Target recently announced that they would like for gun-owning shoppers to leave their firearms at home.
Just a few days after the retail giant put out the statement, three armed men robbed an individual in the Target parking lot in Gainesville, GA.
There is speculation that thieves are starting to pinpoint businesses that discourage firearms from being brought into their stores. It would not be too farfetched, considering all the media coverage that corporations like Target are getting after making these statements.
Fortunately, no one was hurt during this robbery, and police were able to target the suspects shortly after the incident.
Violent people didn’t follow accordingly to a “no gun” zone? How strange.
When you make and advertise gun free zones, you basically tell criminals where they should hang out.
Could it BE partly the fact that they didn’t feel the need to make a female character that has jiggle physics and breastplate armor instead of what people actually might wear from a practical standpoint? Watch and learn, developers. This may be revolutionary in the ways of cutting corners AND pleasing gamers. Imagine!
I can assure you, it took still the full amount of work for one character, from concept over modeling to animation.
However, Smash Bros’ graphics and style are simpler than Asscreed’s.
Plus, this is a fully playable character, so very much worth the work. Plus, the game is mostly a zoomed-out fast-paced brawler who’s main aspect is the big roster of fighters, not a HD+++ third-person action game with one pretty protag and a lot of pretty environment.
Unlike Asscreed’s female that would only be playable in multiplayer and only visible to the other players, not even yourself, and that would be lots of extra work because they’d have to adjust all the customizable armor.
This is hardly a comparison.
But of course a Reggie parody account would know better.
President Obama came down hard on gun-control laws during today’s Tumblr Q&A. See the president’s full response on gun control here.
What he fails to mention is that most of these school shootings and other mass shootings took place in states that already have extremely strict gun laws. Making things illegal does not stop people from doing them.
People are reblogging this like hotcakes and honestly it makes me kind of sad that so many people will listen to someone just because they’re in a place of authority. Just because someone is elected to be a leader doesn’t mean that they’re going to be honest 100% of the time or educated on an issue.
The United States is a massive country when you compare it to the rest of the developed world. It is almost entirely an immigrant nation, built on colonial ideas and a frontier mentality. Contrary to the belief of many, much of the United States is still a frontier, and most states only have a few dense urban centers with a population of over two million. Both inside and outside of these cities, many people are incredibly poor and lack reliable access to education. As time has shown, being in poverty and not having the needed skills or job training to escape that situation drives people to crime. This is why Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City are all incredibly violent places - because despite the glamorous lives of the upper class, millions of people live in what are practically slums. I lived just outside of Compton for a few years, and Police response times with in the half-hour range between a call and when the cops showed up. Young people without an education who live in poverty are far more likely to be driven into criminal lifestyles just to provide for themselves. There are over ten thousand firearms homicides in the United States yearly, but the media or the government rarely focuses on those in poor parts of the country. Only when a rich white neighborhood is targeted by a spree killer does the media go into a frenzy, and a few days later, the media attention leads to copycat killers. Interestingly, the majority of publicized mass shootings have occurred in states with strict firearms regulations, in gun-free zones. Every single time a shooting occurs, there is a knee-jerk call for more gun control, not a sensible review of why the laws in place (AND TRUST ME THERE ARE A LOT OF GUN LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES) didn’t stop the shooter.
When you compare the United States to Europe at large or Australia, you are forgetting that America isn’t Australia or Europe. These are radically different cultures - Most European states are quite small, with low crimes rates overall, greater income equality, and ready access to affordable or state-funded education. Even then, only a few European countries have taken the British or Australian route; The French can own semi-autos, Slovenians can own semi-autos, Finns can own semi-autos, Swiss can own semi-autos, Germans can own semi-autos, along with a host of other peoples. The Swiss government even funds shooting competitions and gives former soldiers their service weapons. Outside of Europe, New Zealanders are legally allowed to own machine guns with the right licensing, and semi-automatic military rifles are commonly used for sport-shooting events. Canada’s gun control legislation is some of the most lax in the Western world. None of these countries see common mass shootings, or mass violence in general.
When you compare these countries to those that have immeasurably strict gun laws, or have banned firearms outright, you won’t see a sizable difference in gun crime, if the other country is developed. However, many poorer countries have enacted strict gun control laws, for example, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia all have near outright bans on ownership for some, if not all firearms. Despite this, the violent crime rate, including those committed with guns, is immeasurably high. While you may argue that Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom are all essentially gun-free zones and lack widespread firearms violence, if it were the laws in place that truly prevented ownership, why isn’t Brazil a crimeless utopia?
You can outlaw guns in the United States if you’d like. You can outlaw assault weapons, or semi-autos, like back in 1994. But I can guarantee you, it will not stop spree killers, or common criminals. Until the people of the United States and elsewhere decide to stop praising gun control as the be-all-end-all solution to gun violence, and start taking on the real issues of poverty, lack of education, and in some cases, mental health, America will retain it’s violence problem, but the law abiding will simply have to rely on the Police to protect them. And we all know how well the Police protected Rodney King.
Good lord, this is the most stark portrayal I’ve seen of this.
Holy crap, over nine years?
I haveto reblog something like this. This is actually a very good argument for why the minimum wage needs to be raised.
Why do we say minimum wage needs to be raised?
Why aren’t we asking how to bring down the cost of food/education/health care instead?
Why is our generation’s first response to a crisis “Give me more money”?
I don’t want people to be poor. But, I don’t understand why we’re supposed to just accept higher food costs and higher health care costs, and at the same time demand to be paid more by our employers, who are also incurring increases in insurance costs, rising oil prices, vehicle maintenance, etc. Businesses are already being forced to pay more money for everything required to operate their business.
And don’t play the “evil corporations have enough money, they’re just greedy” card. The big conglomerates like WalMart, McDonald’s, Home Depot, Microsoft — yeah, they can afford to take that hit. But most businesses can’t.
Small businesses can’t afford it. Small businesses go out of business when you raise minimum wage. Unemployment rises. Without small business competing with big businesses, those evil corporations you hate so much automatically win. The small businesses keep the United States running, and they keep small towns employed. They keep the economy competitive.
But raising minimum wage shuts them down. Big businesses will survive. Small businesses will not. It hurts our economy, and only benefits big business by shutting down their smaller competitors.
This is simple. When raising the minimum wage, you ensure only the wealthiest businesses survive. Small business dies. Entrepreneurs suffer.
My aunt currently works for a small pizzeria, and the cost of operation is skyrocketing thanks to rising food costs. If we raise minimum wage, we know that she will be getting laid off, or worse, the entire business will go under.
We’re asking the wrong questions. The question should not be “Why aren’t people giving me more money?!” … the question should be: "Why is the cost of living rising?" and “What can I do about it?”
FYI, this is coming from a person who has lived in poverty most of his life. I will not go into my full family history, but we’ve never been higher than “low-middle class”. I do not want, or feel I have the right, to suddenly start demanding people pay me more money. I want the cost of living to go down. I’m not greedy, and I’m not looking for the quick simple solution of “give me more money!!” We should be able to survive on a somewhat low income…. but we can’t. I think that needs to be fixed before we demand more cash for menial jobs.
And that’s my unpopular opinion of the day!
you guys realize that by saying a sociopathic killer’s actions are the result of ‘male entitlement’ and ‘patriarchy’, you’re taking responsibility away from him by saying it was society’s fault and not his.
when you say a sociopathic killer who publicly murdered seven people isn’t suffering from a mental illness and declaring that it’s ‘ableist’ to say so, you’re ignoring the truth.
This whole Santa Barbara murder has led me to believe that there is actually no trace of real feminism left. You’re fudging details and making up facts that were never even in the cards to fit your agenda.
You’re acting so happy that these people have died at the hands of this guy because now you have a wolf to cry about and a reason to say, “See, I told you men are dangerous killers who are born to hate women!” You takejoy in the fact that a cis white male has gone on a mass murdering spree because it means you get to attack the gender as a whole and have something huge behind it. The deaths of these people mean nothing to you. You’re fucking dancing on their corpses in a circle singing “Down with the patriarchy!”
I can’t even deal with this site right now.
Some of the things I see make me wonder if there’s going to be another incident like Rodgers, only it’ll be perpetrated by feminists doing what they think is best. Can none of you think for yourselves anymore? Do none of you have the brainpower or the capacity to see past your own assholes?
There is more here that JUST patriarchy and male entitlement and sexism. This murder was not a result of ONE issue. There is no RIGHT answer.
But you people flat out refuse to even consider mental illness as a factor and that pisses me right the hell off. You hate men so much that you’ll ignore everything else if only to say an entire gender is born to be rapists and murderers.
I don’t fear men. I will never fear men. I have no fucking reason to fear men. Replace ‘men’ with black people, Asians, women, or Jews and everyone flips their shit. It’s the same goddamned pointless hatred that’s keeping us grounded.
You don’t want equality, none of you do. You want superiority and you don’t give a fuck who you step on to get it. Not even if you’re stepping in people who have done nothing and will never do anything to you.
Fucking Christ, the majority of Tumblr could be a study in mob/cult mentality, narcissism, and asocial behavior all in one.
I’m a men’s rights activist and I’m asking you not to become an anti-feminist. It’s not right to dismiss all feminists, because they’re not all like that. But there is a need to fight the radical bigotry that infests the movement. I’m not even trying to sell you the men’s rights movement - if you really want a solution to this, it’s egalitarianism.
But you can be an anti-feminist without dismissing all feminists. You can be an anti-feminist because you disagree with the messages feminism feeds into society about women being perpetual victims or men being oppressors. And you can do that without assuming that all feminists think that way. You can acknowledge those feminists who work within the movement to change those ideas, while still being ‘anti-feminism’ because you disagree with those ideas. Well, that’s how I see it anyway.
I do realise that some anti-feminists do dismiss all feminists without giving them a chance and without taking the time to find any common ground that may exist. I do not agree with that either. I think there should be a more reasoned approach than that. I am not trying to push the idea that people should take on the ‘anti-feminist’ label, by the way. I am simply saying, for the record, that it is possible to be against the main ideology that feminism seems to have without dismissing all feminists or indeed all of feminism.
In the end it shouldn’t really matter which label we choose, our attitudes and our actions are what count :)