• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Mall Shooting

Ranb said:
I am suggesting that the majority of of handgun owners have never or will never shoot another person. I also claim that the majority of those who actually shoot their handgun do so for competition, plinking, or hunting. Where is your evidence that handguns are exclusively used for shooting people. Remember, "use" means they have it in their hands and are doing something with it. If by purpose you mean goal, then you have an awfully dim view of humanity if you think most handgun owners intend to shoot another person.

When I noted that you had been here less than a year, it just meant I had argued with a few others that used the same line of reasoning you do. They did not sound any less silly than you do.

Ranb
Click to expand...
You're engaged in a bit of strawman here. The main purpose of a handgun is to shoot people. The fact that people don't generally shoot one another doesn't change the main purpose of handguns.

As an example of a similar situation, think of car insurance. The main purpose of car insurance is to pay the cost incurred during a car accident. Yes, it can also be claimed that the insurance must be carried because of state laws, or car loan requirements, but the MAIN purpose is to pay costs incurred during accidents. If you never get into an accident, the main purpose of insurance doesn't change.

The fact that most handgun owners don't shoot someone else doesn't mean that the purpose of a handgun changes.
 
Ranb said:
I am suggesting that the majority of of handgun owners have never or will never shoot another person. I also claim that the majority of those who actually shoot their handgun do so for competition, plinking, or hunting. Where is your evidence that handguns are exclusively used for shooting people. Remember, "use" means they have it in their hands and are doing something with it. If by purpose you mean goal, then you have an awfully dim view of humanity if you think most handgun owners intend to shoot another person.

When I noted that you had been here less than a year, it just meant I had argued with a few others that used the same line of reasoning you do. They did not sound any less silly than you do.

Ranb
Click to expand...
For goodness sake it is axiomatic that most people with hand guns do not actually shoot people. But come on, most hand gun owners use them for sports and hunting? This is an extraordinary claim and demands you prove it. Given that you cannot do this I would like to know why people possess hand guns. For feral cats?


The fact that you have used the same tired arguments with others has absolutely no impact on me.
 
lionking said:
For goodness sake it is axiomatic that most people with hand guns do not actually shoot people. But come on, most hand gun owners use them for sports and hunting? This is an extraordinary claim and demands you prove it. Given that you cannot do this I would like to know why people possess hand guns. For feral cats?


The fact that you have used the same tired arguments with others has absolutely no impact on me.
Click to expand...

First you claim that handguns are exclusively employed to shoot people, then you say that most people with hand guns do not actually shoot people. Please make up your mind.

Saying that most people who shoot their handguns do so for sport is not an extraordinary claim. I belong to a shooting club. Each year thousands of people shoot there. There are many shooting ranges in my state. The number of pistol shooters far outweighs the number of people shot in the state.

Ranb
 
As I thought you cannot prove that most hand gun owners use them for sport or hunting. And this is the devastating type of argument you used on other "silly" people?
 
Ranb said:
First you claim that handguns are exclusively employed to shoot people, then you say that most people with hand guns do not actually shoot people. Please make up your mind.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try addressing the position honestly, instead of misrepresenting it? Just for a change of pace? Maybe as an expression of holiday spirit?:D
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Now you've made yourself look daft by equating taxation with making people bankrupt.
Click to expand...
Ah, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about charging people money to publish things you didn't like. I guess you were talking about a different kind of "taxation". I guess all of the directors or people that make comic strips that don't have floods of money ARE allowed to make violent media, right? Penny Arcade, or underground films?

Talk about hypocrisy to an extreme. It's only bad if the people making the media are rich... but in your delusional little fantasy world, the only people that make entertainment are all rich, right?

I have no idea. What's it like to be so reactionary you can't comprehend what you are reading?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Why don't you tell me, mister "I-don't-get-why-government-taxing-people-for-things-I-don't-want-to-see-isn't-abridging-free-speech", genius?

