It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Games more dangerous than guns!(75 posts)(75 posts)
(75 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 11, 2013
avatar
tinyE: Good thread. For a second there I forgot that the U.S. was the ONLY screwed up country on the planet. :P
Hey! We're pretty screwed up down here too ya know:D

Must agree with the poll though, I'm sure if you threw a game disc at just the right angle it could slice you in half

And trying to get GFWL working in the (early?) days could drive someone to kill Mr. Gates and co.
Posted February 11, 2013
avatar
tinyE: Good thread. For a second there I forgot that the U.S. was the ONLY screwed up country on the planet. :P
avatar
mighty.ape.acct: Hey! We're pretty screwed up down here too ya know:D

Must agree with the poll though, I'm sure if you threw a game disc at just the right angle it could slice you in half

And trying to get GFWL working in the (early?) days could drive someone to kill Mr. Gates and co.
I've actually cut myself on a cd before.
Posted February 12, 2013
Some day hopefully our societies will look at how we treat each other, how we raise kids, the bullying that happens in schools, and other social issues as underlying sources of anger that lead to violence, rather than video games, the easy scapegoat.
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Elenarie: Only in Americuh!

[i]"What do you think is a bigger safety threat in
America: guns or violent video games?
Guns ............................................................... 14%
Video games................................................... 67%
Not sure .......................................................... 19%"[/i]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_207.pdf
I don't agree with this statement, because I don't consider either to be a safety threat to our country, on their own, but for a moment let me put a little bit of perspective on this:

Guns, while some may call them evil, cannot be denied to have a positive use in protecting the lives and homes of innocents, as well as hunting to provide food for your family. We also entrust the safety of our country to men and women armed with firearms.
Video games, as far as the most basic good/evil axis goes, have no "good" use (there have been studies that have argued this, but they're not yet widely accepted by anyone but gamers). Subjective evidence and some studies also have shown that excess exposure to violent video games can cause or intensify violence in individuals.

When you consider that, and then also the fact that it doesn't really define anything about the,.. then you also factor in that there's 2 options that it just asks "which is the bigger threat?" it is very easy to see why video games could be the answer.

1) There's been a marked increase in violence in the US in the last 20 years. There's also been a marked increase in violent video games in the last 20 years- yet firearm ownership has been around for centuries and has been on a decline.
2) Video games are less regulated than firearms. Children and the mentally unstable are not supposed to be able to buy firearms, but they're able to buy violent video games.
3) Children are impressionable. If we give our children violent video games and violent movies, from a very young age, and don't take the time to teach them the details of the real world.. they may come to learn that the proper solution to something bad is violence- of course this problem is intensified by the availability of firearms. (to be fair the real issue in this case is the parenting, but.. ya know)
4) Other countries, with far far stricter gun laws, still have violence and safety issues- just often times less gun crimes. Most of these countries still have violent video games.

Remember one very important things: Guns are an inanimate tool. Guns don't go around hunting people. Guns don't tell their owner to go kill people (unless the owner i insane and shouldn't own guns). Guns, like any other tool, do what their owner tells them to.
Human violence is required for gun violence, and while I don't agree it is arguable that violence in media (including video games) can contribute to human violence.
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: Guns, while some may call them evil, cannot be denied to have a positive use in protecting the lives and homes of innocents (...)
Violence and threats of violence only solve problems... violence and threats of violence create in the first place. Guns are not "good" because of that, they are something sane people should be reluctant to resort to.

avatar
Zolgar: Guns are an inanimate tool.
A key doesn't MAKE YOU open doors... but guess what - you get a key, you can open the corresponding door. Maybe you would be able to get it open by clawing at it with your fingernails long enough or by kicking it down. This doesn't change the fact that obtaining a key means that you possess the fastest, easiest and most efficient way of opening a door.

avatar
Zolgar: Human violence is required for gun violence, and while I don't agree it is arguable that violence in media (including video games) can contribute to human violence.
Think this through - are we going to eliminate the possibility of human violence ? Hell no - it's part of human condition, kinda hard to change that.
Is getting rid of something particular that triggers (for the purpose of this discussion) a particular outburst of violence the solution ? That's not feasible. It can be almost anything - loss of a job, bad weather, loneliness... Sure - let's say that the "last straw" or "instrumental influence" or WHATEVER was a computer game, book, WHATEVER.
Can we deduce from "A causes B" that "if not A, therefore never B" ? NO. As such - we cannot say that "if only" person A hadn't played a particular title (on a particular day...?), mutatis mutandi* - he wouldn't have snapped. Sure - we cannot tell without pertinent data but it stands to reason that in most cases there would merely be a different "trigger". The straw doesn't break the camels back because of its distinct properties - it does so because it adds (minuscule) weight to all the previous straws.

