This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Guns or Games? Which would you choose to go?

#231Lethal13Posted 1/19/2013 11:24:28 PM
Guns Easy, i live in Aus and personal fire arms have been heavily heavily restricted to the point where pretty much no one has one so yeah don;t take mah games away plz :P
#232retep_onePosted 1/19/2013 11:27:58 PM
guns of course
---
PSN: Spectre0415
spectre status recognized......
#233theshovellerPosted 1/19/2013 11:28:01 PM
Devilman_Amon posted...
theshoveller posted...
cmc140 posted...
Ban guns and games and everything else think demolition man. Btw I would be living in under part of the city though.


Oh, ****. You mean I have to learn how to use the three shells? And I won't be able to eat Jello sitting around my house naked because it's hot and I just said "**** it?"


Theshoveller you are fined two credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute...


Where's the verbal warning thing? I want to recite the script for "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" to it, see how high a score I can get!
#234Lefty128kPosted 1/19/2013 11:35:30 PM
zUkUu posted...
Lefty128k posted...
The comparison are relevant to the post I quoted. Also, I directly linked to a US/UK comparison. UK has way more violent crime.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

US population 315,000,000 Crimes 12,000,000
UK population 63,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Geman population 82,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Canada population 35,000,000 Crimes 2,500,000

As pointed out on the website itself....you do the math. Let's see if you know how to tell which country has the highest crime rate.

hint: the US has more than triple the population of any of these other countries.


that is irrelevant comparison. compare "murder" and/or "shooting victims" please.


Nope, not irrelevant at all.
"Murders" and "shooting victims" are part of the numbers I posted.

Why don't you find your own "murder" and/or "shooting victims" numbers, post them, and make your own comparison and analysis? I'm not gonna do your homework for you.
#235DevilTears604Posted 1/19/2013 11:37:01 PM
Lordcrabfood posted...
DevilTears604 posted...
Lordcrabfood posted...
DevilTears604 posted...
Lordcrabfood posted...
Just ban Americans, problem solved.


Aw c'mon, we're not all bad...


Well maybe not, but the impression some of you give to the rest of the world is not very positive. Just how many mass shootings does it take for some of you idiots to realise things have to change? Its time to put personal agendas aside and the ridiculous fixation that americans have with guns.


Well yeah, you're right. I feel that exact way about our health care system. We're the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't use the socialized health care system; and consequently, we're the only country in the world with people who have to file bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills. To me, that seems like a straight-line, A to B, scenario.

The gun issue is a little tougher to deal with than that, but I think that has more to do with the psychological mindset of America as a whole. We tend to worship violence and death to a degree, and just flat eliminating guns, or games, or violent media, or even stuff like football, won't automatically solve the problem. Something has to change in the soul of America itself for progress to be made.


I agree 100%, banning guns by itself will not solve the problem but it is a step in the right direction. How about those advocating the availability of guns go round to the parents of a six year old child and tell them the child was gunned down. It has to begin with education and more recognition and action on mental conditions.


I would actually argue that owning a gun is not the problem in and of itself. It's more of a mindset of saying, "I'm an American! It's my God-given right to own a 250 round assault rifle and use it whenever I feel threatened by anyone! I'm an American!" As Chris Rock once said, "What did you ever do to deserve to be born here? All you did was come out of your mother's ***** on American soil!" Our judicial system doesn't really help in that regard either. (Ask George Zimmerman, self-appointed neighborhood watch. He stalked and killed a black kid because he LOOKED like he MIGHT be threatening. He wasn't charged with a crime for 45 days.) A better way of viewing a gun is as a symbol of death and finality.

Unfortunately, I live in the South U.S., so there's not a lot of commentary or debate on that topic other than, "OBAMA'S TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! I HOPE THAT (you know what) DIES!"
---
Day One buys for 2013: Devil may Cry, Dead Space 3, GoW: Ascension, Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, Grand Theft Auto V
#236Devilman_AmonPosted 1/19/2013 11:37:36 PM
theshoveller posted...


Negligent parenting, that's kinda self-explanatory who's to blame for that one - the parent who's negligent. Prescription drug pushers, that's one of two things, or a combination of the two - the patient and the doctor. The patient needs to be up-front with the doctor regarding the effects of the drugs on their body, and truthful. The doctor needs to not overmedicate the patient to the point where they're not able to fully function.

I work in a mental health program, myself, and one big thing they push is this thing called "personal medicine." Basically, the concept is less prescription drugs, more actual "things" to get you to feel better and deal with your symptoms so you're not strung out on haldol like some sort of "living zombie." If your symptoms are minimal on a low dose of an anti-psychotic, but you still hear voices from time to time, then do your "personal medicine" to cope with the voices and possibly make them stop - pet your cat, read a book, take a cold shower, or go for a walk around the block.

The problem with that is not everyone wants to go for a walk when they hear voices to quiet them down - they just want to "take a pill that cures them." There is no "cure" for it. It's not a cold, or an infection, or a cut or scrape that just "fixes" itself over time. So, patients insist sometimes on taking more meds. Doctors insist on them taking more meds if they won't find something to keep them from becoming increasingly symptomatic and unable to function. And, of course, there are the few corrupt doctors and patients out there - nothing's free from corruption in some form.


