In a place where the minimum wage is so ridiculous ($3/hr really?), then sure, I can understand that tipping is expected, and not doing so can have a strong impact on the person who didn't receive the extra money-

I HATE the word Cosplay. Not only does it sound stupid, but the word is only really in use because that's what Japanese people called it. People dressing up and pretending to be something they're not existed long before we gave it this weird label. I'm all for the mixing of different cultures, but I really wish…

Every word is technically made up. I don't discount that the term's use can be unfair or misleading in some cases though.

I'm not sure that I understand the point you're trying to make. I had to look up Dunblane because I had never heard of the event. Gun control didn't prevent what happened there because the weapons used were legally acquired, according to what I read. Part of the problem with trying to "filter" who is allowed to…

I'm pretty sure it's like that where I am too (Quebec).

I'm fairly certain (or I would hope) that any weapons "ban" or "control" that goes into place would be much more specific than just saying "assault weapons".

Canada is not "armed to the teeth". I have met a total of ONE person who owned a non-hunting firearm of any kind, and I live in a large city. Our guns are under lock and key, with ammunition locked in a separate location.

I wasn't making any statement on either side of the argument, simply stating that I could understand how someone could come to EITHER conclusion.

My point was that those arguments shouldn't be discounted immediately without consideration of where the argument came from, regardless of personal experience.

Arguably, both sides have made perfectly good points, but won't admit that the opposing argument is valid. Nobody seems to be accepting of the fact that the only solution is going to have to be a compromise. There's no one solution that exists that will serve or satisfy everyone. You can't ban too many weapons,…

You can't expect everyone to have the same knowledge and experience that you have on all subjects. The same argument can be said about gun-supporters who talk about video games without knowing anything about them- but in both cases the lack of knowledge, while not irrelevant, means less than some might think.

Weather or not the term is accurate is a non-issue, and a distraction from any point trying to be made, in my opinion. The people "misusing" the term, those they're speaking to, and those being picky about the language all know what is being referred to- so if everyone understands, then who cares if the word isn't…

Unless you know everyone who commented personally, 0% of the information online accurately tells you what race someone is, and there's no way to know how much of the information people DO post about themselves is made up.

I get the feeling that at this point it's just argument for the sake of argument.

How often is your home specifically attacked by someone who's on a killing spree? Regardless of what you see in media, people don't generally just kill for the sake of killing. There's motivation, opportunity, etc. in place. Situations where any given person needs to kill someone to prevent other people's deaths…

It is ENTIRELY 100% wrong in any and every scenario where there's even a slight chance of an alternative. Why not injure or disable without killing? Whats wrong with rubber bullets or stun guns? Do you think the person you think you're defending yourself from is not also a person?

But there isn't just one incident. There's been a good handful reported on this site, and on others, I just used the most recent (and most obvious) example. I never said a gun can't be used for self defense. What I said was that guns were not made for that purpose specifically, and that self defense doesn't have to…

If anyone in video games has a conflict of interest, than so does anyone who's in any way associated with the NRA, weapons manufacturing, law enforcement, schools, movies, the news, books, ... etc.

The fact that people don't know the obvious answer to this is why the vast majority of people aren't mature/smart/ready to have guns.

No, the sole purpose of a gun is to launch a projectile that moves fast enough to cause significant damage to whatever is in it's path. You could just as easily defend yourself by other means without killing the person you think you're defending yourself from. This "guns are for defense" argument is a load of shit.