Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

[Shraggler]

What's more irritating is that someone (and presumably loads of people) find this "shocking". It's tasteless and maybe exploitative, but not shocking.

Have they been on the Internet? Ever? Have they ever met another human being?

We do some terrible and fucked up shit as a species. Constantly and throughout history. Rape is a thing for fuck's sake. People mutilate and amputate their own genitalia in a sober, if not mentally stable, state. People kill themselves and each other all the time for a myriad of bizarre and inane reasons.

With the advent of the Internet, all human behavior is even more apparent, especially the more socially perverse and deviant acts.

The game may be crude, rude, sans tact, socially unacceptable and stupid, but it's in no way shocking.

 

[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.

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.

I don't disagree with you here. I'm not saying that a person should seek revenge, or that killing someone should the first option. I, myself, do not even own a gun. I feel safe where I am, and I don't have anyone but myself to protect living with me. I also don't think violence is a very good option in either our domestic or foreign policies, and I've opposed all the recent wars and the proposed bombing of Syria.I also don't think any armed resistance against the government would be necessary unless we were an all out dictatorship, and the people had tried every other form of peaceful representation. So I get where your coming from, I agree with you.

I just don't like absolutes, atleast not in this case. Self defense may not be the best option all the time, but I don't consider it immoral either. The problem is that the rights he's discussing, the ones he mentioned by name in his speech, are based on liberal philosophies such as just war. Just War being the belief that war is immoral unless you are directly attacked, and if other options were denied to you. An example would be WW2. The early versions of these philosophies were based on christian doctrine. Even though later liberal (thought today we'd call them libertarian) philosophers were not religious, they still held onto the idea of individual rights. In other words, I have a right to life, but if I try to take another persons right to life then they have the right to defend themselves. Don't get me wrong, I think you're right, I just think self defense should at least be an option, even if it's a last resort.

 

[omega 616]

snip

In the modern world, it just wouldn't happen. With all the nuclear deterrents the E.U and red tape/bureaucracy that invading another country is never going to happen, invasions are a thing of the past to me. You could say "well, the Iraq war was an invasion" but to me that is just America, world police going to work. An invasion to me implies conquest and homefront was just a game, Korea isn't going to arrive in Cali and be like "we own this shit!".

Lets not go into immigration 'cos this isn't Machete.

Sorry but whut? You bought a gun after sandy hook to protect your daughter ... She going to call you up if a guy targets the school and you turn into Kindergarten cop? I don't mean to take the piss but I'm English, it's what we do.

I think allowing guns to be bought by Joe Bloggs is a dangerous thing, they could have it for the most noble intentions or for bad ones. I say things need to be very strict:
required range training.
Yearly mental health checks for stress (to stop people who own guns mentally snapping).
Anything more serious than hand gun should banned (with the exception of hunting) ... if you need a shotgun or any form of fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, you need to be less of a dick!

I don't think that sounds too harsh, you can own a gun and defend yourself but it impacts on gangs and school shootings.

In a perfect world I would say "adopt Australia's gun policies" but Americans LOVE guns and public out cry coupled with NRA will never let that happen. I hope you watch these ...

Today, actually. 10 USC § 311.

... no they didn't ....

>.<

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.[/quote]

That's the problem though, people who have a finical investment in guns (as well just the nuttiest gun nuts) are having a say. I think it should be an objective and rational discussion about do we need guns? Can we follow in the foot steps of Australia and have restrictive gun laws, if not, why not? etc and have none of this "well, I like guns!" or rampant paranoia that I have seen, there seems to be this thought that the second you don't have a gun you will be mugged. Not to mention Americans have a cavalier attitude towards life, it's a very me or you mentality and "if you rob me I am allowed to kill you, you deserve to die", this continues to health care "you poor? Then you dead".

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

To me, a militia is a group of people who aren't funded by a government and are probably opposing the government. Forgive my ignorance of American history but the phrase "the south shall rise again" is what I am thinking of, if a band of Southerners band together in order to over throw the government would be a militia ... rather than a multi-billion dollar power house, with nuclear war heads, jets, tanks and generally one of, if not THE most powerful and largest armies in the world. It's like calling a music festival with 50,000 attendees a "small gathering".

 

[Something Amyss]

Gun control passing in a liberal state isn't news.

