HorrorScope wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 10:34:

Rossafur wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 19:07:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 14:43:
This week in CA a person goes in with a shotgun, only shot one and they are are in critical but stable. That is the difference between handgun/rifle/shotgun vs spray and pray guns. Not that someone won't die, but it does limit it. Hence... doing a little better.

Can't believe I still hear people on a daily basis saying they believe that machine-guns are legal, and that's what's being used in these shootings. Full-auto has been illegal for quite awhile for the average citizen to own. The AR-15's and AK-47's you can legally buy in the US are semi-auto, meaning one bullet per pull of the trigger. Most all handguns (for quite a long time now) are semi-auto too (and handguns kill farrrr more people in the US any other type of firearm), and there are semi-auto shotguns as well (though even a pump-action can be fired quickly enough with practice).

Oh, and a shotgun at close range is generally going to be more deadly than an AR-15 (5.56mm/.223 caliber) or many handguns, but of course it depends on where you get hit.

Things that designated weapons as "assault weapons" were basically cosmetic (they "look" scary!) and had nothing to do with the lethality... Pistol grip, bayonet lug (because you hear about all those bayonet attacks going on), flash suppressor (just prevents the shooter from being blinded when firing in the dark), and collapsible/telescoping butt stocks.

Oh and if that guy in Aurora had used the explosives he had set up in his apartment in the theater instead, he probably would have killed a whole lot more people than he did. The worst school killing in American history occurred in 1927, where 44 people were killed by a suicidal farmer with his dynamite-filled car.

We know all of that, yes the style of gun is being attacked. The rifle is more powerful than the handgun. The semi-auto can shoot blistering fast even one pull at a time, many also are mod'd for full auto. Yes it is a "perception" thing on top of it's way overboard, not needed for protection or hunting.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 10:12:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 08:21:
I call what they're proposing knee jerk because it won't help at all and they're using these victims as a platform to justify more control for the sake of it.

Right, and I tried to give examples of a couple of non-knee-jerky things that could be done to improve the situation. The biggest elephant in the room is still the rather appalling state of mental health care in this country. Until we start doing something about that, instead of just dispensing pills to anyone with insurance, anything else we try is just a band-aid at best. Unfortunately, that hasn't been a priority for either party, but the Republicans are generally much more opposed to broadening access to health care. Time for them to face up to it.

Regardless of its flaws, Obamacare is better than what we've had up until now, and certainly better than the huge nothing that Republicans did over the 10 years or so that they were in control. As far as I'm concerned, they had their chance to do something constructive and passed on it, so they can quit whining now and start cooperating and working to improve it. Particularly focusing on improving mental health care. Then maybe we could start getting somewhere.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 00:53:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 14:43:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 13:43:
I don't however 99.99% of the time liberals propose knee jerk reactions

20 kids mowed down and you throw out knee jerk reactions. How many have to die for you? Probably doesn't matter... until it hits home.

How many have to die until what? Until we do something stupid, pointless and knee-jerky? That seems to be about all that's on the table right now. Hasn't helped in the past.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 14:43:
All 3 mediums can give some, doesn't mean it won't happen, but we can do better. Assualt, clip size, banning gun shows and registration are all things that can be put on the table, not meaning all are gotten.

Opening up NICS for use in private sales would be a good thing. Improving reporting from the states about those who should be listed as a prohibited person in NICS would also be a good thing. The reporting is pretty bad right now. That stuff also needs to be maintained. Maintenance costs money. But money doesn't seem to be an issue to those calling for new laws anyway.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 14:43:
This week in CA a person goes in with a shotgun, only shot one and they are are in critical but stable. That is the difference between handgun/rifle/shotgun vs spray and pray guns. Not that someone won't die, but it does limit it. Hence... doing a little better.

Wow. That's a pretty dishonest portrayal of the incident. The kid went in with the intent to shoot a couple of specific people, who he called out by name. He shot one before his teacher intervened to try to talk him down. He even said he didn't want to hurt the teacher. He wasn't a spree shooter out to kill as many as possible. Trying to paint him as such to help your argument is pretty weak.

Beelzebud wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 17:41:

Dev wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 17:36:

Cyanotetyphas wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 17:02:
Being in the MMO business trashed this company

Well that and activision.

Seriously, them giving up independence, and merging with Activision was when the downward trend really came on strong. Until then, they were a solid company. Now it's about how to maximize profit, at the expense of everything else. Just look at Diablo 3.

Dades wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 13:36:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 13:29:

You seem to be ignoring all the gun laws on the books already

No I didn't, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

As a responsible gun owner I don't have any problem with gun control laws, I'd just point out that we already have many on the books and gun control isn't where the problem lies.

Now for this:

Also please explain to me why it's always democrats who want to add more gun laws on the books?

What makes you think democrats are the only ones in favor of gun law? Since when do you speak for everyone on the right? You need a reality check. I support many restrictions on gun sale and use. This is just another example of you attempting to polarize a political discussion because that's all you know.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

Beamer wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 12:38:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 19:45:

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 18:45:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:
are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

I didn't say it was an outright solution but you have to start somewhere. And things like that would be a far better start than banning clip sizes or semi automatics because those two things won't affect anything at all.

What's your solution? What have the anti gun people offered up that will actually affect anything?

And really stop twisting my words to suit your stance that guns are the issue. As cliche as it is at this point inanimate objects don't decide for people. People still pull the trigger. As much as you hate it when I bring up personal responsibility it doesn't make it any less true.

You do this all the time Beamer, someone offers suggestions be it on spending cuts, or whatever else and your default answer is "That's not a solution" without ever offering up any realistic solutions of your own

YOU
HAVEN'T
GIVEN
US
ANYWHERE
TO
START

You've identified an issue: you feel we treat too much with pills. But you have YET to identify a solution for this. You dance around, dance around, dance around. Your solution is just "we shouldn't do that."

Fuck, man. You never address:
1) Why we do that
2) Who is responsible for doing that
3) How we can change the thinking of those responsible
4) How we can enforce this
5) How we can monitor the change

Again, should the FDA pass new regulations? Should the legislators pass new laws? Should medical schools change their curriculum (and who will make them?) What is to prevent current doctors from just doing what they do? And who are you, RollinThundr, to question the thinking of millions of doctors? On that note, shouldn't we commission some studies on pills vs other treatment? Who will pay for these studies? Who will do them? Who will review the results? Who will pay for alternative care, which will certainly be more costly and time consuming than pills? Who will do the training for this? Will we have facilities for these people? Will the government be involved?

Again, your solution is one step below "we shouldn't hurt other people, it's bad." Duh. You're offering NOTHING anyone can actually do.

However, saying that we should ban giant clips, so that anyone on a rampage has to reload, giving people time to flee, is something that people can actually do. Saying we should ban gun convention sales and private gun collector sales, where no background check is needed, is something that can easily be done. Saying we should have more of a detailed background check, one that perhaps looks for warning signs of certain medication, is something that can be done.

See how mentioning laws and regulations that are specific and doable, and showing the intended outcome, is different than saying "well, doctors should prescribe less pills."

Also, nice way to turn around what I keep saying to you. I've offered solutions here. The problem is that you don't. You put out pie in the sky stuff that isn't an actual plan. Things no one can actually do. Things not really thought through.

Dades wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 12:34:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 12:21:
Hey I'm not the one that contradicted myself in the same sentence. And really, if you honestly believe it's not tied to being a right vs left argument, I have a bridge to sell you real cheap. Different ideologies tend to clash doncha know.

I never contradicted myself and I don't view my ownership of a gun as an ideology, I'm much more mature than that. I can own a gun and believe in my right to informed use while also thinking that there are reasonable levels of gun control necessary for society at large. Likewise I frame my views on my own beliefs, not some shit I saw on television about left vs right. So as much as you want to polarize everything so you can make hysterical rants about left vs right, I'm not biting.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

Dades wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 12:04:

FloorPie wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 05:25:
They tell me when I can get up, eat, go to work. The work camps here in Siberia are really great.

Yeah let's equate gun control and slavery, that's a reasonable debate

So which is it Dades? Do you believe responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for a few loose cannons, or are you fine with giving up your rights and your 2nd amendment to make those on the left feel good about themselves?

No, you're not going to box me into a choice with only two extremes that you designed. You try to spin every issue into left vs right hysterics and that's not how I form my opinions.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

PHJF wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 09:22:

People who don't play violent video games don't see a problem with banning violent video games, and people who don't own firearms don't see a problem with banning firearms... Amazing how that works, isn't it?

You just equated tools for killing people with fictional, virtual entertainment. Amazing how that works.

Dades wrote on Jan 13, 2013, 01:20:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 23:14:
Actually car accidents were the leading cause of death I'm pretty sure, prolly should ban cars while we're at it too, and wrap everyone in bubblewrap just to be safe.

I'm pro-gun but you're making gun owners look bad with this kind of stupidity. Seriously don't do us any favors, just be quiet, we can take care of ourselves. Here is what anyone with a brain will rebutt that sound bite with: cars aren't designed to kill people, guns are. Most car deaths are accidents. You can't compare unlike statistics anyways, that's not how it works.

As a responsible gun owner I don't have any problem with gun control laws, I'd just point out that we already have many on the books and gun control isn't where the problem lies. Enforcement, guns in popular media and availability is the problem. There is no need to punish responsible gun owners and vendors for a minority problem that needs to be dealt with in other ways.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

Axis wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 20:32:
Disarming 99% of law abiding citizens against the 1% criminals who would get one anyway is not the answer. Go ask the Swiss.

Much of the problem is medication, lots of research out there but the liberal media wants to keep this about gun control - another 'excuse' it's not them or their actions, its the guns. Another 'lets pat ourselves on the back we did the first thing that comes to mind' it's the guns.

Almost every mass murder was done by someone who was seriously medicated either currently or shortly after stopping, and anyone who knows anything about these meds knows that the latter is the most dangerous part.

Go to any other country and you'll see a general aversion and reluctance to medicate and far less medical 'problems', especially when it comes to mental health.

America by FAR the most medicated country, it's absolutely ridiculous. Some medication is needed, but much is not. America has everything, the 'poor' in America have everything they need to live a good life and people medicate for shit like depression? Go to any of the low crime rate countries and ask how many get medicated for depression - ya a ridiculous notion.

Do you know that WATER fixes a shit ton of ailments and imbalances? Amazing, our bodies are mostly water and it's water that fixes them. But... water isn't profitable. Go do research, I might have just changed your life. I know mine was changed about 8 years ago armed with this information and a bug to find out more.

Anyways guns aren't the problem, it's a fact backed by all available research out there.

NewMaxx wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 22:50:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 22:47:
OMG TAKE ALL THE GUNZ!! and when death by knives go up. TAKE ALL THE KNIVZ!!! Or baseball bats, or metal pipes or <insert inanimate object here>

What was the statistic? Oh right...more people were killed last year by bludgeoning than guns in this country.

UttiniDaKilrJawa wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 22:32:
23 people die and the loudest noise out of all this is
"YOU CAN'T TAKE OUR GUNZ FROM US!!!!"

Days like this that make me sad the Mayans were wrong.

Cutter wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 20:20:

LittleMe wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 18:27:
Protip 2: People frequently vote for socialists. Socialists are also control freaks.

You wouldn't know a socialist if you were clubbed over the head with one until your tinfoil hat came off.

