Missouri proposing 1% tax on video games-pay for Mental Health & Law Enforce, Page 2

General Games Discussion has a new name! Primary Games Discussion forum is the place to discuss all matters of the gaming world, be it the platforms, latest in industry news, or even gaming music and movies!

Rules:

- Follow the Terms of Use and read the FAQ.
- Be respectful and you'll be respected in return.
- No discussion of illegal activities.
- Cross-Platform debates belong in the System Wars forum

Missouri proposing 1% tax on video games-pay for Mental Health & Law Enforce

« prev next »

Page:

MrGeezer

Level 67
I Am Error
Posts: 54684
Jan 18, 2013 7:50 am GMT

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns were more responsible for the deaths, seeing as that was the weapon used at the crime scene, than videogames. The way I see it, if they tax the gun sales and those taxes go to mental health studies and treatment then you'd be doing a greater justice than taxing something as stupid as videogames.I would also think guns sell a lot more in America, and they cost more, so... more money from the tax.
You cannot tax a person who may or may not cause a crime especially after said person is dead, but you can, however, tax something that allowed the person to commit the crime, something that allows many other people to commit crimes, and then use that money into helping people get treatment for the other even more directly responsible issue, mental illness.

I wasn't arguing whether or not a tax would do more good than harm, I was taking issue with the claim that guns were directly responsible. By that logic, someone could break a game disc in half and then use the jagged edge to cut a baby, and then it would be fair to say that video games are directly responsible for people's deaths too.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 7:50 am GMT
[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns were more responsible for the deaths, seeing as that was the weapon used at the crime scene, than videogames. The way I see it, if they tax the gun sales and those taxes go to mental health studies and treatment then you'd be doing a greater justice than taxing something as stupid as videogames.I would also think guns sell a lot more in America, and they cost more, so... more money from the tax.
You cannot tax a person who may or may not cause a crime especially after said person is dead, but you can, however, tax something that allowed the person to commit the crime, something that allows many other people to commit crimes, and then use that money into helping people get treatment for the other even more directly responsible issue, mental illness.
[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing whether or not a tax would do more good than harm, I was taking issue with the claim that guns were directly responsible. By that logic, someone could break a game disc in half and then use the jagged edge to cut a baby, and then it would be fair to say that video games are directly responsible for people's deaths too.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Archangel3371

Level 70
The Boss
Posts: 14293
Jan 18, 2013 8:03 am GMT
That's just so stupid.
That's just so stupid.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
wiouds

Level 45
Mishima Zaibatsu
Posts: 4256
Jan 18, 2013 8:18 am GMT
This could create a bad precedent. If they tax something that has not been prove to cause violent then the could tax other things they believe cause other problems.
One thing that the US used to ban things is a permit that was in line with a tax. At one point to legally sell a type of drugs you need a permit, but the US just choose not to release any permit to sell that drug.
What is worse this is the same type of logic that they use to get the 1920s prohibition pass. Watch some clips of those that want prohibition and you will see the same logic being used.
This could create a bad precedent. If they tax something that has not been prove to cause violent then the could tax other things they believe cause other problems.
One thing that the US used to ban things is a permit that was in line with a tax. At one point to legally sell a type of drugs you need a permit, but the US just choose not to release any permit to sell that drug.
What is worse this is the same type of logic that they use to get the 1920s prohibition pass. Watch some clips of those that want prohibition and you will see the same logic being used.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Shame-usBlackley

Level 64
Easter Egg
Posts: 18892
Jan 18, 2013 8:30 am GMT

wiouds wrote:

