NRA blames games in wake of shooting

One person can't fire hundreds of arrows per minute so for the general population probably. The so called founding fathers never had automatic weapons in mind.

Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

This is the second article I've read about the killings that equates violence with porn, and rubbishes the two together. "What's worse than violence? Sex! How can we appeal to parents and still keep our crazy-ass gun laws? Link violence and porn in their minds!"

Meh.

If Adam Lanza had thrown dvd sets and game boxes in his (unfortunately successful) attempt to hurt people, the death toll would have been much lower. Guns definitely killed the kids, not games.

Maybe allow them guns but each bullet is $10,000 which includes a 90% tax to go to the victims of shootings.

NRA is obviously singlehandedly trying to kickstart the Apocalypse...the only way it knows how. investing in a Good guy with a gun.

Holding the view that the government shouldn't ban guns, because it has no business interfering in peoples' lives, but arguing that it should step in and ban violent media for our own good, is hypocrisy of the highest order.

The obvious alternative solution is for a new independent skynet bot advanced predator drone service to police the sheeple linked up with local Robocops. They thought of everything in the novels and movies. Smart guys the futurist....

I'm an avid gun enthusiast, as I'm sure most of you have figured out by now from my other posts. Before now, I supported the NRA in most aspects...

..... I no longer have ANY respect for the NRA.

Armed guards in every school and a national database of mentally ill people? So basically he wants to setup a fascist police state? Alrighty then.

Guns are tools...tools can kill people just like everything else; axes, hammers, screwdrivers, power saws...knives even.

The problem at hand isn't the tool but the person wielding them.

Now I am not defending the NRA, far from it but both sides need to meet in the middle. Stop blaming guns, stop blaming violent video games and start working together to combat mental health

Mankind is a violent race, we have been since the dawn of time. Cavemen would use stones and blunt weapons for weapons and tools. Our history is full of violence and all of that was done without both guns and video games.

Hell even religious texts show more violence than video games...David vs Goliath...he used a pebble in a sling and with a direct shot to the forehead, killed a giant instantly.

Oh and let's not even mention the crusades.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Adam Jordan on 21st December 2012 5:36pm

From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm guessing the NRA have capitol hill in their sights (or in the cusp of their hand to push for this policy)
ISo, we are going to have to root for obamadon to come up with something inventive to counter this in the horse trading that will ensue.

Adam, I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Guns are designed for killing, and are far more effective at it (especially on a large scale) than axes, hammers and knives. Trying to say they're all just tools is nonsense. Sure, you can kill someone with a screwdriver, but if Adam Lanza had been armed with a screwdriver instead of an assault rifle, we wouldn't still be reading about this a week later, and most if not all of his 27 victims would still be alive.

Let's look at some of the other major killers in the world...

Car accidents... How many people a year die in car accidents? Are cars designed to kill people? Quite the opposite in fact; there are many safety standards that have to be met by all manufacturers to sell in certain countries. Maybe we should make cars illegal since they're far more effective at inflicting mass civilian casualties worldwide. Can a car not be considered a tool of sorts?

Alcohol... How many people die a year from alcohol poisoning? What would happen if we made alcohol illegal (other than the massive outcry of colleges all over the world)... Oh wait, the US tried that already. It was called the prohibition. Al Capone was a result of that... so good job there. Alcohol is not exactly a tool... but it's never the less dangerous.

Heavy machinery... Certainly considered a tool. Industrial plants, agriculture, auto industry, you name it.... all dangerous in their own way. Ban these and production around the world comes to a halt.

But lets get back to cars, since statistics show more civilian fatalities are caused by car accidents than gun violence. Anybody with enough of a crazy desire to kill, can do it just as easily, more effectively, and with more safety to themselves; than they could with a gun. One insane taxi cab driver could take out more people in downtown New York City in one go, than the combined total of all gun violence in a single year. All they have to do is find a crowd of people.

So... if you ask me, it seems like taking the time to ban cars would be a more efficient way to spend that time, since the result would be a greater number of lives saved per year.

