California state senator's reaction to NRA anti-video game claims.

[Xuphor]

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-12-21-senator-yee-nra-s-gun-proposal-pathetic-and-unacceptable

Remember that whole NRA blame-game thing they did against video games after the school shooting? You know, them finding any scapegoats they could to blame, and it just so happened to be video games for the most part? A senator saw right through what they are doing:

I find it mind-boggling that the NRA suddenly cares about the harmful effects of ultra-violent video games. When our law was before the Supreme Court – while several states, medical organizations, and child advocates submitted briefs in support of California’s efforts – the NRA was completely silent. Now, rather than face reality and be part of the solution to the widespread proliferation of assault weapons in America, they attempt to pass the buck. More guns are not the answer to protecting our children, as evident by the fact that armed guards weren’t enough to stop the tragedy at Columbine High School. The NRA’s response is pathetic and completely unacceptable.

Spoiler: My reaction, in an overly used gif form:

 

[Hanafuda]

FWIW, there was only ONE guard at Columbine, not "armed guards," and he did exchange fire with one of the shooters for an extended period of time, allowing many to run to safety.

Also, in case you didn't read between the lines well enough to catch it, this guy Leland Yee is one of the top gun control advocates in California, and ALSO one of the top advocates for banning violent video games. He's just pissed that the NRA waited until now to say what he's been saying all along.


And also, this:

 

[Blaze163]

I'm always amused by the idea that violent video games cause violence. Mankind's been pretty adept at killing each other since the dawn of time, long before Pong ever came around and gave geeks like me some semblence of a hobby. Simple logic. If a problem existed before the creation of what you deem the cause, that cause cannot possibly be the reason behind the problem unless time travel is involved. And while I see time travel in video games from time to time, I've never seen any evidence that they themselves can pilot the DeLorian.

 

[air2004]

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-12-21-senator-yee-nra-s-gun-proposal-pathetic-and-unacceptable

Remember that whole NRA blame-game thing they did against video games after the school shooting? You know, them finding any scapegoats they could to blame, and it just so happened to be video games for the most part? A senator saw right through what they are doing:

Spoiler: My reaction, in an overly used gif form:

While the cause for violence in america is violent video games according to the NRA . I think they learned how to pass the buck from all politicians.

 

[dickfour]

Guess how many armed guards are at the school Obama's daughters go to...11 that's right 11. But those same armed guards aren't good enough for other people's children

It looks to me like politicians created "gun free zones" to facilitate massacres so they'd have an excuse to clamp down on civil rights. If gun free zones are so effective then why are the politicians that pass those laws aways armed and surrounded people armed to the teeth

 

[Sterling]

It looks to me like politicians created "gun free zones" to facilitate massacres so they'd have an excuse to clamp down on civil rights. If gun free zones are so effective then why are the politicians that pass those laws aways armed and surrounded people armed to the teeth

For once I agree with you. Gun free zones are just traps for law abiding citizens. You know where someone hell bent on shooting someone is going to go? To a gun free zone. "Oh hey, you don't have a gun? Well then, fuck you, and you..." I always think about what could have happened at the DK:R shooting if someone had decided to break the law and pack. You know when that bastard decided to come in shooting? Yeah, someone with a handgun could have popped him and stopped that rampage. In these situations it's "Damned if you do, or damned if you don't".

 

[smile72]

Not to be an asshole but can someone fix the title and add State before Senator. As he is not a senator, but a state senator.

 

[Taleweaver]

And also, this:

He was probably thinking of this guy. Despite what the NRA says, those "good guys with guns" didn't quite help back then.

Guess how many armed guards are at the school Obama's daughters go to...11 that's right 11. But those same armed guards aren't good enough for other people's children

It looks to me like politicians created "gun free zones" to facilitate massacres so they'd have an excuse to clamp down on civil rights. If gun free zones are so effective then why are the politicians that pass those laws aways armed and surrounded people armed to the teeth

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you're serious. Your president gets death threats on a daily basis. So to follow that logic...sure. If you go to a school where the parents get death threats on a daily basis, I'm all for having eleven armed guards at the school. And I bet those parents won't even complain the school money is raised in order to accomodate for eleven people on staff whose work consists of waiting until a lunatic happens to come to the school.

It looks to me like politicians created "gun free zones" to facilitate massacres so they'd have an excuse to clamp down on civil rights. If gun free zones are so effective then why are the politicians that pass those laws aways armed and surrounded people armed to the teeth

Because passing those laws tend to attract gun nuts even faster than having a no gun high school reunion?

 

[Sterling]

He was probably thinking of this guy. Despite what the NRA says, those "good guys with guns" didn't quite help back then.

Yeah, but the way JFK presented himself was inviting disaster. It's not that good guys with guns didn't help, it's just that the bad guy had a gun with a longer reach. JFK is the reason the Motorcade and presidential procession is the way it is now.

 

[Gahars]

All too often, people seem quick to look over the nuance. I done think anyone (or anyone you should be taking seriously) is saying that there is no place for guns or that we should ban them all outright. Most are arguing that guns have their place, but perhaps we should reevaluate that place. Likewise, most are just saying that we should keep better oversight over the sale of these powerful, deadly weapons - and that some models probably shouldn't be on the civilian market at all.

I know generalizations are easy, and the slippery slope is fun, but can we just address the issue honestly here?

 

[air2004]

If I can't or shouldn't be able to own a high powered weapon, what do law enforcement need them for?

 

[Hanafuda]

I know generalizations are easy, and the slippery slope is fun, but can we just address the issue honestly here?

I think this article is extremely "honest."

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/


Also, including this video because 1) it's wonderful to see someone shut this dipshit (Piers Morgan) down, and 2) the audience response to Jessi Ventura's question at the end is very, very informative.

 

[Arras]

If I can't or shouldn't be able to own a high powered weapon, what do law enforcement need them for?

For enforcing law? Stop criminals who don't care about gun laws? Look threatening?

 

[Depravo]

Also, including this video because 1) it's wonderful to see someone shut this dipshit (Piers Morgan) down, and 2) the audience response to Jessi Ventura's question at the end is very, very informative.

But what you have to take into consideration is NOBODY LIKES PIERS MORGAN. If he told me the sky was blue I would disagree with him on principle.

I won't get involved in the whole gun argument because not being a US citizen the issue has absolutely bugger all to do with me but in this example we have an American TV show, an American studio audience and a well-known American celebrity advocating an intrinsically American ideal versus a goddamn limey prick who nobody likes (not even the British) who is trying to undermine a concept so sacred to some Americans that he may as well be shitting on a US flag. I'm pretty sure that given these circumstances the audience would have responded the same way if it was the ghost of Adam Lanza himself defending gun ownership rights.

 

[McHaggis]

I think this article is extremely "honest."

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/


Also, including this video because 1) it's wonderful to see someone shut this dipshit (Piers Morgan) down, and 2) the audience response to Jessi Ventura's question at the end is very, very informative.

<snip>

Yes, Piers Morgan is a dick, but Ventura loses credibility because he uses the same tired "we should ban cars because of drunk driving" analogy that so many other stupid people use. a) Banning alcohol would make more sense than banning cars, and; b) cars have a harm-free purpose. I don't understand why so many Americans are so desperate to keep their guns. There are other, less lethal methods of protection.

I just wish that people clinging to their gun laws could use proper arguments in defence, rather than using unsuitable analogies (we should ban cars/knives/sexual intercourse/furbies). At least then I might be able to understand.

 

[xist]

Can't watch the video atm but if this is the transcript of the conversation, then seriously, the justification is mainly about being able to rise up against an oppressive regime? Really? In this day and age that's the prime reason? Piers Morgan is indeed a moron, but of the two arguments on display his makes the most sense.

 

[Hanafuda]

There are other, less lethal methods of protection.

Such as?

the justification is mainly about being able to rise up against an oppressive regime? Really? In this day and age that's the prime reason? Piers Morgan is indeed a moron, but of the two arguments on display his makes the most sense.

Yeah, cuz oppressive regimes never happen anymore, right? And never will again. Government "in this day and age" is always, and forever forward always shall be, trustworthy and just.

It's not so much to "rise up" against an oppressive regime. It's to serve as a deterrent against such oppression, and a means of resistance. The majority of citizens in the US may or may not support gun control, but will public opinion continue to support it when confiscations begin and otherwise peaceful, law-abiding people become de facto criminals overnight and start dying at the hands of the police who come to seize their only means of self-defense?? Of course, this is exactly why the gun control lobby doesn't seek to ban all guns at once - their incremental strategy is to marginalize certain guns as "evil," ban those, then wait for the next opportunity to deem another class of guns as "evil," then ban those. This is why they try to appeal to "hunters" and set them up against those whose interest in firearms is more oriented to self-defense. The pejorative nickname for the hunter types who take the side of the gun control advocates against fellow gun owners (i.e. go ahead and take their guns, just don't take my hunting rifle) is "Fudd."


Edit: OMG, I just checked the link xist posted to the transcript of that episode of Piers Morgan. Here's a portion I excerpted from the text there.

VENTURA: Let's remember, police can't stop crimes. Police show up after they're over. Remember that. So when you talk about me not being able -- if there would have been a legitimate conceal and carry in that theater, quite possibly they could have taken this guy out and saved people --

MORGAN: Or you could have had the gunfight at the OK Corral in there and lost even more lives. Couldn't you? That's what could have happened.

VENTURA: What role of the dice would you like? You'd prefer to be unarmed?

(CROSS TALK)

MORGAN: I think this country needs to do something about its gun laws, I really do.

VENTURA: I don't. There's already enough gun laws. They're already on the books.

MORGAN: Let's come back and give you -- I can't believe I'm saying this. I'm going to give you the last word after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Back with my special guest, Jesse Ventura, my studio audience. Twitter has gone crazy tonight, rather appropriately. I like this one, from BuffaloJimmyZ. He says, "the Moon landing was faked, Apollo 11 landed on Jesse Ventura's bald head."

Notice anything?? CNN completely edited out the part where Ventura asked the audience, "How many of you think I made crackpot points?" and there was one person, and then he asked, "How many of you think I made sensible points?" and the whole audience erupted in applause. That entire portion of the show has been cut from that transcript and replaced with "(CROSS TALK)"
That's as fucking hilarious as it is sad.

 

[Valwin]

Can't watch the video atm but if this is the transcript of the conversation, then seriously, the justification is mainly about being able to rise up against an oppressive regime? Really? In this day and age that's the prime reason? Piers Morgan is indeed a moron, but of the two arguments on display his makes the most sense.

IKR this age is free of regimes yep all the nations of the world are democratic also i say hi to the republic of britania

 

[xist]

IKR this age is free of regimes yep all the nations of the world are democratic also i say hi to the republic of britania

We operate on democracy here. No need to shoot out the government to instigate a change.

And arguably the audience is not really a good way to judge a discussion based upon the topic, the guests and the sorts of people who attend those shows. Including it in a transcript doesn't really seem unbiased one way or another.

 

[Valwin]

We operate on democracy here. No need to shoot out the government to instigate a change.

well if that how YOUR country works fine dont come here saying guns are not needed