Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Walmart no longer selling video games (Discussion)

123578

Comments

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,913
    edited August 11
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:


    And by this, even if we took away the gun, we would not change the mentality of people that want to kill and hurt other people.

    Just a thought to ponder among all this.
    Have you looked at the murder rates of major nations with strict gun laws? Just curious babe. 

    Probably just coincidence!

    Let's find out shall we?

    In 2012 Venezuela banned private gun ownership


    Yet in 2017 they ranked third highest on the world wide murder rate.


    How about Jamaica, known to have very strict gun control laws....ooops, number 2 on the homicide list.


    Maybe you meant El Salvador? No private ownership of guns permitted.  Damn, number one on the homicide list, how can this be?


    Perhaps there's a bit of a flaw in your hypothesis?


    Its true, we have a problem to solve, but note the US is number 89 on the list, not great of course, and worse than EU nations, but banning guns doesn't necessarily ensure they go away.






    Slapshot1188gunklackerUngoodRhoklawMyrdynnPhryAlBQuirky

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    tawess said:
    The "it is in my constitution" bit does not really fly tho...

    That was put in back when there was not proper system of law enforcement nor military for the most part as a way to safeguard that there is always a standing militia should someone try to re-colonize the United states. It was also very handy for home protection in a time when "hailing a cop" could entail a ride of an hour with no guarantee of anything. 

    Tell me how that is relevant in this day and age... A: The US has a standing army as well as a several organized semi active branches... B: It has a functioning police force... And should for some reason the British try to colonize you.. they would be nuked back to the roman era. 

    Now.. I agree just banning the guns and thinking it will solve anything will do jack shit. But it has to start someplace... Even if it is a 20-30 year process to change public opinion. Now as others have pointed out investing in mental and physical healthcare would be the best start. *points to the tangerine in chief* But people does not seem to be interested in that path.. In fact they voted for a person who said he would do the exact opposite... 

    So what the flying f do you suggest people should argue... If people can´t play nice and be constructive... They will have their toys taken away. 
    Ok. I have heard this argument before, but keep in mind, these people just came out of a war, where they were oppressed by England, and never wanted to go back to that situation.

    Hence the Bill of Rights to start with (Which was a very unique document) and was not part of the Original Constitution, it was added in as a safeguard to ensure Liberty and Freedom of the people.

    With that said, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "When a government fears its people there is liberty", this sentiment was mirrored by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. 

    So the 2nd was not simply to stop home invasion, which is why it was "Arms" not just guns, the original framing of the Constitution put no limits on what a citizen could purchase, because again, they believed that an Armed Public was a Free Public. What that means is, if someone wanted to buy a fully automation gatling gun (Sometimes called Minigun) or a L.A.W. the 2nd would fully allow them to do it. Notice though legislation, similar to how the government has hamstrug the 1st, US citizens can no longer do this.

    In short the 2nd by its original purpose meant that if the people wanted to revolt and overthrow their government because they felt it had become corrupt, they should be sold the means to do so.

    Now notice now you talk of a full standing army, and a legion of police, which means, the the government is now in full control of the people, not the people in control of the government, which, by every metric of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, liberty and freedom are dead in the United States, and we are simply living in an illusion of such, till our government feels it is time to openly take it away.

    So no, a Police force and a Military do not make the people safe, as they serve the politicians and the government, not the people. So if the government becomes corrupt the police and military will; still do their bidding, and destroy anyone that opposes them... in short, you may think you are safe from an outside threat, but you are at the total mercy of a threat from within.. which was what the 2nd was all about combating.

    Did that clear that up for you?
    Slapshot1188AlBQuirky
  • UtinniUtinni Member RarePosts: 988
    Ungood said:
    tawess said:
    The "it is in my constitution" bit does not really fly tho...

    That was put in back when there was not proper system of law enforcement nor military for the most part as a way to safeguard that there is always a standing militia should someone try to re-colonize the United states. It was also very handy for home protection in a time when "hailing a cop" could entail a ride of an hour with no guarantee of anything. 

    Tell me how that is relevant in this day and age... A: The US has a standing army as well as a several organized semi active branches... B: It has a functioning police force... And should for some reason the British try to colonize you.. they would be nuked back to the roman era. 

    Now.. I agree just banning the guns and thinking it will solve anything will do jack shit. But it has to start someplace... Even if it is a 20-30 year process to change public opinion. Now as others have pointed out investing in mental and physical healthcare would be the best start. *points to the tangerine in chief* But people does not seem to be interested in that path.. In fact they voted for a person who said he would do the exact opposite... 

