NRA: Video games kill people, not guns. And here's our video game Just weeks after the vice-president of the US National Rifle Association blamed video games for gun crime, the outspoken organisation has released an iPhone video game. NRA: Practice Range is a first-person shooter available from the iTunes Store as a free app for iPads as well as Apple smartmobes. It incorporates a live feed …
"Guns don’t kill people. Video games ... kill people."
I hate it when the "The most dumb statement of the day" prize goes so early. There's no way that's going to get topped.
Ok: Video games do de-sensitive people a bit to graphic violence and breed the kind of muppet that thinks we should equip our Army with Desert Eagles so they can 'pop heads like melons' [qv], but the NRA's defence against "guns kill people" has always been "Nah-nah-nah-nahnah: Not hey don't because it's an inanimate object and needs a person to pull the trigger, ergo it's not the GUN that does it."
Yet now apparently, my copy of 'Kill Stuff With Guns II' can pop itself out of my DVD drive and nip out to massacre a few kindergarten classes.
He is quite correct though - video games *can* kill people.
I remember from my time in college someone brought in a pirated copy of Doom on CD. My friend already had it and, in a fit of boredom, turned the CD into a ninja star and almost took our lecturer's eye out with it.
They used to say the same about rap music... as one stand up at the time played out "I was going to kill a cop, but I've never had the appropriate musical accompaniment". Ice T's justification for 'Cop Killer'
was that the Talking Heads sung Psycho Killer, or Johnny Cash 'shot a man Reno just to see him die' (he didn't, but a lot of people believed he had and served time for it)
"They used to say the same about rap music..." This is simply playing the PC crowd at their own game, i.e., deflecting their attention to another topic they frequently rant about. If they can turn the argument into one between the PC crowd and video-gamers then the heat is off, they can go shoot whilst the Mary Whitehouses of the World try dragging their children away from the Xbox, PC, Wii, iPhone, etc., etc. I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence, thought they may be unhappy with the depiction of gun-owners and gun-use in games, but then I doubt if many of the "ban guns" vote-chasing policians actually believe what they say.
This is simply playing the PC crowd at their own game
Maybe. I don't think that one worked since Eric Clapton made "I shot the sheriff" a hit in 1974..
@Matt Bryant,
"I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence,"
Why so sure? You're forgetting the basics of being "invested" in an idea.
The gun owner says "I am a good person -- I don't kill people". He then conflates his self-identity as a "good person" with his group identity as a member of the firearms community. This group identity is tied to the physical items we call guns. Therefore the firearms enthusiast has to believe that a gun is a good thing, as it is part of his "good person" identity.
The evidence that he is presented with overwhelmingly indicates that guns are Very Bad Things indeed, and that now threatens his own self-image, as he actually considers the gun a part of his person. Therefore he must convince himself 100% that the problem is elsewhere.
That's the psychology behind it, and that's what we've got to fight against.
Video games do de-sensitive people a bit to graphic violence
I don't think so. If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres. I just can't make that link.
Unless you already have a couple of missing screws in your social makeup I don't think video games are going to turn you into a maniac.
@ac - 11:49
I agree. There is a difference between Battlefield 3 and Budd Dwyer. I've played violent games all my life, and I haven't even punched someone since I was fourteen, not that I've not been in situations where I could have. Budd Dwyer shocked me. Our brains know the difference between a game and reality better than we think they do.
"I'm pretty certain no-one in the NRA really believes games cause violence"
- Yeah, they do. Have a look at some pro-gun sites, and a large chunk of these people seriously believe that:
The point of gun control is purely to take guns off every legal owner while doing nothing about criminals
Anyone with Liberal political policies wants to come over to their house and take away their guns
God gave them the right to bear arms
Drugs are to blame
Video games are to blame
Obama is to blame
The government is trying to take away their guns so it can then take away their rights to vote et al
Internment camps have already been constructed and foreign nationals trained to guard them, and they will be used to imprison 'patriotic' Americans en masse.
I enjoy shooting, but it seems increasingly that it seems to politically associate me with far-right, xenophobic nut-cases. And any word in favour of any form of gun control seems to incite comments that the speakers is 'Liberal', 'Commie', 'Socialist' or 'on Drugs', as though enjoyment of hunting is somehow tied to far-right political outlook.
