Calax

While close range negates a lot of advantages of a rifle over a pistol it doesn't negate all of them. A pistol round is typically lighter and slower than a(n assault) rifle round and (all other things being equal) is far less damaging, at any range. Even limited to just handguns there's huge variation in survivability, eg a .44 magnum is far more deadly than a 9mm round. In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round. I've fired a .22, a .223NATO and a .303 (? Lee Enfield from WW2 anyway) and I have no doubt whatsoever that were I ever to be unfortunate enough to get shot I'd prefer the .22, at any range under the sun. Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon. They're inherently less controllable and more dangerous to bystanders whatever the context. I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US. I'm pretty comfortable overall with the situation here where it's reasonably easy to get a rifle if you have a good reason (hunting qualifies) and can pass the licence for it (basically have people willing to say you aren't bonkers, do not have a drug or alcohol problem and do not have criminal convictions) and have good security such as a trigger lock/ safe/ rack plus keep ammo/ bolt separate from the gun. From what I know of automatic weapons in the US, they were banned, and the only legal ones on the market are those pre-ban ones which are essentially collectors pieces that fetch high prices. At least that's how it used to be at some point. While there is no real reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon, all of them require a person a to pull the trigger, and if that person is an idiot then its equally dangerous whatever he/she is holding. Besides, in Switzerland everyone who has passed army duty gets one of the best assault rifles in the world to keep at home. I dont see the Swiss dying in droves because of it. Well, A) the Swiss require army training to even own a gun, which means that they're at least pretty good at gun safety. B) I don't think anyone has counted how many semi-autos have been modified since their purchase to be fully automatic. And while it might bot be the easiest thing on the planet, It is something that's happened. Ya know... THIS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step

Yay for less than dime store psycology! Hope I wasn't reading to much into that one letter.

You overreacted a wee bit methinks. I mean it's obvious he's trying to figure out some way the family can stay a family, but also wants your wife to be able to fit her into the family. It seems a bit like they come from entirely different backgrounds, or at least mental constructs. I mean, it can be quite uncomfortable if she's a-religious and yet your parents are still forcing the family to bow heads and say a prayer every meal time. There could be no real level at which she can connect to your families shared experiences due to geographic location, her upbringing, her current job, and any number of things. I've partly been on one end of this due to the fact that my nuclear family is from the west coast, while my extended family (that we visited a lot) is entirely on the east coast. So while I'm sitting here trying to catch up on 1-2 years of full family relationships and "in jokes" they're breezing along and talking about "the city". I think this, in part, shows your families disconnects. Your wife might have been saying the "I was raised on a vineyard!" bit partly in jest (it's a story in a story... not much context), but it seems like your dad also decided that she needs "an education" and keeps trying to either work it in, or just treat her like an idiot. Depending on how this story is, your wife might have just been trying to describe a single wine from Napa Valley, while your dad was launching into an encyclopedia entry on wines in general trying to ring a bell for a frame of reference she doesn't use. Part of it is also that the family is unwilling to... interact with her. In the showgirls thing, rather than just say "Yep, <answer>" they instead decided to humor her because it's easier to do that then actually engage her in a discussion. People don't like being ignored or talked down to in a conversation. She might be unconsciously trying to prove that she's actually an intelligent person, and worthy of attention. The "She's not a showgirl anymore" potshot was HORRIBLE on your dad's part too, with her history in the profession being fully relevant to the conversation at hand (after all, they were actually discussing the shows that require showgirls). I'd guess that at some point, she'd picked up on their... alienation(?) of her, which is why she stopped asking the questions. Why ask about somebody's job or family when all you're going to get is a "They're fine, Bobby is in college, Betty is in Highschool, and my husband is working while I clean the house" without basically forcing a confession? And anymore, both parties are going into any conversation with a sense of dread, as they don't really want to deal with the other sides inherent brusqueness due to their predisposed attitudes towards each other. I admit, I'm probably reading way to much into this, given I only have a tiny window into the relationship via the letter. Part of the reason everyone is gonna be up in arms over this is that it's been held back for 10+ years or whatever. There was a refusal to communicate if there were issues, because one side said "That's the way it is, we'll just suck it up" without even mentioning it. And your father seems to work with a double standard. It's ok for the family to discuss past things (the Vegas trips and shows) but not for your wife. Which shows just how big of a disconnect there is between the extended family, and your nuclear one. And give the kids their presents. There's no reason to tell the kids, when the inevitably ask where grandma and grandpa's presents are, that "Mommy and Daddy are angry with grandma and grandpa, and thus we threw out the presents."

Deus Ex Human Revolution for 5 bucks!

"I'm not willing to examine data that might challenge my conclusions, so here are some vague generalities about human nature". If you think that you're worth me going data mining just to satisfy your e-wang, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your position. By the same token, you're not giving statistics yourself, only a single study performed on a statistical analysis which may or may not be constructed to specifically not show the correlation that you say are there. You're dodging the question - is feeling uneasy sufficient grounds to restrict a Constitutional right, in the court's opinion? Yes. Free speech can be taken away if it's used for threats, and a womans right to choose is very restricted (not fully removed however). So, we should see a rise in the homicide rate and suicide rate. We don't. Why? Because we have weapons idiot. You can't say "we need to see a rise in the baseline if X is added" if your baseline already includes X. the previously mentioned knife attacks in China? Where not a single person died? And I have a feeling based on zor's posts, that the NAS "meta-analysis" is less "this is what we think" and more "what you're thinking is wrong, this way is right!" while doing nothing more than saying that minor quibbles with methodology invalidates the results. Also, stats are VERY easy to manipulate... The number of dead caused by police during high speed persuits is OFFICIALLY low, but realistically it's damn high, because they only count those killed directly by a vehicle involved. So if you got hit by a cop car, thrown into a fruit stand, and then died in the hospital? You don't count for the "official" bodycount. As to climate change? Yeah, I believe it. The statistical modeling is part of it, but more the fact that there are MANY MANY MANY studies that agree with the general assessment that the release of carbon into our atmosphere is causing it. You've offered one "Meta-analysis" and that's it. I asked because you said that Zor was bringing up the Methodological critiques. And if you actually read his post, he was saying that he found that the study in question was more just a giant critique of methodologies rather than actually doing scientific research and positing a result sorted out by evidence. Basically the "creationist" stance that "Here's one problem that invalidates (not really) your argument! HA HA! THE ONLY ANSWER LEFT IS A HIGHER POWER!" If so, why is this not reflected in the suicide data? What data? You're griping at me for not being specific, but you just say "DER DATA!" over and over like it's magically going to make you specific to a study or two that happen to support your evidence.

About to get into a fight with my school because I had a bad semester and my gpa isn't fantastic (because I failed calc and never retook it)

Not sure, I'm not willing to dig that deep into crime stats to sort it out but I do know that humans have a significant level of empathy. That empathy causes them not to want to do harm to another, and a gun will kill in one quick shot with little to no effort on the part of the shooter, as compared to a stabbing which requires a much closer range, a lot more physical work, and is overall much more personal. Basically it's the same reasons that it's much easier to shoot a masked or hidden target than it is to shoot one with his face looking at you. and how has that been undermined with things like "trans-vaginal ultrasounds" and legislation that makes it so you can't get an abortion after a very short amount of time? The NAS meta-analysis noted no evidence that firearm ownership is correlated with either violent crime or suicide, let alone causated. It's a matter of opportunity. Somebody with a gun can make a snap judgement and shoot themselves or somebody else in the head without effort. Like I said, if I owned a gun, I would have killed myself at least twice, because a gun basically doesn't have pain to it. I didn't go through with it, because OD'ing on my mood stablizers would be tough to pull off (requires a LOT more drugs, and if you screw up, your body rejects it's skin). And jumping in front of a train causes to much trauma to somebody unrelated to my issues. Are you rejecting the fundamental basis of the scientific method? Or is your concern more methodological? I think he's rejecting the fact, based on actual evidence, rather than a statistical analysis which may or may not take into account all factors. Okay. What specific methodological critiques do you take issue with? Which do you think don't matter? You do note that the basis of its conclusion on suicide is not methodological concerns, but rather that on aggregate there is zero correlation between suicide and firearms, right? You have no reading comprehension do you? He's saying that the study that you're refering to doesn't provide any evidence for their specific position, and instead tires to pick apart the methodology of other studies that don't agree with their information. I'm confused - are you saying that you agree that there's not evidence of firearms causing suicide? No, he's saying that it's much easier to quickly shoot yourself, then to find a sharp knife and figure out how to cut, or any other particular method of suicide.

