So the developers don't see a penny from used game sales and "Also, since the users who have purchased the second-hand items are somehow no longer potential buyers of the content, the developers would lose their profits otherwise gained in the first place."Someone explain this to me. How is this different from the car market? There's a healthy proportion of people who only ever buy used cars but new car sales still do well. Am I being dense or are Sony treating me as though I am?
My point about your examples is getting you to realise just how isolated and highly unlikely the circumstances are that you would see any benefit from an assault rifle over a regular firearm. I'm all for gun control and I just cannot see any justification in a regular citizen requiring military hardware. But judging by your comments on submachine guns, I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you on the idea of excessive force...
P.S. You'd shoot towards your child if it was charged by a rabbit? I don't think I want to talk to you anymore. You scare me.
Srsly? You don't see any other course of action apart from greater gun proliferation and just lettng this stuff happen? In my opinion the best course of action is to tighten gun control to mitigate the damage these outbursts cause and invest heavily in mental health programmes for the young. We don't know the full facts of this case yet but from what we've heard I don't think there's a lot you can do to stop a secluded loner losing track of reality. But controlling the power individuals like him have to cause harm is the only sensible course. I don't think sitting back and saying "sh*t happens" is a grown-up response.
Why would you assume I'm pretending? I'm just happy here on the moral high ground whereas you just want to squeeze into your dungarees and huck-huck with your cousin/wife about the groundhog you shot with a bazooka.
Well what wisdom. You should post those quotes over to the families in Conneticut, should give them reams of comfort knowing that long dead Americans talking IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR TIME PERIOD think it's a good idea for mentally disturbed teenagers to get their hands on weaponry only suitable for open warfare. /slowclap
Example 1: So in the situation you own a huge, open expanse of farmland, your kids are playing behind you and are well sectioned off so they cannot wander into your line of fire but are open enough to allow a large animal to charge them (probably because you're too busy firing guns in the opposite direction to be keeping an eye on them) you think it's a good idea to own an assault rifle so you can shoot TOWARDS your child at the animal bearing down on them? Example 2: Aside from the fact he isn't a very good stalker (stealth fail) how far away would he need to be for you to spot his gun (especially at night). Unless he was similarly armed like Rambo, as you are? Regarding your other points; Sub-machine guns have just as large clips as an assault rifles and a higher rate of fire, improving accuracy at short range (which you agree most confrontations occur). They are also smaller, lighter and easier to handle on short notice. Do you think they should be legalised due to the benefits they deliver in "home defense"?
lsdbaby's comments