We Recommend By ZergNet


  • 7-D - December 22, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    Is this guy taking the piss?
  • BaraChat - December 22, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    I cannot believe how ignorant and hypocritical this man (and the whole NRA) is. It makes me sick that this ******** has the national spotlight and uses it to downright LIE to people. Every single argument is completely wrong and can easily be destroyed by anyone with half a brain. Shit like this really make me wish the world actually ended yesterday. I'm deeply ashamed to live on the same planet as humans like this.
  • MasterBP - December 22, 2012 3:49 p.m.

    People played the new Splatterhouse?
  • christian-gottenbos - December 25, 2012 1:34 p.m.

  • Person5 - December 22, 2012 3:44 p.m.

    After this, my parents asked me if a game called Kindergarten Killer was real, I then had a nice long conversation with them, explaining the concept of a flash game and how they don't really count when used in an argument like this guy is making. Goes to show that people who don't know anything about video games do actually eat this stuff up.
  • Pwnz0r3d - December 22, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    This is literally coming from the guy that represents the industry that sells the weapons responsible for the massacre. I'm not saying take guns away, but if you HAVE TO HAVE A GUN IN SCHOOLS AND AT HOME TO FEEL SAFE, I suggest moving. Because that sounds like the absolute worst place to raise a family.
  • JachAnen - December 24, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    Having the exact same thought. But so many people would rather buy semi automatic rifles than move to feel safe. And obviously they don't even secure the weapons so the kids can't get to them. And who needs rifles, shotguns and machine guns to feel safe in a country with police? And why do people that are for guns use silly arguments like: If we had no guns we would be British - Like they are going to invade now. And: Criminals doesn't follow laws - Like everyone knows how/where to buy a gun illegally. And last: If we outlawed guns only criminals will have guns - The police also have guns. If thats not enough you, something is seriously wrong and needs to be fixed, instead of ignoring it with preserving and outdated law, that sadly is in the constitution, and put there because of a fear that no longer exist. Stop listening to the NRA or anyone else that has something to lose or gain in this matter, as they will try and manipulate you and sweep the discussion under the rug, like it has been done for years.
  • Edias - December 25, 2012 8:42 p.m.

    We rely too much on other people for our own safety. The police can't be everywhere.
  • ParagonT - December 25, 2012 9:51 p.m.

    I want to state a little something. The second amendment is there for a civilian defense against invaders, and not only that, but a check against usurpers of power in your government. It's there for a reason. When our constitution was being formed here in the states, there was much more thinking than a couple of kids and adults trying to justify why our forefathers and establishments are wrong. Sure times change, but greed, abuse of power, and corruption is a fine line that can and will be easily crossed in any time of day. The amendment isn't just for "hunting", "defense of criminals", and the like, but the very people you pay taxes to. People can say what they wish about what will the outcome be, but the last thing you want to do is strip away your own rights. That's the most ignorant thing to do. Since were talking about giving up our power to our "saviors" the police and forces, lets give up our right to an attorney, rights against unreasonable searches and the like too. Know what that sounds like? You get my point... Stricter gun laws could be a solution, but that's something I would have to see for myself when it's proposed.
  • gadjo - December 27, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    I'm a gun owner myself (in the "hunting" category) and as such do not want to see all guns taken away, but let's be honest here: A: anyone who's read the 2nd amendment knows it's talking about state militias, and B: implying that we could use our personal guns to overthrow our government is fantastical. Let's face it: they have remote control death jets, we have, at best, some assault weapons and hunting rifles. It would be a pretty short fight.
  • ParagonT - December 27, 2012 1:42 p.m.

    Although they may have better arms and the like, that still doesn't mean that we must "overthrow" but defend and repel. Big difference there. Although it may be a futile one, something is better than nothing. It doesn't take much force if all you have at your disposal is a baseball bat and a taser. Do you know why they call Afghanistan the un-conquerable? Due to its rugged terrain and its culture, its been invaded nearly the most. The same principle follows, it doesn't just take brute force and technology to steam roll a country, a handful of the population is enough to repel a large force and seek sovereignty if invaded. Not saying that the people would not be killed instantly, but more will take their place, but i doubt a usurped government is wanting to kill its producers and its own armed force resources anyway. With your A response I'm not sure what point you were making.
  • ParagonT - December 26, 2012 6:43 a.m.

    "And who needs rifles, shotguns and machine guns to feel safe in a country with police?"- An intelligent person who knows that having a major force difference is a fine line between abuse of said power. "And why do people that are for guns use silly arguments like: If we had no guns we would be British - Like they are going to invade now." I'm not even sure what that point was trying to be made. "And: Criminals doesn't follow laws - Like everyone knows how/where to buy a gun illegally."- Drug addicts and alcohol consumers (easy speaks) know/knew where to get them. "And last: If we outlawed guns only criminals will have guns - The police also have guns." already addressed. If thats not enough you, something is seriously wrong and needs to be fixed, instead of ignoring it with preserving and outdated law, that sadly is in the constitution, and put there because of a [fear that no longer exist.]- If there was no fear that existed, then there wouldn't be a need for a police force as you've said. I read this somewhere: "A government that does not respect your rights to defend yourself, does not respect your rights." It's easy to think of the world as a happy non-violent place where our government and everyone doesn't want to hurt one another, but that's not reality. Another note that I read somewhere: Do you where a seat-belt? Have you ever needed it as of yet? Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Have you needed it as of yet? Etc... The point isn't of if you need it, but when you will need it. Most likely you will be in a situation where you will need one of these things. Of there is an off chance that you may not, but its better to have it and not need it than to not have it and wish you had it. It's fine to have your own opinion, but I think there are much more far reaching complications that could come of it than "Everyone's just good people, guns are what makes them bad. Guns are the only killers in this world besides cars, explosives, propane, gasoline, lactose.... but lets not outlaw those..." You get the idea lol.
  • gadjo - December 27, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    The thing about so many people having guns is that people don't give their weapons any respect. In my opinion, you should at least need to go through hunter safety to own a gun. Too many dumbasses blow their own heads off, or leave their guns out so their kids can do it. The problem with your argument, however, is that even though I own some guns, I have no delusions of using them for anything other than sport. While everyone drives and crashes at some point in their lives, and everyone's house is flammable, only a statistically insignificant portion of people will be both awake during a home invasion and have the opportunity to do something about it. You can't rely on cowboy law to solve your problems.
  • ParagonT - December 27, 2012 1:52 p.m.

    "You can't rely on cowboy law to solve your problems." The police and armed forces do. If your not awake during those times, then your lucky to be alive to wake up and find whatever damage that has been done. I'm not saying that the police is not needed by no means, but I hardly see your point with people sleeping through crimes and being alive. So I see no link between you owning a gun and the fact that you may not need it or be able to use it. Same goes for the fire extinguisher. "Cow Boy Law" is a good way to keep civilians in check with numbers, for example: Guns are banned, I'm a criminal, "Okay, now all I have to do is have the numbers or force to over-power them." (just for home invasion of course) Guns mean you can't walk into your neighbors house with a posse and thump them and leave, guns even the playing field. Bullets don't care how tall you are or how many are with you, bullets are not prejudice lol. I do agree with stricter laws as I've said previously, but I am very much against the banning of guns.
  • azrael37 - December 26, 2012 6:49 a.m.

    well said.. its too bad more people don't listen to you then this idiot
  • dogfacemanchild - December 26, 2012 5:26 p.m.

    * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] Taken from These are reasons why people feel the need to have a gun. Benefits far outweigh the risks. And police cannot respond in time if an intruder has a weapon. So stop listening to liberal and conservative propaganda and educate yourselves.
  • gadjo - December 27, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    An assault weapon is just for that: assault, aggression. If you need a gun for home defense, stop being such a drama queen and buy a pump shotgun. The sound of loading it is in itself a means of defense, and the fact that it has a spread makes it easier to hit your target in the dark. You are trying to scare dumbasses out of your house at night, not battling insurgents. You do not need an assault weapon.
  • Meleedragon27 - December 27, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    Just because we don't "need" it doesn't mean it should be banned. There's a lot of things we don't "need," but that's not the point of capitalism. And besides, banning these semi-automatic military style firearms (and really, that's pretty much what these "assault weapons" are) isn't going to change anything, or have you forgotten about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? During the 10 years when it was in effect, it not only failed to reduce gun crime (fun fact: the "assault weapons" you speak of are rarely used in actual crimes - most criminals favor handguns due to their compact size), but incidents like what happened at Sandy Hook still happened (Columbine rings any bells to you? Those kids didn't exactly walk into a gunshop and buy that weaponry... also, pipebombs and Molotovs). What's more, the legislation had so many holes in it that most of the companies who made these "assault weapons" were easily able to alter their designs with minimal fuss. What you're proposing wouldn't fix anything at all. Admittedly, I have no real interest these semi-automatic military style firearms myself (again, those are what most of these "assault weapons" are); I'd much prefer a pump shotgun or a bolt-action rifle. But I still think people should have to right to buy these fancier guns just like any other firearm.
  • Funkzillabot - December 22, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    Oh...I see how it is. When the spot light get's too bright, the NRA cast blame in another direction. Rather than face facts or having an adult conversation about a serious situation they, themselves have created.
  • gadjo - December 27, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    Totally. They just needed a scapegoat of some kind after an atrocity was committed with an assault weapon. You can almost hear the meeting they must have had before this: "Oh crap, someone used an assault weapon to murder a bunch of kids. Time to dust off the old "violent video games" speech.

Showing 21-40 of 94 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.