This could create a bad precedent. If they tax something that has not been prove to cause violent then the could tax other things they believe cause other problems.
One thing that the US used to ban things is a permit that was in line with a tax. At one point to legally sell a type of drugs you need a permit, but the US just choose not to release any permit to sell that drug.
What is worse this is the same type of logic that they use to get the 1920s prohibition pass. Watch some clips of those that want prohibition and you will see the same logic being used.
The government is superb at picking fights it cannot win. Prohibition is a great example. So is the "war" on drugs.
I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone takes this president seriously on this issue when his own administration was selling ILLEGAL weapons to the Mexican drug cartels that got hundreds of people killed. When he said something to the effect of "keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people" during his presser I about burst out laughing.
[QUOTE="wiouds"]
This could create a bad precedent. If they tax something that has not been prove to cause violent then the could tax other things they believe cause other problems.
One thing that the US used to ban things is a permit that was in line with a tax. At one point to legally sell a type of drugs you need a permit, but the US just choose not to release any permit to sell that drug.
What is worse this is the same type of logic that they use to get the 1920s prohibition pass. Watch some clips of those that want prohibition and you will see the same logic being used.
[/QUOTE]
The government is superb at picking fights it cannot win. Prohibition is a great example. So is the "war" on drugs.
I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone takes this president seriously on this issue when his own administration was selling ILLEGAL weapons to the Mexican drug cartels that got hundreds of people killed. When he said something to the effect of "keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people" during his presser I about burst out laughing.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
wiouds

Level 45
Mishima Zaibatsu
Posts: 4256
Jan 18, 2013 8:36 am GMT

Shame-usBlackley wrote:

wiouds wrote:

This could create a bad precedent. If they tax something that has not been prove to cause violent then the could tax other things they believe cause other problems.
One thing that the US used to ban things is a permit that was in line with a tax. At one point to legally sell a type of drugs you need a permit, but the US just choose not to release any permit to sell that drug.
What is worse this is the same type of logic that they use to get the 1920s prohibition pass. Watch some clips of those that want prohibition and you will see the same logic being used.
The government is superb at picking fights it cannot win. Prohibition is a great example. So is the "war" on drugs.
I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone takes this president seriously on this issue when his own administration was selling ILLEGAL weapons to the Mexican drug cartels that got hundreds of people killed. When he said something to the effect of "keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people" during his presser I about burst out laughing.
Considering that the two term limit for president was precedent for a long time. It was only broken because of a war that is saying a lot about precedent. Also, US's law is just a depended on precedent as it is does the wording of a law.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 8:37 am GMT Edited 2 total times.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
[QUOTE="wiouds"]
This could create a bad precedent. If they tax something that has not been prove to cause violent then the could tax other things they believe cause other problems.
One thing that the US used to ban things is a permit that was in line with a tax. At one point to legally sell a type of drugs you need a permit, but the US just choose not to release any permit to sell that drug.
What is worse this is the same type of logic that they use to get the 1920s prohibition pass. Watch some clips of those that want prohibition and you will see the same logic being used.
[/QUOTE]
The government is superb at picking fights it cannot win. Prohibition is a great example. So is the "war" on drugs.
I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone takes this president seriously on this issue when his own administration was selling ILLEGAL weapons to the Mexican drug cartels that got hundreds of people killed. When he said something to the effect of "keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people" during his presser I about burst out laughing.
[/QUOTE]
Considering that the two term limit for president was precedent for a long time. It was only broken because of a war that is saying a lot about precedent. Also, US's law is just a depended on precedent as it is does the wording of a law.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Minishdriveby

Level 63
Big Smoke
Posts: 13153
Jan 18, 2013 9:18 am GMT

MrGeezer wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns were more responsible for the deaths, seeing as that was the weapon used at the crime scene, than videogames. The way I see it, if they tax the gun sales and those taxes go to mental health studies and treatment then you'd be doing a greater justice than taxing something as stupid as videogames.I would also think guns sell a lot more in America, and they cost more, so... more money from the tax.
You cannot tax a person who may or may not cause a crime especially after said person is dead, but you can, however, tax something that allowed the person to commit the crime, something that allows many other people to commit crimes, and then use that money into helping people get treatment for the other even more directly responsible issue, mental illness.
I wasn't arguing whether or not a tax would do more good than harm, I was taking issue with the claim that guns were directly responsible. By that logic, someone could break a game disc in half and then use the jagged edge to cut a baby, and then it would be fair to say that video games are directly responsible for people's deaths too.
Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 9:26 am GMT Edited 3 total times.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns were more responsible for the deaths, seeing as that was the weapon used at the crime scene, than videogames. The way I see it, if they tax the gun sales and those taxes go to mental health studies and treatment then you'd be doing a greater justice than taxing something as stupid as videogames.I would also think guns sell a lot more in America, and they cost more, so... more money from the tax.
You cannot tax a person who may or may not cause a crime especially after said person is dead, but you can, however, tax something that allowed the person to commit the crime, something that allows many other people to commit crimes, and then use that money into helping people get treatment for the other even more directly responsible issue, mental illness.
[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing whether or not a tax would do more good than harm, I was taking issue with the claim that guns were directly responsible. By that logic, someone could break a game disc in half and then use the jagged edge to cut a baby, and then it would be fair to say that video games are directly responsible for people's deaths too.[/QUOTE] Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
MrGeezer

Level 67
I Am Error
Posts: 54684
Jan 18, 2013 9:55 am GMT

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun.

You can use an object however you want.
[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
[/QUOTE] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
SulIy

Level 7
Sectoid
Posts: 112
Jan 18, 2013 10:29 am GMT

MrGeezer wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun.

You can use an object however you want.

So basically "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? By that logic, as it was famously put once on a news program recently, baseball bats don't hit homeruns, baseball players do. But how many homers would Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron been able to hit without a baseball bat? A killer without a gun would still kill, but a killer with a gun, especially an assault rifle with extended clips, is a much more efficient killer.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
[/QUOTE] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want. [/QUOTE] So basically "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? By that logic, as it was famously put once on a news program recently, baseball bats don't hit homeruns, baseball players do. But how many homers would Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron been able to hit without a baseball bat? A killer without a gun would still kill, but a killer with a gun, especially an assault rifle with extended clips, is a much more efficient killer.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Minishdriveby

Level 63
Big Smoke
Posts: 13153
Jan 18, 2013 10:37 am GMT

MrGeezer wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun.

You can use an object however you want.

Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
[/QUOTE] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want. [/QUOTE] Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
LongZhiZi

Level 37
Heiankyo Alien
Posts: 2383
Jan 18, 2013 10:45 am GMT

SulIy wrote:

MrGeezer wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want.
So basically "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? By that logic, as it was famously put once on a news program recently, baseball bats don't hit homeruns, baseball players do. But how many homers would Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron been able to hit without a baseball bat? A killer without a gun would still kill, but a killer with a gun, especially an assault rifle with extended clips, is a much more efficient killer.
You do know that the largest amount of deaths caused at a school wasn't done with a gun, right? Also note the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11 wasn't done with a gun. Columbine happened during the last AWB with reduced magazine sizes...didn't stop that from happening. Do you even know what a clip is?
And assault rifles have been illegal to sell (new) since 1986.
People who want to kill will find ways, with or without guns.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 10:46 am GMT
Now Playing: Persona 3 Portable (PSP), Motorstorm: Arctic Edge (PSP)
Recently Completed: Batman Arkham Asylum, Metal Gear Solid 4, Valkyria Chronicles- Selvaria's Missions
[QUOTE="SulIy"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
[/QUOTE] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want. [/QUOTE] So basically "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? By that logic, as it was famously put once on a news program recently, baseball bats don't hit homeruns, baseball players do. But how many homers would Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron been able to hit without a baseball bat? A killer without a gun would still kill, but a killer with a gun, especially an assault rifle with extended clips, is a much more efficient killer.[/QUOTE] You do know that the largest amount of deaths caused at a school wasn't done with a gun, right? Also note the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11 wasn't done with a gun. Columbine happened during the last AWB with reduced magazine sizes...didn't stop that from happening. Do you even know what a clip is?
And assault rifles have been illegal to sell (new) since 1986.
People who want to kill will find ways, with or without guns.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
MrGeezer

Level 67
I Am Error
Posts: 54684
Jan 18, 2013 10:46 am GMT

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.

And use of weaponry to murder kids and teachers is a misuse of that weaponry.
[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"] Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.[/QUOTE] And use of weaponry to murder kids and teachers is a misuse of that weaponry.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
LongZhiZi

Level 37
Heiankyo Alien
Posts: 2383
Jan 18, 2013 10:48 am GMT

Minishdriveby wrote:

MrGeezer wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun.

You can use an object however you want.

Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.

