Ryan Lambourn's Slaying Of Sandy Hook Draws Condemnation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Simple logic:

BreakfastMan:

Simple logic:

What is wrong with you people? Why? I ask. Why are you playing a game in which you kill kids and teachers? Why not play a game in which you kill just Jews, or Black people, or Native Americans? What is the appeal of this game that compels you kill do horrific acts in a game? Don't get me wrong as I love a good shooter as the next. Heck I play sniper elite quite often. Why, though, do you have the desire to kill children and the defenseless?

I don't really have any strong desire to kill children. I do have a strong desire to fully explore the message and themes of a work, which in this case requires the player to play all 3 game modes.

So would you play through a game that makes you play a Nazi in camp where you need to get a body count as high as possible? Do you play a game where you need to rape as many women as possible to get a good score? Do you play these games just to understand it message? I hope not. There are some subjects, those that evil by their nature, that should never be explored in this manner.

I don't see how. What makes a game different from a film exploring these ideas and themes? Is The Basketball Diaries acceptable, but this somehow isn't? How about Richard Bachmann's Rage? If you think the point of the game is to be a fun shmup, you are sorely mistaken, as the game is clunky and slow, lacking in detail, and completely absent of any "positive feedback" noises. It uses the interactivity of games and the language of games to convey it's message.

CM156:
snip

What else do you want me to call them? level headed and rational, as proven by your next paragraph, they are not.

What if I told you that even with our guns laws (UK) people don't get there home invaded, then slaughtered nearly at all? What if I told you that a lot of people aren't even home when they are robbed?

See what I mean about being paranoid? "What if somebody breaks in and wants to kill me?", I've been alive 24 years and I don't even know anyone who has had there home broken into or mugged on the street ... it's not fallout or mad max, we live in a "civilized" first world (by which I mean we aren't killing daily but we aren't exactly making sure everybody is ok).

What if you're driving a car and it crashes? Better not drive! Could be knocked over, better not go outside! A part of living is "well I could be mugged/beaten up etc" you can't walk around scared of them scenarios. I don't carry a knife, knuckle dusters, a bat or a Kubotan 'cos I refuse to be intimidated or scared of them possibilities. Don't get me wrong, I keep my head down, avoid groups and walking around alone at night but I'm not going to invest in body armor or equipment to defend myself.

Again this guy makes an offensive video game and uses the made up excuse of, "its for gun awareness." This game will do exactly what his last game did and that's draw negative attention away from the actual event it was based on and make it another damn video game issue. Thanks buddy, your stupid method of getting a convoluted message across is again missed due to your need for attention by insulting people using a medium that is already under false fire for spreading violence, great job you prick!

... I don't know what to think of this.

After playing the game just long enough to see what gun control mode was like, I was done with it. Not touching it again. It's incredibly disturbing, and was clearly meant to be. The thing felt almost intentionally (literally) painful to play with the way the controls were set up and stuff.

Honestly, what pissed me off wasn't that the creator had the gull to use a tragedy to make a point, but the humour involved in doing so. Like, what the fuck? The fuck is wrong with that guy? what an asshole. I guess it was supposed to juxtapose the horrific feel of the whole thing, to further the disturbing factor. But it just feels like a bad, overly offensive political cartoon.

I see a lot of potential in games as satire, but this game is just disrespectful bullshit. Once it gets to it's point, it becomes a game equivalent of some teenager's self-masturbatory message board post.

Deriving humour from the real life deaths of innocents, especially children, is abhorrent. No matter the point. Maybe there was more to it that I missed, but pretty much all value went out the door as soon as the snarky text boxes came up as far as I care.

I just finished playing through all 3 modes and I'm still stuck for an opinion on it. I tried to go in and play it without any previous thoughts or opinions and to simply play it as a game. Here's a small review.

Firstly, It looks great despite how simple it is. The minimal yet vibrant backgrounds juxtaposed against the black silhouettes of desks, toilets, chalkboards and running children look aesthetically surreal and really hone in the air of innocence that surrounds a school.
Even the player looks great. A silhouetted, slightly humanoid figure that seems to warp and evaporate in monstrous ways as it moves, with legs turning liquid-esque dripping on the ground. This shooter is far from normal, far from human.
Even the "tutorial" messages telling, almost forcing you, to pick up a gun and kill your mother seem schizophrenically apt. Whether the specific mental illness reflects well to the Sandy Hook incident is another thing, but it does drill a certain tone in to the game.

The music, or lack of, in the first part of the game works well too. Making you truly feel like it's you, and you alone who's doing what your doing and invading this colourfull innocence. The latter half of the game chooses to go with a hip hop-screamo-electro song as its soundtrack which, personally, I felt detracted from the game. With lyrics about gun control being screamed it suddenly lost all subtlety. The game itself is hardly subtle, but when the soundtrack starts dropping the "N" word and using phrases like "NRA Swag" it just feels much more teen-angst and silly, rather than thought provoking.

Controls and movements are bare minimum. A little clunky and slow, which actually make it slightly tricky to hit targets when they're moving around. There's a few nice touches to the gameplay, like having to repeatably kick a door if it gets blocked or locked, which I thought looked visually, quite well made despite the simple nature of the graphics. Do the controls need to be great though for something like this? I'm not sure.

The first of three gameplay modes is 'Historic', in which you have access to an AR-15 that you easily access at home. After killing your sleeping mother you basically set about the school hunting in toilets, classrooms and a gym for pupils and teachers. It think the important thing to stress is that it's not enjoyable. Actively searching under dark desks, looking for hidden survivors to kill, felt quite wrong and genuinely shocking leaving a rather uneasy feeling in my gut.

Before starting the second mode "Gun Control" I was expecting the obvious message to kick in here. I'd read a few articles on the game, and even the one here on The Escapist mentioned the 2nd game mode as "must remove the AR-15 from a locked gun safe - and cannot." I was expecting that to be it. Being able to progress no further and for the games message to end there. However it isn't necessary as message inducing as you think, or at least not the one you thought. Yes you can't pick up the AR-15 at the start, but instead you pick up a katana and continue to kill everyone in the school anyway. I thought it worth mentioning that I got my highest score, for killing the most people, in this mode out of the three.

The 3rd mode, Eagletears, is also worth a mention as it's choosing to cater to an often talked about debate. In this mode the teachers are armed with pistols. I realised though, that they unable to hurt you with them, even after standing still and letting them fire at me. They can, however, accidentally kill a child.

In general I do feel like the game is trying to do something positive but it just isn't sure what. It feels a little immature at moments and drifts off in to "being a game" rather than "being a statement" It is a game after all is said and done, but it's not a very good one - whereas it has some potential of being a good statement.
The messages it tries to convey are not as black and white as it would at first seem either. The fact that you still manage to go on a huge killing spree despite having access to the AR-15 seems to poke a little fun at the notion of tighter gun controls preventing these situations, and the mode where teachers are armed has no different outcome either.

I'm glad I played it instead of judging it without, like the masses reportedly are doing. Whatever the message the creator wants to convey through this game, I don't think he deserves any of the hate he's getting. There's definitely something positive trying to be said with it amongst the ambiguity, rather than just being 'shocking to gain attention' but I do feel it could be done with a little more maturity.

omega 616:

CM156:
snip

What else do you want me to call them? level headed and rational, as proven by your next paragraph, they are not.

What if I told you that even with our guns laws (UK) people don't get there home invaded, then slaughtered nearly at all? What if I told you that a lot of people aren't even home when they are robbed?

See what I mean about being paranoid? "What if somebody breaks in and wants to kill me?", I've been alive 24 years and I don't even know anyone who has had there home broken into or mugged on the street ... it's not fallout or mad max, we live in a "civilized" first world (by which I mean we aren't killing daily but we aren't exactly making sure everybody is ok).

What if you're driving a car and it crashes? Better not drive! Could be knocked over, better not go outside! A part of living is "well I could be mugged/beaten up etc" you can't walk around scared of them scenarios. I don't carry a knife, knuckle dusters, a bat or a Kubotan 'cos I refuse to be intimidated or scared of them possibilities. Don't get me wrong, I keep my head down, avoid groups and walking around alone at night but I'm not going to invest in body armor or equipment to defend myself.

The accusation that gun owners are paranoid, or by extension, scared, is ridiculous. We have guns. What do we need to be scared of? Willingness and preparedness to use lethal force to protect oneself is not paranoia.

And yes, life has risks. Every risk I take is calculated. Assuming the best about someone who has broken into my home is not a risk I'm willing to take. If getting shot by a homeowner isn't a risk they're willing to take, they shouldn't have broken into a home. It's really that simple.

I've never had my home broken into while I was there. I live in a middle class suburban area, so crime really isn't that bad. But not all people live in areas where the police can be there in minutes. Add that to the fact that police are only accountable for general order in society and not individual safety, no law can ensure my safety as much as turning off the safety can.

Finally, it's well established in US case law that people have the right to own guns for self defense within their home. It's not likely to change anytime soon, so making an argument to the tune of "What about the poor burglar?" is likely to get you laughed out of the discussion in America.

News casters response: "How dare they make a real-world tragedy into mass-market entertainment that's OUR JOB"

... Satire!

CM156:
snip

Yeah, you're not scared and paranoid 'cos you have a gun. You ARE scared and paranoid 'cos you got a gun ... get it? If you weren't scared and paranoid you wouldn't have a gun 'cos you would think "why do I need a gun?".

It is why school shootings will always happen in America, you're attached to your blankey too much to even consider not having them, which means guns will always be available to the people who will shoot up schools. As Tyler Durden said "JUST. LET. GO!".

You know, I don't like star treck Enterprise but I was forced to endure an Episode but it was about a race of aliens kidnapped and enslaved humans, the humans rose up and over threw the aliens, it was then made law that the aliens couldn't be taught (and basically treated with respect) in case they enslaved humans again. So the conflict was the enlightened Enterprise crew trying to liberate the aliens and get the law changed ... this is the problem with the US and gun laws. The laws are from when you thought the English were going to try and re-take America, now you are using them to justify having guns in any civilian hands.

You say "I need a gun to defend myself with" so, when are you buying the body armor? What about some self defense classes? Oh, you know they say the best defense is to just run away, you doing some cardio work outs? You got a great home security? Bullet proof windows? Got a little camera to see who is at the door? Panic room? What is the safety rating on your car? Even better what about armor plating your car? You know, gotta be safe! You probably have a zombie plan (come on who doesn't?) but do you have a "America has been invaded" plan? Got your sandbags and barbwire ready? Basement full of tinned food and bottled water?

Sad thing is, some people would answer yes to a lot of that ...

omega 616:
At first I did have the knee jerk "some sick fucks in the world" but even just skimming the article, my opinions changed from "yeah, of course there is some political point to it AKA shit I am getting a lot of heat for this, quick make up an excuse" but after reading it (especially the gun safe bit), I am kind of with the guy.

