NRA, video game makers to meet with Biden gun control task force

Congratulations America. There has been no random mass shooting for over a week, hooray !!!!!!!

Meanwhile, in Atlanta Georgia, a mother successfully defended her home and family from an intruder with her use of a .38 revolver. The assailant fled after being shot, though not fatally. 2.5 million crimes annually are prevented by armed citizens.

@Herve Nmn L'Eisa

" a mother successfully defended her home and family from an intruder with her use of a .38 revolver."

Funny how gun advocates love this kind of stories where some people got saved due to having guns, which happens like a few times year. But they obviously don't care about 10,000 plus people who get shot to death every year.

"2.5 million crimes annually are prevented by armed citizens."

Oh, like the neighborhood watch guy who shot the African American kid after stalking him around ? Perhaps you shouldn't make up statistics. But I really don't care as long as Americans killing other Americans only.

And once again they're dragging in video game makers and the film industry AGAIN. We all know that guns in films and video games are the end all reason for people wanting to use guns wrongly in the US rolls eyes

Its always been the same thing. People that are sick to begin with will do sick things because they can't tell the difference between real life consequences and fictional consequences. The problem is how to not expose these people that are sick to begin with to things that influence them to do crazy actions, and even then that's not a guarantee even if they're not exposed to any of it.

But I really don't care as long as Americans killing other Americans only.

Okay......... So why do you try so hard to belittle America for it's firearm laws. I would think that if more guns in America meant more dead Americans, you would be all for it.

is GUN the only answer?

The NRA has proposed armed guards in schools,

this is soooo wrong on soooo many levels.

In "More Guns Less Crime" now in it's 3rd edition, author John Lott Jr. clearly shows that those cities with the highest legal gun ownership have the lowest violent crime rates. He goes on to show, using US Department of Justice records that legal gun owners do in fact prevent up to 2.5 MILLION crimes per year

Hide suzuki, I brought it up because the far left media is loathe to report on instances or facets of situations that run counter to their agenda, to which you apparently adhere. Likewise, the Oregan mall shooting ended because a defensively armed person confronted the assailant, after which the assaliant ran away and fatally shot himself. That translates to innocent lives saved because a good-guy with a gun confronted the bad-guy with a gun. Just a fact. Another fact for you is that of the firearms deaths roughly sixty percent are suicides(as compared to ～30,000 per year in Japan, many by leaping in front of trains), and a large percentage of the others are criminal-on-criminal.

Megosaa,

Aren't banks, politicians, and politicians' children's schools protected with armed guards?

@Herve Nmn L'Eisa

"That translates to innocent lives saved because a good-guy with a gun confronted the bad-guy with a gun"

In most other developed countries, bad guys don't have easy access to guns so we don't need good guys with guns. Problem solved.

"left-loonies only accept facts that support their agenda."

Not as much as trigger happy NRA supporters

"In most other developed countries, bad guys don't have easy access to guns so we don't need good guys with guns."

Oh, do you mean like Japan? Yaks have guns, ya know. Or how about UK? Plenty there, too. Or Russia? Nope.

You see Hide, in those countries where good people are left defenseless and vulnerable.

Herve Nmn L'Eisa,

So the good people are left defenceless and vulnerable hey? I would rather live in a country with tight gun laws like Australia, UK, Japan anyday over living in the likes of the US. at least you are not likely to be on the receiving end of a gun massacre which happens all to often in the US. Yet sadly the people in the US are too slow to realise more guns = more gun crime and massacres. Not the other way around.

SQUIRREL! - Hah, see: the gun nuts made you look.

...where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution.

By whom, what types, when and how are still issues undecided.

The gun posse would have America solve gun violence by preemption: Simply identify the crazy people and lock them up. If that must be so, I would say Alex Jones has shown demonstrable signs of insanity and should have his gun rights revoked immediately for his and society's good.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/alex-jones-piers-morgan-cops-crackheads_n_2432839.html >

You see Hide, in those countries where good people are left defenseless and vulnerable.

Yeah, I'd hate to be so vulnerable to live in a country where gun deaths don't reach triple digits. Must be a nightmare being so defenseless.

Likewise, the Oregan mall shooting ended because a defensively armed person confronted the assailant

Just so odd. You seem to be claiming a victory for the All Mighty Firearm because someone else with a firearm stopped him after he killed with his own firearm. The thought of living in a society where people like him can't get a gun in the first place is completely lost on you.

Here's a great interview:

http://www.upworthy.com/angry-gun-advocate-loses-it-live-on-cnn-in-the-most-bizarre-interview-ever?c=ufb1

Alex Cross shows you the paranoid world some gun supporters live in. He's petrified of the government and a society where everyone isn't armed. I don't know how the guy sleeps at night with so much fear.

America has a long history of the private ownership of weapons, including firearms. The absolute right to self defense is enshrined in our Bill Of Rights. The differences between America and other countries, such as Japan, and Canada as related to firearms was addressed in the highly interesting work "The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy". An excellent read for those interested in a deeper look at all three cultures.

In the US Department of Justice work titled "The Armed Criminal In America" 1800 criminals were interviewed and the results seperated into 7 catagories. Further divisions revealed that while nearly every criminal had at one time stolen a gun only about half used them in crime. Of those that made a living with guns, it was found that all turned to friends, family or the black market to aquire a gun once they were released from prison. Further, it was found that these criminals felt they could re arm themselves within a day or two of release.

In a Harvard Law study, titled " WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER

Extensive work revealed that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens did indeed reduce crime. Further, that the restriction of privately held firearms increased criminal activity and that the removal of firearms had no measurable effect in the reduction of suicides.

@Herve Nmn L'Eisa

" Yaks have guns, ya know"

So ? How often do we have random mass shooting in Japan? I will give you a hint, NEVER

"in those countries where good people are left defenseless and vulnerable"

LOL, oh yeah, i'm sooo scared of living in Japan. Please, keep believing in your fantasy land, Japan is 1000 times safer than your country USA, LOL.

Good guys with guns have protected innocent people in Colorado, Connecticut very well, we all know what you are saying. And you say people are defenseless in Japan LOL, yeah, because we don't need to worry about guns here, duh

Laurence Lance: Of those that made a living with guns, it was found that all turned to friends, family or the black market to aquire a gun once they were released from prison. Further, it was found that these criminals felt they could re arm themselves within a day or two of release.

So what you're saying is that the NRA's position of stronger background checks and enforcement is just window dressing.

Let me get this straight: the NRA thinks that violent movies and video games have more to do with gun violence than the easy access to guns themselves? Are they nuts? I've played a lot of first-person shooter games in my life, as have many of my friends and co-workers. Not one of them (as I) have ever felt the urge to purchase a gun, much less shoot another person with it. Watching "Die Hard" and war movies ain't gonna suddenly persuade someone to go shoot another human being. That's a fact.

Gun owners continue to shout that they have a right to own a gun. Well, as a person who doesn't own one, I also have a right not to own one and I also have a right to be protected from others who do own one. While it may be almost impossible to completely ban all guns out there, I at least propose that the U.S. government pass stricter laws concerning responsibility of those who purchase a gun. Those who do purchase a gun, must abide by a law that requires them to always keep close watch over it and handle a gun properly. Even if their gun is stolen or used inappropriately by someone else, they should accept responsibility for introducing it to society and the consequences of how it is used by another party. It is why I also feel that all guns should be registered properly and for it to be illegal to own an unregistered gun; including grandfathered guns.

LOL, oh yeah, i'm sooo scared of living in Japan. Please, keep believing in your fantasy land, Japan is 1000 times safer than your country USA, LOL.

Japan is safer than almost any country in the world and that includes those countries with strict gun control when compared to her. It's a great attribute that Japan can rightly be proud of but Its always been much more attributed to the unique Japanese group culture more than due to any real single factor and that includes the banning of guns.

I would even go so far to say even if Japan did allow gun ownership like the U.S does it wouldn't change things much at all and Japan still would be 1000 times safer then the U.S just based on the cultural differences between the countries.

Sail, you make an excellent point that the safety level in Japan is directly attributable to the society itself, which anyone who was here on/after 3-11-2011 can attest to the orderliness after the quake and the very low instance of violence such as looting(unlike US cities affected by natural disasters). People also like to point to the low murder numbers in the UK, but even before the UK gun ban the murder rate was much lower than in US though guns were readily available. But since then violent crimes have risen in UK(and Australia where women are three times more likely to be raped ).

Violence is related to the mores of that society. Where the morality falls, violence increases.

" Even if their gun is stolen or used inappropriately by someone else, they should accept responsibility for introducing it to society and the consequences of how it is used by another party."

By this facile reasoning then, if your car is stolen and used in a crime such as bank robbery or drug deal or DWI with fatalites, then you as the registered legal owner should also be imprisoned along with the actual criminals. Brilliant!

Laguna, I would agree with you that Alex Jones seems unstable. I can't stand his persona. Then again, Piers Morgan is an intolerable snit. Neither belong on TV.

Violence is related to the mores of that society. Where the morality falls, violence increases.

Facile to say the least. That statement belongs alongside "God is absent from schools."

Crime in America has been falling for years - and most credit abortion policies liberalized in the early '70s. Even gun crime is down. Not down: gun massacres.

Sail, legalization of guns in Japan would certainly lead to a similar situation as exists in America: when a crazy person decides to take others out with him, he'll do so much more efficiently and effectively.

Laguna, I would agree with you that Alex Jones seems unstable.

So you agree that he should be prohibited from owning a gun? After all, while he has not yet committed any acts of violence, neither did the perpetrators of recent massacres. If the NRA is serious about mental health as a criterion for gun ownership, the line has to be drawn somewhere, for simply waiting for a person to snap and shoot is closing the barn door a bit late.

I'd say Jones' recent comments clearly disqualify him from gun ownership due to mental and emotional instability.

Sail, legalization of guns in Japan would certainly lead to a similar situation as exists in America: when a crazy person decides to take others out with him, he'll do so much more efficiently and effectively.

Have you considered just for the sake of argument that if guns can't be found readily available that a crazy person just finds even more creative in ways to inflict harm on the innocent?

The sarin attack was the most serious terrorist attack in Japan's modern history. It caused massive disruption and widespread fear in a society that had previously been perceived as virtually free of crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

and most credit abortion policies liberalized in the early '70s.

Not true, most do not credit abortion for the drop in crime rates. It was a theory put forth by two individuals named Donohue and Levitt of Freakonomics fame in 2001. It has been since been peer reviewed in 2008 and found lacking in the original conclusions.

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0515.pdf

Not down: gun massacres.

Not true also.

2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say

"There is one not-so-tiny flaw in all of these theories for the increase in mass shootings," James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote for Boston.com in August. "And that is that mass shootings have not increased in number or in overall body count, at least not over the past several decades."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-mass-shootings-common-20121218,0,6511082.story

Certainly, certain crazy people such as Timothy McVeigh may possess the skills and patience to commit mass murder without using a gun, but for every McVeigh in America, how many Adam Lanzas have there been? The sarin attacks occured 17 years ago and only killed 13 people, yet it still lives in the memory of Japan; how many massacres with at least that death toll have occurred due to the easy access to guns in the US since that time? Can you count them without resorting to a Google search?

A negative peer review does not disprove a theory. Levitt has recalculated his data taking into account Foote and Goetz's comments and has attained almost identical conclusions.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

Finally, mass shootings may not have increased - but neither have they decreased, as the overall crime rate has. Also not that other methods of mass killing such as McVeigh-type explosions or Asahara-type sarin attacks are most rare - it is the gun that is the weapon of choice in America, being most readily available.

By this facile reasoning then, if your car is stolen and used in a crime such as bank robbery or drug deal or DWI with fatalites, then you as the registered legal owner should also be imprisoned along with the actual criminals. Brilliant!

