Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

Why not instead make all the X-box games use yellow and pink buck rodgers looking guns and stop trying to make it an immersive true to life military, assassain, or murder rampage experience so that people on the edge of mental sanity are constantly programmed to think of black rifles as the primary means of destruction?

 

That might work.

 

But there is a definite emotional effect of black and gun metal and oiled walnut, it looks badass, sort of Grim Reaperish. If gamers shot neon orange and purple polka dot weapons it wouldn't necessarily decouple their activities with the process of holding a black AK. And of course, for the military applications, there is genuine need for matte black weapons, but civilian use perhaps less so, and visibly badged civilian versions of weapons would probably not be any less effective in the spirit of the Second.

 

And I'm not suggesting a law, I would prefer the industry get together and say something to the effect of "what can we do to improve our interaction with the general public without damaging our interaction with our customers?" Maybe yellow-and-black weapons are that, or maybe something else. But it's like what Cavendish mentioned a few weeks ago; the industry isn't doing that at all, they're taking a contentious approach and they don't seem willing to work on the problem.

 

The toy industry did exactly that, they constructed a voluntary compliance once some of their customers were accidentally shot or got into trouble for having too-realistic-looking weapons. Now when you walk the aisles of the toy store, you do see some realistic looking weapons, but the majority of them do not look realistic at all, they've taken on a form that reflects their function, and the purple pipes and are there to move the water through the Super Soaker. Of course, people have been shot over Super Soakers and paint ball guns too, but I suspect the industry change has been positive.

 

The civilian form of the weapons should perhaps reflect the civilian application of the weapons ... not stalking some terrorists in Faluja or sniping some insurgents in Baghdad, but more accurately, being a home defense tool, being a sporting weapon for the range, maybe doing some hunting where hunters are clad in orange vests anyway. The military black or gunmetal doesn't seem to have a visual place here in my opinion.

 

That's a serious question. Since, the mentally unstable child or young adult is far more likely to spend a 99:1 ratio of his/her time on a video game rather than handling a real weapon, make the game the deprogramming aspect so when and if they pick up a REAL rifle - the alarm bells you speak of go off and they get that this is a real dangerous weapon to be handled with care and caution rather than the yellow and orange "virtual" guns they've been playing with for 19 hours a day. Seriously, the black gun was there LONG before the "x-box military adventure". Why does the gun have to change?

 

I'm not convinced that gamers are making a more dangerous environment, on some level -- at least with street crime -- keeping potential criminals inside behind the X-Box rather than on the street can do something to possibly make things safer.

 

But also, remember, the kind of people who pick up a military-style weapon or handgun and commit ungodly acts of mayhem are severely emotionally ill. You're asking "why does the gun have to change" which is a contentious position. Instead of asking that question, howabout asking this question ... "What can we do in the gun community to urge our industry to help avoid ungodly acts of mayhem?"

 

I don't have the answers obviously, I'm just making a suggestion. It seems to me however, that possibly taking some of the "badass" emotion away from civilian weapons and replacing that with "caution, caution, caution" might help. Will it? We have no idea, nobody has tried it. People try things, if it helps they do more of the same. But discounting it out of hand seems contentious to me.

 

 

Okay Jeff, here is my experience in a related area ... motorcycles.

 

I have been riding for decades, and I've noticed one near absolute ... riders that do the crazy, dangerous shit like pull 140 mph down a midnight highway, or take the twisties like something out of circuit race, are -- in my experience of observation -- far more likely to do that on a crotch-rocket than a super-motard or a cruiser. The crotch-rocket (i.e. the Hyabusa, or Blackbird) is often very close to the genuine race bike, and it does something to the rider, it changes the state-of-mind, at least it did so with me.

 

But a super-motard might have a nearly identical performance envelope in the lower speeds, and in some cases be more maneuverable, but it doesn't necessarily suggest to the rider to drive dangerously.

 

The rider interacts with that bike ... and having a race-ready bike seems to make the rider race-ready too, even when they shouldn't be anywhere near 70 mph let along 140 mph. The industry has done something with warning stickers and such, but in my opinion, if they did a bit more to ruin the buzz, like put a warning sticker on the tank that suggests the rider is on a street bike that is not built for race conditions, that they could (and in my opinion would) save some lives at the expense of moving less product.

 

Yes, the reality is that -- like your AK that you're having built -- bikers want the not-from-concentrate product. The main difference between guns and bikes is that a motorcyclist seems more likely to kill himself first with emotionally-ill behavior before putting anyone else in danger -- usually, but not always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magpul and Alfred Manufacturing got one step closer to leaving Colorado yesterday.

 

They produce standard capacity magazines for mean looking rifles, which the Colorado House voted to ban. The Governor is on board with the ban, so it just has to clear the Senate and those companies will move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus fucking christ....really?

perhaps you missed these parts:

 

 

 

(Reuters) - The man who shot dead 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school wanted to kill more people than the 77 slain by a Norwegian man in a 2011 rampage, CBS News reported on Monday, citing unnamed law enforcement sources.

A Connecticut state police spokesman dismissed the report as inaccurate speculation.

Adam Lanza, 20, who killed himself as police closed in on him at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, saw himself in direct competition with Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in a bombing and shooting attack in Norway on July 22, 2011, CBS said. Breivik surrendered to police.

Citing two officials briefed on the Newtown investigation, CBS said Lanza targeted the elementary school because he saw it as the "easiest target" with the "largest cluster of people."

The report did not say how the investigators learned of Lanza's desire to compete with Breivik.

Lanza was also motivated by violent videogames and had spent numerous hours playing games and working on his computer shooting skills in a private gaming room in his basement with blacked out windows, CBS said. Investigators recovered a large number of games from the basement, the report said.

Evidence shows that in his mind, Lanza was likely acting out the fantasies of a videogame during his shooting spree with each death amounting to some kind of "score," CBS said.

Lanza killed 20 schoolchildren aged 6 and 7 plus six adults who worked at the school, shocking the United States and leading President Barack Obama to propose new gun-control legislation.

Authorities have not publicly spoken of his motive.

"This is not official Connecticut State Police information and is someone's speculation regarding the case," Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance told Reuters in an email statement.

When asked if the CBS report was in any way accurate, Vance responded, "No."

Breivik, a self-styled warrior against Muslim immigration, killed eight people by bombing the Oslo government headquarters and then shot dead 69 people at the ruling party's summer youth camp.

A Norwegian judge last year sentenced Breivik to the maximum 21 years in prison, though his release can be put off indefinitely should he be deemed a threat to society.

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta in New York; Editing by Mohammad Zargham and Eric Beech)

 

 

idiots....so in your zeal to take the load off guns you throw toys and games under the bus....and post crap like this shit. pretty pathetic. and not in any way helpful in the 2nd amendment struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

There's definitely a link there. Violent video games, a weapon capable of carrying out the violence, and an unstable person obsessed with both. Its a three legged stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

There's definitely a link there. Violent video games, a weapon capable of carrying out the violence, and an unstable person obsessed with both. Its a three legged stool.

