Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
LUNATICS WITH GUNS, DOMESTIC TERRORISTS AND HOMOPHOBIA...
Posts
Yellow Magic
View playlists
CloseESBY I'm not against the idea of this thread but I'm just very confused what sort of discussion was to be had from this, and what kind of discussion RMN as a whole would want.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I'm pretty sure the discussion RMN as a whole would want is more rewritten songs from 1960s musicals
author=Yellow Magic
ESBY I'm not against the idea of this thread but I'm just very confused what sort of discussion was to be had from this, and what kind of discussion RMN as a whole would want.
General information about the event, discussing the event itself, discussing what caused it, what could be done, the atmosphere that made it possible, etc etc.
This topic is all over the internet, RMN is no different.
The battle for gun control in the USA was lost when it was collectively decided that it was acceptable for children to die.
author=kentona
The battle for gun control in the USA was lost when it was collectively decided that it was acceptable for children to die.
This is more or less my exact thought. If there was a moment this was going to happen, it was after Sandy Hook, and it didn't happen. The United States Congress looked the parents of those dead kids in the eye and voted down their bill. I watched the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, storm off dejected and frustrated with his own powerlessness.
Gun control won't happen in my lifetime, and I'm skeptical of how much it would help even if it was passed at this point. The damage is already done.
I think the genie is out of the bottle for gun control, really. As much as I like for either the USA to be 1. A nation where gun access doesn't result in tragedy (which is possible. See: Switzerland) or 2. Gun free, I don't really think it's possible for gun control as we think of it could work.
There's more guns than people in the USA. This isn't Europe, where gun control is easy because there aren't many guns in the first place. Gun control or not, the actual physical guns aren't going anywhere, and there is merit in the right wing talking point of 'taking guns away from legal citizens'.
There's more guns than people in the USA. This isn't Europe, where gun control is easy because there aren't many guns in the first place. Gun control or not, the actual physical guns aren't going anywhere, and there is merit in the right wing talking point of 'taking guns away from legal citizens'.
I get that, and I don't want to take peoples' guns away; there are many many good reasons for gun ownership that I totally understand and agree with. But things like assault rifles, extended magazines and the like are things I think it should be harder or impossible to get.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Individual incidents don't change whether someting's right or wrong. Things are right or wrong based on absolute truths, not based on what happened last week.
No one ever decided it was acceptable for children to die. But if something is wrong, then it keeps being wrong no matter what bad things happen because you don't allow it.
Which is worse: losing our children or our rights? That's an easy question to answer. Children are replacable. "Liberty or death" applies to your childrens' deaths too. So the only question then is whether you think weapon ownership is really a human right or not. Americans are taught that it is. Not all of them believe it, but all of them are taught it, as soon as they learn the US Constitution in 7th grade and it's listed there alongside freedom of the press and freedom from slavery.
Edit: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with gun control, just explaining the reasoning behind a common point of view.
No one ever decided it was acceptable for children to die. But if something is wrong, then it keeps being wrong no matter what bad things happen because you don't allow it.
Which is worse: losing our children or our rights? That's an easy question to answer. Children are replacable. "Liberty or death" applies to your childrens' deaths too. So the only question then is whether you think weapon ownership is really a human right or not. Americans are taught that it is. Not all of them believe it, but all of them are taught it, as soon as they learn the US Constitution in 7th grade and it's listed there alongside freedom of the press and freedom from slavery.
Edit: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with gun control, just explaining the reasoning behind a common point of view.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
Isn't "the right to bear arms" typically assumed to mean in the case of a foreign militia disrupting your other constitutional rights? Isn't it also attributed to Thomas Jefferson that:
Perhaps the right to bear arms has become obsolete since his day? Perhaps the development of advanced weaponry and worldwide consultation should've seen the revision of one nation's bill of rights? It's just the slightest bit strange that a country that prides itself on the power of the individual and demands personal responsibility is so keen on imposing their own strengths and sovereignty on other countries regardless of the legal ramifications of them doing so.
I think there's something to be said of any country - not in terms of the accessibility of guns, legal or otherwise - that openly encourages the possession of such. Surely the expression of ones rights isn't something to be discouraged, but why is it a right in the first place? This one in particular breeds paranoia and only serves to benefit the conventions that have their hand in it to begin with.
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.This was written under the context of a debt to be continuously repaid until full through subsequent generations (denying their right to personal freedoms through birth), but the extension of any binding contract beyond those who it was originally attributed to remains.
Perhaps the right to bear arms has become obsolete since his day? Perhaps the development of advanced weaponry and worldwide consultation should've seen the revision of one nation's bill of rights? It's just the slightest bit strange that a country that prides itself on the power of the individual and demands personal responsibility is so keen on imposing their own strengths and sovereignty on other countries regardless of the legal ramifications of them doing so.
I think there's something to be said of any country - not in terms of the accessibility of guns, legal or otherwise - that openly encourages the possession of such. Surely the expression of ones rights isn't something to be discouraged, but why is it a right in the first place? This one in particular breeds paranoia and only serves to benefit the conventions that have their hand in it to begin with.
author=Corfaisus
Isn't "the right to bear arms" typically assumed to mean in the case of a foreign militia disrupting your other constitutional rights? Isn't it also attributed to Thomas Jefferson that:
Not quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
author=Corfaisus
Perhaps the right to bear arms has become obsolete since his day? Perhaps the development of advanced weaponry and worldwide consultation should've seen the revision of one nation's bill of rights?
Not so much. People make the argument of 'what chance would citizens have if they really wanted to revolt when the U.S. military has aircraft carriers and drones', but homeland revolutions don't work like typical warfare with typical weaponry; a full scale (hypothetical) revolution, as in, 350 million of the U.S. population armed to the teeth (potential) would make all of that irrelevant.
That, and a military is usually reluctant to fight against its own citizens. Specifically, the U.S. military in particular, we're extraordinarily patriotic, but to the country and never really to the government. If some sort of civil war were to break out, much of the military would not be too keen on fighting its own citizens, American culture has that built into itself.
The possibility of citizen revolution within a nation is still a very potent deterrent of tyranny regardless of what war machines you posses.
@Corfaisus: It was specifically geared against British-styled rule and to allow citizens the accommodations needed to overthrow their own government if needed. Under British rule, no regular citizen could be armed, so when people rebelled, they could easily be shut down by the government. The right to bear arms was to prevent that.
DarklordKeinor
2478
author=Solitayre
To imply that a 'majority' of Muslims across the world would say that murdering 50+ people was a good thing is racism.
I thought the term Muslim referred to a follower of Islam. How does being Muslim equate to belonging to a race?
Other than that stray thought, prayers definitely go out to the victims and their families. Regardless of how the conversation goes, we can all agree this was a horrible, senseless tragedy.
^We can definitely say this event was unwarranted and senseless violence. If this happened to one of my family members it would be a Death Wish situation. Which isn't always the best course of action.
LockeZ and Feld kinda perfectly summed up how I feel about this. It's our right and that a lot of US military wouldn't act against a rebellion, not en masse anyways. I've asked/talked to a lot of service members about this and all said they couldn't bear the thought of fighting against civilians. It would be an uphill battle but the numbers speak for themselves.
LockeZ and Feld kinda perfectly summed up how I feel about this. It's our right and that a lot of US military wouldn't act against a rebellion, not en masse anyways. I've asked/talked to a lot of service members about this and all said they couldn't bear the thought of fighting against civilians. It would be an uphill battle but the numbers speak for themselves.
DarklordKeinor
2478
author=Solitayre
I get that, and I don't want to take peoples' guns away; there are many many good reasons for gun ownership that I totally understand and agree with. But things like assault rifles, extended magazines and the like are things I think it should be harder or impossible to get.
The problem is there are certain elements of the gun control crowd that wouldn't stop there; they'd push as much as they can to take as much as they can.
Besides, wasn't the gay bar a gun free zone? I wonder how different the situation would have turned out if some of the patrons had firearms on their person. Statistics show a correlation between more guns and less crime. Not to mention the shooter managed to pass his background check,which doesn't inspire much confidence in the gun control efforts we're conducting in this country now.
author=DarklordKeinor
Besides, wasn't the gay bar a gun free zone? I wonder how different the situation would have turned out if some of the patrons had firearms on their person.
There was armed security inside the bar. it didn't help. Nice try, though.
Not to mention the shooter managed to pass his background check,which doesn't inspire much confidence in the gun control efforts we're conducting in this country now.
There was a bill put up recently to prevent people on terrorist watch lists form buying guns. It was voted down.
http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-and-no-fly-list-all-you-need-know-403821
Of course someone with a clean record that has been building up to some atrocious event can get a gun. It's hard to stop that. It's the majority that don't use it for evil crimes that matter.
I wholly believe if there were armed guard or citizens that this act wouldn't have been carried out or a much less death tool or just the chance to stop it all together. I'll never understand gun free zones because that just means the people outside of it have nothing to worry about.
I wholly believe if there were armed guard or citizens that this act wouldn't have been carried out or a much less death tool or just the chance to stop it all together. I'll never understand gun free zones because that just means the people outside of it have nothing to worry about.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
As I said before, it breed paranoia. "What if some guy has a gun? Well, I better get my gun first, then I'll be safe." Meanwhile gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.
I grew up around guns and know their importance. But I actually hunt with mine and know when and where it's acceptable. I dont like shoving gun rights down people's throats but I also have liberal relatives that don't believe college campuses shouldn't have armed students, faculty or security then something bad happens. While a gun isn't an end all. It's definitely a deterrent.
DarklordKeinor
2478
author=Solitayre
There was armed security inside the bar. it didn't help.
Except this article shows there wasn't enough security. Besides, my point was for the patrons to have fire arms, not just the guards.
You don't normally read too many articles about mass shootings at police stations, or NRA rallies, if you catch my drift.
author=Solitayre
Nice try, though.
