But the netcode is bad and the population is nearly gone.

I want Wolf back since he should've never been cut in the first place. As for entirely new fighters, Sceptile and Sylux would be great.

Quote from: Luciana on October 02, 2015, 04:47:46 PM

Quote from: CK97 on October 02, 2015, 04:07:26 PM

Twilight Princess tho

It doesn't hold up to Wind Waker for more than a few reasons of objectivity. Forget story, I'm talking about the world.

>lost at sea: the game

Criminal justice

Don't like it, it completely leaves out the fact that a moderate side of the political spectrum exists.

Quote from: CK97 on October 02, 2015, 07:49:14 AM

Quote from: Flee on October 02, 2015, 04:39:37 AM

I don't even want to go on B.net or any other forum and see the dozens of "but criminals don't follow laws"

Because they don't.

"Criminals don't follow laws" is a completely empty statement. It's about as useful of a contribution to this debate as "drivers are people who drive" or "pilots are people who fly airplanes".

I don't see how something that has truth to it in the concept of law is an "empty statement."

The problem with that statement is the message that it's trying to convey. It's a hollow statement looking to appeal to people who get their political beliefs of a bumper sticker and fall for every seemingly powerful and deep message that is actually as shallow as they come and lacking in any nuance.

It doesn't lack nuance when it's obvious what the message is trying to convey and the fact is that people with a criminal intent indeed do not follow the law.

The idea behind this particularly poor argument is that criminals don't follow any of these laws to begin with, so having any sort of gun control would only hurt and affect the good law-abiding citizens who do follow them while criminals will just keep going at it, continuously commiting crimes that are now made even easier because there's no more good guys with guns to stop them.

Because that's reality. You make a law and the law-abiding citizens that obeyed the regulations before are (hopefully) going to do so again, and individuals who are involved in crime aren't going to follow shit. What does that mean? You potentially end up being in a situation like this and you have no hope to stop the shooter.

In reality, as anyone with some knowledge on this subject would be able to tell you, this is absolutely not true. Looking at all the tons of available evidence on a global scale, gun reforms result in sharp declines in firearm deaths almost immediately afterwards. "Some criminals obey some laws of the time" is the whole premise of law enforcement and criminal law. It comes as no surprise that "even imperfect efforts to restrict gun availability to high-risk people can reduce illegal gun use on the margin, even if these regulatory barriers can be overcome in a number of ways by those who are determined to obtain a gun."

Yeah I'm not saying there shouldn't be anything done to help prevent stuff like this, more thorough background checks and mental health programs is something I strongly advocate for, it would make a difference.

Your whole premise is a plain tautology that adds nothing to this discussion at all. You can use it to address any law. Why should we make rape, fraud or murder illegal? The good, law-abiding citizens who are sound of mind and have a prope rmoral compass are not going to commit those actions anyways, while the "evil" people or criminals will not follow the laws. Why limit others by having traffic regulations? The responsible people will drive responsibly and carefully anyways, while the rulebreakers will still speed and ignore traffic lights. It's just limiting the good people and would not stop anyone who wants to go 150mph down a local road from doing so in the first place.

First off, rape, fraud, and driving aren't constitutional rights. Second of all, those laws don't limit the good citizen in any way simply because there are no pros to having any of those legal. With firearms, the pro is that if someone fires a shot and there are permit holders in the area, the shooter can be dispatched immediately.

It has been shown time and time again that laws work.

Some, not all, and gun bans wouldn't be one of them.

They are the basis of our society. Even when some people don't, it both deters people from stepping into criminality and already existing criminals with prior facts from getting in even more trouble. It won't step everyone, of course, but it undeniably helps.

I didn't deny that, my point is that making a law that prohibits anyone from owning a gun would do way more harm than good. Like I said, this is where more thorough background checks and better mental healthcare come into play: the mentally ill who normally do stuff like this are mostly prevented from performing these acts, and the law-abiding citizen is still there to stop this if someone gets by.

Nilthy Figgers

Clearing shit up.

Arky didn't kill himself. Arky is Nexus.

LC Y

form

B-but muh gun control woulda prevented this

He's wrong, you're supposed to taste it.

Quote from: Engrapadora on September 30, 2015, 11:29:42 PM

I guess they finally got rid of me. Never thought they'd nuke the whole site just to get me, though.

I don't know if you're the real Engra or not...

Judging by the join date and the bio, I'd say so.

Quote from: Awoo~ on September 30, 2015, 10:59:58 PM

Why do people say mobile sucks so much? I mean, aside from the notification button being pretty damn small to hit and you can't view PM's easy, I've found using the mobile version on my phone fairly easy.

The one thing that sucks is that I always get redirected to the app store out of nowhere,

Are you using Tapatalk or a browser such as Safari or Google Chrome?

Oh and I like your name when it's in all caps, just sayin'.

I recognize Ajax, Tiber Septim, and Mechetti.

Aren't they already a successful genre