• winner2 - January 15, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    This article and these comments really bore me, I'm not sure why I read them. I do know however that I'm pissed at the shooter because now everyone has to talk politics and law (2 things rooted in subjectivity IMO). I just want someone irrefutable to come down and say "you're all wrong fools!"
  • Moondoggie1157 - January 16, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    You're all wrong, fools! Done. You're welcome.
  • TheDCSniper - January 14, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    It's funny how the media view the term "objective" to mean that all sides of an argument are presented. In terms of semantics, it means the exact opposite. It means the one definitive, empirically true answer. It's the media's dogmatic adherence to so-called "objectivity" that got Americans convinced that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The media need to learn that the old journalistic maxim that "there's two sides to every story and the truth lies in the middle" sometimes isn't true. Sometimes one side is demonstrably right and the other side is just wrong.
  • profile0000 - January 14, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    I grew up in an upper-middle class white family in downtown Detroit (No, I don't know why). My dad had a cousin who was killed by accident because he passed by a drug deal gone wrong, so after that my dad always carried with him when he went into uglier parts of town. He never used it. Hell, I remember he never even kept ammunition in the magazine. However, I can remember him pulling it out many times to scare away the occasional shady character that would try to pull something. Most of these instances were probably just incessant hobos, but I remember a few instances where the person had a knife and one where he had a machete. When we moved out of Detroit into the Metro, he stopped carrying outright. Now, he uses the guns for target shooting and plinking. I got into sport shooting because he did, and now I own guns as well. As a gun-owner whose family literally purchased firearms for protection, I can confirm that having a gun can help in dangerous situations. Obviously, if you live in, say, San Francisco, having a gun is pointless. Where I grew up, it was almost a necesscity, especially if you wore a suit outside. I, as a gun collector and frequent sport shooter, can support tighter policy if it has a non-extreme effect on me and my hobby. Meaning a more extensive purchasing requirement, more thorough background checks, or perhaps an additional tax are all totally fine. But outright denying or strictly limiting me and other law-abiding owners is where policy becomes unconstitutional, in my opinion. I do support the prohibition of sound suppressors and fully automatic weaponry, however, because that shit is just too cool for one person to own. Just thought I would give my opinion and insight. Videogames aren't ever the problem. Guns can enable a problem, but ultimately people are the problem. On another note, I currently live in Detroit. And I still am not quite sure why.
  • Boonehams - January 14, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    "America fetishizes the idea that every voice should be heard, irrespective of whether what's being said is constructive or destructive, pernicious or valid. It also knows that objectivity is defined by whichever subjective voice shouts the loudest, and we all know how much the press loves their objectivity." Truer words have not been spoken.
  • SilentDark - January 14, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    Countries with tight gun control laws, in general have lower instances of gun crime, sure if a person wants to find a gun they still can but they aren't readily available. The UK has gun crime but massacres like this are a very rare thing. Owning a gun should not be a right, it should be a privilege you have to earn, like driving a car.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    If I must have "privilege" to do what I wish to do, then it's no better than slavery.
  • ThatFanInThePeacoat - January 14, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    That statement is outrageously overstated. Do you really believe that earning a privilege is comparable to the horrors of slavery that existed on this land for over 150 years? Maybe you're just trolling, but either way it's revealing of your ignorance of the vast difference between regulation and slavery.
  • Arobadope - January 14, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Slavery technically just was the hyper-regulation of the black populace. So you can equate regulation to slavery if you want to get into technicalities. Of course, you can only really regulate commodities and blacks were considered property during the slave era, so once more drawing the comparison.
  • ckb1980 - January 14, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    As a black man, fuck you. It was inhumane treatment of PEOPLE, period. We are not even close to GOODS that were regulated. When I sleep with your mom and sisters, sell your daddy for a few dollars, and whip you cause I feel like it maybe you'll understand just how stupid your comment was.
  • ParagonT - January 15, 2013 5:45 a.m.

    As another minority, please adjust the height of your horse next time. Maybe in about a couple of years through puberty when you won't take offense to something that has long happened in the past and we can talk civilly about it, then perhaps people will give us respect. When you have to resort to foul language to "get your point across", your apart of the problem of why there is still racism in this world.
  • Arobadope - January 15, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    You sir, a lighthouse in the storm.
  • gadjo - January 16, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Dude, are you honestly trying to be the "reasonable" guy when you just compared the subjugation of an entire race to unpaid manual labor and rape to not allowing people to own assault rifles for fear they might be crazy and use them to shoot a bunch of kids?
  • ParagonT - January 16, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    I compared the instance of slavery to the idea of little to no rights, but if you want to throw in the rape and unpaid labor (since it doesn't have to be manual), then that's of your own accord. It was obvious what I was comparing, so please read the whole string of comments to understand what I was inferring. Also, slavery was not just a "one race thing", please understand what the general term of slavery meant and read a bit more on it. So I must ask the same. Are you trying to be the "reasonable" guy by not understanding the connotation of the conversation, while thinking slavery was all about one race, and assuming the worst?
  • Arobadope - January 15, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    Just so you know...I am black to, so no you can't fuck me.
  • Arobadope - January 15, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    Also, yes that's essentially what you do to goods, whatever you please. Also none of that happened to you, so like Paragon said, adjust your horse lest you come off like more of a moron.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    I wasn't even mentioning African slavery, I was talking about slavery in a general term. But I suppose African slavery would be included in slavery. Still, it equates with the idea that you have little rights, if at any. I'm overstating? Please, I'm stating facts here. It's only a snowball effect waiting to happen. It may not be in 20 years, but the time will come when people who like to give up their freedom to "feel safe" are going to start something that none of us can change back. Then tell us oh wise one, where would you say the line is drawn? Because other than name call, you did little else but to refute the matter.
  • ventanger - January 14, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Many of those countries with tighter gun control laws, also have lower indexes of personal freedom. The Soviet Union had 100% literacy, that alone didn't make it an inherently better society. If you think owning a gun should not be a right, then surely you're in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, or ratifying a 28th that radically redefines it. If that's the case, if you want to fundamentally transform the Constitution, then why don't you just say so?
  • BigDannyH - January 14, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    You do realise that, in the UK at least, we don't want to own guns. Partly because they're not fetishised over here, but mostly because we don't want the nutters to have them. We don't even let our coppers have them! It's not a violation of our freedom, it's our choice and it's a sensible, rational one. And regarding freedom, isn't the rich-poor divide in Amerca huge, with most of the population working ridiculous hours for not a lot of money? Doesn't sound particularly free to me (unless of course you're one of the lucky few born into privilege).
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    It's not right neither, and I'm a strong advocate for better wages, but that doesn't make this issue a good one to have just because there are other problems that need addressing.

Showing 1-20 of 142 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.