Okay.

Look.

The pain medication was one thing.

The baby formula was another.

But, on God, if people don't stop STEALING MUNDANE SHIT.

Because there's no reason why people should have to wait thirty minutes for a Target employee to unlock the cage to shite like deodorant, laundry detergent, and ice cream.

People will say shit like "you didn't see anyone shoplift" while being surprised when stores in their areas close down or start locking shit up.

DIEversity is amazing. If you notice patterns, you may be a Natzee.

Diversity that happens naturally is great. Without it, we wouldn't have many of the things we love - art, music, food, technology. Never forget that natural diversity gave us the Super Soaker, got us to the moon, and gave us cajun food. Without natural diversity, we wouldn't have Wu Tang Clan. We wouldn't have Panda Express orange chicken. We wouldn't have barbecue.

Diversity forced on us makes us weaker, because it requires less capable people be promoted to meet the quotas.

Unfortuntately OP is a white supremacist, so they already have no brain cells to reason with in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with experiencing and learning about other cultures. It's honestly fascinating how differently people act all over because of all the different ways they have evolved over time.

Although you also have to acknowledge that some cultures cannot be together in the same space and peacefully coexist because of those same reasons.

Gun control only has one purpose: removing the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Actually the one purpose is to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them because they are a danger to themselves and others.

Except it’s aimed at law abiding people instead of those who are, indeed, a danger to themselves and others. I know this is a shocking concept, but criminals don’t obey the law. Creating stricter laws that penalize law abiding citizens will not stop criminals from owning a firearm or other weapon and using them against the unarmed population.

You think law abiding people can't be a danger to themselves or others?

All criminals start off as law abiding citizens.

You think it's not possible to prevent criminals from acquiring things simply by restricting those things to a very high degree?

Restrict anything enough and not even criminals will be able to reliably get their hands on them.

Your argument is nonsensical. If you had any sense you would have realized that.

Gun control has worked in every country it has been fully implemented in.

The US will not be an exception.

Gun violence plummeted significantly during the 1994 FAWB.

The same will be true when it's implemented again.

You will live in a safer country where you don't have to regularly worry about being shot, and you will enjoy it.

Original statement: "we only want to keep guns away from people that shouldn't have them"

Once called out on their bullshit: "the people that shouldn't have them is actually every human being on earth except for agents of the state who's dick I constantly suck."

>"Restrict anything enough and not even criminals will be able to reliably get their hands on them."

@alaticba How's that war on drugs going? Nobody has any drugs because they're all illegal, right?

The war on drugs failed because it was fought incorrectly.

You need to treat addiction and punish drug dealers, not punish addicts the same way you punish drug dealers.

Meanwhile the war on gun violence has been won in many countries across the globe.

Every civilized country that has completely implemented proper gun control has shown a significant decrease in gun violence.

Your equivalency doesn't work.

You're comparing the war on drugs, which was fought incorrectly, to the war on gun violence, which we know how to solve but the US has done nothing to stop.

A permanent reinstatement of the 1994 FWAB would be enough.

It worked before.

It will work again.

"Due to standards I just made up, that doesn't matter."

You said 'restrict'. Drugs are restricted, but anyone who wants them can easily get them. Chicago has all the gun laws that gun grabbers want, and because of that, it's got huge amounts of murders.

Maine has constitutional concealed carry, and nearly no murders now.

Mexico has one legal gun store, and you have to jump through so many hoops to be allowed to buy one that it might as well be impossible. How's that going for them? (Inb4 'developing country, doesn't count')

I literally just explained to you what what you said doesn't matter. I'm sorry you're incapable of acknowledging reality and still think your false equivalency is still somehow valid.

Chicago has a large amount of murders because it's a big city that has easy access to guns due to it's proximity to Indiana, a state with very few gun laws. Again, a majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Chicago were purchased in Gary, Indiana. A 40 minute drive away.

The crime is due to the ease of access to guns.

Gun control doesn't work if you can take a 40 minute drive to a place where it doesn't exist, purchase a gun, then drive 40 minutes back.

Maine's low murder rate has absolutely nothing to do with its gun laws. Massachusetts has a similarly low murder rate, but concealed carry isn't constitutionally protected there. These states have low murder rates because they're sparsely populated with very tight knit small towns and effective police forces.

Not only is Mexico a developing country, it also hasn't completely implemented proper gun control. Gun control isn't when no one can get a gun, it's when anyone who shouldn't own a gun can't get a gun and most types of guns that can easily be used to kill a lar number of people within a small amount of time aren't available for ownership or purchase. Wife beaters, the severely mentally ill, drug users, convicted drug dealers, convicted stalkers, convicted sex offenders, people convicted of hate crimes, people under the age of 21, people with active restraining orders, people with outstanding warrants, et cetera.

Lastly, drugs are incomparable to guns. Drugs cause addiction and can be manufactured and transported much more efficiently than guns can. People are able to get drugs because they will do anything for them. There is a supply chain fueled by addiction, one of the most powerful and terrible diseases in existence. The things people will do for drugs are nothing compared to what people will do for guns. Someone who is planning a mass shooting is more likely to go on a stabbing spree if they can't easily get a gun.

Yes, you explained it, but what you said was stupid. That's why I pointed it out. Prohibition doesn't work, and it's easier to make guns than drugs.

If the guns are the problem, why does Indiana not have more murders than Chicago? What's the difference between the two? It's not the ease of access to guns. It's the 'gun free' zones. Criminals love soft targets where they know they're not likely to get shot.

Knew it.

Mexico has ONE gun store, and you have to jump through so many hoops to get one that it might as well be an outright ban. So why do they have such gun crime problems? If nobody can legally get a gun, there's no problem, right?

The point of the drugs / guns thing, again, was that prohibition doesn't work. The current drug problem comes directly from the 1930s Prohibition. Once it was repealed, the criminals had these distribution networks all set up and nothing to do with them, but hey, here's drugs!

There's a thing about criminals that a lot of you gun grabbers seem to totally forget.

They don't obey laws. You can make all the laws you want, and a criminal will ignore them and get what he wants anyway. Guns are much easier to make than drugs; people have made working guns in prison.

Tell you what. I'll meet you halfway. You get all the guns away from the criminals, then we'll talk about giving up our guns.

1. Guns are not easier to manufacture than drugs. Making cocaine from coke leaves or heroine from opium poppies literally takes less than 10 distinct steps. A single firearm produced in a garage with a lathe and basic power tools and scrap metal would in the very least take twice as many steps.

2. Not only does the largest city in Indiana (Indianapolis) have less than a third of the population of Chicago, it's also only a fifth as dense. This shouldn't need explaining but more people equals more crime. Denser cities also equal more crime. Indiana also has gun crime, it just has less of it because there's less people to commit it (because Indiana has no city even close to as big or dense as Chicago). Also Indiana actually has more gun crime per capita than Illinois. So while Chicago has more gun crime than Indiana, Illinois as a whole has less gun crime than Indiana.

3. "Called it." You made a shit claim that you knew was shit when you made it and now you're acting like you're a psychic when I called your shit claim out as shit. You're really really stupid. Like unquantifiably so.

4. Mexico has high gun crime despite having high gun control for the same reason Chicago has high gun crime despite having high gun control. They're right next to a place where gun control is basically non-existent. Chicago is next to Indiana and Mexico is next to, well, the United fucking States. Gun crime in Mexico is so bad because America lacks proper gun control. Proper gun control in the US would decrease gun crime in Mexico too.

5. Prohibition doesn't work on products that can easily be manufactured, are literally consumed like food, are addictive, or can't be replaced with something else (see Prohibition and the War on Drugs). Gun's don't meet any of these characteristics. Guns are difficult to manufacture. Guns are not used up when they are consumed, and can therefore be used repeatedly (meaning demand is inherently lower). People are not addicted to guns and will not compulsively try to aquire them. People can replace guns with other weapons to achieve the same criminal purpose in almost all instances. If someone wants to commit a crime and can't easily get a gun, it's very unlikely they'll make their own and it's very unlikely they'll try very hard to get one before giving up and relying on a different form of weapon. Restrict guns enough and criminals simply will not be able to aquire them in any meaningful capacity. We've seen this effect many times in many countries that have gun control.

