Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/20/08 12:40 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/19/08 11:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: If Americans have the right to gun ownership (which I do not believe is the case, but that's a different topic), there has to be a point where they won't sell a gun to a person: if they require anti-depressants, for example, it's clearly a risk.

If you are on anti-depressants, how is that a risk? You're on a medication that grants you mental clarity and the ability to cope with the stresses of everyday life, and as such there wouldn't be any more danger in you having a gun over the next guy because the two of you would be on the same playing field in terms of mental ability.

It's quite clearly a risk - simply because if a person doesn't take them, they aren't going to have mental clarity in any way, shape or form.

If medical professionals thought you enough of a danger to yourself and society, they wouldn't put you on anti-depressants and send you on your way, you would promptly be turned over to the proper authorities and committed, which would then be put on your background check for future references.

Anti-depressants are medication, agreed? If a person requires medication to function within society, there is a certain level of risk - but an allowable risk, at least in present society (a couple of hundred years ago, however, this wasn't the case).

If a person has bipolar disorder, this can be treated with anti-depressants, but if they stopped taking their meds they would pose a serious risk to people around them. This is something that should be listed on a background check just as any asylum stay - a manic episode could turn lethal if the wrong pieces fell into place, as NIU etc has shown lately.

Again, it's a grey area that needs clarification.

As such, Kazmierczak WASN'T. He wasn't deemed a threat, therefore he wasn't treated like one, and there's not a scrap of Monday morning quarterback legislation that you could come up with that could have prevented this from happening.

He wasn't deemed a threat, but became one - how many times have I heard that one over the years?

And there's plenty of legislation that can prevent similar occurances happening again - let's start with identifying anyone who needs medication in order to operate within society without requiring a warrant. That something like that isn't identified on a background check is sheer madness - you can buy a gun despite needing any cocktail of medication in which to function, but if you're a convicted drug user you can't?

Or, another way to put it, if you're lacking the abilityto function in society and committed you can't have a gun, but if you have the ability to function in society when prescribed drugs that you need to take a certain number of times each day, you can have a gun?

Sorry, but there is a complete lack of logic there.

but somebody who required antidepressants, therefore there is an implication they are not mentally (or at the very least emotionally) stable, and is dependant on pharmaceuticals in order to function normally (like Kazmierczak), can.

Since when is being on an anti-depressant a crime?

Typical...

By that reasoning, that means it is a crime to be committed. After all, they cannot purchase firearms, so therefore they have committed a crime (especially as all other groups not allowed to purchase/own guns have committed a crime of some description).

It isn't a crime to be on anti-depressants. It is, however, a potential risk to issue guns to people that require them to function - you are mixing up crime and risk in your argument, which goes back to selling holidays in the Andes to people with heart problems.

At 2/19/08 03:03 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/19/08 11:31 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 2/17/08 05:58 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/17/08 02:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

The thing is everyone gets depressed from time to time. People go through divorce, death and other grieving events. Anti-depressants can help get them through; that does NOT mean they are mentally defective. Furthermore, I don't think there is that great of a link between people taking anti-depresants and going on shooting sprees.

Yes there is Cho and the NIU guy...but those guys were not depressed but psychotic. The two are not one and the same.

That would make them emotionally defective - not necessarily the same thing, but it can carry different risks. I've lived with a self destructive guy in the past (not helped by his bottle of Absynth a night habit, or his Ketamin habit), and we had to have him practically dragged out of the house as he was becoming a threat to us and the neighbours. But I wouldn't connect this to another housemate of mine (not at the same time), who had an emotional nervous breakdown and went for a walk naked one evening. One was clearly a threat, the other just needed time out.

Depression and psychosis can go hand in hand, as the former can lead to the latter - and that's sidestepping psychotic depression (albeit those are the cases that would require being committed, as there can be the need for electro shock treatment to head it off).