    So what the flying f do you suggest people should argue... If people can´t play nice and be constructive... They will have their toys taken away. 
    Ok. I have heard this argument before, but keep in mind, these people just came out of a war, where they were oppressed by England, and never wanted to go back to that situation.

    Hence the Bill of Rights to start with (Which was a very unique document) and was not part of the Original Constitution, it was added in as a safeguard to ensure Liberty and Freedom of the people.

    With that said, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "When a government fears its people there is liberty", this sentiment was mirrored by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. 

    So the 2nd was not simply to stop home invasion, which is why it was "Arms" not just guns, the original framing of the Constitution put no limits on what a citizen could purchase, because again, they believed that an Armed Public was a Free Public. What that means is, if someone wanted to buy a fully automation gatling gun (Sometimes called Minigun) or a L.A.W. the 2nd would fully allow them to do it. Notice though legislation, similar to how the government has hamstrug the 1st, US citizens can no longer do this.

    In short the 2nd by its original purpose meant that if the people wanted to revolt and overthrow their government because they felt it had become corrupt, they should be sold the means to do so.

    Now notice now you talk of a full standing army, and a legion of police, which means, the the government is now in full control of the people, not the people in control of the government, which, by every metric of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, liberty and freedom are dead in the United States, and we are simply living in an illusion of such, till our government feels it is time to openly take it away.

    So no, a Police force and a Military do not make the people safe, as they serve the politicians and the government, not the people. So if the government becomes corrupt the police and military will; still do their bidding, and destroy anyone that opposes them... in short, you may think you are safe from an outside threat, but you are at the total mercy of a threat from within.. which was what the 2nd was all about combating.

    Did that clear that up for you?
    You only need guns if you're scared. If you can't sleep at night without knowing you could instantly kill someone then perhaps you should see a doctor.
    Slapshot1188Phry
  • gunklackergunklacker Member UncommonPosts: 247
    U.S. Soldier's Creed

    I am an American Soldier.

    I am a Warrior and a member of a team.

    I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.

    I will always place the mission first.

    I will never accept defeat.

    I will never quit.

    I will never leave a fallen comrade.

    I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.

    I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

    I am an expert and I am a professional.

    I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America, in close combat.

    I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

    I am an American Soldier.
    Slapshot1188Myrdynn
  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,467
    edited August 11
    Sandmanjw said:
    lahnmir said:
    Sandmanjw said:
    lahnmir said:
    Iselin said:
    Jesus Christ, WTF is wrong with you people? That first shooting happened in a fucking Walmart and as the memo clearly indicates for anyone with a grade 1 reading comprehension, they are trying to show some sensitivity and respect by cutting out any game or movie or even sporting goods hunting video display depicting violence or shooting.

    I swear to god this place is becoming one of the dumbest fucking places on the whole internet.
    Except that the response makes no frigging sense if you keep selling the stuff actually making the murders possible (its the guns you know), it makes their motives seem dishonest and nothing to do with sensitivity or respect, just a knee jerk reaction.

    Weird and angry comment btw, inappropriate.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Ignorant people...guns do not make crazy people do crazy stuff. Guns do not roam the world murdering.

    That is people. Same ones that use planes,bombs,trucks...and any and every other thing that they have to do crazy stuff.

    All this talk about taking away peoples access to guns does absolutely nothing and never will.

    Just more ignorant people thinking that taking my gun will stop any crazy or power mad people from doing crazy things or killing with or without a gun.

    All so amazing how ignorant people are. There are mass shootings in many countries that it is almost impossible to own a gun in. Has that stopped any of them? Here is a hint...NO.

    Do any of you saying to stop selling LEGAL guns have any clue what it would take to really make that happen? The answer is obviously not. You are just repeating the same old dead talking points you hear. 

    If anyone actually thinks you could ever get 2/3 rds of america to ratify a change to the Constitution  to make something like that happen...more nuts around than i thought there were.

    Never gonna happen and no other way to stop the selling of guns. I am sure that Walmart and other gun sellers can live quite comfortably with having 2/3 rds of America as customers that are ok with them selling LEGAL  guns to people.

    People need to stop being ignorant and spouting nonsense. All this crap over a company trying to be a little sensitive and see what they get? Even more fruit cakes come out making demands that they take the blame for crazy and or otherwise disturbed people. 

