0 comments
 

In wake of the Connecticut school shooting, the NRA is coming out and blaming video games as the cause of the shooting, or at least, partially to blame. It seems like every time something like this happens, the media is always able to find some sort of a connection that ties the shooter to ‘violent’ video games. In the case of Adam Lanza, the game in question is Call of Duty.

Let’s face it, video games are a relatively new media which can engage a wide variety of audiences through its gameplay. However, the effects of video games are still relatively unknown. There are studies which try to understand the effects of video games on its target audience but the results have so far been unsuccessful. There are millions of people all over the world who play video games and if there really is a connection between such killings and video games, the world would be less populated.

[pullquote_left]NRA executive vice president slammed games like Mortal Kombat, GTA, Bulletstorm and Kindergarten Killers as games which and I quote “a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people”. [/pullquote_left] And this is coming from the person who is EQUIPPING the people to carry out said violence. The same can be said about NRA being callous and corrupt in furthering their own profits and not accepting responsibility. If people are not allowed to purchase and own firearms, tragedies like this would not happen. If people are just flat out not able to own firearms, we would not even be having this ‘conversation’.

What the NRA is trying to do is to push some of the blame to video games as we still do not know the effects on players. They are forcing the idea that the killings aren’t totally their fault and that violent media shares the blame as well. And all of this is to protect their profit margin. Because why? They are afraid that a law will be passed which will make owning firearms harder which ultimately affects their bottom line. So who is being callous now?

What do you think about the NRA’s remarks on the situation? Let us know in the comment section.

 [signoff1]

Like this Article? Subscribe to Our Feed!

Related Stories:

comments
 
Leave a reply »

 
  • brian
    December 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    So a man that likely knows nothing of science or society comes out and scapegoats videogames as the reason people kill people in modern society in an effort to divert attention away from the fact that he is an arms supplier. I wonder if people killed people before videogames? How did they even know what to do? It must have been really confusing, as history is littered with long standing peace and non-violence between everyone in the world.


  • Taylor Parolini
    December 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Yeah man, that Mortal Kombat is the worst. Kids are just making their own fighting tournaments left and right and ripping out people’s hearts and exploding each other into piles of bones. When will it end?


  • Kelsey Miller
    December 29, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    People turn around and point to videogames and the NRA? I guess the lady who left ARs laying around the house is totally blameless. You know, since parents have absolutely no responsibilities when taking care of and raising their children not to do things like this. It’s totally the media and the lifeless tool that ought to be blamed.

    Interesting side-note. Went with a friend and her boyfriend to observe their purchasing of a handgun this week, their first handgun (we’re a gun-toting family, but mainly for hunting purposes). They got it because they wanted to get something decent before the bans. The man working there explained that he’d had an incredible number of first-time gun owners come in and buy in the wake of the shooting and the bans being mentioned. Clearly those bans are having the desired effect if everyone’s going out and buying now, eh?

    As someone familiar with guns and gun sales and etc, all I can say is if a crazy wants to kill someone, they’re going to find a way. And, if he or she wants to get his or her hands on a gun, it’s probably going to happen or already has. For the most part, these restrictions are just going to make it more difficult for your average citizen to get arms to protect themselves in these sorts of situations. Because with all those bans and rules, it’s the people who could be trusted with a gun that will follow them and remain unarmed, and those set on murder that will break them without a thought. If a staff member or responsible citizen had had a concealed carry permit and/or been allowed a firearm on campus? Well, things could’ve been a lot less tragic. It is the same with every major public shooting.

    The answers aren’t as simple as take away guns or give them to everybody, or as videogames are the devil. I guess, IMO, it’s the piss-poor parents that could’ve prevented this horrific tragedy from ever happening.


    • Charles Kheng
      December 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm

      Yes, it’s true that parents needs to have a more involved role when it comes to firearms.

      However, the NRA coming out and blaming the game industry is exploiting the ignorance in people who only rely on media such as TV and the papers, people who are not exposed to gaming

      While I’m not suggesting that the US government outright remove the sale of firearms, it would be still be an interesting idea to imagine how a ‘gun-less’ America would function.

