The United States has the most violent crime involving firearms in the entire world. They aren't the highest-populated country in the world, nor do they directly suffer from the most war or the most oppression, and they still have the biggest gun problem and the most deaths from firearms. More people are killed in home invasions by guns they keep in their home, and most teens shoot up a school because of a combination of mental issues and weapons their fathers keep in their home, or that of a friend.
Think about it. It's not the 60s anymore. Thousands or Russians aren't going to go marching up the street and slaughter your family. Most shooting deaths in home invasions are caused by the guns of the owners, taken by the burglar, either when they have found it in their house or when the owner of said gun has tried to protect themselves with it and had it turned on them. Sure, even if guns are outlawed violent crime will not stop. But it will still be the same amount of violent crime, less home invasion deaths and less school shootings. Like I said, think about it.
It depends on what country. I think gun control should be a thing, but on certain conditions. If someone has no history of mental illness and no criminal record beyond drink driving and the occasional parking ticket, than by all means allow them to purchase a low-powered rifle or pistol. The issue arises when people can have multiple weapons registered to them, when in places like the United States have this gun culture, and when proper control of the sale and distribution of weapons is not properly cared for.
With all of these school shootings throughout the United States in the past few years, I think guns are the issue. Not the entire issue, obviously, because you can have a hundred guns, but it takes a special kind of mental state, stable or not, to be able to kill someone without a very good reason. All of the people responsible for mass shootings and murders will usually have some sort of severe mental problem. However, it's this gun culture that the United States has that makes it all slightly more okay than it would be in most other countries.
Guns should not be banned in the United States, or indeed anywhere. People keep guns for hunting and for recreation, and protection, among other things. However, this gun culture means that someone will have eight guns, two sons with major mental issues and an entire community perfectly willing to go hunting without a single worry. With the gun culture that the States has, it all seems a little easier when someone wants to go on a murderous rampage. That's why most other countries have so few in comparison. If it's issues with population, look at China.
So, I think guns should definitely be controlled, especially in the United States. However, I can understand that people can use guns for recreation, hunting and sport. So, I think that people should be allowed to have guns on the condition that they have no mental issues or history of violent crime, and that none of their immediate or close family or friends have them either. Then, with this sort of control implemented, there should be a lot less shootings throughout the United States.
It all depends on how you look at the argument. I do believe that people have the right to end their lives as they see fit, and that's also why I think euthanasia should be legal all across the world. However, it all depends on how you look at the argument. If you legalize suicide, you may encourage some younger people that it is okay to commit suicide if life is getting slightly uncomfortable. It also means that more people would get sued, with thousands of families suing police departments for "not saving their [insert friend or relative]'s life" and all that crap.
There's also the point that people will usually have afterthoughts. All too often, you will see people who have just been saved from a suicide attempt stating that they're glad that they didn't actually die. However, there is the other side of the argument. There's the fact that some people just want to die, like those who have terminal cancer, or some other terminal disease, or people who have had tons of massively traumatic experiences, or people with intense brain diseases. With suicide and euthanasia illegal, these people will not be having good days.
So, honestly, I think there needs to be a compromise. Anyone who attempts suicide shouldn't be institutionalized, and they should be allowed to kill themselves, and euthanasia should be a viable option for ending lives. However, this should only be an option if a cancer is terminal, or this mental illness cannot be cured. People who are simply walking off the street into a euthanasia clinic shouldn't be there to die unless they have probable cause do do so. Should they be institutionalized if they kill themselves without a valid reason? If there is no other choice, than yes, but only in the rarest of cases and only for a few weeks.
If they have a valid reason and probable cause to end their own life or go through euthanasia, they have the right to do so, however, and for that reason I think that, overall, they shouldn't be institutionalized.
Donkey Kong Country and Battletoads were really fun, and GoldenEye was the definitive console FPS of the time. Now, poor old Rare have been reduced to making god awful Kinect games for the Microsoft console. Do I think they should go back to Nintendo? Not really, no. Rare have been acquired by Microsoft and have, over time, been mostly restaffed with Microsoft personnel. These people have no experience with anything other than the dreadful Kinect, and as a result of that, I don't think that a move back to Nintendo would go particularly well. Nintendo is also in a bad way, what with some consoles that aren't graphically impressive and don't have any real oomph when it comes to new and innovative stuff. Everything comes off as a gimmick. So, I would only want Rare to return to Nintendo if they were staffed with some of the older nineties employees, Nintendo got their stuff together and stuck to a NORMAL controller with an analogue stick and Rare were allowed to completely remake GoldenEye 007 the way it's SUPPOSED to be made.
