The NRA Didn't Leave Their Meeting With Joe Biden Happy

It seems both sides of the debate over who's responsible for the Sandy Hook tragedy have been put on notice - after the games industry's recent meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden, he suggested it improve its image. While that may indicate he doesn't view games too favourably, according to the NRA he also has gun control in his sights.

As the result of meetings with both sides of the issue, Joe Biden advised Barack Obama, and it has been revealed that the President wants to fund a study on the effects of violence and video games on "young minds". In response to the possibility of such a study, IGDA spokesperson Daniel Greenberg has repeatedly appeared in the media stating the games industry welcomes such a study to add to the evidence showing there is no causal link between video games and violent behaviour.

On the other side of the coin, President Obama has a "baby-steps" gun control plan - and from the looks of things, the NRA feels just as slighted as the games industry.

Browsing the NRA website is an interesting experience. Articles call out anti-gun journalists, ask for armed guards at schools, and condemn the publication of gun owners' locations. But on Wayne Lapierre's commentary section of the site, he revealed in a statement dated 10/01/2013 the NRA's dissatisfaction with the result of their meeting with Biden:

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be "prejudged," this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works — and what does not.


Comments

    Soooo the NRA are upset that they couldn't use little children to push their agenda?

      Aren't they just a swell bunch of people :) *please note sarcasm*

    "NRA: Solving the USA's gun control problem with MORE GUNS!"

      Just keep throwing gun at the problem and eventually it will hit critical mass and the problem will solve itself.

      Last edited 21/01/13 2:57 pm

      "87 BAZILLION GUNS JUST GOT MORE BAZILLIONDIER!"

    "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen."

    What happens when "law-abiding gun owners" become "criminals and madmen"? Are you going to defend them then?

    AFAIK, the shooter in Aurora wasn't known to police prior to the shooting. There was also nothing to indicate that he wasn't also a "honest, taxpaying, hardworking American" prior to his horrific actions.

    No one needs an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine for private use. If your neighbourhood is that bad, move.

    Hell, they just had another shooting, this one in Albuquerque

    Last edited 21/01/13 2:49 pm

    I like this part.
    We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. I

    But you will blame videogames for the acts of criminals and madmen?

      No, they're just calling people who play video games criminals and madmen.
      And then put out their own smartphone app to prove it.

    mfw NRA is fighting for the right of Americans to murder each other

    and from the looks of things, the NRA feels just as slighted as the games industry.

    It sounds to me like the games industry isn't really upset at all, to be honest. We would welcome more unbiased research on the effects of violent video games, and I think everybody would be happy to "clean up our image" a little bit - I think we can all think of a part of gaming culture with which we would be a bit embarrassed to be associated.

    Just saying.

    NRA are a bunch of idiots. Why does ANYONE need an assault rifle? What is wrong with these people!

      Because you never know when a rampaging rhino may charge you down in the midst of US Suburbia! I mean would you rather be defenceless and unarmed when the rhino decides to charge you?

      And i hear the Queen of England packs a lot of heat and heavy armor! so watch out when she tries to invade america! =P

      I was surprised to see how pro-gun Reddit is. It's veryhard to have a rational discussion over there, it's all just cheap point scoring and shouting about freedom.

    It doesn't surprise me the NRA weren't happy, they're clearly willing to go to any lengths to stop anti-gun legislation from being passed, case in point: http://www.upworthy.com/nra-ad-stuns-conservative-pundits-into-speechlessness-followed-by-really-articul

    I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with guns and shooting as a sport (though I wouldn't necessarily support hunting as a sport), but the NRA could really stand not to act like a bunch of paranoid lunatics. Their press releases tend to exemplify why people are worried about people going around armed.

    Last edited 21/01/13 3:45 pm

    We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.
    Isn't this the same thing though? What it seems like the NRA is forgetting is that there are two paths. One is to escalate and continue to add more layers of "protection" without solving the base problem, or the other path is to solve the base problem of high powered guns being accessible to everyone and remove the need for such extreme measures.

    It's not quite related, but I can't help but think of this line from Batman Begins:
    We start carrying semi automatics, they buy automatics, we start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds, and *you're* wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops.

    Why stop at guns? I want men armed with RPG's on school roofs. Teachers should be driving to school in tanks to protect the children, while principals should have access to a Metal Gear. All children between the ages of 3 and 16 should be carrying a stun gun, a 6" butterfly knife, and a replica unmanned drone capable of firing a mini patriot missile.

    Until this occurs our children will not be safe. Long live the NRA.

    The NRA is like the donkey scene from family guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

    Shooting is actually quite fun. I can understand why they don't take kindly to being restricted because of the actions of another person.

    Anyone unstable can just as easily take their car and plow through a group of kids leaving from or arriving at school.

      Yeah - its happened a bunch of times, and the casualties normally hit one or two rather than 30. On the same day as Sandy Hook, a guy in China walked into a kindergarten with a Samurai Sword. Although he managed to maim about 30 kids, there were no fatalities. The fact is, guns need to be restricted not because their the only method of killing, but because they are particularly effective.

      Old argument.
      The history and intent of use is very different for firearms and motor vehicles.
      Firearms were developed for war as a weapon and their current use is generally war, sport, and defence, which roughly equates to firing a potentially deadly piece of metal at an object, animate or inanimate.
      Motor vehicles were developed as a form of transport, and are primarily used as a mode of transport, not as a weapon.
      Conflating the potentiality of the two for political purposes is pretty damn misleading.

      @thom The Chinese incident involved a knife and 23 non-fatal casualties. Agreed, availability and potential for harm are much more important than blanket calls.

    Can you anti-gun people think for a second please? Crimes aren't committed with legal guns, all these laws do is make it easier for the government to seize ALL weapons for a bullshit reason, with the motive to quell any revolution that may occur before it starts. Not only is the right to privacy diminished, (national mental health registry), the fact is bad guys can still buy guns. Why don't you people realise that guns are REALLY easy to get a hold of? If bad guys want to get them they will, and all these new laws do is attack the second amendment, and infringe upon citizens rights.

    As for the NRA, look even gun people don't want all that they ask for, and in reality neither do the NRA. The problem is there are SO many people working very hard to take away all guns, that they have to be the extreme on the other side so some kind of equilibrium is reached.

      I'm tired of there being only two sides to this argument - most people aren't 'anti-gun' but do not feel the need to have the level of armaments that the average American seems to demand

      "Crimes aren't committed with legal guns" is false, just saying.

        I was generalising, and the statistics are on my side.

      What you and the NRA apparently fail to understand is that gun owners are not being held accountable for the actions of the people who commit these acts. Quite far from it. What is being held accountable for what has happened is in fact the laws and regulations (or lack thereof) that allowed weapons such as these to be so readily acquired by people of a disturbed mentality or questionable background. What is being pushed for is regulation of ownership so that the sensible, mentally well, law-abiding citizens whom the NRA purports to represent can still purchase guns (albeit perhaps not to the calibre (pun intended) that they are currently able to), whilst making it more difficult for people with psychological issues or questionable backgrounds to acquire them. If you were to look at the weapons owned by the last few school shootings, I suspect you would probably find that at least some of them were owned legally. If the new law could potentially save even a few dozen lives over the next decade whilst minimally impeding the rights of the actual "law-abiding citizens" that seek to own or continue to own a gun of some sort, even if it's not an assault rifle or something (seriously guys, overkill much?), would that not make it worth looking into at the very least? Or do you feel that the rights of these disturbed people to own weapons that are intended purely to kill overrides the rights of those people to life? Because as long as mentally unfit people have nearly unrestricted access to weapons such as those used in the recent mass shootings, lives will continue to be lost.

        I how you say, legal gun owners are not being held accountable for other peoples actions, then proceed to tell me how I am being blamed for others actions. Can you people realise that there are ALWAYS going to be murders, its never going to be a perfect world.

        "Or do you feel that the rights of these disturbed people to own weapons that are intended purely to kill overrides the rights of those people to life?"

        That is a cheap, inflamitory statement. However, by the same token, do you feel that my right to own weapons and not use them for evil deeds should be impacted by psyco's who choose to take peoples right to life away. I guess we should ban cars too, cause he could just have easily plowed through with a SUV. You are no longer allowed to ride anything that goes faster than a ride on lawn mower. How does that feel?

        "Because as long as mentally unfit people have nearly unrestricted access to weapons such as those used in the recent mass shootings"

        That is an untrue and incredibly uninformed point. Go do some research and we can have a discussion about the gun acquisition process.

          You appear to have misinterpreted what I said. You are not being blamed. It is the lack of regulation that is being blamed. And regarding your claim about my last point being uninformed, perhaps you ought to go look at the estimated rate of undiagnosed mental illness in America before you go trying to poke holes in my argument.

          Additionally, whilst cars are not designed as killing weapons, guns are. Cars are a mode of transportation. Guns are designed to perforate a living body with holes which people like me then have to attempt to fix before the patient expires.

      "Crimes aren't committed with legal guns, all these laws do is make it easier for the government to seize ALL weapons for a bullshit reason," Really, you are going with that cliche?

      Colombine - The kids got the guns from their friends who had purchased them from a gunshow (gunshows do not require to have background checks made in some states) and purchased another weapon off a friend.

      Virginia Tech - Registerd Gun owner
      "Cho, a mentally unsound individual, was able to purchase two semi-automatic pistols despite state laws which should have prevented such purchase".

      The Aurora shooting - Purchased the guns himself.

      And of the most recent shootings - The mother owned the weapons,

      Even the ATF cannot do anything as they were hobbled by the NRA via a Senetor (who is buddy buddy with the NRA of course) that had the "rules changed" so that the
      ATF cannot check records of gun store owners stocks when needed (1 per year is all that is allowed, and gun store owners don't even need to keep accurate records) .
      Cannot check the records of what wepons are sold to individuals and once again store owners don't need to provide this information if asked (privacy, etc)
      ATF ( a federal Govt Org) cannot even choose a new Dept Head since 2006 - this too has to be senate approved and the ATF have apporx 3900 members, they had 3900 members when it was formed in 1972.

      So the NRA have blocked and wittled down what the ATF where created to manage - ensure firemarms stay out of the wrong hands,

        Note - the listed 3900 members should be as 3900 ATF agents, there are of course a lot more that work at the ATF.

        You left out that store owners are obligated to destroy the results of a background check within 24 hours after the sale, so even if the ATF could check, vital records would have already been destroyed.

        And that most of the ammendments were made in 2000, introduced by a Congressman who had the wording of the bill approved by the NRA. Other gems included: It allowed dealers to ignore police requests for assistance. And denied Congress formerly public crime gun data. And ended the oversight of used firearm sales.

        And just to cap it all, the ATF has to recommend that gun store owners don't sell firearms to visibly drunk customers, "Not because it would be a violation of the Gun Control Act to complete the sale... but because that person's judgment is likely impaired."

    I've said it before, I'll say it again - more guns = more killings. Less guns = less killings.

      False. Absolutely false. In Australia gun ownership is the same as it was before the Martin Bryant incident, yet deaths by guns has dropped from 700 per year to 200. Number of guns has nothing to do with numbers of gun crimes.

        While true that the number of guns in Australia have not decreased it has not taken into account population growth so less people.have guns on average

          more guns = more access to guns through legitimate or illegal means. you can kill more people with a gun than you can with a knife in the same amount of time. ask someone with a gun to shoot a target, they succeed. take their gun away from them then ask them to shoot the target, chances are they are going to have difficulty with the task. Sure you are still going to be able to access guns, but, your average Joe criminal short of being involved at some level with an organised crime circle will have extremely limited choices.

          As to the US Second amendment, yes it is part of their constitution which is, for all intents and purposes, gospel to the american population but it doesn't say anything about regulation of the arms you may bare, just that authorities can't completely restrict access to firearms.

          Also consider hindsight, the amendment passed in a time where your average gun required reloading after every shot, high powered weaponry (relative to the time) was only accessible by armed forces and I doubt anyone considered that with a single gun and a single magazine of ammunition you could massacre 20-30 people in the streets.

          When someone kills someone else in the US, they will most often use a gun (about 60% of homicides are gun related) the only countries that have higher rates than this are war torn countries ran by dictators including cuba, parts of the middle east, south africa and south america. You can't in good conscience say that there is no correlation between the country that has the most guns in circulation also being the country with the highest percentage of gun crime relative to other crime

    The NRA, like any good fundamentalist religious group, would just love to cherry pick the details of their so-called rights.

    They conveniently forget the very first line of the preamble in their declaration of independence;
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    All three of which are denied to a person whose life is prematurely ended. They would insist that their apparent rights to own weapons that match that of militaries is more important than the right of a person to live a full life. That makes them lower than scum, it makes them just as bad as those loonies of the Westboro cult, because they claim that their rights must be protected, but they would trample all over the rights of others to achieve their goal.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now