DivineHustle

This should explain it...

I've been using VisualV since I originally started to mod my game. I really enjoy how it increases the visual appearance of the game and the effect it has on the weather. Something that I find a bit annoying is the brightness during noon. The game is very bright and I have to actually turn down the brightness on my screen. Most of the time I just play on afternoon since the game looks beautiful then, and I'll set the weather to either extra sunny or cloudy. I love how dark the nights are, your headlights actually serve a purpose for once; though the nights are way too dark when you're out in the county.

Having the exact same issue and I don't even have the mod. :/

It's unfortunate but it's just the way things work in America. A disgusting tragedy such as this one occurs and tens of innocent lives are lost, and what happens? The left scream "ban guns" and the right scream "Islamic terrorism", and nothing is done to prevent another tragedy in the future. The media is such a powerful and influential source in the wake of a tragedy, and people will flip on the news and believe in everything that's said. Sometimes people will claim that they aren't blinded by the media, but then only believe in what fits their sides agenda. Until the American people decide to wake up, turn off the TV, and work together to solve our problems; these tragedies will continue to happen and they will get worse and worse each time.

Hilarious stream of E3 2016 https://www.twitch.tv/allshamnowow

You can view the Xbox E3 LIVE right now at on the Xbox website, or on Twitch. I'm excited for quite a few games that are set for release this year. So far they've shown Gears of War, Forza Horizon 3, some game named "ReCore", and Final Fantasy. Anyone else excited for some of these releases? Do you think the games will be exceptionally enjoyable this year? https://www.twitch.tv/twitch

Crime is actually at an all time low, and it's gradually decreasing as the years go by.

Great idea, but invest what money? The US government is broke and continues to get even more broke.

You're willing to make the assumption that a decrease in the number of guns and restricting access would stop shootings (Which has been disapproved as noted by examples of Switzerland and Chicago, which you claim aren't valid but are completely valid), but you aren't willing to assume that increasing the number of armed guards or armed staff members would have decreased the number of casualties? If there were no armed guard in the club, more people would have died. If there were more armed guards, less people would have died. Why: because they would have been able to take down the terrorist fast enough. This case, as someone else previously stated, also isn't a very good one to use as an example for restricting guns. This wasn't just your normal shooting, this was a terrorist attack. Business owners have every right to hire armed security guards and train their staff in firearms. If I were a business owner I most certainly would hire armed guards or train my staff to use firearms that we possess on the property. If a business owner chooses not to protect their business then it's their own decision. It's like wearing a seat-belt. You can't force every single driver in the entire nation to wear a seat-belt. You can pass laws and increase punishments, but if people don't want to wear it they won't wear it. They'll just have to suffer the consequences if they get into a crash. Implementing a system of background checks is something that I can easily agree with. My problem isn't with increased common sense measures in an attempt to decrease gun violence. My problem is with people that believe banning guns and even restricting them will decrease the crime. A background check isn't necessarily a restriction, it's more of a common sense measure. If you have a criminal record, you shouldn't have a gun. Right, but that is more of an assumption. You are assuming that criminals aren't going to be satisfied with purchasing weapons from foreign smugglers because of the cost, and the challenges of smuggling items into the country. That's to be determined on a gang by gang, person by person basis. We have no real and logical way of determining if criminals are going to be willing to do that. I'm not a gang member so I can't tell you how they'd smuggle weapons in. I assume probably the same way drugs are smuggled into the country, and that's been working out just splendid for years. There's also a freedom with purchasing an illegal firearm versus a legal firearm. They don't have to pay for a license, they don't have to renew and maintain that license, they don't have to keep a good criminal record, and the government isn't watching them. They can purchase the gun, be done with it, and no one would ever know. Then where does restricting the right to own a gun come into play when it's the gun manufacturers, as you say, selling the guns illegally to criminals? Restricting the right to own a gun won't stop manufactures from selling guns to the wrong people. Just because someone is a law abiding citizen doesn't mean that their status cannot change. If someone purchases a gun legally and then sells it out of the back of their van to a gang, they should be punished for that. They should lose their license, they are no longer a law abiding citizen. They've broken the law and that's just something you'll have to deal with. With every system there will always be those that break the law, guns are no different. Those that break the law should be prosecuted, and the rest shouldn't be punished as a result. It's literally impossible to 100% permanently stop shootings in the United States. It's just not possible. My point with mentioning wasn't so that we could copy them. My point was that they have guns practically everywhere and they have one of, if not the, lowest crime rate in the world. Switzerland has a unique system of national defense, similar to that of the United States. Just as the Swiss see owning a gun as a call to defend their country, Americans see it as a call to defend their civil liberties and protect their loved ones. Then you would simply train the population, and only allow firearms into the homes of those that meet a certain criteria regarding their criminal record, their physical location, etc. There's no possible way for anyone to tell whether more guns would increase or decrease the crime because there are so many different examples. Places in the United States that have more legal guns generally have less crime, while areas that have more illegal guns have more crime. I don't only think it's a simple matter of whether a gun is in the picture or not. I also think that the legality of the gun plays a role. Because the liberal solution is to take away the guns. The conservative solution is the target the person holding the gun. It's simply a matter of opinion, and the 2nd amendment doesn't make it any easier for the left.

When I read the various news articles earlier, they all stated that the gunman was killed when police stormed the building with a vehicle and got into an engagement with him. The officer inside did not kill the shooter, according to the news articles. Even if the officer on the inside did kill the shooter and the news articles are incorrect, that only further justifies what I'm saying. One armed guard was able to stop the shooter at 50 deaths (Going by what you said), so how many deaths could have been prevented if there was more than one guard? What if there were armed law abiding citizens alongside the guard, or armed staff? The number of deaths would drastically decrease while the number of armed citizens increase. It's a very simple concept to grasp. Chicago has a lot of shootings and homicides because of the gang violence. The gangs are the ones with the guns, and they fight each other while terrorizing the citizens of the City. These gangs slaughter each other like sheep, and innocent people are caught in the crossfire. Also, you can't just pass a generic gun law and expect it to work 100% flawlessly throughout the entire nation. "Oh, well we've passed this gun law in the city of Chicago so let's pass it over in rural Alabama". It's really not that simple and people keep trying to take the easy route in an attempt to stop shootings, banning guns and restricting access, which is illegal in itself. Banning guns, granted, could decrease the crime. It's not a 100% guarantee that it would decrease the crime but even if it did, it wouldn't decrease it at a significant enough level to make any notable difference in the amount of shootings that happen. Guns can be smuggled in to the country, and that's what people will do, just as they smuggle Marijuana and other substances in since they're banned. Then we're really done for as a country, because NOBODY will have guns but those that smuggle them, and law abiding citizens aren't going to smuggle them in. You are going by a "if this happens, then this could happen" base when you give these examples of the shooter failing in his plot due to the restriction of a gun. If he's not able to obtain a gun legally, then he will get one illegally. It's as simple as that. If you really want a gun in America, you'll be able to get one. Whether it's legal or not. Right, but what the right-wing is trying to say is that writing something down on a sheet of paper doesn't mean that things will change. Just because you tell people that they can't have a gun or a certain type of gun doesn't mean that the shootings will stop. Why do you continue to target the gun and not the person holding the gun? People like to compare the United States to countries that have strict gun laws and ignorantly bicker, "Oh hey, look. We have strict laws so if you do the same thing as we did you'll have a low crime rate like us". Well, I just point to Switzerland, a nation with loose gun laws, and say "Then explain them"? I'd partially disagree with that statement. There are parts of the United States where police can take up to an hour to respond when called, and only one unit will show up when they finally arrive. If the people in those areas don't have guns to defend themselves, then they're practically screwed. The police aren't always a reliable protection. I'm heading to bed, I'll respond to any arguments tomorrow afternoon. Have a great night folks!

Seems like we've reached that point in debate where we continue to go around in circles. Usually happens when a point has been proven and can't be logically debated any further. I will drop out of the thread until a new, valid argument is presented. Great discussion everyone!

Not an issue at all. We're all simply sharing our views and what we think would solve the problem. I'm trying to figure out why it's so difficult for people to grasp the concept of this. I could easily disspell that statement, just take a look at Switzerland. According to research, men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo militaristic weapons training. Weapons are to remain at homes in Switzerland, and there are more assault rifles in the country than any other type of firearm. There are over 400,000 assault rifles in Switzerland yet it has the lowest crime rate in the world. About 45.7 of every 100 people own a gun in Switzerland. In 2014, Switzerland had the lowest murder rate for 33 years, 0.49 of every 100,000 population. The numbers just don't add up to what you're saying. So I'll say again, guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

It's not the same with guns in the United States, the thought process of using that concept for other circumstances doesn't exactly work for laws pertaining to guns. The reason being that guns are a 2nd amendment right. We actually value the US Constitution, which is why this is a problem in the United States. When you restrict guns you're not only (trying) to hurt the criminals, you're hurting law abiding gun owners more than anything.

I use those words because law abiding citizens aren't going to break the law. What you aren't understanding is that new gun laws only affect those that obey the law, and those that probably wouldn't have broken previous laws to begin with. It doesn't matter what you decide to write down on paper, criminals aren't going to abide. They're going to get their guns, either legally or illegally depending on the strictness of the laws, and they're going to do what they do best; break the law and commit their crime. When you pass a gun law, you're telling the law abiding population that they can no longer do something. As I've been saying this entire time, criminals are going to continue to do it, regardless of how strict the laws are. Why do you think that making something law will fix all of our problems? That's a very naive way to think. "Let's pass another law and everything will be good to go". The bar staff could have guns. Club security could have the guns. Not every single person that goes to a club or a bar is there to get smashed or break dance on the middle of the dance floor. I don't know what the specific circumstances surrounding the permitting of guns into a club or bar would be. It depends on the bar, the clientele, and the area, the policy of that particular property, existing laws in the area, you can't just set a generic procedure. Yes they do commit their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns there. When a criminal wants something, he intends on getting it. He doesn't want to shoot people to get that cash register from the 7/11. He doesn't want to shoot the person who's car he's trying to jack. He doesn't want to shoot the owners of the home he just broke in to. He wants to get in, grab the valuables, get out, and get away. Since people can't legally possess firearms in Chicago, this puts the criminal at an advantage. He doesn't need to worry about getting shot in the back when he turns and runs with a stolen wallet. He doesn't need to worry about the homeowner coming downstairs with an assault rifle and spraying him against the wall. He doesn't need to worry about the person who's car he's trying to steal pulling a gun on them. He can commit his crime, grab what he wants, and roll out. Not a fear in the world, not a worry at all. There's always motive to crime. Whether the motive is to gain valuables, to spread fear, or because you're bored. The idea that someone would commit crime in Chicago simply because they live in Chicago doesn't make any sense, and I've never heard anyone say that. Of course they're going to commit crime where they live. A mugger isn't going to fly from Los Angeles to London to mug someone in a back alley. He's going to walk up the street and see what he can do right in the area. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's his motive to committing the crime. It can easily just be the simple fact that it's convenient and common sense to commit crime in his local area.

Well I think it's common sense that we aren't going to just randomly give people guns, let them go get drunk, and then expect them to behave responsibly with the firearm. We aren't going to let people leave guns all over the place while they drop it like it's hot on the dance floor. That's just plain retarded, and nobody here agrees with that at all. What we're trying to say is that if we had responsible, law-abiding, gun owning citizens in that club, it probably wouldn't have been shot up and less people would have been killed if it had been. A terrorist isn't going to run up inside of a building where people have guns. Not even terrorists are that stupid. Guns coming from out of the city are irrelevant to the fact that gun crime is skyrocketing in Chicago, and gun laws are strict. In fact, you've just helped prove another point. Guns are nearly impossible to legally obtain in Chicago, so the criminals do what? They go somewhere else and get their guns, then go into the city where no one legally owns a gun, and commit crime because they know there won't be any resistance.

You've completely missed the concept, which people always seem to do. The point is that a shooter isn't going to shoot a place up when, not even everyone, simply a few others have guns and are trained to use them. There's a reason why Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, has some of the worst gun violence in the nation.

I'm not disagreeing with you man, what you're saying is absolutely correct. Our society has become so basic and simple-minded that we don't care to explore any solutions to problems. We think that we can just pass a law and everything will fix itself, and it's really not that simple.

I'm not criticizing the officer, I'm criticizing those that believe having one armed officer was sufficient enough to stop the shooting. The officer did his job, and I'm sure he did it as well as he could have. That's because gangs and criminals know that the people are unarmed. They don't have to worry about mugging someone and then being shot in the back the second they turn and run with their wallet. This is why gun laws don't make any sense. You should target the person holding the gun, not the gun. The gun will always be there, the person and the incentive won't. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for gun-grabbers to comprehend.

Well it's quite clear that the officer wasn't very effective if 50 people were slaughtered, eh?

He would not have shot the club up if everyone was armed. A terrorist wants to murder those that can't fight back. Walking into a club where everyone is armed wouldn't help him accomplish that goal. That's the entire purpose of a terrorist, is to terrorize and murder the innocent. This guy didn't rob the place, he didn't take any money or valuables. He simply walked in and killed people. What's the purpose of shooting a place up if you don't plan on gaining any substance from it? To terrorize the people, it's called terrorism. This man was a terrorist. He called 911 and pledged allegiance to the leaders of ISIS. I just want to know how this happened if we have strict gun laws in place. These laws were supposed to prevent this from happening, right?

Condolences to the families and victims, definitely an unfortunate tragedy. I don't quite understand how this could have happened if it was a gun free zone, and it's illegal to carry a firearm into a bar/club in the state of Florida. I also wonder where he got the explosives that police say they found on him, those aren't legal either. He used an assault rifle to murder all of those innocent people as well, assault rifles are practically banned in Florida. Not sure how he got one. The shooter also called 911 beforehand and pledged allegiance to ISIS.

This is such a dry statement.

Yeah they tend to do that for shows that didn't have an exceptional audience. I would have loved for them to continue Flashpoint.