Trump to meet US video game industry heads on Thursday

[Zak33]

I'm gonna stand next to Tee Pee for a moment.

I'm a shooter, but in the UK. I'm literally not allowed an Assault rifle and to be honest i don't need one. But if I WERE allowed one, I'd want to make sure that IF the things were made illegal, that I had a certainty that the banning of a type of weapon was where it stopped.

I don't NEED the three shotguns I own. One would be ok tbh. But I have 3 for different jobs and that's how I like it. Many people have been killed or injured deliberately with Shotguns and many people here would ban them. But I'd not want that.

(lets remove the masculinity for a moment too.. my missus also owns a shotgun)

We in the UK aren't allowed firearms pistols. Even target practice with pistols is not easily accessible That's a real shame. My 12 bore is way more dangerous than a .22 rim fire pistol, BUT they're our rules and we have to live with them.

Now, Teepee is protecting his right and his countyments rights to bear arms. It's in his countries blood and I am a bit jealous that he can own what he does. We in this country cannot with any sincerity say that our rules are more sensible. If my air rifle shoot fractionally over the current muzzle veolcity, it requires a totally different license to my shotgun and weirdly, it's harder to get one of those. And I'm not allowed to buy a silencer for my legal limit air rifle on-line any more. I have to collect it from a gun shop. And lets be clear... it's not a gun. It's a metal tube with two hair-rollers and some foam in it. It's so light you couldn't smack a cod to death with it. But I CAN buy a bloody great kitchen knife from amazon and have it delivered to my work.

Baseball bats? I bet a LOT more people were SERIOUSLY HURT with them DELIBERATELY than died. But so too in England are people deliberately beaten up with a sock with 4 snooker balls in and a micrwaved jug of sugar water and a bottle of de scaler. Lets be honest here people.. it's people that kill people.

If I lived in America I'd not want or require an assault rifle. But if I lived where coyotes were endangering my livestock and my dogs... I'd probably at one point, realise that I'm better off with a semi automatic large calibre gun which.. oh... is nearly an assault rifle anyway.

Tee Pee lives somewherre that has those guns as a way of life. I don't entirely agree with the type of gun he can own and fire in his garden but I don't live there.

I can shoot my semi auto 20 bore 3 times very very fast. With heavy shot (number 4 and down) you'd be in horrible danger at quite long range. I do NOT want that taken away. Because there are certain pest control scenarios that I protect my property with that requires that type of gun.

Recently in Scotland Air Rifles became a weapon that needs a license (1st Jan 2017) How the HELL is Scotland going to know where they all are?
If you ban a type of gun in America HOW WILL YOU KNOW WHERE TO LOOK FOR THEM?

And oddly... I can get in my car and drive to Scotland with my SHOTGUNS, as I have a licence.. but I can't take my Air Rifle unles I apply to the Scottish Government for a license.

So my point ( if I have less than 20 of them)? American Gun Laws aren't easy to change. It's like turning a tanker using a plastic paddle. Should it happen? Perhaps hardcore assault rifles that can lay down lead as they do in the armed forces are a tad excessive for the bloke on the range or our hunting moose... but it'll take time because evebn if they are banned today at 9pm, there are MILLIONS of them and where will they go if the nice blokes who shoot them today aren't allowed to use them tomorrow?

The local dump? Land fill? Local recycling centre? or might they have another place in another war somewhere... ? You can imagine THAT market can't you? US bans a certain type of gun, and suddenly legally they have a value of zero. But there are millions of them. I think a few people might go buy them for $20 a piece and ship them in VAST quantities for other people in other countries to murder people.

[Corky34]

We're talking about why the US has such a high murder rate. The President might want to blame video games, you might want to blame guns, I want to blame drug policy. If some one can blame one thing unrelated to the President's opinion, then so can I.

The presidents opinion is that movies, video game, and the internet are to blame for people committing violent crime with firearms, so no the opinion that firearms are to blame is not unrelated as the president associated firearms with movies, video game, and the internet.

The issue, for me, with that is two of those things have very little of no evidential basis to them and one does, evidence shows that readily available firearms results in an increase in firearms related violence, there's a strong correlation.

EDIT: Firearms control does not equal banning firearms BTW as it seems the NRA and pro-gun lobbyists do like to make it a black and white issue.

[Zak33]

evidence shows that readily available firearms results in an increase in firearms related violence, there's a strong correlation.

EDIT: Firearms control does not equal banning firearms BTW as it seems the NRA and pro-gun lobbyists do like to make it a black and white issue.

not in Switzerland. They have a gun ownership close to America but a fration of the gun crime. A fraction

But you're right... it's not black and white

[Zak33]

oh here's a good chart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

put it in order of Homicides per 100,000 population per year

[TeePee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_C...eball_shooting

Sounds like the gunman was killed, but only after he did a lot of damage.

But again, a quick Google says there are 1.8M guns in the UK, and yet we don't get this sort of thing constantly happening. We also have violent video games, and I know people who partake in both yet I don't feel worried by that as fundamentally in this country we don't give firearms to nutters.

The US doesn't give firearms to nutters either. In fact, there are laws preventing nutters from owning firearms. They obtain them anyway, illegally, because they break the law. More laws won't help.

[TeePee]

The presidents opinion is that movies, video game, and the internet are to blame for people committing violent crime with firearms, so no the opinion that firearms are to blame is not unrelated as the president associated firearms with movies, video game, and the internet.

The issue, for me, with that is two of those things have very little of no evidential basis to them and one does, evidence shows that readily available firearms results in an increase in firearms related violence, there's a strong correlation.

EDIT: Firearms control does not equal banning firearms BTW as it seems the NRA and pro-gun lobbyists do like to make it a black and white issue.

You don't think there's evidence that Drug Policy leads to violence?

[Corky34]

We're not talking about violence in general though are we, the president, and by extension this thread, are talking about movies, video game, and the internet being to blame for people committing violent crime with firearms.

If, however, you want to go down the route of drugs policy leading to violence then lets apply the same logic to that as the pro-guns lobbyists, if guns don't kill people, people kill people then why not make all drugs legal? After all it's not the guns/drugs that kill people it's the people, with drugs there's correct ways to use them and people (doctors etc.) are trained in the correct use, for others they're illegal and yes people can and do break the law and still get their hands on them but, once again, it's not about 100% prevention, it's about reducing harm.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Why would you need virtual guns in games,when you can buy the same stuff many special forces use in other countries,and fire it in your back garden??

oh here's a good chart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

put it in order of Homicides per 100,000 population per year

The US has 10X the number of guns per capita than Switzerland,and both have significantly higher gun related deaths than here. Switzerland has nearly 9X the amount of guns per capita than the UK and if you just look at gun related murders,its a few times higher than here.

Considering Switzerland is a country which much lower poverty rates as it is very wealthy,and has under 9 million people,I am actually surprised the amount of gun related deaths there.

Plus I am not sure people are supporting the notion games cause more realworld violence - look at South Korea.

Games are national sports there,and their gun related homicide rate is lower than the UK.

The country is technically still at war with North Korea and conscription is mandatory. They not only have enough people who know how to fire a gun,but gun ownership is lower indicating greater regulation.

But if I lived where coyotes were endangering my livestock and my dogs... I'd probably at one point, realise that I'm better off with a semi automatic large calibre gun which.. oh... is nearly an assault rifle anyway.

Watch some documentaries,on places like Alaska,etc. Most of the weapons such people carry,are hunting rifles and shotguns with limited ammo capacity due to Bears,Moose and Mountain Lions. These people are living in isolated communities and they also hunt these animals so they can eat them.

Its the same in other countries - do you honestly think a maurading Elephant,Leopard or Tiger is any less dangerous - I knew some people who owned a farm in a tropical country,and there was no need for a rapid fire,assault rifle,and neither was it allowed,and I saw the guns they had. They were hunting rifles and shotguns.

Assault rifles are design to kill people in body armour,at a rapid rate with quick reload times,not to kill animals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The StG 44 was not made to kill animals,but to kill people at RANGE quicker than a battle rifle.

The problem is also the ammo capacity - this is what assault type weapons,have loads of ammunition and quick reload times,and they can be modified quite easily to accept things like drum magazines,as criminals have done that in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

I watched a US documentary on that - even the SWAT officers found it hard to take them down with an MP5 or an AR15!! An MP5 firing 9MM ammo. That is what the SAS used to use.

Do you honestly think,modern day Moose,Mountain Lions,Tigers,Elephants,etc have suddenly mutated in the last 100 years,etc requiring rapid firing ranged weapons to take one down?? Really??

I would imagine the ammo cost alone would not make sense!!

[ajax2061]

He'll do literally ANYTHING to avoid blaming how easy it is to buy "assault" weapons in the US. #neveragain

I hope the game devs are united in telling him that the only way is to stop the sale of AR-15 & similar guns.

When you've got someone whose campaign was funded by the NRA, he's not going to mess on his own doorstep.

Sadly the US seems to blind to the evidence...the rest of the Western world has strict gun laws and we don't suffer a fraction of the gun-related deaths that the US does yet we all have the same video games, TV programmes and music culture.

This is why he want's to arm teachers so his NRA buddys get even more sales..... If i was a games dev I would point out that there are next to none cases of this sort in country's with gun control

[Gerrard]

That was one of the mass shootings that was stopped last year. The guards with the pistols were able to stop the shooter with a rifle. That is one of many examples.

Hmm, bit of a circular argument there. The shooter bought the rifle legally and if you want to be really facetious, you could argue he was exercising his right to oppose the Government (isn't that one of the points of the right to bear arms?).

The effect on the suicide rate would likely be negligible, as once again examples of countries with strict gun control often have very high suicide rates. Japan being the obvious example.

Getting my stats a little bit muddled up here. I meant to say that if the UK were to legalise firearms to the extent of the US, suicides would no doubt be the biggest increase in firearm incidents.

Canada has had a few mass killings, but fewer than the US. They have a significantly lower murder rate. It turns out a healthcare system and treatment of mental illness combined with a better drug policy actually works.

Which I think would be just as difficult to change policy on as firearm ownership. Obamacare might not necessarily been implemented efficiently, but the opposition to socialism in the US does seem quite high. On the other hand, whilst the UK might be better on that front than the US, I still think we would have similar issues if firearms were as available. I can't really put my finger on it, but compared to other countries with firearms (Switzerland, Canada, Scandinavia etc.), the US's "gun culture" just seems... immature? Might not be the best word.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So if assault type weapons are hardly in use according to some in this thread,then banning them should be fine,as most people don't own them right?? It should cut down on the worst gun massacres,people can still kill themselves with less capable guns and everyone is happy??

Plus South Korea which is in a state of war with North Korea,has compulsory conscription(lots of young people who can operate guns),has stricter gun laws than here,lower gun ownership and just loves computer games,seems to have a lower rate of both gun related homicide and homicide in general than the UK,and has a lower GDP per capita too.

Surely the fear of war with North Korea should mean that people should be all equipped with an assault rifle just in case North Korea starts a war?? Prudent,surely??

Or do all those gamers pose an issue??

Edit!!

Look at Israel too. It surprisingly(not) has higher gun ownership per capita than the UK,but nowhere as much as the US which has 15X more guns per capita,and surprisingly has less gun deaths and gun related homicides per capita. Also compulsory conscription and stricter laws than the US.

Gun laws in Israel are comprehensive despite soldiers being allowed to carry their service weapons on or off duty. Civilians must obtain a firearms licence to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition.

Only a small group of people are eligible for firearms licenses: certain retired military personnel, police officers or prison guards; residents of settlements (in the West Bank and the Golan Heights) or those who often work in such towns; and licensed hunters and animal-control officers. Age requirements vary: 20 or 21 for those who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 otherwise, and 45 for non-citizens. Firearm license applicants must have been a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check (criminal, health, and mental history), establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course.[52] Around 40% of applications for firearms permits are rejected.[53]

Those holding firearms licenses must renew them and pass a shooting course every three years, and undergo psychological assessment at least once every six years. Security guards must pass these tests to renew their license to carry firearms belonging to their employers.[54] Applicants must demonstrate that they have a safe at their residence in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, and holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun and purchase an annual supply of 50 cartridges (although more may be purchased to replace rounds used at a firing range).[55]

In addition to private licenses of firearms, organizations can issue carry-licenses to their members or employees for activity related to that organization (e.g. security companies, shooting clubs, other workplaces). Members of officially recognized shooting clubs (e.g.: practical shooting, Olympic shooting) are eligible for personal licenses allowing them to possess additional firearms (small bore rifles, handguns, air rifles and air pistols) and ammunition after demonstrating a need and fulfilling minimum membership time and activity requirements. Unlicensed individuals who want to engage in practice shooting are allowed supervised use of handguns at firing ranges.

Most individuals who are licensed to possess handguns may carry them loaded in public, concealed or openly.[52]

In 2005, there were 237,000 private citizens and 154,000 security guards licensed to carry firearms. Another 34,000 Israelis own guns illegally due to their failure to renew their firearms license.[56][57] In 2007, there were estimated to be 500,000 licensed small arms held by civilians, in addition to 1,757,500 by the military, and 26,040 by the police.[58][59]

South Korea is even stricter than the UK!!

The Republic of Korea, known as South Korea, has strict gun policies. Hunting and sporting licenses are issued, but any firearm used in these circumstances must be stored at a local police station. Air rifles also have to be stored at police stations; crossbows and electric shock devices are also classified as firearms but their private retention is permitted. Tasers are prohibited, and possessing a toy gun without an orange tip is strictly prohibited. Violation of firearms law can result in a US$18,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.[75]

The majority of South Korean men are well-trained in the use of firearms, due to mandatory military service.[75] Despite this, gun culture is notably absent in South Korean society outside of the military, and gun ownership and deaths rank among the lowest in the world.

So,both of these countries who are surrounded by threats 24/7 still have stricter gun laws than the US and seem to be able to survive.

[FRISH]

Kind of weird how a lot of people there seem to have the logic that virtual guns are bad, real guns are good.

And the reason banning, not that's what people are talking about, would reduce killing sprees is probably the same logic that applies to drugs or any number of other things that have controls placed on them.

Banning Drugs has worked so well?

1) A lot of drugs have the issue of also being highly addictive.
2) So if we legalise drugs, the implication is that we wouldn't see a noticeable increase of drug consumption and deaths? I find it hard to believe.

More on topic, I honestly don't see the need in owning such a deadly weapon when it can be easier to abuse than any other weapon. A mass shooting affects more than the one's that have died and frankly I wouldn't trust the average American (or any citizen) with guns.

Sadly the shootings will continue, and people will continue to point fingers at things such as consumable media. It's a tough issue to solve in its own right, but if people are reluctant to act responsibly then that just prolongs any solution. I do think there are actually negative social influences, but not because of movies or gaming.

[TeePee]

We're not talking about violence in general though are we, the president, and by extension this thread, are talking about movies, video game, and the internet being to blame for people committing violent crime with firearms.

If, however, you want to go down the route of drugs policy leading to violence then lets apply the same logic to that as the pro-guns lobbyists, if guns don't kill people, people kill people then why not make all drugs legal? After all it's not the guns/drugs that kill people it's the people, with drugs there's correct ways to use them and people (doctors etc.) are trained in the correct use, for others they're illegal and yes people can and do break the law and still get their hands on them but, once again, it's not about 100% prevention, it's about reducing harm.

We should make all drugs legal. It's worked in Portugal!

[TeePee]

So if assault type weapons are hardly in use according to some in this thread,then banning them should be fine,as most people don't own them right?? It should cut down on the worst gun massacres,people can still kill themselves with less capable guns and everyone is happy??

Plus South Korea which is in a state of war with North Korea,has compulsory conscription(lots of young people who can operate guns),has stricter gun laws than here,lower gun ownership and just loves computer games,seems to have a lower rate of both gun related homicide and homicide in general than the UK,and has a lower GDP per capita too.

Surely the fear of war with North Korea should mean that people should be all equipped with an assault rifle just in case North Korea starts a war?? Prudent,surely??

Or do all those gamers pose an issue??

Edit!!

Look at Israel too. It surprisingly(not) has higher gun ownership per capita than the UK,but nowhere as much as the US which has 15X more guns per capita,and surprisingly has less gun deaths and gun related homicides per capita. Also compulsory conscription and stricter laws than the US.



South Korea is even stricter than the UK!!



So,both of these countries who are surrounded by threats 24/7 still have stricter gun laws than the US and seem to be able to survive.

The Modern Sporting Rifle is among the most popular firearms in the US, and the AR-15 and variants are the best selling rifles, dwarfing sales of all other types. They just aren't used to murder many people. Small caliber handguns are the murder weapon of choice, because gangs.

Israel is a great example of a country with a lot of guns and a murder rate almost as low as the UK. Meanwhile Mexico has very strict gun control, and a Murder rate many times that of the US. It's almost like there's more to it than that!

[TeePee]

1) A lot of drugs have the issue of also being highly addictive.
2) So if we legalise drugs, the implication is that we wouldn't see a noticeable increase of drug consumption and deaths? I find it hard to believe.

It's worked great in the only country that's tried!

https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...orld-copied-it

There's a great quote in that article about the US and their 'Addiction to Punishment' which certainly rings true!

[TeePee]

Watch some documentaries,on places like Alaska,etc. Most of the weapons such people carry,are hunting rifles and shotguns with limited ammo capacity due to Bears,Moose and Mountain Lions. These people are living in isolated communities and they also hunt these animals so they can eat them.

Its the same in other countries - do you honestly think a maurading Elephant,Leopard or Tiger is any less dangerous - I knew some people who owned a farm in a tropical country,and there was no need for a rapid fire,assault rifle,and neither was it allowed,and I saw the guns they had. They were hunting rifles and shotguns.

Do you honestly think,modern day Moose,Mountain Lions,Tigers,Elephants,etc have suddenly mutated in the last 100 years,etc requiring rapid firing ranged weapons to take one down?? Really??

I would imagine the ammo cost alone would not make sense!!

Actually for game, the common .223 used in most Modern Sporting Rifles is not particularly effective. In many States, including mine, it's not legal to use for hunting because it isn't powerful enough. Most People hunting big game use a bolt action in a larger caliber, while those looking for a defensive firearm will go even bigger. .454 Casul revolvers or .45-70 Lever Actions are the way to go in bear country. Semi-Automatic isn't common with cartridges that large.