Gen Chat 9: THE HORROR!

gah I want to respond in this how do you stop gun violence thread on neogaf

but alas neogaf is to touchy about stuff and I don't think my responses would do much but get me in trouble.

to the people who are trying to say guns kill a lot of people if you didn't have them people would just use knifes and kill far less... I sit here and think about how easy it is to make bombs or even just get your hands on ammonia and bleach and find a ventilation system in a school which both would take out way more people than a gun if done right and both are decently likely to be done by people who would do a mass shooting if they didn't have access to guns.

and to the people who say ban guns... I merely want to ask how they think a civil war between people who want guns banned and people who don't want guns banned will really go... got a feeling the side that likes guns will have an advantage in a fight there ><;

I will note, I don't own a gun, have no interest in owning a gun, but at the same time see no real reason to ban them as despite the shootings going around the vast majority of the horror is just how much they report on stuff and the actual incident numbers haven't drastically changed. It's like how you aren't supposed to trust strangers or let your kids out at night because of all the bad things that happen and despite everyone's fears about predictors numbers are actually way down since like the 70s with things that go on but people feel like it was safer back then because they didn't hear about it ;/

anyways, feel free to ignore this post
I typically just message legend with this junk but he isn't on right now lol.

*agrees qwith a majority of Zulu's post

-Mazer wrote:*agrees qwith a majority of Zulu's post

I will reward you with a decent AMV



(I don't actually watch many AMVs, I did enjoy that one though)

Morning, ya'll


(random song I'm listening to, right now)

*Agrees with Zulux and Mazer*

zulux21 wrote:to the people who are trying to say guns kill a lot of people if you didn't have them people would just use knifes and kill far less... I sit here and think about how easy it is to make bombs or even just get your hands on ammonia and bleach and find a ventilation system in a school which both would take out way more people than a gun if done right and both are decently likely to be done by people who would do a mass shooting if they didn't have access to guns.

That's true, but it's this type of person isn't exactly the same as someone who just buys a gun and goes on a rampage in a moment of passion or stress...at least not always. Not to mention, it requires more effort and knowledge than just pointing a gun at people and shooting. That process itself could curb a certain amount of the incidents.
But yes, people who want to kill a mass amount of people will find a way even without guns. Guns just make it so easy.

and to the people who say ban guns... I merely want to ask how they think a civil war between people who want guns banned and people who don't want guns banned will really go... got a feeling the side that likes guns will have an advantage in a fight there ><;

In this scenario, it would turn into the "pro-guns" group rising up and rebelling against the government or something, right? I mean, it's not like gun opponents will cause a violent insurrection in order to ban guns. That would defeat their entire message.
So if this was to happen it wouldn't be "pro-gun people" against "anti-gun people." It would be the pro gun people rebelling against the government that has banned guns. The government would also ban guns...and tanks....and planes...drones, etc.

I will note, I don't own a gun, have no interest in owning a gun, but at the same time see no real reason to ban them as despite the shootings going around the vast majority of the horror is just how much they report on stuff and the actual incident numbers haven't drastically changed. It's like how you aren't supposed to trust strangers or let your kids out at night because of all the bad things that happen and despite everyone's fears about predictors numbers are actually way down since like the 70s with things that go on but people feel like it was safer back then because they didn't hear about it ;/

Totally agree. Don't own a gun and don't plan on owning one, but I don't think we should ban them. I do agree with having more gun control and regulations, though.

related:

Kitty came out last night and slept with me. c:

Luna wrote:snip

A lot of the bigger shootings are planned well in advance, lets take the theater shooting a while back, he blocked the exits, used smoke bombs and then shot people as they ran around scared. Had he replaced his smoke bombs with vials of ammonia and bleach he likely would have killed them all.

I am not saying all of the mass shootings would turn out that way, but a lot of the shootings like that are done by disturbed fairly intelligent people who without easy access to a gun would likely do something far worse.

In this scenario, it would turn into the "pro-guns" group rising up and rebelling against the government or something, right? I mean, it's not like gun opponents will cause a violent insurrection in order to ban guns. That would defeat their entire message.
So if this was to happen it wouldn't be "pro-gun people" against "anti-gun people." It would be the pro gun people rebelling against the government that has banned guns. The government would also ban guns...and tanks....and planes...drones, etc.

if we attempted to just outright ban guns, no doubt a number of the people who don't want them banned would fight and potentially resort to violence.

as for the gun opponents not causing a violent insurrection in order to ban guns... they totally would lol. They would use guns to do it, and wouldn't care one bit they were being hypocritical. History has done that time and time again where people will resort to force to push their ideas, even if their ideas are along the lines of peace.

as for the government, well it's not like the government is this perfect being that is above being effected by stuff. It's made up of a ton of people, people who would likely be split and break apart. while some of the government would likely be fine and help enforce the no guns rules, other places would most likely just break away from their chain of command and fight to protect gun usage. Depending on which side critical supply lines are on you could potentially have one side having way more fire power than other sides. This isn't even covering outside interference either as if people were locked out of supplies in their own country they would likely reach out to outside countries, and there would likely be a lot of usual enemies more than happy to help destroy america from with in.

aka you just can't really do an outright ban the potential for massive death is to high. The better way to go about it would to be slowly introduce stricter restrictions, limitations, and regulations. Make it so you can't own a whole arsenal of guns. The thing is there is currently more guns than americans (I think I recall something like a 2.2 to 1 ratio) and that isn't because every american owns 2 guns, it's because a lot of americans own 20 plus guns (all 3 of my coworkers that own guns own around that many) 3 guns per person is all one could logically need (one for defense, one for hunting, and one other) just shooting for sport could easily be handled through gun rental systems at shooting ranges.

I also don't disagree that automatic/semiautomatic weapons should be banned outside of shooting ranges. There isn't much reason to have these types of weapons unless you are planning on mass killing. You don't need to unleash 5 bullets a second in self defense, nor would you hunt that way as you wouldn't want all the metal in your meat. I get the firing for sport but regulated places would be best for than not your back yard.

I mean there are plenty of ways to tighten down on guns without banning them that would help.

Okay, has anyone here ever played Undertale?

Nope.

smirkytrick wrote:Okay, has anyone here ever played Undertale?

nope but I know of it and know it is supposed to be good.

zulux21 wrote:A lot of the bigger shootings are planned well in advance, lets take the theater shooting a while back, he blocked the exits, used smoke bombs and then shot people as they ran around scared. Had he replaced his smoke bombs with vials of ammonia and bleach he likely would have killed them all.

I am not saying all of the mass shootings would turn out that way, but a lot of the shootings like that are done by disturbed fairly intelligent people who without easy access to a gun would likely do something far worse.

I agree, but I did mention crimes of passion or stress, not that those can't be planned out. I was thinking of more "low level" type things like gang shootings. And sure, they don't get guns legally now, as it stands, but it's easy for them to get them illegally because it's easy to get them legally. If it was harder all around, like say being more strict with the sales and regulations, then the black market, where gangs get their guns, would reflect that in the price. It's easy and cheap to get guns on the black market because it's easy to get them legally. All you have to do is report the gun as "stolen" and buy it for someone who's gonna do something bad with it. I know, because I've seen that bullshit in person.

if we attempted to just outright ban guns, no doubt a number of the people who don't want them banned would fight and potentially resort to violence.

as for the gun opponents not causing a violent insurrection in order to ban guns... they totally would lol. They would use guns to do it, and wouldn't care one bit they were being hypocritical. History has done that time and time again where people will resort to force to push their ideas, even if their ideas are along the lines of peace.

Yeah, but my point is that those lunatics would lose all credibility with the majority of people and would soon be regarded as a terrorist group. The only thing that the anti-gun crowd has going is the rational arguments. If a group resorts to violent methods, they would have everyone else turn against them. The attempt itself would be fatal to their movement.

as for the government, well it's not like the government is this perfect being that is above being effected by stuff. It's made up of a ton of people, people who would likely be split and break apart. while some of the government would likely be fine and help enforce the no guns rules, other places would most likely just break away from their chain of command and fight to protect gun usage. Depending on which side critical supply lines are on you could potentially have one side having way more fire power than other sides. This isn't even covering outside interference either as if people were locked out of supplies in their own country they would likely reach out to outside countries, and there would likely be a lot of usual enemies more than happy to help destroy america from with in.

aka you just can't really do an outright ban the potential for massive death is to high. The better way to go about it would to be slowly introduce stricter restrictions, limitations, and regulations. Make it so you can't own a whole arsenal of guns. The thing is there is currently more guns than americans (I think I recall something like a 2.2 to 1 ratio) and that isn't because every american owns 2 guns, it's because a lot of americans own 20 plus guns (all 3 of my coworkers that own guns own around that many) 3 guns per person is all one could logically need (one for defense, one for hunting, and one other) just shooting for sport could easily be handled through gun rental systems at shooting ranges.

I wasn't saying that the government is a perfect being...at all. I was going against the implication of "in a fight between pro-gun people and anti-gun people, the ones without guns would be slaughtered." People imply that the ones without guns would be fighting, but it isn't them, per se, but the government. The banning of guns is only aimed at banning personal firearms, after all. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to ban guns to the point where not even the police or military is allowed to have them. I know it would turn into a civil war before it's a slaughter.

I also don't disagree that automatic/semiautomatic weapons should be banned outside of shooting ranges. There isn't much reason to have these types of weapons unless you are planning on mass killing. You don't need to unleash 5 bullets a second in self defense, nor would you hunt that way as you wouldn't want all the metal in your meat. I get the firing for sport but regulated places would be best for than not your back yard.

I mean there are plenty of ways to tighten down on guns without banning them that would help.

Exactly; I don't see the reason why someone needs a gun that can fire six hundred rounds per minute outside of wanting to kill a lot of people.

Luna wrote:I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to ban guns to the point where not even the police or military is allowed to have them.

for some reason I just imagined Magnito using his powers to bring all the guns in the world to him, putting a ban on guns in general, and saying "all your guns are belong to me."

><

lol

I went ahead and spent all my Money on pre-ordering Xenoblade X and buying a used copy of Okami...Does anyone want to gift me a copy of Mario Paint in the mean time?

*realizes he forgot 2 payments last month...

*sighs*

*hugs Mazer*

I was going to get an SSD today but now...

*curls up

:3

Red_Guy gif is plotting world domination! I should be able to work on some more pixel art tomorrow once I get homework out of the way.

-Mazer wrote:

:3

Look at him go!

-Mazer wrote:

:3

Little guy is gonna go places

unrelated note; Mazer you should check out Undertale, it's alot like Earthbound

the total indifference the peoples on tumblr seem to have toward my posts is a bummer

man... I might have to make an indiegogo account


is looking so good @_@

That does indeed look interesting.