U.S. Senator Takes Pro-NRA, Anti-GTA Stance

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

CCountZero:

GunsmithKitten:

I'll tell you what.

You get my country to legally require the police to respond to a call for help, to actually protect the citizens and live up to that "Serve and Protect" written on the cars, to actually enforce legal restraining orders, and you know what? I'll surrender all three of my firearms.

How's that grab you?

Well.

For what it's worth, if I lived in the US, I'd have a .45 Semi-Auto on a belt holster with three magazines slapped on there for good measure, plus a .357 Revolver as backup, both with lasers slapped on for those tricky close-encounter or under-the-couch shots, and a powerful handheld light for blinding and "stabbing".

Preferably secured behind en electronic thumbprint lock, even though I don't have kids.

That doesn't mean I'm not happy about living in a place that doesn't make me think that's necessary to protect myself though.

It's not reasonable to think that banning guns will fix anything at this point. They're out there, and there's far too many of them to start collecting them one by one.

However, the thing that scares me the most about people carrying guns openly, outside of their own homes, is how it's possible to own one without proper instruction.

Has anyone ever actually done an off-the-street survey in an open-carry state, on people who were carrying at the time, asking fundamental questions like "What are the basic firearm safety rules?"

The good old "My father taught me" excuse just doesn't really cut it for me.

EDIT: Whoops, seems something odd happened, and the wrong guy got named on the quote. Fixed.

OMG you quoted me accidentally! How dare you, I'll sue! xD

Hmmm, you know when you think about it quite a few gamers must be gun enthusiasts. Particularly the 1st person shooter crowd. I mean I understand the attraction of a gun, sounds like you do too given how detailed you thought about what weapons you'd carry around (:D).

So, when the NRA bad mouths gamers they're kind of badmouthing themselves. I guess that's why no one took what they had to say seriously.

My Gawd that was a bad speech! Did WAY more harm that good for them. :P

To be honest, for all the raving and caterwauling we need to make over this business of video-game scapegoating, this guy doesn't exacaly seem like the "RAWR RAWR VIDEOGAMES MUST BE BANNED RAWR" we've all started to paint him as.

I mean, he hasn't said "GTA defiantly caused this and should be banned forever no exceptions and fuck you if you think I'm wrong," More "Ya know, there might be a link here? Maybe we should look into it, you know?"

His wording on that, plus the fact that he went on to argue against having assault rifles for hunting (and then people saying "Oh, what, he thinks machine guns are OK but games aren't?" Which, you know, kind of contradicts the report...) Tells me that he's working less on some sort of bias agenda, and more on a vaguely understandable form of logic.

I mean, the games reward you for violence. Common sense and some psychology says that that'll cause a reaction to make the people wanna do it some more. And granted, more common sense dictates that it might well make it less likely to escalate, and there are studies that show that it actually doesn't really have any effect at all, but I think this comes into play here:

"Never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity."

By which I mean: This guy isn't going after video games because something something eeeeevil twat who can't get on with the future. He just seems like a dude that wants research done into this, without knowing that research already HAS been done on it. So I'm personally not going to discredit him too much for that - although, a bit of research into topics before mentioning them wouldn't go too far amiss next time.

People love to deflect responsibility and use other things to scapegoat the true problems that cause such horrible things to happen for one reason or another... Is the media way to violent and open at times? YES. Is it the sole reason for such acts? NO. Is it even one of the top 5 reasons for such acts? I say NO... My two biggest problems are parenting and how we deal with mental health issues in our society. Those two subjects are hard to deal with without getting into major fights about ones right on how one should parent and honestly not every case is the same.

You can have good parents, but still have a bad child and vise versa, then there is the problem of diagnosing and recognizing if a child has a mental illness and how to handle such a issue as a parent. So better educating society and soon to be parents on signs that a child might have some form of mental illness and addressing it properly is the first step in a better direction.

Falsename:
It's their job to protect.

You don't know much about American legal history, do you?

There are multiple cases where the courts have found that the police are under no legal obligation to protect people. None. They are not required to respond to 911. They are not required to enforce a restraining order.

They don't even have to pursue if a 12 year old child has just been kidnapped after her mother's murder.

And if you do believe it then you're clearly lacking in experience with actual police officers or are letting one experience weigh your judgement.

Or, I actually know my American legal history.

If you don't believe the cops are doing there job, fine. That sure as hell doesn't give you the right to sell powerful weapons to defend yourself with. You shouldn't take the law into your own hands.

Who is responsible for my protection then? The American government has already decided that the police and military are not responsible.

And now I know you're going to say something like "so I should just be defenseless????" to which my response would be, Yes. Fully and whole heartedly yes. Crime happens! It's unfortunate. Just hold on tight while going through life and hope it doesn't happen to you.

Why should I do that?

You're trying to tell me that you want guns because of what 'might' happen to you one day.

No might to it. IT DID HAPPEN.

But then you probably think it's a GOOD idea to have armed volunteer patrolling schools.

Nope. I'm okay with an armed police officer or trained and armed security employee, but not some yahoo.

You think the answer is MORE guns.

WRong AGAIN.

I simply don't believe we should move the direction of abolition of firearms, I believe we should more effectively enforce the laws we have on guns right now.

It's alright though, like racism back in the day the world will slowly remove these terrible ideals like a sickness. We're evolving and you can either get on board with the rest of us or remain stubborn in the ocean. We're not going to wait for you, but you are delaying the process. So thank you for your contribution to humanity, but sooner or later you will be left behind.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to render myself helpless so people in different circumstances can feel better.

Alex Baas:

FelixG:
People need GTA about as much as they need 30 round magazines. They really dont need either, but both are fun to have!

I applaud you sir. That statement is so neutral, wow

I never claimed to be neutral.

I am just not a person who blames inanimate objects for actions when it is a person with serious mental defects that did it.

Dont blame a hammer when you hit your thumb with it? Dont blame a car when a drunk driver runs some pedestrian over? ect

So his response to this kind of massacre is: promote real guns, ban fake guns.

What.

Capitano Segnaposto:

MikeWehner:
U.S. Senator Takes Pro-NRA, Anti-GTA Stance

image

Politician avoids criticism of gun industry, but Grand Theft Auto is fair game.

As the United States once again participates in a heated debate on topics like gun control, mental health issues, and the like, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin has made his feelings known. In an interview with West Virginia's Metro News, the democrat from West Virginia notes that he is a proud supporter of the NRA, but questions whether Grand Theft Auto titles should perhaps be pulled from store shelves.

After firmly stating that he refuses to let the NRA or anyone else "be villainized," Manchin sets his sights on Rockstar's flagship franchise. ""Look at Grand Theft Auto, put out by Rockstar Games in New York City and see what it promotes." Adding later, "Shouldn't that be looked into and maybe be banned?"

Well, for someone who refused to point fingers, Manchin certainly seems to be extending a digit in the direction of the video game industry.

The Senator also engaged in discussion regarding the banning of assault weapons, noting "I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

And he's right; This is a topic that is not only sensitive to just about everyone, but also has a multitude of angles and inspires passionate opinions. But while we're being careful to not step on the toes of everyone from gun owners to mental health practitioners, shouldn't the same care be given to the developers and publishers of videogames? I'll leave that to you to decide.

Source: Metro News via Gameranx

Permalink

Yes, lets ban GTA, a work of fiction. While we are at it, lets ban books, music, and movies that also have violence in them. As we all know, they are the true villian.

/sarcasm

I think we are going to start taking Prosiam. Equilibrium style

The media is to blame, they give these shooters exactly what they want.

Falsename:

OMG you quoted me accidentally! How dare you, I'll sue! xD

Hmmm, you know when you think about it quite a few gamers must be gun enthusiasts. Particularly the 1st person shooter crowd. I mean I understand the attraction of a gun, sounds like you do too given how detailed you thought about what weapons you'd carry around (:D).

So, when the NRA bad mouths gamers they're kind of badmouthing themselves. I guess that's why no one took what they had to say seriously.

My Gawd that was a bad speech! Did WAY more harm that good for them. :P

I'll happily admit that I am what one might describe as a "gun-nut", despite not owning any myself.
I like that I don't have to, in order to feel safe.

As for gamers liking guns, I think you're absolutely right. Many of us probably have that... primal? fascination with them.

I do think that can be somewhat dangerous as well, though, outside of the US especially.

I don't believe that video games can ever make violent criminals out of sane human beings, but I do believe that they might give us a more... well, anyway, it might make some of us think we know how to handle a gun safely, even when we don't.

Now, not living in the US, I can't really be speaking for all of the Yanks here, but if I was living there, I'd certainly make sure I knew how to handle a firearm, and would ensure that the people closest to me did too, whether any of us owned one or not.
As such, if anyone I knew happened upon a firearm, they would know what to do, but more importantly, what not to do.

In nations without freely available firearms, despite that being my own preference, I do believe that games might have the negative effect of giving gamers a very casual relationship with said firearms.

There are many factors of firing a gun that games can't provide, recoil being one example.
But there are oh so many that they could provide, but choose not to, just like movies.
Sheer volume of sound from the rounds being fired. Games, even the ones with supposed "good sound effects", just don't get this right. They don't make it imposing, or violent, and it is.

In short, I think games give people a very wrong idea about firearms, and sometimes this causes people who aren't normally around guns, to behave in a very harmful manner when they happen upon one. It's not unheard of for a 15-year-old to find a weapon hidden in a bush, and accidentally shoot a friend with it, because he decided to "have a little fun".

As for myself, if I was a bit younger, I'd fit the "school shooter" profile perfectly. Introvert diagnosed Aspergian with a fascination for firearms and a bunch of instructional DVDs, plus a SWAT4 and ArmA clan with ex-professionals to fill in the rest.

I like guns, and I decided to take it seriously, and at this point I've done everything in the Bolt-Action department, and have the theory down for Autos, although I've never fired an Automatic. Had in my hands, yes. Fired, no.

I consider myself safe around weapons, but I also believe that I'm one of the few people who moved from Call of Duty to actually learning something real.

Anyway, sorry for a messy post, I'm writing this in cooking-breaks. 17 family members, lot of food to prepare :P

Falsename:
You're kidding, right? What about that gunshow loophole?

There actually is no gun show loophole, at least not legally. By federal law, all local, state, and federal laws for selling guns must be adhered to at a gun show. This includes the laws of the place where the transaction is taking place and the places of residence of the dealer and customer. According to federal law, gun shows are just as secure if not more secure than normal channels.

The problem is that the laws are not always adhered to. To close this particular loop hole we need better enforcement, not new laws.

So apparently this guy thinks that NRA has lots of supporters, so you can't say bad things about them, but GTA doesn't have any supporters so you can say bad things about it? Didn't GTA sell millions of copies, lots of them to people of voting age? This seems like a bad idea too. Them vida' games is bigger then you think Senator.

DataSnake:

Mr.Tea:
Games/Movies don't kill people; People kill people ...with guns.

Guns don't kill people...but they sure help.

NRA Logic: "Keys don't open locks, people open locks!"

GunsmithKitten:

Falsename:
It's their job to protect.

You don't know much about American legal history, do you?

There are multiple cases where the courts have found that the police are under no legal obligation to protect people. None. They are not required to respond to 911. They are not required to enforce a restraining order.

They don't even have to pursue if a 12 year old child has just been kidnapped after her mother's murder.

And if you do believe it then you're clearly lacking in experience with actual police officers or are letting one experience weigh your judgement.

Or, I actually know my American legal history.

If you don't believe the cops are doing there job, fine. That sure as hell doesn't give you the right to sell powerful weapons to defend yourself with. You shouldn't take the law into your own hands.

Who is responsible for my protection then? The American government has already decided that the police and military are not responsible.

And now I know you're going to say something like "so I should just be defenseless????" to which my response would be, Yes. Fully and whole heartedly yes. Crime happens! It's unfortunate. Just hold on tight while going through life and hope it doesn't happen to you.

Why should I do that?

You're trying to tell me that you want guns because of what 'might' happen to you one day.

No might to it. IT DID HAPPEN.

But then you probably think it's a GOOD idea to have armed volunteer patrolling schools.

Nope. I'm okay with an armed police officer or trained and armed security employee, but not some yahoo.

You think the answer is MORE guns.

WRong AGAIN.

I simply don't believe we should move the direction of abolition of firearms, I believe we should more effectively enforce the laws we have on guns right now.

It's alright though, like racism back in the day the world will slowly remove these terrible ideals like a sickness. We're evolving and you can either get on board with the rest of us or remain stubborn in the ocean. We're not going to wait for you, but you are delaying the process. So thank you for your contribution to humanity, but sooner or later you will be left behind.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to render myself helpless so people in different circumstances can feel better.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-25/us-firefighters-killed-in-christmas-eve-gun-attack/4443240

Nuff said. I wouldn't expect someone who sells guns for a living to not be bias. Unfortunately for you the gun laws are going to change and all your ignorant "I must defend myself from the world!" ideals won't last long.

It was fun talking with you. If I were you I'd start stockpiling your favourite weapons before the Gov'ment takes 'em from ya.

Falsename:

Nuff said. I wouldn't expect someone who sells guns for a living to not be bias. Unfortunately for you the gun laws are going to change and all your ignorant "I must defend myself from the world!" ideals won't last long.

Yea, my ideal won't last long.

But in the meantime, will my police be legally required to live up to their slogan and protect me? Doubtful

It was fun talking with you. If I were you I'd start stockpiling your favourite weapons before the Gov'ment takes 'em from ya.

Unless it's retroactive, my own "stockpile" is fine. If you can call two pistols and a shotgun a stockpile, anyway.

Nothing to see here.

Just another idiot in office running his mouth with out understanding what he saying cause he thinks its what people want to hear

Falsename:
ote]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-25/us-firefighters-killed-in-christmas-eve-gun-attack/4443240

i heard about that. its disgusting.

but if you think the USA government is going to get off they're collective asses and actually DO something, you really need to pay closer attention.

only way guns will get banned is if the people who bought the politicians in congress want them banned

FelixG:
People need GTA about as much as they need 30 round magazines. They really dont need either, but both are fun to have!

Except one of those can kill somebody?
But yeah, this is all BS, funny thing is this sort of old-person backlash is very common among new media, such as films and even books!

Oh I miss chatterbox.

Sizzle Montyjing:

FelixG:
People need GTA about as much as they need 30 round magazines. They really dont need either, but both are fun to have!

Except one of those can kill somebody?

Well if we want to be smartasses a magazine killing someone is very very rare. :P

oh I can see all I need to see why he's doing this in the opening sentence and this little tid bit of information:

West Virginia notes that he is a proud supporter of the NRA

Id be willing to bet they pay to fund his office.

Besides, he's from west virginia. if there's a state that loves gun ownership more I dont know. Plus I think there's something inherently wrong with all people from west virginia (oh the jokes, the jokes and experiences that can be shared). So yeah, I dont think this is really NEWS, at least in the sense that I wouldnt really expect anyhting else from that guys mouth.

FelixG:

Sizzle Montyjing:

FelixG:
People need GTA about as much as they need 30 round magazines. They really dont need either, but both are fun to have!

Except one of those can kill somebody?

Well if we want to be smartasses a magazine killing someone is very very rare. :P

Pixels even rarer my friend, besides, depends what magazine if we're gonna get all technical about it. If it's for some sort of stunted-growth pistol, then yeah, gonna be hard. (unless if used to choke someone, the perfect crime!)

Capitano Segnaposto:

MikeWehner:
U.S. Senator Takes Pro-NRA, Anti-GTA Stance

image

Politician avoids criticism of gun industry, but Grand Theft Auto is fair game.

As the United States once again participates in a heated debate on topics like gun control, mental health issues, and the like, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin has made his feelings known. In an interview with West Virginia's Metro News, the democrat from West Virginia notes that he is a proud supporter of the NRA, but questions whether Grand Theft Auto titles should perhaps be pulled from store shelves.

After firmly stating that he refuses to let the NRA or anyone else "be villainized," Manchin sets his sights on Rockstar's flagship franchise. ""Look at Grand Theft Auto, put out by Rockstar Games in New York City and see what it promotes." Adding later, "Shouldn't that be looked into and maybe be banned?"

Well, for someone who refused to point fingers, Manchin certainly seems to be extending a digit in the direction of the video game industry.

The Senator also engaged in discussion regarding the banning of assault weapons, noting "I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

And he's right; This is a topic that is not only sensitive to just about everyone, but also has a multitude of angles and inspires passionate opinions. But while we're being careful to not step on the toes of everyone from gun owners to mental health practitioners, shouldn't the same care be given to the developers and publishers of videogames? I'll leave that to you to decide.

Source: Metro News via Gameranx

Permalink

Yes, lets ban GTA, a work of fiction. While we are at it, lets ban books, music, and movies that also have violence in them. As we all know, they are the true villian.

/sarcasm

What's ridiculous is that if any major politician in any major democracy talked about banning any particular book/music/movie, human rights groups would rage at them, their electorate would rage at them, minority rights groups would rage at them, it would be political suicide. The fact it's not for games is RIDICULOUS.

I mean, i get WHY they are. People from the previous generation still think games are nothing more than toys. We ban toys all the time because they're considered harmful for children in one way or another. But games aren't toys! THIS CAUSES ME SO MUCH RAGE!

The next generation just needs to retire so we can have an actual, calm, rational discussion about games.

Also, games need to mature and begin dealing with stories that DON'T involve excessive violence. It would really help their cause if they could point to a series of games that were in genre's such as "romance", "drama" and "comedy" instead of genre's simply denoting what perspective you can shoot people in, and how many skills you can alter to facilitate that shooting.

But that's probably a better discussion for another time.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/01/17/05/00/obama-unveils-500m-gun-violence-package

HaHAR!

You can suck it. And YOU can suck it. And you can suck it. You can suck it especially!
Suck it. Suck it. Suck it. Suck it.

Turns out there are some people out there with intelligence, and lucky for America they finally put one in as President!

It's just a shame ignorance of the Gun nuts will prevent them from actually handing in their automatic weapons and magazines. But still, you're getting there.

I was just reading things on the net and one moment on cracked lead to this page. And weirdly enough I thought of you. So I thought I'd share. :)

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/01/gun_appreciation_day_bloodshed.html

(Shame to hear you were suspended. I'm sure it was a misunderstanding....*ahem*)

To quote PA: "It's an odd sort of Patriot to destroy the First Amendment in order to protect the Second."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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
Registered for a free account here