Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Penny Arcade - Comic - Everything Old Is New Again

1246

Posts

  • OctoberRavenOctoberRaven Plays fighting games for the story Skyeline Hotel Apartment 4ARegistered User regular
    edited March 11
    d.TFFoS wrote: »
    The funniest part of this is people who see it as political point scoring rather than knowing in an alternate universe, it was written with an equally out of touch Hillary.

    I would think there are plenty of people here who remember Hilary's record. However this fallacious 'but she'd have done it too' holds little weight when in the end, Trump's party has a history of using this line whenever a mass shooting appears on the news (not when mass shootings happen, because they happen literally every day in the US), and in recent times, Hilary's party has not.

    And again 'but Hilary would have done it too' doesn't mean anything because Hilary doesn't have the pen. What she would have or would have not done is as relevant to the issue as what Ulfric Stormcloak or Princess Peach would have done.

    OctoberRaven on
    BloodySlothDarkPrimusDjiemH3KnucklesMan in the MistsHahnsoo1Leon2309SorceAndy JoeEdith UpwardsjlbAegerishoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • MiBMiB Registered User regular
    What's the quote at the bottom of the news post from? A quick google search keeps being frustrated.

    Also some people aren't going to agree with you on politics, chill TF out.

    I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against.
    Malcolm X
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »

    Would you happen to have a source for that? Genuinely curious, as I don't recall that.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-video-games/1839879/

    As one example.

    forty
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »

    Would you happen to have a source for that? Genuinely curious, as I don't recall that.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-video-games/1839879/

    As one example.

    Ars had an article on it as well.
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/03/yelling-at-scumbags-inside-the-white-houses-last-gaming-violence-meeting/

    Tldr: they did have meetings, and Biden was initially hostile, but he actually listened to the data.

    steam_sig.png
    fightinfilipinoforty
  • OctoberRavenOctoberRaven Plays fighting games for the story Skyeline Hotel Apartment 4ARegistered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »

    Would you happen to have a source for that? Genuinely curious, as I don't recall that.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-video-games/1839879/

    As one example.

    Ars had an article on it as well.
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/03/yelling-at-scumbags-inside-the-white-houses-last-gaming-violence-meeting/

    Tldr: they did have meetings, and Biden was initially hostile, but he actually listened to the data.

    Problem is, that time the meeting had researchers and scientists. This time, it's got the head of a powerful pro-censorship lobby.

    H3KnucklesMan in the MistsCambiatafightinfilipinoHahnsoo1Leon2309Moridin889AngelHedgieshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »

    Would you happen to have a source for that? Genuinely curious, as I don't recall that.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-video-games/1839879/

    As one example.

    Ars had an article on it as well.
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/03/yelling-at-scumbags-inside-the-white-houses-last-gaming-violence-meeting/

    Tldr: they did have meetings, and Biden was initially hostile, but he actually listened to the data.

    Hell, tbh Trump's meeting was kind of anti-climatic really by comparison. No real serious talk. It almost seemed to have been done just to make the craziest munchkins in Congress happy and nothing else. Wasn't even the hostile beginning. Not that Trump hasn't done plenty of other stupid shit worthy of criticism but eh. This was small potatoes compared to everything else really. I just wish that we wouldn't keep going in endless circles about this.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    It was done to ignore the real issue of course. Just like mental health is a dodge, talking about violent video games is ignoring the root cause of gun violence, you know guns.

    So Trump will have video game conferences, he'll have mental health conferences (while slashing funding for mental health), he'll have sham shows to advertise that we should arm teachers (while cutting federal funding for school security). But what he'll avoid is doing anything about Guns, because for all his big talk about not being afraid of the NRA, he's terrified of them as is his chicken shit party.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    H3KnucklesKalTorakDjiemLeon2309jlbThe Sauceshoeboxjeddy
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    It was done to ignore the real issue of course. Just like mental health is a dodge, talking about violent video games is ignoring the root cause of gun violence, you know guns.

    So Trump will have video game conferences, he'll have mental health conferences (while slashing funding for mental health), he'll have sham shows to advertise that we should arm teachers (while cutting federal funding for school security). But what he'll avoid is doing anything about Guns, because for all his big talk about not being afraid of the NRA, he's terrified of them as is his chicken shit party.

    I'd argue focusing on the guns alone is ignoring the root cause. A weapon is never the root cause to a problem. If it were, statistics would show proportionately that more guns always means more violence. There'd be no outliers. Hell violence has overall gone DOWN over the last few decades. If guns were the "root" cause that would NOT be the case. Still though screw arming teachers, and screw the NRA (these guys aren't about defending 2nd, they're about defending ignorance by actively preventing funding for research). But seriously anytime someone promotes guns as a "root cause" it is JUST as ignorant. Not even comparing Australia and UK works because such laws did exactly ZERO to their overall violence that wasn't already a part of their overall trends. Didn't even reduce the number of mass attacks they had, simply changed what was used. They already had a low number of those overall anyways when their gun laws took effect.

    Fact of the matter is we need to look into WHY these differences existed in the first place but everyone's afraid to go into detail. One side is afraid guns will be taken away, other wants an easy fix. Both are bullocks devoid of reality. If anything I would say mental health is the closer option given what most of the shooters have tended to have in common (something in their life completely going to hell) but I sure as hell don't believe for a second that most of the politicians who bring it up actually care for one reason that you do bring up. Slashing funding for mental health.

    RatherDashing89MagicalGoatsBRASKYthatSOB
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 11
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    It was done to ignore the real issue of course. Just like mental health is a dodge, talking about violent video games is ignoring the root cause of gun violence, you know guns.

    So Trump will have video game conferences, he'll have mental health conferences (while slashing funding for mental health), he'll have sham shows to advertise that we should arm teachers (while cutting federal funding for school security). But what he'll avoid is doing anything about Guns, because for all his big talk about not being afraid of the NRA, he's terrified of them as is his chicken shit party.

    I'd argue focusing on the guns alone is ignoring the root cause. A weapon is never the root cause to a problem. If it were, statistics would show proportionately that more guns always means more violence. There'd be no outliers. Hell violence has overall gone DOWN over the last few decades. If guns were the "root" cause that would NOT be the case. Still though screw arming teachers, and screw the NRA (these guys aren't about defending 2nd, they're about defending ignorance by actively preventing funding for research). But seriously anytime someone promotes guns as a "root cause" it is JUST as ignorant. Not even comparing Australia and UK works because such laws did exactly ZERO to their overall violence that wasn't already a part of their overall trends. Didn't even reduce the number of mass attacks they had, simply changed what was used. They already had a low number of those overall anyways when their gun laws took effect.

    Fact of the matter is we need to look into WHY these differences existed in the first place but everyone's afraid to go into detail. One side is afraid guns will be taken away, other wants an easy fix. Both are bullocks devoid of reality. If anything I would say mental health is the closer option given what most of the shooters have tended to have in common (something in their life completely going to hell) but I sure as hell don't believe for a second that most of the politicians who bring it up actually care for one reason that you do bring up. Slashing funding for mental health.

    Uh, only one side is afraid of going into detail, which is why the pro-gun lobby made it so the CDC can't study gun violence.

    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »

    Would you happen to have a source for that? Genuinely curious, as I don't recall that.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-video-games/1839879/

    As one example.

    That's Obama saying violent video games should be studied as well as research into gun violence. It's quite different than Trump's rhetoric.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    CambiataJaysonFour
  • RigamarawRigamaraw Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    I'd argue focusing on the guns alone is ignoring the root cause. A weapon is never the root cause to a problem. If it were, statistics would show proportionately that more guns always means more violence. There'd be no outliers. Hell violence has overall gone DOWN over the last few decades. If guns were the "root" cause that would NOT be the case. Still though screw arming teachers, and screw the NRA (these guys aren't about defending 2nd, they're about defending ignorance by actively preventing funding for research). But seriously anytime someone promotes guns as a "root cause" it is JUST as ignorant. Not even comparing Australia and UK works because such laws did exactly ZERO to their overall violence that wasn't already a part of their overall trends. Didn't even reduce the number of mass attacks they had, simply changed what was used. They already had a low number of those overall anyways when their gun laws took effect.

    Fact of the matter is we need to look into WHY these differences existed in the first place but everyone's afraid to go into detail. One side is afraid guns will be taken away, other wants an easy fix. Both are bullocks devoid of reality. If anything I would say mental health is the closer option given what most of the shooters have tended to have in common (something in their life completely going to hell) but I sure as hell don't believe for a second that most of the politicians who bring it up actually care for one reason that you do bring up. Slashing funding for mental health.

    The reality is that if you look at the FBI stats on these events, mass shootings in particular, then you see that mental health is a scapegoat. Something like 20% of mass shooters have mental health issues. I think mental health can and should be part of the conversation, but we can't pretend that it's the be-all, end-all of it. To not talk about guns and how they relate to mass shootings is peak insanity. No one is saying that it's the gun's fault, that's a straw man argument. What people are saying is that guns are directly related to mass shootings and gun violence, and, frankly, the arguments that these same events can happen with a knife or other implement is a false equivalency. There's a reason explosives, bomb-making materials, and fully automatic weapons are so tightly regulated, and to ignore the effect that easy access to semi-automatic rifles and other guns has on events like these is willfully ignorant.

