Lurker > Dark_Spiret

hes pretty much the personification of all talk, but no walk.

nativengine posted...

And that shirt, with those guns...... fuck that guy. This is the guy looking to shoot someone, not the guy to have a gun just in case some shit goes down.

id say its more of a case of being an attention whore.

You just dont get it, tc.

https://imgur.com/r1Jdwgs

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

Honestly 8 is enough.

theres been a lot of instances where more was needed and people tend to get rattled when there blood is up making them miss more. even police who are technically trained individuals only have a 30% hit rate according to various studies and they are the ones who are supposed to be trained.

that said the 2nd isnt about being able to defend your self from a mugger, but from a tyrannical government which requires firepower which means more ammunition.

getting a suppressor and really doing most anything NFA related is a long process, but not a really difficult one. just a lot of paper work and waiting involved.

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

Buying extended mags should generate attention.

they are still legal and can be very easily circumvented by knowing how to reload fast. the aspect of "extended magazines" without mentioning the type of gun is also hard to know what is what. a 1911 with a 10round mag is technically extended. an fnx has a standard capacity of 15rounds and its not technically extended. magazines are also not hard to increase rounds with. they are literally a metal or plastic shell with a spring and base plate. you can 3d print a plastic shell, and extend the spring to hold more rounds.

pres_madagascar posted...

Nowadays you can get a high impact ar-15 with an extendo mag and kill 30 people if you want.

you could literally mail order a thompson submachine gun to your door step back in the 20's and 30's. the AR15 has been a civilian thing since the 60's with 20 and 30round magazines. hi-cap handguns have been around since the 30's and 40's with the "wonder 9's" that hold 15+ rounds in ntheir magazines in the 70's and 80's. this isnt new. the only things that have really changed are that the firearms have gotten lighter, but thats really it. the guns have always been there, the population is whats changing.

spudger posted...

meanwhile in the us gun deaths are astronomical

lots of guns means they are going to be used more in place of other means. statistically the US homicide rate is almost in the middle for all countries despite the US also owning half of the worlds civilian firearms and having in it enough to arm literally every man, woman AND child. and something like 80% of those gun homicides typically come down to police shootings, defensive shootings or gang/drug related shootings (usually other gangs killing each other) and even then those gang shootings are relatively localized to specific sections of the country (about 12 specific cities).

seeing a large gun homicide ratio makes it look like everyone is in danger of getting shot once they leave their home. this is just not the case. given the population density and size of the country its still exceptionally rare that anyone would be a victim of an intentional shooting. your odds of getting killed by 1000 other means in your daily life are higher.

if guns were a THE problem the US would be an apocalyptic dystopia right now. the core issue is a hell of a lot deeper than the tool. this is also the reason you dont see much gun violence in other certain countries despite their gun laws not being incredibly more intrusive than the US'. they typically have happier citizens with more social programs and safety nets.

and its largely true, just not in the traditional sense when it comes to democrats. open hate is replaced with feeling like minorities cant take care of themselves so they need to "watch over them" and help them because they cant do it themselves. they have their own level of superiority complex.

VipaGTS posted...

I dont understand the argument of fees!...guns are a right but that doesnt mean everything about them should be or has to be cheap or free.

theres a difference between someone offering their goods and services at a price and the government implementing more stop gaps to keep more individuals from using their constitutional rights. its what the entire concept of the 2nd amendment was put in place to help stop.

not sure how this is going to fix anything other than putting more restrictions on people who fallow the law. the specific case they cited is another instance of the system itself fucking up and not doing what it should of done.

second act dragged, but picked up in the third and the first 30minutes were fantastic. still really good.

first one.

if youre still in the same spot then imo no. if you want to live in a nice area and that commute is worth the time then sure. id easily trade that time if it meant i could move out of the city and all of its bullshit.

cop wanted to get it on, hard.

~10%, not including my ira account contributions.

a lot of people have had bad luck of the draw, but a lot are also just fucking awful with their money (half of my family it seems like). we really need some type of mandatory business or money management class in high school.

not really. id only really recommend it if youve played the others and are dying for more old school style RE. its one of the more difficult and divisive entries in the series. start with RE1 remake.

its a pretty unique game. enjoy.

Iodine posted...

Im really pissed they turned Parasite Eve 2 into a shitty Resident Evil clone. The combat system in the original was fantastic.

it was interesting, but i wouldnt call it fantastic. you literally run around in circles waiting for a gauge to fill.

and as far as RE clones go PE2 was a pretty good one.

something about the 590a1 that i just dont like with wood. the thing was made to be used and abused hard.

pacing is what kinda kills some of TLoU for me. its gameplay is fine, but also has a kitchen sink approach to gameplay and mechanics. REmake 2 is shorter, but feels tighter with what its doing.

parabola_master posted...

I didn't know any details about the disaster nor am I familiar with how radioactive energy works but that entire first episode was so scary to me. I'm guessing everyone in that town dies? Why does Wikipedia say only 14 deaths?

for the most part only extremely high doses of radiation kills so the people who were actually on the site of the explosion (close to the reactor, like the firefighters and reactor technicians) got enough rads to die. most others who were much farther away only got "minor" doses that could be easily treated if they got help. unfortunately the sheer incompetence of the clean up effort and just figuring out what was going on also got people needlessly killed (im sure we'll see this on the next few episodes). the whole thing was a clusterfuck of epic proportions. a lot of people also ended up getting future health problems and birth defects. depending on the study you want to believe, some think as many as 3600 people died from future health complications and suicides as a result of its events.

Darkinsanity1 posted...

All of them screwed, some just faster than others. Geiger counter maxing out at 3.5 and some of them just assuming that was right lol.

-"what does it say?"
"3.6 is as high as it goes"
-"3.6. alright not good, but not terrible either"
">_>;"

great first episode.

Mead posted...

Fake news pushed by right wing media

i dont watch right wing media. i watch what left wing politicians largely want out of their own mouths.

most people maybe only want a few very very basic laws, but what people want isnt always what politicians are pushing. and a lot of what they are pushing have been PROVEN to not work, but they still see fit to try anyway largely based on their emotions. ohh a gun is black, it holds a magazine, it has a compensater!, oh lordy lord it looks evil! no one needs that! ..but lets ignore this other one because its made of wood and looks less intimidating despite it functioning the same.

and when you get down to it most people just dont give a shit. it doesnt take much to click a box in a poll. its another to get out and actually vote, donate, rally, call representatives ect.

Mead posted...

Common sense gun legislation =\= getting rid of all guns

theres not much common sense when it comes to guns in the US. they are a right here and the gun control side is obsessed with getting them out of the hands of people who wouldnt do anything nefarious with them. if not outright bans the next step is to put as many stop gaps into the system of trying to get a gun that no one bothers with which funny enough is mainly going to hurt the lower class and not effect the elites, which is always a good sign.

now thats not to say there arnt things we can do, but one side wants the object and to piss on a large community of the country and the other wants to do nothing.

putting a bigger emphasis on healthcare and legalizing more drugs, mandatory government funded gun safety courses and packaged deals on biometric gun safes along with plugging holes in the laws we already have would go a long way to curve gun deaths. theres actually a lot of things we can do that would also be much more beneficial to society overall without even touching the object. unfortunately the only ones who want to have that conversation also wants to fuck over gun owners. i actually know a lot of people who would probably vote for a decent amount of democrats if gun control wasnt a mandatory of the party.

Mead posted...

Take away all the guns and there will just be mass bayonet-ings in schools

less guns=less mass shootings. this isnt rocket science. however that doesnt mean those lives are saved. theres lots of ways to kill a lot of people if they feel the need to do so. but yes it could mean less people getting killed in schools theoretically.

however many dont realize the other aspects to getting rid of guns. when you get down to it mass shootings and school shootings take up something like 2% of total gun homicides. getting rid of them will only have a minimal effect while opening up people to more violence and death by having less means of deterrence. statistically pretty much all other forms of violence and crime increase with a gun ban (rape and home invasions especially) and considering how much more violent in general the US is (not including firearm homicides) its not going to be a fun time. and thats assuming you wait the decades for the 400million guns in circulation to dry up and hoping that the criminals wont make their own (thanks to the internet and 3d printing its as easy as ever) or buy illegal imports through mexico and south america which would boom and we all know how well the drug war is doing.

Mead posted...

Whats that?

Assault Weapons Ban. a lot of the new ones out there define every semi-automatic weapon into an "assault weapon" (despite what the original 1994 AWB definitions were) which carries heavier regulations or bans. so basically a little $200 40 year old semi-auto .22 rifle is now classified as an assault weapon and apparently just as dangerous as an Ar15.

AWB's in general are stupid when the weapons they limit take up such an insignificant amount of gun deaths per year and always feature largely pointless restrictions that have no real bases on how deadly a gun is.

Mead posted...

Thats not a thing.

considering the new AWB's being proposed its not far from the truth.

WafflehouseJK posted...

Time to watch The Spy Who Loved Me.

probably my favorite of the moore era.