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 18:45:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:19:
are other ways to treat mental health in a more positive manner, be it therapy, outreach programs, or devising better ways to keep those who are full on mental out of society in the first place. etc, rather than be pill subscription happy and sending these highly troubled people on their way to shooting up a school because they're not getting the proper help or diagnosis. Granted that might piss off the pharmaceutical companies however who have quite the lobbyists themselves however.

There's alot of other avenues to look at actually treating the symptoms rather than going after inanimate objects, in this case guns, or video games a a feel good band aid and something to lay the blame on.

But that isn't a solution. You still need to say who is going to come up with. Who will enforce it? What measures will there be? How will we know when pills are still right? How do you know pills aren't?

What you're doing is saying "the problem is some people are bad. If people decided not to be bad, we'd be ok." Great. Still not a solution.

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 16:04:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 15:36:

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 13:00:

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:
All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

Officially derailed by nonsense.

I dunno I don't think he's too far off, liberals are in an uproar about automatic weapons when there's about 100 times more deaths from handguns. So what comes after banning riffles and AR's when it doesn't affect anything? Easy, you'll go after handguns. Like I keep saying kneejerk reactions over one incident are just that, they don't solve anything.

I love how documented numbers are nonsense unless they support your side. librul logic

I meant the planned parenthood part. Comparing school shootings to abortions is pretty asinine.

I don't know, I don't recall having mentioned assault rifles here. I mentioned high capacity clips. Assault rifles seem somewhat moot, because they're still semi-automatic.

But it's standard for you - unable to actually parse arguments anyone makes, instead classifying them as "Liberal" or "Not Liberal," and if "Liberal" then "Argument = Piers Morgan." You're a riot. You're wholly unable to believe someone has points of view that don't match what other, larger, classified groups think.


And you STILL haven't offered a solution. You just say "mental health!" as if it's a solution. There's been zero critical thought coming from you. Identifying problems is something a first grader can do. Turning them into solutions is something a bit more problematic, and something you've yet to even offer.

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 13:00:

WinterMadness wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 11:29:
All of you anti-gun people will be the FIRST ones to complain when the "gubmint" comes after something that you like that is deemed to be "harmful to society". Tthe erosion of freedom in our country sickens me, all in the name of "protecting the innocent". All of this uproar over assault weapons when the FBI crime statistics for 2011 showed 323 deaths by rifles in the USA and that is ALL types of rifles, not just AR's. There were 6220 deaths by handguns which will be the NEXT thing they come after once they have banned AR's. Then it will continue with whatever other weapon they deem is dangerous. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood releasing their statistics for 2011, 334,000 unborn babies killed but THAT's AOK with the loony left! Call us crazy but the real reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical govt from taking ALL power away from the people, just read some of the founding father's writings on the subject. Wake the fuck up you morons,, you will be the reason we become a fascist nation. In closing, MOLON LABE, come take it motherfuckers...

Officially derailed by nonsense.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 12, 2013, 12:24:

PropheT wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 21:34:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 20:00:
I'm ok if Hollywood, games and guns all were tamed some. Perhaps one without the others is unfair.

Why? And to what degree?
And who decides? And once it's decided...where does it stop?

Who's been deciding anything all along? Those people. Lawmakers, rating boards etc.

Why? In the name of just bettering ourselves.

Hey I've killed a billion pixels like the next guy, I don't need military level weaponry, and movies can ratchet it back some. I'm far from saying get rid of it all, but perhaps we can tame our savage side 5%, or something.

We've been refining ourselves since the start of time, this is just continuation of that.

nin wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 20:49:
Folding Volition and it's stable of games into DF would be divine...

StingingVelvet wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:39:
The simple fact is a dozen or more factors are involved in ever one of these tragedies and the politicians and media act like only one thing was the cause. That's never true.

Mental illness, gun access, competitive culture, selfish culture, bullying and yes, violent media, are all involved. Unless we are going to radically change our entire country though the un-political thing to say is, bluntly: cost of doing business.

Overall violent crime is way down.