IT IS!I see dirty canadians looking at me with hungry eyes, wanting my non-socialized health care, terriible infrastructure, and my low paying jobs! THe only ones worse are the french and that's because they want to sleep with me for my Job!

the PSN has full games on it now. AND it has "classics" pulled from previous systems that are hard to find (Xenogears, Suikoden 1, Shadow of the Colossus, and ICO are all on there)

Mists of pandas is currently eating up my time. But overall on reflection I'd probably have to say either the new NFS Most Wanted because it's essentially the devs behind Burnout saying "DAMNIT BURNOUT IS STILL A GOOD PARADIGM! LOVE IT!" The other one being Max Payne 3. It was a little to heavy on the drunken effects and blatant story rip off, but it had a fairly good set of level design and left you wishing for a longer game. There were some "WHY!?" moments in terms of enemy groups and encounter design, but overall it's a dang good game. Even though you are all going to throwing tomato's at me, I want to give an honorable Mention to Black Ops 2 for it's work with changing how FPS's campaigns should be built. Multi-ending and optional secondary objectives to change the endings is how it should be baby.

I think the point that most people (well, reasonable people) are trying to say is that Guns are ok in america, but Assault weapons and automatic weapons are not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0BVxO_61HE A question on assault weapons from that election thing that we've moved on from (thank god). Illustrates my person views pretty well (well, Obama does. Romney's "Get married for gun control" isn't really my position).

Given how much I'm punching everything, I feel like you shouldn't have given an insane personality to me, and just stuck more to "BLAST IT OPEN! *Whack* OPEN *whack* OPEN *whack* YYAAAAAAY" sort of thing. Although I suppose if you really want one, you can multi-class me to thief. FISTICUFFS THIEF OF DOOOOM!

That's four generations ago... Suikoden V came out on the PS2!

http://www.amazon.com/Suikoden-V-Playstation-2/dp/B000CC5CHW HOLY CRAP is that expensive.

I quit early this year and haven't had even the slightest urge to come back, and as I recall I've been playing slightly longer than you have. That Annual Pass thing was a clever ploy, fortunately as someone with no interest in D3 I could avoid being tied up. Hypothetically, if I were to even try to come back, I think the attempt would burn out pretty quickly - my old guild, co-founded in 2007, no longer has the critical mass to even regularly do ten-person content: at its peak in 2008-2010, it was a fully fledged 25-person raiding guild. I have neither any inclination to attempt to rebuild (having quit any leadership roles at the end of LK) nor any drive to find a new home - which, aside, would involve paying the extortionate server transfer fee multiple times over as the old guild was the sole Australian/SEA guild on that US-Pacific time server. $250 to transfer them all? Good god. Mop seems almost built around burnout anyway. During Cata (the previous expansion for those who don't know) there was the issue that people felt like they didn't have enough to do. They fixed it by having all reputation rewards being based off daily quests, and had it so that you could do about 20 daily quests for one faction for 2 months, and not hit exalted. And there are Three full raids, with different levels of loot, and the "vault" boss is just a dunderhead that's parked out in the world. I'm sort of vacilating on it right now personally.

<this guy. If I'd had a gun, I'd be dead at least twice at this point, by my own hand.

