http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/


Maybe, doesn't make it any less true, though ;)


60,600,6000, more. It only takes ONE to end a life. That the guns in these "incidents" have large-capacity magazines is an enabler of rapid murder, not a defence.

Al-Qaeda killed around 3,000 people in the World Trade Centre in 2001.
The United States went to war because of that. Twice.
Because of the NRA, the US has lost 10,000 people, last year alone, unnecessarily.

Where's the war?

Better question : As per the Second Amendment that most fuckwits with guns proclaim loudly after such incidents, HOW MANY are in a well-regulated militia?
Where's the rigorous background checks?
Where's the rigorous safety checks?
Where's the mandatory, regular psych evaluations?

Law enforcement officers MUST pass a regular proficiency test to carry weapons - WHY isn't the same true of the General Unwashed public?

WHO needs more than....two handguns, a hunting rifle, and *MAYBE* some sort of semi-automatic rifle? WHY is there a need to buy as many as possible? Unless you're Arnie, or Rambo, or John McClaine or Clint Eastwood, using more than 2 at once is pretty impossible, right? Nope, pretty sure they nearly always use just one or two pistols, and one rifle/machine gun at a time...

Only an idiot thinks their puny weaponry will assist them in standing up to the might of the government.
If they want to live in caves and sewers and run for their lives, more power to them but to stand and fight against an attack helicopter, jet bomber or tank is suicide.

Perhaps they want to be a suicide bomber but their effectiveness, if the gloves come off for the military - and it is at home where they won't pull out ever, is going to be negligible at best.

They will just piss them off enough to level their neighbourhood, which after it happens a few times will encourage the locals to turn over crazy son of bitches who keep shooting.

This isn't the 18th and 19th Century British Empire we are talking about fighting, where their superior training and weaponry will be overcome by camouflage!
Better knowledge of the terrain and an overwhelmingly distant supply line for the enemy. None of that would be the case here.

Put down the crack pipe and the gun and come out with your hands up.

Last year, handguns killed :
48 people in Japan;
EIGHT in the UK;
34 in Switzerland;
52 in Canada;
58 in israel;
21 in Sweden;
42 in Germany;
TEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED and TWENTY-EIGHT in the USA.

UK's population is ...say 70 million. 1/5th of the US. We have a fairly strict gun control policy - you can buy them, but you have to PROVE there's a need beyond "I wants one, lol!"
There's regular safety checks, and in the last 30 years, there's been only 3 or 4 mass shootings.

Something needs to change - but the NRA are buying your politicians to prevent it and maintain their profit margins at the expense of your CHILDREN.

No. Tell you what. Scratch all that. SCREW changing things.
Let even more guns on the market, and let even more idiots have them, and stockpile obscene amounts of ammo. Let them go postal on everyone else. World has too many people, and losing 360million people is a good start to reducing it. Bring on the next rampage!!

[citation needed please]

Because I can point to people like Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, demanding an immediate (read: kneejerk) reaction. As we all know, those NEVER have unintended consequences. Emotional-based responses are some of the worst things that can happen in the wake of events like this.

And yet, police have to spend time at gun ranges. Training for something like this should be no different than a teacher needing to have some basic medical knowledge like CPR until more qualified professionals arrive.

Schools, right now, are more often than not designated as weapon free zones with zero tolerance policies. That, in and of itself, makes them a massive target for anyone who has a grudge for the simple fact that they know they can do damage with little chance of immediate retaliation on the part of the people there.

Protecting the people is one thing. Fostering a need for the people to have the government (and ONLY the government) protect them is a completely different thing.

Police are a reactive entity and a deterrence. They cannot be everywhere and cannot protect people from everything. That's where personal responsibility comes in. A lot of people don't like the idea of personal responsibility and wish to abdicate that to some other entity, such as the government.

http://mashable.com/2012/12/14/mass-effect-facebook-shooting/

I blame DOOM!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObE-vEFVnww

These Attacks only appear in area where guns are banned...


Sorry, for the short post, i must go to work.

Fair enough and thank you for providing, but that host was a complete and utter douche, IMO. To me, he exemplified the emotional-based response without providing anything of substance to the discussion.

And now, off to bed for me. Thank you for the reasonably civil discussion Rincewind.

