Article Removed: Legal Opinion – South Park, gun control and censorship

South Park: The Stick of Truth

By on March 20, 2014 at 10:20 am

Hi guys, Tim here. Patrick has asked me to remove his article, saying he felt he was encouraging the wrong sort of discussion.

A new article is being drafted and will be posted once it is ready.

Thanks for all your feedback on this piece. Comments will now be closed.

53 comments (Leave your own)
Relaxed_Possum

I’m actually quite fine with gun control.

Anecdotally, I’ve been suggested to leave areas by a citizen with a gun in the US, however this has never happened in Australia. I have no doubt socioeconomic factors are also important, but I still believe that restricting availability will have a net effect on society.

But that being said, the Classification system works in a similar way. Despite whether or not we think the criteria with which they judge is are good ones.

 
Patrick Vuleta

Oh I agree that restricting availability is going to have an effect right now, I am just not so sure if it will prevent the kinds of crimes out laws were meant to stamp out once availability is no longer a concern. :)

In terms of America’s situation, I put most blame at the feet of their stand your ground laws, which go so far beyond our self defence laws it’s almost like they’ve legalised murder. This makes brandishing a gun in public quite low risk over there.

We don’t have that here, which is a good thing, so we won’t see the kind of sporadic, individual gun violence you get in America. But I don’t think our laws have any real effect on the massacres that prompted them.

 

The points on gun control in this article are so bad… are you murican?

 

But I don’t think our laws have any real effect on the massacres that prompted them.

Then why was there a massive drop in them? From what I can find there has been 3 since our gun laws changed (17 years?) and before that there was almost 1 every year… no affect at all.

 

Gun nut BS. You’re actually comparing media censorship that has no physical effect on anyone or anything to things that kill people?

Printable guns are something that will have to be dealt with. But at the moment I’m pretty damn happy with being able to walk down the street and pretty confidently assume that no one is going to shoot me.

 
Patrick Vuleta

The problem referenced is an enforcement issue. Let’s look at Port Arthur. This crime happened when the criminal illegally acquired a gun because someone didn’t bother to make background checks.

The exact same thing can happen today via the black market, and in future via home manufacturing.

Hence the point is not to believe laws are providing our safety, but to look at how to improve our society so we don’t have to rely on laws in the first place.

If we insist on continuing to use the censorship paradigm to control gun violence, we will stand no chance at preventing mass violence once 3D printing becomes mainstream. That is what the article is saying – not that everyone should have access to easy firearms.

I actually agree that most people do not have a genuine need for a firearm. I do not support America’s fire with fire view on guns. But I question the efficacy of anything based on censorship.

 

If you want someone or a bunch of people dead you are going to find creative ways to do it… It doesn’t matter what you ban, if a person wants something done enough it usually happens.

Bombs
Vehicles
Fire
Guns
Poison
Cult suicides
ETC

 

Okay so instead of gun laws we just make sure we educate every person ever to not buy a gun?

By your logic if something can be done illegally then there is no points in laws around it. It is VERY easy for someone to speed, does that mean we should remove speed limits?

 

burty13:
If you want someone or a bunch of people dead you are going to find creative ways to do it… It doesn’t matter what you ban, if a person wants something done enough it usually happens.

Bombs
Vehicles
Fire
Guns
Poison
Cult suicides
ETC

Too many movies buddy.

 

This “article” has so little to do with it’s title and comes across as nothing more than an antigun law opinion based rant, rather than factual or on topic. I wonder what iinet and internode’s opinion is in having their brand/s represented with such articles.

 

robbo89:
Okay so instead of gun laws we just make sure we educate every person ever to not buy a gun?

By your logic if something can be done illegally then there is no points in laws around it. It is VERY easy for someone to speed, does that mean we should remove speed limits?

I think the point is, laws themselves aren’t enough. That’s why we have advertising to educate people on the potential consequences of high speed accidents, or advertising against drink/drug driving.

 

gamingken:
This “article” has so little to do with it’s title and comes across as nothing more than an antigun law opinion based rant, rather than factual or on topic. I wonder what iinet and internode’s opinion is in having their brand/s represented with such articles.

The title matches the article kinda well? I take it as as with censored material, we get that if we want it. If someone really wants a gun to commit a crime, they’re going to get it.

Yes the title is designed to get people to click on the article, but I don’t think it’s inaccurate.

 

makena: I think the point is, laws themselves aren’t enough. That’s why we have advertising to educate people on the potential consequences of high speed accidents, or advertising against drink/drug driving.

This article is implying they are pointless all together and not that they need to be improved. And our gun laws work just fine. So many other topics that could have been chosen for this article like underage drinking which is actually an issue here (well the actual issue is people wanting to beat peoples skulls in when drunk, of any age). Instead he chose a successful law that significantly affected exactly what it was put in place to affect (massacres).

And saying… “But I don’t think our laws have any real effect on the massacres that prompted them.” shows just how little the author has researched about the specific law he used in the article. Should have chosen something far better and closer to the subject.

 
Relaxed_Possum

robbo89,

This is sort of handled the same way. All vehicles are licensed, larger and more dangerous vehicles have greater driver and vehicle licensing requirements.

And then there are poor mistreated motorbikes that never harm anyone! :)

Regarding the use of 3D printers to make and modify firearms, they will probably just substantially increase the penalty for making and possessing unlicensed firearms. Further limiting the accessibility of ammunition could also be possible.

 
Patrick Vuleta

gamingken:
This “article” has so little to do with it’s title and comes across as nothing more than an antigun law opinion based rant, rather than factual or on topic. I wonder what iinet and internode’s opinion is in having their brand/s represented with such articles.

The fact is the laws that actually prevent gun crime have been in place in Australia since the mid 20th century.

You have never been allowed to carry a weapon in public. You must always be registered to own them. If these were actually enforced, the string of massacres we saw at the end of the 20th century would never have happened.

All that’s happened in the past 20 years is that the police and gun dealers actually bothered to do more than a half assed job of enforcing the laws.

Hence, tightening the laws is a placebo. The thing that you really need is police on the ground. This will become more apparent should printed guns become mainstream, or Australia’s international trade obligations increases the size of the black market.

I don’t believe I’m a gun nut for discussing this. ;) Indeed, I believe people need to realise that what we need is more police, and less placebos.

relaxedpossum:
robbo89,

Regarding the use of 3D printers to make and modify firearms, they will probably just substantially increase the penalty for making and possessing unlicensed firearms. Further limiting the accessibility of ammunition could also be possible.

The key problem I see is that if someone decides they’re going to die one day, they’re not going to care if possessing a gun will land them in jail.

 

robbo89: This article is implying they are pointless all together

That wasn’t the conclusion I reached at all.

The line “The only proven method of reducing crime is a combination of attentive policing, and improving socio-economic conditions like giving steady employment” isn’t something I disagree with. Simply saying X is illegal won’t change anything if it’s not policed or enforced in any way.

Laws alone won’t change anything, they need to work in tandem with a number of other things.

 
Relaxed_Possum

Patrick Vuleta: The key problem I see is that if someone decides they’re going to die one day, they’re not going to care if possessing a gun will land them in jail.

That’s true, but having a look at the statistics of gun homicides vs gun deaths here, the majority are not homicides and I imagine that massacres are an even smaller proportion of gun related deaths. Even then (not that I’m advocating for it), by applying harsher penalties for illegal gun/ammunition manufacture/possession people who have no regard for the law will still have a harder time getting access to the above.

 

Patrick Vuleta: The key problem I see is that if someone decides they’re going to die one day, they’re not going to care if possessing a gun will land them in jail.

If someone wants to die oneday there is a low chance they are going to waste their time to go out of their way to try get a gun off the black market, find someone to print them a gun or steal a gun they can’t get legally. It isn’t about making it impossible, it is about making it hard or very inconvenient. Just like ubisoft and uplay successfully stops me from buying their games because it is so inconvenient, even if I want to play them. Haha now I am comparing gun laws to DRM :D

 

Gotta disagree with you Patrick. Just because a law can be bypassed doesn’t mean it’s useless. Otherwise why bother having laws at all?

 

robbo89:
The points on gun control in this article are so bad… are you murican?

Why am I reading this ridiculous crap on a games website?

Article about censorship in games: fine.

Stupid pro-guns argument: not fine.

I do not need GON to tell me how to feel about gun control, particularly in an ill-informed article by someone with no apparent qualifications to speak about the issue.

 
Leave a comment

You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]

PC Gaming Calendar 2014

Follow Games.on.net

YouTube

Steam Group

Upcoming Games

Community Soapbox

Recent Features
Destiny

Destiny is a Very Good Shooting Game, but in 2014, I want more

James comes away from Destiny impressed, but feeling like Bungie could have done a lot more.

Civilization: Beyond Earth

Sudden price rises for games just make everybody mad – so why do publishers keep doing it?

Pictured: Australians fighting against The Gigantic Price-Gouge Claw.

The Sims 4

The Sims 4 SteelSeries giveaway! Four prize packs up for grabs

Get your hands on some sim-ply excellent gear.

Batman Arkham Knight

Arkham Knight hands-on: Behind the wheel of the Batmobile

John takes the new Batmobile for a spin and comes away with a grin.

Streaming Radio
Radio Streams are restricted to iiNet group customers.

GreenManGaming MREC

Facebook Like Box