Is there evidence of this? Human psycology. It's a lot harder to stab somebody to death in a psycological capacity than it is to just point and click. Could you clarify? I understand the difference, but not how it applies. Simple, a homocide requires a dead body. A crime could just be as little as an assault. So in britain some hooligan stabbing my hand counts as part of the crime rate, while in America that hooligan would "bust a cap in [my] ass". Basically it's a manipulation of the statistics to discuss the crime rate instead of the homocide rates. Oh and btw Judging by the abortion debate, yes. There's no rational reason with sufficient grounds to deny that (and birth control) to people, and yet the same people who rail against gun control are demanding that it be denied. And the only other thing i want to point out about AR's and assault weapons is that while they may be smaller caliber, it doesn't take much to kill a person, and the AR's are much more accurate at range with larger clips.

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted? The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives. It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate. If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday. There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon. Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through. Also, your last paragraph just points to Hurlie's points about psychiatric care. And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities".

No, I explicitly stated that was an extreme example to illustrate the general principle. Can you provide evidence for the fact that in general the middle ground is the optimal policy choice? Because if that were consistently true, policy making would be easy. You'd just aggregate the choices, and pick the average. No need for in-depth analysis. Do you know nothing about the american political system? The entire thing is based around compromise. And were what you said true, with extremes being more correct than the middle, then how would you prevent the extreme you don't like from happening or being "right"? I mean, are we just supposed to have totally socialized medicine and communism with the state acting as a business becuase having an entire nation built as a corp is the extreme extent of capitalism? If you're totally honest? at least a couple hundred thousand. Not strictly in the US mind, but that also includes the various atrocities in Africa, the "ethnic clensings" in Kosovo and Timor, the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Now, people killed in the US as a result of criminal action? I donno, but the chicago gangster who I work with LOVES to tell tales of getting in gang wars with his beloved M4 with 203 attached. Standard would be the military standard. So the banana clip for the AK's and the box clip for the M4/M16. More reloads would slow down a killing spree, simple no? And no matter what, that 1-5 seconds (or more depending on how familiar your shooter is with the situation) will provide a window for people to get the hell away. Are you trying to tell me that hand guns are more deadly simply because more people are killed in homocides by them? Pistols are closer range weapons, and are used because they're easy to get, easy to hide, and easy to use. The reason people ask for assault weapons bans (or just very tight gun control laws in general), is because those weapons make it very easy to kill a large number of people in a very short time. Akin to the shootings in Colorado, Oregon, and Connecticut. Pistols at least have a very small clip size, as to shotguns (which also take far longer to reload). I have absolutely no idea what firearm ownership has to do with people's civil rights not being protected. You said this:The relevant question is, "Why should people not have a pistol or a rifle?" and my response to that is some people don't want to own guns, so they don't want to have them anywhere near their person. And you're blowing this out of proportion. Most people aren't asking for all guns to be magically banned because they don't like them. Most people are asking that weapons that are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short span of time be banned. And those guns are also the ones that have no real personal defense or hunting qualifications beyond "it spits lead" because they're so overkill to defend a house invasion, and generally won't leave anything behind if you use it to hunt. that if you're saying that the guns are necessary for when the people "rise up" against their government overlords, it's a fallacy because if somebody is going to do that, they'll get the weapons they need through non-legal channels. Not the words "Sound exactly like" he wasn't saying that you were American, just that you sound like the worst stereotypes of americans that are found in other cultures.

