Connecticut Groups Cancels Plan to Destroy Violent Games 350
An anonymous reader writes with an update to an earlier story about a group wanting to destroy your violent video games. "Southington, a town in Connecticut, has canceled its plans to collect and destroy violent games, stating that it has already succeeded in raising attention."
Perhaps the real reason: "Backed by the Southington Chamber of Commerce, SouthingtonSOS originally planned to offer citizens $25 gift certificates in exchange for their violent games, films, and CDs, which the group would collect for 'permanent disposal.'"
Oh wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
$25 to get rid of your old shooters? Man, they're a better trade-in deal than anyone else around. Plus, they're getting rid of e-waste! How thoughtful!
Give them your Call of Madden 2011 and 2012, then go buy Call of Madden 2013.
Modern-day book-burning averted (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there's some hope for us after all.
Useless feel-good crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
> SouthingtonSOS originally planned to offer citizens $25
> gift certificates in exchange for their violent games
which would have caused a spike in sales on cheap old games at GameStop the day before the event and accomplished nothing else.
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're training to use a gun in self-defense, what exactly do you think you should be shooting at?
I presume the police also 'glorify killing', since they shoot at human-shaped targets too?
Re:Best publicity stunt yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Southington, a town in Connecticut, has cancelled its plans to collect and destroy violent games, stating that it has already succeeded in raising attention."
You know, this must be the first time I see someone publicly admitting to being an attention whore, and being proud about it.
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that it is a major pain in the butt to get an assault rifle already ... you do realize this requires an expensive federal permit to even own one? They are effectively already banned.
The current bans being discussed are trying to go further and ban things that are not assault rifles, but merely "look scary".
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm for gun rights but it's pointless to cite these stories because you're 22 TIMES more likely to use a gun against someone you know. Throwing more guns into the mix will definitely stop crimes, but you're going to create FAR more inicidents than you stop.
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it has prevented many. But usually they are dismissed. For example, off duty cop, or in the case of the "security guard" at the church. Who was merely a citizen who had a carry permit, and due to some concerns had volunteered at the church. (Essentially, what I used to do.)
No, there are many cases. But you'll almost never hear them in the news, cause they do not fit the agenda.
That, and the perpetrator is usually taken out before it can become a "massacre".
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:5, Insightful)
The NRA is a gun industry lobby posing as a gun owner lobby.
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:5, Insightful)
so again, how will outlawing XX stop anything when it already is shown that gun free zones are criminal welcome zones?
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an idiotic statistic in and of itself, without knowing why.
You are significantly more likely to harm/kill someone you know, full stop.
That's simply because, there's usually a trigger event, and that will usually involve people, and you deal more regularly, and have more time to build up animosity (to the tipping point) with people you know.
The only thing that statistic is useful logic for, is preventing anyone from knowing anyone else.
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite the many gun owners and lobbying (bribing) NRA group, self-defense hasn't prevented a single massacre. How about you stop using "self-defense" as the reason gun nuts want assault rifles?
Considering the fact that such massacres always occur in so called gun-free zones exactly how are firearms to prevent something when they are actively prohibited from being present? The people who would actually use them in self-defense obey the law and the murderers do not. In fact, they count on the law abiding doing just that.
You also fail to observe that no gun ban has prevented a massacre either. Evil people do evil things. How about we start figuring out why these people get to that point and address that instead of blaming what ever inanimate object they decide to do it with?
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:4, Insightful)
By refusing to compromise on anything at all, they really invite criticism. I'm a liberal. I really don't want to take away your guns.
You seem to make the mistake that anything up to but not including outright confiscation is A-OK. You see it time and time again on the mainstream media, they're proposing registration, bans on production, bans on transfer, extra taxes, etc. Under many of the laws the next generation won't even ever have the guns we have in the first place making taking them away impossible, but as long as it's not outright confiscation they slyly say "We're not trying to take your guns away." as if you're acting paranoid.
The 2nd amendment says "Shall not be infringed.", not "Your guns shall not be taken away.".
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:3, Insightful)
So when fascist dictatorships disarm the entire population, and then mass execute people, are you saying that guns would not have prevented that?
Yep. You're presenting a hypothetical that has actually been tested, and found to fail miserably. Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much every cvilian vs government conflict of the past 100 years hinged on air superiority. If you had air superiority, you did well. If you didn't, all the AK-47s and RPGs in the world didn't help you.
Would lack of gun ownership make any difference in these cases?
Possible, though hard to tell, as these are anecdotes, and not scientific experiments. It's impossible to tell how those events would have unfolded without guns at the ready. However, we have some actual statistics to work with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence [wikipedia.org],http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp [snopes.com], for just a few examples of large scale statistics. At a minimum, they indicate that gun ownership does not correlate with reduced crime, but that instead they are a common response to increased crime rates.
I have no shame in my own opinions, why do you have so much in yours?
Sometimes, shame is a good thing. Your knowledge of statistics would definitely benefit from it.
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you're saying you're LESS likely to report shooting at an intruder than at a family member in an argument that gets out of control?
Re:now they can concentrate on ignoring mentally i (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We have already compromised (Score:4, Insightful)
Which some people seem to think is okay. Yet one reason this right exists is to allow us to protect ourselves from our government. And as our government has no limits on their available firepower, I resent any limitations on what I can have. This applies perpetually. If phasers get invented, the government will have them so I better be able to have them. Otherwise I will be unable to defend myself from the government and eventually that is something they will use against me.
I hear this a lot, and I have all my life, but I still don't know that it's true. The actual text, and the background of how the second amendment was introduced and implemented, it doesn't appear like this is the case.
Minute-men had a huge impact and militias were 100% vital in the USA coming into existence, but the second amendment was written to keep the USA in existence. They wanted a well-regulated milita (a well-trained, armed force) to be able to bear arms to protect the security of a free State (essentially, the ability to train, and be called on, to protect the USA.)
I'm not against the idea that a little rebellion now and again is good for a state, but it doesn't seem to be historically accurate to connect it to the second amendment
I believe early on it was used to justify telling gun manufacturers they had to create weapons of certain sizes and required men of a certain age to own a gun and other equipment, and was sometimes used to justify drafts before we had a true organized national military.
Also interesting that you would consider yourself and the government as two very separate entities. And the idea that, if the government has a weapon you don't, then they will use it against you. I believe our founding father's believed, above all else in government, that this government would be of the people and that the structure setup would ensure that it would stay that way.