259: Gunners and Gamers

Gunners and Gamers

Guns and games typically only come up in the same news story when it involves a horrific act of violence. But what about all the responsible enthusiasts out there who simply want to enjoy their favorite pastimes? Russ Pitts speaks with gamers and gun owners about their dual hobbies.

Read Full Article

I feel that there is a huge cultural divide here. To me lots of the article didn't make sense and that's because I believe the UK has such a completely different attitude to guns. We definitely have the COD4 affect here (it convinced my brother that he wanted to join the army) but you get very few people over here who campaign for gun ownership.

Other than that it was an interesting article, but the statistics were dodgy. Trying to fob off the higher death rate by cars is a bit ridiculous because it takes no context into account. It's the equivalent of suggesting that it's okay to order 20 000 people into an acid bath, because more people die from cars. You're not thinking of percentage use of the thing (cars are used far more often than guns), or of the need. Cars are much more necessary than guns.

You're also falling into the trap of 1 death is a tragedy and 30 000 is a statistic. Sure 15 000 deliberate shootings is a lower number than 30 000. But listen. 15 000 people died. That's every single person you have every loved or known in this world. Maybe it's every single person you've ever had contact with. You can't fob it off with comparisons, instead you've got to look at each life and wonder if it was really worth losing.

Finally correlation doesn't equal causation. There are fartoo many variable to compare percentage drops and rises. And of course, crime statistics are terribly unreliable

I'm not going to simplify the situation, I haven't presented any arguments that a gun ban is a good thing. All I'm saying is that neither have you (in fact 15 000 deaths due to shooting was far and above what I was expecting, that's like 5% of your entire population compared to 42 over the whole of Britain. 5% compared to 0.000001%), and that no-one really knows. We've got to focus on close case-specific studies before we can prove or disprove any link.

Quintin Stone:
Isn't this the same article posted on March 16th?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_245/7299-Gunners-and-Gamers

This week's issue is Best of, The best articles of The Escapist Magazine from January - June 2010.

ThyNameIsMud:
This week's issue is Best of, The best articles of The Escapist Magazine from January - June 2010.

Whoops! Sorry, I missed that.

Woman in background picture fails at trigger safety.

"I just want to headshot some noobs! ... Like on Halo!"

That quote had me rolling with laughter.

BrotherRool:
(in fact 15 000 deaths due to shooting was far and above what I was expecting, that's like 5% of your entire population compared to 42 over the whole of Britain. 5% compared to 0.000001%), and that no-one really knows. We've got to focus on close case-specific studies before we can prove or disprove any link.

Um, the US has 300 million people. 15,000 is .005% of our population. I don't disagree with you, but your percentage was horribly off. Also, in the US you couldn't ban guns without a constitutional amendment, so no, those deaths cannot be totally eliminated. HIs is a valid comparison because both guns and cars are unavoidable and eternal things in America, for better or for worse.

The only thing that I know of that does not require field training and can be trained by the most game-like simulation is un-manned aircraft such as drones. There is still, no matter what, a huge difference. In a game, such as HAWX, the missiles you fire, bombs you drop, cannons you fire matter to you as much as a click of a mouse (also, find me a plane that can hold over 40 missiles like the ones in HAWX). When you are actually controlling an un-manned aircraft, there is always that knowledge that what you do, is affecting how you control it compared to how you would in a game.

Alar:
"I just want to headshot some noobs! ... Like on Halo!"

That quote had me rolling with laughter.

Same

Dont forget your hearbeat sensor so you can "pwn some noobs".

One thing that has always bothered me in games are silencers on guns. How the hell is it so soft? (I do realise that it is needed because it is a game). This is mainly because I have heard supressed weapons being fired and I dont know, it just bothers me.

What really gets me, are the people who freak out about video games and yell "TEH VIDEOGAMEZ IZ MAKIN OUR KIDZ KILL!!!11!!" when, if you take the time to do even the slightest bit of research, you find that the violent crime rate has dropped every year since the introduction of the ps1.

Yep. Those video games are really turning our kids into mindless killing machines. Just look at the thousands of kids every year who shoot up their school. /sarcasm

As far as the ACR search results on Google are concerned, I don't think that all of those are related to MW2. Last fall, PTS, the Airsoft subdivison of Magpul, the designers of the ACR, as it is known under the Bushmaster and Remington brand, revealed that a airsoft version of the Masada(the original name of the ACR), was soon to be available on the market, specifically at the end of the year; around December. For a few years, the Masada/ACR has been a hot topic in the international airsofting community, a weapon system most learned of from the TV Show "Future Weapons".

I also don't like your use of statistics, 'there are 40% more deaths caused by motor vehicles than guns' says nothing, I assure you the population of motor vehicle users is a lot more than 40% higher than the number of people that own or are regularly around guns.
For more on whether games can be used as murder training simulators, check out the books 'Fun Inc.' and 'Grand Theft Childhood' (I forget the authors names, but they should be easy to find) they each have some interesting chapters about shooting real vs virtual guns.

Recently I've been looking into visiting a shooting range, purely because I'm interested to see if I can shoot as accurately without a virtual reticule or crosshair hovering in the air everywhere I look.

The article did offer an interesting insight to the gun-enthusiast community though, Coming from UK, where most cops don't even carry guns, and now living in Australia where cops and security guards do, but no-one else other than farmers and, occasionally, criminals (in fact there's been talk of banning handguns outright after a security guard was killed with his own weapon in a recent shooting). I'm interested to know more about their motivations other than 'it's fun' to shoot guns. what legitimate reason would a civilian have for owning an ACR or even any kind of assault rifle or smg. Rifles and shotguns used for hunting, farming and sports, are one thing, but I don't understand why you'd buy a tactical grade weapon unless you intend to kill someone, or are expecting to be in a firefight in the near future. Personal defense doesn't really cut it for me either. if you're that concerned, keep a baseball bat next to your bed (in UK or Australia) or if you live somewhere where guns are more ubiquitous, keep a handgun in a safe somewhere on hand, but no-one needs an uzi in their kitchen cupboard.

However the gun crime argument is far too complex to be blamed on a single scapegoat like games or rock'n'roll sadly it's a very small and misled minority that generally commit these random killing sprees, and while I don't believe that the actions of these people (such as children or mentally ill) should be cause to inflict restrictions on the rest of us, it seems clear to me that if guns were less accessible, there would be less gun crime.

And I have spent some time in USA, I know a little about the reasons behind the right to bear arms, I was also present at a shooting in Colorado during my stay, so this is a topic that interests me a little

Gummy:
I also don't like your use of statistics, 'there are 40% more deaths caused by motor vehicles than guns' says nothing, I assure you the population of motor vehicle users is a lot more than 40% higher than the number of people that own or are regularly around guns.

I think what he is getting at is media attention. Guns get a lot of bad publicity in the media while the dangers of car accidents are not as reported. Its more dramatic, brings numbers and what not. Hard to take the news seriously nowadays.

Hard to read that with that lovely lady there!

"Enthusiasts who share a passion for both games and guns are generally well-educated, well-trained and well-practiced in the detailed minutiae of how to engage in their hobby safely."

I approach guns with great respect. All or tools/machines in this world have the capacity to either harm or kill you. The minute you don't respect what your using, what your using fails to respect you. I learned to assemble and operate the M16 A3 in the IDF as part of training program called GADNA when I was 17. Up until that point I was an avid FPS and RTS kinda guy. Half-Life and Medal of Honor were pass times of mine and I couldn't count how many I times I saw Saving Private Ryan. But my time in Israel really slapped me in the face to show me how ignorant I was. My short time in training unveiled a sense of reality that I was never in touch with. But the thing is that I don't consider myself crazy enough to devote myself to a career in the military where (in these turbulent times) I could possibly die in combat. So to be safe I tried my hand at airsoft. I find myself doing something that I never do in video games. When in the field with all my gear and weapons (or toys) on me, I find that I hesitate with my first shots of every airsoft game I have ever played. It is an odd dynamic that when I have a set of pixels sighted in that I can click away and watch programmed animations of recoil and watch my target's pixels fall. I can actually puts rounds downrange at a printout of a human silhouette through the head but shooting plastic pellets at people actually freezes me up. I don't like hurting people.

Guns are beautiful and marvelous pieces of a combination human ingenuity, mechanical engineering and manipulation of physics. There's a saying that goes: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and I tend to think that has weight to it. Do video games make children more violent? I can't say but if my knowledge of history has taught me anything, if someone wants to kill badly enough, they'll find a way. The method is just pudding.

So to all the CODers out there, if you claim to be genuinely interested in firearms, take the logical step and ask someone that knows more than you. Instead of going on in semi-blind ignorance, put some work into it and learn. You never know, it might boring as all hell and you'll never do it again but to I'm certain that the "COD Effect" is going to lead to someone doing something stupid that is going to get someone killed and then video games will just end up suffering.

p.s.
I am not a gun owner. I don't see the point. I do rent every so often when I find myself at a range.

I have to say that i think the logic behind this article is flawed.
The main point is that it mixes anti-gun arguments with anti-gaming arguments in a shallow attempt to promoting gun ownership by seating gun-owners and gamers in the same boat. The anti-gaming arguments are basically along the lines of "games make you aggressive, they make you kill people, they are bad". In its most basic form this assume a causal relationship between playing a violent game and killing people. This causal relationship is very hard to proof. What isn't hard to prove, is the causal relationship of owning a gun (or to be more precise having access to a gun) an killing somebody with it. In this case access is a necessary (even though not sufficient)conation for the killing. Further while anti-gaming arguments stats that games make you want to kill people, which is again a claim that needs strong empirical backup. It is a fact that there are crazy people around that really do want to kill people and that its a bad idea to give them guns.

So basically the gun access laws as they are in the US provide irresponsible people with the means to get a device which they can use to kill people more efficiently. Anti-gun arguments don't need to claim that guns make people want to shoot other people, they just need to claim that there are people who want to shoot people.

I am deeply disappointed by this article as it is flawed in its logic clearly not neutral and presents argumentation of the worst kind by basely using a few arbitrary examples and some out of context numbers. This article fails any standard of journalism i know, which is disappointing since this site otherwise contains excellent articles.

The worst thing about this article is comparing guns with cars and saying the anti-gun argument is the same as an anti-car argument (by implying cars kill more people than guns do). Cars are a necessity of modern society they have practical use and death involving cars are not the main intend why cars are produced or used. Guns as an instrument are designed to kill/hurt/threaten people.

Gun should be prohibited not because some gamers are also gun-owners, however guns should be prohibited because they are guns.

(edit: added some things since the more i think about this article them more it infuriates people)

Coverax:
I have to say that i think the logic behind this article is flawed.
The main point is that it mixes anti-gun arguments with anti-gaming arguments in a shallow attempt to promoting gun ownership by seating gun-owners and gamers in the same boat. The anti-gaming arguments are basically along the lines of "games make you aggressive, they make you kill people, they are bad". In its most basic form this assume a causal relationship between playing a violent game and killing people. This causal relationship is very hard to proof. What isn't hard to prove, is the causal relationship of owning a gun (or to be more precise having access to a gun) an killing somebody with it. In this case access is a necessary (even though not sufficient)conation for the killing. Further while anti-gaming arguments stats that games make you want to kill people, which is again a claim that needs strong empirical backup. It is a fact that there are crazy people around that really do want to kill people and that its a bad idea to give them guns.

So basically the gun access laws as they are in the US provide irresponsible people with the means to get a device which they can use to kill people more efficiently. Anti-gun arguments don't need to claim that guns make people want to shoot other people, they just need to claim that there are people who want to shoot people.

I am deeply disappointed by this article as it is flawed in its logic clearly not neutral and presents argumentation of the worst kind by basely using a few arbitrary examples and some out of context numbers. This article fails any standard of journalism i know, which is disappointing since this site otherwise contains excellent articles.

The worst thing about this article is comparing guns with cars and saying the anti-gun argument is the same as an anti-car argument (by implying cars kill more people than guns do). Cars are a necessity of modern society they have practical use and death involving cars are not the main intend why cars are produced or used. Guns as an instrument are designed to kill/hurt/threaten people.

Gun should be prohibited not because some gamers are also gun-owners, however guns should be prohibited because they are guns.