6. It's not a matter of obeying the law, it's a matter of simply not being able to find a way to get a gun. It's a matter of making getting a gun so difficult for anyone wanting to get one for a nefarious purpose that they simply give up and either don't commit the crime or use a far less deadly weapon. If you're a criminal in Antarctica, and you want to kill a polar bear, and it's against the law to kill a polar bear in antartica, it's not the law that's preventing you from killing a polar bear, it's the fact that they're are no polar bears in Antarctica to kill. You can't do it not because the law prevents you, but because it's literally not feasible to do.

7. I wouldn't be giving up my guns because I most likely wouldn't meet the requirements to be disallowed from owing firearms. I don't fit any of the categories I listed earlier.

So, from all this rant, we can get these points: A) States with lots of guns lack gun violence.

B) Factors other than gun laws (For example, population level) affect gun violence.

C) You sure love making up new definitions and exceptions whenever someone calls you on your bullshit.

By the way, which kind of gun grabber are you? The one that thinks only the evil, racist, corrupt goverment should have guns or the one that thinks the goverment will willingly disarm themselves after all the peasants comply with their laws?

Who gets to decide that, using what standards, and how do you know they're right? How do you know their actual motives?

And how many innocent people will get screwed over in the name of trying to prevent criminals?

-signed, dude from one of many countries with heavy gun control, low legal ownership, and a higher gun murder rate than America

Ah, yes, the law that could get your rifle banned for having (checks notes) a bayonet lug. Was there some sort of rash of bayonet charges in South Central LA that needed to be addressed?

Also, gun crime was falling steadily until 2020.

Also, Columbine happened during the AWB. You know, that crime where two kids illegally got guns, and also tried to use bombs. In fact, the bombs were originally the primary weapon, the guns were just the backup.

In fact, most gun criminals are already banned from owning guns. They get the guns illegally anyway. And they're usually handguns, not long guns.

Statistically, the easiest way to avoid that is to never buy a gun.

Because most gun deaths are usually suicides, not murders.

Nice argument, Senator, how about a source?

Off the top of my head, pipe shotguns are very easy to make. Dangerous to use, yes, but easy to make.

You also seem to be leaving out the part where drugs are generally made from plants and/or chemicals. Which require a lot of space.

A meth lab is a tad more conspicuous - and dangerous - than a machine shop.

"I shouldn't have to actually explain my position, I should just spout NPC lines without being challenged."

"Who gets to decide that, using what standards, and how do you know they're right? How do you know their actual motives?"

Congress. Using basic logical and moral standards.

"And how many innocent people will get screwed over in the name of trying to prevent criminals?"

Zero if we do it correctly.

"-signed, dude from one of many countries with heavy gun control, low legal ownership, and a higher gun murder rate than America"

No first world country that has gun control has a higher gun crime rate than America.

"Also, gun crime was falling steadily until 2020."

Incorrect.

"Also, Columbine happened during the AWB. You know, that crime where two kids illegally got guns, and also tried to use bombs. In fact, the bombs were originally the primary weapon, the guns were just the backup."

1. Columbine was the only major shooting to happen under the FAWB. Since the FAWB ran out, we've had similar or WORSE shootings basically every couple of years. Sandy Hook, Uvadale, and Parckland were all literally worse than Columbine.

2. All deaths during Columbine were caused by guns.

"In fact, most gun criminals are already banned from owning guns. They get the guns illegally anyway. And they're usually handguns, not long guns."

That's because we don't have enough REAL gun control. We aren't cracking down on illegal weapons sales enough or doing everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All we have are laws designed to make it harder for criminals to get guns legally. We need to make it impossible for them to get guns illegally. Aka what most 1st world countries with gun control have done. America is the only 1st world country with this problem but you're convinced that it's somehow unsolvable. Actual gun control isn't just making sure people who shouldn't have guns can't get guns legally, but that they also can't get guns illegally. Make it so difficult for them to aquire firearms at all that they either simply give up trying to commit the crime in question or just use a less deadly but easier to aquire weapon.

"Because most gun deaths are usually suicides, not murders."

Suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Mass shootings are a gun issue first, and a mental health issue second. People committing suicide with guns aren't worried about getting shot in the first place so your reply makes no sense.

