Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsKINGARTHUR'S PROFILE
Close
Just your average game and anime loving computer addict who idles a lot on IRC. ;D
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Tomorrow is the end of the world
author=Sigrosaauthor=GreatRedSpiritYes
My heart has been settled, my soul content. World, you may end at your leisure.
Agreed.
cleo_the_sphynx.jpg
Tomorrow is the end of the world
Connecticut Shooting
author=Lucidstillness
No, actually in the first case I don't believe the father pulled or otherwise pressed the trigger; the rifle went off spontaneously in his face for some reason, possibly due to a malfunction. You can argue that it was his fault for not properly maintaining the gun or not being careful, but the fact remains that guns can be dangerous all by themselves, like a car.
The gun was "dangerous" because it was loaded (was there any reason to even load the gun?); any responsible gun owner would know to never improperly handle a gun, much less a loaded gun. A gun will never fire anything unless someone loads ammo into it, and thus the fault again comes back to the unfortunate father who mishandled his gun and paid the price for it. It's the same as knowingly driving a car with a defect in its brakes and then proceeding to rear-end someone because you couldn't brake properly.
author=Lucidstillness
In your car analogy, you would be responsible if you had steered the car towards the pedestrian, but if you had lost control of the car due to a mechanical error the car would be 'to blame'. Of course, as the owner, questions would be asked whether the mechanical error was due to some factory defect or whether you had neglected to properly maintain the vehicle.
The analogy was under the assumption that the car had no mechanical defects, if there were any defects to consider the analogy assumed it was due to neglect by the owner to properly maintain the vehicle. Being a responsible owner of a piece of equipment includes properly maintaining that equipment, after all. I should've made this part clear, my bad.
I can see though that we both agree that the owner is to blame unless the car had any factory defects. Seeing as we can agree here, can you tell me why you insist that in the case of guns the fault lies in the guns rather than their owners/users?
Connecticut Shooting
As with the last public shooting, and all the shootings before that, people are going to wonder about the psychological disposition of the gunman, but frankly that is entirely irrelevant; when you strip away all the politics and media sensationalizing, you have the incontrovertible fact that the gunman could not have carried out the shooting without access to his mother's gun collection. Without the guns, he could not have killed so many people.And yet removing guns alone won't solve the problem of there being the murderer, which is what many of us are trying to point out. You've removed guns, but there are plenty of other weapons and potential weapons to be used instead; ultimately we need to eventually address the fact that murders won't go away until you deal with the cause, which is murderers being present in society. Cure the cause, not the symptoms.
Even at the best of times, guns are dangerous to have in the house. I'm Canadian, and just to prove that gun-related deaths are by no means exclusively American, a student my mother taught once witnessed his father shoot himself in the face due to his being careless with a loaded rifle. Yes, guns can kill people all by themselves. There are all kinds of stories about children finding their parents' gun, or family arguments that go too far, or neighbours who are mistaken for burglars and shot.Alright, this statement I find a problem with, especially the bolded part.
A gun cannot and does not kill people, why? Because someone needs to pull the trigger, whether intentionally or not, before the gun actually fires; a gun is just a tool. Taking the unfortunate case of the father shooting himself as an example, that turn of events was caused by careless handling of the gun by the father, the gun is not at fault. All the other examples you have provided are also the same, nowhere is a gun firing spontaenously under its (gun's) own will, someone is pulling the trigger before the gun is finally used to harm or kill someone.
Here's a different example: Assume on a sunny day I am driving a car and there is a person standing on the sidewalk in clear sight of me. I then happen to run over the person on the sidewalk, injuring/killing him. Putting aside the question of whether it was intentional or an accident, who/what is responsible for this turn of events?
A. Me, the driver.
B. The car.
I await your answer.
[Poll] Console Debate
PC, PS1, PS2, and GBA get my votes. Why isn't this poll multiple-answer and why was the PC not included? (*´Д｀)
Welcome your new overlord Liberty
Belated to the party, congrats to both Liberty and Soli! ヾ(❀╹◡╹)ﾉﾞ
Though I admit, I had assumed the former was already staff and the latter already had moderator powers. Oh well. ┐(￣ー￣)┌
Though I admit, I had assumed the former was already staff and the latter already had moderator powers. Oh well. ┐(￣ー￣)┌
Connecticut Shooting
author=Solitayre
Something everyone conveniently forgets about the Second Amendment is that it specifically specifies that the right to bear arms is for a "well-regulated militia." Did you all know that? Not many people do! The Second Amendment specifies that the government can regulate arms! It's right there in the Bill of Rights!
The "well-regulated militia" clause has had varying interpretations over the years. One interpretation is that a "militia" is an official, sanctioned, organized, trained group of people not directly in service to the military; another interpretation is that a "militia" basically means any physically fit person able to fight in combat; I'm sure there are also many other interpretions beyond this.
Moving on, general consensus by the Supreme Court as of today seems to fall largely on the latter, as shown here, though this is obviously subject to possibly change over the years to come.
author=Solitayre
I do think guns should be more regulated, much like cars.
Much like driving, you should be required to pass a basic gun training and safety class, teaching owners how to properly handle and fire a gun safely, in order to own a gun. If you cannot pass this class, you have no business owning a gun.
You should be required to pass a written exam specifying that you understand your rights and responsibilities as a gun owner, understand the legal ramifications of owning and using a gun, and that you understand the moral and ethical responsibilities of gun ownership. If you cannot pass this test, you have no business owning a gun.
Gun owners should be required to demonstrate that they know how to properly store and secure their gun from being used by someone else. If you cannot demonstrate this, you have no business owning a gun.
You can tell anyone I said these things.
I completely agree with you, actually! I have no problems with making sure that people who obtain guns are people who can take responsibility for their possession of firearms, just like how with cars we expect drivers to be responsible for the cars they own and/or drive. It's just when the topic of gun control moves to "Prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms, period." when words of objection are justifiably heard because it runs afoul of the Second Amendment's Right To Bear Arms.
Connecticut Shooting
author=SaileriusWhile I lack any documentation to back myself up, I'm pretty sure people with things such as mental deficiencies and criminal histories would be barred from legally procuring guns even here in the USA.
I agree. While we're at it, why mentally deranged people are allowed to own guns in the first place?
author=SaileriusSo they won't cause harm when they have access to something like an ordinary, everyday kitchen knife which can most definitely be used to kill someone? Are you saying they won't cause harm when they have access to a car, which can be used to potentially mow down an entire crowd of people in cold blood?
Psychopaths with violent tendencies will cause harm. The only way you can prevent it is to minimize the damage by preventing them access to firearms.
Again, I point to Japan and say: Nope, not working.
Connecticut Shooting
author=Saileriusauthor=Dyhalto...until one day, a principal or teacher goes around and shoots up a school...
The nature of discussion in this topic would be 180 degrees if the principal, or another teacher, had been carrying a gun and took the guy out.
I would argue that the topic should then be focused on why a deranged person like that got to be a principal or teacher and why he got deranged to begin with.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
