Zero Punctuation: Enemy Front & Valiant Hearts: The Great War
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the gun is just the tool and if they can't get a gun there are a million other ways to do the same thing. Such as just getting in a car and driving into crowds of people.crimsonshrouds said:
Look at Chicago since they have banned guns, gun violence has skyrocketed. So tell me again how putting restrictions on guns helps?
There's a lot of cases of people going on murderous rampages in the UK with their cars, happens all the time, I went on one last week because I got annoyed about a Hearthstone losing streak. Oh wait, no it doesn't. The UK has had /three/ massacares since 1987, discounting terrorist attacks from the IRA or the July Bombings. Sure we have stabbings, but that's limited to 1 or 2 people, as it's much easier to overpower someone with a knife. Plus you feel a bit less invincible with a knife.bobdole1979 said:
Conversely, the US has at least 3 school shootings a year (of a the 1-3 deaths variety) and 32 massacres since 1987. That is not good. The point is, the amount of saturation shouldn't have got to that point in the first place there should be far stricter rules and they shouldn't have sold heavy duty weaponry on that scale to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walked into a gun shop in the first place. People could still have guns, they just don't need heavy duty weaponry, and need to check, have safety training and psychological evaluation. The Aurora shootings had the dude purchase a good amount of his gear from the internet for fuck sake.
Sure hardcore criminals will find stuff on the black market, they always will, but I couldn't tell you how I could do that in the UK, because guns are rare here. I couldnt've just "gotten hold of a gun" and gone on a rampage even if I tried. Conversely, if they stopped the sale of guns (which I'm not suggesting they do, just control it), it would be almost in effective, because the country is in an arms race with itself with so much fire power it's ludiocrous. A civilian doesn't need that sort or amount of hardware.
Heck I live in Finland now where you're allowed guns, but you have to be /thouroughly/ checked, and check in, in order to keep it. Two that I could find in the last 20 years. They've even got the Russian mafia on their doorstep.
You can't just control guns in one area, especially not in America and expect it to stick, that's fucking stupid and whoever thought that would work is a fucking ninny. You need control across the whole of the United States, weapons amnesties for heavy duty stuff, more police to enforce it and a better detterant. Controlling it in just Chicago and the surrounding area is stupid, because you just step over the border and get it from the next state, or a mate who lives out state, or I dunno, in a trash can because there's a stockpile of guns to shame Russia during the cold war.
Not knowing a lot about the situation, I'd suggest that the increase in gun violence may have something to do with the twin factors of easy access to weapons both historically and outside of the locale and a significant lack of deterrent.bobdole1979 said:
It took about 10 years of hard work for the flood of firearms brought about by the Northern Ireland peace treaty to be tackled, the supply just shifted to criminals rather than terrorists and the police were swamped. Did Chicago double its police force at the same time as banning guns? If not, then prevention and enforcement weren't up to the task (unsupported by the politicians/money-men, not lacking in competence); facing criminals' perception of an easy target, I'd guess that the local law enforcement just couldn't cope with the initial increase which has subsequently fed the problem, making it worse.
But then again, there may be any number of factors tangentially linked to the increase in gun violence since the ban, links most probably exist but it's disingenuous to state or even imply that the one is directly caused by the other.
Actually mental illness certainly played a part(Harris was bipolar, and , and the medication for it(Harris had recently switched from Zoloft to Luvox). Dylan was certainly depressed, and in anger management training, his medical record is sealed, but it's very likely he was on anti-depressants.Zombie Badger said:
Harris has also been diagnosed as a psychopath, after the fact.
Over 90% of all mass killers since the 80s have been on psychiatric drugs, or in withdrawal from from them, primarily selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs for short, which we know Harris was on(both Zoloft and Luvox are SSRIs). Which also coincides with a 900% increase in mass killings compared to the same amount of time previously. (The last 30 years has had 10 times as many mass killings as the previous 30 years).
Nice review on Valiant Hearts. It looked interesting and I'm on kind of adventure game kick lately, so I'll likely pick it up.
Speaking of which, Are you going to review "The Wolf Among us"? I'd think it would be something you'd be interesting in, especially since you seemed to like "The Walking Dead".
And I'm also kinda surprised that there's been no review on Transistor, considering how much you liked Bastion.
Speaking of which, Are you going to review "The Wolf Among us"? I'd think it would be something you'd be interesting in, especially since you seemed to like "The Walking Dead".
And I'm also kinda surprised that there's been no review on Transistor, considering how much you liked Bastion.
There's three things you can do.HalfTangible said:
1. Prevent guns from entering the area.
2. Prevent guns from being acquired.
3. Prevent guns from being made.
Gun free schools are the first option. You check the people entering the area and prevent guns from getting in. A whoooooooooooole lot easier than preventing them from entering a city.
Conceal carry only increases gun violence. More people being armed means more chances for a conflict that ends without injury to escalate into murder. Look at the psycho at the movie theater who shot and killed a guy for using his cell phone and then claimed he did it because he feared for his life. Conceal carry is based on fear - fear that you could be attacked at any time so you have to protect yourself by shooting first. That's a failure way to live your life and a bad way to run a society.
When you get married, do you call her your "first wife" when introducing her to friends?Aardvaarkman said:
ok, so valiant hearts its a game more about humans then killing things? call me interested. but i think i just wait until its on discount.
Gun Free zones (including schools) are where most non-gang mass shootings take place. They very blatantly do not work. Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine... all gun-free zonesThanatos2k said:
Statistics disagree with you on the second. Conceal Carry has been shown to DECREASE gun violence.
Society is based on trust. Gun bans are based on fear of guns, and on complete distrust of anyone who has one. Conceal carry is being prepared for the worst that could happen. That is EXACTLY how you live a good life and how you run a society.
Vietnam: We HAD accomplished our goals in Vietnam. All we had to do was keep sending supplies to their government, as we'd promised. Of course, we didn't, and so two years after we'd won, we lost everything we'd built there. Because f$#% following through on your commitments, right? F#$% doing things that make sense in a war against your opposition, even if an indirect war. We should do something that sounds good on our resume!Shamanic Rhythm said:
Iraq: We HAD stability for a while. That's a fact. What militants were there were on the run. We could've made the peace permanent, too. Of course, we have a ludicrously incompetent government that decided that because it was somewhat stable now, we could leave and everything would be fine, despite the fact that any moron could've told you that that would create a power vacuum, collapse the region and lead to... well, what we have now.
I call a region without war 'stable'. And whatever you may say or think about the Iraq war the place was less violent afterward, at least for a while. Saddam wasn't there to butcher his own people or attack us in violation of our treaties, and a democratic government was being established.jaded zombie said:
Then we fucked it up royally because apparently nobody learned anything from the Gulf war OR bothered to ask 'hey, how is this region gonna react when we go in?'
Is it really "gun control" when you can just take a short trip over the state border and grab yourself a gun? Not to mention that an area already flooded with guns probably won't suddenly become safe overnight upon declaring their ownership illegal.HalfTangible said:
The original use of the term was "first World War", indicating that this was a new kind of warfare, and not necessarily anticipating that there'd be a second one (although many, many people accurately predicted there would be a second one).Thanatos2k said:
Mind providing those statistics? You have to be careful when reading them, since it's easy for people to misconstrue data to fit their needs. I did a cursory search about the concealed carry thing, and apparently the studies seem to be inconclusive; some studies say it's true, others say it's not, and they seem nearly split even. And all my life I've heard all kinds of conflicting things about whether gun control actually reduces gun violence.HalfTangible said:
Not that I'm against people having guns or anything. I'm all for it. I think the actual problem lies with a whole lot of complex factors involving mental illness and American culture (specifically the way we construct masculinity), and that banning guns is just kind of treating a symptom without treating the illness. Aforementioned cultural reasons might be why gun control increases gun violence, since Americans are just much more accepting of violence than other countries. Supply and demand and all that. I'm not an expert in any of these fields, though, so I could easily be wrong.
I'm sure mental illness is only an American thing, like ridiculously high numbers of deaths by gunshot.bobdole1979 said:
Did you know most areas in which large amounts of people gather (schools, sporting events, etc) are "gun free zones"? So you're saying "most shootings where someone wanted to kill a lot of people happen at places with a lot of people"? MY GOD, you might be on to something. Oh wait, no.......HalfTangible said:
No it doesn't. And please don't quote any biased "research" by easily discredited puppet groups. It's a definitive fact that across the board countries with fewer guns have fewer murders. Guns kill people? Who'd have thought!
The exact opposite of what you said is true. Guns do one thing - kill. Being "prepared for the worst that could happen" means an inherent mistrust of other people. And that's exactly the kind of paranoid fear that drives people to do stupid things with guns, like shoot someone in a movie theater for using their cell phone. Or nutjobs in Texas that shoot anything that moves on their "property."
bobdole1979 said:
Because it's hard to create a power fantasy about a war in which you spend most of the time running and hiding for dear life from horrible machines of war.thejboy88 said:
Though with the growing popularity of bleak survival games, and horror games where you're completely powerless, perhaps games set around WWI could sell after all.
So you're willing to go out of your way to tell him he's wrong, in the most childish way possible, but then won't actually form any sort of counter argument?PCPLX said:
Someone's a sore loser.