Wanye is out of his mind

[David White]

I don't really buy that article. Just review the contrary.

Even without video games, people have harmed and killed their fellow man in the past. Looking all the way back to Bible times when Cain killed Abel, all the way to Americans killing indians, to Germans killing Jews in the Holocaust, and everything in between.

There are no video games in the past until the advent of computers. But yet, people have had the evil intents of homicide/suicide regardless. Today's technology just gives us access to "simulate" such violent actions.

Bottom line is, there is no denying that humans can inevitably commit acts of violence and hate which may lead to murder. Video games did not all of a sudden make us like this.

I agree. The real problem stems from a mind that is not in touch with reality. Feed it a diet of deadly video games and on screen slaughter and you have a recipe for destruction.
Video games are fine. It's the warped mind that twists fantasy into reality that is the problem.
Wayne only used the media's own words against them when he spoke.
Nice deflection back at the main stream media for taking the talk away from gun control.

 

[Alaska444]

Agreed. The emotional knee-jerk reactions that we criticize the anti-gun people of are exposed here as well, albeit on the opposite side of the coin.

We need to project a more cohesive front. Unfortunately, Wayne L's message, while attempting to steer attention away from new gun laws, only added more churn IMO.

He only added fuel to the fire, better if he had stayed quiet frankly. First, he didn't really acknowledge the concerns of most Americans that think the black rifle is to blame for these events. He could have made a lot of points by talking primarily about gun owners responsibilities to secure weapons, ensure that those that shouldn't have firearms don't, and then talk about the security deficits but he didn't need to give an answer. Getting people to think about security will lead naturally to the right answer, but he should have let the public come to that conclusion.

I am afraid all he did was to stir the pot and become more of a target than he was before the news conference. While I agree in principle with his advice, he sure blew it in a public relations way. We already have a Gallop poll showing the majority that answered want armed guards in schools.

In any case, it was a terrible presentation and a public relations disaster. A call to arms is the last thing folks want to hear as they are laying the last of the dead in their graves. Poorly done in my opinion.

 

[Davek1977]

Here's an idea...lets focus on people, not inanimate objects like guns, magazines, video games, etc. We as Americans should be able to DECIDE whether we want to play video games or own a high capacity magazine for a dreaded "assault weapon". I'm a lifelong shooter....and a lifelong gamer. I don't feel any shame in admitting that. My passion for guns is stronger than my passion for gaming, but I shouldn't be pressed into being forced to choose between the two. As a sane, responsible adult, I should have access to just about anything, IMO. WHen I misuse said items, feel free to punish me for my actions. Until then, please remain clear of my business, and I'll return the favor. I could care less if my neighbor has 30 AKs, and plays Grand Theft Auto once in awhile, so long as he isn't in the vast minority of people who cannot seperate fantasy from reality. There are more important things to worry about. This "all in, support the NRA no matter what" that people like SteelyNirvana talk doesn't sit right with me in the least. I'll support them still, but as an individual, I am free to form my own opinions, even if they run contrary to what the NRA preaches. I don't feel like compromise today. I'm not selling out one hobby for another, when my participation in either has never harmed a single soul. The NRA is a magnificent organization, and I value their work. That doesn't mean as a gun owner, I'm a traitor of sorts if I don't follow their thinking hook, line, and sinker. We all deserve to be able to form and express our own opinions, even if they don't wholly echo the NRA 1000% of the time. By trying to seperate gamers from shooters, you are falling pray to the idea of divide and conquer. Many people overlap the gun owner and gamer groups. Pushing away what could be some of your strongest supporters doesn't seem like it makes an awful lot of sense to me. WE need all the support we can get here, instead of insulting large numbers of gun owners by painting them as irresponsible "gamers" that somehow contribute to societies seeming breakdown.

 

[helitack32f1]

I have to agree that video games have long lasting, negative affects on people, as evidenced by the fact that ever since I was young, I have had uncontrollable urges to hop on large mushrooms, stomp on turtles and leap up and bang my head on overhead bricks in search of coins and power-ups. Still kinda ticked off too that I haven't found the princess yet.

I was very irritated to hear Wayne L rag on video games in the same ignorant way anti-gun libs rant about the evils of guns. It makes him look like an idiot trying to move blame around. He would have been better served by getting up there and listing every single law violated by the Newton killer and simply asking: "If you believe criminals are going to abide by gun laws, I have to ask, what special kind of stupid are you?"

 

[larryh1108]

Why is it that the gamers feel that everyone is attacking their passion? You'd think, as responsible gun owners themselves, that they would want to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally infirm.

Blaming violent video games is as absurd as blaming the guns. However, if someone who is mentally imbalanced is pushed to mass killings by the video games, it does not mean that everyone who uses video games is violent and will kill any more than having a gun will make you kill.

Maybe there are people who are trying to take away video games just like there are people who are trying to take away all the guns. However, they are extremists. By bringing the relationship of the video game usage with the mentally infirm to the forefront perhaps the parents of the young kids will pay close attention to what games their kids are playing.

We regulate the age of firearm ownership. We regulate the age of buying cigarettes, porn and liquor. Perhaps pointing out to parents that playing GTA by a 12 year old is a bad idea and we'll have less of a chance of a troubled teen going over the edge. If any gamer here feels that a restriction of being 18 years old to buy these games is an infringement on their rights then they are also too young to legally own guns, IMO. I don't think the parents who use video games as "babysitters" realize that there are just some games a 12 year old should not play. I'd bet these parents still think a video game is another form of Mario Brothers or Donkey Kong. I don't think they really know what little Johnny is playing. If they knew it was regulated like cigarettes, liquor and porn then maybe they'd pay a little more attention to what they are buying little Johnny.

 

[Alnamvet68]

It appears that the Left has focused ONLY on the dated video games the NRA mentioned as well, while shamelessly and intentionally ignoring the entire presentation made by the NRA. While not a perfect assessment of what has occurred, it's a start, and yes, I am of the opinion that many of these games are excessively violent, as are the current crop of movies spawned by those peacefull folks in Hollywood. Mental health care, or the gross lack of care, beds, facilities is also to blame. The one thing that no one has mentioned so far is that the gunman who perpetrated this horrible crime was NOT a legal gun owner; in essence, he stole the weapons from the legal and rightfull owner, used them against the owner, and continued on his murder spree.

To the OP, the NRA may very well be just not for you.

 

[michaelbsc]

cosmoline, you are very vehement in defending the video games. Good for you. However, the mention of them by posters and people from the NRA and media are saying it affects players who are mentally disturbed to begin with. Nobody is saying that it causes violent people unless they are sick to begin with. Your anger towards those who are attacking video games seems very hostile. Chill out. Nobody wishes to stop you from playing your video games unless you are already mentally disturbed.

I think this points up the whole issue. THINGS are not the problem. The problem is that people who are mentally ill do not behave rationally.

See how we're starting a tussle among ourselves.

Let's use this to help us focus our energy on finding ways to help the people like this kid who fell through the cracks.

And for God's sake try to be a little positive instead curmudgeonly. WE want to HELP.

Not, "Screw off. It's not our problem."

You may as well claim that the Polish Army officers should have told the Soviets they weren't going to comply. Sometimes you have to have some "situational awareness" about the external environment.

Everyone who's still thinking we don't need to start getting really proactive had better start developing some situational awareness about our present situation. We can work to control it now, or we can let it get really out of hand.

 

[481]

See how we're starting a tussle among ourselves.

Of course- that is the desire of the anti-gunners who participate on these threads just as they are doing right here, right now- they pose as "concerned gun owners" and suggest concessions and compromise hoping to generate concensus amongst legitimate gun owners that we must accept the incrementalism being perpetrated by their number or lose all of our second amendment rights.

