U.S. Senator Says Videogames Are Worse Than Guns

[Aardvaarkman]

You are a gamer, if you have a modern console you could afford a pistol or shotgun at the same price.

Do you really believe that effective gun ownership just amounts to the monetary cost of a weapon? Guns require maintenance. Effective use of them requires training and practice. It's not like you can just buy a weapon and then be instantly be protected by its aura. It's a lot of time and effort owning a gun. Time I would rather spend on things I enjoy, rather than something that is basically useless to me. I already have too many hobbies.

You are right, it's unlikely, however you can negate your risk by paying closer attention. You can also negate the risk by not buying another console for one year and getting an 870 instead.

No. Owning a gun increases your risk of being killed by an intruder (or family member, friend, etc). Most break-ins are just people who want to steal your things to make money. Homicidal break-ins are usually by people known to the victim, and the result of relationships, whether sexual, criminal or whatever.

So, a guy breaks into your house, and wants to steal your laptop. The chances of you getting harmed are very low, until you draw your weapon. If you don't draw your weapon, he'll usually go away, and you can claim losses with your insurance company. If you draw your weapon, that's when you are likely to be shot or bludgeoned.

America is an experiment to see whether man can rule himself. Without morality (the fear of god or a moral code) people would then obey the law out of fear of the bayonet of the law.

So, why did you say it was about gun owners "ruling" criminals? This statement is completely at odds with your previous one.

The recidivism rates say that criminals no longer fear the jail, nor the bayonet of the law.

As for me being law abiding.

I hold a security clearance as a requirement for the job I hold. So logically I'm not a criminal. I am able to pass the necessary checks to purchase a firearm using a 4473. This requires a background check.

You didn't answer the question. Have you never broken any law? Have you never exceeded the speed limit?

The law is only broken when you fail to make the law whole, pay a fine. Failure to appear though makes you a law breaker.

That's absurd. Paying a fine does not mean you didn't break the law. The fine is a penalty for breaking the law. Your logic would mean that a murderer did not break the law if he shows up to court and serves the sentence dealt to him.

 

[verdant monkai]

You Americans are really getting concerned about the whole gun violence issue right now aren't you.

I wouldn't worry this guy is just a gun activist looking for a scapegoat, to blame for the fact that when everyone has access to weapons made for killing human beings, some people are bound to use said weapons to kill people. Funny that isn't it.

 

[The Lugz]

American senators, more dangerous then guns or games with their 'ideals' that 'effect' people
if only they knew what a laughing stock they were to everyone, the problem would solve itself

 

[Lictor Face]

i quote penny arcade comics for this.

" It is a strange patriot that would destroy the first amendment to protect the second."

You want to reduce gun fatalities? Get rid of assault weapons in house-holds. The average breadwinner does NOT need a bushmaster to defend himself.

Done and done. I would throw away my right to ever buy or use guns again if it meant that no more innocent people and children will ever have to get hurt by guns again.

 

[blackrave]

Okay let's try an experiment: Who would you be more likely to hand over your money to?
Someone pointing a videogame at you, or someone pointing a gun at you?

It's simple- videogame of course
in case of the gun I would try to defend myself
In case of game I would check the game and buy it

P.S.Anyway, guns are overrated- all I need to deal with anyone threatening my life is one or two knives. And I don't need any licenses to carry them.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Not the worst thing I've heard a US Senator say, not even this week.
It seems like just something he's being paid to say.

 

[ChristopherT]

I cannot take such a statement seriously, so my response is - I have a gun...in my pants. AhhH! It went off! There's a mess everywhere, oh god. It's all slimy and sticky, and, getting tired and hot, and I think I need to lay down.

 

[aelreth]

Do you really believe that effective gun ownership just amounts to the monetary cost of a weapon? Guns require maintenance. Effective use of them requires training and practice. It's not like you can just buy a weapon and then be instantly be protected by its aura. It's a lot of time and effort owning a gun. Time I would rather spend on things I enjoy, rather than something that is basically useless to me. I already have too many hobbies.

Practice isn't that hard to do. You play video games with guns why not head to a range and do the same thing. The US Army standard is once every 6 months. Maintaining a firearm requires cleaning it, this can be done during a functions check which could be done every month or quarterly, That shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of your time.

No. Owning a gun increases your risk of being killed by an intruder (or family member, friend, etc). Most break-ins are just people who want to steal your things to make money. Homicidal break-ins are usually by people known to the victim, and the result of relationships, whether sexual, criminal or whatever.

Family members or guests are unlikely, http://mortality-rates.findthedata.org/d/d/Accidental-discharge-of-firearms
Unfortunately, you could never be to sure on what they want to do once they get inside, According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion. If someone is involved in a homicidal break in, it's in the best interests of the homeowner to be armed. Unless you find it moral that a home invasion that results in a homicide is somehow moral because the homeowner didn't kill the intruder in self defense.

So, a guy breaks into your house, and wants to steal your laptop. The chances of you getting harmed are very low, until you draw your weapon. If you don't draw your weapon, he'll usually go away, and you can claim losses with your insurance company. If you draw your weapon, that's when you are likely to be shot or bludgeoned.

You assume a rational creature breaks into someones residence while they are home. If I hear something at my door and I am not expecting guests or the mailman, I grab my pistol and chamber a round. I turn on my optics, which is a green laser. Assuming he's already past the door, he is likely going for my electronics or laptop (in the scenario you envision) that was left in my common room. I use my hearing to give a general idea of where he is, and I position myself using my urban warfare training to put him in my sights (Clearing the other rooms in my house on the way). My pistol is already aimed where I am looking. A challenge will be made. If he charges or makes a threatening movement, I fire a series of 3-5 shots in his torso. If he still moves towards me, I continue to fire, 2-3 round bursts at his torso, groin and head. Due to arrangements, if he chooses to retreat, the only direction he can go is out a sliding glass door onto a patio with a 3 story drop. No stairs for his safety.

An 870 12 Gauge would be much the same except it would involve a round fired towards his abdomen & groin. Followed by me turning around and retrieving my phone to call the police. That's my next purchase.

So, why did you say it was about gun owners "ruling" criminals? This statement is completely at odds with your previous one.

We do, criminals go after softer targets. Or they don't go after us at all. They go ultimately where they are in the advantage. Thus not where I and fellow gunowners are.

You didn't answer the question. Have you never broken any law? Have you never exceeded the speed limit?

I did, the federal government, state governments & the FBI say that I have a clean record. Which came as no surprise to me since I'm a law abiding citizen. I would advise you to read the documentation when you have a speeding ticket, it tells you how to make recourse to make amends to the law. Thus once the fine is paid you are in compliance with the law. As far as speeding tickets which I only have had one. It merely required me to forfeit a certain amount of money to remain in compliance with the law, which I did.

That's absurd. Paying a fine does not mean you didn't break the law. The fine is a penalty for breaking the law. Your logic would mean that a murderer did not break the law if he shows up to court and serves the sentence dealt to him.

It's the law of the land. I would again advise you to read the documentation when you have a speeding ticket, it tells you how to make recourse to make amends to the law. Felonies leave a black mark on our record and you at this point cannot have them stricken from it.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Practice isn't that hard to do. You play video games with guns why not head to a range and do the same thing. The US Army standard is once every 6 months. Maintaining a firearm requires cleaning it, this can be done during a functions check which could be done every month or quarterly, That shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of your time.

Do you really think that practicing every 6 months is going to make you proficient enough to protect yourself from a surprise attack? You yourself said that you chamber a round at any unsuspected noise at the door. That isn't an insignificant investment of time and attention.

You also say this as if maintaining your weapon every month is an insignificant thing. As adults, we have many things to do on a monthly basis. You're proposing that people should take on another chore, which most likely isn't of any benefit to them, but could actually pose a substantial risk to their safety.

What happened to responsible gun ownership and safety? Safely owning a gun is a significant commitment - you shouldn't be encouraging people to buy weapons by saying it's a trivial thing that's easy to do. It is not. I'm perfectly OK with people's rights to own weapons, but it's not something that should be taken lightly. One of the biggest problems with the current gun culture is that they are treated like toys.

I would advise you to read the documentation when you have a speeding ticket, it tells you how to make recourse to make amends to the law. Thus once the fine is paid you are in compliance with the law. As far as speeding tickets which I only have had one. It merely required me to forfeit a certain amount of money to remain in compliance with the law, which I did.

You really don't seem to understand how the law works. Paying the fine does not mean that you are "in compliance" with the law. The very reason you had to pay a fine was that you broke the law. Also, what about all those times you broke the law, but didn't get caught? Not being caught does not mean you didn't break the law.

You admit here that you have had a speeding ticket. That means you are not a law-abiding citizen. If you were abiding by the law, why did you break the speed limit? Also, having a security clearance is not proof that you didn't break any laws. Plenty of people who are not law-abiding have security clearances. All it means is that you are considered an acceptable risk.

You don't "make amends" to the law. The law is the law. Being punished by law enforcement does not mean what you did never happened.

 

[unstabLized]

Fantastic, another bumbling idiot who has no clue what the fuck he's talking about. God, people like this piss me off sometimes. "Video games are more then dangerous because video games affect people." Yeah, like guns don't fucking do that you dumb twat.

Excuse me.


RAAAAAAAAAAAWRPOKAWRAPEOKASPDOKADPSOA KAWPDASdjcvi.

Okay I needed that. Carry on.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Its comments like that that makes you question how these retards get into power. Games worse than guns? You know what if there was no guns, then if a game made me crazy then all i could do is run around pointing my finger going "pew pew pew." Not sure any one can die from that.

What happened to "by the people, for the people"? Or does it only count if the people give you loads of cash (bribe) to lobby for them. Maybe its a conspiracy between the NRA and health care...less guns mean less gunshot wounds and thus hospitals get less money.

But i stand by my opinion though. Concentrate on gun safety and stopping accidental deaths. I read that around 150 children die from accidental gun deaths due to poor gun safety. Atleast you would think any gun nut would take responsibility and tighten up gun safety and mandatory gun training etc?

 

[aelreth]

Do you really think that practicing every 6 months is going to make you proficient enough to protect yourself from a surprise attack? You yourself said that you chamber a round at any unsuspected noise at the door. That isn't an insignificant investment of time and attention.

You also say this as if maintaining your weapon every month is an insignificant thing. As adults, we have many things to do on a monthly basis. You're proposing that people should take on another chore, which most likely isn't of any benefit to them, but could actually pose a substantial risk to their safety.

What happened to responsible gun ownership and safety? Safely owning a gun is a significant commitment - you shouldn't be encouraging people to buy weapons by saying it's a trivial thing that's easy to do. It is not. I'm perfectly OK with people's rights to own weapons, but it's not something that should be taken lightly. One of the biggest problems with the current gun culture is that they are treated like toys.

You are definitely making a mountain out of a mole hill. Chambering a round takes how long? It's a much shorter time than waiting for the police to show up. Or taking the time to take a look through the peep hole to determine who it is. Is a mechanical tool really that complex for you. Perhaps you should get over your fear of firearms, it's like fire, you have to respect it. Seriously does it take more than 1 minute for you to chamber a round? Are you cleaning it beforehand?

A functions check is simply put is clear it (Drop magazine) open chamber and look inside (This will eject the round that is inside or you will see nothing inside, then pull the trigger), that's 4 seconds.

Go to a range once or twice a year, take 20-30 minutes to re-familiarize and you are as qualified as the police and military. The difference between a civilian and the police is that the police officer has less legal liability than the civilian.

You really don't seem to understand how the law works. Paying the fine does not mean that you are "in compliance" with the law. The very reason you had to pay a fine was that you broke the law. Also, what about all those times you broke the law, but didn't get caught? Not being caught does not mean you didn't break the law.

You admit here that you have had a speeding ticket. That means you are not a law-abiding citizen. If you were abiding by the law, why did you break the speed limit? Also, having a security clearance is not proof that you didn't break any laws. Plenty of people who are not law-abiding have security clearances. All it means is that you are considered an acceptable risk.

You don't "make amends" to the law. The law is the law. Being punished by law enforcement does not mean what you did never happened.

And the law was made whole. You are aware that with that the act of punishment is part of the path of repentance right? You do the crime, you do the time. Or you could simply pay the fine.

Apparently that in your black and white world of right and wrong no longer exists or never existed in the first place.

What was the point again in everyone breaking the law?

Perhaps we could break out the question of who is the injured party? If it is 'society' then I would ask a trial by jury, you already said that everybody speeds so thus it would be thrown out. Or if it is filled with a group of non-drivers who are not your peers that would make it a kangaroo court.

To be honest I should have gone into court, the city shut down that day (weather). I paid the fine because I didn't feel like leaving that day from my apartment I was also leaving in 2 weeks.

 

[Gameguy20100]

OK im sick of this planet it sucks im starting my own city on the moon and your all invited to join me

 

[Zepherus14]

Another old man who has no idea what he's talking about.

Right on, Black Adder!

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I have a great game for threads like these: read the comments on the first page, and then skip to the last page and read those comments. Then try to figure out just how the 'discussion' managed to veer wildly off topic to, in this case, speeding tickets. It's such fun! ;-)

 

[C117]

At first, I wasn't gonna comment on this because, as you all know, we have been through this dance several times before, and will go through it several times again, before videogames turn into the widely accepted form of media we all want it to be. But then this line pops up...

"I think videogames [sic] is a bigger problem than guns, because videogames affect people."

...

You know... I might not know that much about guns. I'm not even an expert on the way videogames affect people, if they do at all (for the record, I do think videogames can affect individuals, but no more so than films, TV, books, the news, music, comics, manga, TV-series, paintings...). However, I am pretty damned sure that a gun can affect people! You know?! If you shoot them?! Or are you some kind of superhero that can just shrug of bullets like nobodys business, and accidentaly forgot that most people can't?! JUST WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN?!!

Although, I suppose he just made a blunder, and really meant that videogames affect people psychologically in ways that guns don't.

...

I'll leave that to all those of you living in the US to judge...

 

[Twilight_guy]

Just because the NRA has you're ball in a vice and you're blanking on things to say to divert the question doesn't mean you can make stupid statements about games. I'm going to enjoy when we reach the point that default line actually earns so much hate that some politician fries for saying it as opposed to just making a bunch of forum goers mad.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Do you really think that practicing every 6 months is going to make you proficient enough to protect yourself from a surprise attack? You yourself said that you chamber a round at any unsuspected noise at the door. That isn't an insignificant investment of time and attention.

You also say this as if maintaining your weapon every month is an insignificant thing. As adults, we have many things to do on a monthly basis. You're proposing that people should take on another chore, which most likely isn't of any benefit to them, but could actually pose a substantial risk to their safety.

What happened to responsible gun ownership and safety? Safely owning a gun is a significant commitment - you shouldn't be encouraging people to buy weapons by saying it's a trivial thing that's easy to do. It is not. I'm perfectly OK with people's rights to own weapons, but it's not something that should be taken lightly. One of the biggest problems with the current gun culture is that they are treated like toys.

You are definitely making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Being thorough is not the same as overreacting. Each of his points corresponded to the topic. An example of making mountains from molehills (that's one word) is what I will proceed to do here.

Chambering a round takes how long? It's a much shorter time than waiting for the police to show up.

You're purposely misunderstanding him, as I am going to assume, perhaps generously, that you are smart enough to know what he meant. Let's go into more detail regarding the investment of responsibility:
Your statement, "If I hear something at my door and I am not expecting guests or the mailman, I grab my pistol and chamber a round. I turn on my optics, which is a green laser," implies that you chamber your gun out of fear/paranoia/preparation on a regular basis, and therefore keep your gun accessible. In order for this to be effective, you must also always have it with you if you get up in the night to take a piss or get a drink of water. If you are doing something that requires two hands, a gun is probably a pain in the ass, because, as any gun owner will say, you can't be careless with guns. Already, the inconvenience and responsibility is starting to stack up. I don't imagine that the average gun owner, or even 99% of them, chamber a round at the drop of a pin. I think you made a mistake with that statement, and should gracefully distance yourself from it with an admission of it being a hyperbolic hypothetical.

Or taking the time to take a look through the peep hole to determine who it is.

If by peep hole you are referring to the ones found commonly in front doors, not every door has one, and even if they did, if you hear a noise profound enough to get you out of bed and armed, the hypothetical intruder is likely already in the house. If by peep hole you are referring to ones you have around your house, then you are a shitty decorator.

Is a mechanical tool really that complex for you.