Which is why it makes the news. Huh.

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?

So you took me pointing out that what you were saying was untrue and tried to turn it into my advocacy of the exact thing I said was untrue?

I guess there's really no point in continuing, then. I just don't get why you're so upset that you have to repeat yourself, if all you're going to do is respond with deceptive strawmen and misleading questions. If you're tired of it, just stop.

 

[crazyarms33]

This is ridiculous. This is a message for gun laws? Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. I love the fact that they say they can make it because of "right to life" but apparently the 2nd Ammendment is no longer applicable. Double standard much? I think so.

 

[Something Amyss]

To me, a militia is a group of people who aren't funded by a government and are probably opposing the government.

The Constitution puts the President (as Commander In Chief) in charge of "the militia." Congress has the right to raise and maintain militias.

People try and play word salad, but remember that this is the same body people rely on to define the right to bear arms (Though the Bill of rights was written later, it contains the same diction and many of the same authors).

The Constitution is a lot like the Bible, though. People take the parts they want and throw out the rest. Since you posted clips from The Daily Show, I'm going to assume you've seen the episode where Jon Stewart demonstrates that Fox News thinks all 9 other Bill of Rights amendments are allowed to be violated/altered, but not the second amendment. Or perhaps the bit from when John Oliver hosted where he did essentially the same.

The people who raise civilian militias often do so based on a cherry-picked perspective of the Constitution.

And honestly, what you personally define doesn't matter. We have language for a reason, and expressing it on similar terms is a fundamental part of that. I can run around saying that atheism is a belief in Satan or that "the" is a curse word, but it doesn't make it relevant or accurate.

Besides, even by your definition, there are active militias everywhere. There were a ton formed because paranoid conspiracy nuts thought Oberma were gun take er gurns! There were a ton before that. We are a nation with more guns than sense.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is ridiculous. This is a message for gun laws? Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. I love the fact that they say they can make it because of "right to life" but apparently the 2nd Ammendment is no longer applicable. Double standard much? I think so.

Okay, please explain specifically how it's a double standard.

 

[the doom cannon]

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn more escapists going on about taking away all the guns. The game basically says that no method is perfect. His gun control mode is more like responsible ownership

 

[ckam]

I'm actually going to side with the Lambourn guy. He seems to be actually trying to make a message instead of trying to troll people for the fun of it. So yeah, some people need to actually think about it.

 

[Draconalis]

In the modern world, it just wouldn't happen. With all the nuclear deterrents the E.U and red tape/bureaucracy that invading another country is never going to happen, invasions are a thing of the past to me. You could say "well, the Iraq war was an invasion" but to me that is just America, world police going to work. An invasion to me implies conquest and homefront was just a game, Korea isn't going to arrive in Cali and be like "we own this shit!".

Honestly, you can think it'll never happen, and time might even prove you right. That doesn't mean it's impossible. Since I can't see the future, I can only assume an invasion can happen.

And a police action is still an invasion. It's not only an invasion when it happens to first world nations.

Lets not go into immigration 'cos this isn't Machete.

The immigration bit was a joke.

Sorry but whut? You bought a gun after sandy hook to protect your daughter ... She going to call you up if a guy targets the school and you turn into Kindergarten cop? I don't mean to take the piss but I'm English, it's what we do.

You might have forgotten, or maybe don't know, but the Colorado Theater shooting took place to that much earlier than Sandy Hook. It was Sandy Hook that made me bite the financial cost and do it. If anyone in that theater had a gun, things would have happened differently. I'm not going to run down to the school and shoot suspects. The Police have their job, but if I'm in a theater watching a movie with my daughter, that matters.

I think allowing guns to be bought by Joe Bloggs is a dangerous thing, they could have it for the most noble intentions or for bad ones. I say things need to be very strict:
required range training.
Yearly mental health checks for stress (to stop people who own guns mentally snapping).

I personally like that idea, but there might be draw backs I don't see, and I'm open to that.

Anything more serious than hand gun should banned (with the exception of hunting) ... if you need a shotgun or any form of fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, you need to be less of a dick!

Shot guns are versatile. They are used for hunting, but are handy in other ways. If your home is on fire, and you're trapped, that shotgun will give you an exit in no time. And before you question how often that might happen, my father's apartment burnt down, and that's exactly what he used it for.

And back to utterly unlikely scenarios. Aliens could invade... and I have a gun to protect our race. What are gunless nations going to do? Hit them with bats?

 

[crazyarms33]

Okay, please explain specifically how it's a double standard.

1.) No where at all in the Constitution does it specifically promise a "right" to life. In fact, it merely states:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..'"

It merely states that men have the right to live as they chose, not that they can physically be alive. Context is important.

2.) The 2nd Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The key part of the phrase here being the latter part of the statement.

This is a direct double standard because they are intentionally ignoring the 2nd Amendment in favor of something that is not specifically authorized by the legal government of a sovereign nation. No government on earth can guarantee any of their citizens a "right" to be alive through litigation, it is physically impossible. Imagine how ridiculous it would be for a politician to say, "And I promise that there will be no more stillborn babies! On the basis of this law which I will personally introduce to Congress today, which guarantees that everyone will have a right to live!" That baby would still be dead and no amount of litigation would change that.

Yet here we have some deliberately and intentionally ignoring the second amendment in order to further a political point using an argument that cannot be enforced by law. It doesn't matter where the words they reference appear, it matters if what they are arguing for is in the government's power to achieve via litigation. The right to bear arms is a legal right. The right to life is not. To quote Starship Troopers "What right to life does a man drowning in the ocean have?"

 

[SinisterGehe]

Every time someone pulls this o' trick from the hat we get the same discussion - video gamers are horrible, developer is a monster and should be jailed/killed/maimed/whatever and political uproar.

Then we go through the dance about freedom of speech, freedom that and this, censorship. Then we get to the paradox where people say that there should be freedom of speech but regulation of that freedom - the most stupid idea ever and a paradox.

Then something even stupider comes along or people just bored being angry about this and forget the whole thing.

I admit it is in bad taste to make this, but then again I find getting drunk to be in bad taste.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So you took me pointing out that what you were saying was untrue and tried to turn it into my advocacy of the exact thing I said was untrue?

Please explain how what I said was untrue. Because if you don't let people on a government watch list buy guns (those who have not been convicted of any felony), you are denying them a constitutional right without due process. Which wouldn't fly for any other constitutional right, I'll remind you

Let me guess your response: You'll accuse me of lying, offer no counter-claim or proof, and then say you're done talking to me

 

[Simple logic]

In the modern world, it just wouldn't happen. With all the nuclear deterrents the E.U and red tape/bureaucracy that invading another country is never going to happen, invasions are a thing of the past to me. You could say "well, the Iraq war was an invasion" but to me that is just America, world police going to work. An invasion to me implies conquest and homefront was just a game, Korea isn't going to arrive in Cali and be like "we own this shit!".

Lets not go into immigration 'cos this isn't Machete.

Sorry but whut? You bought a gun after sandy hook to protect your daughter ... She going to call you up if a guy targets the school and you turn into Kindergarten cop? I don't mean to take the piss but I'm English, it's what we do.

I think allowing guns to be bought by Joe Bloggs is a dangerous thing, they could have it for the most noble intentions or for bad ones. I say things need to be very strict:
required range training.
Yearly mental health checks for stress (to stop people who own guns mentally snapping).
Anything more serious than hand gun should banned (with the exception of hunting) ... if you need a shotgun or any form of fully automatic weapon to defend yourself, you need to be less of a dick!

I don't think that sounds too harsh, you can own a gun and defend yourself but it impacts on gangs and school shootings.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To omega 616. I do not seem to follow your logic on this point of guns. Would you please clearify for me? Here is what I am getting from your argument. If a man (A) buys a gun to protect his daughter at school (B)therefore it causes a school shooting or a gang shooting (C). If we break this down A+B=C with B being the driving and causing force of C with a being the passive actor in the problem.

If I were to take this same idea and use another problem; would we get the same outcome?
A Nazi has a massive amount of Jews (A) buys gas to kill them (B) therefore it causes them to kill the Jews (C). Does B stand up as the driving and causing force in this case? Do we blame the gas? I have seen no one that does. They blame the Nazis (A). That might be an anomaly though. Let's try another then.

