62 replies to this topic

[routerbad]

Wait. What? I wasn't talking about parenting. I was talking about the point of owning a gun.

 

Anyway, I don't think I'm going to listen to the views of gun control from someone who was in the armed forces. Obviously you are going to be pro-guns.

You quoted a post in which I was talking about parenting.

 

It doesn't matter one way or the other whether I've been in the military.  In fact there are plenty of current and former military members who abhor firearms for one reason or another.  My opinions are not to be misconstrued as being representative of the Marine Corps or the DOD in general, they are based on principle and principle alone.

[Soul]

The boy is gonna try suicide. I'm pretty sure.

[grahamf]

He's scared and misses his mum. I'd be more surprised if he didn't. 

 

I just hope the rest of his family doesn't disown him. He's going to really need them.

[Dragon]

"Self defence" is the usual explanation behind owning a gun, but what does the actually mean? Defence from who? My brother lives in an area where there have been several stabbings, yet he doesn't carry a knife around or have a knife ready in his house to defend himself. As for a "hobby" enjoying shooting things is basically an enjoyment of violence, sure shooting targets isn't going to hurt anyone, but the whole point of shooting targets is to improve your shooting skills so you will be able to shoot that guy who breaks into your house to steal your TV.

 

There really is no need to own a gun. That's the way I see it anyway.

 

We're not really talking about terrorism here. Obviously bombs could do a lot more damage but it is difficult to control home made bombs and much easier to control guns.

 

There are 40 times more intentional homicides committed with a firearm in the US than the UK. The US has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8, compared to the UK's 1.2.

 

No, banning guns would never work, but it's clear something has to be done.

 

Defense from who? Odds are in America, the crook you will have to face will more than likely have a gun. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have gun than a knife or baseball bat to face him.

 

Enjoying violence, you say? I've practiced shooting. It's more of a rush of excitement. It's neat holding power in your hands like that. I'm not shooting to enjoy violence. That's merely an assumption you're making on all gun owners.

 

Guns can certainly be controlled more than bombs, for law abiding citizens. Like I mentioned before, the black market will rise. That way, you won't have a registered gun and the Government can't track you down for it.

 

I'd like you to back up your statement with links to articles with information about the subject "40 times more intentional homicides committed with a firearm in the US than the UK"

 

"Clearly something has to be done" Hmm.... Gun laws are already being proposed and all it's doing is affecting law abiding citizens.

 

I'm glad this is a civilized argument. I've been in many horrible ones.

Wait. What? I wasn't talking about parenting. I was talking about the point of owning a gun.

 

Anyway, I don't think I'm going to listen to the views of gun control from someone who was in the armed forces. Obviously you are going to be pro-guns.

 

He understands and has experience with guns. Why not listen to him and his views?

[Hunter]

Enjoying violence, you say? I've practiced shooting. It's more of a rush of excitement. It's neat holding power in your hands like that. I'm not shooting to enjoy violence. That's merely an assumption you're making on all gun owners.

 

"A rush of excitement from having that power in your hands" = A rush of excitement from having the power to destroy something. That's the way I see it.

 

I'd like you to back up your statement with links to articles with information about the subject "40 times more intentional homicides committed with a firearm in the US than the UK"

 

"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, compared to the 3.0 in the United States (over 40 times higher)"

 

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

 

 

He understands and has experience with guns. Why not listen to him and his views?

 

I see someone who is in the military to be pro-gun, pro-war regardless of the facts. Why else would you join the military besides the money? That has been my experience when having conversations with ex-armed forces anyway both from the UK and the US.

 

Answers to the questions I have not already answered in underlined bold.

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Wow this is discusting, you only get one Mom, I would do anything in the world to get mine back, I miss her so much. This kid is sick in the head, I just hope this doesn't turn into another Violent Video Game debate, this has nothing to do with games, he was screwed up.

[Klobb]

No it isn't.  You can't legally own a firearm until the age of 18, in any state in the union.  21 for anything with a pistol grip.  This cockamamy misrepresentation of American gun law is actually starting to rile me up.

 

Not only that, but there is a reason the games are rated mature, and how many parents pay fuc**ng attention to the label when they buy their kid a game just to shut them up about it.  Just to clarify for anyone that does not know, violent video games CAN and WILL desensitize young people to violent images, with enough exposure to the point that there is a dopamine surge when they view violent images.  For anyone that doesn't understand that, you can become addicted to violent images because the pleasure centers of your brain light up after long periods of exposure.

 

This is why we try to shield young, developing, immature, malleable children away from these types of themes, they aren't ready to handle it in the doses they're being exposed to.

The mum was clearly able to get a gun with no problem, that's what I meant about the gun laws. In Australia that would be much harder.

 

As for the video games thing, I agree. Parents need to pay attention to the labels and it shocks me so many do not.

[routerbad]

Sounds like most little rage filled kids that lose at cod.

Not that I would allow my children to but my parents didn't no much about video games when I was younger and I was allowed to play whatever, hell manhunt was one of my favourites as a young fella, I don't believe it's just video games I believe they have the potential to trigger underlying issues, but they are not the actual cause of such acts as this one.

Agreed.  My parents, even when video games were a relatively new thing, were very mindful of what kind of content was in games, but that didn't stop them from getting me Mortal Kombat on the GameBoy.  There were no ratings at the time, either.  They used to call Nintendo to find out what was in a game before they would buy it for me.  Back then pretty much anything was fair game as the violence was never realistic looking, and Nintendo games never had gore.

 

It can desensitize and trigger issues in young minds, but videogames are not to blame for any of it.

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

This will sadly turn into another "Video games are causing violence" or "Guns are the cause of everything" argument. Video games have been proven to be a stress outlet to prevent people from doing things like this, and every single shooting/mass murder has happened because the guy behind it was sick in the head.

 

And another thing: why did this woman let her son have access to a weapon and ammunition? Anyone who has gone through a gun safety course (which you need to get a gun licence), knows that you should keep your gun and ammo locked up in two separate places so if someone gets access to one, they can't use it without the other. So either she trusted her son WAY too much, or she didn't catch that part of the course, in which case she shouldn't have been able to have the gun at all.

[3DS Strider]

You know what's interesting? Around the same time that parents and politicians started getting their panties in a twist over violent videogames, homicide rates started going down.

Just something to think about.

[Waller]

Anyway, I don't think I'm going to listen to the views of gun control from someone who was in the armed forces. Obviously you are going to be pro-guns.

In other words, you're not going to listen to anyone who has a diferent opinion from yours?

[Hunter]

In other words, you're not going to listen to anyone who has a diferent opinion from yours?

 

No. Stop twisting words, I said nothing of the sort. This was an intelligent debate, so if you are just going to start arguments with stupid comments then go somewhere else.

 

Read my responses above and you will realise why I don't listen to his opinion.

[Waller]

No. Stop twisting words, I said nothing of the sort. This was an intelligent debate, so if you are just going to start arguments with stupid comments then go somewhere else.

 

Read my responses above and you will realise why I don't listen to his opinion.

 

The purpose of my stupid comment was exactly that. This was an intelligent debate, so why just completely dismiss a person's point of view just on the basis of "you were on the military"?

 

I read your response above, actually, but I just see someone who is stereotyping all ex-armed forces because you can't come up with a decent rebuttal. by the way, I'd love to look at these almighty "facts" that prove your point of view that all these ex-militarists ignore.

 

I don't even care about the gun control debate. It just ends up absolutely nowhere. But your comment irked me.

Edited by Waller, 10 May 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Byakuya Togami]

No. Stop twisting words, I said nothing of the sort. This was an intelligent debate, so if you are just going to start arguments with stupid comments then go somewhere else.
 
Read my responses above and you will realise why I don't listen to his opinion.

Just because he's in such a field of work, doesn't make him "pro-war" or "pro-guns". Maybe he joined for the benefits that are provided? Or that was his only option at the time? It doesn't matter, and that's his business. Argument by association is not a good way to try to win an argument, and your rabid assumption was no exception here.

If you can't listen to another opinion, then you're not fit for intelligent discussion.

Edited by Humble Cicero, 10 May 2013 - 07:54 AM.

[Hunter]

You people are making out that I'm just being ignorant and don't listen to anyone else's opinion, which is untrue. Dragon and I were having a perfectly fine debate (he even made a comment about how it was an intelligent discussion) and I took his opinion into account. I explained my reasons with regards to routerbad's opinions and how pretty much all ex-military I have spoken about this with (both from the US and UK) have responded the same (and regarding this "war on terror" BS). Oh and fyi i did also mention the fact that he may have joined for the benefits.

 

Ugh, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore than I already have. I have explained my reasons above and if you care to read my responses you will see the "facts" I provided. 

[stardust]

So let me get this straight - banning guns is the answer?  If so, say goodbye to all video games that have a gun!

[Cozmo]

****Insert comment here about how videogame violence is polluting the minds of Americans and that it needs to be banned***

I was waiting for that to make an appearence...glad it didn't .

[Waller]

You people are making out that I'm just being ignorant and don't listen to anyone else's opinion, which is untrue. Dragon and I were having a perfectly fine debate (he even made a comment about how it was an intelligent discussion) and I took his opinion into account. I explained my reasons with regards to routerbad's opinions and how pretty much all ex-military I have spoken about this with (both from the US and UK) have responded the same (and regarding this "war on terror" BS). Oh and fyi i did also mention the fact that he may have joined for the benefits.

 

Ugh, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore than I already have. I have explained my reasons above and if you care to read my responses you will see the "facts" I provided. 

 

No, that's not what I'm trying to say, I'm just saying that you shouldn't so readily dismiss Routerbad's points just because you've had some other completely unrelated discussions with other completely unrelated people who just happened to also be ex-militarists.

 

Anyway, I'm moving on from this. I don't know why I'm arguing about this when I'm more on the side of gun control.

[stardust]

What the hell are you on about?  Of course things happen that we are unprepared for, that doesn't mean that everything is hunky dory and that parents shouldn't be mindful of the types of interactive experiences they allow their kids to partake.

 

That doesn't mean that parents should just give up on parenting now because well, anything can happen at any time, so it really isn't worth putting in the effort.

 

That doesn't have anything to do with governments disarming citizens for no other reason than to have more control over the populace.  Disarming doesn't prevent would be criminals from possessing weapons, it just makes everyone else an easier target for them.

 

The enjoyment of shooting doesn't make a person enjoy violent images any more.  I thoroughly enjoy shooting now and for the 9 years I spent in the Marine Corps, but even that does not make me enjoy witnessing wanton violence.

 

You seem to have missed my point completely.

 

Children are extremely vulnerably to suggestion.  Up until a person has reached full physical and mental maturation they are still extremely vulnerable to suggestive material(ever wonder why people above the age of 25ish are said to be "stuck in their ways?).

 

It is every parent's responsibility to give their children an environment where they can explore difficult topics in a safe way, without glorification, so they can be prepared to make decisions when the time comes that they are required to do so.

 

Again there is a reason there are ratings on any form of media, it is similar to having a gas mask at the ready when you go to the mall.  It can be used by parents to make decisions on what they will allow their children to consume, but it doesn't do enough to really educate parents on what they risks really are.

 

Now, violence is not to blame for something like this.  The environment the child grew up in, one where Call of Duty was used as a reward/punishment system is to blame for this.  An environment that glorified the violent images in a game by making them a reward for good behavior, putting the full force of the child's pleasure center at work.

I spent eight years in the Air Force and I hated being trained with a weapon!  I found it to be much less fun unlike a video game.

[routerbad]

I spent eight years in the Air Force and I hated being trained with a weapon!  I found it to be much less fun unlike a video game.

I rest my case.  I appreciate that you were able to share your feelings on the subject, and I wholly understand that firearms are not for everyone.  I wish people would stop lumping us all together.

 

I'll see you in the Wild Blue Yonder, fine sir.