I think this has a ring of truth to it. It's worth examining the question, if, in modern fame obsessed culture, we've created a situation where deranged individuals will kill just for the fame and media attention? This is not without precedent, if we recall the guy that shot Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. I don't think it's the case in Connecticut, but I wouldn't put it past some nuts seeing it as a way to gain some kind of immortality.

I also want to say, as a gun owner (though I don't own any semi-autos- I primarily use my guns for hunting, so 4 of my 5 firearms are long guns and the 5th is a revolver)- I've been shooting all my life. I was taught to shoot, safely, when I was about 5. I've heard people today say "just give it up" or "get a new hobby". I bring this up because I fear the slippery slope. If it would lead to no further bans, I would welcome the elimination of Glocks and AR-pattern rifles. They're aesthetically hideous and their big magazines encourage you to waste ammo. And for whatever reason they seem to be the most fetishized of firearms. But I'm afraid it wouldn't be long before someone called my scoped bolt action a "sniper rifle" and wanted to take it away.

I think part of this is because a lot of international commenters can't understand because hunting never held any traditional value for them, since (and correct me if I'm wrong) it was in many cases restricted to nobility. My family has hunted for food and sport for generations. To revoke our right to hunt- we're law abiding, tax-paying citizens- would be like telling us we're forbidden to put up a Christmas tree.

Just because some creep uses a gun in what can only be described as an atrocity, why should this affect me? Terrible, tragic events that we can't control happen sometimes. Passing a law will make some people feel better, but it won't solve the problem of a neglected young man with mental illness going untreated, nor will it bring the innocent victims back to life.

I also want to note, for the benefit of international commenters that firearm laws vary from state to state, county to county and in some cases even city to city in the US. The idea of states' rights to govern themselves with less federal intervention is an important one here. Sweeping national changes are uncommon in the US (and when they do happen, they're a big deal and often very controversial), but one of the things I like is if you don't like the laws where you are, you can usually find some place more to your liking. That's a reason many Americans get uncomfortable with the concept of Federal law that trumps all local laws.



Bioware just can't catch a break this year, can they?

Its really weird that they still have the energy to play games, when you think how easy its to get firearms in USA in the first place O_o.

Ofcourse guns are sacred there, so you cant restrict them - but you have to restrict SOMETHING so games are easy choice.

It's obvious that gun ownership isn't the only problem here.

People in Switzerland have guns, so they can be ready to form a militia in case of invasion. And yet, they don't have nearly as many gun crimes as the US.
So what's the difference between the two countries?

In Switzerland, people get their guns as part of their military training. AFAIK, every legal gun owner in the country has spent a large amount of time being trained in gun safety, among other things. Guns are taken seriously.

Now compare that to America, where not only is no training necessary to own a gun, but they also apparently allow children on gun ranges, and anyone is free to own as many guns as they want, despite the fact that you really don't need more than 1 rifle or handgun if the only purpose is to ensure your own safety.

So here's the real problem, imo, Americans have with guns; they take them for granted, and many seem to think of them as some sort of toy.
Reality check here; guns are lethal weapons. Their only purpose is to kill. Children have no business using one, and even adults have no business owning one without appropriate training.

And before the gun-lovers out there try to invoke the second amendment, let me say that AFAIK that one specifically refers to forming militias, just like in Switzerland.
I have nothing against a trained adult owning a gun for self-defense, but I just don't understand how you can think handing several guns to the Average Joe without any kind of check can be okay.

I mean, you wouldn't let someone drive a car without a driver's permit, would you? Then why exactly would you hand a lethal weapon to someone who hasn't proved he can use it responsibly?


That being said, to get back on topic, so what's new? Conservatives have always used video games as a scapegoat anytime something violent happens, and the complete absence of facts supporting that theory has never stopped them. It's just a diversionary tactics to try to avoid people blaming the people who actually deserve it, i.e. the NRA.

And TV stations will always be happy to host such things, because TV and video games are direct competitors for our free time. When you're playing video games, after all, you're not watching TV, and if parents restrict their kids' time playing games, those kids are most likely to watch TV instead.
In other words, expecting TV journalists of any kind to give a fair, unbiased account of video games is like expecting a non-moderate Republican to give a fair, unbiased account of Democrats' political agenda, or vice-versa.

I saw this on the TV and immediatly thought someone is gonna put the blame on Video Games and/or entertainment damn that was fast.

So did they caught the perpatrators?


EDIT: I think this is relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUwb3Z2Klrk

Guns don't kill people; TV and video games kill people! Thanks for being so inciteful Fox! (and no, I spelled "incite" correctly there...)

Also, when the gun control debate started springing up around the Dark Knight Rises incident, thank you for reminding us that "NOW" is not the time to politicize such a tragedy. And also thank you for pointing the finger squarely at the media within hours of this new incident!! Because as we all know, it's ghoulish to politicize a tragedy in regards to the Second Amendment so soon after the occurrence, but in regards to the First Amendment obviously that's the perfect time to start grinding your own personal axes... maybe now you can explain to us again how Mass Effect is an S&M porn simulator?

*sigh*

Not much of a defense against the need for gun control. In that case the man who stabbed 22 in China killed zero. Since guns are obviously much more effective tools for killing people than knives, would that still be the case if the man had a firearm? Probably not. That case would seem to be an excellent example of the good that some sensible amount of gun control might manage.

I think it would be tough to argue that wounded isn't a huge step up from dead.

Semi-automatic, and the laws governing such weapons aren't particularly strict.

While a major problem with gun violence is illegal guns, most of those guns tend to have been legally owned domestic weapons at one point. The United States is the major exporter of smuggled weapons in North America, not the location they're all flooding into. And no, there isn't exactly a huge underground market where knock-off Colts and Barettas are being produced by Fingers and Vinny the Nose in some mobster's basement in order to meet the illegal demand.

The primary source of these illegal guns seems to be people who are buying guns who have no business owning guns. People who either then sell them for a quick buck, or don't/can't properly store them with the result being the gun getting stolen. Reducing the number of guns available to people who can't properly care for a weapon (which should be one of the goals of any intelligent gun control program), ultimately, should also reduce the number of illegal weapons that exist. Obviously it won't get rid of them entirely, but it isn't wise to disregard a measure that will likely lessen the problem just because it won't eliminate it.

Unless I'm mistaken then likely he's referring to the Akre case. Though if I'm correct, that's not what Fox argued there.

The whole ordeal is something of a mess. Google "Akre Monsanto Fox" and you'll find an endless stream of information. What was basically argued (successfully) by Fox is that (in Florida) they can fire journalists for not distorting the news due to FCC regulations not qualifying as the types of rules and laws under which Florida's whistle blower laws apply.

While there were some First Amendment issues raised by Fox's lawyers during the trial (if I recall correctly) they don't seem to have had any actual application to the final verdict of their appeal against Akre (who had previously won a suit against them over her firing).

So essentially the controversy isn't that they argued that they aren't a news program, but that they didn't even bother to respond to the claims that Akre laid against them attempting to distort the news.

Technically, at least arguably all media can deceive the public thanks to the First Amendment. There are FCC regulations which exist that say news organizations can't, and that the FCC can fine them should they attempt it, but I don't believe those regulations have ever stood the test of fire, and should the FCC attempt to level them against anyone (and especially Fox, based on their actions in the Aker case) they'd be looking at a lot of hefty questions as to whether those regulations are constitutional due to the fact that the FCC is a governmental body.

In other words; while there are technically a few skimpy FCC regulations suggesting that the news can't lie to you... the news can lie to you. Be it Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC the only thing preventing them are a few regulations that have already been seen as flimsy in court, and ultimately aren't likely to be supported should their legality be questioned.

It's a process called "triage".

Ideally you should treat everything, but do so based on severity, resources and means.

There will always be disturbed people. Obviously there needs to be more accessible care (hopefully leading to diagnosis) and treatment. Some will always fall through the cracks however. Thus it's wise to attempt to curb the damage they can feasibly do when that happens.

Regardless, it becomes more a problem when the main political party that opposes gun control ALSO opposes "government hand outs" like health care and health coverage in so far as diagnosis and treatment, and instead would like to limit the government's ultimate involvement only to emergency care. Essentially they want to wash their hands on all counts. I suppose the thinking here is that two wrongs make a right?

Without guns people would just use something else.......poison/knives/etc.

Fox is a conservative company and the pundit appeared to be conservative, which, in American, means guns are enshrined next to Jesus and the Founding Fathers in the national Pantheon. These conservatives view video games as this distant 'other' which is new, complicated, and provides no clear benefit except enjoyment among 18-35s. Because it is misunderstood, this comparison, which is simply a reductio ad absurdum to gamers, can be used to justify the erroneous belief that high gun ownership leads to more peaceful society. When these tragedies take place, gun rights advocates are forced along Occam's Razor and the only way to maintain their beliefs is through reacting with absurd comparisons. The OP's blog pointed out that there are many forms of media with include violence but that doesn't mean media is the cause of violence or even a contributor and those who jump to criticize video games or any one area for tragedies ignore the vast amount of problems with society, and in particular with American society which has some of the highest rates of homicides in the western world. Could it be that an extremely competitive society exacerbates mental illness and universal access to firearms leads to increased usage by all, including the most unwell? Just a hypothesis but one that is more easily defended than identifying video games as the source of all violence.

Hmmm...comparing America to Switzerland...yep that works out well. Let us just compare apples and oranges.

Not really sure where you are getting the idea that gun owners in America consider their guns toys...Now I do not have any guns in my household. However, I know plenty that have at least one if not a whole arsenal, and NONE of them consider them toys.

As for why children are allowed on gun ranges...now while I might not agree 100% with it, but they are there to be taught gun safety, and some 8+ do go hunting with there parents and are taught safety. Nothing different than anything in the last 200+ years. This actually helps prevent accidents in the home since they understand what these weapons are and that they are not TOYS.

Now should there be better checks in place for selling guns...maybe.

But a couple things here...the United States is a very large country and there are already more guns spread acrossed this land that it is impossible to reverse certain things.

Secondly, do you think tighter gun controls will stop criminals...yeah not really...do you think a person who wants to go on a shooting spree or plans on killing people, or robbing, etc..really gives a flying fuck about gun laws. Since we cannot get rid of the weapons in our country, the better course would be to make training more widely available, and look at better options than, ooooo...you need to wait till you are 25, and then have a 12 month waiting list or some such nonsense...

Also, for example in this recent issue, all 4 guns were registered to the mother who was a teacher and older...so no gun laws would have prevented this tragedy. So you limit her too one, and you know what he still goes on a rampage or finds other access...who knows.

I would love some way to stop maniacs from going on killing sprees, it would be wonderful, but how to stop it, I do not know.

We are not like a small country, so things are not so simple as Switzerland, or any other small country. And we are not as controlling as say China, so who knows. I have 2 kids and another on the way, and I worry about them a lot, but who can only be positive and do your best with your own kids and hope no psychopath is in the vicinity, and that they have happy lives.

Ultimately though it's a question of the effectiveness of the tool. As you say, sure they can use a knife, much like the school stabbings yesterday in Henan, China. One adult and 22 children were stabbed. The difference here is that there were no fatalities in that mass stabbing. Knives are less deadly, and knife wielders are more easily dealt with (especially by taser and gun wielding police).

Automatic and semi-automatic high-capacity firearms are an exceptionally designed tool when it comes to dealing death. They're tough to match and would not be easily replaced.

I did it to prove a point......one that you seem incapable of understanding, it seems.

Even if you cut down/back on "ordinary folk" from owning LEGAL guns then what's to stop "ordinary folk" from purchasing illegal guns from criminals/other ordinary folk who already have illegal firearms and circumventing the ban/limit on legally owned guns? As I said and keep saying, banning or severely limiting guns won't do much as people(Criminals and regular folk) will still find ways to get guns. Heck, pot(and other drugs) is(are) illegal here and people still get it.
----------------
And why shouldn't they have one? You can't just look at one side, you know. Some valid reasons people might want a gun: To hunt, or to prevent being harmed by those(criminals/etc) who might wish to harm them.

(To be clear I mean guns like pistols/shotguns(non-automatic/combat) and the like, not full auto weapons.)
------------------------
No problem.....imo I think it's a cultural thing. Some Europeans(It seems) tend to think guns aren't needed/shouldn't be needed as much as Americans think they are because many Europeans were brought up differently(In more strict societies that limit gun ownership/etc.).