"I don't think so. If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres. I just can't make that link."
I believe that the link has been proven in numerous studies. Note that 'desensitising to violence' doesn't mean 'goes out and kills people'. It simply means that violent scenes or conflict cease to illicit the same level of emotional abhorrence as it causes in people not exposed to such things. People might not do things themselves, but they are less revolted by violence and hence probably more accepting of it as a solution in wider matters.
"Video games do de-sensitive people a bit to graphic violence"
Might not actually be true, but even if it hypothetically was - that's not the same as turning people into murderers. Also don't think Hitler was much of a CoD fan, so maybe there's something else at work?
Also not for nothing but violent games and movies are globally distributed so if it was the case you'd see the same thing occurring globally which would have been Tarantino's response to the silly question had he not been asked it 300 times before I'm sure.
Actually in the US they're censored more for the cinema audience then tends to happen in the rest of the western world because for some reason Hollywood is terrified of the state doing it, so they try to keep it too clean - so there's an argument that censoring violence makes people shoot each other which is more soundly based in logic.
"Might not actually be true, but even if it hypothetically was - that's not the same as turning people into murderers. "
It *is* proven to be true, but indeed does not turn people into murderers. As I state elsewhere.
Cinema violence isn't what gets the censoring in the States in my experience: It's s3x... particularly anything homosexual. Name five Hollywood films where we've seen gay couples kissing. Actually, there's an even bigger hot potato that the US avoids, and that's abortion. Look at how many films and TV plot-lines are about people getting themselves or someone else pregnant despite it being massively impractical for them to be having a family and supporting a child. Now cast your mind back to see if you remember one of the parties even mentioning the fact that abortion is an option. It never gets a mention, and if it does, it paints the speaker as a 'bad person'.
I digress.
Violence is an accepted and embraced part of American culture. Firearms are the easy enabler. Pick up this piece of metal and you can show the world that you won't be trodden on any more. Easy access to firearms makes the fantasy trivially easy to enact.
"Cinema violence isn't what gets the censoring in the States in my experience: It's s3x... particularly anything homosexual. Name five Hollywood films where we've seen gay couples kissing"
Of course - though frankly - Gia, Boys don't cry et al. It's not homosexuality per se that Hollywood has a problem with it's male homosexuality. Then again maybe it's just that the movies don't have a huge mass-appeal on reflection. Plenty of movies about lesbians :)
Seriously though the number of movies that get a cut NC-17 in the US and later there's an unrated blu-ray release that's identical to the uncut UK cinematic release is starting to get a little shocking.
The big thing by the way in the US that you basically can't do ever for fear of the world ending is say "Jesus" in the profane. Child rape/murder is fine, so is chopping people up with a chainsaw, and rape but *you may not* say Jesus in the profane. Or not have an American flag appearing at least once in your movie.
Have a lot of friends in the US who thing the state is evil and cuts everything so I've done a remarkable volume of research on this in the past to shut them up. The BBFC will let you do basically anything as long as there's a point to it, i.e. it's useful to a plot. If you're chopping up kids for the sake of sexual gratification in your movie and there's not even a usable plot in there your movie isn't going to get a rating and shouldn't anyway. This is human centipede's problem - it's just stupid.
Thats the truly scary thing.
The NRA have a point (grudging most) but the far bigger question is;
What the fuck is wrong with americans-that they cant refrain from murdering one another?
and given that there clearly is a massive deficit in intelect/morality/education/understanding of cause and effect - why the hell does the government stand by and let these belicose fools arm themselves to the teeth?
The NRA is more like a trade body for the gun manufacturers. So they are obviously going to try to excuse their product as the cause of death.
They can say all they like that it is a mental health issue, but some people just flip and can pass a sanity test on one day and go nuts the following day. The human mind is a strange thing we don't full understand.
So what do you want, crazy people with guns or crazy people without guns? I know what is safer. A gunman with an assault rifle can shoot dead people with ease, a person with a knife can be dangerous but not in such a high kill-rate kind of way.