No, it is EXACTLY as he said...they are designed to fire projectiles. What you aim that projectile at is a different matter. Millions of people own guns and yet have never killed anything.
Now Playing: Persona 3 Portable (PSP), Motorstorm: Arctic Edge (PSP)
Recently Completed: Batman Arkham Asylum, Metal Gear Solid 4, Valkyria Chronicles- Selvaria's Missions
[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
Guns are designed to kill. Breaking a disc in half would be a modification of the original function.
[/QUOTE] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want. [/QUOTE] Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.[/QUOTE] No, it is EXACTLY as he said...they are designed to fire projectiles. What you aim that projectile at is a different matter. Millions of people own guns and yet have never killed anything.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Archangel3371

Level 70
The Boss
Posts: 14293
Jan 18, 2013 11:04 am GMT

LongZhiZi wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

MrGeezer wrote:

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun.

You can use an object however you want.

Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.

No, it is EXACTLY as he said...they are designed to fire projectiles. What you aim that projectile at is a different matter. Millions of people own guns and yet have never killed anything.
I'm sorry but that's riduculous. You may as well say that grenades were designed to release shrapnel or bombs were designed to release fire. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile to refute that it was designed to kill is semantics.
[QUOTE="LongZhiZi"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want. [/QUOTE] Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.[/QUOTE] No, it is EXACTLY as he said...they are designed to fire projectiles. What you aim that projectile at is a different matter. Millions of people own guns and yet have never killed anything.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but that's riduculous. You may as well say that grenades were designed to release shrapnel or bombs were designed to release fire. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile to refute that it was designed to kill is semantics.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
MrGeezer

Level 67
I Am Error
Posts: 54684
Jan 18, 2013 11:10 am GMT

Archangel3371 wrote:

I'm sorry but that's riduculous. You may as well say that grenades were designed to release shrapnel or bombs were designed to release fire. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile to refute that it was designed to kill is semantics.

And saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. The issue is WHO gets killed, and in what circumstances. If that gun had been used to kill a deer or to kill an intruder breaking into the shooter's home, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, it was used to kill a bunch of people in a school, and that is ENTIRELY on the shooter. The gun is not responsible for how the gun is used, period.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 11:14 am GMT
[QUOTE="Archangel3371"] I'm sorry but that's riduculous. You may as well say that grenades were designed to release shrapnel or bombs were designed to release fire. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile to refute that it was designed to kill is semantics.[/QUOTE] And saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. The issue is WHO gets killed, and in what circumstances. If that gun had been used to kill a deer or to kill an intruder breaking into the shooter's home, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, it was used to kill a bunch of people in a school, and that is ENTIRELY on the shooter. The gun is not responsible for how the gun is used, period.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Archangel3371

Level 70
The Boss
Posts: 14293
Jan 18, 2013 11:28 am GMT

MrGeezer wrote:

And saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. The issue is WHO gets killed, and in what circumstances. If that gun had been used to kill a deer or to kill an intruder breaking into the shooter's home, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, it was used to kill a bunch of people in a school, and that is ENTIRELY on the shooter. The gun is not responsible for how the gun is used, period.
I never said said that any and all killing is wrong such as hunting and self defence but the premise of the gun is definitely that it was designed to kill which isn't ignoring the issue at all. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile is arguing semantics. Rocket launchers don't kill people on their own either but they'd certainly help people do a better job at it. Same concept with guns. It's all about putting reasonable limitations on what the general populace should be able to acquire.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 11:32 am GMT Edited 2 total times.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]And saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. The issue is WHO gets killed, and in what circumstances. If that gun had been used to kill a deer or to kill an intruder breaking into the shooter's home, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, it was used to kill a bunch of people in a school, and that is ENTIRELY on the shooter. The gun is not responsible for how the gun is used, period.[/QUOTE]I never said said that any and all killing is wrong such as hunting and self defence but the premise of the gun is definitely that it was designed to kill which isn't ignoring the issue at all. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile is arguing semantics. Rocket launchers don't kill people on their own either but they'd certainly help people do a better job at it. Same concept with guns. It's all about putting reasonable limitations on what the general populace should be able to acquire.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Minishdriveby

Level 63
Big Smoke
Posts: 13153
Jan 18, 2013 11:36 am GMT

LongZhiZi wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

MrGeezer wrote:

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun.

You can use an object however you want.

Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.

No, it is EXACTLY as he said...they are designed to fire projectiles. What you aim that projectile at is a different matter. Millions of people own guns and yet have never killed anything.

The two are intertwined.
[QUOTE="LongZhiZi"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Guns are designed to fire projectiles. You can use them to kill or not kill, but they aren't manufactured and sold for the purpose of murdering children and teachers. That's still a misuse of the gun. You can use an object however you want. [/QUOTE] Guns were designed for weaponry, any uses after that are secondary purposes.[/QUOTE] No, it is EXACTLY as he said...they are designed to fire projectiles. What you aim that projectile at is a different matter. Millions of people own guns and yet have never killed anything.[/QUOTE] The two are intertwined.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Minishdriveby

Level 63
Big Smoke
Posts: 13153
Jan 18, 2013 11:39 am GMT

MrGeezer wrote:

Archangel3371 wrote:

I'm sorry but that's riduculous. You may as well say that grenades were designed to release shrapnel or bombs were designed to release fire. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile to refute that it was designed to kill is semantics.
And saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. The issue is WHO gets killed, and in what circumstances. If that gun had been used to kill a deer or to kill an intruder breaking into the shooter's home, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, it was used to kill a bunch of people in a school, and that is ENTIRELY on the shooter. The gun is not responsible for how the gun is used, period.
How is saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue? I'm stating a fact. And if there is a tax on guns that goes towards helping the mentally ill then it's not ignoring the issue at all. It's helping the issue.
I'm not saying the gun is the culprit, but it helped the culprit by doing what it was designed to do.
The fact that you don't find anything inherently wrong with killing is rather disturbing.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 11:40 am GMT
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Archangel3371"] I'm sorry but that's riduculous. You may as well say that grenades were designed to release shrapnel or bombs were designed to release fire. Saying a gun was designed to fire a projectile to refute that it was designed to kill is semantics.[/QUOTE] And saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing. The issue is WHO gets killed, and in what circumstances. If that gun had been used to kill a deer or to kill an intruder breaking into the shooter's home, there wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, it was used to kill a bunch of people in a school, and that is ENTIRELY on the shooter. The gun is not responsible for how the gun is used, period.[/QUOTE]
How is saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue? I'm stating a fact. And if there is a tax on guns that goes towards helping the mentally ill then it's not ignoring the issue at all. It's helping the issue.
I'm not saying the gun is the culprit, but it helped the culprit by doing what it was designed to do.
The fact that you don't find anything inherently wrong with killing is rather disturbing.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
MrGeezer

Level 67
I Am Error
Posts: 54684
Jan 18, 2013 2:02 pm GMT

Minishdriveby wrote:

How is saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue? I'm stating a fact. And if there is a tax on guns that goes towards helping the mentally ill then it's not ignoring the issue at all. It's helping the issue.
I'm not saying the gun is the culprit, but it helped the culprit by doing what it was designed to do.
The fact that you don't find anything inherently wrong with killing is rather disturbing.

The thing is, that "fact" is not the issue. You're saying that guns are "directly responsible" (your exact words) for these murders because guns are "designed to kill", while deliberately ignoring the fact that these kinds of killings are a blatant misuse of the gun. The intended use of a hammer is to hit an object, yes? What you're doing is akin to looking at an incident of one guy smashing another dude over the head with a hammer, then saying "well, hammers are designed to be used that way, so the hammer is directly to blame for that murder".

Kitchen knives are designed to cut stuff. If I use a kitchen knive to cut my wife's throat, is it fair to say that THAT was a proper use of the knife and that knives are to blame?

Baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, but that design makes them very good for hitting people's heads. They are designed to hit. If I murder someone with a baseball bat, do you say "baseball bats are responsible because they're designed to hit, let's tax them"?
[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
How is saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue? I'm stating a fact. And if there is a tax on guns that goes towards helping the mentally ill then it's not ignoring the issue at all. It's helping the issue.
I'm not saying the gun is the culprit, but it helped the culprit by doing what it was designed to do.
The fact that you don't find anything inherently wrong with killing is rather disturbing.
[/QUOTE] The thing is, that "fact" is not the issue. You're saying that guns are "[i]directly responsible[/i]" (your exact words) for these murders because guns are "designed to kill", while deliberately ignoring the fact that [i]these[/i] kinds of killings are a blatant misuse of the gun. The intended use of a hammer is to hit an object, yes? What you're doing is akin to looking at an incident of one guy smashing another dude over the head with a hammer, then saying "well, hammers are designed to be used that way, so the hammer is directly to blame for that murder". Kitchen knives are designed to cut stuff. If I use a kitchen knive to cut my wife's throat, is it fair to say that THAT was a proper use of the knife and that knives are to blame? Baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, but that design makes them very good for hitting people's heads. They are designed to hit. If I murder someone with a baseball bat, do you say "baseball bats are responsible because they're designed to hit, let's tax them"?
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
Minishdriveby

Level 63
Big Smoke
Posts: 13153
Jan 18, 2013 3:19 pm GMT

MrGeezer wrote:

Minishdriveby wrote:

How is saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue? I'm stating a fact. And if there is a tax on guns that goes towards helping the mentally ill then it's not ignoring the issue at all. It's helping the issue.
I'm not saying the gun is the culprit, but it helped the culprit by doing what it was designed to do.
The fact that you don't find anything inherently wrong with killing is rather disturbing.
The thing is, that "fact" is not the issue. You're saying that guns are "directly responsible" (your exact words) for these murders because guns are "designed to kill", while deliberately ignoring the fact that these kinds of killings are a blatant misuse of the gun. The intended use of a hammer is to hit an object, yes? What you're doing is akin to looking at an incident of one guy smashing another dude over the head with a hammer, then saying "well, hammers are designed to be used that way, so the hammer is directly to blame for that murder". Kitchen knives are designed to cut stuff. If I use a kitchen knive to cut my wife's throat, is it fair to say that THAT was a proper use of the knife and that knives are to blame? Baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, but that design makes them very good for hitting people's heads. They are designed to hit. If I murder someone with a baseball bat, do you say "baseball bats are responsible because they're designed to hit, let's tax them"?
You've got to be kidding me. All the objects you mentioned were not designed originally, to kill. This is just ridiculous we're arguing semantics here. A gun was developed as a tool to kill people since the 8th Century. That was their specific design, killing. Sure, competition shooting may have developed as an offshoot function of gun entertainment/culture, but their main purpose was to kill/harm either for, warfare, hunting, protection, etc.
You cannot say that a kitchen knife, baseball bat, and hammer were designed for the purpose in killing, although they can also make the killer more dangerous, like a gun. They have more abundant functions than harming/killing things. Guns do not.
I already clarified my original post in my second post: "Guns were more responsible for the deaths...than videogames." The key word is than in that sentence. I was comparing only those objects.
So let me clarify my original post: Guns were directly involved with the killings, videogames were not and had little to do with them, what was ultimately responsible for the killings? A mentally unstable person who had access to his mother's gun collection, someone who was a gun enthusiast and trained her son how to use them. Did she intend on killing anyone? No. But her weapons were used for mass murder. What does this tax aim to do. Help the mentally ill, so I don't see a problem here. If by enforcing this tax we 1. help treat the root cause of the problem and 2. make it just a little bit harder to get weapons, meant to be extremely efficient at harming/hurting/killing things.
Once again guns are meant to do these things. The other objects you listed are not meant to do these things; however, they can be used to do this which is also deeply saddening, yet not as efficiently as guns. Case in point: the same day that the Sandy Hook shooting happened, a man knifed down 22 children and a school teacher in China. What was different? Everyone survived. So violence can be done with other objects like you say, but not to the point that guns can cause.
Edited on Jan 18, 2013 3:32 pm GMT Edited 3 total times.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
How is saying that guns are designed to kill is deliberately ignoring the issue? I'm stating a fact. And if there is a tax on guns that goes towards helping the mentally ill then it's not ignoring the issue at all. It's helping the issue.
I'm not saying the gun is the culprit, but it helped the culprit by doing what it was designed to do.
The fact that you don't find anything inherently wrong with killing is rather disturbing.
[/QUOTE] The thing is, that "fact" is not the issue. You're saying that guns are "[i]directly responsible[/i]" (your exact words) for these murders because guns are "designed to kill", while deliberately ignoring the fact that [i]these[/i] kinds of killings are a blatant misuse of the gun. The intended use of a hammer is to hit an object, yes? What you're doing is akin to looking at an incident of one guy smashing another dude over the head with a hammer, then saying "well, hammers are designed to be used that way, so the hammer is directly to blame for that murder". Kitchen knives are designed to cut stuff. If I use a kitchen knive to cut my wife's throat, is it fair to say that THAT was a proper use of the knife and that knives are to blame? Baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs, but that design makes them very good for hitting people's heads. They are designed to hit. If I murder someone with a baseball bat, do you say "baseball bats are responsible because they're designed to hit, let's tax them"?[/QUOTE]
You've got to be kidding me. All the objects you mentioned were not designed originally, to kill. This is just ridiculous we're arguing semantics here. A gun was developed as a tool to kill people since the 8th Century. That was their specific design, killing. Sure, competition shooting may have developed as an offshoot function of gun entertainment/culture, but their main purpose was to kill/harm either for, warfare, hunting, protection, etc.
You cannot say that a kitchen knife, baseball bat, and hammer were designed for the purpose in killing, although they can also make the killer more dangerous, like a gun. They have more abundant functions than harming/killing things. Guns do not.
I already clarified my original post in my second post: "Guns were more responsible for the deaths...than videogames." The key word is than in that sentence. I was comparing only those objects.
So let me clarify my original post: Guns were directly involved with the killings, videogames were not and had little to do with them, what was ultimately responsible for the killings? A mentally unstable person who had access to his mother's gun collection, someone who was a gun enthusiast and trained her son how to use them. Did she intend on killing anyone? No. But her weapons were used for mass murder. What does this tax aim to do. Help the mentally ill, so I don't see a problem here. If by enforcing this tax we 1. help treat the root cause of the problem and 2. make it just a little bit harder to get weapons, meant to be extremely efficient at harming/hurting/killing things.
Once again guns are meant to do these things. The other objects you listed are not meant to do these things; however, they can be used to do this which is also deeply saddening, yet not as efficiently as guns. Case in point: the same day that the Sandy Hook shooting happened, a man knifed down 22 children and a school teacher in China. What was different? Everyone survived. So violence can be done with other objects like you say, but not to the point that guns can cause.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread
MrGeezer