    One side is selling fear, and the other is trying to find some kind of solution. Also, what mass attacks has Australia had since they enacted their comprehensive buyback program? One thing is certain and that is we will never stop bad people from doing bad things, but to actively make it easier for them is ludicrous.

  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 11
    DarkPrimus wrote: »

    Uh, only one side is afraid of going into detail, which is why the pro-gun lobby made it so the CDC can't study gun violence.

    That's Obama saying violent video games should be studied as well as research into gun violence. It's quite different than Trump's rhetoric.

    Except Trump hasn't made an rhetoric on video games beyond what Obama has. I think you're mistaking him for one of the Congressman that's been going off the rails. Understandable since Trump goes hella off the rails a lot. Honestly this is the biggest problem I have with people criticizing Trump. I hate the guy. I DESPISE him. But so often people take what others have said or what one assumes was said and attribute it to him. I'm halfway to applying to see if I can go to Canada over this combined bullshit because there's more than enough ammo against Trump to crush him but people keep giving him and his followers ammo by going above and beyond what was stated when what he's said is just as bad or bad enough anyways.

    And bullshit that they're the only ones afraid of going into detail. Most of the time I see people demanding gun control and downplaying the mental health aspect or other possible aspects. In fact this is the most common position from Democrat politicians on the subject to be blunt. There are plenty of individuals who aren't but given who I was responding to claiming that guns were the "root cause", this is NOT an uncommon position in the slightest. In fact it was the position that CAUSED UK and Australia to go full on gun control in knee jerk reaction to singular incidents.
    Rigamaraw wrote: »
    The reality is that if you look at the FBI stats on these events, mass shootings in particular, then you see that mental health is a scapegoat. Something like 20% of mass shooters have mental health issues. I think mental health can and should be part of the conversation, but we can't pretend that it's the be-all, end-all of it. To not talk about guns and how they relate to mass shootings is peak insanity. No one is saying that it's the gun's fault, that's a straw man argument. What people are saying is that guns are directly related to mass shootings and gun violence, and, frankly, the arguments that these same events can happen with a knife or other implement is a false equivalency. There's a reason explosives, bomb-making materials, and fully automatic weapons are so tightly regulated, and to ignore the effect that easy access to semi-automatic rifles and other guns has on events like these is willfully ignorant.

    One side is selling fear, and the other is trying to find some kind of solution. Also, what mass attacks has Australia had since they enacted their comprehensive buyback program? One thing is certain and that is we will never stop bad people from doing bad things, but to actively make it easier for them is ludicrous.

    I did say it seemed closer to the mark rather than it being end all, be all. And to be fair, the data you mention takes into account what's considered mental illnesses rather than overall mental health which goes above and beyond just that. Also don't kid yourself. Both are selling fear. One just disguises their fear-mongering as a solution so they don't have to take the time to look for solutions in detail.

    As for what attacks Australia has had since their buyback? The Melbourne car attack earlier this year is the most recent examples. Several major arson attacks that have caused multiple deaths have also occurred.

    Also not ignoring the effects. I looked at the fact that violent crimes have dropped while gun technology has improved and become widespread and realized "HEY! Something doesn't add up if these are the problem and the trends don't match gun control either! So something else significant must have changed" And no, violent attacks of any sort are NOT a false equivalency. DEATH is DEATH. If something kills someone, it is a PROBLEM. To ignore the problem because of the tool is to reject the significance that death plays. That one element is WHY the subject is important at all. If no one died the subject would be of zero importance. If someone I care about is killed, I don't give two shits about the weapon that was used, only that they were killed. If you want to solve a problem involving murder you can't look only at the weapon. Not in a world where anything and everything can be a weapon.

    Kuari999 on
  • RigamarawRigamaraw Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    I did say it seemed closer to the mark rather than it being end all, be all. And to be fair, the data you mention takes into account what's considered mental illnesses rather than overall mental health which goes above and beyond just that. Also don't kid yourself. Both are selling fear. One just disguises their fear-mongering as a solution so they don't have to take the time to look for solutions in detail.

    As for what attacks Australia has had since their buyback? The Melbourne car attack earlier this year is the most recent examples. Several major arson attacks that have caused multiple deaths have also occurred.

