continuing proofs America is wacko

I would not say the GTA games were marketed at kids- and certainly their content is not- and I dont mean by that the violence, bad language and sexual refrences- I mean the stories, characters and satire/social commentary.
Even in that first ammu-nation ad- its funnier if you remember Dirty Harry and hear about Make my Day Monday (ok Dirty Harry s still pretty well known but thats just one small example).
The entire GTA Vice City game was set in Miami in the 1980's and was chocka with jokes and refrences you could only possibly get if you had lived through the 1980's.
They are I would say firmly aimed at pople like me, who have been playing games for the last 20 years +.
They are also, by modern game standards, difficult. Most modern games lead you by the hand and stack the odds in your favour, GTA doesnt tend to do that making them quite off-putting to younger players.

If you take the plot of the last GTA game as an example, it concerned a character Nikko, an immigrant who is escaping his former life in an unnamed east european country where he was involved in a particularly unpleasant war ("I did some bad things"), and then was involved in arms and people smuggling and who comes to stay with his cousin in Liberty City (New York) to escape it all and start again in search of the American Dream- and instead finds the same life of violence, squalor and crime, just with a more glamorous shiny surface.
Its hardly the sort of story to set a 14 year old racing to the shops.

This is where I completely fail to understand Americans or the American mentality-

'The prospect of a renewed assault weapons ban in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre has set of a round of buying, as thousands of Americans head to their local gun store to secure the popular AR-15 -- the model used by the school gunman
They are also buying the .223 ammunition.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation says it set a new record for single-day background check submittals this past weekend.
In San Diego, Northwest Armory gun store owner Karl Durkheimer said Saturday "was the biggest day we've seen in 20 years. Sunday will probably eclipse that."

"Sales were through the roof on Saturday," said Eaton. "People were buying everything they could."

Sorry to sound crass but Im kind of a mind reading this sort of thing to think that Americans get the country they deserve.
With this sort of response I fully expect, sadly, more such massacres to continue on a regular basis.

Well, do remember that it's a big country, even absolute gun fanatics are only purchasing a couple guns a year at most; so when a small percentage (I'm talking a fraction of a percent) decides to make a run on the store you see a large upturn.

America's not full of these people, but it does allow them to exist.

That's the hording surge I was talking about yesterday.

I'm sure that right now there are people literally buying them by the dozen, seeing it as a sure investment. After the first surge it will continue at a steady pace until a ban is actually in effect, with a final Black Friday kind of frenzy the day before the ban goes into effect. On that day, gun stores will be open till midnight and people will be lined up to spend the last of their paycheck on banana clips and armor piercing ammo. We've seen this all before.

Then over the next 5 years or so, the inventory will start trickling back into the secondary market at inflated prices as people try to recoup their investments and consolidate their collections. Don't you just love capitalism!

David H wrote:Another thing to be aware of in the event of an assault weapon ban is that there will be a huge surge in sales of guns, clips and ammunition just prior to the ban going into effect as people hoard them. This probably isn't as bad as it sounds. Many of the hoarders are harmless. They secure their hoards carefully and have no intention of ever selling anything (something like dragons). This will give the gun industry a short-term boost, so they're less likely to complain.

If society is worried about the assault weapons that are still in circulation and grandfathered in, the simple solution would be to require that they be registered whenever they are sold. This would mean that to buy one, a person would either have to break a law (as would the seller) or have their name on an FBI list. This is how one might start making things increasingly uncomfortable as Mrs Figg suggested.

I dont know if yall have heard the latest ,its being reported that adam Lanska received his weapons training from his mother ,aparently his brother has told authorites that his mother was basically a doomsday prepper and she had taught both boys to shoot a the local range and apparently she was pretty consumed with stocking up and preparing for the collapse of the economy and modern civilization. Now keep in mind thats what is being reported by the US media . This young man did some pretty meticulouse planning for someone with the mental problems they are reporting , he also did a pretty good job smashing his hard drives to his computers after he murdered his mother , sounds more home grown terrorist/psychopath to me . My personal opinion is untill people are made acountable for leaving theyre weapons un-secured and we start enforcing the laws we have on the books , we will still have the same thing happening .

I don't know if the laws on the books would have made much of a difference here since she had the weapons legally. Is securing weapons a part of the law? If not it damn well should be.

I dont know what states have specific laws on them , I know you can be charged with reckless endangerment , Im talking about requiring you to have a safe and laws such as charging the person with the same crime that was commited if theyre gun is un-secured and someones goes on a rampage and kill 50 people with it . just a thought and the background checks are really nothing more than an inconvenience .

You're required to have a safe in GA then? Hmmm.... There's not much standardization state to state.

The NRA is chiming in. They're the players who need to be at the table if any kind of meaningful national action is going to happen. Hopeful. Very Hopeful!

The National Rifle Association on Tuesday broke its silence on last Friday's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., denouncing the "horrific and senseless murders" and vowing to "help make sure this never happens again."

Facing a fierce push for new restrictions on gun ownership in the tragedy’s aftermath, the group said it would hold "a major news conference" in Washington on Friday. It did not elaborate.

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters—and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement emailed to reporters.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again," it said.

In keeping with its past practice after other mass shootings, the NRA kept quiet after the killings of 20 children and six adults at the school, plus the gunman's mother. Gun control advocates, however, have ramped up calls for new restrictions to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. And President Barack Obama himself has called for a strong response to the massacre.

"Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting," the NRA said in its statement.

Given their past history, my bet will be that they will not recommend restrictions on gun purchases (in fact will come out strongly against them), but may recommend safe storage laws. They will continue to recommend training in firearm safety, but will not require it for gun ownership as they will see that as the first step towards licensing gun ownership, which they will never, ever approve.

No you are not required to have a safe , thats somthing I think should be law , Georgia requires a back ground check ,you cant have any Felonies or Domestic violence convictions , you can apply for a concealed carry permit and you are fingerprinted as one of the requirements . You dont have to have a permit to buy a firearm but if you have a current and valid CCP (concealed carry permit) you dont have to go through a background check .You also have to be 21 or older to buy a handgun, 18 on shoulder fired weapons I believe . I dont think these laws are effective at all. Non - residents cannot purchase a firearm in Georgia. we should also have a waiting period , that would prevent some casual purchases of people buying guns for other people . There are no real good solutions to this problem, there are just so many gun in circulation already that I think education and stricter laws pertaining to licensing are the only effective tools , Im not against mandatory licensing , I am against an Invasion of privacy to accomplish this . But even this will not stop the black market sales of weapons to people who shouldnt have them.

NRA said their piece, and didn't even mention securing guns at home. In retrospect I shouldn't be surprised, they are against any form of limitations.

The core of their statement was "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Given the prevalence of guns already in circulation I don't think there is any counter argument to this. They want to put police in every school...uh...where is the money to come from for this?

They then went on to blame violence in entertainment for creating the wrong mindset. When applied to children I can't find anything to fault with this statement. Would different child/adult standards be enforceable? [edit] (in the home).[edit]

So though I can't really disagree with their statements I wish they had come up with something more practical. Then again, getting assault weapons out of homes is not practical, at least over the short term. Locking them up at home is the best we can hope for. If the NRA had embraced long term gun policy change that would have been nice but totally unexpected from this group.

At least they made a public statement and said something. That's how a discussion starts.

They're taking a pretty narrow position though, which risks losing a lot of their moderate base as well as their libertarian base. That doesn't leave much.

I mean, the whole point of gun ownership for many libertarians is so you WON'T have to have police in every school and on every street corner!

David H wrote:
... the whole point of gun ownership for many libertarians is so you WON'T have to have police in every school and on every street corner!

Bingo!

I have to say listening to the NRA statement I want sure if it was a joke or not.
The problem isnt too many over the top weapons in society-its not enough!
Because the sort of world we all want to live in is one in which everywhere we go we are surrounded by people in authority with guns! Even in our schools!

I assume the word 'concillatory' has been removed from the NRA dictionary.

Oh the NRA is possibly the most over the top organization in America. And yet many people swear by them and consider anything they say to be gospel. I'm talking 10 to 20 percent of the population, not exactly a fringe.

The NRA is also basically a gun industry lobby so it's not too surprising that they would advocate the only course of action that not only allows for but actually necessitates more gun purchases.

But...but that's not what the NRA would recommend!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

this!

I've been following this discussion, but so far refrained from saying anything. And the crux if that is expressed here.

You cannot say guns make people safer. It is a recorded fact that carrying a weapon increases you chances of being harmed by one. It ups the ante.

I accept that some in rural areas may need a weapon for wildlife, the farmers and their sons/daughters have shot guns as soon as they are old enough and licences. But the idea that people should have them to act as a deterrent and to help them act as informal police is alien to me.

Equally there are many reasons why individuals become alienated or turn to violence, but that doesn't change the fact that guns and their availability is the issue.

And yes there may be a lit of guns in circulation, yes it may take a long time for licences and bans to take effect, but you have to start somewhere or it isn't going to change!

I don't understand all the prevarication.

Hi Kafia. Welcome to the discussion!

I think the national dialog may just now be approaching the point where the UK was in 1996. The recent tragedy has shocked everybody.

You can be certain that things will change, and some of them fairly soon. The question now is how much, how fast, and how unfortunate will the counter-reaction be when it inevitably comes.

But the idea that people should have them to act as a deterrent and to help them act as informal police is alien to me.

Believe me, I totally understand this! In this discussion I've been taking the position of most of rural America because I seem to be it's only champion here, but I understand the other position too. But that's what makes a good discussion, isn't it?

I'm hoping the prevarication comment was aimed at the NRA and not at me. If so, then it's really quite easy to understand. Their lobbying funding comes from the gun industry. They used to make most of their money from hunting. But as the US demographic has become increasingly urban, they've tried to shift their market to "recreational sport shooting" (which I find a bit creepy. Guns aren't toys! I feel the same way about toy guns and first person shooter video games, but that's just my personal opinion).

Now the industry sells a lot more guns for the 'cool factor' rather than the 'practical factor'. And they sell a lot of ammunition to this market!

So if you're truly trying to follow this national debate, please don't forget that it's happening squarely in the middle of the intersection between Democracy Street and Capitalism Avenue.

For me the biggest reason for not wanting to go the US way of guns everywhere is our police hate the idea- whenever they are polled on the subject they outright reject the idea of even arming police- believing as Kafria says that it only 'ups the ante'.
I cant imagine American cops voting overwhelmingly to not be armed, but from a police point of view you can see why they might think neither side being armed is a good idea.
It's basically an unspoken agreement between crims and police here- if you are armed and they catch you the law will come down on you like a ton of bricks, but if you are not armed not only will you get off with a lighter sentence but the police wont come in guns blazing either- on the whole it tends to work, amazingly enough.

I'm hardly a fan of the militarization of police, but at the same time, you can't expect current American police to just stop carrying weapons without suffering massive casualties. It'd be nice to have the same sort of "unspoken agreement" as the UK, but if that is even possible in a nation like the US, it's going to take a (very) gradual, long-term de-escalation on both sides of the law to get there. Both the police and criminals are too heavily armed to just give that up in a short period of time.

This is a semi-separate issue from trying to prevent mass shootings though, since most mass shootings are committed by people without significant criminal records.

I personally think that unless you need a gun for work, you shouldnt be able to get one. less guns, less shooting, less tragedy. Here a lot of people have them for hunting, and every year there are accidents and fatalities, people shooting their friends and family by mistake, its scary when I hear them shooting in the hills. People in the South of Italy shoot guns in the air during celebrations, its like being in Bagdad. this bloke got shot through his living room window. He was sitting down to Christmas dinner, and he got shot in the head in front of his family. I understand there are traditions and the history behind gun ownership. But for me being from the UK its a weird concept. I wish I understood the attraction.

Mrs Figg wrote: But for me being from the UK its a weird concept. I wish I understood the attraction.

It's very true that all of our concepts are shaped by where and how we grew up. Part of the fun of travel is letting yourself be challenged by this.

I remember when I first visited Italy in the 1980's I was intimidated by the guard with the machine gun in every bank who inspected you in the entrance, locked between the two glass doors, before buzzing you into the lobby. Then the bank tellers were behind 8 foot high bulletproof glass barriers with only a little slot to pass paper.

This meant that when the shopkeepers would come in with huge moneybags full of lira, they could only do the accounting through the slot. It would have taken an hour to actually pass the money through, so once the paperwork was complete, the shopkeeper would take several steps back on his side while the teller took several steps back on the other side. Then they would simply start lobbing and catching bundle after bundle of money over the top of the barrier like hand grenades over a wall (or like an American football pass!) Here our banks are more like the lobby of a nice hotel, with good free coffee and no obvious security. It really shocked me back then that people would have to live in such a state of such "constant terror" [as I then perceived it ]

Likewise, when I first visited London about the same time I found the almost constant presence of police officers rather oppressive. I'd never seen anything like it! It seemed to me at the time to speak of Orwellian control within British society, and I was shocked that people accepted it! [my naivete again ]

I'm telling these stories on myself to try to illustrate why all the loaded American rhetoric about Guns and Freedom can resonate in the relatively crime-free rural parts of the US, where we mostly leave our doors unlocked and the keys in the ignitions of our cars so we don't lose them. It's not uncommon to hear horror stories of the crime in the cities and how the people live in constant fear of each other there. Yes it's a bit naive, but there's enough truth to it for the pro-gun rhetoric to resonate, which is a big part of the problem reaching a national consensus.

As for the attraction of shooting, it's much the same as archery or darts with an extra measure of "willy waiving". What more is there to understand?