Senator Gets Funded by NRA, Scapegoats Games Over Guns

When atrocities occur that shock everyone, the likelihood for members of the media or political office to capitalize on the world’s grief is simply grotesque. Still pushing the hot debate of child safety, Lamar Alexander, a Senator from Tennessee, has called video games a bigger problem than gun control. With that, the Daily Reaction crew of Seb and Dan discuss the nature of the current political atmosphere, and the problems of societal views of gamer lifestyle.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
doctorstrange2148d ago

Airport security warned to check for signs of gaming

Conzul2148d ago

Myesss, soon our Vitas will be contraband.

Foolsjoker2148d ago

Soon it will be on job applications, right under where it asks you if you have been convicted of a felony.

Wedge192147d ago

Well, you're perfectly qualified for the position, but a background check has revealed that you lied on your application. We have your trophy list. We know you've been playing the video games, and recently!!

morkendo232148d ago (Edited 2148d ago )

if any of this were true Illuminati would stopped all this crap since they control the media and entertainment including video gaming developement. but since they in the business of killing people to make money it shall continue. more people kill themself and other's the more HAPPIER illuminati is.

gun control??? what a front haaaaaaaa they are behind the relentless gun supply.
dont blame congress or a senator what go's on in life. EVERYTHING!!! is controlled by illuminati blame them!!!!!

ftwrthtx2148d ago

The problem arises from the thugs that have no regard for the law. Legislating video games or guns will never solve the problem.

Canary2148d ago

You know, I think that if assault weapons were illegal, there would be a lot fewer instances of people committing mass-shootings with assault weapons.

Sure, part of it is a social problem--we have a culture of violence in the Unite States, of which mass shootings and, to a lesser extent, violent video games and media are a symptom. No social issue can be completely solved by legislation.

But thing you have to understand is that legislation can serve as a catalyst for that necessary social change.

Did the 13th Ammendment completely solve the problems of racial inequality?

Of course not. But it helped. It helped a goddamn lot.

Gun violence is a problem in the United States, it can be minimalized through legal means. Declaring that new laws won't solve a problem like this is dangerously ignorant and irresponsible.

Sure, there will always be criminals. But there's a big difference between getting mugged by a guy with a knife versus getting mugged by a guy with an assault rifle. There's a big difference worry about getting beaten up at school versus you and twenty of your classmates getting two dozen bullets sprayed into your body.

When I say "dangerous," I damned well mean it.

morganfell2148d ago (Edited 2148d ago )

When I was growing up we drove to school with hi-powered rifles across a rack in the back of your truck and parked in the school lot. No one even locked their vehicle. The guns haven't changed a great deal. We had semi-automatic pistols and rifles in those days as well. (I love how the press doesn't know the difference between semi-auto and automatic).

And you would be surprised how many of these shootings were said to have used assault weapons and actually did not.

No one was killing each other then in mass numbers as often as you see now. The guns haven't changed a great deal nor has their availability. If anything it is more difficult than the days when you could walk into a Sears & Roebuck with no permit and buy a shotgun or rifle. What has changed is our attitude toward guns and violence. As that is the case it is absurd to continue to blame the thing that hasn't changed rather than facing the facts and dealing with what has altered in our society.

clearelite2148d ago (Edited 2148d ago )

I wouldn't be quick to blame either. People should become educated and start think more before jumping to conclusions(not referring to you although I advise keeping an open mind).
I appreciate your perspective but it's a fact that some of the most dangerous places in the world have strict laws regarding these things.

MoveTheGlow2148d ago

When I was your age, I flew jetpacks! Made out of assault weapons! Dodging missiles! IT WAS AWESOME!!!!

Guns don't kill people, guns break Barry out of Scientist Jail and net you a ton of coins.

Conzul2148d ago

Throwing new laws at a problem never EVER works. It would be like if firemen were instructed to aim for the flames instead of the base.

You want a safer country? Give EVERYONE a gun and make sure that they know how to use it.

Sharingan_no_Kakashi2148d ago (Edited 2148d ago )


Food for thought...

"The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals."

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

"we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”

"What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?"

"Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition."

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant…

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution."

-David Mamet

strotee2148d ago

"getting mugged by a guy with an assault rifle"

I think someone watches too many movies.

dantesparda2148d ago

Why stop there? why not also give everyone a bazooka and some grenades while we are at it. I think guns are for pu$$ies or retards that think its cool to play with guns. And i live in the hood, if anybody needed a gun it would be me, yet i've never felt the need for a gun. When i was a kid i had a gun and the sh!t made me feel like superman, "like mess with me". Guns are just dangerous! And honestly, who the hell needs to hunt in America? get with the times

Qrphe2148d ago


It's all about "muh, muh freedoms!!!!"

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2148d ago
ftwrthtx2148d ago

For those that thing gun control is the answer, look at Chicago and Detroit. Most gun control laws with the highest gun violence rates.

SMH at ignorant and naive folks who think gun control works.

Sharingan_no_Kakashi2148d ago

I don't see how people don't understand this. The only thing gun laws do is take guns away from responsible people. It does nothing to stop criminals. It's just more laws for them to break. They don't care what the law says.... that's why they're called criminals. So while law abiding citizens are giving up their rights to defend themselves, criminals are still doing what they do. Gun laws are just making it easier for them to do it.

Hicken2148d ago (Edited 2147d ago )

"Gun control" does not mean "gun ban."

"Gun ban" means "gun ban."

More to the point, it doesn't matter how many or how few gun control laws you have if it's not enforced.

What's more, it's not like it would work alone, anyway. But then, getting illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals is STILL gun control.

Sorry, but as a black man, there are places I wouldn't go if EVERYONE had a gun. I WOULD go to the places most thought of as harboring criminals and such, though. In such areas, they'd actually be LESS likely to use the guns; out in some backwater county, though, I'd just as likely be shot and left for dead. And, unfortunately, our current state of affairs with various nations in the Middle East means people of my skin color aren't the only ones who'd be subject to such twitch reactions, either.

And still, this isn't really about pistols, which are most often used for home and personal defense, but semi-automatic rifles. Is there something wrong with trying to keep stricter regulations on these guns?

Edit: It's a comical take, but here's why "gun control" currently doesn't work(as alienmgr says):

Part 1

Part 2

It's similar to how Lamar Alexander says video games are a bigger problem than guns, while being biased TOWARDS guns. If people who are PRO-GUNS are in office, what are the odds of any meaningful laws to restrict or regulate guns either being passed or enforced?

ftwrthtx2148d ago

@Hicken Why should law abiding citizens be restricted? I understand limiting full auto and the like, but there's nothing wrong with owning a semi-auto rifle.

As for enforcing current laws, they can't seem to get that through their heads and they think passing MORE laws is the answer.

MikeMyers2147d ago (Edited 2147d ago )

Why do they sell armor piercing bullets? The problem is the laws that were set in place were created a long time ago. There is no need for automatic or even semi-automatic firearms. You have a right to defend yourself and the right to hunt but that doesn't explain why we have firearms that have become legal that can take down an entire army.

aliengmr2147d ago

How can it when the NRA does everything they can to gut the ability to enforce the regulations the vast majority are in favor of.

Currently in the US you can amass a massive arsenal legally and without anyone knowing about it. "Gun Control" hasn't worked because its never actually been tried.

I have to register to play a game but not to buy a weapon.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2147d ago
IaMs122147d ago (Edited 2147d ago )

Do you guys realize that these assault rifles you are wanting to ban are NOT machine guns? Fully automatic machine guns are already illegal or under strict watch for those who apply to own one. Most people look at the AR-15 and are immediately afraid of it because it has a militaristic look to it. But show a .306 and its okay. The assault rifle ban is stupid and pointless piece of legislation and they should be concentrating on other things besides regulating our rights. The U.S. has already had an assault rifle ban before and look what happened? It had no impact of anything so Clinton administration repealed it.

I honestly think the average person and the mass is just uneducated about guns. They see movies, games, and these unfortunately shootings and immediately think its the guns fault. Its simply not, its the person behind it. If people were more educated about these weapons, i don't think they would be as afraid anymore and would actually pick one up to protect themselves with.

DwightOwen2147d ago

Actually, the Brady Bill wasn't repealed, but rather it expired in 2004 during George Bush's first term, but yeah, it didn't do squat to protect those kids at Columbine in '99.

MoveTheGlow2148d ago

Lamar Alexander is still alive? The fact that he can still talk coherently is a feat of modern science! He may actually be a splicer, to tell you the truth.

Actually, that would explain a lot... maybe he's running this incredibly stupid anti-game campaign because he doesn't want anyone to play Bioshock and learn his deep, dark secret...

Conzul2148d ago

Someone needs to pull a Would You Kindly on him.

miyamoto2148d ago

Oh the Bitter Irony!

This old men point the gun at violent games as the culprit for massacres yet every year the United Stupid Armed Forces keep on pumping money to fund military & space marine shooters to recruit as many young Americans as possible to die in their war economy. What a circus show they are putting up! That is American gun control for you.

thehitman2148d ago

I think the best way to fix the gun problem in the long term is treat guns just like we treat cars. To own and use a gun you have to be properly trained. There should be gun places where you are trained to use a gun properly in what situations best to use one and the person must know all gun laws in your state before buying one. That way people can actually be also background checked properly before a gun is put in their hands trainers can also see if a person is sorta crazy and they have ill intentions to use one before giving out a gun license.

I believe the more educated people are about something the less of a threat it becomes. Blaming videogames for gun violence is kinda dumb people been shooting each other before violent games existed.

ftwrthtx2148d ago

Driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. Big difference.

Education should be the key, for both games and guns.

thehitman2148d ago

There isnt a big difference. Just because you have a right to something doesnt mean that right shouldnt be regulated. 2nd amendment says we have a right to bear arms but doesnt say anywhere that people should be able to just buy a gun and any type of gun and use it anywhere they want and kill anyone they want. You buy and use a gun and kill somebody with it there are responsibilities and consequences.

Going through a proper system in pursuing the ownership of a gun doesnt infringe on anyone rights to actually own one as long as they do it the right way. Our gun system is a joke, old and the constant killing of people who shouldnt have guns in the first place shows by the increase in deaths we have each year.

ShinMaster2148d ago

Not if you're using common sense.

Firearms are a lot more dangerous than driving a car since their only purpose is to fire bullets which are lethal. If we have to go through tests to acquire a drivers' license then it makes even more sense for people to have some form of minimal training/education and pass test to own a firearm.

IaMs122147d ago

I agree, education is a huge factor.


The problem is though not everybody has common sense. Its quite ironic how common sense is not that common at all.

aliengmr2147d ago

All this talk about rights and keep wondering where all the 2nd amendment defenders were when the Patriot Act was signed.

Government wasn't coming after your guns, it was too busy reading your email. Yay freedom!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2147d ago
Furesis2148d ago

there's always other ways to get guns..and many other things so..

Show all comments (46)
The story is too old to be commented.