NRA releases shooting game for ages 4+ for iPhone, iPad, iPod touch via Apple’s App Store

“The National Rifle Association, which has been critical of the gaming industry in the debate surrounding potential gun control legislation, has rolled out its own app where users can take target practice,” Bobby Cervantes reports for Politico.

NRA: Practice Range, a new iTunes app released Sunday by the nation’s largest gun-industry lobby, offers users a shooting-practice feature, tips on safety training and a state-by-state gun law database,” Cervantes reports. “The free app dispenses standard gun safety mantras before the user can begin to shoot: ‘Use only the correct ammunition for your gun;’ ‘Never use alcohol or drugs before or while shooting;’ ‘Know your target and what is beyond it.'”

The app, rated for ages 4+, is free, Cervantes reports, and with In-App Purchasing, “It costs 99 cents to upgrade your firearm from a free M9 to a Beretta, a Browning or a Colt — and it offers indoor, outdoor and skeet shooting modes… Last week, after meeting with Vice President Joe Biden’s gun reform task force, the NRA slammed the White House for its ‘agenda to attack the Second Amendment’” and video games for ‘the marketing of violence to our kids.'”

Read more in the full article here.

220 Comments

  1. And Apple approved this? I find that disgusting. Maybe their hands are tied? Or maybe they actually feel that banning this app or liming it to 19+ would be an abuse of their power? I think 4+ is disgusting, but ultimately, parents are the first line of defense against violence-prone individuals, not industry.

    1. You sound like you’re just a leftist knee-jerk idiot. There is no MURDER FANTASY in this game. It is a target shooting game. It should be rated ALL AGES, no need to discriminate against those under age 4.

      “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

      1. Please don’t call names. It’s not necessary to make your point.

        My dad is a gun owner and has enjoyed hunting for my entire life and longer. I’ve used BB guns as a youth to kill rats in our chicken coop. I don’t view guns as bad per-se, but such an app glorifies guns in a society that is already suffering from too much violence glorification. That’s my only point.

        That said, I watched, I watched the Expendables 2 last night and it was awesome! So much violence, killing and bloodshed, but done in a comical fashion.

        What this app does do is encourage children to want to purchase guns in a sense because of the in-app upgrade. That’s dangerous territory. I may have used a gun, but to encourage the lusting of a better gun creates a slippery slope. Better just to not have it available to youngsters at all.

        1. Your response and your OP is very odd. You claim to be upset about name calling, yet you immediately jump out of the gate saying a no-murder, pro gun safety target shooting app is “disgusting”. Your weak defense of your choice of words is based on the in app purchase of a gun upgrade.

          So somehow an in app gun upgrade purchase makes a no murder gun safety app disgusting? Are you similarly disgusted by the plethora of first person shooter types of games? What about GTA? You find no problems in an app that has the main character run around and steal cars and cause mayhem and violence?

          Hmm..

            1. The only gun owners I’ve had the misfortune of coming across are wild-eyed idiots with weird rationalizations.
              “Guns don’t kill. People do.” Ya. So you cannot ban people, why not ban the tools they use for killing?

              I know, I know – knives, cars, bare hands, pills, pencils, pens, too much sex, bridges, overeating – they all ALSO kill. Heck, even people kill themselves! Problem is, guns are the only thing made SPECIFICALLY to kill and to do it cleanly.

              “By the nation’s largest gun industry lobby . . . ” That pretty much sums it up. The NRA is serving the interests of the gun industry. Like the tobacco industry before, it’s in their interest to snare them as young as 4. Can’t wait for the day a five-year-old takes his daddy’s gun and blows away that pesky teacher insisting he learns his ABCs.

            2. The NRA is also serving the interests of law abiding citizens such as myself who choose to own firearms. There are about 4,000,000 registered members, who ARE THE NRA. The problem is not guns, there have always been guns in this country. The problem is societal, and what this society is devolving into. It’s not my fault society has created a plethora of scumbags with no regard for human life. On the evening news I must see one story per week involving a hit and run, where they just leave the person to die. Then you have the occasional psycho like Adam Lanza with mental issues who played violent video games for days at a time. I’ve owned guns for decades, along with other family members and friends, and have never had a problem. There are thousands of gun owners in my area, and there’s never been a shooting of any kind. Why? Because we’re civilized law abiding citizens, and we teach our children to be responsible around guns. People with your ignorant opinions have been brainwashed by the media and are hopelessly narrow minded.

            3. I’d also like to add that playing violent video games does not engender real-life physical violence. Isn’t it clear that disturbed people with violent fantasies are drawn to virtual enactments of violence?

              Also, there are several hundred times more violent works of literature, some of them taught in humanities and literature classes in school, than violent video games. And why are they taught? They are taught because violence is an essential, undeniable part of the human condition. Education is the process of elucidating the human condition for young humans.

            4. Why do you love guns so much? They are devices designed to kill. No matter how much you blame society and its ills, these ills are nothing new. They’ve been there since mankind came into existence. Whatever you say is just a fig leaf – you know, blame everything else except these metallic, lifeless killing machines that you love so much. Since you cannot change the bad guys in society, it makes sense to keep guns away from them. I would suggest that it’s better to deny guns to a million “law-abiding” citizens like yourself than to make it possible for one psycho/bad guy to pick up a gun easily. It’s not like you’re going to starve to death if you don’t have your guns. “Occasional” psychos like Lanza destroy families. I may be ignorant, but people like you are self-centred, illogical “me first” characters who have absolutely no regard for human life. I mean, in love with a thing designed to kill? Something’s terriblly wrong there, dude.

            5. Youre right. The problem is societal. And our easy-to-own, easy-to-abuse firearms policy is a big part of the social problem of grade schoolers dying from violent abuse. Yeah, there’s a human finger on the trigger. But how difficult was it to get the trigger to pull? I’ve heard the argument that more guns makes the world safer, because the criminals will be surrounded by vigilantes ready to stop the crime. Well, that’s just bullshit. The more guns out in the wild, the more gun violence there will be. I support the 2nd amendment, and there were certainly times in those first 8 years of the millenium, that I figured we were going to need those rights. I want us to be able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical, abusive overlord government that decides that the rules don’t apply,and regain our Democracy.

            6. Lately, in television, a NRA fan used Switzerland as example: lowest crime, while many machine guns around… Hey! He forgot to say that soldiers keep their guns… but not the ammunition! This is only distributed in CASE OF WAR!
              And, by the way: knifes and swords are ALSO REGULATED in Switzerland.
              P.S. Some dramas happened in that country too, because ammunition can yet be found (in small quantities, though), and the keeping of military weapons at home is now officially discussed.

            7. Just because people get hurt or killed by other means doesn’t justifies that others get hurt or killed by paranoid “heroes” or other sick weapon lovers.

      2. You don’t like someone’s opinion so you resort to name calling. Wonder what Thomas J would say about that?

        “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government”. Thomas Jefferson

      3. I take issue with Jefferson’s assertion that sports don’t build good character. Any activity can be twisted into something negative, target shooting included. Wrestling in high school taught me more about responsibililty, commitment, resilliance, percerverance, leadership, and comradery than anything else in my life. It set me up for success at collage and in the military. Wrestling taught me that the accomplishments we are most proud of are earned through HARD work, and that even though the easy path through life is easy, it isn’t rewarding.

    2. Jesus..it’s a target shooting app. Target shooting is a sport..that’s why it’s in the olimpics.

      I’ve been target shooting since I was 5. My daughter started at 8.

      We don’t kill anything. Our guns will not magically turn on us or make us do bad things.

      You are a tool.

        1. I’m not sure he actually called you a name. He called you a “tool”. You may want to look up the meaning and the definition of that before you respond, and understand why he called you that.

            1. “Tool” could very well mean penis, but it has an older meaning, “tool in the machine”, basically someone who conforms to the system, or someone who does not think for themselves, they parrot the “official line”. I would expect in this context that the 2nd meaning, and not penis is what was intended, but I guess it could go either way.

            2. Talk about SPIN, !!!

              Are you going to rewrite history also.

              Simply “TOOL” is slang no mater how you spin it, and if you can’t see it for what it is then you have a big problem that needs addressed , stop the justification and see it for what it is.

    3. and YOU feel entitled to stop free citizens from learning more about their constitutional rights (I’d say “God-given” but I know you wouldn’t respect that in the slightest)? Now, my collectivist friend, THAT IS disgusting! As wise men have said, “Inside the heart of every Liberal beats the heart of a Soviet KGB style commissar.” And you just proved it. Leave the choices to us, loser.

      1. So funny.

        This kind of crap response just shows how completely detached from reality this brand of moronic conservative dogma is. Throwing in “collectivist” and the idiotic quote about liberals, based on exactly NOTHING in the OP’s post, shows that you just like to spout off buzzwords that make you feel intellectual when in fact it does nothing but demonstrate a profound ignorance and prejudice.

        Well done.

          1. Paranoid hicks and pussies are the only people running out to buy more assault weapons right now. Ooohh, yeah, they’re coming to get you, that’s sane, that’s healthy, perhaps the doctor needs to up your meds, jackhole – you really think if “they” wanted to come get you your closet full of guns will help? Seriously? You’re living in a shrinking fantasy world. Day by day, thanks to social media, this kind of thinking is exposed, and utterly rejected. There’s a reason the right has won exactly one popular presidential election in the last six. And please: tell your leaders to keep talking about guns and rape – what a bag of geniuses – I think it’s catching on…. Hahahahahahah

            1. You can live in your fantasy world where only “hicks” and conservatives buy guns. Here in the real world facts say differently. The 2nd Amendment applies to all political stripes.

        1. Would that life in general pay off consistently with comeuppance for those so deserving.

          “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” Joseph Goebbels

          I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. – Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

          Mistakes and mentors, my friend. The only two ways to learn anything. The latter are a lot cheaper.

          The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

          “Time magazine covers explain why Americans know nothing about the world.”

      2. You need to clarify your understanding of two important documents, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The “endowed by their creator” is part of the Declaration, and it goes on to say the Creator endows all men equally with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and the method by which groups of people go about this is to establish Governments. Our current Government has failed 26 people in their right to life and pursuit of happiness.

        This failure is justified, in the minds of some, because of some confusion regarding one of the provisions of the other document, the Constitution. You supposed “right” does not extend to preventing change that would have allowed these people to live. If you want to play with guns, join the National Guard (the well regulated militia). That’s your permitted choice, no other.

        1. I accept your point regarding differentiating between the Declaration and the Constitution. I also agree that society failed those 26 people. But, we didn’t kill them. A deviant whacko did. How do you prevent a coming tragedy that no one (except perhaps his mother) knew was coming? By treating all law-abiding people as criminals? We either need to find a better way to detect when someone has intentions to kill the innocent, or confine the crazies and perhaps properly blame the psychotropic drugs they have been steeped in since childhood. There is an established failure rate for products in the electronics industry; maybe a certain small percentage of people in a free society are deviant as well and there is little that can be done about it. Stripping freedoms from the law-abiding 99.9% will not help.

          1. You presume the rest of us think you are not part of the 0.1%. Who gets to say who is OK to own guns and who is not? How much scrutiny are you (and every potential gun owner) willing to undergo to demonstrate your acceptability to society at large?

            Those possibilities seen a lot more dangerous and ripe for abuse (and unconstitutional) than adoption of common sense control over what is available for purchase. What is the need for the .223 caliber cartridge in civilian markets? Why do we need weapons capable of firing 30 to 100 of those cartridges without reloading? How many children will we enable the 0.1% to kill through poor Government in the name of protecting your freedoms?

            1. No criminal record and no indication of mental instability makes me qualified to exercise my rights whether you approve or not. Just don’t do it yourself if you don’t like it; leave your fellow citizens to make their own choices. Having defended this country and learned safe practices in the use of a variety of weapons further qualifies me. What are your qualifications to attempt to deny the rights of your equals?

            2. Then why are you not allowed to buy a tank? A howitzer? An actual fighter plane (with actual weaponry; not a castrated one)?

              If you have the right to own a firearm, you have a right to own a firearm. That second amendment to your constitution is quite terse and broad. Who decided that there is a line? If there is a broad agreement that there is a line (and clearly, there is one), then it is no longer a matter of principle (the right to own a firearm is in constitution), but a matter of discussion where the line should be (how big a weapon, or how much firepower, does that constitution imply).

              Once you agree to draw that line, you can no longer argue that any movement of that line is against the constitution.

            3. A weapon and a weapon systems platform are two distinct items under law. Every lawful citizen has a right to the first. None has a right to the second.

            4. Your response makes sense, but it confirms what I’m saying. Nowhere in that second amendment to the American constitution does there appear a distinction between a “weapon” and a “weapon systems platform”. In fact the amendment is just one single sentence (which is likely quite familiar to all posters here):

              “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

              So, while it is necessary to have a proper and armed police force (or army), ordinary people are allowed to have “Arms” (no mention what kind).

              As soon as someone went ahead and started defining what is the meaning of the word ‘Arm’, there goes that line, and once the line is defined, it can be moved back and forth.

            5. My point of questioning your membership in the 0.1% was to ask the question “Who decides?” It wasn’t meant to be personal. Without evaluation before gun possession, it is a meaningless statement. The mere fact a person has not yet committed a heinous act doesn’t mean they’re not inclined to do so. Who will decide?

              My larger point is 26 people had their life and pursuit of happiness ripped from them personally and finally. The Government that “We, the People” established failed them by not protecting their “inalienable rights” and we have failed “Our Creator” by not establishing a Government that protected those rights. We’re pretty much “All hat, no cattle” on this one. How many more must lose their lives before your “rights” to possess .223 caliber ammunition, designed to turn human flesh into mush, or guns that fire 30 to 100 rounds between reloads can even be questioned? Whose right is more important, theirs to breathe or yours to play bang-bang?

              I think that enough lives have been sacrificed on the altar of gun industry profitability. Lets act like adults and do something.

            6. quiviran,

              No one can decide who or what rights given to them by our creator (God), can be taken away….to answer your question. They are God given therefore they cannot be taken away.

              On your larger point…the government did fail to protect the 26 people in Connecticut. It failed by not allowing them (law abiding people anyway) to do anything but wait on the cops to show up. If I had been there with my weapon the body count would be much lower, possibly zero, with the exception of the guy attacking. Oh but if I did that I would be a criminal just like the guy who took 26 lives. This gun free zone did not help or protect anyone! Our forefathers did create a government in which “We the people” could protect our “inalienable rights” with weapons due to the 2nd amendment. We just had some people in recent history (liberals) that thought schools should be gun free zones and should advertise this with stickers everywhere to make everyone feel safe at school…(Liberal ideal) I do not think those 26 felt safe in their last moments…I could be wrong. Your argument on this is “All hat, no cattle” as far as this is concerned. How many more cowards must come in to an unarmed school and kill before I will be allowed to carry my .45 ACP designed to turn cowards like this into mush? When will I be able to empty my 30 round AR-15 .308 caliber into this coward to insure that he is not allowed to take 26 lives? If this coward had survived, he would have claimed he had a bad childhood in court and would likely get released due to some bleeding heart liberal judge or jury.
              Who’s right is more important, the cowards to kill or mine to defend from his killing?

              I think that enough lives have been sacrificed on the alter of liberal ideals. Lets act like adults and stand up for our Constitution and ourselves!

              Sincerely,

              William Beavers
              Not afraid to show my name!

            7. @William,

              “No one can decide who or what rights given to them by our creator (God), can be taken away….to answer your question. They are God given therefore they cannot be taken away.”

              So your point is that there can be no restriction on gun ownership by the mentally ill?

              As far as the protection that would have been available with your armed presence, and given your choice of weapons I’d guess you’re probably a crazy old coot living in a past that may never have existed. The older you get the better you were. In your case, I propose open carry, so we can run if we see you coming.

            8. quiviran,

              I was referring to the question you posed here:

              “My point of questioning your membership in the 0.1% was to ask the question “Who decides?” It wasn’t meant to be personal. Without evaluation before gun possession, it is a meaningless statement. The mere fact a person has not yet committed a heinous act doesn’t mean they’re not inclined to do so. Who will decide?”

              Our mental health laws as set by the ACLU during the 1980’s indicate that you cannot in-prison someone just because they are mentally ill. It was at this time a lot of crazy people were let out of the state run mental wards around the nation and they left, roamed the streets and composed an overwhelming majority of our homeless. This dramatic increase in our homeless population was blamed on Regan and his economic policies. It had nothing to do with that.

              I understand your thought. I had a distant relative who suffered from mental illness, everyone, including this persons mother tried to get them committed. We were all afraid that they would kill someone and the entire family let them know this at the state facilities as well as private ones. We were constantly told….”we cannot keep them here against their will until they hurt or kill someone.” I do not like this any more than you, but that is our right as Americans…to be innocent until we commit a crime.

              Your quote, “The mere fact a person has not yet committed a heinous act doesn’t mean they’re not inclined to do so. Who will decide?” Is where I was addressing your question.
              quiviran you were on a good point when you said, “How much scrutiny are you (and every potential gun owner) willing to undergo to demonstrate your acceptability to society at large?

              Those possibilities seen a lot more dangerous and ripe for abuse (and unconstitutional)…this is exactly correct! Then you had to add this to your quote…”than adoption of common sense control over what is available for purchase.” Who decides common sense? Who is given control? Who decides what should be available and what should not? Your beloved ALCU would have a field day with all of this…if it were not against guns. You see the ACLU has communist origins and it fits their agenda just like Stalin or Lenin to see no guns in the USA.

              This is why as conservatives we ask for tougher and stricter punishment. In the hope that it will make some of these nut jobs actually consider not doing anything out of fear for their own life.

              It is not the responsibility of our politicians to protect us on an individual level. They cannot afford to put a shield around everyone and keep them protected and in a panacea of perfection. We the people of this nation individually make up our government. The power descends from us so we should have the power to defend ourselves. No government worker, no government program or army will be able to protect me or my family quicker or better than I can.

              Ultimately it is up to you and I to protect ourselves. I can not do that if someone decides to go whacko and hurt a bunch of people in a movie theater or grocery store with a knife, sword, or gun and I am not allowed to protect myself with a weapon.

              Without the ability or right to protect myself I will be just like everyone else, waiting for the next coward to decide to off himself and grab a bunch of headlines by seeing how many people he can kill and take with him. In a gun free zone he knows no one will be there to stop him because he will have the upper hand.

              By the way you mention assault weapons, any weapon can be an assault weapon if you kill somebody with it…it is the most heinous of weapons, be it a hammer, bat, or gun. All guns were manufactured to kill. So therefore all guns can be classified as assault weapons.

              quiviran, to address this, “As far as the protection that would have been available with your armed presence, and given your choice of weapons I’d guess you’re probably a crazy old coot living in a past that may never have existed. The older you get the better you were.”
              I am 43 years old and my past is in front of me. My successes and failures in life are part of who I am. Your allusion to a past that may never have existed is an assumption from you. Obviously you do not like being challenged on your thoughts.

              So you can go on and be just like everyone else, waiting for the next coward to decide to off himself and grab a bunch of headlines by seeing how many people he can kill and take with him. I on the other hand, will stand for the rights given to me by God and written into our Constitution. I will work to keep the right to defend myself and hopefully one day, having a legal carry permit, I can be in a position to stand and defend myself (and maybe you) in that theater while all you will be able to do is sit in the corner hiding hoping that I do not miss.

            9. @William –

              Sorry about the old coot comment. The .45ACP choice had me thinking Korea or Vietnam. Been a while since the troops were issued those. But my point stands, I don’t know if you are any good with them, since we are strangers, so I don’t want to be where you are when you are packing. If we had the same level of licensing for guns as we do for cars, I might feel less endangered. We don’t.

              But don’t be offended. I ask my friends who have concealed carry permits where the are planing to go that they feel the need to be armed, so I can stay away from those places.

              I think Ronald Reagan had some good ideas on the subject:

              “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
              –Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.

              “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”
              –Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.

              “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”
              –Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.

              “I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”
              –Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.

            10. qiveran,

              Lets take these one by one. You are free not to go where I am but us being strangers you would not know. Does your right to not be armed to defend yourself supersede my right to carry? It seems you would not know how good or bad I am with my weapon unless one of those crazies went crazy. As a responsible gun owner I have an umbrella policy that covers me for liability on actions I take with a gun or otherwise. This does not mean I shoot willy nilly when I get the chance. I have never had to pull my weapon yet and hope I never have to. Because I have responsibilities to myself and my family I do not want to injure or cause harm to someone else, or their family. If I were in this situation I would have to make risk calculations based on the situation and my situational awareness. If I felt that my family or other innocents were in danger of someone deranged and crazed I would make the difficult choice to put an end to it before any or anymore were wounded or killed. I am responsible for the bullet and wherever it goes. If it goes through the crazy guy and hits grandma across the street I am responsible and will be held responsible in a court of law. My flawless arrest and court record that I have worked all my life to keep clean would be ruined. There is an old saying though, I would rather be tried by 13 than carried by 6.

              On Ronald Regan’s quote, “I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” I could not agree more, a fully-automatic machine gun M-15 or AK-47, is extremely restricted in this country right now and there has only been one indecent where this type of weapon has been used in 30 years! I was recently told that only about 4800 people have the expensive and restrictive license to own one of these in the US. These are not the weapons being discussed here.

              The next Regan quote, “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.” He was speaking specifically of armor piercing bullets. These are designed to pierce bulletproof jackets and have been used by criminals to kill cops. The popular term “cop killers” has been used to describe these bullets. They are dangerous and I do not like them being out there. Regan signed the law that made them illeagal, but guess what, the criminals still use them to this day. Bullet control, like gun control does not work. Now we are discussing bullets instead of arms. I do agree that one goes with the other though.

              In this quote Regan said, “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.” Regan can support a bill that has a cooling off period of 7 days nationally if he wants, I disagree with that. The Brady Bill has been argued in the halls of Congress since before 1991. It has not yet passed. Parts of it has but not the cooling off period that Regan was referring to when he gave this quote. The one thing I agree with Regan on is that this level of violence must be stopped. In the article Regan even pointed out that this is, “a young man with a history of mental disturbance.” Sounds like a point we covered earlier. Some mental health laws and the ACLU would need to be halted in their tracks to tackle this issue. If someone is mentally disturbed there is no limit to what they can or will do. Gun or not if they decide to hurt someone they will. I have seen this first hand.

              In this Regan quote he says, “I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.” It does not sound as if he is supporting a law or forcing change. He is giving his opinion. Which he is free to do. Even in this quote he says, “I think maybe…’ that shows some hesitation or doubt. I will not try to speculate what his thoughts were, I could not find the quote. This statement was made before a lot of the carry permit laws were passed. Now I know that not all gun owners have carry permits, but if in Conneticut someone had one and was able to bear their weapon we may be looking at a different situation. In order to get a carry permit you do have to go through a certain amount of training, and you have to complete a live fire test with over 85% accuracy at multiple distances. In my case 5, 10, and 25 yards. So if Regan thought that maybe there could be some restrictions…well those of us with carry permits have passed that standard as well.

              If one of the teachers had a weapon and carry permit to protect themselves I do not think that we would be addressing the massacre that we are looking at today.

              quiviran, I understand that you may fear guns. I also understand that you may think if all guns were gone we would not have to worry about this kind of thing ever happening again. I do empathize with those feelings. The reality is that kind of scenario only occurs in heaven. I have trusted my life to Jesus Christ and one day I will see that scenario played out. Until then there is evil in this world and many men are evil. That means they will deceive and manipulate to gain and control power over others. I refuse to be one of those others.

              The gun has been the only thing in the history of the earth that has proven to keep the peace. When tyrants face a gun they must compromise. When tyrants have the guns they have consensus (or agreement) just ask Castro.

              We have addressed several issues through these discussions and I have tried to address each and every idea and thought that you have had respectfully. There are some questions and points you have not yet addressed that I have brought to you. This young coot may have ideas that do not line up with yours but I hope that you at least consider me respectful in my disagreement. And I hope that you can respect my (and others like me) right to protect myself and my family from the evil that is out there.

              Sincerely,

              William

          2. By not allowing that deviant whacko acces to a full scale assault weapon designed to kill as many targets in as little time as possible. Allow him to buy a gun exorcising his 2nd amendment rights to protect himself, without the power of taking so many lives, so quickly. You will never out-gun your government so assault weapons are completely unnecessary for civilians to own. Period.

      3. Your right! After all, it’s maybe the best way to get the world rid off americans: Let’s have them kill each other. Give them as many weapons they wish, and lean back to watch the great blood massacre.
        Maybe NRA is paid by some foreign communist country, to help destroying USA?
        Well, well…

        1. So, specifically how do you think that’s even possible. That’s the same sort of argument as “round up all illegals and deport them”. It’s pure liberal smoked-too-much-dope fantasy, there’s simply no way to get every single gun out there, and if you even tried, there would be a very long period, perhaps forever when the only remaining guns would be in the hands of pure thugs and criminals who would not hand over their guns willingly.

          This has already happened in places where your idea was tried, such as England.

          1. Smoking is a better parallel to a solution. Over time, with social pressure people could turn over their weapons and teach their children that guns create insecurity rather than security. Our airports are a terrible example of how to ‘do’ security. They have managed to make us all feel more insecure than ever.

            1. Then why does the military have guns?

              I don’t recall any war that was won by handing out gift baskets.

              social pressure that is rich. Fools like you are why I own an arsenal buddy.

            2. The average gun owner is not in the military. They don’t need guns at home. Your arsenal isn’t needed to keep me out of your home. My respect for your property and privacy is enough. Do you respect anyone or fear everyone?

            3. You were just talking about social pressure to get people to give up guns.

              you don’t respect me or my rights and that is obvious by the way you spout off about it.

              I largely treat guns like apple stock, its an investment in more ways than one and I’m down to one AR-15 that I’m keeping.

              I also consider guns to be a tool. I don’t live in fear as a gun owner any more than I live in fear of power outages as an owner of flashlights and batteries.

              The military is made up of citizens. I have no desire to live in a world where only an elite class of citizen can have a firearm. The history books are full of stories like that with bad endings.

            4. I don’t like the idea that the Democrat Party seems hell-bent on keeping a pool of unarmed victims available for the predations of the criminal class.

              Molon Labe!

              3l3c7ro,

              Do you know why the 2nd Amendment exists? Your response above indicates that you do not.

              A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject. – John R. Lott

              “Gun control” is a job-safety program for criminals. – John R. Lott

              During waves of terror attacks, Israel’s national police chief will call on all concealed-handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where concealed permit holders have saved lives. – John R. Lott

            5. Good example: Israel where they have lived in a perpetual state of war for thousands of years and the last 60 years have shown how successful guns are for them. The peaceful nations of the world generally don’t have a gun culture.

    4. Goodness.

      With so many violent video games out there you want to punch a target oriented game? One that promotes the exact type of firearm activity that is primary for the vast majority of gun owners – you know the gun owners that have never committed a crime and use them in rational, reasonable, safe ways.

      Where are your tears for the HUNDREDS of children killed under direct order by Obama – with your tax money?

      Why, when politically convenient, do the bully-by-proxy statists show concern for dead children when for years now innocent civilians have been repeatedly killed under direct order of the President?

      Could it be the politics? Could it be the fact that they are far away? could it be that they are brown, speak a different language and pray to an unapproved god?

      Why, if the progressives actually care, do they not protest and screech as loudly for the deaths of at least FOUR times the civilian and child deaths by drone strikes?

      Methinks far too many statists are gleeful dancing on some corpses for political gain…

      1. ” . . the gun owners that have never committed a crime and use them in rational, reasonable, safe ways. . . ”

        . . . which is what all the recent murderers were until, well, they weren’t. It’s a stupid argument.

        1. 300 million Americans had access to assault weapons last month, and all 300 million, minus a couple, didn’t commit mass murder. Guns weren’t the common denominator for those that did. Insanity and psychoactive drugs were. Up until 1970 we locked up the dangerously insane instead of handing them a bottle of pills and sending them home to families with no professional training in psychology. Perhaps that’s our problem?

          Instead of trying to remove all the sharp, pointy objects from the world so that crazy people can’t do any damage, perhaps we should remove the crazy people. Or would keeping them and the public safe be too much of a violation of their Constitutional rights?

          If you’ve never met a gun owner that was reasonable and level headed perhaps it says something about how you approach people with whom you disagree. In any event, your views on guns and society are ill informed and naive.

          1. Well said.

            Know well over a hundred gun owners who respect the second amendment as a sacrament and never committed a crime with a gun.

            On the flip side of the coin, I don’t know any of the criminals on the front page of the newspaper who feel the same.

          2. Spoken like a true gun owner – lock up the people, but leave my guns alone. It’s pointless to talk about the close to 35,000 kids who were injured by guns last year or the four or five thousand who were killed. Obviously you don’t have regard for human life if you can be so callous. Guns are inanimate devices meant to kill. As long as there are people, there will be killers. That’s why intelligent governments around the world – and believe me most of them are – have strict gun controls. You cannot usually identify a killer before he or she actually kills or attempts to kill – but you sure can remove the tools from them should they decide to murder.

            1. Britain, with the strictest gun control laws in Europe has a violent crime rate of almost 5000/100,000. The US has a violent crime rate of less than 400/100,000. The US has an overall murder rate of 4.8/100,000. The places with the most stringent gun control in the US skew that average upwards, like Washington D.C., where owning handgun is virtually impossible and the murder rate is over 17 per 100,000.

