Your thoughts on gun violence in video games?

[Agonist]

agonist, does your increasingly unlikely-sounding scenario to rationalise gun ownership justify the 8000+ Americans who are shot dead every year and the countless more who are injured or robbed/raped at gunpoint?

I'm not trying to justify anyone who has been shot dead, in fact I agree there needs to be more regulations on certain types of guns. But at the same time, it's not just guns that are the problem.

But even if it is an unlikely scenario, so isn't a man going into a school, and shooting a bunch of children. The point I'm trying to make (And perhaps I'm not doing a very good job with it, so I'll clarify my stance) is that these unlikely scenarios are occurring much more frequently than they used to, and criminals are becoming bolder with what they do, and therefore, citizens should be able to defend themselves against such criminals. I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, but I'd gladly kill someone to defend my family.

For example, I live in Maine, and almost every day on the news, you hear about some house, or a store that was subjugated to an armed robbery, or some sort of robbery. Several people I know have had their houses either broken into, or someone attempted to break into them, while someone was home.

it seems a pretty heavy price to pay to protect myself from somebody who atm sounds like some sorta gun-toting Michael Myers

I really hope you don't think I'm trying to make every criminal out to look like that. As I said above, I really would like nothing more than to go through life without killing anyone, but if such an occasion came up, I would gladly kill someone who was threatening the safety of loved ones in order to prevent them from being hurt.

 

[Eraddd]

I believe the bolded part would imply that I was not being completely serious earlier? Just a thought.

Sorry I just thought about your propensity to make bad posts and assumed like everything that you post about politics, that you were serious.

Also The Agonist is completely out of touch with reality. We've already established that the school shoot-up doesn't happen often; Lee already elaborated that the number of killings with firearms is as significant part of the murder statistics in America and that's the basis on why we're arguing. Not some unlikely near-delusional scenario you seem to base your arguments on.

 

[Agonist]

Also The Agonist is completely out of touch with reality. We've already established that the school shoot-up doesn't happen often; Lee already elaborated that the number of killings with firearms is as significant part of the murder statistics in America and that's the basis on why we're arguing. Not some unlikely near-delusional scenario you seem to base your arguments on.

Clearly you didn't bother reading the part where I said it's becoming more common, and that situations such as the scenario I described are happening much more frequently. I'm well aware of the fact the killings with firearms make a significant number of murder statistics in America, being a citizen of the US.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Sorry I just thought about your propensity to make bad posts and assumed like everything that you post about politics, that you were serious.

Also The Agonist is completely out of touch with reality. We've already established that the school shoot-up doesn't happen often; Lee already elaborated that the number of killings with firearms is as significant part of the murder statistics in America and that's the basis on why we're arguing. Not some unlikely near-delusional scenario you seem to base your arguments on.

Oh of course, we're talking about my awful posts in politics here, especially in the 2012 election thread (I know they were awful, I think this whenever I look back at them) when you guys chastise any remotely conservative viewpoint practically just because they disagree with you.

Anyway, you appear to have completely ignored the video I linked to on page 5, so here, have a YouTube tag. Oh, and watch the entire video please; you can't really get much from it if you don't. It really explains a lot about the supposed effectiveness of gun control.

[youtube]sFMUeUErYVg[/youtube]

 

[frogoholic101]

If you want to talk about the effects of gun control just look at countries like the UK, Sweden, France, Germany, etc.
If you want to see the effects lax gun controls have, look at the USA and Russia.

There's hardly any 'supposed' here.

Oh wait, we can just go 'correlation does not imply causation, sorry, any logic you've just used is now invalid'

I'm sorry I stopped listening when he started talking bs about Europe. 'Weapons banned because the aristocrats wanted a monopoly' where's he getting this from? Weapons were never banned from peasants and they were in fact encouraged to learn how to use bows/crossbows/swords/polearms etc so they could fight for their lord. From 15th century onwards peasants had easy access to handguns. What the hell is he talking about?

Did he just call the USA the West and insinuate Europe is not Western? Dear me.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Did you even watch the whole video?

If yes, you probably ignored a lot of information. The video has data going all the way back to 1919, when the UK had pretty much the same gun laws the US had.

If no, go watch it, then we can talk.

e: Ok so since we're apparently talking in edits now, I didn't really care about things like that which he said (which are quite clearly bullshit). I cared about the data, and all of it. If you watched the whole video, then mind telling me what he said the UK's murder rate in 1919 was?

 

[frogoholic101]

I quote from the video:

'In the UK where guns are virtually banned 43% of robberies occurred when people were home, less than 10% of US burglaries occur when people are home. Because, of course, of gun ownership'

But I thought correlation didn't imply causation?

I'll answer that shortly, still watching.

Ok, I've seen that bit. Nice try on his part.

The first figure (0.08/10000) was taken for Wales only. I shouldn't have to explain why this is laughable.
The second figure for 1983-6 was taken for the whole of the UK and was taken at a time during the Troubles when there was a lot of violence in Ireland.
I believe this explains the disparity. This and the fact that the figure was taken more than 60 years after the act, and I hardly think it is likely that all of the results were dependent on that.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Okay, and now you're trying to explain the data. Perfect! Just what I wanted you to do.

If anything, doesn't the increase in violence in Ireland in 1984-1986 only prove that there are more factors to consider than just gun control? You have to consider the drug war in Mexico, for example.

 

[Glen]

because there couldn't be any unique factor to the united states no it has to be gun ownership, unlike those other countries

i think what i find most hilarious about this belief - a belief that the ubiquity of guns takes a backseat in relevance to this mysterious x factor that makes americans want to shoot each other so much - is that the proponents of it are generally the most vehement in their cries that america is the best country in the world

 

[popemobile]

well there are other factors, such as shitty social policies that create poverty and poverty traps in america moreso than other countries. I doubt mattj would be up for addressing those, though.

 

[frogoholic101]

Okay, and now you're trying to explain the data. Perfect! Just what I wanted you to do.

If anything, doesn't the increase in violence in Ireland in 1984-1986 only prove that there are more factors to consider than just gun control? You have to consider the drug war in Mexico, for example.

Yeah, having something nearly equating to a war was a factor. Is the USA bombing the shit out of Protestants and Catholics? Didn't think so. The USA is nothing like Troubles Ireland. The drug war is definitely a factor. Is the USA in a drug war? Hmm. Nope, it manages to have a higher number of deaths per 10000 than the former and only a slightly lower one than the latter whilst not having any major internal problems! I wonder what it could be then...?

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

Yeah, having something nearly equating to a war was a factor. Is the USA bombing the shit out of Protestants and Catholics? Didn't think so. The USA is nothing like Troubles Ireland. The drug war is definitely a factor. Is the USA in a drug war? Hmm. Nope, it manages to have a higher number of deaths per 10000 than the former and only a slightly lower one than the latter whilst not having any major internal problems! I wonder what it could be then...?

Well, poverty could be a factor (yet you can never truly eliminate poverty so that factor will always exist). You could probably also consider the cultural divide and possibly even America's culture in general (which you can't really fix). Of course, you could also blame the media.

Find me a magic solution to all of the US's problems.

 

[frogoholic101]

Well, poverty could be a factor (yet you can never truly eliminate poverty so that factor will always exist). You could probably also consider the cultural divide and possibly even America's culture in general (which you can't really fix). Of course, you could also blame the media.

Find me a magic solution to all of the US's problems.

Ban guns for the general public. That'll sort a lot out.

I should probably say I'm in the same boat as Lee; I'm not American and nobody I know owns a gun, so if there are 'benefits' then I don't see them. But we get on fine with no guns.

 

[JimBob]

Banning guns in America is impossible, it's in our constitution.

It's such a simple thing to say that "if no one has guns then there will be no gun violence" but the fact is there are so many guns in America already that banning them won't get rid of them. Maybe we should make pot illegal too, hm? See how well that worked out?

 

[Lee]

this made my day

http://news.sky.com/story/1029589/piers-morgan-thousands-want-him-deported

 

[shade]

hes still a prick

 

[Stratos]

put this thread out of its misery please

but whoever said that the point of the second amendment was to protect the people from the government is right, it's not to protect yourself from whack intruders because yes you will probably lose

 

[Brap]

Meh, I think this shows my opinion

 

[Codraroll]

but whoever said that the point of the second amendment was to protect the people from the government is right, it's not to protect yourself from whack intruders because yes you will probably lose

Modern army weapons would make it nigh impossible for civilians, regardless of their gun collection, to protect themselves from the government. An APC with a 30 mm cannon could level a small neighbourhood from over a kilometre away, even with all its inhabitants returning fire with .50 cal weapons. The APC would maybe need a new paint job afterwards, but that would be it.

You could also ask the Afghani, Yemenite and Pakistani Taliban leaders how much handheld (or vehicle-mounted) firearms help you when an American drone is out to get you. They rarely even see it coming.

In short, nowadays having weapons at home would get you nowhere as far as protecting yourself from an oppressive government goes. Perhaps it did in the 1770s, though, when everything they had - government or not - was muzzle loaded weapons that took a minute to load and were hilariously inaccurate even at close range. A militia of able-bodied men scraped together from your village would be at about even ground versus an infantry company sent out by an oppressive government. But times have changed.


Also, if an armed intruder breaks into your home... what are you supposed to do, you ask? Heck, I ask: What is he supposed to do? He will probably be in your house to steal your stuff. He is not very likely to be there to kill somebody. After all, people need an incentive to kill. The intruder wouldn't be likely to shoot you unless he perceived you as a threat. He certainly would if you began fumbling for your gun. The purpose of his firearm would be to intimidate would-be targets, or protect himself from armed homeowners. He broke into your house for money, not for blood. Give him what he wants or back off and get away. Don't play hero and try to fight him. Ideally, you wouldn't want a firearm to be carried over your doorstep. Failing that, first priority would be preventing that firearm from going off. I'd rather successfully protect my life by giving up property than gamble my life to protect my property. After all, the police is there to take care of such people and maybe get your property back. If they fail, the insurance company could be of some help. This isn't the pre-Feudal age, where you were on your own if something happened to you.

 

[Steamroll]

After all, the police is there to take care of such people and maybe get your property back. If they fail, the insurance company could be of some help. This isn't the pre-Feudal age, where you were on your own if something happened to you.

Both options aren't even a 100% guarantee to work. If you manage to properly describe the person who took your shit or better yet get a license plate or a description of the car they're driving, you stand a better chance of getting your stolen objects back. If you think "oh the cops are just gonna bail my ass out of this," and fail to properly describe anything about the situation they're just going to throw your case into a stack and not give a shit about it two weeks later. The same goes for insurance, they only cover a certain situation to a certain value of the property that was stolen. If you want me to describe it, how about I use my friend's example from 4 years ago. His family just got a brand new Flatscreen, 32 inches. Three months later it got stolen along with his Playstation 2, Xbox 360, and his laptop when he was out on vacation for a week with his family. Of course when they got back and found their home in that state they called the cops and their insurance company to try and get the situation resolved. Well the cops didn't have anything to go off of since there was nothing and no one able to ID them and the insurance company blew them off because of various clauses that weren't met in the homeowner's agreement like:

-Didn't immediately report the incident when it happened (24 hour rule).
-Estimated value of their stolen objects was more than what they would cover ($2,000 max, estimated was around $2,500).

Basically if there's anything you want to learn about this is you're not going to win 100% of the time by being a vigilante and doing it yourself, and you're not going to win 100% of the time if you let the proper authorities handle the situation after it has taken place.

tl;dr: your thoughts on the situation described likely will not work all the time, and there's no guarantee the criminal will get busted and you'll get your shit back. There's also no guarantee it'll all work out if you pull out a gun and try to protect your property.