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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Que?

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

Well, that's quite a confident statement.

---------- Post added December-20th-2012 at 10:39 AM ----------

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.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Corcaigh]

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

Nope - your fixation is video games. High levels of gun violence and spree killings long pre-date the popularity of graphic games. In previous generations it was rap music, or heavy metal, or rock and roll, that were destroying the youth. Gun deaths have actually declined, not increased since the introduction of realistic video games. Do you want to give credit to violent video games for that? I'm sure you could find an expert who will claim that people get their jollies in a virtual world and so don't enact them in real life.

What are you proposing with video games? There are already age ratings on content. Are you advocating prosecution of parents?

Nutjobs take their inspiration from religion too. Should certain religious passages be banned?

What literature is prohibited? I've said it before, one of the most violent scenes I've experienced was a Shakespearean play where King Lear had his eyes ripped out on stage, live just a few feet from me. But that was world class acting with some convincing props.

I'm all behind an education campaign about the potential dangers of harmful content to the young and weak minded. You want video games to be included; I'd like certain religious texts. I'm sure others have some books on their list too.

[Popeman38]

The only purpose for a semi automatic handgun is to kill multiple human beings. How these things are legal, I don't know. Their purpose is evil. That people but them is indicative of a morally depraved society that does not value human life. Violent home invasions are exceedingly rare. if someone wants to steal your property, let them take it. file a police report. let the cops handle it. nothing you own is more valuable than a human life, even that of a thief. If you want to protect yourself, a can of mace and/or a level head should do fine. If you want to protect your personal property and home, install a security system. Don't buy a handgun. If there were no automatic weapons, mass shootings would not happen. Escalation (I need one because the bad guys have them) is not the answer.

Your post makes you appear to have an issue comprehending reality. Under some of the proposed changes, you would be forbidden from owning a firearm based on your warped sense of reality. Semi-automatic firearms serve a multitude of purposes. One of them is to kill. There is sport shooting, range shooting, entertainment shooting, self defense. Using sweeping generalizations is stupid. It ruins any chance of anyone taking anything related to what you say seriously.

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.

You can't offer an intelligent rebuttal to a post that is so lacking in common sense and an actual poiint. Like trying to prove a negative.

[KingGibbs]

Oh bull**** Corcaigh. Gun deaths have "declined' due to stricter gun control laws. The fact that some of you accept a "decline" in gun deaths as a win says a lot about your character IMO.

[Popeman38]

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.

Way to pull the emotional argument you think will prevent anyone from disagreeing with you.

If this country was ruled by making decisions after an emotionally draining event, we would live in a prison state. No one would be allowed to leave their house, and no one would own anything. Pathetic argument.

[KingGibbs]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Huh? Care to elaborate?

---------- Post added December-20th-2012 at 09:50 AM ----------

Way to pull the emotional argument you think will prevent anyone from disagreeing with you.

If this country was ruled by making decisions after an emotionally draining event, we would live in a prison state. No one would be allowed to leave their house, and no one would own anything. Pathetic argument.

and the pro-gun crowd isn't being "emotional" about this?

Obviously my argument gives food for thought and makes one pause for a second.

[twa]

Well, that's quite a confident statement.[COLOR="Gold"]

[.

It is easy to be confident when the facts are clearly on my side, as are the results.

[Popeman38]

Oh bull**** Corcaigh. Gun deaths have "declined' due to stricter gun control laws. The fact that some of you accept a "decline" in gun deaths as a win says a lot about your character IMO.

You may want to step down off your soapbox now. You are coming off as having the answer and trying to lead us idiots to a epiphany. It's not a good look, bro.

[KingGibbs]

You may want to step down off your soapbox now. You are coming off as having the answer and trying to lead us idiots to a epiphany. It's not a good look, bro.

"Bro" Everyone in here is on that proverbial "soapbox". I haven't called or think anyone in here is an "idiot" as you put it. It's quite the opposite actually. I'm impressed with the level of intelligence being displayed.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

That's because a) the population is aging which leads to a decrease in crime, b) the economy was good for a large portion of the 90s and early 00s, which leads to a decrease in crime and c) illegal drug use declined after the absolute explosion in the 80s, which leads to a decrease in crime.

One thing to consider is that while new regulations on guns are certainly needed, there are over 300 million privately owned firearms in the US. Nearly 50 percent of the population currently owns a gun. (And of course, these are just the people that own guns legally). If we somewhow confiscated 50 percent of the guns in the US, we would still have 100 times as many guns in private hands as Great Britain does. The numbers are simply staggering.

There were 51 gun deaths in Great Britain in 2011. There were 8,000 gun-related homicides in the US that year. And another 22,000 accidental firearm deaths.

Corcaigh can be certainly be too cute by half, but he is right in that our focus should not only be on mass killings - as terrible as that is.

Alaska has twice as many gun deaths every year as Great Britain.

Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia have 1500 gun deaths every year.

The mass killings are certainly related to our absolute failures in treating our mentally ill. But it's the day to day levels of gun violence that really make the US unique in the world.

---------- Post added December-20th-2012 at 11:02 AM ----------

Huh? Care to elaborate?

I don't know if any of those parents are social scientists or leaders in law enforcement. So, I'm not sure that their opinions should really carry all that much weight for setting national policy.

The frustration that I continually have with the US is that we don't like to talk about problems until there is a "crisis." The issues involving guns, mental health, and our culture of violence were the same two weeks ago as they are today. The difference is that today, there are people actually willing to talk about it.

That's why I get frustrated with the "reactionary" label. My views on the 2nd Amendment were the same 10 years ago. I assume they will be mostly the same 10 years from now. It's just that now someone might be willing to listen to them because 20 children have died.

(By the way....I'm terribly tempted to say 20 "white" children, but that will take this thread in yet another tangent. And Major Harris will then show up to yell at me).

[Bang]

well, KG, I tend to agree on the intelligence being displayed, however,, the ridiculous comparisons to cars and spoons and paper hats has to stop.

these are not comparable. Not even slightly.
Anything can kill you.. I can choke you with feathers,, a peanut can kill some of you... shellfish can as well... to some it's so lethal that even a whiff of it can kill. But no one is comparing a jar of Skippy to a handgun because they know it's stupid. so why be as stupid with these other comparisons>?

So really, enough with the comparisons to things that can kill you.
guns have one purpose, and it's sole and only function is what allows it to be called a "peacemaker" and a "murder weapon" and anything else you want it to do. It's only function is to kill.

trying to compare them to anything else that has a primary purpose but can kill if misused is absolutely a dog-chase-tail argument. It is senseless.

So, my request would be to keep things intelligent, drop the stupid pointless comparisons. There is no comparison to these things.
Now, if you want to make a comparison, compare it to an atomic bomb, or some other device which has a primary function of killing people, and no other function at all.

THEN you've got a comparison.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

Oh bull**** Corcaigh. Gun deaths have "declined' due to stricter gun control laws. The fact that some of you accept a "decline" in gun deaths as a win says a lot about your character IMO.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What specific gun control laws are you talking about? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired and some claimed no increase in crime.

I am not suggesting that violent video games reduce violence. Others are claiming that they are a significant factor in school massacres.

[Popeman38]

"Bro" Everyone in here is on that proverbial "soapbox". I haven't called or think anyone in here is an "idiot" as you put it. It's quite the opposite actually. I'm impressed with the level of intelligence being displayed.

I never said you did. But your last few posts "come off" as you having the answers, and anyone who disagrees with you is met with a profanity laced response.:

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.

Concrete statement about an opinion being more heavily weighted, as decided by you.

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

Concrete statement about an opinion being more heavily weighted, as decided by you.

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.

Demanding someone respond to your question.

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.

Again, a definitive statement by you on what is part of the solution, and implies what the problem is.

Oh bull**** Corcaigh. Gun deaths have "declined' due to stricter gun control laws. The fact that some of you accept a "decline" in gun deaths as a win says a lot about your character IMO.

Labeling someone’s character based on a response in this thread. Again, makes you appear to be preaching down from a position of authority.

I am not saying that you call people idiots, but the way you have framed your comments the last few pages makes it seem you have made a decision on what is right and wrong and respond to others trying to steer the conversation that way.

[KingGibbs]

Bang. I whole-heartedly agree with you in regards to comparisons. Like you said. The intent and sole intent of a gun is to kill and at a minimum, maim. There's no disputing that.

I hear people using the word "protection" when it comes to owning a gun. I just wonder how many stories are out there that involve a responsible civilian gun owner stopping a killing/crime? I don't hear them very often.

[stevemcqueen1]

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.

I think realistic violent video games are absolutely desensitizing to everyone who plays them, adult or child. I think the same about violent media in all forms, movies + music.

Our mass media glorifies gun violence. That's going to have to change for our culture to change.

I don't think censoring all types of media with gun violence would do much to stop the gun deaths though. Most gun deaths are not messed up white gamer kids shooting up a public place. Those are a tiny portion of overall gun violence in the country.

But I think in general, the culture around massively multiplayer online first person shooters is horrible for kids. First off, they shouldn't be playing the games themselves. Second, the amount of racist, homophobic, bullying, sexist, downright nasty **** people talk over those games awful and you've got millions of young children just being blasted by it (and taking part in it).

The game industry and movie and music industry basically do nothing to enforce the mature ratings they put on their products and I think their needs to be legislation strictly enforcing the mature ratings on games. In general, parents have proven wholly inadequate at enforcing the mature ratings. We need to make it as hard for kids to get their hands on these games as it is for them to get alcohol. Limit the places they can be sold, give out licenses that are subject to inspection just like places that sell alcohol.

User accounts for XBox Live and Playstation Network should not be anonymous and they should be more restrictive. They should force you into giving an accurate date of birth and they should ban users under the age limit for playing games like Call of Duty online. That's the whole appeal of them. If a parent is such an active ****-up that they'd make an account for their kids that bypassed that or let them use their own account then they should be banned and held responsible in the way they would for buying their child alcohol.

Make game manufacturers and first party console developers more responsible for who plays their games and they will change their ways. You'll see fewer games that glorify realistic gun violence like CoD because they won't be the cash cow they are now and some won't be worth the head aches. You'll get more toned down and tasteful games to try and get under the mature ratings.

I don't know how you legislate movies and music though. And they are just as influential as video games. You won't be able to do anything without making them SIGNIFICANTLY harder to pirate.