This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Obama just mentioned violent video games

#421secondhand1Posted 1/18/2013 2:20:32 PM
Mindwipe77 posted...
why is this still here? this is not exactly on topic with the 360, i see mods pick and choose and not follow the board policy


And this surprises you?
---
The inherent idiocy of youth often outweighs its many advantages.
#422shawnmckPosted 1/18/2013 2:26:45 PM(edited)
@ reverence27

The difference is that you (& people like you) view the gun as the problem, whereas I blame the individual carrying out the act.

You cannot point to any mass shooting where some person who happened to be carrying a gun just snapped and started killing everyone else. That simply does NOT happen, no matter how much you (& people like you) try to give that impression.
What is always the case is that it was a pre-planned attack, and the target location was specifically targeted because it happens to be a No-GUN allowed zone and was target long before the actual attack took place.
Furthermore, in almost every such occurrence, the individual attacker was someone with mental problems....NOT the average gun owner whom you like to vilify.

Lets say I was at a Mall where guns are completely banned, and some maniac armed with multiple hand guns shows up and starts shooting people.
The number of people who are going to die is going to depend on one fact, and that is when someone who is likewise carrying a gun is going to defend those around them by showing an equal display of gun use.

If there happened to be someone else with a gun then he would shoot back and fewer people (if any) would be killed, and that guy would be a hero to me.
But to you, that guy would be a criminal....and you want to limit that.
However, if nobody is carrying a gun, then we have to rely on someone calling 911, and hope that the police show up quick enough...meanwhile the bodies pile up.

The school shooting in Connecticut would have had a much different outcome had someone inside that office had a gun. No children would have been killed and we wouldn't be discussing this.
In the movie theater incident, if someone in that audience had a gun, then only a few people would have been killed because the response by someone with equal force would have been instantaneous.

The News never talks about any of the instances where people who owned & carried a gun saved themselves or other people by returning fire & shooting the bad guy.
What you propose is to disarm the public and leave them at the mercy of the lunatics who are hell-bent on murder.
That is NOT compassion, but stupidity and naivete.....as well as bigoted arrogance.

If I am ever in a public situation where a shooting takes place by some lunatic, then I would hope that someone else has a gun....otherwise, I might as well kiss mys ass goodbye.

You are no different than the people who don't play video-games and have no problem blaming video-games for violence.
You are filled with bigoted and arrogant ignorance.
#423TheBlueStigPosted 1/18/2013 2:24:46 PM
reverence27 posted...
Everyone has the right to drive a car, but you have to be trained tested periodically, (even an eye test) licensed, insured, registered, of a certain age, and prove full capable at all times to operate obey numerous clearly marked rules at all times, will be fined for any infraction against the proper handling of the vehicle, and can have this right restricted any time for many reasons.

Guns need to be just as if not more controlled and regulated.
That is all Obama is trying to get, but all you see is a black guy trying to take your guns away which has not happened and isn't going to happen.


Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

Learn the difference.

Education and licensing doesn't stop or slow down the deaths, cars prove that when they kill more than guns do every year. Doctor's mistakes kill 250,000 a year on average, and they spend nearly a decade in school and internships.

It's time for you to admit what you are, a gun grabber, you really do want guns banned simply because you fear them irrationally.

You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object, sounds like you need help, and you want gun owners to be examined?
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#424SheepinatorPosted 1/18/2013 2:31:55 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
6 Million Jews lost their lives because they were forcefully disarmed by law.

But you said earlier that banning guns leads to more guns and that anyone can get them easily. Besides, you think a couple million or so adult male untrained Jews with guns could accomplish what it took six years of the combined might of Britain, France, Netherlands, Soviets, United States, Belgium, etc. etc. to accomplish?
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#425FredSavage27Posted 1/18/2013 2:33:10 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object, sounds like you need help, and you want gun owners to be examined?

Because all inanimate objects are exactly the same, and guns have NEVER been used to harm someone, let alone disproportionately compared to other objects.

You know who else owned a gun? HITLER!
#426TheBlueStigPosted 1/18/2013 2:36:35 PM
Sheepinator posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
6 Million Jews lost their lives because they were forcefully disarmed by law.

But you said earlier that banning guns leads to more guns and that anyone can get them easily. Besides, you think a couple million or so adult male untrained Jews with guns could accomplish what it took six years of the combined might of Britain, France, Netherlands, Soviets, United States, Belgium, etc. etc. to accomplish?


6 million people with guns, and you think that wouldn't cause HUGE amounts of problems for an entire army?

Just look what what a few hundred people with IED's are doing to American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Insurgents have territorial knowledge and a determination to save themselves and their home from an occupying force. They have the advantage in hit & run guerilla warfare.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#427SheepinatorPosted 1/18/2013 2:37:19 PM
shawnmck posted...
In the movie theater incident, if someone in that audience had a gun, then only a few people would have been killed because the response by someone with equal force would have been instantaneous.

It is really funny watching how the pro-gun crowd tries to rationalize things. First it was BlueStig, still not answering the question about whether gun owners on medication should give them up, nor whether that applies to him, and now he's saying Hitler could have been stopped by Mr. Leibowitz, a 40 year old attorney with his six shooter. Now it's you saying that in a darkened theater with loud noise, someone starts shooting, then OK let's say someone else starts shooting. Is the "hero" going to hit the target? What if another person shoots at the "hero"? What if everyone in the theater has a gun, who is shooting whom? It's obvious some of you Yosemite Sam guys are shoot first ask later kind of guys, I'd be amazed if anyone would leave the theater alive.

Funny also how you ignore the whack-a-mole nature of this. You say the bad guys target this place because of no guns, blah blah, so where do you see the US in the future, does every public space in the country need armed guards? Every restaurant? Every market? Every coffee shop? Who pays for it? Because the American consumer is fairly strapped already.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#428TheBlueStigPosted 1/18/2013 2:40:42 PM
FredSavage27 posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object, sounds like you need help, and you want gun owners to be examined?

Because all inanimate objects are exactly the same, and guns have NEVER been used to harm someone, let alone disproportionately compared to other objects.


There's a ton of things that kill more people than guns do every year, maybe you should've spent your time researching those things instead of making that comment....

I'll give you a few hints.....cars, smoking, bad foods, doctor's mistakes, breathing the air in polluted cities, cellphones or other distractions, the list goes on and on.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#429shawnmckPosted 1/18/2013 2:46:15 PM(edited)
It seems to me, that gun bans are more directly to blame for such mass shooting deaths such as the Connecticut shooting massacre more than guns themselves.
Because it is that type of mindset that opts to completely ban gun that leads to the situations of complete & utter defenselessness that acts as a multiplier in the numbers of dead.

We could do a complete gun ban tomorrow, and it wouldn't prevent one death.
In fact, it would increase the number of deaths because then the people (victims) are unable to defend themselves.

But we would never hear about it in the news, because they wouldn't want to report it because it goes against what they had been proposing all along, and they would have to admit that they were wrong.

How can I say this ?
Because there are more people killed with guns in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, New York, and others, that have a total and complete ban on guns.
If banning guns was the solution, then why are these cities experiencing dramatically higher gun crimes, and violent crimes overall ?
And why doesn't the News cover those instances of mass shootings ?
That's because there is already a complete gun ban, and they would appear to be idiots if they did.

Face it, you anti-gun zealots are being used, and are just operating on senseless & unjustifiable guilt...all driven into a frenzy by the News media and Liberal Politicians with an agenda to get rid of the 2nd- Amendment.

I contend that the answer isn't to ban guns or to have fewer people with guns...but to have MORE guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Make them pass all the necessary tests & background checks, and make them receive special training and apply for permits.
And above all else, get these mental-cases the help they need, instead of capitulating.
But that would save more lives than banning guns ever would.

But then again, the ultimate agenda isn't to save lives, but to subjugate the population and render them defenseless.
They won't say that, but their actions speak louder than words.
#430TheBlueStigPosted 1/18/2013 2:43:40 PM
Sheepinator posted...
still not answering the question about whether gun owners on medication should give them up


Your 20% comment?

Maybe you should've looked into that claim before you made it. The real claim is that 20% of the population has had personal experience with mental health problems.

Your version of the claim made it sound like 20% of the population was on psych drugs.

Your claim was bulls***, plain and simple.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin