This is literally the dumbest post I've ever read on this forum

I will not even dignify it with a real response, and I'm the guy that dignifies EVERYTHING with a real response

Again, I don't see how owning a gun being a "right" according to the the Bill of Rights (I think it's debatable whether that makes bearing arms a REAL right, since I believe in transnational legalism and think that only international standards of human rights should be elevated to that level) makes the debate any less clear-cut. Yes, you have to weigh crime versus loss of freedom. However, the reason I accuse you of condoning homicide is because I literally do not understand how a rational person could side with freedom there.

Preventing literally thousands of deaths in exchange for some people being a little bit less happy (but otherwise completely fine)? How could anyone go against that trade? Just because the Bill of Rights says to? Well, we're back to constitutional originalism again.

If you aren't basing your love of the 2nd amendment due to constitutional originalism, then you're seriously bordering on being a conspiracy nut. Are you actually suggesting that we will need firearms to protect ourselves from some sort of tyrannical regime that will take over soon? If that were the case, why would what the Bill of Rights says even matter? I'm highly confused as to WHAT is important about the right to bear arms in 2012.

I'm arguing that, if gun control laws had been in place for generations, psychopaths like Lanza would have had a lot more difficult time getting guns. Saying I consider it a "win" is loaded language, but yes, it would be a LOT better if that was the only option available.

And, as I said, school shootings like this are more important for getting the debate going than for being pristine examples of when gun control laws are most necessary. They don't go most of the way towards explaining the NEARLY 12000 A YEAR GUN HOMICIDE RATE in the United States.

considering the cause is so tightly linked to what occurred (e.g. gun violence), I don't see how it can be considered exploiting emotional responses for one's own agenda. People just don't like it when other people die to guns, plain and simple.

What you're saying makes no sense. I was arguing that gun control WOULD avoid the murder on the streets of Baltimore, I only cited the factors because they obscure the public from being able to blame someone, whereas here they can blame Adam Lanza the lone gunman, making it a simpler problem to discuss.

I don't understand at all why you can't blame both mental illness AND guns. Guns and people both kill people. Just because it's a good idea to foster a culture more supportive of those with mental illnesses doesn't mean it's not also a good idea to support gun control.

(contd below)

you guys do realize different people improve in different ways right?

Yes, but in effect you are deifying our founding fathers/supporting the philosophy of constitutional originalism by applying centuries-old reasoning today, two things that THE FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES DID NOT SUPPORT.

As I said, even if gun control would not affect incidents such as this (which is highly debatable because you're talking about instantly applying gun control laws today rather than having them in place for a long time, thus gradually reducing the connected culture), this still isn't the only area in which it's relevant. It's just that when cute smiling white middle class children in a suburb are senselessly murdered and there's a clear villain (the mentally ill person who did it), it receives far more coverage than when an inner city black teenager is senselessly murdered in Baltimore and it's the fault of the failing American economic system and the War on Drugs. If this is the only time we can actually have an open discourse of gun control, then so be it.

Yes, but China and European countries don't have 11,500 gun homicides a year, now do they?

The most extreme proponents of these spree killings are those that hatch out a sick plan for a long time, and work hard to procure firearms. That's why they can exist anywhere (even in countries like Norway with strict laws and a giant welfare state). That doesn't mean that gun control is futile in those other countries.

If you think preserving an ideal from the colonial era (EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDING FATHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO PRESERVE IDEALS FROM THE COLONIAL ERA) is a good trade-off for those homicides, that's on you.

Did you not actually read the rest of my post?

Immediately after what you quoted, I said:

The only appeal to fairness I was making is ON AN ISSUE TO ISSUE BASIS. There are bound to be shooting incidents where all the gun control in the world wouldn't have helped, but we should avoid that tainting the debate overall. There are obviously situations where gun control would be helpful OVERALL. I said the exact same thing you did, that this is the time to have the debate when everyone is still emotional. Please actually read my posts.

1) I said that the scenario for change you were describing was still possible. I just added another to solidify the argument for gun control further.

2.) I'm not just blaming it on "gun culture" and saying it's unfixable. I'm saying said culture exists BECAUSE OF THE READILY AVAILABLE NATURE OF GUNS, and that it would be reduced if gun control were in place.

this particular incident may or may not have been avoided with gun control laws being tighter. most likely not, but it's pointless to speculate.

however, whether or not it's logical to begin gun control conversations only after tragic events like this (it's not), I think it's still good to have those conversations in the first place.

if anything, gun control is more relevant to issues of like gang violence or inner city homicides, but no one ever wants to talk about that. incidents like this, when a bunch of little kids get killed at once, evoke such a huge emotional response that it makes sense to have the debate now, even though tbh stuff like this is one of the most unavoidable aspects of gun violence.

if anything though, aside from the possibility of more gun control -> less access to weapons -> no shooting, there's the more realistic possibility of more gun control -> less gun-obsessed culture over time -> less seeking out of firearms -> less gun violence

agreed, which I think has hurt the eu game

a lot of people assume they're just all demo-centric, but it seems like most eu teams nowadays give almost equal heals to all 3 heavy classes, with the exception of epsilon (still demo-centric) and cc (seem to more strictly enforce pocket >> roamer for heals)

notice those two teams were also the best this season

I think the problem is that most roamers aren't very good at playing shotgun without taking too many heals

is it just me or does kermit actually look a little bit like kermit

some random pocket/caller ideas:

try to use every little advantage, either to push or to use to get a bigger advantage that you could then push on.

make sure the plan of what to do at mid is understood ahead of time by everyone on your team.

call all your damage/who to focus. if you aren't doing enough damage to do this, you're playing pocket wrong.

try to not position the combo behind the flank ever, and use your health to make room for everyone else.

some people would say don't ever play the blame game; I say it's based on what your teammates are like, do it if they're relatively thick-skinned but not if it will provoke an argument.

make sure to be clear about when you want other players to come with you and when you want a solo push. ideally on any non-uber push you want a lot of support, and on uber advantage pushes as well.

be decisive. when things are going wrong, try to offer a solution on the fly. ideally it's the CORRECT solution, but trying to think of something to change and having that turn out to be flawed too is better than just changing nothing.

try to foster an environment where anyone can make a call and all 6 players will listen to it, as main caller you talk the most and, depending on your team dynamic, probably have final say, but that doesn't mean you should be the only one calling stuff, there's a lot that others might be able to see that you as part of the combo cannot.

try not to generalize your own experience too much- it's possible you're really healthy and in a good position simply because lol pocket soldier, it doesn't mean the rest of your team is.

think a lot about the positioning of the other team. not just who's alive and who's not but how many of them are in the fight, which classes, where they're holding, what they'll do if you do x y or z. try to get in their heads.

if your medic has other people to play around don't be afraid to jump away if you see a good opportunity.

don't bait your team intentionally, you gotta be putting out fierce deeps.

when either you or your demo goes down your medic might need more people there to protect him, look out for that and ask a scout or your roamer to go meet the med.

on mid fights don't make protecting your medic your main priority unless you're playing a really slow developing mid. nothing pisses me off more than a pocket that calls he's gonna go aggressive on mid and then turns around the second he sees anyone bombing his side and aborts the plan, because it dicks over the rest of the team waiting to follow up on his dmg.

our team finally won a match

I also played like garbage

at least the server wasn't preventing me from being able to aim like the godawful illinois 69 we used for BOTH of our first two matches lol

how much are you guys paid

screenshot evidence happened

im telling you, that shit always works

holy shit there will actually be good eu soldiers now

cant wait to see zebbosai with gunbooties