I can’t believe we’re still blaming video games in 2018

Polygon's Ben Kuchera writes: We don’t need to give up the First Amendment to protect the Second. Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin used last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, as an excuse to argue that the First Amendment protections on speech are important — but maybe less important than the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The story is too old to be commented.
UltraNova300d ago

We get it, Its so much easier to blame and vilify games and gamers for mass shootings rather than political and social failures.

These people are pathetic.

Sonic_Vs_Mario300d ago ShowReplies(15)
k2d299d ago

Matt Bevin and others in NRAs pockets;

Best case - willfully ignorant.

Most likely plain bullshitting everyone.

GottaBjimmyb298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

Yea, mass shootings are the NRAs fault. Despite the NRA paying for proper training and use of guns by owners and reducing accidental discharges/injury and the fact that no NRA member has EVER been the shooter in any of these events....

As I said below, guns are illegal in Paris, yet that didn't stop a few people from coming in with AKs and grenades and killing hundreds, and also did not stop the hundreds who have died in multiple truck killings in europe where guns are less readily available.

It is obvious how stupid people above are when they think Trump is hitler and police are out to get them, but want only police and government to have guns....

k2d298d ago

@Gottabjimmyb: Let me guess.. You get your news from Fox News network..? The US has 6 times the population of France, even taking this into account, USAs mass gun killings dwarfs Frances amount (which is in an accelerated decline!). I guess gun control DOES work..

GottaBjimmyb298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

Just a few times he was reported with no action taken:

And 39 other times at least:

But we have people with 2 solutions:
1 - More detailed background checks (from the same people who ignore literal threats and actions)
2 - Complete bans, to supposedly stop people who already ignore laws.

-Meanwhile ignoring the fact that most gun related shootings and deaths are by people who cannot own guns legally under CURRENT laws
-that current gun laws are not even being enforced
-That CURRENT gun laws are not being enforced
-People are already ignoring laws on the books when they commit murder
-That the biggest mass shooting in history happened in countries with bans on guns (Paris 2016 hundreds died from AKs and grenades)
-That even without guns these people kill with knives, machettes, Semi trucks, etc.
-You guys claim Trump is hitler and police hunt down black people, but want police and government to exclusively have guns

@k2d I get my news from all sources and make an informed decision from there based on facts, more specifically, sounds like YOU get your propaganda from what ever your news organization of choice is. Considering you had no argument, just inflamatory nonsense, you seem to be right on target with the MSM talking points.

Also the point of the mass shooting in Paris is not if there are fewer, but that they still occur, and France has always had fewer shootings than the US, it was not gun bans that stopped that caused that, you just make that assumption. Sure it may have help slightly, but they still occur and when they do they are multiple times worse than any US shooting. Also, you still ignore the machette and truck killings that happen instead....

Also, as I said, drugs are illegal, completely banned and with punishment attached, how many people is that stopping?

ImGumbyDammit298d ago (Edited 298d ago )


Yeah, France better be on the decline; one year vs eight and France still had more killings. France had more casualties from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (532 to 527) Is that France gun control really working for you with numbers like that? By the way, France has an illegal gun problem. You know untraceable ownership. There are estimated 30,000 AK-47 (real automatic rifles brought into the country illegally) just in the last few years.

Death by guns also gets inflated numbers because it is the most common suicide means in the US. Guns deaths in USA are primarily caused by suicide (13 per 100,000 most are using guns to end their lives). That is where USA gets most of those gun deaths overall. France has a similar ratio of suicides per 100,000 (12.3 people) but since guns are harder to get by legal means they find other means, like hanging. Still doesn't stop those that want to do mass shootings in France from getting guns though, does it.

OB1Biker298d ago

Dont bring up France shooting. Its Completely different. Thats Dealing with terrorist threat Just like bombing etc. The Guns came from Belgium.
Your doing like Trump (possibly inadvertently) I.e Diverting the real issues to different issues diverting Guns control to Violence In media and You diverting guns Control To international terrorist threat.

GottaBjimmyb298d ago

@OB1 is is not different at all, not to mention I gave multiple reasons for my thoughts besides even just that. I will say though, you claiming it is different, just isn't true, mass shootings are almost all committed by terrorists, and I don't just mean radical islamists, I mean that their intent is to terrorize those who they are attacking, very few are completely random.

I did not divert anything though, my point was people who want to break the law still will, regardless of the law. They break hundreds of laws every time they shoot someone, adding more laws is hardly a barrier. In fact, as Paris proves, even banning guns does not stop these people from breaking the law.

How you think the two events are completely unrelated or comparable is beyond me, but it is obvious you are the one doing the diverting.

People say, "we live in fear of guns, we need to ban them" so I responded by pointing out banning guns doesn't take away that fear NOR stop people from committing such acts. Even the ones who cannot obtain guns use trucks or knives. There were far more mass murders (both in quantity, injuries and death) of both knive attacks and vehicle attacks recently than by guns, yet noone is suggesting any change for gun/knife ownership, so I hardly see your point. Many countries who have banned guns and have low gun violence, had low gun violence prior to banning guns and hence, really had no change at all, whereas we have had high crime rates comparably in America for a while really. It is not like we had countries going from 10,000 gun deaths per year to 50, the most extreme example is Australia and they went from like 500/year to 400/year, hardly a monumental leap, and guess what, they still happen, despite being completely banned and confiscated.

moegooner88298d ago

GottBjimmyb, stop nitpicking incidents and list full statistics for all developed countries vs US. Until then, keep playing the world tiniest violin. Only an idiot would argue against gun control and pretend the situation is same elsewhere in the world.

OB1Biker298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

You don't get it.
These are issues but the problem is different. Trump obviously doesn't want to address a gun control problem that Does exist in the US.
Address it
Other problems needing to be addressed are different. I can't believe so many people are blind. Trumps is diverting this precise issue.
Also assault rifles?
Don't defend it

GottaBjimmyb298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

"stop nitpicking incident"
It is not nitpicking, they are not rare at all. Here are 50 others.
(more below)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

"list full statistics for all developed countries vs US"
You mean like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Only an idiot would argue against gun control and pretend the situation is same elsewhere in the world."

I am not against "gun control" as we already have that, and it is extremely comprehensive, in fact, the bigger issue is that federal law enforcement rarely enforces it and that they do a shit poor job at background checks. AS I said, the most recent shooter was reported 39 times, plus two additional times directly to the FBI, not a single thing done about it, despite one event even including him threatening someone WITH A GUN.

I am however opposed to gun bans, which is what you are actually proposing, so at least use the correct term for what you are pushing.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 298d ago
PlayStation_5298d ago ShowReplies(3)
thejigisup298d ago

So true, real gamers are busy logging hours and achievements. Ntm, if we get locked up we aren't gonna be playing any games other than don't drop the soap. I think I can speak for most when I say tthats a game not worthy of getting a platinum trophy in, the first bronze is drop the soap.

trooper_298d ago

I agree.

*YOU* are responsible for your actions. Not some freaking videogame.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 298d ago
moegooner88300d ago

Yet people buy games everywhere else in the world other than the US, and *gasp* no mass shootings afterwards.

InMyOpinion299d ago (Edited 299d ago )

And you can't buy semi-auto assault rifles at the supermarket in those countries...

Cobra951299d ago (Edited 299d ago )

Because the culture and laws there are different. You can't reverse a couple centuries of gun proliferation with a blanket ban. All that would do is leave the law-abiding citizenry at the mercy of the criminals and the crazies, who'd still have their guns.

I'm all for banning AR15s and the like, mind you. I have no problem with that at all. But I think concentrating on proper defense for schools and other essential traditionally defenseless places is more immediately important.

Patrick299d ago

Mass shootings happen in other parts of the world and most have stricter gun laws and less guns. The US is not even in the top 10 or 20.

SolidGamerX299d ago

lol, I dont know what supermarkets you're shopping in but I've never been in one that sells AR-15's.

InMyOpinion299d ago

@Patrick - What other country has had 8 (specific) school shootings in less than 2 months?

JackBNimble298d ago

The USA has 4% of the world's population, and 33% of the world's mass shootings.... that says alot.

298d ago
fathertime4464298d ago

You can't buy rifles in any supermarket. Last I checked Wal-Mart isn't even a supermarket.

Most people don't realize that rifle killings are the lowest common denominator. More people get killed by pistols, fists, blades, and even hammers than they do by any rifle in the US.
As a veteran and someone that studies history Is like to point out that we have the right to bare arms for many reasons. Some include hunting, self defense, protection from the government overthrowing the people, protection from invasion.
Personally if you wish to get rid of the second amendment I'm cool with that, but I want freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to equality, and any other amendment removed. If you wish to remove one right, remove them all so that I don't have to listen to people like you that want to pick and choose what rights others should or shouldn't have

Firebird360298d ago

What's an assault rifle?

UnHoly_One298d ago

Can someone please explain what it is about the AR-15 that is so scary?

Do you honestly believe he couldn’t have killed the same or a similar amount of people with ANY other gun?

Other than the fact that it looks like something you see in a military movie, what about the AR-15 sets it apart and requires it to be banned, in your opinion?

This is a serious question. Because everyone wants to ban it but nobody can say why.

And don’t use magazine size as an excuse because you can get huge magazines for any gun.

Mulletino298d ago

To be honest this type of thing (below) is why I own guns. And no the color of the criminals does not matter to me. This happened right up the road from me growing up and it was insanely scary. I now have a family of my own and will do everything I can to prevent being a victim of this type of crime.

InMyOpinion297d ago

@UnHoly_One - I'm pretty sure that without any gun at all he wouldn't be able to kill as many in such a short amount of time. It's scary how protective you are of your guns. Instead of true safety you defend false security...

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 297d ago
299d ago Replies(9)
NeoMetallix298d ago

Just because you don’t see it in the news doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Mass shootings happen elsewhere and the US isn’t even in the top ten.

298d ago
nitus10298d ago

You are quite right in saying that but, if you ask which fist or second world countries have the highest number of gun-related murders then the USA top the list. also here is an additional statistic for the US https://everytownresearch.o...

If you look at the US second amendment which is:

"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."

You could be mistaken for believing that each gun owner should belong to "A well regulated Militia", however in its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015. Kind of opened up Pandora's Box.

But who cares many of the current government members are well bribed (oops, I meant "given money towards campaign funds") by the National Rifle Association. We all know the average gun owner needs a high powered assault rifle to protect themselves from those savage mosquitos. /s

DonkeyWalrus298d ago


The reason we have the 2nd amendment, read carefully where it says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms," is so that the people can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Because, you know, they had just fought a war against a tyrannical government. And tyrannical governments typically seek to disarm the people, thus making them easier to control. And the founders were well aware of the possibility of the government system they were trying to create eventually becoming corrupt and more tyrannical. That's the nature of all governments. They will always seek more power over the people.

Imagine if Jews in Germany were allowed to own high powered assault weapons when the Nazis started rounding them up. Many people seem to forget that it is the people who are responsible for keeping the government in check, not the other way around.

Yi-Long300d ago

1: These politicians simply use the blame-game to divert the conversation away from sensible gun-control. They want to talk about movies and games and rock music, or whatever other scapegoat they can think of, because they are paid by the NRA, and so they will do anything within their corrupt power to make sure the discussion is not about them taking any kind of responsibility towards the people they're supposed to be serving, by making sure to there are some sensible gun-control laws.

Hey, children in other countries play GTA5 as well. They also watch violent anime, they listen to rock music, they might even smoke weed and drink beer. They might watch all the porn in the world.

The difference between them and American kids, is that when they're mad at the world and everyone in it, and they're having a bad time, they can't just pack up their car full with assault weapons and shoot up a school. That kind of easy access to methods of mass destruction and murder is pretty much exclusive to America, when it comes to the 'civilised world'...

And that needs to be changed. Either that or just accept that these kinds of tragedies will keep happening over and over and over again, while corrupt politicians will tell you there's nothing that can be done about it. And accept that lie as truth, cause that's convenient for everyone...

2: I'm happy to say that you might still have the random idiot in power playing this blame-game, but compared to 15-20 years orso ago, the news media mostly ignores that nonsense nowadays.

UltraNova300d ago

Absolutely agree, great comment.

InMyOpinion299d ago

It's the result of unregulated capitalism. Money and corporations have become more important that the well-being of society and its citizens.

Daishi299d ago

Do you think we should go back to the assault weapons ban of the 90s?

299d ago
Daishi299d ago

MakoD That's the point. How much of a difference did it make? Statisticly none. I even own a post ban ak-47 with a thumbhole stock. Canada is the best example I can think of when it comes to weapon bans. Anything that looks like an ar or ak is restricted but anything functionaly equivalent is not (tavor). The culture of America isn't respect, it's anyone with a different opinion is wrong and stupid.

299d ago
Gh05t298d ago

"They want to talk about movies and games and rock music, or whatever other scapegoat they can think of..."

You mean like GUNS?

Because Guns isnt what is making these people shoot up schools. The "Problem" isnt the GUNS the problem is that more and more people are carrying out larger and larger mass murders. The tool used may be a gun but its not the "problem" and it never was.

When you come back and want to talk about the real problem of kids wanting to shoot each other and maybe try to figure out why we have more kids actually carrying out these violent acts and what we can do to help the children then im ready to listen.

Seriously why are we even talking about guns? That is what most the people who brush it off are thinking because we know its tragic, we hate that it happens but the only thing people want to do is go after the means of carrying out the tragedy rather than trying to prevent the PERSON from wanting to carry it out.

Why in a "Civilized" world do we have children who thinks its okay to murder each other? That doesnt sound civilized to me. You can blame guns all you want and that may reduce the amount of people that are dead but it doesnt reduce the amount of people who will carry out the crimes. Ill still be trying to figure out how you can even call us "Civilized" if we are okay that our kids want to murder each other as long as they dont have access to tools that make it easier or that its "okay" as long as they only stab one person rather than shoot eight.

I want to prevent the person from carrying out the entire tragedy, you want to reduce the numbers of people they can kill. Which one should be the goal?

Yi-Long298d ago

We're not talking about guns. We're talking about gun-CONTROL. Which should make it more difficult for troubled
and/or messed up kids to get their hands on ridiculously powerful weapons which can end dozens of lives in a matter of minutes.

298d ago
OB1Biker298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

You can only talk about one problem at a time.
The thesis is:
There Is a gun control problem in the US.
If your answer is YES. It needs to be addressed.

There are many other problems to be addressed too Violence in the media is certainly not the one Trump should bring up at a smoke screen

Xenophon_York298d ago

Other major countries are watching the same movies, playing the same games, suffering from the same mental illnesses yet only the United States of America have mass murder at schools.

Stop blaming video games, GOP and admit that if military-style assault rifles were taken out of hands of citizens most school mass shootings would cease. Salvage what extremely miniscule blip of integrity you have left.

DonkeyWalrus298d ago

The majority of mass shootings are carried out with handguns, not military style assault weapons. How about instead we simply have security at our schools? Are our children not worth protecting? Or how about we focus on helping students who are mentally disturbed? Blaming guns is just as stupid as blaming video games, and neither actually solves the issue.

rainslacker297d ago

If you take the tools away from an unstable person to perform a deed, they are unlikely to perform that deed. At least with such deadly results in these school shooting cases. Guns certainly aren't the root of the issue at hand, but they are instruments to convey the problems that some people have to overcome their insecurity in whatever is troubling them.

Gun laws should be used to help identify those who need help, and hopefully, also offer up a way for them to get that help should they be identified. As of right now, so long as one has no history of problems, they can get a gun more often than not. Even if they have a history, but it isn't in an illegal way, they can usually get a gun. That is really what needs to change with gun laws. Identifying who might potentially be a problem, not just to others, but to themselves. Like you wouldn't want to sell a gun to someone with suicidal tendencies or documented anger issues.

However, better education on how to identify those with problems would be a really good thing. At least at the academic level. A student who may be troubled should be identified, and professionals should be made available to help them work through their problems so they don't end up lashing out. While the vast majority of troubled students still don't go on murderous rampages, 100% of them can use some help in some way. Sometimes, just an ear to listen, or a person who can help them work through their problems is all they really need. During such intervention, more serious issues could be identified to determine if more help is needed, and if so, that help should be made available at the municipal level so they can get it without having to rely on their parents income.

In other words, better social services to actually help everyone in society.

I think also better structure on teaching people how to cope with problems is very important. This used to fall on the family, and moreso on general societal norms. Nowadays though, I feel the internet enables a lot of people to continue feeling the way they do, as they seek help from those who are woefully unqualified to give it. Many people who are troubled seek remedy through online connections, and those people either create a safe bubble to vindicate a person's feelings, or alienate them more from others if they don't feel they are heard by those they are seeking listen to them. More needs to be done to help these people realize that most on the internet are not their friends, and they usually won't be able to seek solace in them, but rather, they should be finding positive ways to overcome their problems, and more importantly, learning appropriate ways to express themselves in times of need.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 297d ago
GamesMaster1982300d ago

Agree it has zero to do with videogames i blame the government for not banning the sale of Gun's in any country to civilians. Don't care for all you gun nut's out there that get turned on by weapons made to kill, guns should be illegal for a civilian to own then little bobby won't be getting into daddy's gun cabinet and going on a murder spree because his fellow student's think he is weird.

299d ago Replies(8)
299d ago Replies(4)
Chaosdreams300d ago

America has a gun issue, protected by government officials who are given ample amounts of money from the NRA. They'll use any pathetic half baked explanation to blame anything but guns. They are more likely to blame a banana than they are a gun.

The good news is change will come when the children, who've been forced to witness/hear about countless deaths caused by firearms, who have lost loved ones, friends, can vote.

America will change. The archaic, corrupt and utterly pathetic politicians who choose guns over life will be cast aside. It's just painfully unfortunate that the process will take so long.

StormSnooper299d ago

Watch the meeting with Marco Rubio. It’s both hilarious and informative. I’ve never seen a politician grilled so effectively in the U.S.

Chaosdreams299d ago

I caught some of it afterwards. I didn't laugh (considering the emotional impact of all of this) but I'll applaud him for actually showing up and looking the family of victims, those impacted, in the eye. That's about where the applauding ends.

His responses in some instances made it clear that time needs to speed up so the youth can shape the change needed for their lives and those that follow. To live in a country that isn't governed by a lust for guns and money with a side dish of death.

I often sigh, frustrated, by republicans who scream "those democrats! crisis actors! conspiracy!" It's not a liberal point of view to want family ands friends to remain safe and alive with practical laws and legislation, rules seen across the entire world where school, church and the like massacres are a rarity.

StormSnooper299d ago

Well,I thought it was hilarious to hold these corporate funded politicians who are on NRA’s payroll to answer for their choices. I don’t think the politician is doing us any favors by answering for his conduct. It’s his job to represent us, he should start by stop accepting money from an organization that is working against the interests of the people. Watch his response when the guy asks him if he will stop accepting money from the NRA, he looked like he saw a ghost.

rainslacker297d ago (Edited 297d ago )

To me, I didn't laugh. I watched most of it, and all I saw was people who suffered a terrible loss, practically begging for these lawmakers to find a way to remedy the situation so others wouldn't have to go through the same thing. Or at least make it so these things wouldn't be as common.

Then you have these politicians up there acting like they are already doing something. Like they can't do anything more. And worst of all, acting like the people there had to come up with the solution, which they may consider...but with those two, you know they would dismiss outright.

And that's the problem I have with the lawmakers who decide to be pro-gun. They act like it's the people that have to come up with the solution. These people are elected officials who were put into office to solve problems. They aren't doing that though, they're avoiding the problem, and they're doing so because it's a political game, and infused with money from interest groups. Even if a lawmaker doesn't stand on gun control at all, interest groups can ruin their careers or put a strong opponent against them that is in their own interest.

