work. In fact I can't even fathom how Americans are able to even step out of the homes in the morning while knowing that any person on the street can be a nutjob with free access to firearms...

 

[Chris Moses]

"The concept that taking life isn't encroaching these rights if done is self-defense is just wrong."

What a dumb ass. If he followed his history then he would know that the whole liberal philosophy concerning civil liberties is that you have inalienable rights... until you infringe upon another persons human rights. If someone tries to kill you then of course you have the right to defend yourself. I don't even consider this a guns rights issue. If you want to advocate gun control, fine, but the idea that self defense is morally wrong is horrible.

Incidentally, I prefer the idea of having an armed citizenry in order to protect the rights of the people. The constitution doesn't protect peoples gun rights so that they can shoot deer, it protects those rights so they can shoot tyrants.

As much as you'd like to make this an "is or isn't" dichotomy, some interesting exceptions have come to mind that I'd like to point out.

Many people see the Bible as the ultimate definition and purveyor of morality, yet it has passages such as "kill your enemies with kindness", "turn the other cheek" and Jesus telling Peter "Put away your sword". Even if you see Jesus as a purely fictional character you cant deny the effect of Him allowing Himself to be killed instead of "defending Himself" as this one act, real or imagined, has shaped and defined the last 2,000 years of Western Civilization.

Even if you are a devout and angry atheist that will deny the positive affect of any religion, the peaceful activism of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and their followers succeeded not through the violent defense against beating and outright murder, but through the peaceful perseverance despite the threats, beatings and killings.

Granted defending yourself from a home invasion or street mugging is hardly a religious or political movement. But, not defending yourself can in certain circumstances be more moral and lead to a greater common moral outcome than using violence to defend yourself.

Congratulations, you just managed to bring religion into a gun control + video game censorship debate. It's like seeing a person being mauled by a bear and a lion at the same time and then throwing a hungry wolf at him as well... -.-

Also, I am not exactly sure why you are pointing at the Bible of all things. I mean, the New testament is so-so, but even that has some pretty iffy passages, and the old testament is so full of insane cruelty, murder and insanity it's not even funny...

But on topic: ... meh. I really couldn't care less. My country has practically the same gun control laws that #72 outlined, and we have practically no gun-related crimes. As such I can't really imagine how this entire gun-culture of yours even work. In fact I can't even fathom how Americans are able to even step out of the homes in the morning while knowing that any person on the street can be a nutjob with free access to firearms...

It seems you stopped reading after the word Bible. I am also... bothered by your implication that I am pro-religion by the sheer fact that I bring it up. I purposely was noncommittal and nonjudgemental in the treatment of the one of THREE examples I used to show that a greater moral victory (or effect) can be achieved by NOT using violence to defend oneself.

Eh, I thought it was only religious zealots that became irrationally agitated when someone inappropriately(?) discussed religion or a religious concept...

It has also occurred to me to point out that both Martin Luther King and Gandhi were religious people whose actions were at least in part influenced by religious concepts and philosophies.

As to your last statement. I've accepted that life is inherently risky and that you can literally drive yourself insane worrying about every possible way you can die. I will admit it is scary at times to consider all of the nut-jobs potentially carrying a gun and the fact that they actively encourage more nut-jobs to carry guns, but I try to keep it in perspective by reminding myself that cancer and hearth disease are still the most likely way I will die, with accidents being the 5th most likely and suicide will be the 10th most likely (in fact maybe more so for me). Homicides rank as the 16th mostly likely way to die in the US. I found that ALL firearm related deaths, (31,672) including accidents and suicides, account for roughly 1.3% of all deaths recorded in 2010 (rank 13).

The "fires" of this fear are unfortunately fanned in this country by a sensationalist media and politicians trying to drum up support, and it destroys the credibility of EITHER side that uses this tactic.

Also, I was #72... why didn't you just say so?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (for the more detailed information click on the PDF "source" link on that page)

 

[GabeZhul]

It seems you stopped reading after the word Bible. I am also... bothered by your implication that I am pro-religion by the sheer fact that I bring it up. I purposely was noncommittal and nonjudgemental in the treatment of the one of THREE examples I used to show that a greater moral victory (or effect) can be achieved by NOT using violence to defend oneself.

Eh, I thought it was only religious zealots that became irrationally agitated when someone inappropriately(?) discussed religion or a religious concept...

It has also occurred to me to point out that both Martin Luther King and Gandhi were religious people whose actions were at least in part influenced by religious concepts and philosophies.

As to your last statement. I've accepted that life is inherently risky and that you can literally drive yourself insane worrying about every possible way you can die. I will admit it is scary at times to consider all of the nut-jobs potentially carrying a gun and the fact that they actively encourage more nut-jobs to carry guns, but I try to keep it in perspective by reminding myself that cancer and hearth disease are still the most likely way I will die, with accidents being the 5th most likely and suicide will be the 10th most likely (in fact maybe more so for me). Homicides rank as the 16th mostly likely way to die in the US. I found that ALL firearm related deaths, (31,672) including accidents and suicides, account for roughly 1.3% of all deaths recorded in 2010 (rank 13).

The "fires" of this fear are unfortunately fanned in this country by a sensationalist media and politicians trying to drum up support, and it destroys the credibility of EITHER side that uses this tactic.

Also, I was #72... why didn't you just say so?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm (for the more detailed information click on the PDF "source" link on that page)

I am not implying anything, just noting that bringing a new flame-provoking subject into a debate with two flame-provoking subjects already present is a bit foolish.

Also, bringing up religious people as good examples are as fallacious as bringing up religious people as bad examples. Being religious does not really mean anything in this debate, good or bad, and judging a belief-system on the individual extremes is just silly anyways.

As for #72... It's hard to keep track of people with generic avatars, my apologies for not noticing it was you.