Also if they wanted background checks all they would have to do is open the NICS system up, but instead they wanted to create a de facto registry. This is why the legislation got voted down.
@you_died: Weapons from other states easily effect their neighbors.
Firearm transactions that cross state lines already require an FFL (and thus, background check) intermediary. If you bring up smuggling then you might as well bring up Chinese AKs brought in through opium lanes via drug runners. Look at Mexico to see how well those have worked out.
That's where the argument always goes, and that's where it always falls apart. Studies have already shown in the past that a family with a firearm has a higher chance of injuring themselves than a criminal, from the American Pediatrics Society to Harvard. Lets drop that crap shall we?
What's the worst is that the baby boomer generation hasn't passed on basic gun handling/training from their parents to their children. So young adults are coming of age to purchase firearms with no training. There are no target shooting classes in school anymore, and they are getting rare in collages. It's pretty apparent to anyone that has been to a range.
How is a trained, armed teacher any different from a cop? I can tell you as someone who has done firearms training with police, there really isn't much more that they know that they typical armed CCW-holding person knows.
This can't be stated enough. Everyone thinks that cops are the only ones that should be armed, but if they saw how most perform in a no-stress situation they would change their minds.
They even killed themselves rather than let police kill them, which seemed to be an act of authority in and of itself. They were the ones in charge and they were the only ones doing any killing. It is a perverted inversion of the American West mythology, where the hero has a final shootout.
Only where there is no real shootout, only slaughter with no real resistance. Your examples all took place in "gun free zones" which enabled the shooters to inflict the maximum number of casualties with little risk to themselves. I find far more fault in news media for giving these people the attention and coverage that they desire than the influence of violent games.
With that said, there are plenty of studies that show the exact same results: playing a violent video game results in raised aggression. That is a game directly correlating to feelings and emotions in real life. Can we continue to deny the existence of that research forever?
Studies show competition results in raised aggression.
You beat me to it. Most violent games involve competition, PvP or PvAI. Cheering at a sporting event raises aggression, usually no violence on part of the sport.
@Frostily: If there weren't sparks flying everywhere he was probably just heating something to loosen it up, the food you bought is more dangerous. You sound like a ninny.
Log in to comment