Argument over video game leads teenager to shoot and kill friend

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
I really don't think content kids watch/play now is any more graphic than those in the past. In fact some of the most brutal video games predate the current generation of kids. The original mortal combat was especially bad, Duke nukem had guts and boobies, and the original fallout depicted prostitution, gore, rape, and extreme violence. That stuff hasn't been allowed in video games for some time. The closest you are going to get is the witcher 3 and that game doesn't even compare to some older titles. I'd rather argue the opposite, that video games have been censored more now. This is aside from the fact that hitting your child was much more common back then as well. If they weren't getting a dose of virtual desensitization, they were certainly getting it in reality.

Let's also not forget, people in the 60s didn't need games to desensitize them, they were growing up during the 50s where actual war was taking place. The daily news of allied casualties in real life is much more potent than any video game. If the logic that mental health is the issue then why wasn't it a factor then? There is no doubt in my mind that many returning soldiers also suffered from PTSD. With the mental health issues that post-war brings, why didn't we see more gun related killings than we do now?

The only thing challenging metal health for modern kids is social media, no longer having a full time parent (as both must now work in order to make ends meet), and these recent shootings (to a lesser extent). Mental health of kids isn't worse now, we've simply rotated issues.
Actually, way back when there were "really unpopular" wars going on, my generation was protesting against them. But then, violence was actually violence, and dead was actually dead. You could't score a loot box to "reanimate" yourself. Nothing is real these days. As for the mental health of kids these days, which you imagine "hasn't changed". We didn't kill ourselves when we were bullied online like today's snowflakes. We didn't have grief counselors. We didn't plan, scheme and solicit online support to shoot up our schools or make bombs. We didn't imagine just because someone put a string of characters up on a server, they were worth money. We could walk into a bank and demand silver for our nation's paper money.

As for "kids got beat more then", these mutts today need their a**es kicked. Spare rod and spoil the child". Before Lee Harvey Oswald, you could mail away for a gun, no questions asked, and we had way less gun violence then we do now.

Today's hip-hop music is leading the way to the destruction of the American way so life So, unless you've had the windows shot out of your car this summer, watched the police haul away a couple of dead bodies 50 feet from your house, along with another shooting incident up the street, all the while listening to music unbearably profane and racist, with its sole emphasis on "the hood" being the alpha and omega of cultural significance @110 db practically 24/7, I'd suggest you defer to someone who actually does know what they're talking about.....,me

And the by way, the US is involved with a war right now, there was a war in Kosovo,. Serbia, two in Iraq, and so forth. Wars haven't stopped The only thing which has stopped is drafting these wild animals from the hood to serve in them. The wars have never stopped It's just likely that you've been too busy playing video games to notice them.

When some little c*nt shoots "his best friend", (not that "friendship" actually exists between this crop of sociopaths junkie unwed mothers are providing us with), try not to justify it, coddle it, or excuse it, you'll only encourage them to kill again .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

Burty117

TechSpot Chancellor
Oh totally! I'm sure that gun just jumped up on its own and fired itself! It didn't require any kind of crazy person behind it at all!
I mentioned several times it was a crazy person who pulled the trigger. Your point?
Like I said, critical thinking isn't exactly the forte of you people. :D
Coming from you? Who dumb down guns to just "inanimate objects"? Right...
Wow, talk about a text book description of projection!

I can't think of any other reason to own a gun except to kill people, therefore that's the only reason other people have a gun.
Not only did I mention that the military definitely need guns and plausibly police, You still haven't provided me with any other reason to own a gun?
That says more about you and your disturbed psyche than anything and no, I wouldn't want someone like you to have access to a gun either! :eek:
Yeah again, I don't want a gun, never have, never will, I don't plan on killing multiple people at a time. I've used a gun before (clay pigeon shooting and I got to fire some different pistols at some place by Las Vegas) and I can't see why I'd want to own one however, I do understand the argument of putting in stringent laws and policies so if you did, you'd have to be thoroughly vetted. At least minimize the chance of a crazy person getting hold of a gun, unless you can give me a good reason why you'd want to make it easier for a crazy to get hold of a gun?
Spineless Pajama boys .that fought and died in wars so that you could spout such nonsense and drivel . only a crazy person kills indiscriminately.with intent.
I agree with some ,not all ,posts.

interesting topic for a tech site..FWIW, Canada has what is called a PAL.. possession and acquisition licence. which is required to ,as the name implies,it must also be shown to purchase ammo.has to be renewed every 5 years,

that's just for hunting firearms such as those I own.restricted firearms require a different licence,and prohibited firearms are just that,
In Newfoundland. more firearms per capita then anywhere else in Canada,I bet. especially rural.everyone hunts game of one sort or another ,for food..be it moose,game birds or small game. on land and at sea.now coyote's,raccoon's,porcupine,are now on the small game licence ,though I've never seen a porcupine here.
only police and military have legal access to full automatic assault style .rifle, Prohibited!
Sure thing.
but no matter what kind of firearm it is ,it needs someone to fire it..otherwise its just a TOOL like any other.
Yes but all other tools have a useful quality, a screw driver, knife, car, you name it, it has a use other than to kill, the tool you're speaking of is designed to kill. Otherwise the crazy people that run into schools to kill people, wouldn't use a gun...
.the PAL requires references.and the hunter capability course,the crazies they attempt to sort out,by background checks.
very few are killed by firearms here . I would wager there are more people killed here by moose ,than firearms .Moose like to walk out on the road at night.I hit one in 1986.

I play video games, have done so for years .also a Vet ,and from a family that has hunted for generations.
Again, I agree with this. Sounds like your family know how to handle guns, good for you, You'll find it nice and easy to obtain the licences you need to own said guns. Most the general public don't though, don't you feel there should be rules put into place so that they can't get hold of them?
go live in a police state or a dictatorship for a while.then you will understand why Americans ,have a right to bare arms,,to fight all enemies either foreign or domestic!
I currently live in the UK. All I've noticed is absolutely no one runs into schools and kills a load children. Or are you saying EVERYONE is an enemy to America and you personally?
taking the guns away won't change a thing.
Well stats from other countries would say otherwise. Pretty certain if neither of the guys in this story had guns, they'd both be alive right now...
Actually, way back when there were "really unpopular" wars going on, my generation was protesting against them. But then, violence was actually violence, and dead was actually dead. You could't score a loot box to "reanimate" yourself. Nothing is real these days.
As for the mental health of kids these days, which you imagine "hasn't changed". We didn't kill ourselves when we were bullied online like today's snowflakes. We didn't have grief counselors. We didn't plan, scheme and solicit online support to shoot up our schools or make bombs. We didn't imagine just because someone put a string of characters up on a server, they were worth money. We could walk into a bank and demand silver for our nation's paper money.

As for "kids got beat more then", these mutts today need their a**es kicked. Spare rod and spoil the child". Before Lee Harvey Oswald, you could mail away for a gun, no questions asked, and we had way less gun violence then we do now.
So what you trying to get at here? That kids these days are snowflakes, that don't know violence? Then you go on to say we have more gun crime today than we ever have? So non-violent snowflakes are actually the most violent?
When some little c*nt shoots "his best friend", (not that "friendship" actually exists between this crop of sociopaths junkie unwed mothers are providing us with), try not to justify it, coddle it, or excuse it, you'll only encourage them to kill again .
It's sort of why people are trying to do something about it, Unfortunately, you can't force someone not to kill another, you can however, remove or at the very least make it extremely hard to get hold of weapons if your a bit lost in the head. Which if Logon Paul is anything to go by, that's a possibly shocking amount of people in America*.

*I'm not picking on America here, I'm sure the UK has just as many mental people as well, we just don't give them weapons so easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilerhog146
S

senketsu

...........No, every Male of service age in Switzerland does not have an Assault Rifle. Please read the link I provided in my last response to your comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
After their mandatory service, they are either required to get a license appropriate for their weapon class or give it up. In addition you failed to mention that even those in the military are given 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed ammunition box that is regularly audited. If you are a civilian you have to buy ammunition with it's own set of additional regulations. It's a great thing that you brought up Switzerland, as much like the USA, guns are also part of their national identity. It's a great example that even in a country just like the US, gun and ammunition control laws work.
Wikipedia in this instance is wrong. Checking the Swiss Armed Forces website and
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/armed-neutrality/29289102
I find the following: "Switzerland has compulsory military service for male citizens....joining up and passing through the “recruit school” has been a rite of passage for generations of young Swiss men.
After their basic training, they have to maintain their skills by spending several weeks in the army each year. Young soldiers in uniform, often carrying weapons, are a frequent sight in Swiss towns and cities, and the sound of gunfire is common in the otherwise peaceful Swiss landscape when they are on manoeuvres.
Soldiers take their guns home with them.......At a nationwide vote in February 2011 the Swiss rejected an initiative aimed at creating a central gun registry, a strict licensing system for the use of firearms, a ban on the purchase of automatic weapons and a ban on keeping army-issue guns at home.
In 2015 both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejected a government proposal to require cantonal registration of firearms purchased before 2008. Ammunition, however, is kept separately.
Keeping military firearms at home is a long-standing tradition for the Swiss militia army, which is supposed to be ready for a call to arms in times of crisis.
However, since the beginning of 2010, members of the Swiss army have the option of storing their rifles, pistols and other weapons free of charge at arsenals or military barracks when they are not doing their military service.
The defence ministry said soldiers had been interested initially but this had waned over the past two years.
All able-bodied Swiss men must do military service and have the option of keeping their army rifle at home."
Women may serve if they wish, if a male claims to be a conscientious objector, prior to 199x they were thrown in jail. Now they must serve in another role. No escape LOL
From
https://www.vtg.admin.ch/de/die-schweizer-armee/mittel/persoenliche-ausruestung/bewaffnung.html
"A claim to ownership may first be asserted if the AdA has been in the army for at least seven years and a valid firearms license is issued upon discharge from military service.
Secondly, AdA equipped with the assault rifle can keep its own personal weapon, provided that they have completed at least twice the Obligatory Program and twice the 300m Field Shooting in the last three years, and recorded this in the Schiesbuchlein or in the Military Achievement Certificate (MLA).
AdA equipped with a pistol can take ownership of these without a firing certificate."
This means if you meet the above criteria, even after you leave the service you get to keep your service rifle and/or pistol!
 
S

senketsu

A personal anecdote. I used to follow the professional Swiss cyclist Fabian Cancellara. He retired at the end of the 2016 season. As part of the hoopla over his retirement, several shows were made about him and his life. During one of these Cancellara starts showing off his bikes (the ones which with he took big victories) and the film crew ask about military service. Cancellara pulls a assault rifle out of another closet with some other gear. He's a pro cyclist with a wife and children about to retire and still he has this. The bikes and weapon were in a special room though, it's not like these were just in an ordinary closet in his living room or something. He also had a sealed box of ammunition.
 

Boilerhog146

TS Evangelist
I applaud your effort but you can't fix stupid.
Inanimate objects with the potential to kill a person with the pull of a trigger. Trying to boil them down to the equivalent of a banana or pen is disingenuous at best.
A person can be killed with either the banana or the pen .if someone wants them dead bad enough.and has the knowhow.

firearms ,by law ,are supposed to be stored properly ,with bolt or breach block removed ,or some sort of locking device applied, ammo stored separately ,all under lock and key. so they are not easily accessable .its called responsible gun ownership.
I don't own an assault rifle,but I would wager ,my dads old 1944 WWII 303 british. which I own. that still has CAS (Canadian Armed Services)stamp on its stock has killed people ,its what it was manufactured for.

point being, who needs an automatic assault rifle. its so easy to make a basic firearm out of any old piece of pipe or metal tubing ,from junk kicking around the shop..who needs gunpowder , certain gases ,can expand rapidly enough to launch a projectile.when ignited,acetelene comes to mind.

I do agree with many ,that no teen or kid should be able to easily access a gun of any kind.but to blame the gun for killing someone is retarded..may as well blame the rest of the tools in my toolbox..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

Burty117

TechSpot Chancellor
A person can be killed with either the banana or the pen .if someone wants them dead bad enough.and has the knowhow.
You can't walk into a class room and kill everyone in it with a Banana. The Banana has another use as well, food...
firearms ,by law ,are supposed to be stored properly ,with bolt or breach block removed ,or some sort of locking device applied, ammo stored separately ,all under lock and key. so they are not easily accessable .its called responsible gun ownership.
Absolutely agreed, Thing is, from how often crazy people are getting hold of guns and going on to slaughter people, These laws aren't being followed.
I would wager ,my dads old 1944 WWII 303 british. which I own. that still has CAS (Canadian Armed Services)stamp on its stock has killed people ,its what it was manufactured for.
Nice to see we agree guns were manufactured to kill people.
point being, who needs an automatic assault rifle. its so easy to make a basic firearm out of any old piece of pipe or metal tubing ,from junk kicking around the shop..who needs gunpowder , certain gases ,can expand rapidly enough to launch a projectile.when ignited,acetelene comes to mind.
Absolutely, Cars, Screw Drivers, Knives, Nail Guns, loads of stuff comes to mind that you could use to kill people, but out of everything the general public can get their hands on, Guns are the only thing specifically designed to kill people and efficiently at that. Running into a classroom with a screw driver or a pistol, which one do you reckon they could kill the most with?
I do agree with many ,that no teen or kid should be able to easily access a gun of any kind.but to blame the gun for killing someone is retarded..may as well blame the rest of the tools in my toolbox..
The Gun isn't being blamed necessarily but you cannot filter out every retard out there that wants to go shoot up a school. People are far less predictable. While you look at other countries that do not have guns (UK as an example) It simply doesn't happen. You don't get mass shootings. And we definitely have just as many retards here, if not more so.

But since there appears to be quite a few "But we NEED guns" in this comment thread. Here's what I've gotten out of it:

- Can't get rid of guns, makes no difference - Proven wrong by pretty much all other 1st world countries.
- Don't blame the gun, blame the person shooting - Everyone does blame the person shooting, but they just killed loads of people and it keeps happening, if they didn't have the gun in the first place, no one (or at the very least, less) people would have died.
- To quote a comment from this section - "to fight all enemies either foreign or domestic!" - Why is your military and/or police force so bad, you need to defend yourself in such a violent manner?
- You can kill with anything so therefore guns should be allowed - I mean... Just a retarded argument.
- Guns are used for hunting and games - So far the strongest argument for guns and almost universally agreed, yet for some reason, once licenses and checks get implemented this will get stopped? I don't understand why you'd think this unless you are a psycho yourself.
- Kids today are silly snowflakes that are stupid - Well I mean you're not wrong, but again, much harder to make a generation of people less stupid than get rid of guns so they can't kill each other.

Been a pretty good comment section though! We've had all different views from one extreme to another and no one has boiled it down to "your mum" jokes! I applaud the Techspot community for that little feat :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michiel

Boilerhog146

TS Evangelist
If its only a 6 shot revolver ,and a big psychotic kid ,,will run out of bullits,so he will kill more with the screwdriver.

I do agree with more controls.tighter screening ,but not the legislation ,registration ,conviscation, idea.thats what Hitler did.

not all kids are stupid,many kids are more mature and responsible than many adults.the background checks and tests and courses ,aren't perfect either .the gun owner /salesperson is equally as responsible as any killer.for failing to do all the due diligence.

old saying, outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

real guns are not used for games .unless ,there is seriously something wrong.

that kid in Florida got an assault rifle,and ammo, and carried it to school with out anyone noticing,there are others responsible for this crime .not just the perpetrator,some stressed out kid that snapped for whatever reason.that firearm was made too easily available,period.\\
the FBI failed as well when he was posting on social media.

there's way more psycos on the highways driving a car,the nicest person can be turned into a raging id!ot, in an instant..

more people get killed by drunk drivers .so take away alcohol, cars and drivers licences ,and no one will be killed in,or by a car anymore ,get rid of the airplanes ,no one will die in a plane crash anymore,,by that logic,DUH!

Yes !!governments and police forces are not so innocent as history would dictate..again, I'm not from the U.S. I don't live by their constitution ,
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
A person can be killed with either the banana or the pen .if someone wants them dead bad enough.and has the knowhow.

firearms ,by law ,are supposed to be stored properly ,with bolt or breach block removed ,or some sort of locking device applied, ammo stored separately ,all under lock and key. so they are not easily accessable .its called responsible gun ownership.
I don't own an assault rifle,but I would wager ,my dads old 1944 WWII 303 british. which I own. that still has CAS (Canadian Armed Services)stamp on its stock has killed people ,its what it was manufactured for.

point being, who needs an automatic assault rifle. its so easy to make a basic firearm out of any old piece of pipe or metal tubing ,from junk kicking around the shop..who needs gunpowder , certain gases ,can expand rapidly enough to launch a projectile.when ignited,acetelene comes to mind.

I do agree with many ,that no teen or kid should be able to easily access a gun of any kind.but to blame the gun for killing someone is retarded..may as well blame the rest of the tools in my toolbox..
There is no federal law in the US requiring people to store gun and ammunition separately. Even in California, it is only a safety pre-caution, not a law.

Making a gun isn't anywhere near as easy as you make it sound. First, forming metal requires machinery. Second, putting the grooves into the barrel requires even more machinery. Sure you could make a shitty gun yourself that would be good short range but there is no way you are going to get anywhere near the accuracy of commercially available guns unless you are making guns on a regular basis with very expensive equipment, which would be very illegal without the proper licenses. You'd still have to pack and powder your own ammunition as well, because if you can't get a gun legally then you can't get ammunition legally. Running a full gun machinery and packing and powdering your own bullets, an operation that size wouldn't go under anyone's radar due to the space and machinery requirements.

No other tool in your toolbox has anywhere near the killing capacity of a gun. Yes, with the right know-how you can kill a person with a pen. With a gun and the right know-how, you can slaughter as many people as you have bullets. Please do not try to make it seem as if guns aren't more deadly. Remember, there's a reason parents lock up the knife drawer and cleaning closet when they have a baby, because some tools are inherently more dangerous than the others.

Wikipedia in this instance is wrong. Checking the Swiss Armed Forces website and
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/armed-neutrality/29289102
I find the following: "Switzerland has compulsory military service for male citizens....joining up and passing through the “recruit school” has been a rite of passage for generations of young Swiss men.
After their basic training, they have to maintain their skills by spending several weeks in the army each year. Young soldiers in uniform, often carrying weapons, are a frequent sight in Swiss towns and cities, and the sound of gunfire is common in the otherwise peaceful Swiss landscape when they are on manoeuvres.
Soldiers take their guns home with them.......At a nationwide vote in February 2011 the Swiss rejected an initiative aimed at creating a central gun registry, a strict licensing system for the use of firearms, a ban on the purchase of automatic weapons and a ban on keeping army-issue guns at home.
In 2015 both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejected a government proposal to require cantonal registration of firearms purchased before 2008. Ammunition, however, is kept separately.
Keeping military firearms at home is a long-standing tradition for the Swiss militia army, which is supposed to be ready for a call to arms in times of crisis.
However, since the beginning of 2010, members of the Swiss army have the option of storing their rifles, pistols and other weapons free of charge at arsenals or military barracks when they are not doing their military service.
The defence ministry said soldiers had been interested initially but this had waned over the past two years.
All able-bodied Swiss men must do military service and have the option of keeping their army rifle at home."
Women may serve if they wish, if a male claims to be a conscientious objector, prior to 199x they were thrown in jail. Now they must serve in another role. No escape LOL
From
https://www.vtg.admin.ch/de/die-schweizer-armee/mittel/persoenliche-ausruestung/bewaffnung.html
"A claim to ownership may first be asserted if the AdA has been in the army for at least seven years and a valid firearms license is issued upon discharge from military service.
Secondly, AdA equipped with the assault rifle can keep its own personal weapon, provided that they have completed at least twice the Obligatory Program and twice the 300m Field Shooting in the last three years, and recorded this in the Schiesbuchlein or in the Military Achievement Certificate (MLA).
AdA equipped with a pistol can take ownership of these without a firing certificate."
This means if you meet the above criteria, even after you leave the service you get to keep your service rifle and/or pistol!
From the first article you linked

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/armed-neutrality/29289102

"Soldiers take their guns home with them."

I'm not seeing anything about them taking their guns into their civilian lives and thus nothing here disproves the wikipedia article. Soldier here pretty specifically refers to those in military service. In addition, as you kindly pointed out

"Keeping military firearms at home is a long-standing tradition for the Swiss militia army"

This also references specifically the militia / army.

From the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

"When their period of service has ended, militia men have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. However, keeping the weapon after end of service requires a weapon acquisition permit (art. 11-15 VPAA/OEPM)."

In addition, they are not allowed to take their ammunition home and in order to acquire ammo they will need to have a license.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
"In order to purchase ammunition the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns"

Onto the second link, your statement is correct

"This means if you meet the above criteria, even after you leave the service you get to keep your service rifle and/or pistol!"

but it still requires that they have a license.

"A claim to ownership may first be asserted if the AdA has been in the army for at least seven years and a valid firearms license is issued upon discharge from military service."

In addition, as you quoted, there are additional requirements on top of the license in order to keep an assault rifle after service.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
If its only a 6 shot revolver ,and a big psychotic kid ,,will run out of bullits,so he will kill more with the screwdriver.

I do agree with more controls.tighter screening ,but not the legislation ,registration ,conviscation, idea.thats what Hitler did.

not all kids are stupid,many kids are more mature and responsible than many adults.the background checks and tests and courses ,aren't perfect either .the gun owner /salesperson is equally as responsible as any killer.for failing to do all the due diligence.

old saying, outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

real guns are not used for games .unless ,there is seriously something wrong.

that kid in Florida got an assault rifle,and ammo, and carried it to school with out anyone noticing,there are others responsible for this crime .not just the perpetrator,some stressed out kid that snapped for whatever reason.that firearm was made too easily available,period.\\
the FBI failed as well when he was posting on social media.

there's way more psycos on the highways driving a car,the nicest person can be turned into a raging id!ot, in an instant..

more people get killed by drunk drivers .so take away alcohol, cars and drivers licences ,and no one will be killed in,or by a car anymore ,get rid of the airplanes ,no one will die in a plane crash anymore,,by that logic,DUH!

Yes !!governments and police forces are not so innocent as history would dictate..again, I'm not from the U.S. I don't live by their constitution ,
Number of mass murders with screw drivers: 0

Aside from the fact that you will never catch as many people with a bullet as you will with a screwdriver, why can't a revolver be reloaded? But this whole revolver thing is off point. School shooters aren't getting revolvers, they are getting assault rifles.

Like I said earlier, no one wants to outlaw guns. Common sense laws, of which we used to have in place in the USA, would go a long way.

Sometimes the salesperson is to blame, if they are as you said, not giving due diligence. On the other hand, the background check system failed to flag someone who had recorded past issues. I would much rather fix the loopholes in the system before placing blame on people.

From the perspective of the FBI and local authorities, they get gun threats daily and likely only get around to 1/10th of them. I can't really blame them for not being able to check each and every one from the sheer volume they receive.

Just because people are dying from drunk drivers or other unfortunate forms of death does not detract from current poor gun control. Every life is important and I do not appreciate attempts to dilute that by making gun deaths seem like just another statistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: senketsu
S

senketsu

Like I said earlier, no one wants to outlaw guns. Common sense laws, of which we used to have in place in the USA, would go a long way.
Lest I give the wrong impression, I do confess I know nothing of gun laws in the USA. I also find some of the YouTube video's amaze me with the firearms displayed. I certainly favour 'common sense laws' and I agree some kind of action needs to happen since it is human life we are talking about here. I have no problem with licence's, tests of competence, background checks etc. Safe storage should be legislated as well. I wonder if offering a cash incentive for turned in firearms might have some value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evernessince

Boilerhog146

TS Evangelist
Someone else referenced the screwdriver or a pistol. that's what my response was too. I guess you didn't read that.

Just because you don't have it written as LAW .doesn't absolve you from any responsibility for proper care, handling ,and storage of your hardware.
some one mention common sense. I don't count on many having or using that , that's why we have laws to begin with .lol...sure blame the government for someone elses lack of accepting responsibility for their own actions.thats a favorite pass time down there ,blame game.

don't need a common sense law to make people keep knives and poisons away from a childs reach,how is a gun any different?


That's Funny ,the law expired, so then all common sense related to the law expired as well.I don't need a law to force me to use common sense.as do some of you. how are you able to go through life with out laws to make you do everything else you do..

,I see now why some of you shouldn't own guns.probably a TWIT behind the wheel also.and in life in general..I accept that.

like I said ,I live in Canada and the laws are here ,including storage laws.someone commits a crime with my firearm, its my fault! got that? accept responsibility for your actions or lack there of...

if you can't invoke change in your laws that's your problem.,they need changes in the u.s. as well as changes to the constitution,

But Please...don't tell me what I know is possible and being done on a regular basis,can't be done, that's just ignorant on your part.you don't know the local gunsmith,or the many tradesmen/women in industry.
as a boilermaker ,making stuff out of steel is what we do,we even make our own tools ..,a little machining, and voila.
anyway, reloading is easy,too,I know guys that reload.I can reload. simple process.ias a teen I would buy cheap 12 gauge shells and reload my expensive 410 gauge shells.
if you live in a city and just are not aware of peoples ability, that's ok.somewhat ignorant,but ok.


a home lathe and milling machine is all that's required to make a gun. you make it sound like its not possible,I assure you it is possible even easy ,for any good tradesman to craft what ever he/she decides.point blank ,doesn't require it to be very accurate.

a person was just charged here for uttering threats at the PM through social media.yup ,need big changes down there.any threat is a threat. no matter where or how it is uttered.and should be investigated and charges laid.

those gun deaths just became statistics.I don't care what anyone does or does not appreciate,that murderers life is no longer important..hope he gets the chair...set a good example ,
not death row ,no sensationalizing , give him the good jolt and feed him to the fish.set a good example for a change...
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
..[ ]..So what you trying to get at here? That kids these days are snowflakes, that don't know violence? Then you go on to say we have more gun crime today than we ever have? So non-violent snowflakes are actually the most violent?
I was trying to exemplify young people's behavior today. It's actually quite a bit more passive-aggressive than what I posted. Yes, they're emotional snowflakes, but they turn on a dime. They either kill themselves, or kill a classroom of the people who they believe wronged them, after being bullied online, or in person, or in school

It's sort of why people are trying to do something about it, Unfortunately, you can't force someone not to kill another, you can however, remove or at the very least make it extremely hard to get hold of weapons if your a bit lost in the head. Which if Logon Paul is anything to go by, that's a possibly shocking amount of people in America*.
It's my impression the "things happen faster in the digital age". So that empires of today would tend advance and decline sooner than empires of the past. To me, the USA of today is displaying those symptoms

*I'm not picking on America here, I'm sure the UK has just as many mental people as well, we just don't give them weapons so easily.
What I find is truly bizarre, is people such as yourself, who genuinely believe they're more civilized than Americans, who think America doesn't have gun laws, and who think the average American can walk into a 7-11, buy a gun, and then rob the place with it.

What I will cop to, is American stupidity and greed. One salient example of this, are the imbeciles who taught a group of terrorists to fly airliners, but not land them. Wow, alarms didn't go off? Hell no, the flight school operators were more than likely thinking, "well hail, we don't coor what color they is, thur muney is green, and they can spend it here. The next thing you know, 9-11 happened. So, America doesn't need more gun laws, they need more self control, and less self interest Most of the guns being used in crimes are bought from someone who obtained it legally, then sold it at a profit.

Something else we don't need, (IMHO),is more gooey sweet news about the "royals". We kicked them out of here nigh on 250 years ago, and good riddance. The more you post about how America should be run, the more it sounds like you think you, and by extension, the British Empire, could do a way better job of it.

Something else to consider is, it proved really disadvantageous for one of your prime ministers, to get too cozy with one of the idi0ts we have a habit of electing president. George W. Bush, was every bit as incompetent as people claim Trump is. The Kennedys would have kept in in an attic, as opposed to electing him POTUS, and that cost Tony Blair dearly.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
If guns are not available, people will find something to use. Therefore that number could very well increase. Once again it is not the tool, it is the mindset. And as long as society is fighting for survival, that condition will never go away.
I've heard this argument allot but haven't seen anyone link to an expert/source yet. I am genuinely curious to see the impacts rather than just jump to conclusions. If you could, I would appreciate a link if you can find one. Either way, I have to do research on this point myself before jumping to what would seem like a logical conclusion on either side of the gun debate.

"And as long as society is fighting for survival, that condition will never go away."

This I can agree with, a society under duress will be always be prone to more crime. America is currently under duress and you could argue that a small portion of the gun violence we are seeing is attributed to that. It still does not change my opinion that we could also save many more lives by re-instating common sense guns laws but it does point out a separate issue in the US health system.

Lest I give the wrong impression, I do confess I know nothing of gun laws in the USA. I also find some of the YouTube video's amaze me with the firearms displayed. I certainly favour 'common sense laws' and I agree some kind of action needs to happen since it is human life we are talking about here. I have no problem with licence's, tests of competence, background checks etc. Safe storage should be legislated as well. I wonder if offering a cash incentive for turned in firearms might have some value.
Your comment covers all that I would call for. Heck, I'd be happy with just one of those as a start to getting to a better place. Cash incentives worked in Australia and I think it's a great idea in general. For those who don't want to get a license it lets them get their money back.
 

Boilerhog146

TS Evangelist
If guns are not available, people will find something to use. Therefore that number could very well increase. Once again it is not the tool, it is the mindset. And as long as society is fighting for survival, that condition will never go away.
@cliffordcooley the Boston marathon comes to mind.they had guns ,but had access ,and the ability to use more devastating tools,to kill and maim,if they never had guns ,the outcome would have been largely the same. the mindset is what did the most damage.
want another ,OK ,Timothy McVey, Oklahoma city,truck load of ammonium nitrate, ,no gun necessary,,

some one mention the world trade centers ,another ,no guns required...
I'm sure there are others.I just pick those couple from memory.
I slept through religion and social studies `0`
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Let me guess you slept through history class.
I hate to break this to you but social studies was my favorite subject. Rarely did I get below a 90. But this comment is neither on topic nor helpful.

@cliffordcooley the Boston marathon comes to mind.they had guns ,but had access ,and the ability to use more devastating tools,to kill and maim,if they never had guns ,the outcome would have been largely the same. the mindset is what did the most damage.
want another ,OK ,Timothy McVey, Oklahoma city,truck load of ammonium nitrate, ,no gun necessary,,

some one mention the world trade centers ,another ,no guns required...
I'm sure there are others.I just pick those couple from memory.
I slept through religion and social studies `0`
That's an argument based on a VERY large assumption.

I'm glad you brought up the world trade centers. Tell me again, what is the requirement of hijacking an airplane? So your argument is basically "If we take away guns people will start Hijacking planes"? That's a ridiculous argument. This, aside from the fact that we are talking about domestic use of guns, not terrorist attacks. Obviously coordinated international terrorist organizations are different than your average American citizen.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
But this comment is neither on topic nor helpful.
Only because your history only goes back as far as the first gun. Violence didn't start during the introduction of guns. I'm telling you history is all the proof you need. Yet you want to ignore it and continue to say I'm not presenting anything and going off topic. You are the one presenting an opinion as fact. I even played along for awhile suggesting both our standpoints were opinions, hoping you would shut up. You obviously don't care, so I'll leave you to your delusion.
 

Boilerhog146

TS Evangelist
I've heard this argument allot but haven't seen anyone link to an expert/source yet. I am genuinely curious to see the impacts rather than just jump to conclusions. If you could, I would appreciate a link if you can find one. Either way, I have to do research on this point myself before jumping to what would seem like a logical conclusion on either side of the gun debate.
.
your comment,read it again. wanted a source you did.these were domestic acts ,by people living in the U.S. that had a mindset and didn't require guns to launch attacks,learning to fly and stealing a plane .to attack with ,home made IED's,,more efficient than any gun,they didn't become terrorists until they launched their attacks.so I would consider that teen a terrorist now ,no different than a guy in France opening up on a night club with an automatic...

