Google+

How to (not) talk about a massacre

Not all conversations are created equal

Words: on January 11, 2013
Back to Article

142 comments

  • ventanger - January 11, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    I don't understand why you can't take the position of liberty, which is to say, let people who want to buy an assault rifle, have an assault rifle, and that people who want to play whatever kind of video game they want, can play whatever kind of video game they want. Why, to you, is freedom this baked pie that must be divided up, one getting smaller at the expense of another getting bigger? The NRA's tactic to shift the blame onto videogames is abhorrent, but as you've said, logical, therefore, expected. Anything to take the shift off guns, because, they're not to blame either. The single largest change we can make as a country, to prevent a future Sandy Hook, is to restructure our medical mental health institutions. Now, that's an even larger conversation about who's responsible for that, but I'm sure you'll think about those issues. In the meantime, please don't say that Alex Jones is a "a bloviating fat man who, from what I can tell, earns his bones by advocating socially conservative positions". First off, fat? Seriously? Come on Coop. Secondly, "advocating socially conservative positions" is deeply dishonest. Alex Jones is a mental case, even from the perspective of people who proudly self identify as Conservative Republicans. He's fringe-Right. Putting him in the same boat as people like Prager, Medved, and Beck is as dishonest as putting Barbara Steisand in the same list as, I dunno, John Stewart and Piers Morgan. I know you're a journalist who lives in San Francisco, but try to treat your more Conservative readers (and fans) with a little bit more respect. You'll receive it in kind.

  • The_Tingler - January 12, 2013 2:39 a.m.

    I notice you're still agreeing with the idea that mentally ill people should be allowed to get their hands on powerful weaponry. The worst that happens if a kid plays a violent videogame is that they start swearing and jumping around like Max Payne. The worst that happens if that kid or an insane person gets a gun is that people die. I still don't believe that there are people out there who don't have a problem with devices designed exclusively to kill as many people as efficiently as possible being available within easy reach of kids, criminals and the mentally ill. And it's Tom, not Coop.

  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    You know that a teenager protesting with Occupy Oakland went home last year and killed his parents with his bare hands, right? (ban karate classes!) Must you really subscribe to the delusion that a gun is the only thing that can kill people?

  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 12, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Of course a gun isn't the only thing that can kill people, you can kill a person with pretty much anything. The difference is, the only purpose of a gun is to kill. And please don't give some bullshit excuse about them being used for "protection."

  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    Paraphrasing another comment - if you were the victim of a mass car murderer instead of a mass shooter, I'm sure you'd be comforted your imminent death would be from internal bleeding caused by massive blunt trauma, rather than small perforations. You'd still be dead, of course, and so would several others. Oh well.

  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 13, 2013 10 a.m.

    You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. A car's main purpose is transportation. Yes, vehicles have been used to kill people. However, a gun's ONLY purpose is to kill. Allowing powerful weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens is only encouraging violence, not preventing it.

  • ParagonT - January 14, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Guns are used for wounding, intimidation, and lastly killing. It matters not about it's purposes, Drain Cleaner may have it's original purpose, but can become a tool used for other things with a demented human's hands. In the end, that person is dead, wounded, sick, or whatever. If your so big into not allowing powerful weapons into ordinary citizens hands, then you should be a big advocate of not allowing vehicles, chainsaws, power tools, etc... Because although their original purposes may not have involved "killing", it matters not if people CAN kill with it. What If for example; that someone made a rocket launcher for decoration of potential, but it's original intention was to never be fired? To you, that wouldn't be a weapon right? Because it's original intentions matters more than what it can become with someone else's hands. Same with a car, although it's intentions when created was not for killing, it's used for it anyway.

  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 15, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    Don't be stupid. I've already mentioned that you can kill someone with just about anything. However, no way is quicker or eaiser than with a gun, and you would have those "tools" be readily available to the public?

  • ParagonT - January 15, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    No need for name calling if your running out of steam now. So since you admit that you can kill someone with just about anything, so you would be an advocate for getting rid of automotives, chainsaws, knives, rope, and everything else as well right? Butt I digress. Just because you claim it's "easier" to kill with a gun means little else when weighed against the fact that they're dead. Whether it was easier to do it with that tool or not is of little concern to the fact that a person had decided to go out to kill someone. So I would suggest that we all put our frustration into things that are actually correlated to crime, such as education, standard of living, physical and mental health, and things I suggested instead of taking out your frustrations on one of the many tools that are used to kill.

  • MrSegraves - January 11, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    All that semi-automatic means is that you pull the trigger, it shoots, you don't reload, you pull the trigger, and it shoots again. This actually covers MOST hunting rifles that are commonly used today. The only ones that aren't semi-automatic are older hunting rifles and bolt-actions. So saying that there is no "social value" to semi-automatics really misses the point of what they are at all.

Showing 141-142 of 142 comments

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

Connect with GamesRadar


Featured Guides

Connect with Facebook

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