| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561198071785065 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:111519337] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:55759668 |
| Country | Italy |
| Signed Up | November 15, 2015 |
| Last Posted | March 22, 2025 at 1:21 AM |
| Posts | 2114 (0.6 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | 6.91 |
| Windows Sensitivity | 6/11 |
| Raw Input | 1 |
DPI |
400 |
Resolution |
1920x1080 |
Refresh Rate |
240hz |
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | Logitech G Pro |
| Keyboard | Logitech G Pro Keyboard |
| Mousepad | Steelseries QCK + |
| Headphones | Apple earbuds |
| Monitor | Alienware 240hz |
gemmArtz_HispanianWhat does color correction actually do ??
alters colour balance slightly. not sure how it was broken.
also wtf what's wrong with letting teammates know where a sniper/spy is when you die
I'm almost 100% sure the old color correction literally did nothing lmao.
correct me if I'm wrong.
whymeoReerowhymeoReeroIt was in response to mustard who said that he wanted an assault weapons ban..
Right, but linking those stats and saying "an assault weapons ban is pointless because most homicides in the U.S. are committed with handguns" doesn't seem like a good argument to me. When most homicides are committed with some form of gun, I believe the solution is to ban all firearms. And how the U.S. homicide rate compares to other high-income countries would indeed suggest that the U.S. needs to ban firearms if they want the homicide rate to decrease.
The NRA has too much power for that to happen anytime soon anyway, so it's just theoretical.
I don't agree with this solution, as places like Chicago make it very difficult to acquire guns, yet the murder rate is very high. Compare that to a place like Texas, where the gun laws are very lax, yet the murder rate is very low. Prohibition is often never the solution to a problem, as evinced by the past attempt to prohibit alcohol, and our current failing attempts to prohibit drugs.
I cannot think of any other issue why the homicide-rate in the U.S. would be higher than all other high-income nations except our ability to purchase guns freely. Perhaps I'm wrong but that seems to be the difference. Bans in certain places in the country don't necessarily suggest that bans on guns don't help homicide rates if people can just get their guns from other places in the country.
If, however, the homicide rate stays the same in all places in the U.S. that have enacted stricter gun laws but the number of gun related homicides decreases while other methods for committing homicide increase, perhaps you could argue that guns are not the cause for higher homicide rates in the U.S.
It can also be argued that if every state all over the country had uniform, lax, gun laws, than the overall murder rate could fall. Again, this is using Texas and other states with lax gun laws as a model. If everyone owns guns and is encouraged to purchase them, then less people will try to rob/attack others in fear that they too own a gun.
The only exception to my last argument is the gang on gang violence in Chicago, but that is mostly criminals using illegal/black market guns to murder other criminals who sport illegally acquired guns, so all out prohibition won't help anyone.
anyone interested in competitive this YouTube channel has posted info on tons of new leaks and how they affect the competitive meta.
whymeoReeroIt was in response to mustard who said that he wanted an assault weapons ban..
Right, but linking those stats and saying "an assault weapons ban is pointless because most homicides in the U.S. are committed with handguns" doesn't seem like a good argument to me. When most homicides are committed with some form of gun, I believe the solution is to ban all firearms. And how the U.S. homicide rate compares to other high-income countries would indeed suggest that the U.S. needs to ban firearms if they want the homicide rate to decrease.
The NRA has too much power for that to happen anytime soon anyway, so it's just theoretical.
I don't agree with this solution, as places like Chicago make it very difficult to acquire guns, yet the murder rate is very high. Compare that to a place like Texas, where the gun laws are very lax, yet the murder rate is very low. Prohibition is often never the solution to a problem, as evinced by the historic attempt to prohibit alcohol, and our current failing attempts to prohibit drugs.
whymeoI feel, based on her earlier posts in this thread, she thinks you shouldn't ban any guns at all, not just that you banning assault weapons is pointless. Which is not, in my opinion, the logical conclusion to draw from the very stats she posted.
It was in response to mustard who said that he wanted an assault weapons ban..
whymeom4risaThe FBI's Supplemental Homicide
Reports show that 57% of all murders
in 1993 were committed with handguns,
3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns,
and 5% with firearms where the type
was unknown.
1993 I know, but the case still stands. The only issue I can see with "assault weapons" is the maximized amount of damage they can do, in which case a ban on larger magazines would suffice enough.
"Assault weapon" just goes to show how much mainstream media you eat up, fearmongering term.
57% of homicides were committed with handguns so we shouldn't ban any guns...
Unless your position is we should ban handguns but not assault weapons which would be even more stupid.
Her point is that banning assault weapons accomplishes nothing. How does banning assault weapons make the 57% of handgun homicides go down? There will never be an all-out ban on handguns, too many people from both sides oppose that, but banning assault rifles really doesn't accomplish much..
mustardoverlordrocketslayWhy do people need assault rifles? If you're defending your home, a pistol will suffice, right? We haven't reached the point where there's open warfare in the streets or anything
a lot of people legitimately believe that the main reason they need guns is to protect themselves from the government
which an assault rifle wouldn't exactly help much with if the armed forces were after you but shrug
If more people have assault weapons in the hypothetical case that the US becomes tyrannical, conflict between citizens and the military will be forced. Forced conflict, rather than citizens not revolting and having their rights surrendered makes these military units more likely to mutiny*, and encourages citizens to fight against the government because they know people have access to these assault weapons. The main point is that having assault weapons encourages forced conflict in the face of tyranny, which makes fighting a war on citizens harder.
*Mutiny because US soldiers would probably not be okay with shooting their neighbor.
~~~~
also as a point to rocketslay, a lot of Americans feel they shouldn't need to justify their right to own guns, no matter how advanced they become.
mustardoverlordAs for suppressors, I don't give a fuck about them. I do believe lifting the ban on high ammunition magazines is bad, and that a blanket assault weapon ban is necessary. Well, I'd personally go a lot further than that with gun control, but some of my other opinions are more contentious; I think the assault weapons ban is the bare minimum in that regard, and a fair compromise.
This is where I disagree with you. I don't think that assault weapons are deserving of an all out ban. I have this opinion because they really never accounted for a high amount of murders in this country, or even a high amount of gun murders . Perhaps a better compromise would be a special permit for assault weapons that is difficult to get, only allowing it to be home/taken to ranges, but not impossible to acquire
A big problem I see in my home-city of New York is that they make it near impossible for you to acquire a concealed carry permit for pistols, having to state a reason for owning the gun, and having to go through grueling red tape and months of waiting before you get your permit. I would like to see this end, and while Trump hasn't said anything specific on this issue, I don't see him not addressing it in the future.
Another thing I would support is if Trump made all states recognize a ccw permit from any state. Again, not sure if Trump has said anything of this but it wouldn't surprise me if he would.
SpaceCadet
Right, but when that does happen you can sit at home under your bed with your dick shriveled up right next to mustardoverlord while you suck on each others thumbs in a fetal position.
Don't tell me how to defend myself, my family or my property.
Why do you have to insult him here? I agree with you on policy but you don't have to be an asshole about getting your point accross..
mustardoverlord
2. It was in the 100 day plan
Trump* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
~~~~~~~~
3. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/constitution-and-second-amendment/
TrumpBackground checks - we need to fix the system we have and make it work as intended.
I assume this means improve the background check system?
Also how exactly is lifting bans on suppressors/high ammunition magazines bad?
~~~~~~~~~~~
4. Can you go into detail on what you mean? Im confused on what you mean and even on what Trump means by using the words "criminal illegals".
SpaceGhostsCoffeeNot really related to the current discussion, but here's a list of things Trump has done since being elected (that I am aware of):
1: Nominated climate change denier Myron Ebell as the leader of his EPA transition team, pissing off pretty much everyone who isn't a climate change denier or in the coal/gas business
2: Says he wants to impose congressional term limits (which was in his 100 day plan), pissing off McConnell and pretty much everyone in congress
3: Claimed in an interview today that he likes main Obamacare provisions 'very much', pissing off the anti-obamacare republicans
4: Replaced Christie with Pence as the leader of his transition effort, which isn't really surprising at all
He has also released his plans to withdraw from the TPP, fund clean water and infrastructure improvement, and lift bans on increased gun magazine sizes and suppressors while trying to improve the current background-check and mental health systems.
What interested me most about his plans to deport illegals is that in his 100 day plan he called for the deportation of "criminal illegals", which means he might only deport illegal immigrants that have committed crimes.
I like most of these plans, especially the lift on suppressor bans, as anyone with any knowledge on guns knows that suppressors only serve to protect the ears of people shooting the guns and don't really make the gun "silent".
A fair amount of Hillary supporters are being retards by violently rioting and burning flags I the streets.
A fair amount of Trump supporters are being racist towards people and gloating in the face of his win.
Both sides need to:
Not act like this, and win/lose gracefully and focus on how we can move forward and progress as a country. It helps nobody to just say "look how shitty Clinton/Trump supporters are , they're ALL violently rioting/ being racists in the face of the election! We need to stop making retarded blanket statements that loop all Trump supporters and Hillary into one stereyotope because it's simply not helping.
eeetrying to have a rationale discussion with a party that bases their policy on feelings and moral dogmas isn't feasible
until the GOP wants to start applying some actual methodology or reasoning to what they do that is actually supported by people who understand government we'll have a continual deadlock.
Saying that either party bases all of their policy on feelings/morals is not really true. Both the Democrats and Republicans base a lot of their policies on moral issues (such as abortion for the right and lgbtq issues for the left). And again, both sides contest each other's "moral" issues with moral responses. There are also numerous "non-moral" issues that both sides tackle (the economy for both sides). You can't just say that one party is morally driven and the other isn't.
And are morals necessarily a bad thing? The whole idea of "rights" have a base in morality itself. It is hard to escape "moral politics" because it really spreads into a lot of issues.
Cool guy, pretty good at TF2, a lot of potential.
Get him on a good team guys
TERRYCREWS A better comparison would be a hypothetical if Clinton won, what would Trump supporters do?
Spoilers: probably the same, if not worse since Trump insinuated he wouldn't accept the election results (ala 3rd debate). Shitty people on both sides, what a surprise
I mean based on Trump's voter demographics I find this unlikely, as older working-class men and women don't have the time or energy to protest as violently as Clinton supporters are right now.
eeeBlack people beating up white trump supporters isn't racist (nor is white people beating up black people for supporting clinton)
It doesn't have to be about race; the fact that we care more about what "side" we're on and how hard we can cause violence in the wake of an outcome we don't like (or like) is the problem. We need to have actual discussion between both sides and not just mindless aggression to each other because at the end of the day we're all living in the same country and we have to work together to try to benefit all of us.