Thread: Video games and gun violence. Is there a correlation.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

When you say it like this it sounds sooooo much more reasonable. Not being sarcastic here Fov, i agree with you. Gun owners are going to be inconvenienced, but still maintain their right. It is admittedly a hard balance to strike between rights and security. I would like to see access limited as well. I dont want to see the the guy who lives on a daily dose of 24 Budweisers, 3 joints and a good ole smack down of the wife owning so much as a pea shooter. But he can even if he has had several run ins with the law (no felonies though) and displays poor judgement at every turn. But on the flip side, i have no issue with my ex army, successful, family oriented neighbor owning an AR15 with 30 rnd mags and all the trimmings, in fact i WANT him to have it.

And this pretty much sums up my view on guns, too. Those people you talk about are also the people who don't take of and don't properly handle their guns, which means they'll get stolen and end up on the black market, sold to whoever they feel like, or used by someone else because they are easily accessible.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Now you're sounding like those anti-gay marriage people who say "What's next? Man and dog getting married?"

Don't get mad because I point out the flaws in your logic.

Originally Posted by i8pptuakamonstercam

I would say guns are more effective at killing than knives are.

But they aren't. Both are equally good at killing. The difference is how far you want to be from someone.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Stabbing someone is a far more personal and demanding act compared to the impersonal act of shooting someone from a distance. So if someone's goal is to kill or cause mass casualties, they are going to pick a gun every time. Knives are primarily used in the heat of the moment or by exceptionally sick people and rarely by people intending to cause mass damage. And when they are, there are far fewer deaths because they are no where near as efficient.

It being more personal matters to normal people of criminal or non criminal backgrounds. To someone that has a mental defect how personal it is most likely doesn't matter. Most times when someone lives thru a stabbing they got lucky or the knife wasn't big enough for the job. Just like knives i can show plenty of examples where people got shot and lived. So i wouldn't say they are more efficient at anything other then killing from a distance.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Stabbing someone is a far more personal and demanding act compared to the impersonal act of shooting someone from a distance. So if someone's goal is to kill or cause mass casualties, they are going to pick a gun every time. Knives are primarily used in the heat of the moment or by exceptionally sick people and rarely by people intending to cause mass damage. And when they are, there are far fewer deaths because they are no where near as efficient.

Why get a gun when you can get a bomb and be even more brutally efficient?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

They aren't better at killing though. They are just as effective at killing someone as a knife. But to stab someone, you have to risk getting stabbed yourself to inflict the killing wound. Guns were specifically invented to prevent the person behind it from exposing themselves to harm by reaching out and "hitting" someone while still being able to walk away from the encounter. Live to fight another day, is the reason guns exist.

If you can kill from a distance with no danger to yourself, I'd say they are far more effective and efficient killing machines. I really have no idea what you are trying to argue. Nothing I said was controversial or factually inaccurate here.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

How many of the shooters have "gotten" away to kill another day?

How many have tried to get away? These are virtually all glorified suicide attempts.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

In my opinion, killing with a knife or sword is WORSE than killing with a gun. Killing with a knife is far more egregious. It's the next evolution in sadism. It denotes the desire to make killing intimate. To bathe yourself in someone else's blood. To eviscerate someone with your own hand. Guns are distant, cold and calculated. When you start seeing schools bathed in the blood of children, bodies hewn in two, by someone with butcher knives and machete's, then we'll revisit this idea of how guns are the reason kids are dying.

I agree with you here. And because they are more personal, they don't make for good mass murder weapons. It takes more energy to kill with a knife and people have a far better chance at successfully fighting back. If you kill with a knife, you are going to do it by surprise or after you have already subdued them.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

And you don't think someone like that will be able to kill 26 people?

Hasn't happened here yet, has it?

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Don't get mad because I point out the flaws in your logic.

Mad? For what? Because you used the same slippery slope logical fallacy used by anti-gay marriage people? Way to go, I guess. I prefer sound logic, myself, and don't care for your bad logic.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

If you can kill from a distance with no danger to yourself, I'd say they are far more effective and efficient killing machines.

Thats not being efficient its just a safer form.