There have been mothers with extreme cases of PMDD that have killed their children in the past, afterall - they didn't use firearms as they didn't need to, but if a supposedly "minor" form of depression compared to, say, bipolar can lead to murder, is the risk worth it?

Yes, an event can depress anyone for a certain period of time, but that is not the same as being in permanent need of medication in order to function in a way that is considered "normal" in society.

At 3/1/08 01:55 PM, Sistine1408 wrote:

At 3/1/08 01:37 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 3/1/08 01:34 PM, animehater wrote: Yes, video games are the devil's work and must be banned at once.

Banning video games makes Pyramid Head cry.

Wait, whe did that guy get eyes?

I'm sure they're in there somewhere.

I got legitimatly pissed off with the front page spread of yesterday's Sun, with it's headline One of us, with the subheading Harry kills 30 Taliban.

So, in order for The Sun to consider you "one of us" you need to participate in a war declared by the US that only serves the US's ends, which the UK joined as a piece of political maneuvering by Tony Blair to get close to power (and make the UK the bitch in the Special Relationship in the process), and you need to appeal to the casual bloodlust that is just below the surface of modern Britiain - which is a euphamism for England anyway.

The real question, however, is whether Troop Commander Wales would be "one of us" if he only killed 20 Taliban, or 10, or 5...

At 3/1/08 01:34 PM, animehater wrote: Yes, video games are the devil's work and must be banned at once.

Banning video games makes Pyramid Head cry.

Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus!

At 3/1/08 11:46 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/1/08 01:50 AM, stafffighter wrote:

cooking her body and people are going to flock to the barbeque, it's human meat?

;
I like ribs... especially the low heat slow cooked ribs, mmm hmmm tastey.

The appeal of ribs baffles me - I'd rather eat what they originally came wrapped in, y'know?

At 2/29/08 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/29/08 04:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote: just checking.

And just what manual did you pull that one out of?

According to our beloved media, it's probably in the manual for the renamed Bully.

(Why do I get the feeling that one'll need explaining?)

At 2/28/08 10:19 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/28/08 10:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: It was humor... we really need buttons to denote non-seriousness.

*facepalm*

Someone please kick me in the crotch. Hard.

*checks crotch-kicking list*

Sorry, you're not on there - unless you want to fill in for Jimsween or something.

At 3/1/08 12:01 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Mankind has been killing each other for tens of thousands of years.
Video games have been around for what 30 years or so ?

Explain all the senseless killing people have done to each other before these types of games were around?

May I bring your attention to Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time?

Michael Moore

Commence flaming...

I repeat - COYS!!!

At 2/24/08 10:48 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 2/24/08 10:11 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Busy listening to the Carling Cup Final - somebody fill in for me, please.

COYS!

The Chilalialan quit, inciting a patriotic dick waving contest. Your fellow Birt spent the grocery money on kicking tunes and some dude got his dorm room robbed by people he dosen't think would be in a dorm were it not for affermetive action. And I hope my I.Q will recover from 24 hours of jackass

There's only one way to find out: have you seen Rambo and thought it was a masterpiece of filmmaking unlikely to ever be bettered?

If so, you're fucked...

Left-wing is not, and has never been, a term I'd apply to CNN - centre-right is the closest to left-wing I'd ever call it.

Busy listening to the Carling Cup Final - somebody fill in for me, please.

COYS!

Fox News is the only conservative network...so, as a result, so is Sky News - who also happen to have a stake in both ITN and Five News, therefore the news on ITV and Five are a version of Sky News, which is Fox News.

After that, the BBC always toes the Government line - and as our government is conservative (that's "conservative", not Conservative), that means oout of the five terrestrial channels, only Channel 4 have non-conservative news broadcasting.

And I have to say, anyone who thinks CNN is left wing must do so on the basis of them not being quite as right wing as Fox (although the international version of CNN is so blatantly right wing I can't watch it, as it pisses me off remarkably quickly).

And then there's the pervy librarian look of John Selwyn Gummer...

