This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 196197198 199200 ... 520
5911
« on: December 07, 2015, 01:49:09 PM »
I am entirely willing to bet that you are looking at national data, and not state data. While the United States is one nation, we really are more of a collection of nation states that fall under one banner. Internal state politics vary drastically and so do demographics.
I believe in you, do the research past just looking at national rates of gun violence. It really doesn't tell you anything. You really have to dig deeper than just the surface to really get an idea of what's going on. I have a thesis of over a 100 pages published online on this very topic. Believe me when I say that I didn't just use a wikipedia chart comparing overall gun deaths and violence between countries. I also don't really see the relevance of the rest of your post. I've always made it very clear that gun control is not a fix-all solution. But it is a necessary part of it. While there are exceptions in certain very rich, homongenuous and more isolated states with already low crime rates, the general trend points in the direction that lax gun control laws often relate to high violent crime rates, high gun crime and extremely high rates of gun deaths. Even your own example, Maine, might do better than most of the US in terms of gun deaths, it still definitely has its issues with guns and has been tied to being a primary source of guns used in crimes in neighboring states with stricter gun control laws. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CAP-DV-ME.pdfhttp://muskie.usm.maine.edu/justiceresearch/Publications/Adult/Gun_Violence_How_Big_is_the_Problem_in_Maine.pdfhttp://mainecitizens.org/facts/
5912
« on: December 07, 2015, 01:19:46 PM »
What do you think about the argument that this only relates to violent crimes committed with guns, that if you were to eliminate guns from the equation violent crime rates would still be the same or higher? I have to admit, it doesn't really sound like it makes sense that people would just stop being criminals if they didn't have guns.
It's obviously true that gun control measures would not extend beyond gun crime and gun violence, but that doesn't mean it can't make a major impact. In the US alone, up to 70% of all homicides are commited with a gun. Almost half of all robberies and one out of 4 cases of assault involve a firearm. In total, the US has a gun death rate of 10.5%. Comparing this to the UK after it instituted stricter gun control, we find the following numbers. Guns are used in 7% of all homicides, 3.8% of robberies and 0.6% of cases of assault (or "violence against the person"). It has a gun death rate of 0.26% and it's rate of guns being used in violent crime in general is 20 times lower than the US. So while it's true that this would not result in a massive drop of crime in general (robbery and assault rates are somewhat similar in most developed countries), it would lead to a major decrease in gun crime. Numerous studies have found that the presence of a gun at one of those crimes drastically increases the risk of an outcome involving a fatality or serious injury. Even in very minor disputes, the presence of a firearm can often lead to an unnecessary escalation and shooting taking place. Additionally, a gun is without a doubt one of the most effective tools to commit some of these crimes. Sure, you can still kill, injure and threaten someone with a knife or baseball bat, but it makes commiting these crimes significantly harder. Hold up a gun in a store and ask for the contents of the cash register and everyone's valuables, and it's likely that everyone will comply. Pull out a knife and do the same, and it's a lot more likely people will defend themselves or flee. Same thing goes for people seeking to steal a car, assault people, commit mass damage and so on. So yeah, you're right in saying that gun control would not make it so that violent crime stops existing. But it would make it a lot harder for criminals to commit certain crimes, and it would definitely result in less deaths and serious injuries. Knowing that thousands of people are shot in the US every year, even a small reduction in the amount of guns used would save hundreds of lives. And the idea that violent crime would become more prominent after stricter gun control is extremely unlikely to take place. No large scale study that I'm aware of found that this might be the case. Many have shown what I already mentioned above, being that crime rates would more or less stay similar, but they definitely don't find that violent crime would shoot up. The notion that guns somehow deter crime has already been largely debunked and substitution effects for other weapons do exist but have not been found to be major in other countries. In addition, dozens of studies have found a direct link between high rates of gun ownership and higher murder/suicide/violent crime rates. The implementation of background checks and the requirement of gun permits has also been shown to help quite a bit in some cases, as states with lax gun control and no-permit laws average higher burglarly, homicide and general violent crime rates.Gun control, being the regulation of the use, acquisition, storage and spread of firearms, most definitely works. That really is an undeniable truth at this point. The question now is simply what types of gun control work best taking into account the cultural, legal and socioeconomic differences between areas, and just how effective it can be.