However, I am all for Rare leaving Microsoft, the bastards that they are. Microsoft have not only reduced Rare to what they are now, they have also brought their reputation to an all-time low. This is like taking the King's robes and wiping your muddy, poo covered boots all over it. I would love to see Rare returned to their former glory, and that means leaving Microsoft, and the only way they would do so is if Nintendo acquired them. They could straighten them out, pull them far, far away from their past few years working with the assy Kinect, and knock some sense into the newer staff.
I honestly think that nostalgia should never be used to help you win an argument. As I said above, unless the answer is so obvious, like in the case of someone denying that Duke Nukem Forever has faults, it shouldn't be used in an argument. It's inhumane and, in the terribly unlikely event that I do somehow become the President of the Universe, I would outlaw the use of nostalgia unless your opponent is insane, or his argument is paper thin. If he continues to argue against you, he should be taken to court.
Personally, I don't believe that the first Sniper: Ghost Warrior game was all that brilliant, and I have loved the Hitman series since it's inception in 2000, so this HD collection was one of the pieces of news I have been waiting for since HD Collections began being released in 2010.
I don't recall saying that you should stop your children from learning and turning them into socially awkward lunatics. I am just saying that it is good to let your kids play violent videogames from a young age if they want to. Like I said, it worked out alright for me, and if anything I ended up MORE mature, knowledgeable and skillfull than a lot of other kids in the schools.
I don't think you're getting me. There are two different Walking Dead games. There is the really great story-focused episodes with all of the choice that Telltale Games made. Then there is the one that Activision is making, which is a normal zombie shooter with a TV series license. The Activision one is not the one with the episodes. Like I said, I should have clarified it above better.
I am not biased, and you should not vote for (or against) this game just because I have, but I have experience with the Far Cry series and know it has always been really good no matter what, though Activision have a habit of making uninspired cash cows designed only to make $100m at the expense of the consumers.
At what point in my life am I going to be using algebra or making a pencil case? All you really need to survive is a vocabulary, the ability to cook and basic division, addition, subtraction and multiplication skills. That can all be learned from home.
Despite the fact that Black Ops II looks to be innovative and, y'know, BETTER than the other Call of Duty games, I still think Absolution will be the better game. Blood Money was one of the best games ever made, and (even though there was a scare before E3 2012) this game looks to encourage experimentation and pulling off the perfect hit, rather than the action-oriented Run for your Life and Attack of the Saints trailers.
I have seen that both of these games, and have seen them show promise since they were first announced, but Dishonored just looks better. The first person controls may not be too brilliant for a stealth game that involves the use of blunt and pointy weapons, but looks bloody great.
Okay, I will now say that you are a hardcoreish gamer. I do not believe anyone who thinks they have a K/D ratio a bit higher than some other people should be considered an online gamer, and you are a good exception because of your choice to play games other than Man-Shoot #20,000. That is, obviously, why games like Yakuza, Heavy Rain and The Legend of Zelda exist in the first place. I totally agree with you on that one, and you have enlightened me on what actually makes someone hardcore, as before I simply could only think of "it isn't Call of Duty". So yeah, thanks for that, mate.
Online games having addons? WHAT TRICKERY IS THIS? Us PS3 users have never heard of an online Add-On! Dude, have you used a PS3 before? We have this thing called an Online Store, where you buy online add-ons as you would call them. Our online games are pretty much the same as yours and we don't have to pay for our online to use them.
Just because he (or she) believes some games are not as good as you think they are doesn't nessisarily mean he (or she) has a bad taste in games or is not on the same level of "hardcore" as you are. If anything, it is very possible that he (or she) IS a "hardcore" gamer by what you believe makes a gamer hardcore (here's a hint: it isn't playing Call of Duty). This is not an insulting comment, or abuse, just clarification. And he doesn't really have a BAD taste, srom, just a different taste
Personally, I have not yet played Borderlands, so no matter how good it looks, I cannot say it was the better game. I have, however, played the Transformers: Fall of Cybertron demo and it is pretty good. Not game of the year material by any means, but the online is really brilliant and the single player showcases some really cool stuff. Check out the website for the final result at the beginning of September.
We don't need gun control, we need some bullet control. Bullets should cost $5000 each, so if a policeman finds a guy with 18 bullets in him, he'll know that he must've done something to deserve it. There will be no more school shootings or anything else, because people can't afford to pop Mr. Carmichael in the head.