If guns really are comparable to cars, then surely it follows that gun licencing laws should be as stringent as those that apply to driving cars? You have to pass a written and practical test to drive a vehicle, and can have your licence taken away from you if you choose to abuse it. How many written and practical tests to you need to take to own a gun?

The "Let's ban cars" argument is ridiculous anyway, as the primary purpose of a vehicle is not to kill people, it's to transport people from one location to another. The consequences of banning cars would also be much more obviously harmful than banning guns. The argument also assumes that since we can't eliminate all avoidable deaths, that we should never take any measures to decrease avoidable deaths, which is quite frankly, silly in the extreme.

It also assumes that the only two possibilities are maintain the status quo, or ban guns entirely, which isn't the case at all. Vehicle licencing laws are actually a pretty good example of that.

I'm not necessarily arguing that guns should be banned, but I see this faulty argument used all the time, and it bugs the hell out of me.

In the wake of Columbine, Charlton Heston, at the time spokesperson for the NRA, rushed out wth the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" line, before informing us that the trenchcoats and hats the killers wore should be banned to avoid these shootings reoccurring. The official NRA line in '99 was that long coats are more dangerous than guns. Whether guns are banned, controlled or not, it is clear that some of the NRA are pathetic morons with no grasp on reality. Unless of course we can legitimatly name this bloke's socks for his violent bahavior.

A rifle or shotgun may legitimately be claimed to be used for hunting, but handguns are designed for use against people. Comparing accidental deaths from cars with purposeful deaths from a weapon does not help anything. Perhaps guns should not be banned, but diverting attention to something else doesn't prove this, unless you can prove most fatal car accidents are intentional?

Crazy times we live in, The NRA is now blaming video games........wow....
I have played violent games for many years, but I have never thought about hurting anyone.
Only a non-gamer would think that using a controller to shoot imaginary pixels/polygons would somehow give you the ability
to do so in real life.
It's like the 80's all over again, where heavy metal was responsible for all the world's evils.

The thing is, we need to robustly counter this NRA fluff piece and put the Onus on NRA to tighten up their gun rules instead of distracting with policies dream up by (cant find the appropriate word, feel free to insert here)

In many of these mass shootings, the killers have used guns legally purchased and owned by family members, but not securely stored in their homes. So at the very least I'd like to see, for lack of a better term, the creation of "gun banks." Facilities where people who own guns, but don't own them for personal defense can conveniently, safely and securely store their weapons. And only the registered owner of a gun would have the ability to remove it from storage. This simple concept would prevent mentally unstable family members or friends (diagnosed and undiagnosed) from accessing a legally owned gun, it would prevent guns from being stolen from homes, and it would probably drastically reduce crimes of passion and rage.

Why do they blame the game industry but not the movie industry?

Guns are designed to KILL. That is their only purpose; to extinguish life. Everything else you mention is not specifically designed to end life. It's time the excuses stopped.

Because the game industry is young and doesn't carry as much weight as the movie industry.

@Andrea Pipparolo

On the money. It should also be pointed out that gun manufacturers have happily allowed developers to feature their copyrighted weapons in video and computer games in the past. Because the gun manufacturers knew it amounted to free marketing and advertising to an audience they couldn't ethically directly market to, kids and teens. And now the NRA... the association which receives more than fifty percent of it's funding from the gun industry... is placing all of the blame for the glorification of guns and gun violence on the game industry and Hollywood? There's not a marketing person in the gun industry who doesn't have multiple contacts in the game industry and in Hollywood and doesn't actively work to have their products placed in movies and games. Unfortunately mainstream media outlets, so far, are not calling out the hypocrisy of the NRA's claims.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Serrano on 21st December 2012 9:35pm

I wonder what the age restrictions will be for applying for the post, and I wonder what the criteria of the good guy test will be? I'd guess under 35, white, a fan of games and living with parents will mean you're no where near being a good guy, and therefore need not apply.

Just mention Neil Gardner.
He was the armed sheriff's deputy on duty during the Columbine massacre.
So armed guards don't work.

I've never cared much about gun control, but after reading this article in this week's Economist (a very respectful and balanced, decidedly centrist new source), I've changed my mind:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21568735-only-drastic-gun-control-could-make-big-difference-small-measures-can-help-bit-newtowns?zid=312&ah=da4ed4425e74339883d473adf5773841

Wow... as an insider looking in, the US seriously looks like a messed up place.

Games have their place in this... as does the media, as does music (NWA?), as does entertainment... but only guns are *designed* and bought for the sole purpose of KILLING.

Guards obviously wouldn't work... they will just be the first targets, and give people access to even more weapons. And what happens when one of the guards decides to 'turn', and start killing the people they should protect? What next, bring in Robocops?

There is *no sane* justification for average citizens to have access to assault weapons. If anything, games reinforce this view.

The only thing that could make the NRA less credible is if Clint Eastwood gave a speech for them by yelling at an empty chair while referring to the empty chair as Mr. Violent Video Games....all while keeping a straight face.

@Pier: Actually, some conservative as well as liberal commentators here DO continue to blame Hollywood as well for promoting violence to kids, but this too is a mostly straw thing to burn up quickly under the magnifying glass.

I'd bet if you ask some of these folks what their favorite films were, you'd hear Die Hard, the Dirty Harry Series, Saving Private Ryan, a bunch of old to recent westerns, The Terminator, RoboCop, The Godfather, Goodfellas, and so forth and so on named up and down on both sides of the aisle as well as in the middle. Of course, those will mostly be Black Hat/White Hat films, but I do recall complaints about a station full of cops being blown away in The Terminator nudging Cameron to make T2's cops shot by Arnold "only" suffer leg wounds (I guess walking with a cane is better than being movie dead)...

Oddly enough, the NRA going on and on about how awful these games are and not mentioning they had a part in at least two "non-violent" ones (Gun Club and Varmint Hunter) is a bit hypocritical (even if the games aren't anything resembling a modern shooter).

Well, they've shot themselves in the foot over this one, I'd say..

At the end of the day, schools should be the one place a kid can go outside the home where learning is the prime focus, not paranoia and Civil Defense-era Duck and Cover drills for potential flying bullets instead of nuclear fallout. Who wants to live, work or play literally under the gun ALL the damn time. Talk about a police state...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Greg Wilcox on 22nd December 2012 1:36am

There's a meme image doing the rounds on FB at the moment which reads "If it's not the gun, but the gunman, how come it's the game, not the gamer?"

Here in the EU we are mindfully following the development and events sourrouning the shooting. We do have some trouble understanding the US mentality towards owning guns, the gun laws and the boost in gun sales after a shooting. But eventhough we have much stronger gunlaws here, we can't say that massacers never happen. They do, but in a much much much larger frequency.

Only people in so called marksman clubs are allowed to store weapons at home (which gets heavily discussed). And those clubs aren't really popular anyway. All the massacers that happened were either kids that were in those clubs or whose parents were in those clubs. Now, I definately don't want to generalize gun owners as potential murderers, but there are and there will be mentally ill people out there. If they get easy access to weaponary those tragedies are the consequences....

When it comes to the NRA and their statements however we can't help but wonder. How can a statement like "If there would have been more people with guns it wouldn't have come so far" actually be discussed within the population? And how can any spokesman of the NRA be taken serious after that ever again? How is that a viable solution? Its so obvious that the NRA would take every lie and scapegoat they find to strengthen their course.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Konstantin Hohl on 22nd December 2012 12:30pm

Konstantin says it best for us here in Europe. Its really hard to understand the mentality in US with regards to firearms. In Europe, by having a blanket rule that no one should own or carry a gun around, the amount of massacres is minimalized through gun crime. In UK, our police forces are not even armed. One way to reduce an arms race is to decommission it to a larger extent. How practical that approach is in US, remains to be seen

I know that internationally, the world govts are going to push for tighter gun laws anyways.

"Elephant In The Room" graph attached.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-there's-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick Burcombe on 22nd December 2012 3:20pm

I'll believe the NRA if they fund this game:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/118/02un09.jpg

until then, push left trigger - right trigger for simulated conflict resolution.

@Andrew: but it's just not true. The sole purpose of games like cod is entertainment. The only games truly built as killing simulators are made for the military... and if someone tried to release one I'm sure it would not sell well... because it would fail in it's role in entertainment.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to own let alone carry around any form of gun. If I had one at my house I would be petrified there would be an accident with it and kids or someone else. Do people in the USA actually feel so unsafe that they want to carry one around?

Humans are emotional creatures and everyone goes through periods of mental instability. When this occurs people react based on a number of factors including the items that are around them. Having easy access during these periods to guns is always bound to lead to additional fatalities... and getting people to decide to harm those around them rather than something else.

Australia definitely has a serious issue with teen suicide. If guns were as available as they are in the USA I have no doubt a percentage of those affected would decide to hurt others instead.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Michael Shamgar on 23rd December 2012 7:17am

I personally think we need violent video games in our class rooms so that our kids can learn to defend themselves against potential shooters.

I'm one of the "good guys" so don't shoot the messenger, but legal cases surrounding this issue have involved a few key points about video games and violence. The educated position from the opposition isn't that shooting games are life like and teach us about weapons.

The main educated "video games are bad" position is that video games teach shooters not to stop and be horrified at one death, but to move from target to target shooting until you run out of ammunition. Thus "training" killers to continue to make higher and higher kill rates.

The second point that has been used is statements from key individuals from within the games industry that interactivity is the most powerful, expressive and immersive medium mankind has ever created. Industry figures often say how important our medium is because of how much it can impact our audience emotionally *more* then films, books and music. These words are often cited against us; "If the medium can impact us positively, they can certainly impact us negatively" and go on to state that this is evidence that we understand *exactly* how much we influence children/people and why the industry should be "blamed" and held accountability over other mediums.

The third is that "soft" kind of science of the worst kind that highlights that stress balls / punching bags actually don't alleviate any symptoms of anger and actually exacerbate it. So video games when played to "vent" have been shown to increase anger and violent tendencies over any passive activity like watching a film or reading a book. Weaker forms of this argument often involve brain scans of people playing video games showing their aggressive centres are active, but these are being used less regularly as reading violent fiction (and the bible) has shown to also produce the exact same result (and in one trial even looney toons cartoons did as well).

Anyone who is going to battle publicly or legally about this sort of topic must have prepared answers for these points. The above are their best weapons.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 24th December 2012 3:33am

Whichever way you cut it, we all have the aptitude for violence imprinted in our DNA and to make matters worse we are running sophisticated software on our very primitive operating system. In evolutionary terms we have barely come down from the trees and yet we expect everyone to process complicated social interactions and not blow a fuse.

FPS games are enjoyed by many people because we are all inherently violent by nature. You can do the old 'but we have all evolved' but if you actually think about it we aren't as evolved as we like to think. We all try to kid ourselves and think we are intelligent, rational individuals but as I know from experience; change the circumstances and people will revert to old biological programming very quickly.

I didn't have time yet to read all comments above, but I think this sums it up:
http://cheezburger.com/45935617

I would normally write my opinion but the video above covers nearly everything.
Merry Christmas und Frohe Weihnachten;

In the last couple of days, at least two US police officers have been shot and killed, and two firefighters shot and killed, with more injured who had to be rescued by a police armoured car.

I can only imagine the NRA will advocate armed guards for fire engines and police cars too...

Or a new excuse to design an Alpine Swat fire engine like the Pitbull VX
http://youtu.be/nCRf1bDCVdM

Joshua - yesterday a man drove a car into a crowd of schoolchildren in China. 13 people were injured, but there were no fatalities and the man is now in police custody. At the weekend a man in the UK attacked a woman with a samurai sword and then chased a policeman down the road. The policeman (who was unarmed) eventually managed to disarm the man, who is now in custody.