I mean Columbine, Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech (probably missing out on a good number of them as well) all took place and 6 months later nobody even talks about it. It's like a media frenzy for 2 weeks after the event and then it's yesterdays news.

Piers Morgan went over and even though he is a wretched human being, he kind of had a point but from I what I saw it turned into "fuck this limey dick! What does he know about 'murica?".

Just think the conversation should carry on, without people who have a financial investment in it. I know Americans love there amendments and constitutional rights but it's almost 2014, shouldn't they be reconsidered for the modern age?

Just having a quick skim on the wiki, I can't speak lawyer but it sounds a little ... founding fathers to me. "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless of service in a militia." I mean, when was the last time any American was in a Militia?

"Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes enabling the people enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement
deterring tyrannical government
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
facilitating a natural right of self-defense. "

What are the chances some of them are going to happen? The most likely are "participating in law enforcement" and "facilitating a natural right of self-defense" but "repelling invasion" and "deterring tyrannical government" ... seriously? Although you really should be deterring your tyrannical government at the moment, then again it would be hard to organize what with NSA watching ... listening ...

(Sorry, I got a little ranty/carried away)

i would of thought the modern version of their "milita" would be the national guard/police

It's funny, how people with outrage over stuff like this, while some Chinese boy is suffocating under some rocks in an insanely deep mine somewhere, as his last heartbeats are spent contemplating over why his mother sold him to the mine owner. Or how people are making WWII games, or Cold War movies, and that just goes over peoples' heads.

Yes, it's a tradegy, and it's sick that someone made something like this. Just as long as Blockbuster keeps selling Saving Private Ryan for 25% off.

omega 616:
Yeah, you're not scared and paranoid 'cos you have a gun. You ARE scared and paranoid 'cos you got a gun ... get it? If you weren't scared and paranoid you wouldn't have a gun 'cos you would think "why do I need a gun?".

So people with guns are paranoid

More than 80 million people in the US legally own guns, for a variety of purposes. I own more than one gun, each with a different purpose. My little .22 AR is not something I'd use to defend my home, save for it being invaded by paper targets

It is why school shootings will always happen in America, you're attached to your blankey too much to even consider not having them, which means guns will always be available to the people who will shoot up schools. As Tyler Durden said "JUST. LET. GO!".

Let me make my position clear. I am never going to give up my second amendment rights any more than I am going to give up my first amendment rights or my fourth amendment rights. Never. And I am not articulate enough to make it clear how strongly I, and my peers, feel regarding gun rights. Election after election shows the will of the people regarding gun rights

The laws are from when you thought the English were going to try and re-take America, now you are using them to justify having guns in any civilian hands.

Really, the third was also written with the Brits in mind, and yet I would call that no less valid. The supreme court considered this opinion, and ruled against it.

I have the right to own firearms as per both my state and the federal constitution. Any debate about "gun control" that does not start with an acknowledgement of this reality is a non-starter.

You say "I need a gun to defend myself with" so, when are you buying the body armor? What about some self defense classes? Oh, you know they say the best defense is to just run away, you doing some cardio work outs? You got a great home security? Bullet proof windows? Got a little camera to see who is at the door? Panic room? What is the safety rating on your car? Even better what about armor plating your car? You know, gotta be safe! You probably have a zombie plan (come on who doesn't?) but do you have a "America has been invaded" plan? Got your sandbags and barbwire ready? Basement full of tinned food and bottled water?

Yes, I have taken several self defense classes. And I fail to see anything wrong with that.

BreakfastMan:

Simple logic:

BreakfastMan:

I don't really have any strong desire to kill children. I do have a strong desire to fully explore the message and themes of a work, which in this case requires the player to play all 3 game modes.

So would you play through a game that makes you play a Nazi in camp where you need to get a body count as high as possible? Do you play a game where you need to rape as many women as possible to get a good score? Do you play these games just to understand it message? I hope not. There are some subjects, those that evil by their nature, that should never be explored in this manner.

I don't see how. What makes a game different from a film exploring these ideas and themes? Is The Basketball Diaries acceptable, but this somehow isn't? How about Richard Bachmann's Rage? If you think the point of the game is to be a fun shmup, you are sorely mistaken, as the game is clunky and slow, lacking in detail, and completely absent of any "positive feedback" noises. It uses the interactivity of games and the language of games to convey it's message.

Ok I will admit that I had to google The Basketball Diaries, because I have never heard of the thing and I can not make any comments on it till I watch it, BUT as for Rage by Richard Bachmann by steven king I can comment on that. There is book that deals with a kid who sees stuff he does not like in his teacher, parents, classmates.. bla bla bla.... and desides to shoot them all with a gun. Yes it was in print and yes it was accepted, but after the school shootings Mr. King stopped its print. Yes, several of the kids who did school shootings had it in their library and had read it often.

What does this have to with my argument earilier? Glad you asked. For some time people have yelled and screamed that violence in video games causes violence. It is true? Who knows, but even a book, a simple book, had a seemingly important impact of those people who did school shootings. It like the game had some broader message that it was trying to get across yet maybe inspired some one to evil by dehumanizing the very evil that it preached against.

This was my message. There are some realms that should not be used for entertainment. If it should be explored it needs t done with grace and an academic way. If one needs to make a game out of it one should have hero to stop it or a story to explain why this is happening. Never, I repeat NEVER, should we expose people to the idea that shooting children and any innocent as a fun thing to do. To do so invites a disaster that we will never see coming.

CM156:

omega 616:
Yeah, you're not scared and paranoid 'cos you have a gun. You ARE scared and paranoid 'cos you got a gun ... get it? If you weren't scared and paranoid you wouldn't have a gun 'cos you would think "why do I need a gun?".

So people with guns are paranoid

More than 80 million people in the US legally own guns, for a variety of purposes. I own more than one gun, each with a different purpose. My little .22 AR is not something I'd use to defend my home, save for it being invaded by paper targets

It is why school shootings will always happen in America, you're attached to your blankey too much to even consider not having them, which means guns will always be available to the people who will shoot up schools. As Tyler Durden said "JUST. LET. GO!".

Let me make my position clear. I am never going to give up my second amendment rights any more than I am going to give up my first amendment rights or my fourth amendment rights. Never. And I am not articulate enough to make it clear how strongly I, and my peers, feel regarding gun rights. Election after election shows the will of the people regarding gun rights

The laws are from when you thought the English were going to try and re-take America, now you are using them to justify having guns in any civilian hands.

Really, the third was also written with the Brits in mind, and yet I would call that no less valid. The supreme court considered this opinion, and ruled against it.

I have the right to own firearms as per both my state and the federal constitution. Any debate about "gun control" that does not start with an acknowledgement of this reality is a non-starter.

You say "I need a gun to defend myself with" so, when are you buying the body armor? What about some self defense classes? Oh, you know they say the best defense is to just run away, you doing some cardio work outs? You got a great home security? Bullet proof windows? Got a little camera to see who is at the door? Panic room? What is the safety rating on your car? Even better what about armor plating your car? You know, gotta be safe! You probably have a zombie plan (come on who doesn't?) but do you have a "America has been invaded" plan? Got your sandbags and barbwire ready? Basement full of tinned food and bottled water?

Yes, I have taken several self defense classes. And I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Keep preaching the truth brother!

CM156:
snip

You can throw a cop picture up as a "including this guy?" but to be honest, yeah, he doesn't need a gun either ... our cops don't and they don't get killed all that often either. There is even a video on youtube of about 20 English police arresting a guy with a machete, in America a guy got killed by a cop 'cos he acted aggressively with a rebar.

Why can't you get this? Instead of clinging to them amendments like they are still relevant, look at what America could be like without guns and without thinking "criminals will run riot and rob everyone!" 'cos they wont. It is the root problem with the gun control debate, too many scared and paranoid people.

The reason the laws and attempts to control guns are always shot down and 'cos people can be bought, "hey, vote against this control and I'll cross your palm with silver".

There is nothing wrong with self defense class 'cos it is rational thing to do. "he could kill me 'cos he is robbing me" isn't rational, it's the slippery slope argument. Anybody can kill you but this guy is more likely to 'cos he wants money? ... you better shoot me then!

No law will ever be passed against guns till either people stop being scared or are morally strong enough to not be bought.

Simple logic:

This was my message. There are some realms that should not be used for entertainment. If it should be explored it needs t done with grace and an academic way. If one needs to make a game out of it one should have hero to stop it or a story to explain why this is happening. Never, I repeat NEVER, should we expose people to the idea that shooting children and any innocent as a fun thing to do. To do so invites a disaster that we will never see coming.

Good thing this game doesn't do that, then? It doesn't portray it as "fun". There is nothing "fun" about the game.

Also, if we don't want to expose people to the idea that killing innocents is a fun thing to do, at all... It is over 15 years too late for that.

And honestly? I don't care if some psycho fixates on a piece of art so much they start to want to do horrible stuff. That stuff can't be predicted. It is like worrying about being hit by lightning on an overcast day. I mean, do I really have to bring up Helter Skelter?

omega 616:
Why can't you get this? Instead of clinging to them amendments like they are still relevant, look at what America could be like without guns and without thinking "criminals will run riot and rob everyone!" 'cos they wont. It is the root problem with the gun control debate, too many scared and paranoid people.

Why do we need any of those silly amendments, anyways? Free speech? Right to a lawyer? Against unreasonable search and seizure? Bah

That was sarcasm, by the way.

Why can't you get this? Instead of clinging to them amendments like they are still relevant, look at what America could be like without guns and without thinking "criminals will run riot and rob everyone!" 'cos they wont. It is the root problem with the gun control debate, too many scared and paranoid people.

An America without guns simply isn't happening. There are far to many to have any thing remotely resembling a gun free america

The reason the laws and attempts to control guns are always shot down and 'cos people can be bought, "hey, vote against this control and I'll cross your palm with silver".

Or because voters in many states really don't agree with gun control.

There is nothing wrong with self defense class 'cos it is rational thing to do. "he could kill me 'cos he is robbing me" isn't rational, it's the slippery slope argument. Anybody can kill you but this guy is more likely to 'cos he wants money? ... you better shoot me then!

When you engage in armed robbery, it is "your money, or your life." You are implying or directly communicating the concept that if the victim does not comply, you will kill them. You will wipe out an entire life of memories, devastate families, and so on.
The act of armed robbery makes you a bad person. It does not make you an otherwise alright person who did a bad thing: it indicates that you are willing to threaten to kill another person over money: that you have degenerated far past simply being an "imperfect human being."
Perhaps at some point an intruder will threaten to put itching powder down someone's pants if he doesn't comply, and then we can have a discussion about what constitutes legitimate retaliatory or defensive force.
But if you threaten someone with a gun or any other potentially deadly object, you've basically said, "To hell with civilization and everything which makes us something other than animals."

No law will ever be passed against guns till either people stop being scared or are morally strong enough to not be bought.

Not nearly enough people remotely agree with any real strong anti-gun measures like bans on entire classes of firearms. It's not happening. Strict European style gun control, as an issue in America, is dead. Over. Done. Kaput.

CM156:
snip

Oh, I'm glad you said it was sarcasm ... almost missed it. I can sarcasm to!

Yeah, I think one of them is stupid so I must think all of them must be stupid 'cos you know, reasons...

Yeah, Australia is like that ... wait, no, no, they realized less guns = less gun deaths, whodathunk!

Again, I can't disagree. American government is totally honest, doesn't even spy on it's citizens! Population is still scared and paranoid though.

Actually I would say armed robbery means "I want this to be over quickly and saying please just doesn't get the job done!". If somebody busts into a shop and shouts "give me all your money" without, the shop keeper will pull out a gun and say "or what?" ... armed robbery is the only way to rob in America. Just 'cos you have a gun doesn't mean you're ready to kill.

Right again! "sane gun control will never happen", as every American says as they gently rock in the corner, cradling there gun.

I love sarcasm!

omega 616:

CM156:
snip

Oh, I'm glad you said it was sarcasm ... almost missed it. I can sarcasm to!

Yeah, I think one of them is stupid so I must think all of them must be stupid 'cos you know, reasons...

Yeah, Australia is like that ... wait, no, no, they realized less guns = less gun deaths, whodathunk!

Again, I can't disagree. American government is totally honest, doesn't even spy on it's citizens! Population is still scared and paranoid though.

Actually I would say armed robbery means "I want this to be over quickly and saying please just doesn't get the job done!". If somebody busts into a shop and shouts "give me all your money" without, the shop keeper will pull out a gun and say "or what?" ... armed robbery is the only way to rob in America. Just 'cos you have a gun doesn't mean you're ready to kill.

Right again! "sane gun control will never happen", as every American says as they gently rock in the corner, cradling there gun.

I love sarcasm!

The rules of gun safety state that you should never, under any circumstance, point a gun at something you are not prepared to destroy. This is basic gun safety. I have to act under the assumption that someone pointing a gun at me, or someone who has broken into my house with a gun, is willing to use it.

There is a third option to robbery, armed or otherwise: Not committing it. I fail to see how telling violent criminals the onus is on them to not commit the crimes, lest they end up like these two is unreasonable.

Let's play a little thought game: Suppose America did decide to implement Australian gun control. How would you enforce it? Oh, you're still bound by the rest of the constitution. Which means you can't just start searching homes of people who you suspect might own guns. I expect there would be a rise of boating accidents were such a thing to happen.

He has a point. Killing someone 'in self defense' is usually not necessary. That means guns shouldn't be necessary. But they provide people with comfort (because people are commonly, cowards).

So what's there to do? The cowards out there outweigh the brave, so they will win the 'I can cry loudest' war.

That means... this game is pointless. It will only increase negativity, even though it's supposed to do the opposite. I put this as a lack of foresight on the game maker's part. Maybe he will learn? But I doubt it - since he's done this before.

CM156:
The rules of gun safety state that you should never, under any circumstance, point a gun at something you are not prepared to destroy. This is basic gun safety. I have to act under the assumption that someone pointing a gun at me, or someone who has broken into my house with a gun, is willing to use it.

There is a third option to robbery, armed or otherwise: Not committing it. I fail to see how telling violent criminals the onus is on them to not commit the crimes, lest they end up like these two is unreasonable.

Let's play a little thought game: Suppose America did decide to implement Australian gun control. How would you enforce it? Oh, you're still bound by the rest of the constitution. Which means you can't just start searching homes of people who you suspect might own guns. I expect there would be a rise of boating accidents were such a thing to happen.

So in your mind, criminals are ok with breaking and entering, armed robbery but gun safety is where criminals draw the line? Look, people will always be breaking laws but with guns even harder to get hold of make things more safe for everybody.

I would look how Australia did it and do that ....? Alternatively, make a law that any criminal can not own a gun ever. Then as more and more criminals lose there guns, as they are arrested or search warrants are issued on there homes (would actually help with getting criminals off the streets "we are here about suspected drug use ... oh, you have a gun do you"). Tighten up docks, air ports and borders to stop weapons smuggling (help stop drug smuggling as well). When gun rates are low among criminals start tightening guns in civilian hands and temporary impose checks that I mentioned before (mental health for example).

Hell you could employ more police on the streets to reduce fear and dock, airport and border workers to help with smuggling.

Only people losing out are gun manufactures but America starts enough wars to keep them profitable.

omega 616:

So in your mind, criminals are ok with breaking and entering, armed robbery but gun safety is where criminals draw the line? Look, people will always be breaking laws but with guns even harder to get hold of make things more safe for everybody.

You entirely miss my point. Pointing a gun at someone in a robbery is communicating that you are willing to use lethal force to get your way. Assuming otherwise only puts yourself at risk.

I would look how Australia did it and do that ....? Alternatively, make a law that any criminal can not own a gun ever.

Criminals can't own guns. That's your solution? It's already illegal to use guns in the commission of a crime.

Then as more and more criminals lose there guns, as they are arrested or search warrants are issued on there homes (would actually help with getting criminals off the streets "we are here about suspected drug use ... oh, you have a gun do you").

I can build a firearm with parts in my basement (totally legal to, by the way). I have a gunsmith friend who does that sorta thing for a hobby.

Tighten up docks, air ports and borders to stop weapons smuggling (help stop drug smuggling as well). When gun rates are low among criminals start tightening guns in civilian hands and temporary impose checks that I mentioned before (mental health for example).

How on earth do you think mandatory mental health checks on exercising a constitutional right would pass constitutional scrutiny? Can you cite any case law to that effect?

Here we have yet another example of why the world and the gaming community is not ready for this kind of game. Two opposing viewpoints with people who refuse to try and understand each other from a different perspective makes for an ugly discussion; nothing good has come out of this and once again, gamers and non-gamers are further alienated away.

CM156:
snip

Maybe stop reading into things? Could just mean "without this gun you wouldn't take seriously, now that you think your life is in danger you will do what I say".

Yeah, I guessed that but I mean "you were in some kind of incarceration? No guns for you". All guns are melted down that are taken off criminals.

Regulate it.

This is what you call bureaucracy and it can be changed, just say "look, mentally unstable people are using guns to kill students, why not check the mental state of all people who buy guns?". If people buy a gun and are fine when they do but life starts wearing them down, they are stressed, co-workers working the last nerve it should be recognized and somebody should impose a temporary ban on owning guns while they attend anger management or something ... like how if you're a dangerous driver you might have your license suspended and/or retake a test/driving lessons.

Just doesn't make sense to me to allow anybody to own a gun 'cos you're American about 250 years ago you might have needed to fend off the an invader or a tyrannical government. Why not just issue them at birth? Cord gets cord, baby gets a smack on the ass and a Glock.

Keep in mind there is a page called the Darwin awards ... like the woman who thought cruise control meant she could make a sandwich in her Winnebago while driving, these dumb dumbs are the ones you think are ok to handle guns? The type of people who need a label on hairdriers telling them not to use them in showers but they can handle a thing whose sole reason for being is to kill....

Nouw:
Two opposing viewpoints with people who refuse to try and understand each other from a different perspective makes for an ugly discussion

That's gun-control debates in a nutshell. However I would argue that when one side in particular has unalienable proof that their argument works, it's hard to remain neutral on the subject.

omega 616:
Maybe stop reading into things? Could just mean "without this gun you wouldn't take seriously, now that you think your life is in danger you will do what I say".

Forgive me that I'm unwilling to assume someone who points a gun in my face has anything nearing my best interest at heart

Yeah, I guessed that but I mean "you were in some kind of incarceration? No guns for you". All guns are melted down that are taken off criminals.

So basically for any crime? Including something like.... I dunno... unlawful assembly? And even for misdemeanors?

Regulate it.

That's a fool's errand. I have the blueprints and instructions to make at least 20 different types of zip gun saved to my computer or to other data storage places. And the required materials are basically just scrap metal. Were I so inclined, I could produce quite a few.

This is what you call bureaucracy and it can be changed, just say "look, mentally unstable people are using guns to kill students, why not check the mental state of all people who buy guns?". If people buy a gun and are fine when they do but life starts wearing them down, they are stressed, co-workers working the last nerve it should be recognized and somebody should impose a temporary ban on owning guns while they attend anger management or something ... like how if you're a dangerous driver you might have your license suspended and/or retake a test/driving lessons.

Here's the thing: You can get your license suspended if you've engaged in dangerous activity with your car. This is not a "because they might do something in the future" situation. Which is what you're describing.

Just doesn't make sense to me to allow anybody to own a gun 'cos you're American about 250 years ago you might have needed to fend off the an invader or a tyrannical government. Why not just issue them at birth? Cord gets cord, baby gets a smack on the ass and a Glock.

Not too fond of Glocks. Obvious hyperbole aside, I don't think the conversation will ever progress to mandatory ownership of firearms, at least not on the federal level.

Keep in mind there is a page called the Darwin awards ... like the woman who thought cruise control meant she could make a sandwich in her Winnebago while driving, these dumb dumbs are the ones you think are ok to handle guns? The type of people who need a label on hairdriers telling them not to use them in showers but they can handle a thing whose sole reason for being is to kill....

"People do stupid things. Therefore, the Bill of Rights doesn't matter that much when it comes to a part of it I dislike".

Yeah no. I have yet to see any good reason why I should ever give up my guns or vote in favor of giving them up.

omega 616:
You can throw a cop picture up as a "including this guy?" but to be honest, yeah, he doesn't need a gun either ... our cops don't and they don't get killed all that often either. There is even a video on youtube of about 20 English police arresting a guy with a machete, in America a guy got killed by a cop 'cos he acted aggressively with a rebar.

I'm going to assume that you're British, given the tense you used in this post. Though it doesn't really matter if you're not, since you're obviously trying to use a British example as "proof" of how they're so much better than the US when it comes to dealing with violence.

I *hate* these stupid comparisons of different cultures as if they mean anything. Because they don't. Come talk to us when you have two massive land borders to deal with, one of which includes a hotbed of criminal activity, general homicides, and general thuggery.

But since you want to play this game, here's some fun facts that'll hopefully put this line of debate to rest for good:

1) The homicide rate of the United States ranks at around 4.7 intentional homicides per 100,000 people for the most recent year of official surveying. People like to quote the number of people killed via homicide rather than the actual rate, because the rate has actually been decreasing over the last ten years....but the population has continued to increase, so it's easier to spin the US's homicide rate in a negative way if you use the raw numbers.

2) Out of the states and territories owned by the United States, the majority of the highest ones are states that sit on the border between the US and Mexico, a known hotbed of drug wars and criminal activity. Ergo a lot of the United States' homicide rates are excessively inflated due to the influx of criminal activity from Mexico. And Mexico can try to deny it, but with their homicide rate sitting pretty at roughly 23.7 per 100k, they're in no position to prove otherwise. Puerto Rico also ranks very highly in terms of its homicide rate.