    The car attack was tragic, but killed 6 compared to 35 in Port Arthur. The arson attacks appear to be stretched out over a much larger period of time and have similar statistics. We can compare the Boston Marathon bombing that killed 3 to Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, or Parkland. The reality is that guns are dangerous and to say they aren't is ridiculous. Guns don't do anything by themselves, but they do make killing large numbers of people easier, and this is coming from a gun enthusiast.

    What message of fear is the other side selling? Because, to me, "we have to do something," and, "guns make killing people easier," aren't fear-mongering. If you want to see fear-mongering, then look at almost any NRATV program or ad. Also, how can we have any meaningful impact on mental health while insurance is being cut or rolled back across the board? You can also compare Obama to Trump if you want, but the former suggested the CDC study the effect of violent video games, while the latter produced a compilation of violent video game footage to shock people. One of these is not like the other.

    PreacherH3KnucklesDjiemcB557QuidMcFodderLeon2309Nobodyshoeboxjeddy
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    I'd say sending someone aggressive on the subject matches up with the compilation quite nicely. Also overall I wouldn't compare the two. I didn't like Obama but I'd take him over what we have now in a heartbeat... but I personally would consider the starts of both meetings the be VERY comparably awful and mostly find what ultimately resulted in both to be "eh, nothing new". Also I'd very much consider "Hey, this jackass used a gun to kill people! Let's take guns from the people who didn't because simply having them around we never know when the next attack will happen!" as fear mongering bullocks rather than a solution. It pushes the idea that anyone with a gun is a potential danger rather than looking at "ok... why is this happening? The issue didn't present itself in this matter until recently... what changed?" And if taking away guns is the solution? Fine? Great. But when the solution is always immediately that and no one is pushing to remove the Dickey Amendment (come on, Dems had complete control at one point. If they gave a shit about information they could have prioritized this) so we can get more information? I am deeply suspicious of their intentions and sure as hell am not going to believe they actually WANT the details.

  • RigamarawRigamaraw Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    I'd say sending someone aggressive on the subject matches up with the compilation quite nicely. Also overall I wouldn't compare the two. I didn't like Obama but I'd take him over what we have now in a heartbeat... but I personally would consider the starts of both meetings the be VERY comparably awful and mostly find what ultimately resulted in both to be "eh, nothing new". Also I'd very much consider "Hey, this jackass used a gun to kill people! Let's take guns from the people who didn't because simply having them around we never know when the next attack will happen!" as fear mongering bullocks rather than a solution. It pushes the idea that anyone with a gun is a potential danger rather than looking at "ok... why is this happening? The issue didn't present itself in this matter until recently... what changed?" And if taking away guns is the solution? Fine? Great. But when the solution is always immediately that and no one is pushing to remove the Dickey Amendment (come on, Dems had complete control at one point. If they gave a shit about information they could have prioritized this) so we can get more information? I am deeply suspicious of their intentions and sure as hell am not going to believe they actually WANT the details.

    "Let's take guns from the people who didn't because simply having them around we never know when the next attack will happen," is a gross mischaracterization of what the vast majority of people, including myself, want. Even Australia's buyback program didn't eliminate guns from the country. I absolutely agree about the Dickey Amendment, and there was a push to get rid of it between 2013 to 2015, but it failed. It failed due to GOP push-back and because health insurance was the primary concern while they had control. I'd love to say it isn't a partisan issue, but voting records are comprehensive and clear on the subject.

    Ultimately I appreciate your point of view on the topic but disagree at a fundamental level. That said, have a good one; I'm going to try to catch up on my D&D shows while I have some time to myself.

    H3KnucklesCambiatacB557
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    I'm convinced that most of the right wing, are by their nature, against mental healthcare. No matter how much they say otherwise. It's just meaningless noises.
    This is the group of people that always talk about "personal responsibility" and fetishizes the concept of the rugged individual. They see no problem with the Vegas Shooter being "responsible" for the shooting and therefore killing himself. He made his choice so why should I have to spend any money on that sicko? Clearly, liberals just want a nanny state where they expect other people to do things for them.

    These kinds of people really base their worldview on a punitive system of justice and care not one jot for actual consequences. It's all deontological ethics all the way down. It's why the whole guns don't kill people line gets so much play. Because the emphasis is on moral agents rather than actual inhuman or natural causes. Guns do kill people. I'm sick of hearing otherwise. It's a vital cog in the process. It's like saying ebola doesn't kill people simply because ebola has no moral agency.

    I find it immensely childish and irritating. It basically amounts to: "I'm not at a fault so it's not my problem."
    That's not responsibility. That's the opposite.

    Twenty Sided on
    DjiemH3KnucklesSadgasmEdith UpwardsMan in the Mistsshoeboxjeddy
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes. Well... kind of. Some things I'm definitely for like electronic fingerprint lock safeties and the like. But in general any change that can be summed up as "someone else did something bad so all need to suffer for it" I'm not really a fan of unless there's no real other choice.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes.

    Well good news! The NRA made sure such research will not be made!

    I wonder why...

    Leon2309Rhesus PositiveJaysonFour
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Djiem wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes.

    Well good news! The NRA made sure such research will not be made!

    I wonder why...

    Because its a business organization, not a public organization and corporations in the US have a habit of using lobbyists to bribe officials to prevent anything that even has the SLIGHTEST potential of screwing with their business. Which is quite frankly why the NRA and other lobbying organizations need to f right off.

    EDIT: And frankly I blame Dems just as much because even when they were in a perfect position to fix the issue, they chose NOT to. If one has the ability to fix something and opts not to, imo it makes one just as responsible as the ones that CAUSED the problem in the first place.

    Kuari999 on
  • Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Edit: Redundant.

    In other news, that's a "both sides" argument. It's false South Park equivalency that the Dems have no interest in fixing the issue as opposed to being unable to.
    They also weren't the ones to back things like Citizens United.

    Twenty Sided on
    PreacherDjiemLeon2309Rhesus PositiveYoungFreyAngelHedgieMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Edit: Redundant.

    In other news, that's a "both sides" argument. It's false South Park equivalency that the Dems have no interest in fixing the issue as opposed to being unable to.
    They also weren't the ones to back things like Citizens United.

    Except they have been able to. During the Obama administration there was a period where they had control over House, Senate AND Presidency. During which they passed multiple bills that were extremely unpopular with Republicans. They were 100% capable during that time as proven by multiple bills during that period that had next to no Republican support. They have no interest in fixing it because it gives them something to claim moral superiority over.

    Also so what if its a "both sides" argument. If both sides are being jackasses you call them both out. Simple as that. Its not my fault that most politicians care more about their power and that's how we got Trump in the first place rather than actually caring about fixing things. Simply, if your choices are a shit sandwich or piss cocktail, I'm not going to say "oh that's ok because one's better than the other". Either way I'm not eating/drinking either.

    Kuari999 on
    Edith UpwardsMagicalGoats
  • Xshu BastionXshu Bastion Registered User new member
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Also so what if its a "both sides" argument. If both sides are being jackasses you call them both out. Simple as that. Its not my fault that most politicians care more about their power and that's how we got Trump in the first place rather than actually caring about fixing things. Simply, if your choices are a shit sandwich or piss cocktail, I'm not going to say "oh that's ok because one's better than the other". Either way I'm not eating/drinking either.
    You're correct that the Democrats are very guilty of obeying their lobbyists, but this is a serious false equivalency. Yes, both sides are corrupt. Yes, the Democrats have often been in positions to fix problems that they didn't didn't fix. Yes, the Democrats morally grandstand just like the Republicans do. But the Democrats aren't regularly and vehemently anti-science. They don't deny the role humans play in climate change, they don't legislate for teaching creationism in public schools, and they don't block government organizations from being allowed to do research because it might hurt sales. The only time I see a far-right person (which has somehow become almost the entire right) take science into consideration these days is when they're trying to use genetic research to justify their desire for the USA to be a white ethnostate. This isn't a shit sandwich and a piss cocktail, it's a piss cocktail and a big box of cyanide. You may not like one, but saying "I don't care which one gets served to me because they're both bad" is irresponsible, particularly because the box of cyanide has been served to you; why the fuck are you even bringing up the cocktail?

    H3Knuckles
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    How does the Democrats passing healthcare instead of gun control while they were in power make them equally culpable as the GOP, who actively fight against any form of gun research or control and have now held both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court for just as long and also not passed any gun control? Everything you’re saying that Democrats did wrong, the Republicans have done the way worse version.

    So no, your “both sides are bad” argument is bad. It’s willful blindness and just one of the many tools used to preserve the status quo, I.e. people getting murdered very easily.

    Leon2309CambiataDarkPrimusDjiemAndy JoeYoungFreyTofystedethNobodyAngelHedgiejmcdonaldH3KnucklesJacques L'HommeMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes. Well... kind of. Some things I'm definitely for like electronic fingerprint lock safeties and the like. But in general any change that can be summed up as "someone else did something bad so all need to suffer for it" I'm not really a fan of unless there's no real other choice.

    Don't bother doing any sort of gun control before researching if guns are dangerous? Next you'll tell me the jury's still out on climate change.

    And I find it galling that you make a comment about "everyone suffering because one person did something bad" when that's what keeps happening over and over in this country. One person does something bad. With a gun. And a lot of people suffer for it. Because they got shot by that person.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Moridin889CambiataDjiemTofystedethH3KnucklesMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • flashoverrideflashoverride Registered User regular
    Lot of political diversity in this thread! /s

    Sometimes I just gotta shake my head. Do you guys really believe there is a massive overlap between kotakuinaction and the_donald? Being a regular of both I can assure you there is not, so there's not a whole lot of fawning gamergaters that will somehow be upset by this move. Just because you disagree with both doesn't make them agree with each other.

    I for one would agree to the basic premise that gaming doesn't incite violence in the typical user, but then Jodie Foster didn't do anything to trigger John Hinckley and that still happened. Some people are messed up and violent video games can contribute to their mental state. Something to look at, but I'm not sure we can derive political policy out of it.

    Now someone having the police visit them 30+ times, get kicked out of school for violent offenses that weren't prosecuted so the county could fudge their crime statistics, get called in to the FBI TWICE and identified on social media where he USED HIS REAL, ACTUAL LEGAL NAME and nothing was done about it? And then while he was perpetrating his heinous act, the same Sheriff's department tried to "establish a perimeter" instead of going in, which is in direct contravention to all training, tactics, and procedures established and practiced by law enforcement since Columbine? Who was only able to pass a NICS check after filling out a 4473 because the local Sheriffs FAILED to charge, prosecute and convict on any number of possible FELONY or Domestic Violence misdemeanors, including being told that he held a gun to someone's head?

    Yeah, I think this could have been handled better.

    As for everything else, the Republican party doesn't go after the NRA in large part because most of the 5 million members of the NRA are Republicans. So.... it would be counter-productive.

    Namrok
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    Do you guys really believe there is a massive overlap between kotakuinaction and the_donald? Being a regular of both

    Well, I mean...

    Rhesus PositiveAndy JoeTofystedethHahnsoo1PreacherLeon2309NobodyEdith UpwardsCambiataEbola ColakimeknitdanThawmusMagicalGoatsmilskiTychoCelchuuuAegeriTim is on the InternetjmcdonaldH3KnucklesMan in the MistsTamerBillJaysonFour
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    As for everything else, the Republican party doesn't go after the NRA in large part because most of the 5 million members of the NRA are Republicans. So.... it would be counter-productive.

    The number of Republicans who are not NRA members far out-number the number of Republicans who are NRA members. And even if that weren't the case, it would only be "counter-productive" in the sense that doing the right thing would lead to them maybe not getting re-elected... which is a pretty sorry excuse, all things considered!

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Andy JoeKalTorakDjiemLeon2309MagicalGoatsH3KnucklesMan in the Mists
  • YoungFreyYoungFrey Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    As for everything else, the Republican party doesn't go after the NRA in large part because most of the 5 million members of the NRA are Republicans. So.... it would be counter-productive.

    The number of Republicans who are not NRA members far out-number the number of Republicans who are NRA members. And even if that weren't the case, it would only be "counter-productive" in the sense that doing the right thing would lead to them maybe not getting re-elected... which is a pretty sorry excuse, all things considered!

    Just to provide some data. There are around 5 million paying NRA members. Of course the way politics works in the US, where those 5 million live makes all the difference. As for how that relates to voters:
    As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.
    There are about 250 million registered voters. So there are about 60M registered Republicans, and 105M Independents. Assuming that no NRA members are Democrats (false, but probably statistically close to true (especially in how they vote)), those 5M NRA members (not all of which can vote) would be between 3% and 8.3% of registered voters likely to vote for a Republican.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    And a lot new people become eligible to vote every year. The age shift might make a difference in future elections. Might want to please those people (or at least attempt to placate them if all you care about is winning).

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Djiem wrote: »
    And a lot new people become eligible to vote every year. The age shift might make a difference in future elections. Might want to please those people (or at least attempt to placate them if all you care about is winning).

    There are plenty of millenial and Gen Z gun owners. Not all gun owners are paying NRA members.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    NRA members and NRA lobbying efforts don't exactly match up either. The majority of NRA members support legislation requiring background checks, but the NRA fights tooth and nail against anything that comes close.

    The NRA doesn't serve its membership, it serves the gun manufacturers.

    ZomroDarkPrimusKuari999Man in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited March 12
    KalTorak wrote: »
    NRA members and NRA lobbying efforts don't exactly match up either. The majority of NRA members support legislation requiring background checks, but the NRA fights tooth and nail against anything that comes close.

    The NRA doesn't serve its membership, it serves the gun manufacturers.

    Sort of. Federal background checks for purchase already exist and are required by law for any purchase from an FFL holder. That is what NICS is.

    However, it depends on how the question is worded.

    If you ask "do you support background checks?" to a gun owner the first thought is likely "yes, I see no problem with NICS, in fact NICS could be better funded", not "yes, I want the FBI to scrape the walls of my anus every time I think about purchasing some ammo".

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    NRA members and NRA lobbying efforts don't exactly match up either. The majority of NRA members support legislation requiring background checks, but the NRA fights tooth and nail against anything that comes close.

    The NRA doesn't serve its membership, it serves the gun manufacturers.

    Sort of. Federal background checks for purchase already exist and are required by law for any purchase from an FFL holder. That is what NICS is.

    However, it depends on how the question is worded.

    If you ask "do you support background checks?" to a gun owner the first thought is likely "yes, I see no problem with NICS, in fact NICS could be better funded", not "yes, I want the FBI to scrape the walls of my anus every time I think about purchasing some ammo".

    The NRA has made sure that the files aren't allowed to be digitized, and that most states have laws saying that if they can't find any reason to deny someone a gun within a few days, they have to give them it, even if the background check isn't actually completed - in other words, deliberately creating a system that works too slow to be effective at doing what it's supposed to do.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Leon2309Man in the Mistsshoeboxjeddy
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes. Well... kind of. Some things I'm definitely for like electronic fingerprint lock safeties and the like. But in general any change that can be summed up as "someone else did something bad so all need to suffer for it" I'm not really a fan of unless there's no real other choice.

    Don't bother doing any sort of gun control before researching if guns are dangerous? Next you'll tell me the jury's still out on climate change.

    And I find it galling that you make a comment about "everyone suffering because one person did something bad" when that's what keeps happening over and over in this country. One person does something bad. With a gun. And a lot of people suffer for it. Because they got shot by that person.

    No, but I will tell you you're putting words in my mouth like a fucking politician. There's a difference between something being dangerous and something CAUSING the problem rather than being the tool used. You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form. Also there is a clear difference between the law forcing something on someone and someone like what you describe. Law is supposed to be fair and just. When an individual does things like this, its unacceptable. The law doing something unfair to others in response to that individual without seeing if it'd even WORK in the first place and that there aren't fair alternatives is unacceptable as well. If making sure something actually would WORK and isn't out of line or wouldn't make things WORSE is a bad idea in your eyes, don't know what to tell you.

    Also climate change has been proven. The idea that guns have to go to significantly reduce violent incidents has not and in fact I'd argue that as far as I can tell, the opposite has been shown so far. But either way, something being dangerous is not cause alone to remove something unless you apply that logic to everything the same way. Clearly you're not willing to do that though if you're willing to make shit up about what people say to make your argument.

    EDIT: why I mention things getting worse is because given the gun environment in the US I'm willing to bet if they tried a program like in the UK or Australia here... then well... things will get very ugly in some areas of the states I imagine. I could be wrong but I sure as hell would want that possibility examined rather than trip over that landmine.

    Kuari999 on
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes. Well... kind of. Some things I'm definitely for like electronic fingerprint lock safeties and the like. But in general any change that can be summed up as "someone else did something bad so all need to suffer for it" I'm not really a fan of unless there's no real other choice.

    Don't bother doing any sort of gun control before researching if guns are dangerous? Next you'll tell me the jury's still out on climate change.

    And I find it galling that you make a comment about "everyone suffering because one person did something bad" when that's what keeps happening over and over in this country. One person does something bad. With a gun. And a lot of people suffer for it. Because they got shot by that person.

    No, but I will tell you you're putting words in my mouth like a fucking politician. There's a difference between something being dangerous and something CAUSING the problem rather than being the tool used. You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.

    I dunno, seems like the fact that cars and knives have actual uses beyond killing people is relevant.

    Also, we have all sorts of laws about who can drive cars and how they're allowed to do so, and testing requirements.

    steam_sig.png
    Hahnsoo1DjiemLeon2309BloodySlothZomroRhesus PositiveDarkPrimusEdith UpwardsCambiataNothingkimeH3KnucklesMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.
    I would not make your go-to example "cars" in this respect, given that we have a comprehensive system for tracking people via car ownership and licensing in place, as well as an insurance infrastructure and legal framework for liability. I would LOVE firearms to be regulated just as much as cars are.