I see with every one of these school shootings a lot of cries from people asking, begging for better gun control. It's enough that I feel that it's not some minority, whereas I feel those who want less gun control, or inaction on control laws, are actually much more in the minority. It's hard to justify why guns should be legal when you hear about a number of kids dead while attending school. And I see too many politicians on TV during these times do just that, while offering up no real way to help to make things better, all while acting like they care to do something about it, or placing the blame where it doesn't need to be to distract from the issue.

@Ghost below

"Removing the gun completely does not stop the attacker from committing an attack. It changes the method. We need to figure out the cause of the attack which isnt "guns"

Guns are extremely empowering. In the hands of an unstable person, they are about the deadliest weapon available. Only explosives would be deadlier if made right.

Have you ever held a gun? The raw sense of power you have just from holding it can be intoxicating, particularly to one who isn't of sound mind.

One can feel this way to some degree with other weapons, but with a bat, sword, knife, etc, that feeling is short lived except in the presence of exercising that power. On top of that, all those weapons are less likely to kill someone outright without skill in how to use them, or multiple uses to inflict extra harm. Guns you can much more easily kill someone with, even with little skill, and supplemental damage is much greater due to richochet, or bullets that hit more than one person.

In the absence of solving the root of the problem, which is unstable people who aren't getting the help they need, the instrument for their lashing out needs to be looked at and how to try and keep these weapons out of those people's hands. For instance, in some states, if a person tries to commit suicide, then knives have to be removed from their home, or kept under lock by anyone who may be watching them to make sure they don't try it again. Remove the tool, you remove the chance that something horrific happens.

Cobra951299d ago

I don't blame shovels for grave robberies either. And if all guns magically disappear overnight, I won't blame swords, knives, bows or baseball bats for the senseless killings you know are going to still happen.

Chaosdreams299d ago

The blame rests on the individual. The focus is on how he/she then went about committing such a crime. In this instance it was a gun. So then the questions should logically be how that gun came to be used, what can be done to stop it from happening again and how to ensure, without creating a culture of fear, to go forward.

Death and injury can be easily mitigated and/or avoided when common sense is put into place, forming laws that protect its people - not leave them out in the open to die. Arming teachers for instance is as stupid as labelling video games a problem, those are poorly made suggestions to protect guns, not regulate them.

The comparison between a grave robber and a school massacre is so disingenuous to the severity of what's transpired, time and time again - that I'm just going to pretend you didn't make such a ill thought comparison.

Swords, knives, bows, baseball bats and the like do not kill anywhere near the same scale as an automatic weapon can in the span of seconds, let alone in one setting - but if someone were to effectively kill so many, then that weapon used would also, and should also go through observation/change.

Guns are for war, and for some, sport, but who needs an automatic to hunt a deer or a duck? Nobody. If the need is that of self defence then a handgun - kept safe, should be sufficient. Of course before that can even be looked at, apparently video games, porn and the like are more grave concerns, case in point the dodge and excuses being made by officials and the like.

A country that's numb and accepting of its youth dying so casually, is not a country that's in its right mind. The youth see that. They want change. They'll eventually get it. Those who aren't suddenly gunned down by another "mentally ill" individual that is.

Ittoittosai299d ago

Ive found most 2nd amendment backers are usually off a little and paranoid.

Gh05t298d ago (Edited 298d ago )


It is hard to take you seriously.

"So then the questions should logically be how that gun came to be used, what can be done to stop it from happening again"

Removing the gun completely does not stop the attacker from committing an attack. It changes the method. We need to figure out the cause of the attack which isnt "guns"

"Arming teachers for instance is as stupid as labeling video games a problem..."

Two teacher were shot protecting students behind them. Are you truly saying if these two teachers who watched the attacker shoot them could have even had the CHANCE to shoot back that it would have been a bad thing? You would rather watch someone shoot you then TRY to protect yourself and the children in your care because "Guns are bad, mmmmmkay."

"...but who needs an automatic to hunt a deer or a duck? "

I dont know one state that it is legal to hunt with any automatic firearms. Stop being sensational and get educated about what you are trying to fight against. Not from news but actually go out and do the research. If guns are SO EASY to get maybe go look at some and how they work and what they are meant for. Otherwise you are just ignorant talking about things you dont understand which makes it all based on emotion and not fact.

"A country that's numb and accepting of its youth dying so casually, is not a country that's in its right mind."

Who is accepting of this? The difference is that there are people who want to blame guns (the tool) and others who want to blame "video games, porn and the like..." (The possible cause*). Why are you so accepting of the fact that more people are willing to kill children regardless of how many die? why isn't the CAUSE of grave concern? Why are you only worried about the method? Why are you only fighting to reduce the method rather than fighting to prevent the action?

Which is more important to you, Finding out how to prevent the tragedy, or reducing the numbers of a tragedy?

Tragedy Prevented: People dead = 0
Tragedy reduced: People dead = 1 - 3

Who is really trying to solve a problem here?

If gun control is going nowhere then why not work towards other methods of prevention that IS BIPARTISAN... why are you people only willing to work on ONE issue and it has to be GUNS or something that leads to restricting guns? Why not start TODAY with trying to find the CAUSE? Had we started this truly after Columbine how much further would we be? Why didnt we start after Sandyhook? Why dont we START TODAY! SO that maybe in 10 - 20 years we have real results... or you know maybe we just bicker back and forth on taking guns away and nothing changes because the country is split on the issue.

*Not my belief but theirs.

Chaosdreams298d ago


"Removing the gun completely does not stop the attacker from committing an attack. It changes the method. We need to figure out the cause of the attack which isnt "guns""

What a load of crap. You remove the gun, it changes the method - yes. Now tell me, what other method kills so effectively, so quickly? I don't see that taking place with a knife for instance. The cause (be it a mental health issue, grudge, etc) is apparent, but having easy access to such deadly tools is nonsenciscal.

"Are you truly saying if these two teachers who watched the attacker shoot them could have even had the CHANCE to shoot back that it would have been a bad thing?"

A what if statement. What I do think is that no able body, student or teacher, will want to be in an environment where a tool that can cause death is in reach. It'll create new potential problems. School fights leading to a gun being stolen/used, a gun not holstered or kept safe, threats, anxiety increased, a disgruntled employee, so on. But more accurately, it creates fear, suspicion, and a huge potential for more victims getting caught between the gun fire. Teachers are there to teach, not take aim and fire. They died as heroes, yes, defending the youth with their bodies. I don't know what they would have done if they had their own gun, but if you're going to ignore how the rest of the world operates and claim that stupid NRA ideology that a good guy with a gun is what's needed, you're a fool.

"If guns are SO EASY to get maybe go look at some and how they work and what they are meant for."

True, while the emotion may have clouded my judgement in making the comparison, I would certainly love, just love to know why on earth any civilian needs their own AR-15? For what purpose?

"Who is accepting of this? The difference is that there are people who want to blame guns (the tool) and others who want to blame "video games, porn and the like..." (The possible cause*). Why are you so accepting of the fact that more people are willing to kill children regardless of how many die? why isn't the CAUSE of grave concern? Why are you only worried about the method? Why are you only fighting to reduce the method rather than fighting to prevent the action?"

Who's accepting? I'll tell you who's accepting of it. Every single person who's seen what's happened, has the power to change access to automatic rifles - and then instead decides porn is a bigger danger. Did porn kill 17 people? No. Porn didn't do that. Nor did video games, you twit.

"If gun control is going nowhere then why not work towards other methods of prevention that IS BIPARTISAN... why are you people only willing to work on ONE issue and it has to be GUNS or something that leads to restricting guns? "

BECAUSE GUNS, ARE USED, TO KILL, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. And nowhere else does it happen so frequently with such easy access. Do guns need to be outright banned? No. But there's a lot that can be done, and every time there's a completely reasonable suggestion, it's shut down - leaving a golden opportunity for someone else to enact their own rage onto innocent lives.

Gh05t298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

"Now tell me, what other method kills so effectively, so quickly?"

