This game is going to blow here's why.

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Grand Theft Auto V
  3. This game is going to blow here's why.
2 years ago#151
puffinslaughter posted...
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 3/25/2013 2:39:04 PM | #145
You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


Stupid. Why should we have to suffer for people who make mistakes? That's like saying "knives are dangerous and banning them will cut down on stabbings. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if nobody can cut up their food if it saves 1 to 2 lives a year."

And another thing; 1 life per year is basically no difference, so why not keep guns so that the people in danger can protect themselves? Not to sound like a grumpy conservative, but you liberals are all the same. You think banning guns will get rid of violent crime completely and you fail to see the bigger picture. This isn't just banning guns from criminals, this is banning guns from level-headed people who would very much like to live and can't protect themselves in the event of a violent crime.


To quote your elegant phrasing, "stupid."

I never said banning guns will stop all violent crime, I just said it will reduce it. It's entirely possible that banning guns could stop a few people from being able to protect themselves. But actual evidence, such as the UK gun ban, shows that banning guns in a country demographically similar to the US still decreases the murder rate overall.

Also, your analogy to knives is completely ridiculous, because knives actually do serve a utilitarian purpose and are more difficult to kill people with. Most people just want guns to hunt or to collect, both of which are hobbies. When your hobby costs people their lives, the reasonable thing to do is to give up your hobby, even if it's a minor imposition on your freedom.

The only good reason to own a gun is for self defense, but again, evidence shows that you're better off giving up your gun to make it harder for criminals to acquire a gun.
2 years ago#152
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...


What does having a high drug rate have to do with this? Nothing. If there's a cause for violence, there will be violence. It doesn't take easily accessible weapons for there to be murders.


You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


You're missing the point altogether, which really isn't surprising.

If somebody wants to murder someone, they will, guns or not.


I don't understand how you can be so simple-minded in your thinking. It's tremendously easier for a person to kill others with a gun rather than a knife. There's a reason the military and police opt to use guns instead of just knives.

Are there some psychopaths who will kill people no matter what weapon they have to use to do it? Sure. But there are also obviously people who would have the will to kill people if given a gun, but wouldn't if not given a gun. It's really not that complicated; just try actually thinking about it.


The leading cause of murder in the leading murder states is gang violence.

So the US is a lot more comparable to Mexico than you think. Gang violence isn't going to stop just because they don't have guns.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
2 years ago#153
hellfire582 posted...


The only good reason to own a gun is for self defense, but again, evidence shows that you're better off giving up your gun to make it harder for criminals to acquire a gun.


I can't think of a situation where the phrase "I only didn't kill you because I didn't have a gun." Makes me feel safe...
---
Skit Tells is Really good
2 years ago#154
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...


What does having a high drug rate have to do with this? Nothing. If there's a cause for violence, there will be violence. It doesn't take easily accessible weapons for there to be murders.


You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


You're missing the point altogether, which really isn't surprising.

If somebody wants to murder someone, they will, guns or not.


I don't understand how you can be so simple-minded in your thinking. It's tremendously easier for a person to kill others with a gun rather than a knife. There's a reason the military and police opt to use guns instead of just knives.

Are there some psychopaths who will kill people no matter what weapon they have to use to do it? Sure. But there are also obviously people who would have the will to kill people if given a gun, but wouldn't if not given a gun. It's really not that complicated; just try actually thinking about it.


The only simple minded person here would be you bro.. You are thinking of right now, today, one week from now, etc.

The individuals who fought, died, designed, built, founded and governed this country to get us to where we are today know a hell of a lot more than you or I do. It comes down to the principle. The principle of altering, changing or circumventing something that is designed to act as the spinal cord of this country, is a means to an end. If one thing can be changed, why not something else? I'm not religious by any way, shape or form, but its basically the same principle as changing wording in the bible to justify an action.

The constitution was not made to evolve with time, it was created so this country would endure the trials and hardships of time.
2 years ago#155
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
hellfire582 posted...
LordPoncho posted...


What does having a high drug rate have to do with this? Nothing. If there's a cause for violence, there will be violence. It doesn't take easily accessible weapons for there to be murders.


You mentioned that Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world even though they have strict gun regulations. But, since they also have a much higher rate of drug-related crime than most countries, they have a higher demand for guns among criminals. Their tight gun regulations probably do keep the murder rate from being higher than it already is, but I'm just saying Mexico is a bad example because their murder rates are going to be high either way.

On the other hand, the UK is a good example of a country with a criminal profile more similar to that of the US. When they banned guns, they saw a marked reduction in murder rates. That's a pretty damn good argument for why the US should at least try to restrict gun availability significantly. No one is saying that will solve the problem completely - obviously criminals can still find ways to get guns. But that doesn't change the fact that gun regulation will help to some degree. Trying to argue that gun restrictions won't help at all is just contrary to the best evidence we have.


You're missing the point altogether, which really isn't surprising.

If somebody wants to murder someone, they will, guns or not.


I don't understand how you can be so simple-minded in your thinking. It's tremendously easier for a person to kill others with a gun rather than a knife. There's a reason the military and police opt to use guns instead of just knives.

Are there some psychopaths who will kill people no matter what weapon they have to use to do it? Sure. But there are also obviously people who would have the will to kill people if given a gun, but wouldn't if not given a gun. It's really not that complicated; just try actually thinking about it.


The leading cause of murder in the leading murder states is gang violence.

So the US is a lot more comparable to Mexico than you think. Gang violence isn't going to stop just because they don't have guns.


To reiterate, I never said banning guns will eliminate violence or murder. I said it will reduce it, and the evidence shows that it probably will. If you think that people owning guns is worth even just a few lives each year, I guess we simply have very different values.
2 years ago#156
TRC187 posted...


The only simple minded person here would be you bro.. You are thinking of right now, today, one week from now, etc.

The individuals who fought, died, designed, built, founded and governed this country to get us to where we are today know a hell of a lot more than you or I do. It comes down to the principle. The principle of altering, changing or circumventing something that is designed to act as the spinal cord of this country, is a means to an end. If one thing can be changed, why not something else? I'm not religious by any way, shape or form, but its basically the same principle as changing wording in the bible to justify an action.

The constitution was not made to evolve with time, it was created so this country would endure the trials and hardships of time.


So, you're arguing that the constitution is an ideal document authored by people who were somehow inherently more intelligent than modern people with new ideas, and you think I'm simple minded? I don't think a person's thinking could possibly get more simplistic and lazy when his argument is "the constitution was made by people who knew better than anyone today does, and therefore we shouldn't bother trying to alter it."

The founders of the US were certainly intelligent people, but they were also writing a document intended for the 18th century, which by the way was a time when slavery was acceptable. They didn't have any Godlike insight into how society would change in the next few centuries and how laws might have to change with them. They didn't know about guns with magazines large enough to commit mass murders or about a lot of the psychological illnesses that have been described today. They just wanted people to have guns to protect themselves from British incursions in a time with a relatively weak police force.

But, I guess by your thinking, which you claim is more complex than mine, we should just not worry about politics and turn to the constitution anytime we need to make a decision, since it's a perfect document and "spinal cord" of this country.
2 years ago#157
the way americans view their constitution is so weird to me, its like their national bible

it doesnt matter if its crazy and written hundreds of years ago, thats how it started so thats how it should always be

odd
---
http://i.imgur.com/z68cb.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m070ogasVv1qeewbgo2_500.jpg
2 years ago#158
From: hellfire582 | Posted: 3/25/2013 6:35:24 PM | #151
To quote your elegant phrasing, "stupid."

I never said banning guns will stop all violent crime, I just said it will reduce it. It's entirely possible that banning guns could stop a few people from being able to protect themselves. But actual evidence, such as the UK gun ban, shows that banning guns in a country demographically similar to the US still decreases the murder rate overall.

Also, your analogy to knives is completely ridiculous, because knives actually do serve a utilitarian purpose and are more difficult to kill people with. Most people just want guns to hunt or to collect, both of which are hobbies. When your hobby costs people their lives, the reasonable thing to do is to give up your hobby, even if it's a minor imposition on your freedom.

The only good reason to own a gun is for self defense, but again, evidence shows that you're better off giving up your gun to make it harder for criminals to acquire a gun.


Still, how much of the UK's population are murderers, compared to America's population? No guns would lead to overpopulation of animals, unless people switch to bows and arrows, which I doubt would happen. Those could be weapons too with no purpose other than to kill or collect. The bottom line for me is how they serve to defend.

First I just wanna say that I'm an independent. I'm non-biased, and I'm not trying to shove my views in your face. I don't watch MSNBC nor Fox News. That being said, my take is that fully automatic weapons like AKs and Uzis have no place in society. They're military grade weapons. However, pistols should be legal for self defense and rifles for controlling the animal population. Let's say John is a criminal. Since guns are illegal, he buys a 9mm off the black market. He decides to go to Tim's house to ransack the place and cause trouble. He knows Tim doesn't have a gun, since they're outlawed. The risk is even less for him since he knows his life is most likely not in jeopardy, which makes him more likely to commit the crime. He breaks into the house and startles Tim. Tim must concede and let John take whatever he wants because he has no way to deter John from his belongings. Nor does he have any way to defend himself when John shoots him for not cooperating.

Banning guns is also taking away the right to self-defense. What we need is more strict guidelines on who can own a gun. Obviously no criminal history, no confirmed mental disorders such as autism or bipolar disorder. They should have to go through a mandatory 3 month training and gun safety course, along with a mental evaluation.
---
Kris Letang stat tracker ~ 3 Goals, 25 Assists, +11 Pittsburgh Penguins: 25-8
http://i.imgur.com/gKedoAK.png ~grape_purple ^_^
2 years ago#159
From: puffinslaughter
Still, how much of the UK's population are murderers, compared to America's population?

far fewer, i posted it earlier

No guns would lead to overpopulation of animals, unless people switch to bows and arrows, which I doubt would happen.

theres hunting in australia and we dont have much trouble with guns. theres a rigorous procedure before getting your gun licence and then you can only purchase hunting rifles and shotguns. then the laws are pretty much unless you are coming to or from a legal hunting area you shouldnt have them on you. you certainly cant conceal them

i cant imagine there are many cases of someone defending themselves against a would-be murderer successfully because they were carrying compared to all the unnecessary deaths that happen because of it, but like i said it would be a bad decision to ban guns in america anyway, you are in too deep. you just need better regulations.
---
http://i.imgur.com/z68cb.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m070ogasVv1qeewbgo2_500.jpg
2 years ago#160
cheese_game619 posted...
the way americans view their constitution is so weird to me, its like their national bible

it doesnt matter if its crazy and written hundreds of years ago, thats how it started so thats how it should always be

odd


I'm not Peter patriot by any means, trust me, but I can't help but think there must be some reason why the United States has managed to successfully surpass the 200 yr threshold. Also, have you read the US constitution? Its far from crazy.

We are in a different place as a nation, compared to 25-50 years ago, but the problem isn't guns.. Thats a whole different discussion though.
  1. Boards
  2. Grand Theft Auto V
  3. This game is going to blow here's why.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived