NRA Boss Responds To Game About Shooting Him In The Head

Last week, a member of the Encyclopedia Dramatica forums created a game where you shoot NRA boss Wayne LaPierre in the head. On Friday, LaPierre addressed the game, rambling to Sean Hannity about how it reflects hypocrisy and how games are evil and all that jazz.

You can see the full clip above.

"There's a lot of studies that show if someone's on the line, if someone's on the edge, [violent video games push] them over the edge," LaPierre says.

This, of course, is not true. There are no such studies. For a look at all of the violent video game research that actually exists, check out our full report.

LaPierre did not comment on the NRA's shooting video game, which was released last week for kids aged four and up.


Comments

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDuYXGAuBw

    On a more related note, I'm not completely against some of these people complaining about their rights and whatnot. What I am against is this asshole in charge. He has no background as a gun enthusiast or from having grown up using guns on a farm or for hunting or anything like that. He's a politician and doesn't have any real personal stake in this issue.

      I'm not against fighting for rights too, but I think the American situation is a little crazy. Using guns for defence is just like nuclear deterrence, people will just stock more and more and it seems a lot unhealthier than relying on the professional peace-keepers. I get farmers and hunters might need them so there's argument for not banning them altogether.

      What I don't like is how people like LaPierre say it's either a God-given right or stipulated in the Second Amendment, which is bullsh*t. If there is a God, a condition which obviously should not impact legislature, I doubt He'd be that crash-hot on guns (although I'm a little behind on my bible studies) and what the American's have now is not a well-regulated militia, even if that idea wasn't outdated. Regulating could mean rationing gun access or creating a civilian army to be the only armed group, trained to use guns.

      Rant over. Just bottled up some of that.

      The video game stuff is just astute political misdirection. If you keep arguing (people in general, not @Toasty Fresh) instead of debating rationally, you'll give it traction

      Cause you really need an arsenal of automatic assault rifles with thousands of rounds of ammo to keep the crows of your corn, put down a sick animal or hunt a deer. Only someone whose a really bad shot would need an automatic gun to do those things, and someone that bad of a shot shouldn't have a gun.

        Automatic weapons are barely even a part of the discussion. The AR-15, which is scary looking and therefore must be awful and banned, is semiautomatic.

        Last edited 22/01/13 9:45 am

          Semi Automatic weapons are just as bad as fully automatic weapons. you fire as fast as you can pull the trigger while maintaining greater accuracy. With a 5 round magazine its dangerous but no where near as dangerous as using a 30rnd mag or 100 rnd C mag. Add to the fact that the AR-15 has an effective range of 300ms and a maximum range of 600-800ms and you will then see thats its not just "scary looking".

            And yet account for a tiny fraction of guns used in actual crimes.

    Once can only hope the NRA inter-breed themselves out of existence sooner rather than later.

    Don't blame the game. Video games don't kill people...
    Sounds like the start of an argument I've heard before.

    You can download the game here: https://static.encyclopediadramatica.se/mirrors/Bullet_to_the_Head_of_the_NRA.zip

    Take a good man, give him a gun. Does that make him a bad man?

      No, it doesn't.

      But it does make him a man more capable of killing more people than a man without a gun.

        True, but the good man wouldn't murder in the first place.

          That depends on how we want to define what a good person is. Not all people are good, and the reality is, people will kill other people for a myriad of reasons. Good or bad, whatever that may be.

            I think we can both agree the a person who murders is morally bad. The more controversial view is that killing is neither morally bad or good, it's just an action and you would need more information to deem it either wise.

            Not all people are good, true, but I would rather be in a room where 10 good guys and one bad guy had a gun then a room where only the 1 bad guy had a gun.

              I hate the guns in the right hands as defence argument. Unless your gun is strapped to your hip, they are completely useless for defence - because you usually don't know when your about to be attacked. I also hate people conflating banning guns with banning certain types of gun. Automatic weapons are not for self defence. It is not what they were designed for. They were designed for taking enemy positions.

                Your argument doesn't seem to contribute to this reply discussion. The question is:
                Take a good man, give him a gun. Does that make him a bad man?

                But I can start a new one below...

                  No, but it can make them dangerous, like that neighbourhood watch guy who shot that poor kid in the back in 'defence'. I sure he thought he was a 'good' guy too.

                  Besides which, how do you know the good from the bad a priori?

                  That question really is not as simple or clarifying as you make it out to be and is highly dependent upon what you term "good".

                  Was he good because he had fear of reprisal that he now no longer fears because he can fight back? Was he good because you saw him as "morally" good but really his morals are different to yours and he is indifferent to killing someone given a means to do so? If he fires that gun in defence of another, is he still good? What if he is a good man to his people but is in fact your enemy on the battlefield. Is he now a bad man because he is a threat?

                2.5 million people successfully defend themselves with a firearm in the united states every year.

              I don't want to be in a room where 11 people are randomly carrying guns for no reason.

              I wouldn't care if we where on a hunting trip and 20 people where carrying guns, we have a logical use for having them. But nobody is going to want to be anywhere near the guy who carries the gun to eat cornflakes in the morning before we set out.

              The Argument is not so much about gun or no gun, it's more about why do you need a high capacity semi-automatic gun? What the hell are you hunting?

              In Australia you can own a gun, it's something you can do, but it won't be a semi-automatic, it won't be a high powered handgun. Owning a pistol in this country means sports shooting, nobody wants to use a Desert Eagle .50 for sports shooting. Nobody hunts with a pistol... Having said that my dad used a single shot 22 pistol to hunt pigs, it was only effective at a range of 10 feet. They said he was Mad, he said he liked a challenge.