Bombs and vehicles come to mind.

"A what if statement."

Of course it is a what if statement... everything proposed is a what if statement. What if the killer didnt have an assault rifle? because that is what you are proposing.

"...I would certainly love, just love to know why on earth any civilian needs their own AR-15? For what purpose? "

Because as you have pointed out it is EXTREMELY effective, and when used by a law abiding citizen holds little risk to others as proven every day that one isnt used. Aside from that though its none of your business why people buy one. All you have the business to know or care about is that they do so legally.

Stop being prejudice to those that like things you dont.

"Every single person who's seen what's happened, has the power to change access to automatic rifles…”

Agreed! And its been done so you can stop fighting. In fact it was probably done before you were born so glad this debates over.

I thought I went over this. Civilian’s arent legally allowed to own an automatic weapon of any type that was manufactured after 1986. And in order to own one that was manufactured before 1986 you have to be finger printed fill out an application with the ATF pay for tax stamps and give up other freedoms like your fourth amendment in order to own one. Not only that but even allowing another person to touch the gun would be a federal offense and anyone willing to go through all that hassle is usually not the person who is shooting up schools because they were picked on.

"And nowhere else does it happen so frequently with such easy access."

How would you even know? When is the last time you went to Mexico and tried to buy a gun? Was it hard? How many people were shot and killed in Mexico yesterday? How about Somalia or Uganda? Please lay on me the method that every country uses to report statistics of gun deaths... or for that matter that people were murdered in general? We know it happens here because we ACTUALLY CARE and we want our people to KNOW.

"...and every time there's a completely reasonable suggestion, it's shut down..."

reasonableness is subjective and the reason its usually shut down is because it goes against the constitution... If you dont like it stop trying to erode the constitution and change it. But you cant because there isnt support for that so you have to erode the constitution little by little to get what you want.

And honestly there were laws in place to stop this attack,they weren't followed...

There are lots of people who dont mind adding additional gun control laws. I am one of them. I want a law on the books that says if a person is deamed a threat to themselves and others by a licensed medical professional (enact the order immediately but later to be reviewed by a judge so there is some due process) or a judge they should be barred from owning or purchasing a gun. This also needs to be reported at the federal level so that if the person goes across state lines they still dont pass a background check.

That seems perfectly normal, perfectly rational, and even if your ultimate goal was total gun control at least its a step in that direction. Guess who got booed on stage for purposing this "reasonable suggestion"? A spokesperson for the NRA. It wasnt the GOP or NRA gun lobby that shot even the suggestion of it down, it was the families of and community of those affected by this last attack. So spare me the rhetoric.

*edited for typos

rainslacker297d ago (Edited 297d ago )

A person's guns can be removed from them if they are considered a threat to themselves or others. This happens routinely in domestic dispute cases. Also, some states will take someone's weapons from them if they have a restraining order placed on them, although some are only for if they're issued for violent reasons. Anyone charged with a felony will have their weapon taken away from them. They can get it back if they're exonerated.

People who are identified privately by a mental health expert isn't likely to have their weapon taken from them, but it's a misconception that these professionals don't have to report threats of violence against others to the authority, in which case, their weapons may be taken away from them if they are deemed unfit to possess them. Whether that happens or not depends on the competency of the investigation, as well as if the original claim by the initial health official was warranted.

With the issue at hand though, most of these cases aren't brought to the authorities attention, and the people who need help aren't getting it. This leads me to the belief that better screening processes are needed so these kinds of individuals can be identified much earlier. It doesn't mean they may not get a gun, but if done right, it does mean they are more likely to get the help they need. Obviously, this wouldn't always work like this, but at least it's better than what's going on now. Basically, add a psych evaluation to the screening process. Something more than a few questions like some states have, as no one is going to say they're buying a gun to murder someone.

OB1Biker298d ago

That you have so many disagrees is showing how difficult it is to move forwards. Politics and lobbies are like the devil's people blame. People being misled are slow to admit they are wrong. can kill with a butter knife is a valid argument for them to say assault rifles aren't a problem.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 297d ago