The NRA Solution is an insult to the Dead

[Rolyo85]

I noticed that the rest of his suggestions were quickly sweep under the rug -- just like Lapierre said it would happen --- video games, movies and TV shows that highlight and promote murder have been omitted from every article I have read this evening.

Has anyone heard or played the "Kill a Kindergartener" (I may have the name slightly wrong) video game?

I am a gamer and I've never heard of such a game. Do you have any sources for this? I'm curious. It's not a mainstream project.

By the way, people didn't "sweep" the videogame violence thing "under the rug", it's just laughable and a classic go-to topic for old ladies who have no idea of how human psychology works. Suspension of disbelief is a part of every mentally healthy individual's psyche and if a videogame can influence you to kill people, then you are already damaged to the point that something WILL influence you to kill people one way or the other.

[rareboy]

Why would you care what a celebrity had to say?

Well.... why the fuck would we care what you have to say?

At least what they say on this topic makes some sense.

[rareboy]

Okay.. well I have a question for you Kuli that i just read on Huffington Post i think...

Columbine had an armed police officer on duty at the school.

Go back and read that again.

Now tell me what does hiring 25000 peace officers do if it is already proven NOT to solve the problem?

How bout check this out. Here is the Huffington posts front page right now..... it is a list of the fatal shootings that have occurred in the United States since Sandy Hook

Yeah..that worked out well, didn't it?

[Rolyo85]

Hush now, don't ask people to respond to something that doesn't match their fantasies. CLEARLY all the REST of the armed police officers we will put there on the tax payers' dollar, will totally do the job, because of reasons!

[HenryReardon]

CBS might be an adequate source, but your quote from the linked article fails to answer my inquiry.

It wasn't really a serious inquiry, and the article put paid to most of it, especially given that the answers are fairly well-known.

[Rolyo85]

It wasn't really a serious inquiry, and the article put paid to most of it, especially given that the answers are fairly well-known.

You have been here long enough to know opinterph's inquiries are always serious, and that he doesn't fall into the rhetoric traps we throw at each other. So your recourse now is to either make the effort to respond properly, or admit you can't and stfu ^_^

[rareboy]

It wasn't really a serious inquiry, and the article put paid to most of it, especially given that the answers are fairly well-known.

Oh Henry.

You've just been served.

Again.

So betting guys want to know, Will you try to Bullshit your way through this? Or high tail it out of this thread?

[Jack Springer]

I am a gamer and I've never heard of such a game. Do you have any sources for this? I'm curious. It's not a mainstream project.

By the way, people didn't "sweep" the videogame violence thing "under the rug", it's just laughable and a classic go-to topic for old ladies who have no idea of how human psychology works. Suspension of disbelief is a part of every mentally healthy individual's psyche and if a videogame can influence you to kill people, then you are already damaged to the point that something WILL influence you to kill people one way or the other.

What you're saying is that the daily visuals of murder and blood in video games, TV, and movies have no influence on people?

You come off as a small man when you continually insult me and other with remarks like "old ladies".

[Rolyo85]

Not my fault if your opinions match those of old ladies. The kids have a skill which apparently you lack - it's called distinguishing between fiction and reality. Nobody who has any capabilities for higher brain function takes their cues from violent movies.

And what's even weirder is that YOU don't take your cues from those either, yet for some reason you expect children to fail where you don't...

[HenryReardon]

So betting guys want to know, ?

Get real. It was a baiting type question and not worthy of much of an answer. I will be the judge of what is relevant and what is not relevant.

[MisterMajestic]

I went to a Predominately White High School...We had a Deputy on Campus during school hours all day...He became Family to all of us.....Everybody in my country Bumpkin City know each other so we never had issues with CRAZIES.....We were the CRAZIES...

I guess I'm the ONLY Democrat that feel 1 Police officer should be stationed in every Public school across the Country...I Certainly felt safer and I think Elementary & Middle school kids would to...

[Rolyo85]

Get real. It was a baiting type question and not worthy of much of an answer. I will be the judge of what is relevant and what is not relevant.