5913
« on: December 07, 2015, 09:31:35 AM »
I want co-op without the possibility of invasion.
I want to be able to use those items without running the risk.
That is all I'm willing to accept.
No trade-offs.
You can actually use those items without the risk by directly consuming them. It just doesn't reverse your hollowing and allows others to join your game, but you'll still get the benefits from it. Regardless, I guess that Dark Souls just isn't for you then. The creators intended to make a hard game where your choices really matter. Every upside has a downside to balance things out. This is a central theme in the game's design that plays a major role in the game's lore. This was the designer's vision, which you always defend so vehemently in threads about mods. And they very clearly said that if you can't deal with the game alone and aren't good enough to progress, there is a possibility for you to summon outside help. However, as to not throw off the balance of the game and allow people to just be carried through a "Dark Souls Lite" on easy mode where they have a friend to clear it all for them, it came with a trade-off. You can't selectively open your world and only have good, strong and friendly players join to make the game a walk in the park for you. When you open your world, bad things might come out of it too. If you really can't reconcile yourself with that and think that it's terrible game design despite it being virtually universally acclaimed by players and critics alike, then that's fine. Just don't play the game and be done with it. The creators had their vision, their world and their experience thought out. If you can't appreciate it then just leave it be. I don't understand why you feel the need to be so hostile about it and can't just accept that even though you don't get it, it is a proven and praised concept that tens of thousands of players love.
5914
« on: December 07, 2015, 09:10:27 AM »
Fucking hell, did you seriously repeat the same shitty point AGAIN? I'm not refuting it twice. You haven't refuted a single thing, though. People make the deliberate choice to play a more challenging mode of the game where they consume certain items that results in a higher risk, higher reward experience. They can get through the game faster, more efficiently and have the opportunity to obtain a large amount of souls, items and humanities by fighting invaders. The trade-off for this bonus is that they consent to some enemies in the area actually being human players. You're not refuting anything and a lot of your posts show that you really don't understand how the game and its multiplayer works. You played the first 10 minutes, left it at the tutorial and never played it again. It might be a good idea to actually play the game more or at least read up on it before you do this. By making the willing and entirely free choice to play the game in human mode, you consent to potentially running in to real enemy players that might try to fight just as much as you consent to other shooters trying to kill you when you play Call of Duty online. There is not a single difference. How is it close-minded to say that I hate having non-consensual shit imposed on me? Start game. Choose not to go out of your way to find relatively rare items that you can only consume at certain places in the game which reverts your hollowing and changes your gamemode by opening you up to the multiplayer after giving you a warning and asking you if you are sure if you want to do this. Play game. If you had actually played the game, you'd know that you start off hollowed. You need to find very specific items and use them at very specific locations after a message asking you if you are sure if you want to do this shows up to even enable the multiplayer portion of the game. I played through the game 3 times before I even chose to do this. Three full online playthroughs where I did not fight a single other player and was not invaded once. As I already said, the game's default setting is to be hollow. You need to go through certain steps (which are all reverted back to the original, default and non-invasion setting upon any death you incur) to allow hostile players in your world. How in the world is this "having non-consensual shit imposed on me"? And when did I ever say that they're being prevented from playing the game? I said they're being prevented from playing the game without the burden of being invaded and playing online at the same time. Which should be possible. As I already tried to point out: it is possible. Even more so, it is the default setting. And even more more so, you can't just change it to "allow players to invade" in the settings or enter a specific playlist. It takes single-use consumable and rare items to even initiate the possibility of an invasion. Not if you have it so it automatically signs you in every time you turn your system on. Again, not true. We get it, you hate Dark Souls and its multiplayer. While I think that's pretty ridiculous as you didn't even make it past the first 5 minutes of the game, you're entirely free to do so. But at least get your facts straight before you bash it like this. You can play through the entire game and experience all items, areas and bosses of it while remaining online without being invaded once. That is a choice you have. The one thing the game does is allow you to open your game up to other players, both good and bad. Completely free choice that you can leave or take.