    I am so sure that if this had been a semi truck driven through the store that we would also have these people demanding that they stop making semi's right...right???


    There is a difference. Guns are made with one purpose only and that is to hurt or to kill, the rest of the items you mentioned aren’t. If every man and his dog could easily buy and walk around with a flamethrower, would there be more fire related incidents? Of course there would.

    The  USA and its obsession with the right to bear arms isn’t some worldwide accepted, normal thing. Many countries shake their heads in confusion and disbelief (as do many Americans). Taking away guns won’t stop murder sprees from happening, it will drastically lower the number though. What you need a gun for anyways, to stop the other guy with a gun? You don’t need to protect yourself with that if the other party also doesn’t have guns now do you?

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    What do we need guns for? To protect us from idiots that think getting rid of our guns will fix things. 

    We are here talking about crazy people killing everyone that they can safely and easily do. And some think making it even easier to do this, everywhere, even in our homes is the "right thing to do".

    But that is not even the real and most important reason the right to bear arms in in the constitution...which again everyone ignores.

    The reason it is in the Constitution, and will never be removed, is simple...you can never ever trust the government, or people, with unlimited power. 

    Give a government or group the ability to have all the weapons, and all the power, and you are guaranteed to end up having them use them on you.


    nice theory, except basically none of these mass shooters are ever stopped by good guys with guns, they are almost always apprehended or killed by police later, you know why....

    because life isn't an action movie, when the shooting starts all your ideals about stopping the shooter go out the window and the need to preserve life kicks in, you think law enforcement and armed services have rigorous training programs because everyone walks around with a gun ready to act at a moments notice.

    even trained people hit the deck when the shooting starts, generally the people getting shot at have plenty to lose... but the person doing the shooting feels like they have nothing left to lose.

    I'm all for gun ownership, but it needs to be way heavier regulated.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:


    And by this, even if we took away the gun, we would not change the mentality of people that want to kill and hurt other people.

    Just a thought to ponder among all this.
    Have you looked at the murder rates of major nations with strict gun laws? Just curious babe. 

    Probably just coincidence!
    While you were looking at that, Did you notice that cities in America with the strictest gun laws have the highest violent crime rates and death by guns?

    Also yes, I have looked into that, and it was not conclusive, as nations like Switzerland have a very low murder rates, yet have one the highest gun ownership rates, where on the flip side of that, Brazil which has much more strict gun laws than the US, has more murders.

    I mean, let's get real, Canada, is second to America on Guns owned per citizen.

    Yet.. when it comes to murders.. no one is even close to countries like El Salvador, which, as irony would have it.. do not have anywhere near the number of guns that Americans have. 

    So...as far as coincidence goes.. I guess your point was "Gun's don't mean shit when it comes to if people will kill each other"

    Which.. yah.. I'd buy that.
    Orthelian
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,049
    Ungood said:
    tawess said:
    The "it is in my constitution" bit does not really fly tho...

    That was put in back when there was not proper system of law enforcement nor military for the most part as a way to safeguard that there is always a standing militia should someone try to re-colonize the United states. It was also very handy for home protection in a time when "hailing a cop" could entail a ride of an hour with no guarantee of anything. 

    Tell me how that is relevant in this day and age... A: The US has a standing army as well as a several organized semi active branches... B: It has a functioning police force... And should for some reason the British try to colonize you.. they would be nuked back to the roman era. 

    Now.. I agree just banning the guns and thinking it will solve anything will do jack shit. But it has to start someplace... Even if it is a 20-30 year process to change public opinion. Now as others have pointed out investing in mental and physical healthcare would be the best start. *points to the tangerine in chief* But people does not seem to be interested in that path.. In fact they voted for a person who said he would do the exact opposite... 

    So what the flying f do you suggest people should argue... If people can´t play nice and be constructive... They will have their toys taken away. 
    Ok. I have heard this argument before, but keep in mind, these people just came out of a war, where they were oppressed by England, and never wanted to go back to that situation.

    Hence the Bill of Rights to start with (Which was a very unique document) and was not part of the Original Constitution, it was added in as a safeguard to ensure Liberty and Freedom of the people.

    With that said, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "When a government fears its people there is liberty", this sentiment was mirrored by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. 

    So the 2nd was not simply to stop home invasion, which is why it was "Arms" not just guns, the original framing of the Constitution put no limits on what a citizen could purchase, because again, they believed that an Armed Public was a Free Public. What that means is, if someone wanted to buy a fully automation gatling gun (Sometimes called Minigun) or a L.A.W. the 2nd would fully allow them to do it. Notice though legislation, similar to how the government has hamstrug the 1st, US citizens can no longer do this.

    In short the 2nd by its original purpose meant that if the people wanted to revolt and overthrow their government because they felt it had become corrupt, they should be sold the means to do so.

    Now notice now you talk of a full standing army, and a legion of police, which means, the the government is now in full control of the people, not the people in control of the government, which, by every metric of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, liberty and freedom are dead in the United States, and we are simply living in an illusion of such, till our government feels it is time to openly take it away.

    So no, a Police force and a Military do not make the people safe, as they serve the politicians and the government, not the people. So if the government becomes corrupt the police and military will; still do their bidding, and destroy anyone that opposes them... in short, you may think you are safe from an outside threat, but you are at the total mercy of a threat from within.. which was what the 2nd was all about combating.

    Did that clear that up for you?
    We do not frequently agree and I have your messages turned off but I clicked this one and must give credit where it is due.  Well explained.  I would also reiterate that the 2nd is not JUST about protection from tyranny, but also from local dangers.  As you say it is not simply to protect against home invasion, but that is part of it. To me it’s about allowing citizens to take responsibility for their personal safety (and that of their home or possessions) vs farming it all out to one form or another of “government”.  

    OrthelianUngood

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • gunklackergunklacker Member UncommonPosts: 247
    Venezuela !, Jamaica !, El Salvador !, are you fricken kidding me?  that's the biggest load of shit data facts i ever seen someone pulled out there ass................................
    RhoklawKyleran
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Venezuela !, Jamaica !, El Salvador !, are you fricken kidding me?  that's the biggest load of shit data facts i ever seen someone pulled out there ass................................
    Are you saying these people are not being killed?

  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,467
    edited August 11
    Kyleran said:
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:


    And by this, even if we took away the gun, we would not change the mentality of people that want to kill and hurt other people.

    Just a thought to ponder among all this.
    Have you looked at the murder rates of major nations with strict gun laws? Just curious babe. 

    Probably just coincidence!

    Let's find out shall we?

    In 2012 Venezuela banned private gun ownership


    Yet in 2017 they ranked third highest on the world wide murder rate.


    How about Jamaica, known to have very strict gun control laws....ooops, number 2 on the homicide list.


    Maybe you meant El Salvador? No private ownership of guns permitted.  Damn, number one on the homicide list, how can this be?


    Perhaps there's a bit of a flaw in your hypothesis?


    Its true, we have a problem to solve, but note the US is number 89 on the list, not great of course, and worse than EU nations, but banning guns doesn't necessarily ensure they go away.






    no flaw, these things take time... it took australia (speaking as an australian citizen) 10 - 15 years to really get to a point where the regulations were in decent effect... it's not a miracle cure that works over night, it takes time.

    it also took strict enforcement and seizures of illegal firearms from previously registered gun owners who didn't hand in the weapons they should have... it was a painsteaking task and it was long... but proper regulation and time does work.
    PhryOrthelian
  • gunklackergunklacker Member UncommonPosts: 247
    Ungood said:
    Venezuela !, Jamaica !, El Salvador !, are you fricken kidding me?  that's the biggest load of shit data facts i ever seen someone pulled out there ass................................
    Are you saying these people are not being killed?

    yeah it like saying look at all the gun related dead's during the American Civil War


    mbrodieKyleran
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,657
    Kyleran said:
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:


    And by this, even if we took away the gun, we would not change the mentality of people that want to kill and hurt other people.

    Just a thought to ponder among all this.
    Have you looked at the murder rates of major nations with strict gun laws? Just curious babe. 

    Probably just coincidence!

    Let's find out shall we?

    In 2012 Venezuela banned private gun ownership


    Yet in 2017 they ranked third highest on the world wide murder rate.


    How about Jamaica, known to have very strict gun control laws....ooops, number 2 on the homicide list.


    Maybe you meant El Salvador? No private ownership of guns permitted.  Damn, number one on the homicide list, how can this be?


    Perhaps there's a bit of a flaw in your hypothesis?


    Its true, we have a problem to solve, but note the US is number 89 on the list, not great of course, and worse than EU nations, but banning guns doesn't necessarily ensure they go away.







    Cherry picking facts out of context to misrepresent the truth is pretty lame dude. What you did there is push a lie to promote your agenda and win the argument. The fact is that the countries with the lowest murder rates have strict weapon and firearm laws. Is it so important to you for your side to win that you would pervert the truth just to get your way?

    There is no way in hell any civilians could stand against the modern US military. You've bought the Red Dawn lie.

    But you're right about one thing, Americans will keep killing each other until we get tired of it. Nothing will change until then.
    gunklackermbrodieklash2defRusque
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,542
    Walmart sells actual Guns that actually kill people.

    Last time I checked..Pixel Guns cant actually kill people in real life. I could be wrong, fact check me just in case. 

     :| 
    "PSA: We live in a multicultural world. Nobody is "forcing" diversity. Earth is already Diverse."

    "Everything that happens is a political act, and the only people that get to pretend otherwise are those privileged enough to not have politics impact them at all." ~Taliesin
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Ungood said:
    Venezuela !, Jamaica !, El Salvador !, are you fricken kidding me?  that's the biggest load of shit data facts i ever seen someone pulled out there ass................................
    Are you saying these people are not being killed?

    yeah it like saying look at all the gun related dead's during the American Civil War


    That was the exact point.. first the government took their guns.. and then took their life.

    At least during the civil war .. both sides were armed.

    This was just a government killing their people.. now as a soldier you need to ask yourself a question, if told to fire upon the citizens of this country, would follow the orders you were given.
  • ArteriusArterius Member EpicPosts: 1,852
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Venezuela !, Jamaica !, El Salvador !, are you fricken kidding me?  that's the biggest load of shit data facts i ever seen someone pulled out there ass................................
    Are you saying these people are not being killed?

    yeah it like saying look at all the gun related dead's during the American Civil War


    That was the exact point.. first the government took their guns.. and then took their life.

    At least during the civil war .. both sides were armed.

    This was just a government killing their people.. now as a soldier you need to ask yourself a question, if told to fire upon the citizens of this country, would follow the orders you were given.
    Honestly I hope we never have to figure out the answer to the question but I would gurantee that if it ever came to that the answer would be yes. People would follow their orders. Sure some would defect but I would say 75% would believe that what they are doing is right.
    Ungood
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,979
    lahnmir said:
    Thanks for the explanation, I did not know that. I understand the desire and need to protect, this is roughly the same in other countries I assume, we all have that right. But when guns are allowed, guns will protect from other guns, when tanks are allowed, tanks will protect from other tanks, when warheads are allowed, warheads will...... you get the point. If you take the weapon away from both sides its still the same balance, just on a smaller scale. The need for guns wouldn't be there if the other side didn't have them either. Other western civilised countries are doing just fine without guns, thats not witchcraft. Removing them from US society and making them illegal is another matter though and I can also understand people having an issue with a right being taken away.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    A mugger is 25.  His target is 85.  Neither of them are armed.  If a fight breaks out, just how do you think it will go?  If the target is likely to have a gun, there is a whole lot more doubt about the outcome, don't you think?

    Ultimately, there are pros and cons to pretty much every policy proposal.  Advocacy concerning guns typically has more to do with cultural stances than likely real-world outcomes of the policies.  One side views guns as these icky things, as if they can passively kill people like plutonium.  The other side sees guns as a normal part of life and reacts to attempts at banning them in about the same way that they'd react to attempts at banning cars, alcohol, knives, or other such things that can and do kill people when misused.  A lot of people don't belong to either of those camps, but they're not the loud voices in the debate.

    Especially stupid is the how prominent the occasional mass shooting is in the debate.  A majority of people killed by guns in the United States are due to suicides.  Gang violence and domestic violence account for most of the rest.  As a fraction of murders using guns, mass shootings are basically a rounding error.
    Slapshot1188SandmanjwOrthelian
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member EpicPosts: 2,824
    edited August 11
    Thanks @Ungood and @Slapshot1188 for your explanation. As you both are well aware I am not from the USA, I know about the general rules and regulations, not the finer details. Also thanks for sharing your thoughts without resorting to finger pointing or name calling

    Going from a gun having country to a no gun country is incredibly complex and brings its own issues with it, that I fully understand, this is besides the legal means to do so and the willingness to give up your rights. My actual question is simply why, why do civilians need guns? And the reasons given surprise me.