"Nice argument, Senator, how about a source?"

Cocaine and heroin both require less than 10 steps to make from their native plants to a finished product. Creating a working firearm from scratch very obviously takes more steps than the majority of drugs.

""I shouldn't have to actually explain my position, I should just spout NPC lines without being challenged.""

I shouldn't have to explain that more people equals more crime.

Not all correlation is causation, but all causation is correlation.

People obviously cause crime.

So population and crime are positively correlated.

Since population and crime are positively correlated, more people equals more crime.

This is basic fucking logic. Basic fucking concomitant variation will prove this fact to you.

How fucking stupid are you?

Stupid enough to engage in debate online without the slightest amount of critical thinking, basic logic skills, or any knowledge at all over the topic at hand.

Bozo ass.

That sure is a hand-wave that doesn't actually answer most of my questions.

That assumes the only way to do it "correctly" is to do it perfectly, and completely eliminate human error.

Which is impossible.

So you admit that gun laws are not the only significant factor on gun crime?

Ignoring the many countries where gun control simply doesn't work doesn't make them vanish.

But I suspect you try to do that with a lot of things.

I'm going to stop now, because you're not worth arguing with. I'm not even going to read the rest of the post, especially since you seem to have put a third of it in H1, as if that makes you more correct.

Literally the text equivalent of yelling.

Like a child, throwing a tantrum.

There's other reasons that gun control works better in other areas of the world, and those same reasons apply to why the safest states in the US are that way. Problem is that line of discussion makes a lot of people really mad.

In most places that put in sweeping gun control measures, they had no effect on violent crime or even gun crime rates because the ones that surrender their guns are the ones you don't need to worry about in the first place.

The idea that a man's public suicide brought attention or awareness to an issue that has been fucking inescapably plastered on every news outlet, every social media site, and every newspaper for the last four months is asinine. If you aren't aware by now, you don't give a fuck and this incident will pass you by exactly as the others have.

Stop romanticizing self-destructive mental illness.

It was protest not mental illness. This has been a form of protest for decade probably more. Don't diminish a man's actions to mental illness. Death is never the preferred outcome of anything, but it's the most powerful way of drawing attention to an issue.

You're exactly what I'm fucking talking about. Attention? You think this issue isn't getting enough attention? This war that's been on the front page of every news site for four months, that's overrun every social media site, the coverage of which half this website is fully addicted to regardless of accuracy or respect for the victims - THAT war?

Don't diminish a man's gruesome death by acting like it did a single goddamned thing but feed him to his own demons and provide a bunch of entertainment to ghouls like you who think performative self-sacrifice for ZERO change is the height of activism, who are thrilled by the spectacle of human suffering whether it actually helps anything.

Fuck off. This isn't a fucking TV show. This man spent his time marinating in radical rhetoric and then made a spectacle of himself for revolutionary cosplayers like you who will laud him for his pointless actions, never once lifting a finger to actually help.

He did not save a single Palestinian, and his death did not change a single second of the course of this war, but it's exciting for you, isn't it? And that's what really matters.

I think what really matters is that it somehow 'validates' that they're the 'good guys'.

It's much like that guy who stole a jet, crashed it, and got idolized.

Disgusting that praise such actions.

Or the guy who drove an armored bulldozer through multiple buildings, because he had issues with local government.

In both cases, people go "well, he didn't actually kill anyone!"

Even though that was by luck.

Marvin Heemeyer is a reminder that government isn't invincible. I'd say he was justified in his actions because he was left with no recourse after he got royally fucked by local government for the sin of having something they want.

Republicans are barbaric. #VoteBlue

The executed man was convicted of murder after being hired to murder Elizabeth Sennett in 1988. The Kentucky bill allows homeowners and land owners to use physical force to drive people from camping on their property, and the same can be said for Texas for those living along the border. The graves in Mississippi are those who were unclaimed when they died, whose families could not afford a burial, or those that could never be connected to living family.

Meanwhile blue cities are hotbeds of criminal activity while actively making life harder for those that do abide by the law.

If what black people say about Africans is true, then they shouldn't have been colonized in the first place.

I really like these guns on paper/in principle, but they just never seem to feel quite right to me.

I actually own one of these and it feels great in the hand and shoots pretty good. Although finding ANYTHING for it aside from ammo is a pain. Mine is the Steyr M9, not the M9A1 though. So it doesn't have the pseudo-rail.

We currently have less purchasing power than people did during the Great Depression but we have modern technology so I guess it doesn't count.

They can't even get a cease fire in their own city.

From a practical standpoint I completely understand the drive for modern attachment systems like M-LOK and DickKeyMod. They're smaller, lighter, more comfortable to hold, really just complete improvements in every objective way.

From a subjective standpoint, you will never

EVER

convince me that this

looks better than this

Quad rails are peak AR aesthetic, you can't change my mind.

I am a quad rail supremacist.

It's so depressing seeing folks I used to know and like relentlessly posting all the mainstream-approved positions online on their social media.

It's all so god-damned predictable: Pride flag ➟ BLM ➟ Ukraine flag ➟ Free Palestine ➟ [Spring 2024 tbc]. They change them like clockwork.

How do people live like this? What do they think their 'opinions' even mean when they're the only ones socially expected and allowed, when they're shared by every multinational corporation? What do they think they are rebelling against? They are themselves the status quo.

Because they probably have so few problems in their life that they pour every bit into other people's problems, or actively look for something to be victimized by.

People whose life revolve around politics 24/7 are seldom happy, if ever. They're always angry, spiteful, and always trying to emotionally manipulate those who aren't. I used to be one of those, and I did grow out of it, but some never do.

I've always found the point on how the "resistance" just parrots most big corporations and has a stranglehold on public thought ironically funny.

I will forever stan nuclear power. No other energy source comes close.

The amount of land needed for solar and wind combined to rival even small reactors is insane.

A utility solar farm typically produces around 5 megawatts (MW) of energy and uses about 20-30 acres on average.

A nuclear generator on a nuclear aircraft carrier produces around 100MW.

You would need 400-600 acres of land for solar to equal the power output of a ship.

Wind farms produce anywhere from 1-5MW per year and require about 2 acres per megawatt of capacity.

You'd need a 200 acre wind farm to equal the ship.

A typical land based nuclear plant produces on average 1 gigawatt of energy per year. Solar would now need 4,000 to 6,000 acres, and wind would require 2,000 acres to meet that number in a year. A gigawatt nuclear facility requires 832 acres on average.

Honestly it's sad that white people in general, not just the Irish, have been deprived of being allowed their own definitive homeland. Whites aren't allowed to be proud of their heritage and culture, their history, their contributions to the world, basically modern discourse and identity insanity has made it some cardinal sin to be white and even remotely proud of it.

Tweet 1 source | Tweet 2 source

I am genuinely unclear on why a school shooting victim would relevant to the business of the Centers for Disease Control

@tanoraqui There is a law that prevents the CDC from studying gun violence.  It’s the NRA’s fault, like so many things, they keep blocking attempts to get the law repealed.  

Oh! Thank you.

Because gun violence doesn't fall in the purview of the CDC. You have more chance of being struck by lightning while getting crushed by a vending machine than being involved in a school shooting.

Besides, the government has failed in every one of these instances with measures already in place; the fuck makes you think adding any more would work?

Anybody that has been paying attention to my posts might have noticed I've been reblogging anything and everything Ghost in the Shell and cyberpunk. About a month ago I watched Ghost in the Shell for the fist time and thus went feral ever since. I've watched the original 3 times now and a lot of stuff in the periphery, including the live action movie. Watching the live action and a touch of Cyberpunk Edgerunners I've been figuring out what I don't like about modern cyberpunk. Watching Blade Runner is where my thoughts started to solidify. The 80's/90's had a very pessimistic view of the future due to various factors which I don't fully understand and don't want to get into; because of this the future is portrayed in a dirty and cluttered manner. BR and GitS both portray the city as an incredibly oppressive and inescapable. The soundtrack to ghost in the shell is a masterclass in bring forward this effect, especially the track Making of a Cyborg. You feel the incredible weight of the city on you. In the major's case you feel this oppressive force has moved from surrounding her to being her. She is a cyborg completely, there is no separation between her and the rampant and uncontrolled advance of man. Compare this to modern cyberpunk, specifically GitS live action and Edgrunners. They still try and portray the future as horrible but in my experience its mostly portrayed in easy to understand events and actions. The disconnect is the environment and overall atmosphere. Cyberpunk 2077 and Edgerunners are super cool futuristic city with horrible events happening in them. How many people have you heard talk about how awesome it is to drive around Night City? GitS and BR are dingy, dark, and sad. I don't yet have the experience and literary analysis I need to delve deeper into this topic here, plus this post is so long at this point, what the fuck. I do want to point out I realize that modern cyberpunk is supposed to evoke more of a modern fear of over stimulation and ever presence of capitalism but I'll get into that more later. Thanks for reading my insane ramblings and gushing over Ghost in the Shell.

Ghost in the Shell is possibly my favorite cyberpunk anything especially since it was my intro to the genre. I LOATHED the live action movie but not for reasons a lot did. I didn't make too much of a fuss about ScarJo being cast as Motoko as the appearance of the character wasn't too far off from source material, I just don't think she's a very good actress. The aesthetic and visual design as well as sound design were ABSOLUTELY ON POINT. The sensory style was done extremely well, and I wish that level of care went into the actual plot of the movie.

My issue is with the studio essentially re-creating the original movie in terms of setting and story progression while shoehorning element from like 4 separate parts of the timeline into one. It made it feel disjointed when you know where events fall in the storyline and almost seems like an attempt to retcon things out.

I think the difference in vibe is mostly the focus on the concept of dystopia and the philosophical ideas of how much someone can be altered and still be considered human, be considered their own person.

I feel like the live action movie would be a good sci-fi movie if it didn't keep putting in really well done recreations of the anime original. I kept getting into it when I took it at its level as a big budget Hollywood movie, but then they'd recreate a scene and I'd go, "this isn't nearly as good as Ghost in the Shell".

I'm willing to forgive a lot of the loss of subtlety due to it being a blockbuster movie. I also think weirdly enough Scarlett's slightly wooden acting really lends itself to the cyborg Major, so I do think the casting works.

You're right though, stylistically I think it does a good job. I think it's a great example of modern cyberpunk. I don't think modern cyberpunk is bad I just personally prefer the original.

I'm not too invested in the cyberpunk genre so I'm not too well versed in the nuances of it. I just really like the world of GitS and the overarching concepts of humanity and existentialism. The opening few minutes of the original movie are also baller as fuck.

It's because the left is really, really, really bad at cognitive empathy. They have a list of things they revile: racism, sexism, fascism, etc. These things are evil and must be opposed. But they don't really seem to get why those things are evil, and they don't make any effort to get in the heads of people that do them -- in fact they're very often proud not to do this. So they have no idea how people arrive at racist or sexist or fascist positions, what questions they seem to answer, why the answers seem compelling. They insist that the only reason you'd arrive at those conclusions is if you're some kind of repulsive mutant who's wrong on purpose.

Then when they're in the same situation or presented the same information that draws others to the racist, sexist, or fascist conclusion, they think in exactly the same way in response to exactly the same impulses and exactly the same emotional incentives. Since they have no interest in what Bad People think, they think "Well, what I'm doing can't be bigoted. I'm doing things that are reasonable and feel right, whereas bigots are repulsive mutants who are wrong on purpose!" So they end up believing the same things about the world because it doesn't occur to them that bigotry and fascism are a set of beliefs about the world.

Other thing to note, they have a tendency to throw those words around willy-nilly to the point that words like "sexism" are used to describe anything from a man holding a door for a woman to actual discrimination and everything in between. The same logic applies to any of those other -ist/-phobic words that have had their meanings diminished to the point many people roll their eyes hard enough to see their brains whenever they're used.

Lack of a pause button has nothing to do with game design or difficulty, it's a function of the game's always online features that would break if you could pause the game.

Sekiro and Armored Core games both let you pause, so clearly FromSoft doesn't have hard line stance against pausing games.

Unless you're forced to regardless, I'm pretty sure you can play in an offline mode where you won't be invaded by other players. Again, unless that's not a thing here.