Ben No.3

What a valid argument

Yeah, Hindenburg wouldn't be the one to stop hitler. He was pretty conservative.

True, but what of crime rates AND death by crimes being the same? That basically "shoots" both sides of the camp, those who wanted to get rid bc guns are evil and it'd be a safer world and those who believe guns protect and prevents crime, when the numbers are the same. In essence, is there really nothing wrong at all with the population owning guns then? Taking them away does not lower crime, it's actually shown to sky rocket crimes before after some years it goes back down to where it was when guns were legal. And owning guns does not actually lower crime, all it does is give some citizens a self assurance and others a fear of being shot. When it boils down to that, what basically is "wrong" with people having the right to own hand guns? In your scenario, you assume that crime rates and death by crime is the same number. Which simply isn't the case Even if the number of crimes go up, there will be significantly less armed robbers to shot the victims, and there will be significance less armed victims to shot the robbers. The cops will also need to shot far less, because they do not need to assume everyone is armed with firearms. In conclusion less casualties. What is bad about people having guns? Well, it leads to more casualties, and (as I stated before), it creates the inequality between those with and those without guns, leading people to want more guns, leading people to want bigger guns (if everyone has a gun, you wants bigger one), leading to more and more arming in a never ending cycle. See where I'm at? And the high number of guns leads to higher casualties of course, because of three reasons: 1. Criminals need to assume their victims and the cops are armed, thus are more willing to shoot 2. Victims need to assume that criminals are armed, this are more willing to shoot 3. Police needs to assume that criminals are armed, thus are more willing to shoot. And the casualties is not even scraping the surface. What about trauma caused by shooting someone? The families?

In the entire of Europe, weapons are illegal. Yet, I do not see any severe need for a violent revolution. And no, not having a higher deity to believe in does not disable you from having morals. In fact, I'd go as far as to say BETTER morals come out of not believing in for example Christianity. For example the bible heavily punishes homosexuality. Is that a reason for us to do that? No. Yet we all are set on being Christian. We are not. We are cherrypicking the parts that we like, yet we forget the other. Can we please just accept that we moved on from that moral standard? And in a Christian worldview, any form of crime is not severly punished anyway, because in the end, we all die and those who believe will come to God. Thus, assuming everyone believes, a crime is inconsequential. It is such an unimportant event in comparison to the eternity with God. On the other hand, for someone who does not believe in God or an afterlife, the current life is all he gets, which makes any crime highly impactful, and any punishment highly consequential. And an ideal on its own is a very dangerous thing. And the same goes for religion. Many religious people committed terrible crimes, many atheist people committed terrible crimes. But I know of no group of atheist which committed a crime because of atheism, while there are hundreds of examples of theists who committed crimes because of religion. But that is a problem that exists with every ideal. The human rights deal with that problem very nicely btw. Look at article 30 I disagree. Without any core sets or absolutes to work as a foundation you can rationalize anything, as in anything goes. When trying to use reason alone to build an utopia on earth one will likely end up shooting those that do not want to take part of it, which has already happened the last 100 years or so. Since the state has taken the role of reverence in the place of the sacred and you have the monopoly as the state to use violence, it is possible to wage war at a large scale than local skirmishes. To understand what i am getting at, look at Faust, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. I am speaking from a western perspective of course, different rules apply for other cultures. Here is my answer: sheer empathy! Empathy and rationality are hard to combine, in some parts even contradictionary, but together those two create quite well thought systems. Although it is extremely hard to decide whether rationality or empathy should dominate in one specific case. I've skimmed through Faust. Very good. I've read through Nietzsche... Not a great fan. Haven't read Dostoyevsky

Yes, in the short run. In the long run it is impossible I tell... While you are definitely correct in your statement that the Great Depression and the resulting crises made Hitlers rapid rise possible, you also need to take into consideration that the Weimar constitution had an article in it that allowed the chancellor to take complete control. Now, this article was born out of fear of the chaos that surrounded 1919. However, later it was easy for Hitler to abuse that article, and it would have been just as easy for everyone else. Also, Japan and Italy would have been unchanged. It is on the other hand questionable if the LoN would maybe have reacted harsher towards Japan invading Manchuria with Germany as a clear ally, but it definitely would have reacted harsher to Mussolini, since there would not have been a need for an ally against Germany. So yeah, you're probably right

I agree with pidesco. Additionally, the lack of guns result in a far smaller number of casualties, not only on the civilian or authorities side, but also on the criminals side. In country where guns are prohibited cops tend to shoot far less.

In the entire of Europe, weapons are illegal. Yet, I do not see any severe need for a violent revolution. No, they're not. Unlike what people like the NRA will tell you, in most (all? I'm not sure) European countries, it's perfectly possible to buy and own guns. You just have to have obey reasonable laws regarding background checks, gun licenses, safety courses and the like. What Europe doesn't have is gun fetishism disguised as rebellion against the man and personal "protection". Unless your are a gun sportsperson or a hunter you probably won't own a gun. Okay, clarification needed: when I say weapon, I mean those designed to kill humans (rather than sports or hunting weapons), as these are the weapons of controversy. I don't think you are even allowed to own these (?) privately in some countries, you are definitely not allowed to carry them.

In the entire of Europe, weapons are illegal. Yet, I do not see any severe need for a violent revolution. And no, not having a higher deity to believe in does not disable you from having morals. In fact, I'd go as far as to say BETTER morals come out of not believing in for example Christianity. For example the bible heavily punishes homosexuality. Is that a reason for us to do that? No. Yet we all are set on being Christian. We are not. We are cherrypicking the parts that we like, yet we forget the other. Can we please just accept that we moved on from that moral standard? And in a Christian worldview, any form of crime is not severly punished anyway, because in the end, we all die and those who believe will come to God. Thus, assuming everyone believes, a crime is inconsequential. It is such an unimportant event in comparison to the eternity with God. On the other hand, for someone who does not believe in God or an afterlife, the current life is all he gets, which makes any crime highly impactful, and any punishment highly consequential. And an ideal on its own is a very dangerous thing. And the same goes for religion. Many religious people committed terrible crimes, many atheist people committed terrible crimes. But I know of no group of atheist which committed a crime because of atheism, while there are hundreds of examples of theists who committed crimes because of religion. But that is a problem that exists with every ideal. The human rights deal with that problem very nicely btw. Look at article 30

If you would please actually argue specifically to my arguments rather than my person, I'd be thankful

God made men, Colt made men equal. What a wonderful saying. It's a awful saying, for all the reasons I explained Guns don't create equality

Volourn.. I see you didn't answer my response. So I take it I win?

Do you have any idea of Nazi Germany? As in, at all?

How much do you dislike melee classes? You could have a look into Jojobobos gunslinger build... If you want casters, a melee wizard and a melee druid should do the job just fine. Take a look at the royal court battlemage and Batsh!t crazy. Personally, I'd recommend a monk in juggernaut fashion and a cipher.

Great, another zealot. He is another one for the pyre.Maybe I'm into that (this is not sexual, it refers to me liking rammstein)

Great, another zealot. No.... He just gave his opinion and I gave mine... No need to dig further (but I will if you challenge me )

Well thank you thank you. Guess I should get around quickly to finish of the classes

Have you looked into German philosophy of 1933-1945? I think you might like it

It is questionable wether the woman in your example would have shot. It is questionable wether if she would have shot it would have been self defense or it would have made her a murderer (pretends on the evidence, really). It is questionable wether, even if she would have gone away with it, she would have recovered from taking ones life. And finally, I do not believe anyone deserves death. No one!

God made men, Colt made men equal.1) there is no God2) there are two reasons guns and really any sort of weapons create problems: 1. The possibility to legally posses guns makes it easy for criminals to aquire heavy weapons, thus making them much more dangerous 2. Due to the former reasons, a general opinion is created that one must own a weapon to defend himself, whereas of weapons would not be legal in the first place, that general sense wouldn't be there. The government should have a monopoly of violence. And here is why your argument that weapons make men equal is flawed: they don't! Really, any kind of limited resource creates inequality: there are those who possed the recourse and those who don't. And that is a huge problem, and any attempt to work around it has failed so far. Take for example kommunism. While on a purley philosophical level it is a great idea, in reality it does not work out. However, this does not mean that we should totally avoid fighting against any form of this inequality I previously described. And this is especially true for weapons. See, aside from money, I know no good where the gap between those who have it and those who don't is so big as it is with weapons. It creates a situation where having them is the clear advantage. But if everyone has weapons, that only causes the problems I earlier described.

I assumed it worked in melee like swift aim... Well, that's disappointing :/

Just an idea I had: would it be viable to build a melee ranger who uses powder burns and quick switch in sort of a fan of flames-fashion? I'll play around with it in the next days. If so, I'll probably go with one handed style (since I'll definitely use vicious aim, so I want to build upon the whole accuracy thing). As a weapon probably resolution (because annihilation and WF ruffian, later unlaboured blade). For the compaion I'm thinking of going with something tanky, probably antelope. My damage dealer should be the ranger. Stats I'm thinking something like 18-10-15-18-10-7. Maybe it'll work great, maybe not at all. I'll see.

Use whispers... It is one of the best spells.... even at higher levels: at low levels, it is good because you gain an ally, at high levels it is good because it becomes very spammable.

I have not yet experienced this yet... but I will look out to test it. seems like there has been a huge importance-buff to fortitude. EDIT: Nope, not the case for me. Tested it with the constructs at galvinos workshop and didn't happen. However, I witnessed a very Minor bug when I was attacked by Lagufaeth. While I was paralysed, the recov. bar showed my next action but did not move. However, next to the character portrait and on the character info box (when you hover over the character), it showed the paralysation. But as I said, it didn't show it in the recovery bar, creating an illusion where it looked like the bar was standing still. Nothing gamebreakinig, but it seemed like it would fit here.

Yes, it is 14. However, over 18 year olds can not have sex with under 18 year olds regardless of consent. An exception is if the two were in a relationship before one turned 18.

Can you link it once it is up?