Herve Nmn L'Eisa: You're comparing apples with oranges. A car's main purpose is to transport people and things from point A to point B. On the other hand, a gun's sole purpose was made to kill. Flippantly assuming that gun ownership shouldn't carry such a high sense of responsibility from its owners is really absurd. As much as people may say a gun owner has a right to own a gun, I as one who doesn't own one has a right for the government to take any possible measure to ensure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands and are not used in the wrong way. It's not asking much for gun owners to take more responsibility over their weapons.

All the NRA and other gun nuts want to do is divert attention away from the real sources of gun violence to something as inane and unrelated as violent video games and movies. Fact is that a majority of people watch violent action movies all the time and never ever feel the need to carry a gun; much less shoot one.

Here we are in the 21st century, and Americans still vicariously see themselves as Wyatt Earps, blasting away at each other within the confines of OK Corrals. The home of the brave, for all its self-righteous platitudes about freedom, is a barbaric country that places a shockingly low value on the lives of its inhabitants.

freakashow: Let me get this straight: the NRA thinks that violent movies and video games have more to do with gun violence than the easy access to guns themselves?

Close. The NRA is saying violent movies and video games create violence and easy access to guns isn't worth their time to even mention. Reminds me of the George Carlin comedy bit: Did you hear they're thinking about banning toy guns.....AND KEEPING THE REAL ONES?!?!?!?!

Laguna: A negative peer review does not disprove a theory. Levitt has recalculated his data taking into account Foote and Goetz's comments and has attained almost identical conclusions.

I don't put much stock into Freakonomics. I work in real estate and his chapter on real estate agents was well off the mark with cherry picked information.

The fact is that no one can really explain why crime has fallen. The original explanation was because of better policing, starting with the "broken window" theory in New York. Others said it was the explosion of crack that lead to high violent crime but since use of the drug went down crime went down with it. The abortion angle came in later. People assumed the crime rate would rise with the recession but it hasn't done that to any real extent. Crime is very, very hard to explain.

The NRA has proposed armed guards in schools, an idea about which Obama has expressed skepticism.

The "geniuses" at the NRA have recently come out with a threat to sue local officials in Arizona for destroying weapons turned in as part of a buy-back program.

"Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them....Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away."

Nice going, Todd!

You're comparing apples with oranges. A car's main purpose is to transport people and things from point A to point B.

So because somethings main purpose is more practical but can be just as lethal if it falls into the wrong hands means you can be more negligent with how you store them or keep them on your property or operate them? Are fireworks designed to kill? How about prescription drugs? Are they designed to kill? Lets say you have a propane tank for your gas grill, lets say someone comes onto your property and comes onto your deck and steals it and turns it into a bomb should you be held responsible for being negligent in not locking it up?

The argument you are making is what are the consequences if a gun falls into the wrong hands. That same argument can be made with cars or prescription drugs or knives or whatever. What can happen to society if a car falls into the wrong hands? You can have a lot of dead people for one.

Not down: gun massacres.

That would suggest then the US has a failure in the background check system with regards to mental illness.

All the NRA and other gun nuts want to do is divert attention away from the real sources of gun violence to something as inane and unrelated as violent video games and movies. Fact is that a majority of people watch violent action movies all the time and never ever feel the need to carry a gun; much less shoot one.

Question for you, would you be concerned about violent medias impact on a 5 year old or a 10 year old? Would you be concerned about the impacts of pornography on a young boys mind when it comes to sex?

There are over 100 million gun owners in the US, there are at most right now 8600 homicides and around 20,000 suicides. That comes out to a death rate amongst owners of firearms of 0.000286. If you factor in the 100k people that are shot by guns then you get a victim rate amongst gun owners of .001286 or less than 1% of gun owners each year commit violence with their guns, in fact it is just slightly more than one tenth of one percent of gun owners hurt someone. Do you really honestly think with a violence rate that low amongst gun owners that it is the gun that is doing the violence or do you think their is something among that very very very very small group of gun owners that has nothing to do with guns that is motivating them to harm other people? If so wouldn't that suggest it is a background check flaw that is the problem?