At 2/19/08 05:38 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/19/08 01:38 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Why is it when I saw these two posts I thought of Cloverfield II?

Becasue you've seen cloverfield, disliked it, and as such, when the annoucne the inevitable sequel, you're thought process will be simialr to mine in reagrds to Street Fightr movies?

The worst part is the sequel was announced after its opening weekend. Will Hollywood learn that the opening weekend isn't the be all and end all? After all, Batman & Robin had a great opening weekend - then dropped dead.

At 2/19/08 01:13 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/19/08 01:05 PM, stafffighter wrote: The fuck?

As long as it's better than the first movie then I'll be happy.

Why is it when I saw these two posts I thought of Cloverfield II?

What'll happen is that all the exiles in Miami will jump up and down at the news, then promptly die of heart attacks or spontaneous human combustion as a result.

At 2/18/08 08:29 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: President's Day dinner:

One tube of Cheese & Onion Pringles
A six pack of Bud Light
Four hours vomiting when you realise that you're technically comemorating George W Bush during this meal.

At 2/19/08 10:51 AM, InfamousMG wrote: Ever notice that Photoshop can do anything?

Ever notice that John Prescott didn't need Photoshopping?

I'd love to see the smugness of Obama punctured a bit more severely than that myself, as well as the hilarity of how that'll be spun in a way that might sound good to the easily impressed, but once again have no substance to a single syllable of it.

Catching it on the BBC News, I was amused that one of the Kosovans had the attitude of "We're independent now - what are Serbia and Russia going to do about it, huh?"

Considering both their armies have been within their borders en masse in the past ten years, you'd think he might have an idea...

At 2/17/08 05:58 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/17/08 02:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: For a start, they need to actually screen their customers before handing over a couple of lethal weapons to them - this came out after VT, and if the same store sold Kazmierczak one of his weapons it implies a dangerous level of laziness or wilful negligence on their part, at which point it needs to be asked how widespread that problem is.

1) It was not the same store that sold the guns to both shooters. Kazmierczak bought accessories from the same store as Cho did.

Oh well, that ticks the "grim coincidence" box, then.

2) Whenever you see the words legally purchased means that there was a background check and does not indicate or imply a "dangerous level of laziness or willful negligence" which is how both individuals purchased their guns.

If he received a background check, it would say he required Prozac - now surely if a person required anti-depressants, that would turn up in a background check and, far more importantly, indicate that it may not be in your best interests to sell them a firearm?

On the subject of psychopaths, I see Jack Thompson is jumping up and down looking for proof that Kazmierczak played violent video games (as per, he's citing counterstrike), and is threatening to sue NIU if they don't comply. At the same time, he's saying Cho Seung-hui played it prior to VT - which was disproven months ago.

Just in case anyone in the Miami area wants to have an all-night Manhunt 2 marathon and then head to this address:
1172 S Dixie Hwy Ste 111
Coral Gables, Florida 331462918
United States

Simply put, are vendors selling guns just thinking of their profits, and ignoring all other considerations? I'd certainly say they are, but with an added reason: gun stores in the UK deactivated their stock and sell them as blank-firing weapons for half the price (at least) of an active one, and the UK's gun problem mainly involves converted replicas. There has to be a link to a certain degree there.

1) You are not correct that vendors are selling guns just thinking about profits. The dealers are doing what they are supposed to do.

Selling a gun is not the same as selling, say, a packet of chewing gum - there is far more to consider than the mere bottom line, most notably wether or not the person they are selling to is suitable to purchase the item.

They won't sell a holiday to Machu Pichu to a 95-year old with cardiac problems, nor would they sell a Dodge Viper to a blind person - both on health & safety grounds. But somebody who required anti-depressants can purchase a gun, and at no point is the risk considered?

2) Your added reason is irrelevent. Many Americans have a belief that we have a right to firearm ownership. Therefore why would gun sellers deactivate their stock? Especially when they are following the law? Are you saying the English gun sellers did this to their stock voluntarially without government coercion?