Actually, you are just acting like a total coward who - when faced with a question he has no answer for - just plays the "I am better than you and won't be wasting my time with your bullshit" card. It's pathetic.

[cityboy-stl]

The NRA used the massacre of children through the public media as an infomercial to advance their agenda. I am disgusted beyond further words.

"Put down your weapons. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

[chance1]

I went to a Predominately White High School...We had a Deputy on Campus during school hours all day...He became Family to all of us.....Everybody in my country Bumpkin City know each other so we never had issues with CRAZIES.....We were the CRAZIES...

I guess I'm the ONLY Democrat that feel 1 Police officer should be stationed in every Public school across the Country...I Certainly felt safer and I think Elementary & Middle school kids would to...

Love the idea of keeping the cherubs safe
Hate the idea that we would need armed police in schools
Hate the message it sends to the kids

Are we at that point ?

When in doubt I side with pragmatism and saving lives

[chance1]

Not my fault if your opinions match those of old ladies. The kids have a skill which apparently you lack - it's called distinguishing between fiction and reality. Nobody who has any capabilities for higher brain function takes their cues from violent movies.

And what's even weirder is that YOU don't take your cues from those either, yet for some reason you expect children to fail where you don't...

Again the last to know

Video games violence desensitization

Is all part of it

The fact that u don't get it and proclaim it for all to see is curious

[rareboy]

Get real. It was a baiting type question and not worthy of much of an answer. I will be the judge of what is relevant and what is not relevant.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I expect that at the end of the day, it may be Opinterph (the Mod) who will decide what is or isn't relevant when he is asking you to clarify your sources. But what you are saying is that the MOD is baiting you with a question that you won't provide an answer to?

The fact is, everyone here has by now pointed out that you rarely post a source and when you do, it very often does not back up or clarify the basis of your sweeping declarations.

I'm beginning to think that you are less sentient than I had even suspected before.

[rareboy]

I went to a Predominately White High School...We had a Deputy on Campus during school hours all day...He became Family to all of us.....Everybody in my country Bumpkin City know each other so we never had issues with CRAZIES.....We were the CRAZIES...

I guess I'm the ONLY Democrat that feel 1 Police officer should be stationed in every Public school across the Country...I Certainly felt safer and I think Elementary & Middle school kids would to...

hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Perhaps you missed the highlighted bit from Jayhawks' post above?

Columbine had an armed police officer on duty at the school.

[MisterMajestic]

Major College Campuses including tech Schools have armed or unarmed Police stationed at their Facilities....A massive number of High Schools all over America have the same...If Colleges figured out a way to pay for the Adults to be protected then the Federal Government need to figure out a way to protect our grade-schoolers......

Yes people with assault rifles &/or shot guns will always find a way to get inside if they intend to Kill but at least an Armed Officer stands a a better chance at taking out the individual...

Restrictions on Assault rifles and background check is only part of the problem...Every American School needs to have some form of Security...Nothing will change my mind about that...

[Jack Springer]

Not my fault if your opinions match those of old ladies. The kids have a skill which apparently you lack - it's called distinguishing between fiction and reality. Nobody who has any capabilities for higher brain function takes their cues from violent movies.

And what's even weirder is that YOU don't take your cues from those either, yet for some reason you expect children to fail where you don't...

No reason to get so nasty.

[Jack Springer]

I think it's narrow minded to focus entirely on guns . . . there are other factors that need to be brought into the discussion, if not, it's not really a discussion . . . it's an agenda.

I'm not a fan of what people call assault weapons and would see no need for me to own one. I do understand some people feeling that their rights are slowly going away and they purchase guns for the purpose of protecting themselves and their families if everything goes to pot.

Many liberals have wanted to outlaw guns for years and they see this as a great opportunity to do so. However, if honest people give up their guns and all assault weapons are confiscated -- criminals will still get guns, people who want to harm people will still harm other people.

If the discussion were focused on the cause of murder and mass murder then there might be some results.

If liberals just want to ban guns to make themselves feel good it's worthless ..... it's like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound, the flowing blood may stop for a while but the unattended wound will eventually kill you.

It's time to talk about why people do such horrible things.

