I'd guess that it's more: A weak government, proliferation of arms comparable to the government's, and the willingness and desperation of the people to use them to take what they want destabilize a country.

So: The US doesn't have violent crime because there are guns. The US has violent crime because the population of poor, disenfranchised people that think they have no other option is large. More shootings happen because these people (criminals) have access to guns. More homicides occur because a gunshot's more damaging than a stab wound (and gives more of a sense of invincibility, probably, meaning they're more willing to take the risks that lead to the situations in which they have to use them).

Of course there are also crimes of passion and psychos--and these will also likely be more fatal with firearms than without (but not necessarily--see recent string of Chinese knife-wielding maniacs). But what is the ratio of burglaries/other crimes-gone-wrong to man-kills-man-in-bed-with-his-wife or man-goes-on-sniping-spree or man-hacks-apart-school-children? Dunno, but I'd guess the first is probably the larger portion by a huge amount.

Any discussion of "Guns do X" is definitely oversimplifying the situation. You can't compare the US to Germany to Canada to Somalia purely on gun ownership, because the cultures and social security nets (and any number of other things) are different as well--ranging from "pretty cushy" to "non-existent."

@NetRunner. Yes, Neoliberals are victims. Conservatives and Libertarians are the evil.

@Psychologic. What if there were people on the sidewalk who see a wounded man in the streets, yet decide selfishly not to help him or call emergency services? You would hope these people don't exist, and I'd argue that 99.99% of the time these people don't. But there's always the extreme circumstances we must cling to in fear that some policy be made to legislate against assholes and subhuman cretins.

The same goes for hospitals that would turn away a man with a gunshot wound. You would hope this wouldn't happen, but it's always possible. Humanity would prevail in all these scenarios, and at the very least the wounded would be brought back to a stable condition and patched up.

Blankfist, do you feel that there should be any requirement to treat people who cannot pay for medical service? (I tried looking up the Libertarian perspective, but didn't come across anything useful in the short time that I looked.)

Car accidents and gunshot wounds come to mind, especially if the victim is unconscious. Of course the immediate presumption is that it would be taking place under something similar to our current system, so maybe there is an alternate Libertarian way of structuring health care provision to expediently accommodate those unable to pay.

Do you think the free market would handle the situation on its own? From my understanding of Libertarianism, it doesn't seem likely that they would want government providing the care or requiring private businesses to do so either.

That's fair - it's all machines and that doesn't lend itself well to drawing the player in as well as Blizzard does it.

I really love the battles though. Some of the 3 and 4 sided multiplayer battles I've been in are truly epic - and the strategy involved is very interesting. The massive scale and intelligence-gathering tactics and counter-tactics mean you really have to be able to respond very quickly (in terms of techologies and/or units).

When I do purchase SupCom 2, it would be nice to have other sifters to play against - we could even record matches and have them posted on the sift.>> ^gwiz665:

I played it a bit and played the old Total Annihilation too. The main problem I had with it, was that the units had no "soul". I had no real empathy for them, which is something Starcraft and Warcraft does well.
I did love that they simulated every gunshot and that it's a much grander scale though. If SupCom 2 improves on the first and makes it a bit, well, better, then I might just try it out.

I played it a bit and played the old Total Annihilation too. The main problem I had with it, was that the units had no "soul". I had no real empathy for them, which is something Starcraft and Warcraft does well.

I did love that they simulated every gunshot and that it's a much grander scale though. If SupCom 2 improves on the first and makes it a bit, well, better, then I might just try it out.

There were Sasquatches present just after the crash?

There are other post-crash amateur videos up on Youtube that show there were a lot of people on site right after the crash. I don't know what the digital enhancement is supposed to be showing us in terms of a conspiracy. I hear what sounds like gunshots, but they could be anything. And from the amount of destruction, the crash seems like more than enough to kill everyone on board. Wouldn't it be odd to have bodies recovered with fresh bullet holes in them?

Also, didn't you post this video 3 weeks ago?

[redacted]

I saw this video on TV once. When people ask what it's like to see a gunshot wounding to the head I tell them to look for this video.

There is more history to this video then one might think.

The Suicide depicted in this video was more of a Sepuku to prove that he was not what the conspiracy, he thought, was against him made him out to be. He believed that he was innocent, and as such it drove him to the ultimate choice; death.