They did it as the bottom line coerced them - the Government was emphasising the amnesty to hand them in, which is why I brought it up.

If Americans have the right to gun ownership (which I do not believe is the case, but that's a different topic), there has to be a point where they won't sell a gun to a person: if they require anti-depressants, for example, it's clearly a risk.

It's bizarre that a drug user or somebody who is judged mentally defective can be ineligible from buying or owning a firearm (as per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986), but somebody who required antidepressants, therefore there is an implication they are not mentally (or at the very least emotionally) stable, and is dependant on pharmaceuticals in order to function normally (like Kazmierczak), can.

That's a dangerous grey area.

At 2/16/08 03:19 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 2/16/08 03:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 2/16/08 06:01 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: I'm not American, or of voting age, so no.

However, as there is nothing that violent video games can do to a person, despite what some people claim (I'm looking at you, Jack Thompson), I see no reason for regulation unless done by the parents themselves.

this logic dictates Warrior Within is the best Prince of Persia game, which isn't the case.

Speak for yourself.

At the time the criticism was all the unnecessary blood, decapitations, swearing and flesh on display would only appeal to 13 year old boys, at the expense of the rest of the potential audience.

Nothing's changed since, I see.

Bloody hell...next you'll be telling me Alien vs Predator is more mature than Princess Mononoke...

That'd be like comparing I Get Money to Through the Fire and the Flames.

I'm sorry if I didn't provide an example, but I get what you're saying.

I remember a post on the Rule of Rose board on gamefaqs, somebody asking if it was scary because it had blood in it.

Hang on, blood = scary? That logic dictates The Suffering is scarier than Silent Hill, which isn't the case by any stretch of the imagination.

There are times that some gamers live up to stereotypes, to the detriment of the rest of us. Then again, as Rule of Rose got pulled from UK release after some politician implied it was a pre-teen lesbian S&M torture-'em-up, so that evens things out (as does all accusations that Bully is a bullying or Columbine sim, which led to the game being renamed Canis Canem Edit over here - although the Wii release has changed the name back, so the same stories have come out two years after they were put to the sword).

At 2/18/08 03:13 PM, Vert wrote:
1 - How many American soldiers died on D-Day during the taking of Omaha beach?

3,000 approx.

2 - Which front, the European East, European West (including the African front) or Pacific, had the total largest number of manpower involved?

The Western Front, as more nations were involved, and that's where the Americans came into Europe.

3 - Who was the best german, italian and japonese axis commander of WWII? You may name more than one for each country if you wish.

Rommel (a good general and also a good German, as opposed to a good Nazi)

4 - Who was the best american, soviet and british allied commander of WWII? You may name more than one for each country if you wish.

Omar Bradley & Ernest King
Georgy Zhukov & Ivan Konev
Montgomery

5 - When and where did the war start?

1939, with the Nazi invasion of Poland.

6 - Of these countries, which suffered the biggest (total) number of casualties (both civilian and military) and which suffered the least: France, Germany, Poland, Japan, UK, US or Soviet Union?

Soviet Union.

At 2/16/08 03:18 PM, stafffighter wrote: Why do you have the urge to be that far away from the ground for even longer?

Because if I'm going to be treated like cattle, I want to be treated like Hindu cattle!

At 2/16/08 06:05 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/16/08 01:37 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: That doesn't fit in with the pro-gun apologist rhetoric, does it?

It also doesn't fit in with anti-gun rhetoric either, because neither of those guns are of the particularly lethal variety that keep getting targeted with useless legislation or being labeled as "wholly unneeded" for defense or hunting purposes, yet they are the same type of weaponry used by campus shooter time and time again.

Just not in my arguments.

The odds are that they know this when they go out.

So long as we're talking about odds, let's talk about mental illness and personal motives. Kazmierczak stopped taking his medication weeks before this happened, causing his behavior to become highly erratic. Unlike Cho, this guy was actually fairly outgoing and liked by all.

So, when he stopped taking his meds he decided to grab a few guns and shoot up a university? There's a massive gap in the middle there - your logic reads like this:
Stopped taking meds - ? - Rampage

Erratic behavious should not manifest in a mass shooting - especially considering he had a costume to do it in, as well as the fact he stopped to reload midway through, as witnesses have testified. Those are not the actions of an irrational mind, but one of a mind that was fully conscious of what it was doing.

Charles Lee Thornton in Missori on the 7th,

Would you like to tell the audience WHY this guy choose to go on a violent rampage? Or are we going to ignore the fact this particular shooter was not a white teenager with psychological issues shooting up a mall or school?

Proteas, you realise that makes it sound worse, don't you?

A person who wasn't in need of meds shooting up their city hall because of parking tickets and a tiff with local government is, actually, again going against the usual sort of argument the pro-gunners will trot out.

Isn't the issue that a person in the US went on a killing spree with a gun? If not, how did that happen?

Robert Hawkins in Nebraska

If you want to talk about rarities, you could at least mention that this was the first such shooting IN Nebraska since Charles Starkweather in 1958.

Just not the first such shooting in the US in the past year. Way to try and brush it off!

Matthew Murray in Wisconsin on December

What I find interesting about this case that's rarely brought up is the fact that Murray wasn't mentally ill, he just had a deep seated hatred for Christianity, which actually makes the whole thing a hate crime.

A hate crime which he committed with bullets, in two seperate churches.

That's surely a few too many to try and brush it off as a "rarity"?

More frequent, yes, but still to rare to be considered a pandemic problem in need of legislation. And even then, how exactly would realistically legislate against something like this?

So, two in the past week, and a total of seven last year - which can't be said for the rest of the world combined, makes it a subject to ignore? Come on - that these happen far more frequently in the US, and with more frequency than 30 years ago, says there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

For a start, they need to actually screen their customers before handing over a couple of lethal weapons to them - this came out after VT, and if the same store sold Kazmierczak one of his weapons it implies a dangerous level of laziness or wilful negligence on their part, at which point it needs to be asked how widespread that problem is.

Simply put, are vendors selling guns just thinking of their profits, and ignoring all other considerations? I'd certainly say they are, but with an added reason: gun stores in the UK deactivated their stock and sell them as blank-firing weapons for half the price (at least) of an active one, and the UK's gun problem mainly involves converted replicas. There has to be a link to a certain degree there.

At 2/16/08 06:01 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: I'm not American, or of voting age, so no.

However, as there is nothing that violent video games can do to a person, despite what some people claim (I'm looking at you, Jack Thompson), I see no reason for regulation unless done by the parents themselves.

It's a two-way thing: parents ignore the age ratings because games are for kids, while teens ignore anything under 13+ as they're obviously for kids - this logic dictates Warrior Within is the best Prince of Persia game, which isn't the case.

I don't get it: so, needless blood, guts n' gore, foul language and big breasts are now "mature", so BMX XXX or Def Jam Vendetta are more "mature" than Okami or ICO? Bloody hell...next you'll be telling me Alien vs Predator is more mature than Princess Mononoke...

At 2/16/08 02:56 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 2/16/08 02:27 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

I was being a mopey git because the nearest girl who wants to jump my bones lives a mere 3764.48 miles from me.

Travelling by plane is fun!

No it isn't! Plane travel was designed for people who are 5'10" - I'm 6'3". And don't get me started on the people who feel it is their "right" to put their chair back as far as it'll go, regardless of my kneecaps being there...

I'm 5'8", woo Galician genes!
And yes it is fun, travelling by bus is worse, I do a 14-hour bus trip 4 times a year ^_^

Travelling by bus is a bit N/A for me outside the UK (and I prefer train, as it's quicker, has legroom, and it isn't 50/50 if there's going to be a toilet on board) - that's the thing about being an island nation with shitty weather: the good weather is at least a two hour flight away.

