Long time reader of Penny Arcade, very pro-2nd Amendment, and have been a member of the NRA before. I came into the firearms community through video and table top games. Video games are an increasingly important launchpad for people coming into the shooting sports and gun ownership. A lot of young guys and even girls entering were not raised in families that had any sort of traditions regarding firearms. After using them in games for years, folks often get curious and want to try the real thing and often find a very rewarding hobby that even gets them interested in being out of doors. I'm not happy that both the NRA and other lobby groups are looking to hit video games as a scapegoat. It is very counter-productive. However, despite that the NRA is very dedicated and extremely good at providing training resources, education, and certified instruction for firearms. The NRA promotes the safe and legal use and ownership of firearms to the utmost. The lobbying arm tries to protect our access to firearms for these legal purposes.
As I said, I don't really like that the lobbying arm is scapegoating on the first amendment. Tycho says that "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second." You need to realize that some have no issues with destroying the First to destroy the Second. You must admit that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs. If a kid at school draws a Counter Strike CT shooting a tin can or at a terrorist, that kid is very likely to be suspended if not arrested for terroristic threatening. Political correctness has long been used to stamp out first amendment rights for everyone. We have to protect some icky things to protect our freedom.
I've also noticed that no one is ever accused of being a "free speech nut" or a "fair trial activist". All rights are created equal, as unsavory as that might seem to some.
really? most republicans I know practically regard the aclu as a terrorist organization
I've also noticed that no one is ever accused of being a "free speech nut" or a "fair trial activist". All rights are created equal, as unsavory as that might seem to some.
really? most republicans I know practically regard the aclu as a terrorist organization
Relevant Simpsons .mp3 file. Doesn't make a ton of sense unless you saw the episode or the sound effect with Lisa's line instantly says "burning" to you.
Which part of the NRA's statement attacks the 1st Amendment?
I love video games and I'm all for protecting them under freedom of speech, but there's a big difference between calling for a right to be curtailed or even taken away entirely and merely criticizing the way in which a right is exercised. After all, criticism is just exercising one's own freedom of speech in response to someone else's exercise of that same right, isn't it?
Buddy, if you think you could (safely) ignore the idiots and monsters in politics, without also taking in account whether they also run lobbying associations with millions of dollars in their superPACs who issue influential (in Republican primaries, at least) "report cards" on every one of thousands of federal and state legislators across the country, I have this wonderful bridge I would like to sell you. Great location.
Also, there would be like four politicians left, nationwide.
Here's one I came up with: when a dozen 6-year-olds have been shot to death, you don't go "let's not lose sight of the bigger wrong being perpetrated here.", especially re: videogames
You know, I don't think I've noticed anyone ever say or mean anything like that. I have seen people say "The NRA is trying to throw up dust and distract people from the actual issues being debated (such as banning full auto, assault, and machine guns, and limiting the clip size of semi-automatics) by scapegoating videogames as a subset of nearly all culture, (Tycho said this implicitly in the comic in the form of "videogames, music, movies, even the news,") and that trying to jedi mind trick your way out of an important debate even being held, is bullshit. And besides, anyone hypocritical enough to blame the fruits of the 1st amendment for the uses of 2nd amendment, reveals himself to not actually care about the integrity of the Constitution as a whole, and thus exposed, everything else they say should be held suspect."
In fact, that's exactly what the Comic says, but in a way that you can read and not make you wonder if the author was born in Eastern Europe or Asia, as my horrible prose surely does.
The NRA statement didn't ignore those claims only to shift blame onto video games. It rebutted those pro-gun control arguments and then blamed video games.
I don't really see how saying that banning certain firearms and features wouldn't prevent this sort of thing from happening is "throwing up dust". If some are claiming that stricter gun control laws are a good idea and you disagree, it seems valid to say so and say why you disagree.
0
Options
MachwingIt looks like a harmless old computer, doesn't it?Left in this cave to rot ... or to flower!Registered Userregular
I think that, given the immensity of recent events and relative unimportance of video games, this comic is in poor taste.
I'd like to point out that the final statement can (and should be) read the other way; "It is a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the second amendment to save the first." Our rights do not exist independently of one another. They passed the Bill of Rights together for a reason.
Also, and this is just my opinion, but this strip seems more than a little 'holier than thou'. "Oh the 1st amendment? That's sacred? The 2nd? Fuck them."
I'd suggest sticking to video games and leaving politic alone, there are more than enough smug, sanctimonious hacks working that angle already.
I'd like to point out that the final statement can (and should be) read the other way; "It is a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the second amendment to save the first." Our rights do not exist independently of one another. They passed the Bill of Rights together for a reason.
Also, and this is just my opinion, but this strip seems more than a little 'holier than thou'. "Oh the 1st amendment? That's sacred? The 2nd? Fuck them."
You're right, our rights do not exist independently of one another. But it's the NRA that is saying, "The best way to stop gun violence is through censorship!" To call them out on their shit is highly appropriate to the discussion; it's not an attack on gun rights, but rather on a minority of moronic assholes within the greater gun rights movement.
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
+3
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
It's amazing how many things people are reading into the statement that aren't in it.
As I mentioned in the other thread before the fork, I saw this coming. Part of me wants to say T&G should have been more careful to clearly lay out what exactly they were saying with this comic.
The other part of me says fuck that, this is their website, and their comic, and it's not their responsibility to try to anticipate when people are going to misread their comic in such a way as to reinforce a preexisting sense of persecution. One of the reasons I like PA so very much is exactly because they don't give any shits whatsoever about what random internet people think.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
While I understand and actually agree with the sentiment expressed in the comic here, Mike and Jerry have been... less than informed and understanding on the topic of private ownership of firearms before so this whole thing had kind of an uncomfortable edge to it.
Upon actually reading the statement issued by the NRA, it doesn't look like they're trying to 'blame videogames' for the most recent incident. A conclusion most people seem in a rush to jump to. They're basically saying that our society has become the romans at the colosseum, calling for more bloodshed. But when that bloodshed happens outside the colosseum, we point the finger at inanimate objects instead of looking at who we are as a people and asking how we let a situation escalate to such a point.
The Escapist article... bleh. That just reads like an anti-nra propaganda pamphlet. I'll stick to reading the entirety of the NRA statement and form my own opinion (already stated above), thank you.
As for the comic itself, I'd have to agree with Guildenstern. I'd feel far more comfortable with them making a donation to mental health and children's outreach programs than I do with them taking a stance on such a topic.
the thing I love most about this is the NRA specifically focused on games that do not involve gun violence. Instead of say the most popular franchise of this generation they have to go after splatterhouse.
Upon actually reading the statement issued by the NRA, it doesn't look like they're trying to 'blame videogames' for the most recent incident. A conclusion most people seem in a rush to jump to. They're basically saying that our society has become the romans at the colosseum, calling for more bloodshed.
No more so than any European country, yet somehow... this kind of thing doesn't happen over here.
What could be the difference?
Re: those who think the comic is defending videogames, no it's not. It's saying that blaming videogames is a distraction and, therefore, will ultimately perpetuate the problem. It's like if you got falsely accused of a crime, and you were like, I didn't do it, the real criminal is still out there. And you got accused of being insensitive to the victim.
Upon actually reading the statement issued by the NRA, it doesn't look like they're trying to 'blame videogames' for the most recent incident. A conclusion most people seem in a rush to jump to. They're basically saying that our society has become the romans at the colosseum, calling for more bloodshed. But when that bloodshed happens outside the colosseum, we point the finger at inanimate objects instead of looking at who we are as a people and asking how we let a situation escalate to such a point.
I agree with you to a point. The statement doesn't directly blame video games for the shooting. Instead, it blames the general degredation of our culture for this and other shootings. The problem is that it goes out of its way to specifically mention video games as one of the driving forces of that degredation, comparing it to pornography and some intentionally vague badness/wrongness ("shadow industry").
I just have to laugh at the hypocrisy of it all. Someone else made the point of the NRA's own double standards regarding how they glorify gun ownership. Regarding games specifically, many of the most popular games over the past 5+ years have been about playing as a soldier defending America from external and internal threats. If anything games have become more blindly patriotic as time has gone on. And, of course, no study has ever found a causal relationship between video games and gun violence.
I have no problem with the comic. It's fitting that a franchise whose success is directly tied to gaming attempt to take a stand against irrational criticism directed at it.
Wow, after reading all these replies to Mike's comic, I see we all are still missing the greater point to it all. How I interpret "A Comic" is that this is a response to the NRA commentary about media in general. The real issue I have is all the finger pointing both with the NRA and EVERYONE here. This is the true issue in America is the complete lack of responsibility of personal actions.
I don't care whether your preferred hobby involves a gamepad or a holster, both are your rights to enjoy within the boundaries of the law. Did you see my the use of that word there, yeah that one "rights".
Gamers yours are protected by the 1st amendment. Gunners your are protected by the 2nd. I'm not arguing about your rights, those cannot be taken away nor should they. I am however arguing the point of what certain people do with those rights when they don't consider the obvious answer to avoid the most unforeseen consequences.
Both the 1st and 2nd amendment are equally dangerous to a young impressionable mind. However that is not up to you, me or the government to enforce how others raise their families or what they let into their homes. You think video games, movies and news are not right for your children, then as parents, you censor and control what they see. Just like how your are supposed to lock your guns or any other dangerous weapons because that's how the 1st amendment should be treated when it comes to your kids. I'm not going to do it for you.
Oh there is probably going to be the argument that this is the real world and you can't avoid it all. While that is true it doesn't dismiss your own responsibilities nor does it limit your control as a parent. Example: The decision to take your children to a sporting event. Chances are, much like in any video game voice communication, there are going to be assholes who say things you don't want your children to hear. Where is the failure in these scenario? Does it lie with the general assholes out there? No, the failure lies with the parent who failed to prepare their children for the hazards of the real world. Children left alone to come up with their own conclusions with unguided observations on how adults interact with each other will and always be a very bad idea. The solution, don't take them to that sporting event or play that video game online until this conditions are met: You have prepared your child mentally for what is to be expected and teach them to ignore stupid commentary or if it get inappropriate teach them how to call on help whether it be from a stadium guard to an online mod.
So here is a suggestion to both gunners and gamers. Collaborate. Gamers, stop thinking games do not influence all sorts reactions, because they do. I can think of three religious texts that have started bloody wars because of miscommunication and wide interpretation. Those were just books. Well any form of media suffers the same hazards, well because media is meant to inspire by it's very nature. Gunners, work with the gamers and apply some of that gun safety know-how when it comes to kids. Help gamers identify common sense dangers that you would associate with your own "personal" gun control. The responsible ones among you know that you wouldn't leave guns and ammo in your home unlocked and within easy access of a mentally touched individual. So do the same and review some of the parental controls in our media and start making suggestions to optimize and inform people about it.
Videogames are in no realistic danger of legislative retribution. This comic is hamhanded and irrelevant.
I was unaware "hamhanded and irrelevant" meant "poignant and topical."
To be fair, it isn't only video games NRA is trying scapegoat - it's pop culture in and of itself. The ironic part of all this is the reason that guns and gun violence in media is so acceptable and prevalent is in large part due to the NRA.
You can't say "everyone should have guns and know how to use guns and guns are a-okay" while going "oh my god, guns in media! You child corrupters!"
Thats what makes it hamhanded, the attempt at being "poignant": the muted monochrome colours, Tycho gazing into the readers eyes wistfully...and then the reveal that he's not being sad over dead kids, he's taken this moment of poignant reflection over the tragedy of people badmouthing videogames.
The whole "buying a shotgun being easier than buying quake 3" comic is a better stab at the same point because at least that is actually satire, its not a Very Special Episode.
Jeedan on
+2
Options
MachwingIt looks like a harmless old computer, doesn't it?Left in this cave to rot ... or to flower!Registered Userregular
The NRA is condemning speech, not trying to take your speech away (unlike the gun grabbers).
I'm not qualified to say how it influences behavior, but GTA absolutely glorifies violence, specifically against innocents. Not sure how it could be argued otherwise. And this is from someone who enjoys GTA.
But for PA to make a blanket claim that speech doesn't influence behavior is willful blindness.
The NRA stepped on their own legitimate self-defense argument by going after the culture (much harder to prove), big mistake.
The first amendment gave us the pen, the second amendment gave us the sword. We need both to truly be free. Without one, we can not have the other.
I live in Australia, where gun laws are incredibly restrictive, and I strongly disagree with you. I don't even understand why the USA has retained the constitution. An unchanging document is a dangerous thing to live by.
I'm not qualified to say how it influences behavior, but GTA absolutely glorifies violence, specifically against innocents. Not sure how it could be argued otherwise. And this is from someone who enjoys GTA.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Do the violent murders seem happy? Are they satisfied by their crimes? Does the in-game general public react positively or negatively to someone on a shooting spree? There is a huge gap between depiction and glorifying.
Long time reader of Penny Arcade, very pro-2nd Amendment, and have been a member of the NRA before. I came into the firearms community through video and table top games. Video games are an increasingly important launchpad for people coming into the shooting sports and gun ownership. A lot of young guys and even girls entering were not raised in families that had any sort of traditions regarding firearms. After using them in games for years, folks often get curious and want to try the real thing and often find a very rewarding hobby that even gets them interested in being out of doors.
That's a side of the (video) gaming world's affects I was unaware, and imagine most people here were as well. Thank you for taking the time to type up something that is interesting, useful, but obscure to most of the audience. I was expecting this forum to be 98% mostly illiterate troglodytes, instead you guys have been really awesome to talk with.
I'm not happy that both the NRA and other lobby groups are looking to hit video games as a scapegoat. It is very counter-productive. However, despite that the NRA is very dedicated and extremely good at providing training resources, education, and certified instruction for firearms. The NRA promotes the safe and legal use and ownership of firearms to the utmost. The lobbying arm tries to protect our access to firearms for these legal purposes.
Yeah, there are states where the NRA is the only grouping offering legally required firearm insurance. I don't disagree with the notion that they do a lot of important work to make guns safe and accessible. In fact, that is a major factor in what makes the lobbying arm so duplicitous: It claims to speak for all their members, including people who signed up for one afternoon's insurance at a gun range, and never touched a firearm again. I'm not saying these people agree with me, but I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the most extreme wing of the NRA makes all the policy decisions for all their less extreme cohort. And when you factor in that most people don't have the time to monitor everything that comes out of the press shop of every organization they ever joined, they don't even know what's being said supposedly on their behalf. The NRA's pronouncements would mean a lot more if their was a more meaningful way for the average member to actually have influence over them.
As I said, I don't really like that the lobbying arm is scapegoating on the first amendment. Tycho says that "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second." You need to realize that some have no issues with destroying the First to destroy the Second.
Actually, that's something I've never seen in my entire life. Link to a couple articles about people trying to limit the rights of free speech to prevent pro-gun messages from finding an outlet, plz.
You must admit that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs.
So what's your point, that unless someone comes out to support gun rights they can't support 1st amendment rights? That's crazy. For many people, they *aren't* high-mindly "pro-civil rights," equally eager to support them all. Lots of people support one sort of rights issue strongly (Civil rights, LGBT rights, etc) and don't feel like they have the remaining time or energy to support all of them. The pick the one that they think affects or will affect their life the most directly. Or, more realistically, they try to exercise what they thing should be a right and are shocked and angered to find that they can't exercise that right the way they want to. So they would say something like "I had no intention of becoming a feminist, but when I discovered I was only making 65% the salary of my male counterparts, I was outraged. The attorneys and judges say their isn't a law being broken, so I can't sue. I wasn't going to lie down and take that. I had no other option to see my human rights respected except to campaign for a change in laws x,y,z, etc etc..."
And there is nothing wrong with that! My concerns and your concerns are not the same, we're each free to direct our time and effort how we like. So, yes, I'll admit what you're saying here ("that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs.") but I'm not what if anything that proves.
(This is, of course, diffferent from trying to cover yourself in the magic, criticism deflecting immutable constitution while denying that privilege to other parts of the constitution, like the NRA President LaPierre did.)
If a kid at school draws a Counter Strike CT shooting a tin can or at a terrorist, that kid is very likely to be suspended if not arrested for terroristic threatening. Political correctness has long been used to stamp out first amendment rights for everyone. We have to protect some icky things to protect our freedom.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's not right. I have five nieces and nephews in my close extended family who are in school (ages 4 - 14). They report doodling in class is still a beloved childhood boredom outlet, and that the common motifs of swords, monsters, and violence are still there. The teachers still disapprove of this behavior, and hand out punishments ranging from missing recess to detention for drawing in class. This is very much in line with my recollection of school in the 80s/90s (all pre colombine). I do also remember the kid who drew the most gruesome and bloody stuff being sent for an interview with the school behaviorist (I think; the person's full title wasn't used around the non-screened kids, in an attempt to avoid stigmatizing his patients). I don't see the change, especially in 1st amendment terms. Again, if you have research or articles showing otherwise, please link.
Which part of the NRA's statement attacks the 1st Amendment?
I love video games and I'm all for protecting them under freedom of speech, but there's a big difference between calling for a right to be curtailed or even taken away entirely and merely criticizing the way in which a right is exercised. After all, criticism is just exercising one's own freedom of speech in response to someone else's exercise of that same right, isn't it?
Sure, here you go.
"Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
...
How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the
wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?
...
And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away
So, LaPierre starts by saying he is addressing the safety of our nation's children. He declares his intent to "address" of important question of "How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?" Now, he said "address," not answer, because hes not trying to actually answer anything. He goes on to phrase what sound like the conclusion of his "addressing" as questions. This gives people such as yourself the opportunity to point out that he never actually specifically suggested that we follow up on anything that his rambling speech implied.
And imply it does. Note the section above that I bolded. Pornography is one of the few areas of expression that supreme court specifically has said is not protected by the 1st Amendment. If he had phrased that as a statement instead of a question, he'd be suggesting that violent media is bannable, in a statement that started declaring it wants to discuss what we can do immediately to make schools safer. But, an NRA supporter would say, "He's not suggesting it; he's just asking a question!" Attorneys have a saying: never ask a question unless you already know the answer. LaPierre knows the answers he wants you to draw from his leading questions. He just wants to leave himself weasel room to distance himself from that statement in the future, after all this furor about doing something for the children has died down.
So, yes, trying to expand the pornography exemption to the 1st amendment is an attempt to weaken our 1st amendment rights.
The NRA statement didn't ignore those claims only to shift blame onto video games. It rebutted those pro-gun control arguments and then blamed video games.
re·but verb \ri-ˈbət\
re·but·tedre·but·ting
Definition of REBUT
transitive verb
1
: to drive or beat back : repel
2
a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof
b : to expose the falsity of : refute
I've read the entire statement a couple times now, but I don't see anywhere that it actually addresses the proposal to limit clip size, let alone offer any "countervailing proof" to claims a lower clip size law would reduce the scope of these tragedies.
I don't really see how saying that banning certain firearms and features wouldn't prevent this sort of thing from happening is "throwing up dust".
It's not. It's the BS he spouts about media violence that is the dust he throws up. He's clouding the issue by dragging non-germaine topics (depictions of violence in media) into the debate.
If some are claiming that stricter gun control laws are a good idea and you disagree, it seems valid to say so and say why you disagree.
If LaPiere wants to actually engage with this issues (clip size, full auto, etc), that would indeed be a valid argument. Here's the closest thing I can find from him:
The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle 5 calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don't know what they're talking about!
There is no substance to that except "some media commentators do no understand gun taxonomy," which, frankly, is a pretty insipid response to what's actually happened.
I'd like to point out that the final statement can (and should be) read the other way; "It is a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the second amendment to save the first." Our rights do not exist independently of one another. They passed the Bill of Rights together for a reason.
Actually, the Bill of Rights are only the last 10 of 12 proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified. Nice try, though.
Also, and this is just my opinion, but this strip seems more than a little 'holier than thou'. "Oh the 1st amendment? That's sacred? The 2nd? Fuck them."
How do you get anything besides "If someone claims to care about the constitution, but has no trouble throwing the 1st amendment on the train tracks to protect the 2nd, they are obviously not concerned about any sort of integrity of the constitution, and their claims of such should be understood as bullshit,"? There is no point where Tycho elevates either amendment over the other.
Wow, after reading all these replies to Mike's comic, I see we all are still missing the greater point to it all. How I interpret "A Comic" is that this is a response to the NRA commentary about media in general. The real issue I have is all the finger pointing both with the NRA and EVERYONE here. This is the true issue in America is the complete lack of responsibility of personal actions.
This is rich.
1) Wayne LaPierre says "Don't blame the guns, it's all the blood on the xstations!"
2) Tycho says "Hey, that's bullshit, quit pointing fingers at us."
3)Syncr0 declares "LaPierre was wrong to blame video games, but Tycho was also wrong to call out LaPierre's bullshit, because saying someone is full of shit is itself finger pointing."
Hilarious, actually
Well, Syncr0, I think the *real* issue here are people pointing fingers at others for pointing fingers. This is the true issue in America; the complete lack of responsibility for personal actions. I expect you will show the rest of us how it's done.
Both the 1st and 2nd amendment are equally dangerous to a young impressionable mind.
Show me an study that reports damage to children *from* *media* is comparable to the effects of a rifle round through the skull and I will fly across country to personally blow you.
So here is a suggestion to both gunners and gamers. Collaborate. Gamers, stop thinking games do not influence all sorts reactions, because they do. I can think of three religious texts that have started bloody wars because of miscommunication and wide interpretation. Those were just books. Well any form of media suffers the same hazards, well because media is meant to inspire by it's very nature. Gunners, work with the gamers and apply some of that gun safety know-how when it comes to kids. Help gamers identify common sense dangers that you would associate with your own "personal" gun control. The responsible ones among you know that you wouldn't leave guns and ammo in your home unlocked and within easy access of a mentally touched individual. So do the same and review some of the parental controls in our media and start making suggestions to optimize and inform people about it.
Conservatism is inherently different from Progressivism. Progressives want to pass bills, improve thing constantly as new data and research comes in. Conservative win by simply blocking action. They don't need to round up a majority in both houses of the legislature and the state's chief executive to pass a bill, they just need to control any one of those points (or in the relevant committees in either house) to win. Doing something is hard, people are inherently prejudiced against change. (It's called loss aversion). So to block change, the NRA doesn't have to actually have to propose a workable alternative. They can claim that they do want to fix the problem; just not this specific fix. or the next thing you're proposing, either. If progressives make a moderate proposal, and then conservatives respond to that with an extreme radical proposal, this does not mean that the correct solution is to meet in the middle. and even if progressives tried to move to the middle they would find themselves like zeno's arrow: however far to the right they move there's always going to be a new middle that they need to move towards. always some way to point out that everybody is equally wrong even when the fault is much more higher concentrate on one side and the other.
It is an even sadder day when people blame the second amendment for crazy.
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
Long time reader of Penny Arcade, very pro-2nd Amendment, and have been a member of the NRA before. I came into the firearms community through video and table top games. Video games are an increasingly important launchpad for people coming into the shooting sports and gun ownership. A lot of young guys and even girls entering were not raised in families that had any sort of traditions regarding firearms. After using them in games for years, folks often get curious and want to try the real thing and often find a very rewarding hobby that even gets them interested in being out of doors.
That's a side of the (video) gaming world's affects I was unaware, and imagine most people here were as well. Thank you for taking the time to type up something that is interesting, useful, but obscure to most of the audience. I was expecting this forum to be 98% mostly illiterate troglodytes, instead you guys have been really awesome to talk with.
I'm not happy that both the NRA and other lobby groups are looking to hit video games as a scapegoat. It is very counter-productive. However, despite that the NRA is very dedicated and extremely good at providing training resources, education, and certified instruction for firearms. The NRA promotes the safe and legal use and ownership of firearms to the utmost. The lobbying arm tries to protect our access to firearms for these legal purposes.
Yeah, there are states where the NRA is the only grouping offering legally required firearm insurance. I don't disagree with the notion that they do a lot of important work to make guns safe and accessible. In fact, that is a major factor in what makes the lobbying arm so duplicitous: It claims to speak for all their members, including people who signed up for one afternoon's insurance at a gun range, and never touched a firearm again. I'm not saying these people agree with me, but I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the most extreme wing of the NRA makes all the policy decisions for all their less extreme cohort. And when you factor in that most people don't have the time to monitor everything that comes out of the press shop of every organization they ever joined, they don't even know what's being said supposedly on their behalf. The NRA's pronouncements would mean a lot more if their was a more meaningful way for the average member to actually have influence over them.
As I said, I don't really like that the lobbying arm is scapegoating on the first amendment. Tycho says that "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second." You need to realize that some have no issues with destroying the First to destroy the Second.
Actually, that's something I've never seen in my entire life. Link to a couple articles about people trying to limit the rights of free speech to prevent pro-gun messages from finding an outlet, plz.
You must admit that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs.
So what's your point, that unless someone comes out to support gun rights they can't support 1st amendment rights? That's crazy. For many people, they *aren't* high-mindly "pro-civil rights," equally eager to support them all. Lots of people support one sort of rights issue strongly (Civil rights, LGBT rights, etc) and don't feel like they have the remaining time or energy to support all of them. The pick the one that they think affects or will affect their life the most directly. Or, more realistically, they try to exercise what they thing should be a right and are shocked and angered to find that they can't exercise that right the way they want to. So they would say something like "I had no intention of becoming a feminist, but when I discovered I was only making 65% the salary of my male counterparts, I was outraged. The attorneys and judges say their isn't a law being broken, so I can't sue. I wasn't going to lie down and take that. I had no other option to see my human rights respected except to campaign for a change in laws x,y,z, etc etc..."