There are unstable people and criminals in every country around the world who are capable of killing or wounding people, whether it's with a knife, a replica sword, a car or a gun. But having guns, particularly rapid firing weapons with large ammo clips like the assault rifle used in Newtown, makes it a lot easier to kill large numbers of people in a short time.

The fact is that the murder rate in the US is four times higher than in any other first world country. It's hard to argue that easy access to guns and ammunition isn't at least part of the reason why.

Stupid Idea Time::

Using LaPierre's own logic, sure - let's have a database made up of potentially unstable people that go through a tight screening process for any signs of mental illness. Once judged unfit, they're to be kept away from purchasing, owning or using firearms. Add violent movies and games to that no-buy list and hey, why not keep them away from anything and everything that can be used as a weapon while we're at it? Just in case they get overstimulated looking at a fluffy cloud in the shape of a spiked club and feel the urge to do someone in.

Provided he and every NRA member steps up first to be screened as a mandatory part of membership, I'm OK with this. You know, just to be SURE they're just fine upstanding citizens..

Yes of course, I know that's NOT going to happen for any number of good legal and other reasons, but I'd say someone needs to show this man what a slippery slope actually looks like before he slides right off the cliff he's created.

So, who wants to really piss the NRA off, and create a strategy/puzzle game where you non-violently protect schools and schoolchildren from crazed gunmen, by creating ever-more complex defences designed to safely and harmlessly disarm the attacker(s)?

James - That almost sounds like a non-violent version of one of the Home Alone films. I say go for it...

Of course guns are part of the problem too. Again there is more to it than you see in the first place. Search for some statistics and you will see that most modern countries have proper laws in regards to arms of all kinds. Then compare this to the number of victims of shootings among those countries. No matter how you turn it the United States of America are always on top of that sad list. Is it because of poor laws? I don’t think so. In almost all recent cases known to me the shooter had the guns already at home. Either those were (mostly) legally acquired or they were part of the parents unsaved(!) property. Yes, I do blame parents. Why in hells name do you have a gun at home? Why is it not properly hidden and in a safe? Why was the munition not properly stored separately? These are the questions we shall ask as well if we look for someone to blame.

Guns in itself are a special problem in the USA: a cultural problem to be exact. There are gun laws and illegal arm sales like everywhere else in the world. But in America guns are part of the culture. Many claim that the constitution was always meant to grant them the right to have a weapon at home. This isn’t the wild west any more and the founding fathers wrote all this very long ago. As time changed maybe its time to change some things. The problem here is that this part is so deeply rooted in American history and culture that it is giant task to accomplish any change at all. Until that time the USA will always have the highest casualty rate in shootings.

That being said: 100% security is impossible. There will always be shootings, mad people and genius maniacs who build a bomb in a kitchen.

TotalBiscuit raises some interesting points about the media and their coverage of these tragedies. Media aren't the only ones vying for peoples' attention, you could extrapolate that theory to include gun lobbyists, as gun clubs and manufacturers are also competing for a person's spare time and wallet.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jason Schroder on 28th December 2012 9:55pm

@Benjamin
Weapons at one point or another have been deeply rooted in almost all the worlds cultures. Whether Australians glorify bush rangers like Ned Kelly or the Japanese glorifying Samurai and sword combat.

American's aren't *more* rooted in weapons culturally. They just remain *STILL* rooted in weapons culturally whereas most of the developed nations have moved on.

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre has a reputation for saying inappropriate and foolish things when it comes to finding parties to blame for absurd degrees of violence. His favorites are presidents, nazis, thugs, and video games.

Here are some of this character's other public fumbles over the last 15 years-taken from wikipedia you may find mildly amusing.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950518&slug=2121718
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/19/weekinreview/march-12-18-guns-don-t-kill-people-presidents-do.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/20/us/nra-stands-by-criticism-of-president.html