Since Dwyer died in office before being removed upon sentencing, his widow, Joanne, was able to collect full survivor benefits totaling over $1.28 million. A spokesman for Dwyer, immediately after the suicide, suggested Dwyer may have killed himself to retain the state-provided pension for his household, which had been ruined by legal defense costs.[19]

Y'know, I've said this before and I'll probably say it again, but we need to have a more clear-cut rule on whether or not filmed deaths are allowed on the sift. This business of *.discussing every single video like this, and having the exact same debate over and over again is just a waste of time. Either stuff like this should be allowed, or it shouldn't. If this isn't okay, why is the aforementioned martial arts video okay? Or the video with the little girl dying on the sidewalk of a gunshot wound in Iraq? Personally I think there are other places for videos like that, and that they don't necessarily belong here -- but more importantly, there needs to be some kind of broader decision made either way.

Of course, there won't be. We'll have this debate many, many more times. Oh well.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^A tazer is a weapon. It can leave scaring and in rare cases cause death. It is the means to stop a criminal that is not as certain to cause death, and as such should be used sparingly. Many people I know that have undergone the tazer certification say they would rather be shot.
Moreover, this was just some stupid 17 year old running around on the field. Yes, he was being a disruption and should of been dealt with. But using a weapon on someone who is unarmed and not a physical threat is senseless violence.


You've GOT to be kidding me.
Rather be shot than tazed?

let's weigh the options:
Tazed: Intense, searing pain that lasts for 5 seconds and is immediately over, with a negligible chance of complications, OR
Gunshot: Intense, searing pain that lasts for many days, weeks, and possibly months, massive blood loss, obliterated tissue, reduced mobility and function, months of rehabilitation and possible loss organs or limb or death.

Either they're complete idiots, or they were joking.

I question the reason for the gunshots.
Watch the youtube version for "pop-up" descriptions for what is going on!

I know given the number of atheists here on the Sift maybe writing this is a moot point--and I will preface all of this by saying I am NOT a Christian--but I think people here who are hating on the 10 commandments need to put things into a little perspective.

The 10 commandments were written at a time when the Jewish people were on the verge of extinction. They had just fled slavery in Egypt and were moving through difficult and wild countryside on their search for a new (or old depending how you look at it) homeland. If they were to survive at all, everyone would have to work together.

Maybe some people here think not stealing or killing should be self-evident but just look at what is happening in Haiti right now--the hospitals are getting flooded with as many gunshot and machete wounds as they are quake injuries as people fight for survival. The Jewish people were in a far worse situation than the Haitians--they didn't have anybody coming to bail them out. They had only each other to rely on. I think Moses and the other Jewish leaders realized that a totalitarian regime was the ONLY way for them to survive that journey. You had to punish stealing with death because the survival of the group depended on people trusting each other and working together. If someone wasn't willing to work for the survival of the group, they were a threat to the group's survival. If Moses and the others didn't want things to devolve into chaos, they probably figured they needed to keep a firm grip.

I think if you regard the 10 commandments in this light, they make a lot of sense. If the Jews lost their collective sense of identity and some people in the group started worshiping other gods, then that would be a threat to the group's security. It might cause internal friction or an outright split. Furthermore, the only thing people are more afraid of losing than their lives is their souls. If the 10 commandments are God's word, then maybe you think twice about stealing something. Notice that we have lots of laws against stealing in civilized countries and yet we also have jails full of thieves. Apparently the word of man is not enough to deter people, but for the Jews at this time, the word God may have been enough.

Now, obviously the world has changed a lot since Moses' time. But I don't think that totally negates a need for the ten commandments. As I mentioned above, despite having laws, despite whatever "innate" sense of morals we might have (I have large doubts about the idea that any morals are innate, but for the sake of this post let's just say it is true), there are still people out there willing to kill, rob, or screw their neighbor's wife if given the opportunity. But would they be willing to do those things if they believed in a deity that would punish them for these things even if they were not caught while alive in this world? I don't have the answer. For some, such as the criminally insane, it obviously wouldn't make any difference. But for others...? If it does keep them from doing something that we all agree is immoral (I'm leaving aside the worshiping idol stuff at the moment) is that really such a terrible thing? If it reinforces our own "innate" sense of morals, is that so bad? Regardless of what religious view you take, can you really argue that rules against killing or stealing are a bad thing?

My 2 cents. Thanks for reading.

>> ^choggie:
I tend to stay away from bars for that very reason. Everyone's obnoxious to someone else, innit? Have seen my own death though, it does not involve gunshots.

For some reason I'm guessing your death involves a lite-brite, a tub of vaseline, and a scale model of Che Guevera selling land he didn't own to farmers for their participation in the revolution.

I tend to stay away from bars for that very reason. Everyone's obnoxious to someone else, innit? Have seen my own death though, it does not involve gunshots.

>> ^solecist:
this is how gunshots SHOULD sound in hollywood movies. why is hollywood so afraid of reverberation? doesn't sound "clean" enough, i guess.


This is exactly why I like this scene. I'm glad it gets some appreciation