I haven’t read/watched Ready Player One, but… I think one “good” thing about video games is they are always more fun than reality.
The ‘shooting’ aspect might be mostly realistic-- you hide in a bush, you look through your scope, you focus on your targets head, etc. But the other aspects-- the teams, the looting, the base building, the respawning, the in-game rewards, etc. serve to make the game more fun than a real life war, and a lot more fun than real-life mass-murder.
While with real guns, I think the opposite is true. Target shooting is a sort of bland simulacrum of war and murder.
Where I was going with the invocation of Ready Player One is how one element of the story/the setting is that it’s a world where VR is available to everyone. It’s better than reality, and as a result, many people simply live their lives in VR, detached from their reality, creating all sorts of issues.
If/when we get to a point where VR is good enough to replicate or improve upon the sensory experience associated with range-time, sport shooting, or even the combat-LARPing that some folks seem to enjoy…and if/when that quality of VR is widely available, I think society will have some new problems, ones beyond the scope of this thread, to address.
Oh. Sure. That’s true already though. No need for VR. Just look at your phone. Play Candy Crush and talk on Goactuary.com instead of doing work or kissing your wife. IMO, we are drowning in addiction.
Anything fun enough to become popular is already unhealthy.
I guess it’s likely things will be more fun and therefore more unhealthy, but I imagine the need to self/other-regulate will be similar.
All this brouhaha regarding gun control is not about the Constitution and originalism. Blame the SCOTUS. It created this problem.
Turn the way back machine to 1880. Laws that outlawed carrying fire arms inside town limits were common. You all know the most famous episode wrt enforcing that la. The gunfight at the OK corral. The Earps were enforcing the town law when they killed the Claytons.
Now, the second amendment read the same in 1880. Those laws were not disallowed. That’s because any reasonable citizen could discern the balancing of public safety vis a vis the 2nd amendment. Folks didn’t like the cowboys getting paid, heading into town, getting all liquored up, and then shooting Willy Nelly at lights and mail boxes. Sound judgement imo.
No, the problem was created by the SC. They moved one right into a primacy standing. Holding it sacred regardless of its other effects is just bad jurisprudence. Now we have a whole bunch of cowboys who figure their right to carry “trumps” all other rights, including the right to life. WHat nonsense. The constitution doesn’t say that at all.
His bar is not the only LGBTQ+ club in Denver increasing security. The owner of X Bar and Tight End said he plans to bring in armed guards and institute a zero-tolerance policy for weapons.
Seems like some club owners seem to agree that armed security guards are a good idea. I do not support having such guards at schools or normal places of business, but night clubs are so prone to violent incidents that such guards can serve as a possible deterrent. While they would they prevent all such incidents I think they would do more good than harm.
How about turning the clock back to 1822, and the case of Bliss v Commonwealth (Kentucky), where a state court took a stance that the pro-2A crowd would get behind?
There were other rulings in the early 19th century that can be cited by folks on both sides of the issue. The conflict between public safety and pro-2A concerns isn’t a new one.
I think a stronger argument could be made that the modern acceptance of concealed carry is a perversion of the Second Amendment. If successful, a change in that regard wouldn’t have an immediate impact on levels of private gun ownership, but I do suspect it would start to change the trajectory., You would, of course, need to replace several judges and SCOTUS justices to effect such a change.
(While I do enjoy my firearms hobby, I can probably count on two hands the number of times I’ve really carried away from a range…and I didn’t need to be concealed in those instances.)
Agree with this. It’s frightening to think that there are tons of people out there carrying guns all the time without any reason. I know they feel it’s for their safety, but the data just doesn’t support their feelings.
It’s interesting to hear you mention renting guns at a firing range. I’ve always felt that was the most reasonable compromise. Go shoot all you want, but leave your gun at the range or rent one when you get there. The gun range could offer a secure storage facility. It’s akin to having a supercar that you can really only drive on a racetrack. If I want that experience I can go to any number of places and take a few laps in a Ferrari or Lamborghini or whatever. I don’t need to drive it around town or have it taking up space in my garage.
More on the Colorado shooter (supposedly a non-paywalled link):
tl;dr: Court filings indicate the shooter is identifying as nonbinary, prefers “they/them” pronouns, and prefers the “Mx.” honorific.
If that’s the case, it could add some flavor for motive. It’s not expected to be relevant to the legal proceedings, aside from choice of terms when referring to the defendant.
The other reason for renting firearms is if you’re interested in acquiring a new one, you can try prospects out before buying one.
The gun store my wife and I use in CT actually has the practice of allowing you to try out any of their demonstration models in the attached range for a flat rate per half-hour, and for the (inflated) cost of ammunition.
In Canada, I believe “restricted firearms” are limited to use at gun clubs and recognized ranges or organized sporting events. You can keep a restricted firearm at home, but it has to be locked, unloaded, and disabled if possible, and transport is limited to going to/from the range/club/event.
I think it’s a harder sell that the suspect was anti-LGBTQ when the suspect is themselves LGBTQ.
Of course, it’ll be interesting to see if the suspect is faking or not. If the suspect had never previously told friends & relatives of their pronouns then it’s a bit suspicious.
Yeah, all the ranges I’ve seen require you to buy and use their ammunition if you’re renting one of their guns, because they don’t want to risk damage from you using who-knows-what ammunition from outside. So they scribble on the box with a Sharpie for verification in possible future sessions.
They’ve already had interviews of friends, saying not only did he never tell that to his friends, nor have them use them as a pronoun, etc, but he always spoke vehemently (and the world violently popped up, too, fwiw) anti-LGBTQ. But even that, I suppose, doesn’t mean he didn’t identify as such.
I don’t particularly care whether or not the shooter was NB, but I do object to the (mostly right-wing) narrative that being NB can explain the motive. Being gender non-conforming doesn’t make one crazy or violent. The hatred that is spread by people like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson, on the other hand, can lead to violence.
Eh, immediately after being arrested for murdering LGBTQs in a possible hate crime is a pretty odd time to suddenly decide that everyone should switch pronouns when you’ve never remotely hinted at being non-binary before. I smell a rat.