There is simply more media in the US, and far more media coverage than most places. If you go lookup per capita murder rate by country, it will be clear that the US is in fact middle of the road and nowhere near the top, as the abundant media would lead us to believe. In fact, I would argue the other way. There are more than 200 million firearms in 300 million US citizen's hands. One would think that there should be a massacre every 5 minutes. Since there isn't, they must be, generally, a very restrained people.
".....If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres....." By your own logic, looking at the number of people that own guns, we should be seeing a dozen massacres a day every day for the argument that gun ownership alone leads to massacres to be valid.
".....Unless you already have a couple of missing screws in your social makeup I don't think video games are going to turn you into a maniac." Take that logic one step further and then apply it equally to gun owners and you realise the problem is not the guns or the gun owners per se, it is the people with "missing screws" that we need to deal with.
".....If I look at the amount of kids that play video games and follow that sort of logic we should already be up to our eyeballs in massacres....." By your own logic, looking at the number of people that own guns, we should be seeing a dozen massacres a day every day for the argument that gun ownership alone leads to massacres to be valid.
I'm confused. Where did I mention a direct correlation between gun ownership and massacres? I was talking about video games, and did not imply that logic carried to another situation, but if you want that argument, I'd say that there is clear link between UNCONTROLLED ownership and problems, because I've lived in enough countries with strict controls to see the effect. This is the disingenuous part of the NRA arguments: nobody wants to take guns away, they merely ask for more control which is IMHO not unreasonable.
".....Unless you already have a couple of missing screws in your social makeup I don't think video games are going to turn you into a maniac." Take that logic one step further and then apply it equally to gun owners and you realise the problem is not the guns or the gun owners per se, it is the people with "missing screws" that we need to deal with.
Never said anything different because I agree with it - to a point. Anyone who has dealt with panics, crowd control and crime knows that we all carry the seeds of doom in us. You cannot undo firing a gun, and especially when emotions run high, a mistake is easily made. You don't need to be a psycho for that, just a normal breathing human being with normal emotions.
On the topic of ownership, what I find "entertaining" is the argument that they need guns to defend against the state. You either have a democracy, in which case you don't need that, or you don't, in which case it's time to stop pretending..
If my games really de-sensitise people from violence, my lads would not be so squimish when they see blood. Up to today nor them or my wife can stand to see a wound. and the eldest played all these supposingly violent games.
Also, games DEFINATELY dont mirror real life, nor can real life mirror games. For one, in a game when you aim, you use BOTH eyes, so you definately dont learn to aim better playing games - in real life you have one eye on the scope (Did i mention steady a scope with the weight of a gun is also not as easy as it seem?). Also, not sure about medical enhancements these days, but i know i definately dont heal after been gunned or stabbed a couple of times just by ducking into cover.
Sure video games and movies desensitize people to violence, but desensitizing doesn't cross the threshold of irrational thought, leading to massacres.
"Come on Dad, shoot him in the head! Make it splode!" (said by an 8 year old girl watching Dad play games)
Said child does know the difference between video games and real violence, but is not traumatized to hear of it. You can tell the kid "those people were killed by a shooter" and she understands. You don't have to cover her eyes and ears.
That's what desensitizing means. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
Children in war torn countries grow up desensitized to violence, but that doesn't mean they don't want it to stop.
"I tried wiping out my school witha cassette copy of Manic Miner. I got tired before killing even the weediest first year weakling and was easily overpowered by (unarmed) teachers"
And this is why it's imperative that we arm teachers with video games. Or something like that.
I'm tired of the old trope of "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people".
It's factually true and yet completely ignores the giant elephant in this particular room. A gun is a tool for killing, pure and simple, end of story. Some are used for killing animals, but most are specifically designed to kill people quickly, efficiently and in large numbers.
If a killer is on the loose with nothing but his* hands and feet they are going to inflict very little casualties (Chuck Norris aside). If they have a knife, they will seriously wound, and perhaps kill, quite a few people before being subdued, but victims can run from a knife, or defend themselves minimally, or, especially in groups, overpower the attacker. If the killer has a gun (more usually, multiple guns), there is very little possibility of escape or counter-attack, and the results are Columbine, Sandy Hook etc etc.
