Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on July 26, 2008, 03:28:38 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7524607.stm
Thankfully no one was killed, but 3 were hurt.
-
Well, that article tells me damn near nothing...
-
Failure to care imminent.
-
ah, my old stomping ground. i wonder if it was the school i went to.
-
Well, that article tells me damn near nothing...
it tells us that guns are dangerous and available and that education can be dangerous......
one hopes eventually that the right to carry arms in the USA is finally abolished , you have an army now and no longer rely on a militia
-
Well, that article tells me damn near nothing...
it tells us that guns are dangerous and available and that education can be dangerous......
one hopes eventually that the right to carry arms in the USA is finally abolished , you have an army now and no longer rely on a militia
Because banning something makes it stop/go away. :rolleyes:
-
i seem to remember alcohol being abolished and that simply causing more problems... or the UK gun ban that then put even the police at a disadvantage...
-
As I recall most police in the UK don't carry guns even now, so how on earth could a gun ban have caused problems for them?
-
banning something does not make it stop or go away but it does make it more unlikly too happen , but then again if i remember the facts say that if we study the countries that have the same gun laws as america there is one significant fact that " americans and guns is a bad combination"
-
i want to see an unarmed (read: no long range weapons, billy clubs/swords noninclusive) police force take down an armed gunman
-
I said most, not all. They have special 'firearms units' which do carry such weapons, but generally your average policeman on the street does not. Of course, this may have changed and be all wrong, in which case I'm sure some UK resident will correct me.
-
run them over using an amoured car seems to work , G8 protests in italy prove that armoured cars even moving slowly can stop and kill "violent and dangerous people"
"...." very old referance
-
banning something does not make it stop or go away but it does make it more unlikly too happen
No it doesn't.
It opens up black markets for the banned items, leading to organized crime. (See: Drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel), Prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States)) It makes it extremely dangerous and near impossible for people who need firearms to defend themselves to acquire them, and it skyrockets gun violence rates in areas that implement bans (Washington DC was at emergency levels in 2006).
-
Well, that article tells me damn near nothing...
it tells us that guns are dangerous and available and that education can be dangerous......
one hopes eventually that the right to carry arms in the USA is finally abolished , you have an army now and no longer rely on a militia
And what happens when the defecation hits the ventilation? And besides the point, it is completely unconstitutional. I'm all for gun education and stricted, less retarded parents, but i'm not about to give up my right to bear arms.
-
banning something does not make it stop or go away but it does make it more unlikly too happen
No it doesn't.
It opens up black markets for the banned items, leading to organized crime. (See: Drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel), Prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States)) It makes it extremely dangerous and near impossible for people who need firearms to defend themselves to acquire them, and it skyrockets gun violence rates in areas that implement bans (Washington DC was at emergency levels in 2006).
then why if it changes nothing are there less gun related crimes in the uk where its virtualy impossible to get a gun , and skool based shootings seem to be virtualy inexistant , par capita
-
Are you talking about the UK, or Britain?
-
then why if it changes nothing are there less gun related crimes in the uk where its virtualy impossible to get a gun , and skool based shootings seem to be virtualy inexistant , par capita
Apples and oranges.
You're comparing Britain (a country with no real gun culture), to a country whose supreme law of the land protects the right to bear arms. Surprisingly enough to the Eurocentrics among us, what works for Europe is not always going to work for the United States as well.
-
Also, Britain is an island, and the nearest neighbors have a similar outlooks on guns, whereas the US have large, unguarded borders and manufactures many weapons themselves.
-
im actually supprised noone shot back. in phoenix, everyone and their mother owns a gun.
-
banning something does not make it stop or go away but it does make it more unlikly too happen
No it doesn't.
It opens up black markets for the banned items, leading to organized crime. (See: Drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel), Prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States)) It makes it extremely dangerous and near impossible for people who need firearms to defend themselves to acquire them, and it skyrockets gun violence rates in areas that implement bans (Washington DC was at emergency levels in 2006).