Level 67
I Am Error
Posts: 54684
Jan 18, 2013 11:12 pm GMT

Minishdriveby wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. All the objects you mentioned were not designed originally, to kill. This is just ridiculous we're arguing semantics here. A gun was developed as a tool to kill people since the 8th Century. That was their specific design, killing. Sure, competition shooting may have developed as an offshoot function of gun entertainment/culture, but their main purpose was to kill/harm either for, warfare, hunting, protection, etc.
You cannot say that a kitchen knife, baseball bat, and hammer were designed for the purpose in killing, although they can also make the killer more dangerous, like a gun. They have more abundant functions than harming/killing things. Guns do not.
I already clarified my original post in my second post: "Guns were more responsible for the deaths...than videogames." The key word is than in that sentence. I was comparing only those objects.
So let me clarify my original post: Guns were directly involved with the killings, videogames were not and had little to do with them, what was ultimately responsible for the killings? A mentally unstable person who had access to his mother's gun collection, someone who was a gun enthusiast and trained her son how to use them. Did she intend on killing anyone? No. But her weapons were used for mass murder. What does this tax aim to do. Help the mentally ill, so I don't see a problem here. If by enforcing this tax we 1. help treat the root cause of the problem and 2. make it just a little bit harder to get weapons, meant to be extremely efficient at harming/hurting/killing things.
Once again guns are meant to do these things. The other objects you listed are not meant to do these things; however, they can be used to do this which is also deeply saddening, yet not as efficiently as guns. Case in point: the same day that the Sandy Hook shooting happened, a man knifed down 22 children and a school teacher in China. What was different? Everyone survived. So violence can be done with other objects like you say, but not to the point that guns can cause.