    I think looking at country and population size is the wrong way to look at it, you need to look at things percentage wise. A much more interesting metric then population size for instance would be population density, and on that the USA rates pretty low. I am from the Netherlands and thats a densily populated country with a huge cultural and ethnical diversity, these aren’t reasons to need guns. We have also been in plenty of wars and have a history about 5x as long as the USA.

    I do however sense a lot of distrust in governing bodies or ‘other’ parties, the idea of needing weapons to resist the government when needed seems ludacris to me, and I am talking about that from the perspective of normal western countries then, not heavily corrupted ones or ones suffering from, say, heavy drug problems.

    In short, the reasons aren’t really valid from where I stand but that is ok, I am not a US citizen. However, when everybody can buy guns and use them people shouldn’t be surprised when they can, and will, also be used by those with worse judgement then you for reasons you, or society, might not agree with. I keep making the same ‘joke’ but if everybody and his dog could easily buy and walk around with a flamethrower, would there be more fire related incidents? And heavy gun regulations and limitations will be a problem for the gun industry and definitely resisted by them, they want to make money after all, they’re in the business of selling as much guns as possible and when looking at the number of fire arms going around they are doing an amazing job. That includes selling the ‘need’ to own a gun.

    But, as has been pointed out, I am just an outsider looking in, I don’t own the truth. I am just bewildered by the reactions to gun violence, everything gets blamed and pointed at, except the murder weapons themselves.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Ungood
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,049
    @lahnmir
    I think we all just need to be able to have rational conversations and realize that other people have different perspectives and that does not make them evil nazis. We have a mechanism where we can change our Constitution.  If enough people want to do so, it will change.  If not, it will stay. 

    As mentioned, I do not own a gun and likely never will but I have on occasion wondered about what would I do if someone broke into the house where my wife and children are. We are lucky and live in a very nice neighborhood with a very low crime rate that I researched extensively before moving here a decade ago, but my old neighborhood turned bad pretty quickly, and I literally had a bat with nails in it next to my door to use in an emergency.  But today, if people broke in, even if they were unarmed but there were 3 of them.  What would/could I do?  I don't know and that is certainly worst-case scenario... but I do know that I think it is fundamentally MY decision and I am thankful that the Founders of my country allow me the personal responsibility to make that choice.   Yes, there are downsides to this.  There always is with free-will. 


    And do not forget, there are between 300,000,000 and 400,000,000 guns owned by private citizens in the US. I have seen different figures but I do not think it matters much once they get that high.   Even if the 2nd Amendment was changed, it is simply unrealistic to think that those guns disappear.   And they certainly would not disappear from the "bad guys" with ill intentions.  So while we can certainly discuss gun laws, the fact of the matter is that hundreds of millions of them are already here.  We have to somehow re-humanize people.  We have to stop "getting in the face" of people who have different opinions.  We have to stop calling everyone a nazi. We have to stop "doxxing" people because they gave to a political party or cause. We have to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.  And yes, we probably have to take a look at a culture (including entertainment like movies and games) that desensitize people to violence.   I do not believe they should be banned, but that does not mean we should ignore the possibility that when kids are bombarded with situations seeing guns and/or other weapons used to solve problems that SOME... just MIGHT... be influenced by that.  I do not think there is one single answer here.  I think there are dozens of pieces to the puzzle.


    Arterius

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • ArteriusArterius Member EpicPosts: 1,852
    @lahnmir
    I think we all just need to be able to have rational conversations and realize that other people have different perspectives and that does not make them evil nazis. We have a mechanism where we can change our Constitution.  If enough people want to do so, it will change.  If not, it will stay. 

    As mentioned, I do not own a gun and likely never will but I have on occasion wondered about what would I do if someone broke into the house where my wife and children are. We are lucky and live in a very nice neighborhood with a very low crime rate that I researched extensively before moving here a decade ago, but my old neighborhood turned bad pretty quickly, and I literally had a bat with nails in it next to my door to use in an emergency.  But today, if people broke in, even if they were unarmed but there were 3 of them.  What would/could I do?  I don't know and that is certainly worst-case scenario... but I do know that I think it is fundamentally MY decision and I am thankful that the Founders of my country allow me the personal responsibility to make that choice.   Yes, there are downsides to this.  There always is with free-will. 


    And do not forget, there are between 300,000,000 and 400,000,000 guns owned by private citizens in the US. I have seen different figures but I do not think it matters much once they get that high.   Even if the 2nd Amendment was changed, it is simply unrealistic to think that those guns disappear.   And they certainly would not disappear from the "bad guys" with ill intentions.  So while we can certainly discuss gun laws, the fact of the matter is that hundreds of millions of them are already here.  We have to somehow re-humanize people.  We have to stop "getting in the face" of people who have different opinions.  We have to stop calling everyone a nazi. We have to stop "doxxing" people because they gave to a political party or cause. We have to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.  And yes, we probably have to take a look at a culture (including entertainment like movies and games) that desensitize people to violence.   I do not believe they should be banned, but that does not mean we should ignore the possibility that when kids are bombarded with situations seeing guns and/or other weapons used to solve problems that SOME... just MIGHT... be influenced by that.  I do not think there is one single answer here.  I think there are dozens of pieces to the puzzle.


    I agree 100% with what you have said. Every word of it. It is just impossible to get rid of the 2nd now. It just is. I think even if congress or the senate tried the people would turn against the government. Does this mean I think we should do nothing? Of course not. What that answer is however, I do not know for sure. That is for someone far smarter then I. 
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337
    Will this save Gamestop?

    All this move is telling me is that non-digital game distribution is almost dead.

    It's like a gun seller saying that he'll stop selling toy guns. Utterly meaningless gesture.
    Torval
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,913
    edited August 11
    Torval said:
    Kyleran said:
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:


    And by this, even if we took away the gun, we would not change the mentality of people that want to kill and hurt other people.

    Just a thought to ponder among all this.
    Have you looked at the murder rates of major nations with strict gun laws? Just curious babe. 

    Probably just coincidence!

    Let's find out shall we?

    In 2012 Venezuela banned private gun ownership


    Yet in 2017 they ranked third highest on the world wide murder rate.


    How about Jamaica, known to have very strict gun control laws....ooops, number 2 on the homicide list.


    Maybe you meant El Salvador? No private ownership of guns permitted.  Damn, number one on the homicide list, how can this be?


    Perhaps there's a bit of a flaw in your hypothesis?


    Its true, we have a problem to solve, but note the US is number 89 on the list, not great of course, and worse than EU nations, but banning guns doesn't necessarily ensure they go away.







    Cherry picking facts out of context to misrepresent the truth is pretty lame dude. What you did there is push a lie to promote your agenda and win the argument. The fact is that the countries with the lowest murder rates have strict weapon and firearm laws. Is it so important to you for your side to win that you would pervert the truth just to get your way?

    There is no way in hell any civilians could stand against the modern US military. You've bought the Red Dawn lie.

    But you're right about one thing, Americans will keep killing each other until we get tired of it. Nothing will change until then.
    Oh my...more fun facts then...eight of the top 15 countries with the most guns per person are in...Europe.....in countries with homicide rates by gun are so low they actually are at zero.  (Iceland)

    Canada is also in the top 15, yet again one of the lowest in homicides.

    Maybe, just maybe there are some other socio economic factors which come into play which when combined with ready access to firearms results in higher homicide rates. Or maybe Americans are just fking crazy....I dunno.

    BTW, Uruguay is also in the top 15 list, yet it also has lower homicide rate and way lower murder by guns than the US.

    https://www.deseretnews.com/top/2519/0/15-nations-with-the-highest-gun-ownership.html

    Weird. 
    Orthelian

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 10,994
    mbrodie said:
    Kyleran said:
    Utinni said:
    Ungood said:


    And by this, even if we took away the gun, we would not change the mentality of people that want to kill and hurt other people.

    Just a thought to ponder among all this.
    Have you looked at the murder rates of major nations with strict gun laws? Just curious babe. 

    Probably just coincidence!

    Let's find out shall we?

    In 2012 Venezuela banned private gun ownership


    Yet in 2017 they ranked third highest on the world wide murder rate.


    How about Jamaica, known to have very strict gun control laws....ooops, number 2 on the homicide list.


    Maybe you meant El Salvador? No private ownership of guns permitted.  Damn, number one on the homicide list, how can this be?


    Perhaps there's a bit of a flaw in your hypothesis?