              I value the lives of children highly. That’s why I don’t want to waste time trying to outlaw guns with certain cosmetic features. Let’s rebuild our public mental health systems and provide a place for the dangerously insane to be isolated from the rest of us, including our children. The danger is that we will outlaw scary looking black guns and walk away thinking we’ve accomplished something.

            2. Zeke:
              Your analysis is using the wrong data. The statistics you are using is in relation to “violent crime” not “gun deaths”–two different things. The point you are making is from the article that The Telegraph posted in 2009. This listing of crimes also included “robberies, assaults and sexual offences” all of which could have been committed without the use of a gun. In reality, the UK homicide rate FELL to a 29 year low last year. “Some 550 homicides were recorded in 2011/12, a reduction of 14% year-on-year and the lowest since 1983.” Even given the differences in population, the US still has THE most homicides per year.

              While the Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the right to “bear arms”, they also suggested that “right” does not allow you to own whatever weapon you wish. The government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens, that is why you are not legally permitted to own a nuclear weapon or make pipe bombs–they are seen as an endangerment to the society as a whole. This is what the “lib-tards” and others are asking for–not the abolishment or confiscation of all weapons, but a more sane approach to the ownership of such weapons. What you so ignorantly labels as “scary looking black guns” are in fact weapons designed to do one thing: murder a human being.

            3. Another bogus argument – Washington DC (some refer to Chicago) has the strictest gun laws but the most gun violence.

              People who live in Washington and Chicago are not banned from travelling to the rest of the US where they can easily pick up a weapon (or weapons). And neither is everyone who enters Washington or Chicago made to undergo customs checks to see if they have guns.

            4. Yes, I used violent crime purposely, because violence doesn’t end with the removal of guns from society. Focusing only on GUN violence begs the question. Britain’s homicide rate was 1.7 per 100K in 2011, while the US had a rate of 4.8. That appears damning, except that if you look at the numbers historically, they were in the same proportion before guns were banned in Britain.

            5. About as pointless as talking about the 200M+ innocent civilians murdered by governments during the 20th century. About as pointless as talking about the 50M unborn babies whose lives have been cut short since 1973

              As long as there are cars, there will be deaths by drunk drivers. As long as there are banks, there will be bank robbers. As long as there are sports, there will be parents killing other parents. As long as there are people, there will be crime.

              Why no calls to outlaw cars, knifes, hammers, baseball bats, and other items used to kill people?

        2. You are also considered a safe driver until you have a bad accident or get a DUI.

          Maybe Ill start following your logic which would dictate that I need much more firepower since the assumption is everyone might snap at any moment!

        3. “Where are your tears for the HUNDREDS of children killed under direct order by Obama – with your tax money?

          Why, when politically convenient, do the bully-by-proxy statists show concern for dead children when for years now innocent civilians have been repeatedly killed under direct order of the President?

          Could it be the politics? Could it be the fact that they are far away? could it be that they are brown, speak a different language and pray to an unapproved god?

          Why, if the progressives actually care, do they not protest and screech as loudly for the deaths of at least FOUR times the civilian and child deaths by drone strikes?

          Methinks far too many statists are gleeful dancing on some corpses for political gain…”

          Why will none of you anti-rights politicos answer this?

          Are the lives of American kids more valuable? If not and all kids are equally valuable why will none of you say a single word of protest about the murder of innocent civilians with American tax dollars all under the direct command of Obama?

          Why – because it is not politically convenient any you actually do not give a flying F about any kids – political bully-by-proxy statists!

    5. “And Apple approved this?”
      Considering all the other 1st-person shooter games, why wouldn’t this one get approved?
      “I find that disgusting.”
      I assume you find a whole range of games disgusting, then, eh?
      “Maybe their hands are tied? Or maybe they actually feel that banning this app or liming it to 19+ would be an abuse of their power? I think 4+ is disgusting, but ultimately, parents are the first line of defense against violence-prone individuals, not industry.
      Read more at http://macdailynews.com/2013/01/14/nra-releases-shooting-game-for-ages-4-for-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch-via-apples-app-store/#oOmomzYZpqCBiFlC.99

      Wow, this is actually an education product, unlike most of the other shoot-em-up or run-em-over games we see (including many on iOS).

      I guess putting “NRA” in the title and having an official NRA license is what you’re really finding disgusting, eh? (The game, btw, is not the NRA’s, they just licensed their name to it).

      There is no question this would have been a non-event had the NRA name not been associated with the game/educational product.

      BTW, did you even look at the program’s description in iTunes?

  2. Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. – Mohandas Gandhi

    To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

    1. Responsible gun use was discussed in this classic western film snippet video, regardless of which side your on.

      Warning: The beginning of the video is out of sync with the actual movie. The first thing you hear is young Joey (kid older than four) shouting, “bang, bang.” That happened towards the end of the movie in a totally different context. 🙁

      Cobbled together quickly to demonize the 4+ kids?

      Bottom line: The video was manipulated more than once to make a pro-gun movie into an anti-gun statement. If you ever watched the movie (Shane), both sides are represented and a fair person should be able to judge for themselves.

      More anti-gun — media enabled deck stacked — FUD.

      1. Forgot to mention. The YT video does not contain footage immediately before the opening discussion.

        Young Joey asks Shane (Alan Ladd) to teach him how to shoot several times in the movie. Shane accepts and spends a few minutes doing just that before the mother and father come in.

        Set in rural Wyoming the homesteaders (sod busters) live under constant threats from the cattle barons during the range wars. A line mentions the nearest Marshall is a hundred miles away. The ending is quintessential western, but this movie is different — mysterious, moody and atmospheric. Earned six Academy Award nominations.

        Highly recommended.

    1. “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” — Adolph Hitler

      1. The NRA has done a good job of convincing you that the choices are:
        1) Everybody with every gun there is
        2) Nobody with any guns
        The grownups among us would like a little moderation–some sensible restrictions and checks. The sensible choice lies between 1 and 2.

        1. HuffPist has done a good job convincing you that those are the only choices people look at.

          In between is where most laws are already we written.

          When you claim others are simplistic, it shows that you are….

          1. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” That’s the one we should really be talking about. Guns are a red herring.

      2. I love how all these conservatives are crying Hitler. Hitler actually RELAXED and weakened gun laws in Germany when he came to power (they were very strict after WWI). The only people he disarmed were the Jews, and would have made zero difference had they been armed. Try shooting through Panzer armor with a rifle.

        So funny how these mouth-breathing knuckle draggers cite the ability to “fight the federal government” as a benny of owning guns. As if some half-breed hick militia with old shotguns and pickup trucks would be able to content with AH-64 Apache’s and F/A-18 Hornets. News Flash: It’s not 1800 anymore and no amount of citizen firepower would be any kind of a match for the fully mechanized modern army the federal government would visit upon them them for treason and insurrection. Conservatives are so weepy-prideful and emotional when it comes to this subject and it’s just silly.

        1. They didn’t come knocking at the doors of Jewish ancestry citizens in a tank you apologist moron. And to continue your smug analogy: today’s US citizenry should be carrying SAM missiles and bazookas to maintain firepower equivalency vs. the feds that was the case when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

          1. And who, pray tell, will teach the citizens to use the missiles they couldn’t possibly afford? Think it through retard. I think there’s a gas leak in your trailer, it seems your brain is damaged.

        2. Really?

          The Soviets lost in Afghanistan. The U.S. lost in Vietnam. Insurgents inflicted serious casualties on American forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Never underestimate the other side.

    2. I don’t like the idea that the Democrat Party seems hell-bent on keeping a pool of unarmed victims available for the predations of the criminal class.

      Molon Labe!

      1. This “liberal” grew up with guns. I owned several and knew how to handle several more. But I suppose that it’s easier for you to argue with a made-up liberal than a real one. The NRA has morphed from a service organization to little more than a marketing arm of gun manufacturers. By the way, I didn’t call them toads. I think toads deserve more respect.

      1. Oh brother. Go search on “target shooting” in the App Store. ALL of them are 4+. This article is just to make the NRA into a boogeyman and garner hits.

        I downloaded and installed the app. Pretty tame compared to most shooting apps out there. And it has gun safety tips. Whether you like guns or not you should absolutely teach your kids gun safety and not make them into some taboo subject.

            1. Gosh, what kind of second rate drug dealers have you been dealing with? I mean most people should know that andy decent drug pushers get kids hooked right in the womb. Just look up fetal alcohol syndrome and crack babies. Heck a drug usage game would be given the -9 months rating.

              Actually I think that’s how they must breed in Anustralia.

            2. Then again if the kids get a gun right at birth it will be a great boon for gun dealers and the NRA. Hmmm I can see some cross marketing here: “Take advantage of our special for expectant moms, a package of disposable diapers, milk formula, a plush teddy bear, and an Uzi all for only $19.99! Get yours while supplies last.”

    1. You know, I won’t let that stand without some justification. Exactly why is it a given fact that a no murder gun safety target shooting app with a 4+ rating is in bad taste? That’s not a given fact, and you have not remotely justified that statement.

    1. Wait five, and it becomes 75, then 100 comments, as soon as our political experts get out of their high-level meetings and have time to turn to the all-important MDN virtual killing fields where they can say what they really think without the civilizing blanket of non-virtual protocols.

      In that sense, MDN posters can proselytize freely, emote and vent their corrosive feelings without fear of reprisal, exult in the ignorance of others with inferior argumentative skills, strut and preen, restate the obvious without irony, draw conclusions with a blunt crayon.

      I love it so!

      This cornucopia of logical fallacies and nonsequiturs would have delighted the Reverend Mr. Charles Dodgson, for one. There is sound reasoning here too. Locating it is left as an exercise for the reader.

    1. “What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.”

      Would that life in general pay off consistently with comeuppance for those so deserving.

      “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” Joseph Goebbels

      “Remove justice,” St. Augustine asks, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”

      We are the soldiers for righteousness
      And we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with – L. Dube, rip

      I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. – Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

      Mistakes and mentors, my friend. The only two ways to learn anything. The latter are a lot cheaper.

      The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

      “Time magazine covers explain why Americans know nothing about the world.”

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.