Herabec

Herabec

gatorpride

freespeech

Ninjastorm66

SiennaMarlborough

Wow.. that's crazy. Scary. Then more crazy.
It seriously blows my mind, because I can not even begin to comprehend, why the F*** someone would do this. I mean you'd have to be off the deep end pretty bad.
Sad news. I hope the guy gets the death sentence.

@jollydwarf: Good comment.

--Core--

Verum

some people deal with horrific news/tragedy by using gallows humor. This is true particularly in areas like Eastern Europe (Bosnia, Croatia, etc) where genocide is occurring. Take the bunch out of your panties. Simply because their reaction isn't what you deem as acceptable is no reason to be screaming for the ban hammers to come out. If you want forced, maudlin, drippy dialogue I'm sure there are many sites out there that will cater to that kind of thing.

Cell9song

Mr.SithNinja

I'm all for gun control but you're an idiot if you think baning guns would stop gun fatalities.

Wolfkin

Wolfkin

VilhelmDawk

...wait... uh oh!

Insomnia Bob

He wasn't blaming guns, he was blaming gun control. We need to make it a much more rigorous process to get guns and ammo, so that poorly-adjusted eighteen-year-olds don't have handguns.

a key point to make is that an 18 year old had a handgun. 18 year olds can't have handguns... you have to be 21. so he was already breaking a gun control law in even having a handgun... yet i supposed to believe yet another gun law would have prevented something? give me a break.

lest we forget he shot someone dead.

how many more laws does everyone else have to deal with before people realize that the actual crazy shitbags like this one don't care about how many laws there are to begin with?

how about laws regarding crazy nutcases living in poor shitty ghettos with crap parents? i think we might find an actual solution in working on why these people are messed up to begin with. and not concerning ourselves so much with what implement they finally decided to use to carry out their issues and during what random unrelated activity.

x23

MelodyCalidus

YanaScaurus

I won't lie, I threw a barrel at my friend when he beat my Donkey Kong high score.

Eienhander

Azriel101

Look at my earlier posts, they have actual data that show that accidental deaths(just in case you try to thorw that one up next) from handguns are in the 1% range. Also, I love how your data comes from a site called the "Handgun Ban Fact Sheet". Real un-biased. I will say it is hard to find an un-biased source though.

I_Hate_This_Place

You want 2 minutes of research?
[www.vpc.org]

From 1990 to 1997 in the United States there were more than-

* 160,000 homicides
* 110,000 firearm homicides
* 89,000 handgun homicides13

Big fat FUCKING period.

DefDealer

Banning video games = no more fun but your still breathing
Banning guns = your still breathing

GREAT COMPARISON especially coming from a Ninja...pathetic

DefDealer

MickyK

But hey, GAAAMES were involved!

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Wishful thinking coming from someone who values lives i guess...

juliopalio

Mr. Mastodon Farm

shadowlink_97

pasquinelli

Jac21

Who else wants to be a comedian now?

Witzbold

Actually, you do have a point. And it's not targeted at Video Games so much as it's targeted at "Gangster" culture. It's a real problem.

tzaketh

dvnt1

mordennight

But no, seriously. All of you people spouting off about gun control really need to learn the existing laws first.

He's 18. You're not allowed to legally possess a handgun in the US until you're at least 21. So obviously he obtained it illegally. Gun control laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns. Criminals don't listen to the laws. That's what makes them criminals.

Generico

@dvnt1: Grow up.

Mr.SithNinja

Okay, I'm going to admit that I found that funny for about five seconds. But damn dude.

Damn.

tzaketh

After having such a good time writing up those posts, I decided to browse the Wikipedia entry on US Gun Politics, and unearthed a rather entertaining quote:

"during the Pacific War, Japan rejected the idea of invading the West Coast of the United States due to the prevalence of armed civilians. As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

Seems the Japanese were more intelligent that we were about invading Iraq...

tzaketh

dvnt1

I think most pro-gun activisits, NRA members, Libertarians, whatever, don't want to face facts. Yes, there are situations where if you take the gun away, nothing would have happened.

I say this a very pro-gun person. I think it can pretty much be categorically stated that had there not been a Revolver present, the kid would not have died. I don't think, as this was the result of a kid being a moron, that he would have gone and got a baseball bat and beat the kid to death. Nor would he have shanked the guy. This is something that could only happen with a gun.

But at the same time, I really do not see the connection between gun-control and this guy not having a gun. Because of our current gun-control laws (Pistols are 21+, in most states) his Smith and Wesson was both procured and owned illegally. Gun control WAS in place to stop this event, but it didn't stop the kid from owning and carrying a gun (In his pants, no less).

What "other foreward thinking 1st World Countries" fail to understand is that our right to bear arms is NOT to stop a common criminal. The owning of a firearm is to stop state-sanctioned criminals.

In the 20th Century, four times as many civilians were killed by their governments than were killed in all the wars combined. If you're interested in this argument, I'd reccomend looking up Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The problem Europeans have is that they've never had a successful rebellion, really. The French Revolution didn't work out so well. Whereas here in America, our very nation was forged by men using privately owned, military grade weapons, to overthrow their government.

The scary thing is that our current Gun Laws are essentially equivalent to those employed by Adolph Hitler to disarm the Jews prior to the Holocaust.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord was faught because General Gage was following orders to disarm the colonists.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolph Hitler

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
-- Benjamin Franklin

tzaketh

I_Hate_This_Place

It's gonna take a mass murder commited by a gang of 17 yr olds in order for government to call for a ban of all guns but I bet retarded ppl like NRA alike would rather see more "accidents" happen

Starplate

I_Hate_This_Place

Donutt007

Fonic

Wanna go shoot some deer, do it the way real men do, with a fucking bow and arrow. Wanna shoot targets? That's what darts and slingshot are for. Guns don't do shit. If there was a world where Call of Duty was just a bunch of US solders with knives, bows, and spears...count me in...

Guns suck PERIOD. Bring it on you right wing freaks....blah blah terrorism...blah blah Al Quada...blah blah..2nd Ammendment rights...blah blah..

DefDealer

I_Hate_This_Place

Alright, I disagree with you entirely. But let's step back for a second and look at this from a purely practical perspective. The logistics of banning firearms in the United States is simply impossible. I'm not arguing in support of firerms, at least not in this post. I'm simply looking at what I see happening in the event of a firearm ban.

Let's go hypothetical: You're the head of the ATF, and a Constitutional Convention has just ammended the Constitution to no longer have the Second Ammendment. So you're tasked with rounding up those who own handguns, automatic weapons, etc. Now, as Police Officers overwhelmingly oppose gun control, what happens when you try to get them to go round people up? You have a combination of mass-resignations and phony inspections being done. So what do you have to do now? Well, you start to fill the ranks of the Police with Young, Idealist, Gun Control Activists. These new Police Officers go out and about, and attempt to confiscate handguns, automatic weapons, and whatever else President John Doe has declared to be illegal. Of course, they're trying to confiscate these from Many-year veterans of the Police Force, who are more than educated about Police Procedure. They're trying to take guns from ex-military, and rednecks with shirts that say "From My Cold Dead Hands", and "The South Will Rise Again".

What happens next is a bloodbath, and you have a lot of dead young idealists. So, as your Police Force is obviously incapable of combating what is ending up as an armed rebellion, you call up the National Guard. Unfortunately, the type of people that are members of the National Guard are anti-gun control, so 80% of your men are AWOL, and using their government-issued assault rifles to kill the 20% of your men that stay loyal.

So, obviously, this is becoming a much larger problem than was anticipated. The only thing to do is to call in the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, the members of America's all-volunteer Military are also resoundingly pro-gun, as are the current Four-Stars. So, General Petraeus and James T. Conway aren't answering their phones. The next thing you know, Marine Force Recon is securing the Capitol Building, supported by the masses of grass-roots irregular Militia that have joined up with the Rebel National Guard.

In a fit of what usually happens when a movement doesn't have leaders, all those who voted for the ammendment are lined up in front of the great reflecting pool and shot.

Now, of course I've taken great liberties here, but the fact remains that most of the people wh oyou would be depending on to enforce anti-gun laws are the same people that are likely to be classified as "Firearms Enthusiasts".

tzaketh

drlard

eduardjm

NinjaMarion

If that actually were the case, then it's definitely purposeful. The asshole pointed it at the kid, who then proceeded to beg him not to pull the trigger because he could see a bullet in the chamber, then pulled the trigger. The gun didn't go off. The kid then covered his head with his arms and asshole murderer pulled the trigger a second time, shooting him in the temple.

Here's the story with those details. [www.boston.com]

NinjaMarion

And I really don't see the protection issue. If your home is broken into, how likely is it that the intruder will find one of your guns and use them.

Honestly though, I think that guns are such a central part of American culture that it would be a major undertaking to change things. So many Americans seem to think that they need weapons, and criminals are armed of course. So it's really not just one simple problem. And obviously there is no simple solution.

MajorMcMuffin

Wubbytoes

Anyway, a knife is a tool that has been adapted to kill ... a gun is a weapon that has been adapted to, well, I dunno. It's still made to kill.

It's not the gun's fault, that's kind of silly -- I've never stated that. However, there is really no need for people to have handguns when rifles and shotguns will do.

The point is, the more guns there are, the more people will die -- there really is no need for guns, as we've seen in many, many advanced first world countries. The fact is, if the gun wasn't there, he'd still be alive -- knives don't go off accidentally ... nor do fists or bats.

jayntampa

DJ_Sessum

And as for all you people screaming gun-control, as he's 18, no amount of gun control would have done anything for the situation, as he can't legally own one unless he's 21. If it was illegal to own firearms, period, he still would have had one. The only difference is that -I- wouldn't be allowed to own one.

I'm certain that banning firearms would definitely prevent plenty of deaths every year, but there's no reason to punish everyone for the actions of the incompetent or the moronic.

tzaketh

flashtut

Thompson: This is why video games such as Counter Strike and Super Murder Machine 5 need to be taken out of the hands of minors!
Reporter: Are you aware that the victim and assailant were playing Super Mario Galaxy at the time?
Thompson: ...
Reporter: According to this statment here, the assailant "grew tired of being just a starbit collector".
Thompson: stfu. I'm right. The age limit on mature games needs to be raised to 18 instead of 17.

trelantana

I live in New Zealand, you need a license for rifles and shotguns; automatic guns are illegal for civilians; and collectors, dealers and pistol clubs require special licenses for semi autos. If handguns were more readily availibe there would be more deaths. you cannot argue against that saying a murderer would kill without a gun. This kid was not a murderer, he just happened to have a weapon on him that kills more or less instantly.

IF he had had a knife, crow bar, baseballbat, rock or other weapons he would probably think twice, and even if he had attacked the kid most likely would've survived. We lament about violence in this world, well one step away would be to get rid of guns. But, of course, thats just not good business. Death makes more money.

juliopalio

Wtf was that moron doing with a gun on his waistband anyway? I'm not anti-gun. But who carries a gun on their waist around the house unless they plan on using it for the wrong reasons. It's probably just another stupid ass teenager who thought he was a "gangsta."

mrplow8

I_Hate_This_Place

I_Hate_This_Place

sephycloneno15

pasquinelli

I can understand why kids would get angry enough to hurt someone over a game, but this guy was 18 and clearly had some serious problems. Obviously he was still a child, mentally, so where were the parents? If you aren't aware that your kid is packing a gun and has major anger issues, you need to pay more attention and start doing your job as a parent.

unmarkedone

Bam345

Leptok

Yeah i wont even drive through brockton, I feel like keeping my car.

TonX

Stupid people will always bend over backwards to do something stupid ..putting an instrument of death within easy access of stupid people ensures they'll do stupid things ...gun rights supporters: dont be an enabler of stupid

Tastes_like_chicken

Sweet Tooth

Sweet Tooth

greatslack

That's some great parenting work there...

CaptCaveman

Jobbo_Fett

I think the one who cannot face reality is you. Yes, a gun can be used to kill. But so can almost anything. That doesn't mean that because an object can be used for multiple things, its only real use is the one you deem worthy. There are many people are who think that guns are bad, guns are evil, we must get rid of them. That isn't true. What's true is guns, especially loaded guns, are dangerous. So is natural gas used in most homes for heat and cooking. So is smoking and drinking. So are automobiles.

If you don't have a gun in your house and you hear some strange noises in the middle of the night, do you pick up a bat or a knife or a golf club? If you were to kill someone in self defense, it would be a murder weapon. Does that make that item only useful for that one thing? No.

peacefuloutrage

excel_excel

As to your point of more gun control making them scarce on the street and unavailable to common criminals... my ability to go buy some crack inside of an hour from now begs to differ.

KnightRider

Games don't kill people. People kill people.

elpoepFTW

GimmeCat

Exactly. The crack supply is already greater than the gun supply, which is why affecting the gun supply adversely will drive prices up. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying criminals couldn't get guns if control was tighter. That would be naive. I'm just saying it would get harder.

I'm all in favor of making it even harder for a criminal to get a gun. Aren't you?

doubtful

Rifles and shotguns were made to hunt -- kills things, yes ... but for food. Pistols and automatic weaponry were made to kill people. To argue anything else is to ignore reality.

jayntampa

Research is helpful I promise

Xer0Ph0kus

No, wait... Many people use cars safely at high speeds, for good reasons. I guess that's why we instituted a way that only safe, qualified individuals can drive cars. They receive a license. The possibility exists that this stubborn "right to drive fast" mentality (not actually present in the constitution), which leads to the existence of a drivers license, will increase the speed and prevalence of cars, thereby increasing potential for a non-licensed driver to use a car irresponsibly. However, we accept this, despite the high rate of traffic fatalities.

Why is that, again?

ninjafetus

Xer0Ph0kus

Sylar

As to the point that gun control making guns scarce on the street and common criminals won't have access to them easily... the easy at which I could obtain crack inside of an hour from now begs to differ. I'm pretty sure I can get crack faster than I can get a gun right now.

KnightRider

That said, as I mentioned before, my knowledge of this comes primarily from Law and Order (God knows I didn't learn it in school), so my explanation might be off.

kylenalepa

JorgieX

Don't worry he'll just respawn, oh wait.

Tuxy79

peacefuloutrage

eastx

2more

eastx

alextz

NinjaMarion

QualityJeverage

rvcontre

yashichi8bit

Of course, it would be completely absurd to measure anything that way, so I assume it was just really poorly worded.

NinjaMarion

Allfather Black

King Seafoam

Go Rox!

BostonK

I_Hate_This_Place

FrogJon

Sylar

I actually do have to somewhat apologize. I somehow missed, "Even in cases like this, the criminal will probably be out of prison in a few years, have lots of welfare babies, and most likely all of the children will be just as bad as him," which is understandable trying to keep up with the rest of the comments. However, he still didn't bring up race directly in this. While the comment seems inappropriate, it doesn't necessarily mean he meant it as a race thing because of the shooter being a minority. He could have just as easily been stereotyping the shooter as a future welfare-abuser waste of life because he's an idiot, not because he's Hispanic. Kind of a narrow view, but nothing racist about that in itself, unless he actually meant, "Even in cases like this, the Latino will probably be out of prison in a few years, have lots of welfare babies, and most likely all of the children will be just as bad as him."

NinjaMarion

Ghinn

You could use it to kill, but I go to a sport shooting range where I shoot paper targets. It does exactly what I want it to do, and I am not killing anyone. That doesn't mean I am using it wrong. And I find the challenge rather enjoyable. Just ask any golfer, or anyone that performs similar tasks requiring accuracy. I golf club, a dart, or a baseball bat can all be deadly, but it depends on the use of the instrument and the intent that results in dangerous behavior.

peacefuloutrage

I_Hate_This_Place

On a serious note, this is proof that THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!

cybereality

excel_excel

deuce_22_deuce

posjed

Sylar

I_Hate_This_Place

TheEngineer

Although you are talking about a Craftsman tool, if the kid had a lugwrench and hit the other kid in the head with it (TWICE), i'm sure he would still be dead. Also, a lugwrench is not the only way you can tighten a nut, and if that tool wasn't invented, there could still be another tool or another way to attach a wheel to a car.

ThatGuyOverThere is talking about the intent, and a determine person can use a lot of things to complete unsavory tasks. If you have watched "Friday the 13th" movies, you would know this is the case. There are a lot of banned items in prison for this reason, and it's not just guns.

peacefuloutrage

Banning hand-guns is the best thing the Labour Government ever did here (UK) IMO.

Also anyone know why the guy didn't get charged with murder?

TokeYo

That's a terribly flawed analogy. Blaming Craftsman would be the equivalent of blaming the gun manufacturer here. Blaming the wrench would be the equivalent of blaming the gun, and if wrenches were used to kill thousands of people every year, it would be blamed.

You say the gun is a tool. What job was it intended to accomplish?

...the supreme court is going to side with my kind instead of yours.

Huh. All along I just assumed we were both humans. :)

You're probably right. The current SCOTUS is very conservative, and despite Scalia claiming to be a 'strict constructionist,' I doubt the 'well regulated militia' clause will enter into his judgment.

No worries. A future SCOTUS will correct the error of their ways.

doubtful

AnotherGamer

TheHun

How? That analogy doesn't even make sense. The killing in the case probably would not have happened w/o the gun. It was a tool that enabled the murderer to commit his crime. Craftsman makes work tools. The wheel would have popped off without them. In fact, the wheel wouldn't even have been attached in the first place.

TheEngineer

peacefuloutrage

[www.myspace.com]

I didn't look for Olivier's because he was 15.

HonusWScruggs

"A teenager showing off his new illegal handgun inadvertently shot his friend in the head Tuesday evening, prosecutors said..."

I think it would be naive to think that increased gun control could eliminate gun problems, but I also think it's equally naive to think that increased gun control wouldn't reduce gun problems.

The 'illegally' obtained weapon didn't magically appear on the street. Most illegal guns were perfectly legal at one point and were simply stolen.

What happens when gun control eliminates most or all of the guns to steal? They get scarce on the street. Blackmarket prices go up, and common criminals no longer have easy access to them.

It can work, but apparently the lives of several thousand Americans simply aren't worth the trouble.

@ThatGuyOverThere:

Personally I think that a gun safety class should be required in all schools on a yearly basis.

We barely teach most of the kids math and reading. I think we should tackle the basics before we start teaching them how to adequately kill each other.

doubtful

Kounji

peacefuloutrage

I honestly think that you'd make a better argument saying that video games are responsible for this crap than saying that guns are. A gun is a tool. It's like blaming Craftsman because a mechanic forgot to tighten your lug nuts and your car's wheel popped off at 75mph. You can't blame the tool when it has no volition of its own. Would this kid have gotten shot if the murder didn't have a gun? of course not. Would he have gotten killed or badly beaten anyway? most likely. He pulled the trigger TWICE, because it failed to fire on the first time. THAT'S what I blame the gun/ammo for, being broken. I blame the murder for committing murder.

By the way, are you a member of a well regulated militia? If not, then there isn't anything that grants you the right to bear arms in the first place.

Please point out ANYWHERE that's been proven. Oh wait, you can't. Because it was always assumed that the two clauses of that sentence were separate, and nobody has been able to prove that they aren't. Like I said to sasquatchua, let's wait until June to hear the supreme court say that it's an individual right rather than a collective one. But you may want to bury your head in the sand a little early, because if the oral arguments are any idication, the supreme court is going to side with my kind instead of yours.

ThatGuyOverThere

Sunjammer

AkumaX

SlamInATL

My point would actually still stand even if the gun was completely unloaded, however. When the kid is begging and pleading for his life and for him not to pull the trigger, you don't. ESPECIALLY if he says he sees a bullet in the thing. Even if you are a huge asshole with no sense of right and wrong, if you're not actually trying to shoot him and just playing around / trying to scare him, then you at least maybe assume he's telling the truth and look to make sure there isn't one in the gun before resuming pulling the trigger and scaring the shit outta him.

NinjaMarion

TheEngineer

Ban handguns, get the kid some counselling and let him go on a 20 year suspended sentence I say, I'm quite sure the fact he accidentally shot his own brother is quite enough in the way punishment for this young man.

Sorry that's nothing to do with videogames but then neither is this story really, it's just going to be twisted that way.

The-JJ

TheEngineer

People will ALWAYS find a way to kill eachother, whether it be with a gun, a knife, or just a well-placed rock.

I'd rather take my chances with a rock or even a knife. Since this guy was 380 lbs, I'll bet the victim could've outran him. Hard to outrun a bullet.

It's a specious argument anyway. Because violence exists in human nature we should do nothing to curb it?

Sigh. I'd rather try.

doubtful

Angryrider

And then I read the post and thought the same thing anyway.

It's just as blatantly ridiculous and pointless, and leads me to believe that there has to be something legitimately and fundamentally wrong with the minds of people who commit these over the top acts of violence for such trivial reasons.

MarquisMark

@ZRDollarz: It is easy to get a gun in the states, cause theres so many of them, It's that simple. In other western countries your average thug doesn't doesn't have easy access to illegal guns, cause it's more difficult to obtain legally, which limits the supply.

TheHun

JohnnytheFuture

NinjaMarion

The police state thing meant this, the more authority over your life you give the government its only a matter of time before you cant do anything even slightly dangerous "for your protection"

Blackjack1353

sasquatchua

Blaming the gun for making the kid shoot somebody is about as stupid as blaming the games.

How am I blaming the gun? I'm blaming him and his access to guns. A gun is an inanimate object and can't be held responsible for it's actions. The young man who killed his friend and the society that enabled it should take responsibility for it, though.

He should go to prison, and society should work towards the goal of stopping people like him from getting guns.

I don't care if some people, like yourself, carry guns every day. It doesn't matter to the dead boy how many people follow the law. It matters when one person doesn't.

By the way, are you a member of a well regulated militia? If not, then there isn't anything that grants you the right to bear arms in the first place.

Guns aren't the problem any more than violent games are. The problem is the people with no self control and violent tendencies that should have been dealt with long ago. For you to show the duality and hypocrisy to say that we need gun control, all the while defending games is just idiotic.

That makes no sense. The comparison of violent video games to guns is a false equivalence. Violent video games aren't blamed as the means, they are blamed as motivation. No one ever used a video game to kill someone, but plenty of people have shot and killed people.

I think it's perfectly within the boundaries of logic to argue against censorship of video games and gun ownership. There's no dissonance created by holding those two points of view concurrently.

doubtful