Virginia Tech blame game

[MTV2]

Why not have God be made responsible for creating the kid's parents then? Were there is one finger being pointed there are three pointed right back at you with this statement you just said.

OMG, it wasn't supposed to be taking seriously.

 

 

Because after all "atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people". Right?

There's no such thing as the Atomic Bomb, it's just Chuck Norris jumping out of a plane and smashing the ground with his fist.

[SilentScope001]

We can. However, I sure as Heck hope researchers don't. School shooting cases need to be studied, as do the perpetrators. The more we know about what motivates these things, the more we can do to prevent them.

 

Well, hm. You got a point. Still, how much research, and how biased those researchers are? It's going to take a long, long time. I better hope that this fad of school shootings goes away pretty soon...

 

Until then, let's throw money at the problem.

 

OMG, it wasn't supposed to be taking seriously.

 

Ah, but the Problem of Evil is by far the problem that most people care about, and one of the main arguments against Religion here. If anyone deserves blame, it's God for creating us with the capcity to do evil in the first place.

 

For the most part, when people invoke the Problem of Evil, they usually do it seriously.

[MdKnightR]

US citizens;

Having free access to automatic weapons then whining about mental illness leading to mass destruction is self-delusion on a grand scale.

 

By all means, keep selling your weapons in supermarkets it's a wonderful idea. When you're at it why not sell atomic bombs at K-Mart? Because after all "atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people". Right?

 

Alright, time to clear up some ignorance...

 

First, there is no "Free Access" to automatic weapons in the USA if you are a law-abiding citizen. Sure, they are available on the black market, but access is only as easy as your skill in navigating the channels. Gun control only takes the weapons out of the hands of the good guys. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

 

Second, people do kill people. If it weren't so hard for law-abiding citizens to get and keep weapons on their person at all times, there would be less crime. Case in point is a city near Atlanta known as Kennesaw. In 1982, they passed an ordinance that required all heads of household to own a firearm and ammunition. Since its passage, Kennesaw has had virtually no crime while the rest of the townships in the Metro-Atlanta area have had high crime. They sent a clear message to criminals to stay out! Think about it, who would want to rob a convenience store in a town that is very pro-gun? A criminal would have to face the fact that someone in that store is likely packing heat and he would be lying in a pool of his own blood over a few hundred dollars.

 

The following is a letter to a local newspaper that sums it up nicely....

 

It appears that mass killers on shooting sprees are perpetrated in gun free zones. Are they trying to avoid the chance of encountering armed citizens? Sometimes these killers misjudge their situation. A Pearl High School( Mississippi) student went on a shooting spree only to be stopped by the assistant principal, who retrieved a gun from his car.

 

At a 1998 school graduation dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Penn., a student went on a shooting spree only to be captured by the restaurant owner, who had a shotgun.

 

In 2002 Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., a suspended student went on a shooting spree only to be stopped by two students who went to their cars to retrieve their guns.

 

In 2007 at a Salt Lake City shopping mall (self-declared gun free zone) a man went on a shooting spree, but an armed citizen confronted the man. He pinned him down till police arrived.

 

What would have happened at Virginia Tech had just one of the students had a gun? Would this killing have happened at the University of Utah where the states allow concealed carry on state property and campus? Do you feel safer in a mall that states it is a gun free zone?

 

The bad guys don't obey the signs and the good guys are disarmed when they do. Do you feel safer already?

 

I don't feel safer in a gun free zone. It is in these places where the only folks armed are the criminals themselves.

 

Mark Berndt

Warner Robins

[lukeiamyourdad]

...Come on!

 

For the first situation, you can argue that people did not care because it was in Africa. For all intents and purpose, it was a war between Rwanda Hutus and Tustis.

 

My point exactly. You discounted a possibility you yourself admit could be the cause of people not caring for an act of violence.

 

For the second situtation, people enjoyed seeing two people gut each other. Culture said this was the right thing to do. There was violent works of arts too, you know. Violent poems, glorifying decapatication? Sort of the equivilant of our modern day violent TV shows and video games, no? Plus, what the point of violent video game domination when you can actually join the military and see actual violence?

 

So the question to ask ourselves is not so much does these depictions cause a love for violence or is it a natural tendency to love violence that leads to violent depictions. Chicken or the egg. Choose.

 

I was never arguing casualty, I am arguing however that exposure to violence makes people desentized. Video games are one way.

 

You do know what causality means right?

 

 

Still, any sort of training is good, and it can help grant the shooter self-confidence that he can indeed shoot.

 

Yeah, I can pull a trigger too. So much training needed...and I don't see how that could give anyone self-confidence to shoot and kill. If someone is determine to kill, GTA won't make a difference.

 

 

 

...Actually, I doubt it. I see blown up body parts and I shrug my shoulder. You may have a different reaction, but you do not speak for everyone, and neither do I. But, prehaps, in the hands of a person who like violence, violent video games could be the equilivant of "snuff" films.

 

Have you actually seen a decapitation? Most people who are capable of making the distinction between reality and fiction would also be bothered by seeing a real killing. That is why even psychologists make the subtle nuance that for most people, exposure to violent video games will not do anything. Why even bring up the argument that people desensitized if you are going to speak only of personal anecdotal evidence.

 

 

Just because it's not a new trend doesn't mean we should go and shrug it off. It exist. It's real. And we should not discount it.

 

We should discount it because it's inherent human nature. Hell, all those pop-psychologists and good loving leftists extremists have managed to turn men into little sissy boys unable to unleash a controlled amount of aggression. I play soccer with a lot of strangers and kids here in Montreal and the younger generation is so scared of just a little push. Not even actually pushing someone, just physical contact. For them it's brutalizing...

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

 

Alright, time to clear up some ignorance...

 

First, there is no "Free Access" to automatic weapons in the USA if you are a law-abiding citizen. Sure, they are available on the black market, but access is only as easy as your skill in navigating the channels. Gun control only takes the weapons out of the hands of the good guys. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

 

Hey, we got a brainwashed NRA member! Gun control is not about removing every single gun off the market, it's about putting more restrictions on who should have them and how to acquire them. Unfortunately, pro-gun activists are so crazy as to believe that gun control means ban on every firearm. Except for some of the more vocal leftists, this does not represent everyone's opinion.

 

Second, people do kill people. If it weren't so hard for law-abiding citizens to get and keep weapons on their person at all times, there would be less crime. Case in point is a city near Atlanta known as Kennesaw. In 1982, they passed an ordinance that required all heads of household to own a firearm and ammunition. Since its passage, Kennesaw has had virtually no crime while the rest of the townships in the Metro-Atlanta area have had high crime. They sent a clear message to criminals to stay out! Think about it, who would want to rob a convenience store in a town that is very pro-gun? A criminal would have to face the fact that someone in that store is likely packing heat and he would be lying in a pool of his own blood over a few hundred dollars.

 

Less crime? I am not certain about what the situation in Kennesaw looks like, but you oversimplify the matter. Now, assume that in America, everyone has a gun. No crime is committed right? Suddenly, poverty goes away no? The reason why it was so successful in this Kennesaw is, according to what little information I have, because every thief changed area to nearby places. Now, is it possible that when every single American has a gun, America is rid of crime? Every criminal left for Mexico and Canada? I'd love to see that.

 

Second about this, is how do you get rid of fear, when you replace fear of criminal by fear of neighbor. A fully armed America will have a balance of terror, every citizen fearing an angry neighbor pointing a gun at him. This is rather disturbing for me, as a Canadian and one living in a poor and supposedly dangerous neighborhood. I don't have this crazy fear of criminals some Americans seem to have. I believe there are better, more humane and durable solutions then arming every men, women and child to face criminals. I believe the last post summed up the paranoia Americans live in pretty well.

[SilentScope001]

My point exactly. You discounted a possibility you yourself admit could be the cause of people not caring for an act of violence.

 

No, someone else gave these people this impression. Who cause that argument to be accepted? And who cause that? I'd suggest it may be books I read, European Imperialism, and war games that I play.

 

So the question to ask ourselves is not so much does these depictions cause a love for violence or is it a natural tendency to love violence that leads to violent depictions. Chicken or the egg. Choose.

 

Neither. Instead, I'll state the postive feedback loop. The egg causes the chicken be formed which casues an egg to be laid which causes the chicken to be formed.

 

A person who prefer violence play "VIOLENT VIDEO GAME MADNESS!" and he likes that game. While he plays the game, his love for violence increases, meaning that he love for VVGM also increases. For some (or maybe just a few) people, it could increase up to a boiling point when the person finally realizes that VVGM does not sastify his lust for violence. He'll either upgrade to VVGM II...but sooner or later, upgrades might not cut it, since his demand for violence may be high. Prehaps it could lead to doing it in real life, or not.

 

You do know what causality means right?

 

You see one thing, and then you see something else occur, and then one assume that Thing A causes Thing B. I never say that because a person sees violent video games, he will become violent, using evidence. I'm merely saying that it makes sense that it is possible to logically deduce that violent video games can cause people to be desentizied.

 

Yeah, I can pull a trigger too. So much training needed...and I don't see how that could give anyone self-confidence to shoot and kill. If someone is determine to kill, GTA won't make a difference.

 

Sure it could. A person who is determined to kill can play GTA because he wants to, and wants to use it as a way to express his violence. I could compare it to someone using a knife to skin animals. You do not need to do that, but this person does it anyway, because he can and he enjoy it. He could change from skinning animals to skinning people though.

 

Have you actually seen a decapitation? Most people who are capable of making the distinction between reality and fiction would also be bothered by seeing a real killing. That is why even psychologists make the subtle nuance that for most people, exposure to violent video games will not do anything. Why even bring up the argument that people desensitized if you are going to speak only of personal anecdotal evidence.

 

I seen a RL dead body blown up into pieces. Does that count?

 

But isn't fiction a reflection of how people see reality? Or how people want reality to be? It is a way of communication of ideas that you personally believe in. For example, writing a story where a heroic person blows up the Twin Towers, and protraying the character truly heroically and not at all evil...is the same as saying, "Death to America" in a manner that would attempt to be more persuasive. If there was no Twin Towers, no America, and no such thing as heroism in this real life, then the story looks quite strange and may not even be written, if it is divorced from the context that created it.

 

You cannot say that this is all just a false story that means nothing or exist in a vaccum. GTA wouldn't have any meaning if, say, Rockstar did not know of America and did not have the great idea of satirizing it and its gun-crazy culture.

 

Neither are you showcasing anything but personal ancedontal evidence that fictional. All you are saying is "most" people, without providing proof. And listen, neither am I providing any proof.

 

I see a dead person in a game, I hear of a dead person in real life. I shrug my shoulder. You see a dead person in a game, you hear of a dead person in real life, and you shudder. Two different people, having two different reactions. Millions of people may be like you. Millions of people may be like me. I worried of the millions of people who are like me, who will not kill, but who merely shrug their shoulders and do not care of their fellow human beings.

 

We should discount it because it's inherent human nature.

 

And that justifies it? Human nature is responsible for many things in life, so we should just let it be and ignore that aspect?

 

I'm looking for a cause to the problem, and to say we cannot blame it because it's just natural...is wrong. We, for example, cannot blame Hurricane Katrina for attacking New Orleans because it was natural. Katrina does not have the sentience needed to know that she was running into a landmass. But Katrina did cause it, and surely, it did kill lots of people. We should blame Katrina therefore, since it caused the whole mess to start off with, and if Katrina did not have the bright idea to plow through a landmass, lots of people would be better off.

 

We agree that nature is responsible. Can we control it? Should we control it? That leads to lots of ethical problems. I don't really care about the solutions.

 

The topic is "Virgina Tech blame game". We're here to blame people, we're not here to come up with solutions. Blaming something we cannot control is actually better than blaming something we can control, since if we then "fix" that, we'll only have the same problem...again, except now we got brand new problems from fixing the previous fault.

 

And I am against banning Video Games. But it is on a "freedom of speech" issue, and not on that it poses no harm to anyone...because it does. How much? That is up to debate.

[lukeiamyourdad]

No, someone else gave these people this impression. Who cause that argument to be accepted? And who cause that? I'd suggest it may be books I read, European Imperialism, and war games that I play.

 

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

 

 

Neither. Instead, I'll state the postive feedback loop. The egg causes the chicken be formed which casues an egg to be laid which causes the chicken to be formed.

 

A person who prefer violence play "VIOLENT VIDEO GAME MADNESS!" and he likes that game. While he plays the game, his love for violence increases, meaning that he love for VVGM also increases. For some (or maybe just a few) people, it could increase up to a boiling point when the person finally realizes that VVGM does not sastify his lust for violence. He'll either upgrade to VVGM II...but sooner or later, upgrades might not cut it, since his demand for violence may be high. Prehaps it could lead to doing it in real life, or not.

 

Snowball argument. In fact, it's full of what if. No causality, no argument.

 

 

 

 

You see one thing, and then you see something else occur, and then one assume that Thing A causes Thing B. I never say that because a person sees violent video games, he will become violent, using evidence. I'm merely saying that it makes sense that it is possible to logically deduce that violent video games can cause people to be desentizied.

 

It's logical to deduce a lot of things. There's a lot of correlations that have no causation. I use this example in another thread about how two authors linked bras and breast cancer. Their numbers were indisputable. Women who wore bras had more chance of getting cancer then those who did not. Yet, the "study" was a load of crap since there is no link between bras and cancer besides a strange coincidental variation. No causation was ever established.

 

 

 

 

Sure it could. A person who is determined to kill can play GTA because he wants to, and wants to use it as a way to express his violence. I could compare it to someone using a knife to skin animals. You do not need to do that, but this person does it anyway, because he can and he enjoy it. He could change from skinning animals to skinning people though.

 

Ok, you do realize that you have to skin an animal in order to eat his flesh right?

 

 

I seen a RL dead body blown up into pieces. Does that count?

 

But isn't fiction a reflection of how people see reality? Or how people want reality to be? It is a way of communication of ideas that you personally believe in. For example, writing a story where a heroic person blows up the Twin Towers, and protraying the character truly heroically and not at all evil...is the same as saying, "Death to America" in a manner that would attempt to be more persuasive. If there was no Twin Towers, no America, and no such thing as heroism in this real life, then the story looks quite strange and may not even be written, if it is divorced from the context that created it.

 

I like Star Wars because I want to live in that fantasy world. This isn't about any link between media violence and violent acts, more of your pseudo-philosophical blabber. By the way, if you've actually seen someone blown up to pieces and just shrugged your shoulders, go see a shrink. Now.

 

You cannot say that this is all just a false story that means nothing or exist in a vaccum. GTA wouldn't have any meaning if, say, Rockstar did not know of America and did not have the great idea of satirizing it and its gun-crazy culture.

 

Obviously, you are unable to differenciate fiction and reality. Fiction is for enjoyment, reality is reality. There's a reason why I don't run around carjacking people and killing all on my path. It's not possible in real life.

 

Neither are you showcasing anything but personal ancedontal evidence that fictional. All you are saying is "most" people, without providing proof. And listen, neither am I providing any proof.

 

Every study I've read about media violence was finding correlations and causations between it and aggression. That is indisputable that people get more aggressive after playing a violent video game. Does it mean that it leads to acts of violence? That was never proven and indeed, the commission after the Columbine events indeed mentioned how it was impossible to determine who would commit such acts because there was no archetype. As such, advocates against media violence only have ammo against aggression in general, not events like Virginia Tech.

 

I see a dead person in a game, I hear of a dead person in real life. I shrug my shoulder. You see a dead person in a game, you hear of a dead person in real life, and you shudder. Two different people, having two different reactions. Millions of people may be like you. Millions of people may be like me. I worried of the millions of people who are like me, who will not kill, but who merely shrug their shoulders and do not care of their fellow human beings.

 

Then why even mention your personal experience, at first using it as an anecdote to forward your point, then retracting and trying to add some sort of nuance? I am pretty certain that most people do not react like you. There may be a desensitization in the way that most people, after being exposed to a lot of violence in the media, believe it to be more common. However, it does not bring conclusive answers to how they will react to actual violence.

 

In fact, statistically, there's more of these school shootings in the United States then in other parts of world where they play the same game. Surely, there must be another factor for such violence then simply video games.

 

And that justifies it? Human nature is responsible for many things in life, so we should just let it be and ignore that aspect?

 

I'm looking for a cause to the problem, and to say we cannot blame it because it's just natural...is wrong. We, for example, cannot blame Hurricane Katrina for attacking New Orleans because it was natural. Katrina does not have the sentience needed to know that she was running into a landmass. But Katrina did cause it, and surely, it did kill lots of people. We should blame Katrina therefore, since it caused the whole mess to start off with, and if Katrina did not have the bright idea to plow through a landmass, lots of people would be better off.

 

We agree that nature is responsible. Can we control it? Should we control it? That leads to lots of ethical problems. I don't really care about the solutions.

 

The topic is "Virgina Tech blame game". We're here to blame people, we're not here to come up with solutions. Blaming something we cannot control is actually better than blaming something we can control, since if we then "fix" that, we'll only have the same problem...again, except now we got brand new problems from fixing the previous fault.

 

And I am against banning Video Games. But it is on a "freedom of speech" issue, and not on that it poses no harm to anyone...because it does. How much? That is up to debate.

 

It's a question of ethics and morals. Some believe that eating animals is wrong, yet it's part of our inherent nature. Should it change? Does it have to change? No.

 

By the way, blaming nature? Who curses nature what it did? You're speaking of a situation where the cause and effect are clear versus a situation where it isn't.

 

Do video games cause more harm? Some psychologist claim that they're not policy makers (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/01ba.pdf) but they've significantly changed the way people think over the years. Especially pop-psychology.

[MdKnightR]

Hey, we got a brainwashed NRA member! Gun control is not about removing every single gun off the market, it's about putting more restrictions on who should have them and how to acquire them. Unfortunately, pro-gun activists are so crazy as to believe that gun control means ban on every firearm. Except for some of the more vocal leftists, this does not represent everyone's opinion.

 

FYI...I am not a member of the NRA. Nor do I own a firearm (unless you count my pellet gun). My home protection devices include a sword, a survival knife, and a dagger. And if you think that gun control isn't about removing every gun from the market, you're delusional. That is what they said when they started the campaign against smoking. At first, all they wanted to do was require restaurants to have separate sections for smokers and non-smokers. But it didn't stop there, did it? Because smokers were so accommodating, the leftist anti-smoking crowd upped the ante to where it is hard to find a place to smoke anywhere in public (also, FYI, I don't smoke). Now New York City has banned Trans-Fats. Next, they'll be limiting the portions at restaurants through passing laws to do so. It never stops! If we let the anti-gun activists rule the day, there will be no guns (except those the criminals have).

 

 

Less crime? I am not certain about what the situation in Kennesaw looks like, but you oversimplify the matter. Now, assume that in America, everyone has a gun. No crime is committed right? Suddenly, poverty goes away no? The reason why it was so successful in this Kennesaw is, according to what little information I have, because every thief changed area to nearby places. Now, is it possible that when every single American has a gun, America is rid of crime? Every criminal left for Mexico and Canada? I'd love to see that.

 

I don't think I am oversimplifying anything. Sure crime still exists in some form, even in Kennesaw, but the rate of crime has sure been affected. The fact of the matter is that fear can be healthy, and when people fear retribution in the form of a 45 Magnum in the hands of a good citizen, there is less crime. And I don't buy into the idea that poverty is the cause of crime. Rich people have done their share of lawbreaking and many poor families are devoid of a criminal element.

 

 

Second about this, is how do you get rid of fear, when you replace fear of criminal by fear of neighbor. A fully armed America will have a balance of terror, every citizen fearing an angry neighbor pointing a gun at him. This is rather disturbing for me, as a Canadian and one living in a poor and supposedly dangerous neighborhood. I don't have this crazy fear of criminals some Americans seem to have. I believe there are better, more humane and durable solutions then arming every men, women and child to face criminals. I believe the last post summed up the paranoia Americans live in pretty well.

 

 

I don't recall anyone from Kennesaw saying they lived in fear of criminals or neighbors (and I have known quite a few people from there). Kennesaw is a peaceful city. You can ask anyone who has been there. I don't expect that you, as a Canadian, would know exactly what it is like in the USA, but here are a few facts. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. It is one of the founding principles of our nation. Because of this, we will never be a completely gun-free society. That is, unless the leftists have their way and ban guns completely through a Constitutional Amendment. Problem with that is, criminals don't obey the law anyway, so how anyone can think that anti-gun legislation is going to disarm them is beyond me. One would think that we had learned our lesson when the 18th Amendment (Prohibition of Alcohol) proved to be counterproductive. All that did was create a black market for alcohol. Today, no such black market exists because it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. It is the same way with gun control. Today, an ordinary citizen cannot go into a gun shop and buy a fully automatic weapon. Yet, how do some bank robbers seem to get their hands on them....? Seems obvious to me.

[lukeiamyourdad]

FYI...I am not a member of the NRA. Nor do I own a firearm (unless you count my pellet gun). My home protection devices include a sword, a survival knife, and a dagger. And if you think that gun control isn't about removing every gun from the market, you're delusional. That is what they said when they started the campaign against smoking. At first, all they wanted to do was require restaurants to have separate sections for smokers and non-smokers. But it didn't stop there, did it? Because smokers were so accommodating, the leftist anti-smoking crowd upped the ante to where it is hard to find a place to smoke anywhere in public (also, FYI, I don't smoke). Now New York City has banned Trans-Fats. Next, they'll be limiting the portions at restaurants through passing laws to do so. It never stops! If we let the anti-gun activists rule the day, there will be no guns (except those the criminals have).

 

Except that it's currently impossible to ban every gun on the market and there's no reason to do so. You seem to equate anything "anti-" with leftist. This is wrong on so many levels. I am not a leftist, I can assure you that it certainly pisses me off to eat food and having to breathe someone's cigarette smoke at the same time. It is simply a question of not hampering my freedom of eating in a smoke-free environment. Also, you are clearly unable to distinguish the opinion of leftists with the opinion of a certain group of leftists that yells really loud. Obviously, those groups manage to get more attention even though they do not represent a good portion of a population. Does PETA represent every single vegetarian? I think not. True that they yell louder then everyone else, but they cannot do everything they wish to do. Political capital still exists. New York might have banned trans fats, but if the population did not agree, if they did not think it something important, no such law would have passed.

 

 

 

 

I don't think I am oversimplifying anything. Sure crime still exists in some form, even in Kennesaw, but the rate of crime has sure been affected. The fact of the matter is that fear can be healthy, and when people fear retribution in the form of a 45 Magnum in the hands of a good citizen, there is less crime. And I don't buy into the idea that poverty is the cause of crime. Rich people have done their share of lawbreaking and many poor families are devoid of a criminal element.

 

You put too much trust into the citizens, assuming that every single one of them will have enough self-control to carry a firearm and not pull it out for a simple bar dispute.

 

Also, you cannot dispute, even for a second that there is a clear correlation between poverty and crime. After all, poor neighborhoods are safer then rich ones right? The crime rates in poorer areas, everywhere in the world, no matter which country you pick, is much higher then in the rich areas. Though it does not mean that every poor person is a criminal or every rich is an "innocent law-abiding" citizen, it is clear that a link exists between crime and poverty.

 

 

 

I don't recall anyone from Kennesaw saying they lived in fear of criminals or neighbors (and I have known quite a few people from there). Kennesaw is a peaceful city. You can ask anyone who has been there.

 

Because there's nothing to fear anymore is there? Low crime rate and everything. It still does not mean that putting a gun in the hands of every "good" American will make the country safer. As I side, it just pushed the problem to other areas. Eventually, you can't push it out anymore. I also wonder what the average income is for the people of Kennesaw, if it's a tight-knit community, if it's a large place, does it suffer from urban decay.

 

I don't expect that you, as a Canadian, would know exactly what it is like in the USA, but here are a few facts. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. It is one of the founding principles of our nation. Because of this, we will never be a completely gun-free society. That is, unless the leftists have their way and ban guns completely through a Constitutional Amendment. Problem with that is, criminals don't obey the law anyway, so how anyone can think that anti-gun legislation is going to disarm them is beyond me. One would think that we had learned our lesson when the 18th Amendment (Prohibition of Alcohol) proved to be counterproductive. All that did was create a black market for alcohol. Today, no such black market exists because it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. It is the same way with gun control. Today, an ordinary citizen cannot go into a gun shop and buy a fully automatic weapon. Yet, how do some bank robbers seem to get their hands on them....? Seems obvious to me.

 

Oh? And I didn't know that? Please, I'm smarter then that.

In fact, if you want my opinion on everything here check out this thread:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=177706

 

Also, I don't understand what you're suggesting. Automatic weapons should be legal for everyone? In fact, let's eliminate the black market all together. Prostitution should be legal. Every drug, from Marijuana to Cocaine and passing by Crystal Meth, should be legal so to keep it out of the hands of criminal organizations.

 

You still consider the "leftists" (I don't know what you consider a leftist) as a huge force in this debate. The problem is that there's indeed a resistance to this movement, there's an almost inherent love for firearms in the United States, there will probably never be a complete ban on firearms. Rural regions especially need those to protect their cattle and such. In fact, I can safely say that a lot of people who are pro-gun control do not propose a complete ban on firearms. Here in Canada, the movement only managed to get a licensing system for every firearm. There are people out there who want a complete ban, but from what I can gather from the newspapers and other media, they don't get much air time and as such have little influence.