What are you not understanding here? Guns are designed to kill, they are NOT designed to murder. This hasn't become an issue because the gun was used to kill, it has become an issue because a bunch of people were MURDERED by a gunman. Guns were only "directly involved" in the sense that guns were what the murderer used to commit murder. Do you know why he used guns? Because guns have properties which make them very useful for his intended purpose. Which is saying nothing, because if guns didn't have that property then he wouldn't have used a gun. You can also say that about anything. A bunch of people got cut by knives in that attack that you mentioned. You make a big point that they all survived, which is sort of pointless because they all still got CUT, didn't they? The properties of a knife (designed to cut) absolutely made it an ideal tool to use when cutting the $*** out of 22 kids. The fact that those kids didn't die sure as hell doesn't remove the fact that a knife was used to cut up 22 kids. You're just introducing an arbitrary standard: that that incident is fundamentally different because the kids didn't die. So? That has nothing to do with the fact that an instrument "designed to cut" was used to cut up 22 kids. No $***. If it wasn't any good at cutting, then the dude wouldn't have used it to cut people. "Guns were designed to kill". How are you not getting that the issue ISN'T that the gun was used to kill? There are plenty of valid and legal reasons to kill, there are plenty of 100% acceptable situations in which "killing" is a-okay. This man went around all of that, and murdered a bunch of people.
[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]
You've got to be kidding me. All the objects you mentioned were not designed originally, to kill. This is just ridiculous we're arguing semantics here. A gun was developed as a tool to kill people since the 8th Century. That was their specific design, killing. Sure, competition shooting may have developed as an offshoot function of gun entertainment/culture, but their main purpose was to kill/harm either for, warfare, hunting, protection, etc.
You cannot say that a kitchen knife, baseball bat, and hammer were designed for the purpose in killing, although they can also make the killer more dangerous, like a gun. They have more abundant functions than harming/killing things. Guns do not.
I already clarified my original post in my second post: "Guns were more responsible for the deaths...than videogames." The key word is than in that sentence. I was comparing only those objects.
So let me clarify my original post: Guns were directly involved with the killings, videogames were not and had little to do with them, what was ultimately responsible for the killings? A mentally unstable person who had access to his mother's gun collection, someone who was a gun enthusiast and trained her son how to use them. Did she intend on killing anyone? No. But her weapons were used for mass murder. What does this tax aim to do. Help the mentally ill, so I don't see a problem here. If by enforcing this tax we 1. help treat the root cause of the problem and 2. make it just a little bit harder to get weapons, meant to be extremely efficient at harming/hurting/killing things.
Once again guns are meant to do these things. The other objects you listed are not meant to do these things; however, they can be used to do this which is also deeply saddening, yet not as efficiently as guns. Case in point: the same day that the Sandy Hook shooting happened, a man knifed down 22 children and a school teacher in China. What was different? Everyone survived. So violence can be done with other objects like you say, but not to the point that guns can cause.
[/QUOTE] What are you not understanding here? Guns are designed to kill, they are NOT designed to murder. This hasn't become an issue because the gun was used to kill, it has become an issue because a bunch of people were MURDERED by a gunman. Guns were only "directly involved" in the sense that guns were what the murderer used to commit murder. Do you know why he used guns? Because guns have properties which make them very useful for his intended purpose. Which is saying nothing, because if guns didn't have that property [i]then he wouldn't have used a gun[/i]. You can also say that about anything. A bunch of people got cut by knives in that attack that you mentioned. You make a big point that they all survived, which is sort of pointless because they all still got CUT, didn't they? The properties of a knife (designed to cut) absolutely made it an ideal tool to use when cutting the $*** out of 22 kids. The fact that those kids didn't die sure as hell doesn't remove the fact that a knife was used to cut up 22 kids. You're just introducing an arbitrary standard: that that incident is fundamentally different because the kids didn't die. So? That has nothing to do with the fact that an instrument "designed to cut" was used to cut up 22 kids. No $***. If it wasn't any good at cutting, then the dude wouldn't have used it to cut people. "Guns were designed to kill". How are you not getting that the issue ISN'T that the gun was used to kill? There are plenty of valid and legal reasons to kill, there are plenty of 100% acceptable situations in which "killing" is a-okay. This man went around all of that, and murdered a bunch of people.
Report Abuse
- Locked thread

« prev next »

Page:

Forums › Primary Games Discussion › Missouri proposing 1% tax on video games ...