The NRA likes to present itself as responsible, but routinely and out-of-hand refuses any responsible limit on gun ownership and use. If I want to own and drive a car, I need a license to prove that I have the technical ability to do so, AND a knowledge of the relevant laws. But in the US anyone can buy a gun without any training or knowledge. In the US ANY misuse of ANY product that leads to injury or death is jumped upon by tort lawyers, but apparently gun manufacturers and distributers are immune from prosecution.
Introduce a firearms license that can only be issued on formal completion of a course, and which is required for any firearm purchase. Any manufacturer or distributer who cannot provide tracing information of EVERY weapon they sell is legally liable for that. 2nd-hand purchases must be registered, same as cars. If you lose a weapon or it's stolen from you, you have to report it pronto or be liable for it's misuse. (people with a habit of repeatedly 'losing' large batches of firearms to be closely investigated)
These are all fairly simple to implement on the lines of motor vehicle licensing, and NONE of that is ANY threat to the 2nd amendment** because it still allows anyone to buy and own as many weapons as they choose***.
*sometimes "her", I guess, but most usually "his"
** and that's leaving aside any discussion of whether this amendment is still worth keeping, since it was introduced to prevent state tyranny enforced by arms. This will never happen, we already have state tyranny enforced by lobbyists and lawyers
***Yes, I'm not even going into weird things such as why anyone would need an assault rifle to defend their home. Why not allow private citizens to buy tanks and predator drones and be done with it??
Rant over
"....I'm tired of the old trope of "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people"......" Whilst I agree with the idea of proper licensing, traing, etc., you are still not dealing with the core issue that people with problems, like Adam Lanza, would still be free to go and access a gun belonging to a perfectly capable person. Limiting access to guns for all owners or removing all guns still leaves the Adam Lanzas walking around, what we need to be doing is identifying and treating the Adam Lanzas, so they don't use any weapon to kill anyone.
I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US and even that was carried out with a series of explosive devices (and those were carried out with dynamite and pyrotol which are now controlled explosives).
Leaving that aside, his central thesis appears to be that if legislation to control and regulate firearms ownership would not absolutely prevent all massacres with 100% certainty, it isn't worth doing; anyone supporting increased regulation must satisfy this burden of 100% certainty. On the other hand, he apparently believes that mandatory screening of schoolchildren and forced psychiatric treatment *is* worth doing. Presumably, he can demonstrate that *that* would be 100% effective? If not, then applying his own burden of proof, *that* is not worth doing either.
I note that he assumes that there is a test that would demonstrate that someone is "potentially problematic", which appears to be sufficient of a diagnosis in his mind to mandate a number of consequences, from removal of that person's right to own firearms (a right enjoyed by people lucky enough to not be labelled potentially problematic), to psychiatric treatment (rather negating his assertion that noone's rights would be abrogated by such measures). Equating a quick personality test used for basic recruitment screening with that is frankly laughable. There is no "psychopath test" - hell, even the term "psychopath" is hotly contested and not used by most practitioners (it's used neither in DSM V nor in the WHO's ICD) - so I doubt you'll just be able to stick a pin in someone and see whether they produce a psycho-ish culture in a petrie dish.
No-one (outside of the straw man that Matt's conjured fully formed and armed from his Jovian brow) has argued that gun control is 100% effective in preventing mass killings. What we *can* say is that mass killings are thankfully rarer in jurisdictions where firearms ownership is regulated - here in the UK, we have had three incidents since 1987 (Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria); how many have there been in the US over the same period? That they are more difficult to carry out without access to weapons with a high rate of fire and large magazine capacities. That legislation is no more onerous than the regulation applied to cars and trucks (and that, therefore, those drawing a spurious analogy by attempting to classify those along with guns as "weapons" ought to accept such regulation anyway). That the 2nd amendment has *never* been carte blanche for every person to own any kind of weapon and that it is a gross distortion to pretend that it ever was. That, yes, easy access to mental health services is *also* part of a solution, albeit that that's never going to be 100% effective either.
You are not going to be able to eliminate the possibility of a mass shooting 100% while there are guns in the world, but you *can* reduce its likelihood and make it more difficult. Better legislation is part of that.
