movies/tv My Opinion about the whole 'Guns and Violence' thing.

[Naught Important 434]

 

Introduction

 

As many of know, the event of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting has raised many questions regarding guns and violence. I will be stating my opinion on the matter, since it is almost inevitable to hear about the things that politicians say about what can be done to stop a tragic event, like the shooting, from happening in the future.

 

Before I begin, I want to share some amusing quotes that might apply to this topic.

 

“He who knows nothing and thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” -George Bernard Shaw

 

“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” -Nikita Khrushchev

 

“Politics is the art of preventing people from sticking their noses in things that are properly their business.” -Paul Valery

 

　

 

Are Video Games to blame for such violent acts?

 

Hardly.

 

Many say that video games teach children how to reload an fire a legitimate gun. I’m no gun specialist, but I don’t think that guns are fired by pressing a button on a keyboard, nor are they reloaded by pressing a different button on a keyboard. On other controllers, it is pretty much the same thing. There is one button to reload, another to fire. The majority of actual guns weigh much more than a pound, have a somewhat complicated way to reload and fire them, and show next to no relation to, say, an Xbox controller.

 

Apart from that, video games were said to encourage people to go out and shoot up a few people. I cannot say that there is no way this is true. Some people might have been driven to shoot someone to death because it looked fun on a screen, but I haven’t heard of this being the reason for murder within my lifetime.

 

 

 

I have played and watched many violent games in my past. I love the thrill of a near-death situation in those games. I love the thrill of ultimate power in those games, and the deep red color of blood is one of my favorite colors. But, if you know me as well as I do, I have created a character that was made to represent me; that character’s symbol stands for peace, prosperity, and love. This isn’t an ironic situation. Killing people in video games can be a lot of fun, since you know that you are killing people who don’t actually exist.

 

Another example is a character I’ve created for a story I’m writing. She is a trained assassin, she does kill people for enjoyment, and she even eats the human she kills once he is dead. But, she kills people from an alternative reality that she knows is not natural. She wouldn’t go and kill someone real, she creates people to kill. She is a peacemaker for the most part. She never liked the usage of guns, she doesn’t like war, and she is even friends with the character that was made to represent me. Her life is basically like the life of the average teenager playing a video game. You are not killing real people in video games, you are just fighting against computers or the avatars of other people.

 

According to the saying “Guns don’t kill people, video games do,” there is a lot of terrible interpretations of video games nowadays. First of all, that saying makes literally no sense. At the least, video games drive weak-minded children to suicide, not drive them to kill other people. Also, guns do kill people. I can see how they don‘t kill alone, but still, guns have killed people before. From the 1700s upwards, it is VERY obvious that guns kill people. Nations win wars thanks to guns killing enough people to drive another person to surrender. The gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary unfortunately killed a bundle of children an teachers. I cannot stress this enough, but the saying makes no sense to any logical mind.

 

Actually, Now that I think about it, A video game that actually kills people sounds like a Creepypasta…

 

One extra point that I want to make is that I assume that no politician has played games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Battlefeild, etc. That means that they have no experience with what we are doing. It seems like it’s new, and if something comes out just as something else happens, one thing could be used as and excuse for the other thing happening.

 

It also might be like the fact that some people fear something they do not understand. The average politician doesn’t understand video games that well, which means that they might be afraid of it hurting someone or something.

 

My final point that I am going to make is that there have been many tragic events happening before video games existed. One of the most tragic events in history, the Holocaust, couldn’t have been encouraged by video games. It was just the mind of a human that wanted to kill innocent people. Also, John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln out of his own free will. Surely he wasn’t from the future, where he had played video games featuring the assassination of presidents. The last example would be 9/11. Some people just want to watch the world burn sometimes. Don’t blame technology.

 

　

 

Should guns be limited to be less threatening?

 

That is a definite yes.

 

Guns are really powerful. One shot could half a person’s effectiveness in any subject, whether it is walking, talking, or thinking. You should know that there are many parts of the body that would result in almost instant death if penetrated by a bullet.

 

I’ve heard that gun stores were trying to lessen the amount of ammunition in a magazine so the shooter would have to reload the gun much more often; which would allow people to escape with enough time to live. That is probably one of the best actions to take as far as I can imagine.

 

We might also have to make sure that we can absolutely trust someone who is receiving a gun. If needed, we might need to take a gun owner for a mental heath check-up every few months or so, just to make sure that he or she doesn’t go haywire with the weapon at their disposal. If the gun owner doesn’t meet the standards of what would seem safe for others, then the more powerful guns should be discarded from them.

 

I’ve always thought that guns were much too powerful. It gives someone with a gun complete dominance over someone who doesn’t have a gun, assuming the person who doesn’t have a gun isn’t afraid of death. One could just take a pistol out of their pocket, point it at someone, and demand and get money. People know how powerful guns are, and that makes them pay their life out to someone who has the ability to kill them.

 

　

 

Conclusion

 

I am fairly certain that if politicians would listen to what others are saying much more often, then the world could be a better place. They also need more light to be shed on their situations, since they are sitting a pitch-black abyss when it comes to some aspects of logic. It was tough not to go on a swearing rampage during the making of this; human stupidity is something that really bothers me.

[Argos 191]

(content has been removed)

Edited March 16, 2014 by Argos

[Goose 181]

There's not really many solid arguments in favour of large magazines. I think a 10-round limit is reasonable. However, I most certainly do not support such a limit, or any other limits on guns for three main reasons:

 

 

1. I like guns, I like guns

2. I'm not a serial killer, so I should be allowed to have whatever the hoof I want

3. In a perfect world, my personal enjoyment would trump other people's rights to public safety and peace of mind

 

 

Some people really dislike guns and want them heavily restricted, others want no restrictions, a lot of people are in between. Politicians most certainly shouldn't be coming up with these restrictions because they don't know anything about guns. just like you mentioned they don't know anything about video games.

 

Take for instance Feinstein's recent gun ban list... she wants to ban certain firearms based just on how they look, which makes no sense. That's like banning shiny rims on cars because they look "gangsta".

[Scootalove 10,689]

This so called situation with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the US congress trying to pass a law on background checks on people buying guns. I think now that people will stop blaming video games on what happened, I really do think that even if this law gets passed people will still say that this law was not needed to stop shootings.

[null1 606]

I’ve heard that gun stores were trying to lessen the amount of ammunition in a magazine so the shooter would have to reload the gun much more often; which would allow people to escape with enough time to live. That is probably one of the best actions to take as far as I can imagine.

Referring to NY's recent capacity ban, it's a rather ridiculous law, I see it as an indirect ban on semi-auto handguns. They might as well just ban semi-autos if they want people switching to revolvers so bad. It's just going to create problems.

 

Not to mention if I get a semi-auto handgun, I want to get the best practical capacity out of it for my money's worth, the best performance.

Edited February 2, 2013 by DeltaTangent

[khaine21x3 789]

Fully automatic ak 12 with holographic sights, bayonet and mufflers for everyone! low capacity magazine? everyone needs a drum magazine!

 

People who advocate human rights should push for worldwide right to own fully automatic firearm and full open carry to fight oppressive governments and proxies.

 

Gun bans have their roots in racism and religious discrimination as they deny minorities any rights, minorities can only get equal rights if they are armed to the teeth and display their power.

 

There is no way to stop a school shooting but placing armed guards will work a lot better than any anti gun law, there would probably be no drugs or gangs if everyone owns a fully automatic weapon and it's legal to shoot both drug deals and drug users.

[Michael DeSanta 258]

Personally the violence in media movement has been used since the early progressive era when the first penny shows and western dime novels came out talking about the cowboys and indians going to war. In the 20s and 30s they blamed jazz,liquer,and gangster films. the 40s it was ww2 epics,holllywood films and jazz the 50s through the late 60s  it was american westerns,ww2 epics,mob films,violent films,rocknroll music, the 70s begin a rant against metal music and the 80s they went after rap music and the american blockbuster action films like rambo,terminatior,and all the good classics. the 90s til today its all video games and violent media now. so the argument of its viloence in media is a very old argument indeed. Gun control debate popped up in the 1980s when groups like the brady campaign fought for more of it. In fact the modern movement against gun control wasent founded by the Nra but against the black panther party of the1960s who encouraged african americans to own guns. congress passed as much gun control legislation as they could to stop said people from owning guns. This lost them many votes to people who lived in rural areas who thought they were going to have guns taken away from them and the Nra went from a group teaching marksmenship to fighting for gun rights. prompting the atf in 1986 to pass the gun owners protection act and the more recent 2008 washington dc ban on handguns was struck down. So we have to think of gun control in an educated manner.