3) The UK has much more stringent gun control laws than the United States, so presumably, they would have a much lower rate of violent crime. Yet the statistics suggest otherwise. The UK's violent crime rate is around 2034 violent crimes per 100k people, well above any other civilized nation in the entire world. Even when Politifact trimmed down the UK's definition of "violent crime" to the most bare-bones assessment possible in a desperate attempt to play spin doctor, they still came up with a rate of around 775 violent crimes per 100k people, versus the United States's rate of around 383....and then they immediately dismissed that data (since it didn't match their political narrative) by saying that the two countries really aren't comparable to begin with. Meaning that even with all the "fat" trimmed, your country's violent crime rate is still double that of the United States.

So, if we want to play this "comparison" game, you lose. And you lose badly. So how about, instead of comparing significantly different cultures with significantly different situations, we just treat each country as its own isolated example and discuss that. Mkay?

CM156:
snip

Me, me, me ... think of it from the criminal point of view. You want to rob a store, you know if you go in and just demand money you will be laughed out, so you go get a gun. It's not "I'm going to rob a store, might as well kill someone", what does killing somebody get you? More jail time if you get caught, you steal to get money not potential jail time.

Why not? Guns disappear more quickly then.

I used the car as an example of what I meant, not a direct comparison.

At the moment the attitude of America is "a part of our culture is school shootings", there is no desire to stop school shootings. You say "oh my god it's a tragedy!" and then a month later it's business as usual. Just another example of lacking the value of life.

CriticKitten:
snip

Nah, I'm English ... I hate the words Britain and British.

How about 2/3 of that is irrelevant and America is still just a society largely made up of scared, paranoid people who think killing is the best form defense?

1) So what?
2) So what?
3) So what? You're talking about violent crime, shall quote some numbers about fraud? I'm talking about gun crime.

After a very quick google search, "in 2011 In the United Kingdom, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is: 0.23" and "In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is: 3.6"

CriticKitten:

So, if we want to play this "comparison" game, you lose. And you lose badly. Mkay?

Now, America isn't a special place... I know, I know, it's hard to accept. America is a largely Christian country, much like Australia and since religion is a rather large part of a countries culture, you guys are similar. For example, trying to make America like India wouldn't work as they have different values due to religion.

Also, guess who used to have liberal gun laws and now doesn't? Now look at there stats "In Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is 2011: 0.11" ... hey, maybe the UK can learn from Aus!

www.gunpolicy.org ... little out of date but I'm sure it's not going to change too much, I can't see Aus jumping from .11 to 3.6 in 2 years ...

Played it. It's interesting, definitely not entertainment-focused. It's one of those designed to send a message, and it does send a message. Politicians are idiots as always.

omega 616:
Me, me, me ... think of it from the criminal point of view. You want to rob a store, you know if you go in and just demand money you will be laughed out, so you go get a gun. It's not "I'm going to rob a store, might as well kill someone", what does killing somebody get you? More jail time if you get caught, you steal to get money not potential jail time.

I never said they were robbing with the intent to kill, only that carrying a firearm expresses the willingness to use it if things go south for them. And really, how hard is it to not commit armed robbery?

I used the car as an example of what I meant, not a direct comparison.

Annnnnd you're still missing the fact that much of what you propose fails constitutional scrutiny

Now, America isn't a special place... I know, I know, it's hard to accept. America is a largely Christian country, much like Australia and since religion is a rather large part of a countries culture, you guys are similar. For example, trying to make America like India wouldn't work as they have different values due to religion.

And Iran and Turkey are so much alike, eh?

We have very different legal traditions, including the views towards firearms being a right rather than a privilege. That's the biggest issue here. And again, what happened in Australia isn't going to happen here. No politician could survive the political blowback of supporting it.

omega 616:
-snip-

Obviously I made a mistake in thinking that you were capable of interpreting data without someone holding your hand through it.

When a country bans guns, does crime magically vanish from the world? No, of course not. Criminals simply resort to other means of committing their crimes, and other weapons. So when Britain placed bans on guns, British citizens resorted to alternative weapons instead.

That is why it's meaningless to look purely at gun violence: because Britain's gun laws make ownership of a gun extremely difficult, if not impossible for the average citizen. However, this does not make the country's crime vanish as you seem to think it does. The criminals just pick up other weapons, like the katana in your earlier example, or knives, or other tools.

Ergo, the only way to properly compare crime against crime is to look at the rate of violent crime and homicide....and both statistics clearly show that the UK is no better off than the United States, despite their supposedly far superior gun control laws. And the US has a much larger land border than the UK, meaning its control of immigration and the border is much more difficult to achieve than the UK. So your country has no excuse for having comparable statistics to ours.

Simply put, you are arguing from a place of fallacy and ignoring data that doesn't suit your narrative. When I point to violent crime, that includes all of our gun violence....whereas you are just patently ignoring all violent crimes that don't involve guns and trying to achieve a meaningless statistical victory in an uneven playing field. This would be akin to us pointing out that our country has a much smaller rate of death by dingo than Australia....it's sort of a meaningless contest when our number of dingos isn't exactly the same as theirs.

You're clearly uneducated in this field of discussion, so please, do yourself a favor and stop posting. This is only going to get worse for you if you continue to insist upon this stance, when all of the data clearly proves you wrong.

CM156:
snip

Thank you for making me laugh, remember those two videos I posted I beg you, please, please, PLEASE watch them!

Anyway, just another problem with it, it's all constitution this and amendment that ... it's like without guns, a constitution or amendments Americans can't function. The whole system needs to be reworked, (law abiding citizen style if needed) so that it doesn't put so much bull shit in the way of progress.

CriticKitten:
snip

I hope we aren't getting salty ...

Obviously it doesn't vanish, it just makes things harder to do and more safe. It's not about getting rid of crime, it's about keeping innocent people alive (and in some cases guilty people alive as well).

Why do people have this habit of asking the other people to stop? Do you think it makes your argument better or makes the other person question themselves? Shit, I like doing this stuff, it's why I never post such crap like "stop posting you're making yourself look stupid" ... Like I care what people, especially people I will never know, think of me!

omega 616:
Anyway, just another problem with it, it's all constitution this and amendment that ... it's like without guns, a constitution or amendments Americans can't function. The whole system needs to be reworked, (law abiding citizen style if needed) so that it doesn't put so much bull shit in the way of progress.

I have no idea what you mean by "law abiding citizen style", but, as I pointed out, the process to make amendments is supposed to be slow. It prevents people from acting rashly to change the law.

If you think the process to making amendments should be changed, you're free to propose amendments to the way amendments are made. It's just that I believe way more than 13 states would disagree with making the process quicker and easier.

omega 616:
I hope we aren't getting salty ...

Over what? You're wrong, and the data proves that you're wrong. I'm just trying to convince you to stop embarrassing yourself, really. Your arguments are almost as bad as the arguments of the guy who made this stupid game to begin with.

Obviously it doesn't vanish, it just makes things harder to do and more safe. It's not about getting rid of crime, it's about keeping innocent people alive (and in some cases guilty people alive as well).

Then why is it that the UK's violent crime rate is, at its most bare-bones assessment, nearly double that of the US? If, as you assert, getting rid of guns is enough to keep people safe, then why do the statistics fling in the face of that? Yes, the UK has an extremely low rate of gun homicide (primarily because the country doesn't have high ownership of guns, period), but it still boasts a violent crime rate higher than the US and all of Europe.

And the UK doesn't have any real excuses for this, either. We've got a massive land border with a region whose homicide and crime rates are among the highest in the entire world, and patrolling this border properly has long been a political point of hot debate, so violent criminals are always slipping through and committing crimes on our soil (crimes which are added to our counts, instead of theirs, due to them occurring on our soil). The UK is a bloody island, with a greater degree of restrictions on its immigration than we have. Yet somehow, your country still compares with ours in terms of criminal activity in the area of violence, even though getting rid of the guns was supposed to make you safe.

So, there are two natural responses to this irrefutable data:

1) "The two countries are obviously not comparable due to their unique geography and cultural differences." (which is the right answer)
2) "The US is full of gun-toting religious nutjobs, and the UK is perfect in every way." (which was your response, and is not only wrong but also arguably against forum rules)

So I'll give you a chance to choose your response again, and I encourage you to choose more wisely this time around.

Why do people have this habit of asking the other people to stop? Do you think it makes your argument better or makes the other person question themselves? Shit, I like doing this stuff, it's why I never post such crap like "stop posting you're making yourself look stupid" ... Like I care what people, especially people I will never know, think of me!

Good thing, too, because your posts to date make it extremely apparently that not only have you failed to interpret the data correctly, you haven't even looked at it to begin with. I seem to recall telling you once before that arguing from a position in which the data actively contradicts your stance is what we call "ignorance". Perhaps you should take a moment to educate yourself on this subject before continuing further.

----------------------------------

Also, since there is an on-going discussion on this, there are actually multiple ways to get Amendments added to the US Constitution.

1) Congressional vote (2/3rds majority in both houses to propose)
2) Constitutional Convention (2/3rds of the states' legislatures to propose)

Both require a 3/4ths majority of states or state legislatures to approve the new Amendment. And thus, absolutely none of these would result in a successful change to the 2nd Amendment.

CM156:
Snip

Law abiding citizen style is forcing change, I'm not saying by killing a bunch of people using elaborate set ups though.

CriticKitten:
snip

While it's nice you're being so considerate, you really don't need to ... I can only embarrass myself by defending archaic laws that allow students and pupils to be killed in schools on a regular basis.

I think 4 million registered guns in the UK is a substantial number, in a country of 63 million that is.

Anyway, that's easy. English love 2 things, football and booze ... combine the two and you have football hooligans (there is series of 3 English films about it called "green street") and just general piss heads. The drinking culture in England is obscene (13 year olds are alcoholics, drinking cheap cider in parks till 2 am) and we have a bad reputation in all holiday resorts (especially in Spain) for getting wild.

Then there are council estates that are like mini ghetto's, all kinds of drug dealing, stabbings over turf etc. That is why there is violence like that. Happy now?

When did I say the UK was perfect? Go back and read when I said "the Uk could learn something from Aus" about gun laws. The USA isn't special in anyway, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake, you're people can be as easily manipulated as any other.

Again telling me to stop, it makes me think your worried your opinion sucks. Like I've told other people, I never actually put that much in stats anyway, like I just said "you're people can be as easily manipulated as any other"

omega 616:
Law abiding citizen style is forcing change, I'm not saying by killing a bunch of people using elaborate set ups though.

I don't see how one could really "force change" in this case. Like I said, there's a rather simple process to change the way Government is run in the United States, it just requires a large enough group of people to do it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

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