People will do what they can and want. You are suggesting that we make them not WANT to kill each other. I suggest we ensure they CANNOT.


*all other circumstances remaining the same, except for differences necessitated by the change of this single fact
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Vestin: I suggest we ensure they CANNOT.
But that is exactly what's known as a band-aid solution. If you want to truly solve a problem, you have to get to the root of it. People will find a way to be violent so long as those tendencies exist in people. Removing guns, video games, or anything else for that matter, will not solve that problem. Bare fists can be deadly weapons, too. Also, recall that the most deadly mass murders in US history have been carried out without the use of a single firearm. Where there's a will, there's a way.

The simple fact of the matter is that unless you could guarantee the removal of all guns from the entire planet, then disarming a society will have more negatives than positives. It will make a country weaker to it's enemies, both internal and external, and It will make people more susceptible to criminal acts. There is plenty of data in the US to show that the areas of the country with the most restrictive gun control have the highest levels of violent crime. Take a look at Chicago and DC. It's quite clear that gun control isn't a good solution to the problem.
Post edited February 12, 2013 by Qwertyman
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: Guns, while some may call them evil, cannot be denied to have a positive use in protecting the lives and homes of innocents (...)
avatar
Vestin: Violence and threats of violence only solve problems... violence and threats of violence create in the first place. Guns are not "good" because of that, they are something sane people should be reluctant to resort to.

avatar
Zolgar: Guns are an inanimate tool.
avatar
Vestin: A key doesn't MAKE YOU open doors... but guess what - you get a key, you can open the corresponding door. Maybe you would be able to get it open by clawing at it with your fingernails long enough or by kicking it down. This doesn't change the fact that obtaining a key means that you possess the fastest, easiest and most efficient way of opening a door.

avatar
Zolgar: Human violence is required for gun violence, and while I don't agree it is arguable that violence in media (including video games) can contribute to human violence.
avatar
Vestin: Think this through - are we going to eliminate the possibility of human violence ? Hell no - it's part of human condition, kinda hard to change that.
Is getting rid of something particular that triggers (for the purpose of this discussion) a particular outburst of violence the solution ? That's not feasible. It can be almost anything - loss of a job, bad weather, loneliness... Sure - let's say that the "last straw" or "instrumental influence" or WHATEVER was a computer game, book, WHATEVER.
Can we deduce from "A causes B" that "if not A, therefore never B" ? NO. As such - we cannot say that "if only" person A hadn't played a particular title (on a particular day...?), mutatis mutandi* - he wouldn't have snapped. Sure - we cannot tell without pertinent data but it stands to reason that in most cases there would merely be a different "trigger". The straw doesn't break the camels back because of its distinct properties - it does so because it adds (minuscule) weight to all the previous straws.

People will do what they can and want. You are suggesting that we make them not WANT to kill each other. I suggest we ensure they CANNOT.

*all other circumstances remaining the same, except for differences necessitated by the change of this single fact
You raise some valid points.
Yes, sane people should be reluctant to resort to the use of violence- Firearms are just a tool. A person is no more sane if they want to resort to using a knife than a firearm.. perhaps it could even be argued that they are less sane if they want to use a knife.

While a sane person wants to avoid violence, a sane person also wants to do whatever it takes to protect their family, and a gun is a good last-resort tool for that. It can be used for great evil- this is, once again the nature of a tool. It is 100% neutral, and whether it is good or bad is determined by the person who holds it.

Your key example is just as easily used to defend guns as it is against guns:
Your family is trapped behind a locked door and you have to save them- you want the most efficient, easy way to get through that door possible, they key. If the key is not available you will try to make do with whatever else you have access to, but it won't do as good of a job as easily.

The rest of your argument.. you fail to even begin to understand what I said.
Think through what I said, think it all through. Read my post again if you have to.

I never said video games were bad or dangerous, I said how they could be argued to be more of a threat to the safety of America than firearms- The threat to the safety of America is human violence, Video games can be shown to exasperate that issue.