"I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US"
Timothy McVeigh managed it in 1995 with 5,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane. However, as a callous mass-murder (including the deaths of 19 children under 6 years old) perpetrated by a fundamentalist right-wing gun-nut protesting the 'persecution' of other fundamentalist right-wing gun-nuts, you don't hear the Oklahoma City bombing being brought up much by current fundamentalist right-wing gun-nuts in their "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people" rhetoric.
Anonymous because those 'home defence' .50BMG sniper rifles have a really, really long range...
"I'm intrigued that Matt has to cast around to 1927 to find someone using a method other than a gun to conduct a mass killing of any notable scale in the US and even that was carried out with a series of explosive devices (and those were carried out with dynamite and pyrotol which are now controlled explosives)."
I'm intrigued too - the notable 1995 fertilizer/solvent bombing of a federal building killed 168, including 19 preschoolers, maybe he forgot about that one.
"Limiting access to guns for all owners or removing all guns " <won't solve theproblem>
I agree completely, there's no need to either limit or ban guns (except, I would argue, assault weapons, but lets at least first find a lowest common denominator starting point) as long as they can be registered
"what we need to be doing is identifying and treating the Adam Lanzas"
Definitely, better psychiatric screening care needs to be done. Also, psych problems need to be talked about more openly, currently there is a stigma associated with mental problems that is part of the reasons why these problems stay hidden.
A third major point I would argue is that there is a lot of hate, violence and mistrust in the US. A culture change whereby blood and guts spattered all over TV screens becomes a bit less acceptable and an on-screen nipple or two becomes more acceptable*. This is one that will take a couple of generations, though.
None of the above is a silver bullet, but all 3 together will certainly improve teh situation.
* I could argue that sexual repression is a partial contributer to both psych problems and the urge to own and fire large guns, but I guess that's another argument for another time :)
"a bit"
Wow what a generous gesture you've made.
Lets forget about the whole gun thing at the moment.
Clear your mind.
Now think of all the new/recent video games and movies that are being played/viewed by thousands/millions of people. Especially today's young people.
Games like Call of Duty, Sniper, Sniper 2, Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 4, Borderlands, Hitman, Zombies, Grand Theft Auto, etc.
There are 205......Yes, 205 Shooter games on X-Box alone.
Now for the movies : Gangster Squad, The last stand, Django , Killing them softly, The Baytown Outlaws. Unchained, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Dred, Universal Soldier, The collection. etc.
Do you really think the use of "a bit" is accurate? Please stop lying to yourself, because we knew you were full of it from the start.
The most dangerous thing about any gun.......is the person holding it.
Best Wishes,
"Guns don't kill people."
Okay, so I've always understood that this was their idiotic rhetoric that a gun isn't capable of killing someone by itself; hence the normal follow on: "People kill people". The (stupid) argument that the person wielding the (semi-automatic) "gun" is solely responsible for massacre A and they would still have done it if only armed with an egg whisk.
But!
"Video games ... kill people." Makes no sense! They've completely screwed their own argument as a video game isn't really even a physical thing... are they now saying that a virtual piece of entertainment can randomly commit homicide, but a device designed to cause physical damage is incapable of it?
Bizarre. Unsurprisingly.
".....I've always understood that this was their idiotic rhetoric that a gun isn't capable of killing someone by itself...." So, if you admit you understand it, then why is it idiotic, unless you are saying you are an idiot?
".....The (stupid) argument that the person wielding the (semi-automatic) "gun" is solely responsible for massacre A ....." Again, how is it a stupid argument? Adam Lanza went and killed those people in Newtown, and whilst you argue that removing all guns would 100% remove the chance of Adam Lanza committing any murders, that is demonstrably false as he could simply have used another weapon (a car, cooking knives, fireaxe, sharpened pencil, a two-by-four with a nail in it - you want to ban all those potential weapons too?). For example, Andrew Kehoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe) killed 45 people (including 38 schoolchildren) and wounded 58 others without using a gun in one day in May 1927 (and long before video games were even thought of). In the Shiguan kindergarten attack in May 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan_kindergarten_attack) the killer threatened his victims with a knife but burned the kids to death with gasoline, do you want to ban all knives and oil-based fuels too? (BTW, the Shiguan killer didn't own any video games or have a PC or console).