      And of course, with fears of owning ARs in the future in peril, AR sales have gone up. I would not be surprised if in the future, Americans can purchase ARs but not hold on to them except in the range or something along those lines.


  • Taylor Parolini
    December 30, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    People have always killed other people, and banning guns or even assault rifles wont stop that. Thousands of people died in an attack where the only “Weapons” being used were some box cutters. If somebody wants to go on a rampage they’ll find a way, even if they just jump their car onto the curb and run people down on the sidewalk.


    • December 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm

      In the interests of actually having an evidence based conversation, believing that the availability of weapons doesn’t effect the outcomes of crimes, ignores the fact that guns can kill faster than a knife or like weapon.

      Likewise, 50 bullet clips kill faster than 5 bullet clips. Hunters don’t need 50 bullet clips.

      No one in America is calling for a ban on guns, but you can really tell the irrational ones apart in this conversation because they’re the ones claiming “Ban on guns”.

      The intelligent conversation would be “Does availability of Assault weaons, high clip ammunition, or lack of background checks affect suicide rates, murders, and mass shootings?”

      If it does, lets do something about it. Lets make 5 clip rounds. Lets mandate background checks.

      Currently any American can go to a gun show, buy any weapon from a private dealer, with no backgrounds check, and buy nearly unlimited ammo with no flags going up.

      On a final point, if 90% of mass killings are done by a type of assault rifle, should we maybe limit availability of that assault rifle?

      What is the Bushmaster .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle? Is it a weapon used for hunting or a weapon of war?

      Can we at least have an intelligent debate?

      Apparently not because the other side says “They want to take all the guns away”. They are “Banning guns”. No one is banning all guns.

      Every year 30,000 people die in America do to a Gun related Homicide. In Britain the number is usually less than 30.

      In Japan, it rarely goes above 20.

      I think it’s time for an intelligent conversation. That or you can all keep chanting “They’re banning your guns!!!”.


      • bleachorange
        December 31, 2012 at 11:06 am

        Actually, at every gun show I’ve ever been to, every single merchant does a background check on purchasers. Also, You need a separate permit for handguns. No one here is reading that the guy took the guns from another person’s belongings, and then proceeded to use these weapons to kill someone.

        Let me ask you this – if a you kill someone in a car crash, is it the car’s fault, or the driver’s fault? Very rarely is it mechanical failure that is also not a driver’s fault (responsible for vehicle maintenance). So, if I stab you with a knife, is it the knife’s fault, or my fault? The guns don’t shoot themselves.

        And yes, this is a blame shift, but I find it no more ridiculous than the attempt to demonize the NRA by media every time a tragedy occurs. They don’t advocate mass murder and homicide, they advocate gun ownership. Considering the number of guns circulating in America, if 1/10 of 1% of the gun owner population decided to kill someone, it would there would be many more fatalities every single day. I think 99.9% of anything being used responsibly is fantastic.

        Why do you think America is one of the countries in the world with the most freedoms? In part, due to citizens owning guns. All too often in other countries, not owning firearms has allowed governments to oppress their peoples. So, all things considered, I’ll take my, and my family’s, chances on the approx. 1-in-25,000 odds of dying by gunshot.

        Lastly,


        • January 1, 2013 at 3:04 pm

          Gun Show loophole:
          http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

          “Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check. ”

          If you kill someone with a gun, yes, partially it is society’s fault for allowing him to own a gun.

          If we all owned tanks, trust me, mass murders would be in the hundreds. The weapon is tied directly to carnage. Which is why 50 bullet clips are more dangerous than 5 bullet clips. Hence why 50 bullet clips, which serve no use but war, should be outlawed.

          ~~~~~~~

          It’s a myth that we use guns responsibly. Japan uses them responsibly. Europe uses them responsibly.

          We lose 30,000 people a year in America to Gun related Homicides:

          “MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY GUNS THAN BY WAR IN THE 20TH CENTURY
          1.4 Million Known American Firearms Casualties Since 1933”

          http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/289

          ” Instead of ‘declaring war’ on gun violence and passing stronger laws to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, Congress has surrendered to the special interests of the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby,”

          ~~~~~~~~~~

          My point simply: It’s too easy for bad people to get a gun. Far too easy. Look at laws in England for instance and than look at their gun homicides. They have 30 or less a year. We have 30,000….

          There is a direct correlation between Gun availability and gun homicides.

          The harder it is to get a gun, the less homicides exist in a country.

          I’m tired of 30,000 deaths from gun violence. Apparently some people aren’t.


          • Kelsey Miller
            January 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm

            Immortal, we know they’re not “banning our guns,” or at least I know that. They’re banning specific models and aspects of guns, such as high capacity clips in semi-auto pistols, or pistol grips on things like shotguns. It can be expected that the Brady Bill restrictions, plus AR bans, will come into play.

            Anyways, I agree with some of what you said, Immortal, such as regulations of who can get their hands on a gun. Background checks are crazy important.

            But I think it’s naive to say these guns are the problem, and that gun control in the way of such restrictions are the solution. Things are far more complex than that. For example, Britain instituted handgun bans in 1997, but it took a more than a decade for their homicide levels to drop to those of seen in 1996. In fact, homicide continued to rise for 7 years, and dropped around the same time that the police force was given a boost in personnel/funding. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20130102_The_facts_about_gun_bans.html

            You’re showing statistics from other countries and seem to be saying “we’re supposed to be a developed country, but these developed countries are better. It must be because they have bans.”

            But, really, things like geography, the economy, and border control play incredible roles. God, I sound like a crotchety old Republican. Not that I hate Republicans. Or immigrants.

            But those other countries have far better immigration control; the US sees well over 4 times the amount of immigrants as any of them, plus millions of illegal immigrants. And with poor immigrants from crime-ridden countries often comes crime. I’m not saying that Americans would crime free with closed borders. We have some serious problems. But island countries with strict rules are better at controlling trafficking simply because it’s inefficient and difficult. The US, on the other hand, is connected by land to many crime-ridden countries, making trafficking and etc far easier.

            This leads to the point that bans on specific models aren’t really effective. The DoJ surveyed inmates who’d committed gun-related crimes in order to figure out the origins of these guns. Over 80% were guns illegally obtained via street-sales, unregistered sales, and trafficking operations. 2% were from flea-market and gun-show sales. No matter what sort of restrictions occur, they’re not going to affect that 80% that are already sneaking around the law. It’s an old figure, and I haven’t been able to find a more recent one, but still, I think it’s pretty useful.

            The Clinton administration’s Brady bill was active from ’94 until 2004. Well, it wasn’t until 2010 that gun murders dropped down to 3.59 per 100,000 people, which was the lowest standard since 1981, according to factcheck.org. This would indicate that the restrictions of the bill had little effect on the murder figures. Sure, gun-related crime statistics did go down during the time, but they had already been on that trend, and continued on well after the ban had finished.

            I hate unnecessary death as much as anyone. It’s just what they intend to ban isn’t actually anything that makes a serious impact. Stricter regulation is good and background checks are good. But it only takes a single bullet to kill, and reducing pistol clips from 16 to 10 isn’t going to save 6 more lives each year. Pistols are the most common fire-arm used in murder, by far, according to FBI statistics. Trafficking is the problem here, not big guns.


  • Taylor Parolini
    December 31, 2012 at 12:07 am

    You also have to keep in mind that the US Population were given the right to bear arms not only to defend their lives and property from threats both near and foreign, but also in order to keep the government from having total power over its citizens. It’d be a sorry sight to see Americans trying to defend themselves against a potentially tyranical government with pistols.


    • Daniel Flatt
      December 31, 2012 at 8:16 am

      Yeah, you could go with that. The problem is if we ever have to defend ourselves against our own military and government we are screwed. I don’t care how many hicks have semi automatics out there the government has special forces with highly specialized training in ruining your day.


      • bleachorange
        December 31, 2012 at 11:10 am

        And how many military forces from the government would sympathize with the hicks, and fracture the armed forces? A lot of military members, especially in the infantry, own their own private weapons. Clearly, Daniel, you have no idea on how many hunting and woodsman skills translate into soldiering. As a matter of fact, the only thing that’s truly different is group tactics, and those can be learned by many methods these days, without actually ever firing a round.


        • Daniel Flatt
          January 2, 2013 at 4:32 pm

          Clearly, I’m aware of the skills that translate; I live in Oklahoma for goodness sake. There are enough hunting nuts and gun enthusiasts here to fill a small state. The number of them that own guns and rant about stuff like this all the time? Pretty high. The number that aren’t just braggarts and could do what you are talking about, i.e. fight against a highly trained miltary, probably nowhere near as many.

          I’m not talking about a paramilitary gun enthusiast survivalist that is at the gun range everyday training and is preparing for something like this. I’m talking about Joe Blow hunter guy who goes and shoots at deers and runs his mouth about protecting himself from the government.

          Also killing a human being is different from killing a deer. People might talk a big game, but at the end of the day, the training drilled into you in the military makes a large difference. Ask my father whose been in the milatry for 22 years or my uncle who was a frontline infantry in Vietnam. The idea that some hunters who kill wildlife on the weekends basically have the same training as them is insulting.

          Sure some military may split apart, but I wouldn’t think that many. These people that did turn traitor would be hunt down and shot far before they would start a revolution.

          My point is that the whole “defend our country against our government” isn’t much more than a bullet point in the argument: something for the other side to throw around. The fact remains that, sure, the psycho behind the gun is the one that kills, but he couldn’t do it without being armed with a weapon that takes little skill. You point, shoot, and depending on aim kill. That’s it.

          That’s a pretty damn scary thing to be in the hands of just about anybody that wants it. Add in semi and fully automatic weaponry and you have a recipe for disaster. Nothing is ever going to get better under the status quo. I’m not saying I have all the answers, I don’t know what would stop all this, but saying that it doesn’t need to stop is just silly.


    • January 1, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      The exact wording is:

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

      “(intransitive) If you qualify for something, you have what is needed to be allowed to get or do it.

      Children must be under the age of six in order to qualify for a free meal.
      The government needs to help people who don’t qualify for health insurance.”

      “To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions.”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~

      The statement: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” qualifies “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

      This is why we don’t have an absolute right to bear arms.

      The Supreme court ruled this when they upheld the banning of Felons from owning guns.

      If you have a felony, for the rest of your life, you can not own a gun. That’s why the second amendment doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If it did, the Supreme court would allow Felons to carry weapons. It would have to.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      So the only reason we have a right to bear arms is:

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

      Do we have well regulated militias anymore? No.

      They obviously aren’t necessary to the security of a free state. If they were, we would have them, because we are free. But we don’t, and we’re still free.

      Our army is an organized army, and a militia is actually against the law, especially one that does what it wills.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~

      So again, it’s a myth that we have an absolute right to bear arms. We have a limited right to bear arms which extends as far as the Supreme court interprets.

      That interpretation is very wide right now, but it may shrink easily with another supreme court.

      If you look at the actual wording, the qualifier has disqualified our right to bear arms; from an unbiased perspective.

      Legal scholars came to this conclusion a hundred + years ago, so this is old news.


  • Charles Kheng
    December 31, 2012 at 1:22 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

    Maybe Chris Rock has the answer. Make bullets more expensive.

    Jokes aside, while I respect the Americans’ rights to bear arms, I don’t see the rationale to have assault rifles so easily for sale or even to have such weapons kept in the house. Do people expect to have to defend their homes with semi-automatic weapons? How dangerous is it over there? I just don’t get why didn’t the government step in before things got out of hand.


    • bleachorange
      December 31, 2012 at 11:50 am

      Some articles for your thoughts. One is dated, but human nature doesn’t change, so the figures aren’t as relevant as newer information, but the reasoning behind them is.

      http://www.karenselick.com/off-mark.html

      The others are here:
      http://www.statisticbrain.com/us-population/
      http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

      If you crunch the numbers, you come up with 1 death for every 721 gun owners. I was using a less reliable source than the gallup poll earlier, however, it was also the number of guns, not gun owners. Considering that 36% of 311m people own guns (86.5m), then divide that by gunshot fatalies (12k), you arrive at my number. However, if you know gun owners, then you know that most rarely have one gun, but usually own several. This partially accounts for the discrepancy. Note, this also represents only registered guns, by the honest people, not criminals who account for much of the gang violence in big cities.


  • Kelsey Miller
    January 2, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Wait, what are you talking about not need a 30 bullet clip for huntin’? My pa always told me, “Kid, the secret to huntin’ is the more bullets you’ve got in the air, the better your chances. It’s scientific. Fancy ratios ‘n all that.”

    Erm, that is probably not going to help me convince you all I’m not a hick Republican who owns a muddy pickup, the floor of which is littered in beer cans and rifles.

    ARs and the guns the government plans to outright outlaw aren’t the problem.
    Examine the FBI’s statistics from 2010. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls The vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, the most arms type that most states regulate the most.

    I’m most familiar with Wisconsin law. Wisconsin requires background checks on all handguns sold by dealers and a 48 hour waiting period before they may be obtained. Guns with stocks, such as rifles and shotguns, can be bought immediately on whim. Yet, 6 times the number of people were killed by handguns. And I bet if they instituted a 48 hour wait period for rifles and shotguns to prevent spur of the moment murders, it would be even less. A small restriction like that to prevent crimes by unthinking and angry people would be a nice and effective restriction.

    Anyways, my point is, people who commit these crimes are going to sidetrack the law. They already do. The Lanza shooting was a tragedy; it makes me as sick and angry as anyone, except the victims’ families and the survivors. I have never lived through any such experience, and would never wish it upon anyone. But the shooter and irresponsible gun owner are the ones who ought to be blamed. A gun is a humongous responsibility, and screening is important, like Immortal said. But there is more to it than an ineffective ban. AR murder sprees don’t happen everyday. They account for only a hair’s breadth of those figure’s people are listing. It only takes a single bullet from a handgun to take a life. Limiting a pistol clip to 10 rounds, when you’re average heavy pistol with a “big” clip carries maybe 16, isn’t going to save 6 more lives each year. AR bans aren’t going to make a dent in those 30,000 deaths when ARs are rarely the cause to begin with, no matter their capabilities.

    Shooting is a hobby of sorts I’ve always dabbled in and have taken a real interest in recently, so I will admit my biased. But really, these bans and restrictions will primarily affect enthusiasts such as myself, not criminals. And it’s enthusiasts who typically know how to use such guns safely in the first place!

    For us, a 16 round clip versus a 10 or 8 in a semi-auto pistol is like a Lexus versus an old Toyota Camry It’s just nicer. Do you need a car that goes up to 250 miles per hour? Nope. Are there chips to regulate max speeds in some cars? In some, but there are work-arounds. Are their speed restrictions on the roads to compensate? Oh yeah, but those who want to break the law will do it anyways.

    And on the issue of ammo restrictions, it’s the same story. I can go through 100 rounds in just a few hours of shooting, and I’m not even that avid of a shooter. Rounds are expensive as is, and it only takes one to commit a murder. The people who use in bulk are enthusiasts, not your average murderer.

    Maybe I’m just an anarchist. And politically, just for you all, I typically lean Democrat. And I hate unnecessary death as much as anyone. But really, this (as in these restrictions and such) isn’t the answer, statistically speaking. There is far more to the equation here.


    • January 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm

      I really enjoyed the way you went about describing the situation and intelligently listing why you disagree with the proposals others have put forward.

      It’s nice to see we can discuss this in a thought provoking manner.

      I would just pose this to you Kelsey, does the U.S have an substantially higher Gun Homicide rate? After looking at the chart I provided, or looking at the data yourself you’re sure to come to the same conclusion I did.

      If so, why? What would you do to get it in line with the other 150 countries in the world or 50 developed countries which have insignificant deaths due to gun homicides?

      What are we doing, that we aren’t? What’s the secret? Let me know what you find Kelsey! 🙂


      • January 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm

        Slight typo at the end, “What are we doing, that they aren’t”


      • Kelsey Miller
        January 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm

        Gah, I have no great wisdom 🙁 Rigorous punishment for illegal possession, harsher treatment for dealers who get caught selling irresponsibly, both of which being nonnegotiable?
        Studies have shown, on average in comparison to other “developed” countries, the US lags in education for youths. Maybe tie that in.
        Maybe the US is just too big for it’s own good, things too hard to police once they pass through the border. Borders are kind of like filters, smaller areas are easier to manage. Trafficked weapons would get caught there. Society better regulated? Now I sound Communist. But you’ve gotta admit, a big country isn’t easily capable of the micro-managing a place like England or Japan can achieve. Ugh, now I sound like a some backwater, gun-totting member of a militia that wants to declare independence for the Yoopers.

        How about just put everyone in handcuffs and straightjackets?

        Though yes, I do have to say, I really love that you brought figures into it – you made me think twice about everything. I never realized the huge disparity, and spent the whole day pondering it while working. It’s disappointing that our country is this way, and I don’t know where to point fingers or what to do to fix it. Part of me says myself. I know I should and would be willing to sacrifice a few freedoms to save innocent lives. It’s just these freedoms here aren’t the problem, IMO… 🙁 But you’re right in saying something needs to be done!

        The president I helped elect, or rather all of Congress and our other elected officials, should be trying to find the answer instead of revamping old bans that had no real effect just so they can get some political cred


        • January 2, 2013 at 7:21 pm

          I completely agree with you there, and when I saw the numbers I reflected on them like you did 🙁

          Your final point is definitely well written, regardless of the issues, our Congress should be solving it. They get paid, with free healthcare, and a generous pension, to do that kind of thing.

          Lets hope they find some solutions we can all agree on.

          Thanks for the great convo though Kelsey, it’s a tricky topic and I really enjoyed how you approached it 🙂

          Your writing definitely makes me laugh but also consider serious points. You should definitely consider writing some articles yourself.

          Great job again. 🙂


        • January 2, 2013 at 7:22 pm

          I should try to make my writing more witty. I really enjoyed reading the small jokes here and there in your post Kelsey 🙂


  • bleachorange
    January 2, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    I’ll add this. The figures are certainly enlightening IP, but the facts remain the same. 75% of all gun-related deaths in the US are suicides, and the mass shootings always seem to happen in areas where guns aren’t allowed (read: honest people) like schools, malls, theatres, churches, and other government property.
    I’m not callous, I feel sick whenever I hear about a mass shooting. But you don’t ever hear about banning cars, and they kill more people every year than guns ever will. This country is built on a system of checks and balances in all levels of government, and the right for citizens to bear arms is a check on all levels of goverment. I’m not paranoid about the government wanting to go all china on us, but a gradual encroachment of freedoms we take for granted now is entirely probable. Can you say the united states government, or a part of it, will never ever, in a thousand years, try to take advantage of citizens having no firearms?

    It seems my political philosophy determines my outlook on this; I prefer a smaller government, so the more checks on government power, the better. Gun rights happen to fall right into that category for me. Once you give something up, it’s hard to get it back.


    • Kelsey Miller
      January 2, 2013 at 9:07 pm

      Gosh, I really miss the like button right now… on most of this conversation, but really, right now…
      though 75% is a big number. I’ll have to check out your posts!


    • January 3, 2013 at 12:52 am

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

      Firearm homicides
      Number of deaths: 11,493

      So yes, it’s about 30% of the total deaths due to guns, because the other 28,000 are due to suicides.

      Just looking at Homicides alone, we have 11,000. England, Japan, and all the OECD countries combined total less than 2,000.

      Why is ours so high bleached? It’s a scary question to think about. 🙁

      As for Government, it’s not big or small, it’s there. You can either have Efficient government or crippled government.

      Sometimes, the advocates of small government, cripple government and then create a self fulfilling prophecy of showing how inefficient government is once they’ve already sabotaged it.

      Government can do a lot of things right, it just needs to be efficient.

      After all, what is the government? It’s the people, us, working in an organized manner. It’s not some scary group of people in another room in DC.

      It’s us, in an organized manner.

      There is no small or big government, only efficient or crippled. You can either ask the government to do something, and then give it the ability to succeed, or you can tell it not to do something.

      But sometimes people tell it to do something, but don’t give it the ability to succeed and then blame it for their own failure to support it. Just noting.


You must log in to post a comment