Lurker > Dark_Spiret

every US citizen has the right to a firearm (for the most part). some take it more serious than others and some forget why we have it.

if its what they want..

no way in hell.

yunalenne10 posted...

No more red dress too, right?

CruelBuffalo posted...

Shes now the bitch in the red sweater

personally, im a sweater puppies man.

the difference there is that 3 was already tightly paced that it didnt need to have cut content, but they did it anyway. 4 tends to drag in certain parts with sections that dont really serve much of a purpose outside of a random combat scenario of which a good chunk of them in the castle dont really make much sense. not to say they should just cut it instead of redesigning it, but you could lose some of 4 and not lose any of the pacing. it is a very long game with sections in chapter 4 and 5 that do go on longer than they probably should.

Arcturusisnow posted...

He signed a law earlier this year that did away with background checks and gun licenses.

he did not do away with background checks. it just made it so you didnt have to have a license to carry concealed. half the country already does that.

how about neither? go home and have a bagel.

good luck with that, tyrants.

not till they remake CV.

FortuneCookie posted...

What movie are they parodying?

theyre parodying a real event. the charles whitman shooting in austin, texas that happened in the 60's. former marine went nuts (supposedly due to a tumor), killed his family then climbed a tower in austin and started shooting people.

never really thought about and when i did i just wanted to afford as many lego's, g.i joes and video games as i wanted. which i suppose i can now. so good on me.

no. we had safety drills which were mostly the same for a whole host of different conditions. this was around when columbine happened.

Veggeta_MAX posted...

This is implying gun collectors are smart with money.

guns are actually a decent investment since they rarely drop in value assuming they havnt made a billion of that type.

why does anyone collect anything? guns are no different. you just have more of an option to do so in the US than in most other countries.

pfh1001 posted...

Damn, I had no idea our suicide rates were that much worse.

mexico tends to be very religious. suicide is a no no.

piggies gonna oink.

UnfairRepresent posted...

On some level you have to justify that BEFORE you scream at liberals for being liberaly all over your corn flakes in the morning
^ Hey now that's completely unfair!

(bit of a rant coming)
there are certain levels of hypocrisy when it comes to gun groups and republicans. the whole "its mental health!" while actively de-funding mental health services being one of them. but in general people ARE mad at the person rather than the tool because the tool does nothing without the person wielding its intent, the important detail is that that person tends to have already been dealt with by either death or incarceration. the anti-gun groups are still actively trying to disarm people (which in terms of the gun itself is the ONLY thing thats going to make a big difference unless you get into other aspects) and can be seen as a ever constant threat to many peoples ways of life and depending on how they see it, a threat to the protection of their familys (guns for a lot of people are a way of life, they arnt a hobby). a lot of it comes down to the culture, but in general more regulations=harder to get a gun=harder to protect ones self. this leads into the hypocrisy of the left where they are preaching to you that you dont need this or that while on their soap box guarded by security with guns, behind high walls with a fascination that police will be their to protect you when they really wont, both in response time, weapon accuracy and an obligation in doing anything.

the constitution shows that every citizen has a right to a firearm. there are no questioning of needs anywhere. this leads into what can actually be regulated since we have done it, more notable from criminals and those who we have deemed mentally unsound which isnt mentioned in the constitution. but this also leads into more questions. we have deemed an 18yo is an adult, but now we say they arnt until 21 essentially for guns, but not for voting, driving or joining the military all of which are responsible for a LOT more carnage through-out history or hell even alcohol in other parts of the world. it shows that they want more regulations just to have them and not whether they think someone is mentally sound for them. this leads to more pushback.

guns play a factor. very obviously so, but not to the extent most think. you mention it your self when it comes to third world countries who do have a lot of violence and access to firearms, but by and large are not doing mass shootings or school shootings. they tend to come down (imo) to religion (and yes theres some messy shit involving that as well) and how life in general is. religion can be an important factor in someones life since it offers goals, control (for better or worse) and a sense of purpose while having to worry more about your day to day life rather than what someone said to you in an internet chatroom or having many aspects already handed to you.

other countries when it comes to Europe you have certain social safety nets in place that takes stress off the population while in combination of other special factors (high police presence, monitoring, geography, population sizes ect.) which leads to citizens coming off as more "happy" and satisfied in their lives which cuts down on violence and the will to do so. most countries still have guns and most dont have that many regulations in comparison to places like California or New York and yet their firearm homicides are significantly lower. that shows there is something else at play.

a lot of anti-gun groups like to use the UK and AUS as examples of 0-60 gun control without actually showing you the details. the UK never had a gun culture and never had any shootings despite less regulations prior to their defining event. they have had 3 mass shootings in their countries history, one of which was years AFTER their regulations. that is not enough information to show this definitely had an effect on anything.

AUS is similar, but also shows how anti-gun groups like to ignore certain statistics to play off a narrative. AUS gun violence was already on the decline years prior while not mentioned that after they did implement their buyback vehicular homicides went up, arson homicides went up (including 3 of the worst mass casualty events in their country in the last 100 years outside of the shootings, which were exceptionally rare prior to the buyback). they also have a habit of leaving out family mass murders, half of those with a firearm which was significantly less than it was prior to the buy back. if anything it showed that people do go to other methods, successfully when guns arnt there negating a lot of the lives saved. Japan tends to come down to culture of treating each other well along with harsh imprisonment using a lot of questionable methods to scare individuals.

the big take away is that the US rarely had this level of mass shootings prior to columbine despite the guns and ease of access always being there. this shows a shift in the culture and way of life which needs to be assessed.

Chicago gonna Chicago.

DarthAragorn posted...

Except the fact they did work but okay

no, they really didnt. gun violence was going down for years prior to the buy back and afterwards other methods overtook the guns (including 3 of the worst arson mass killings in the countries history which was very rare if non-existent before the buyback) they also like to leave out the dozen family mass murders, many involving guns in their statistics. the UK example is even worse since theyve only had 3 mass shootings in their entire countries history, one of which was just last year.

TreyFlowers posted...

Ban guns like we did in Australia. No mass shootings since 1996

i wish poeple would stop using this as an example of anything. same with the UK. they dont work.

how much are you looking to spend? Beretta Tikka's are really really nice bolt guns for the price. Howa makes really nice budget ones.

any proposal iv seen doesnt say "arm all teachers", they say those who want to do it should be able to. no one is forcing anyone. hell iv seen some takes on the right saying they oppose it specifically because they dont want to arm "liberal commies". so theres that.

in terms of a fast deterrent its as good as any of them especially when teachers are in the crosshairs as much as the students.

specifically school shootings? take note of troubled individuals. everyone who has done this has had a long list of red flags leading up to it including already having the police called on them for domestic problems, shown signs of animal abuse/torture, self harm and actual threats of violence.

Jen0125 posted...

Can you explain how common sense gun laws and better funding for all social services, education and additional funding for mental health support would not help these issues?

the other aspects you mentioned would have much more of an impact overall than basically any gun laws. more gun laws always gives more power to the system, the same system who have plenty of guns protecting them anyway (ironically) and to those who the system has already deemed dont have a right to help you. plus those who you dont want to have guns will end up getting them anyway, especially in the age of the internet and 3d printing or will turn to other methods which can have even more horrid results if they have to get creative. it doesnt stop the act, it just shifts it while keeping normal citizens at a constant disadvantage to everything.

you fight the problem by getting rid of the intent through the other options you mentioned. happy people who feel theres purpose in their life and can get help when they need it do not murder school children and those who are severely mentally compromised can be looked after properly.

since i was born i was taught to never trust them.

it seems like most of these shooters had a trail of red flags and not just a few but a LOT that were either waived off or never fallowed up on. bullying (to and from), bad home life/lack of parental care (where cops were already involved), animal torture, self harm, threats of violence, posting pics of weapons ect. on top of internet access further enforcing their ideas. there needs to be a more serious approach to certain elements of these that needs to be looked at.

darkknight109 posted...

b) The trend of shooting deaths doesn't track with mental health care; it tracks with availability of guns.

if that were the case then other countrys would be almost as bad as the US in gun deaths. some countries like France, Switzerland and even Canada have huge gun ownership and their laws arnt much more strict than places like California or New York and yet their gun deaths are SIGNIFICANTLY less. the US itself wasnt like this (for the most part) until the 90's despite the guns always being there. even war torn countries in the middle east and how shitty certain areas of them are have high gun ownerships where a real AK47 can be had for $50, you still dont see people going and shooting up schools.

not to say the guns arnt an issue because they obviously are, but other aspects shows theres a LOT more to factor in than just guns.

psychopath in the making. all the signs were there.

very stupid. atleast have some integrity and say it out right.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I know that, but his silence on the matter is deafening

because its already been explained to death. most countries have a lot of social programs at play that help people before they can turn to violence. some are water locked helping keep track of what comes in and out. many have higher policing and monitoring programs along with smaller land masses and population sizes that aids in the policing and monitoring. pretty much all of them dont have the gang or drug problems to the US' scale either. political divide is also worse in the US due to its 2 party system which helps those with more extreme views be lumped in with everyone.

with that they dont have a history of gun culture. a lot of those European countries dont actually have that much gun control beyond what you see in certain states in the US its just that the other factors are at play which helps cut down on violence in general. theres a reason why most of the people in those countries tend to be statistically "happier". the lack of programs, shitty news system, in combination of the internet making it easier to form extreme views is altering the culture. there is a serious reason why you never really saw this level of violence prior to the late 90's. the guns have always been there as were the ease of acquirement, the mass shootings (by and large) wernt.

itachi15243 posted...

I mean he actually probably could've done the same with a bomb? But a bomb is obviously A LOT harder to get or make than a gun.

depends on the bomb. a pipe-bomb with a simple fuse are insanely easy to make and pretty safe to do so as well.

Turbam posted...

Why is it that everyone seems to think that "there should be stricter gun laws" means "no one but villains will have guns!"

because essentially it means those who dont fallow the law dont really give a shit about stuff like the NFA. glock switches are starting to go all over, short barreled shotguns and rifles that they cut off and use to help them maneuver and get the drop on people, magazine limits that they reconvert. they take advantage on poorer people who may not be able to afford mandatory classes or extra taxes on guns or ammunition to actually own anything that would give them a leg up. they have what they need while others have waiting periods ect. other stuff like UBC's, Red Flag laws ect just put more stop gaps for people who actually want to fallow the law while those who you really dont want to get a gun are going to get them any way. especially now with 3d printing and the internet. its easier than ever to actually make a gun now.

they dont want to take the time to list the reasons while also saying they arnt for most of those reason. its the same bullshit as the "its mental illness!" while cutting programs that could help with that.

its essentially a poll tax and another way to get around the second amendment which isnt constitutional. like most types of gun control its also a way to easily effect poorer and minority communities who cant afford to own a gun. my states constitution specifically states the right to ammunition as well as guns because they know this.

i dont think you really understand how much ammo one goes through in order to stay proficient with their firearms. on average most people go through 200-500rounds per range visit. every tactical course iv been to they want you to bring 1000rounds (or they used to. some cases its 500 now due to ammo prices and shortages).

you also act like 20-50rounds isnt enough to kill 20-50 people. limiting that, kinda like limiting magazine capacity leads to people carrying more powerful guns which leads to more actual damage and less wounded as they now have to aim. kinda like that guy in californa who road around shooting at people with a .500 smith and wesson. fired 5 rounds, hit 5 people, all fatal. or that naval base shooter who used a shotgun, fired 2 dozen rounds, killed 12. theoretically there may be less collateral, but thats about it.

when it comes to cops its their training and about the idea of a perceived threat. someone could have a visible knife 20feet away and their chance sof making it out alive in that situation isnt much better than if they actually had a gun. prior to the 80's they didnt used to be trained like this.

AldousIsDead posted...

While dogwhistling about inner city violence. Maybe you did, I don't really care. The shoe fits.

im on board with most stuff liberals want (even far leftists to various degrees), but i see no value in gun control when all it does is give more power to those who shouldnt have it. especially when a lot of those issues can be solved through other means like actually helping those in those communities get better education and healthcare. decriminalizating more drugs would also do wonders for the gang problems. weed was a good first step and its not hurt anything.

AldousIsDead posted...

Found the chud.

funny considering im a classic liberal who voted for whitmer.

Gwynevere posted...

Yeah if we can't pass even the most tame little baby steps

thats the whole problem and why most stuff gets shot down. everyone knows it would be just the beginning with no real end.

OT: as a michigander, outside of the safe storage laws (theoretically), pretty much none of those will do anything. we already have UBC's for handguns which take up something like 99% of our firearm deaths and they dont do shit. parts of flint, detroit and ann arbor are still warzones with handguns specifically because they get them through someone who could already aquire them through the background check anyway (via given or bought which is already illegal). magazine limits dont matter aslong as you can still reload in 1 second and actually modify the magazine anyway (which is done constantly).

even the safe storage laws in context to the recent shootings the parents litterally gave him the gun and others got their stuff legally by themselves. BUT it might have an effect on in home accidents and potentially stolen firearms (however as mentioned and whats been studied in state its negligible as far as how criminals get their guns). with that it also puts a hamper on being able to defend your self with a firearm in your home if you have to run and unlock it (while potentiality under stress) to get it.

outside of for younger kids who might wander into traffic its really not needed an dis insanely easy to get around if someone wanted.

personally my old private school had a really nice system in place. granted this was a higher end school that parents paid a decent amount to. they didnt have fences however they had metal bullet proof entrance doors in 2 places that only opened one way that you needed to buzz in. you went though a gussied up metal detector (they tried to make it not look like one, for students moral im assuming) and signed in to a side station that had 2 guards and a few more patrolling in the area (none of them in uniform, but were wearing the schools logos on their shirts and while not visibly armed you could see printing if you looked). the whole process took maybe 5-10 seconds per student. 2 of those round inconspicuous cameras at each entrance and one in each hallway. the windows in the buildings had security film over them so it would be hard to break open and every other classroom had one of those unlock fire exit windows that only opened from the inside.

inside the actual building it looked like any other. at the end of the day all students exited like any other school. im sure they had even more precautions, but those are what i remember. the most important thing though is that it didnt feel like you were walking into an apocalyptic fortress and it didnt feel like you were being held in a prison. the only way i could see someone actually trying to get in is if someone from the inside held the door open, but even then you had several armed guards to content with being fairly close by.

realisticaly as far as implimenting something similar i dont know how economically feasible it would be for every school to do so. to my knowledge the parents alone paid $10k per year just so their kids could go there.

and thats part of why i always carry.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Wouldn't an increased presence of guns in campus just lead to more shootings? When guns have a presence at home they lead to increased instances of kids either shooting themselves or other loved ones far more often than they're used for defense. Why would that fact change just because they're in a school?

probably, but once again what other choice do you have while you wait and hope for something to be done or hypothetically work? its essentially the same thing as doing nothing. theres also a lot of ways to go about doing that than dressing up as a cowboy with a visible gun on their hip. the resource offers i had at my school were armed, but they both wore retention holsters so someone couldnt just grab them and they didnt have them visible. quick access lockboxes are also a thing. nothing is impervious, but they can be considered extra safety measures.

and that more harm than good "study" is instantly bullshit when they throw out no shots fired as not a valid defense and hence dont tally it. I was actually in a situation when i had to pull a gun on someone sneaking into a friends window and the police report didnt even mention i had a gun because i never fired it. they labeled it a "weapon".

bigblu89 posted...

Imagine how miserable it is to be an Elementary School Music Teacher. Making $40-50K a year and teaching 8 and 9 year olds how to play a recorder.

Now imagine being that teacher, but with a loaded pistol at your side.

the assumption would be if they wanted to, not to make them do it. theoretically outside of beefing up the building itself, thats probably the best solution. even if you pass gun laws, they arnt going to make much of a difference (if at all) for a while. teachers, unlike cops tend to not have the luxury of choice, they tend to be in the sights as much as the students. not to say it would 100% help them, but the fighting chance angel and actually being able to protect more children is going to be a lot higher than 0% just by the law of averages.

or you know, a reclosing door that only opens from the inside. those were things in every school i went to. in the 90's no less.