So because somethings main purpose is more practical but can be just as lethal if it falls into the wrong hands means you can be more negligent with how you store them or keep them on your property or operate them?

There are different standards of what constitutes "negligence" that can be applied to different products and the dangers they represent.

Lets say you have a propane tank for your gas grill, lets say someone comes onto your property and comes onto your deck and steals it and turns it into a bomb should you be held responsible for being negligent in not locking it up?

That is some terrible logic. For all anyone can prove, the tank was empty when it was stolen and the thief legally refilled it and then turned it into a bomb. However, if the tank was filled and it can be shown that it was improperly stored and caused an explosion that injured neighbors, its owner should certainly be charged with criminal negligence. From a legal perspective, because there are no restrictions (such as background checks) applied to propane tanks for gas grills, an owner of a tank isn't as liable as the owner of a gun or a person who obtains a prescription drug that could kill a small child if they were to find and ingest it.

Question for you, would you be concerned about violent medias impact on a 5 year old or a 10 year old? Would you be concerned about the impacts of pornography on a young boys mind when it comes to sex?

Without detailed research and hard data, it is impossible to prove there is any impact of the type that would lead a youngster to violence. It could just as easily be claimed that witnessing violence creates feelings of repulsion in young people. Much more probably hinges on the mental wiring of a person long before they are exposed to media images.

There are different standards of what constitutes "negligence" that can be applied to different products and the dangers they represent.

Possibly. What if different products can represent the same danger?

That is some terrible logic. For all anyone can prove, the tank was empty when it was stolen and the thief legally refilled it and then turned it into a bomb. However, if the tank was filled and it can be shown that it was improperly stored and caused an explosion that injured neighbors, its owner should certainly be charged with criminal negligence. From a legal perspective, because there are no restrictions (such as background checks) applied to propane tanks for gas grills, an owner of a tank isn't as liable as the owner of a gun or a person who obtains a prescription drug that could kill a small child if they were to find and ingest it.

So lets say a gun is unloaded when stolen and the thief legally gets the gun reloaded and then uses the gun should the owner from which the gun was stolen be charged with negligence?

Without detailed research and hard data, it is impossible to prove there is any impact of the type that would lead a youngster to violence. It could just as easily be claimed that witnessing violence creates feelings of repulsion in young people. Much more probably hinges on the mental wiring of a person long before they are exposed to media images.

OK now what about pornography? Would you be concerned about the impacts of pornography on a young boy when it comes to sex?

However, if the tank was filled and it can be shown that it was improperly stored and caused an explosion that injured neighbors, its owner should certainly be charged with criminal negligence.

What if it can be shown the tank was filled and it was stolen and used to create a bomb should the owner be charged with criminal negligence?

For all anyone can prove, the tank was empty when it was stolen and the thief legally refilled it and then turned it into a bomb.

I guess I thought wrong in thinking it was a little obvious that it was implied that it could be proven the tank was filled and that it was stolen and the thief turned it into a bomb and then used that bomb to kill people.

But this brings up another question, what if an empty magazine that can hold 100 rounds is stolen should the owner be charged with negligence?

Question for you, would you be concerned about violent medias impact on a 5 year old or a 10 year old?

Responsible parents take control over what is shown and provided to their children. My parents raised me so that I never got to see an R-rated movie until I was in high school (which by that time I understood what is real and what is make believe). Irresponsible parents will simply shift all the blame for their children's violent ways on outside factors and fail to look inward to themselves. In fact, I saw more violent images (e.g. brutal school fights) and borderline porn (e.g. classmates heavily making out on school grounds) in real life than what's shown on TV and in movies.

But this brings up another question, what if an empty magazine that can hold 100 rounds is stolen should the owner be charged with negligence?

The world would be a much better place if all that existed in it were empty magazines and no guns and bullets on the face of this planet.