So why aren't there raging gun battles in the UK, where there are very strict gun bans? Why does that only seem to happen in the US?
I think that it's because it is too easy to get guns illegally in the US. As a result we've got gangs running around with AK 47's.
-
Did you not read how I said "apples and oranges" to almost the exact same question? :rolleyes:
-
Well, that article tells me damn near nothing...
it tells us that guns are dangerous and available and that education can be dangerous......
one hopes eventually that the right to carry arms in the USA is finally abolished , you have an army now and no longer rely on a militia
Why would you want that right abolished? Thats retarded. So when someone breaks into your home with an illegal firearm, WTF ARE YOU GUNNA SHOOT HIM WITH?!? A SLINGSHOT?!
-
WTF ARE YOU GUNNA SHOOT HIM WITH?!? A SLINGSHOT?!
I'm simply not going to shoot him.
1.Changes are he is in reality a family member.
2.If he has a gun, he may rob me - I call they police, they catch him, I probably get my stuff back. If they dont, well, I still live. Guns dont protect against bullets. If a robber sees me with a gun in my hand, what will he do? Wait until I shoot?
3."Illegal firearm" - when firearms are banned, that happens far less often than you might think. If I want to break in a house that has no firearm, what do i need one for? If he wakes up and catches me, i simply run, he cant shoot me in the back, can he?
Why engaging with possible deadly, organized criminiality to purchase an quite expensive gun (what, you think smuggling is for free?) for basically no benefit?
Criminals like Bankrobbers will most likely still somehow get their weapons, thats true.
I also have to agree that, if there would be a nationalwide (enforced) gunban, it would take many years for it to have notable effect, until most firearms disappeared from the society.
During this time, things probably would get worse, not better.
-
1. If s/he's breaking into your house, s/he would be the worst family member of all time.
2. You are now a witness to a crime, goodbye.
3. There are so many things wrong with that statement that I can't even begin to point them out in a coherent fashion. I'll let someone else do it.
-
I'm simply not going to shoot him.
1.Changes are he is in reality a family member.
2.If he has a gun, he may rob me - I call they police, they catch him, I probably get my stuff back. If they dont, well, I still live. Guns dont protect against bullets. If a robber sees me with a gun in my hand, what will he do? Wait until I shoot?
3."Illegal firearm" - when firearms are banned, that happens far less often than you might think. If I want to break in a house that has no firearm, what do i need one for? If he wakes up and catches me, i simply run, he cant shoot me in the back, can he?
Why engaging with possible deadly, organized criminiality to purchase an quite expensive gun (what, you think smuggling is for free?) for basically no benefit?
Criminals like Bankrobbers will most likely still somehow get their weapons, thats true.
I also have to agree that, if there would be a nationalwide (enforced) gunban, it would take many years for it to have notable effect, until most firearms disappeared from the society.
During this time, things probably would get worse, not better.
1. You have very strange family, then, if they're breaking into your house for nonviolent reasons.
2. There are a number of basic counterarguments here. The majority of home-invasion robbers that go wrong because the homeowner has a gun, for example, the robber does fire, but because a murder gets pursued a lot more aggressively then a robbery with gun violations, he has a vested interest in not actually hitting. On top of that, I could cite S.L.A. Marshall's studies post WWII; we are not natural killers. (It's also worthwhile to note that the majority of people who commit crimes with a gun in hand are not exactly trained in its proper use; misses due to sheer ineptness are entirely possible, even likely. It's surprisingly hard to hit somebody at 15 feet in the dark holding your gun sideways like a loon.)
2a. You might just get shot anyways so you can't give a coherent report to the police about the robber, or he might adopt a dead-men-tell-no-tales approach, in which case you're screwed.
2b. Home field advantage. The man who is sitting does the hitting. He's here to rob the place, so he's not exactly looking for the people. I could go on, if you like.
