Of course they want Canada back on the list. After all, putting us on the list worked the last time--they got their ridiculous list of demands. Why stop now when you're winning?
Don't mistake what they're asking for for a compromise. They want you to compromise by giving them half the pie, and then they'll ask you to compromise again for half of that... pretty soon they've eaten the whole pie and are demanding you pay half their dry-cleaning bill because they spilled pie on their shirt.
"Absolutely true....but mass killings are waaaaay up. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, six have happened in the last six years."
The evidence you offer in support of your conclusion here doesn't actually support the conclusion. First, you switch from "mass killing" to "shootings" as if they're the same thing. They're not. For instance, of the top five deadliest mass killings in the U.S., none of them have relied on firearms. Fire, bombings, and deliberate air crashes take the top. And I'm not counting 9/11 here, either. But the bigger issue is that counting the number of deadliest shootings neither provides evidence that the total deaths per capita are going up, nor that the total number of incidents are going up.
But, more to the point, mass killings in the U.S. kill a trivial number of people per year. It's on line with lightning strikes, or insect/reptile/arachnid venoms. It's a rare cause of death, not a common one. But, when the entrenched industries want to prevent you from having a 3d printer, they'll point to guns as the reason, and they'll point to mass killings. It's the same as how everyone who wants to limit speech or to sell fancy pornoscanners to airports points to terrorism.
"You know what's REALLY lazy? Not doing the intellectual work to understand that I DIDN'T say any of the above, only that I pointed out that NRA opponents COULD make that argument as an example of why the distinction the NRA is making is a weak one. The fact that you think I implied that's true simply means you're not reading hard enough, or that you're a shadow-jumper. The problem is with you, not the article, since what you allege above simply didn't HAPPEN. I both fish and have hunted in the past. I have a problem with neither."
Might I suggest another possibility, which is that you were unclear in the article? You said "The line on shooting living things is crossed and it would be quite easy to point to harming animals as a predictive sign of criminality, violence and sociopathy." This implies that you believe that hunting falls into that category. If that wasn't what you mean, fair enough, but I don't think it's right to call people intellectually lazy for what seems to be a miscommunication. You weren't clear, you were misunderstood. It happens. I think that I'm getting your point from reading your further comments, but it's not the point I got from just reading the article on its own.
It's hard to consider a game where you shoot at paper targets to be "violent", in the same way that I don't find laser tag, archery, javelin throwing, and so forth to be violent. There's no intention to harm anyone.
Hypocrisy: Taking a moral/principled stance via words, and then contradicting it via deeds. Which means that something isn't hypocrisy if the deeds and moral stance aren't in contradiction. That's the case here: The NRA opposes games that show violence--e.g. Mortal Kombat, but not games that don't, e.g. a game that involves target shooting, or Farmville, or whatever.
Calling the NRAs stance hypocritical requires both first defining all firearm-related activities as violent, even when they are not, and second, believing that the NRA itself feels that all firearm-related activities are violent. Even if you think the first is true, the second obviously isn't the NRAs position.
It's not hypocritical for them to decry violence in video games and then put out games where firearms are used responsibly, shooting at paper targets. Notably in all of the games shown there are zero human casualties, and zero laws being broken. Much as I am a big proponent of video games and play a lot of violent video games, I can't think of many other games where that is the case, excepting military scenarios, and even there the number of war crimes pretty quickly starts to go through the roof.
As has been noted, the NRA didn't set the age limit for it. Apple did. So, there's that.
Also, the whole "harming animals as a predictive sign" doesn't apply to hunting, it applies to cruelty to animals. Further, that has been thoroughly debunked, though it remains as a popular myth. What the evidence actually shows, if you dig into it a bit more, is that abused children are likely to be cruel to animals, and also face higher risks of criminality. Cruelty to animals (which is not part of hunting--clean kills are emphasized) is a warning sign that a child is being abused.
If you think it's hypocrisy, you don't understand the NRA's position at all, and the article ends up being a straw man. Their position isn't "it is bad to have video games with guns in them", it's "it is bad to have video games wherein you commit criminal acts, including with firearms". They'd be entirely fine with Duck Hunt, not so much with Doom.
Personally, I think the NRA's attacks on violent video games are stupid, but that doesn't mean they're being hypocritical here.
As others have noted, the campaign was holding out that these products were actual Victoria's Secret products, which is indeed trademark infringement and buys them into controversy they probably don't want. I think they're hoping they can extricate themselves from the thing gracefully, which is likely a tactical error.
That said, I can see why they don't carry said products. They're in the business of sexy clothing. I can think of many, many things sexier than having a woman slowly peel off her clothing to reveal "NO MEANS NO". At that point I think I'd say "No" and go play some video games instead.
Well, calling the people who disagree with you "paranoid cowards" and their property "security blanket[s]" isn't really helpful to a productive discussion.
Here's a bit of my story, for perspective. I have ADHD. I have a pretty strong case of it, in fact. I barely graduated high school. It took me about a decade to get through a four year degree for my undergraduate. Around that point, I actually got my stuff together and started dealing with it. Medication was a part of that, but I'm really bad at taking my medication. A bigger part was learning to manage, including finding activities that help me regain a state of focus.
Above and beyond, the best of those activities to help me regain a focused state is target shooting. I've tried archery, not the same thing. It forces a sort of meditation that helps me out for a couple of weeks afterwards. I would say that it's been an important part of me getting my life onto a successful track--I have since been able to attend law school and am a practicing lawyer. I'm still spending each day dealing with an intellectual disability, but stuff like this helps tremendously.
Talking about banning firearms isn't just "taking away a security blanket". In my case, at least, it would greatly affect my quality of life by reducing my ability to function. It takes away an important coping mechanism for dealing with a disability.
Long story short, you really can't know what the importance a particular activity is to someone. A friend of mine owns one rifle he rarely shoots, but is the only item he has that belonged to his (deceased) father. They used to go plinking when he was a kid, he now takes the thing out once a year to go plinking on his own. It's got tremendous personal significance to him.
Assuming bad motives to people isn't useful. If you're genuinely wondering about the importance things have, reach out and ask some people. Slinging insults just polarizes the debate and makes it impossible to do anything useful, and makes it us-vs-them instead of "Hey, we're all in this together".
This is tautologically true, but only because you specified 'shooting' deaths. However, historically many of the worst rampage killings have been those involving arson, which have been known to kill many hundreds of people. If you're including death generally, a person unable to shoot a lot of people may burn a lot more people instead. It's not exactly a cut and dried issue.
As Infamous Joe pointed out, all I really want is for people to approach these issues when they're able to think like statisticians and logicians and generally make sensible, data-driven decisions to maximize benefit, rather than reacting like a mob of angry chimpanzees.
From my own perspective on this, I'm a target shooter, but I live in a country with stricter gun controls. I also play video games. I used to play D&D. And so forth. I just get a little annoyed at how people get worked up and angry here, and charge off with little regard for facts, and want to ban something that is a relatively common hobby that, importantly, they don't understand and don't engage in (and certainly don't feel any need to fact-check). There's serious arguments to be made and had on all sides of this, and probably some workable compromises that could be reached, but unfortunately the discussion is kind of wedged between ignorance and intractability, and will continue to be that way so long as emotion is the main driving force behind legislation of this sort.
As an example, if you're trying to reduce overall deaths from firearms, rampage shootings are a poor way to go. On average, they're probably in the realm of 50 deaths/year, as compared to peanuts, which are estimated to kill 2-4 times as many people each year (and I'm not saying peanuts are a public health hazard). That doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't have a serious problem with violence, including violence involving firearms (most of which is around criminal activity, mind).
Humans are generally bad at risk analysis, especially for rare events, and we are /terrible/ at it when we're responding emotionally. We need to try to be better, which includes not passing reactionary laws.
I support a moratorium of 6 months before passing or discussing any laws in the wake of a tragedy. "There ought to be a law!" almost always leads to bad laws. Hence why we have people urinating in public and ending up on sex offender registries for life.
Blaming video games makes about as much sense as blaming crime comics, pinball, heavy metal music, rock music, rap music, Dungeons and Dragons... or guns.
But, in the wake of a tragedy, we look to blame something, and for the illusion that we can regain control easily.
The moral of the story is that if you have nothing to hide, the FBI will just make up reasons why you're guilty anyway.
Innocent people look terrible on the stats. No one ever got promoted finding a million innocent people, but find a guy you can talk into buying a fake bomb and that's another 10 grand/year. Not to mention that if you arrest a guy, he'd better have been suspicious, so it's more convenient if you find excuses to ensure everyone's suspicious in some way or another.
This list was a real eye-opener. I can only conclude, after careful perusal of the list, that I used to be a terrorist.
After all, I used to travel for work, and while there I exhibited the following signs:
1. Declined to provide place of residence: At the time, I thought I just liked my privacy, and disliked getting promotional materials from hotels.
2. Making front desk requests in person/not using the room phone: Much as I thought it was just convenient to make my requests in person when I was going in/out, especially given that I was at the same hotel week after week and thus was recognized visually by far more staff than would recognize my voice or name (and thus got fantastic service when they knew it was me), I can see now that there may have been more sinister motivations for my actions.
3. Interest in using internet cafes, despite hotel internet being available: In theory the hotel had internet. In practice... not always so much. Or maybe I was just trying to hide my nefarious plans.
4. Non-VIPs who request that their presence not be divulged: After having a creepy student drop by unexpectedly (the work involved teaching, often out of the conference room of the hotel I was staying at), I asked that they not divulge my presence. But apparently this takes me one step closer to bomb-making.
5. Extending stays for one day at a time: Didn't do this one often, but I did do it a couple of times.
6. Access or attempted access of areas normally reserved for staff: At a couple of points when I was stuck in rooms with no internet, they started letting me hang out in one of the employee areas, where I could sit and use the internet. I could have done the same thing in the main lounge, but oddly enough the hotel didn't like the advertisement of "the internet in the rooms is sketchy as hell" being conveyed to new guests.
7. Use of credit card in someone else's name: The company booked the hotels, and needless to say, the card did not have my name on it.
8. Requests for specific rooms/floors/etc: Remember what I said about the sketchy wireless? I definitely asked for rooms known to have good wireless, if they were available. Perhaps this was an integral part of my scheme. Or perhaps I just occasionally liked to browse porn, which isn't really acceptable to do from the hotel lobby/internet cafe/employee lounge/hallway/etc. But maybe there were terrorist plots steganographically encoded into the naked lady bits.
9. Use of a third party to register: My company. Were they involved? How far does this conspiracy go?!
10. Multiple visitors/deliveries to one room. Before I stopped letting students figure out where my room was, I'd do tutoring out of my room. Which meant I might have one student from 12:00-2:00, another from 2:30-4:00, and then later another one from 6:00-8:00. And then I might order Chinese. Clearly this is nefarious.
11. Unusual interest in hotel access, including main and alternate entrances, emergency exits, and surrounding routes: I know it's unusual, but I like not dying in fires. Also, when the hotel is on a city block comprising joined buildings, and my favourite restaurant is behind said hotel, it's nice to know how to get out the back door so that I don't have to go around the entire block to get there and back, even if this means cutting through a service entrance.
12. Unusual interest in hotel staff operating procedures, shift changes, closed-circuit TV systems, fire alarms, and security systems: I was there often enough to know a lot of the staff, many of whom would cut me all manner of breaks, some of whom wouldn't. Knowing when the guy who'd get all huffy about me using the internet in a hallway or taking the service entrance was on shift was useful. Also, perhaps I was needing to figure out when the nuclear device could be smuggled in.
13. Use of entrances and exits that avoid the lobby or other areas with cameras and hotel personnel: Oh my god, that back door route was even more dastardly than I thought.
14. Attempting to access restricted parking areas with a vehicle or leaving unattended vehicles near the hotel building: Man, sometimes I left my rental (OMG!) vehicle parked for entire days without attending to it.
15. Leaving the property for several days and then returning: Sometimes I was invited over by friends. Sometimes the invitation included alcohol. Sometimes I did not feel inclined or able to return immediately afterwards. And sometimes I just felt there were better places to spend my time than in a hotel room that was decorated in what I'd call "suicide beige" (or suicide bomber beige?).
16. Abandoning a room and leaving behind clothing, toiletries, or other items: I'm forgetful. Also, when you're going back each week, and they know you, if you forget something important it'll be waiting in your new room next week.
17. Noncompliance with other hotel policies: I used to cook myself food in the hotel coffee maker. I suspect that 'coffee pot eggs' are probably a violation of some sort of policy.
The worst part is that this list clearly establishes that I was up to some sort of terrorist activity, but that I still don't know what it was. Was I some sort of sleeper agent? I didn't read about any major disasters, but maybe it was covered up. Maybe it was just a dry run. Not knowing is really going to bother me.
After all, I always hear how the people who pay for copies of Playboy are doing so for the articles, whereas people who download free internet porn are doing so for crass reasons.
I'm sure that once you sign up for a porn website it's all well-cited essays about the pressing social issues of the day, hard-hitting political commentary, and so forth. You know, to appeal to the erudite, sophisticated person out there that whips out their credit card (amongst other things) for porn.
Of course they have some project that they can point to as doing "good work". They pretty much have to. They have their anti-mosquito lasers, just like the Hells Angels have toy drives for children. Organized shakedown rackets have always needed to have some cover activities to avoid a full public backlash.
I don't know about you, but I think this app is going to be awesome. I've got a few thousand cute cat pictures that are just begging for an audience, and now the London police have volunteered. Each and every picture of my wuggums is going to have to be personally enjoyed by some nice policeman, to be sure he's not a riotous thug (my wuggums would never do anything like that).
And I know that they might very much like to meet Wuggums, or his charming owner, but I'm afraid we live too far away for personal visits (or extradition).
Oh, and I've got a really pesky boil on my behind that I've been meaning to get checked out. A doctor's really expensive and you have to make an appointment... a police officer's almost as good, right? Better send them a few hundred pictures to be sure they've got a good angle.
I think it's really sweet of the London police service to volunteer to provide this helpful service. I'd say more, but Wuggums made a sick on the carpet, and I just have to share it with the nice bobbies.