[tombastep]

I think it's narrow minded to focus entirely on guns . . . there are other factors that need to be brought into the discussion, if not, it's not really a discussion . . . it's an agenda.

I have read by no one that approaches this topic rationally ever suggest that guns are the only problem, but that are a huge part of it.

I'm not a fan of what people call assault weapons and would see no need for me to own one. I do understand some people feeling that their rights are slowly going away and they purchase guns for the purpose of protecting themselves and their families if everything goes to pot.

So what is everything "going to pot"?

Many liberals have wanted to outlaw guns for years and they see this as a great opportunity to do so. However, if honest people give up their guns and all assault weapons are confiscated -- criminals will still get guns, people who want to harm people will still harm other people.

I think I just read this from someone..

it's an agenda.

And the argument that people will obtain guns anyway no matter that laws or restrictions made is essentially arguing that laws are pointless. Which is ridiculous.

If the discussion were focused on the cause of murder and mass murder then there might be some results.

Ironic.

[Jack Springer]

^^

From your post you seem to agree that guns are the only problem.

Not sure what you think I said that was ironic -- please explain.

[Rolyo85]

I think it's narrow minded to focus entirely on guns . . . there are other factors that need to be brought into the discussion, if not, it's not really a discussion . . . it's an agenda.

I'm not a fan of what people call assault weapons and would see no need for me to own one. I do understand some people feeling that their rights are slowly going away and they purchase guns for the purpose of protecting themselves and their families if everything goes to pot.

Many liberals have wanted to outlaw guns for years and they see this as a great opportunity to do so. However, if honest people give up their guns and all assault weapons are confiscated -- criminals will still get guns, people who want to harm people will still harm other people.

If the discussion were focused on the cause of murder and mass murder then there might be some results.

If liberals just want to ban guns to make themselves feel good it's worthless ..... it's like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound, the flowing blood may stop for a while but the unattended wound will eventually kill you.

It's time to talk about why people do such horrible things.

Nobody has blamed guns entirely. They're only part of the cause, but they ARE the entire tool the deed was done with.

[tombastep]

^^

From your post you seem to agree that guns are the only problem.

Really? That is what you got out of it?

Not sure what you think I said that was ironic -- please explain.

The discussion is focused on one of the things that causes these tragedies. There are clearly other reasons, such as depression, the kind of environment these people live in, they're upbringing. Some of these things can be "treated" but never truly fixed. And that is if they can accord to get it treated. The type of guns these people are getting are a part of it too

And I find it funny that people run to violence in video games or movies. Yet we have sports like Hockey/Football where players constantly get in fights, injured and can get multiple concussions. These are aggressive sports, yet you don't see people pointing their fingers that way. This of course is not to say these sports should be banned, I just find the irony that since these things are so beloved on a national level people excuse it or don't consider it.

No one that rationally thinks on the subject thinks guns are the only problem, but they are a part of it. I don't think guns should all be banned but the kinds of guns these guys get should not be in the hands of anyone.

[chance1]

Keep in mind most of these shooters end up killing themselves. The idea that they will be scared be scared of an armed guard when they don't fear death is absurd.

True but preventing more carnage by responding quickly is a good thing no ?

IF an armed officer could've gotten to Lanza quicker perhaps and likely less victims

And just because Columbine had one doesn't make it a bad idea

That's dumb

[Rolyo85]

It's not a bad idea, the point was that it doesn't really fix the problem, AND it would cost huge amounts of money for an uncertain result.

