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

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Thats not being efficient its just a safer form.

Higher body count in a shorter amount of time + less energy expended doing so = more efficient.

Originally Posted by deputyfestus

Idk box cutters were pretty good as means to an end. Point is nut jobs will use whatever it takes to achieve their objective.

That's one hell of a stab wound... Seriously, is it "use terrible logical fallacies" day today and I just happened to miss the memo?

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. I really have no idea what you are trying to argue. Nothing I said was controversial or factually inaccurate here.

Nope, I was just reaffirming it for all to read.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

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

Exactly. Not as easy to commit suicide with a knife as it is with a gun. But in my opinion, the media essentially glorifies someone who kills women and children and people in theaters, who would otherwise just off themselves in a basement saving the rest of us the trouble of learning their names. I know the names of most killers repeated over and over by the media. I've never heard the names of the victims, except in small lists with a ribbon attached. There is something very wrong with that. I wonder how many of these tragic shootings would occur without the "Right of Free Speech" being abused by media outlets to get ratings?

Originally Posted by Fovezer

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.

I find it hard to believe that someone who wants blood on their hands, willing to murder children is going to be concerned with their "energy" level. They'll drink a Red Bull.

And no... you don't have to kill someone with a knife by subduing them first. Contrary to the general consensus of modern day anti-gun opponents, people have been dying to a blade for thousands of years before now.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Hasn't happened here yet, has it?

Good stance to take. "We only care about stuff after it happens". Do I get to say, "I told you so", when it does happen? Part of me would LOVE to see all guns permanently banned, if for no other reason than to say "I told you so" when the next mass killing happens by a gun. However, it would sicken me to think that any silver lining could be gleaned from such an act, so I guess I'll retain my prevention is better than a cure approach.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

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.

Classic Fov. I use logic, just how you like it, and you call it "bad". Laughable. All logic is slippery slope. Why do you think we have lawyers in the first place? I'll give you a hint, to make it more slippery.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So when the politicians proposing these laws openly admit that they will not prevent/deter things like Sandy Hook then what exactly is the point? Once again I say the point is to hand Linus his security blanket, so he can sleep well at night, at least until it happens again.

That's it. I'm calling Fovezer, "Linus" from now on when he needs his blanky, lol.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

That's one hell of a stab wound... Seriously, is it "use terrible logical fallacies" day today and I just happened to miss the memo?

Nee-Ner, Nee-Ner... slippery slope police, pull over!

"Do you know why I stopped you?"

Originally Posted by i8pptuakamonstercam

I would think having the option of how far away you want to be would make guns better at killing than knives. I mean you get an army of guys with knives and swords(and other melee weapons) against an equal army with guns. I would think the army with guns has an advantage.

Yes! So is the answer to take the guns out of the hands of the army with them, or put guns in the hands of the guys without them?

We as a country are disarming ourselves. What we AREN'T doing is disarming the guys WITH the guns who have the will to use them because they don't care about your silly laws in the first place!