ThunderPeel2001

Phaedrus' Street Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8780

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThunderPeel2001

  2. Posted

    Although I lean towards being for gun control, I don't think the drink driving analogy works entirely in your favour. The point is that banning guns because people can commit crimes (homicide) with them is like banning either cars or alcohol because people can commit crimes (drink driving) with them. That would be how you deny the tools required to cause the damage.

    It's a messy analogy, though, because the main thing we're concerned with when it comes to drink driving is accidental death, whereas the main thing we're concerned with when it comes to firearms is deliberate killing, so all the reasoning for one argument doesn't necessarily carry over to the other: if someone is set on drink driving, they're being irresponsible, but if all goes according to plan, nobody dies; if someone is set on shooting people, if all goes according to plan, people will die.

    Still, how many deaths a year are alcohol-related? Even if we exclude self-inflicted mortalities, it must be a fair number. Can what pleasure we derive from it really justify that? It's by no means a necessity. Should we ban alcohol, too? I wouldn't like that, but am I a hypocrite for not supporting it?

    As I said before, the "tools" for drunk driving are a car AND alcohol, which ARE illegal together. You can't even legally drive with an open container of alcohol in the car. And, of course, Prohibition WAS tried in the US, but it caused more problems than it solved. The cure can't be worse than the illness, and banning vehicles would be hugely detrimental to the US. Same goes for alcohol.

  13. Posted

    But by this analogy, its not the drunk driving they want to make illegal, its corvettes because they are faster and thusly more dangerous. Or school buses because they have a high capacity for people and more people = more mass =more force = more possible destruction if out of control. Evil, evil schoolbuses.

    Eh? We were talking about gun control, not just assault rifles. (You said, "I just think that blaming and banishing a tool is a step in the wrong direction.") Now you're trying to make out that you were just talking about assault rifles, which means, by your argument, that the public should be allowed to own landmines, miniguns, explosives, AFVs... because keeping them banned is like banning school buses and Corvettes...? I'm not convinced. (All of the above would be extremely helpful in preventing a home invasion, after all.)

  17. Posted

    I appreciate that we see this from different sides of the fence, and I am just happy that I can have an actual discussion about this. The points I was trying to make was that the gun owning population sees an attempted disarmament as a step towards the government having free reign to infringe on any liberty we have. Being armed with muskets and choosing to stand up against tyranny was how this country was created, and many gun owners feel that the second amendment is the foundation on which the rest of the constitution stands. Without the ability to stand up against the government in the event they try to infringe on liberty, we are no longer a free nation. And i know earlier in this thread the argument was made that the government has tanks and drones etc. [Not to mention nuclear weapons.] but as it stands it is merely another common set of checks and balances that creates fear-based trust between citizen and governing body... not the best trust relationship, but the one the country was created with and therefore one that it continues to have.

    I do understand that. I have a lot of American friends, so I do appreciate the "other side", as it were. It's just the most insane argument in the universe to imagine that America, a country where people get slightly teary at the word "freedom", could ever let itself lapse into a fascistic state. Not to mention that, if that truly was the reason for the populace to arm itself, then why aren't people gathered in some sort of military force in preparation. Why aren't they allowed to own grenade launchers, bazookers, Apache helicopters and nuclear bombs?

    A friend of mine who studied US history told me once that the only reason that clause was included in the Second Amendment was because they were fearful of an invasion -- at that particular moment in time. Arming the populace, as part of a well-regulated militia, was a way of increasing defence.

    (Any history buffs know if she was right?)

    Finally, the scariest thing is just how much fear that mindset exhibits.

    Any gun control initiative that helps keep guns in the hands of the responsible and out of the hands of the insidious I am all for. This is what we should be doing, but of course some on the right will ridicule anything Obama does because they are unable to look at it from any other position than their own, which happens on the left as well.

    The problem is, as was pointed out by my friend's FB status on page one, is that it's impossible to assess someone as fit for ownership of a weapon. Even if that person is of perfectly sound body and mind when any test was given, it doesn't mean that when his wife leaves him for his brother on the same week he gets fired from his job that he won't go mental.

    Is there a better a solution than gun control to ensure the above doesn't happen?

    Any gun ban on a type of gun because it is scary and has become a symbol of this type of tragic violence is a convenient solution that will accomplish nothing but creating more of a rift between those who are comfortable with guns being in society and those that are not. I am comfortable with guns being in the hands of the police because I am a law abiding citizen, but I would not be comfortable with the guns being in the hands of the police and government if I wasn't afforded the same rights. That is a level of trust for government and elected officials that I simply don't have, and I know I am not alone.

