As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

PA Bonus Comic

124678

Posts

  • swagnerswagner Registered User new member
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    3) increasing security in one spot is a game of whack a mole. As point 1 sort of implies, you can't just put a cop at every high school anymore. Now, junior highs, elementary and all down would have to be guards. Then, someone would decide to hit a bus, shopping mall, the f***ing massive cluster of unscreened people that exists at every airport security checkpoint when the line gets long...

    It is true that there are many opportunities for such an attack. But consider, if you will, the inverse: should we eliminate guards at all other important locations to save money as well? And can a lack of armed guards in any way ensure the safety of the students? Note, if you will, that many "gun-free" schools employ unarmed guards, for example, Red Lake Senior High School, where the first fatality was a guard with a metal detector but no gun. As you mentioned, cost of hiring guards is high, but the cost of arming an unarmed one is considerably less so. And while the Columbine armed guards failed to do their job, claiming that their failure proves that the system is without merit is like saying that the presence of crime in America implies that the police force is similarly without merit. I can think of a great many bigger wastes of federal money that could be cut before those that you mentioned.

    Also, you mentioned something earlier about only accepting perfect solutions:
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Again, what is your point? That the Chinese attacks wouldn't have been any more lethal if they had fire arms? That if we can't make it *impossible* to kill people, we shouldn't try to make it difficult? That we should only accept 100% air tight solutions that never fail? Yeah, ok, throw in a pony and you've won me over.

    But you missed my original point, and I digress. I only meant to note that the NRA press release was not about video games, and mentioned the arguments that it did make. I was rather disappointed with the comic, not because of its political leanings, but because it reflected a large emotional investment in an event it did not accurately portray. It was not what I had come to expect from a penny arcade strip, not a lighthearted comic about games or gamers, but a heavy-handed political statement.

  • MalRoadkillMalRoadkill Registered User regular
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Absolutely. Any numerical limit is by nature somewhat arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 55 and not 56? Because you have a reasonable point somewhere.

    Going one mile over the speed limit generally doesn't end in felony charges, jail-time, and your rights being stripped from you for the rest of your life. Therefor, reasonable is not a term I would use.
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    I think it's apt description of something that allows people to sell guns at advertised swap meets to avoid background checks. They're taking an exemption that meant for people selling an odd piece to his friend or associate, not meant to be a major source of income; just for people selling off old guns they don't want anymore, and abusing it to operate a full time business without background checks. Back ground checks and waiting periods are something most people want, and using technicalities to avoid them should and I think will be stopped.

    You are right. It is not meant to be a major source of income. However, conducting a business with firearms without an FFL is a federal crime. However, someone picking up a crate of military surplus rifles cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business.
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Again, tough. If they were "free", they would really be paid for by the American people. You're asking people who are experiencing cuts in unemployment insurance, cuts in food stamps (which 1/4th of American children use to eat these days), and you're going to ask them to cover the costs of your private business? That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism, using the public funds to pay for expenses generated by your private business. I think it's amazing how many people oppose welfare, medicaid, etc, as mooching, but have no problem wanting the people to pay the expenses of *their* pet issue.

    Once again, if you're making it into a real business, you're going to get your ass handed to you by the ATF. As for those of us buying, selling and trading for our private collections, if you want to impose restrictions upon my civil rights, you can stand to pay your share too. Firearms are well taxed and regulated as it is. Pet issue? Welfare services are NOT, unlike the ownership and use of firearms, a civil right.

    Also, you will find most people do not oppose welfare and medicaid but rather the oppose the rampant abuse and grift of the system. I've seen too much that first hand. And if you want go into crony capitalism... Remember the folks on capital hill are immune to insider trading laws. Not many reps or senators leave Washington without being much richer than original.

    Getting really off topic at this point. Sorry!

  • swagnerswagner Registered User new member
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    3) increasing security in one spot is a game of whack a mole. As point 1 sort of implies, you can't just put a cop at every high school anymore. Now, junior highs, elementary and all down would have to be guards. Then, someone would decide to hit a bus, shopping mall, the f***ing massive cluster of unscreened people that exists at every airport security checkpoint when the line gets long...

    It is true that there are many opportunities for such an attack. But consider, if you will, the inverse: should we eliminate guards at all other important locations to save money as well? And can a lack of armed guards in any way ensure the safety of the students? Note, if you will, that many "gun-free" schools employ unarmed guards, for example, Red Lake Senior High School, where the first fatality was a guard with a metal detector but no gun. As you mentioned, cost of hiring guards is high, but the cost of arming an unarmed one is considerably less so. And while the Columbine armed guards failed to do their job, claiming that their failure proves that the system is without merit is like saying that the presence of crime in America implies that the police force is similarly without merit. I can think of a great many bigger wastes of federal money that could be cut before those that you mentioned.

    Also, you mentioned something earlier about only accepting perfect solutions:
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Again, what is your point? That the Chinese attacks wouldn't have been any more lethal if they had fire arms? That if we can't make it *impossible* to kill people, we shouldn't try to make it difficult? That we should only accept 100% air tight solutions that never fail? Yeah, ok, throw in a pony and you've won me over.

    But you missed my original point, and I digress. I only meant to note that the NRA press release was not about video games, and mentioned the arguments that it did make. I was rather disappointed with the comic, not because of its political leanings, but because it reflected a large emotional investment in an event it did not accurately portray. It was not what I had come to expect from a penny arcade strip, not a lighthearted comic about games or gamers, but a heavy-handed political statement.

  • MalRoadkillMalRoadkill Registered User regular
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Absolutely. Any numerical limit is by nature somewhat arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 55 and not 56? Because you have a reasonable point somewhere.

    Going one mile over the speed limit generally doesn't end in felony charges, jail-time, and your rights being stripped from you for the rest of your life. Therefor, reasonable is not a term I would use.
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    I think it's apt description of something that allows people to sell guns at advertised swap meets to avoid background checks. They're taking an exemption that meant for people selling an odd piece to his friend or associate, not meant to be a major source of income; just for people selling off old guns they don't want anymore, and abusing it to operate a full time business without background checks. Back ground checks and waiting periods are something most people want, and using technicalities to avoid them should and I think will be stopped.

    You are right. It is not meant to be a major source of income. However, conducting a business with firearms without an FFL is a federal crime. However, someone picking up a crate of military surplus rifles cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business.
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Again, tough. If they were "free", they would really be paid for by the American people. You're asking people who are experiencing cuts in unemployment insurance, cuts in food stamps (which 1/4th of American children use to eat these days), and you're going to ask them to cover the costs of your private business? That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism, using the public funds to pay for expenses generated by your private business. I think it's amazing how many people oppose welfare, medicaid, etc, as mooching, but have no problem wanting the people to pay the expenses of *their* pet issue.

    Once again, if you're making it into a real business, you're going to get your ass handed to you by the ATF. As for those of us buying, selling and trading for our private collections, if you want to impose restrictions upon my civil rights, you can stand to pay your share too. Firearms are well taxed and regulated as it is. Pet issue? Welfare services are NOT, unlike the ownership and use of firearms, a civil right.

    Also, you will find most people do not oppose welfare and medicaid but rather the oppose the rampant abuse and grift of the system. I've seen too much that first hand. And if you want go into crony capitalism... Remember the folks on capital hill are immune to insider trading laws. Not many reps or senators leave Washington without being much richer than original.

    Getting really off topic at this point. Sorry!

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    JimHawking wrote: »
    Uh guys, not to be a buzzkill, but they said they wrote the strip in the morning. The NRA guy spoke in the afternoon. This was likely in response to Sen. Joe Manchin's little diatribe. At least I hope so since the NRA a guy was

    1) Not advocating censorship
    No, not advocating censorship at all. Just blaming violent media for a culture of violence in the country. Casual conversation. No implication to action there at all.
    2) Has no power to push that kind of legislation
    Lolwhat.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    JimHawking wrote: »
    You say that the NRA VP is trying to abdicate his "responsibility" for the shooting by blaming others, yet you all act like NRA are somehow at fault. How is that any less of an abdication? I'm not even understanding how the NRA is in anyway involved in this, since none of the guns used by Lanza have ever been under any threat by anyone of being restricted. If the NRA never existed these guns would be legal.
    That's really beside the point.
    P.S. I find it interesting that numerous (Democratic) politicians, including the president, have been trashing video games over the last few years, yet when the NRA (who has no vote in any elected body i'm aware of) gives a 20 minute response where video games are mentioned for a sentence of it, everyone needs to react to it.
    If you don't understand it by now, there is literally no way to explain it to you because you don't want to understand.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Absolutely. Any numerical limit is by nature somewhat arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 55 and not 56? Because you have a reasonable point somewhere.

    Going one mile over the speed limit generally doesn't end in felony charges, jail-time, and your rights being stripped from you for the rest of your life. Therefor, reasonable is not a term I would use.
    "Generally" and "never" are not the same thing. Your argument fails by your failure to hide your own flawed base assumption.
    You are right. It is not meant to be a major source of income. However, conducting a business with firearms without an FFL is a federal crime. However, someone picking up a crate of military surplus rifles cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business.
    And? That doesn't explain why that should be allowed.
    Once again, if you're making it into a real business, you're going to get your ass handed to you by the ATF. As for those of us buying, selling and trading for our private collections, if you want to impose restrictions upon my civil rights, you can stand to pay your share too. Firearms are well taxed and regulated as it is. Pet issue? Welfare services are NOT, unlike the ownership and use of firearms, a civil right.
    Ahahaha. You have no right to sell your personal firearms to another private citizen. Nowhere in the constitution is the right of "a private citizen to conduct business with another private citizen" enshrined. Good job confusing the issue in the last sentence there. You imply buying and selling guns is a civil right then outright state welfare services aren't. This is absurd.
    You have the right to own a gun, period. Any restriction may be put on that ownership that does not make it overly onerous.

    Also, you will find most people do not oppose welfare and medicaid but rather the oppose the rampant abuse and grift of the system.
    Yes, they impose an imaginary problem whipped up by the GOP and talking heads. Yes, there is abuse and graft in the system - there is abuse and graft in every system, but the abuse and graft in welfare and medicaid does not remotely exceed a statistical average and is in fact less than one would expect. I notice how you leave Medicare and Social Security out of the equation because the old people are a big right-wing block so they can't stump on CURRENT SS and Medicare abuse or reduction. You know who the biggest users of Medicaid are? The same elderly, but the Republicans have everyone convinced it is the illusory welfare queen straw man.
    I've seen too much that first hand.
    And your job is..?

    Cartigan on
  • AceHardingAceHarding Registered User regular
    On the matter of serious or political comics, Tycho and Gabe don't give three ho's what anybody thinks; they do the comics they want to do, and hopefully they always will. They frequently express beliefs and opinions in the strip and posts that directly oppose my own, but I'm not going anywhere.

    My opinion on the strip topic: I'll take free speech AND the right to own guns, thanks.

  • AceHardingAceHarding Registered User regular
    Some genuine advice to some of the duelers in this thread: your multiple-quote response format is obnoxious. You could probably make more impactful arguments if you responded in length to the entirety of someone's post, instead of quoting their message sentence by sentence to respond with petty, ad hominem criticisms.

  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    there's a lot of forgotten history in this subject:

    1) the debate over gun regulations didn't just originate with Newtown and Sandy Hook. there was Columbine, VTech, Aurora, Oak Creek, Utoya, and literally dozens of earlier mass shootings before.

    any claim that calls for gun regulations are merely knee jerk reactions are glossing over a long, sad history of mass shooting deaths.

    2) Mike and Jerry HAVE taken on the likes of Lieberman, Joe Baca, Leland Yee, Jack Thompson, and others. numerous times. this isn't new.

    3) these events rarely happen solely because of one single cause. too often a complex combination of factors come together to generate horrible things. the question is, what can we do to mitigate, if not prevent, some of the factors that lead to people taking other lives in this manner.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • MalRoadkillMalRoadkill Registered User regular
    Cartigan wrote: »
    "Generally" and "never" are not the same thing. Your argument fails by your failure to hide your own flawed base assumption.

    Terribly sorry. I left out the oozing sarcasm font. Damn it.
    Cartigan wrote: »
    Ahahaha. You have no right to sell your personal firearms to another private citizen. Nowhere in the constitution is the right of "a private citizen to conduct business with another private citizen" enshrined. Good job confusing the issue in the last sentence there. You imply buying and selling guns is a civil right then outright state welfare services aren't. This is absurd.
    You have the right to own a gun, period. Any restriction may be put on that ownership that does not make it overly onerous.

    Property rights fall under the 9th Amendment. As legal property the legal buying and selling of guns is protected.
    Cartigan wrote: »
    Yes, they impose an imaginary problem whipped up by the GOP and talking heads. Yes, there is abuse and graft in the system - there is abuse and graft in every system, but the abuse and graft in welfare and medicaid does not remotely exceed a statistical average and is in fact less than one would expect. I notice how you leave Medicare and Social Security out of the equation because the old people are a big right-wing block so they can't stump on CURRENT SS and Medicare abuse or reduction. You know who the biggest users of Medicaid are? The same elderly, but the Republicans have everyone convinced it is the illusory welfare queen straw man.

    I just mentioned two because they're the first ones that came to mind, I was in a hurry. I should have listed them all, sorry. They are all full of fraud and grift, better? Seniors and the retired abuse the system just as much. Better often. A lot of people can't imagine grandma or grandpa being thieves.
    Cartigan wrote: »
    And your job is..?

    Encountered these types in my family and working retail before.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    So you don't actually work in the welfare system and are generalizing the entire thing from a combination of anecdote and talking head whipping. Sounds like the standard story.

    Your right to sell a controlled commodity to another person can legally and constitutionally be limited by the government. Or really any commodity. The Ninth Amendment does not provide a blanket protection to do anything you want.
    Preventing private citizens from selling firearms to other private citizens without a license or performing a background check violate neither your Second nor Ninth Amendment rights. Nor any others.

  • WookieMonsterWookieMonster Registered User regular
    Alright, let's not conflate the NRA with gun ownership... no one appointed the NRA as the ultimate spokesman for gun owners and a large percentage of actual, real gun owners are sorely disappointed with the NRA.

    The real question here is who we are more afraid of: random crazy person or government. Those who call for gun control believe that the government is far more trustworthy to protect the people. Those who oppose gun control believe that no matter how good the intentions of government are, the outcome will be sorrow because government is not as capable as average citizens at protecting the people.

    Let us remember that when law enforcement stops a shooting spree, the average number of deaths is 18.25, while the average number of deaths when stopped by an armed citizen is 2.2.

    However bad these shootings are, we must look to a REAL solution instead of jumping to the conclusion that guns are the problem. There are millions of gun owners who DON'T shoot up schools... why? Because they're not crazy! Crazy people are the problem. Let's have some REAL reform in the field of psychology. Crazy people will always do crazy things.

    But you disarm the citizens and they'll have no way to stop the government from overstepping its bounds.

    Let us also remember that the second amendment was not written so we can go hunting or so we can shoot robbers... it was written by people who had just fought a long and bloody war against THEIR OWN government. They knew that someday their descendents might need to rise up against a new set of tyrants and they wanted us to be well-armed to maintain our freedom. Remember, the musket WAS the "assault weapon" of the day... it may be inferior by today's standards, but by the standards of the 18th century, it was MASSIVELY destructive. But despite that, the right to keep and bear them as protected to keep government in check.

    When government tries to take that right away, it is vital that a free people defend that right at all costs.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    "But you disarm the citizens and they'll have no way to stop the government from overstepping its bounds. "

    That argument might have been valid in, say 1800, but not any more. Unless you intend to argue that the general populace should have legal access to ACTUAL assault weapons - fully automatic weapons, RPGs, gun-working tanks, armed drones, fighter jets.

    And all the "originalists" on the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v Chicago that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to own guns for general self protection - ie, to shoot robbers.

    Cartigan on
  • flashoverrideflashoverride Registered User regular
    You know, at 270 million guns in private hands, it's unlikely that our 1.6 million strong active duty armed forces population could handle it. It's even more unlikely considering the fact that many of them would refuse to fire on fellow citizens. Not to mention the fact that civilians make all of the beans, bullets, and bandages the armed forces use, and handle almost all of the logistics. One of the things about paring down military strength is that the military becomes more reliant on civilian contractors. That's a double edged sword.

    Besides, as bad as Fallujah was house to house, could you imagine Detroit? Atlanta? Chicago? Seattle? Forget it, it would be a freaking nightmare.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    You know, at 270 million guns in private hands, it's unlikely that our 1.6 million strong active duty armed forces population could handle it.
    If you say so.
    It's even more unlikely considering the fact that many of them would refuse to fire on fellow citizens.
    Because that has NEVER happened before.
    Not to mention the fact that civilians make all of the beans, bullets, and bandages the armed forces use, and handle almost all of the logistics. One of the things about paring down military strength is that the military becomes more reliant on civilian contractors. That's a double edged sword.
    At least you are 100% right there.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Let us remember that when law enforcement stops a shooting spree, the average number of deaths is 18.25, while the average number of deaths when stopped by an armed citizen is 2.2.

    This is extremely bad statistical deception. Firstly, let us remember that law enforcement responds to every shooting spree, whereas armed citizens do not, including those where armed citizens failed to stop the shooting spree. Secondly, in my mind, the real problem with firearms proliferation is that we (read you) are incredibly bad at determining who's mentally ill. Like this guy, who may not have been mentally ill, but was obviously not a Marine. If we can't even get that squared away, how do you plan on ensuring that every school guard is sane and will remain sane while they're roaming the hallways of schools armed?

    The NRA chairman brought up the point that the President is guarded by armed men. Yes, but that's because the President is a single, pinpoint target of heightened risk, and the Secret Service are selected from the elite of law enforcement and have years of training.

    Keep in mind, the average American has a 46% chance of experiencing a mental disorder at some point in their lives. Personality disorders have a 15% prevalence in the United States. Assuming we can screen for 2/3 of those with personality disorders, which is highly optimistic given that even the healthcare industry hasn't achieved that rate never mind the firearms industry, for every 100 guns sold, 5 of those are going to people who could be considered, with medical evidence, "crazy". Given these numbers, the mass proliferation of firearms really can't be considered anything but preposterous.

    hippofant on
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    The issue is that it isn't just guns or video games. You wouldn't be able to have mass murders like this one if the shooter didn't have high-tech guns and a lot of ammo. Furthermore, many more kids have been killed on the streets of Chicago in the last week and many more will die in shootings who won't be commemorated. This has to do with guns, but it also has to do with our violent culture, and the organizations which strive to protect that violent culture.

    The NRA is an example of this. The two arguments they bust out every time this happens--

    A)Well it was just a crazy person you can't blame guns for that
    B)If the VICTIMS had guns then they would have survived

    Serve to otherize violent actors and make them this constant threat to our livelihood--a threat that requires that we have guns to make sure that we don't get killed by some lunatic out there with a gun. One must wonder how much less violent a fully armed society would be. But a culture which tells us to feel constantly frightened, and which views acts of violence as a method of agency rather than a last resort or a pathetic action, is going to be a culture that is going to see violence. The amount of guns available, and the organizations we have in the US that support those guns, all make our violent acts more bloody and more deadly.

    So the NRA is right in a minor way--we need to have a conversation in this country about the way we perceive violence. That includes video games, it includes movies, it includes comics and TV. But the NRA is included in that conversation, and the way we regulate gun ownership should also be a part of that conversation.

  • JimHawkingJimHawking Registered User new member
    edited December 2012
    What regulation would have prevented this?

    JimHawking on
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    JimHawking wrote: »
    What regulation would have prevented this?

    Yes, Ethan Smith, guy who suggested that we create a national discussion to find a solution to the issue, how would you solve the whole problem of gun violence?

    I'd make getting guns significantly harder, especially assault weapons and the long-clip semi-automatics that the shooter's mother had a large stock of. But the crux of my argument is that the technology of guns alone aren't the problem, it's the culture that surrounds guns in the United States that makes them so particularly violent. And that's not necessarily a problem that gets fixed with regulation and policy, that's a problem that gets fixed with advocacy and in the realm of cultural politics. However, an intelligent policymaker would and should try to attack the problem of gun violence from both sides.

  • Saint JusticeSaint Justice Mercenary Mah-vel Baybee!!!Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    An "assault weapon" was not used in this shooting, Ethan. Edit: I'm not sure if you're implying that her mother has assault weapons with the way your sentence reads. I may be misinterpreting you.

    Saint Justice on
    Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
  • willis888willis888 Registered User new member
    I just created an account for the exclusive purpose of calling the creator of this comic a fool.

    You fool!

    With that out of the way, check out the memorial page that was created 4 days before the shooting happened:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gTR9Lr6PixgJ:https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/448389438554831+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    This comic represents exactly the type of "reaction" that was calculated to be evoked by the manufactured "problem" of a paramilitary squad with a public relations campaign already in place to start screaming Lone Gunman into the echochamber media. The "solution" will predictably be an attack on the 2nd amendment.

  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    An "assault weapon" was not used in this shooting, Ethan. Edit: I'm not sure if you're implying that her mother has assault weapons with the way your sentence reads. I may be misinterpreting you.

    That was what I was implying.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    willis888 wrote: »
    I just created an account for the exclusive purpose of calling the creator of this comic a fool.

    You fool!

    With that out of the way, check out the memorial page that was created 4 days before the shooting happened:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gTR9Lr6PixgJ:https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/448389438554831+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    This comic represents exactly the type of "reaction" that was calculated to be evoked by the manufactured "problem" of a paramilitary squad with a public relations campaign already in place to start screaming Lone Gunman into the echochamber media. The "solution" will predictably be an attack on the 2nd amendment.

    ...
    What?

  • Reciprocity11aReciprocity11a Registered User regular
    I've had an account here for years, and never felt any reason to post before now. I'm posting this as an avid gamer, owner of multiple guns, a concealed weapon permit holder in 32 states, and a Desert Storm / Afghanistan / Iraq Veteran.

    Drexler University has a study on the effects of violent video games and violent lyrics of rap music on young children. While far from conclusive, most agree that they desensitize young children toward violence. This is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Just as gun education is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Where I grew up, there was never a question about whether or not there were guns in the house, either at friends or anywhere. It was simply known that there were, and they weren't playthings. At the same time, we all knew how to operate and safely use a multitude of guns by the time we were old enough to begin hunting at 12. There are literally hundreds of thousands of guns and gun owners in Idaho. Yet I have never seen Idaho on the news for a mass shooting, or gun violence. We'll make the exception for Ruby Ridge, as that was the ATF initiating violence.

    So my question, for the creator(s) of this comic; why bring up the 2nd amendment at all? Nobody is attempting to censor video games (not any more), nor are they attempting to curtail the first amendment in favor of the 2nd. This comes to me as nothing more than a cheap shot in favor of gun control.

  • CartiganCartigan Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Drexler University has a study on the effects of violent video games and violent lyrics of rap music on young children. While far from conclusive, most agree that they desensitize young children toward violence.
    And,yet no study has conclusively proven any link between desensitization towards violence in media and aggression in the real world, or what's more, desensitization to real world violence.
    This is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Just as gun education is a parenting issue, not a political issue.
    You achieved the right conclusion about parenting issues. Though you are clearly convoluting access to guns with education about their use.
    There are literally hundreds of thousands of guns and gun owners in Idaho. Yet I have never seen Idaho on the news for a mass shooting, or gun violence.
    Wow. Just wow. I really don't know where to start.
    So my question, for the creator(s) of this comic; why bring up the 2nd amendment at all? Nobody is attempting to censor video games (not any more), nor are they attempting to curtail the first amendment in favor of the 2nd. This comes to me as nothing more than a cheap shot in favor of gun control.
    You can't swing a stick without hitting a pre-Second Amendment person trying to take on the First Amendment. It's been that way for years - this is hardly the first time I've ever seen it nor will it be the last.
    Not stating "We should ban violent video games!" does not mean said person is not attacking them - or, there by the First Amendment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be on tv talking them up as the source of violence in our culture. I would think all of the pro-gun members of this forum falling over themselves to complain about the comic as an attack on the Second Amendment would see it, but they are completely blind to the hypocritical double standard. And that is the entire point of the comic.

    Cartigan on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    I've had an account here for years, and never felt any reason to post before now. I'm posting this as an avid gamer, owner of multiple guns, a concealed weapon permit holder in 32 states, and a Desert Storm / Afghanistan / Iraq Veteran.

    Drexler University has a study on the effects of violent video games and violent lyrics of rap music on young children. While far from conclusive, most agree that they desensitize young children toward violence. This is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Just as gun education is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Where I grew up, there was never a question about whether or not there were guns in the house, either at friends or anywhere. It was simply known that there were, and they weren't playthings. At the same time, we all knew how to operate and safely use a multitude of guns by the time we were old enough to begin hunting at 12. There are literally hundreds of thousands of guns and gun owners in Idaho. Yet I have never seen Idaho on the news for a mass shooting, or gun violence. We'll make the exception for Ruby Ridge, as that was the ATF initiating violence.

    So my question, for the creator(s) of this comic; why bring up the 2nd amendment at all? Nobody is attempting to censor video games (not any more), nor are they attempting to curtail the first amendment in favor of the 2nd. This comes to me as nothing more than a cheap shot in favor of gun control.

    Who says parenting issues aren't political issues?

    Also, I assume you mean Drexel University? I've never heard of either, but I can Google one and not the other. On the other hand, googling "Gun violence in Idaho" quickly comes up with this report:

    http://www.tracetheguns.org/report.pdf

    Which reports that 303 guns sold in Idaho were subsequently used in crimes in other states, recovered, and traced back by the ATF. I'm still looking for numbers on gun violence IN Idaho itself, but give me a break, it's only been 4 minutes.

    Edit: Found it! From The Guardian UK, who apparently have started to use Google Docs??? 17 of 32 murders in Idaho were committed with firearms in 2011, for 53%, which is lower than the national average at 68%. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data) Stats are the FBI's, so may not be complete and probably skew towards the grislier?

    Double edit: For comparison, in Germany, 29% of homicides are committed with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime), for a difference of ~40%. That is, if those homicides would be prevented via firearm regulations, the US would have 5066 fewer homicides per year.

    hippofant on
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    The thing is that honing in just on video games is silly because violence in our culture isn't the product of just one game or another. It's not like we released Doom and then all the kids decided 'okay, yeah, now's the time to kill each other'. It's the whole culture, it's the ambient noise

  • Reciprocity11aReciprocity11a Registered User regular
    Cartigan wrote: »
    And,yet no study has conclusively proven any link between desensitization towards violence in media and aggression in the real world, or what's more, desensitization to real world violence.
    This is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Just as gun education is a parenting issue, not a political issue.
    You achieved the right conclusion about parenting issues. Though you are clearly convoluting access to guns with education about their use.
    There are literally hundreds of thousands of guns and gun owners in Idaho. Yet I have never seen Idaho on the news for a mass shooting, or gun violence.
    Wow. Just wow. I really don't know where to start.
    So my question, for the creator(s) of this comic; why bring up the 2nd amendment at all? Nobody is attempting to censor video games (not any more), nor are they attempting to curtail the first amendment in favor of the 2nd. This comes to me as nothing more than a cheap shot in favor of gun control.
    You can't swing a stick without hitting a pre-Second Amendment person trying to take on the First Amendment. It's been that way for years - this is hardly the first time I've ever seen it nor will it be the last.
    Not stating "We should ban violent video games!" does not mean said person is not attacking them - or, there by the First Amendment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be on tv talking them up as the source of violence in our culture. I would think all of the pro-gun members of this forum falling over themselves to complain about the comic as an attack on the Second Amendment would see it, but they are completely blind to the hypocritical double standard. And that is the entire point of the comic.

    You are correct, there hasn't been a conclusive link established. There is still the missing link in Darwin's theory of evolution, but we don't question it... well, most of us don't anyway. Point being, sometimes you have to use a bit of sense and see that making it harder for kids to access violent video games is a good thing, not an infringement upon the video game industry. We don't allow kids access to pornography, and sex is a natural, essential part of life. Yet murder and violence, which we would be much better without, are thrown in our kids' faces as if they were of no consequence.

    No, I'm not convoluting the point. The point is that all of this is a parenting issue, and a social issue. It is not an issue of access to guns. Access to guns has not decreased crime in Australia since their gun ban. It has increased it. In the first year: homicide up 3.2%, assault up 8.6%, armed robbery up 44%. For 25 years prior to the gun ban, these numbers were steadily decreasing. Home invasion, which had no legal definition in Australia prior to the gun ban, is now being reported.

    You don't know where to start because it goes against your agenda for gun control.

    There is no hypocrisy in stating a complaint about a cheap shot towards the 2nd amendment. None of us on this forum (from what I have read) are in favor of limiting free speech, or artistic expression. We may wish to legally limit children's access to violent video games and enforce legally binding ratings on them. But not to curtail their production in anyway.

  • awkwarriorawkwarrior Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Yeah, um. I think it could be strongly argued that this comic is saying, essentially, that "The 'problem' is not the first amendment, but the second."

    If you had stopped three words sooner, you would have been correct. There is nothing in the comic to suggest they are blaming the 2nd amendment.
    delroland wrote: »
    ackwarrior, I agree with most of your points. However, I disagree with your belief in limiting clip size or access to certain kinds of firearms. This is because the vast majority of gun crime committed in the United States is not done with guns that could be classified as assault weapons. Any limitation imposed therein would not be worth the cost of implementation for the resultant quantity of prevented gun deaths.

    Good points. Let me be clear that am I am not married to any particular reforms. The ones I've mentioned sound reasonable, and have expert backing, but I could be convinced otherwise. That said, I don't see how their could be any significant costs to banning high round magazines. Factory owners are pretty good about policing their own output, because they know we could seize and sell the factory and equipment if they don't. The proceeds of which would more than make tax payers whole for any enforcement costs.
    delroland wrote: »
    Furthermore, the argument that extended clips leads to more deaths is relatively irrelevant within the larger picture. There are so many other causes of accidental or wrongful death in this country that exceed the number of clip size related deaths by several orders of magnitude to render clip regulation pointless.

    Ehh.... On the one hand, yes. Death by terrorist attack is unbelievably rare in America, and yet we spend unbelieveable amounts of money to prevent it. Likewise, you're orders of magnitude more like to be hit by lightning than the bullet of a spree shooter. Most accidental deaths, there isn't really anything we, collectively, can do to prevent. People understand that lightning is a nature accident we can't control. We can control what is manufactured in American factories, or shipped for sale across our boarders. So, we do what we can.

    If we had X amount of money, and we were debated spending it on gun control or preventive medical care for the poor, go for the medicine, everytime. We'd save many more lives per dollar, no doubt. But if it's gun control or nothing, I'd go gun control.
    delroland wrote: »
    Essentially, nitpicky regulation of individual things is not going to solve the larger issue to any reasonable degree, and so any effort toward that direction is IMO a waste of energy and resources.

    A perfectly valid opinion.
    delroland wrote: »
    That being said, I completely agree with you that gun show laws are in severe need of reformation. This action would be simple to implement and would result in widespread and significant prevention of gun crime.

    My point is this: it is impossible to protect the citizenship completely from gun violence, as you said above. Therefore, we should concentrate on those changes that are going to be the best balance of efficiency and unobtrusiveness to legitimate gun owners.

    That's fair. I think we can do the best solution (background checks) and also the next best (limited clip size). If we had to choose, I'd say your priorities are correct.
    JimHawking wrote: »
    To all you idiots arguing about this.

    Yeeessss?
    JimHawking wrote: »
    To: Pro-Gun people
    The NRA VP didn't have to say some of this stuff, and his speech was clumsy.

    Tell me, how could he have said it less clumsily?
    JimHawking wrote: »
    To: Everyone else

    You say that the NRA VP is trying to abdicate his "responsibility" for the shooting by blaming others, yet you all act like NRA are somehow at fault. How is that any less of an abdication? I'm not even understanding how the NRA is in anyway involved in this, since none of the guns used by Lanza have ever been under any threat by anyone of being restricted. If the NRA never existed these guns would be legal.

    The NRA is at fault because the extended ammo clip used by Lanza was something the NRA has fought, hard, for decades to keep legal. If the NRA "had never existed," the Overton Window would be very different right now. Of course, if the NRA had never existed, maybe my parents (who met at a riflery shooting meet in college) would never had met and we couldn't be having this conversation at all! Arguing hypotheticals is silly.
    JimHawking wrote: »
    In fact I would love to hear from all these knee-jerk advocates what law would have prevented this shooting, given the following facts:

    1) The shooter did not use an assault weapon

    "Because it falls under the federal definition of the term “assault weapon,” the AR-15 has long been a target of anti-gun legislation." - http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/
    JimHawking wrote: »
    2) The shooter did not use an expanded magazine

    "police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines." - http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
    JimHawking wrote: »
    3) The shooter stole the guns he used

    Which he was only able to do because the weapons were first manufactured then sold to a private citizen-- You'll notice that preventing these key, earlier steps are what this entire fucking debate is about.
    JimHawking wrote: »
    4) The shooter had access to mental healthcare

    ...Ok? I would hope that you agree whatever healthcare he had, it was insufficient.
    JimHawking wrote: »
    I know waiting for the bodies to be buried is a terrible hassle for some of you, but for the love of Christ give us all a break for once.

    Gee, and once the last funeral is held, then you'd be happy to have this debate? Or will there always be some reason why "not now?" I think this is a stalling tactics hoping to win the entire debate via not having it, but I guess we'll see in a week or two.
    JimHawking wrote: »
    I'm disappointed in PA for doing this strip. I don't come to this site to hear tired political talking points. I can just watch the news for that.

    Good, lets be sure not to reach out to anyone not currently involved in the debate. Then, we can continue to exclude them forever because they're uneducated on what types of rounds are used where!
    JimHawking wrote: »
    P.S. I find it interesting that numerous (Democratic) politicians, including the president, have been trashing video games over the last few years, yet when the NRA (who has no vote in any elected body i'm aware of) gives a 20 minute response where video games are mentioned for a sentence of it, everyone needs to react to it.

    If you've seen a quote from the President attacking media like the NRA did, please, share the link. Oh, the NRA *massive* influence over who goes to congress to cast those votes. Speaking up against them achieves the goal of making it a riskier proposition for politicians to accept their support. When candidates stop asking the NRA for money and instead return their checks; then the NRA will have "no vote."

    awkwarrior on
  • awkwarriorawkwarrior Registered User regular
    swagner wrote: »
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    3) increasing security in one spot is a game of whack a mole. As point 1 sort of implies, you can't just put a cop at every high school anymore. Now, junior highs, elementary and all down would have to be guards. Then, someone would decide to hit a bus, shopping mall, the f***ing massive cluster of unscreened people that exists at every airport security checkpoint when the line gets long...

    It is true that there are many opportunities for such an attack. But consider, if you will, the inverse: should we eliminate guards at all other important locations to save money as well?

    This is a very good question, and I give you a lot of credit for being bright enough to bring it up. There is research that says, basically, that once someone has decided to go on a suicide run, as a shooter, bomber, or anything, they will try to hit the biggest target they can. If that is too heavily guarded, they go down the list until they find something that isn't. Places like Israel, North Ireland, etc, have universally experienced this to be true: bombing in Tel Aviv are now at nightclubs and open air markets, because that's whats not guarded. So on the one hand, even if it was working and deterring attacks on airports, all security is accomplishing is to force the criminal to choose a slightly less ideal target. But because we don't experience very many of these "second tier" attacks here in America, there is a good argument that aren't, actually, all that many people trying to kill large numbers of Americans civilians.

    I, personally, am not sold on this theory, but it does warrant further study. The most obvious flaw is that it doesn't take into account the case of "marginal terrorists," who'd be happy to commit suicide to kill 200 Americans, but doesn't feel 100 (or 20, or whatever) is worthwhile.
    swagner wrote: »
    And can a lack of armed guards in any way ensure the safety of the students?

    Nothing's sure in live, except death and taxes.
    swagner wrote: »
    Note, if you will, that many "gun-free" schools employ unarmed guards, for example, Red Lake Senior High School, where the first fatality was a guard with a metal detector but no gun. As you mentioned, cost of hiring guards is high, but the cost of arming an unarmed one is considerably less so.

    Fair point. Buying weapons for currently unarmed guards would cost less than hiring new guards at new locations. But I also think simply giving preexisting guards a new tool is not as big an increase in security as putting a guard (armed or not) where one wasn't. Does the lower cost offset the lower efficacy? A very good question, worth study, who's answer should be used to guide future spending.
    swagner wrote: »
    And while the Columbine armed guards failed to do their job, claiming that their failure proves that the system is without merit is like saying that the presence of crime in America implies that the police force is similarly without merit. I can think of a great many bigger wastes of federal money that could be cut before those that you mentioned.

    Of course I'm not claiming that. I've claimed at having an guard on site, armed or not, while an improvement, would not be sufficient by itself. There can never be a cop in every single room. All that putting the cop on campus does is *reduce* the police response time. Worthwhile! But we should also try to help those responders by trying to reduce the lethality of whoever they're trying to stop.
    swagner wrote: »
    Also, you mentioned something earlier about only accepting perfect solutions:
    But you missed my original point, and I digress. I only meant to note that the NRA press release was not about video games, and mentioned the arguments that it did make.

    Was it "about" videogames? I don't know man, what is anything "about"? I know that the NRA press release referenced video games, and referred to some of them as "pornography," a class of media not protected by the 1st Amendment. That's what all this hoopla is responding to.
    swagner wrote: »
    It was not what I had come to expect from a penny arcade strip, not a lighthearted comic about games or gamers, but a heavy-handed political statement.

    I would go so far as to agree that this comic is indeed not what we would expect from Penny Arcade. It was about games; it was about attempts to scapegoat tragedy onto videogames. Whether or not it is enjoyable to read a comic that does occasionally comment on the perception of video games in the wider world is an exercise left to each individual reader, and I respect your opinion as equally valid as mine, there. Jerry and Mike will produce the website they want to produce, and we can visit it or not as our hearts move us.

  • awkwarriorawkwarrior Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Absolutely. Any numerical limit is by nature somewhat arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 55 and not 56? Because you have a reasonable point somewhere.

    Going one mile over the speed limit generally doesn't end in felony charges, jail-time, and your rights being stripped from you for the rest of your life. Therefor, reasonable is not a term I would use.

    Going one mile over the speed limit can happen accidentally. Producing a clip that holds 11 rounds instead of 10 cannot happen by accident. Nice try, but no.
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    I think it's apt description of something that allows people to sell guns at advertised swap meets to avoid background checks. They're taking an exemption that meant for people selling an odd piece to his friend or associate, not meant to be a major source of income; just for people selling off old guns they don't want anymore, and abusing it to operate a full time business without background checks. Back ground checks and waiting periods are something most people want, and using technicalities to avoid them should and I think will be stopped.

    You are right. It is not meant to be a major source of income. However, conducting a business with firearms without an FFL is a federal crime. However, someone picking up a crate of military surplus rifles cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business.

    Here's a little test: If we were talking about anything, *anything,* anything, besides guns, would your argument still hold true? Lets try it:

    "However, someone picking up [shares of stock] cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business."
    "However, someone picking up [precious metals] cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business."
    "However, someone picking up [a stable of prostitutes] cheap and then selling them off 10 years later when they are worth 4x the cash isn't a business."

    In fact, I would submit to you that buying something, sitting on it, and then reselling it later for a profit, is, in fact a business move. Anything done in exchange for cash is a business. Even if it's in an area you already enjoy as a hobby! I have a basement full of florescent lights and hydroponics; I grow heirloom tomatoes and salad greens year round. Some of it, I eat. A lot, I give to the families I work with, so they can have some sort of fresh food with the rice and beans food stamps pays for. A sell some of it to local restaurants, to cover expenses. I had to register with my secretary of state and the IRS as a business.
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    Again, tough. If they were "free", they would really be paid for by the American people. You're asking people who are experiencing cuts in unemployment insurance, cuts in food stamps (which 1/4th of American children use to eat these days), and you're going to ask them to cover the costs of your private business? That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism, using the public funds to pay for expenses generated by your private business. I think it's amazing how many people oppose welfare, medicaid, etc, as mooching, but have no problem wanting the people to pay the expenses of *their* pet issue.

    Once again, if you're making it into a real business, you're going to get your ass handed to you by the ATF. As for those of us buying, selling and trading for our private collections, if you want to impose restrictions upon my civil rights, you can stand to pay your share too. Firearms are well taxed and regulated as it is. Pet issue? Welfare services are NOT, unlike the ownership and use of firearms, a civil right.

    That funny, because I seem to remember "Life" as the first right enumerated in the constitution. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness," ring any bells?
    You're civil rights are infringing on other people's civil rights not to be shoot in the face. If someone wants to exercise a right that endangers the rights of others, and all they have to do in return is pay the appropriate fee to offset the extra danger they are imposing on others, that is the definition of a just and right fee. I suspect that, really, just disagree with the premise that you having a personal armory endangers others. Of course if you don't see the danger you're putting on others, you don't see the need to pay for it. This is puts you on par with climate change deniers who refuse to pay for toxic emissions.
    Also, you will find most people do not oppose welfare and medicaid but rather the oppose the rampant abuse and grift of the system. I've seen too much that first hand.

    Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Study after study has shown that welfare programs such as food stamps and Medicaid have the highest percentages of funds going to services for the people they serve of any private competitors (such as food banks or private insurance). "Welfare" (a program that hasn't existed since 1996, but now is colloqually used to refer to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the successor program to the original Welfare) requires that all recipients go to work training, education, and try to find jobs. If they cannot, they will be *assigned* a job from the welfare office, which they need to accept and keep or else lose any benefits. Disabled people need to do quarterly medical reviews to keep benefits. I'm sure you can find anecdotes of someone abusing the system, such as a doctor issuing false claims for reimburstment. I'm sure if you dug really deep, you might even find a case or two where the fraud was actually committed by the beneficiary of the program. There are 300 million people in this country; there are lots of edge cases. But by an fair metric (ie, comparing programs to similar private programs, programs run by state or local governments, or programs run overseas), "grift" committed by beneficiaries accounts for fractions of a penny on each dollar spent. It's not worth risking jail for less than $7 a day (actual amount beneficiaries receive! $2.22 a meal) in food stamps. Just getting yourself thrown in jail provides better food and medical care.
    And if you want go into crony capitalism... Remember the folks on capital hill are immune to insider trading laws. Not many reps or senators leave Washington without being much richer than original.

