This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 197198199 200201 ... 520
5941
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:54:22 PM »
I'm not going to go in detail again because I really can't be bothered to say the same things over again, but here's some general remarks.
Gun control needs to be a nation wide solution. Imposing stricter regulations in a single state or county while leaving its neighboring areas untouched does not work. This is backed up by both pretty common sense and actual evidence as brought forward by research and police reports. Looking at certain areas with stricter gun control measures like Chicago and NY, it's been demonstrated that up to 90% of all guns used in crimes are brought in from other states. Creating an island of stricter regulations while leaving it so that any person can drive over county or state borders, easily obtain a firearm and bring it back in without many issues is pretty ineffective.
Restrictions on things like magazine sizes can yield positive (albeit minor) results. If I remember correctly, in the wake of laws restricting the usage and sale of these magazines, law enforcement found significantly less of them being used in crimes. Additionally, shooters are often overcome by police or bystanders as they are reloading. Making it so that a person has to reload more often can provide more opportunities for people to flee, hide or take other actions against him. Furthermore, even small disincentives have been found to work.
And no, (mass) shootings do not "as always" take place in gun free zones. The idea that mass shooters seek out these areas because they'd face no resistance is more or less a myth and rarely ever takes place in reality. Furthermore, a large part of mass shootings do take place in people were legally allowed to carry firearms.
Also, on the topic of gun free zones, they are not supposed to exist as a countermeasure against a planned attack by a deliberate mass shooter. The people who support these zones generally do not believe that the gunman is simply going to turn around because a sign on the door says it's the policy that no guns are allowed on the grounds. These areas exist to stop other, more impulsive shootings and accidents. Every year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured by (accidental) gun fire, a lot of it taking place in public spaces. Accidents aside, it happens rather regularly that a conflict or misunderstanding devolves and leads to a fight or a situation where someone pulls out a firearm and potentially uses it in a dangerous and illegal fashion. Finally, many people agree that the presence of guns in an area might stifle productivity. The availability and carrying of such weapons in the office, government grounds or schools is likely to perceived as a threat or intimidating factor to some. The reason gun free zones exist is not to change the mind of a deliberate mass shooter, but to prevent accidents and impulsive gun use (both of which claim a lot more lives and injuries each day than actual mass shootings), and to try to ensure a safer environment as a whole.
5942
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:29:55 PM »
This seems pretty iffy at best, to be honest. No other news outlets reporting on this?
Either way, this would be a good thing if not against the law, although I don't know enough about the specifics of the legal statutes to make that call.
The article is pointing out the implications of information originally reported by more major media outlets, and criticizing them for not commenting on that. It was originally posted by another source, and has been reposted on a number of other sites, mostly pro-gun, anti-establishment, or Alex Jones-type sites.
If the author is wrong it would make me feel a lot better, so please debunk it if you feel you can. Otherwise, the implication is that not only does a registry exist, but it isn't even being used effectively to prevent violence. The latter upsetting me even more than the former.
Just wondering if any other more reputable sources are backing it up, that is all. I know that they're plenty of biased sources to both sides. I'm just cautious when reading things on theantimedia.org, just like how I'd be hesitant to take to what leftistmomsagainstguns.org would have to say.
5943
« on: December 05, 2015, 02:05:43 PM »
This seems pretty iffy at best, to be honest. No other news outlets reporting on this?
Either way, this would be a good thing if not against the law, although I don't know enough about the specifics of the legal statutes to make that call.
5944
« on: December 05, 2015, 09:31:33 AM »
Hello fellow Gourdians, I too would like to join the Cheat Lancer Septagon Squad, the Septagon Unit lead by Cheat.
Looking for a fireteam for Vault of Glass, level 30 female hunters only please.
5945
« on: December 05, 2015, 05:45:47 AM »
Yeah, this is not how you do it.
5946
« on: December 04, 2015, 12:18:37 PM »
Thanks for the advice everyone. Another question entirely is this:
I just beat the second mission of the Halo 5 campaign and didn't unlock the achievement for doing so. Looking at the gamehub it says that the achievement is 100% complete but it still counts as locked.
XB1 achievements are bugged.
Does it fix itself?
5947
« on: December 04, 2015, 12:05:44 PM »
Thanks for the advice everyone. Another question entirely is this:
I just beat the second mission of the Halo 5 campaign and didn't unlock the achievement for doing so. Looking at the gamehub it says that the achievement is 100% complete but it still counts as locked.
5948
« on: December 04, 2015, 05:46:57 AM »
Understanding what guns are is important before you join the ban bandwagon.
If you have used a gun, whats your opinion on the gun control issue? I disagree. Just like I don't need to have personal experience with many other issues to have a reasoned and valid opinion on them. Just like how I can support a ban on halal slaughter of animals without actually having butchered one myself, I can be in favor of certain gun control laws without actually having used firearms. I know how they work, how to use them in theory, what they can be used for and how they can be obtained. My personal hands-on experience with guns is irrelevant to the validity of my opinion on their regulation.
On the topic of the gun control issue: stricter gun control is the way forward, but getting it implemented in the US is far from easy.
You're consistently like, the most logical and rational person in this group. I love it.
Just calling things how I see them. I've handled guns when I was in the US but never actually shot them. Even if I would have gone up to a range to shoot some guns and ended up absolutely loving it, I don't think it would've changed my opinion on the issue. Western European countries have some of the strictest gun control in the world, yet all of them still give the opportunity to shoot for sport, recreation or hunting when part of a recognized club and after jumping through a bunch of hoops. If I wanted to, I could join one of them tomorrow and get to shooting a some time soon. And no matter how fun something like that could be, I would still only support it in a controlled and well-regulated environment.
5949
« on: December 04, 2015, 05:34:20 AM »
Thoughts please. I am sure you know where I am going with this... Yes, and it's nowhere good. This is a very poor analogy that's right up there with "ban forks for making people fat". It really doesn't stand up against proper scrutiny. 1. This isn't a matter of one or the other. A government and in particular its legislative and executive branches deal with a large variety of issues every single day. They constantly work with committees, interest groups, experts, politicians and policymakers to address a lot of the problems our society faces. The fact that one is worse than the other does not mean that the lesser of two evils does not deserve our attention. Just because 20 times more people die from heart disease than from car accidents doesn't mean that we should stop trying to make cars, drivers and roads safer, just like how the fact that lung cancer claims more lives than any other cancer isn't a reason for us to focus solely on that one while ignoring other cancers. It's perfectly possible and even desirable to try and lower the deaths resulting from heart disease AND firearms simultaneously. 2. The government does already concern itself with what you eat, only it does so more on the level of producers and vendors. Health standards in restaurants and other food establishments, warnings in packaging, healthy food and exercise campaigns, regulations on what conservatives or pesticides can be used and such are just a few of the ways the government is involved in what you end up consuming. 3. It's significantly harder and less efficient to make people do something rather than to have them abstain from something. Taking measures to stop certain people from being able to carry guns on them in public places is a lot different than forcing people to exercise or only eat certain healthy and diet foods. 4. Finally (and most importantly) is that those people you're talking about do that to themselves. Obviously not everyone who has a heart condition is responsible for it, but the people who spend an entire life eating extremely unhealthy food and living a very unhealthy lifestyle deliberately make that choice. In this day and age, I don't think many people can still plead ignorance about the negative effects of eating nothing but junk food, so the people who choose to ignore this should come to term with the risks that it carries. Guns, however, are something else entirely. Suicides aside, people shot by a firearm do not make the choice to be shot. Those dying of heart conditions after a lifetime of unhealthy diets and lifestyles do not die because some random person walked up to them and forced a cheesburger down their throat every single day of their life. The reason the government doesn't instate "food control" is because the people who die from the conditions stemming from unhealthy foods willingly lived their life in that way while knowing the risks. The reason the government does instate gun control is because the thousands of people shot, killed or severely injured by firearms every year did not make that choice. It's a matter of protecting the innocent. But if you really want to play the numbers game and mock gun regulations because there's worse things out there, just know that over the past 12 years, guns killed more Americans than AIDS, terrorism, war and drug overdoses combined, and that the US is expected to reach the point where more people die by guns than by car accidents somewhere in 2016. If paying attention to the lives guns claim and trying to regulate firearms to curb those deaths is already pointless, I suppose that we all better ignore those other causes of death too and instead only focus on "the real killer".
5950
« on: December 03, 2015, 05:48:31 PM »
Understanding what guns are is important before you join the ban bandwagon.
If you have used a gun, whats your opinion on the gun control issue? I disagree. Just like I don't need to have personal experience with many other issues to have a reasoned and valid opinion on them. Similarly to how I can support a ban on halal slaughter of animals without actually having butchered one myself, I can be in favor of certain gun control laws without actually having used firearms. I know how they work, how to use them in theory, what they can be used for and how they can be obtained. My personal hands-on experience with guns is irrelevant to the validity of my opinion on their regulation. On the topic of the gun control issue: stricter gun control is the way forward, but getting it implemented in the US is far from easy.
5951
« on: December 03, 2015, 11:28:56 AM »
I wouldn't, but it's up to you.
5952
« on: December 03, 2015, 03:24:34 AM »
Entered this thread expecting good old quality discussion on who the best pony is, left disappointed after 8 pages of arguments about semantics. Damn.
5953
« on: December 03, 2015, 03:13:21 AM »
Would've preferred it if they stuck with Bats vs Supes for now.
5954
« on: December 02, 2015, 02:50:33 PM »
Belgium and lawyer, I suppose.
5955
« on: December 02, 2015, 02:21:37 PM »
Volleybal, every position.
Tennis and table tennis.
5956
« on: December 02, 2015, 08:56:09 AM »
Finally got Halo 5 today. Might get to play it later tonight, so that should be interesting.
Tips for someone who was on the fence and has done nothing but look at the changes made to the movement with horror and disgust? Only reason I got it is because it was like 25$ and you guys seem to enjoy it.
5957
« on: December 01, 2015, 05:37:46 PM »
So this thread is just weebs calling out cancerous weebs for liking equally cancerous but slightly different weeb shit.
What a wonderful world this is.
5958
« on: December 01, 2015, 05:34:03 PM »
Multi-step processes can have multiple results.
Step 1 results in something that allows Step 2 to proceed to produce the final, or "end" result.
obviously
you can find loopholes around any of these, but the point is that nobody uses it like that
I was about to make this comment because that is the only way I use "end result".
5959
« on: December 01, 2015, 05:30:54 PM »
I don't understand this maymay.
5960
« on: December 01, 2015, 05:28:00 PM »
Even though Civil War actually looks decent and doesn't seem to be made for the purpose of selling lunchboxes
I feel like the Avengers movies just aren't serious enough. They joke around a ton and it kind of loses it's gritty feel. Especially in Age of Ultron, because the main villain is just overly sarcastic the whole time.
I'm giving it to Batman v Superman because it won't be half comedy half action.
Agreed. Any sort of meaningful moment with some impact to it has to be met with yet another absolutely hilarious and quirky oneliner by one of the main cast to remind you of what kind of movie you're actually watching. Winter Soldier did it best, but I haven't seen a Marvel movie that didn't leave me with the feeling that I just watched a 2 hour commercial for lunch boxes and toys. It's not necessarily bad if you switch off your brain and take it as yet another flick to forget right after, but the DC movies are much more engaging to me.
5961
« on: December 01, 2015, 11:23:30 AM »
I was not fully aware of this when I ordered the game, even though I know remember people mentioning it. Will still play and probably enjoy but damn. This is quite disappointing. I suppose there's no way they're still going to add it in now, as that's likely impossible?
Finally. No more people on my team using 3 controllers and only using one.
I played hundreds of hours of Halo and thousands of matches and can't recall a single situation where a person had 3 non-playing guests signed in. All of this "guests ruin multiplayer" is really exaggerated.
Guests were usually really bad and equated to walking free kills. That being said I'd prefer a stable 30fps with split screen over 1080p 60fps. That's a meme that needs to die for consoles. Those machines simply aren't powerful enough to output that kind of thing without sacrifices.
Guests often were bad, but not any worse than a lot of terrible solo players. Both games I played on the MCC with guests in them actually had them do pretty well, as opposed to the larger number of completely clueless solo players I've encountered so far. I agree that they often suck, but not noticeably more than random scrubs.
5962
« on: December 01, 2015, 07:28:22 AM »
Even though Civil War actually looks decent and doesn't seem to be made for the purpose of selling lunchboxes, I'm still gonna give it to Batman v Superman.
5963
« on: December 01, 2015, 05:37:38 AM »
I was not fully aware of this when I ordered the game, even though I know remember people mentioning it. Will still play and probably enjoy but damn. This is quite disappointing. I suppose there's no way they're still going to add it in now, as that's likely impossible?
Finally. No more people on my team using 3 controllers and only using one.
I played hundreds of hours of Halo and thousands of matches and can't recall a single situation where a person had 3 non-playing guests signed in. All of this "guests ruin multiplayer" is really exaggerated.
5964
« on: December 01, 2015, 05:22:36 AM »
Constant 60fps is not even close to worth it to remove split-screen. At least they stated they'd rethink it for Halo 6, but still.
these other niggas don't know how much fun it is to splitscren with your SO but I feel you flee
Thanks fam, good to see I'm not the only one. My girlfriend and I are about to start our splitscreen MCC legendary playthrough, just like we already did with some of the other Halo games in the past. Pretty disappointed that we won't be able to do the same thing with Halo 5 because stable 60fps apparently trumps fun due to some strange engine thing, but I guess the MCC will keep us busy for a while.
5965
« on: November 30, 2015, 07:51:43 PM »
No clue, I left the same day I was invited to join years ago. Reading their rules made me leave straight away.
5966
« on: November 30, 2015, 04:09:03 PM »
There's no law against it afaik.
Gotta ask Flee.
Thoughts and beliefs are never regulated in the developed world, so he is legally free to believe in whatever he wants. Same reason as we don't make simply being a pedophile or having pedophilic or violent thoughts illegal. It's only actions and perhaps even expressions that are the subject of laws.
Sure, but if I think that Hitler did nothing wrong then the Bundespolizei are gonna cart me away.
No, only if you say, express or voice that Hitler did nothing wrong then you might get in trouble with the BP. You can have the most heinous thoughts about the most vile, deviant, discriminatory, violent or hateful situations imaginable and even desperately want them to become a reality, but as long as you keep them to yourself you won't get in trouble anywhere. And that even includes the fascist anti-freedom reich that the EU has become.
5967
« on: November 30, 2015, 01:35:56 PM »
I think it is
who plays split screen in 2015?
Going by my own experiences with friends and acquaintances combined with the pretty massive outrage on forums after this was announced (which apparently reached such a magnitude that 343 tried to find a way to add splitscreen but found themselves simply unable to because of how the engine was designed)? I'd say quite a number of people still enjoy actually directly socialising with people while playing games. Apparently, 343 even recognized that the number was large enough that they're going to try and implement splitscreen in Halo 6.
The number is still very small though. A couple hundred people is a drop in the ocean.
I alone can find a couple hundred people who love splitscreen from my own high school. If 343 decided that they're going to try and implement it for Halo 6 and both MS and Sony intentionally included the possibility for splitscreen and numerous controllers to be used simultaneously, I strongly doubt that only a few hundred people making up just a miniscule fraction of gamers are still interested in being able to play splitscreen.
If a large portion of Halo players used split screen still to warrant split screen in Halo 5, it'd be in 343's best interest to keep it, instead of deciding to cut it in favour of other possibilities that would open up.
That evidently wasn't and isn't the case.
The fact that thousands of people complained, that 343 evaluated how possible it would be to add it through a patch and that they now went on to state that the complaints have been far too many to ignore and that they're already looking at how to make it work for Halo 6 suggests the complete opposite. They made a mistake and realized that now. I get that many people don't like splitscreen if it holds back other things, but I really don't see the issue if they can limit the downsides to people deciding to opt for splitscreen, just like how numerous games have been doing for years. With more people being connected to high speed internet and the much improved ways of socializing from a distance these days, it makes sense that less people will go for splitscreen. But obviously, that number is not non-existent or negligible yet. Stable 60fps, the highest possible resolution and having the full screen at your disposal are of vital importance to you? Great, then don't play splitscreen. The people who do will gladly sacrifice some frames to be able to play the games with friends. Think that guests are always incredibly awful players, despite this not being true and terrible players playing by themselves just the same? Stick to the playlists that don't allow them. I genuinely don't get what the issue is here if they tweak their engine by Halo 6.
5968
« on: November 30, 2015, 01:32:14 PM »
Why the fuck would i want brain dead guests playing a competitive game? Hell, the playlists are competitive now with csr in the mix. Good for no split screen
I rarely lost games when I played them splitscreen with 3 friends and have seen dozens of good guests throughout my time playing Halo. Never understood the mentality of hating splitscreen because guests are often shit. In case you couldn't tell, a very large part of players that play by themselves are equally terrible. I so far played 2 games of the MCC online and both times there were people that were horrendously awful and went far in the negatives with their K/D. Halo 3 did it right with not allowing guests in certain playlists. In the very least, splitscreen for campaign and customs should always be there.
5969
« on: November 30, 2015, 01:28:52 PM »
people stopped complaining quite soon after launch
Well yeah, when the developers themselves state that they've heard the complaints, that they didn't add it later because the engine simply didn't allow for it to be added at this point, and that they're going to try and implement it in the next Halo, there's not much else you can accomplish by complaining. It sucks a lot and is a pretty major disappointment for me, but I'm not going to whine about it. I know that many people would gladly take a hit to FPS during splitscreen if the game gave them the option. It's good to see that 343 has recognized that too.
5970
« on: November 30, 2015, 12:56:33 PM »
I think it is
who plays split screen in 2015?
Going by my own experiences with friends and acquaintances combined with the pretty massive outrage on forums after this was announced (which apparently reached such a magnitude that 343 tried to find a way to add splitscreen but found themselves simply unable to because of how the engine was designed)? I'd say quite a number of people still enjoy actually directly socialising with people while playing games. Apparently, 343 even recognized that the number was large enough that they're going to try and implement splitscreen in Halo 6.
The number is still very small though. A couple hundred people is a drop in the ocean.
I alone can find a couple hundred people who love splitscreen from my own high school. If 343 decided that they're going to try and implement it for Halo 6 and both MS and Sony intentionally included the possibility for splitscreen and numerous controllers to be used simultaneously, I strongly doubt that only a few hundred people making up just a miniscule fraction of gamers are still interested in being able to play splitscreen.
Pages: 1 ... 197198199 200201 ... 520
|
Show Posts