Ugh 48 pages which was 46 when I started typing this response. You guys have worn me out (I was at work for a few days and have had to play catchup)
I have to say that I agree with Brian's earlier large post about comment
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/3067002-post228.html
People are always going to be violent. Whether they use guns, longbows or swords it is a trait that we will not soon shed.
If I may ask. What is the core argument here? (The thread has been swaying back and forth on a number of topics and it's become hard to keep track of where we are.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumPI
|
Ok a couple of things on the video game argument. I would like to point out that there is a difference between a
First Person Shooter and a
Millitary-Simulation game. The link above would (if it worked) go to one of the later developments of a game called Operation Flashpoint which I own.
Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One clear distinction that needs to be drawn is that in the vast majority of first person shooters you are "The Man". You can run through a room and you are pretty much indestructible and can take out anything. There is a sense of vulnerability but not much. Someone is shooting at me with a flamethrower? No problem i'll just run right through it. 5 enemies shooting at me? No big deal I can take ten hits no problem and take them all out at the same time.
Now in a Mil-Sim like Flashpoint you are CONSTANTLY vulnerable just as one would be in real life. One hit and you're done and it often comes without warning too. When you're in the middle of a field with your assault rifle in a first person shooter it makes you invulnerable. In Flashpoint standing in that field when a column of T-80s comes rolling down on you any feeling of "I'm the man" disappears like a piece of paper in a fire. This is the big difference between realistic games which are niche and the much more common, and violent, first person shooters. It is interesting to note that in the market for video games these mil-sims NEVER sell anywhere near as well as the first person shooters. I guess people like the feeling of power.
Furthermore anytime the video game violence question is brought up I always question one thing. As far as I can tell every time a shooting like this has happened the perpetrators have gone in ready for battle but in the end have either given up or killed themselves as soon as the police showed up. I can't recall an incident where they stood their ground and actively fought the police (I think Jorns comments about being mentally prepared for such acts of violence come in to play and make the video game connection a mute point)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruchase
I agree with you. The proposed solution is the very threat we are trying to prevent. What if an armed teacher loses their mind and turns against their students? Yes, there will be other armed teachers to take this individual out, but the first time this happens, the 'arm the teachers' strategy will be abandoned, and we'll be back to square one.
|
Yes I was thinking the same thing as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwitchKitty
Anti-gun zealots are absolutely the best gun salesmen in the world. When gun control is a hot topic, gun sales skyrocket. I bet you can call gun suppliers now and they are already sold out of many items and prices are up on others. With gift buying season here, coupled with gun control fever, I bet this will be the hottest gun sales season ever. Those ATF background check computers are probably just a hummin'. I predict record sales numbers in some areas.
Propaganda and marketing are the same thing. The old saying goes something like: "no bad publicity".
|
You're probably right. Last night when I was on my way to get a hair cut I passed a local gun store.....the parking lot was packed and overflowing and 3 people pulled into it as I was trying to take a turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by retmil46
Gents, let's try a different tangent on this -
What about fighting fire with water?
Many of these methods, used to incapacitate an attacker until the LEO's arrive, might be quite acceptable to teachers, parents, and the population as a whole - whereas lethal weapons on school grounds most probably would not - and much more likely to be used, from a psychological standpoint, as the person employing said device KNOWS that they can only incapacitate, not kill.
Ideas?
|
It's actually a very reasonable compromise depending on the type of non-lethal device used. A large bottle of pepper spray has a very decent range from what I remember reading. Trouble is in that case is getting the spray on target while (hopefully) not getting shot in the process. I'm sure other options are out there though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For the current time being i've been avoiding watching TV because the media coverage of this event is at times sicking. Also i'm only scanning news articles as I would like to wait until we have a bit of hard evidence as to
WHY this little dip**** was compelled to do what what he did. One thing that strikes me is that violence and lack of economic opportunity tend to go hand in hand. (I believe that someone somewhere can post some statistics about violence and poverty levels correlating.) So when shottings like this happen I am often confused as to why. I was reading about the home that this dip**** lived in and his parents lives. It's not like he was starving, far from it actually; if anything the family was quite well off. So why would he throw it all away is what I would like to know. (I suppose that in the end suicidal psychopaths are difficult to understand.)
One story that really made me burn was hearing about a threat called into a church during a vigil for the massacre. Talk about digging under the bottom of the barrel to hit rock bottom.
