Random
|
02-09-2013, 09:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2013, 09:40 AM by Starscream.)
(02-09-2013, 07:08 AM)Shonumi Wrote: But it takes two factors to commit a heinous crime, the actor and the weapon itself. Both are to blame, at least. The gunman decided to pull the trigger, and the gun fired the bullets. That's all technically true. Why haven't we banned automobiles yet because of all the drunk drivers killing people with them? Could it be because blaming the car is an absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the crime and we all know that it's the persons fault? Or maybe it's the alcohols fault for allowing itself to be poured into bottles and consumed by human beings? That's a discussion for another time I guess. (02-09-2013, 07:08 AM)Shonumi Wrote: Some semi-auto rifles have significant advantages over most ordinarily available handguns. They can shoot more accurately at further distances. They can easily accommodate high-capacity magazines, and such magazines are more common for these weapons than handguns. The stock and barrel of the weapon itself affords much more stability when firing the weapon. You can easily customize some modular models to include enhancements such as scopes and silencers, and probably even laser pointers. These weapons aren't in the same category as handguns for a reason; they're capable of completely different level of performance, since that's the design behind them. Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people are aware of all the technical stuff. The point is that people can and will point any gun at a person in an attempt to kill them. What are you prepared to do about that? Do nothing? Or do you do you call for more guns to be banned? If you don't call for more guns to be banned, why is it okay for people to kill someone with a handgun but not with an assault rifle? (02-09-2013, 07:08 AM)Shonumi Wrote: Having limited-capacity ammunition would definitely have helped save lives when Abby Giffords was attacked. Ordinary people tackled the gunman while he was reloading; he already had a high-capacity magazine (30 rounds modified handgun magazine). Absolutely. Now we're going to be restricted to much less ammo capacity. What do you think is going to happen while we're at the 6 bullet limit and someone goes on a rampage? Naturally someone is going to come to the conclusion that 6 bullets is far too many to have and will want to do something about that. These aren't ridiculous conclusions I'm coming to. Obviously I cannot "prove my claim", but as we've discussed before, when something happens, people try to stop people from ever doing that again. Gun tolerance isn't going to get better, it will naturally get worse. Isn't that obvious? It's absurd for you to tell me to "prove" it or "back up my claims". We're here talking about it because it's happening. What more proof do you need? The only question is how far do we think it will go. (02-09-2013, 07:08 AM)Shonumi Wrote: Woah there. That's quite an assumption. Mission of trying to stop people from killing each other? You mean people don't want assault rifles off the streets so that people stop killing with them? Why in the world are people trying to get rid of these guns then? (02-09-2013, 07:08 AM)Shonumi Wrote: That still doesn't address how correct certain weapons are for our society. We've already said no to fully automatic weapons and high grade explosives. It isn't unreasonable to consider that other weapons, given their lethality, are not justified in the hands of ordinary people. Someone can kill a person with a single gunshot to the head with a handgun. Why is that not on your list of "weapons not fit for our society"? (02-09-2013, 07:08 AM)Shonumi Wrote: Note, I'm not making a case against gun ownership in general with those examples. I am, however, pointing out that "defending yourself" isn't as common as an option as people romanticize it to be. Tell that to all the dead children who could have been saved had someone had a gun for protection at the school.
Asus Laptop: K53TA
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-Bit - SP1 CPU: AMD Llano A6-3400M, Quad-Core, 1.4GHz-2.6GHz (Overclocked) GPU: AMD Radeon HD6650M, 1GB GDDR3 (Catalyst 13.1) RAM: Samsung 4GB DDR3-1333 02-09-2013, 10:04 AM
Just wanted to say it's nice to see a nice civil discussion for once with decent arguments being thrown in.
Alas, I'm with NV and Shonumi here and they have pretty much already said what was needed to be said. Starscream Wrote:Why haven't we banned automobiles yet because of all the drunk drivers killing people with them? Could it be because blaming the car is an absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the crime and we all know that it's the persons fault? Or maybe it's the alcohols fault for allowing itself to be poured into bottles and consumed by human beings? That's a discussion for another time I guess.Indeed. Blaming an object is ridiculous as the person whom uses the object is entirely responsible for whatever he/she does with it. The difference is that an automobile is intended to transport a person from location A to location B while a firearm is intended to shoot someone/something. dEnigma Wrote:He said that "You can have a polished game that is still difficult." The PC-version of Dark Souls is anything but polished. Don't get me wrong here, I really do like Dark Souls, I even play it on the PC but without the help of some mods it almost isn't playable for me. The console version is fine as it is.Dark Souls is an extremely polished game. It does suffer from a technical standpoint (limited PC options, etc), which they've already mentioned prior to making the port. In addition to that, it was the first time they created a game for the PC. I don't see how it isn't playable without mods. The game runs perfectly fine without any mod. Anti-Ultimate Wrote:Ubisoft is going apeshit again and thinking it's making WiiU owners happy by delaying Rayman legends until the PS3/360 versions are finished tooYou a Gaffer? Blame the higher-ups, as was mentioned by the devs. They too didn't like the decision. The Wii U will get an exclusive demo for the game it seems. 02-09-2013, 10:10 AM
I can't buy this game since it's supposed to come out the same day GTA V is supposed to come out, also Wind Waker HD is coming out somewhere during that time too.
If it came out this month, i could still buy it.... We'll see how Ubisoft reacts to this, their MiiVerse Communitys and Facebook-Pages are being spammed right now 02-09-2013, 10:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2013, 10:23 AM by NaturalViolence.)
@Starscream
You completely ignored my points but I'll respond to this one too anyways. Quote:Why haven't we banned automobiles yet because of all the drunk drivers killing people with them? 1. Because they're useful devices that everyone needs (unlike an assault rifle). Once again this goes back to the question that you keep ignoring. Why do we need assault rifles? 2. Because they weren't designed for killing people 3. Because using them as an efficient weapon to kill as many people with as little time/effort as possible is not common with cars and is common with guns. When people get killed by cars it's usually because the other person had no idea what they were doing or were intoxicated. They're accidents. The gun deaths that we're trying to prevent are not accidents. They happen when someone wants to kill someone else and we give them the means to do so. Quote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people are aware of all the technical stuff. The point is that people can and will point any gun at a person in an attempt to kill them. What are you prepared to do about that? Do nothing? Or do you do you call for more guns to be banned? If you don't call for more guns to be banned, why is it okay for people to kill someone with a handgun but not with an assault rifle? It's not. But it's a hell of a lot easier. Quote:Absolutely. Now we're going to be restricted to much less ammo capacity. What do you think is going to happen while we're at the 6 bullet limit and someone goes on a rampage? Naturally someone is going to come to the conclusion that 6 bullets is far too many to have and will want to do something about that. Hahaha, no. Once again take a look at how european countries handle this. 6 rounds is a perfectly acceptable clip size for target practice, hunting, and self-defense. The things that you're supposed to be using your gun for. It's not however good enough for efficient mass murder. This is another case of your "if X happens Y will follow. And Y is bad." logic. How about we argue about the things that are actually happening instead of speculating about why hypothetical future laws that aren't being proposed are bad? Quote:These aren't ridiculous conclusions I'm coming to. Obviously I cannot "prove my claim", but as we've discussed before, when something happens, people try to stop people from ever doing that again. Gun tolerance isn't going to get better, it will naturally get worse. Isn't that obvious? Yes it is obvious that we would want to try reduce the number of people shooting each other. But apparently some people just don't care or have the idea that doing what dozens of other countries have done to fix these problems would somehow have the exact opposite effect this time. Even when all of the data collected suggests otherwise. Quote:It's absurd for you to tell me to "prove" it or "back up my claims". .....uh huh. When you're in a debate with someone that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask since that is in fact the entire point of a debate. Quote:We're here talking about it because it's happening. What more proof do you need? The only question is how far do we think it will go. No. We're here talking about banning assault weapons and large magazines. You're claiming all kinds of crazy shit will happen in the future and talking about why that crazy shit is bad. Quote:Someone can kill a person with a single gunshot to the head with a handgun. Why is that not on your list of "weapons not fit for our society"? Because they have a legitimate reason to exist and are less dangerous. Quote:Tell that to all the dead children who could have been saved had someone had a gun for protection at the school. Who? The untrained teachers? The janitors? They would have likely been killed too. Or you could avoid the whole thing by not giving people assault rifles. That would have definitely saved at least half the kids if not more.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 02-09-2013, 10:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2013, 10:45 AM by Starscream.)
Sorry I can't get to all the comments. You guys have me outnumbered here and are throwing a lot of bullshit information my way.
I think rather than continuing on, I'll just say that we're obviously never going to agree on this. It was a good discussion for what it was, though. It probably should have had its own thread, but it still worked out fine.
Asus Laptop: K53TA
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-Bit - SP1 CPU: AMD Llano A6-3400M, Quad-Core, 1.4GHz-2.6GHz (Overclocked) GPU: AMD Radeon HD6650M, 1GB GDDR3 (Catalyst 13.1) RAM: Samsung 4GB DDR3-1333 Starscream Wrote:That's all technically true. Why haven't we banned automobiles yet because of all the drunk drivers killing people with them? Could it be because blaming the car is an absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the crime and we all know that it's the persons fault? Or maybe it's the alcohols fault for allowing itself to be poured into bottles and consumed by human beings? That's a discussion for another time I guess. We don't ban cars because the (usual) intent of getting behind the wheel is transportation, a completely different realm than that of guns. The main purpose of a vehicle is to get you from point A to point B. We severely punish drunk drivers, we even tell them they can't drive after getting DUIs. We do greatly restrict the consumption of alcohol and regulate certain activities when intoxicated. It's not as if we're blissfully unaware of the danger of drunken drivers and are doing nothing. Guns, however, were first and foremost designed to kill or severely wound others; why shouldn't we decide when and where people can have guns and what types of guns are allowed given that? Starscream Wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people are aware of all the technical stuff. The point is that people can and will point any gun at a person in an attempt to kill them. What are you prepared to do about that? Do nothing? Or do you do you call for more guns to be banned? If you don't call for more guns to be banned, why is it okay for people to kill someone with a handgun but not with an assault rifle? I'm prepared to ask for stiffer penalties for assailants in gun violence as well as those who enable people to get guns who otherwise shouldn't via straw purchases and gun-running. That's a start, along with tougher enforcement into criminal operations that spread guns to the wrong people. Is that going to protect us all in every situation? No, but then if we never settled for anything less than perfect, we wouldn't make much progress. Setting up stronger deterrents is better than sitting on your hands. Starscream Wrote:If you don't call for more guns to be banned, why is it okay for people to kill someone with a handgun but not with an assault rifle? Why would you assume I'm okay with anyone being killed in any way? At any rate, the issue I have with semi-automatic assault rifles is that their potential damage far exceeds what normal handguns are capable of. Additionally, much of that force is unnecessary and excessive for those believe they need guns to protect themselves. Starscream Wrote:What do you think is going to happen while we're at the 6 bullet limit and someone goes on a rampage? Naturally someone is going to come to the conclusion that 6 bullets is far too many to have and will want to do something about that. Slippery slope. You keep assuming X will lead to Y will lead to Z. Starscream Wrote:Gun tolerance isn't going to get better, it will naturally get worse. Isn't that obvious? It's absurd for you to tell me to "prove" it or "back up my claims". We're here talking about it because it's happening. What more proof do you need? The only question is how far do we think it will go. No, it isn't obvious at all, hence why I'm asking you to provide some evidence. The issue of guns in America has been up and down for decades, both sides have been making in-roads here and there, tit-for-tat. For example, semi-automatic "assault weapons" were banned in 1994, yet the same measure was left to expire in 2004. The recent shootings have galvanized gun-control advocates, enough so that Obama feels he can tackle gun control, even though the NRA has never been so popular or as powerful as it today. Gun-tolerance swings with the times. Fwiw, you need only lookup some Gallup polls about gun-control, compare a couple of years, and then you can make a point about whether gun-tolerance has waned or gained over the years. Starscream Wrote:You mean people don't want assault rifles off the streets so that people stop killing with them? Why in the world are people trying to get rid of these guns then? Out of context. I meant just that, "you can't stop people from killing people". Rocks, knives, bare-hands: we'll always have tools to do it. It's a pipe dream to hope to completely eradicate that from our world. Even so, there are some killings we can prevent. If those can be avoided, we owe it to ourselves to contemplate, if not pursue, ways to go about it. Not allowing people to commit murders with semi-auto weapons is one reason for banning these weapons. The other is because I honestly don't believe they're suitable for the average American. See below response below. Starscream Wrote:Someone can kill a person with a single gunshot to the head with a handgun. Why is that not on your list of "weapons not fit for our society"? Because I believe people should be allowed to keep guns if they wish to defend themselves. I feel that the firepower of pistols and shotguns is more than sufficient to deal with any threats below that of a hostile military, in which case you'd need to seriously match their hardware (which is quite beyond even semi-automatic assault rifles). I've already specified how SAARs (I'm just going to use that instead of writing semi-auto assault rifles from now on) are superior to handguns and shotguns; that's more lethal force than one needs to protect themselves. Starscream Wrote:Tell that to all the dead children who could have been saved had someone had a gun for protection at the school. It's comforting to imagine how Sandy Hook would have went down had a police officer or security guard, or even one of us had been there with a gun before the gunman even ever reached the school. Again, however, too many people romanticize about having defenders in place with guns, be it law enforcement or teachers. Columbine had an armed officer on site, and even exchanged shots with the gunmen. Virginia Tech had a SWAT team on-campus, yet it still turned into the worst school shooting in American history. There's no guarantee that if any of the staff had been armed at Sandy Hook that they would have been able to stop the gunman. It's just as possible that they might have ended up as the first victims being the first ones to confront him. People often overestimate how others perform in tense situations; even if people had been armed to protect the children, few people outside of military combat (even law enforcement) are prepared to think clearly in an gun-related emergency. Time Magazine wrote about this and it's worth your reading it. EDIT: Just saw your comment above me. I understand if you don't want to pursue the subject anymore. Fwiw, I get enough of this from watching the news everyday myself :p Back to gaming. 02-09-2013, 12:06 PM
The main problem is that most of us are having a debate, and Starscream is having an argument. Anyway, if we've decided we'll stop, I'll stop.
By the way, I'm preety sure you can't buy a new minigun in the US, but can you buy a used one, and can you keep one you already have, or do you have to deactivate it?
OS: Windows 10 64 bit Professional
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5900X RAM: 48GB GPU: Radeon 7800 XT 02-09-2013, 12:13 PM
(02-09-2013, 12:06 PM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: The main problem is that most of us are having a debate, and Starscream is having an argument. Well, we were having a debate. You're generally being ignored. I guess that's where your anger comes from. Anyway, you don't have to stop just because I'm no longer in the discussion. You all can have a great time agreeing with each other.
Asus Laptop: K53TA
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium, 64-Bit - SP1 CPU: AMD Llano A6-3400M, Quad-Core, 1.4GHz-2.6GHz (Overclocked) GPU: AMD Radeon HD6650M, 1GB GDDR3 (Catalyst 13.1) RAM: Samsung 4GB DDR3-1333 02-09-2013, 12:49 PM
But who will I fight with now? Shonumi is too likable and anti-aggressive (you sure you're not secretly canadian Shonumi?). Also his pony avatar with the "wtf do I know/care" expression has a strangely calming effect.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 83 Guest(s)