What large assumption is that? I'm not arguing ,I know that would be a waste of valuable energy.your just not worth it. your easy to rebuttal.

your rational for removing guns is now mute ,gun control would have prevented none of these acts, Gun Control/Laws are for Honest gun owners /law abiding citizens..most gun crimes are commited with illegally obtained guns.other than the domestic dispute ,and suicides ,which can be licenced ,registered, w/e ,again would not prevent the crime..

We had a long gun registry in Canada ,but it was scrapped ,because only honest, legit owners ,actually registered their firearms ,get it?

if that teen in Florida couldn't get a legit firearm ,he could,go buy an illegitimate gun on the street,he didn't care where the gun came from..the fact that he acquired a full auto assault rifle so easily is a major problem.legally or not..

many find something else to use ,a gun being available or not make no difference.go do some research.and post your findings.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Only because your history only goes back as far as the first gun. Violence didn't start during the introduction of guns. I'm telling you history is all the proof you need. Yet you want to ignore it and continue to say I'm not presenting anything and going off topic. You are the one presenting an opinion as fact. I even played along for awhile suggesting both our standpoints were opinions, hoping you would shut up. You obviously don't care, so I'll leave you to your delusion.
I asked you to provide a link because I was genuinely interested in your point and now you refused and you've once again stooped to character assassination. No, matter. I did digging and found my answer below.

your comment,read it again. wanted a source you did.these were domestic acts ,by people living in the U.S. that had a mindset and didn't require guns to launch attacks,learning to fly and stealing a plane .to attack with ,home made IED's,,more efficient than any gun,they didn't become terrorists until they launched their attacks.so I would consider that teen a terrorist now ,no different than a guy in France opening up on a night club with an automatic...

What large assumption is that? I'm not arguing ,I know that would be a waste of valuable energy.your just not worth it. your easy to rebuttal.

your rational for removing guns is now mute ,gun control would have prevented none of these acts, Gun Control/Laws are for Honest gun owners /law abiding citizens..most gun crimes are commited with illegally obtained guns.other than the domestic dispute ,and suicides ,which can be licenced ,registered, w/e ,again would not prevent the crime..

We had a long gun registry in Canada ,but it was scrapped ,because only honest, legit owners ,actually registered their firearms ,get it?

if that teen in Florida couldn't get a legit firearm ,he could,go buy an illegitimate gun on the street,he didn't care where the gun came from..the fact that he acquired a full auto assault rifle so easily is a major problem.legally or not..

many find something else to use ,a gun being available or not make no difference.go do some research.and post your findings.
"your rational for removing guns is now mute ,gun control would have prevented none of these acts, Gun Control/Laws are for Honest gun owners /law abiding citizens..most gun crimes are commited with illegally obtained guns.other than the domestic dispute ,and suicides ,which can be licenced ,registered, w/e ,again would not prevent the crime.."

How exactly do two terrorist attacks in over a period of more than a decade of time disprove thousands of other gun related crimes? Once again, you err on the side of extreme hyperbole. It's like saying Banana's are the leading cause of death because two guys died from slipping on them in the last 15 years.

"if that teen in Florida couldn't get a legit firearm ,he could,go buy an illegitimate gun on the street,he didn't care where the gun came from..the fact that he acquired a full auto assault rifle so easily is a major problem.legally or not.."

o'rly?

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CPP-EvalPolicyEval-2003.pdf
https://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/

"They both show sharp decreases in the observed rates of firearm deaths immediately following the implementation of gun reform in two countries. There is no way to reconcile this stark empirical reality with the argument that “criminals don’t obey laws.” Clearly, some criminals obey some laws some of the time; this is the nature of incentive explicit in law enforcement. Even at the margins, this is valuable."

"The statement that “criminals do not follow laws” is true for the same reason it’s completely irrelevant to a substantive discussion on gun reform– it’s a tautology. It says exactly nothing about the proper course of action a society should take to improve social outcomes.

Definitionally, criminals don’t follow laws. This is no more a meaningful statement about social realities than the observation that dogs bark or cats meow, so it is baffling that gun proponents view this as an acceptable rejoinder in political debate.

Though it may seem like such an obvious point may not need mentioning, it has become increasingly popular among those who oppose gun reform to argue that such legislation only hurts law-abiding citizens, making it more difficult for innocent civilians to get the guns they need to defend themselves. Criminals, after all, don’t obey the laws that burden law-abiding citizens. I will term this position the lawbreaker paradox—a paradox because it axiomatically reinforces the idea that laws, though created with the intent to improve social outcomes, hurt the people who follow them.

The paradox is as follows:

  1. Law-abiding citizens obey the law
  2. Criminals are lawbreakers, and thus do not obey the law
  3. Laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
  4. Laws, therefore, only hurt law-abiding citizens
Without exception, every law could be refuted with the lawbreaker’s paradox, and societies would swiftly descend into anarchy if it weren’t for reasonable policymakers. Laws against rape, murder, and theft, for example, are rarely followed by rapists, murderers, and thieves, but the fact that such people exist in society is the reason behind such regulations in the first place.

Among gun advocates forwarding this line of argument, there seems to be a serious lapse in moral intuition that privileges expediency over human lives. To think that the minor inconvenience of gun reforms such as background checks, waiting periods, and assault weapon bans is more burdensome than the death of thousands of innocent civilians each year (which such reforms seek to redress) reflects a miscalibrated sense of what matters in the world."