    Its true, we have a problem to solve, but note the US is number 89 on the list, not great of course, and worse than EU nations, but banning guns doesn't necessarily ensure they go away.






    no flaw, these things take time... it took australia (speaking as an australian citizen) 10 - 15 years to really get to a point where the regulations were in decent effect... it's not a miracle cure that works over night, it takes time.

    it also took strict enforcement and seizures of illegal firearms from previously registered gun owners who didn't hand in the weapons they should have... it was a painsteaking task and it was long... but proper regulation and time does work.
    I think the increasing levels of violent crimes that Australia is suffering from, particularly the african gang problem kind of proves that those regulations are putting people at risk rather than helping at all.
    Orthelian
  • tawesstawess Member EpicPosts: 4,124
    Ungood said:
    tawess said:
    The "it is in my constitution" bit does not really fly tho...

    That was put in back when there was not proper system of law enforcement nor military for the most part as a way to safeguard that there is always a standing militia should someone try to re-colonize the United states. It was also very handy for home protection in a time when "hailing a cop" could entail a ride of an hour with no guarantee of anything. 

    Tell me how that is relevant in this day and age... A: The US has a standing army as well as a several organized semi active branches... B: It has a functioning police force... And should for some reason the British try to colonize you.. they would be nuked back to the roman era. 

    Now.. I agree just banning the guns and thinking it will solve anything will do jack shit. But it has to start someplace... Even if it is a 20-30 year process to change public opinion. Now as others have pointed out investing in mental and physical healthcare would be the best start. *points to the tangerine in chief* But people does not seem to be interested in that path.. In fact they voted for a person who said he would do the exact opposite... 

    So what the flying f do you suggest people should argue... If people can´t play nice and be constructive... They will have their toys taken away. 
    Ok. I have heard this argument before, but keep in mind, these people just came out of a war, where they were oppressed by England, and never wanted to go back to that situation.

    Hence the Bill of Rights to start with (Which was a very unique document) and was not part of the Original Constitution, it was added in as a safeguard to ensure Liberty and Freedom of the people.

    With that said, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "When a government fears its people there is liberty", this sentiment was mirrored by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. 

    So the 2nd was not simply to stop home invasion, which is why it was "Arms" not just guns, the original framing of the Constitution put no limits on what a citizen could purchase, because again, they believed that an Armed Public was a Free Public. What that means is, if someone wanted to buy a fully automation gatling gun (Sometimes called Minigun) or a L.A.W. the 2nd would fully allow them to do it. Notice though legislation, similar to how the government has hamstrug the 1st, US citizens can no longer do this.

    In short the 2nd by its original purpose meant that if the people wanted to revolt and overthrow their government because they felt it had become corrupt, they should be sold the means to do so.

    Now notice now you talk of a full standing army, and a legion of police, which means, the the government is now in full control of the people, not the people in control of the government, which, by every metric of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, liberty and freedom are dead in the United States, and we are simply living in an illusion of such, till our government feels it is time to openly take it away.

    So no, a Police force and a Military do not make the people safe, as they serve the politicians and the government, not the people. So if the government becomes corrupt the police and military will; still do their bidding, and destroy anyone that opposes them... in short, you may think you are safe from an outside threat, but you are at the total mercy of a threat from within.. which was what the 2nd was all about combating.

    Did that clear that up for you?
    I am pretty sure that both the gatling repeting gun and maxime was at the time regulated... Same with cannons and artillery. 

    But if the second no longer serves it original purpose (kinda my point) doe not simply cause more harm as it only serves as a all you can get buffé for criminals, seeing as i read that as many as 200-400.000 firearms are stolen each year... That is at least a number that would go down if less people owned guns. 


    And as far as i know, uprisings and civil wars happens no matter if you have a constitutional right to do so or not...  

    Tawess gaming

    Tawess soapbox

    This have been a good conversation

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    Ungood said:
    Since it happened in a Walmart that sells guns, it's a pity no one thought to run to the sporting good section, grab a gun and shoot back.
    "Damned these locked display cases!"
    Ungood

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    For those wanting "more gun laws", let me give you a little insight. Gun laws are obeyed by law abiding citizens. NO law will ever get rid of these kinds of incidents. People with mental troubles will do what they want with whatever is at hand.

    The killer was NOT a law abiding citizen. Gun laws would have affected his actions not at all. They were mentally unstable and ANY weapon (steak knives, baseball bats, lawn darts, their hiking boots applied to someone's head, a rock) would have done the trick.

    It just gets me that with incidents like this, a lot of vocal people scream "MOAR GUN LAWS!11!!!1!" Get a grip, please, and keep the knee jerk reactions to a minimum. I get it that these people HATE guns. That's cool. Don't use them.

    Blaming guns is as "rational" as blaming video games.
    Ortheliandeniter

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

This discussion has been closed.