3. Tell that to the rising gun crime in the UK.
-
3. Tell that to the rising gun crime in the UK.
:wtf: Tell it what exactly? Tell it that it's falling but it should be rising so that you look like you actually did your homework? :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide_and_firearms_crime
-
3. Tell that to the rising gun crime in the UK.
:wtf: Tell it what exactly? Tell it that it's falling but it should be rising so that you look like you actually did your homework? :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Homicide_and_firearms_crime
Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[31] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by the use of the gun as a blunt instrument or as a threat, or by being shot. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[19]
Uh?
-
Read the rest of that link. Overall gun crimes are down on 2002. Murders have stayed constant. More crimes are committed with replicas or airguns.
How is that a rising gun crime rate? Sure you can pick an arbitrary point and say that the trend is up from there but the simple fact is that it has consistently fallen or remained stable in the last 5 years based on the figures on that page. It's certainly difficult to make that claim when non-suicide deaths by firearms have remained roughly the same for over 15 years. Even at worst that means that although the number of crimes have gone up the number of people killed in the commission of those crimes has remained the same.
Surely a convincing argument against the whole "I need a gun to defend myself" premise. If criminals having guns while the general population doesn't is supposed to result in more gun deaths it certainly hasn't here in the UK. Maybe our criminals are just too polite to kill you. :p
-
If i was allowed to carry a ballistic Knife....
-
You probably won't ever need it. But theres always that chance kara. too many people look upon the US as an untouchable piece of land that has some kind of magical barrier surrounding it. Every one of the wars we fought outside of revolutionary, 1812, WW II, and Civil was mainly us picking on the weak for oil and money. Another thing people assume is there will never be another hitler. No, there won't be, because anyone that ambitious would learn from his mistakes. You'd be dealing with a far worse individual. And finally; gangs troublesome, yes. but you think that all their guns will just go away? no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.
-
no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.
Particularly since that would be A: Unnecessary, B: Unconstitutional, C: Political Suicide.
Also, the phrase "anti tank rifle" in this day and age is really cute. But realistically, even with all the time people had before the ban to acquire them (and the ban on assault weapons didn't take any weapons away from those who already owned them! Didn't prohibit actual firing for that matter, too, but you had to tell the federal government about moving it five feet or more and if you planned to fire it; the hassle was more effective then prohibiting directly probably) there were only about 200 hard-core fanatic collectors in the US who owned anything that really answered to the description "machine gun" as opposed to automatic rifle. At least, who did so legally. None of which was ever used in crime.
-
You probably won't ever need it. But theres always that chance kara. too many people look upon the US as an untouchable piece of land that has some kind of magical barrier surrounding it. Every one of the wars we fought outside of revolutionary, 1812, WW II, and Civil was mainly us picking on the weak for oil and money. Another thing people assume is there will never be another hitler. No, there won't be, because anyone that ambitious would learn from his mistakes. You'd be dealing with a far worse individual. And finally; gangs troublesome, yes. but you think that all their guns will just go away? no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.
There's always a chance. But equally there is a chance that having guns would do little against the military the dictator controls (gun ownership was high in Iraq and that did **** all to stop Saddam). So why should I risk a definite increase in the chance of being a victim of gun crime in order to have a weapon which might be of little use if this nebulous dictator figure does happen to come along?
-
no you have to -do- somthing first, and I just don't see Bush, McCain, or Obama recalling our army over from Iraq to fight a domestic war here. AK 47s are not the half of it. If my dads best friend can get ahold of machine guns and anti tank rifles, I don't want to think about what the US will look like in that case.
Particularly since that would be A: Unnecessary, B: Unconstitutional, C: Political Suicide.
Also, the phrase "anti tank rifle" in this day and age is really cute. But realistically, even with all the time people had before the ban to acquire them (and the ban on assault weapons didn't take any weapons away from those who already owned them! Didn't prohibit actual firing for that matter, too, but you had to tell the federal government about moving it five feet or more and if you planned to fire it; the hassle was more effective then prohibiting directly probably) there were only about 200 hard-core fanatic collectors in the US who owned anything that really answered to the description "machine gun" as opposed to automatic rifle. At least, who did so legally. None of which was ever used in crime.
It all depends on what era the said anti tank rifle is from. He also has a couple of Bazookas too, AFAIK. As for machine guns I do in fact mean the real thing, not automatic rifles. I said it because it was said a ban on firearms would stop gangs from getting them. that is not somthing that would happen instantly. It would take a matter of years. Meanwhile, the police would be running around trying to club people while getting shot up. does that sound like a bright idea to you?
Edit: Kara, the US is for the most part united as a people. not a bunch of little warring factions, that's a horrible example.
-
Are guns dangerous? Yes.
Am I going to let the government effortlessly take another right away from me? No.
-
I say big, heavy guns like larger shotguns and older rifles should be encouraged. It's almost useless for robberies and murder; try smuggling a big ****ing shotgun into someone's house, but it's extremely good for defense. Hear someone break into your house? Grab the shotgun from under your bed, stick in a couple shells, walk to where you hear the noises, then cock the gun as loudly as you can.
Most robbers would probably get the **** out after hearing that.
-
Are guns dangerous? No.
Are knives dangerous? No.
Are people dangerous? Hell, yes.
-
Well yeah, they sort of are, I wouldn't enjoy accidently stepping on a knife
-
Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.
Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.
-
A gun has never killed a person. :rolleyes:
-
Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.
Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.
You obviously arn't very bright, are you. Who pulls the trigger? the gun doesn't fire itself.
-
Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.
Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.
Citation please.
-
Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.
Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.
You obviously arn't very bright, are you. Who pulls the trigger? the gun doesn't fire itself.
Sure, but anyone can kill a man with one shot. Not so many with one punch.
The problem: people can shoot faster than they can think.
-
You obviously arn't very bright, are you.
Says the man who just got himself monkeyed for the day for flaming.
-
Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.
Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.
Citation please.
I'm sorry you are correct, suicides are the leading form of firearm death in the US, followed by homicides, accidental makes up a relatively small proportion.
I have had a couple of bad experiences with firearms I've never really gotten over, and I tend to have very muddled and outrageous opinions about them that mean nothing at all. I apologize. I posted in a topic I really shouldn't have touched.
Trust me on this, knives and guns are dangerous.
Guns in the US kill more people by mistake than they do on purpose.
You obviously arn't very bright, are you. Who pulls the trigger? the gun doesn't fire itself.
However, I see no reason why a personal attack was necessary. And it's "aren't" not "arn't"
-
...and then you have some societies where carrying a rifle is a must. I recall all students going to Svalbard are actually required to carry a
gun rifle and it is mandatory to participate in the gun training (that's the first course in the University). Guns Rifles are left on stands in the University when attending to lectures. Here, I'm not sure if that is really a University or actually a research station.
Then again when you only have some 3000 people problems probably never get that big you couldn't get out of them by talking. Small communities are not that vulnerable to gun crime.
One could see parallels between ban of carrying knives & swords (& puukkoja) in public and banning guns. If someone is really interested in here, he could check out the statistics of those times when that ban was enforced.
On the other hand some US people are correct: guns and idiots don't mix (well). But it is also a good point that the US Army itself is bordering the line of unconstitutional, US militia was supposed to be the answer for foreign invasion. This would be worth of another thread, like "Is US constitution timeless or does it really depend on the time it was enforced?" My guts tell me that this discussion will never happen here, simply because it is too difficult topic.
Killing people by hand, well, it depends: sometimes it could be ridiculously easy if person doesn't protect himself properly, sometimes not. But it definetely needs more work than killing a person with a gun (accidentally). Knowledge of human anatomy is required if that is to happen, other than getting lucky I guess (bad luck if you are a bouncer).
I would never run away from my home if someone is about to break in. Reason being that it makes a psychological statement that criminal has to work for it, when he sees me one meter away handling some really sharp thing, or some other pleasingly bone-crushing object. There are apartments you cannot run away from, front door being the only accessible door.
Bear in mind there are different kinds of criminals also, those who actually have some old-school ethics behind them (minority) and those who don't. Those who actually have it don't break in the houses where people are sleeping; they tend to steal material goods, rather than lives. But I was also taught in the old-school way, thinking that home is the safe place where no-one should be able to get in without my permission.
I'm not sure of the killing side of the people either. What is meant by that research actually? Is it that most of the soldiers couldn't pull the trigger when they saw the enemy soldier, or that they didn't have good enough reason for it? Some older books say that if you have a moral upper hand, killing can be more easily justified. I tend to think all people have that dark side (especially men) but society is quite effective in suppressing it, so it is channeled to somewhere else. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it causes problems when you are confronted by an individual who doesn't really care about the society.
One interesting trial would be to change the law in a way that killing or murder would get extra-ordinarily heavy penalties (worst being death, only in absolute confidence of actual happenings) and simply stealing from home would net less jail time, especially if there isn't violence involved. Then they say that criminals working in the economy aren't criminals in the real sense of the word; it's more of a question whose fortune is gathered with less law-abiding means.
F*cktoolongpostnoonesgonnareadit
Mika
-
"Student fails exam and heavily injures the teacher and 3 students with an axe"
-That happened a couple years ago in Poland (I doubt I'd find a source, but I remember it). If you have a 'reason', you'll take the most dangerous object you could find, no matter if that object is a gun or a kitchen knife, and you will be a deadly weapon.
The problem is if the victim has a way to defend himself/herself, and a gun ban certainly doesn't help law abiding citizens. It does help the bad guys, because they have a safer job, whether it's robbing people on the street, breaking into houses, stealing cars, raping or any other criminal activity.
-
The best thing is to just get lots of police officers out there with guns. In Singapore, the first thing you see at the airport is a load of police officers carrying assault rifles. And it's relatively safe here because of that.
-
I think it's common for airports to have cops with (sometimes) big guns everywhere.
It's just that they can't be on every corner, contrary to criminals and their victims.
-
why does every school shooting thread disintegrate into a political debate over the 2nd amendment? its sorta sucks to see the same **** discussed every time some mental reject decides to go berserk and kill people.
-
Because the 2nd Amendment is why you have so many of them. That and the fact that unlike the Swiss or Canadians, Americans obviously can't be trusted with guns. :p
-
The best thing is to just get lots of police officers out there with guns. In Singapore, the first thing you see at the airport is a load of police officers carrying assault rifles. And it's relatively safe here because of that.
If I see an army of police officers with G36C's at Schiphol, it doesn't really help in letting me feel safe, although it is supposed to be terrorist prevention, I always get the feeling that I am going to be shot when I say some laws should be changed...
What I keep thinking is: Why would someone go to school, pull out a gun, and then randomly shoot people? It ain't a faster way to get a girlfriend. It ain't get you money, it ain't helps in the balance of the world, etc.
-
If I see an army of police officers with G36C's at Schiphol, it doesn't really help in letting me feel safe, although it is supposed to be terrorist prevention, I always get the feeling that I am going to be shot when I say some laws should be changed...
Well, they weren't carrying G36C's, I think they were carrying either G3s or MP-5s (which isn't an Assault Rifle anyway). But your point still stands. :P
What I keep thinking is: Why would someone go to school, pull out a gun, and then randomly shoot people? It ain't a faster way to get a girlfriend. It ain't get you money, it ain't helps in the balance of the world, etc.
The same reason people commit suicide. They're either sick of life, want to try something different (!) or just think it'd be fun. The only difference is, they want to do something big and bring a few people down with them when they commit suicide.
-
Because the 2nd Amendment is why you have so many of them. That and the fact that unlike the Swiss or Canadians, Americans obviously can't be trusted with guns. :p
I find that insulting. Furthermore, I demand that you monkey yourself. :p
-
I'm from the UK so you don't have a leg to stand on. We obviously don't trust ourselves with guns so we banned them. :p
-
We obviously don't trust ourselves with guns so we banned them. :p
:lol:
-
thecooki3m0nster (6:37:24 PM): of course, americans are petty hair savages that live in rocks and live in a constant state of tribal warfare.
thecooki3m0nster (6:37:42 PM): And the Canadians and Swiss are like imperial gods that sip tea at their coffee shops in peace and harmony
-
What I keep thinking is: Why would someone go to school, pull out a gun, and then randomly shoot people? It ain't a faster way to get a girlfriend. It ain't get you money, it ain't helps in the balance of the world, etc.
Why school?
Because it's gun free. You are the god, the superior being, and no one's there who could offer any resistance. You can do whatever the hell you want. (read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekka-Eric_Auvinen#The_perpetrator , quote from Auvinen himself: "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.")
Why pull out a gun?
Because the axe is less spectacular and requires more effort to kill someone. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer , "It was just like shooting ducks in a pond" and "[The children] looked like a herd of cows standing around; it was really easy pickings.")
Why randomly shoot people?
To have fun deciding who lives and who dies. (read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Motivations , quote from there: "On the day of the massacre, Harris wore a white t-shirt with the words "NATURAL SELECTION" printed in black.", also the quote from Auvinen fits here just nice too)
P.S.
Ever see a psycho go to a police station, gun shop, airport or gun show and start shooting?
And why not?
Because he wouldn't be the almighty with 50 other people who have guns within reach and know how to use them a lot better than he/she does.
Why do they usually commit suicide at the end of their killing spree?
Because the cops surrounded the building and he ain't the most powerful anymore.
Sometimes to understand a psycho you have to look at the problem from a totally different perspective (read: totally crazy) than you usually do, and it starts making sense (even though it sounds nuts, but hey, we are discussing the motives of total whackjobs, stranger than The Joker in "Dark Knight", aren't we?).
-
Why school?
Because it's gun free. You are the god, the superior being, and no one's there who could offer any resistance
Or because the guy had been bullied there for years? The place associated with hardship of some sorts.
Why do they usually commit suicide at the end of their killing spree?
Because the cops surrounded the building and he ain't the most powerful anymore.
Or because they had decided on it long before going in.
-
Ever see a psycho go to a police station, gun shop, airport or gun show and start shooting?
Uh, yeah, it's been known to happen. There was a rash of incidents where people walked into police stations and started shooting four or five years ago. (Perversely, a few of them lived.) I can't recall any specific occurances for airports but have a nagging feeling it's been attempted.
-
Because the 2nd Amendment is why you have so many of them. That and the fact that unlike the Swiss or Canadians, Americans obviously can't be trusted with guns. :p
the second amendment merely makes their berserk rampage more efficient, so they don't have to stab people with an ice pick really fast. the real problem perhaps is untreated mental illness and possibly a lack of discipline.
-
You asked about shooting threads. Pretty hard to have them when no one has a gun. :D
-
Found these by browsing through the links offered in bugs&glitches -thread in gaming forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0YXfx2bngw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1qdiufT5mI&feature=related
Seriously, what the hell?
Mika
-
Because the 2nd Amendment is why you have so many of them. That and the fact that unlike the Swiss or Canadians, Americans obviously can't be trusted with guns. :p
I personally trust Americans with guns a lot more than with...
cars...
The caliber of dumb@$$es that can get a driver's licence here is far larger than anything I could have previously imagined.
At least the exam is a good joke though: no first aid questions or tests IIRC, yes 'penalties for DUI' style questions (and there's lots to remember, however it doesn't affect your driving skills at all), no driving faster than 35 MPH (at least in my case), yes driving slower than 20 MPH for half of the exam, etc.
-
Feel free to prevent Americans from owning cars too if you wish. The rest of the world would thank you for the fall in petrol prices. :p
-
Feel free to prevent Americans from owning cars too if you wish. The rest of the world would thank you for the fall in petrol prices. :p
It would bring prices up. Most petroleum-producing companies are based loosely in the United States, which is also their biggest consumer. Prices would be driven up elsewhere to compensate for the loss of their biggest market.
-
Found these by browsing through the links offered in bugs&glitches -thread in gaming forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0YXfx2bngw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1qdiufT5mI&feature=related
Seriously, what the hell?
Mika
Super Columbine Massacre RPG? That's ****ing sick. Jesus Christ. What kind of wanker would make that game?
-
It would bring prices up. Most petroleum-producing companies are based loosely in the United States, which is also their biggest consumer. Prices would be driven up elsewhere to compensate for the loss of their biggest market.
Except that it isn't the oil companies who set the price of crude oil. It's set by OPEC and the US isn't even a member.
Although they might respond to lowered demand by extracting less it's doubtful that they would do it quickly enough to keep prices at the artificially high levels they are at the moment. In fact given that the current high price is caused by speculation that the OPEC nations have very little excess pumping capacity it's highly unlikely that even if they restricted the amount of oil they extract they could support the price at it's current level.
-
Although they might respond to lowered demand by extracting less it's doubtful that they would do it quickly enough to keep prices at the artificially high levels they are at the moment. In fact given that the current high price is caused by speculation that the OPEC nations have very little excess pumping capacity it's highly unlikely that even if they restricted the amount of oil they extract they could support the price at it's current level.
Wrong "its" there, but makes lotsa sense.
-
Bah, I got it right 3 times and got a typo once on a possessive case.
-
Found these by browsing through the links offered in bugs&glitches -thread in gaming forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0YXfx2bngw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1qdiufT5mI&feature=related
Seriously, what the hell?
Mika
Super Columbine Massacre RPG? That's ****ing sick. Jesus Christ. What kind of wanker would make that game?
That insult was lamer than FDR's legs.
-
Found these by browsing through the links offered in bugs&glitches -thread in gaming forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0YXfx2bngw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1qdiufT5mI&feature=related
Seriously, what the hell?
Mika
Super Columbine Massacre RPG? That's ****ing sick. Jesus Christ. What kind of wanker would make that game?
That insult was lamer than FDR's legs.
Although I agree with you; too soon, man. Too soon.
-
To be honest, this presents a rather curious argument, if WW2 games are "fair game" and the numerous middle eastern crysis are "fair game" why shouldn't these type of things be "fair game"?
-
To be honest, this presents a rather curious argument, if WW2 games are "fair game" and the numerous middle eastern crysis are "fair game" why shouldn't these type of things be "fair game"?
Looking at it objectively, it's just another case of blatant western hypocrisy. When the subject matter hits a little too close to home for some people, suddenly it's in 'bad taste'. When it comes to basing games based on real events, past or present, what exactly qualifies as taboo? Is there even a credible line dividing what should and shouldn't be made?
When you get right down to it, making a videogame is just another expression of free speech, and we can no more silence the maker of Super Columbine RPG than we can someone speaking their mind at a public forum.
-
Because most games don't have to do with shooting up completely innocent and random teenagers, be it in the US, China, or the Middle East.
I have yet to see a "Super Madrasah Shoot-up" yes, COD4 involves a war in the Middle East with strong parellels to the war the US cooked up, but you'll notice the point of the game isn't to shoot up kids.
EDITED IN HOURS AFTER THE FACT:
Thus, this is not a case of Western hypocrisy. It's perfectly reasonable to be offended by Columbine games.
Columbine High School BTW, is full of rich people, in a rich little segment of Denver (called Littleton) in case anyone was curious.
If that sort of thing had happened at Montbello High, in the armpit of the 'burbs out here no one would have heard about it; a student gets killed every year at that school, starting in 1980, so that's 28 students.
-
Wasn't there a movie capitalizing on the deaths of everyone onboard the planes that struck the World Trade Center buildings?
---
Note to self: The topic has (un)officially been changed.
-
Found these by browsing through the links offered in bugs&glitches -thread in gaming forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0YXfx2bngw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4l0qeWlURM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1qdiufT5mI&feature=related
Seriously, what the hell?
Mika
Old news. sick and disgusting and wrong, but old. Also, make a new topic if you want to debate violent movies and video games.
-
To be honest, this presents a rather curious argument, if WW2 games are "fair game" and the numerous middle eastern crysis are "fair game" why shouldn't these type of things be "fair game"?
Nobody here's going to say "It's going to incite violence", but there are other reasons.