    Wanting research about firearms and wanting firearm regulations is NOT the same thing as wanting to ban all firearms. But most pro-gun advocates don't make that distinction.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    PreacherYoungFreyQuidDjiemAndy JoeLeon2309BloodySlothZomroNobodyRhesus PositiveDarkPrimusMarathonNothingkimemilskiTychoCelchuuuBRIAN BLESSEDTim is on the InternetjmcdonaldH3KnucklesJacques L'HommeMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes. Well... kind of. Some things I'm definitely for like electronic fingerprint lock safeties and the like. But in general any change that can be summed up as "someone else did something bad so all need to suffer for it" I'm not really a fan of unless there's no real other choice.

    Don't bother doing any sort of gun control before researching if guns are dangerous? Next you'll tell me the jury's still out on climate change.

    And I find it galling that you make a comment about "everyone suffering because one person did something bad" when that's what keeps happening over and over in this country. One person does something bad. With a gun. And a lot of people suffer for it. Because they got shot by that person.

    No, but I will tell you you're putting words in my mouth like a fucking politician. There's a difference between something being dangerous and something CAUSING the problem rather than being the tool used. You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.

    I dunno, seems like the fact that cars and knives have actual uses beyond killing people is relevant.

    Also, we have all sorts of laws about who can drive cars and how they're allowed to do so, and testing requirements.

    It would be relevant, if that was true of guns too. Hunting and sport shooting as well as home defense and the purposes that were the entire reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place. Not against changes as I said, but such changes need to be justified especially in the face of people who might take the history we have with the 2nd amendment far too seriously.

    @Hahnsoo1 no no, I'm fine with making it an example. You have a point with cars. In fact I'd argue much of what occurs with cars is common sense. To be quite honest the kind of regulation I'd be for without question would involve safety courses and things like being REQUIRED by law to lock up certain weapon types when they're not in use. Stuff like that. And I'm aware that many want them regulated in that fashion. Problem is many want more extreme regulation and I'll admit, quite often I do assume that's the kind people are talking about rather than these examples since these kinds of regulations are almost never covered by the media or in these discussions. Imo these would serve to make it more difficult for younger and immature people to get hold of guns and reduce the ability to get weapons on a whim without punishing others. A basic safety course doesn't seem like punishment to me, more a guarantee that you know how to handle them properly.

    But here's a thing to keep in mind. Despite the regulation with cars, almost everyone has access to them. Some exception but I think that's also why many pushing regulation don't usually mean this kind of thing. Because such setups are not overly difficult to get through. A hassle at times but still. Now overall registration... that I know has the potential to be a problem because I know a few gun nuts who'd see that as a sign that government is preparing to take away their guns and while I'm not against the concept... those are waters to tread carefully.

    Kuari999 on
  • Andy JoeAndy Joe The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    .
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.

    People have addressed cars already, but it should be pointed out that there are also plenty of laws regulating knives and banning the possession of certain types.

    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane
    Pokemon Moon Name: Moon
    Leon2309H3KnucklesMan in the Mists
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    .
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.

    People have addressed cars already, but it should be pointed out that there are also plenty of laws regulating knives and banning the possession of certain types.

    Yes, by saying there are other uses... which I believe *I* addressed if you actually ready beyond that line.
    Also frankly those bans on knives are only in certain areas... and are honestly kind of bullocks as they've literally done nothing and restricted people for no effective or good reason. The fact that law exists doesn't mean its worth agreeing with.

    EDIT: Just double checked.. switchblades are federally banned I just learned... I just didn't realize that some knives that function EXACTLY like them aren't considered switchblades by federal law. Soooo guess that kind of adds to how silly the existing ban is.

    Kuari999 on
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Kuari, are you for or against implementing more gun control laws?

    Against until we actually have serious research on the subject that'd justify it rather than making other changes. Well... kind of. Some things I'm definitely for like electronic fingerprint lock safeties and the like. But in general any change that can be summed up as "someone else did something bad so all need to suffer for it" I'm not really a fan of unless there's no real other choice.

    Don't bother doing any sort of gun control before researching if guns are dangerous? Next you'll tell me the jury's still out on climate change.

    And I find it galling that you make a comment about "everyone suffering because one person did something bad" when that's what keeps happening over and over in this country. One person does something bad. With a gun. And a lot of people suffer for it. Because they got shot by that person.

    No, but I will tell you you're putting words in my mouth like a fucking politician. There's a difference between something being dangerous and something CAUSING the problem rather than being the tool used. You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.

    I dunno, seems like the fact that cars and knives have actual uses beyond killing people is relevant.

    Also, we have all sorts of laws about who can drive cars and how they're allowed to do so, and testing requirements.

    It would be relevant, if that was true of guns too. Hunting and sport shooting as well as home defense and the purposes that were the entire reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    steam_sig.png
    Leon2309H3Knucklesshoeboxjeddy
Sign In or Register to comment.