I don't want to. But perhaps if the two options for a Hollywood studio were to make a film with lots of unrealistic gun violence positively portrayed in it and one with violence negatively portrayed, less violence or none at all, the greater taxation of the former would reduce the number of those films being made.
Click to expand...
I see.

And you still think it's justified?

Here's a tip, genius. There's other ways to see violence. Read certain books, play the RPG "Shadowrun", read the comic "Penny Arcade". You want to tax all of those, or do you just have a stick up your ass only over Hollywood?

Is Hollywood the only media that exists in your small world?

But at least when we loose it, we don't go off and shoot a load of people.:D
Click to expand...
No, you just take away people's liberties and freedom of speech. They're publishing movies you don't want to see, so you force people to stop making them by having the government tax them if they do.

That you are incapable of figuring that out is not my problem.

(By the way, it's spelled "lose", not "loose"... as in, you don't just have a screw loose, you've actually lost it.)

One other thing: The people that do "go off" and "kill a bunch of people"... you think they're a new phenonemon? You think they never existed in the past? You think that murderers and psychopaths only came around thanks to videogames? Talk about fantasy...

And do you really think that a significant portion of the billions of people across the world exposed to violent media actually are influenced to it enough to go crazy? If even 1% of the people exposed to such media went crazy, then that's a big ****ing catastrophe. Or do you only think a handful of people are exposed?

So that would seem to indicate we just don't know how adults watching violent behaviour in films influences violent behaviour in real-life.
Click to expand...

"We don't know, so let's just jump in and try to strangle people to stop through the government anyways, just for the fun of it!"

Why are you worth listening to, again?
 
Last edited:
Did anyone hear on the news about another potential school massacre being averted? Some guy was posting about killing people on his blog and was arrested.
 
You are not talking about the Melbourne hoax are you? If so this is a foolish teenager. Just goes to show that we have to watch what we say here.

And Lonewulf, you are skating close to forum rules aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf, I noticed you skipped some of the questions I posted earlier. Would you like to have a go at providing some answers? Here they are again:

Are you against having age restrictions on films or violent computer games?

What about high taxation of cigarettes or alcohol? Smoking bans?

Possible carbon taxes?

What ideas do you have to reduce violent behaviour?
 
andyandy said:
No - in your answer you said that it was due to [hispanic/black] minorities, i agreed that minorities may have higher rates of gun crime, but that this was not relevant to this discussion on school/mall shootings as the perpetrators are virtually all white [with a second generation korean].
Click to expand...

The statistic you are claiming is not relevant is the closest thing so far given to a meaningful statistic about the issue on the table.

There is a measurable difference in the statistics between White and Non-White Americans. White Americans have much higher rates of Mass Murder but much lower rates of Single Homicide.

It is clear that to rationally address the issue of mass murder in America, that we must identify why this statistical anomoly exists because that is evidence as to why it happens and could lead to a solution which addresses the problem.

Do you honestly think that ignoring the only evidence of the problem that has so far been presented in this thread is a rational way to tackle this issue? Perhaps you just want to ban guns and will ignore anything that doesnt help the cause.
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Lonewulf, I noticed you skipped some of the questions I posted earlier. Would you like to have a go at providing some answers? Here they are again:
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the old woo-woo "throw shotgun questions that have nothing to do with the subject" trick. If Creationists can do it, why can't you?

Meanwhile, you ignored everything else, but hey, what's a bit of hypocrisy, right?

Are you against having age restrictions on films or violent computer games?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The job of parenting should be the job of parents.

What about high taxation of cigarettes or alcohol? Smoking bans?
Click to expand...
I'm neutral on that, but I lean against it. I fail to see how cigarettes or alcohol compare, at all, to anything even close to the message or the content someone sells. But hey, as long as you can score points with whatever pathetic maneuver you can, right? It doesn't matter if you're being logical or not.

Possible carbon taxes?
Click to expand...
I'm ambivalent on carbon taxes. Again, fail to see the comparisons.

What ideas do you have to reduce violent behaviour?
Click to expand...
Not reducing people's abilities or rights to produce their story or source of entertainment.

Is your argument that if I don't have my own ideas, that I have to accept yours? If so, welcome to woo-woo country.

So, answer my question.

Should the creators of violent RPGs like Wizkids or FASA, or webcomic artists like Tycho and Gabe of Penny Arcade, be forced to pay taxes for violence in their entertainment? Yes or no? If no, why not, if yes, then why do you act like it's only the "rich" that have to pay? Tycho and Gabe are no more rich than you or me. If I write a violent short story as a college student, should I or should I not have to pay taxes? If not, why not?

Lionking said:
And Lonewulf, you are skating close to forum rules aren't you?
Click to expand...
Self-righteous holier-than-thou ... people... like Ivor tend to get that way with me.

But hey, it's just fine if he suggests that I'm only a moment away from blazing away a schoolroom full of children because I happen to like videogames or violent movies, right? That is, in the end, what he is suggesting: That the correlation between violent media and enacting violence is close enough to warrant government action. Otherwise, he is suggesting a needless government action for arbitrary reasons.

Of course, what do I know? I guess I've been brainwashed by the EVIL ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA, and have no capabilities over my own mental faculties. That's another claim that's being made, after all.
 
Last edited:
rockoon said:
The statistic you are claiming is not relevant is the closest thing so far given to a meaningful statistic about the issue on the table.

There is a measurable difference in the statistics between White and Non-White Americans. White Americans have much higher rates of Mass Murder but much lower rates of Single Homicide.

It is clear that to rationally address the issue of mass murder in America, that we must identify why this statistical anomoly exists because that is evidence as to why it happens and could lead to a solution which addresses the problem.

Do you honestly think that ignoring the only evidence of the problem that has so far been presented in this thread is a rational way to tackle this issue? Perhaps you just want to ban guns and will ignore anything that doesnt help the cause.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

slowly....

i am interested in discussing the cases of mass murder such as perpetuated in schools/malls
If you agree with me that most mass murders are caused by white americans then what is it that i'm supposedly "ignoring"? Wildcat raised the possibility of minorites and not guns being the key element to understanding the difference between UK school/mall shootings/massacres and US school/mall shootings/massacres yet there does not seem to be much evidence for this (certainly not yet presented).
so i'm interested why that statistical anomaly exists - why do you think that is?

and it is incredibly tiresome to find any participation in any gun thread requires such facile black and white division between the "gun control freaks" and the pro gun lobby. Guns obviously provoke an exceptionally emotive response from yourself and others on this thread, frankly i have little interest in American domestic politics - my interest is in comparatives with the UK. I'm glad that we have very strict gun laws in the UK - but equally to talk of a ban in the US is nonsense - given the number of guns already in ciculation it would be wholly unfeasible and ineffective. I would suggest that greater gun controls might be worth discussing in light of the numbers of people who die from guns each year, and in particular the seemingly easy access that children have to them. But that requires a little more nuance than you seem to be able to cope with.

So you could perhaps drop your either everyone loves guns or wants to ban them completely strawman - then perhaps there could be a chance of some intelligent debate. Until then it's just mindless emotive mud slinging.
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
and it is incredibly tiresome to find any participation in any gun thread requires such facile black and white division between the "gun control freaks" and the pro gun lobby. Guns obviously provoke an exceptionally emotive response from yourself and others on this thread, frankly i have little interest in American domestic politics - my interest is in comparatives with the UK. I'm glad that we have very strict gun laws in the UK - but equally to talk of a ban in the US is nonsense - given the number of guns already in ciculation it would be wholly unfeasible and ineffective. I would suggest that greater gun controls might be worth discussing in light of the numbers of people who die from guns each year, and in particular the seemingly easy access that children have to them. But that requires a little more nuance than you seem to be able to cope with.

So you could perhaps drop your either everyone loves guns or wants to ban them completely strawman - then perhaps there could be a chance of some intelligent debate. Until then it's just mindless emotive mud slinging.
Click to expand...

You've run head-on into that "gun nut culture" I was talking about earlier. You can talk all you want about sensible gun controls and responsible gun ownership, but all they hear is "someone wants to take my guns away!!!". It is very bizarre, and seems to be a uniquely American reaction. The guns aren't the problem, of course... it is the unhealthy emotional relationship that some people seem to have with guns that's at least part of the problem.
 
JoeEllison said:
You've run head-on into that "gun nut culture" I was talking about earlier. You can talk all you want about sensible gun controls and responsible gun ownership, but all they hear is "someone wants to take my guns away!!!"
Click to expand...

Nice, Joe Ellison.

You come up with that strawman on your own?

So what, exactly, are these "sensible gun controls" and "responsible gun ownership" that you're talking about here? Does "Responsible Gun Ownership" involve actually respecting and training with the firearms you own? If not, then what is it that's so "responsible"? If so, then how are you suggesting anything that is so incredibly different from what anti-gun control advocates propose?

Can you find a single person that supports the right to own firearms that suggests that gun owners should not be responsible? Or is your definition of "responsible" and "reasonable" defined as "whatever bullspit I happen to agree with"?

Hell, though, your side is MUCH more interesting. The "OMG VIOLENCE IN MOVIES TAX THE ****ERS!" is so much more reasonable than "I am a responsible gun owner, you shouldn't punish me for the actions of a very small minority"! But if the nut's on your side, then who cares, right?
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
*sigh*

slowly....

i am interested in discussing the cases of mass murder such as perpetuated in schools/malls If you agree with me that most mass murders are caused by white americans then what is it that i'm supposedly "ignoring"? Wildcat raised the possibility of minorites and not guns being the key element to understanding the difference between UK school/mall shootings/massacres and US school/mall shootings/massacres yet there does not seem to be much evidence for this (certainly not yet presented). so i'm interested why that statistical anomaly exists - why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Blaming gun violence on minorities is a standard part of American pro-gun rhetoric. There may be some validity to this point when talking about the general gun homicide rate, but it doesn't really fit as an explanation for mass shootings done by white mall nut cases. Perhaps we would do better looking into differences in mental health care between the US or UK. Does the UK do a better job of defusing potential mall/school shooters by treating them?
 
andyandy said:
*sigh*
Guns obviously provoke an exceptionally emotive response from yourself and others on this thread, frankly i have little interest in American domestic politics
Click to expand...

Nice of you to decide after my single post, addressing your eagerness to throw away relevant statistics, that I am being "exceptionally emotive."

Perhaps you are being exceptionally defensive?

andyandy said:
So you could perhaps drop your either everyone loves guns or wants to ban them completely strawman
Click to expand...

You got that from my single post? I assume it is in reference to the statement "Perhaps you just want to ban guns and will ignore anything that doesnt help the cause."

This statement was clearly me giving one possible explanation for your eagerness to throw away the only relevant statistic so far posted in this thread.

Do you have another explanation for your repeated posts saying that the statistic isn't relevant?

Mind you that the statistic wasnt even offered in the light that you have placed it, yet it is the only statistic given which is relevant to that light. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Until then it's just mindless emotive mud slinging.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

So the pot says to the kettle, "you're black!"
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf,

I think it would depend on how absurd the violence is and the context it is presented in. I used Hollywood as an example, but I think RPG’s could probably come under a similar taxation scheme. I’m not familiar with the comic books you mentioned. A college student's violent short story is unlikely to be marketed to a huge audience, or the content easily confused with socially acceptable behaviour.

I was particularly interested in one of your replies:

Lonewulf said:
The job of parenting should be the job of parents.
Click to expand...

Many parents don’t seem to be particularly bothered about their children’s viewing or other pastimes. How do you propose to make parents accept this job?

BTW, you’re on your last chance. Be aggressive and rude to me again and I’ll stop responding to you until you calm down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom