Lol, best way to sum it up :
You haven' t watched Lost, have you ?
Surprisingly, it seems even 9/11 didn' t turn Muslims into the most distrusted minority in the US. http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/panic-over-the-unknown-america-hates-atheists/
What baffles me even more is that they don' t even hide it, yet some people trust them anyway. http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Really ? o_O I didn' t know that ... X_x
So ? The less convenient you make it to obtain one the fewer people will actually go through the trouble to obtain one. You aren' t allowed to buy a rocket launcher, correct ? How often do you hear of someone building one himself/buying one on the black market and firing it in a school ? By that logic pretty much every law ever is useless. Have you read the post above yours ? Car accidents happen. We don' t shrug them away. We enforce measures, such as speed limits, that successfully decreased the death toll.
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2012/12/21/nra-blames-society-videogames-for-ct-school-shooting/ Demons. Right. Mental illnesses are found all around the globe, in more or less the same proportions as in the US. There' s nothing "shadow" about it. I' ve got another dirty little truth for you, Mr Lapierre : http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-gun-club-shooting-video-game-2012-12. Not to mention Asians and Europeans play video games at least as much as Americans. And somehow you keep romanticizing the right to own a gun. Where' s the difference ? Cause I don' t see any. As opposed to the NRA who faces its own moral failings instead of blaming the media. Wait ... Then Mr Lapierre jumped to the usual NRA fallacies, "moar guns = moar security" and "moar guns in schools". Good job NRA, stay classy. To get back on what I said about violent video games, that they are played all around the world, same goes with violent music, books, movies and news. If I had to point a clear difference in the US media it would be the way they treat news : the first amendment allow their journalists to outright lie, they aren' t hold to any ethical line (hello Faux News). Pointing fingers with made up or religious "facts" instead of having a rational debate is the way of the bully. "Yay, I stood my ground like a real Amurican ! Did you see his face when I insulted him lol ?" Right. And they call that journalism. What a brilliant role model. But then to be fair it looks like a majority of Americans can see through this bullshit, so ... in the end the huge proportion of American civilians owning a gun still strikes me as the main, undeniable factor that sets their country apart.
I just woke up.
Nope. Gamers buy a game, not a cover. Even the article spells it out loud : Besides, as far as I can tell treating the cover purely as a marketing tool is essentially an American approach. Look at the Final Fantasy games for instance : Japan and Europe are quite happy to just put a sober logo over a white background on their cover, but the US always pick a male "bad-ass" character instead. Don' t ask me why.
- Non-retroactive security measures are passed regularly for every goddamn product, I don' t really see what sets guns apart. - Slowly effective =/= ineffective.
We' re already researching socioeconomic conditions and mental illnesses, but neither are exact sciences (yet). Burden of proof says hi. When it comes to gun control however you' re not asked to re-invent the wheel, countries all around the world have already tried different gun control measures with satisfying results. That' s why I think the US should concentrate on that for now, it' s much easier and less speculative than trying to read minds or predict the future.
Purgatory Repending Believers Very Low Level 1 - Limbo Virtuous Non-Believers High Level 2 Lustful High Level 3 Gluttonous Low Level 4 Prodigal and Avaricious Very Low Level 5 Wrathful and Gloomy Low Level 6 - The City of Dis Heretics Very High Level 7 Violent Moderate Level 8 - The Malebolge Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers Moderate Level 9 - Cocytus Treacherous Low Why am I not surprised ? And how come paradise is not an option ?
Quoted for truth.
...
Would you read that as a right to have a bazooka or an atomic bomb ? If your answer is no then you ARE for gun control. I' d be surprised to see anyone disagree with this. Even the NRA doesn' t, so the real question is not "are you for gun control" but "where do you draw the line ?" If the characters of The Lord Of The Flies had guns, the book would be two pages long. xD You like your right to have a gun ? Fine, but please stop asserting the more guns there are the safer you are, that' s just not true. All the statistics show the polar opposite. Have you read the article I posted earlier ? It mentions security measures that did not involve banning guns and lowered the death toll in other countries significantly. I don' t think anyone is asserting a complete ban would be a realistic approach (at least not in the US), however I don' t think it' d be wise for your country not to lift a single finger either. There are in-between positions, all the statistics show they are less lethal.
Not sure which law you' re talking about but ... Yeah ... I don' t think so ... I suppose my previous post was tl,dr for you so here, this is the part you want to read : Anyway, in the articles I' ve read people are asking for security measures, but not necessarily retroactive ones. It means they would only apply from now on, any gun you already own would still be yours. That' s what we do with cars (or any other object really) every time a new security measure is passed.
HYEEEH KYAAH ! HYAAH HAA HYEET !