This needs a question mark. Also:
Strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that guns are a heavy responsibility and should be handled with care, because they can be dangerous, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised with how little he must understand mechanics if he thinks such a responsibility dangerous.

Perhaps you should get over your fear of firearms, it's like fire, you have to respect it.

Comparing something to fire doesn't make it less dangerous. In fact, it makes it seem more dangerous, since fire is also capable of damaging those who would act carelessly with it. Much like guns. The reason guns need to be handled with care is because they are dangerous. The reason we don't have laws as harsh for rubber bands is that, at worst, a rubber band is less likely to cause lethal damage by accident.

Seriously does it take more than 1 minute for you to chamber a round? Are you cleaning it beforehand?

The reason you are saying this is because you are assuming (probably correctly) that your opponent doesn't own a gun, and that this topic would draw him out of his element by being one that is on a subject with which he is not a specialist. I imagine he feels he doesn't have what it would take to keep up the necessary maintenance of a gun that he feels he'd never need to use. That doesn't make him a bad person, it makes him a person who made the right choice, the choice that he won't handle guns carelessly. You, however, make it seem as though it's an example either of immorality or stupidity to not be proficient with firearms, when in fact a very, very large percentage of the US population isn't.

A functions check is simply put is clear it (Drop magazine) open chamber and look inside (This will eject the round that is inside or you will see nothing inside, then pull the trigger), that's 4 seconds.

Good to know. When I get a gun, I won't have to train, because I heard someone say this set of instructions in a forum. What you've actually proven here is that there is indeed a skill set associated with owning firearms, and therefore at least a small time commitment if nothing else.

Go to a range once or twice a year, take 20-30 minutes to re-familiarize and you are as qualified as the police and military.

I get the feeling that if you were to say that to a soldier, they'd be annoyed. There's also a bit of physical exercise involved, I hear.
"Qualified" and "skilled" are different words, and I think, between the two, you've picked the wrong one for that sentence. Qualification is something you earn through the favorable judgement of a higher body of analysis, and not something you earn through self-assessment.

The difference between a civilian and the police is that the police officer has less legal liability than the civilian.

Among other things, huh? Like authority, and the ability to make arrests, and a uniform, and other rights and responsibilities, and training in things related to police work other than firearms proficiency,

You really don't seem to understand how the law works. Paying the fine does not mean that you are "in compliance" with the law. The very reason you had to pay a fine was that you broke the law. Also, what about all those times you broke the law, but didn't get caught? Not being caught does not mean you didn't break the law.

You admit here that you have had a speeding ticket. That means you are not a law-abiding citizen. If you were abiding by the law, why did you break the speed limit? Also, having a security clearance is not proof that you didn't break any laws. Plenty of people who are not law-abiding have security clearances. All it means is that you are considered an acceptable risk.

You don't "make amends" to the law. The law is the law. Being punished by law enforcement does not mean what you did never happened.

And the law was made whole.

The fuck does that mean? The law existed before people broke it, by definition. I think what you meant to say there was, "and me acting the way I did proved the necessity for the law,"

You are aware that with that the act of punishment is part of the path of repentance right?

Thank you Father.

You do the crime, you do the time. Or you could simply pay the fine.

The assumption you are making here is that the punishment for a law is meant to work the same as the price of an item. Parking illegally costs one measurable fine. Robbery costs minor jail time or monetary compensation. Murder costs a life sentence or a death sentence. What you are ignoring is that these punishments are also deterrents, and therefore become more sever when people start to feel that the crime is worth committing given the cost. The laws and punishments are not tied together, a law is meant to never be broken, not "broken if you're willing to deal with consequences." That's why different states have different responses to law-breaking. The deterrent is more severe because the problem requires greater deterring.

Apparently that in your black and white world of right and wrong no longer exists or never existed in the first place.

What is this referring to, exactly? Also, see the earlier Strawman example to see why this is a weird choice of words.

What was the point again in everyone breaking the law?

Can you clarify this statement? You seem to be rambling.

Perhaps we could break out the question of who is the injured party? If it is 'society' then I would ask a trial by jury, you already said that everybody speeds so thus it would be thrown out. Or if it is filled with a group of non-drivers who are not your peers that would make it a kangaroo court.

See the earlier points regarding deterrent vs. price, and why trial by jury isn't and shouldn't be a be-all end-all. Considering your negativity towards being black-and-white, this is a bit of a hypocritical statement, don't you think?

To be honest I should have gone into court, the city shut down that day (weather). I paid the fine because I didn't feel like leaving that day from my apartment I was also leaving in 2 weeks.

Oh, of course. That's why you paid the fine. I believe that. That's what you say "to be honest."
Frankly, considering that you felt the need to justify your earlier points by making an addendum to the story shows a bit of defensiveness, and I imagine your inability to argue against the Aardvaarkman's points resulted in it. After all, his statements are pretty solid, and if I were you, I'd be trying to back out as well.

Summary to part 1: guns are inherently dangerous. Aardvaarkman raises good points with regards to why the protection offered by guns isn't worth the potential the create for additional harm.

Summary to part 2: since you've claimed to have read the official documentation pertaining to speeding tickets, perhaps you could enlighten us with a link, and copy here the part of it regarding "making amends to speeding," because I wouldn't have thought it would say that, and I think most of your tales regarding your law-breaking experiences are theoretical at best.

The summaries are not to be read in place of the rest of the post. They are ending arguments that require knowledge of their references.

 

[aelreth]

Being thorough is not the same as overreacting. Each of his points corresponded to the topic. An example of making mountains from molehills (that's one word) is what I will proceed to do here.

You're purposely misunderstanding him, as I am going to assume, perhaps generously, that you are smart enough to know what he meant. Let's go into more detail regarding the investment of responsibility:
Your statement, "If I hear something at my door and I am not expecting guests or the mailman, I grab my pistol and chamber a round. I turn on my optics, which is a green laser," implies that you chamber your gun out of fear/paranoia/preparation on a regular basis, and therefore keep your gun accessible. In order for this to be effective, you must also always have it with you if you get up in the night to take a piss or get a drink of water. If you are doing something that requires two hands, a gun is probably a pain in the ass, because, as any gun owner will say, you can't be careless with guns. Already, the inconvenience and responsibility is starting to stack up.

I don't imagine that the average gun owner, or even 99% of them, chamber a round at the drop of a pin. I think you made a mistake with that statement, and should gracefully distance yourself from it with an admission of it being a hyperbolic hypothetical.

What if I keep my firearms in the same exact place and only retrieve it if I feel I am unsafe? What if my weapon is always unloaded when not in hand? How about if I I never chamber a round unless I'm willing to use it?

What if when I hear a sound I begin assessing the situation, and as the frequency and intensity of the sound increases my caution intensifies?

He put forth a scenario in which I explained my security protocol.

If by peep hole you are referring to the ones found commonly in front doors, not every door has one, and even if they did, if you hear a noise profound enough to get you out of bed and armed, the hypothetical intruder is likely already in the house. If by peep hole you are referring to ones you have around your house, then you are a shitty decorator.

Ironically I don't have one either. So I have to analyze by sound, it would be unfortunate that my only warning is when my front door is breached.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that guns are a heavy responsibility and should be handled with care, because they can be dangerous, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised with how little he must understand mechanics if he thinks such a responsibility dangerous.

He presented a scenario, I explained how I would navigate it.

Would you explain how you would stop a belligerent home invader? The scenario he presented involved if I approached the home invader unarmed he would passively stand there and not hurt me, then the police would arrived.

However if he had a gun trained on him by me somehow he would quick draw and shoot me dead.

You seem to agree that this demonstrates that guns are dangerous and I should simply wait for the police to arrive while he is free to do anything he wants to do to me and my home.

I think that's absurd.

Comparing something to fire doesn't make it less dangerous. In fact, it makes it seem more dangerous, since fire is also capable of damaging those who would act carelessly with it. Much like guns. The reason guns need to be handled with care is because they are dangerous. The reason we don't have laws as harsh for rubber bands is that, at worst, a rubber band is less likely to cause lethal damage by accident.

Really? Gun safety is taught through physical correction if safety protocol is disobeyed where I was introduced to it.

The reason you are saying this is because you are assuming (probably correctly) that your opponent doesn't own a gun, and that this topic would draw him out of his element by being one that is on a subject with which he is not a specialist. I imagine he feels he doesn't have what it would take to keep up the necessary maintenance of a gun that he feels he'd never need to use. That doesn't make him a bad person, it makes him a person who made the right choice, the choice that he won't handle guns carelessly. You, however, make it seem as though it's an example either of immorality or stupidity to not be proficient with firearms, when in fact a very, very large percentage of the US population isn't.

No, he told me that not everyone has enough time to do proper maintenance on a firearm. The amount of time you committed to writing this is enough time to do so. Choosing to remain forever ignorant of something isn't something to be proud of. Do you use a bottle of canned air on your computer or consoles to get the dust out? All you do is open the firearm, and clear all the dust out.

I assume you are not one of the people that causes dust build up to destroy their electronics due to neglect. Would it be that much of a leap that a mechanical device that is a firearm has the same basic need?

Good to know. When I get a gun, I won't have to train, because I heard someone say this set of instructions in a forum. What you've actually proven here is that there is indeed a skill set associated with owning firearms, and therefore at least a small time commitment if nothing else.

Dropping the magazine and opening the chamber insures no bullets are in it or can enter the weapon. We call it clearing. That makes it SAFE. You also treat any weapon that hasn't been cleared as unsafe. Which means you have to clear it to transfer custody. Simple rituals like these when actually followed render guns (a scary item) to a hunk of metal.

Gun safety tips can fit on a business card. So long as they are applied. People don't get hurt.

Here's one

Now let's see someone that should know better

For posterity, no conversation about gun safety can be talked about without the infamous DEA agent.

He removed the round from the chamber, however he put the magazine back in.

Luckily no one else was hurt, if I did that I would be charged.

I get the feeling that if you were to say that to a soldier, they'd be annoyed. There's also a bit of physical exercise involved, I hear.
"Qualified" and "skilled" are different words, and I think, between the two, you've picked the wrong one for that sentence. Qualification is something you earn through the favorable judgement of a higher body of analysis, and not something you earn through self-assessment.

Yes those individuals and I could then compare service. Are you aware that most military units are only allowed to qualify those 2 times a year that would mean they get no more practice? Range day might take all day but actual firearms marksmanship for them actually takes less than 10 minutes.

Among other things, huh? Like authority, and the ability to make arrests, and a uniform, and other rights and responsibilities, and training in things related to police work other than firearms proficiency,

You are aware that if I as a civilian make a mistake and get someone hurt I'm completely liable while the taxpayer is liable for actions that the police do when in uniform right? This is also the case when I put on MY uniform.

The fuck does that mean? The law existed before people broke it, by definition. I think what you meant to say there was, "and me acting the way I did proved the necessity for the law,"

You do the crime, you do the time. The time (punishment) is complete. The state says, you are free to go.

The assumption you are making here is that the punishment for a law is meant to work the same as the price of an item. Parking illegally costs one measurable fine. Robbery costs minor jail time or monetary compensation. Murder costs a life sentence or a death sentence. What you are ignoring is that these punishments are also deterrents, and therefore become more sever when people start to feel that the crime is worth committing given the cost. The laws and punishments are not tied together, a law is meant to never be broken, not "broken if you're willing to deal with consequences." That's why different states have different responses to law-breaking. The deterrent is more severe because the problem requires greater deterring.

Make the price greater than one is willing to spend, after all time is money.

The item is your freedom.

What is this referring to, exactly? Also, see the earlier Strawman example to see why this is a weird choice of words.
What was the point again in everyone breaking the law?

He made the statement that everyone at some points breaks the law, with speeding as something that any jury pool would be tainted with, so in a case with a trial by jury any act of removing those people from the jury creates a Kangaroo court.

See the earlier points regarding deterrent vs. price, and why trial by jury isn't and shouldn't be a be-all end-all. Considering your negativity towards being black-and-white, this is a bit of a hypocritical statement, don't you think?

I was accused of having a very black and white sense of justice earlier by him.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

...I'm sorry, but was this fucking moron REALLY elected? (Sorry for swearing, but I am in AWE of this man's stupidity)

He just COMPLETELY misses the point of the ENTIRE conversation, and then goes to target videogames instead. It's almost sad how blatantly stupid this man must consider the American people to be, if he thinks that simply spouting "VIOLENT VIDEOGAMES" will distract everyone away from his precious guns that he holds so dear.