5915
« on: December 07, 2015, 08:58:18 AM »
Hey guys, remember when Flee's ideas got bfto'd by them open carrying hicks?
Good times.
Eh, what?
5916
« on: December 07, 2015, 06:53:21 AM »
Nowhere close to what I said. If you bothered to advance in the game, you'd know what I'm talking about. It's literally a choice to allow invasion or not. The only times I chanced being invaded is when I sought an ally in a boss fight, and never outside of that. You can play through the game solo just fine without others attacking you.
But I guess if you choose to remain ignorant or outright stupid of this fact, that's nobody's fault but your own.
Or people could just not be dickheads and never invade people. It's their fault.
I shouldn't have to play offline. People should just not be cunts.
To be fair, this is a really shitty argument as it's literally a central point of the game. Any invasions are entirely and perfectly avoidable if that's what you wish. What you're doing is really no different from playing Call of Duty online and then complain when people kill you because they're being cunts when you just want to run around the map and explore stuff. You have to set yourself up to be invaded. Simply being online is not enough. The game offers you a very straightforward and deliberate choice. You can remain hollow and play through the game without ever seeing another player, if that's what you want. But, it also gives you an alternative. You can consume humanities to become human. This gives you more damage resistance, more damage output in some cases and other benefits, including the possibility of summoning a random friendly player to help you with a particular boss fight or area. However, by doing so and choosing these extra benefits, you also run the risk of having someone trying to fight you. It's a very reasonable trade-off. If you're so bothered by potentially having to fight another player, don't choose to be human. Complaining about this is really no different than people deciding to play Halo Reach online to get the extra credits you can earn there (while it's still entirely possible to earn them in singleplayer just the same) and then complain that you might get killed by someone even though you deliberately chose to put yourself in that situation. Dark Souls multiplayer is hands down one of the most innovative, clever and insanely fun online experiences I've had in any of the hundreds of games I've played. You can disagree with that all you want (even though I find that incredibly close minded as you never even played it yourself), but don't go around pretending that it's poor and innocent players being prevented from playing the game because they're being invaded by big bad bullies against their will. "You want to play through the entire full game by yourself without ever having to worry about others invading you while still seeing phantoms and hints? You can do that with ease, as it's actually even the default option. But for those who want somewhat of a challenge mode where you choose for a higher risk, higher reward type of deal and run the risk of fighting actual players but with potential support of friends? Consume these certain finite items that are rare to find and willingly put yourself in that position." I really don't see what's so wrong with that.
5917
« on: December 06, 2015, 05:02:58 PM »
Undeniably a true benchmark for modern multiplayer games.
5918
« on: December 06, 2015, 04:46:05 PM »
Currently no plans of seeing it.
5919
« on: December 06, 2015, 04:08:09 PM »
5920
« on: December 06, 2015, 03:50:43 PM »
Too bad you don't get it, and you never will fucking get it. That's how dense you are and that's how dense you've become. If that's what you want to think, then so be it.
