Bort: You cannot tell me that if guns were legal in the UK to the extent that they are in the USA, there would be the same amount of firearm homicides as there are now.
For starters there'd be the whole thing about kids finding their dad's handguns and playing around with them - accident waiting to happen. No legal handguns = no accidents like that.
Plus there are crimes of opportunity - some bloke/woman gets really angry and happens to have a gun lying around - heat of the moment, gun is fired, person dies.
You can't argue against that, it's just fact, so I really don't know what you're talking about...
And, er...
Firearm legality = More guns.
More guns = more deaths due to guns.
I'd really love to see how you would present an argument to show that more guns in the UK would not result in more firearm homicides?
Sorry for derailing the thread up there. I just thought that it was pretty hypocritical than manufacturers of devices designed to kill and the people sold those weapons would be immune from lawsuits, whilst people who made games/films/music/books and the peopel that sold that entertainment could still be sued.
So if a kid shoots his classmates, Marilyn Manson, id and Wal Mart can be sued, but not Remington.
So, since when did moral outrage include actually knowing the facts? That's too confusing, we might end up all Canadian, seeing both sides and being reasonable. Sheesh.
A thought did strike me, isn't it true that the Hot Coffee minigame actually scores you based on how much pleasure your female partner derives from the hookup? Has anyone considered this? Of COURSE NOT.
I think it would be even better if Rockstar made an AO version with HC fully implemented, and added a new wrinkle. If you get the girl pregnant, then you're her baby's daddy! This could have serious long-term implications in the game, like getting busted as a deadbeat dad.
Think about this: the reason that the kid in 'Menace II Society' (presumably another pop-culture template for GTA:SA) gets wasted at the end is NOT because of his criminal gangsta crack-dealer lifestyle, but because he gets the girl knocked up and then won't call her -- thus bringing the wrath of her gangsta big brother...
Rick - I never commented on that point because I agree with it.
Guns don't make people violent, they are just another tool people use. If you have a real total ban on guns, the people that would use a gun if they had access would just use something else. Guns aren't the problem, the system that has led to the violence issue is.
I am saying if you put the deaths in america and the deaths in the uk into context about the number of guns available you will get around the same percentage of deaths per guns. Which blows the bogus notion of freely available guns is worse than guns being illegal. People will still use guns to kill at about the same rate. You can argue about numbers of deaths but if the two seperate situations, legal/illegal, cause about the same percentage of deaths then how can you place the blame mostly on the legality of guns, when it must be something else. People will still be just as violent even if you take guns out of the equation.
Guns aren't the cause of the problem. If you magically took guns away from everyone, the people that would use guns would just use something else. It's not the availability of guns that causes the deaths(The guns not at fault when the owner was too stupid to leave it where a child could get easy access. I never tried to grab a iron when I was a child because my mother made sure I didn't). It's the people that have a 'reason' to want to use them.
As you say the politicians use games to cover themselves from having to sort out the real underlying problems. You are using guns to cover the real problem that causes people to use guns/violence.
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot tell me that if guns were legal in the UK to the extent that they are in the USA, there would be the same amount of firearm homicides as there are now.
[/ QUOTE ]
There would be more deaths(I've never claim that there would be less or the same) but it would be in proportion to the number of guns. LIke the situations now in the us and the uk.
Now lets say you took all the guns out of america. Gun crime would fall to zero but the people that would have been killed(apart from the accidents, children drown in puddles. You aren't going to ban puddles are you.) would still be killed but by other means.
If you legalised guns in the uk and get to the same ratio(guns/people) as in america, more people would be killed by guns. They wouldn't be new people(a small number will, through accidents), they would just be killed by a gun rather than another way. e.g. Instead of being beaten with a ashtray, you get shot.
[ QUOTE ]
Plus there are crimes of opportunity - some bloke/woman gets really angry and happens to have a gun lying around - heat of the moment, gun is fired, person dies.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if there wasn't a gun but a glass ashtray he'd use that. Are you going to ban glass ashtrays? The person would still be dead without a gun present. The murder will just take seconds like it would with a gun.
You heap endless blame on guns just like politicians do with games. You are as hypocritical as them. Ban games and enraged/violent kids will still kill each other. Ban guns and violent/enraged people will still kill eachother.
I don't want to live in the shitty parts of american or a country where everyone carries a gun. I just don't swallow the shit thats served. Guns by default aren't bad. A system that causes large amounts of people to be violent is to blame.
We disagree which is nice. If you want to take it further then start a thread. We can both share our bored time together..together.....<trails off humming a shitty song that I shouldn't know the lyrics too>
Guns are only tools, yes, but guess what? They're tools designed to *SHOCK* kill and/or severely wound people. An ashtray is not, nor is a cigarette, nor a cellphone...
[ QUOTE ]
If you magically took guns away from everyone, the people that would use guns would just use something else.
[/ QUOTE ]And everyone just 'Magically' became masters of killing with teaspoons or planting falltraps filled with spikes on highways?
Bort, ever considered that a gun is immensely far easier to kill with than an ashtray? Heck, the blade of a K-Bar is nothing compared to a 9mm JHP shot from a 92FS. It might cause more damage, but on 50 meters away? I think not!
Compare a few 5.56mm bullets to a baseball bat.
You'll have to not only Swing the bat, but hit with it as well, AND avoid the guy defending and/or running away from you. And your work's not done here either. You'll have to spend several swings beating the other guy down to the ground, then pummel him for a good 30 seconds non-stop, taking the breath out of you...
Meanwhile, everyone near you have called the cops, and you're not in a situation to run!
With the gun, you just blow his butt away from a half-decent distance. No dodging bullets for him!
Bang Bang Bang, slip back into the crowd/car.
With your kind of logic, GTA should be sporting twincers, samurai-swords and chainsaws instead of assault rifles, because "they kill through other ways". Not that it wouldn't be cool to see, but I really doubt you'd do better against those gangmembers from Liberty City with kitchen utensils than you would with a submachinegun.
yes guns kill people, that is their point, that is why they should be totally legal. say guns were totally banned, what would stop the government from going "right, now that you've all lost your ability to fight back easily, we will go ahead and put you all into slave camps"
an open letter to Senator Clinton from Steven Johnson, author of "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter"
- Controversial developer Rockstar is attracting unwanted attention again, this time before the release of its next title, Bully. For once, the outcry against the upcoming game comes mainly from non-American sources, as the UK-founded Bullying Online has led the charge against the game. Founder Liz Carnell said that the game "should be banned. I'm extremely worried that kids will play it and then act out what they've seen in the classroom." U.S. Attorney Jack Thompson has also begun his standard crusade, which will commence with a demonstration outside of Take-Two's Manhattan offices. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php Joining the recent protests against the as-yet-unreleased title Bully from Rockstar Games is Washington group the Peaceaholics, who have released a list of demands to the Take-Two Games subsidiary. <font color="red">The Peaceaholics are requesting that Rockstar limit its games' market presence to adult video stores, that Bully in specific be released not at all, that Rockstar make a full refund to parents who have purchased Grand Theft Auto games, that Rockstar establish a fund for victims of carjackings, that the company make a national apology for "causing insurance premiums to sky rocket,"</font> and that Rockstar submit a written response within five business days of receiving the demands. The Peaceaholics have given no indication of their planned actions should Rockstar not meet any or all of the demands.
Peaceaholics?!? Holy Jesus fucking Christ. These people are absolutely insane. Uneducated buffoons. I dont know why I care, but these people really, really aggravates me.
Replies
For starters there'd be the whole thing about kids finding their dad's handguns and playing around with them - accident waiting to happen. No legal handguns = no accidents like that.
Plus there are crimes of opportunity - some bloke/woman gets really angry and happens to have a gun lying around - heat of the moment, gun is fired, person dies.
You can't argue against that, it's just fact, so I really don't know what you're talking about...
And, er...
Firearm legality = More guns.
More guns = more deaths due to guns.
I'd really love to see how you would present an argument to show that more guns in the UK would not result in more firearm homicides?
So if a kid shoots his classmates, Marilyn Manson, id and Wal Mart can be sued, but not Remington.
For fucks sake.
* strips to his birthday suit again
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
* strips to his birthday suit again
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
[/ QUOTE ]MY EYES!!
A thought did strike me, isn't it true that the Hot Coffee minigame actually scores you based on how much pleasure your female partner derives from the hookup? Has anyone considered this? Of COURSE NOT.
I think it would be even better if Rockstar made an AO version with HC fully implemented, and added a new wrinkle. If you get the girl pregnant, then you're her baby's daddy! This could have serious long-term implications in the game, like getting busted as a deadbeat dad.
Think about this: the reason that the kid in 'Menace II Society' (presumably another pop-culture template for GTA:SA) gets wasted at the end is NOT because of his criminal gangsta crack-dealer lifestyle, but because he gets the girl knocked up and then won't call her -- thus bringing the wrath of her gangsta big brother...
/jzero
Guns don't make people violent, they are just another tool people use. If you have a real total ban on guns, the people that would use a gun if they had access would just use something else. Guns aren't the problem, the system that has led to the violence issue is.
I am saying if you put the deaths in america and the deaths in the uk into context about the number of guns available you will get around the same percentage of deaths per guns. Which blows the bogus notion of freely available guns is worse than guns being illegal. People will still use guns to kill at about the same rate. You can argue about numbers of deaths but if the two seperate situations, legal/illegal, cause about the same percentage of deaths then how can you place the blame mostly on the legality of guns, when it must be something else. People will still be just as violent even if you take guns out of the equation.
Guns aren't the cause of the problem. If you magically took guns away from everyone, the people that would use guns would just use something else. It's not the availability of guns that causes the deaths(The guns not at fault when the owner was too stupid to leave it where a child could get easy access. I never tried to grab a iron when I was a child because my mother made sure I didn't). It's the people that have a 'reason' to want to use them.
As you say the politicians use games to cover themselves from having to sort out the real underlying problems. You are using guns to cover the real problem that causes people to use guns/violence.
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot tell me that if guns were legal in the UK to the extent that they are in the USA, there would be the same amount of firearm homicides as there are now.
[/ QUOTE ]
There would be more deaths(I've never claim that there would be less or the same) but it would be in proportion to the number of guns. LIke the situations now in the us and the uk.
Now lets say you took all the guns out of america. Gun crime would fall to zero but the people that would have been killed(apart from the accidents, children drown in puddles. You aren't going to ban puddles are you.) would still be killed but by other means.
If you legalised guns in the uk and get to the same ratio(guns/people) as in america, more people would be killed by guns. They wouldn't be new people(a small number will, through accidents), they would just be killed by a gun rather than another way. e.g. Instead of being beaten with a ashtray, you get shot.
[ QUOTE ]
Plus there are crimes of opportunity - some bloke/woman gets really angry and happens to have a gun lying around - heat of the moment, gun is fired, person dies.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if there wasn't a gun but a glass ashtray he'd use that. Are you going to ban glass ashtrays? The person would still be dead without a gun present. The murder will just take seconds like it would with a gun.
You heap endless blame on guns just like politicians do with games. You are as hypocritical as them. Ban games and enraged/violent kids will still kill each other. Ban guns and violent/enraged people will still kill eachother.
I don't want to live in the shitty parts of american or a country where everyone carries a gun. I just don't swallow the shit thats served. Guns by default aren't bad. A system that causes large amounts of people to be violent is to blame.
We disagree which is nice. If you want to take it further then start a thread. We can both share our bored time together..together.....<trails off humming a shitty song that I shouldn't know the lyrics too>
[ QUOTE ]
If you magically took guns away from everyone, the people that would use guns would just use something else.
[/ QUOTE ]And everyone just 'Magically' became masters of killing with teaspoons or planting falltraps filled with spikes on highways?
Bort, ever considered that a gun is immensely far easier to kill with than an ashtray? Heck, the blade of a K-Bar is nothing compared to a 9mm JHP shot from a 92FS. It might cause more damage, but on 50 meters away? I think not!
Compare a few 5.56mm bullets to a baseball bat.
You'll have to not only Swing the bat, but hit with it as well, AND avoid the guy defending and/or running away from you. And your work's not done here either. You'll have to spend several swings beating the other guy down to the ground, then pummel him for a good 30 seconds non-stop, taking the breath out of you...
Meanwhile, everyone near you have called the cops, and you're not in a situation to run!
With the gun, you just blow his butt away from a half-decent distance. No dodging bullets for him!
Bang Bang Bang, slip back into the crowd/car.
With your kind of logic, GTA should be sporting twincers, samurai-swords and chainsaws instead of assault rifles, because "they kill through other ways". Not that it wouldn't be cool to see, but I really doubt you'd do better against those gangmembers from Liberty City with kitchen utensils than you would with a submachinegun.
Get serious...
Fresh out of SA
well worth you time to read it:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/29/EDGQCDUQ071.DTL
- Controversial developer Rockstar is attracting unwanted attention again, this time before the release of its next title, Bully. For once, the outcry against the upcoming game comes mainly from non-American sources, as the UK-founded Bullying Online has led the charge against the game. Founder Liz Carnell said that the game "should be banned. I'm extremely worried that kids will play it and then act out what they've seen in the classroom." U.S. Attorney Jack Thompson has also begun his standard crusade, which will commence with a demonstration outside of Take-Two's Manhattan offices.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php
Joining the recent protests against the as-yet-unreleased title Bully from Rockstar Games is Washington group the Peaceaholics, who have released a list of demands to the Take-Two Games subsidiary. <font color="red">The Peaceaholics are requesting that Rockstar limit its games' market presence to adult video stores, that Bully in specific be released not at all, that Rockstar make a full refund to parents who have purchased Grand Theft Auto games, that Rockstar establish a fund for victims of carjackings, that the company make a national apology for "causing insurance premiums to sky rocket,"</font> and that Rockstar submit a written response within five business days of receiving the demands. The Peaceaholics have given no indication of their planned actions should Rockstar not meet any or all of the demands.
holy fucking shit...wow.
There's a cheat to unblur sims 2, i've heard...(o_O)
[/ QUOTE ]
they're fucking barbie dolls
also whatever, whatever laws there are now will be overruled in a year, and if anything BIG is done it will be gone in 5-10 or at most 20.
"hey dude have you tryed this shit, it is da best, 10$ a gramm"
"No, I get high on PEACE, allthough it absolutley messes up my capability to judge"
and fact,, I worked on sims 2 while at liquid,, there is absolutely no naughty bits..