    Getting really off topic at this point. Sorry!

    Aww, but you found a topic I agree with you on! That shit is disgusting and should end.

    awkwarrior on
  • Raging FurballRaging Furball Registered User regular
    The thing is that honing in just on video games is silly because violence in our culture isn't the product of just one game or another. It's not like we released Doom and then all the kids decided 'okay, yeah, now's the time to kill each other'. It's the whole culture, it's the ambient noise

    I have to say you're one of the few people that have enough sense to realize it's not just the presence of guns that result in mass or needlessly brutal killings, and it's nice to know that there are others willing to look past the veil of 'blame the gun' knee-jerkers.

    It's also sad to see how many people are willing to throw one amendment under the bus just to protect their favorite one, especially when the comic that produced this particular thread questions such behaviour.

    I have to slightly disagree with your statement that we need to make it even more difficult to buy and sell firearms though. As the inventory manager of a gun store just an hour north of the Mexican border, I can tell you that the federal laws that are in place and are already actively governing the the way gun stores operate, it's next to impossible to squelch out a living owning such a place. And the ATF... Christ... if only people knew half the stuff the they will do just to have a reason to incarcerate the whole crew.

  • awkwarriorawkwarrior Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    Those who oppose gun control believe that no matter how good the intentions of government are, the outcome will be sorrow because government is not as capable as average citizens at protecting the people.

    Here's the thing: I'm not worried about the average citizen. It doesn't matter how bad the government is at protecting me from the average citizen, because, oh noes, the government failed to stop your super annoying telemarketing plan! I'll live. I need the government to protect me from the abnormal citizens. The ones who are violent, deranged, or just sorrowfully unable to coexist with the rest of us. And maybe the best the government can do is not great! Maybe it's nearly completely incompetent! It's still better than nothing. Of course it always needs improving, but destroying is not improvement.

    Besides which: the government *is* the average people. By mathematical law, whoever the average person supports is who gets elected.

    awkwarrior on
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    I think that the 'what if X had a gun on them' argument is throwing good after bad. If guns are so dangerous that the only way to be safe is for every place to have guards armed with guns then I don't really see the point from a policy perspective.

  • awkwarriorawkwarrior Registered User regular
    edited December 2012
    The thing is that honing in just on video games is silly because violence in our culture isn't the product of just one game or another. It's not like we released Doom and then all the kids decided 'okay, yeah, now's the time to kill each other'. It's the whole culture, it's the ambient noise

    I have to say you're one of the few people that have enough sense to realize it's not just the presence of guns that result in mass or needlessly brutal killings, and it's nice to know that there are others willing to look past the veil of 'blame the gun' knee-jerkers.

    You're full of shit, and a crybaby to boot. Not a single person has argued that "just the presence of guns" is what results in killings.
    It's also sad to see how many people are willing to throw one amendment under the bus just to protect their favorite one, especially when the comic that produced this particular thread questions such behaviour.

    Again, not a single damn person has suggested they want or need to destroy the second amendment for the purpose of protecting free speech. You are a shameless liar.

    awkwarrior on
  • awkwarriorawkwarrior Registered User regular
    Cartigan wrote: »
    And,yet no study has conclusively proven any link between desensitization towards violence in media and aggression in the real world, or what's more, desensitization to real world violence.
    This is a parenting issue, not a political issue. Just as gun education is a parenting issue, not a political issue.
    You achieved the right conclusion about parenting issues. Though you are clearly convoluting access to guns with education about their use.
    There are literally hundreds of thousands of guns and gun owners in Idaho. Yet I have never seen Idaho on the news for a mass shooting, or gun violence.
    Wow. Just wow. I really don't know where to start.
    So my question, for the creator(s) of this comic; why bring up the 2nd amendment at all? Nobody is attempting to censor video games (not any more), nor are they attempting to curtail the first amendment in favor of the 2nd. This comes to me as nothing more than a cheap shot in favor of gun control.
    You can't swing a stick without hitting a pre-Second Amendment person trying to take on the First Amendment. It's been that way for years - this is hardly the first time I've ever seen it nor will it be the last.
    Not stating "We should ban violent video games!" does not mean said person is not attacking them - or, there by the First Amendment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be on tv talking them up as the source of violence in our culture. I would think all of the pro-gun members of this forum falling over themselves to complain about the comic as an attack on the Second Amendment would see it, but they are completely blind to the hypocritical double standard. And that is the entire point of the comic.

    You are correct, there hasn't been a conclusive link established. There is still the missing link in Darwin's theory of evolution, but we don't question it... well, most of us don't anyway. Point being, sometimes you have to use a bit of sense and see that making it harder for kids to access violent video games is a good thing, not an infringement upon the video game industry. We don't allow kids access to pornography, and sex is a natural, essential part of life. Yet murder and violence, which we would be much better without, are thrown in our kids' faces as if they were of no consequence.

    First of all, good tactic name checking Darwin there; good attempt to appeal to the sort of pseudo-intellectual liberal who might be arguing the pro-gun control side. Seriously, props. I know them, I work with them, and you would have them really confused. Unfortunately, there is a significant difference: The theory of evolution is generally considered correct because it can be used to make predictions that are then tested scientifically. Experiements can either disprove or reinforce the likelihood of Darwin being correct. And they overwhelming point that he was. The theory that depictions of violence in media lead to greater real world violence can also be used to make predictions. We should expect, for example, that scientifically done, randomized samples of children, some shown media depicting violence, and a control group not, would show greater levels of violence or aggression in the experiemental group. And despite this experiment being run man, many times, it does not show any significant correlation. Similar experiments, comparing cohorts in similar societies at different points in time, with different media norms for the depiction of violence, on and on, again fail to show any causation.

    So, that's the difference. Actual science, not just accepting "common sense." Oh, and we do allow kids pretty much unlimited access to pornography; if they have internet access, anyway. This has been true for at least 20 years.
    No, I'm not convoluting the point. The point is that all of this is a parenting issue, and a social issue. It is not an issue of access to guns. Access to guns has not decreased crime in Australia since their gun ban. It has increased it. In the first year: homicide up 3.2%, assault up 8.6%, armed robbery up 44%. For 25 years prior to the gun ban, these numbers were steadily decreasing. Home invasion, which had no legal definition in Australia prior to the gun ban, is now being reported.

    You don't know where to start because it goes against your agenda for gun control.

    He doesn't know where to start because you're arguing bullshit that snopes.com debunked nearly twelve years ago. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp If you're wondering if the argument has aged any better since then, no, it hasn't http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
    There is no hypocrisy in stating a complaint about a cheap shot towards the 2nd amendment. None of us on this forum (from what I have read) are in favor of limiting free speech, or artistic expression. We may wish to legally limit children's access to violent video games and enforce legally binding ratings on them. But not to curtail their production in anyway.

    Here's the thing: If there was any evidence making 18+ media ratings mandatory would lower crime rates, it would be worth considering. But there isn't.

  • Reciprocity11aReciprocity11a Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Who says parenting issues aren't political issues?

    Also, I assume you mean Drexel University? I've never heard of either, but I can Google one and not the other. On the other hand, googling "Gun violence in Idaho" quickly comes up with this report:

    http://www.tracetheguns.org/report.pdf

    Which reports that 303 guns sold in Idaho were subsequently used in crimes in other states, recovered, and traced back by the ATF. I'm still looking for numbers on gun violence IN Idaho itself, but give me a break, it's only been 4 minutes.

    Edit: Found it! From The Guardian UK, who apparently have started to use Google Docs??? 17 of 32 murders in Idaho were committed with firearms in 2011, for 53%, which is lower than the national average at 68%. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data) Stats are the FBI's, so may not be complete and probably skew towards the grislier?

    Double edit: For comparison, in Germany, 29% of homicides are committed with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime), for a difference of ~40%. That is, if those homicides would be prevented via firearm regulations, the US would have 5066 fewer homicides per year.

    Parenting issues are not political issues unless you are considering all people to be the property of the State, instead of the State being property of the people. Nothing gives anyone the right to dictate parenting techniques and guidelines to anyone else. Meaning, it's not a political issue so much as an educational issue. And as I had stated, there aren't any mass shooting in Idaho; which happens to be an open-carry state. The mass shooting that started in Utah at Trolley Square was brought up short by an armed citizen, who happened to be an off-duty police officer, illegally carrying their firearm in a "no gun zone". We can go on and on with the cases of robberies, attempted mass shootings and such that have been stopped by responsible, gun owning citizens. Then you also have to look at the largest mass murder prior to 9/11 where Timothy Mcveigh (sp?) used a truck filled with fertilizer to destroy a building in OKC. Following the knee jerk reaction; all rental trucks and fertilizer should have been banned. As to the last of your post, let's take a look at a different country that has instituted gun control and seized guns recently..... Australia.

    Homicide up 3.2%, assault up 8.6%, armed robbery up 44%. For 25 years prior to the gun ban, these crimes were on the decline. Home invasion, which had no legal definition in Australia prior to the gun ban, is now being reported. Their culture resembles the US much closer than does Germany. Doesn't seem like a solution to me, it sounds like more of a problem.

    Then lastly, let's look at the "assault weapons" ban that went from 1994-2004. Our Congress allowed that ban to expire because the FBI had a study that showed it didn't accomplish anything. Other than cost tax payers a lot of money. It didn't cause a decline in gun violence, it didn't even reduce the number of weapons on the streets. It just pissed off those that would never use them for illegal means in the first place.

    So the question stands: why bring up the 2nd amendment, except for a reason to take a cheap shot at the opponents of gun control?

  • Raging FurballRaging Furball Registered User regular
    awkwarrior wrote: »
    The thing is that honing in just on video games is silly because violence in our culture isn't the product of just one game or another. It's not like we released Doom and then all the kids decided 'okay, yeah, now's the time to kill each other'. It's the whole culture, it's the ambient noise

    I have to say you're one of the few people that have enough sense to realize it's not just the presence of guns that result in mass or needlessly brutal killings, and it's nice to know that there are others willing to look past the veil of 'blame the gun' knee-jerkers.

    You're full of shit, and a crybaby to boot. Not a single person has argued that "just the presence of guns" is what results in killings.
    It's also sad to see how many people are willing to throw one amendment under the bus just to protect their favorite one, especially when the comic that produced this particular thread questions such behaviour.

    Again, not a single damn person has suggested they want or need to destroy the second amendment for the purpose of protecting free speech. You are a shameless liar.
    I have to slightly disagree with your statement that we need to make it even more difficult to buy and sell firearms though. As the inventory manager of a gun store just an hour north of the Mexican border, I participate in arming drug cartels, and facilitate murdering law enforcement on both sides of the border.

    You're an ignorant peice of shit and I thank God you're just an idiot on a webcomic forum and not capable of actually doing anything that could affect the real world, good or bad. If you'd like me to point out your ignorance in person, feel free to stop by The Gun Store in Pleasanton, Texas, 1825 Old Pleasanton Rd., any day you feel like a lesson. I'd be more than happy to show you our books, every gun we've ever sold, who we've sold it to, and the ATF policies that we have to follow consistantly.

    Until then, you're just a loudmouthed bitch with no idea on how the world outside your little forum works. Live happy in your ignorance. I doubt I'll ever see the likes of you, as you seem quite happy not knowing shit.

  • Reciprocity11aReciprocity11a Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Who says parenting issues aren't political issues?

    Also, I assume you mean Drexel University? I've never heard of either, but I can Google one and not the other. On the other hand, googling "Gun violence in Idaho" quickly comes up with this report:

    http://www.tracetheguns.org/report.pdf

    Which reports that 303 guns sold in Idaho were subsequently used in crimes in other states, recovered, and traced back by the ATF. I'm still looking for numbers on gun violence IN Idaho itself, but give me a break, it's only been 4 minutes.

    Edit: Found it! From The Guardian UK, who apparently have started to use Google Docs??? 17 of 32 murders in Idaho were committed with firearms in 2011, for 53%, which is lower than the national average at 68%. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data) Stats are the FBI's, so may not be complete and probably skew towards the grislier?

    Double edit: For comparison, in Germany, 29% of homicides are committed with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/cri-crime), for a difference of ~40%. That is, if those homicides would be prevented via firearm regulations, the US would have 5066 fewer homicides per year.

    Parenting issues are not political issues unless you are considering all people to be the property of the State, instead of the State being property of the people. Nothing gives anyone the right to dictate parenting techniques and guidelines to anyone else. Meaning, it's not a political issue so much as an educational issue. And as I had stated, there aren't any mass shooting in Idaho; which happens to be an open-carry state. The mass shooting that started in Utah at Trolley Square was brought up short by an armed citizen, who happened to be an off-duty police officer, illegally carrying their firearm in a "no gun zone". We can go on and on with the cases of robberies, attempted mass shootings and such that have been stopped by responsible, gun owning citizens. Then you also have to look at the largest mass murder prior to 9/11 where Timothy Mcveigh (sp?) used a truck filled with fertilizer to destroy a building in OKC. Following the knee jerk reaction; all rental trucks and fertilizer should have been banned. As to the last of your post, let's take a look at a different country that has instituted gun control and seized guns recently..... Australia.

    Homicide up 3.2%, assault up 8.6%, armed robbery up 44%. For 25 years prior to the gun ban, these crimes were on the decline. Home invasion, which had no legal definition in Australia prior to the gun ban, is now being reported. Their culture resembles the US much closer than does Germany. Doesn't seem like a solution to me, it sounds like more of a problem.

    Then lastly, let's look at the "assault weapons" ban that went from 1994-2004. Our Congress allowed that ban to expire because the FBI had a study that showed it didn't accomplish anything. Other than cost tax payers a lot of money. It didn't cause a decline in gun violence, it didn't even reduce the number of weapons on the streets. It just pissed off those that would never use them for illegal means in the first place.

    So the question stands: why bring up the 2nd amendment, except for a reason to take a cheap shot at the opponents of gun control?

Sign In or Register to comment.