Rush Limbaugh actually says something rational

[IronBrig4]

I'll be damned

Of course, I'm talking about the pundit (not our poster).

I never thought I'd see the day, but I actually agree with him on this. I never pictured him defending violent video games before this.

[Thanatos]

I agree with him on this as well.

While video games are not the sole reason people go out to murder others, we still must remember that everything affects us, especially youth, in some way, even if it is only a little.

[VoodooTengo]

Rush Limbaugh saying something rational? thats a first, there is this great video on YouTube about his hipocracies and his other inconsistancies.

Obviously pretty much everyone here would agree with him on that seeing as this is a fansite for a series of violent video games. But I'm sure somehow he blames people killing others on drugs, or liberals or any other groups/things hes against

[Da Skinna]

Wow. Not only was that completely rational, but he didn't drift out of consciousness from the Oxycontin...

Cheap shot, but I agree with him. And what happened to our Rush anyways?

[harm]

wow, he said video games doesn't make people killers. Give him a medal.

[Erik]

wow, he said video games doesn't make people killers. Give him a medal.

Actually, he said:

it may desensitize people, but it doesn't turn everybody into mass murderers.

Implying that computer games do turn some people into mass murderers, just not everybody.

But there has never been any indication whatsoever that computer games have turned even a single person into a murderer.
Despite hordes of sociologists looking for this link.

The exact opposite is true: since the introduction of video games violent crime committed by young people has only DECREASED.
And every time a popular violent game like GTA comes out their appears to be a sharp DROP in violent youth crime rather than an increase.
Not sure why this is, but my simple explanation: computer games keep kids off the streets and occupied.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Hahahaha the thread title is the exact phrase I said to my friend when I saw that on digg.

[Da Skinna]

It's like the most basic thought when we all see that...

[Sidus Preclarum]

Limbaugh said something rational ? /me reads .
Omg, he did. the rapture index must have gone wild.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's sad that gamers have to seek out Rush Limbaugh to find someone not being a prick. I wish people would just play games, then say if they're driving them to kill. Doubt they will. Nothing will ever improve if we waste our time entertaining purile notions that music, movies or computer games are the cause of these tragedies.

[leeho730]

He's using video game logic to defend pro-gun stance.

"But if you want to start blaming the video games, this guy was this or that, weeeeell, then you've gotta maybe talk about banning them because that's the same tack that's taken with guns. You got one guy who used a gun that's it. You're falling prey to the same way the Drive-Bys propagandize, and that's, "Well, we need gun control! We gotta get guns out of the hands of people."

Wrong. People with guns can kill large number of people directly. People watching movies and playing video games don't. You can take guns from armed offender, but you don't take his right to watch movies or violent video games.

Completely wrong comparison.

[Captain Blackadder]

Well that is strange however we shouldent get our hopes up he was trying to make a point about gun control which is he standard manifesto. However I do agree (obviously) that games don't do anything

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think it's fair to say that people who lead the charge against videogames as causes of violence are not God's most intelligent creatures.

http://sociopaths.ytmnd.com/

[mrjesushat]

I can't believe this. It must have been an accident, because normally, Rush Limbaugh can't think his way out from under a tissue. I'm guessing it was the pills talking, but, that said...

The shooter must have been driven to this act by the things he enumerated in his own statements. We have to get beyond terms like "evil", "deranged", "crazy", and "random". Evil is far too relative a term, deranged and crazy are obvious monikers for behavior outside the boundaries of what is normally acceptable, and random is just plain wrong. This cat did not do this randomly. This was planned, and the motivation was totally justified in his own mind.

People who do these things are rarely in a mindset of attack. Cho was responding to what he perceived as an attack on his personhood. What is it that makes these folks think they are being attacked or imposed upon? What is it about modern society that makes some people respond this way?

If we answer this question in a rational way, we might be able to make some changes and become a cohesive and recognizably human culture. If we continue to shove our head so deep into our rectum that we can taste our own collective colon, we will only see more and more of these kinds of acts, whether we make video games and guns illegal, or not.

It's not the entertainment, and it's not the availability of weapons. It's something about the social atmosphere that we exist in. And if we fail to recognize that, we run the risk of being shot by "crazy, deranged, evil" people in "random" acts.

[leeho730]

Key word: self-defence.

According to the video tape he sent to NBC, in his mind he was defending himself from the society, or providing a just retribution to the society that rejected him.

In too many cases guns were used to defend the pride, inflict exact revenge to the society (teachers, friends, you name it), rather than to save their own lives. Guns are also used for arguments, especially during personal dispute.

Self-defence is a significantly broad, vague concept, and can be bent to whatever purpose the offender wish to apply or justify use of the firearms for.



On the other hand, other European countries use different reasons for justification of possession of firearms.

Switzerland, for example, use guns to defend their nation, against foreign aggression, and there are three conditions for carrying permit which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security though some cantons issue the permits very liberally:

-fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit
-stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger (i.e. security sector workers)
-passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon.

Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland. Practice with weapons is a popular recreation, and is encouraged by the government, particularly for the members of the militia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland


New Zealand NRA strictly states that their aim is 'to support and develop safe and controlled target rifle shooting as a sport in New Zealand.'

http://www.nranz.com/aims.htm


In Australia, the law excludes self-defence as a reason for issuing a licence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun in UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom


Finland:
Many active military reservists personally possess pistols, target rifles, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles for practice shooting. This has been passively supported by the government, as it gives the reservists the possibility of practice shooting without the requirement of government spending.
To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling.
Private ownership of tear gas or pepper spray is licensed for the purposes of personal protection, collection, training, or education. It must be noted, however that personal protection, education or training are not valid reasons to get a licence for a private person but apply only to security companies. Any usual need for professional use of guns should be covered with incapacitating agents, but for high risk facilities such as nuclear plants, security guards may get a firearm license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland


I am not 100% sure about Canada, but it seems that self-defence or security are not emphasized as a valid reason for possession of firearms. Moreover, Canada has extensive safety course and registration procedure. They're quite strict.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

We have some exceptions, such as France, but the justification of possession of firearms for self-defence is not as extensively embedded as in US.

[leeho730]

Moreover, mass-shooting in France, 2002 made French President Jacques Chirac to reconsider gun laws, stating that 'vital warning signs were missed by authorities in the case of Richard Durn, who gunned down eight council members in the western Paris suburb of Nanterre.'

Interior Minister Daniel Vaillant also told French television that a law passed following the 11 September attacks on America would close any potential loopholes, although the law has yet to be approved by the Council of State.

"It will give local prefects greater capacity to confiscate guns from those considered dangerous to others or themselves," he told the TV channel France 2.

Candidates wishing to purchase a gun in France must be able to provide medical records to prove they are of fit mental capacity to own a weapon.

However French authorities have been unable to explain why Durn was able to obtain a license in 1997 despite a history of psychological problems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1899948.stm

You can see that France authorities have rather acted promptly to change the gun regulation laws after mass shooting.

US? Several decades of mass shooting and politicians have been oddly quiet about gun laws at the moment, due to the fact that 1) it's near the election period; 2) advocating stricter gun control law will significantly decrease public support of the candidate. Lenient Virginia state laws regarding guns are likely to stand as is.

Insane.