    Yes, I can see this. In the UK, only a tiny minority of the police carry guns... because they don't need them, because the populace isn't generally armed. That seems fair to me. (I take it nobody listened to the Bill Hicks video I posted?) I don't care about the Army, though -- to fight an army we'd need the same weapons.

    possibly, but there really seems to be some underlying causes here that should be the main focus. In the fifties there were many gun ranges and gun clubs within schools, and teenagers were taught to use them responsibly while the term school shooting hadn't even become a thing yet.

    I'm betting that the number of guns per capita wasn't the highest in the world in the 50s :-/

    I don't have an answer to this, I just think that blaming and banishing a tool is a step in the wrong direction. If I get a DUI, I do not blame my car for not driving straighter. I know if I were the parent of a child like this I would blame myself, regardless of his age...especially if he used my weapon.

    This makes no sense. It's not about appointing blame, it's about prevention. Nobody is blaming guns, they're blaming gun laws. If it was legal to drink and drive, and you ended up killing someone while doing it, somebody might think that making drink driving illegal was a step in the right direction.

  18. Posted

    Well I did place the words "I think" in front of the sentence, so I thought it was obviously just my opinion. That said, I'm glad I now know it IS possible to play the game as released -- even if I personally found it too difficult.

    (I'd still love some tips, because I REALLY sucked at playing it.)

  19. Posted

    That snowball scene was uncomfortable. Was it supposed to reference something? It felt very much like a horrible massacre scene, only with snowballs.

    Yeah, I thought that for a moment (when he burst into the house), although I don't recall feeling that when I first saw it a few years back. Probably all this talk of massacres at the moment making us sensitive?

  20. Posted

    I am saying that the singling out assault weapons is merely a tactic for the prez to get us past this as a country, because he knows that any other gun legislation will never get past congress, and chances are neither will an assault weapons ban. He just wants to be able to say "well i tried." and move on.

    So you don't think he really supports gun control...? Even if that's the case, I'm not sure what your point is here.

    The reason everyone is so scared of AR-15's is because it is meant to be a scary looking weapon, but in reality it is no different than any other semi automatic weapon except that when you see someone with it you automatically think "military specific".

    Again, I don't know what you're saying or why you're saying it...? The proposed ban is for "military style assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines", not just AR-15s. With this in mind, I don't know who or what you're addressing.

    I honestly don't mind heightening the requirements for gun ownership, but those requirements are never going to test whether you are a competent parent who can recognize if your child is exhibiting emotional or psychological problems.

    Again...? These are two separate things, and I don't think anyone is arguing that children shouldn't get more psychological support. Obama is also pushing for increased access to mental health services, too.

    If parents feel the need to buy a gun to protect their family, I would think they would be able to recognize a child having a tough time in the time period leading up to something like this and get them some help.

    I don't see how this changes anything. This latest gunman was 20 years old. An adult. He just happened to be living at home. What if he didn't?

    But that is besides the point that banning a specific type of gun is placing blame on the gun and not on the individuals involved, which A, is way to late to remove from the equation, B wont change the staggering amount of gun violence and C is opening the door to placing blame on other outside factors like Video Games.

    Back to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? It's obviously true, but guns sure make it a lot easier!

    A - Maybe we can remove it from future equations?

    B - Surely less guns will reduce the amount of gun violence?

    C - Who would you suggest blaming instead?

  21. Posted

    More from 1988... 26 years ago(!). Your Sinclair got a lot of backlash from their readers for featuring this page three girl on their cover (and including a "pin-up", to boot):

    YourSinclair2900001_zps1d421051.jpg

    A few issues later, the debate was still going on. This reader tries to rationalize her appearance in a leopard skin bikini...

    YourSinclair3500015_zpsc49eb91b.jpg

  24. Posted

    Thanks, Miffy! Yeah, I stayed last night playing it until 4. It's got its hooks into me :) The weird thing is that I'm only half-following the story. I mean I know what's going on in a general sense, but I'm not really following all the characters too closely -- but it's not affecting my enjoyment one iota.

    A few more things they did right that GTAIV dropped the ball on: When you get your apartment upgraded, it's seriously upgraded. It looks beautiful. In GTAIV, I couldn't tell the difference between the mid-tier and the high-tier apartments. Also, your clothes are actually pretty cool. In GTAIV your options were "bad or worse". For fun, I'm currently running around in a white suit covered in blood, that gets even more covered in blood when I get into fights. I don't know why, but it tickles me that nobody comments on it.

    There's just a lot of nice touches like that which bugged me a little in GTA.

  25. Posted

    Hmm. Just watched the trailer:

    I'm not sure what you're call that. It looks almost SteamPunky. I guess it shares some things with CyberPunk (dystopian/evil empire/technology), but I don't think anyone would use it as an example of the genre.