How is gun control as such a problem? Can you be more specific?
Ok, stop the thread now. Subtle warning before moderation.
Cas 
Great idea. Let’s not actually try and discuss ideas. Let’s just vomit out our opinions, agree with each other and feel morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.
You are not open for discussion, which we can tell by your intellectual filibustering, you’re just here to argue… it won’t get you anywhere.
Actually, haha it’s been so long since I had to invoke moderatorial power I can’t even remember how to do it. Please continue to pay out the rope with which you wish to hang yourself in front of the community, I’ll just watch for amusement.
Cas
I don’t think I’m not open for discussion, honestly.
I didn’t come here to argue, I took the opportunity to discuss a complex issue, since it presented itself, in a community I’m familiar with. I’m quite interested in discussing ideas in general.
Filibustering is more accurate a term in speech and in situations where time is limited. I think you’re reaching when using the term here. You’re using it as a kind of smear instead of an accurate description.
If you think I’m here only to argue, then what are you here for? You certainly had a strong opinion on the subject matter. Are you not interested in discussing the subject or your opinion? Are you merely here to state your opinion and leave? Or do you come back to see if other people have agreed with your opinion and given you medals?
If you’re so sure why I’m here for, then what are you here for, exactly?
I have a very high opinion of you and the way you’ve conducted yourself over the years in this community, Cas. And thus your opinion isn’t trivial to me. Not at all.
But I’m not a fan of the last statement here at all. It’s lazy, somewhat narcissistic and assumes a moral superiority where, to me, there isn’t one, or at least not an obvious one.
There’s a bunch of thing that I don’t know, that’s for sure. There’s a bunch of things most people don’t know. And I think trying to discussing ideas openly, and truthfully, is perhaps the only way for people to get better and know more stuff. Something like that.
Yeah yeah I like to be witty and smart when I can and win arguments, who doesn’t, I’m definitely no saint - but just because that may be the case - regardless of the fact that I’m perhaps not as witty or smart as I think I am - doesn’t obviously mean that discussing ideas openly with such people is inherently making things worse.
I truly believe, that trying to discuss ideas openly and truthfully is a good thing and a net positive - regardless of the contents of the discussions.
I think people can make up their own minds out of public discussions. I think people can detect for themselves when someone is arguing a good point badly, and when someone is arguing a bad point well. And when someone is arguing just for the sake of mental masturbation and all of those kinds of things.
Anyway, I do like these discussions and appreciate your patience and time~
The real problem, as has been said, is that too many people are being shot and killed. All this talk of “second amendment”, making all guns disappear is impossible, freedom to carry arms, create an imbalance etc. etc… is just deliberately clouding a simple issue, which is the usual tactic of those against the obviously solution of slowly removing guns as much as possible from society.
On the same subject, has anyone seen the propaganda Youtube video that the White House released yesterday, showing violent clips from video games? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C_IBSuXIoo Obviously, if you do watch it, you will turn into a gun-crazed maniac, so be warned.
TBH I am of a mind that we (Puppygames) should present a public facing stance on our feelings about guns, and it’s one of solidarity with the rest of the world, and that is guns are bad. Just bad, end of story, there are absolutely no redeeming arguments or features of guns that will convince the rest of the world, Puppygames, or myself otherwise, nor bring back all the dead people, and that’s our official line on it. And so honestly, there is no debate with me: I’m on the side of the right to live life without fear of random death from flying lead, not anachronistic amendments, nor business interests, nor even morality, and so it is with just about everyone else in the rest of the world.
Cas
Hey
Personally, I think that nobody should be allowed to own a gun, even the police. I don’t think that the world would be safer if everybody could own a gun. Policemen are allowed to keep their service pistols at home in some European countries and as far as I know, it has caused some tragedies. I have no figure, no formal evidence, sorry.
By the way, I don’t think that sane people are influenced by violent video games and I don’t think that video games drive people insane.
I spent some time in Los Angeles in 2012 and I disliked the sound of guns, I found that scary, I don’t imagine to live with guns everywhere.
Replace the word “guns” with “drugs” and you can have the same discussion.
Violence, death and misery aren’t caused by drugs or by guns but by the underlying issues like poverty, unemployment, bad education and whatnot that bring people to the point where they misuse the items at their disposal. That doesn’t mean that you should just ditch all regulations, they exist to allow people to live together without constant threat of accidents and conflicts arising.
@jonjava Do you really think gun possession and use should be fully unconditional? What about cars, should there be no regulations? Dangerous chemicals?
A society needs some rules to make living together without constant threat of accidents and misuse happening possible, i know a few people that i wouldn’t trust with literally anything that could be dangerous to others.
@princec There are recreational and professional uses for guns in the possession of civilians, like hunting, self defense and competetive target shooting, i sure wouldn’t want every random person to be able to just go out and stock up on firepower without any checks, but guns are part of this time period and of the american culture (gun lobby or not), especially in less densely populated regions. I think the problems with american gun law surface where there are many people living in tight spaces aka cities, guns have no productive use and place there, it’s the same story with Europe, densely populated, so you NEED tightly regulated gun possession/use there.
@ gouessej That’s really naive, the world would also be better without atom bombs and poison gas and and and. These things exist, they were bound to be invented because humans always strive for more and now you can’t un-invent them or take them away easily. I agree that more guns don’t create more safety though, that’s total gun nuttery.
[quote]it has caused some tragedies
[/quote]
Do you think these tragedies were caused by the piece of metal or by the person misusing it? Do you think an abusive husband wouldn’t have started beating his wive if you took away his baseball bat beforehand?
It is an interesting topic I personally don’t mind sensible gun ownership but that is because I grew up a house where my dad used to occasionally shoot shot guns for a hobby.
The UK seems to strike the reasonable balance. Generally people don’t own guns. And based on decade out of date knowledge (so probably wrong) if you wanted to store a gun at home you would need a license with a doctor sign off on good mental health and you had to store the gun and ammo separately in locked cabinets with a police inspection that said cabinets exist. Pretty much kids don’t get easy access to these lethal items.
This means outside of pest control and sports usages people don’t own gun plus the type of gun you can own is very limited. Tighter gun controls would help fix the problem in the US. I think the general trend in the US is less people own gun although those that do tend to own an increasing number so at some point the tide will turn and restrictions will appear.
I found the pervasive use of guns in media an interesting point. Not something I had really considered before as a way to normalise guns.
You need four things for a tragedy: perp, motive, gun, victims. While there are four things tragedies will continue to occur. There is only one thing that is in the power of society to remove. To be on topic for the forum: imagine you’re trying to design some sim game and you need to stop some game-breaking flaw where AI minions keep on killing all the AI children whenever they get a mood under 0.2 and pick up an SMG.
Cas
Actually you only need 3 things now I think about it. Perp, gun, victim. And the victim is frequently the perp (examine US suicide data for eye opening facts). And in another uniquely American way you don’t even need a motive when you’ve got armed toddlers.
Cas
The second amendment is one short sentence and up to the supreme court to decide what it means. For those of us old enough to remember the current gun culture did not exist in the 80s. Wikipedia covers some rulings and this is from a quick search: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
The second amendment thing is bizarre. If the 2A had a clause in it that allowed you to shoot Mexicans I wonder if Americans would fight for the right to do so, because it’s been written down. Just a thought.
Cas
[quote]You need four things for a tragedy: perp, motive, gun, victims.
[/quote]
[quote]Actually you only need 3 things now I think about it. Perp, gun, victim.
[/quote]
Perp, fake gun, victim
Perp, knive, victim
Perp, metal rod, victim
Perp, fist, victim
Perp, rope, victim
Perp, bridge, victim
Perp, truck, victim
Perp, insert object, victim :
Perp, victim
They all have motives and they all have objects, people use what’s available, i get that guns are the most potent,most efficient object at that, which is why they’re going to be used for these puposes if available.
But i would rather have the risk of a few more accidental deaths to happen then banning everything dangerous. Should motorcycles be banned? Skiing? Private aviation? Just because you have no connection to guns doesn’t mean there arent people that are enjoying using them.
Look at it that way, I wouldn’t really mind if skiing got banned because i don’t go skiing and it’s dangerous, it’s the same thing with you and guns, you are not affected and you only see the negative points because of your position, so from your point of view it could as well be banned outright. But that’s close minded, neither skiing nor regulated gun ownership should be banned, where should we stop at banning stuff?
The minion example sounds like an interesting game mechanic ;D It’s kind of a constructed example though, i would rewrite the minion behaviour, they are obviously defective.
To be fair, the 2nd ammendment was referring to muskets and shit, not weapons that can fire a crap load of rounds per second.
Let us assume for the moment that the minion code is in a library and you can’t change it.
Your counterexamples btw are a particularly tired and entirely orthogonal argument and well you know it.
Cas
[quote]minion code is in a library and you can’t change it
[/quote]
Sure, then you have to remove the smg or live with the consequences, i get what you want to say, remove the tools to do bad stuff and it can’t happen.
[quote]entirely orthogonal argument
[/quote]
Then please point out my obvious logical fallacies instead of just saying there is a problem with my argument, i don’t think easy access to firearms is a good idea but it should still be possible to obtain one in a regulated way if one wants to, you on the other hand say all guns should be banned for civilian possession, that’s where our stances go apart from what i understand from your posts, i hope i didn’t misinterpret that, correct me if I’m misrepresenting your position.
I know that I’m stretching it with the skiing example, but we’re not talking about criminals using ski vs using guns, we’re talking about law abiding citizens owning guns for recreational use vs going skiing, both hobbies are potentially dangerous for yourself and others if you’re irresponsible and both serve no purpose other than recreation, so i think it’s a good comparison for the “civil use” side of it. I admit that skis cannot be used as an effective tool of destruction should the owner go nuts, so they pose significantly less danger if you have them in your house, but basing laws on that small possibility of an otherwise unsuspicious person going nuts is very restrictive imho.
The entire argument is about individual freedoms vs their risks, i think you can come to different conclusions in different countries when it comes to guns but i would agree that at least in densely populated countries (most of europe) the risks take the upper hand. America is mixture of the two extremes though and i think it would be bad to go to the extreme of completely banning them there.
I’m always open for constructive criticism, but not for “i think this, no way around it, you’re wrong”.
Don’t log in for a day and all hell breaks loose ;D
While I mostly agree with you, to be fair there are a lot of countries with fairly high gun ownership and much lower death rates - which means there are wider cultural issues at play too.
And ain’t the second amendment about protection from tyranny rather than being too busy shooting each other to notice the tyranny! 
Guess you’ve got a few years on me, but growing up UK in the early 80’s we’d all be watching The A-Team - so many guns and bullets, so few gunshot wounds and deaths. I don’t have a problem with seeing portrayals of guns, but lets see some reality of the consequences too. If you’re going to show guns to kids, at least scare the crap out of them!
The A-Team was the start of it. All those bullets… and the only person who ever got shot was Murdoch.
Cas