you guys do realize different people improve in different ways right?
| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561198013620065 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:53354337] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:26677168 |
| Country | Bhutan |
| Signed Up | July 18, 2012 |
| Last Posted | May 30, 2026 at 3:54 PM |
| Posts | 5526 (1.1 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | |
| Windows Sensitivity | |
| Raw Input | |
DPI |
|
Resolution |
|
Refresh Rate |
|
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | |
| Keyboard | |
| Mousepad | |
| Headphones | |
| Monitor | |
ClandestinePzI know its an obvious message, but I think people take for granted that this country would not exist if not for firearms, which is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Some people say that the founding fathers could not have imagined a future in which gun ownership isn't necessary, but why do those same people find it so impossible to imagine a future in which it is? If you want to murder a man you can use a knife. If you want to resist invaders or a corrupt government you need guns (and more).
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.
ClandestinePzI think the thing that bothers me most about this debate is that most of the gun control advocates are forced to admit that their "solutions" would not have prevented this man from carrying out an attack (I guess the others live in some fantasy world where men who are unhinged and determined enough to shoot their own mothers in the face, slaughter elementary school children and their teachers and then kill themselves will be deterred by a little red tape) and yet, despite these admissions they seem unwilling to even address the actual cause of these massacres. I think its partly because having a knee jerk "BAN ________" reaction is easier than examining exactly how men can be driven to the point where they are capable of committing such atrocities.
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.
ClandestinePzThe examples from China are important because they show that such incidents are not unique to our "gun obsessed culture" and that the lack of available firearms does not prevent such incidents. In fact, China has had a rash of these attacks, like this one http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14014789-ax-wielding-man-kills-3-kids-wounds-13-in-china?lite . Someone should tell the parents of those children they were lucky the guy used an axe and not a gun.
The sad thing is that the article I linked says that the incidents in China have inspired a movement for mental health reform. Perhaps, it is because they don't have debates over guns, music and violent video games clouding the issue.
In America and Europe the men who perpetrate these attacks use guns, in China they use knives and axes, but the one thing they all have in common is mental illness.
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.
WhatisausernameYour post is a textbook example of the biased towards "fairness" mentality. In a week, no one will remember this tragedy; if any, this is the only time we'll get a chance to have a serious conversation about the direction gun ownership laws in this country will take. One can discuss and debate the issues all they'd like without getting anything done (as is often the case) and "agreeing to disagree".
Did you not actually read the rest of my post?
Immediately after what you quoted, I said:
mustardoverlordhowever, 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.
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.
Whatisausernamemustardoverlordif 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
It's very tempting to pin the blame on abstract issues such as "gun-obsessed culture" to console ourselves with inaction. The simple fact is that the ease of procuring guns (and ammo), the complete lack of weapons training, no enforcement of gun-ownership responsibility and the sheer number of guns out there are explanation enough.
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
vanillaBut if you were to even watch the euro soldiers, the roamers take a lot of heals, even at the highest levels. It seems like that's sort of the way it has to be played, because if you're coming from spawn to your team, you'll most likely show up with like 120 health (even if you pick up health packs). Whereas w/ gunboats you can arrive at full health, and usually faster too.
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
mkilling being agreeable and admitting a mistake?
what the fuck just happened here
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
I can only hope that my cheeks become more pinch-able with age so I can compete with mr. lingle