5921
« on: December 06, 2015, 03:45:56 PM »
Public opinion in the US is a finicky thing, because it seems that things always end up in a black and white format(ex. Women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies vs. You're committing infanticide you fucking monster). Conversely to the millions of gun owners and rural folk, you've got city folk and stringent anti-gun lobbies, which plenty of the time either don't understand the thing they're condemning or are lying for their own gain. IIRC, the "ghost gun" senator in California was involved with shipping in firearms illegally into the US. Neither side is prettier than the other. Oh, I agree. Just like with a lot of other political issues in the US, this one is tainted on both sides by populism, bias and a very clear agenda. It's hard to come across decent research when there's a lot of bias on both sides. For example, the pro gun crowd loves to cite that there's 2.5 million cases of defensive and legal gun use each year, saving countless of lives and protecting millions of innocents from crimes. These numbers sound impressive, but are completely incorrect. They go back to a single 25 year old phone survey done by a notoriously biased and known pro gun researcher who never had his finding peer reviewed, never actually responded to criticism by showing the source material and has been debunked by dozens of researchers and institutions including Harvard Law and the Federal Department of Justice who almost literally called his findings extremely exaggerated to the point that there is absolutely no conceivable way that they are correct or compatible with actual crime statistics. Yet despite all of this, you still very regularly see pro-gun people and organizations (including the NRA) bring up this completely false number from the early 90's. Similarly but in my experience not to the same extent, there's anti-gun people who deceptively interchange numbers (amount of total gun deaths instead of amount of gun homicides) to make points just the same. It's quite the shitshow indeed. I can definitely agree with stopping the ban on gun violence research, although haven't you been posting research facts about it, how does that work out? There's no general ban on gun violence research, it's just certain institutions and organizations that are banned or strongly discouraged from doing so. Independent researchers, academics, universities, institutions and so on have been entirely free to study these things, which is what I usually cite. Basically, what happened in the early 90's is this. The CDC reseached gun violence, its causes and its effects on society. It found what is now pretty common knowledge and illustrated by tons of other research, being that gun ownership increases the rates of homicides and gun violence, and that easy access to guns contributes to these factors. The NRA, however, did not like this and lobbied so much that Congress ended up banning the CDC from doing any more research. How this is even possible blows my mind. That pro gun groups are so afraid of what an actually independent and objective organization with a lot of resources and access to information will find on the usage of guns that they've literally managed to get your own federal and official public health service from researching something that claims over 30,000 lives a year. Here's a quick graph of what your National Institutes of Health have been doing with their time over the past 40 years because they would lose funding if they actually looked into gun violence more.  I really can't even wrap my head around this kind of stuff. The few institutions that actually could really get to the bottom of this issue from an objective and independent point of view with almost unlimited resources and access to all information they'd want are banned by law from doing so because pro gun groups are afraid of what they'll find. How this is even possible and how much better we would actually understand and be able to properly tackle this issue if we had 20 years of sound and objective research on this, I don't even want to think about. You aren't mentioning anything about informing about guns, the uses for them, and their context in the law(Which by looking at some of the responses in this thread, some people might need to be made aware that a need for something is not required to have it in US law). These seem equally important as informing about gun control if you want a critically thinking and aware populous.
I agree, you have to educate people on all of those things. I didn't mention everything that could or needs to be done due to time and effort constraints. I would personally suggest these things being advocated as part of gun activities. Mandatory classes, training and exams to own a firearm and so forth would help greatly here. The point I was trying to make is that even in countries with very strict gun control laws, there still exist many ways in which sport shooters, hobbyists, hunters, collectors and so on can legally and safely use guns for those purposes. People need to know about those things too.
5922
« on: December 06, 2015, 03:25:58 PM »
Alright, thanks guys. Will just buy silver packs and sell the Warzone stuff that I don't need. I played another game of Warzone and this one actually wasn't too bad. I had around 40 kills while no one else topped 20 without even calling in any requisitions. I might play Warzone some more but only for the achievements that go with it.
5923
« on: December 06, 2015, 02:50:29 PM »
Throughout the years I have found myself going against gun control a lot more than ever, because it doesn't fucking work. It doesn't solve the problem.
Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.
Ugh, Deci.
And I'm getting back to you in a bit, Assassin. Currently on mobile so I'm not going to write down any lengthy replies now.
Don't even bother. You'll only be wasting your time.
If both common sense and mountains of research, data and evidence can't even make you rethink the statement that everyone supporting gun laws is an idiot then yeah, it does seem like there's no point in even trying to have an actual discussion on this topic.
5924
« on: December 06, 2015, 02:05:54 PM »
Throughout the years I have found myself going against gun control a lot more than ever, because it doesn't fucking work. It doesn't solve the problem.
Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot.
Ugh, Deci. And I'm getting back to you in a bit, Assassin. Currently on mobile so I'm not going to write down any lengthy replies now.
5925
« on: December 06, 2015, 01:46:56 PM »
The arguments on this forum are so underdeveloped. No wonder I don't see any threads like this.
Underdeveloped in what sense?
Anywhere else on the internet, they'd get torn apart.
Whose arguments, exactly? Are you saying all of us are making terrible arguments that are underdeveloped and don't stand up to scrutiny?
You make it sound bad, but so far, it really seems that way. Even my arguments woud get torn up with replies that I don't know how to answer. That's why I like this site. So much angst.
If you'd look up, you'd see that I picked apart your entire post earlier on. Would you care to actually respond to that?
Because from my point of view, it seems like you just really don't have many points to make. I definitely don't claim to know it all, but I have spent a significant amount of time researching this for my thesis. I have a Master's degree in criminal law and have discussed this topic with professors, criminologists and criminal justice experts from around the world. I've had countless of debates both on here, in real life proper debate settings and on forums dedicated to politics. As such, I like to think that I have a pretty decent understanding of this issue. Your whole attitude of ignoring people addressing your very flawed post and dismissing responses as just angsty and terrible arguments that smarter people elsewhere on the internet would absolutely tear apart while providing absolutely no arguments yourself appears to be nothing but a pretty bad attempt at covering up the fact you don't know how to answer the comments made in your own thread.
I hope that I'm wrong and that you've actually got an insightful, reasoned and researched contribution to make, but this whole "I'm not even going to dignify your comments with a response because they're sooo angsty and stupid that anyone on a smarter forum would absolutely destroy them without effort" isn't working for me.
Everything you said right now made sense, but it is not why I didn't respond. I didn't respond because I didn't want to. After I made this thread I regereted it because I realized I didn't want to get into a shit-ton of arguments. I have enough stress in my life. I don't need this. I'm sure there are others that would come up with better replies to all the arguments in this thread anyway. Im 49. I need to do something more productive than argue on a forum.
Fair enough. I don't expect anyone to put the time in either, I was just curious about your response.
5926
« on: December 06, 2015, 11:41:41 AM »
The arguments on this forum are so underdeveloped. No wonder I don't see any threads like this.
Underdeveloped in what sense?
Anywhere else on the internet, they'd get torn apart.
Whose arguments, exactly? Are you saying all of us are making terrible arguments that are underdeveloped and don't stand up to scrutiny?
You make it sound bad, but so far, it really seems that way. Even my arguments woud get torn up with replies that I don't know how to answer. That's why I like this site. So much angst.
If you'd look up, you'd see that I picked apart your entire post earlier on. Would you care to actually respond to that? Because from my point of view, it seems like you just really don't have many points to make. I definitely don't claim to know it all, but I have spent a significant amount of time researching this for my thesis. I have a Master's degree in criminal law and have discussed this topic with professors, criminologists and criminal justice experts from around the world. I've had countless of debates both on here, in real life proper debate settings and on forums dedicated to politics. As such, I like to think that I have a pretty decent understanding of this issue. Your whole attitude of ignoring people addressing your very flawed post and dismissing responses as just angsty and terrible arguments that smarter people elsewhere on the internet would absolutely tear apart while providing absolutely no arguments yourself appears to be nothing but a pretty bad attempt at covering up the fact you don't know how to answer the comments made in your own thread. I hope that I'm wrong and that you've actually got an insightful, reasoned and researched contribution to make, but this whole "I'm not even going to dignify your comments with a response because they're sooo angsty and stupid that anyone on a smarter forum would absolutely destroy them without effort" isn't working for me.
5927
« on: December 06, 2015, 10:14:49 AM »
The arguments on this forum are so underdeveloped. No wonder I don't see any threads like this.
Underdeveloped in what sense?
Anywhere else on the internet, they'd get torn apart.
Whose arguments, exactly? Are you saying all of us are making terrible arguments that are underdeveloped and don't stand up to scrutiny?
5928
« on: December 06, 2015, 09:59:05 AM »
The arguments on this forum are so underdeveloped. No wonder I don't see any threads like this.
Underdeveloped in what sense?
5929
« on: December 06, 2015, 07:25:17 AM »
Can anyone explain to me what the point of ranking up and exp is? Just new cosmetics and such? And for the Req packs, I have about 17,000 points. Should I buy the gold one or what's the best thing to do? And do I have unlimited storage space or should I be selling requisitions?
5930
« on: December 06, 2015, 06:33:01 AM »
I also never compared the US to my own country, nor have I ever advocated a direct implementation of a European style gun control system in the US. No one in the right mind would think that it'd work.
So, what would you suggest for the US?
Tough question. I don't think anyone really knows, simply due to the fact that the US has such a unique gun culture. Additionally, its size, amount of states, cultural differences and issues with gangs are all things to be considered too. Gun control is not a final solution on its own, but it's an absolutely necessary part of it. The biggest obstacle to progress here is public opinion. Not only are there millions of gun owners reluctant to accept any measures they perceive to be a threat, but the American gun lobby is very real and powerful. A great illustration of this is how the NRA convinced your Congress to outright forbid any sort of research done by the CDC on gun violence simply because they're afraid of what it might find. Talking about just gun control (and not the other socioeconomic measures that can be taken), the first step is educating people on firearm regulations. People need to know about the benefits that it brings and that it's possible to reconcile using firearms with stricter gun control. Simultaneously, there needs to be a growing, gradual and continuous push for more stringent gun control measures. Small steps are necessary until the public opinion changes.
5931
« on: December 06, 2015, 04:52:43 AM »
First game of Warzone: join mid-game with no direction whatsoever to be spawnkilled for 8 minutes by ghosts, a wraith, a scorpion and people with powerweapons that I have never even seen before. What a wonderful gametype.
5932
« on: December 06, 2015, 04:19:43 AM »
Again, I don't care. I will not give up liberty for safety. People who want more restrictions can blow me.
I don't even know why you care so much about US internal politics. Well, unfortunately it doesn't really matter whether you care or not. This is no different than the thousands of extremely conservative Americans who thought and still think that gay marriage is a horrible thing that should never have become a reality. Despite all of their resistance, public protests and vocalization of their opinion, it still happened. The same thing is going on with gun control too. It's a slow and gradual process, but it's happening. And the reason I care is purely out of academic interest. I wrote a Bachelor's thesis on criminal justice and gun control in the developed world and now have a Master's in criminal law. From an academic point of view, the US is a very peculiar and rather ancient anomaly in the Western world when it comes to its attitude towards firearms. This just interests me, that is all.
5933
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:45:56 PM »
They're also adding (further) micro transactions.
Gjallarhorn for $4.99 when?
5934
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:44:34 PM »
I was expecting a "... is nothing but trash" follow-up there.
5935
« on: December 05, 2015, 07:35:12 PM »
No.
What an insightful response debunking my entire argument. That'll teach me to bring common sense and facts into this debate.
Listen, I've argued this for years. I'm tired of it. My answer is no. I will not trade Liberty for someone else's perceived security. It's not going to happen.
Want to solve the murder problem? Fix the cultures the breed violence. I, and the Millions of other legal gun owners do not cause violence. We do not murder or steal. We merely want to be left alone to and not have the government punish us because some hood rat decided to shoot up a drug dealer on the corner.
You can scream, bitch, and moan for more gun control; but it'll do jack and shit. Thugs are going to thug, peddlers are going to peddlers, and busta's going to get busted. It's as simple as that. Be that with guns, knives, or fucking spears. You fix that culture of crime, you fix the violence.
So, like I said, No.
You can make all the comparisons to other countries you want, but you're comparing Apples to fucking grape fruit. Belgium is not a good comparison. Belgium is a homogeneous country. The United States is not. There will ALWAYS be more friction in a place where many cultures come together than a place where there is one defined culture.
Gun control is becoming an even hotter topic with increasing amounts of politicians openly supporting it, including the woman who is likely going to be a presidential nominee soon. While the number of privately owned guns is obviously still on the rise, gun ownership is on the decline while the number of people supporting gun regulations has been increasing. Next year, there will be more people dying by guns than by vehicles in your country, which is not even close to being rivaled by any other developed country. Gun free zones are becoming more prevalent and increasing amounts of better and more recent research is supporting the benefits of gun control measures. Mass shootings have been becoming more frequent and they sway the public opinion quite a bit. You can say "no, I'm not ever going to let this happen, don't you tread on me" all you want. Albeit slowly and gradually, this is happening. Your country will almost definitely but slowly shift towards stricter gun control. As for your other points: Legal gun owners are not perfect. They commit crimes just like the rest of us. It's also been demonstrated that the easy and legal access to guns directly fuels the illegal market, making it cheaper, easier, faster and less risky for criminals to get their hands on firearms. People don't just care about the millions of "good law abiding gun owners". They care about the broader implications that such a system holds. Also, substitution mechanisms when guns are taken out of the equation have often been found to be minimal and significantly less effective. I also never compared the US to my own country, nor have I ever advocated a direct implementation of a European style gun control system in the US. No one in the right mind would think that it'd work. And Belgium quite literally is a country made up out of several groups of people from different backgrounds and nations. We're a bunch of Frenchies, Dutchmen and Germans crammed together in a single country with 6 different governments, 3 official national languages and over a million foreigners living here (which is a lot for a country as small as this one). It's not as diverse as the US, but there are far more homogeneous countries in the EU if you want to make this comparison.
5936
« on: December 05, 2015, 06:31:01 PM »
"There's no way to stop this from happening" - only first-world country where mass-shootings happen regularly
Almost nobody's actually saying that.
We're just saying your solution is retarded and overreaching.
What's Cindy's solution?
I mean, tbh, I like shooting guns, but let's be real - assault weaponry shouldn't be available to just have in your home.
Carry and use of high-caliber and automatic weaponry should be restricted for shooting ranges. You can argue that you might need a shotgun or a small pistol for self-defense, but I dunno what kind of thief would need to be put down with a Browning.
That would accomplish virtually nothing, though.
Meaning that they would be required to be kept on ranges rather than being stored and purchased in one's personal time.
That still wouldn't make much of an impact at all. As far as I'm aware, there have been only 3-4 confirmed cases of a legally obtained automatic firearms or machine guns being used in homicides in the last 70 years. Because of their high retail price, high taxes and government fees and extensive paperwork, they also don't change hands nearly as often as other firearms. Originally automatic weapons see such rare use in crimes that the FBI doesn't even consider them as a seperate category. Additionally, while "assault weapons" with certain features described in the AWB are used in about 40% of all mass shootings, they only make up less than 2% of all gun crime and violence in the US. Focusing on them will do next to nothing to curb gun violence.
5937
« on: December 05, 2015, 06:04:39 PM »
No.
What an insightful response debunking my entire argument. That'll teach me to bring common sense and facts into this debate.
5938
« on: December 05, 2015, 05:53:29 PM »
"There's no way to stop this from happening" - only first-world country where mass-shootings happen regularly
Almost nobody's actually saying that.
We're just saying your solution is retarded and overreaching.
What's Cindy's solution?
I mean, tbh, I like shooting guns, but let's be real - assault weaponry shouldn't be available to just have in your home.
Carry and use of high-caliber and automatic weaponry should be restricted for shooting ranges. You can argue that you might need a shotgun or a small pistol for self-defense, but I dunno what kind of thief would need to be put down with a Browning.
That would accomplish virtually nothing, though.
5939
« on: December 05, 2015, 03:47:13 PM »
So this is $15 a game for virtual emulation?
5940
« on: December 05, 2015, 03:41:13 PM »
How have you been?
Pages: 1 ... 196197198 199200 ... 520
|
Show Posts