By creating the appearance that we are more disparate in our views than we really are -no gun owner wants to give up another right if they can avoid it- they hope to produce real fractures amongst those who really do value their second amendment rights. They hope from fear, they can generate control. It's not about controling guns, it's about controling people and it is happening right here, right now.

It is the oldest trick in the book- send in a few confederates who act as if they are fearful of losing everything and wish to compromise, appeal to the fears of the group being attacked and peel-off the fearful ones and by doing so create dissent and fractious dialog.

Those of you who do not want to concede your second amendment rights; do yourselves a favor:

- disengage from those who are clearly using this tactic, do what you know is correct, remain faithful to your values

- write to your elected representatives, flood the numerous media polls with your numbers

- join/contribute to a gun-rights organization (there are several out there- all very good ones- you know them all)

If we make it known that there will be serious political backlash and repercussions, our elected politicians have no choice but to do as we say or face being fired next time around.

Stand fast!

 

[pseudonymity]

He only added fuel to the fire, better if he had stayed quiet frankly. First, he didn't really acknowledge the concerns of most Americans that think the black rifle is to blame for these events. He could have made a lot of points by talking primarily about gun owners responsibilities to secure weapons, ensure that those that shouldn't have firearms don't, and then talk about the security deficits but he didn't need to give an answer. Getting people to think about security will lead naturally to the right answer, but he should have let the public come to that conclusion.

I have to disagree with this assessment. The media expected something from the NRA, since the anti's (correctly or not) see them as the PR arm of the gun owners in America.

The NRA did not and should not have made specific comments about the event and how to prevent it. There is no reason that they should - if the NRA represents law abiding gun owners, then no law abiding gun owner was responsible for this act. To offer specifics would be to acknowledge that somehow the NRA and law abiding gun owners bear some responsibility for the tragedy, and we should offer up specific fixes to keep it from happening again.

The NRA and its law abiding gun owners were not responsible for this tragedy, and we are not responsible for any fixes either. We have a vested interest in sitting at the table to discuss any new legislation they may impact our narrow area of interest, but we must not bear the responsibility for designing, funding, implementing or monitoring any type of so-called solution.

Right now the media buzz is mostly a reflection of the righteous anger of Americans, which is misdirected to the NRA and lawful gun owners. Despite the ground swell of opinion, federal legislation is made by a small handful of people, and those are the particulars we most focus on. In a way, we hold the legislative high ground - we do not need to pass any new legislation ourselves, just keep our opponents from further restricting our rights by passing new legislation. We have to hold our position and splinter the opposition groups and get as many voices in the conversation as possible. As the opposition grows larger, it is more difficult to draft legislation that addresses the concerns of all the people involved.

We need to maintain focus on defeating any proposed new gun control, but to do that we do not need to fix the underlying issues that made the tragedy possible. By all means I think that any NRA member as a private citizen should be part of the conversation about what the root causes of violence are and how to address them, but as a NRA member and gun owner, if you value your freedom your best bet is to remain focused on legislation. We hold the high ground, but we do not need to defeat the attackers of our rights, we just need to keep our position from being overrun.

 

[macadore]

What did you want the NRA to say? If you think the NRA's position was pathetic, offer suggestions for improvement.

1. Every thoughtful person is appalled and horrified by what happened. This included firearms owners.

2. Millions of schoolchildren were not harmed in any way on the day of the shooting.

3. There is no way to keep intelligent determined people bent on mass murder from committing mass murder.

4. Firearms are inanimate objects. Scapegoating firearms and the millions of firearms owners will not stop mass murders from committing murder.

 

[Alaska444]

I have to disagree with this assessment. The media expected something from the NRA, since the anti's (correctly or not) see them as the PR arm of the gun owners in America.

The NRA did not and should not have made specific comments about the event and how to prevent it. There is no reason that they should - if the NRA represents law abiding gun owners, then no law abiding gun owner was responsible for this act. To offer specifics would be to acknowledge that somehow the NRA and law abiding gun owners bear some responsibility for the tragedy, and we should offer up specific fixes to keep it from happening again.

The NRA and its law abiding gun owners were not responsible for this tragedy, and we are not responsible for any fixes either. We have a vested interest in sitting at the table to discuss any new legislation they may impact our narrow area of interest, but we must not bear the responsibility for designing, funding, implementing or monitoring any type of so-called solution.

Right now the media buzz is mostly a reflection of the righteous anger of Americans, which is misdirected to the NRA and lawful gun owners. Despite the ground swell of opinion, federal legislation is made by a small handful of people, and those are the particulars we most focus on. In a way, we hold the legislative high ground - we do not need to pass any new legislation ourselves, just keep our opponents from further restricting our rights by passing new legislation. We have to hold our position and splinter the opposition groups and get as many voices in the conversation as possible. As the opposition grows larger, it is more difficult to draft legislation that addresses the concerns of all the people involved.

We need to maintain focus on defeating any proposed new gun control, but to do that we do not need to fix the underlying issues that made the tragedy possible. By all means I think that any NRA member as a private citizen should be part of the conversation about what the root causes of violence are and how to address them, but as a NRA member and gun owner, if you value your freedom your best bet is to remain focused on legislation. We hold the high ground, but we do not need to defeat the attackers of our rights, we just need to keep our position from being overrun.

Actually they have the momentum and "moral high ground" in the eyes of the majority of Americans. These are the same Americans that just reelected a tyrant willingly.

Wayne's comments were hard to watch in that in his delivery he did look like a "gun nut" just as they are calling him. His rhetoric was harsh and it did nothing to calm the irrational fears of ignorant people as far as firearms. It was an unmitigated public relations disaster as even his closest allies acknowledge.

He did pose his solution, armed guards in all schools which even the conservatives don't support in total. It was a rambling, abrasive and dismissive speech that will not help our cause whatsoever.

The NRA is our only effective political voice and the majority of Americans consider them traitors to the American public. Delivering a combative speech the while they still haven't placed all of the victims in the grave just was not smart.

What is it that most folks remember from this press conference, THE NRA IS KILLING OUR CHILDREN from code pink. Praying on the fears of people in his speech did nothing to assure the public that the NRA support clear restrictions on those that should not have guns. No, I don't like his little talk at all. Fear mongering by the NRA, sorry, it didn't work for me and I carry daily. Terrible speech and a failed opportunity.

 

[jimflam]

NRA action

The NRA can be part of the solution by offering hot line support for people like Ms. Lanza, who was a gun owner with troubled teen. That is one of the things Wayne could have said.

 

[M-Cameron]

The NRA can be part of the solution by offering hot line support for people like Ms. Lanza, who was a gun owner with troubled teen. That is one of the things Wayne could have said.

a hotline to do what?

 

[Warp]

His rhetoric was harsh and it did nothing to calm the irrational fears of ignorant people as far as firearms.

And how do you propose that be accomplished?

 

[Alaska444]

And how do you propose that be accomplished?

There are many well known psychological tools to diffuse situations that work well on an individual and on a collective level. His speech was essentially, I am not the boogeyman, here is the boogeyman and then here is the solution.

Listen, folks have an irrational and a rational fear of high powered "black rifles." The irrational part comes from their ignorance of firearms. The rational part comes from the killing power of these rifles demonstrated at Sandy Hook.

He really did not acknowledge the NRA's support of eliminating all "loopholes" as they call them. The psychological ploy to those that come in and are aggressive is to agree with their anger and acknowledge their anger and not fight against their anger. For someone expecting a fight and you agree with them, it completely deflates their arguments. Instead, this was a combative speech trying to deflect responsibility to the media and to video games.

Sorry, even gun owners were angered by that, that is those that play these games which I personally consider vile, but that is my own opinion. Instead of defining the fears and identifying with those fears, Wayne started an entirely new debate on a national school guard system that even the conservatives don't support because of the costs. In other words, Wayne didn't give those that oppose him anything but further ammunition to oppose him with more fervor. No, this was a disaster that is only building upon his own speech.

 

[gc70]

1. Every thoughtful person is appalled and horrified by what happened. This included firearms owners.

2. Millions of schoolchildren were not harmed in any way on the day of the shooting.

3. There is no way to keep intelligent determined people bent on mass murder from committing mass murder.

4. Firearms are inanimate objects. Scapegoating firearms and the millions of firearms owners will not stop mass murders from committing murder.

The first paragraph of the NRA statement covered item #1. I wish the NRA statement could have covered the other ideas, because they are logical and absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, I don't think the American public embraces logic very often. The general public has been trained to expect the government to "do something" when bad things happen. If you tell the public there is no solution to a problem, some politician will surely propose "something."

The American public would like to think that something can be done about school shootings. If gun control was the only proposed solution, that might well be what gets done.

While the NRA statement and proposal might have been better, I am glad that the NRA made some kind of proposal. Now, the public has to actually think about competing proposals and choose between them, which is better than defaulting to gun control because it was the only idea put forward.

 

[Alaska444]

The first paragraph of the NRA statement covered item #1. I wish the NRA statement could have covered the other ideas, because they are logical and absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, I don't think the American public embraces logic very often. The general public has been trained to expect the government to "do something" when bad things happen. If you tell the public there is no solution to a problem, some politician will surely propose "something."

The American public would like to think that something can be done about school shootings. If gun control was the only proposed solution, that might well be what gets done.

While the NRA statement and proposal might have been better, I am glad that the NRA made some kind of proposal. Now, the public has to actually think about competing proposals and choose between them, which is better than defaulting to gun control because it was the only idea put forward.

You have to find common ground to diffuse a situation and get others to join your cause. It seems to me that the NRA is trying to exploit this situation no less than Obama in putting their armed guard proposal to the public. Wrong message at the wrong time. What do the scared masses have to identify with his message? Wrong message and trying to exploit the situation. They see right through it.

 

[gc70]

You have to find common ground to diffuse a situation and get others to join your cause. It seems to me that the NRA is trying to exploit this situation no less than Obama in putting their armed guard proposal to the public. Wrong message at the wrong time. What do the scared masses have to identify with his message? Wrong message and trying to exploit the situation. They see right through it.

A December 19th Gallup poll found 87% in favor of "increasing the police presence at schools."

You or I may not agree with the NRA proposal, but 87% is a very attractive number in a political fight.

 

[481]

You have to find common ground to diffuse a situation and get others to join your cause.

Protecting our children is our common ground.

It seems to me that the NRA is trying to exploit this situation no less than Obama in putting their armed guard proposal to the public.

The Left has been succesfully exploiting tragedies like this for YEARS. It's high time that we (gun owners and the NRA) used the same successful tactic to promote this cause. Unlike punishing law abiding gun owners with restrictive gun legislation, protection of our most vulnerable is a noble and worthy cause.

Wrong message at the wrong time. What do the scared masses have to identify with his message? Wrong message and trying to exploit the situation.

It is the correct message and it addresses a neglected obligation- the protection of our children.

They see right through it.

The same can be said for gun owners who are sick of the transparent attempts to disarm us at every turn by the anti-gun movement and their confederates.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Can't blame them for trying. They are just testing the waters to see if gun control is still a third rail like it was in the 90s and in 2000.

Let's stop talking about concessions and show them it still is.

 

[Alaska444]

A December 19th Gallup poll found 87% in favor of "increasing the police presence at schools."

You or I may not agree with the NRA proposal, but 87% is a very attractive number in a political fight.

Not my point. It is not the substance of the message in these situations but how they are perceived. I support allowing CCW in schools like Utah. Doing that is cost neutral and poses a very significant protective effect.

Look at the posts on THR on this thread. Even in his political base, there is much disagreement due to the fiscal costs of a nationwide school guard force. Sorry, there is uniform opposition to this proposal in the general public.

For those that have been married for a while, one of the arts of thriving in a marriage is to get your wife to do what you want her to do, but to make it look like it was her idea. That is the skill of politicians that have mastered public communication skills. Yes, we need to get rid of gun free zones. However, most folks have no clue what he is talking about. They still equate guns with violence.

I believe a more skilled message could have delivered the idea that the main issue is lack of protection. He could also have admitted that there appears to be a failure of the gun owner securing her weapons. When you look at what went wrong, that is the root cause analysis.

There is no evidence that video games had anything to do with this attack whatsoever. His attempt to deflect attention from the NRA did not succeed and it has angered many of those in his political base.

So, I have no problem with CCW in schools or even armed guards. Just getting rid of the gun free zones would actually be enough and not cost tax payers anything. But that is not a message that a grieving America is ready to hear at this time. It was the time to identify with the fears of the people and offer solace, offer a clear vision of the failure that lead to this tragedy and to build upon the public sentiment that we need to improve security in schools.

Without building that framework, his proposal rings on deaf ears. I see it as a missed opportunity since there is so much public support for improved police presence. If you don't take time to build a foundation of trust including evaluating the errors that led to this massacre, he is trying to build a tower without a foundation.

Sorry, folks can think what they wish, but the entire press conference was and is a public relations disaster that will not help our cause. Just my own opinion.

 

[SuperNaut]

For those that have been married for a while, one of the arts of thriving in a marriage is to get your wife to do what you want her to do, but to make it look like it was her idea.

lolwut?

 

[Alaska444]

Protecting our children is our common ground.



The Left has been succesfully exploiting tragedies like this for YEARS. It's high time that we (gun owners and the NRA) used the same successful tactic to promote this cause. Unlike punishing law abiding gun owners with restrictive gun legislation, protection of our most vulnerable is a noble and worthy cause.



It is the correct message and it addresses a neglected obligation- the protection of our children.



The same can be said for gun owners who are sick of the transparent attempts to disarm us at every turn by the anti-gun movement and their confederates.

Sorry, but the news conference was an opportunity to start a dialogue. If you have been involved in problem solving in a group setting, you have to get buy in. Framing the issue is much different than providing a solution.

The NRA news conference provided a solution before the public debate has even framed the question. That is simply doing things backwards.

In addition, they were still conducting funerals at the time of the news conference. No one was ready to hear a message of we need more guns.

All that he did was to put the focus back on guns instead of putting the focus on the security issues. No one heard in the sound quips we have security failures. What they heard was, we need more guns.

Sorry, wrong message, wrong time. This was an unmitigated tactical error.

 

[SuperNaut]

Sorry, wrong message, wrong time. This was an unmitigated tactical error.

Nah, the NRA will continue chugging along.

 

[Alaska444]

lolwut?

You never heard that before. If you want something but your wife might be opposed if you simply propose buying it. The art of avoiding a confrontation is build a framework without the proposal where she leads to the conclusion, we should buy this. Let it be her idea or let her think anyway it was her idea. Call it manipulation if you will, but really it is simply framing the question correctly that leads to the right conclusion. Another term for the same thing is buy in.

Here is a discussion of framing the question which is the psychological tool that the NRA completely overlooked in their press conference. It is a tool that allows you to dialogue with those that disagree with you in a large group setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

In the phase of framing the question to guide the dialogue, setting the correct question is the method that will by a logical progression lead to the right answer.

Instead, he was proposed a solution before the country has even had a dialogue. This could prohibit the NRA's ability to frame the question down the road. Very poor form on their part and very hard headed approach looking to exploit the situation. Nope, I don't like what they did at all since it sets us up for failure in the national dialogue.

Whoever frames the question in the national dialogue wins. So far, gun control is the only question really framed in the public mind. They had an opportunity to reframe the question and they blew it as far as I am concerned.