WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[talk show host]

You are right. And the only reason for a car to have more than 100 horsepower is for racing. We should ban all fast cars as well.

Your analogy does not counter mine or make an intelligent pro-gun argument. there are lots of reasons to have 100+horsepower cars, including acceleration and towing. None of those reasons involve taking human life. The purpose of an automatic handgun is to injure and kill another human being. That's it's purpose. You can't dispute that.

[endzone_dave]

Now you're just acting like a trolling jackass. But I get it, you and your son like those video games. You don't want to hear it. Just like twa and his son enjoy guns and don't want to hear they are a part of the problem

The big difference between violent video games and guns is guns are the instrument the people use on their killing sprees. The capabilities of the guns need to be limited.

But I am in agreement with you about video games in that they are an integral part in these mass murders in many cases. Not sure how to stop that. My son is 10 and plays Halo and now wants to play Call of Duty. The main thing for me isn't going to be forcing him to wait until he's 17 to play CoD but to have strict limits on how much he can play them, maybe a couple of hours per week.

[Koolblue13]

The big difference between violent video games and guns is guns are the instrument the people use on their killing sprees. The capabilities of the guns need to be limited.

But I am in agreement with you about video games in that they are an integral part in these mass murders in many cases. Not sure how to stop that. My son is 10 and plays Halo and now wants to play Call of Duty. The main thing for me isn't going to be forcing him to wait until he's 17 to play CoD but to have strict limits on how much he can play them, maybe a couple of hours per week.

No kid should see the violence in those video games.

[KingGibbs]

Let's ask the family members of the children and adults that were murdered how THEY feel about gun control. Their opinion would FAR outweigh anybody on here regardless of where you stand on this debate.

Now I want to hear what you think about that regardless of where YOU stand.

[twa]

Now you're just acting like a trolling jackass. But I get it, you and your son like those video games. You don't want to hear it. Just like twa and his son enjoy guns and don't want to hear they are a part of the problem

Que?

People with no sense or values are the problem, me and mine are a solution.

[Koolblue13]

Let's ask the family members of the children and adults that were murdered how THEY feel about gun control. Their opinion would FAR outweigh anybody on here regardless of where you stand on this debate.

Now I want to hear what you think about that regardless of where YOU stand.

Are you saying that people under duress from extremely tragic situations don't make poor or hasty decisions?

[alexey]

My take on video games is that "normal" human beings easily can and do distinguish between the game and reality, resulting in minimal desensitization to violence and such... people with particular brain malfunctions, on the other hand, may struggle to make that distinction while also suffering from social impacts of not having positive interactions with real people.



At first I got pretty upset when I heard Mike Huckabee drag God into this, but in a way he does have a bit of a point. Not in the "God in schools" part, but in the community aspect part. A few hundred years ago people lived as communities, which maybe resulted in more community help being provided to the troubled child and the parents. The option to spend 5-10 years in your mother's basement was maybe not as readily available. Unfortunately at this point in history such model is no longer feasible. Churches are no longer in position to effectively provide social services on a scale that is needed. Government and communities have to do it.

[Botched]

I always thought there was a tremendous double standard when it comes to violence and sex/nudity. We watch violent TV shows, violent movies, and play violent games without a second thought, but if a female nipple (male nipples are acceptable) is flashed on screen for .5 seconds in anything other than an R-rated movie, it's cause for hysteria.

Body parts are evil and offensive, but killing stuff is just fun and entertainment. I don't get it.

[KDawg]

No kid should see the violence in those video games.

I think this is the crux of it. There are MANY kid friendly games, and I don't mean those stupid puzzle games that teenagers want no part of. Sports games can be fun and entertaining. There's all sorts of games that aren't completely violent.

I am not a parent yet, so I can't pretend to know... However, I would think that I wouldn't be one of those parents who will buy my child Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. I don't care to pass judgement on people who do. They know their situation and their child's situation better than we do. And I'll be the last one to tell someone how to be a parent. But, I think we should leave violent video games for people who are grown and have developed an understanding of what they are, and have at least seen and understand the ramifications of war and the pain they can cause. *shrug*

Then again, I don't know much, as I've admitted.

[Koolblue13]

Then again, I don't know much, as I've admitted.

When I first saw GTA I was taken back and I've seen some serious ****. Maybe that's why the video game violence doesn't sit well with me. Maybe that is why the violence in shows like the Sopranos always bothered me or why I don't like prison movies (insert airplane joke), because of my own personal experiences, I'm unable to glorify them.

[KingGibbs]

Are you saying that people under duress from extremely tragic situations don't make poor or hasty decisions?