Come to think of it, this only happens on flights to and from the US - man, can somebody put zeppelins back into service?

This reminds me of C&C Red Alert 2

Not the Hindenburg? WOO HOO!!! The zeppelin has finally gotten over that image!

At 2/16/08 02:30 PM, Bolo wrote: Apparently, the shooter bought his guns from the same Green Bay-based online store that Cho bought his .22 caliber handgun from.

That's either great marketing from that store ("Planning on a shooting spree? Shop with us!"), a grim coincidence, or a sure sign that place is going to be cleaned out by the Feds in the next fortnight.

At 2/16/08 02:07 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/16/08 02:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Thing is, I see it at work as well: a family of tinkers came in and their son went straight on the internet and looked up sluts.com, before they got kicked out very quickly because they were being a real pain in the ass (and trying to smoke in here, which'd get the place a £2000 fine). So what happens? The kids, a couple of hem in the 8-12 age range start telling the guy working to fuck off, and the parents aren't doing shit about it.

Damn, I'd beat the hell out of my kid for that.

Exactly - there's this concept that's known as "respect" - unfortunatly it always appears to be a one-way thing, as other people are supposed to respect you, but you can walk all over them. But that's another rant for another occasion...

Some other time I had 10-12 year old kids throwing things at me as I walked past, thinking they could get away with it - when I turned around and walked back towards them they ran like buggery. But then again, that's typical wanker: they're well 'ard when you're almost out of earshot/punching range, but as soon as they see that they haven't got away with it...hang on, I totally bypassed the subject now.

Again, the feeling was that was OK, but if he retaliated in any way the parents would've kicked off - another reason I'm sick of the Precious Artifact Child mentality that they can do no wrong when they're being little fuckers, but when you tell them that they're being disruptive, obnoxious little fuckers you have hell to pay.

I guess they take it as an insult to their parenting skills that they know are bad... Kinda like calling an obese man a fatass.

By implying some of them have parenting skills is a compliment. HANG ON! Found a way to stay on subject!

Xbox Live, like the internet, is a place where certain assholes believe they can insult & abuse others with impunity and get away with it as they're protected by anonymity - as the out-of-earshot-comments are - but when you let them know they're not having their own way they get worse.

At 2/16/08 02:22 PM, Stoicish wrote:
The cultural gap is just getting way to big for the authority figures to try to catch up. They look at something and don't understand it completely. One thing they still don't seem to understand is that Video Games aren't children specific.

There's a new system (allegedly) being implimented in the UK that (allegedly) addresses this - problem is it also says kids should play their games in full view of their parents, which takes it too far in the other direction. So, games aren't kid-specific, but just to be sure watch their gaming at all times (and they still don't touch on parents buying non-kid games for their kids).

Come on, the first 18-rated game came out 20 years ago (Jack the Ripper, a text-based adventure on the Commodor 64 in '87), yet still agmes are considered for kids? Yeesh, people need to pay attention more...

At 2/16/08 02:21 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 2/16/08 01:47 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 2/14/08 05:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 2/14/08 04:20 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Unless, of course, you're from Croydon: Pizza Hut is ***** compared to the usual romantic night out, having a Big Mac whilst waiting for a bus...

I want a Big Mac now.

Not my intention!

Nah, I'm a liar, I went to Mc Donald's yesterday and I ate a Big Tasty. =P

I unleash lawyerly fury in your general direction!

I was being a mopey git because the nearest girl who wants to jump my bones lives a mere 3764.48 miles from me.

Travelling by plane is fun!

No it isn't! Plane travel was designed for people who are 5'10" - I'm 6'3". And don't get me started on the people who feel it is their "right" to put their chair back as far as it'll go, regardless of my kneecaps being there...

Come to think of it, this only happens on flights to and from the US - man, can somebody put zeppelins back into service?