              My father was a hunter, my mother a sports shooter (she has medals) my grandfather used to hunt as well. But I don't own a gun, I don't want one, I don't need one and I think if you have a use for a gun you should have one. But defending your home is not a use for a gun, your better off buying security screens and preventing people from breaking in for a start. If somebody does break in, call the police and run away it's just stuff. Killing an armed intruder is still Manslaughter with a deadly weapon. Losing your big screen TV is better than losing countless years of your life in Jail.

                If you don't want to be in the room with 11 people carrying guns, then you would rather be in the room where the bad guy has a gun?

                Security system are all well and good. But no amount of security cameras are going to save you or your loved ones from a mad man. Killing an armed intruder is an act of self defensive.

                  Actually - depending on the size of the room, I reckon I'd be way safer with one bad guy with a gun, then 10 good guys and one bad. There is a lot of evidence that having a gun makes you more likely to be shot because you put up a fight.

                  I find being in a room with 11 people with guns for no reason just as disconcerting as being in a room with a bad guy with a gun. But that's such a specific and unlikely scenario. Why am I in a room with a gun wielding criminal? How am I going to feel safer being in a room with that same criminal and 10 armed police officers. Because in either scenario something bad is going to happen and I certainly don't want to be there.

                  I never said Security Cameras, those things are useless for starters the footage of my private security system is not valid in a court of law.

                  I said Security Screens, like the CrimSafe stuff that prevent's them breaking in altogether. Of course installing that actually makes your walls and mounting points the weakspot, so anybody with a Chain Saw, Sledge Hammer, Jack Hammer, 40 ton Truck, Axe or Oxy/Acetylene cutting torch can still break in, but how much attention when they attract while doing it. So in answer yes they can still get in, it's just much harder. And if somebody is that determined to get you, your going to need protective custody

                  Finally, No Killing an Armed Intruder is a crime, you have no legal defense for intentionally taking another human beings life in this country. While the general public may say he was defending his family from some scumball crack addict and that your a Hero, your still going to jail for a long time.

              I would still prefer a room of 11 people, good or bad, with no guns at all.

                Guns will still exist. no matter how wishful thinking one can be

                  Because of people like you.

                  Yes, guns will still exist. I would still prefer people don't carry guns, and I am quite happy with those still having guns being either registered responsible gun owners with access to a limited range of approved weapons, or criminals buying them illegally, instead of the mentally unhinged individuals on a shooting spree.

                  Having gun control does not stop the responsible people who own guns from enjoying their guns.

                  The argument that we need guns so the "good guys" can stop the "bad guys" is still fundamentally flawed and not based in reality.

                  No amount of guns are going to prevent a mentally unstable person from going off on a shooting spree in a school or cinema. It hasn't in the US. It's had the opposite effect. In all those cases, people died, and no good guy came crashing through the scene stopping the shooter with their own gun before they killed anyone.

                  What has been irrevocably proven is that a society with stricter gun controls has less mass shootings by disturbed individuals in the likes of those mentioned above.

                  Criminals will always have guns. Luckily the mass shootings aren't typically undertaken by criminals. They have them to shoot each other, and tend to do so. While they occasionally shoot an innocent by stander, more freely available guns aren't going to stop that.

                  Give me the article about the drug baron shooting up 20 children in schools and maybe i'll change my mind. Or i'll just show you what the Australian experience has been since Port Arthur and how we have not had any tragedies of a similar nature on such a scale since, and have even had a decline in murders and suicides from crimes of passion (as illustrated in Professor Andrew Leigh's paper during his time at the ANU).

    If they take away my violent video games, how am I supposed to defend myself against other people that play violent video games? It's not like criminals obey the law; they'll always be able to play violent video games.

    I'm not really against private use of guns growing up on a farm they are at times necessary (foxes getting into the chicken pen, wandering dogs attacking sheep), but part of me kinda wants guns to be banned so that we can get back to the important things in life, like sword fighting or learning how to kill a bear with one punch.

    "I hate the guns in the right hands as defence argument. Unless your gun is strapped to your hip, they are completely useless for defence." -thom

    You could put any word in there and replace it for guns and it would be true... let's say shield.

    "I also hate people conflating banning guns with banning certain types of gun. Automatic weapons are not for self defence. It is not what they were designed for. They were designed for taking enemy positions."

    I think the difference between our opinion in this is that you think only defensive moments can be considered in self defense. I think you can throw a punch in self defense, I also think you can attack a person in the defense of an innocent person.

      You are pretty terrifying, mate. Are you saying that you would have the nous to make that kind of judgement, and "attack a person in the defense of an innocent person"? Where the hell do you live?? Is it a constant war-zone or something? You make it sound like there is this ever present threat of some loon pulling a gun and going to town on a bunch of innocents, only protected by their right to carry a gun of their own. Your world sounds terrifying, and not even remotely enjoyable. Get out man, get out!!

      Nope you can't throw a punch in self defense, nor can you hit a person to protect somebody else. Don't you watch the news, some guys getting beaten up somebody steps in hits the attacker and gets charged right along side him.

      Your saying Automatic Weapons are bad for defence, I think we're in agreement here but what possible use is a 30 round semi-automatic handgun to a civilian?

      There is no way a gun ban will happen in America, but they will hopefully limit the number, capacity and types of guns people own.

    You're all completely missing the point entirely. This game was not released as some kind of political statement, it is designed solely for the purpose of inflaming and upsetting people (trolling). The fact that none of you seem to understand this, let alone some talking head from Fox News not only astounds me, but also deeply saddens me.

    As for the issue of gun ownership, everyone should be allowed to own a gun, because, well, snarf you.

    The reason no one is talking about Kindergarten Killer is probably because it's likely almost no one is playing Kindergarten Killer.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now