No. I'm talking after some of that "duress" has subsided. Meaning months or a year from now.

Now give your thoughts on my original question. The rest of you should answer as well.

[Koolblue13]

No. I'm talking after some of that "duress" has subsided. Meaning months or a year from now.

Now give your thoughts on my original question. The rest of you should answer as well.

I don't think victims should be the only ones to make decisions like that. This is a democracy, so if they are going to make decisions for the 49%, we are going to need a lot more victims.

[ffxdrummer]

I think this is the crux of it. There are MANY kid friendly games, and I don't mean those stupid puzzle games that teenagers want no part of. Sports games can be fun and entertaining. There's all sorts of games that aren't completely violent.

I am not a parent yet, so I can't pretend to know... However, I would think that I wouldn't be one of those parents who will buy my child Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. I don't care to pass judgement on people who do. They know their situation and their child's situation better than we do. And I'll be the last one to tell someone how to be a parent. But, I think we should leave violent video games for people who are grown and have developed an understanding of what they are, and have at least seen and understand the ramifications of war and the pain they can cause. *shrug*

Then again, I don't know much, as I've admitted.

I'm with you on this point. We're seeing the first generation or two of kids that effectively grew up with violent, almost photorealistic video games as an acceptable form of entertainment. I don't know how it affects developing brains, but it has to desensitize, at the least. Combine that with someone who may not be thinking the way most people think, for whatever reason, and it can have tragic consequences. From my friends facebook, a teacher.

"scratching my head as a bunch of my 6th graders seem to think that the tragedy in CT was somehow just like Call of Duty....complete with holding their hands up like a rifle and making shooting sounds...while laughing.

Maybe there is something to this whole violent video game thing...."

[USS Redskins]

I have questions for both sides, and it's perhaps because I'm not all that in tune with the topic (read: ignorant to the topic):

Do the people who support gun bans really believe that a ban will stop something like this from happening? There was a statistic I heard yesterday, and I have to be honest, I don't know the source or its accuracy, so I'm not claiming it to be real, but I heard that for every 100 people, 90 guns are owned. My guess would be, if that stat is accurate, that some people own multiple firearms, because I know of many people who don't own a single one, including myself. There are roughly 300 million guns in the United States. Don't you think the ship has sailed on any kind of ban?

For those who are complete gun supporters... I realize weapons such as the AR-15 are flexible and allow for different game to be hunted. I'm not ignorant to the fact that there are purposes for that weapon beyond killing people. However, even though it would be slightly more costly, couldn't you still find weapons that aren't assault weapons that could handle the same job without the flexibility to be used in ways that are clearly detrimental to society?

For both sides: I don't think any one issue is to blame here. Some like to place blame on the media (me), some like to place blame on the guns, some like to place blame on mental health, some on video games and some on movies... But in reality, I have to believe society as a whole is shaping the direction in which this nation is headed. Your mission, should you choose to accept it (I always wanted to say that), is to try to find a way to compromise on a solution that doesn't involve total gun bans OR total free will to have whatever weapon you choose. There are some EXTREMELY smart people on this forum, and I'd bet that if people looked past their viewpoint and tried to understand others, you (I say you because quite frankly I'm not intelligent enough for this debate) could come up with some pretty outstanding ideas...

Good questions all around.

I am a shooting ethusiast.. I own a 9mm handgun and a long rifle - a S&M version of the AR-15 - called an "assault rifle" to give it an emotional weight. I dont hunt, just shoot (for lack of a better term) for fun. Like any other skill it takes time, patience and practice to become proficient with it. It is a hobby and I find it a great stress relieving tool. I dont own either for self defense (they are locked away at home) they are just a hobby that I enjoy. For defense, I guess its better to have and not need...

I am sickened as much as anyone by these incidents.. I have 3 kids close in age to those children.

I dont believe a ban on firearms will be really effective. Its just a way for people who are understandably upset and filled with emotion, to think they are solving a problem. Gun sales are at record highs and gun related murder and crime overall has been in decline for well over a decade now. There may be no connection at all but crime and murder hasnt gone up. Even mass murders havent risen or declined.

I hope that the gov't does not ban the "assault rifle," though I do see many areas to fix the holes - the gun show problem, involving mental health records in background checks, limiting sales of handguns and rifles, waiting periods and eliminating the extended magazines are all, in my mind, good ideas.

I dont think there is any one answer to these problems. Mental health issues, to me, seem to be the biggest area of concern.

[KingGibbs]

I used to chastise good friends of mine because they would forbid their four young boys from having toy guns and violent video games. I don't anymore and I applaud them for being a solution to the problem.