Your thoughts on gun violence in video games?

[Aura Guardian]

(EDIT: for the assault weapons and hunting question stuff) I have no clue; those were rebuttals to different parts of the argument. Hunting has no impact on assault weapons and vise-versa as far as my argument goes, unless someone links the two.


Edit:

or you could get a home security system

Unless you turn it off so your pet cat can go out, then back in, then forget to turn it back on. Or power outage. Or just forget to turn it on at night. Or someone manages to go in and grab your TV or something and then scram fast enough that no one can arrive in time... Yeah, those don't solve everything, either.

 

[Nastyjungle]

Nastyjungle: Perhaps you should look at accuracy rates of people firing guns. I'm fairly certain I saw something that indicates that no, it is NOT over if the intruder draws first (can't find it again or anything, so take it with a grain of salt...). Or what if you both already have it drawn as you're walking around? Also, I know I'd want some mercy if I missed the first shot or two, and something where you have to pull the trigger for each shot doesn't cut it.

How's this for why guns should not be banned for civilians? Hunting. There are instances where this curbs ecological disasters (feral boar, overpopulation by deer, etc).

i think you are trying to come up with situations that i am willing to bet happen close to never in order to legalize something that causes much too real acts of extreme violence

also going to point out that guns aren't the only thing you can hunt with- bows do exist still

not to mention hunting grounds could rent out guns and give limited ammo to people to be used for a specific period of time and then returned

there are plenty of ways in which hunting could still be a lively sport without people needing to own guns

 

[Agonist]

how many people use assault rifles when they hunt?

i'm actually curious not being snarky

Assault rifles are illegal in the US, since 1934, if I'm not mistaken. If you meant assault weapons, then a fair amount.

 

[Trax]

I don't see why I should have to explain why America is unique. I pointed out that the graph is ridiculously skewed to make America stick out. It excludes all countries with higher gun crime rates. "Look! See! America is so high!" Well sure it's high when you set it next to a bunch of countries with low gun crime rates and exclude the myriad countries with similar and higher rates. My point was never that America has some unique exception. My point was that is an intentionally dishonest graph, which is the kind of thing anti-gun proponents have to resort to.

The graph is not dishonest in any way; it's comparing America to other developed nations -- a group I'm assuming you'd prefer to be part of rather than third world holes. If you want to be a third world country I guess you can do that, but somehow I don't think it's the model you want to follow.


Also, to your point about self defence -- the best defensive weapon for both short range and in the home (which is typically short range) is probably a shotgun (hunting shotgun will stop a human) for the sheer stopping power anyway.

 

[Eraddd]

If there's an intruder in my house or anyone threatening my life pretty much anywhere I'd like to be able to squeeze the trigger and have the highest chance of them dying please and thank you.

Let's be real, an average citizen is not going to need an assault weapon to protect yourself or your family (in fact, with the minimal amount of gun training most have, most likely the casualties will be members of your family, along with the intruder).

Headline: the best way to prevent break-ins are preventative measures, not storing a huge loaded gun in your house. Locking your doors and windows, leaving lights on, and the sort do a much better job preventing break-ins than your assault weapon ever will (unless you have a sign outside that says "I have an assault weapon, and I WILL use it").

It seems you're grasping at straws to explain why an average citizen needs an assault weapon. There are always exceptions to the norm, and exceptions can be made, but the average citizen will almost never need an assault weapon to protect themselves and their home unless they decide to move to Somalia.

I find it hilarious you try to ignore why America has such an alarmingly high number of killings with a firearm and try to explain why the graph itself is "biased" by comparing America with esteemed nations such as Mexico (whose drug cartels run many cities and whose police force is corrupted to the core, and where executions happen daily), Somalia (who doesn't even have a functioning government and is run by factions and militias). In the end, you're unable to explain the high number of deaths by firearms in America; it may not be related to video games, but the high distribution of firearms amongst America's population definitely has something to do with it and the low amount of control. Correlation doesn't imply causation but a reasonable person would find this link probable and reasonable.

Mattj, I'm sorry but you can only belong to the 'MURRICA group if you stop comparing your beloved nation to third world nations and other nations ravaged by drugs and the gun-related violence that comes along with it.

 

[ssbbm]

i'm just wondering: why do we care about fire-arm related violence as opposed to violence in general?

assuming we compare similar crimes, such as murder, does it matter whether it is by gun or by knife or by hand or whatever?

 

[Aura Guardian]

i think you are trying to come up with situations that i am willing to bet happen close to never in order to legalize something that causes much too real acts of extreme violence

also going to point out that guns aren't the only thing you can hunt with- bows do exist still

not to mention hunting grounds could rent out guns and give limited ammo to people specifically used for a period of time and then returned

there are plenty of ways in which hunting could still be a lively sport without people needing to own guns

1) Bows take a lot more training to use properly.
2) Actually, the hunting thing is probably not that uncommon, given how much I've heard of it.
3) Uh, other than that, what situations would be rare? The missing at that range? In the dark? Especially given that the burglar/robber would probably be nervous and firing as fast as he could (thus sacrificing accuracy) because someone else had a gun?

I'm not trying to come up with rare situations. I was listing the ones I'd heard of the most and/or likely (most certainly >35%) possibilities based on what I'd heard.

Also, 2nd Amendment, but that's not an argument. It's just what was decided a while back with good cause. But as long as that is in place, guns cannot be outlawed as a whole. And the Constitution is hard to change for a reason.

 

[Zacchaeus]

Long story short: I know hundreds of people who play violent video games and I don't know any killers so I don't see why I should care that computer generated models are hit by digital weapons on a screen. I don't think playing any specific type of game makes you more likely to do that thing in real life unless it is something you would normally do. Building a bunch of treehouses in Minecraft might inspire me to build one in real life but spraying sewage all over a city in Saints Row doesn't make me want to do that in real life. Of course having some sort of mental malfunction could blur the line between what you would do in reality but in that case it's entirely that person's fault and not the game's

 

[Nastyjungle]

i'm just wondering: why do we care about fire-arm related violence as opposed to violence in general?

assuming we compare similar crimes, such as murder, does it matter whether it is by gun or by knife or by hand or whatever?

it's a lot easier to stop somebody with a knife or a blunt object than with a gun

you don't hear about mass murders with either of those things very often, and when you do, the people murdered are often either children, the elderly, or other citizens who you would not consider "able bodied"

1) Bows take a lot more training to use properly.
2) Actually, the hunting thing is probably not that uncommon, given how much I've heard of it.
3) Uh, other than that, what situations would be rare? The missing at that range? In the dark? Especially given that the burglar/robber would probably be nervous and firing as fast as he could (thus sacrificing accuracy) because someone else had a gun?

I'm not trying to come up with rare situations. I was listing the ones I'd heard of the most and/or likely (most certainly >35%) possibilities based on what I'd heard.

Also, 2nd Amendment, but that's not an argument. It's just what was decided a while back with good cause. But as long as that is in place, guns cannot be outlawed as a whole. And the Constitution is hard to change for a reason.

1) so? i'm kind of under the impression that if you want to go out and kill something that badly, you can take a little time to get the training to do it

in fact, i think the idea that so many people hold in their head of "i can just pick up a gun and use it" is something that contributes to a lot of deaths... there were like over 500 deaths in the us last year simply from people misfiring and not knowing how to use the gun (more than most civilized countries have deaths from guns total, id like to point out)

2) thats good then, it works

3) i am willing to bet my life that the situations in which an assault weapon truly makes the difference between life and death compared to a handgun are so few and far between that saying assault weapons should be legal because of it is ludicrous

and youre right, second amendment is not an argument so idk why you brought it up, the constitution is a fluid document meant to change with the times, otherwise why don't we just live by all ancient laws

 

[Agonist]

there are plenty of ways in which hunting could still be a lively sport without people needing to own guns

Such as? Using your bare hands?

 

[ssbbm]

also going to point out that guns aren't the only thing you can hunt with- bows do exist still

not to mention hunting grounds could rent out guns and give limited ammo to people to be used for a specific period of time and then returned

nigga read

 

[kd24]

Such as? Using your bare hands?

bow/arrow, blowdarts, etc

though personally im appalled by hunting and would rather see it abolished along with anyone being able to hold a gun outside of police

 

[Firestorm]

I don't see why I should have to explain why America is unique. I pointed out that the graph is ridiculously skewed to make America stick out. It excludes all countries with higher gun crime rates. "Look! See! America is so high!" Well sure it's high when you set it next to a bunch of countries with low gun crime rates and exclude the myriad countries with similar and higher rates. My point was never that America has some unique exception. My point was that is an intentionally dishonest graph, which is the kind of thing anti-gun proponents have to resort to.

lol@ "IGNORE HOW BIASED THIS GRAPH IS AND DEFEND THIS STRAWMAN ARGUMENT INSTEAD!"

Find the information for countries not on this list if you'd like to discredit it. I see that 7 of G8 countries are on it. So if you can find Russia I think we'll have a fairly good idea. I believe Russia is around the US. Now, would you like to look at ways you could emulate countries where people die less or would you like to find more countries where people die a similar amount so you can justify why that's okay?

 

[Agonist]

bow/arrow, blowdarts, etc

though personally im appalled by hunting and would rather see it abolished along with anyone being able to hold a gun outside of police

Seriously? As stated above, it's a lot harder to use a bow than a gun. As for the latter, no one is going to use fucking blowdarts to hunt a deer or bear. And hunting actually does have a purpose outside of just fun and games.

 

[kd24]

why do we have to hunt deer and bears in the first place? it just blows my mind that people need to kill living creatures to feel at peace with themselves. and as for having a purpose, great, you eat what you kill. even though i dont know of any hunter who actually does this, for those who do, why cant you just sell your gun and buy food to eat? it's because its just a primitive disgusting pleasure one gets out of killing something.

 

[Lord Jesseus]

i'm just wondering: why do we care about fire-arm related violence as opposed to violence in general?

assuming we compare similar crimes, such as murder, does it matter whether it is by gun or by knife or by hand or whatever?

It's not that we don't care about non-gun related violence. But killing with a gun is much, much easier than most other available weapons.
I'll repeat what I said before:

"Let's assume that every murder performed with a gun would have been considered with a different weapon instead. Remember that guns are very, very good at killing. So how many of those murders might have failed to inflict fatal wounds due to the use of a weaker weapon? How many of them could have been defended against in a way which is impossible against a gun? How many might not have been attempted at all due to the difficulty?"

People will always want to kill other people, but guns allow more of them to succeed.

 

[Agonist]

why do we have to hunt deer and bears in the first place? it just blows my mind that people need to kill living creatures to feel at peace with themselves.

Population control (and food in some cases).

 

[Stratos]

Because we killed all their natural predators so we wouldn't get eaten and now deer overpopulation is a massive problem?

 

[Turtle Soup]

Just going to post this here in case if peope haven't seen it yet. Pretty much sums up everything that should be said about the matter.

[youtube]5uwAo8lcAC4[/youtube]

 

[Aura Guardian]

why do we have to hunt deer and bears in the first place? it just blows my mind that people need to kill living creatures to feel at peace with themselves. and as for having a purpose, great, you eat what you kill. even though i dont know of any hunter who actually does this, for those who do, why cant you just sell your gun and buy food to eat? it's because its just a primitive disgusting pleasure one gets out of killing something.

For deer: because it is a mercy in the long run. Yes, death now. However, this is applied for overpopulation. As in, too little food to go around. Some deaths of the deer now means even more deer will get closer to enough food to survive. Basically, not hunting them would subject them to cruel deaths by starvation. Shooting them? Some immediate pain now, and then a swift death that lets other eat better sooner. Not being the one to kill the food doesn't change the fact that eating meat means something dies, and most people who hunt are probably not vegetarians...

EDIT: ninja'd, but I went more in-depth...

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

or you could get a home security system

I think this home security system would do:

Hide

Best part? It's not even an assault weapon, according to the completely ineffective 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. But seriously, home security systems are not 100% infallible.

Anyway, this thread is pretty dumb in my opinion (I've seen a few bad arguments made on BOTH sides) so I've done my best to avoid it, but I'd just like to drop this video here:

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

 

[verbatim]

i'm just wondering: why do we care about fire-arm related violence as opposed to violence in general?

assuming we compare similar crimes, such as murder, does it matter whether it is by gun or by knife or by hand or whatever?

Guns were made with the intent to kill or threaten to kill and aren't really useful for anything else, unlike knives which have transitioned into a household item with non-lethal usage. It's also worth pointing out that the "relative" complexity required to create a working gun makes restricting access to it feasible. Restricting bladed objects would be impossible on so many levels.

If there's an intruder in my house or anyone threatening my life pretty much anywhere I'd like to be able to squeeze the trigger and have the highest chance of them dying please and thank you.

Given the layout of most houses, a pistol or shotgun should be just fine at any range unless they're outside, in which case you shouldn't be on the offensive anyways.

 

[Eraddd]

I think this home security system would do:

Hide

You're saying that a home security system is ineffective but then bring up a suggestion that's even more ineffective (since most break-ins happen when the homeowners aren't home. They're not here to murder you, just to take your valuables. If they're here to murder you, you have bigger problems).

 

[Nastyjungle]

i think its funny that you posted a gun as being a security system because personally, i think the fact that some people feel they need a gun to feel secure is a very, very loud sign to something being horribly, horribly wrong

i would rather not feel like i need a tool to kill another person to feel secure

 

[Lee]

i'm just wondering: why do we care about fire-arm related violence as opposed to violence in general?

assuming we compare similar crimes, such as murder, does it matter whether it is by gun or by knife or by hand or whatever?

nearly 70% of all homicide in the US is firearms related. there's reason to believe that a huge chunk of those deaths could be averted if the offending party did not have easy access to a weapon that makes killing effortless, efficient and comparitively risk-free. there is far more risk and challenge to the attacker to beat someone to death or even to stab someone to death, and that's a decent deterrent in itself. countries that prohibit guns have far lower murder per capita rates than countries that permit guns - to my knowledge, that is undeniable and universally applicable.