[...]as the tragedy is "too real" for a lot of people to handle, including people that have probably spent years stuck in a video game.
Wow. You are just really gung-ho into digging a metaphorocal argument-grave today señor.
You have a problem with me asserting that some individuals on this site may not have the capacity to deal with tragedy other than to crack jokes about it?
I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with it either, I'm very neutral to it, and merely stated my opinion of what I observed, so what has your panties in such a knot?
I'm not angry at you or anything it's just that the bolded is a very odd thing to say, akin to me saying "well some people can't handle this type of trauma healthily, including severely personality-flawed forum addicts" or something similarly random.
You only think it's a bad argument because it tears yours apart. The correlation being made still stands, and we're all well aware of the contrasts.
Apparently not, because comparing a close range weapon that leaves the wielder open to getting *** up to a weapon you can shoot from yards away is a dumb argument - gun debate aside. Tactical advantage, full stop. Guns deal more damage, faster damage, allow the user to be a safe distance from the carnage and make any attempt to counter dangerous.
The argument that banned guns would just revert us to using composite crossbows makes more sense than scoring points off a knifing. Hurray, it wasn't a gun guys! *pats backs all around*
You only think it's a bad argument because it tears yours apart. The correlation being made still stands, and we're all well aware of the contrasts.
Apparently not, because comparing a close range weapon that leaves the wielder open to getting *** up to a weapon you can shoot from yards away is a dumb argument - gun debate aside. Tactical advantage, full stop. Guns deal more damage, faster damage, allow the user to be a safe distance from the carnage and make any attempt to counter dangerous.
The argument that banned guns would just revert us to using composite crossbows makes more sense than scoring points off a knifing. Hurray, it wasn't a gun guys! *pats backs all around*
No, no it isn't.
You're confused.
Not to mention that your premise of that they deal more damage is certainly not 100% true.
You don't understand the comparison being made, comes as no surprise.
Wait, what? What's wrong with saying empathy is a pillar of liberal ideology?
The word 'liberal' is thrown around a lot? Since when? And what relevance does that have?
And it's demonstrably true, since the left tends to be more for gun regulation than the right. It's not a black-and-white split down the middle like other issues, but a strong correlation is there.
You only think it's a bad argument because it tears yours apart. The correlation being made still stands, and we're all well aware of the contrasts.
Apparently not, because comparing a close range weapon that leaves the wielder open to getting *** up to a weapon you can shoot from yards away is a dumb argument - gun debate aside. Tactical advantage, full stop. Guns deal more damage, faster damage, allow the user to be a safe distance from the carnage and make any attempt to counter dangerous.
The argument that banned guns would just revert us to using composite crossbows makes more sense than scoring points off a knifing. Hurray, it wasn't a gun guys! *pats backs all around*
No, no it isn't.
You're confused.
Not to mention that your premise of that they deal more damage is certainly not 100% true.
You don't understand the comparison being made, comes as no surprise.
Ffxi translation: all he is saying is with a paladin tanking a range is gonna take less damage and lose less dps worrying about the occasional shadow cast or -dt swap set than if you were a Sam up there hacking stuff away! Sure you will do the same damage but in the context rngers are just worry free slaughter... Ban Annihilators!
I don't know what you were expecting when you first post a topic that can easily be related to gun control.
Personally, I wonder what was the perspective of the stabber. We never really hear their perspective. What happened psychologically that made this happen? Was it some sort of learned helplessness that resulted in an outraged killing frenzy? I refuse to believe every single one of these school shooting type events are due to people being psychotic, but have an underlying cause that can be realized and prevented.
You better watch out! Unfortunately, even when asking that question here, you will be railed. (Example: Sandy Hook thread.) Exploratory thought and understanding is not welcome here, you heartless so-and-so!
Ffxi translation: all he is saying is with a paladin tanking a range is gonna take less damage and lose less dps worrying about the occasional shadow cast or -dt swap set than if you were a Sam up there hacking stuff away! Sure you will do the same damage but in the context rngers are just worry free slaughter... Ban Annihilators!
Only slightly less since ironically you can't block ranged attacks... Go figure as historically, that's the primary use of shields.
Knives on the other hands have other uses besides harm, you can't ban knives and if someone wanted to go on a killing spree with a knife, it would be very easy to get a knife
Go to Walmart, go to the kitchen items section, get a huge butcher knife, check out, done.
Seriously, we card for alcohol, machetes, cigarettes, hell, even canned air and correction fluid, but anyone can go buy a large, kitchen knife.
Even a 12 year old that wanted to be stupid without parent supervision. Any Cashier with a mind would tell them no, but with the self-checkout registers now, it could happen. And that's a scary thought.
It's actually even more complicated than that.
A friend on probation had to get rid of some replica weapons he owned. You could call them swords, but they had the cutting power of a plastic spoon. However, he can have as many huge, heavy knives as his butcher block will hold.
The law (and those who write it) really does not seem to correspond with reason sometimes.
However, I'll point out once more that it's much harder to kill a person with a knife. "Blah blah blah, stab in the throat." Go ahead and try it some time. If you've never been hunting and never had to stab a deer in its throat, you probably have no idea how not-easy it is. In deference to the people who wank off nightly with their Desert Eagles, though, people also regularly misjudge the kickback of firearms and the huge effect it has on accuracy.
However, I'll point out once more that it's much harder to kill a person with a knife. "Blah blah blah, stab in the throat." Go ahead and try it some time. If you've never been hunting and never had to stab a deer in its throat, you probably have no idea how not-easy it is. In deference to the people who wank off nightly with their Desert Eagles, though, people also regularly misjudge the kickback of firearms and the huge effect it has on accuracy.
Very bad example.
For one thing, how in the world can you sneak up to a deer? There is a reason why the most successful hunters used projectile weapons and not close combat weapons on game animals.
Second, you assume that anyone who would commit mass murder hasn't at least practiced with the weapon they choose to mass murder with. Kickbacks only greatly decrease accuracy to those who never fired a gun before. The decrease in accuracy is minimized as you get more experienced with it.
Third, we are talking about humans, not animals. You can sneak up to somebody to kill them as long as you don't wave around the weapon you choose to kill them with. And knives are much easier to hide than, say, an AK 47.
So the point goes whoosh over your head like usual. That's nice.
Practiced killers have difficulty executing someone with a knife. I can only assume you've never spoken to prison guards else you'd stop arguing this point. It doesn't matter how much you try to sneak up, the stopping power of a knife is nothing like the organ-shredding potential of a ballistic missile. A well-thrown pilum or war javelin has a better chance of killing and it really has nothing to do with whether the victim is surprised or not.
So the point goes whoosh over your head like usual. That's nice.
Practiced killers have difficulty executing someone with a knife. I can only assume you've never spoken to prison guards else you'd stop arguing this point. It doesn't matter how much you try to sneak up, the stopping power of a knife is nothing like the organ-shredding potential of a ballistic missile. A well-thrown pilum or war javelin has a better chance of killing and it really has nothing to do with whether the victim is surprised or not.
I'm pretty sure that you are the one being whooshed here. Which is par for the course.
Practiced killers also don't go around screaming on the top of their lungs like a maniac. Even your example of a hunter with a knife would try their best to be as quiet as possible. Besides, prison guards knows that there are killers there. Are you to assume that everyone you ever meet today is a killer out to get you? Only if you are a prison guard, that is part of their job.
But go ahead with your very bad examples. Keep comparing ballistic missiles to kitchen knives, it just shows how out of touch with reality you are.
BTW, life doesn't give you points or levels you up after you get so many points from killing people...just a heads up.
If knives are so much deadlier than guns why aren't people walking around with knives to protect themselves and forgetting about the guns?
actually knives are more deadly than guns themselves, it's the combination of gunpowder and bullets that make the gun more functional instead of just a bludgeoning object.
People are the most dangerous, but let's ignore that fact.
Edit: we're back to the argument of people wanting to ban guns because they think they're nothing but scary killing machines and they think cosmetic alterations make it deadlier because it looks scarier.