If a man (A) buys a knife to protect himself from an attack while walking (B) therefore the knife causes the muggings and attacks on himself and others (C). Once again I do not see where the object is in blame for actions of the person. Within the argument you have set up there is no sense of a free will for the person as the object causes the action no matter what the person does with it. If I have gotten this wrong please correct me.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

That's the problem though, people who have a finical investment in guns (as well just the nuttiest gun nuts) are having a say. I think it should be an objective and rational discussion about do we need guns?

The majority of Americans don't even want a ban on something as narrow as handguns, last I checked. And that's the thing. I've been involved in this issue for years now. And the people I see calling for the strictest laws (bans on entire classes of firearms, mandatory storage laws, arbitrary limits, ect) are nine times out of ten Europeans or Australians. Americans just aren't interested in taking the issue that far. If gun control does pass federally, it will be a moderate background check bill. Nothing nearing anything you mention.

Can we follow in the foot steps of Australia and have restrictive gun laws, if not, why not? etc and have none of this "well, I like guns!" or rampant paranoia that I have seen, there seems to be this thought that the second you don't have a gun you will be mugged.

I don't think either side is interested in a conversation as they both feel that the other is negotiating in bad faith on the issue. And again, America has a much stronger gun culture than pretty much any of those countries who have passed bans.

Not to mention Americans have a cavalier attitude towards life, it's a very me or you mentality and "if you rob me I am allowed to kill you, you deserve to die", this continues to health care "you poor? Then you dead".

That legitimate use of deadly force may result in the death of an aggressor does not logically demonstrate that any legitimate use of deadly force is an intentionally choice to kill, rather than to neutralize an imminent threat.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Meanwhile over in IGN there's uproar because the website only gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

I'm in two minds about this, at first I thought it would just be a pure exploitation game, but the defence the developer gave actually has me swayed a bit, especially the gun safe bit. It's a bit like satire; creating a piece of imaginary media to deliberately get criticism of for being sick, then point out that the exact same thing is happening in real life, yet we don't do anything to stop it.

Makes you think.

That isn't the only thing. There are actually 3 modes: Historical, Gun Control, and Eagletears. Historical is what you would expect. In Gun control, however, the gun is locked in the safe and the game tells you to assume that the killer ordered a katana online. You play the game like normal and it tallies up the kills at the end, which are much less than in historical because the katana requires you to be right next to people and is also much slower than the rifle. Eagletears, on the other hand, arms all the teachers with pistols. This doesn't really effect much, as you can kill them before they can fire. So... Yeah. Interesting game that actually gets across its message across surprisingly well.

I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

 

[omega 616]

snip

I'm not closed minded enough to say it will never happen from hence forth but come on, an army that huge and powerful with how many nukes and the entire country being able to own fire arms isn't the place an invader goes "we can take 'em!" ... in my opinion the next invasion will be a political one of open borders (in the very very very far future).

I figured it was a joke but wanted to guillotine it.

I know shotguns are good for opening stuff, special forces use it to blow hinges off and I know they are used for bird hunting but if I am being honest, if I wanted to do a Columbine, Sandy hook etc style shooting, I am choosing a shotgun ... wide spread, good range and aiming isn't wholly necessary.

You know why in war of the worlds, Cloverfield and Pacific rim style movies the aliens kick ass and all our weapons don't effect them? They have the ability to get here, so they are obviously far more advanced than us. If the army spending millions in munitions doesn't tickle it, your relative pea shooter isn't going to phase it ... unless you're Will Smith but then you can just punch it into submission.

snip

That's the fucking problem, American gun nuts are far too paranoid and close minded to be rational and objective. They would rather say "but the stats say ..." and "I need them for ..." instead of "hey, Australia used to be like us and have school shootings and massacres but now there hasn't been one for years. Why not try it out?".

Statistics are great but only show what has happened (note, past tense) and not what is happening in Aus. Instead of theoretical arguments there is a living example of how it could be better. However, knowing what Americans are like, I think they need a compromise between what Aus has and the current tragedies happening in America.

American's value things and money over human life, I've read people on this site say things like "if an intruder is in my house I will kill them". That strikes me as odd, your TV and jewelry are worth more than a life ... that person isn't a great person 'cos they are robbing you but you have insurance, it can all be replaced.

To be honest, I feel a little sorry for American's ... they are so caught up in "they're gunna get me!" and clinging to guns like a security blanket that they are paralyzed into paranoia. I'd love to visit America for times square, your big crack grand canyon, Niagra falls (even though it's a bit Canadian as well), mount Rushmore and those monuments but from what I've heard of TSA and the fire arms laws, I wont go near it!

 

[Simple logic]

Meanwhile over in IGN there's uproar because the website only gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

I'm in two minds about this, at first I thought it would just be a pure exploitation game, but the defence the developer gave actually has me swayed a bit, especially the gun safe bit. It's a bit like satire; creating a piece of imaginary media to deliberately get criticism of for being sick, then point out that the exact same thing is happening in real life, yet we don't do anything to stop it.

Makes you think.

That isn't the only thing. There are actually 3 modes: Historical, Gun Control, and Eagletears. Historical is what you would expect. In Gun control, however, the gun is locked in the safe and the game tells you to assume that the killer ordered a katana online. You play the game like normal and it tallies up the kills at the end, which are much less than in historical because the katana requires you to be right next to people and is also much slower than the rifle. Eagletears, on the other hand, arms all the teachers with pistols. This doesn't really effect much, as you can kill them before they can fire. So... Yeah. Interesting game that actually gets across its message across surprisingly well.

I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

What is wrong with you people? Why? I ask. Why are you playing a game in which you kill kids and teachers? Why not play a game in which you kill just Jews, or Black people, or Native Americans? What is the appeal of this game that compels you kill do horrific acts in a game? Don't get me wrong as I love a good shooter as the next. Heck I play sniper elite quite often. Why, though, do you have the desire to kill children and the defenseless?

 

[spartan231490]

If you bothered to do any real research, it would become apparent that gun control doesn't do shit. Furthermore, his explanation of "self-defense" is laughably inaccurate, since only in about 90% of these cases is the weapon even fired, let alone fired at the attacker, let alone hitting them, let alone killing them. I get so fucking infuriated when people run their mouths about shit they don't know shit about.

You know, I don't even mind that he made the game. He should be free to make whatever game he wants. However, to use the inevitable backlash as an outlet for an uneducated, political soap-box is fucking low. If you really made the game to send a message, you could just let it rest on it's own merits. You didn't, you made the game to piss people off and get attention, just like a toddler who draws on the walls. Also just like that toddler, you think you're right, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Meanwhile over in IGN there's uproar because the website only gave it an 8.5 out of 10.

I'm in two minds about this, at first I thought it would just be a pure exploitation game, but the defence the developer gave actually has me swayed a bit, especially the gun safe bit. It's a bit like satire; creating a piece of imaginary media to deliberately get criticism of for being sick, then point out that the exact same thing is happening in real life, yet we don't do anything to stop it.

Makes you think.

That isn't the only thing. There are actually 3 modes: Historical, Gun Control, and Eagletears. Historical is what you would expect. In Gun control, however, the gun is locked in the safe and the game tells you to assume that the killer ordered a katana online. You play the game like normal and it tallies up the kills at the end, which are much less than in historical because the katana requires you to be right next to people and is also much slower than the rifle. Eagletears, on the other hand, arms all the teachers with pistols. This doesn't really effect much, as you can kill them before they can fire. So... Yeah. Interesting game that actually gets across its message across surprisingly well.

I found that Eagletears was the mode that got me the most kills, actually - in Historical, the teachers were really effective at getting the kids out and behind locked doors, but in Eagletears they all tried to shoot first, leaving me to clear rooms easily.

Yeah, me too, but I wasn't certain if it was just because I knew the layout and how things worked more, or if it was because the teachers were actually ineffectual. I actually managed to get 56 kills (96% holy shit) in eagletears mode. :\

What is wrong with you people? Why? I ask. Why are you playing a game in which you kill kids and teachers? Why not play a game in which you kill just Jews, or Black people, or Native Americans? What is the appeal of this game that compels you kill do horrific acts in a game? Don't get me wrong as I love a good shooter as the next. Heck I play sniper elite quite often. Why, though, do you have the desire to kill children and the defenseless?

I don't really have any strong desire to kill children. I do have a strong desire to fully explore the message and themes of a work, which in this case requires the player to play all 3 game modes.