If you keep talking as if this is all part of the picture, and we can't just point the finger at any one factor as the sole cause, you are gonna cause some folks to Nugent their pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in----investigators came out yesterday and reported that Adam Lanza not only adored and admired the Norway mass murderer (and wanted to beat his 'record'), but that he also spent hours and hours and hours practicing his shooting skills whilst playing (ta-DAH) violent video games.

 

I'm shocked.....

There's definitely a link there. Violent video games, a weapon capable of carrying out the violence, and an unstable person obsessed with both. Its a three legged stool.

If you keep talking as if this is all part of the picture, and we can't just point the finger at any one factor as the sole cause, you are gonna cause some folks to Nugent their pants.

Just saying, remove one of the components and the stool falls over. Remove two of them and you have a plate with a stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

Getting back to New York's new law, credit to a Facebook friend for finding this:

 

To put "GUN CONTROL" in perspective - Anthony Raymondo says "Here is a list of just some of the crimes New York state finds LESS OFFENSIVE than owning a 30 round magazine (now a class D felony):

120.70 - Luring a child | E Felony

121.11 - Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation | A Misdemeanor

125.10 - Criminally negligent homicide | E Felony

130.20 - Sexual misconduct | A Misdemeanor

130.25 - Rape 3rd degree | E Felony

130.40 - Criminal sexual act 3rd degree | E Felony

130.52 - Forcible touching | A Misdemeanor

130.53 - Persistent sexual abuse | E Felony (repeat child molester, must be caught and convicted in two separate cases before the charges even reach this level)

130.65A - Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree | E Felony

130.85 - Female genital mutilation | E Felony

135.05 - Unlawful imprisonment 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor

135.10 - Unlawful imprisonment 1st degree | E Felony

135.45 - Custodial interference 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor"

 

I think all of those things are worse than possessing a 30 round magazine. I realize my opinion is probably not helpful, so I'm hoping for some examples to emulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, the irony of people blaming games, toys and fantasy rather than life situations, guns and reality.

 

 

hell....can't even get real news instead of the fantasy posted by booth up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

are you going to answer the question? do you think booth's post is in any way helpful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

are you going to answer the question? do you think booth's post is in any way helpful?

 

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

you don't know that. people who will kill will kill...we can "if only" all day long.

you can't have my right to keep and bear arms because lanza killed those people. to paraphrase samuel clemens it's like telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

you don't know that. people who will kill will kill...we can "if only" all day long.

you can't have my right to keep and bear arms because lanza killed those people. to paraphrase samuel clemens it's like telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

You can legally have as many virtual RPG and fully automatic virtual weapons you want. Even virtual nuclear ones. But we infringe your right to keep and bear real ones all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry mike. But I disagree with your whole premise. The "bad-assness" of a black gun is 'NOT what compels these psychos to kill people. You're blaming the tool again. These guys, for whatever fucked up reason, have decided that killing a bunch of people is a great way to get their jollies, achieve immortality, or whatever. If it wasn't a gun it would be a bomb, or a Molotov cocktail or a SUV.

 

Again, if you want to blame anything, I would tell you that the Xbox probably contributes more to these fragile people picking up an assault rifle than the rifle itself. When you get to chose your gun in COD or other first person shooter game and you've literally spent the last 7 hours straight mowing people down with AR-15s..... Gee I wonder which method of mass murder might come to mind first as your weapon of choice. There were LOTS of black rifles out before video games hit the street and you never ever heard of a shooting with one. Now, everyone thinks assault rifle when you at there games for hours and hours. For the people who can seperate reality from fantasy, no big deal. For those fragile ones who can't, picking up an AR for someone who has killed thousands of virtual people with an AR-15 or AK-47, Using a real one to kill when they snap is as natural to them as picking their nose.

 

I would even postulate that the spike in popularity of the AR, especially among younger folk is directly or at least partially related to their familiarity to them from playing video games. If you grow up shooting AR-15s on line from the age of 5, that's likely what's going to be on your mind when you walk in a gun shop. If all weapons in a game were purple and yellow and looked like super soakers, I doubt people would be rushing out to buy black rifles.

 

So in summary, your entire premise is wrong if you think the look of a gun is what causes people to pick it up and kill others with.

 

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There most definitely were mass murders with assault weapons before the advent of realistic video games, such as the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre.

 

I've suggested a possible industry response that would require no regulation and would barely effect gun enthusiasts and you've convinced yourself that the conversation isn't even worthy of discussion. You've declared yourself expert on the internal workings of deranged psychopaths.

 

Perhaps you've demonstrated the industry problem that Cavendish suggested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out a helpful post on the gun issue, elle?

yes.

 

do you think booth's post is helpful in any way?

 

Then please do.

 

I did not say his post was helpful, was just looking for an example to follow.

 

are you going to answer the question? do you think booth's post is in any way helpful?

 

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

 

most of cavendish's post. point break is usually helpful. moe alpha is typically reasonable. i'm sorry to disappoint you but i'm not going to search for specific posts and cut and paste for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stool won't fall over if you remove the games any more so than it will fall over if you remove the guns.

If Lanza only had his virtual guns, he'd still be in the basement disappointing his mother. Sandy Hook would still be just another yuppy suburb.

you don't know that. people who will kill will kill...we can "if only" all day long.

you can't have my right to keep and bear arms because lanza killed those people. to paraphrase samuel clemens it's like telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it.

You can legally have as many virtual RPG and fully automatic virtual weapons you want. Even virtual nuclear ones. But we infringe your right to keep and bear real ones all the time.

 

i am aware and said so just yesterday that the second amendment is already infringed upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

to be clear....is the "ignition" the only "leg" you are suggesting be removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

If violent video games cause violent murderous rampages, couldn't one also draw a connection that pornography causes rape?

I think you can, but there is a missing component. A criminal mind.

Porn is used to relieve sexual tension, peacefully in the privacy of your own home.

Violent gaming serves the same purpose.

But only for healthy minds. Mix in an unhealthy mind and you start to have problems.

Does that mean we need to ban porn and violent gaming? Not sure. Directly they hurt nobody. Indirectly, maybe.

 

BTW, all my posts are helpful and somethings just downright knee slapping.

 

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

to be clear....is the "ignition" the only "leg" you are suggesting be removed?

I think we need to regulate all three legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not on the anti-video game bandwagon. I think most players, like most gun owners, do not go on murderous rampages.

 

I'd like to see some of those helpful posts, though.

If violent video games cause violent murderous rampages, couldn't one also draw a connection that pornography causes rape?

I think you can, but there is a missing component. A criminal mind.

Porn is used to relieve sexual tension, peacefully in the privacy of your own home.

Violent gaming serves the same purpose.

But only for healthy minds. Mix in an unhealthy mind and you start to have problems.

Does that mean we need to ban porn and violent gaming? Not sure. Directly they hurt nobody. Indirectly, maybe.

 

BTW, all my posts are helpful and somethings just downright knee slapping.

 

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

to be clear....is the "ignition" the only "leg" you are suggesting be removed?

I think we need to regulate all three legs.

 

how so? what regulation now in place would you change and what regulations not in place do you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how so? what regulation now in place would you change and what regulations not in place do you suggest?

A multi layered approach.

 

Universal backgound checks for assault weapons purchases.

Require a registry of existing assault weapons.

Encode in violent video gaming a registry of excessive use to be downloaded via the internet into a national database.

Cross check that database during background checks for further scrutiny and evaluation by committee.

Periodic cross checking of the gaming database with the gun registry.

When there's a hit, contact the registered assault weapon owner for further evaluation and surveillance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yowza...that's pretty far reaching...

does your approach also include a registry of crazy people, people on mood altering meds (including but not limited to zoloft, chantix), really anyone who might be unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yowza...that's pretty far reaching...

does your approach also include a registry of crazy people, people on mood altering meds (including but not limited to zoloft, chantix), really anyone who might be unstable.

That's the most difficult leg to regulate. It will require a delicate and compassionate evaluation of targeted individual. Its unfortunately also the last leg of the stool to be identified. The first two legs must be installed before we can even find the final leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like nazi germany to me.

 

Think of the Children.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long night at work...tired...fuck being verbose

 

Here is a graph, linked to source. Explain Canada.

shootinggraph.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long night at work...tired...fuck being verbose

 

Here is a graph, linked to source. Explain Canada.

shootinggraph.png

That is a helpful post. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

 

FAIL. The rifle was NOT the ignitor. The fact that he was a loser, likely bullied most of his life, and had fantasies of being famous by doing this were the "ignitor". The gun was just the handy tool.

That was covered in the fuel leg. You can change the labels of the legs around, but is still a three legged stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three legs of fire.

Fuel - Oxygen - Ignition

 

Fuel - An unstable mind

Oxygen - Stimilus to feed that mind (violent gaming, abuse, bullying, alienation, right wing talk radio)

Ignition - a high capacity assault weapon

 

FAIL. The rifle was NOT the ignitor. The fact that he was a loser, likely bullied most of his life, and had fantasies of being famous by doing this were the "ignitor". The gun was just the handy tool.

That was covered in the fuel leg. You can change the labels of the legs around, but is still a three legged stool.

 

Whatever, the gun in your hypothetical is NOT the ignitor. That's like saying fire itself is the ignitor of the fire, think about it......

Ok, lets say the gun is the oxygen and the unstable mind is the ignitor. Happy now?

Or the gun is the fuel, and the stimulus is the ignitor. Still a three legged stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry mike. But I disagree with your whole premise. The "bad-assness" of a black gun is 'NOT what compels these psychos to kill people. You're blaming the tool again. These guys, for whatever fucked up reason, have decided that killing a bunch of people is a great way to get their jollies, achieve immortality, or whatever. If it wasn't a gun it would be a bomb, or a Molotov cocktail or a SUV.

 

Again, if you want to blame anything, I would tell you that the Xbox probably contributes more to these fragile people picking up an assault rifle than the rifle itself. When you get to chose your gun in COD or other first person shooter game and you've literally spent the last 7 hours straight mowing people down with AR-15s..... Gee I wonder which method of mass murder might come to mind first as your weapon of choice. There were LOTS of black rifles out before video games hit the street and you never ever heard of a shooting with one. Now, everyone thinks assault rifle when you at there games for hours and hours. For the people who can seperate reality from fantasy, no big deal. For those fragile ones who can't, picking up an AR for someone who has killed thousands of virtual people with an AR-15 or AK-47, Using a real one to kill when they snap is as natural to them as picking their nose.

 

I would even postulate that the spike in popularity of the AR, especially among younger folk is directly or at least partially related to their familiarity to them from playing video games. If you grow up shooting AR-15s on line from the age of 5, that's likely what's going to be on your mind when you walk in a gun shop. If all weapons in a game were purple and yellow and looked like super soakers, I doubt people would be rushing out to buy black rifles.

 

So in summary, your entire premise is wrong if you think the look of a gun is what causes people to pick it up and kill others with.

 

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. There most definitely were mass murders with assault weapons before the advent of realistic video games, such as the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre.

 

I've suggested a possible industry response that would require no regulation and would barely effect gun enthusiasts and you've convinced yourself that the conversation isn't even worthy of discussion. You've declared yourself expert on the internal workings of deranged psychopaths.

 

Perhaps you've demonstrated the industry problem that Cavendish suggested?

 

I AM having the discussion. We're discussing aren't we?

 

I just don't buy your premise that painting a gun to look like an industrial tool will somehow make a deranged psychopath suddenly lose his urge to kill when he picks it up because he will be reminded in that last moment that he's holding a dangerous tool NO SHIT its dangerous, why do you think he's using it to kill people? I think the danger part is pretty well understood.

 

And don't you dare attempt to label me as a self-declared expert on psychopathic mentality. YOU of all people shouldnt't casting stones about being a self-styled expert in something. I certainly don't claim to know what goes through a killer's mind. But I'm pretty sure (for the reasons I've stated) that painting a gun neon green or purple will not keep a killer from pulling the trigger in a classroom full of kids.

 

I think its a dunb idea that won't solve anything. But if we are going to go down the path of making things look less bad-ass - why aren't you asking the video game industry to make all their viirtual M-16s be purple and pink and have unicorns on the side so all the gamers don't automatically associate black rifles with death and mass killing with no consequences. I think my idea has FAR more chance of actually achieving something than yours. By the time the killer has made the decision to kill, his mind is likely made up and the color of the gun won't make a tiny bit of difference.

 

You've already written two demonstrably inaccurate things about video games in your attempt to blame video games for psychopaths, which doesn't add credence to your opinion.

 

My suggestion for industry agreeing to change the look of their weapons is to make them less sexy, possibly less emotionally appealing to the emotionally ill, less like military tools of war and more like the civilian objects they are.

 

If you really considered them "just tools" as you keep claiming then you wouldn't give a snot if your tool is visibly unique from military hardware.

 

We live in a relatively peaceful civilian society and we perhaps should have cars, guns, planes and kitchen utensils that are not military copies, because when someone gets in a car, for instance, they need to think about things like their destination and safety and not so much running down insurgents, avoiding IEDs and shooting zippers into the ground when the coffee-swilling idiot behind them gets too close.

 

That you are also resistant to this suggestion perhaps demonstrates why it may help ... not for emotionally healthy, law-abiding people like you, but for the psychopathic criminals who are ruining your hobby and your sport.

 

And yes, I get why you don't want the look of weapons to change. When I look at the stainless steel version of the lever action Marlin, I see a beautiful gun. I'm sure you feel similarly to your AR. We need to perhaps not find emotional satisfaction in our weapons, perhaps we need to change that aspect of our culture.

 

And yes, voluntarily 'civilianizing' the look of our weapons may be an ineffective idea, maybe there are better voluntary things we can do. We should try to find those things and not let the industry destroy the Second due to short-term profit taking. Because if we don't change proactively, voluntarily, we may find ourselves turning our guns into the local police station like in Australia. Wake up Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not "blaming" video games for psychopaths becoming psychopaths. I'm suggesting that because psychopaths who immerse themselves in violent video games 12 hours a day are likely FAR more familiar with black guns through the game than through actually owning or touching one. I'm just testing your own theory, that the color of the gun must have a psychological effect on the person. If that is true (I do not believe it is), then the more logical place to actually effect change is where they have the most exposure to the black gun and that is through the hours and hours and days and months spent killing people on their screen with a virtual military gun. You DO get that, right? If your theory is correct, then ergo - the place where they learn to actually use the gun and spend the most time with it (video games) is the more likely place to get the desire result. SO gamers and the gaming industry should voluntarily want all their virtual guns to be purple like Barney. If that were the case, then these psychos who want to kill for real might not even think about picking up that real black AR-15 because its boring and not what they've been inundated or programed to use.

 

Think about this too..... I don't know the stats (maybe Tom does), but I think if you look at actual "Gun-owners" who have AR-15s and have had them for a while are probably VERY VERY unlikely to then snap and go on a rampage with them. I would bet the vast majority of these rampage shooters were not gun-owners until right before the event and they went out and purpose bought the weapons. Likely after playing video games for years and years and its what they remembered from COD Black Ops so they went and bought a real gun with the intent to cause harm once they snapped. Its certainly true for the tucson, Aurora, Columbine and about any other shooter you can name. Lanza was about the only exception to that but even HE did not own the guns. His mother was the gun-owner. I think if you bothered to research this..... you woulf find that gun "owners" and regular shooters are very unlikely to become mass shooters. the mass shooters tend to go buy their gun soon after their mental break.

This from a man who just recently threatened to kill all 435 members of congress with a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This from a man who just recently threatened to kill all 435 members of congress with a gun.

 

I threatened that? Really? I recall saying it was "one idea" in an obviously sarcastic way. You need to start back on your meds again, boy. You're losing it.

The fact that not only did you formulate the thought of killing all the members of congress, you articulated it on a public forum. Homicidal fantasies are a clear sign of an unstable mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "blaming" video games for psychopaths becoming psychopaths. I'm suggesting that because psychopaths who immerse themselves in violent video games 12 hours a day are likely FAR more familiar with black guns through the game than through actually owning or touching one. I'm just testing your own theory, that the color of the gun must have a psychological effect on the person. If that is true (I do not believe it is), then the more logical place to actually effect change is where they have the most exposure to the black gun and that is through the hours and hours and days and months spent killing people on their screen with a virtual military gun. You DO get that, right? If your theory is correct, then ergo - the place where they learn to actually use the gun and spend the most time with it (video games) is the more likely place to get the desire result. SO gamers and the gaming industry should voluntarily want all their virtual guns to be purple like Barney. If that were the case, then these psychos who want to kill for real might not even think about picking up that real black AR-15 because its boring and not what they've been inundated or programed to use.

 

You keep bringing up the video game thing, even though you can't substantiate it. I pointed out that these mass murders happened before realistic video games existed (which you suggested that they didn't) and Cavendish posted a graph which suggests little if any connection to mass murders and video games.

 

It's not about video games as much as it is about someone who is emotionally-ill, mentally-unhinged, on the knife-edge of doing something irreversible, they go to pick up the weapon, and the physical design of that weapon does absolutely nothing to disengage them from that psychosis. And worse, not only does it not help, it may even make it worse, because it's a civilian weapon that is practically a visual copy of comparable military weapons.

 

The firearm industry apparently makes weapons that look like this because it moves product to buyers who like their weapons to look like military weapons and not like effective, dangerous, industrial tools.

 

 

Think about this too..... I don't know the stats (maybe Tom does), but I think if you look at actual "Gun-owners" who have AR-15s and have had them for a while are probably VERY VERY unlikely to then snap and go on a rampage with them.

 

 

Of course, who claimed otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So his home defense advice is to limit yourself to two rounds and fire them both into the air? That's double brilliant. :rolleyes:

 

It wouldn't be the first time Joe's intelligence was questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a class action suit against NY's SAFE Act, titled Richard Dywinski and David Lefkowitz v. State of New York. Those wishing to remain informed on the status should email TresmondLaw@gmail.com to get on the list and/or "Like" Tresmond Law on Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i still believe a shotgun is the best option for self defense at home, they are not easier to operate than an AR-15 platform rifle. In that comment the Vice President is mistaken on a few points.

 

To be reasonably proficient with a shotgun the operator absolutely should dedicate a good amount of time learning how to effectively use the weapon. There are many variables, primary is selecting shells, birdshot, 00 and slugs all have their place and with, say, an Remington 870 with a side saddle, the operator can choose "all of the above". The more variables the more time needs to be spent at the range and cycling dummy rounds. "Select Slug" and "Chamber Load" are things that require practice a class that places the student under pressure while doing these things is invaluable IMO. Then again i think that class should also have a classroom session dedication to the legal ramifications related to the choice to fire. Just a tip, it is "shoot to STOP" not "shoot to KILL" .

 

Also firing blindly into the woods is a bad and insanely irresponsible idea.

 

Magazine size does however effect the efficiency of the weapon and it is extremely unlikely anyone "needs" a 30 round magazine for legal self defense in the United States. How many of these "home invasions" involve trained squads of assailants? If you cover a doorway, the first person to breach is at a severe disadvantage already. Without training and the intent to fight i just do not believe all but the most rare criminal actors are willing to advance if given other options. Jeff's meth addled home invasion force may be an exception, although i haven't heard of a squad of them acting together.

 

The justification for owning a high capacity magazine is however likely in keeping with a persons second amendment right to bear arms, for the purpose of a well regulated militia. Mind that says a "well regulated militia" not "for recreational purposes".

 

Just for fun here is a ruger 10/22 with a few dollars worth of modifications done and high capacity magazines. Should this type of modification be legal?

http://youtu.be/-fE8zstf_bg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "blaming" video games for psychopaths becoming psychopaths. I'm suggesting that because psychopaths who immerse themselves in violent video games 12 hours a day are likely FAR more familiar with black guns through the game than through actually owning or touching one. I'm just testing your own theory, that the color of the gun must have a psychological effect on the person. If that is true (I do not believe it is), then the more logical place to actually effect change is where they have the most exposure to the black gun and that is through the hours and hours and days and months spent killing people on their screen with a virtual military gun. You DO get that, right? If your theory is correct, then ergo - the place where they learn to actually use the gun and spend the most time with it (video games) is the more likely place to get the desire result. SO gamers and the gaming industry should voluntarily want all their virtual guns to be purple like Barney. If that were the case, then these psychos who want to kill for real might not even think about picking up that real black AR-15 because its boring and not what they've been inundated or programed to use.

 

You keep bringing up the video game thing, even though you can't substantiate it. I pointed out that these mass murders happened before realistic video games existed (which you suggested that they didn't) and Cavendish posted a graph which suggests little if any connection to mass murders and video games.

 

It's not about video games as much as it is about someone who is emotionally-ill, mentally-unhinged, on the knife-edge of doing something irreversible, they go to pick up the weapon, and the physical design of that weapon does absolutely nothing to disengage them from that psychosis. And worse, not only does it not help, it may even make it worse, because it's a civilian weapon that is practically a visual copy of comparable military weapons.

 

The firearm industry apparently makes weapons that look like this because it moves product to buyers who like their weapons to look like military weapons and not like effective, dangerous, industrial tools.

 

Think about this too..... I don't know the stats (maybe Tom does), but I think if you look at actual "Gun-owners" who have AR-15s and have had them for a while are probably VERY VERY unlikely to then snap and go on a rampage with them.

 

 

Of course, who claimed otherwise?

 

The 20 year old fuk-stik who went on a murderous gun spree the other day here in Orange County was BIG on violent video games. Don't believe me? Just ask the OC Sheriff....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So his home defense advice is to limit yourself to two rounds and fire them both into the air? That's double brilliant. :rolleyes:/>

 

Joe Biden's Shotgun Advice Could Land Jill Biden in Jail

 

Felony aggravated menacing, reckless endangering charges could result from shooting gun in air

 

By STEVEN NELSON

Vice President Joe Biden might want to have a talk with his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, before he makes another public statement about guns.

 

In a Facebook "chat" Tuesday, the vice president said that he had advised his wife, Jill, to fire a shotgun in the air from their Delaware home's porch if she was concerned for her safety.

 

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'" Biden said.

 

"You don't need an AR-15—it's harder to aim," he added, "it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"

 

[DEBATE: Did Obama's SOTU Rhetoric Sell Gun Control?]

 

However, Delaware law would likely make his suggestion illegal—unless the shots were fired in self-defense in a truly life-threatening situation.

 

A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

 

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

 

Defense attorney John Garey—a former Delaware deputy attorney general—agreed, and added that several criminal charges might result if Jill Biden took her husband's advice.

 

"In Delaware you have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force," Garey said. "There's nothing based on his scenario alone" indicating a reason to fear imminent death, he noted.

 

Garey said that under Biden's scenario, Jill Biden could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.

 

"You cannot use deadly force to protect property" in Delaware, added Garey.

 

"It is not uncommon" for people to be charged with crimes under similar circumstances, he said. "I've seen cases where lawful citizens have used guns outside their homes and they end up arrested."

 

Rob Wiltbank, a gun rights advocate who founded Delaware Open Carry in 2008, told U.S. News he agrees with the vice president that a shotgun would be good for home protection, but he was also troubled by the hypothetical.

 

"It would be incredibly irresponsible of a gun owner to blindly discharge a firearm into the air," said Wiltbank. "What goes up, must come down and this specific behavior has been the cause of many negligent homicides over the years."

 

Tom Shellenberger, a lawyer who serves as a spokesman for the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association, told U.S. News that Biden's security tip was "the worst type of advice."

 

[POLL: Hillary Would Trounce Biden in 2016]

 

"I am a member of the Delaware Bar, as is Vice President Biden," noted Shellenberger. "There are a number of statutory restrictions that could be violated by shooting a shotgun 'off the porch.'"

 

In addition to felony charges, Shellenberger cited the "Discharge of a firearm within 15 yards of a road (7 Del.C. § 719), a misdemeanor," and "Violation of the residential dwelling safety zone as set forth in 7 Del.C. § 723, also a misdemeanor."

 

"Beyond the potential criminal liability, it is simply bad advice," added Shellenberger. "Not only does blasting blindly away put innocent persons at risk, it also tells the bad guys where you are and that you are armed. In most circumstances, it might be better if that comes as a surprise to the bad guys."

 

The Bidens live at 209 Barley Mill Rd. in Wilmington, according to official candidate information forms distributed in 2012 and according to real estate website Zillow.

 

A satellite image of the home on Google Maps, which features a scale tool, indicates that the nearest neighbor's house is approximately 100 feet away. Further away, on the other side of the home, there is a school with outside sports facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20 year old fuk-stik who went on a murderous gun spree the other day here in Orange County was BIG on violent video games. Don't believe me? Just ask the OC Sheriff....

Are you saying that you would like to see laws that keep guns out of the hands of 20 year old fuk-stiks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 20 year old fuk-stik who went on a murderous gun spree the other day here in Orange County was BIG on violent video games. Don't believe me? Just ask the OC Sheriff....

 

So restrict access to violent video games for homicidal maniacs who have access to guns?

 

That might help actually ... that way the homicidal maniacs can get their aggressions out with regular guns without bringing their dangerous tendencies into the video game world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bay Area Law Enforcement Encourages Fighting Back Against Active Shooters

 

 

SAN JOSE (KPIX 5) – Law enforcement agencies have begun adopting a new policy on so-called “active shooters,” encouraging civilians to take safety into their own hands and take down gunmen who threaten them at work or school.

 

This approach is gaining momentum in the wake of tragic incidents in Newtown, Connecticut and the Oikos University shooting in Oakland.

 

At San Jose Evergreen Community College, police have trained teachers, staff and students to follow specific guidelines during this kind of emergency.

 

The campus police chief credits this training for their coordinated response last December when a gunman was thought to have entered one of their buildings. “Some folks even said I know now whether it is time to hide or the right time to fight back,” said Chief Raymund Aguirre.

 

“For far too long people have been trained to just hide,” said Kerry Harris, who runs active shooter training workshops at schools and businesses. “What we have found when we get into these active shooter situations is that people don’t always have time to do that,” said Harris. “And so by telling them to just hide and you are going to be okay, you are setting them up for failure.”

 

In one video produced by the city of Houston and paid for in part by the Department of Homeland Security, viewers are instructed to first run or hide from a gunman, and at last resort, engage with a shooter to disable them.

 

This proactive, if not aggressive, approach to personal safety is taking hold nationwide.

 

At George Mason University in Virginia, first responders are told to take out shooters before SWAT teams arrive as back-up.

 

While this policy expedites law enforcement’s ability to react, security experts add that it is critical that civilians are trained and prepared to deal with a worst-case scenario.

 

“The fact of the matter is there may be times when we need to defend ourselves,” added Harris, who said he will return to San Jose Evergreen Community College’s campus this spring to train more students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20 year old fuk-stik who went on a murderous gun spree the other day here in Orange County was BIG on violent video games. Don't believe me? Just ask the OC Sheriff....

 

So restrict access to violent video games for homicidal maniacs who have access to guns?

 

That might help actually ... that way the homicidal maniacs can get their aggressions out with regular guns without bringing their dangerous tendencies into the video game world.

No, I think he means restrict access to guns for homicidal maniacs who have access to violent video games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20 year old fuk-stik who went on a murderous gun spree the other day here in Orange County was BIG on violent video games. Don't believe me? Just ask the OC Sheriff....

 

So restrict access to violent video games for homicidal maniacs who have access to guns?

 

That might help actually ... that way the homicidal maniacs can get their aggressions out with regular guns without bringing their dangerous tendencies into the video game world.

No, I think he means restrict access to guns for homicidal maniacs who have access to violent video games?

I think it means to increase access to guns for people to whom fuk stiks with violent video games have access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20 year old fuk-stik who went on a murderous gun spree the other day here in Orange County was BIG on violent video games. Don't believe me? Just ask the OC Sheriff....

 

So restrict access to violent video games for homicidal maniacs who have access to guns?

 

That might help actually ... that way the homicidal maniacs can get their aggressions out with regular guns without bringing their dangerous tendencies into the video game world.

No, I think he means restrict access to guns for homicidal maniacs who have access to violent video games?

 

That's silly, he couldn't have meant that. The homicidal maniacs are only officially designated homicidal maniacs once they do something maniacally homicidal. Until then they have a Constitutional-right to their weapons.

 

However they don't have a Constitutional right to their video games, so those should be limited in access to homicidal maniacs who have still yet to take their maniacal homicides outside of their video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that will stop a fuk-stik with a gun is a fuk-stik with a violent video game?

 

Hmm ... maybe we've focused too much on the games and the guns and not enough on the fuk-sticks. Isn't that the common thread of both the games and the guns? Are the fuk sticks actually sticky? Does the problem arise when they a poked with their intended purpose? Perhaps we should all switch from fuk sticks to ten foot poles?

 

After all, if we all had ten foot poles we would then enthusiastically hunt for things not to touch with them.

 

But fuk sticks practically beg for insertion into multitudes of potentially sticky holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the larger scale can you please show me how the 35 MILLION copies of COD has led to more violent crime.

 

Unlike the numbers for guns, that number only accounts for one series just over a decade old. Gaming is massively popular and it isn't "just kids", not by a long shot. Drawing from games to convert into real life is something that is a product of insanity and in the cases we have seen insanity that combines with a catalyst and pre-existing condition.

 

The cunt that shot up the island in Norway drew on his strict conservative beliefs to justify his utter disregard for human life. Lanza had been influenced with the conspiracy theories of the survivalist movement and the guy who murdered a school bus driver and took a child hostage also found an on-line support network to justify his own unstable thoughts.

 

Was it the guns? the games? the lack of mental health services for those who have not committed crimes? the gun fetishists screaming conspiracy theories or those who claim to represent responsible owners yet remain quiet when those in their ranks spread fear and sedition?

 

How much liberty are we willing to sacrifice because some asshole abused theirs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jesus, you are a deliberately obtuse fucking douchebag sometimes. Please go back and re-read what I what I said. Because you are still adressing something I'm not saying. I agree they are picking up weapons that appear to be copies of military weapons. Given that few or none of these recent mass murderers have been in the military before and handled an M4.... where the fuck do you think they are getting their familiarity and association with the weapon to then go out and chose it to commit mass murder??? Yes you guess it... video games, movies, TV, etc. Its not coming from US Army ads.

 

Lessee ... so according to your new theory, mentally-ill killers want military style weapons for their killings because those weapons match the ones in their video games?

 

So we should change the ones in the video games so that they don't match the ones in their gun racks?

 

But then why are military style weapons popular in the video games? Why don't people voluntarily line up to buy video games where the weapons are donkey-driven catapults that sling bags of liquid nitrogen?

 

Mission control to sky pilot Jeff ... perhaps the reason BOTH sell so well as military style is because people want to be military style? Because we've elevated war and soldiering and military killing to hero status while the cholera doctor is paid in bowls of rice? Because the engineer who develops a new remote-control charge-directed cluster bomb is paid a fortune while the engineer who develops a new Developing Nations hygienic latrine has to put her own money into it?

 

You've convinced yourself that the killer with the military looking gun is copying the video game rather than copying hero killer with the actual military gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i still believe a shotgun is the best option for self defense at home, they are not easier to operate than an AR-15 platform rifle. In that comment the Vice President is mistaken on a few points.

 

To be reasonably proficient with a shotgun the operator absolutely should dedicate a good amount of time learning how to effectively use the weapon. There are many variables, primary is selecting shells, birdshot, 00 and slugs all have their place and with, say, an Remington 870 with a side saddle, the operator can choose "all of the above". The more variables the more time needs to be spent at the range and cycling dummy rounds. "Select Slug" and "Chamber Load" are things that require practice a class that places the student under pressure while doing these things is invaluable IMO. Then again i think that class should also have a classroom session dedication to the legal ramifications related to the choice to fire. Just a tip, it is "shoot to STOP" not "shoot to KILL" .

 

Also firing blindly into the woods is a bad and insanely irresponsible idea.

 

Magazine size does however effect the efficiency of the weapon and it is extremely unlikely anyone "needs" a 30 round magazine for legal self defense in the United States. How many of these "home invasions" involve trained squads of assailants? If you cover a doorway, the first person to breach is at a severe disadvantage already. Without training and the intent to fight i just do not believe all but the most rare criminal actors are willing to advance if given other options. Jeff's meth addled home invasion force may be an exception, although i haven't heard of a squad of them acting together.

 

The justification for owning a high capacity magazine is however likely in keeping with a persons second amendment right to bear arms, for the purpose of a well regulated militia. Mind that says a "well regulated militia" not "for recreational purposes".

 

Just for fun here is a ruger 10/22 with a few dollars worth of modifications done and high capacity magazines. Should this type of modification be legal?

http://youtu.be/-fE8zstf_bg

 

 

Of course it should. About as mundane & innocuous as swapping out a V-6 for a V-8......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "blaming" video games for psychopaths becoming psychopaths. I'm suggesting that because psychopaths who immerse themselves in violent video games 12 hours a day are likely FAR more familiar with black guns through the game than through actually owning or touching one. I'm just testing your own theory, that the color of the gun must have a psychological effect on the person. If that is true (I do not believe it is), then the more logical place to actually effect change is where they have the most exposure to the black gun and that is through the hours and hours and days and months spent killing people on their screen with a virtual military gun. You DO get that, right? If your theory is correct, then ergo - the place where they learn to actually use the gun and spend the most time with it (video games) is the more likely place to get the desire result. SO gamers and the gaming industry should voluntarily want all their virtual guns to be purple like Barney. If that were the case, then these psychos who want to kill for real might not even think about picking up that real black AR-15 because its boring and not what they've been inundated or programed to use.

 

You keep bringing up the video game thing, even though you can't substantiate it. I pointed out that these mass murders happened before realistic video games existed (which you suggested that they didn't) and Cavendish posted a graph which suggests little if any connection to mass murders and video games.

 

It's not about video games as much as it is about someone who is emotionally-ill, mentally-unhinged, on the knife-edge of doing something irreversible, they go to pick up the weapon, and the physical design of that weapon does absolutely nothing to disengage them from that psychosis. And worse, not only does it not help, it may even make it worse, because it's a civilian weapon that is practically a visual copy of comparable military weapons.

 

The firearm industry apparently makes weapons that look like this because it moves product to buyers who like their weapons to look like military weapons and not like effective, dangerous, industrial tools.

 

 

Jesus, you are a deliberately obtuse fucking douchebag sometimes. Please go back and re-read what I what I said. Because you are still adressing something I'm not saying. I agree they are picking up weapons that appear to be copies of military weapons. Given that few or none of these recent mass murderers have been in the military before and handled an M4.... where the fuck do you think they are getting their familiarity and association with the weapon to then go out and chose it to commit mass murder??? Yes you guess it... video games, movies, TV, etc. Its not coming from US Army ads.

Every rifle I own "looks" like a military arm from some point in history. All of my rifles look like antiques. Why were my Grandparents and Great Grandparents obsessed with rifles that look like military arms? Why didn't they try to make a gun look like something other than a gun? Greatest Generation my ass. They couldn't even figure out how to make a gun not look like a gun. Think of the children that could have been saved.

 

What I see is a mindless attempt from both sides of the gun issue to point fingers. You have to be truly dense to think changing weapons cosmetics or banning video games will change any of this.

 

How about locking up firearms so that they aren't accessible to every tom dick and harry in the house? How about NOT buying that "M" rated video game for your 10yr old? Oh, that's right, those are already things we're supposed to be doing, but aren't. If parents acted like parents, and not friends, we might see a reduction in this tragic bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

]Every rifle I own "looks" like a military arm from some point in history. All of my rifles look like antiques. Why were my Grandparents and Great Grandparents obsessed with rifles that look like military arms? Why didn't they try to make a gun look like something other than a gun? Greatest Generation my ass. They couldn't even figure out how to make a gun not look like a gun. Think of the children that could have been saved.

 

What I see is a mindless attempt from both sides of the gun issue to point fingers. You have to be truly dense to think changing weapons cosmetics or banning video games will change any of this.

 

How about locking up firearms so that they aren't accessible to every tom dick and harry in the house? How about NOT buying that "M" rated video game for your 10yr old? Oh, that's right, those are already things we're supposed to be doing, but aren't. If parents acted like parents, and not friends, we might see a reduction in this tragic bullshit.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Something us undeniable though ... we are a people who create heroes out of our own when they use a gun to kill people who have lives that we don't value.

 

And the nuns, social workers, teachers, international aid workers and field doctors/engineers? They can generally go fuck themselves given the way we demean their work.

 

You want to blame the rampages of emotionally-ill soldier copycats on video games and less-than-perfect parents? Okay, maybe you have a point. But to leave our warmongering culture blameless is maybe a little bit incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Someone should really take his guns away until he can learn the four basic rules of gun safety.

 

Biden: just fire a shotgun through the door. That's a reckless violation of rule four.

 

He also doesn't seem to understand that mean looking AR-15s and such are easy to control and kick far less than a shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the thread topic, a NY State Supreme Court judge has ordered the state to show why their new law is constitutional.

 

Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent gun laws said that Wednesday was "monumental," as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.

 

New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

 

That's a good question and they had better come up with a great answer. I see no justification for their new 7 round limit, among other provisions. Dick Heller's constitutionally protected handgun holds 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only good thing about Gnu Yawk trying to pass their idiotic, feely-good, useless laws, is that it will move Kalifornia up to 49th place as America's most pussified state.

 

Thank you, Andy.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military heroes do something extraordinary and selflessly in an act pursuant to the accomplishment of a mission. "confirmed kills" do not make a hero, that may indicate a great shot, but not a hero unless the conditions were extraordinarily austere.

 

The term has been watered down, wars are not simply about killing and never have been. They are about accomplishing missions that must be done, no war should ever be fought without a clear mission. War is not a sport or a game.

 

There are Medal of Honor recipients who never touched a trigger in the act of earning the highest military honor.

 

It gets old and to be honest downright uncomfortable to be referred to as an "American Hero" ad nausium based of military service alone. There just doesn't seem to be a way to disagree with the title without being labeled as anti-everything American.

 

I know i couldn't do it in response to the SEAL sniper who was killed recently. He was an awesome man, his foundation is seriously a great work and his skill surely made an impact beyond what could ever be expected from an individual on the battlefield. Just...not a hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love this one.....:lol:

 

 

 

Hollywood could get pass on gun rule

 

Cuomo, Silver discuss exemption

 

Feb 27, 2013

 

 

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders may exempt film productions in New York from the stringent assault-weapons ban passed last month.

 

Cuomo and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, told reporters Wednesday that the state is not expected to make major changes to the gun-control law adopted Jan. 15. But lawmakers could amend the law so Hollywood productions are exempt from the assault-weapons ban.

“We haven’t talked about the details of it, but the basic concept of should you be able to use these types of guns in movies? The answer is yes,” Cuomo said. “We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here. So obviously we would want to facilitate that.”

 

“We haven’t talked about the details of it, but the basic concept of should you be able to use these types of guns in movies? The answer is yes,” Cuomo said. “We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here. So obviously we would want to facilitate that.”

 

Cuomo said he and lawmakers are mainly looking at “technical corrections” to the controversial law. He said the Hollywood exemption may not even be necessary, but state leaders are considering it.

 

“I don’t know that it’s a real issue because they don’t use real guns,” Cuomo said. “Apparently, they have blanks or phony magazines or something. So I don’t know that legally it would even be classified as an assault weapon if it’s a phony gun, but people want certainty and there’s no reason not to make a change like that, to give an industry comfort, especially when it’s an industry that we want doing business in the state.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Someone should really take his guns away until he can learn the four basic rules of gun safety.

 

Biden: just fire a shotgun through the door. That's a reckless violation of rule four.

 

He also doesn't seem to understand that mean looking AR-15s and such are easy to control and kick far less than a shotgun.

 

Virginia Beach man faces charges for doing exactly what Biden said to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mikey, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that people want to ultimately copy the GI Joe figure. And I further agree that it would be nice if we exalted the cholera doc or the engineer over the soldier. But as usual, you're missing the point..... I'm simply applying Zyour argument to the video game. You want to make guns yellow and black to make them look less menacing. I'm saying make video game guns look less menacing by making them pink. Far more people kill far more people in video games than in real life. Best to get your logic applied to the greatest number where it can do the most good.

 

Sometimes I question whether common sense and logical thinking skills are required of PhDs. It doesn't appear to be evadent.

 

I never wrote that, regardless that you keep writing it.

 

Ideally, guns should look as menacing and dangerous as possible, since, in the wrong hands, they are menacing and dangerous.

 

I think the industry needs to consider clearly identifying their civilian products as civilian rather than military with the hopes that an obviously civilian weapon will trigger a different kind of response than "kill, soldier, kill." Perhaps we can get "danger, use with caution."

 

And yes, I get your logic about making pink video game (and presumably movie) weapons. I believe that idea is ill-thought out. Video game weapons are typically used to kill video game people, thus the emotional impacts of their design are less critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the larger scale can you please show me how the 35 MILLION copies of COD has led to more violent crime.

 

Unlike the numbers for guns, that number only accounts for one series just over a decade old. Gaming is massively popular and it isn't "just kids", not by a long shot. Drawing from games to convert into real life is something that is a product of insanity and in the cases we have seen insanity that combines with a catalyst and pre-existing condition.

 

The cunt that shot up the island in Norway drew on his strict conservative beliefs to justify his utter disregard for human life. Lanza had been influenced with the conspiracy theories of the survivalist movement and the guy who murdered a school bus driver and took a child hostage also found an on-line support network to justify his own unstable thoughts.

 

Was it the guns? the games? the lack of mental health services for those who have not committed crimes? the gun fetishists screaming conspiracy theories or those who claim to represent responsible owners yet remain quiet when those in their ranks spread fear and sedition?

 

How much liberty are we willing to sacrifice because some asshole abused theirs?

 

Then the guns themselves are no more causal than the video games. Thanks for supporting my argument.

 

What argument exactly?

 

Also, i think most of what i have disagreed with you on were matters of facts rather than policy.

 

Here is a good article on video game-violence. Actually some very well thought out comments as well.

 

FirstAmendment-225x300.jpg Speaking of free speech, there was a significant rally in Albany this past Thursday and a state supreme court is very likely to place an injunction on the SAFE act, due to possibly unconstitutionally improper procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I would expect you to understand that the RKBA is also just as important as speech.

I would have some sympathy for you if you fought the 1934 National Firearms Act that infringes to this day, your RKBA. But you don't seem upset about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I would expect you to understand that the RKBA is also just as important as speech.

I would have some sympathy for you if you fought the 1934 National Firearms Act that infringes to this day, your RKBA. But you don't seem upset about that.

 

I'm quite upset about it. However, I wasn't around in 1934 to fight it at the time. Or to even be outraged. Don't worry tho, this will come up to the SCOTUS eventually and it will also be overturned or changed. We have bigger alligators nearer to the canoe to fight first. But the NFA will have its day.

It did go before the SCOTUS and was ruled constitutional. 1938 United States Vs. Miller. Its settled law. You will need to change the constitution to overturn it. And it easily can be expanded to include semi-automatic weapons. Your fight should be with it and only it. Overturn the 1934 NFA, and your RKBA will be restored and preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally on your point about video games linked to violent behavior..... your linked article does nothing to disprove the causation link. Simply that the SCOTUS said no to any kinds of restrictions. The SCOTUS decision notwithstanding, the bulk of the psychology community DOES IN FACT believe there is a causitive link between violent games and images to actual aggressive behavior, especially in children. Whatever though..... regardless, the SCOTUS said hands off - so there is nothing to be done there because of the 1A. Similarily, whether there is a causitive link between guns and violence or not - the 2A is reason enough to seek answers elsewhere. Like trying to change behavior rather than banning a gun (or a video game). I can live with that. Its the price of doing business in a free society.

 

You are correct, i chose that article for its balance and reasonable, level headed, tone. If you have a million dollars, you can have a study made for your interests. Sad, but true and you yourself have linked "research" that was bought and paid for by a group with a vested interest. Talking about the "More guns less crime" related thread here. As a larger group everyone of us is guilty of this to some extent, myself included.

 

Here is a study from Ferguson, who was interviewed for the article. The funny spiral of reviewing research is that those footnotes are absolutely fundamental to the validity of the findings. Academia done right requires more than simply reading one or two studies, it involves years of study and peer review. Many of the proponents of violent game prohibition, for example, actually remove from context Ferguson's findings to "prove" their predetermined hypothesis.

 

Fact is, most validly founded studies, are at best, mildly supportive only in a tiny scope and generally are very, very dry reads. There are no "smoking guns" so to say on the issue that i have found. Then again i am not an academic and have not done the serious legwork as required to even support the mildest pretense of scientific certainty.

 

There is plenty of junk science, with more coming i am sure. Much like the study that "proved marijuana killed brain cells" results can be manipulated, then findings can be used to a political end. Obama, for whatever his faults, actually supports more open information that will prevent some of that bullshit in the future, although that would only cover major research.

 

Just for fun, i love this study, violence has many sources and humans are complicated. Pb(CH2CH3)4 isn't our friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, if an assault weapons ban is passed (which I don't think is realistic, but we can dream can't we?), in order for it to be challenged in the SCOTUS, the 1934 NFA and 1968 NFA will also have to be challenged. Both of those laws will have to be overturned to overturn the new AWB. Since the 1934 Ban was upheld already by the SCOTUS and the court is very reluctant to rule against precedence, combined with the vast majority of the public supporting the 1934 ban, I find it very unlikely the new AWB would be ruled unconstitutional. Also in the mix is a court packed by Obama and his successor.

 

Your best bet is to continue your current path. Fight the passing of a new AWB and ignore the 1934 NFA. You simply cannot afford to challenge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, if an assault weapons ban is passed (which I don't think is realistic, but we can dream can't we?), in order for it to be challenged in the SCOTUS, the 1934 NFA and 1968 NFA will also have to be challenged. Both of those laws will have to be overturned to overturn the new AWB. Since the 1934 Ban was upheld already by the SCOTUS and the court is very reluctant to rule against precedence, combined with the vast majority of the public supporting the 1934 ban, I find it very unlikely the new AWB would be ruled unconstitutional. Also in the mix is a court packed by Obama and his successor.

 

Your best bet is to continue your current path. Fight the passing of a new AWB and ignore the 1934 NFA. You simply cannot afford to challenge it.

 

Why would you dream about something that won't do a g-damn thing to prevent mass murders? 'Cuz you do know that there are already 75 million 'a salt weapons' in America right now, doncha? Really, your unicorny emotionalism is getting quite tiresome....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, you may say

I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

I hope some day you'll join us

And the world will live as one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, you may say

 

I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

 

I hope some day you'll join us

 

And the world will live as one

 

 

 

Fuk you, and the rainbow you rode in on....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you ever wonder why the last AWB wasn't contested in court? Its because it wouldn't be overturned. The NRA knew it and decided to run out the clock. Lucky for them they had a sympathetic president and congress when renewal came due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you ever wonder why the last AWB wasn't contested in court? Its because it wouldn't be overturned. The NRA knew it and decided to run out the clock. Lucky for them they had a sympathetic president and congress when renewal came due.

 

Hey shut up for a minute and listen---you gonna be home the first week in July? I may be driving thru, so I'd like to bring you some real salsa, real Mexican beer.....and a huge box of clues..... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you ever wonder why the last AWB wasn't contested in court? Its because it wouldn't be overturned. The NRA knew it and decided to run out the clock. Lucky for them they had a sympathetic president and congress when renewal came due.

 

Hey shut up for a minute and listen---you gonna be home the first week in July? I may be driving thru, so I'd like to bring you some real salsa, real Mexican beer.....and a huge box of clues..... :D

</