I would caution against appeals to the middle ground. To use an extreme example, the moderates in the slavery argument of the 1860s were clearly wrong, and the Radical Republicans were in the right, despite being extremists against slavery. Just because a position is in the middle between two extremes is no guarantee that it is the correct one. Are you really comparing the slavery debate to one about gun control? Yes there is such a thing as a grey fallacy, but in general you'll find that that middle ground is better than each extreme. Assault rifles are tightly regulated to the point of non-existence. They are controlled. No they're not. You can still get them, and I would argue that them being privately owned has absolutely 0 purpose. Hell, one of my COWORKERS owns one right now Would you mind defining an extended clip? And how controlling it would be helpful, considering that it usually take a max of one second to swap handgun magazines? Something that increase the number of bullets over the standard. A good example would be the Drum Magazine on a Thompson. It may take you or a gun nut less than one second to swap a mag, but most people it takes a bit longer, especially in the heat of the moment. An assault rifle is a select-fire weapon with an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. That is the definition, and I"m not aware of another one. Except that that means that an M4 or AK47 that has the "select fire" removed is no longer considered an assault rifle in technicality, while the voters who support an assault weapons ban would say that it's still an assault rifle with a 30ish round clip and no reason to exist beyond killing other people. This is not the relevant policy question. The relevant question is, "Why should people not have a pistol or a rifle?" In the US at least, people are free until the state restricts their liberties, they are not slaves until the state grants them privileges. And the burden of proof is on the increase in state power, people do not have to explain why they should have a right. Because people don't like guns? Because people don't feel like the only way their civil rights will be protected is by shooting the other guy? Because when you get right down to it, anything that happens involving the need for guns, the guns will find their way there?

Yeah, it was supposed to be Kysshyk or whatever, but they changed it because finding a bunch of kids and little people is a HECK of a lot easier than finding 600 giants.

I think it's more that the Ewoks managed to defeat a technologically superior empire that was only slightly outnumbered by these little fuzzballs.

Gary Oldman's character in the first blackops. I think he also showed up in World At War. Might be a bit spoilery.

The above is an incredibly naive statement. In the U.S., on some levels we're already arguably way beyond the level of tyranny that caused the war that created this nation. There's certainly no doubt that if alive today Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al would be meeting somewhere working on the next Revolution right now. Regardless of what they'd do or not do, there is absolutely nothing about 'this day and age' that makes it impervious to tyranny, if anything the tyrannical state has more tools than ever to levy it's power. Actually it's more psychological. I doubt Jefferson and Henry et al would be meeting to start a new revolution... particularly if they're JUST looking at gun control. They'd probably do it more if they were looking at the simple polarizing nature of the media discussions and the political parties and the general apathy within the US voters, and they'd just say that the "Great Experiment" is failed. Hell the only "tyranny" that they were fighting against was the inability for citizens to partake in their government. Or more specifically, the British government asking the Colonies to pay for the world war that they began. All that the british gvmnt did was refuse the Colonies the right to have a member in the house of Parliament. THAT is the "Tyranny" that you're railing against. You're right that any revolutionary war would be largely a guerrilla war. For the most part that's always been true. You're wrong in that the revolutionaries wouldn't get their hands on RPGs, Stingers, etc in relative short order, they would, and possibly from multiple sources. And you know what's just skippy about what you said? That exact thing is what happens with Assault weapons etc. So unless you're advocating for the ability to purchase RPG's and other military equipment... I'd suggest you back off on the "Necessary to fight off dat dere government" rhetoric. Do you have any idea what happens during military training? The military is still made up of people who make moral and personal decision based upon their own biases. I highly doubt there'd be many members of the US Army/National Guard who'd march on their own homes and the people they are ostensibly protecting. Also, are you seriously advocating murder as a form of political activism? If a piece of legislation got through the government, I highly doubt that your "attack on the corrupt politicians" would lead to much. Hell, it'd probably backfire and cause you, your cohort, and everyone associated with you to be imprisoned and tried for Murder 1. Look at the outcome of the shooting 4 years ago in AZ if you want proof. Do you really want to use Rome as an example? Where the Rich were the only ones who had any form of political power, the military was purchased by them, and voting (by the majority) was a complete formality that had little, if anything, to do with the actual outcome of the election? A land where you had no true say in your government, and could be sold to die in a gladiatorial arena if you angered those in power to much.

got a D in my math... but I'm at the poitn where I don't care as much about my GPA as I do at just being DONE.