My friend's ex girlfriend who is 31 is hooked on Xanax for years ever since her older sister was shot to death by her boyfriend (who ended up doing 20 years).
She took the pills while she was pregnant with my friend's child ad we told her not to take them. I read up on the effects of it during pregnancy and I couldn't really find anything substantial, but the doctor told her not to come off of them; I guess weening off of it makes people prone to suicide?

Anyways the kid is now almost 4 and he's really hyperactive and can go into these weird temper tantrum rages and isn't that social with other kids. Sometimes we wonder if the drugs have an effect as she can be very bipolar and moody at times and barely does anything when she's not at work (which she JUST started going back to work a few months ago ever since getting pregnant with him).
She would just lay in bed all day watching lifetime channel or sleeping.
---
(\__/)
(='.'=)
#237Devilman_AmonPosted 1/19/2013 11:38:06 PM
Also my friend now has guns (three of them; an AR-15, a glock and his dad's revolver) and I told him to get rid of them he knows they are bad and she even tried to file a restraining order on him and his brother because they got into a verbal argument and she wrote down that "there's guns in the house" (though the judge never brought that up and the case was dismissed).

Prior to the case, we went to a gun store to surrender them (have the owner hold them really) so the police wouldn't take them and the line there at the store was ridiculous (since the store is only open Tues & Wed from 8pm to 11pm) and many people in there just hang out and talk not even seriously buying anything while the owner also likes to tell his war stories (a retired cop).
There's even guys there that have nothing else to do so they come to help out.

Also younger off duty cops (guys that looked like they at least 22 years old) cocking shotguns from the store in the hallway like little kids...


Also there was a doctor there with all kinds of bumper stickers on his car (at least I think he was a doctor his plate said MD in it) that said all kinds of anti Obama ads on it and facists this impeach that, and also FL tea party civil war uprising etc etc on his shirt as well as a bumper sticker, talking about buying an UZI and owning like 20 guns....

I mean I don't care if you own guns but seriously some of these people look and sound like psychopaths...
---
(\__/)
(='.'=)
#238Devilman_AmonPosted 1/20/2013 12:00:10 AM
DevilTears604 posted...


Unfortunately, I live in the South U.S., so there's not a lot of commentary or debate on that topic other than, "OBAMA'S TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! I HOPE THAT (you know what) DIES!"


That's where a lot of that stems from historically actually.

If you look at the list of laws stemming from as early as the Bill of Rights, many of them were set to give rights to White gun owners and listing it illegal for slaves to own guns. This was also set forth to defend them against Native Americans (rightfully so since of course natives would be bent on exacting justice for their land being taken away from them).
So there was always a paranoia of men to defend themselves against: first native americans, then to control the slaves, then to defend themselves against the slaves who are now free men (after the Civil War) aka slave uprisings, then so on and so forth , often allowing intimidation by the Klan and other ignorant racists to mistreat Blacks without fear of reprisal.
Up until:

1856: Dred Scott v. Sandford Upholds Individual Right

The Second Amendment as an individual right was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856. With the rights of slaves in question, the nation’s highest court opined on the intent of the Second Amendment for the first time, writing that affording slaves full rights of American citizenship would include the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”


It was always linked to racism and to protect slavery.
So the racism you experience in the South and it's strong ties to the 2nd amendment has deep roots to it

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/2nd-amendment-protected-slavery

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html
---
(\__/)
(='.'=)
#239ChargrilledPosted 1/20/2013 12:14:43 AM
Undead_Yakuza posted...
Firearms are banned in my country (Denmark) and we have almost next to zero gun violence and killings because of it. So I would ban the guns.


Same, except replace denmark with united kingdom
---
GT : DeadJericho / PSN/Wii-U : Focalpoint /
Correct terminology is 'Could NOT care less'. Learn English!
#240Lefty128kPosted 1/20/2013 12:32:51 AM
Devilman_Amon posted...
DevilTears604 posted...


Unfortunately, I live in the South U.S., so there's not a lot of commentary or debate on that topic other than, "OBAMA'S TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! I HOPE THAT (you know what) DIES!"


That's where a lot of that stems from historically actually.

If you look at the list of laws stemming from as early as the Bill of Rights, many of them were set to give rights to White gun owners and listing it illegal for slaves to own guns. This was also set forth to defend them against Native Americans (rightfully so since of course natives would be bent on exacting justice for their land being taken away from them).
So there was always a paranoia of men to defend themselves against: first native americans, then to control the slaves, then to defend themselves against the slaves who are now free men (after the Civil War) aka slave uprisings, then so on and so forth , often allowing intimidation by the Klan and other ignorant racists to mistreat Blacks without fear of reprisal.
Up until:

1856: Dred Scott v. Sandford Upholds Individual Right

The Second Amendment as an individual right was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856. With the rights of slaves in question, the nation’s highest court opined on the intent of the Second Amendment for the first time, writing that affording slaves full rights of American citizenship would include the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”


It was always linked to racism and to protect slavery.
So the racism you experience in the South and it's strong ties to the 2nd amendment has deep roots to it

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/2nd-amendment-protected-slavery

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html


No. This is just the liberal version of a bat **** crazy conspiracy theory.

The Founding Fathers wrote tons of documents that specifically identify the 2nd Amendment as formed to protect against a tyrannical government.