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...
Oh man, you caught someone slipping up and not knowing what type of rifle to shoot deer with! SNAP! I guess that proves it: Cartigan isn't the guy to talk to about hunting deer. Luckily, that topic is completely superfluous to this topic, and trying to lord non-relevant details like they prove something exposes how faulty your concept of "logic" is. Also, thankfully, the affect of a .22 on a rat isn't and never has been the point.
You want to know what Cartigan, and every other person on the face of earth knows about guns? They're fucking dangerous. You might use a .22 on rats, but they also work great on people.
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.
What in hell are you trying to say here, that they'd have been better off if he had a bigger gun? Or is it "one guy was able to reload a couple times successfully, so that somehow magically invalidates all the other people stopped while reloading?" Of course *sometimes* reloading isn't a problem. Sometimes people get lucky. Sometimes they don't. Lets give mass murders as many opportunities as possible for their luck to run 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.
Again, what is your point? That the Chinese attacks wouldn't have been any more lethal if they had fire arms? That if we can't make it *impossible* to kill people, we shouldn't try to make it difficult? That we should only accept 100% air tight solutions that never fail? Yeah, ok, throw in a pony and you've won me over.
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.
If you think a single person on this thread has said anything like that, you are a complete failure at reading comprehension. The point that I, and others, have made is "It shouldn't be this quick and easy to kill 30 people." Of course someone dedicated enough can find a way to hurt people. That's why the most we can do is limit the damage they can do. The harder it becomes, the less attacks, and the lower the death toll when they do happen.
The only person talking about "magically [making people] stop wanting to kill," is you. I'd guess this is either because you fail at reading, or because it's easier to attack a position that you yourself have created and projected onto to others. Either way, pretty dickish behavior. Good thing you didn't immediately follow up acting like a dick by accusing other people of being dicks!
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.
Helping people with depression or mental problems sounds great to me! It's a good thing that doing that doesn't preclude us from limiting clip sizes, or vice versa. Sure would be stupid to try to force a "choice" between two improvements that could happily co-exist.
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.
How very generous you are with other people's money. Maybe Mike and Gabe think they have a unique platform for communication that they think could be used to create more good than they could create purely by cash donations. And, boy, you sure are trying to get every inch of mileage possible out of "catching" someone admit they don't know much about deer hunting, in a conversation that has little if anything to do with deer hunting.
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.
The root of the problem is that ill people sometimes lash out at the world irrationally. I don't see how to address that outside of godlike powers to change to human nature that none of us possess. So while we await that development, doing what we can to limit the damage such people can do is incredibly rational.
Besides which, saying we should "help people so that they don't feel the need to go on a killing rampage," is a lofty goal which you completely fail to explain how we should achieve. Mental health screening, to catch the ill? Increased social welfare programs, to reduce the stresses that lead to people "snapping?" Or do you have nothing but vague platitudes?
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.
I really don't think that they're very extreme. They're not advocating for fully automatics, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, or destructive devices to be taken from the NFA act. They do want suppressors taken off the NFA list, but they were always a safety device in reality. They were never used in violent crime. Too damn long and they're louder than you think. They were banned for fear of poaching under game wardens' noses. Other than that, what exactly is so extreme?
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.
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.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Before I weigh in with my .02 on this subject, and in the interests of full disclosure, I am very, VERY "Pro 2nd Amendment". I am also not a member of the NRA, nor have I ever applied for membership. I do own firearms, which are stored safely in a large and rather immovable (bolted to a concrete floor) gun safe that exceeds my state's DOJ requirements for storage of such things.
I think there's a bit of hypocrisy going on here with regards to the NRA pointing out violent video games as a contributing factor to the increase in violence of our youth. It would seem that it is perfectly acceptable to defend violent video games against censorship; a stance that I agree with I might add. But in the same turn, it's apparently acceptable to demand MORE "censorship" for firearms in the form of magazine capacity restrictions, assault style weapon bans, and so forth. If a video game is considered an inanimate object bereft of any responsibility of the possible inspiration of violent behavior it may cause, then shouldn't a gun, itself an inanimate object that is incapable on its own to injure or kill someone, also be relieved of the same responsibility? In both video games and the use of firearms, is it not the person the deciding factor in how the gun is used or how the violence in the video game is taken?
The problem isn't guns. Or violent video games. Or rap music. Or any of the other traditional scapegoats commonly used to shrug off responsibility that may point to a more uncomfortable truth than one might be willing to deal with. And that uncomfortable truth, I believe, is that we have failed to assume responsibility for instilling values like accountability and responsibility in our kids. They're not being taught from the people that really matter, the parents, about common decency and respect for one's fellow man. That job's been pushed off on the government, whether it's through the judicial system or the education system, and to the media in the form of sanitized entertainment and educational shows to teach little Timmy his table manners.
I hear the argument often about how someone "plays violent video games and remains unaffected, therefore it's not the video games". And I agree, as I play the same type of games. But you know what? I also own an assault rifle. With high capacity magazines, including a 100 round drum magazine. I own military grade, steel cored rounds. And I do not have the urge to go shoot up a school, rob a bank, or commit any other heinous act with any firearm I own. As a matter of fact, the only thing I really present a serious threat too is those paper zombie targets I take to the firing range every so often. I don't keep guns because I think they're a solution to a problem. I keep them because they're an insurance policy in unforeseen circumstances. I keep them because it's my right to protect myself and my family from possible harm. Do I need an assault rifle or high capacity magazines to protect my family? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it yours or the government's or anyone else's place to decide what I do or do not need to protect myself and my family? Absolutely not.
The problem of public shootings aren't going to diminish with assault weapon bans, magazine capacity limitations, or other forms of control legislation any more than censoring violence in video games, movies, or music. No matter how much knee-jerk legislation is hurriedly passed in the aftermath of public tragedy, the violence will continue. Suggesting that censorship of anything, video games, guns, or otherwise, is a solution to the problem is just asinine.
Oh man, you caught someone slipping up and not knowing what type of rifle to shoot deer with! SNAP! I guess that proves it: Cartigan isn't the guy to talk to about hunting deer. Luckily, that topic is completely superfluous to this topic, and trying to lord non-relevant details like they prove something exposes how faulty your concept of "logic" is. Also, thankfully, the affect of a .22 on a rat isn't and never has been the point.
You want to know what Cartigan, and every other person on the face of earth knows about guns? They're fucking dangerous. You might use a .22 on rats, but they also work great on people.
Well no shit their dangerous. But so are rocks. What am I trying to say here? Simple, people that don't know shit about guns, or the majority of gun owners, are demanding country-wide changes on how we handle them while simultaneously blowing off those with a more informed perspective on the what the hell the 'big mean boomsticks' are.
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.
What in hell are you trying to say here, that they'd have been better off if he had a bigger gun? Or is it "one guy was able to reload a couple times successfully, so that somehow magically invalidates all the other people stopped while reloading?" Of course *sometimes* reloading isn't a problem. Sometimes people get lucky. Sometimes they don't. Lets give mass murders as many opportunities as possible for their luck to run out.
You totally missed the part about the Oklahoma bombing, where not a single shot was fired. Summary of that remark; you're an idiot if you think people aren't going to find another way to go on a mass killing spree if they deem it 'necessary'. Gun laws are not going to stop someone that's already crossed that line. Have you been paying attention to Mexico? Because guns are banned there. Whole lotta good it's doing them down there, isn't it? (That was sarcasm there, since you seem to have a hard time catching my points already)
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.
Again, what is your point? That the Chinese attacks wouldn't have been any more lethal if they had fire arms? That if we can't make it *impossible* to kill people, we shouldn't try to make it difficult? That we should only accept 100% air tight solutions that never fail? Yeah, ok, throw in a pony and you've won me over.
Reiteration of previous point, since you totally missed it. People will find a way if they think it's the only resort they have. Maybe instead of saying 'Well at least the Chinese massacres weren't as bad as they could've been if the guy had a gun...', perhaps you should be saying 'How could we have reached this guy to see what made him think he had to resort to this.'
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.
If you think a single person on this thread has said anything like that, you are a complete failure at reading comprehension. The point that I, and others, have made is "It shouldn't be this quick and easy to kill 30 people." Of course someone dedicated enough can find a way to hurt people. That's why the most we can do is limit the damage they can do. The harder it becomes, the less attacks, and the lower the death toll when they do happen.
You're an idiot if you think the most we can do is tying people's hands and saying 'Be good or we'll punish you'. And so far, that's what the majority of people in this thread are saying. They think putting a band-aid on it will 'lower the death toll'. You know what, fuck you if you think 'lowering the death toll' is an acceptable solution. We should be striving for NO FUCKING DEATH TOLL. And that's not gonna happen by saying we need to make it harder to kill people. It's only going to happen by helping people work through their issues and not letting their problems escalate to the point where they think they have to go on a killing rampage. Haven't I said that before? Oh yeah, in every fucking post I made. I guess you're just choosing to not read that part and sticking with your 'OMG he likes guns! He must be a moron and should be silenced!' mentality.
The only person talking about "magically [making people] stop wanting to kill," is you. I'd guess this is either because you fail at reading, or because it's easier to attack a position that you yourself have created and projected onto to others. Either way, pretty dickish behavior. Good thing you didn't immediately follow up acting like a dick by accusing other people of being dicks!
When did I say it was a magic, all encompassing, fool-proof solution? Because I'm pretty sure all I've mentioned it trying to support and broaden the scope of outreach and mental health programs. Which I've yet to see you encourage the concept of helping people as opposed to your knee-jerk measure of 'ban all guns and the death toll will be lower'. Yeah, great fucking solution there....
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.
Helping people with depression or mental problems sounds great to me! It's a good thing that doing that doesn't preclude us from limiting clip sizes, or vice versa. Sure would be stupid to try to force a "choice" between two improvements that could happily co-exist.
So you're willing to support the outreach idea, but only after you've blown it off and attempted to implement ideas that we already know aren't going to work. Yeah, that sounds like a great plan; let's allow a few more people to find new ways to cause small massacres before we start working on the actual root of the problem. Brilliant... absolutely brilliant.
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.
How very generous you are with other people's money. Maybe Mike and Gabe think they have a unique platform for communication that they think could be used to create more good than they could create purely by cash donations. And, boy, you sure are trying to get every inch of mileage possible out of "catching" someone admit they don't know much about deer hunting, in a conversation that has little if anything to do with deer hunting.
Back to the non-deer killing deer rifle again? I'll simplify it; If you don't know shit about it, and can't approach it with an open mind instead of knee-jerk emotional reactions, stay your tongue and go help society another way. Mike and Gabe obviously know very little about real life guns and how people can own one without ever going on a killing rampage. Perhaps they should stick to making comics about video games and not rile up a bunch of their fans on a witch hunt against gun supporters. Step back, find the people who know what the fuck they're doing when it comes to helping those with issues and support them.
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.
The root of the problem is that ill people sometimes lash out at the world irrationally. I don't see how to address that outside of godlike powers to change to human nature that none of us possess. So while we await that development, doing what we can to limit the damage such people can do is incredibly rational.
Besides which, saying we should "help people so that they don't feel the need to go on a killing rampage," is a lofty goal which you completely fail to explain how we should achieve. Mental health screening, to catch the ill? Increased social welfare programs, to reduce the stresses that lead to people "snapping?" Or do you have nothing but vague platitudes?
Completely fail to explain how we should achieve? If there's anyone here with a complete failure in reading comprehension, it's you, as I've explained it several times. And if you have no idea on how to help another person through mental issues, then you shouldn't be anywhere near this argument; you're the last damn person in the world that should be voicing your opinion on the matter. Find an organization or outreach program that specializes in helping people; then help them in any fucking way you can. Suicide hotlines, outreach programs, even talking to someone that's down in the dumps with an open ear can help infinitely better than blanket laws. They are dozens out there, and you could've easily found several in your local area within the time you spent not reading my posts and coming up with your rage-reply.
As for me: http://www.morganswonderland.com/volunteer . I'll be there this coming summer as a volunteer. As I'm poor and agoraphobic, I'll be doing yard work and manual labor, but at least I'll be doing something to help society be a better place. I'll be genuinely surprised if I see you there.
The problem with this comic, and everyone jumping on the NRA is that Penny Arcade didn't say squat when, just a few days ago, a US Senator, Jay Rockefeller (D), who likes to push for more gun control, introduced a bill to do research on how violent videogames are corrupting our youth —other senators like Lieberman made the same comments, calling for gun control and a look at those darned violent games and movies.
When the NRA even so much as breathes something, anything, after an event like this the anti-gun folks swarm with an even greater frenzy, but when an actual legislator attacks the 1st and 2nd Amendment it is just the sound of crickets, or a vigorous defending of the 1st Amendment but a happy tossing under the bus of the 2nd. It is a nice demonstration of bias, truly. IGN and Escapist reported on Rockefeller's bill, why no mention of that? A senator should be protecting our freedoms, and should be called out when they try to limit them. But, no, no, the NRA is bad, so that is worth a comic. Related to this, if the person who is attacking games today is a Republican or conservative that will get play in the discussion, if they are a Democrat or liberal then the political affiliation will be completely avoided; noteworthy because of the hypocrisy of the Republicans, or whatever other lame excuse to justify attacking one group on multiple levels.
What this comic says to me, "I am completely ignorant of guns and the 2nd Amendment. I am also willfully ignorant of the fact that there are groups that would happily censor all violent media while attacking the 2nd Amendment, and so only care about that scary 2nd Amendment supporting group."
Most anti gun groups are anti violent media groups, because the violent video games and movies glorify guns and violence in their eyes. Every time an event like this happens just about every person/group, including many gamers, blames violent media, whether they are pro or anti 2nd Amendment, so what is so special about this time that it deserves a sad, "Oh, I am so betrayed," comic? Oh, right, the NRA, because of the hypocrisy, or whatever. Yes, I know Gabe and Tycho have gone after other anti-video game people before, but it is always with a, rightly, mocking tone. This comic is nothing more than an attempt at shaming, a suggestion of betrayal, as if somehow the NRA doing it is worse than any of the other groups. I find it a far more offensive betrayal to see politicians using a tragedy to score points for their anti 1st and/or anti 2nd Amendment agendas then for a group that is always under attack deflecting attention. I am not defending the NRA's statement here, nor am I a member of the NRA, I am just stating they do not deserve to be singled out in the 1st Amendment debate that has arisen, like it always does, after a tragedy involving violence and schools.
And quite frankly, if you (this is a general "you" and not aimed at any specific individual) are so ignorant of guns you cannot even identify the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, you actually believe people can just walk in to a gunstore/show and buy machine guns and assault rifles, don't know that the term assault weapon is completely meaningless and references only a firearm's "scary" looks, or you believe there is an actual gun show loophole, you have every right to your opinion, but that opinion is ignorant and worthless. You, who support laws based on raw emotion born out of ignorance, are one of the reasons we lose rights every single day, because your irrational desire for action following tragedy has no understanding of existing law or the realities of the very thing you are against.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
What this comic says to me, "I am completely ignorant of guns and the 2nd Amendment. I am also willfully ignorant of the fact that there are groups that would happily censor all violent media while attacking the 2nd Amendment, and so only care about that scary 2nd Amendment supporting group."
I am 100% in concurrence with you that that is what you read in that comic.
And quite frankly, if you (this is a general "you" and not aimed at any specific individual) are so ignorant of guns you cannot even identify the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, you actually believe people can just walk in to a gunstore/show and buy machine guns and assault rifles, don't know that the term assault weapon is completely meaningless and references only a firearm's "scary" looks,
I agree. Let's call them what they are - military style weapons.
or you believe there is an actual gun show loophole,
PS. There is 100% a gun show loophole because people who do not sell guns as a business are legally allowed to sell their working firearm to a purchaser without that purchaser having a background check. So unless 100% of gun shows limit people who can rent tables to people who have a business license, I don't see how you (or the NRA, where I'm sure you got your info) can say there is no loophole.
All rights are created equal, as unsavory as that might seem to some.
OK, I try to stay as far away from these kind conversations as is humanly possible. To the point that I didn't want to create an account. But I had to say something here - I sincerely hope that you don't actually mean that all rights are created equal. I mean, why? What possible reason could there be for thinking that, when a lot of philosohers don't think of 'natural rights' as anything more than 'nonsense on stilts'? I mean, it's clearly not self evident, so why, exactly, do you so firmly believe that the right to a nationality (which you could argue has a lot better claim to being a right than gun 'rights' since it's part of the UDHR rather than just the constitution of a single country, but whatever) is equal to the right to not be arbitarily tortured? If for some reason the government has the resources to either feed someone or give them an education, do you really think the rights should be held as equal? Hell, the very concept of prison is interpretable as a case of the right to liberty of movement within the borders of a country being sacrificed in favour of the rights of others. The number of political and ethical dilemmae that can be reduced to a conflict of different rights is staggering. So no, not all rights are created equal, even if we can actually agree on what the bloody things even are.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
There is a distinct difference between a pro-First Amendment person and a pro-Second. The pro-First realizes the First Amendment must and does have limits. The pro-Second rejects the idea that it can anyway have a limit.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
Two points:
1. The argument that "because things get grandfathered in, we shouldn't bother controlling them in the future" is a non sequitur. And ridiculous.
2. Sure, mass shootings are very rare, but add in crimes committed with similar weapons and with similar effect then basis for a control argument is increased. The assertion that we can't to include those into the argument when the argument started because of mass shootings is equally ridiculous.
The assault weapons ban wasn't perfect and was derived from ignorance, sure, you can make that argument and be mostly correct. But when the "informed" side thinks the Second Amendment should have no limits, unlike the First somehow, then how can you achieve an informed solution?
There is a distinct difference between a pro-First Amendment person and a pro-Second. The pro-First realizes the First Amendment must and does have limits. The pro-Second rejects the idea that it can anyway have a limit.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.
What exactly do you want explained
The whole "the context of what happened" is 100% out of context" bit, because that's so much embedded assumption I have no idea how to parse that sentence.
I think the guys are wrong with this comic. I'm not aware of any serious attempts to destroy the 1st amendment over Sandy Hook. Suggesting that we police ourselves and consider the ramifications of violent content is not the same as calls for legislation to ban certain guns. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in place to protect us from government, not from each other.
Two points:
1. The argument that "because things get grandfathered in, we shouldn't bother controlling them in the future" is a non sequitur. And ridiculous.
2. Sure, mass shootings are very rare, but add in crimes committed with similar weapons and with similar effect then basis for a control argument is increased. The assertion that we can't to include those into the argument when the argument started because of mass shootings is equally ridiculous.
The assault weapons ban wasn't perfect and was derived from ignorance, sure, you can make that argument and be mostly correct. But when the "informed" side thinks the Second Amendment should have no limits, unlike the First somehow, then how can you achieve an informed solution?
I'm not saying its a flawless look at the situation, it just points out the huge misconceptions out there right now, and how if we want to make things any better, it has to be more than just "bring back the assault weapons ban" or "no more large-capacity magazines".
Not saying I have the answer. Just that I know that most the ideas floating around on this right now are NOT the (best) answer.
Yeah, um. I think it could be strongly argued that this comic is saying, essentially, that "The 'problem' is not the first amendment, but the second."
I'm fairly sure no one at PA is worried about video games being taken away anymore. They're trying to illustrate the absurdity of those who still defend guns by saying "see, they're making a ridiculous argument about something non-material when the real situation is right there in their hands."
This is definitely putting words in their mouths, but I think we've done quite a bit of that in this thread. I strongly doubt Mike or Jerry could ever, especially now as fathers, belittle or minimize the mass death of children in favor of video game defense. It would just be a little bit over the top and out of form if they specifically showed, in comic form, their grief over the shooting itself. This is them trying to address the subject with tact and subtlety and respect. I guess that might be hard to understand, considering internets.
I would like to point out that the government doesn't have to do anything to get video games taken away. All that needs to be done is retail stores decide to stop carrying M games, or the rating agency - a non-government group, starting to rank games more severely making many M games, AO. Same exact thing for movies.
The more groups with too much influence - like the NRA, start shouting about violence in video games and get the nuts supporting them to shout about it and combine them with the groups with much less influence and power who have been shouting the same thing, then you might see something happen to free speech in pop culture. The government doesn't have to make a move because they don't regulate it in the first place.
Cartigan on
0
Options
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
Cartigan, what exactly do you mean by "too much" influence? Is it "too much" influence because you disagree with the NRA? Or are you suggesting something about laws/regulations etc. surrounding groups like the NRA?
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
0
Options
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
edited December 2012
Edit: double post, sorry.
Saint Justice on
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
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.
I really don't think that they're very extreme. They're not advocating for fully automatics, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, or destructive devices to be taken from the NFA act. They do want suppressors taken off the NFA list, but they were always a safety device in reality. They were never used in violent crime. Too damn long and they're louder than you think. They were banned for fear of poaching under game wardens' noses. Other than that, what exactly is so extreme?
My understanding is that they are in favor of private ownership of full auto weapons. That they also oppose limits on clip size, and oppose requiring background checks (closing the gun show loophole). I think that ads up to "extreme," since polling shows the majority of Americans support all these things. Whether you personally think that's extreme, ymmv, but it is extreme is the "not near the middle" sense.
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.
It is generally worse in other countries. I've heard that hunting magazines in the UK have to be treated like porno mags.
I'm sorry, but these are all anecdotal. Incidents like these didn't begin in the last ten years, there have always been overprotective school boards and moronic administrators following the letter of the law to cover their own asses.
But you know what? I also own an assault rifle. With high capacity magazines, including a 100 round drum magazine. I own military grade, steel cored rounds. And I do not have the urge to go shoot up a school, rob a bank, or commit any other heinous act with any firearm I own. As a matter of fact, the only thing I really present a serious threat too is those paper zombie targets I take to the firing range every so often. I don't keep guns because I think they're a solution to a problem. I keep them because they're an insurance policy in unforeseen circumstances. I keep them because it's my right to protect myself and my family from possible harm. Do I need an assault rifle or high capacity magazines to protect my family? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it yours or the government's or anyone else's place to decide what I do or do not need to protect myself and my family? Absolutely not.
Actually, I agree with you. I'm sure that most of the owners of these weapons are responsible, and their weapons will never be used unlawfully. Likewise, if there were no speed limits, I'm sure most of the people who'd do 100 down the freeway are responsible drivers who wouldn't hit anyone. If there were no security at the airport, I'm sure most of the travels are responsible types who wouldn't bring a bomb on board. Sometimes, you have to mildly inconvenience everyone to prevent a minority from abusing the lack of oversight to kill people. The right to not be killed is a pretty important right, too.
Well no shit their dangerous. But so are rocks. What am I trying to say here? Simple, people that don't know shit about guns, or the majority of gun owners, are demanding country-wide changes on how we handle them while simultaneously blowing off those with a more informed perspective on the what the hell the 'big mean boomsticks' are.
1) Guns a bit more dangerous than rocks.
2) So the only people "informed" enough to be allowed to voice an opinion on guns are the gun enthusists themselves? (all the pot heads out there are thinking to themselves "Shit, how do we get that deal?") I'm sure that's its just a coincidence that this policy would limit gun debates to gun supporters.
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.
What in hell are you trying to say here, that they'd have been better off if he had a bigger gun? Or is it "one guy was able to reload a couple times successfully, so that somehow magically invalidates all the other people stopped while reloading?" Of course *sometimes* reloading isn't a problem. Sometimes people get lucky. Sometimes they don't. Lets give mass murders as many opportunities as possible for their luck to run out.
You totally missed the part about the Oklahoma bombing, where not a single shot was fired.
Actually, no I didn't. I said "Of course, *sometimes* reloading isn't a problem." Anyone not trying to use a gun in their mass murder, is, of course, not covered by gun regulations. No one claims that gun regulation is a magic that will prevent every single attempted murder. But preventing many of the murders done with guns is something gun control can accomplish, and is a worthwhile goal.
This sort of incident is why I've suggested to you previously that you work on your reading comprehension.
Summary of that remark; you're an idiot if you think people aren't going to find another way to go on a mass killing spree if they deem it 'necessary'. Gun laws are not going to stop someone that's already crossed that line. Have you been paying attention to Mexico? Because guns are banned there. Whole lotta good it's doing them down there, isn't it? (That was sarcasm there, since you seem to have a hard time catching my points already)
Gee, I wonder what's unique to Mexico, that wouldn't be true of an America with gun laws? Being a third world nation? Being right next to a massive supply of guns?
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.
Again, what is your point? That the Chinese attacks wouldn't have been any more lethal if they had fire arms? That if we can't make it *impossible* to kill people, we shouldn't try to make it difficult? That we should only accept 100% air tight solutions that never fail? Yeah, ok, throw in a pony and you've won me over.
Reiteration of previous point, since you totally missed it. People will find a way if they think it's the only resort they have. Maybe instead of saying 'Well at least the Chinese massacres weren't as bad as they could've been if the guy had a gun...', perhaps you should be saying 'How could we have reached this guy to see what made him think he had to resort to this.'
Maybe you could stop pretended that trying to prevent crime makes it impossible or unnecessary to also limit the damage done in the cases you can't prevent?
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.
If you think a single person on this thread has said anything like that, you are a complete failure at reading comprehension. The point that I, and others, have made is "It shouldn't be this quick and easy to kill 30 people." Of course someone dedicated enough can find a way to hurt people. That's why the most we can do is limit the damage they can do. The harder it becomes, the less attacks, and the lower the death toll when they do happen.
You're an idiot if you think the most we can do is tying people's hands and saying 'Be good or we'll punish you'.
Well I'm glad I never said that, then. That's a strawman position you're inventing, dear.
And so far, that's what the majority of people in this thread are saying. They think putting a band-aid on it will 'lower the death toll'. You know what, fuck you if you think 'lowering the death toll' is an acceptable solution. We should be striving for NO FUCKING DEATH TOLL.
Ever heard the saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" Ok, lets put this is small words, so the reading comprehension challenged can get it:
"Zero death toll good goal! Also impossible in a world of many, many people. Smart people build buildings designed to never catch on fire. They also design the building with smoke alarms and sprinkers because sometimes, things happen even if you try to prevent them."
And that's not gonna happen by saying we need to make it harder to kill people. It's only going to happen by helping people work through their issues and not letting their problems escalate to the point where they think they have to go on a killing rampage. Haven't I said that before? Oh yeah, in every fucking post I made. I guess you're just choosing to not read that part and sticking with your 'OMG he likes guns! He must be a moron and should be silenced!' mentality.
No one is trying to silence you. Spare us your persecution complex. I've read and responded to that argue from you three times now. Here it is, once again, in case you missed it: "Great idea! Also, no one knows how to do that with a 100% success rate! So we need to also plan for the times it doesn't work."
The only person talking about "magically [making people] stop wanting to kill," is you. I'd guess this is either because you fail at reading, or because it's easier to attack a position that you yourself have created and projected onto to others. Either way, pretty dickish behavior. Good thing you didn't immediately follow up acting like a dick by accusing other people of being dicks!
When did I say it was a magic, all encompassing, fool-proof solution?
When you refused to accept the utility of any improvement over the status quo that isn't, quote "NO FUCKING DEATH TOLL."
Because I'm pretty sure all I've mentioned it trying to support and broaden the scope of outreach and mental health programs. Which I've yet to see you encourage the concept of helping people as opposed to your knee-jerk measure of 'ban all guns and the death toll will be lower'. Yeah, great fucking solution there....
I encourage the concept of helping people. Happy? Oh, I bet you'll think it doesn't count unless I also accept your false dichotomy that "helping people" is somehow opposed to trying to lower death tolls. No, you're right, we should have let the Newtown shooter have a god damned M30 with endless ammo belt so he could have mowed down the entire school. Smaller death toll, bigger death toll, all the same to you, right?
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.
Helping people with depression or mental problems sounds great to me! It's a good thing that doing that doesn't preclude us from limiting clip sizes, or vice versa. Sure would be stupid to try to force a "choice" between two improvements that could happily co-exist.
So you're willing to support the outreach idea, but only after you've blown it off and attempted to implement ideas that we already know aren't going to work.
I never said that. Do you frequently see words that others don't? Do you hear voices others in the room can't? I said "do both," I never blew off anything, and I never said one had to come "after" the other. Doing both at the same time is possible in a county with more than one person in it. As for "we already know aren't going to work," it's nice to see you haven't pre-judged anything here. Gun control works in every single other advanced control in the world, including places like Canada or Australia that only started it recently, like America would be (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/). But I'm sure you won't let things like "recorded historical facts" bother you.
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.
How very generous you are with other people's money. Maybe Mike and Gabe think they have a unique platform for communication that they think could be used to create more good than they could create purely by cash donations. And, boy, you sure are trying to get every inch of mileage possible out of "catching" someone admit they don't know much about deer hunting, in a conversation that has little if anything to do with deer hunting.
Back to the non-deer killing deer rifle again? I'll simplify it; If you don't know shit about it, and can't approach it with an open mind instead of knee-jerk emotional reactions, stay your tongue and go help society another way.
And my point is that you don't need to know the specifics of what caliburs are used to hunt what to know enough to participate in this discussion. You're just trying to screen out people who are likely to disagree with you.
Mike and Gabe obviously know very little about real life guns and how people can own one without ever going on a killing rampage.
More imaginary words, that only Raging Furball can hear! I'd bet you biscuits to blow jobs that neither Mike or Gabe would be surprised to learn that it's possible to own a gun without going on a rampage. Show me a quote demonstrating that they believe otherwise, or else you're hearing voices.
Perhaps they should stick to making comics about video games and not rile up a bunch of their fans on a witch hunt against gun supporters. Step back, find the people who know what the fuck they're doing when it comes to helping those with issues and support them.
Actually, they only riled us up against the NRA. It's the moronic NRA defenders such as yourself who turned this into a debate about gun control. Oh, and "a witch hunt against gun supporters?" You need the Waaahhhumbulance, skippy? No one has said a word about "gun supporters." Your persecution complex is not my issue.
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.
The root of the problem is that ill people sometimes lash out at the world irrationally. I don't see how to address that outside of godlike powers to change to human nature that none of us possess. So while we await that development, doing what we can to limit the damage such people can do is incredibly rational.
