jedrider wrote:All I stated was that a semi-automatic, such as an AR-15, is somewhat to be considered an "assault rifle". At some point, a LINE must be drawn. That's all. No, I am NOT suggesting we take away toy guns from toddlers (an example of an EXTREME argument, for instance).
rockdoc123 wrote:Outcast, is talking about compromise and I totally agree. But it seems to me that the biggest agreement should revolve around the lethality of Guns. As Jerider said the AR-15 is purely a killing machine. I
Do you honestly think the same result could not have been achieved with someone skilled using a rather tame looking bolt action Savage or Mossberg .308 with a scope?
Are you suggesting that a trained individual with a small varmint gun such as a .22 long rifle with a scope couldn't have done the exact same damage?
The AR-15 may look scary and invoke thoughts of combat in conflict zones but in reality a bullet from any rifle properly aimed can have the same outcome.
evilgenius wrote:Why is it, do you think, that first person shooter games were(and are) the default starting point for video games? That has been the easy place to start. And once video games, around the time of the game Doom started becoming popular first person shooter seemed almost the exclusive type of game available. Developers didn't put much stock into the other kinds. It was easy to get a first person shooter game developed and hard to get some other concept past initial review. Yes, there were race car games and early sport playing games. It wasn't like first person shooter dominated so much that other concepts didn't exist. I ask you because the theme was(and is) so dominant.
I think it has something to do with agency. And those types of games turn agency almost into candy.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:evilgenius wrote:Why is it, do you think, that first person shooter games were(and are) the default starting point for video games? That has been the easy place to start. And once video games, around the time of the game Doom started becoming popular first person shooter seemed almost the exclusive type of game available. Developers didn't put much stock into the other kinds. It was easy to get a first person shooter game developed and hard to get some other concept past initial review. Yes, there were race car games and early sport playing games. It wasn't like first person shooter dominated so much that other concepts didn't exist. I ask you because the theme was(and is) so dominant.
I think it has something to do with agency. And those types of games turn agency almost into candy.
Why the need for violence to express the concept (or philosophy) of agency?
Another popular meme of computer games I like is "builders". Such as Civilization builders, space theme builders, railroad system builders, Sim City style builders, and on and on.
To me, these were more like having a career, but it was fun instead of stupid, as far as the things one needed to do to progress, at least in a large company (instead of growing the craft you got an education for, which quickly became secondary in the real world -- UNLESS you were willing to be a purist and advance very little). Skills like planning and strategy, and goals like productivity and optimization and overcoming obstacles are good things in such a context.
It's one thing to have a culture of guns as a serious tool where safety and respect is paramount (where for example, you NEVER aim a gun at anything living you don't intend to shoot). It's another to have a culture full of games where kids pretend to blast away at people and enjoy the blood and gore, and then be shocked, SHOCKED, when that casual psychology toward guns contributes to a culture where when a growing percentage of people go blast away at lots of people when they reach some breaking point.
KaiserJeep wrote:BTW, when I look at his face:
...and read the name Nikolas Cruz, I see a person of mixed racial heritage who has the head shape and slightly distorted features of a kid born with FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). I'm not by any means suggesting that he be given a pass on 17 murders - just asking, in what universe did his mental health professionals not feel an obligation to place this sick f--k in the FBI database that would have prevented him from legally buying weapons?
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
People's intuition about the good or evil of someone (i.e. by their race, their clothes, their posture, etc) are about as useful as their intuitions about what is true or false vs. the body of scientific evidence. (Which is by no means perfect, but a HELL of a lot better than rantings about ghosts or a flat earth or AGW based on their personal intuition).
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests