Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Top celebrities demand a stop to gun violence in video
  • Subject: Top celebrities demand a stop to gun violence in video
Subject: Top celebrities demand a stop to gun violence in video

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: xGHOST270x
Mass shootings are a recent trend due to the evolving culture, the lack of mental healthcare, the glorification by the national media transforming cold-hearted murders into anti-heroes, along with the absence of education with weaponry and the morals ( or lack thereof) needed to use them.

I think we all can agree that if someone carries out an attack of such nature, something is wrong with them. The lack of supervision and assistance, and in some cases pure ignorance to the condition to such individuals creates an unstable environment that can drive such a person to do unspeakable things.

If you wish to prevent people from destroying each other, either nuke the entire world, or put everyone in padded rooms. It's just nor possible. It can be helped,it can be prevented using reasonable and effective methods, but banning a weapon used in less than 0.02% of crime is not the way to go about it.

The Oklahoma City Bombing killed more people than the 8 worst mass shooting in US history combined, while using fertilizer, diesel fuel, and nitro-methane, all of which can be bought easily.

Chemical and biological warfare by themselves killed millions of people in relatively recent history. Saddam Hussein liked chemical weaponry, where as the Native Americans were wiped out with biological attacks over a century ago. The type of weaponry used is irrelevant.

Also, please quit using the term 'assault weapon', for it means nothing. Semi-automatic weapons, as they should be called, have no predisposition to 'killing' over any other weapon type. In fact, as shown by my earlier sources, handguns are used far more and kill many more than semi-auto rifles. Banning something because you fear it on how it looks rather than how it functions and relevant data on actual usage is horrifyingly asinine.

Oh so it's the devolution of society? That's convenient. Is mental illness also a new phenomena? Violence has always been part of American history and human history. So it's nothing new. Mental illness isn't new either. What is new is the capability to actually commit these mass slaughters. Or do you think that's wrong? Could someone practically get their hands on a weapon capable and able to mow down people in public in 1812 like they can in 2012?

We're talking about preventing the mass slaughters here such as what happened in Connecticut when twenty children were mowed down by prohibiting weaponry capable of committing this kind of slaughter so easily. Handguns that can fire seven rounds before reloading aren't capable of so easily killing dozens so quickly and easily. And We're not equating this to an entirely different discussion on the ethics of biological weapons. That's a fine discussion to be had but doesn't relate to the debate on the role of firearms in American society.

The side for loosening gun control in the name of freedom seems to neglect the right to life of the victims of mass shootings. I think that's an important point yet to be brought up. Is their right to life not crucial? Should it not be protected by prohibiting the kind of weapons that can mow down entire crowds? Yes, handguns kill more people. That doesn't cancel this out somehow.

  • 12.22.2012 8:33 PM PDT

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: Elastics
Maybe it's just my conspiratorial mind at work, but I find it awfully strange that these shootings originated no longer than fifteen years ago. I mean, yes, the first few could have been spontaneous, but their frequent nature in today's world seems far worse than coincidental.

What weapon could a person afford, easily transport, and kill in droves with such ease circa modern era?

  • 12.22.2012 8:36 PM PDT

Great argument. Anyone against guns should read this, it covers everything that you complain about

  • 12.22.2012 8:49 PM PDT

Do people really think that mass killing sprees are something new? The only thing new is that the gun allows someone who would ordinarily be too weak and feeble to attempt to kill 20+ people to do so with ease.

On the exact same day, the same scenario played out in two different countries - a psychopath with no access to lethal weapons attempts to acquire some before targeting a school. In the United States, the psychopath easily secures two handguns and an assault weapon before targeting a school and killing 20+ children. In China, the psychopath has to fight to get a knife, and he manages to wound 20+ children along with an elderly woman, but absolutely no one is killed.

It isn't a cultural issue, people will always try to kill other people. Period. The primary source of blame is how easy it was for the killer to get a gun.

  • 12.22.2012 9:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag: sims3k
  • user homepage:

KiLo SiErRa 13


Posted by: Zanir

Posted by: ankerd123

Posted by: Zanir
Guns are still not the problem. Adam Lanza stole the gun he used for the shooting.


Omg lol. You can't be serious???

Where do you think he stole it from? hahaha

The chance of stealing a gun in Aus in close to zero.


He stole it from a legal carrier, his mother. Most criminals obtain their guns illegally. All you're doing is preventing legal carriers from protecting themselves by making the laws stricter.

Had gun laws been stricter, the legal carrier (his mum) would not have owned any gun making the shooters chances of obtaining a gun much slimmer.

  • 12.22.2012 9:04 PM PDT

~Thread-killer~


Posted by: Vgnut117
Oh so it's the devolution of society? That's convenient. Is mental illness also a new phenomena? Violence has always been part of American history and human history. So it's nothing new. Mental illness isn't new either. What is new is the capability to actually commit these mass slaughters. Or do you think that's wrong? Could someone practically get their hands on a weapon capable and able to mow down people in public in 1812 like they can in 2012?


You're twisting my words.

I never said 'devolution of society' attributed to this. Merely the avenue the American culture took to this point. Violence is a part of our culture in cinema and other entertainment outlets. Only the insane and sick take those as incentive or as tutorials to do what they do. Glorifying such violence only further attributes to the problems.

Again, methodology and weaponry is irrelevant. In 1927 a deranged man blew a school and 44 children and adults to high hell with explosives. As indicated by the Oklahoma bombing, such incidents are extremely devastating. The Haymarket Affair killed quite a few people last century, again with a bomb. We've always been able to kill each other throughout history. The only thing that changes are the weapons used. Focusing on the weapon will not solve the problem. Focusing on the perpetrators and those like them will.


We're talking about preventing the mass slaughters here such as what happened in Connecticut when twenty children were mowed down by prohibiting weaponry capable of committing this kind of slaughter so easily. Handguns that can fire seven rounds before reloading aren't capable of so easily killing dozens so quickly and easily. And We're not equating this to an entirely different discussion on the ethics of biological weapons. That's a fine discussion to be had but doesn't relate to the debate on the role of firearms in American society.


Handguns 'aren't capable of so easily killing dozens so quickly and easily"? Columbine and VA Tech would like to have a word with you.

Any weapon can kill. As shown in the UT Bell Tower Shooting, even a bolt action is extremely lethal, with a few casualties reported at 500 yards away. Handguns, rifles, old muskets, flintlocks, they all kill just the same. Banning one based on a minute amount of damage is absurd. Yes, any amount of death is horrible and regrettable, but undermining the freedoms of 350 million people, `150 million being law abiding gun owners, based on the acts of a few individuals is not right.


The side for loosening gun control in the name of freedom seems to neglect the right to life of the victims of mass shootings. I think that's an important point yet to be brought up. Is their right to life not crucial? Should it not be protected by prohibiting the kind of weapons that can mow down entire crowds? Yes, handguns kill more people. That doesn't cancel this out somehow.


No one with any sense is saying we need to loosen gun control laws as they stand. The laws we have in place right now are sufficient and necessary, but, their enforcement and supervision does need to be improved so we lessen and eliminate the acquisition of firearms by any people who do not meed the criteria for purchase.

Everyone has a right to life, that is indisputable. The disruption of that right is illegal no matter how it's done, whether it's by a drunk driver at 12 am or Achmed in a suicide vest. We protect that right to the best of our ability. Concealed Handgun Permits are made just for that, the protection of our right to live. However, there's nothing we can do to completely stop evil. The current gun legislation ,and other laws ( Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc), serve to keep the peace. Sadly, some people have no regard for others and keep carrying out heinous deeds every day.

Wanting to something just because it's dangerous to people isn't enough to warrant it. Many things we have in our house have the ability to do great damage to ourselves and others. The thing is, we have the freedom to choose for ourselves what we do. For 99.9999% of firearm owners, our weapons will never kill a human being , ever. For the .0001% intent on harming people, there's not much we can do to stop them. If someone is intent on doing something, they'll find a way.

Punishing 150 million people for the acts of a few men is not fair, nor is it right.

  • 12.22.2012 9:07 PM PDT

Original Account-Sargeantomeg4-Intrepid Mythic Member-01/06/08 to 02/29/12


Posted by: Sergeant omega
On a phone now so responses will be sparser and fewer and farther in between.

Anyways, if we were to move closer to another country's style, I would prefer it to be like the Czech Republic.

My reason is because they're the closest country to the US gun culture wise.
Posted by: Vgnut117

Posted by: Sergeant omega

Sounds great that we're in agreement about some of these measures. Now what I'd say is adopting gun control isn't something new. If the USA was the first to be doing it then this would be a different discussion. We can look at the USA's counterparts (I'd suggest Canada is the closest country to the US because of their shared history and very similiar culture) and see the effect of gun control. And we're not even talking draconian gun control. You can get a handgun in Canada. You can go hunting. So can we really say it would be to the detriment to adopt similiar gun control legislation to Canada?
Can I get a comment on this?

  • 12.22.2012 9:49 PM PDT

Dating Age

For those looking to vent, get proper advice, or give it to those in need.


Posted by: xGHOST270x
You're twisting my words.

I never said 'devolution of society' attributed to this. Merely the avenue the American culture took to this point. Violence is a part of our culture in cinema and other entertainment outlets. Only the insane and sick take those as incentive or as tutorials to do what they do. Glorifying such violence only further attributes to the problems.

Again, methodology and weaponry is irrelevant. In 1927 a deranged man blew a school and 44 children and adults to high hell with explosives. As indicated by the Oklahoma bombing, such incidents are extremely devastating. The Haymarket Affair killed quite a few people last century, again with a bomb. We've always been able to kill each other throughout history. The only thing that changes are the weapons used. Focusing on the weapon will not solve the problem. Focusing on the perpetrators and those like them will.

Handguns 'aren't capable of so easily killing dozens so quickly and easily"? Columbine and VA Tech would like to have a word with you.

Any weapon can kill. As shown in the UT Bell Tower Shooting, even a bolt action is extremely lethal, with a few casualties reported at 500 yards away. Handguns, rifles, old muskets, flintlocks, they all kill just the same. Banning one based on a minute amount of damage is absurd. Yes, any amount of death is horrible and regrettable, but undermining the freedoms of 350 million people, `150 million being law abiding gun owners, based on the acts of a few individuals is not right.

No one with any sense is saying we need to loosen gun control laws as they stand. The laws we have in place right now are sufficient and necessary, but, their enforcement and supervision does need to be improved so we lessen and eliminate the acquisition of firearms by any people who do not meed the criteria for purchase.

Everyone has a right to life, that is indisputable. The disruption of that right is illegal no matter how it's done, whether it's by a drunk driver at 12 am or Achmed in a suicide vest. We protect that right to the best of our ability. Concealed Handgun Permits are made just for that, the protection of our right to live. However, there's nothing we can do to completely stop evil. The current gun legislation ,and other laws ( Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc), serve to keep the peace. Sadly, some people have no regard for others and keep carrying out heinous deeds every day.

Wanting to something just because it's dangerous to people isn't enough to warrant it. Many things we have in our house have the ability to do great damage to ourselves and others. The thing is, we have the freedom to choose for ourselves what we do. For 99.9999% of firearm owners, our weapons will never kill a human being , ever. For the .0001% intent on harming people, there's not much we can do to stop them. If someone is intent on doing something, they'll find a way.

Punishing 150 million people for the acts of a few men is not fair, nor is it right.

Nor is it fair or right to have such a complacent argument while just this year so many lives, children included, were horribly gunned down. You claim there's a culture of violence but cling to the perceived idea that a lethal firearm is your pass to freedom. You say "But look people can be killed in bombings" and shrug off the efficiency with which the arms we're talking about can slaughter. Yes, the musket can kill. Can it kill with the efficiency a semi-automatic rifle can? Absolutely not but let's equate them anyways.

"But-but-but handguns can't kill so easily! Look at VA Tech and Columbine!" Columbine? They used shotguns, guns with fifty rounds in their magazine. Do handguns kill with the speed and ease these semi-automatic rifles do?

The church of firearms and its often paranoid congregation gives a -blam!- about these massacres for one reason. Public opinion raining down on them and fear that the precious thing they so identity with will be attacked. Want fewer gun related homicides? Honestly? Then take a look at the governments that have adopted measures to successfully do that. It's not like the US would be sailing in uncharted waters. Let's be honest though. Gun extremists, and maybe that's not you or members of this board, will live with a few children being gunned down if it means stroking their M4 carbine that can fire near a thousand bullets a minute.

You want to own a gun, maybe up to three, that aren't semi-automatic for protection and to feel good then sure. Or hunting rifles. All fine. But there's a difference between that and this perverse obsession that's all too rampant.

[Edited on 12.22.2012 10:07 PM PST]

  • 12.22.2012 10:06 PM PDT


Posted by: BgBuckinChicken
Great argument. Anyone against guns should read this, it covers everything that you complain about


Meh. He makes some good points, but he basically implies that since drug cartels can get automatic military grade weapons into this country, every low-life criminal has those things, when the majority of the time criminals have to use what they can get access to. He mentions that Chinese knife spree and fails to acknowledge that their gun control laws saved 20 lives. Do Triad members probably have automatic weapons? Sure. This random psychopath didn't.

In the article, he considers 2 or 3 causalities before the perpetrator is gunned down by a citizen a better outcome than absolutely no deaths but 20+ injuries. I don't, not even close.

Also, when he starts saying "If you want my guns, just try to take them", I think he's a giant idiot. They already did a trial run of this in Louisiana. Guess who won? The military. Did any military personnel involved, even those who had moral objections, attempt to abstain in those test runs of weapons confiscations? Nope. If Congress decides to have the military take your s***, you are going to lose. Being rational about your point on view is really your best hope to hanging onto your guns.

Most of his points about why assault weapon bans are bad are "Shooting someone 7 times in the chest isn't enough... anything less than a 30 round magazine with armor piercing rounds won't cut it when a thug with a knife tries to take my wallet". If someone gets away with your TV because you missed 10 shots, big ****ing deal. If a handgun with a 10 round magazine isn't enough you protect yourself, you must be intentionally placing yourself in hazard environments and then you should be dealing with the consequences of it, not making the rest of society have to deal with the results of having street scum with assault weapons.



[Edited on 12.22.2012 10:12 PM PST]

  • 12.22.2012 10:10 PM PDT

I don't understand how people think guns can just be "banned". The logistics behind it make zero sense to me. How do you make sure each and every gun is handed over to authorities, including those without registration? Also, how do you compensate those whose possessions you are stealing?

Another thing someone brought up earlier that i just thought was interesting. When someone asks: "Who killed Osama Bin Laden?" Do you say guns? No, you say seal team six. So why is it that guns are to blame in this shooting, and not the shooter? It seems like everyone is wanting to rush to ban guns, but no one has thought of the logistics.

  • 12.22.2012 10:13 PM PDT

So why is it that guns are to blame in this shooting, and not the shooter?

There are probably at least several million disaffected youths throughout America. Obviously no one is saying that specific guy isn't criminally responsible for his actions, but there are going to be more guys like this guy from that pool of people. Period. You will never, never get rid of that mentality unless America went through some sort of radical cultural renaissance that I just don't see EVER happening.

Also, there is always going to be an "Easy target". I'll admit I've said I want to see security personnel in schools, but some shooters have targeted churches, mosques, or other places of worship where people are packed together with children and few people think to bring their weapons. You can never eliminate these easy targets.

The only reasonable solution is limit access to these weapons by these disaffected youths. Something similar to how Canada requires you to secure your weapons properly so they can't be reached by others. As in this case, the shooter couldn't get his own weapon, so he just used a weapon he had easy access to all the same.

How do you make sure each and every gun is handed over to authorities, including those without registration?


Incrementally. Obviously not every gun is going to get caught in such a sweep, but I think a large, large majority would be. Not that I think an outright ban of all guns makes any sense, but bans on specific types of weapons have been passed before.

[Edited on 12.22.2012 10:28 PM PST]

  • 12.22.2012 10:26 PM PDT

Per Audacia Ad Astra

Posted by: Jiggleslinky
Who cares? Celebrities hold no more power than average people.
They hold the power of fame. Fans do many things.

  • 12.22.2012 10:28 PM PDT

Original Account-Sargeantomeg4-Intrepid Mythic Member-01/06/08 to 02/29/12


Posted by: Sergeant omega

Posted by: Sergeant omega
On a phone now so responses will be sparser and fewer and farther in between.

Anyways, if we were to move closer to another country's style, I would prefer it to be like the Czech Republic.

My reason is because they're the closest country to the US gun culture wise.
Posted by: Vgnut117

Posted by: Sergeant omega

Sounds great that we're in agreement about some of these measures. Now what I'd say is adopting gun control isn't something new. If the USA was the first to be doing it then this would be a different discussion. We can look at the USA's counterparts (I'd suggest Canada is the closest country to the US because of their shared history and very similiar culture) and see the effect of gun control. And we're not even talking draconian gun control. You can get a handgun in Canada. You can go hunting. So can we really say it would be to the detriment to adopt similiar gun control legislation to Canada?
Can I get a comment on this?

  • 12.22.2012 10:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

deej pls


Posted by: Android Spartan
PS: The NRA guys suck, how can you defend guns after the killing of 20 kids??

You're an idiot.

  • 12.22.2012 10:29 PM PDT


Posted by: RogueRainbowX

Posted by: Android Spartan
PS: The NRA guys suck, how can you defend guns after the killing of 20 kids??

You're an idiot.


The NRA are a bunch of ****heads though. This is a real quote...

"Guns don't kill people. Video games, the media and Obama's budget kill people."

Makes total sense. Video games spew out bullets that cause massive trauma and blood loss that routinely result in death. Yup, yup, makes total sense.

You know someone is on the losing side of an argument when they blame video games for something.

  • 12.22.2012 10:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: carby21
Anyone is genetically American has English in them. Even if they like it or not.

lolwut? Cause Spain, Russia, Portugal, and France were never in the Americas. My family is Scottish and German yet because I'm an American I'm also English?

Do you legitimately have downs?

  • 12.22.2012 10:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Someone explain to me what gun control law is? Ban all guns , ban some guns etc...?

  • 12.22.2012 11:00 PM PDT

Original Account-Sargeantomeg4-Intrepid Mythic Member-01/06/08 to 02/29/12


Posted by: BlueNighter99
Someone explain to me what gun control law is? Ban all guns , ban some guns etc...?
No law yet, expected AWB, background check for all private sales, and stronger mental healthcare systems working in conjunction with federal authorities.

  • 12.22.2012 11:01 PM PDT

So because people are really obese in america, we must regulate our eating utensils?

  • 12.22.2012 11:03 PM PDT


Posted by: DIGITAL SK1z1lz
So because people are really obese in america, we must regulate our eating utensils?


Their own choice vs someone else making a choice. Fat people are choosing to get diabetes, I didn't choose to allow you to have a gun so you could snap one day and shoot me. Dumb argument.

  • 12.22.2012 11:09 PM PDT

~Thread-killer~



[Rant] -blam!- you bungie and your page reloading, post deleting bull-blam!-! [/rant]

Whew , glad I got that out of my system.

Posted by: Vgnut117


Penn and Teller explain a few things a bit more eloquently than I can.


People die every day by guns. Same with cars, planes, trains, and everything else we do. Where was your righteous anger when Aurora CO massacre took place? How about when multiple people were killed by gang and drug violence over the weekend in Detroit and Chicago? Oh right, the victim demographic makes all the difference. Just because it's kids this time, everyone gets pissed.

It's abhorrent when anyone gets killed by any means, but don't for a single second think that 'gun enthusiasts' don't care about what happens. We are all shocked and deeply saddened at what happened, but -blam!- you and everything you own if you sincerely believe that we value chunks of plastic and metal over innocent human lives lost. That's insane and as far from the truth as you can possibly travel.

None of us here fondle our guns or have wet dreams about killing people, as Diane Feinstein and her ignorant ilk will have people believe. I beleive in the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. Just because one guy loses it and goes on a rampage should not mean that our freedoms should be taken away just so you can feel 'safe' in the future.

The ban on 'assault weapons' was ineffective the first time, and it will fail again if passed. A law based on looks and fear over factual data and function is doomed to fail.

This functions exactly the same as this, yet because of looks alone it's vilified by our ignorant, sometimes borderline retarded members of Congress and the citizens who don't do any research on their own. In fact, the first rifle is 2-3x as powerful as the black rifle, yet no one is crying for it's abolishment from the market.


You want to curb gun crime?

1. Get rid of 'gun free zones'. Gun free zones simply don't work.
2. Improve existing laws to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those who don't pass the criteria to purchase or own one.
3. Allow people to defend themselves. Conceal carry helps



[Edited on 12.22.2012 11:26 PM PST]

  • 12.22.2012 11:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

They are complete morons. I laughed how they offered no solution in the video and just sound like whiney idiots. I wonder if they will have all their security disarmed?

  • 12.22.2012 11:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Scottus4

Posted by: DIGITAL SK1z1lz
So because people are really obese in america, we must regulate our eating utensils?


Their own choice vs someone else making a choice. Fat people are choosing to get diabetes, I didn't choose to allow you to have a gun so you could snap one day and shoot me. Dumb argument.


If someone wanted you dead, they can chew on a tooth brush for thirty seconds and easily stab you.

  • 12.22.2012 11:52 PM PDT

Check out my youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/ultratog1028

I don't agree with anyone who gets paid to lie. What is acting, but artistic lieing?

The problem is the media coverage. Don't glorify the shooter or his kill count and people won't copy as much. Seriously, focus on the victims and not the killer. Give the killer as little attention as possible. Make his name unknown. Give him no legacy, and make his name die out. Honor the victims.

  • 12.22.2012 11:53 PM PDT