Talk About GTA


Last edited by a moderator:
Other countries have different cultures with different values, so it's almost impossible to compare two countries to find a causal relationship between any one factor and a given set of statistics.
There sure is some truth in it, but I can't recall any evidence that societies (especially those who descent from one another and are constantly exchanging its assets) ar so fundamentially different that you can't compare them. You can't compare them directly for sure as there are a lot of other, mostly social factors that influence crime rates too, but I think you can at least see some kind of tendency.

That said, I think the telling example is right there in the U.S.

From Reuters:

[Kennesaw, Georgia] had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.
...

"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.
Is this example really that telling ? I haven't done any reasearch on this case, but later in the article it is stated that "When the town's gun law was passed, about 70 percent of households likely owned a gun,..". So roughly 70% of the inhabitants already had a gun, seems not very likely that a raise of 20-27% in gun ownership would have a "substantial" impact (I would be interested in numbers).

But other parts of the article are quite interesting in that matter - like the fact, that there was/is some kind of migration happening from Atlanta, which lead to a decrease in overall gun ownerships. Also ".. proactive policing and close police liaison with community and business groups" seemed to have had also an effect on keeping overall crime rates low altough the population grew a lot.

That still isn't enough to "swipe it from the table", of course, but it seems things are (as always) not that easy to correlate.

To those most likely to commit a violent crime, the criminals who would normally source their weapons on the black market anyway, it raises no barriers whatsoever. Black markets only become stronger where there is an official ban on something, you only need to look to the abolition to see an example of that.

It does however raise a barrier for law abiding citizens. This would clearly seem to tip the balance of power in favour of the criminals as far as I can see, and I just can't see how that could possibly be considered a good thing.
The first problem here is availabilty. Drugs can be produced "easily" (in relation to weapons) in a lab and can be packaged up in a endless varieties (which helps if comes to smuggling and distribution)

Weapons however need a real manufacturing plant, which is hard to hide and a are rather hard to smuggle. Which leads to price increase (the harder it is for a local dealer to get the goods, the higher the price).

But with weapons available at every 10th or 11th corner, getting them is rather easy.

I simply doubt that the average criminial joe that wants to have a gun to do something bad is getting one that has a long way behind it (beeing produced in third world country, smuggled into the country at a great expense of different resources), as this would raise the price heavly. It is far more likely that he will get a gun that was produced locally and was detoured in the blackmarket.

The second problem is that your conclusion seems to based on the assumption that there needs to be a balance of "firepower" in order to keep society not from falling apart. Which is something I can see no evidence of whatsoever, especially as it would also imply that police work seems to have minimal impact on societies stability, if a drop in gun ownership automatically means that "the crimininals" will get the upper hand.

On a side note:

Altough I'm not very into klumpens style of argumentation, nor most of his arguments. I also had the impression of "two factions constantly struggeling to get the upperhand", maybe its a cultural thing

Apologies for the odd quoting style, but the boards editor repeatedly adds quotation closing tags, regardless of how often I delete them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not a headline you see too often eh

Good news story, in a way, not that grenades lying around the place is ever good, but good that the lad potentially saved his mates life
 
I feel safer when I go out and see someone has a gun holstered. But that's just me. I know they went through all the legal bullshit they put you through and I know you haven't been convicted of any violent crimes. So as strange as it may sound, you would be the one person in the room I wouldn't have to worry about shooting me :p My objection to guns stops with my own ownership. I have no opinion or right to object to others owning one. Its your choice to have one, the law just dictates how and when you use it, that's the way it should stay.
Actually provided the state , district , territory , city  , or building you are in doesn't prohibit it ,it is PERFECTLY legal to go about your business dropping the kids off at daycare , feeding the pigeons at the park ( I hate pigeons ) and buying your groceries and feeding your alcohol habit ( in some states on that last one any how , though I think if you wanna get wasted fine , but DON'T bring your ak ) with an ar15( or as many as you want ... )  and as many drum magazines as you own on you provided they are visible . NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS : schools ( not always but usually . To get to our local range YOU MUST go through the school zone , but the range was their before the school + most locals including a few school board members are frequent there at the range so it's a non-issue ) , government buildings ( just stay away way away  in general ... ) , private business ( up to owner of building ) , banks/credit unions ( wtf ? why what could you possibly do bad in a bank ? :p   ) , AIRPORTS ( huge source of controversy . Technically you can , but not on international flights , but the guards will still kick your sorry arse if you so much as walk in with a unloaded 22 derringer , although you can ship it in your non carry on baggage in certain conditions , obviously within the states ... my advice : airports + weapons or anything that looks like a weapon = no go ) so my advice on carrying get a concealed carry if its going to be everyday . If not , get your wife/girlfriend ( if you are a straight male ) to go with you instead of the gun , ANGRY WOMEN armed or not are much more terrifying than ANY PEA SHOOTER you could ever get ( plus a good chunk of the older nuclear missiles ) :lol: .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just got GTA a few weeks ago on Steam and haven't played past driving to that one guy's house. I really hate Xbox live because I can't have my username be 3_bit and ThreeBit <--(my alt name)is taken already. Any way I can save my game and stuff without having to deal with this garbage? my points:

It's practically DRM, you can't save without linking to an account

You have to pay to change your name in Xbox Live

We all hate Windows 8 (<-- preemptive Mod edit by me, 3_bit)Fine, but you get my point. Microsoft has some real shitty DRM policies. I just want to be able to play a game I already overpaid for without dealing with a whole new system.

I can honestly say I hate Windows/Xbox live more than I hate Ubisoft Uplay, necessary for a different game I got on Steam. 

Please offer me some advice as how to play WITHOUT all of this Xbox live garbage. It's already linked to my Xbox live account but I'm having other problems with Xbox Live and would prefer to be able to play the game normally and use mods normally without logging into some Microsoft account.
 
Great link, _wb_!  Thought provoking stuff really.  I've never owned a gun (let alone fired one) but I too have been (virtually) wielding one in my favorite games since I was a small lad.  I don't have a problem with other people owning one however...unless the barrel of one happens to be aimed at me, which has thankfully never happened...(gulp).  And I'm not going to spout off here on my own personal politics/belief-systems nor the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, the NRA or anything else...

What is interesting about the above Youtube clip though, is that gun manufacturers license and approve the specs of the weapons depicted in the games themselves.  They give technical advice and realistic modeling specs to game companies so as to make the gaming (and guns) experience seem as realistic as possible....Soooo, a person that is "anti-gun" in theory would be a "hypocrite" by playing certain games which has $$$ being funneled to gun manufacturers/arms merchants.  I personally wouldn't call myself a "hypocrite", but I could see how one's personal moral code could be in flux here...fascinating stuff and food for thought at any rate.
 
Guns are necessary. This is Off-topic, so derailing threads isn't really possible.
 
"Guns don't kill people, rappers do" Goldie Lookin Chain
 
Guns are not necessary. Food is necessary, water to drink and air to breath are necessary, clothes and shelter are necessary. In today's society you could also say that things like electricity, tap water, heating/airco systems (depending on your local climate), communication networks, etc are necessary. But in no way are guns inherently necessary. I can imagine a world without guns, and it would be a better world in my opinion.
 
Guns are not necessary. Food is necessary, water to drink and air to breath are necessary, clothes and shelter are necessary. In today's society you could also say that things like electricity, tap water, heating/airco systems (depending on your local climate), communication networks, etc are necessary. But in no way are guns inherently necessary. I can imagine a world without guns, and it would be a better world in my opinion.
Guns are at least needed to keep wild animals away from your house (and crops) if you live in the middle of nowhere. At least as necessary as things like air conditioning, anyway..
 
What about bows? Lower shooting rate, more obvious to carry, but good enough to keep animals out of cities / fields. Probably some big machines would to it too, if you use them wisely to scare them.
 
Simple swords are enough to scare animals away and warning shots with bows too.

+1 for a better world without guns
 
What about bows? Lower shooting rate, more obvious to carry, but good enough to keep animals out of cities / fields. Probably some big machines would to it too, if you use them wisely to scare them.
But if your goal is to scare it off you're more likely to do so with a gun, and if your goal is to actually hit it.. well let's just say you're better off quickly killing it than slowly killing it with an arrow stuck in it..
You're going to have a hard time getting people to accept a much worse solution as a compromise, all because other people can't use guns responsibly. It'd probably be better off for everyone, I agree, but good luck getting their support.
 
If your goal is to scare it away, a metal pot and spoon are your best bets. Sharp ringing sounds are terrifying.
 
Guns are at least needed to keep wild animals away from your house (and crops) if you live in the middle of nowhere.
guns are not needed for this; can use grenades, land-mines and surface to air missiles instead

(please do not reply serious to this jocular post)
 
Guns are at least needed to keep wild animals away from your house (and crops) if you live in the middle of nowhere. At least as necessary as things like air conditioning, anyway..
Wouldn't a fence be much more efficient ?
 
Guns are not necessary. Food is necessary, water to drink and air to breath are necessary, clothes and shelter are necessary. In today's society you could also say that things like electricity, tap water, heating/airco systems (depending on your local climate), communication networks, etc are necessary. But in no way are guns inherently necessary. I can imagine a world without guns, and it would be a better world in my opinion.
Guns are at least needed to keep wild animals away from your house (and crops) if you live in the middle of nowhere. At least as necessary as things like air conditioning, anyway..
If you just need to keep them away (i.e. you don't want to shoot them to eat them), anything that makes loud noises will do, or a large enough fire. A fence will keep some (big) animals away too. A gun is not very useful to keep away the most annoying and dangerous wild animals, like malaria-carrying mosquitos, poisonous spiders and snakes, etc.

It's also a pretty lousy and extremely labor-intensive way to keep birds, goats, mice, etc. from eating your crops since it basically requires you to constantly guard your crops and spend lots of ammunition; things like greenhouses or nets are more effective. Besides, a gun is not going to work at all to protect your crops against the more common problems like snails, insect plagues (e.g. grasshoppers), worms and other parasites, all kinds of fungus infections, etc. The solution there is to avoid having large areas of monocultivated fields, which are very prone to such problems, and instead make sure that there is enough biodiversity in your farmlands to keep those potential threats in check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top