We can't do away with human violence, sure. But you know what else we can't do away with? People killing people. All we can do away with is the ability for law abiding citizens to adequately defend themselves from the criminals who wish to do them harm "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". For a moment, let's just pretend though we do away with all guns everywhere (in the hands of criminals and civilians alike), people will kill each other with:
Bows
Crossbows
Blowguns
Explosives
Chemicals
Knives
Cars
Screwdrivers
Icepicks
Hammers
Baseball bats
Piano String
Zip Ties
Swords
Bare hands
I can carry on, if you want.

(Did you know that blunt objects are responsible for more homicides than rifles? Drunk drivers are responsible for more deaths than any one homicide weapon, except maybe handguns. By those statistics, we need to put better regulations on beer and baseball bats than we do rifles. >.>)

There's a theory that if we cut out gun sales the "pool of guns" available to criminals will dry up, which is .. maybe slightly true, but it will take years for that to happen, and then it's just the wealthy or creative criminals who have guns. All the other criminals will have to resort to stabbing implements again, while people who want to cause mass damage will have to resort to explosives (which anyone who can bake can make).

Doing away with guns only makes it slightly more difficult for a human to kill another.
What we need to do, is find ways to make humans want to bring harm to one another less- The answer to this is not removing violent media from the industry, though some believe it is.. and I do believe that not allowing young children as much exposure to it would help.

If you ask me, personally, the biggest threat to the safety of America.. I'd say it's a toss up between our own damned government, and pharmaceutical companies. Weapons and violent media ranking so far down on the list they aren't even a noteworthy blip.

For the record:
I have been playing violent video games since the days of DOOM, and grew up with firearms. I own an assortment of firearms, as well as other weaponry, and am fond of target shooting. I fully support increasing gun regulations to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get them..
However I believe the first step is better enforcing of existing gun laws, then from there we continue to add stronger laws as needed, in so long as they remain fair to law-abiding citizens who wish to hunt, target shoot, or protect their family and home. (Plus there's that whole Second Amendment thing)
I have long said that what we need is a licensing system for firearms that works much like drivers licenses- background checks, regular renewals, etc.
Post edited February 12, 2013 by Zolgar
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: Video games, as far as the most basic good/evil axis goes, have no "good" use (there have been studies that have argued this, but they're not yet widely accepted by anyone but gamers). Subjective evidence and some studies also have shown that excess exposure to violent video games can cause or intensify violence in individuals.
Video games have MANY positive effects on people. They are an active form of electronic entertainment and require the active use of your brain to participate just like any other game (board games, card games, using your imagination etc) It's great mental stimulation.

I don't know where you got this thinking from.

avatar
Zolgar: 1) There's been a marked increase in violence in the US in the last 20 years. There's also been a marked increase in violent video games in the last 20 years- yet firearm ownership has been around for centuries and has been on a decline.
Are these the only two things in the world to happen in twenty years??? No change in culture, economy , attitudes etc then?

avatar
Zolgar: Remember one very important things: Guns are an inanimate tool. Guns don't go around hunting people. Guns don't tell their owner to go kill people (unless the owner i insane and shouldn't own guns). Guns, like any other tool, do what their owner tells them to.
And now your thinking in black and white like a good person is a good person and a bad person is a bad person. Mental health is like physical health. You don't have to be an always ill person to get sick one day.

avatar
Zolgar: it is arguable that violence in media (including video games) can contribute to human violence.
Yup and violent video games is just one violent thing in a sea of many (look at toys or cartoons or music or television or books or day to day conflicts or newspapers or sport or cinema etc etc.) They are just singling out video games like what they do with rock n roll/heavy metal. It's a scapegoat used by people who don't understand it at all.
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: Video games, as far as the most basic good/evil axis goes, have no "good" use (there have been studies that have argued this, but they're not yet widely accepted by anyone but gamers). Subjective evidence and some studies also have shown that excess exposure to violent video games can cause or intensify violence in individuals.
avatar
Alfie3000: Video games have MANY positive effects on people. They are an active form of electronic entertainment and require the active use of your brain to participate just like any other game (board games, card games, using your imagination etc) It's great mental stimulation.

I don't know where you got this thinking from.

avatar
Zolgar: 1) There's been a marked increase in violence in the US in the last 20 years. There's also been a marked increase in violent video games in the last 20 years- yet firearm ownership has been around for centuries and has been on a decline.
avatar
Alfie3000: Are these the only two things in the world to happen in twenty years??? No change in culture, economy , attitudes etc then?

avatar
Zolgar: Remember one very important things: Guns are an inanimate tool. Guns don't go around hunting people. Guns don't tell their owner to go kill people (unless the owner i insane and shouldn't own guns). Guns, like any other tool, do what their owner tells them to.
avatar
Alfie3000: And now your thinking in black and white like a good person is a good person and a bad person is a bad person. Mental health is like physical health. You don't have to be an always ill person to get sick one day.

avatar
Zolgar: it is arguable that violence in media (including video games) can contribute to human violence.
avatar
Alfie3000: Yup and violent video games is just one violent thing in a sea of many (look at toys or cartoons or music or television or books or day to day conflicts or newspapers or sport or cinema etc etc.) They are just singling out video games like what they do with rock n roll/heavy metal. It's a scapegoat used by people who don't understand it at all.
*sigh*
Read my posts, both of them.
Now, try to understand something:
I don't always agree with things I say. I am known to play "devils advocate".

I, personally, agree that video games have positive effects, but as I said, for the most part the only people who agree with that (at this time) are gamers.

Plenty has happened in the last 20 years beyond the rise in violent video games, but people could connect the two. (Also in semi recent years I am slightly mistaken in that gun ownership has possibly been on the rise again).

Never said a person is always good or bad- this is the only point in your argument that I disagree with.
People change, yes.. however, the basis of "you could go crazy and decide to kill a bunch of people" is no more a basis to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw video games or cars or anything else. If we start making laws based on "what you could possibly do", then everyone will spend their entire lives in a drug-induced stupor, walking about the world as emotionless zombies doing their day to day tasks without feelings or desires. (yay Equilibrium!)
Posted February 12, 2013
Why do rednecks hate video games so much? Because they come from Japan or Europe? Because they haven't yet forgiven us Redneck Rampage?

As for whether video games have positive effects on people/children, in my opinion largely not. And I don't feel they are necessarily supposed to. They are somewhat like watching TV or listening to music, only more active activity. People play them to have fun, nothing wrong with that and no reason to pretend they have or should have some higher objectives.

I did learn quite a bit of English from some games though, like the Monkey Island games. Arrrr! And for some kids video games can be quite a social event too. But still.
Post edited February 12, 2013 by timppu
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: I don't always agree with things I say. I am known to play "devils advocate".
Yeah, I'm just responding :D

avatar
Zolgar: for the most part the only people who agree with that (at this time) are gamers.
Well, I think it's just the media & politicians that despise video games. Along with the people who actually listen to them. Anyone with the capacity of a slight-abstract chain of thought could deduce that even something "simple" like getting a character to jump over a gap or connecting three of the same gems in a row requires hand-eye co-ordination, concentration, skill, etc and the benefits of such. The BBC has had a few videos recently with old ladies (80-100) who actively play video games. They see the benefits of playing video games at their age. People are perfectly capable of understanding but it's a shame that other people's agenda's taint that.

avatar
Zolgar: Plenty has happened in the last 20 years beyond the rise in violent video games, but people could connect the two.
Yup. You could also connect sexual preference and the size of your toe nails on your left foot but it doesn't make it true.

avatar
Zolgar: "you could go crazy and decide to kill a bunch of people" is no more a basis to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw video games or cars or anything else.
Yup, but if you take it down to "something is as bad as everything else" then why have any rules or restrictions in the first place. Cars kill more people than hand grenades. Why are they illegal? Surely we should ban the car! A responsible hand grenade owner could use it to fish or kill bears! Only the mental folk would dare even think of throwing one at a school!
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: 1) There's been a marked increase in violence in the US in the last 20 years. There's also been a marked increase in violent video games in the last 20 years- yet firearm ownership has been around for centuries and has been on a decline.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States the crime rate in the US has been on a decline since early 90s. Interestingly enough, that's when games started being mainstream too. Correlation doesn't imply causation, so it would be a mistake to attribute the positive trend to games based on these numbers alone, but evidence doesn't suggest that any increase of criminality occurs.
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Vestin: I suggest we ensure they CANNOT.
avatar
Qwertyman: But that is exactly what's known as a band-aid solution. If you want to truly solve a problem, you have to get to the root of it.
But you cannot ! Short of mind-control or killing every last human in the world, there's no direct solution to this problem.

avatar
Qwertyman: Bare fists can be deadly weapons, too.
It's sort of like dusting - some dust will likely remain, more will eventually appear anyway... but people still do it. There's no elegant, trivial, extensive and permanent solution - it's not a math problem.

avatar
Zolgar: Firearms are just a tool.
I'm not blaming items. I'm not blaming anything or anyone. You can call or classify guns in any way you find desirable, I don't care.

avatar
Zolgar: While a sane person wants to avoid violence, a sane person also wants to do whatever it takes to protect their family, and a gun is a good last-resort tool for that.
That's why this is a complicated issue and I'm not offering any simple solutions.

avatar
Zolgar: I never said video games were bad or dangerous, I said how they could be argued to be more of a threat to the safety of America than firearms
Which is INSANE.
Initially I wanting to, jokingly, suggest an experiment where you have two groups of psychopaths, give guns to one group and video games to the other, see how that works out.

When NOT operating in vacuum, framing the situation also yields hilarious results. You can think "We have video games. The can make some people get guns and go on a killing spree."... though you can also go the other way and say "We have guns, which some people may use to kill others... because of video games".

It's like a match blowing up a powder keg in a kindergarten; you can say "What idiot lights a match near a powder keg ?", you can also ask "WHY THE FUCK was there a powder keg in this kindergarten ?!".

Once again - I'm not offering any particular (much less - extreme) practical advice, I'm merely stating the obvious.

avatar
Zolgar: For a moment, let's just pretend though we do away with all guns everywhere (in the hands of criminals and civilians alike), people will kill each other with:
Bows
Crossbows
Blowguns
Explosives
Chemicals
Knives
Cars
Screwdrivers
Icepicks
Hammers
Baseball bats
Piano String
Zip Ties
Swords
Bare hands
I can carry on, if you want.
Oh, I don't doubt for one moment that you can come up with multiple additional ways of killing people.
I also lament all the killing sprees commited with screwdrivers and crossbows. What a cruel world we live in, eh ?
No. Your argument of "this wouldn't solve everything, therefore it wouldn't solve anything" does not impress me.

avatar
Zolgar: By those statistics, we need to put better regulations on beer and baseball bats than we do rifles. >.>
Oh, people die in other ways ?
I guess we shouldn't bother trying to limit one of them...
/Willy Wonka

avatar
Zolgar: There's a theory that if we cut out gun sales the "pool of guns" available to criminals will dry up, which is .. maybe slightly true, but it will take years for that to happen, and then it's just the wealthy or creative criminals who have guns. All the other criminals will have to resort to stabbing implements again, while people who want to cause mass damage will have to resort to explosives (which anyone who can bake can make).
This may be very condensed but I'll write it anyway: an arms race between individuals in a society is not the way to go. Mutually Assured Destruction shouldn't apply to every household.

avatar
Zolgar: Doing away with guns only makes it slightly more difficult for a human to kill another.
Really ? It makes it harder for people to kill one another ? Even a tiny bit ?
I'M SOLD. That's all I needed to hear.
"Slightly less death" sounds more appealing than you might think.

avatar
Zolgar: What we need to do, is find ways to make humans want to bring harm to one another less
This is a hopeless cause. You'd need to change the ENTIRE CULTURE around you... and, guess what, I'm fairly certain these new, peaceful people would forsake guns and embrace love, perhaps nature... In other words - it's back to guns, though this time making people DISLIKE them.
This would help somewhat, though pulling it off would require Illuminati-like levels of manipulation and brainwashing.

avatar
Zolgar: If you ask me, personally, the biggest threat to the safety of America.. I'd say it's a toss up between our own damned government (...)
Oh, please...

avatar
Zolgar: I have been playing violent video games since the days of DOOM, and grew up with firearms. I own an assortment of firearms, as well as other weaponry, and am fond of target shooting. I fully support increasing gun regulations to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get them..
However I believe the first step is better enforcing of existing gun laws, then from there we continue to add stronger laws as needed, in so long as they remain fair to law-abiding citizens who wish to hunt, target shoot, or protect their family and home. (Plus there's that whole Second Amendment thing)
I have long said that what we need is a licensing system for firearms that works much like drivers licenses- background checks, regular renewals, etc.
And for this you get a big thumbs-up from me. Like I said - I'm not competent enough to find a solution to all of this, I merely acknowledge that - yes - guns ARE instrumental here. Literally - they're the instrument of death and destruction when in the wrong hands. It would be optimal if they were in nobody's, peachy if only in the right ones.

The reality, however, is apparently this.
Post edited February 12, 2013 by Vestin
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: "you could go crazy and decide to kill a bunch of people" is no more a basis to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw video games or cars or anything else.
avatar
Alfie3000: Yup, but if you take it down to "something is as bad as everything else" then why have any rules or restrictions in the first place. Cars kill more people than hand grenades. Why are they illegal? Surely we should ban the car! A responsible hand grenade owner could use it to fish or kill bears! Only the mental folk would dare even think of throwing one at a school!
Funny thing..

I can do more damage with my pickup truck than I could do with a single hand grenade. I can also build a basic explosive that will do nearly as much damage as a hand grenade, from products I can legally purchase (often without even being carded for).

And legitimate uses for a hand grenade are sheer massive stretches of the imagination. Blast fishing.. well, depends on the type of grenade- but blast fishing is a generally frowned upon practice. Bear hunting/killing a bear in self defense, anyone who thinks that knows nothing about hand grenades. Grenades have 1 use and 1 use only: fucking up the day of everyone around them- civilians have no real purpose to own hand grenades.

That said, in the ideal system I have in mind, a civilian could own hand grenades.. it'd just take him a bit to get there.

Cars, by the way, kill more people that every weapon combined. There are more vehicular deaths every year, not counting DUI related, than their are homicide deaths. There's almost as many DUI related deaths as there are homicide deaths.
Should we ban cars? No.. but if you want to go on about how dangerous something is.. I mean.. only a mental person would intentionally impair their own judgement and then attempt to control a ton of metal traveling at 50 miles per hour......

I guarantee that there would be less deaths in the US if we did away with booze than if we did away with guns. (In both those cases I mean "poof all gone, no one can make more", not just illegalized)
"But thousands of people every day drink and don't drive/get in accidents." -EXACTLY!
Thousands of gun owners every day don't kill people!

If we're going to restrict the many, because of what the few do.. we should do by what is really the most dangerous... Problem is, the political powers don't give a flying fuckball about death tolls, or public safety or any of the important shit.
They care about public image, and hot topics. Guns are a hot topic.
It is also believed (by some) that they care about maintaining control over the masses and ensuring their reign remains unchallenged.

Historically, most of the time when ruling powers sought to disarm their people, it was to ensure their people could not rise up against them because of mistreatment. The present regime may or may not have that mentality.. but nothing saying that the next, or the one after that won't, too.. Which is, of course, the purpose behind the Second Amendment.
Posted February 12, 2013
avatar
Zolgar: Cars, by the way, kill more people that every weapon combined. There are more vehicular deaths every year, not counting DUI related, than their are homicide deaths. There's almost as many DUI related deaths as there are homicide deaths.
But the difference is in intent. How many car deaths are related to murder? Now, how many gun deaths are related to murder?

It's unfortunate that soo many people are killed from lack of judgement/concentration/human error etc whilst travelling, but driving to work, losing concentration and hitting a tree or something is a bit different from being intentionally shot with a weapon.

avatar
Zolgar: I guarantee that there would be less deaths in the US if we did away with booze than if we did away with guns.
I agree that alcohol causes far too many problems worldwide. It should be a way bigger topic than guns.

avatar
Zolgar: It is also believed (by some) that they care about maintaining control over the masses and ensuring their reign remains unchallenged.

Historically, most of the time when ruling powers sought to disarm their people, it was to ensure their people could not rise up against them because of mistreatment. The present regime may or may not have that mentality.. but nothing saying that the next, or the one after that won't, too.. Which is, of course, the purpose behind the Second Amendment.
I'd be more wary on the influence of popular figures/media outlets on people than mass gun disarmament.


avatar
Zolgar: I can do more damage with my pickup truck than I could do with a single hand grenade. I can also build a basic explosive that will do nearly as much damage as a hand grenade, from products I can legally purchase (often without even being carded for).
True. It's like stabbing people with kitchen knives.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Games more dangerous than guns!(75 posts)(75 posts)
(75 posts)