(edit: added some things since the more i think about this article them more it infuriates people)

Your logic is flawed. Anyone who wants to commit a crime has free and open access to purchase a firearm, completely unhindered by all legislation.

Case in point: Where do you think all those terrorists get weapons? In most of the first world, it would be considered treason, which is a capital offence, to sell weapons to terrorists. The vast majority of firearms are manufactured in the first world, or nations under the eye of the first world.

So with all the proscriptions against criminals having access to weapons, they still manage to get weapons.

I'm 100% for most forms of gun control, but completely eliminating the right to carry is not the answer.

WRT automobile deaths vs. firearm deaths, perhaps Russ should have instead used pools as an example.

Five pages of text about call of duty and guns?!

I think my brain just sublimated and fleed trough my ears before i dared to try to read this.

This article is just as awesome as it was the first time I read it. The little tale Jim told is probably spurious, but I doubt ones quite similart to it never happen.

Re the car X gun controversy: Guns are things that throw small bits of metal at extremely high speeds (enough to easily kill a human being). Cars are huge masses of metal capable of moving at extremely high speeds on their own accord (enough to easily kill a human being). Any civilization interested on its own survival would severely limit both and especially the latter, but if you still had any faith in humanity you probably haven't been following the news at least since they were invented.

I think it's obvious that video games (whether they be Shooters or platform games, etc.) make children more aggressive. If a child can't get passed a point in a game, most often times they're going to react aggressively. By aggressive I mean jumping up and down, screaming and yelling, cursing and so on. The real topic should be whether or not shooters are more prone to make children more aggressive than other types of games. As for the article, I feel it was well written, though I think more info was taken from those guy's at that gun forum than anything else. The story about the punk trying to buy a sniper rifle made me laugh a little, but it really just made me disappointed. To think that kids could be that dumb is really depressing. Perhaps North America should adopt a better education system, to make today's youth more educated in the world around them. If children want weapons to "Headshot some Noobs, like in Halo!" than there is something really wrong with the way kids are taught.

C4N4DUCK18:
I think it's obvious that video games (whether they be Shooters or platform games, etc.) make children more aggressive. If a child can't get passed a point in a game, most often times they're going to react aggressively. By aggressive I mean jumping up and down, screaming and yelling, cursing and so on. The real topic should be whether or not shooters are more prone to make children more aggressive than other types of games. As for the article, I feel it was well written, though I think more info was taken from those guy's at that gun forum than anything else. The story about the punk trying to buy a sniper rifle made me laugh a little, but it really just made me disappointed. To think that kids could be that dumb is really depressing. Perhaps North America should adopt a better education system, to make today's youth more educated in the world around them. If children want weapons to "Headshot some Noobs, like in Halo!" than there is something really wrong with the way kids are taught.

I agree with your last point, but that's not anything that has or will be taught in schools.
Getting back to your first point: If a kid freaks out and throws a temper tantrum over a game, their god damned parents should be there to tell them to stop acting like an idiot and calm the hell down.
The ACR/Headshot punk also clearly lacked responsible parents.

Anecdote: Cousin-in-law is a nurse. She had at one point been working with cancer patients. Later transfered and was working with child births. She did that for a while, but had to leave because it was too depressing.
Yeah, bringing new life into the world was more depressing than dealing with people who were dying.

Having had a parent with cancer, and maybe this was just a local thing, but all the patients getting treatment were generally all in very good moods. They were talking to eachother, making jokes, and generally just enjoying themselves.
She had to get out of the childbirths because she said she couldn't take it anymore -- girls showing up alone. Nobody else, not family, not the father, just the pregnant girl. No smiles. Not a joyous occasion, just a life-altering problem. I know I couldn't deal with that.
I'm sure some of those kids grow up fine, but I'm sure some wind up like the Headshot kid. Completely lacking in any support or direction as they're growing up. Teaching them right from wrong is too much work.

Kids don't need to learn more about the world around them, they need to learn more about how to act, think and behave like a human being.

For the record I started playing video games on an Atari 2600 in the early 80s and got my first gun at 6 (obviously a .22 :D ). It wasn't mine to control at all times, nobody would do that -- I could only use it at the range, and for many years I wasn't to touch any of our guns without my dad knowing.

And ya know what? Being around guns from such a young age made me a less violent person. I actually recall a time in elementary school, at a point where I lacked any friends (not a single one), where a kid picked a fight with me. I fought back. His friends showed up. The thought occurred to me that if this escalation continued, some serious shit could happen -- it would be absolutely trivial for me to kill any and all of them. The only thing stopping that escalation from happening was my own self-control; even then I had a mighty disdain for most people and wouldn't trust them to be responsible any further than I could throw 'em.

So, yeah, a few years after War Games came out and a few years before I would be able to understand that movies have messages I had on my own, thanks to the responsibility and respect for life my parents taught me, figured out that the only way to win is to not play at all. Not in some ephemeral allegorical example, but with the hardness of reality and personal involvement.

It's not something I've brought up with many, but all the kids I knew growing up who were avid shooters and who had good parents who taught them about firearm safety and respect for others in general.. none of them were violent. None of them got into fights, none of them were into wanton destruction or desecration of others' property.

I feel like this is just rehash of the "kids dont know video games from reality" argument.

While its true to an extent, being a gamer has had no effect on how i handle and fire my weapons. I began playing FPS games about the same time my dad had bought two firearms and i never had any desire to attempt to 'pwn some noobs' or any such nonsense, from day one i had a healthy respect for guns and what they are capable of.

Also, let these idiots who try video game things in real life kill themselves off. Let the racers try some NFS stuff and get killed, or the ACR guy to shoot himself because he took painkillers.

First off, I'd just like to inform the non-American people here on gun laws in the US.
With the notable exception of Washington D.C. and some other major cities, rifles and pistols are available anywhere as long as you are of age and have no criminal past or mental issues. With the mental issues, someone brought it up before about the Columbine perpertrators. There was NO way of knowing that had mental illnesses, there was no evidence that had been brought up etc, so there really was NO possible legislation beyond outright banning that would have stopped it. Hell, even then they likely would have still used explosives and knives, but I digress. Now, with rifles its 16 years of age that you have to be to own one and 18 with pistols. NON of these weapons can be automatic in almost any circumstances. The ONLY exceptions are those owned by members of the military, those owned (sometimes this is allowed) by former members of the military, and those owned by place where you can rent out time with the automatics on the range. Now those assault rifles mentioned before and people buying them, the people who buy them are NOT buying military versions, they are buying civilian semi-auto versions of the same or similiar guns.
Personally I own a rifle myself (Age 16). My father gave it to me when I turned 16 and got a hunting license. (I don't actually hunt but the license is needed for owning a gun, I'm actually a pacifist.) Shooting is actually one of my favorite hobbies. Its fun, requires great skill in order to do well at distances, and shooting fruit whenever you can find produce is just epic fun :) (Hint, use watermelon, they explode nicely). Now with people using guns being more violent...thats just plain stupid. I grew up with guns, it was just another way of having fun, BUT CERTAINLY not a toy. Even at 6 I was old enough to understand that and know EXACTLY what would happen if I wasn't safe with a gun. Hell, most of the respect I learned I learned from shooting. At 10 I had a huge amount of disdain for most of my school because of that. I was able to realize that most of them were being immature idiots and not to copy what they did. Anyone who would argue video games causes violence in a NORMAL person would have to be an idiot. Unless they're under 8 or have mental issues then people already have their morals, shooting in game fake things isn't going to change them.

(Hope that was formed into a coherent wall of text, Its 1 in the morning and I spent way to much time writting that)

Gummy:
I also don't like your use of statistics, 'there are 40% more deaths caused by motor vehicles than guns' says nothing, I assure you the population of motor vehicle users is a lot more than 40% higher than the number of people that own or are regularly around guns.

Good point. Seeing how much higher the number of people owning a driver's license and driving is than the number of users legally owning guns, but showing similar numbers of kills just shows how much higher the chances are for you to be hit by a stray (or intentional) bullet than to be hit on a road, in the case of equal numbers of cars & guns. The only thing why there are fewer gun related deaths is the constant exposure of the modern man to motor vehicles (this doesn't cover drunk rednecks driving and shooting at the same time).

The fact the most of the morons from things like MW2 can get fire arms scares the hell out of me. Unless your gonna go hunting you dont need a gun, and if you want to shoot targets get a .22.

I objected to this article the first time it was published, and I still object to it now.

This isn't journalism, this is a cardboard comparison between a potentially deadly, dangerous and unnecessary hobby and a harmless, completely unrelated one. It is using flawed logic and completely irrelevant statistics like the car deaths comparison (which, as someone already pointed out, does not include or consider the greater numbers and percentages of people with cars compared to guns) to promote this dangerous hobby.

This article will, quite likely, encourage gamers to (responsibly or not) take on and defend a hobby that is indefensible except in places where it is a legal one, which could mean more pressure for "the right to bear arms" to spread to places where it is quite emphatically not needed. Like my country.

Take your gun loving to a gun magazine read by Americans. This is a gaming magazine read by the whole world. While it might be appropriate in America, nations where arm-bearing is not considered a right are, to say the least, uninterested in this information.

I have used guns since I was a little kid starting off with simple air soft rifles and working my way up to proper rifles. I agree with the point about education and knowledge of weapons because the one thing that was drilled into my mind about them was to respect them and always remember that they can kill a person if something goes slightly wrong or if I do something stupid.

Most of of my knowledge of guns came from hearing about them in a game or some where else and then doing research into them myself. Even though I know I can't buy them due to them being illegal I am still curious about them and how they work.

Very impressive and dissisive article. I whole-heartedly agree with many of the points in here, but of course, disagree with some. And I will not stand for someone taking away my rights as a human being that I've had for more than 200 years before I was born. People will kill no matter what. It's not the guns' fault that people are killing, it's the people. They'd do it with anything they could find.

Sad, really, when you think about it.

I grew up shooting a Winchester Model 69 and a 69A and a M1 Carbine long before I got into "murder simulators"/FPS games.

I was saddened when Columbine happened and get angry when politicians in blue states think that removing all guns makes society safer. It doesn't.

Barry Soetoro/Barrack Hussein Obama's Chicago...handguns are banned there,but it's more violent there than ever. 8 people died,and 52 were shot..
http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/chicago-out-of-control-mayor

I thought these blue states were the safe havens from the evil gun toting red states..apparently not.
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my rifles combined..and I have about 8 of them.ALL of them are "vintage/old" guns.

I've been gaming and shooting guns since the 1980s and I live in Alaska..you would think the odds are that I would have had to shoot someone or something(charging bear,charging moose) by now.

I still say I would rather get up close and personal with my pocketknife if someone had intent to kill me whether I am in my car or my house..why use a gun? It's just more ammunition for politicians to take away legal guns in legal citizen's hands.

Fuck..give me a hammer and let me bludgeon the sonofabitch to death..a lot more bloody,but maybe after a few dozen hammer deaths,they will be licensed and registered and not sold to anyone under 18 and have to pass a NICS/FBI background check.

Citizens,put down your guns and pick up your chainsaws,your axes and your hammers..guns are for n00bs..strike down your enemy with your tool made of iron and wood.

BrotherRool:
snip

Agree about the statistics. There's a quote from around the turn of the century that goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." While statistics have their uses, they can easily mislead, and should always be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, numbers never lie -- but that's only because they don't say very much.

BrotherRool:
You're also falling into the trap of 1 death is a tragedy and 30 000 is a statistic. Sure 15 000 deliberate shootings is a lower number than 30 000. But listen. 15 000 people died. That's every single person you have every loved or known in this world. Maybe it's every single person you've ever had contact with. You can't fob it off with comparisons, instead you've got to look at each life and wonder if it was really worth losing.

This is a bit impractical I think. The idea you're trying to get across is that human life is invaluable, and therefore should be protected at all costs, but if policy makers adhered to the letter of that sort of ideology, we'd all live in gov. issued bubble suits (exaggerating, of course). There has to be a point at which you just say, "it's worth the risk that some people are going to die." Where that point is has to be determined by comparing the number of potential fatalities to the cost of preventing them. It's an abstract, blurry point, but it exists, and it needs a good hard looking at.

...I forget (or never heard), is it the liberals or the conservatives advocating fire-arms regulations?