And there is nothing wrong with that! My concerns and your concerns are not the same, we're each free to direct our time and effort how we like. So, yes, I'll admit what you're saying here ("that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs.") but I'm not sure what that proves.
(This is, of course, different from trying to cover yourself in the magic, criticism deflecting immutable constitution while denying that privilege to other parts of the constitution, like LaPierre did.)
If a kid at school draws a Counter Strike CT shooting a tin can or at a terrorist, that kid is very likely to be suspended if not arrested for terroristic threatening. Political correctness has long been used to stamp out first amendment rights for everyone. We have to protect some icky things to protect our freedom.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's not right. I have five nieces and nephews in my close extended family who are in school (ages 4 - 14). They report doodling in class is still a beloved childhood boredom outlet, and that the common motifs of swords, monsters, and violence are still there. The teachers still disapprove of this behavior, and hand out punishments ranging from missing recess to detention for drawing in class. This is very much in line with my recollection of school in the 80s/90s (all pre colombine). I do also remember the kid who drew the most gruesome and bloody stuff being sent for an interview with the school behaviorist (I think; the person's full title wasn't used around the non-screened kids, in an attempt to avoid stigmatizing his patients). I don't see the change, especially in 1st amendment terms. Again, if you have research or articles showing otherwise, please link.
Which part of the NRA's statement attacks the 1st Amendment?
I love video games and I'm all for protecting them under freedom of speech, but there's a big difference between calling for a right to be curtailed or even taken away entirely and merely criticizing the way in which a right is exercised. After all, criticism is just exercising one's own freedom of speech in response to someone else's exercise of that same right, isn't it?
Sure, here you go.
"Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
...
How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the
wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?
...
And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away
So, LaPierre starts by saying he is addressing the safety of our nation's children. He declares his intent to "address" of important question of "How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?" Now, he said "address," not answer, because hes not trying to actually answer anything. He goes on to phrase what sound like the conclusion of his "addressing" as questions. This gives people such as yourself the opportunity to point out that he never actually specifically suggested that we follow up on anything that his rambling speech implied.
And imply it does. Note the section above that I bolded. Pornography is one of the few areas of expression that supreme court specifically has said is not protected by the 1st Amendment. If he had phrased that as a statement instead of a question, he'd be suggesting that violent media is bannable, in a statement that started declaring it wants to discuss what we can do immediately to make schools safer. But, you NRA supporters will say, "He's not suggesting it; he's just asking a question!" Attorneys have a saying: never ask a question unless you already know the answer. LaPierre knows the answers he wants you to draw from his leading questions. He just wants to leave himself weasel room to distance himself from that statement in the future, after all this furor about doing something for the children has died down.
So, yes, trying to expand the pornography exemption to the 1st amendment is an attempt to weaken our 1st amendment rights.
The NRA statement didn't ignore those claims only to shift blame onto video games. It rebutted those pro-gun control arguments and then blamed video games.
re·but verb \ri-ˈbət\
re·but·tedre·but·ting
Definition of REBUT
transitive verb
1
: to drive or beat back : repel
2
a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof
b : to expose the falsity of : refute
I've read the entire statement a couple times now, but I don't see anywhere that it actually addresses the proposal to limit clip size, let alone offer any "countervailing proof" to claims a lower clip size law would reduce the scope of these tragedies.
I don't really see how saying that banning certain firearms and features wouldn't prevent this sort of thing from happening is "throwing up dust".
It's not. It's the BS he spouts about media violence that is the dust he throws up. He's clouding the issue by dragging non-germaine topics (depictions of violence in media) into the debate.
If some are claiming that stricter gun control laws are a good idea and you disagree, it seems valid to say so and say why you disagree.
If LaPiere wants to actually engage with this issues (clip size, full auto, etc), that would indeed be a valid argument. Here's the closest thing I can find from him:
The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle 5 calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don't know what they're talking about!
There is no substance to that except "some media commentators do no understand gun taxonomy," which, frankly, is a pretty insipid response to what's actually happened.
I'd like to point out that the final statement can (and should be) read the other way; "It is a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the second amendment to save the first." Our rights do not exist independently of one another. They passed the Bill of Rights together for a reason.
Actually, the Bill of Rights are only the last 3 of 12 proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified. Nice try, though.
Also, and this is just my opinion, but this strip seems more than a little 'holier than thou'. "Oh the 1st amendment? That's sacred? The 2nd? Fuck them."
How do you get anything besides "If someone claims to care about the constitution, but has no trouble throwing the 1st amendment on the train tracks to protect the 2nd, they are obviously not concerned about any sort of integrity of the constitution, and their claims of such should be understood as bullshit,"? There is no point where Tycho elevates either amendment over the other.
Wow, after reading all these replies to Mike's comic, I see we all are still missing the greater point to it all. How I interpret "A Comic" is that this is a response to the NRA commentary about media in general. The real issue I have is all the finger pointing both with the NRA and EVERYONE here. This is the true issue in America is the complete lack of responsibility of personal actions.
This is rich.
1) Wayne LaPierre says "Don't blame the guns, it's all the blood on the xstations!"
2) Tycho says "Hey, that's bullshit, quit pointing fingers at us."
3)Syncr0 declares "LaPierre was wrong to blame video games, but Tycho was also wrong to call out LaPierre's bullshit, because saying someone is full of shit is itself finger pointing."
Hilarious, actually
Well, Syncr0, I think the *real* issue here are people pointing fingers at others for pointing fingers. This is the true issue in America; the complete lack of responsibility for personal actions. I expect you will show the rest of us how it's done.
Both the 1st and 2nd amendment are equally dangerous to a young impressionable mind.
Show me an study that reports damage to children *from* *media* is comparable to the effects of a rifle round through the skull and I will fly across country to personally blow you.
So here is a suggestion to both gunners and gamers. Collaborate. Gamers, stop thinking games do not influence all sorts reactions, because they do. I can think of three religious texts that have started bloody wars because of miscommunication and wide interpretation. Those were just books. Well any form of media suffers the same hazards, well because media is meant to inspire by it's very nature. Gunners, work with the gamers and apply some of that gun safety know-how when it comes to kids. Help gamers identify common sense dangers that you would associate with your own "personal" gun control. The responsible ones among you know that you wouldn't leave guns and ammo in your home unlocked and within easy access of a mentally touched individual. So do the same and review some of the parental controls in our media and start making suggestions to optimize and inform people about it.
Conservatism is inherently different from Progressivism. Progressives want to pass bills, improve thing constantly as new data and research comes in. Conservative win by simply blocking action. They don't need to round up a majority in both houses of the legislature and the state's chief executive to pass a bill, they just need to control any one of those points (or in the relevant committees in either house) to win. Doing something is hard, people are inherently prejudiced against change. (It's called loss aversion). So to block change, the NRA doesn't have to propose a workable alternative. They can claim that they do want to fix the problem; just not this specific fix. or the next thing you're proposing, either. If progressives make a moderate proposal, and then conservatives respond to that with an extreme radical proposal, this does not mean that the correct solution is to meet in the middle(*1). And even if progressives tried to move to the middle they would find themselves like zeno's arrow(*2) : however far to the right they move there's always going to be a new middle that they need to move towards. always some way to point out that everybody is equally wrong even when the fault is much more higher concentrate on one side and the other.
(*1: In this sentience and the next, I am also describing how every debate between Obama and congressional Republicans has gone, from day 1.)
(*2: Wikipedia informs me I meant Zeno's dichotomy paradox. I'd heard it with an arrow and target instead of a guy and a bus, but same idea.)
It is an even sadder day when people blame the second amendment for crazy.
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
The first amendment gave us the pen, the second amendment gave us the sword. We need both to truly be free. Without one, we can not have the other.
I live in Australia, where gun laws are incredibly restrictive, and I strongly disagree with you. I don't even understand why the USA has retained the constitution. An unchanging document is a dangerous thing to live by.
Not unchanging. The Constitution can be amended, hence all the amendments. The 2nd amendment can be repealed at any time. So can the 1st. They just haven't, because the procedure to do so requires a supermajority of 2/3 of the voting members of both houses of the federal legislature, as well as ratification by 3/4 of the states. It's part of the genius of the document: its fundamentals can be changed, but only when times are so drastically different that the overwhelming majority of the population consents to it.
It is an even sadder day when people blame the second amendment for crazy.
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
Any weapon can be considered 'military grade', from an assault rifle, to a kitchen knife, to a frozen potatoe, as they are all capable of the same thing; killing another human being. Where there's a will there's a way, and it only takes a half second to reload, pull out another gun, or light the fuse on truck full of fertilizer.
Instead of trying to focus on limiting the ability to kill, we as a society need to instead look further and work on eliminating the desire to kill.
And that's not ever going to be accomplished with big brother-esque police states and blanket laws. It can only be accomplished when the majority of people have the desire to help rather than the desire to accuse.
The first amendment gave us the pen, the second amendment gave us the sword. We need both to truly be free. Without one, we can not have the other.
I live in Australia, where gun laws are incredibly restrictive, and I strongly disagree with you. I don't even understand why the USA has retained the constitution. An unchanging document is a dangerous thing to live by.
Not unchanging. The Constitution can be amended, hence all the amendments. The 2nd amendment can be repealed at any time. So can the 1st. They just haven't, because the procedure to do so requires a supermajority of 2/3 of the voting members of both houses of the federal legislature, as well as ratification by 3/4 of the states. It's part of the genius of the document: its fundamentals can be changed, but only when times are so drastically different that the overwhelming majority of the population consents to it.
It's worth noting, however, that while wisely malleable, any discussion of altering the Constitution in the United States is met with substantial resistance and a subsequent smear campaign condemning such thought.
In Michigan, we had several amendments put to vote. They all failed, by my estimation, primarily for fear of altering the state Constitution. "Hands off our Constitution." This add ran dozens of times a day. Note how it doesn't address any of the issues whatsoever, merely the idea of change.
Any weapon can be considered 'military grade', from an assault rifle, to a kitchen knife, to a frozen potatoe, as they are all capable of the same thing; killing another human being. Where there's a will there's a way, and it only takes a half second to reload, pull out another gun, or light the fuse on truck full of fertilizer.
To say "Any weapon could be considered 'military grade'" is a complete punt on dealing with a real issue. To say that someone is using jargon incorrectly, or as you are, that the jargon is meaningless, is a really obvious and blatant attempt to avoid grappling with any real issues. Most people I've seen use "military grade" to mean high power, rate of fire, and / or size of magazine. So to catch you up with common useage, if you really don't know what people mean when they say "military grade" in discussions of gun control, I think you can assume this definition or something close.
Any one of the following is fulling qualifying for status as "military grade," "Assault," or other such adjectives:
1) Using larger than .45 caliber
2) Being able to fire more than six rounds without needing to reload
3) Having a greater than semi-auto fire rate (So either 3 round burst or full auto).
The specifics are a little variable for rule 1 or 2. I can see a case for a limit of 10 round clips, but I think if six was good enough for John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, it's good enough for you. But that's a rough idea for you.
You can talk about how easy it is to reload, and maybe for you at the gun range it is the easiest thing on the planet, but the reality is that most spree killers are taken down while reloading (or use the last round in the clip on themselves). You can argue that it's illogical that this is the time when they are most vulnerable, but it will remain historically true anyway.
It's hard to see how having to reload more often is such a burden on legitimate gun owners that it's outweights needlessly excessive death counts. A man in China attacked an elementary school there on the same day as the Newtown shooting, but all he could get was a knife. And despite injuring 20, no children were killed. Should we go as far as China on gun control? I doubt the public would approve. But if we can reduce the death toll of these events by 80~85%, that's a massive improvement.
My right to swing my fist is limited by your right to not get hit in the face. All rights are trade offs, protecting one means violating the other. And I'm sorry, but none of the horrors that would be "suffered" under a regime of small clips can compare to the problems created by 30 round clips.
Instead of trying to focus on limiting the ability to kill, we as a society need to instead look further and work on eliminating the desire to kill.
I agree that more research and funding directed at mental health, etc, is needed. But not only is that a harder political lift, it's also not sufficient. You're never going to catch everyone preemptively. There is a reason we restrict private ownership of bazookas, grenades and the like, and I think anything that comes a foul of any of those three rules above is too close to a bazooka for most people to have access to.
And that's not ever going to be accomplished with big brother-esque police states and blanket laws. It can only be accomplished when the majority of people have the desire to help rather than the desire to accuse.
Yup. In the mean time, while we're working on utopia, lets limit clip sizes.
Thats what makes it hamhanded, the attempt at being "poignant": the muted monochrome colours, Tycho gazing into the readers eyes wistfully...and then the reveal that he's not being sad over dead kids, he's taken this moment of poignant reflection over the tragedy of people badmouthing videogames.
The whole "buying a shotgun being easier than buying quake 3" comic is a better stab at the same point because at least that is actually satire, its not a Very Special Episode.
Because the point ISN'T about dead kids. It is entirely removed from any specific shooting incident. The comic is about the NRA's press conference. Why that press conference happened is irrelevant; it's what the airheads at the NRA said that is.
It is an even sadder day when people blame the second amendment for crazy.
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
Any weapon can be considered 'military grade', from an assault rifle, to a kitchen knife, to a frozen potatoe, as they are all capable of the same thing; killing another human being. Where there's a will there's a way, and it only takes a half second to reload, pull out another gun, or light the fuse on truck full of fertilizer.
Instead of trying to focus on limiting the ability to kill, we as a society need to instead look further and work on eliminating the desire to kill.
And that's not ever going to be accomplished with big brother-esque police states and blanket laws. It can only be accomplished when the majority of people have the desire to help rather than the desire to accuse.
No mass shooting is ever going to be committed with a .22 deer rifle. Never mind a potato peeler.
I laugh at your attacking the idea that guns should be limited as "big brother-esque" in the same breath as saying we need to eliminate the "desire" to kill. How pray tell does one limit the "desire" to kill? Brainwashing? Stopping the murders before they happen? Punishing young children for being mad? In a world where there is no "desire to kill," there is no use for guns as the literal only real use of a gun is to kill something. Target practice? For making you more efficient at killing.
Of course we need the Second Amendment, how shall we ever protect the First from gun nuts?
Just had to weigh in - I liked the strip. It strikes a balanced tone. Personally, I think it's very important that we continue to protect our Constitutional freedoms (all of them) in the face of those who would sacrifice them for some illusion of safety. How to balance the exercise of our own rights with our responsibility to protect others rights is a constant debate, and should be.
It is an even sadder day when people blame the second amendment for crazy.
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
Any weapon can be considered 'military grade', from an assault rifle, to a kitchen knife, to a frozen potatoe, as they are all capable of the same thing; killing another human being. Where there's a will there's a way, and it only takes a half second to reload, pull out another gun, or light the fuse on truck full of fertilizer.
Instead of trying to focus on limiting the ability to kill, we as a society need to instead look further and work on eliminating the desire to kill.
And that's not ever going to be accomplished with big brother-esque police states and blanket laws. It can only be accomplished when the majority of people have the desire to help rather than the desire to accuse.
No mass shooting is ever going to be committed with a .22 deer rifle. Never mind a potato peeler.
I laugh at your attacking the idea that guns should be limited as "big brother-esque" in the same breath as saying we need to eliminate the "desire" to kill. How pray tell does one limit the "desire" to kill? Brainwashing? Stopping the murders before they happen? Punishing young children for being mad? In a world where there is no "desire to kill," there is no use for guns as the literal only real use of a gun is to kill something. Target practice? For making you more efficient at killing.
WTF.... do you even know about guns? A .22 deer rifle? There's no such thing. A .22 is used for killing rats, and sometimes they survive...
Ok, firstly, the Virginia tech shooter DID use a .22 pistol alongside a 9mm handgun with a 10 round clip. He reloaded several times. But the people that got it with the .22 suffered a while before they bled out. The McDonalds mass shooter used multiple handguns with 10 round clips; hence the reason why I said it only takes a half second to just grab another gun. Do you also remember them multiple mass killings in Chinese elementary schools that were done with knives? No clips there, just knives. That wasn't even that long ago. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, never even fired a shot. He just ignited a truck full of cow poop. There are no clips to manure either.
You want to solve the problem? Quit thinking people are so stupid that if you take one means away they're going to magically stop wanting to kill. Then once (if...) you've managed to clear that step, quit being a dick and try to help people when they have issues with depression or mental problems. Which is why I said I would prefer if Mike and Gabe actually donated to a mental health/outreach program as opposed to riling up uninformed people like yourself. No 'brain-washing' or telepathetic murder foresight needed. Just people helping other people so that they don't feel the need to go on a killing rampage.
Your underestimation of the human mind and disregard for the human soul is the root of the problem, not the presence of an inanimate object that can be used as a weapon.
Posts
Wow.
As I said, I don't really like that the lobbying arm is scapegoating on the first amendment. Tycho says that "It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second." You need to realize that some have no issues with destroying the First to destroy the Second. You must admit that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs. If a kid at school draws a Counter Strike CT shooting a tin can or at a terrorist, that kid is very likely to be suspended if not arrested for terroristic threatening. Political correctness has long been used to stamp out first amendment rights for everyone. We have to protect some icky things to protect our freedom.
I love video games and I'm all for protecting them under freedom of speech, but there's a big difference between calling for a right to be curtailed or even taken away entirely and merely criticizing the way in which a right is exercised. After all, criticism is just exercising one's own freedom of speech in response to someone else's exercise of that same right, isn't it?
The NRA statement didn't ignore those claims only to shift blame onto video games. It rebutted those pro-gun control arguments and then blamed video games.
I don't really see how saying that banning certain firearms and features wouldn't prevent this sort of thing from happening is "throwing up dust". If some are claiming that stricter gun control laws are a good idea and you disagree, it seems valid to say so and say why you disagree.
Also, and this is just my opinion, but this strip seems more than a little 'holier than thou'. "Oh the 1st amendment? That's sacred? The 2nd? Fuck them."
I'd suggest sticking to video games and leaving politic alone, there are more than enough smug, sanctimonious hacks working that angle already.
You're right, our rights do not exist independently of one another. But it's the NRA that is saying, "The best way to stop gun violence is through censorship!" To call them out on their shit is highly appropriate to the discussion; it's not an attack on gun rights, but rather on a minority of moronic assholes within the greater gun rights movement.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
As I mentioned in the other thread before the fork, I saw this coming. Part of me wants to say T&G should have been more careful to clearly lay out what exactly they were saying with this comic.
The other part of me says fuck that, this is their website, and their comic, and it's not their responsibility to try to anticipate when people are going to misread their comic in such a way as to reinforce a preexisting sense of persecution. One of the reasons I like PA so very much is exactly because they don't give any shits whatsoever about what random internet people think.
The Escapist article... bleh. That just reads like an anti-nra propaganda pamphlet. I'll stick to reading the entirety of the NRA statement and form my own opinion (already stated above), thank you.
As for the comic itself, I'd have to agree with Guildenstern. I'd feel far more comfortable with them making a donation to mental health and children's outreach programs than I do with them taking a stance on such a topic.
What could be the difference?
Re: those who think the comic is defending videogames, no it's not. It's saying that blaming videogames is a distraction and, therefore, will ultimately perpetuate the problem. It's like if you got falsely accused of a crime, and you were like, I didn't do it, the real criminal is still out there. And you got accused of being insensitive to the victim.
I agree with you to a point. The statement doesn't directly blame video games for the shooting. Instead, it blames the general degredation of our culture for this and other shootings. The problem is that it goes out of its way to specifically mention video games as one of the driving forces of that degredation, comparing it to pornography and some intentionally vague badness/wrongness ("shadow industry").
I just have to laugh at the hypocrisy of it all. Someone else made the point of the NRA's own double standards regarding how they glorify gun ownership. Regarding games specifically, many of the most popular games over the past 5+ years have been about playing as a soldier defending America from external and internal threats. If anything games have become more blindly patriotic as time has gone on. And, of course, no study has ever found a causal relationship between video games and gun violence.
I have no problem with the comic. It's fitting that a franchise whose success is directly tied to gaming attempt to take a stand against irrational criticism directed at it.
Most other liberal democracies do not have strong weapon rights, so I question the extent to which they are truly necessary.
I don't care whether your preferred hobby involves a gamepad or a holster, both are your rights to enjoy within the boundaries of the law. Did you see my the use of that word there, yeah that one "rights".
Gamers yours are protected by the 1st amendment. Gunners your are protected by the 2nd. I'm not arguing about your rights, those cannot be taken away nor should they. I am however arguing the point of what certain people do with those rights when they don't consider the obvious answer to avoid the most unforeseen consequences.
Both the 1st and 2nd amendment are equally dangerous to a young impressionable mind. However that is not up to you, me or the government to enforce how others raise their families or what they let into their homes. You think video games, movies and news are not right for your children, then as parents, you censor and control what they see. Just like how your are supposed to lock your guns or any other dangerous weapons because that's how the 1st amendment should be treated when it comes to your kids. I'm not going to do it for you.
Oh there is probably going to be the argument that this is the real world and you can't avoid it all. While that is true it doesn't dismiss your own responsibilities nor does it limit your control as a parent. Example: The decision to take your children to a sporting event. Chances are, much like in any video game voice communication, there are going to be assholes who say things you don't want your children to hear. Where is the failure in these scenario? Does it lie with the general assholes out there? No, the failure lies with the parent who failed to prepare their children for the hazards of the real world. Children left alone to come up with their own conclusions with unguided observations on how adults interact with each other will and always be a very bad idea. The solution, don't take them to that sporting event or play that video game online until this conditions are met: You have prepared your child mentally for what is to be expected and teach them to ignore stupid commentary or if it get inappropriate teach them how to call on help whether it be from a stadium guard to an online mod.
So here is a suggestion to both gunners and gamers. Collaborate. Gamers, stop thinking games do not influence all sorts reactions, because they do. I can think of three religious texts that have started bloody wars because of miscommunication and wide interpretation. Those were just books. Well any form of media suffers the same hazards, well because media is meant to inspire by it's very nature. Gunners, work with the gamers and apply some of that gun safety know-how when it comes to kids. Help gamers identify common sense dangers that you would associate with your own "personal" gun control. The responsible ones among you know that you wouldn't leave guns and ammo in your home unlocked and within easy access of a mentally touched individual. So do the same and review some of the parental controls in our media and start making suggestions to optimize and inform people about it.
Thats what makes it hamhanded, the attempt at being "poignant": the muted monochrome colours, Tycho gazing into the readers eyes wistfully...and then the reveal that he's not being sad over dead kids, he's taken this moment of poignant reflection over the tragedy of people badmouthing videogames.
The whole "buying a shotgun being easier than buying quake 3" comic is a better stab at the same point because at least that is actually satire, its not a Very Special Episode.
Oh, snap. It looks like a background layered in photoshop.
The NRA is condemning speech, not trying to take your speech away (unlike the gun grabbers).
I'm not qualified to say how it influences behavior, but GTA absolutely glorifies violence, specifically against innocents. Not sure how it could be argued otherwise. And this is from someone who enjoys GTA.
But for PA to make a blanket claim that speech doesn't influence behavior is willful blindness.
The NRA stepped on their own legitimate self-defense argument by going after the culture (much harder to prove), big mistake.
I live in Australia, where gun laws are incredibly restrictive, and I strongly disagree with you. I don't even understand why the USA has retained the constitution. An unchanging document is a dangerous thing to live by.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Do the violent murders seem happy? Are they satisfied by their crimes? Does the in-game general public react positively or negatively to someone on a shooting spree? There is a huge gap between depiction and glorifying.
That's a side of the (video) gaming world's affects I was unaware, and imagine most people here were as well. Thank you for taking the time to type up something that is interesting, useful, but obscure to most of the audience. I was expecting this forum to be 98% mostly illiterate troglodytes, instead you guys have been really awesome to talk with.
Yeah, there are states where the NRA is the only grouping offering legally required firearm insurance. I don't disagree with the notion that they do a lot of important work to make guns safe and accessible. In fact, that is a major factor in what makes the lobbying arm so duplicitous: It claims to speak for all their members, including people who signed up for one afternoon's insurance at a gun range, and never touched a firearm again. I'm not saying these people agree with me, but I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the most extreme wing of the NRA makes all the policy decisions for all their less extreme cohort. And when you factor in that most people don't have the time to monitor everything that comes out of the press shop of every organization they ever joined, they don't even know what's being said supposedly on their behalf. The NRA's pronouncements would mean a lot more if their was a more meaningful way for the average member to actually have influence over them.
Actually, that's something I've never seen in my entire life. Link to a couple articles about people trying to limit the rights of free speech to prevent pro-gun messages from finding an outlet, plz.
So what's your point, that unless someone comes out to support gun rights they can't support 1st amendment rights? That's crazy. For many people, they *aren't* high-mindly "pro-civil rights," equally eager to support them all. Lots of people support one sort of rights issue strongly (Civil rights, LGBT rights, etc) and don't feel like they have the remaining time or energy to support all of them. The pick the one that they think affects or will affect their life the most directly. Or, more realistically, they try to exercise what they thing should be a right and are shocked and angered to find that they can't exercise that right the way they want to. So they would say something like "I had no intention of becoming a feminist, but when I discovered I was only making 65% the salary of my male counterparts, I was outraged. The attorneys and judges say their isn't a law being broken, so I can't sue. I wasn't going to lie down and take that. I had no other option to see my human rights respected except to campaign for a change in laws x,y,z, etc etc..."
And there is nothing wrong with that! My concerns and your concerns are not the same, we're each free to direct our time and effort how we like. So, yes, I'll admit what you're saying here ("that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs.") but I'm not what if anything that proves.
(This is, of course, diffferent from trying to cover yourself in the magic, criticism deflecting immutable constitution while denying that privilege to other parts of the constitution, like the NRA President LaPierre did.)
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's not right. I have five nieces and nephews in my close extended family who are in school (ages 4 - 14). They report doodling in class is still a beloved childhood boredom outlet, and that the common motifs of swords, monsters, and violence are still there. The teachers still disapprove of this behavior, and hand out punishments ranging from missing recess to detention for drawing in class. This is very much in line with my recollection of school in the 80s/90s (all pre colombine). I do also remember the kid who drew the most gruesome and bloody stuff being sent for an interview with the school behaviorist (I think; the person's full title wasn't used around the non-screened kids, in an attempt to avoid stigmatizing his patients). I don't see the change, especially in 1st amendment terms. Again, if you have research or articles showing otherwise, please link.
Sure, here you go.
So, LaPierre starts by saying he is addressing the safety of our nation's children. He declares his intent to "address" of important question of "How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?" Now, he said "address," not answer, because hes not trying to actually answer anything. He goes on to phrase what sound like the conclusion of his "addressing" as questions. This gives people such as yourself the opportunity to point out that he never actually specifically suggested that we follow up on anything that his rambling speech implied.
And imply it does. Note the section above that I bolded. Pornography is one of the few areas of expression that supreme court specifically has said is not protected by the 1st Amendment. If he had phrased that as a statement instead of a question, he'd be suggesting that violent media is bannable, in a statement that started declaring it wants to discuss what we can do immediately to make schools safer. But, an NRA supporter would say, "He's not suggesting it; he's just asking a question!" Attorneys have a saying: never ask a question unless you already know the answer. LaPierre knows the answers he wants you to draw from his leading questions. He just wants to leave himself weasel room to distance himself from that statement in the future, after all this furor about doing something for the children has died down.
So, yes, trying to expand the pornography exemption to the 1st amendment is an attempt to weaken our 1st amendment rights.
re·but verb \ri-ˈbət\
re·but·tedre·but·ting
Definition of REBUT
transitive verb
1
: to drive or beat back : repel
2
a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof
b : to expose the falsity of : refute
I've read the entire statement a couple times now, but I don't see anywhere that it actually addresses the proposal to limit clip size, let alone offer any "countervailing proof" to claims a lower clip size law would reduce the scope of these tragedies.
At least we agree, he did blame video games!
It's not. It's the BS he spouts about media violence that is the dust he throws up. He's clouding the issue by dragging non-germaine topics (depictions of violence in media) into the debate.
If LaPiere wants to actually engage with this issues (clip size, full auto, etc), that would indeed be a valid argument. Here's the closest thing I can find from him:
There is no substance to that except "some media commentators do no understand gun taxonomy," which, frankly, is a pretty insipid response to what's actually happened.
Actually, the Bill of Rights are only the last 10 of 12 proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified. Nice try, though.
How do you get anything besides "If someone claims to care about the constitution, but has no trouble throwing the 1st amendment on the train tracks to protect the 2nd, they are obviously not concerned about any sort of integrity of the constitution, and their claims of such should be understood as bullshit,"? There is no point where Tycho elevates either amendment over the other.
This is rich.
1) Wayne LaPierre says "Don't blame the guns, it's all the blood on the xstations!"
2) Tycho says "Hey, that's bullshit, quit pointing fingers at us."
3)Syncr0 declares "LaPierre was wrong to blame video games, but Tycho was also wrong to call out LaPierre's bullshit, because saying someone is full of shit is itself finger pointing."
Hilarious, actually
Well, Syncr0, I think the *real* issue here are people pointing fingers at others for pointing fingers. This is the true issue in America; the complete lack of responsibility for personal actions. I expect you will show the rest of us how it's done.
Show me an study that reports damage to children *from* *media* is comparable to the effects of a rifle round through the skull and I will fly across country to personally blow you.
Conservatism is inherently different from Progressivism. Progressives want to pass bills, improve thing constantly as new data and research comes in. Conservative win by simply blocking action. They don't need to round up a majority in both houses of the legislature and the state's chief executive to pass a bill, they just need to control any one of those points (or in the relevant committees in either house) to win. Doing something is hard, people are inherently prejudiced against change. (It's called loss aversion). So to block change, the NRA doesn't have to actually have to propose a workable alternative. They can claim that they do want to fix the problem; just not this specific fix. or the next thing you're proposing, either. If progressives make a moderate proposal, and then conservatives respond to that with an extreme radical proposal, this does not mean that the correct solution is to meet in the middle. and even if progressives tried to move to the middle they would find themselves like zeno's arrow: however far to the right they move there's always going to be a new middle that they need to move towards. always some way to point out that everybody is equally wrong even when the fault is much more higher concentrate on one side and the other.
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
That's a side of the (video) gaming world's affects I was unaware, and imagine most people here were as well. Thank you for taking the time to type up something that is interesting, useful, but obscure to most of the audience. I was expecting this forum to be 98% mostly illiterate troglodytes, instead you guys have been really awesome to talk with.
Yeah, there are states where the NRA is the only grouping offering legally required firearm insurance. I don't disagree with the notion that they do a lot of important work to make guns safe and accessible. In fact, that is a major factor in what makes the lobbying arm so duplicitous: It claims to speak for all their members, including people who signed up for one afternoon's insurance at a gun range, and never touched a firearm again. I'm not saying these people agree with me, but I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the most extreme wing of the NRA makes all the policy decisions for all their less extreme cohort. And when you factor in that most people don't have the time to monitor everything that comes out of the press shop of every organization they ever joined, they don't even know what's being said supposedly on their behalf. The NRA's pronouncements would mean a lot more if their was a more meaningful way for the average member to actually have influence over them.
Actually, that's something I've never seen in my entire life. Link to a couple articles about people trying to limit the rights of free speech to prevent pro-gun messages from finding an outlet, plz.
So what's your point, that unless someone comes out to support gun rights they can't support 1st amendment rights? That's crazy. For many people, they *aren't* high-mindly "pro-civil rights," equally eager to support them all. Lots of people support one sort of rights issue strongly (Civil rights, LGBT rights, etc) and don't feel like they have the remaining time or energy to support all of them. The pick the one that they think affects or will affect their life the most directly. Or, more realistically, they try to exercise what they thing should be a right and are shocked and angered to find that they can't exercise that right the way they want to. So they would say something like "I had no intention of becoming a feminist, but when I discovered I was only making 65% the salary of my male counterparts, I was outraged. The attorneys and judges say their isn't a law being broken, so I can't sue. I wasn't going to lie down and take that. I had no other option to see my human rights respected except to campaign for a change in laws x,y,z, etc etc..."
And there is nothing wrong with that! My concerns and your concerns are not the same, we're each free to direct our time and effort how we like. So, yes, I'll admit what you're saying here ("that guns are very politically incorrect and have gotten little protection from the First Amendment buffs.") but I'm not sure what that proves.
(This is, of course, different from trying to cover yourself in the magic, criticism deflecting immutable constitution while denying that privilege to other parts of the constitution, like LaPierre did.)
Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's not right. I have five nieces and nephews in my close extended family who are in school (ages 4 - 14). They report doodling in class is still a beloved childhood boredom outlet, and that the common motifs of swords, monsters, and violence are still there. The teachers still disapprove of this behavior, and hand out punishments ranging from missing recess to detention for drawing in class. This is very much in line with my recollection of school in the 80s/90s (all pre colombine). I do also remember the kid who drew the most gruesome and bloody stuff being sent for an interview with the school behaviorist (I think; the person's full title wasn't used around the non-screened kids, in an attempt to avoid stigmatizing his patients). I don't see the change, especially in 1st amendment terms. Again, if you have research or articles showing otherwise, please link.
Sure, here you go.
So, LaPierre starts by saying he is addressing the safety of our nation's children. He declares his intent to "address" of important question of "How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?" Now, he said "address," not answer, because hes not trying to actually answer anything. He goes on to phrase what sound like the conclusion of his "addressing" as questions. This gives people such as yourself the opportunity to point out that he never actually specifically suggested that we follow up on anything that his rambling speech implied.
And imply it does. Note the section above that I bolded. Pornography is one of the few areas of expression that supreme court specifically has said is not protected by the 1st Amendment. If he had phrased that as a statement instead of a question, he'd be suggesting that violent media is bannable, in a statement that started declaring it wants to discuss what we can do immediately to make schools safer. But, you NRA supporters will say, "He's not suggesting it; he's just asking a question!" Attorneys have a saying: never ask a question unless you already know the answer. LaPierre knows the answers he wants you to draw from his leading questions. He just wants to leave himself weasel room to distance himself from that statement in the future, after all this furor about doing something for the children has died down.
So, yes, trying to expand the pornography exemption to the 1st amendment is an attempt to weaken our 1st amendment rights.
re·but verb \ri-ˈbət\
re·but·tedre·but·ting
Definition of REBUT
transitive verb
1
: to drive or beat back : repel
2
a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof
b : to expose the falsity of : refute
I've read the entire statement a couple times now, but I don't see anywhere that it actually addresses the proposal to limit clip size, let alone offer any "countervailing proof" to claims a lower clip size law would reduce the scope of these tragedies.
At least we agree, he did blame video games!
It's not. It's the BS he spouts about media violence that is the dust he throws up. He's clouding the issue by dragging non-germaine topics (depictions of violence in media) into the debate.
If LaPiere wants to actually engage with this issues (clip size, full auto, etc), that would indeed be a valid argument. Here's the closest thing I can find from him:
There is no substance to that except "some media commentators do no understand gun taxonomy," which, frankly, is a pretty insipid response to what's actually happened.
Actually, the Bill of Rights are only the last 3 of 12 proposed amendments, two of which failed to be ratified. Nice try, though.
How do you get anything besides "If someone claims to care about the constitution, but has no trouble throwing the 1st amendment on the train tracks to protect the 2nd, they are obviously not concerned about any sort of integrity of the constitution, and their claims of such should be understood as bullshit,"? There is no point where Tycho elevates either amendment over the other.
This is rich.
1) Wayne LaPierre says "Don't blame the guns, it's all the blood on the xstations!"
2) Tycho says "Hey, that's bullshit, quit pointing fingers at us."
3)Syncr0 declares "LaPierre was wrong to blame video games, but Tycho was also wrong to call out LaPierre's bullshit, because saying someone is full of shit is itself finger pointing."
Hilarious, actually
Well, Syncr0, I think the *real* issue here are people pointing fingers at others for pointing fingers. This is the true issue in America; the complete lack of responsibility for personal actions. I expect you will show the rest of us how it's done.
Show me an study that reports damage to children *from* *media* is comparable to the effects of a rifle round through the skull and I will fly across country to personally blow you.
Conservatism is inherently different from Progressivism. Progressives want to pass bills, improve thing constantly as new data and research comes in. Conservative win by simply blocking action. They don't need to round up a majority in both houses of the legislature and the state's chief executive to pass a bill, they just need to control any one of those points (or in the relevant committees in either house) to win. Doing something is hard, people are inherently prejudiced against change. (It's called loss aversion). So to block change, the NRA doesn't have to propose a workable alternative. They can claim that they do want to fix the problem; just not this specific fix. or the next thing you're proposing, either. If progressives make a moderate proposal, and then conservatives respond to that with an extreme radical proposal, this does not mean that the correct solution is to meet in the middle(*1). And even if progressives tried to move to the middle they would find themselves like zeno's arrow(*2) : however far to the right they move there's always going to be a new middle that they need to move towards. always some way to point out that everybody is equally wrong even when the fault is much more higher concentrate on one side and the other.
(*1: In this sentience and the next, I am also describing how every debate between Obama and congressional Republicans has gone, from day 1.)
(*2: Wikipedia informs me I meant Zeno's dichotomy paradox. I'd heard it with an arrow and target instead of a guy and a bus, but same idea.)
No one has done that. We're blaming the 2nd Amendment (actually, how it's been interpreted) for arming the crazies with military grade assault weapons that can kill 29 people without needing to reload.
Not unchanging. The Constitution can be amended, hence all the amendments. The 2nd amendment can be repealed at any time. So can the 1st. They just haven't, because the procedure to do so requires a supermajority of 2/3 of the voting members of both houses of the federal legislature, as well as ratification by 3/4 of the states. It's part of the genius of the document: its fundamentals can be changed, but only when times are so drastically different that the overwhelming majority of the population consents to it.
Any weapon can be considered 'military grade', from an assault rifle, to a kitchen knife, to a frozen potatoe, as they are all capable of the same thing; killing another human being. Where there's a will there's a way, and it only takes a half second to reload, pull out another gun, or light the fuse on truck full of fertilizer.
Instead of trying to focus on limiting the ability to kill, we as a society need to instead look further and work on eliminating the desire to kill.
And that's not ever going to be accomplished with big brother-esque police states and blanket laws. It can only be accomplished when the majority of people have the desire to help rather than the desire to accuse.
It's worth noting, however, that while wisely malleable, any discussion of altering the Constitution in the United States is met with substantial resistance and a subsequent smear campaign condemning such thought.
In Michigan, we had several amendments put to vote. They all failed, by my estimation, primarily for fear of altering the state Constitution. "Hands off our Constitution." This add ran dozens of times a day. Note how it doesn't address any of the issues whatsoever, merely the idea of change.
Warframe: TheBaconDwarf
To say "Any weapon could be considered 'military grade'" is a complete punt on dealing with a real issue. To say that someone is using jargon incorrectly, or as you are, that the jargon is meaningless, is a really obvious and blatant attempt to avoid grappling with any real issues. Most people I've seen use "military grade" to mean high power, rate of fire, and / or size of magazine. So to catch you up with common useage, if you really don't know what people mean when they say "military grade" in discussions of gun control, I think you can assume this definition or something close.
Any one of the following is fulling qualifying for status as "military grade," "Assault," or other such adjectives:
1) Using larger than .45 caliber
2) Being able to fire more than six rounds without needing to reload
3) Having a greater than semi-auto fire rate (So either 3 round burst or full auto).
The specifics are a little variable for rule 1 or 2. I can see a case for a limit of 10 round clips, but I think if six was good enough for John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, it's good enough for you. But that's a rough idea for you.
You can talk about how easy it is to reload, and maybe for you at the gun range it is the easiest thing on the planet, but the reality is that most spree killers are taken down while reloading (or use the last round in the clip on themselves). You can argue that it's illogical that this is the time when they are most vulnerable, but it will remain historically true anyway.
It's hard to see how having to reload more often is such a burden on legitimate gun owners that it's outweights needlessly excessive death counts. A man in China attacked an elementary school there on the same day as the Newtown shooting, but all he could get was a knife. And despite injuring 20, no children were killed. Should we go as far as China on gun control? I doubt the public would approve. But if we can reduce the death toll of these events by 80~85%, that's a massive improvement.
My right to swing my fist is limited by your right to not get hit in the face. All rights are trade offs, protecting one means violating the other. And I'm sorry, but none of the horrors that would be "suffered" under a regime of small clips can compare to the problems created by 30 round clips.
I agree that more research and funding directed at mental health, etc, is needed. But not only is that a harder political lift, it's also not sufficient. You're never going to catch everyone preemptively. There is a reason we restrict private ownership of bazookas, grenades and the like, and I think anything that comes a foul of any of those three rules above is too close to a bazooka for most people to have access to.
Yup. In the mean time, while we're working on utopia, lets limit clip sizes.
No mass shooting is ever going to be committed with a .22 deer rifle. Never mind a potato peeler.
I laugh at your attacking the idea that guns should be limited as "big brother-esque" in the same breath as saying we need to eliminate the "desire" to kill. How pray tell does one limit the "desire" to kill? Brainwashing? Stopping the murders before they happen? Punishing young children for being mad? In a world where there is no "desire to kill," there is no use for guns as the literal only real use of a gun is to kill something. Target practice? For making you more efficient at killing.
Of course we need the Second Amendment, how shall we ever protect the First from gun nuts?
WTF.... do you even know about guns? A .22 deer rifle? There's no such thing. A .22 is used for killing rats, and sometimes they survive...
Ok, firstly, the Virginia tech shooter DID use a .22 pistol alongside a 9mm handgun with a 10 round clip. He reloaded several times. But the people that got it with the .22 suffered a while before they bled out. The McDonalds mass shooter used multiple handguns with 10 round clips; hence the reason why I said it only takes a half second to just grab another gun. Do you also remember them multiple mass killings in Chinese elementary schools that were done with knives? No clips there, just knives. That wasn't even that long ago. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, never even fired a shot. He just ignited a truck full of cow poop. There are no clips to manure either.
You want to solve the problem? Quit thinking people are so stupid that if you take one means away they're going to magically stop wanting to kill. Then once (if...) you've managed to clear that step, quit being a dick and try to help people when they have issues with depression or mental problems. Which is why I said I would prefer if Mike and Gabe actually donated to a mental health/outreach program as opposed to riling up uninformed people like yourself. No 'brain-washing' or telepathetic murder foresight needed. Just people helping other people so that they don't feel the need to go on a killing rampage.
Your underestimation of the human mind and disregard for the human soul is the root of the problem, not the presence of an inanimate object that can be used as a weapon.