You misunderstand. The idea was if a gun was involved in the comission of a crime regardless if it was used or not, not just if the perpetrator owned a gun.
Careful when attempting to redefine "assault" only because it's a police officer. You may be "assaulted" one day and look like an idiot when YOU want to press charges.
Rock and a hard place, this next generation will be.
It'd be safer to say "publisher OR developer". It'd be nice to think that development studios have our best interests in mind, but they have as much incentive to do the same things their publishers do. If they can avoid taking the heat, all the better.
You bring up a very good, very worrying, point. "No used game restrictions" and "no connection required" could fall into the same trap that OtherOS did.
It's Dan Brown that causes violence. I feel pretty violent towards him right now.
How about we just get rid of tax-exemption from churches? They all spout political views now.
Outrageous salaries for do-nothing execs do more economic harm than anything else.
Nice to know that anyone arguing against this practice is promoting tax evasion.
"Having someone Tweet "YOU'VE BEEN SERVED" with a link to a PDF isn't that much different than having papers shoved into your hands at a crowded mall."
Not really, it's like giving someone a key to a deposit box with the papers in it. If you never actually posses the papers, even if you were aware that you had the capability to get them, it wouldn't be legit.
Considering I never agreed to this system when I signed up for service, my ISP is breaking it's contract with me.
"Youtube can't do much to prevent this abuse. It has to err on the side of the rights holders, even if the rights holders don't actually hold the rights."
That's an excuse. All it has to do is allow rightsholders to file a DMCA claim, you know, the one that has legal ramifications for falsifying. If Google wasn't such a fucking loser when it comes to standing up to ContentID and DMCA abuse, that's the only way things would be handled.
Also, the "I don't want to be called a criminal for watching a legitimate copy" reason.
A gun is a deadly weapon, nothing more, nothing less. It is in the public's interest to know who has them.
Thankfully, they threw out that stupid religious argument.
You're not really that stupid, are you?
I'm assuming there's some sort of legal guidelines of how banks can or cannot do things like this. Why is PP free to do what it pleases whenever it feels like for whatever reason?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Want to know why? Shoelaces and chainsaws (contrary to popular belief, they make terrible murder weapons) are tools that have purposes other than bodily harm that they excel at. A gun is a tool with one true purpose: bodily harm and/or death.
A gun is twice as easy to kill with, and twice as likely to give someone the confidence to use it for such purpose. So yes, a crime involving a gun SHOULD be punished more than one not involving one.