Ari Brown:

There's a saying that goes: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and I tend to think that has weight to it. Do video games make children more violent? I can't say but if my knowledge of history has taught me anything, if someone wants to kill badly enough, they'll find a way. The method is just pudding.

destiaer:
It's not the guns' fault that people are killing, it's the people. They'd do it with anything they could find.

But why make it easy for them?

At least with a melee weapon, the killer is less detached from the violence. it takes more passion and motivation to club or stab someone to death. it's personal, rather than a thoughtless, distant, even accidental pull of a trigger. if someone is forced to confront the brutality of their actions right in their face, it may force them to calm down and reconsider the taking of another human life. and even if they are still committed to follow through, at least the victim would have a vastly improved chance of survival. much easier to run away from a bat than a bullet

destiaer:

And I will not stand for someone taking away my rights as a human being that I've had for more than 200 years before I was born.

It's not a human right to own a weapon. it may be a constitutional right in your nation, and that just makes you fortunate (or unfortunate) to be born there.
I think that any government that upholds such a right should put priorities like education and healthcare even higher though. Education because everyone should know why such a right exists, how it came to be and why it should not be abused. and healthcare, because with that many guns around you're going to need it.

by the way, it just occurred to me that the constitutional right to bear arms doesn't (to my knowledge) specify firearms. it could mean swords or clubs or flails.
If bombs or grenades or rocket launchers are contraband, these are just as much 'arms' as guns. why not ban guns too, and just allow people to carry swords?
---

RvLeshrac:

Where do you think all those terrorists get weapons?

The government supplied them

RvLeshrac:

In most of the first world, it would be considered treason, which is a capital offence, to sell weapons to terrorists.

Interesting point, are you saying the govt should be tried for treason? bold words my friend, got the balls to follow through?

Gummy:

RvLeshrac:

Where do you think all those terrorists get weapons?

The government supplied them

RvLeshrac:

In most of the first world, it would be considered treason, which is a capital offence, to sell weapons to terrorists.

Interesting point, are you saying the govt should be tried for treason? bold words my friend, got the balls to follow through?

Yes. What I don't have is the trillions of dollars necessary.

Nice try at snark, though. Really amazing how you called me out by re-stating what was obviously my point to begin with. You're clearly related to the awesome guy what explains the joke not five seconds after it was told.

A lot of the people who scream about banning guns "for the children" or for whatever self righteous high horse reason they have are the same people who scream that weed and other drugs ought to be legalized or else the smugglers will have their monopoly need to remember something. If crooks and killers want to get their hands on a gun, they can get it from the Black Market with little difficulty. Your beloved mommy state can't stop them because the soulless legislators in Washington/Ottawa/London/Berlin/Tokyo/Moscow that you worship can't stop the flow of illegal goods. They couldn't stop something as impotent as alchahol, they can't stop the trade of something as powerful as weapons. If there's a will there will always be a way. All you'd be doing is keeping the guns out of the hands of responsible, law abiding people. It's not as if people need guns to kill anyway. Once again, if there's a will, there's a way.

Not saying I disagree with the article but

is just not a good comparison - not because cars and guns are eternal in America blah blah see comment above, but because there are far more cars owners in america than there are gun owners - the figures don't mean shit because you can't compare them like this. The numbers should be a least near each other to compare, or use percentages, not just blindly say "oh yeah, and there are far more deaths in car accidents." It's like comparing the death-by-guns to a natural death, or death-by-cancer or something.

I understand you might argue that it is about it being dangerous rather than the actual figures, but it's something to keep in the back of your mind: people are driving a lot more without lethal accidents, the actual chance of getting in a lethal car accident is way lower than the chance of getting shot to death.

Also, I see a difference between cars and guns in use: cars are there for transporing you, whilst guns are made for killing. How can you compare those two without further information or arguments?

/rant now, I agree with the rest of the article.

Great article. Showing this at my local range tomorrow to illustrate a point. Every week we get yahoos and city kids coming in for the day with newly bought gear from the local sporting goods store, who have no idea about gun safety. They just want to be like the Special Forces joes they see in COD or MOH. Everytime I feel like I'll get shot standing next to them, not due to malice, but to ignorance.

Thanks again for a great article. Really well put forward.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here