Besides which, saying we should "help people so that they don't feel the need to go on a killing rampage," is a lofty goal which you completely fail to explain how we should achieve. Mental health screening, to catch the ill? Increased social welfare programs, to reduce the stresses that lead to people "snapping?" Or do you have nothing but vague platitudes?
Completely fail to explain how we should achieve? If there's anyone here with a complete failure in reading comprehension, it's you, as I've explained it several times. And if you have no idea on how to help another person through mental issues, then you shouldn't be anywhere near this argument; you're the last damn person in the world that should be voicing your opinion on the matter.
You know, I'm a poor typist, and my grammar is usually worse. I'm sure there are any number of syntax errors in my posts here. But you, with your glorious ignorance, you picked one of the rare examples of me actually getting it right to try to embarrass me with. "How we should achieve," is describing "a lofty goal." Put them together, and you get "a lofty goal which you completely fail to explain how we should achieve," which is a completely understandable sentience clause. For people brighter than a Kindergarten drop out, anyway.
EDIT TO ADD : I mean, I guess I did split the infinitive, or something? I don't know. But come on-- You're against any rules for guns (or at least you've yet to mention a single one you'd support), but the rules of grammar ain't to be trifled with? Jaw dropping.
Find an organization or outreach program that specializes in helping people; then help them in any fucking way you can. Suicide hotlines, outreach programs, even talking to someone that's down in the dumps with an open ear can help infinitely better than blanket laws. They are dozens out there, and you could've easily found several in your local area within the time you spent not reading my posts and coming up with your rage-reply.
Of course I'm familiar with suicide prevention lines and the like. And if you're entire response to gun violence is to encourage people to volunteer more, then you're response is, basically, nothing. People who want to volunteer already will, and don't need your encouragement. People who don't want to, no amount of encouragement will work. If you actually are proposing something that might get people to change that behavior, I haven't seen it. That's what I meant when I called your offer "vague platitudes;" of course everyone knows about that sort of volunteer outlet, but asking people to be nicer or better with no actual policy (such as: regulation, increased funding for suicide prevention awareness, anything that would actually change the incentive structure of a single person) is completely ineffectual.
As for me: http://www.morganswonderland.com/volunteer . I'll be there this coming summer as a volunteer. As I'm poor and agoraphobic, I'll be doing yard work and manual labor, but at least I'll be doing something to help society be a better place. I'll be genuinely surprised if I see you there.
Of course I won't be, I don't live anywhere near Texas. If you want to know what I do to help society, I've worked as a full time (70~80 hours a week, and I'm salaried with no overtime, so that means that I'm working for free half the time) community organizer in poor inner cities in Ohio and Pennsylvania for the last three years. I don't like to bring up anecdotal evidence because it's not scientific, but I don't think it's a coincidence that people who live in the highest crime areas, where you might expect them to support gun rights for their own self defense, are also the most ardently anti-gun people I meet. Having actual life experience with people who tried to defend themselves with a gun is the best antidote to believing they can help. Short version: Even if you do successfully use a gun to defend yourself or family, now word is out on the street that you have guns in your house. Excepting large supplies of drugs, there is nothing that makes a house a target for criminals like knowing they can steal guns from you. You can't stand on your roof with your rifle 24/7.
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...
.35, .308, caliber is irrelevant. The fact is standard hunting rifles don't exceed half a dozen rounds or use easily replaceable clips.
Ok, firstly, the Virginia tech shooter DID use a .22 pistol alongside a 9mm handgun with a 10 round clip.
Being so big on guns, you clearly know rifles are not pistols and pistols have different uses and benefits.
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.
I've never gone wrong underestimating human stupidity. The "desire to kill" is not "the intent to go on a mass killing spree." Without the desire to kill, guns would not exist. The only purpose of guns is to kill something. Period. I assume you aren't implying that "desire to kill" isn't a mental illness because I doubt you intend to medicate gun nuts. Though I wouldn't disagree there; it is clearly a combination of hoarding and paranoid delusion.
And maybe you missed where Mike and Gabe are running this big children's hospital supporting charity?
There is a distinct difference between a pro-First Amendment person and a pro-Second. The pro-First realizes the First Amendment must and does have limits. The pro-Second rejects the idea that it can anyway have a limit.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.
What exactly do you want explained
The whole "the context of what happened" is 100% out of context" bit, because that's so much embedded assumption I have no idea how to parse that sentence.
What lead to the NRA's press conference is unrelated to what the NRA said there. The part PA Co. is addressing had nothing to do with this particular mass shooting - it was the NRA going off on a rant trying to deflect blame from themselves for US' violent culture and incidents like this in general.
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...
.35, .308, caliber is irrelevant. The fact is standard hunting rifles don't exceed half a dozen rounds or use easily replaceable clips.
Ok, firstly, the Virginia tech shooter DID use a .22 pistol alongside a 9mm handgun with a 10 round clip.
Being so big on guns, you clearly know rifles are not pistols and pistols have different uses and benefits.
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.
I've never gone wrong underestimating human stupidity. The "desire to kill" is not "the intent to go on a mass killing spree." Without the desire to kill, guns would not exist. The only purpose of guns is to kill something. Period. I assume you aren't implying that "desire to kill" isn't a mental illness because I doubt you intend to medicate gun nuts. Though I wouldn't disagree there; it is clearly a combination of hoarding and paranoid delusion.
And maybe you missed where Mike and Gabe are running this big children's hospital supporting charity?
There is a distinct difference between a pro-First Amendment person and a pro-Second. The pro-First realizes the First Amendment must and does have limits. The pro-Second rejects the idea that it can anyway have a limit.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.
What exactly do you want explained
The whole "the context of what happened" is 100% out of context" bit, because that's so much embedded assumption I have no idea how to parse that sentence.
What lead to the NRA's press conference is unrelated to what the NRA said there. The part PA Co. is addressing had nothing to do with this particular mass shooting - it was the NRA going off on a rant trying to deflect blame from themselves for US' violent culture and incidents like this in general.
There is a distinct difference between a pro-First Amendment person and a pro-Second. The pro-First realizes the First Amendment must and does have limits. The pro-Second rejects the idea that it can anyway have a limit.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.
What exactly do you want explained
The whole "the context of what happened" is 100% out of context" bit, because that's so much embedded assumption I have no idea how to parse that sentence.
What lead to the NRA's press conference is unrelated to what the NRA said there. The part PA Co. is addressing had nothing to do with this particular mass shooting - it was the NRA going off on a rant trying to deflect blame from themselves for US' violent culture and incidents like this in general.
The fact that its ignoring that there was the shooting is the problem.
Like, the NRA did something insanely shitty but oh no, my first amendment is the real victims here. Tears into the camera, one minute silence ect. As I said, if you want to point out the NRA are a bag of dicks go right ahead, but aiming for the heartstrings angle in this context is dumb as hell.
Its doubly annoying because "...its a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the first amendment to protect the second." isn't even a coherent argument either. The ludicrous nature of the NRAs claims is a point that would have been more effectively conveyed by satire even.
The problem with this comic, and everyone jumping on the NRA is that Penny Arcade didn't say squat when, just a few days ago, a US Senator, Jay Rockefeller (D), who likes to push for more gun control, introduced a bill to do research on how violent videogames are corrupting our youth —other senators like Lieberman made the same comments, calling for gun control and a look at those darned violent games and movies.
Dude, I am completely with you. I was opposed to the Lieberman for President campaign in 2004, mainly because of his 1st amendment record. He also lost the Democratic primary in his 2006 reelection bid (the Republicans threw their support behind him, which is how he was reelected in the general election). But Lieberman has retired and will be out of congress in two weeks. Rockefeller is facing a very tough reelection himself in 2014, and has, at best, a 50/50 shot. Also keep in mind that he's the Senator from West Viriginia, and it's very likely that he everything you said is true and Rockefeller will still be the most liberal candidate in that race.
Most importantly, none of them have support of congressional or white house leadership. I don't think this censorship drive will even get going, but if it does it'll be because Republicans support and push it. The NRA *does* have support from Republican leadership.
When the NRA even so much as breathes something, anything, after an event like this the anti-gun folks swarm with an even greater frenzy, but when an actual legislator attacks the 1st and 2nd Amendment it is just the sound of crickets, or a vigorous defending of the 1st Amendment but a happy tossing under the bus of the 2nd. It is a nice demonstration of bias, truly. IGN and Escapist reported on Rockefeller's bill, why no mention of that? A senator should be protecting our freedoms, and should be called out when they try to limit them. But, no, no, the NRA is bad, so that is worth a comic. Related to this, if the person who is attacking games today is a Republican or conservative that will get play in the discussion, if they are a Democrat or liberal then the political affiliation will be completely avoided; noteworthy because of the hypocrisy of the Republicans, or whatever other lame excuse to justify attacking one group on multiple levels.
The difference is that Rockefeller is one isolated senator with no support in his party on this. His bill is DOA; not even a hearing scheduled, let alone an actual vote. The NRA is actively campaigning to change that. The NRA launched two "trial balloons" in this speech, censorship and police in every school, as their official counter solution to gun violence. If the members of congress who are in favor of gun regulations keep pushing, the NRA is going to have to pick one of those two as push all their resources behind it; to draw attention and energy away from the leadership Democrat's effort to close the gunshow loophole, etc. Right now, the NRA media office is processing reactions to LaPierre's speech, trying to find which of those two trial balloons went over better, which makes a better "Plan B" for them to offer. So if you have a preference between which of those two alternatives becomes the official GOP position, *now* is the time they are making that decision. So it is, in fact, important to beat the idea of censorship into a pulp, to stop it before it gets off the ground.
Oh, and also, the NRA supports candidates nationwide in attempt to change the make up of congress into people who agree with them. Jay Rockefeller isn't doing anything similar, and thus has no chance to move his idea into the official democratic position.
What this comic says to me, "I am completely ignorant of guns and the 2nd Amendment. I am also willfully ignorant of the fact that there are groups that would happily censor all violent media while attacking the 2nd Amendment, and so only care about that scary 2nd Amendment supporting group."
For someone who just displayed his ignorance of how politics actually works and what Tycho is/might actually be doing here, you're a little judgey about ignorance. Wisdom comes from admitting how much we don't know.
And quite frankly, if you (this is a general "you" and not aimed at any specific individual) are so ignorant of guns you cannot even identify the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, you actually believe people can just walk in to a gunstore/show and buy machine guns and assault rifles, don't know that the term assault weapon is completely meaningless and references only a firearm's "scary" looks, or you believe there is an actual gun show loophole, you have every right to your opinion, but that opinion is ignorant and worthless. You, who support laws based on raw emotion born out of ignorance, are one of the reasons we lose rights every single day, because your irrational desire for action following tragedy has no understanding of existing law or the realities of the very thing you are against.
That's funny, because federal law says there is in fact a gunshow exemption to background checks:
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Yahiye Gadah declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms."
"occasional," by the way, can mean "24 hours a day, 365 days a year," and that's ok.
EDIT TO ADD : "You have every right to your opinion, but that opinion is ignorant and worthless," is like my favorite quote of this entire thread year. I want it on a T-Shirt.
Well, this went up Friday ahead of schedule right? So this makes me think they want to just hang out with friends and family for Christmas, ergo, why the comic sucks.
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.
I don't think any of us noticed at the time, but derp: Mike and Gabe are the same person. You mean Mike and Jerry, or Gabe and Tycho (Or Mike and Tycho or Gabe and Jerry). I find this extra hilarious because at least three other people, myself included, repeat the mistake without notice.
So I've read through the majority of this thread, and despite never normally reading the forums I really felt compelled to post here.
I have to say that I agree the general sentiment early in this thread. While I love to read PA, they really should stay away from politics. Without getting into it too much, I just want to say that regardless of your personal disputes with politics or your personal feelings on gun control, we should all mostly be able to agree that video games should not be held as the sole aggressor, although they may have contributed. Throwing all the blame on any one aspect is wrong, and I believe that the comic's specificity about the Second Amendment being used to "destroy" the First Amendment is a polarizing statement. While not expressly stating it, it seems as though M&J are stating that guns are things that should be curtailed while video games should remain untouched.
To wit, I wish to bring back this wonderful gem from the archives, a bumper sticker from October of 2000 showing that blaming guns over video games is hypocritical of this site and comic:
It is essentially impossible to say that guns are not more culpable than video games in this instance. It would be sheer lunacy. I have no dog in this fight, but if that's a point you're making you should seriously reexamine it.
All I can say is that anyone who believes that the entire (or even a particularly large) point of the NRA article was that "video games are bad" obviously has not read the article. It is 21 hundred words long, with a discussion of the media in general making up less than 15%, and video games being mentioned in only one paragraph. In fact, while the article was critical of violent media, it did not call for bans or censorship at all.
The point of the press release was to argue against the "Gun-Free Zone" policies of schools. It was to note that any other location that people want guarded is maintained by armed security officers (airports, banks, etc.), but that schools are left conspicuously undefended. The point being made was that actively defending schools would have greater and more immediate effect than changing the gun rights of the entire populace.
Very simply, it is called the "National Rifle Association" for a reason. The entire purpose of the organization is to promote gun rights and show their benefits, not to censor media.
I agree with the sentiment that video games (my favorite hobby) should not be censored, nor should any form of media. But the notion that we need to choose between either media rights or gun rights (i.e. amendments 1 & 2) is a fallacy. It is my opinion that both rights are worth having, and that relinquishing either one damages one's ability to retain the other. It concerns me greatly when people focus so narrowly on one that they forget that the other was proposed for a reason.
The point of the press release was to argue against the "Gun-Free Zone" policies of schools. It was to note that any other location that people want guarded is maintained by armed security officers (airports, banks, etc.), but that schools are left conspicuously undefended. The point being made was that actively defending schools would have greater and more immediate effect than changing the gun rights of the entire populace.
This an an argument you'll see a lot on the right. There are three major flaws with it:
1) There already are numerous school with armed police. I went to one. Columbine had one. No demonstrated efficacy. On the other hand, I basically support the idea of law and order and think that if the American people want to spend the 6~ish billion a year it would cost to do this nationwide, that's a fine use of the money and could really help alleviate recent police layoffs nationwide. But this brings up..
2) I just don't think there is a way to get the Republicans to agree to do this without insisting on cutting equal amount out of something like social security or food stamps (ie, spending on the poor and old), as opposed to something like cuts from the DHS or Pentagon Democrats might agree to.
3) increasing security in one spot is a game of whack a mole. As point 1 sort of implies, you can't just put a cop at every high school anymore. Now, junior highs, elementary and all down would have to be guards. Then, someone would decide to hit a bus, shopping mall, the fucking massive cluster of unscreened people that exists at every airport security checkpoint when the line gets long...
Israel is a place like that, and North Ireland used to be. You have to secure *everything* and *everywhere*. In a place like America with more small towns and scattered suburban developments, it would be unbelieveably expensive. 6 billion a year is just the schools, remember.
Very simply, it is called the "National Rifle Association" for a reason. The entire purpose of the organization is to promote gun rights and show their benefits, not to censor media.
Actually, if you read back in the thread, you'll see we all discussed how the NRA started as a safety and insurance organization, which is what gave it the large megaphone when it entered politics.
I agree with the sentiment that video games (my favorite hobby) should not be censored, nor should any form of media. But the notion that we need to choose between either media rights or gun rights (i.e. amendments 1 & 2) is a fallacy. It is my opinion that both rights are worth having, and that relinquishing either one damages one's ability to retain the other. It concerns me greatly when people focus so narrowly on one that they forget that the other was proposed for a reason.
You know, Feudalism was proposed for a reason, and a very good one, too. It finally provided coastal Europe with defense against the Vikings.
My understanding is that they are in favor of private ownership of full auto weapons. That they also oppose limits on clip size, and oppose requiring background checks (closing the gun show loophole). I think that ads up to "extreme," since polling shows the majority of Americans support all these things. Whether you personally think that's extreme, ymmv, but it is extreme is the "not near the middle" sense.
Private ownership of full auto weapon exists. You just can't own any made past 1986. The requirements are a full FBI background check, a chief local LEO must sign off on it, and a $200 dollar tax stamp must be paid each time they are transferred into someone else's name in the NFA registry. The few that remain command prices many times greater than their original purchase price. The NRA has no issues with you owning one of these, but they do not advocate the repeal of their NFA status. Double digit magazines have been in common use since WW2. 10rds is an arbitrary number. There is no reason the number cannot be 11 or 12 etc. The gun show loophole very misleading. The federal law says you can sell your own firearms to non-prohibited persons without them being transferred by an FFL so long as they live in your same state. If you sell out of state, they must be shipped to an FFL to be transferred. Dealers are required to do the NICS check transfer regardless of who they are selling to. If the so-called loop hole was closed, then people would have to pay 10 to 100 dollars to sell their own property to anyone. That includes handing down firearms to your children or giving them to family or friends. I, personally, would love to have access to doing NICS checks if they were free. That covers my ass if I'm trying to sell a gun. As it is, I only sell to people with valid CCW permits for that reason.
I think it's apt description of something that allows people to sell guns at advertised swap meets to avoid background checks. They're taking an exemption that meant for people selling an odd piece to his friend or associate, not meant to be a major source of income; just for people selling off old guns they don't want anymore, and abusing it to operate a full time business without background checks. Back ground checks and waiting periods are something most people want, and using technicalities to avoid them should and I think will be stopped.
If the so-called loop hole was closed, then people would have to pay 10 to 100 dollars to sell their own property to anyone. That includes handing down firearms to your children or giving them to family or friends.
Tough. You sell your car, you have to go pay to get the title transferred. Same deal. I literally cannot believe that anyone would argue something that might cost ten whole dollars isn't worth the trade off in decreased gun deaths.
I, personally, would love to have access to doing NICS checks if they were free. That covers my ass if I'm trying to sell a gun. As it is, I only sell to people with valid CCW permits for that reason.
Again, tough. If they were "free", they would really be paid for by the American people. You're asking people who are experiencing cuts in unemployment insurance, cuts in food stamps (which 1/4th of American children use to eat these days), and you're going to ask them to cover the costs of your private business? That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism, using the public funds to pay for expenses generated by your private business. I think it's amazing how many people oppose welfare, medicaid, etc, as mooching, but have no problem wanting the people to pay the expenses of *their* pet issue.
ackwarrior, I agree with most of your points. However, I disagree with your belief in limiting clip size or access to certain kinds of firearms. This is because the vast majority of gun crime committed in the United States is not done with guns that could be classified as assault weapons. Any limitation imposed therein would not be worth the cost of implementation for the resultant quantity of prevented gun deaths.
Furthermore, the argument that extended clips leads to more deaths is relatively irrelevant within the larger picture. There are so many other causes of accidental or wrongful death in this country that exceed the number of clip size related deaths by several orders of magnitude to render clip regulation pointless.
Essentially, nitpicky regulation of individual things is not going to solve the larger issue to any reasonable degree, and so any effort toward that direction is IMO a waste of energy and resources.
That being said, I completely agree with you that gun show laws are in severe need of reformation. This action would be simple to implement and would result in widespread and significant prevention of gun crime.
My point is this: it is impossible to protect the citizenship completely from gun violence, as you said above. Therefore, we should concentrate on those changes that are going to be the best balance of efficiency and unobtrusiveness to legitimate gun owners.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Cartigan, what exactly do you mean by "too much" influence? Is it "too much" influence because you disagree with the NRA? Or are you suggesting something about laws/regulations etc. surrounding groups like the NRA?
Yes, I disagree with the NRA but the NRA is the most powerful gun lobby in the country - both pro and anti. The NRA practically single handedly writes the gun laws in this country.
If the so-called loop hole was closed, then people would have to pay 10 to 100 dollars to sell their own property to anyone. That includes handing down firearms to your children or giving them to family or friends. I, personally, would love to have access to doing NICS checks if they were free. That covers my ass if I'm trying to sell a gun. As it is, I only sell to people with valid CCW permits for that reason.
Why should you be allowed to directly sell a gun to anyone? Passing it down to your kids is one thing. That can be covered with perfectly something like running it through the police or whatever, transferring a license, something, unimportant. The exception can be narrowed trivially. However, why should you - a private citizen, be allowed to sell a dangerous weapon to another private citizen? Don't give me the "knives are weapon" bunk. Why shouldn't a private seller have to move their weapon through a licensed dealer - ie, someone who has to perform a background check? If a person in the business of selling guns has to get a license and do background checks, why doesn't a private citizen selling to another private citizen? If you look up right-wing blogs, they go on about how very few career criminals admit buying guns from a gun show. However, a prior study by the ATF showed that the second largest source of illegally moved weapons is gun shows, after straw buyers. Those studies are not contradictory on their face so unless the details contained therein become so, the point stands that the gun show loophole is a major source of illegally acquired weapons.
Uh guys, not to be a buzzkill, but they said they wrote the strip in the morning. The NRA guy spoke in the afternoon. This was likely in response to Sen. Joe Manchin's little diatribe. At least I hope so since the NRA a guy was
1) Not advocating censorship
2) Has no power to push that kind of legislation
I know piling on the NRA is fun for.... some people but I think this was written before he spoke.
To: Pro-Gun people
The NRA VP didn't have to say some of this stuff, and his speech was clumsy.
To: Everyone else
You say that the NRA VP is trying to abdicate his "responsibility" for the shooting by blaming others, yet you all act like NRA are somehow at fault. How is that any less of an abdication? I'm not even understanding how the NRA is in anyway involved in this, since none of the guns used by Lanza have ever been under any threat by anyone of being restricted. If the NRA never existed these guns would be legal.
In fact I would love to hear from all these knee-jerk advocates what law would have prevented this shooting, given the following facts:
1) The shooter did not use an assault weapon
2) The shooter did not use an expanded magazine
3) The shooter stole the guns he used
4) The shooter had access to mental healthcare
I know waiting for the bodies to be buried is a terrible hassle for some of you, but for the love of Christ give us all a break for once.
I'm disappointed in PA for doing this strip. I don't come to this site to hear tired political talking points. I can just watch the news for that.
P.S. I find it interesting that numerous (Democratic) politicians, including the president, have been trashing video games over the last few years, yet when the NRA (who has no vote in any elected body i'm aware of) gives a 20 minute response where video games are mentioned for a sentence of it, everyone needs to react to it.
Posts
Oh man, you caught someone slipping up and not knowing what type of rifle to shoot deer with! SNAP! I guess that proves it: Cartigan isn't the guy to talk to about hunting deer. Luckily, that topic is completely superfluous to this topic, and trying to lord non-relevant details like they prove something exposes how faulty your concept of "logic" is. Also, thankfully, the affect of a .22 on a rat isn't and never has been the point.
You want to know what Cartigan, and every other person on the face of earth knows about guns? They're fucking dangerous. You might use a .22 on rats, but they also work great on people.
What in hell are you trying to say here, that they'd have been better off if he had a bigger gun? Or is it "one guy was able to reload a couple times successfully, so that somehow magically invalidates all the other people stopped while reloading?" Of course *sometimes* reloading isn't a problem. Sometimes people get lucky. Sometimes they don't. Lets give mass murders as many opportunities as possible for their luck to run out.
Again, what is your point? That the Chinese attacks wouldn't have been any more lethal if they had fire arms? That if we can't make it *impossible* to kill people, we shouldn't try to make it difficult? That we should only accept 100% air tight solutions that never fail? Yeah, ok, throw in a pony and you've won me over.
If you think a single person on this thread has said anything like that, you are a complete failure at reading comprehension. The point that I, and others, have made is "It shouldn't be this quick and easy to kill 30 people." Of course someone dedicated enough can find a way to hurt people. That's why the most we can do is limit the damage they can do. The harder it becomes, the less attacks, and the lower the death toll when they do happen.
The only person talking about "magically [making people] stop wanting to kill," is you. I'd guess this is either because you fail at reading, or because it's easier to attack a position that you yourself have created and projected onto to others. Either way, pretty dickish behavior. Good thing you didn't immediately follow up acting like a dick by accusing other people of being dicks!
Helping people with depression or mental problems sounds great to me! It's a good thing that doing that doesn't preclude us from limiting clip sizes, or vice versa. Sure would be stupid to try to force a "choice" between two improvements that could happily co-exist.
How very generous you are with other people's money. Maybe Mike and Gabe think they have a unique platform for communication that they think could be used to create more good than they could create purely by cash donations. And, boy, you sure are trying to get every inch of mileage possible out of "catching" someone admit they don't know much about deer hunting, in a conversation that has little if anything to do with deer hunting.
The root of the problem is that ill people sometimes lash out at the world irrationally. I don't see how to address that outside of godlike powers to change to human nature that none of us possess. So while we await that development, doing what we can to limit the damage such people can do is incredibly rational.
Besides which, saying we should "help people so that they don't feel the need to go on a killing rampage," is a lofty goal which you completely fail to explain how we should achieve. Mental health screening, to catch the ill? Increased social welfare programs, to reduce the stresses that lead to people "snapping?" Or do you have nothing but vague platitudes?
I really don't think that they're very extreme. They're not advocating for fully automatics, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, or destructive devices to be taken from the NFA act. They do want suppressors taken off the NFA list, but they were always a safety device in reality. They were never used in violent crime. Too damn long and they're louder than you think. They were banned for fear of poaching under game wardens' noses. Other than that, what exactly is so extreme?
http://www.wnd.com/2007/08/43164/
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/NEWS/711150327
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/2nd-ariz-eighth-grader-suspended-for-drawing-images-of-gun
It is generally worse in other countries. I've heard that hunting magazines in the UK have to be treated like porno mags.
I am entirely, 100% down with a comic about how the NRA are dumb jerks. Its an embarassing misstep in tone however to be getting all teary about this in the context of what happened.
I think there's a bit of hypocrisy going on here with regards to the NRA pointing out violent video games as a contributing factor to the increase in violence of our youth. It would seem that it is perfectly acceptable to defend violent video games against censorship; a stance that I agree with I might add. But in the same turn, it's apparently acceptable to demand MORE "censorship" for firearms in the form of magazine capacity restrictions, assault style weapon bans, and so forth. If a video game is considered an inanimate object bereft of any responsibility of the possible inspiration of violent behavior it may cause, then shouldn't a gun, itself an inanimate object that is incapable on its own to injure or kill someone, also be relieved of the same responsibility? In both video games and the use of firearms, is it not the person the deciding factor in how the gun is used or how the violence in the video game is taken?
The problem isn't guns. Or violent video games. Or rap music. Or any of the other traditional scapegoats commonly used to shrug off responsibility that may point to a more uncomfortable truth than one might be willing to deal with. And that uncomfortable truth, I believe, is that we have failed to assume responsibility for instilling values like accountability and responsibility in our kids. They're not being taught from the people that really matter, the parents, about common decency and respect for one's fellow man. That job's been pushed off on the government, whether it's through the judicial system or the education system, and to the media in the form of sanitized entertainment and educational shows to teach little Timmy his table manners.
I hear the argument often about how someone "plays violent video games and remains unaffected, therefore it's not the video games". And I agree, as I play the same type of games. But you know what? I also own an assault rifle. With high capacity magazines, including a 100 round drum magazine. I own military grade, steel cored rounds. And I do not have the urge to go shoot up a school, rob a bank, or commit any other heinous act with any firearm I own. As a matter of fact, the only thing I really present a serious threat too is those paper zombie targets I take to the firing range every so often. I don't keep guns because I think they're a solution to a problem. I keep them because they're an insurance policy in unforeseen circumstances. I keep them because it's my right to protect myself and my family from possible harm. Do I need an assault rifle or high capacity magazines to protect my family? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it yours or the government's or anyone else's place to decide what I do or do not need to protect myself and my family? Absolutely not.
The problem of public shootings aren't going to diminish with assault weapon bans, magazine capacity limitations, or other forms of control legislation any more than censoring violence in video games, movies, or music. No matter how much knee-jerk legislation is hurriedly passed in the aftermath of public tragedy, the violence will continue. Suggesting that censorship of anything, video games, guns, or otherwise, is a solution to the problem is just asinine.
When the NRA even so much as breathes something, anything, after an event like this the anti-gun folks swarm with an even greater frenzy, but when an actual legislator attacks the 1st and 2nd Amendment it is just the sound of crickets, or a vigorous defending of the 1st Amendment but a happy tossing under the bus of the 2nd. It is a nice demonstration of bias, truly. IGN and Escapist reported on Rockefeller's bill, why no mention of that? A senator should be protecting our freedoms, and should be called out when they try to limit them. But, no, no, the NRA is bad, so that is worth a comic. Related to this, if the person who is attacking games today is a Republican or conservative that will get play in the discussion, if they are a Democrat or liberal then the political affiliation will be completely avoided; noteworthy because of the hypocrisy of the Republicans, or whatever other lame excuse to justify attacking one group on multiple levels.
What this comic says to me, "I am completely ignorant of guns and the 2nd Amendment. I am also willfully ignorant of the fact that there are groups that would happily censor all violent media while attacking the 2nd Amendment, and so only care about that scary 2nd Amendment supporting group."
Most anti gun groups are anti violent media groups, because the violent video games and movies glorify guns and violence in their eyes. Every time an event like this happens just about every person/group, including many gamers, blames violent media, whether they are pro or anti 2nd Amendment, so what is so special about this time that it deserves a sad, "Oh, I am so betrayed," comic? Oh, right, the NRA, because of the hypocrisy, or whatever. Yes, I know Gabe and Tycho have gone after other anti-video game people before, but it is always with a, rightly, mocking tone. This comic is nothing more than an attempt at shaming, a suggestion of betrayal, as if somehow the NRA doing it is worse than any of the other groups. I find it a far more offensive betrayal to see politicians using a tragedy to score points for their anti 1st and/or anti 2nd Amendment agendas then for a group that is always under attack deflecting attention. I am not defending the NRA's statement here, nor am I a member of the NRA, I am just stating they do not deserve to be singled out in the 1st Amendment debate that has arisen, like it always does, after a tragedy involving violence and schools.
And quite frankly, if you (this is a general "you" and not aimed at any specific individual) are so ignorant of guns you cannot even identify the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, you actually believe people can just walk in to a gunstore/show and buy machine guns and assault rifles, don't know that the term assault weapon is completely meaningless and references only a firearm's "scary" looks, or you believe there is an actual gun show loophole, you have every right to your opinion, but that opinion is ignorant and worthless. You, who support laws based on raw emotion born out of ignorance, are one of the reasons we lose rights every single day, because your irrational desire for action following tragedy has no understanding of existing law or the realities of the very thing you are against.
Except the "context of what happened" is 100% out of context. And is being used to try and silence Mike and Gabe by the pro-gun crowd thereby making their point
I agree. Let's call them what they are - military style weapons.
PS. There is 100% a gun show loophole because people who do not sell guns as a business are legally allowed to sell their working firearm to a purchaser without that purchaser having a background check. So unless 100% of gun shows limit people who can rent tables to people who have a business license, I don't see how you (or the NRA, where I'm sure you got your info) can say there is no loophole.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.
What exactly do you want explained
article.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
Two points:
1. The argument that "because things get grandfathered in, we shouldn't bother controlling them in the future" is a non sequitur. And ridiculous.
2. Sure, mass shootings are very rare, but add in crimes committed with similar weapons and with similar effect then basis for a control argument is increased. The assertion that we can't to include those into the argument when the argument started because of mass shootings is equally ridiculous.
The assault weapons ban wasn't perfect and was derived from ignorance, sure, you can make that argument and be mostly correct. But when the "informed" side thinks the Second Amendment should have no limits, unlike the First somehow, then how can you achieve an informed solution?
The whole "the context of what happened" is 100% out of context" bit, because that's so much embedded assumption I have no idea how to parse that sentence.
I'm not saying its a flawless look at the situation, it just points out the huge misconceptions out there right now, and how if we want to make things any better, it has to be more than just "bring back the assault weapons ban" or "no more large-capacity magazines".
Not saying I have the answer. Just that I know that most the ideas floating around on this right now are NOT the (best) answer.
I'm fairly sure no one at PA is worried about video games being taken away anymore. They're trying to illustrate the absurdity of those who still defend guns by saying "see, they're making a ridiculous argument about something non-material when the real situation is right there in their hands."
This is definitely putting words in their mouths, but I think we've done quite a bit of that in this thread. I strongly doubt Mike or Jerry could ever, especially now as fathers, belittle or minimize the mass death of children in favor of video game defense. It would just be a little bit over the top and out of form if they specifically showed, in comic form, their grief over the shooting itself. This is them trying to address the subject with tact and subtlety and respect. I guess that might be hard to understand, considering internets.
The more groups with too much influence - like the NRA, start shouting about violence in video games and get the nuts supporting them to shout about it and combine them with the groups with much less influence and power who have been shouting the same thing, then you might see something happen to free speech in pop culture. The government doesn't have to make a move because they don't regulate it in the first place.
My understanding is that they are in favor of private ownership of full auto weapons. That they also oppose limits on clip size, and oppose requiring background checks (closing the gun show loophole). I think that ads up to "extreme," since polling shows the majority of Americans support all these things. Whether you personally think that's extreme, ymmv, but it is extreme is the "not near the middle" sense.
I'm sorry, but these are all anecdotal. Incidents like these didn't begin in the last ten years, there have always been overprotective school boards and moronic administrators following the letter of the law to cover their own asses.
Actually, I agree with you. I'm sure that most of the owners of these weapons are responsible, and their weapons will never be used unlawfully. Likewise, if there were no speed limits, I'm sure most of the people who'd do 100 down the freeway are responsible drivers who wouldn't hit anyone. If there were no security at the airport, I'm sure most of the travels are responsible types who wouldn't bring a bomb on board. Sometimes, you have to mildly inconvenience everyone to prevent a minority from abusing the lack of oversight to kill people. The right to not be killed is a pretty important right, too.
1) Guns a bit more dangerous than rocks.
2) So the only people "informed" enough to be allowed to voice an opinion on guns are the gun enthusists themselves? (all the pot heads out there are thinking to themselves "Shit, how do we get that deal?") I'm sure that's its just a coincidence that this policy would limit gun debates to gun supporters.
Actually, no I didn't. I said "Of course, *sometimes* reloading isn't a problem." Anyone not trying to use a gun in their mass murder, is, of course, not covered by gun regulations. No one claims that gun regulation is a magic that will prevent every single attempted murder. But preventing many of the murders done with guns is something gun control can accomplish, and is a worthwhile goal.
This sort of incident is why I've suggested to you previously that you work on your reading comprehension.
Gee, I wonder what's unique to Mexico, that wouldn't be true of an America with gun laws? Being a third world nation? Being right next to a massive supply of guns?
Maybe you could stop pretended that trying to prevent crime makes it impossible or unnecessary to also limit the damage done in the cases you can't prevent?
Well I'm glad I never said that, then. That's a strawman position you're inventing, dear.
Ever heard the saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" Ok, lets put this is small words, so the reading comprehension challenged can get it:
"Zero death toll good goal! Also impossible in a world of many, many people. Smart people build buildings designed to never catch on fire. They also design the building with smoke alarms and sprinkers because sometimes, things happen even if you try to prevent them."
No one is trying to silence you. Spare us your persecution complex. I've read and responded to that argue from you three times now. Here it is, once again, in case you missed it: "Great idea! Also, no one knows how to do that with a 100% success rate! So we need to also plan for the times it doesn't work."
When you refused to accept the utility of any improvement over the status quo that isn't, quote "NO FUCKING DEATH TOLL."
I encourage the concept of helping people. Happy? Oh, I bet you'll think it doesn't count unless I also accept your false dichotomy that "helping people" is somehow opposed to trying to lower death tolls. No, you're right, we should have let the Newtown shooter have a god damned M30 with endless ammo belt so he could have mowed down the entire school. Smaller death toll, bigger death toll, all the same to you, right?
I never said that. Do you frequently see words that others don't? Do you hear voices others in the room can't? I said "do both," I never blew off anything, and I never said one had to come "after" the other. Doing both at the same time is possible in a county with more than one person in it. As for "we already know aren't going to work," it's nice to see you haven't pre-judged anything here. Gun control works in every single other advanced control in the world, including places like Canada or Australia that only started it recently, like America would be (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/). But I'm sure you won't let things like "recorded historical facts" bother you.
And my point is that you don't need to know the specifics of what caliburs are used to hunt what to know enough to participate in this discussion. You're just trying to screen out people who are likely to disagree with you.
More imaginary words, that only Raging Furball can hear! I'd bet you biscuits to blow jobs that neither Mike or Gabe would be surprised to learn that it's possible to own a gun without going on a rampage. Show me a quote demonstrating that they believe otherwise, or else you're hearing voices.
Actually, they only riled us up against the NRA. It's the moronic NRA defenders such as yourself who turned this into a debate about gun control. Oh, and "a witch hunt against gun supporters?" You need the Waaahhhumbulance, skippy? No one has said a word about "gun supporters." Your persecution complex is not my issue.
You know, I'm a poor typist, and my grammar is usually worse. I'm sure there are any number of syntax errors in my posts here. But you, with your glorious ignorance, you picked one of the rare examples of me actually getting it right to try to embarrass me with. "How we should achieve," is describing "a lofty goal." Put them together, and you get "a lofty goal which you completely fail to explain how we should achieve," which is a completely understandable sentience clause. For people brighter than a Kindergarten drop out, anyway.
EDIT TO ADD : I mean, I guess I did split the infinitive, or something? I don't know. But come on-- You're against any rules for guns (or at least you've yet to mention a single one you'd support), but the rules of grammar ain't to be trifled with? Jaw dropping.
Of course I'm familiar with suicide prevention lines and the like. And if you're entire response to gun violence is to encourage people to volunteer more, then you're response is, basically, nothing. People who want to volunteer already will, and don't need your encouragement. People who don't want to, no amount of encouragement will work. If you actually are proposing something that might get people to change that behavior, I haven't seen it. That's what I meant when I called your offer "vague platitudes;" of course everyone knows about that sort of volunteer outlet, but asking people to be nicer or better with no actual policy (such as: regulation, increased funding for suicide prevention awareness, anything that would actually change the incentive structure of a single person) is completely ineffectual.
Of course I won't be, I don't live anywhere near Texas. If you want to know what I do to help society, I've worked as a full time (70~80 hours a week, and I'm salaried with no overtime, so that means that I'm working for free half the time) community organizer in poor inner cities in Ohio and Pennsylvania for the last three years. I don't like to bring up anecdotal evidence because it's not scientific, but I don't think it's a coincidence that people who live in the highest crime areas, where you might expect them to support gun rights for their own self defense, are also the most ardently anti-gun people I meet. Having actual life experience with people who tried to defend themselves with a gun is the best antidote to believing they can help. Short version: Even if you do successfully use a gun to defend yourself or family, now word is out on the street that you have guns in your house. Excepting large supplies of drugs, there is nothing that makes a house a target for criminals like knowing they can steal guns from you. You can't stand on your roof with your rifle 24/7.
Being so big on guns, you clearly know rifles are not pistols and pistols have different uses and benefits.
I've never gone wrong underestimating human stupidity. The "desire to kill" is not "the intent to go on a mass killing spree." Without the desire to kill, guns would not exist. The only purpose of guns is to kill something. Period. I assume you aren't implying that "desire to kill" isn't a mental illness because I doubt you intend to medicate gun nuts. Though I wouldn't disagree there; it is clearly a combination of hoarding and paranoid delusion.
And maybe you missed where Mike and Gabe are running this big children's hospital supporting charity?
What lead to the NRA's press conference is unrelated to what the NRA said there. The part PA Co. is addressing had nothing to do with this particular mass shooting - it was the NRA going off on a rant trying to deflect blame from themselves for US' violent culture and incidents like this in general.
Being so big on guns, you clearly know rifles are not pistols and pistols have different uses and benefits.
I've never gone wrong underestimating human stupidity. The "desire to kill" is not "the intent to go on a mass killing spree." Without the desire to kill, guns would not exist. The only purpose of guns is to kill something. Period. I assume you aren't implying that "desire to kill" isn't a mental illness because I doubt you intend to medicate gun nuts. Though I wouldn't disagree there; it is clearly a combination of hoarding and paranoid delusion.
And maybe you missed where Mike and Gabe are running this big children's hospital supporting charity?
What lead to the NRA's press conference is unrelated to what the NRA said there. The part PA Co. is addressing had nothing to do with this particular mass shooting - it was the NRA going off on a rant trying to deflect blame from themselves for US' violent culture and incidents like this in general.
The fact that its ignoring that there was the shooting is the problem.
Like, the NRA did something insanely shitty but oh no, my first amendment is the real victims here. Tears into the camera, one minute silence ect. As I said, if you want to point out the NRA are a bag of dicks go right ahead, but aiming for the heartstrings angle in this context is dumb as hell.
Its doubly annoying because "...its a very odd sort of patriot that would destroy the first amendment to protect the second." isn't even a coherent argument either. The ludicrous nature of the NRAs claims is a point that would have been more effectively conveyed by satire even.
Dude, I am completely with you. I was opposed to the Lieberman for President campaign in 2004, mainly because of his 1st amendment record. He also lost the Democratic primary in his 2006 reelection bid (the Republicans threw their support behind him, which is how he was reelected in the general election). But Lieberman has retired and will be out of congress in two weeks. Rockefeller is facing a very tough reelection himself in 2014, and has, at best, a 50/50 shot. Also keep in mind that he's the Senator from West Viriginia, and it's very likely that he everything you said is true and Rockefeller will still be the most liberal candidate in that race.
Most importantly, none of them have support of congressional or white house leadership. I don't think this censorship drive will even get going, but if it does it'll be because Republicans support and push it. The NRA *does* have support from Republican leadership.
The difference is that Rockefeller is one isolated senator with no support in his party on this. His bill is DOA; not even a hearing scheduled, let alone an actual vote. The NRA is actively campaigning to change that. The NRA launched two "trial balloons" in this speech, censorship and police in every school, as their official counter solution to gun violence. If the members of congress who are in favor of gun regulations keep pushing, the NRA is going to have to pick one of those two as push all their resources behind it; to draw attention and energy away from the leadership Democrat's effort to close the gunshow loophole, etc. Right now, the NRA media office is processing reactions to LaPierre's speech, trying to find which of those two trial balloons went over better, which makes a better "Plan B" for them to offer. So if you have a preference between which of those two alternatives becomes the official GOP position, *now* is the time they are making that decision. So it is, in fact, important to beat the idea of censorship into a pulp, to stop it before it gets off the ground.
Oh, and also, the NRA supports candidates nationwide in attempt to change the make up of congress into people who agree with them. Jay Rockefeller isn't doing anything similar, and thus has no chance to move his idea into the official democratic position.
For someone who just displayed his ignorance of how politics actually works and what Tycho is/might actually be doing here, you're a little judgey about ignorance. Wisdom comes from admitting how much we don't know.
That's funny, because federal law says there is in fact a gunshow exemption to background checks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
"occasional," by the way, can mean "24 hours a day, 365 days a year," and that's ok.
EDIT TO ADD : "You have every right to your opinion, but that opinion is ignorant and worthless," is like my favorite quote of this entire thread year. I want it on a T-Shirt.
I don't think any of us noticed at the time, but derp: Mike and Gabe are the same person. You mean Mike and Jerry, or Gabe and Tycho (Or Mike and Tycho or Gabe and Jerry). I find this extra hilarious because at least three other people, myself included, repeat the mistake without notice.
I have to say that I agree the general sentiment early in this thread. While I love to read PA, they really should stay away from politics. Without getting into it too much, I just want to say that regardless of your personal disputes with politics or your personal feelings on gun control, we should all mostly be able to agree that video games should not be held as the sole aggressor, although they may have contributed. Throwing all the blame on any one aspect is wrong, and I believe that the comic's specificity about the Second Amendment being used to "destroy" the First Amendment is a polarizing statement. While not expressly stating it, it seems as though M&J are stating that guns are things that should be curtailed while video games should remain untouched.
To wit, I wish to bring back this wonderful gem from the archives, a bumper sticker from October of 2000 showing that blaming guns over video games is hypocritical of this site and comic:
The point of the press release was to argue against the "Gun-Free Zone" policies of schools. It was to note that any other location that people want guarded is maintained by armed security officers (airports, banks, etc.), but that schools are left conspicuously undefended. The point being made was that actively defending schools would have greater and more immediate effect than changing the gun rights of the entire populace.
Very simply, it is called the "National Rifle Association" for a reason. The entire purpose of the organization is to promote gun rights and show their benefits, not to censor media.
I agree with the sentiment that video games (my favorite hobby) should not be censored, nor should any form of media. But the notion that we need to choose between either media rights or gun rights (i.e. amendments 1 & 2) is a fallacy. It is my opinion that both rights are worth having, and that relinquishing either one damages one's ability to retain the other. It concerns me greatly when people focus so narrowly on one that they forget that the other was proposed for a reason.
This an an argument you'll see a lot on the right. There are three major flaws with it:
1) There already are numerous school with armed police. I went to one. Columbine had one. No demonstrated efficacy. On the other hand, I basically support the idea of law and order and think that if the American people want to spend the 6~ish billion a year it would cost to do this nationwide, that's a fine use of the money and could really help alleviate recent police layoffs nationwide. But this brings up..
2) I just don't think there is a way to get the Republicans to agree to do this without insisting on cutting equal amount out of something like social security or food stamps (ie, spending on the poor and old), as opposed to something like cuts from the DHS or Pentagon Democrats might agree to.
3) increasing security in one spot is a game of whack a mole. As point 1 sort of implies, you can't just put a cop at every high school anymore. Now, junior highs, elementary and all down would have to be guards. Then, someone would decide to hit a bus, shopping mall, the fucking massive cluster of unscreened people that exists at every airport security checkpoint when the line gets long...
Israel is a place like that, and North Ireland used to be. You have to secure *everything* and *everywhere*. In a place like America with more small towns and scattered suburban developments, it would be unbelieveably expensive. 6 billion a year is just the schools, remember.
Actually, if you read back in the thread, you'll see we all discussed how the NRA started as a safety and insurance organization, which is what gave it the large megaphone when it entered politics.
You know, Feudalism was proposed for a reason, and a very good one, too. It finally provided coastal Europe with defense against the Vikings.
Private ownership of full auto weapon exists. You just can't own any made past 1986. The requirements are a full FBI background check, a chief local LEO must sign off on it, and a $200 dollar tax stamp must be paid each time they are transferred into someone else's name in the NFA registry. The few that remain command prices many times greater than their original purchase price. The NRA has no issues with you owning one of these, but they do not advocate the repeal of their NFA status. Double digit magazines have been in common use since WW2. 10rds is an arbitrary number. There is no reason the number cannot be 11 or 12 etc. The gun show loophole very misleading. The federal law says you can sell your own firearms to non-prohibited persons without them being transferred by an FFL so long as they live in your same state. If you sell out of state, they must be shipped to an FFL to be transferred. Dealers are required to do the NICS check transfer regardless of who they are selling to. If the so-called loop hole was closed, then people would have to pay 10 to 100 dollars to sell their own property to anyone. That includes handing down firearms to your children or giving them to family or friends. I, personally, would love to have access to doing NICS checks if they were free. That covers my ass if I'm trying to sell a gun. As it is, I only sell to people with valid CCW permits for that reason.
Absolutely. Any numerical limit is by nature somewhat arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 55 and not 56? Because you have a reasonable point somewhere.
I think it's apt description of something that allows people to sell guns at advertised swap meets to avoid background checks. They're taking an exemption that meant for people selling an odd piece to his friend or associate, not meant to be a major source of income; just for people selling off old guns they don't want anymore, and abusing it to operate a full time business without background checks. Back ground checks and waiting periods are something most people want, and using technicalities to avoid them should and I think will be stopped.
Tough. You sell your car, you have to go pay to get the title transferred. Same deal. I literally cannot believe that anyone would argue something that might cost ten whole dollars isn't worth the trade off in decreased gun deaths.
Again, tough. If they were "free", they would really be paid for by the American people. You're asking people who are experiencing cuts in unemployment insurance, cuts in food stamps (which 1/4th of American children use to eat these days), and you're going to ask them to cover the costs of your private business? That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism, using the public funds to pay for expenses generated by your private business. I think it's amazing how many people oppose welfare, medicaid, etc, as mooching, but have no problem wanting the people to pay the expenses of *their* pet issue.
Furthermore, the argument that extended clips leads to more deaths is relatively irrelevant within the larger picture. There are so many other causes of accidental or wrongful death in this country that exceed the number of clip size related deaths by several orders of magnitude to render clip regulation pointless.
Essentially, nitpicky regulation of individual things is not going to solve the larger issue to any reasonable degree, and so any effort toward that direction is IMO a waste of energy and resources.
That being said, I completely agree with you that gun show laws are in severe need of reformation. This action would be simple to implement and would result in widespread and significant prevention of gun crime.
My point is this: it is impossible to protect the citizenship completely from gun violence, as you said above. Therefore, we should concentrate on those changes that are going to be the best balance of efficiency and unobtrusiveness to legitimate gun owners.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
PS. It's not "so-called" if you admit it exists.
1) Not advocating censorship
2) Has no power to push that kind of legislation
I know piling on the NRA is fun for.... some people but I think this was written before he spoke.
To all you idiots arguing about this.
To: Pro-Gun people
The NRA VP didn't have to say some of this stuff, and his speech was clumsy.
To: Everyone else
You say that the NRA VP is trying to abdicate his "responsibility" for the shooting by blaming others, yet you all act like NRA are somehow at fault. How is that any less of an abdication? I'm not even understanding how the NRA is in anyway involved in this, since none of the guns used by Lanza have ever been under any threat by anyone of being restricted. If the NRA never existed these guns would be legal.
In fact I would love to hear from all these knee-jerk advocates what law would have prevented this shooting, given the following facts:
1) The shooter did not use an assault weapon
2) The shooter did not use an expanded magazine
3) The shooter stole the guns he used
4) The shooter had access to mental healthcare
I know waiting for the bodies to be buried is a terrible hassle for some of you, but for the love of Christ give us all a break for once.
I'm disappointed in PA for doing this strip. I don't come to this site to hear tired political talking points. I can just watch the news for that.
P.S. I find it interesting that numerous (Democratic) politicians, including the president, have been trashing video games over the last few years, yet when the NRA (who has no vote in any elected body i'm aware of) gives a 20 minute response where video games are mentioned for a sentence of it, everyone needs to react to it.
Seems like a waste of energy to me.