It is also demonstrably false for the NRA to say arming teachers would have 100% stopped Adam Lanza as he could have shot the teachers or still shot some people before they shot him. It is a simple fact that the only reasonably certain way to have stopped Adam Lanza from killing any of those people would be if Adam Lanza had not been there, for example if he'd been under supervision in a secure psychiatric unit. But that type of reasoning - deal with the problem person before they become the person pointing a gun - does not go down well with the huggy-feelgood crowd who would rather ban guns in the mistaken belief it ensures the safety of the children.
@ Matt Bryant, to which I can only repond with the number of massacres since your namesake inspired gun control in Australia vs before shows that gun control has a very real effect on massacre rate.
Yes, those inclined to do these sort of things have the option of using knives. However knives areuch more difficult to perform these acts with... It is harder to use a knife at rane. You cannot throw a burst of knives, and you have to retrieve them rather than using a high capacity magazine.
As for arming teachers... Great, you've already solved the next school mass murderers first problem - how to get the gun into the school.
".... the number of massacres since your namesake inspired gun control in Australia vs before shows that gun control has a very real effect on massacre rate....." So you're agreeing that banning guns did not stop massacres.
".....how to get the gun into the school." <Sigh> Try reading what I posted. I actually said that I did NOT think that was the answer. In fact, you seem to have skirted right round the real answer of dealing with "problem people" before they become "problem people" wielding a weapon. Is that because you cannot answer that argument, or because you're just another member of the huggy-feelgood crew and your tender sensisbilites filter just stripped that bit of the post out?
".... the number of massacres since your namesake inspired gun control in Australia vs before shows that gun control has a very real effect on massacre rate....." So you're agreeing that banning guns did not stop massacres.
---
Well if you define 0 massacres in the 16 years since (and 13 in the 16 years prior) as not stopping them, sure... Not sure how you could use that definition with a straight face.
----".....how to get the gun into the school." <Sigh> Try reading what I posted. I actually said that I did NOT think that was the answer. In fact, you seem to have skirted right round the real answer of dealing with "problem people" before they become "problem people" wielding a weapon. Is that because you cannot answer that argument, or because you're just another member of the huggy-feelgood crew and your tender sensisbilites filter just stripped that bit of the post out?
-----
Should we deal with problem people, sure. Problem is, you can never know when an ordinary person is going to become one of the problem people. Even if they do become a problem person, their ability to cause harm is limited through lack of access to a deadly weapon...
"....Problem is, you can never know when an ordinary person is going to become one of the problem people...." Oh puh-lease, that is so weak it is beyond desperate! Apart from the several millions psychiatrists, sociologists and other doctors that might have a thing to say about identifying irational behaviour, you forget that human beings are trusted with the lives of hundreds of people every day. Going by your delusional idea of the frailty of the average human being's mind, we shouldn't let people be airline pilots or ocean tankers, or anything where one person could threaten the lives of others, because we're just so damn likely to snap! Complete tosh. Adam Lanza was noted for his extraordinary behaviour before the Sandy Hook killings but no-one outside his family was empowered to say "Should he be assessed to check it is OK he is (a) in a household with guns, or (b) out on the streets?"
Great Matt. Are you proposing a government plan to screen everyone all the time? When did you last see a shrink? When did the guy next to you last see a shrink?
With airline pilots, there are at least 2 pilots on any given airliner flight. They are screened regularly for health issues, certain health aspects disqualify people from the job, and planes are designed to minimise the impact to life. If you will agree to similar controls for guns (2 people required to pull the trigger, all gun users to have JAA equivalent medicals, and designed not to kill), I'm more than happy for you to have as many as you like.
From the "Now Is The Time" pamphlet outlining Obambi's Great Gun Law Revolution:
".....As President Obama said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” Today, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. While the vast majority of Americans with a mental illness are not violent, several recent mass shootings have highlighted how some cases of mental illness can develop into crisis situations if individuals do not receive proper treatment. We need to do more than just keep guns out of the hands of people with serious mental illness; we need to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before these dangerous situations develop....."
All you frothing libtards may start back pedalling now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