"After all, when gun advocates say that they are being ‘hurt’ by gun control, let’s be clear what the actual implication of this statement is: my right to not be bothered in the least by regulation outweighs the right to life for thousands of innocents who die in the absence of said regulation. Not only can such gun reforms reduce the number of homicides, but there is very little controversy about the tremendous effect they would have at reducing suicides. So, the belief that laws aimed at saving lives “hurt law-abiding citizens” is completely incompatible with any sane definition of right and wrong."
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
That is not what you are asking for. It is pointless to waste more time with you on this topic. You don't know your history, asking for links proves it. This site is not big enough for all the links to killings without the use of guns.
"I've heard this argument allot but haven't seen anyone link to an expert/source yet. I am genuinely curious to see the impacts rather than just jump to conclusions. If you could, I would appreciate a link if you can find one."

I literally asked for a source in a calm and considerate manner. Your response was anything but. I'd still like to see your side of the argument on this one, if you are willing to give a link.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
"I've heard this argument allot but haven't seen anyone link to an expert/source yet. I am genuinely curious to see the impacts rather than just jump to conclusions. If you could, I would appreciate a link if you can find one."

I literally asked for a source in a calm and considerate manner. Your response was anything but. I'd still like to see your side of the argument on this one, if you are willing to give a link.
Here's something, I live next to people you wouldn't be caught dead (pun intended), living the house next door. Next, we have to listen to your endless rhetoric in favor of an opinion you probably don't actually hold, and you ramble on just to sound politically correct.

Quite frankly, I don't honestly believe enough of these mutts are killed, let alone too many. Most of the time, the only people who mourn their passing, are the heroin addicts who now have to buy elsewhere.

So, spare us the fake sympathies and concerns. At the end of the day, it's just a standard bunch of liberal bullsh!t, trying to make the rest of the world a dumping ground for their annoyingly irrational hypersensitive natures, and inability to reconcile that people die. People die that you don't know, and shouldn't care about. You can't save every puppy in the pound, and you can't light a candle on every street corner in the hood. Get over it.

A gamer got killed? So what? Ten more will take his place.

Oooo, cars are too dangerous, we need autonomous cars. What I picture you'll eventually need, is rubber lined rooms so you don't stub your toe and get addicted to the Oxycodone you'll absolutely need for the pain.Oh yeah, and fireproof batteries for you phone.

And here's the reality check. If China suddenly incurred a civil war, and half their population were killed, there would still be, at the very least, a billion too many of them.

So, enough of your nonsense. People flew airliners into the World Trade Center, it's time to outlaw guns. That's makes sense, to,you maybe, not so much the rest of us. Airliners have been hijacked with utility knives. We should require vigorous background checks for box cutters too.

And BTW, I see you're still too technically incapable, or simply too rude, to do a proper point by point post response. When someone reads one of your "vital messages", it's really up in the air as to whom, a person is responding.

But then I guess we should not bother responding at all, and just go ahead and let you be right, Maybe that's the point off all your BS.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Here's something, I live next to people you wouldn't be caught dead (pun intended), living the house next door. Next, we have to listen to your endless rhetoric in favor of an opinion you probably don't actually hold, and you ramble on just to sound politically correct.

Quite frankly, I don't honestly believe enough of these mutts are killed, let alone too many. Most of the time, the only people who mourn their passing, are the heroin addicts who now have to buy elsewhere.

So, spare us the fake sympathies and concerns. At the end of the day, it's just a standard bunch of liberal bullsh!t, trying to make the rest of the world a dumping ground for their annoyingly irrational hypersensitive natures, and inability to reconcile that people die. People die that you don't know, and shouldn't care about. You can't save every puppy in the pound, and you can't light a candle on every street corner in the hood. Get over it.

A gamer got killed? So what? Ten more will take his place.

Oooo, cars are too dangerous, we need autonomous cars. What I picture you'll eventually need, is rubber lined rooms so you don't stub your toe and get addicted to the Oxycodone you'll absolutely need for the pain.Oh yeah, and fireproof batteries for you phone.

And here's the reality check. If China suddenly incurred a civil war, and half their population were killed, there would still be, at the very least, a billion too many of them.

So, enough of your nonsense. People flew airliners into the World Trade Center, it's time to outlaw guns. That's makes sense, to,you maybe, not so much the rest of us. Airliners have been hijacked with utility knives. We should require vigorous background checks for box cutters too.

And BTW, I see you're still too technically incapable, or simply too rude, to do a proper point by point post response. When someone reads one of your "vital messages", it's really up in the air as to whom, a person is responding.

But then I guess we should not bother responding at all, and just go ahead and let you be right, Maybe that's the point off all your BS.
This comment is less a retort on topic, rather it's a flag of defeatism. Just because you don't care, don't try to pin it as if other's don't. Not everyone is so desensitized at the loss of human life that it no longer phases them.

As I stated numerous times, I'm not trying to strive from an ideal such as saving everyone, merely common sense gun laws.

"So, enough of your nonsense. People flew airliners into the World Trade Center, it's time to outlaw guns. That's makes sense, to,you maybe, not so much the rest of us."

wtf, no one said this at all?
 

roberthi

TS Addict
And this is why I would never live in the US.

Too many retards and access to guns way too easy.

This same incident in Canada would have ended in a fist fight and the end of a friendship.

Everyone lives to play again.
Yeah, because Canadians have no deadly weapons /sarcasm

Probably would've pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the neck (or head), at the least.....
Probably would have just given him aboot...uh...I mean about...uh...I mean a boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez