Jump to content



Photo

Teen Planned to Attack Walmart After Killing Family


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#16 Perfect72

Perfect72

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,168 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 04
  • Location: Miss., US
  • OS: Win7 64bit
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:02

Griego reportedly gushed to police about his love for violent video games during the interrogation, Houston said. He told police he loved to play Modern Warfare and Grand Theft Auto.
"The suspect was involved heavily in games, violent games, it's what he was into," Houston said. "He was quite excited as he discussed this with our investigators."



In other news, 40-60% of the Earth's population (roughly 2.5 billion, to 4.2 billion people) who play video games, did not kill anyone today, yesterday, and probably not tomorrow.


#17 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:15

Wasn't so long ago that rock 'n' roll was being blamed for violence, there will always be a scapegoat instead of going after the root cause.

Funny how all the pro-gunners jump on the defensive and try and make excuses for why guns shouldn't be banned. Wonder if it would change your mind if one or more of your family are killed by a gunman who legally owned a weapon.

Suzanna Hupp didn't change her mind after her parents were killed by a gunman, she almost lost her life too in the shooting. She didnt change her mind and went on to fight for gun rights because gun control kept her from carrying a gun in the restaurant where the gunman opened fire killing several people including her mother and father. He had time to reload too. She is now a pro gun senator.

#18 Simon-

Simon-

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,724 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 02

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:17

Wasn't so long ago that rock 'n' roll was being blamed for violence, there will always be a scapegoat instead of going after the root cause.

Funny how all the pro-gunners jump on the defensive and try and make excuses for why guns shouldn't be banned. Wonder if it would change your mind if one or more of your family are killed by a gunman who legally owned a weapon.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there, you seem to be scapegoating the guns/pro-gunners.

I know that it is popular outside of the US to blame guns because outside the US, Africa, South America, South East Asia and the Middle East, gun-related violence is nearly non-existent, so it is easy to dismiss. I am in Australia, and I definitely would not want guns to be freely available because the problem just does not exist. But when dealing with the issue as it relates to the US, you have to look at a bit more subjectively and without the stereotypes of the cowboy texan who shoots at everything.

The simple fact that guns are there to stay. It would be impossible to completely remove guns to levels that you would find in other parts of the world without gun problems. If you start going after guns, you are going to have a disproportionate amount of people who still have their guns against the law compared to law abiding citizens without guns. Gun culture is so engrained as a "basic right" over there that previously law-abiding citizens would still carry guns no matter what the laws say. If you had a society with uncontrolled guns, then you are going to have much worse problems. Much better to control it than to stop it.

It's not to say that the prevalence of guns in the US is not without it's issues. There needs to be more done to keep guns secured away from unlicensed users getting access to them (such as children). But in the grand scheme of things, a small amount of gun-related deaths as a result of legal gun ownership (such as this case where the guns were purchased legally even though the operator was not licensed for or using it legally) is nothing in the grand scheme of things in a country of millions of people.

Very tragic yes, but the real problem is not the guns, the real problem is keeping guns away from Children, Criminals, Idiots and the Mentally Ill. Better guns safes where Daddy does not give little Johnny the codes no matter how trustworthy he is. More guns given to responsible gun users to deter criminals (the only thing that makes a criminal think twice about using a gun is that they could be faced against a gun). Better training to stop people from doing stupid things with guns that result in accidents, and a basic intelligence test would be good too however unrealistic unfortunately. Better mental health care and AWARENESS in the community to pick up nutcases early on and get them into treatment before it gets to the point where they go on mass murder sprees.

#19 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:21

Only an idiot can think that more guns is the best way to fight against guns. If guns were banned back in the day her family would probably still be alive.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there, you seem to be scapegoating the guns/pro-gunners.

I know that it is popular outside of the US to blame guns because outside the US, Africa, South America, South East Asia and the Middle East, gun-related violence is nearly non-existent, so it is easy to dismiss. I am in Australia, and I definitely would not want guns to be freely available because the problem just does not exist. But when dealing with the issue as it relates to the US, you have to look at a bit more subjectively and without the stereotypes of the cowboy texan who shoots at everything.

The simple fact that guns are there to stay. It would be impossible to completely remove guns to levels that you would find in other parts of the world without gun problems. If you start going after guns, you are going to have a disproportionate amount of people who still have their guns against the law compared to law abiding citizens without guns. Gun culture is so engrained as a "basic right" over there that previously law-abiding citizens would still carry guns no matter what the laws say. If you had a society with uncontrolled guns, then you are going to have much worse problems. Much better to control it than to stop it.

It's not to say that the prevalence of guns in the US is not without it's issues. There needs to be more done to keep guns secured away from unlicensed users getting access to them (such as children). But in the grand scheme of things, a small amount of gun-related deaths as a result of legal gun ownership (such as this case where the guns were purchased legally even though the operator was not licensed for or using it legally) is nothing in the grand scheme of things in a country of millions of people.

Very tragic yes, but the real problem is not the guns, the real problem is keeping guns away from Children, Criminals, Idiots and the Mentally Ill. Better guns safes where Daddy does not give little Johnny the codes no matter how trustworthy he is. More guns given to responsible gun users to deter criminals (the only thing that makes a criminal think twice about using a gun is that they could be faced against a gun). Better training to stop people from doing stupid things with guns that result in accidents, and a basic intelligence test would be good too however unrealistic unfortunately. Better mental health care and AWARENESS in the community to pick up nutcases early on and get them into treatment before it gets to the point where they go on mass murder sprees.

Completely agree, I am just fighting stupid with stupid, some of the pro-gun justifications in here are ridiculous.

Ideally I would want guns completely banned, but alternately I think they should be heavily restricted, not to the point where it is impossible to get a gun, but to make it so all the red tape isn't worth it unless you really wanted or needed one.

I'm not sure how it works in the US but when you apply for a firearm certificate in the UK before they will even entertain you, you get a home visit from a firearms officer who will check your home and your gun safe to see if it is sufficiently secured and hidden and that the ammo for the gun is not stored in the same safe as the weapon, even then he might flat out refuse you for some arbitrary reason.

#20 freak180

freak180

    Mr. GreatDisaster

  • 2,381 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 08
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro 64-bit

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:36

Location: England :rolleyes:

#21 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:37

Location: England :rolleyes:

What's your point?

I have family in the US I don't want gunned down by some moron with a gun?

#22 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:41

What's your point?

I have family in the US I don't want gunned down by some moron with a gun?

The chances of being shot in a mass shooting are rare. You are more likely to be struck by lightening. But lets all go into mass hysteria and ban everything under the sun. Lets all wear crash helmets and padding when we go out in the world too.

#23 TheLegendOfMart

TheLegendOfMart

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,281 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 01
  • Location: England

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:45

The chances of being shot in a mass shooting are rare. You are more likely to be struck by lightening. But lets all go into mass hysteria and ban everything under the sun. Lets all wear crash helmets and padding when we go out in the world too.

What a surprise, you "like" the comment about me being in England.

How about you reply like a mature human being instead of being instantly on the defensive with fallacious arguments.

#24 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:47

I'm from kansas, and i agree with everything he says, therefor using your logic his posts have now been validated. ;)
Mind blowing, right?

Well you admitted that if you didn't play video games you would probably kill people so I do agree people like you don't need to own a gun.

#25 Nick H.

Nick H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,836 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 04
  • Location: Switzerland

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:54

Reading through the series of events really turned my stomach. Truly disturbing...

#26 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,307 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:57

I haven't lost anything but nice try psycho.

#27 Simon-

Simon-

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,724 posts
  • Joined: 04-November 02

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:22

Only an idiot can think that more guns is the best way to fight against guns. If guns were banned back in the day her family would probably still be alive.

If they were banned back in the day, more guns would not help. However the reality in the US is that the threshold has been crossed where guns are so prevalent, that it is relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun on the black market that more guns (in the right hands) and making it easy to get more guns is the only thing that can fight the guns in the wrong hands, barring any magical new technology that can remove all the illegal guns, back to being a pre-gun prevalence state.

Problem is it's still too easy on the legal side. It has to be easy - up to a point. Once you cross that point and people who are unfit to own guns responsibly can get guns legally, then it is aiding the side that you are trying to protect against.

I agree that there should be in-home inspections, I would go as far as mental health assessments, yearly inspections of the gun safe and random inspections as a condition of firearm ownership. Make sure that they are really locked up properly and is not a drug den - nothing more (nothing too intrusive). It would create a lot of jobs too.

But bottom line is that guns need to stay, they are the only effective solution to stop the country from being over run by criminals.

Compare it to a more obvious scenario. If Israel stopped all of the citizens from carrying guns within the country, what do you think would happen? They would be quickly over-run by their enemies because there is no deterrent and nothing to stop them. Some people here hate Israel and would see this as a good thing, but that is not the point. The point is that a country under threat from enemy guns (criminal or combatant) needs to have guns to keep their enemy in check.

#28 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,360 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 23 January 2013 - 14:40

Location: England :rolleyes:

Soooo....should I respond this to Americans commenting other countries' news?

If they were banned back in the day, more guns would not help. However the reality in the US is that the threshold has been crossed where guns are so prevalent, that it is relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun on the black market that more guns (in the right hands) and making it easy to get more guns is the only thing that can fight the guns in the wrong hands, barring any magical new technology that can remove all the illegal guns, back to being a pre-gun prevalence state.

Problem is it's still too easy on the legal side. It has to be easy - up to a point. Once you cross that point and people who are unfit to own guns responsibly can get guns legally, then it is aiding the side that you are trying to protect against.

I agree that there should be in-home inspections, I would go as far as mental health assessments, yearly inspections of the gun safe and random inspections as a condition of firearm ownership. Make sure that they are really locked up properly and is not a drug den - nothing more (nothing too intrusive). It would create a lot of jobs too.

But bottom line is that guns need to stay, they are the only effective solution to stop the country from being over run by criminals.

Compare it to a more obvious scenario. If Israel stopped all of the citizens from carrying guns within the country, what do you think would happen? They would be quickly over-run by their enemies because there is no deterrent and nothing to stop them. Some people here hate Israel and would see this as a good thing, but that is not the point. The point is that a country under threat from enemy guns (criminal or combatant) needs to have guns to keep their enemy in check.

Do you wear 5 tin foil hats?

I have another one if you want.

#29 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,972 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 23 January 2013 - 15:01

If they were banned back in the day, more guns would not help. However the reality in the US is that the threshold has been crossed where guns are so prevalent, that it is relatively easy for a criminal to get a gun on the black market that more guns (in the right hands) and making it easy to get more guns is the only thing that can fight the guns in the wrong hands, barring any magical new technology that can remove all the illegal guns, back to being a pre-gun prevalence state.


There are other solutions. For instance, you could stop the supply of ammunition for existing calibres—or impose a supertax to get around the libertarians—and make legal weapons use a new calibre - guns aren't all that much use without ammunition. Will that solve it? Of course not, though it's easier tracking down people making ammunition illegally than it is tracking down illegal guns when ammunition is freely purchasable.

If you have a high murder rate you don't simply give up and say "there's nothing we can do about it now" - the gun situation is no different. Rather than complaining about what won't work people need to look for what will work. Limiting magazine sizes is a start; banning the most dangerous types of ammo can only help; closing loopholes for background checks is a win-win; requiring inspections to ensure weapons are safely stored in a locked gun cabinet is a must, etc. If you start by banning the most dangerous calibres and working your way down then you don't leave citizens unarmed and vulnerable but you can reduce the number of firearms fatalities. The United States has a completely different gun culture to other countries so obviously it needs a different approach but there has to be an approach - simply flooding the country with even more firearms can only end badly.

#30 ninja502

ninja502

    Neowinian

  • 163 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 09
  • Location: grant , ky

Posted 23 January 2013 - 15:40

People have been killing people long before video games. If anything video games relieve my urge to kill others in real life :p

Crazy people are maybe just attracted to violent games, so it could be the other way around.





they tried this crap back in the 90's and all we got was the rating system . I know all us older gamers remember the crap that
mortal kombat and night trap started , maybe Obama will bring in the nut jack Thompson to help bs the house into getting it passed
and talk about how bad the games were back then


it should be up to the parents ( not government ) to decide what there kids can handle and to step up more on what there kids do and watch
some parents just don't give a darn and let there kids play what ever they want. I sell used games and I seen parents buy games like gta for kinds under 9 even after you warn them about language and content.we don't need our games getting stripped and removed of content like what Germany does to some if its games if it doesn't just ban everything first