• moknives - January 12, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Look guys, a 12 Gauge shotgun can do as much to a crowd of people as a semi-automatic weapon can, and putting a ban on a specific type of gun will not curb the violence cause by irrational, mentally ill persons. I live in a small town where everyone is packing and I myself have had a shotgun under by bed since I was 14. Based on my experience with the issue, I feel that responsible, rational gun owners should not be penalized for the actions of the disturbed minority just as gamers should not be restricted due to the minority that can't filter virtual violence properly. NRA made a dick move though, and I have lost all respect for them.
  • gaz-wkd - January 12, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    A shotgun will not do nearly as much damage as a semi-automatic at all, idiotic comment really. If Americans want the tight to hold arms then there should be some common sense that goes along with it. Why in the hell would the general public need easy access to those types of weapons. I can possibly understand the use of them through extremely strict controls within a gun club and shooting range, aside from that.. no.
  • gaz-wkd - January 12, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    A shotgun with regards to a public crowd I meant to say.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    Oh really, and you know this how? You realize you can cycle most pump shotgun in the blink of an eye, right? I couldn't say whether a pump action shotgun could kill as many in Aurora as the AR-15, but keep in mind there are plenty of mass shooters with lower body counts than that. See: Columbine. That could have definitely been done with a shotgun.
  • Fleshcrawl - January 13, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    You're showing how little you actually know about ballistics and small-arms weapon systems, Gaz. And before you tread on the American gun nut cliche of a rant, do you really know where The Second Amendment and the Bill Of Rights came from? I would assume not given the impression you present yourself as you refer to Americans from a distant 3rd person writing stance. And if you're not American I would have to say you don't get an opinion what WE Americans do with our Arms or our games.
  • BigDannyH - January 14, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    You know you're just adding to the already widely believed stereotype that most Americans don't feel like they're actually part of the world, don't give a shit about the rest of us and don't think anything they do affects the outside world. Well sorry, but it does. Whether it's thieving investment bankers or lunatic politicians, what they do gets felt by the rest of the population, sometimes in magnitudes more than it affects Americans. And when these tradegies happen yet there still seems like little chance of you guys even contemplating the obvious ("maybe we shouldn't have so many guns?") it scares the crap out of us. Because you are a powerful country and we're your allies. For example, even when we have a million people protesting going to war we followed you. We got the same shit about WMDs spouted at us. It scares us because Sarah Palin was almost Vice President.
  • moknives - January 15, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    Look man, I understand how weird it must look from the other side of the fence and I understand why your country did away with most gun rights. But the gun is so much a part of our (general) culture that cutting it out would be somewhat akin to prohibiting alcohol.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 15, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    I think that may be a little over exaggerating. Sure, the rednecks might cry and threaten us with a second civil war, but I think people would eventually get used to it.
  • ParagonT - January 15, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    People will get used to anything, but that still doesn't make it right.
  • Meleedragon27 - January 16, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    And why should we give a shit about the rest of you? You and the rest of Europe are a bunch of lazy, spineless ingrates who never appreciate a single goddamned thing we do. We're the ones going out and about, risking our lives and trying to maintain world order (key word: TRY, which is still a hell of a lot more than you guys can claim in recent years), but do we get even a single thank you for doing all of this dirty work for you? No, you just criticize us and tell us how to live our fucking lives at every turn even though your knowledge of the U.S. is likely restricted to brain-dead TV shows, movies, and comments on the internet (or, if you're really lucky, you took a trip to the U.S. and likely never ventured too far from Manhattan). It's been almost 250 years and we've gotten by well enough without your help, and we sure as hell don't need it now.
  • jackthemenace - January 12, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    The headline of the article was almost a little misleading, since most of the article was more about the games-leading-to-gun-iolence debate, but that's my only complaint with it. I'm very happy there are Americans that see that games aren't to blame for gun violence, and widespread access to guns is. Unfortunately, I foresee the US banning Video Games before they ban the sale of firearms, and another decade at least before they even realise that with Video Games gone, there's been no change in the rate of gun violence- at which point, they still wouldn't ban guns or UN-ban Video Games, they'd just ban the next most violent form of media, whatever that is in the 2020's.
  • archnite - January 12, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    Thank you for writing this.
  • BigDannyH - January 12, 2013 4:48 a.m.

    From reading these messages, I kind of feel the NRA have already won. Nobody seems to be even entertaining the idea that perhaps your society would be a little healthier without everyone having access to guns. I'm not sure why a ban on guns is such a no-go area? It's such a no-go area that even these baby steps of banning automatic weapons seem to be DOA. Why do the "hunters" get so much protection too? "Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic, so banning them would ruin hunting". So fucking what! I'm sorry if your brutal, archaic hobby is made a little more difficult but we're trying to protect society! If they made a videogame controller that made it much easier to win at Fifa but, if a nutcase got hold of it, 10s of people could be murdered then, you know what, ban that bloody controller. I'll just have to get better at Fifa.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    I invite you to understand reality. You don't get why a ban on guns is a no-go? Read the Constitution. And before you come out with that "well regulated militia" line, try reading Heller vs. DC. Hint: the 2nd Amendment doesn't require that you be a member of a "militia," as we understand the term today, to own a weapon. You don't get why hunters get protection? Because the 2nd Amendment wasn't about hunting. It wasn't at the Republic's founding and it is not now.
  • Aardvarkk - January 12, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    That was passed when they still had muskets, so you are welcome to all the muskets you want.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    Sure, just let me know where the Constitution specifies "muskets." I'll be waiting, smart guy.
  • Bloodstorm - January 12, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    The second amendment is a safeguard against Government itself. The purpose was that the founding fathers knew Government only ever corrupts, and expands. A populace without a means to guard itself from Government corruptness and tyranny is a populace without any rights to itself. It is meant to keep the Government in control of the people, and not the people in control of the Government. The only thing that has changed since the 2nd Amendment was conceived is the peoples attitude towards Government. People have grown comfortably naive, and will their rights away to a rapidly expanding Government for a false sense of security, as if Big Brother is going to comfort them and make everything better, but not realizing that Government is the true monster behind the ever crumbling state of this country.
  • Asmodean - January 12, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    TOTAL BS. The Second Amendment only exists so that the Government of the time could raise and an army from the populace in the form of a militia. It is not a check on government tyranny or corruption it would bloody well say so if it was. -A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.- Second Amendment Nothing there about security against tyranny or corruption so stop touting BS about Big Brother or another conspiracy delusion.
  • garnsr - January 12, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    The Second Amendment is something that was changed in the Constitution, hence why we call it an Amendment. The 18th Amendment was added, then taken out, why shouldn't the Second be changed, too? Just because something made sense hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it needs to stay in control of our lives forever.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 12, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    I agree, I think the 2nd amendment would have been very different if the weapons we have now were available in the 1700s.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    Go ahead and try.
  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Because it still makes sense, once you remove enough of the founding beliefs of something, it easily becomes something else.

Showing 41-60 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.