Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 12131415161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 173

Thread: Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

  1. -161
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,253
    vCash:
    1156
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    [QUOTE=Breed;1064572378]I stumbled on this. It's pretty good.

    [/QUOTE]

    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…
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  2. -162
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    2,667
    vCash:
    6480
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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
    Last edited by Buddy; 01-29-2013 at 12:29 PM. Reason: Swype is jacked up!
    Quote Quote  

  3. -163
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Here's some information that I found surprising. Can anyone verify whether this is accurate?

    http://www.democracyjournal.org/argu...lked-about.php

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

    Yes, 59 percent 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
    http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesaf.htm


    ...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 there were 8,583 gun related murders during 2011.
    71 percent of that would be approximately 6,100 gun related criminal on criminal deaths in 2011.
    http://extranosalley.com/?p=36491
    “I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."


    - Dr. Benjamin Carson
    Quote Quote  

  4. -164
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    2,667
    vCash:
    6480
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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."

    http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...eapons-matter/

    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 today). 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.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -165
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    2,667
    vCash:
    6480
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

    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!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Quote Quote  

  6. -166
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    6,745
    vCash:
    18799
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    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!

    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.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -167
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    2,667
    vCash:
    6480
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    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
    Quote Quote  

  8. -168
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    6,745
    vCash:
    18799
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    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.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -169
    Kthurmus23's Avatar
    Tweet@KJoneZ13

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,143
    vCash:
    1034
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Since this thread was about violent games,thought I would throw this in here.


    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2129792166001/
    Quote Quote  

  10. -170
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,608
    vCash:
    2867
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    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!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


    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...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. 25 Years of Research on Violent Games
    By Locke in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 01:27 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-16-2006, 02:33 AM
  3. Violent Video Games Numb Players to Real-Life Brutality
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-10-2006, 07:38 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 06:09 PM
  5. well I introduced myself before
    By duss12 in forum Introduce Yourself!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2006, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •