Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

[Statler Waldorf]

[QUOTE=Breed;1064572378]I stumbled on this. It's pretty good.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
]

I highly doubt anyone actually stole his IP Address in order to make those calls, he probably made the calls himself, but yes that is a pretty scary incident, to think what the Feds could do to all of us if we were all unarmed…

[Buddy]

Owning "any type of gun" is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Sorry. Try again.

Yes they do. Constantly.

Oh, okay. So the 2nd amendment is carved into granite on the side of a mountain but the 5th amendment (guaranteeing your right not to have to turn over evidence against yourself) can be thrown out no problem... along with doctor/patient confidentiality.

Owning any type of gun not currently outlawed is most certainly my guaranteed right. Someone better have some damn sound reasoning before they try to infringe on that right.

Yeah, I would like to hear you tell someone of color or better yet a militant lesbian that they have to justify their need for their rights before they can enjoy those rights...good luck with that!

So far as the second and fifth amendments as well as patient confidentiality goes, I agree with you. However, we currently have backgrounds checks so I don't see what your point is. I am certainly not advocating any stricter gun laws as I think the whole thing is BS and won't prevent a single criminal from getting a gun should they want one. This whole maelstrom of **** is a knee-jerk reaction to a handful of idiots...not exactly a wise thing to prompt consideration of amending the constitution or at least reinterpreting.

Walrus, you always have a lot of statistics and what not so help me find some information: What percentage of gun violence in the US takes place with legal weapons? My guess is that it is less than 25% which leads me to the conclusion that we have an enforcement problem and not a regulation problem. This would also indicate that further regulation will have very little affect on violence but will cost jobs, will deprive law abiding citizens opportunities to buy products they want, and possibly will deny someone the opportunity to defend themselves.




Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[GoFins!]

Here's some information that I found surprising. Can anyone verify whether this is accurate?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The majority of gun deaths aren’t due to any type of homicide at all; they’re due to suicides.

Yes,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of all gun deaths are self-inflicted—18,735 people in 2009. That’s 51 people—over four Aurora shootings—per day. And yet suicide has never been what’s stoked discussion of gun control, and even in ongoing debates it’s rarely mentioned.

Related information:

Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...one third of murders are never “solved by arrest,” so an exact count is not possible.
We do know that a very high percentage of murders are “a result of disagreements between partners or rivals in some criminal enterprise.”
“How many” estimates by police departments range from “over half” to “more than 80 percent,” while criminologists who have dug into the situation have found that 70 to 75 percent of all murders in the United States are a result of “thieves falling out.” The mean is 72.5, and I generally use 71 percent to calculate estimates.
The FBI reports
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

71 percent of that would be approximately 6,100 gun related criminal on criminal deaths in 2011.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Buddy]

The assault weapons ban was a pretty toothless law, but it did coincide with a tamer than average era in mass shootings.

"Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I read the article that you listed above and found it to be fundamentally flawed from the start. If you look at the exerpt below which is the second paragraph:

"In a situation like this (referring to Sandy Hook), it is common to hear that the weapons used were acquired legally (for instance, see Ezra Klein
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). This raises the issue of what would happen if the law changed. There is some evidence."

The guns used at Sandy Hook were not obtained legally, the killer stole the weapons. It is completely immaterial that he stole them from his mother...he killed the guns' owner and stole them. Most every gun in the US was "acquired" legally at some point, it is what happens after the acquisition that matters. If they are stolen, or sold/given away outside of the parameters set forth by law once they were initially purchased then they were not "acquired" legally. I had a sinking suspicion that this article would have a blatant left-leaning slant considering its origination. That inkling was validated when I looked at the comments below the seemingly neutral body of the article and every person that commented lauded the author of being so wonderful and for providing irrefutable concrete evidence that an assault weapons ban was necessary but not one of the Ivy League know-it-alls caught the aforementioned flaw. Statistics and charts can be twisted to say anything that you want to say if you formulate a study to confirm a pre-determined outcome. Additionally, he bases his drop in mass shootings during the assault weapons ban on the number of people killed and not the number of incidences and that, too, is very flawed logic. This guy started with the results he wanted and worked backwards to find some manipulation of the data to support his viewpoint then spoon fed it to a bunch of people looking for the same "smoking gun" who were no more objective than he. I am sorry but the author, Sam Wang, gets a F from me.

I also read the link within the article to Ezra Klein's piece and found it a bit more intelligent but also blatantly missing objectivity. At a cursory glance, I found that the graph that shows assault deaths per 100k people excluded Mexico and Estonia which, coinsidentally, have very high incidences of assault death. One of the other graphs shows that the vast majority of the weapons used in mass shootings (5/1) were obtained legally but upon digging into the information, which was provided by Mother Jones, you find that "legally obtained" is not really legally obtained as I have outlined above. Again, none of this surprises me because the sources of all of this "information" are extremely liberal and the information that they supply panders to and supports the agenda of the liberals. However, it is a long way from fact and is at best misleading.

[Buddy]

Walrus, are you sick? I threw down the gauntlet a little bit and expected some fire. Should my feelings be hurt or did I finally make a strong enough argument to get you, Spesh, and Locke to STFU? That would be alternately exciting and disappointing. That would be like the Jets leaving the NFL. Who would I banter with? Scorcho? Boo!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[TheWalrus]

Walrus, are you sick? I threw down the gauntlet a little bit and expected some fire. Should my feelings be hurt or did I finally make a strong enough argument to get you, Spesh, and Locke to STFU? That would be alternately exciting and disappointing. That would be like the Jets leaving the NFL. Who would I banter with? Scorcho? Boo!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I've been pretty busy the last week or so. Suffice to say I didn't find your post very well thought out, to say nothing of convincing.

[Buddy]

I've been pretty busy the last week or so. Suffice to say I didn't find your post very well thought out, to say nothing of convincing.

There's the ivory tusked one that we all know and love. I will await your "well thought out and convincing rebuttal".

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[TheWalrus]

There's the ivory tusked one that we all know and love. I will await your "well thought out and convincing rebuttal".

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

This is my 33rd post in this thread to go with 11 in Bumpus' thread. I won't vouch for all of them but at least one or two have been well thought out. If you want to know what I think about gun control, they're there for your perusal.

[Kthurmus23]

Since this thread was about violent games,thought I would throw this in here.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Locke]

Walrus, are you sick? I threw down the gauntlet a little bit and expected some fire. Should my feelings be hurt or did I finally make a strong enough argument to get you, Spesh, and Locke to STFU? That would be alternately exciting and disappointing. That would be like the Jets leaving the NFL. Who would I banter with? Scorcho? Boo!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The only person who has ever successfully made me STFU is the wife. She has this look that, I swear, literally sees straight into my soul and threatens to chop it's balls off. It's the downside to marrying a fiery lady.

I missed your post. I'll go back and take a look later. It's the end of the month, so all of my assessments are due at work, which is pretty much the least entertaining thing to do. I swear, when I agreed to come on as a part-timer, I was actually expecting to work something like 15-20 hours per week. I'd hate to see what they consider full time...