Jump to content

Doc Cassidy

Supporter
  • Content Count

    331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Doc Cassidy

  1. welcome! Zulrah is my favorite or second favorite pvm boss; good taste! Hope to see you in the rev caves soon =D
  2. welcome ! Nice cb and total levels mate; you sure you wanna pvm?? pvp squad looking for some muscle =P
  3. welcome! I have also recently been on a mission to get better at pvp; been camping the Last Man Standing beta for a few days now. Hope to clap some newbs with ya soon mate =D
  4. welcome Nick! great name (mine is also nick =D); keep trying at Jad! took me quite a few attempts before i finally got that fire cape but it is soooooooo worth it !!
  5. welcome! i also just got myself out of the nmz...such a blessing to know you dont have to go back there =D
  6. welcome =D congratz on ds2! i still have to finish that quest myself...
  7. welcome ! You said you stats are bad, nah man, they pretty solid! took me a long time to get my total level past 1700; hope to grind some skill with you soon =D
  8. welcome =D Time to really learn more about ya: you play chess?
  9. hahah, great app and welcome! liar.
  10. Its not 2 or more people dying, its 3 or more shot in a given context where a gun went off. But, I think I said something similar to you in my post above as well; just wanted to correct us both. We are both in over our heads in this debate; the statistics get misused so often, on both sides, that it is hard to have a solid ground to stand on. But I do think if we proceed as we are now it is worthwhile to share our thoughts and try to sift through the data. Again, its not two people dying but 3 shot; and I am not arguing for less action; I am warning that the statistic was being used inappropriately and, therefore, the conclusions that followed from it were flawed. But, we do need to do something. I am arguing against taking all guns, or severe restrictions on the guns allowed. I am pro magazine limits; pro automatic weapons ban; pro most explosives ban. I am against assault rifle (semi-automatic, accurate, well-designed rifle), bans for the reason given above against corrupt government. Yes, the government greatly overpowers the general population. Yes, technology is now to the point where drones could be used to take out citizens. But, given a population armed with assault rifles I think you are being dishonest if you don't see that as being a deterrent for many forms of physical oppression by the government. This would mean that should a government decided to use drones, or greater means against the citizens, it would show to the world just how corrupt it is. And perhaps the UK or other powerful nations would step up to help an oppressed population. These measure do not get at the psychological problems listed in an earlier post: mental illness, anger, division, despair, and most likely others. I am really unsure of what we can do; I do think, to move away a little, that the division between right and left in this country is more than a little to blame. Our population is becoming extreme on both sides of the aisle. We then isolate ourselves to groups who are like minded, with the aid of the internet, within the larger groups traditionally known as Democrats and Republicans. Within both these groups are extremists caught up in emotion and hate. I would venture to guess that a good percentage of mass shooters are in extreme sub-groups such as these and are not good representatives of the larger traditional political parties; take these thoughts with care as this is pure armchair philosophy and hard to prove. Just my opinion. The fix would be to make an honest effort to come together and give opposing group's ideas charity and try to understand the causes for those ideas. I think we will always have extremists, but we can try to limit that number through reason and understanding.
  11. I do not believe I was implying you personally were saying taking away guns would be a quick fix; but, if you believe that solely by taking away guns the long-term problem will be solved I think that is the same thing. The solution is not that simple as I does not get at the division currently in America or other underlying psychological causes, whether mental illness, anger, despair, or otherwise. But, to keep the emotion out of this issue as much as possible I think we should focus on statistics and proceed with caution when drawing conclusions from the data. I personally believe your '270 mass shootings in America this year' stat is misleading. I did a quick search and came across a Wikipedia article, again, not the best of sources and I invite anyone with better sources to link them below, and see your definition of mass shooting and the one commonly used are not the same. At the head of the article they provide 7 different definitions and say they only include those that use at least two of the provided definitions. But, with these definitions, gang related shootings are included, home invasions were more than 1 person were shot are included, and disputes at peoples homes/yards/parties where multiple individuals were injured or killed are included. These incidents are not the same as regards the stigma attached with the term 'mass shooting' we use commonly and you used when you said there were 270 mass shootings in America last year. Further, there are around 330 million human beings living in the United States. 270 incidents as listed above occurring among 330,000,000 people does not seem totally unexpected. I would be interested in comparing the ratio of incidents and Us population to the number of incidents and population of other countries around the world though. I have yet to come across that article. This is not to say we in the United States are not in the middle of an ongoing problem; we are. But, I caution everyone not to see data solely through your own pre-existing beliefs. This makes finding the true solution much more difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019
  12. I think this is a topic well worth the discussion but let's please stay civil. My personal belief is that limiting gun ownership will do little to stop the mass shootings in the US. I am an American citizen and was raised with guns; I hunted, shot at targets, and just thoroughly enjoyed both my guns and the right to own them. That said, I also think we, as human beings, when faced with problems have a strong urge to find a solution. This is good and leads to our survival. But, with the issue of mass shootings, the problem is complex and the solution is not easily discovered. I think this forces us to have the desire to do ANYTHING rather than NOTHING and this is what leads to so many people believing that without guns the issue behind the mass shootings will go away. Take away the guns, do SOMETHING, and the problem is solved. But its not that easy. I am by no means well educated in this topic but I do know some statistics from word of mouth and quick google searches; by no means the best of sources. But, it appears that although the US is the country with the largest gun ownership, only a small percentage of its gun deaths are mass shootings. 71 out of around 39,000; the majority is suicide followed by homicide. So, to start, talking of gun deaths is not a good way to argue for limiting gun ownership because it is not a giant assumption that suicides and homicides will not greatly vary if anti-gun legislation is passed. Second, I am really unfamiliar with the statistics on the countries with the most mass shootings. Some articles talk of mass shooting deaths per population instead of the number of incidents and I have never really looked into it. I would be interested in knowing more; but, I have not seen the US at the top of any list so far given with mass shooting deaths per population, or per 100,000 ppl for example. Even though our gun ownership is far ahead of the other countries; the relationship is not linear or straightforward. This issue is complex and packed with emotion. As @Ghost Sabre mentioned, in the US the 2nd amendment was enacted to help the people protect themselves if needed. I forget who responded critically to Ghost Sabre, but I believe it was unfair. Of course a population armed with hunting rifles or assault rifles would be at a disadvantage against the American military; that is not the point. By having some sort of weapon to fight back with, that in itself discourages a corrupt government from physically invading/attacking the civilian base. The civilians need not have nuclear weapons to discourage a corrupt government; just the knowledge that the civilians have some hunting rifles would be enough to stop many forms of physical engagement aimed to better the corrupt government at the expense of the civilians.
×
×
  • Create New...