[chance1]

nothing will FIX the problem

we can only hope to minimize it

less automatic weapons in the hands of those who have no need for them will make it that crazies who do this with a handgun rather than an automatic will kill LESS vs. MORE

it's a very sad state of affairs

but it actually points to the fact that the guns themselves are only a piece of it

crazy fuckers are out there
the law protects crazy fuckers until they break the law
parents of crazy fuckers think they can fix them or are embarrassed by them to ask for help
call of duty and other videogames that glorify and game-ize violence should be eliminated - a kid in CT just got in the paper for voluntarily giving up violent videogaming
and on
and on
and on

The NRA as an organization is shit for brains - the sandy hook response proves what we feared - but the good news is that press conference will increase the hand of those who want to make the country safer

lastly, demonizing gun owners is not a reasonable thing to do

[cityboy-stl]

And just because Columbine had one doesn't make it a bad idea

That's dumb

Yes it does. It points out the fact that an armed guard cannot be everywhere at once in a large school. There were 5 buildings with multiple access points each at the high school I went to. Then there are gymnasiums, cafeterias, auditoriums, sports fields, parking lots, bus depots and so on. You would need an army of armed guards to secure a school of any size. It is totally impractical to do. The first thing a nut with an AR-15 would do is blow away the armed guard. Are the guards supposed to carry machine guns to compensate? Wait until one of the armed guards becomes one of the nuts. Violence begets violence. Combating violence with the threat of more violence is a bad idea. It's a school, not a war zone.

[tombastep]

call of duty and other videogames that glorify and game-ize violence should be eliminated - a kid in CT just got in the paper for voluntarily giving up violent videogaming

Scape goat.

I return to my sports example.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/jovan-b...7#.UNX2K3ewWSp

Peoples adrenaline rise when they play sports, the get more aggressive playing sports and constant injuries lead to things like this. This is way more proof leading to violence than video games ever had. Video games and media did not always exist and people still commited atrocities.

lastly, demonizing gun owners is not a reasonable thing to do

Neither is demonizing gamers who enjoy the games you say should be banned because there is a mentally unstable person who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality.

[tombastep]

It's not a bad idea, the point was that it doesn't really fix the problem, AND it would cost huge amounts of money for an uncertain result.

It would cost lots of money and considering schools aren't the only place these things happen would mean we would have to spend more money to set these guards up at multiple other areas. Guess what that creates? A police state, guess who is going to be raising arms over such a thing happening if it actually did? They very people suggesting these things right now.

Also I would imagine a Police State would add "validity" to peoples excuses as to why they need guns for protection.

[chance1]

Yes it does. It points out the fact that an armed guard cannot be everywhere at once in a large school. There were 5 buildings with multiple access points each at the high school I went to. Then there are gymnasiums, cafeterias, auditoriums, sports fields, parking lots, bus depots and so on. You would need an army of armed guards to secure a school of any size. It is totally impractical to do. The first thing a nut with an AR-15 would do is blow away the armed guard. Are the guards supposed to carry machine guns to compensate? Wait until one of the armed guards becomes one of the nuts. Violence begets violence. Combating violence with the threat of more violence is a bad idea. It's a school, not a war zone.

my point is ONE instance - Columbine - and applying that to ALL is convenient for your point or the point - but it's not an accurate sample

IF there was a police officer with a gun at Sandy Hook, my educated guess is worst case is less lives lost - best case is no innocent deaths

I don't like the idea but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because of Columbine - ONE instance

Sandy Hook is a small school
Columbine a big one

I understand your POV and I don't like MORE guns but much like an elderly couple (example) might keep a gun in their home to protect themselves against intruders and are within their rights and perhaps smart to do so

isn't this similar ?

[chance1]

Scape goat.

I return to my sports example.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/jovan-b...7#.UNX2K3ewWSp

Peoples adrenaline rise when they play sports, the get more aggressive playing sports and constant injuries lead to things like this. This is way more proof leading to violence than video games ever had. Video games and media did not always exist and people still commited atrocities.



Neither is demonizing gamers who enjoy the games you say should be banned because there is a mentally unstable person who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality.

sports is real life - not fantasy

it's the opposite

and i'm not scapegoating

i think videogames much like guns - is a big business - and those who profit from them will protect their financial interests

[tombastep]

sports is real life - not fantasy

it's the opposite

What does this even mean? So since it is a real life activity that can cause aggression and can result in tragedies like that because of repeated injuries there is a difference?

and i'm not scapegoating

Yes it is because it takes the responsibility out of the hands of the murderer.

i think videogames much like guns - is a big business - and those who profit from them will protect their financial interests

Since I am not making a profit of video games I don't see how this applies. Clearly I like video games but banning violent video games is as much as a solution as completely banning guns. It doesn't solve the bigger issue.

Also considering there is no real conclusive evidence that suggests that Video Games/Movies influence peoples behavior. Unless you want to pick up a study that ignores other possible factors that is.

[Rolyo85]

It would cost lots of money and considering schools aren't the only place these things happen would mean we would have to spend more money to set these guards up at multiple other areas. Guess what that creates? A police state, guess who is going to be raising arms over such a thing happening if it actually did? They very people suggesting these things right now.

Also I would imagine a Police State would add "validity" to peoples excuses as to why they need guns for protection.

Yeah, it's a total clusterfuck of circular logic, isn't it?

[Lestatnj]

Even the ultra right wing (& pro gun rights) NY Post is outraged.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/eve...ent-photo.html

[chance1]

What does this even mean? So since it is a real life activity that can cause aggression and can result in tragedies like that because of repeated injuries there is a difference?

Yes it is because it takes the responsibility out of the hands of the murderer.

Since I am not making a profit of video games I don't see how this applies. Clearly I like video games but banning violent video games is as much as a solution as completely banning guns. It doesn't solve the bigger issue.

Also considering there is no real conclusive evidence that suggests that Video Games/Movies influence peoples behavior. Unless you want to pick up a study that ignores other possible factors that is.

my point is that:
sports is a real honest physical and emotional activity - it is real life
videogames are fantasy - killing someone on your computer is easy - it's not real life - and in effect lessens the reality that violence is

i am in no way excusing lanza or his mom from responsibility - or the gun lobby that fights hard to make guns more accessible than they should

i'm saying that uber violent videogames are not good for society and are part of the problem

more study needed

[tombastep]

my point is that:
sports is a real honest physical and emotional activity - it is real life
videogames are fantasy - killing someone on your computer is easy - it's not real life - and in effect lessens the reality that violence is

If video games are not real life how does it lessen the reality of violence when it in fact isn't real? That seems like a contradiction to me.

[rareboy]

True but preventing more carnage by responding quickly is a good thing no ?

IF an armed officer could've gotten to Lanza quicker perhaps and likely less victims

And just because Columbine had one doesn't make it a bad idea

That's dumb

Actually Columbine apparently had two.

So wouldn't an armed guard be the first person a shooter would take out if every school had one?

And how many minutes does it take to shoot a class full of kids?

Not many with the right clip and assault weapon.

[White Eagle]

GO HERE and help out!

So the NRA is having a sale on joining.

[Stardreamer]

Actually Columbine apparently had two.

So wouldn't an armed guard be the first person a shooter would take out if every school had one?

And how many minutes does it take to shoot a class full of kids?

Not many with the right clip and assault weapon.

You can of course 'what-if' these situations to death. It appears the Columbine killers also built some Improvised Explosive Devices around propane bottles intending to blow up the building after they finished their killing spree. They either didn't get around to setting them off or they malfunctioned. If they had focused their attention on perfecting and using the IEDs (because they didn't have guns) the death toll may have been actually higher.

The presence of a security officer does not guarantee that violence will not occur, just greatly increases the chance that it can be headed off or reduced. Just as the IED example shows that removing guns from general access will not absolutely prevent such events just make them far less likely.

[White Eagle]

Yes it does. It points out the fact that an armed guard cannot be everywhere at once in a large school. There were 5 buildings with multiple access points each at the high school I went to. Then there are gymnasiums, cafeterias, auditoriums, sports fields, parking lots, bus depots and so on. You would need an army of armed guards to secure a school of any size. It is totally impractical to do. The first thing a nut with an AR-15 would do is blow away the armed guard. Are the guards supposed to carry machine guns to compensate? Wait until one of the armed guards becomes one of the nuts. Violence begets violence. Combating violence with the threat of more violence is a bad idea. It's a school, not a war zone.

And, how many Zimmerman's would be hired.

[Corny]

Yeah, so if I were a killer and wanted to kill some people in a full building with one armed guard. Whom would I take out first? Hmmmmm?

Brilliant idea.

[Stardreamer]

Yeah, so if I were a killer and wanted to kill some people in a full building with one armed guard. Whom would I take out first? Hmmmmm?

Brilliant idea.

This is of course 'what-if'ing. Your assuming a level of planning that we don't know the shooter would be making or not. The Sandy Hook situation the first shots were to gain access to the building which would have alerted the guard most likely. Basically, you cannot simply dismiss the effectiveness of having a security officer by saying he would be shot first. It is a possible outcome but not by far the only one and most of the others result in lives saved. Such situations are by their very nature chaotic, no outcome is assured. But armed trained security people being present can make a difference as we have seen here in Colorado with the New Life Church shooting.

[Corny]

And as it has been said, Columbine had that guard. He made no difference.

[mitchymo]

I watched on tv at home, as Wayne LaPierre gave his press release on behalf of the NRA.
I shall not repeat the rhetoric i used at my tv set during his statement.

"the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", was the first comment to make me fume.

This is not a fact, its an idealism. A good guy with a gun does not suddenly possess powers which render the bad guy at a disadvantage. They are just 2 guys with guns, as if somehow being good gives you the edge, it doesn't. Utterly absurd.

We hear this kind of absurdity all to often.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people". And this is supposed to argue the case why banning guns is not the solution.

Well, most people will know, that in order to be guilty of murder, you need to have the intent to kill, AND, the means to do it.

The NRA response to combatting the kind of mass shooting events, witnessed tragically very recently, and at least 61 times since the incident at Columbine, is to put good guys with guns in places. This is their seemingly 'better' solution to the problem.

It is not 'better', it is a sugar coated pill, to hide the fact that whichever way you look at it, the only way to address this issue of mass shooting (and lets not forget less horrific shootings), as a result of abuse, to a truly 'better' solution, is to address the issue directly.
Placing security guards wherever you like, they will certainly provide some detterent, but they will not provide a working solution to somebody/s with an intent and a means to carry out another tragedy like Sandy Hook, like Wisconsin Temple, Aurora cinema. They'd simply have to be more calculated. They'd shoot the unsuspecting guard first... They'd wait for the guard to take his lunchbreak...the possibilities can go on.
The best solution, being that you cannot identify which members of society may have, or develop the intent, to commit such attrocities, is to target their MEANS of committing them.

These things happen in the US, and no ammount of increasing security, training 'good' guys and educating responsibility about guns is going to have an impact on the two things that make these incidents happen. I can't stress that enough. They don't happen so often elesewhere in the world, because the means to do so is restricted greatly.

When Lapierre then goes on to blame video games and movies, blaming fiction in a world of real horrors such as war, terrorism, serial killers, genocide etc etc. is a joke. A blatant distraction from the real cause - the ability to do it.

[Keeland]

What's so sacred about schools? The government allows the unrighteous, for God's sake, to go to schools. Even atheists!

Every church in America should have guards armed with machine guns and rocket launchers. I'm sure the NRA is considering it. I know God is.

No one should be allowed to drive anywhere without machine guns in the headlights, bazookas in the trunk and passengers who must walk unless they know how to use — and do use — rocket launchers and machine guns.

God bless the NRA, the last bastion of freedom.

[Rolyo85]

The best solution, being that you cannot identify which members of society may have, or develop the intent, to commit such attrocities, is to target their MEANS of committing them.

So true!

[chance1]

This is a prime example of anti gun ideology trumping rational thought

Imagine:

You have a 6-7 year old son or daughter
They're in a school where a Lanza enters to slaughter as many as possible

Would you rather the school has an armed guard?
Or not ?

No brainer

Option 1 provides u with the potential for your child coming home - no guarantees but a fighting chance

Option 2 doesn't

[HoodedRat]

... the NRA position on all of this is to not have fewer guns in the schools. It is to have more.

One might be forgiven for thinking that, just perhaps, the NRA and the arms manufacturers are connected in some way.

[Keeland]

One might be forgiven for thinking that, just perhaps, the NRA and the arms manufacturers are connected in some way.

Oh, pul-eez!

Next you'll accuse the oil companies of collusion.