• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
AoS

Gun Control In Australia vs the USA

122 posts in this topic

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

The thing is every state (for the last 100 years or so) has a well regulated militia. It's called the National Guard. That sentence also implies that the people with guns would have been trained in not only guns but military aspects as well. Otherwise, how else can your militia be well regulated.

 

The National Guard is a subset of the Militia, not a replacement. The militia as defined when the constitution was written was every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. That group is now known as the reserve militia and includes everyone who is eligible for the draft which would be just about everyone in this thread living in the USA. Regardless, the Supreme Court has ruled that the statement "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an example of why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not a limiting clause. That should be clear if you look at the original wording before it entered review.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Edited by tstrimple
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Guard is a subset of the Militia, not a replacement. The militia as defined when the constitution was written was every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. That group is now known as the reserve militia and includes everyone who is eligible for the draft which would be just about everyone in this thread living in the USA. Regardless, the Supreme Court has ruled that the statement "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an example of why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not a limiting clause. That should be clear if you look at the original wording before it entered review.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


 
Interesting. This is what I got as the Original Text of the Second Amendment.
 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now the original wording is quite different from the wording that made it into the Bill of Rights. So to say, "this is what they meant" seems questionable. Only because if that's what they meant, they would have had that verbiage in the Bill of Rights to begin with. Edited by Alpha_ProgDes
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just sad all the way around. [url=http://news.yahoo.com/coroner-boy-5-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-030521203.html]In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.[/url]

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with underlying premise, but I think the counterargument would be that you don't need hi-tech weapons to fight back effectively, as illustrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you need some weapons.

 

If you can't trust a sane person with a <any hi-tech weapon here>...Why can you trust them with a car, plane, pressure cookers, and the like?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with underlying premise, but I think the counterargument would be that you don't need hi-tech weapons to fight back effectively, as illustrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you need some weapons.

 

If you can't trust a sane person with a <any hi-tech weapon here>...Why can you trust them with a car, plane, pressure cookers, and the like?

What? I trust my neighbour to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

 

You could do this for just about anything.

 

5 members of SoCal family killed by alleged drunken driver ID'd

 

If the point was to be arbitrary, then yeah you could. But since we're talking about gun control and not drunk driving, your point is lost on me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me liberty or give me death.

In the US this has morphed into "Give me positive liberty or give me death."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?
uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

 

I can see the difference, but I can also see that if your neighbor is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and build a nuke...He could probably find another way to do the same damage. If you can't trust him with a nuke then you can't trust him with anything. He needs to be locked away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

 

I can see the difference, but I can also see that if your neighbor is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and build a nuke...He could probably find another way to do the same damage. If you can't trust him with a nuke then you can't trust him with anything. He needs to be locked away.

 

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

I think the point was he wasn't talking about an 'accident'.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think?

 

Well first off I don't think any billionaires are going to waste their money making a nuclear bomb. Not even Bill Gates would do that. I think it's a bogus argument.

 

Second, for the sake of argument, I would hold them to the same standard as our government. Do you trust your government with nuclear missiles?

Edited by Jacob Jingle
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

I think the point was he wasn't talking about an 'accident'.

 

One is an extension of the other. If you don't trust someone to be responsible enough to not have "accidents", then you're surely not going to trust them when they are -- as Spock said-- "emotionally compromised".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?

 


In my country, you you must have a licence to drive a car, and you get that licence if you pass some exams, and you pass the medical examination (plus a first aid test).

 

Plus a car is relatively short range and it's much easier to evade than a gun even if someone intentionally wants to kill you.

 

 

A question to all:

 

How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

 

Hmm... it would make a good poll

Edited by szecs
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question to all:
 
How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

I have shot firearms many times at shooting ranges and other events.  I have seen armed guards.  I respect my nation for the codified right to keep and bear arms.

 

I have used firearms against live animals. This includes against wild coyotes (which have a bounty in my state and are considered an aggressive pest) and against assorted other animals it is legal to kill.

 

I have never wielded a gun against another human.

 

 

Alternative perspective:

 

my-neighbor-is-unarmed-39219775365.jpeg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

 

1 case of defense for me (a fairly serious episode but I didn't have to point the gun at the problem, much less shoot). What's funny is that I have been deterred (justifiably). Otherwise, have seen where guns where used to intimidate in a general way -- people with weaponry can often get their way without conflict, reputations can provide a buffer zone of deference. 

 

Computer programmers and game developers aren't usually where the friction is -- bad neighborhoods and male vs male competition for women and prestige (add a bottle of whiskey).

 

Edit: When I defended, I showed the gun but didn't aim. When I was deterred the gun was shown but not pointed at me. Two cases where guns were good things and were used appropriately. Got more than a couple of stories where guns were misused -- carelessness or amusement (not criminal) -- but only one guy got hurt and that was when he shot himself in the foot (literally).

Edited by jms bc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

 

Middle estimates of around 1 million defensive gun uses in the USA each year.

 

And a few of the news stories around defensive gun uses that actually get reported. Most of these involve shootings, where are the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not require pulling the trigger and are not likely to be reported either to the police or to the news.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

Edited by tstrimple
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW can we stop using Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of how a poorly armed "insurgency" can defeat a well armed modern military?

 

Because they are terrible examples. Obviously for the families of the troops killed, it's awful, but in real terms, there have been barely any casualties compared to a "traditional war".

 

The IEDs etc are a political problem not a military one. The US steam rolled into both countries and effectively crushed any meaningful opposition. Neither insurgency group were ever even close to achieving any kind of military victory.

 

TL;DR A bunch of armed civilians can not actually defeat a modern military with drones and tanks and what not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are valid arguments for gun ownership. However, if your argument for guns is that you need to defend yourself against government tyranny, please seek psychological counseling immediately. That is all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

 

Sad? Yes.

 

A reason for more strict gun control? No. 

 

It was not okay for republicans to appeal to fear when passing the travesty that is the patriot act, and it's not okay for democrats to appeal to pity when trying to pass more gun control legislation.

 

If we want to have a serious impact on crime then we should do away with the so called War on Drugs. It has ruined so many families in the USA and continues to devastate Mexico. It has been a major supporting factor for gangs in the US which account for a very large percentage of violence in this country. Lets fix our education system which allows for high school dropout rates of over 50% in some major cities. Lets fix our fucked up sense of "morality" and get serious about sex education and birth control. There is no reason anyone in the USA should have to pay for birth control (including students). The cost of single parent families in the US is much, much higher than the cost of providing the means to prevent it!

 

Instead we're distracted by bullshit like whether a rifle can have a pistol grip or not, even though "assault weapons" are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad? Yes.
 
A reason for more strict gun control? No. 

 

How do you figure? I agree it's not a good argument for banning guns, but this is exactly the kind of situation that makes people uncomfortable about the almost total lack of restrictions around gun ownership. These parents bought a gun, legally, and thought that their son would be able to handle it safely and responsibly so they gave it to him. They kept it out in the open, in a corner, and were obviously not careful enough to ensure that it was unloaded while they weren't around. It's a tragic accident, but the misjudgments and  carelessness of this family left a lethal instrument in reach of a kid, and now an innocent person is dead.

 

Do you think it's unreasonable to question this family's ability to manage something as dangerous as a gun in a safe and responsible manner? Or to be concerned about similar incidents? I may have forgotten a post of yours upthread (I'm not going to dig through from page 1 again to check), but where do you stand on legally mandated liability insurance for gun owners, or some sort of "strike" system for gun owners relating to dangerous accidents? Would you oppose [i]any and all restrictions[/i] relative to the current system?

 

If we want to have a serious impact on crime then we should do away with the so called War on Drugs. It has ruined so many families in the USA and continues to devastate Mexico. It has been a major supporting factor for gangs in the US which account for a very large percentage of violence in this country. Lets fix our education system which allows for high school dropout rates of over 50% in some major cities. Lets fix our fucked up sense of "morality" and get serious about sex education and birth control. There is no reason anyone in the USA should have to pay for birth control (including students). The cost of single parent families in the US is much, much higher than the cost of providing the means to prevent it!

 

I agree with these. But there is zero reason that doing any of these precludes making changes to gun policy.

 

Instead we're distracted by bullshit like whether a rifle can have a pistol grip or not, even though "assault weapons" are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes.

 

So then the argument is for broader gun control, not a thin reform that creates arcane distinctions between types of gun used in crimes that, by definition, are gun crimes, and would be less severe without guns involved at all. And if you want to talk percentages, it's something like ~70% of homicides in the US are caused by guns. I don't know if those are "assault weapons" or not, and at that proportion I don't especially care.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0