Let me say it like this. Getting a glancing hit here is always better than trying to beat randomness in Elona Shooter. But no, I don't like it. Randomness simply isn't a way to balance. You can easily make everything harder by giving enemy creatures a passive damage reduction, better armour, or you yourself just dealing less damage. No randomness in that, but the game will be equally hard. Haven't beaten the game yet on hard, but even up until the missionary, I didn't use any healing potions. Having two healers simply owns. Let me say it like this. Getting a glancing hit here is always better than trying to beat randomness in Elona Shooter. But no, I don’t like it. Randomness simply isn’t a way to balance. You can easily make everything harder by giving enemy creatures a passive damage reduction, better armour, or you yourself just dealing less damage. No randomness in that, but the game will be equally hard. Haven’t beaten the game yet on hard, but even up until the missionary, I didn’t use any healing potions. Having two healers simply owns.

2009-11-22T02:23:35-08:00

true

1484452

65823

2009-11-22T02:23:35-08:00

303925

Not that far up, really. That's what you get when even in the _weekend_ you cannot come above 30k per day. I think I'm about 100k below him, though. But I do think you agree coming in the team with a loud bang at number 1 is much cooler than coming in the team with a little less loud bang at number 2. Not that far up, really. That’s what you get when even in the weekend you cannot come above 30k per day. I think I’m about 100k below him, though. But I do think you agree coming in the team with a loud bang at number 1 is much cooler than coming in the team with a little less loud bang at number 2.

2009-11-22T02:18:26-08:00

true

1484441

142

4071

2009-11-22T02:18:26-08:00

303925

bq. :( Oh well… Anyway, try pulsing 2mil. Our team record is just under that, so if you pull it off… Anyway, are you going to join? I already have two 2 million+ pulses the last year alone. I think my highest pulse was around 5 million. Not sure about that one, but I definitely have a 3 million one. It's quite messy trying to get the page to report all of your pulses, so I can't find it at the moment. You can find my two 2 million+ pulses, though. <blockquote> :( Oh well… Anyway, try pulsing 2mil. Our team record is just under that, so if you pull it off… Anyway, are you going to join? </blockquote> I already have two 2 million+ pulses the last year alone. I think my highest pulse was around 5 million. Not sure about that one, but I definitely have a 3 million one. It’s quite messy trying to get the page to report all of your pulses, so I can’t find it at the moment. You can find my two 2 million+ pulses, though.

2009-11-22T01:26:58-08:00

true

1484396

140

4071

2009-11-22T01:26:58-08:00

303925

Pel is most probably at the bottom of that list StarryDawn made. Even if there are "only" 50 games with API and a higher rating than Pel, it still means there are 50 games more deserving of badges than Pel. Like, I don't know, _Brute Wars 2_? "ZOMG DAT GAEM IZ BUURIGN!" Sadly for you, it also has a 0.2 higher rating. The exact same reasoning used here to give Pel badges, which it doesn't deserve yet. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/1/topics/65727?page=1#posts-1481813'>Cirpacha</a>:</cite> Please stop with these already.</blockquote> And this. Stop, stop, stop creating threads like "game Z needs badges!" (because the game "Z" apparently exists). People will keep spamming threads that way, and it only diverts attention from the highest rated games. Pel is most probably at the bottom of that list StarryDawn made. Even if there are “only” 50 games with API and a higher rating than Pel, it still means there are 50 games more deserving of badges than Pel. Like, I don’t know, Brute Wars 2? “ZOMG DAT GAEM IZ BUURIGN!” Sadly for you, it also has a 0.2 higher rating. The exact same reasoning used here to give Pel badges, which it doesn’t deserve yet. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/1/topics/65727?page=1#posts-1481813">Cirpacha</a>:</cite> Please stop with these already.</blockquote> And this. Stop, stop, stop creating threads like “game Z needs badges!” (because the game “Z” apparently exists). People will keep spamming threads that way, and it only diverts attention from the highest rated games.

2009-11-22T01:19:32-08:00

true

1484389

65727

2009-11-22T01:19:32-08:00

303925

The shortest impossible is Dolphin Olympics. Just so you know. ;) Also, P is for pause. The shortest impossible is Dolphin Olympics. Just so you know. ;) Also, P is for pause.

2009-11-22T01:12:02-08:00

true

1484385

65843

2009-11-22T01:12:02-08:00

303925

bq. I couldn’t find games X or Y, but I did find Z. Yes! Yes! It needs badges! And X and Y need to be on Kongregate! <blockquote> I couldn’t find games X or Y, but I did find Z. </blockquote> Yes! Yes! It needs badges! And X and Y need to be on Kongregate!

2009-11-19T15:19:13-08:00

true

1477342

65520

2009-11-19T15:19:13-08:00

303925

We don't have to use nukes. We can just hold them to stare at them and admire them. Let's skip all of the discussion and get right to the point. I had several people stating guns were some sort of "fun", which is subjective, which you can claim for nukes too. Then had someone claim there are no psychopaths, so we can trust people to handle nukes well too. Guns also cause collateral damage. You see, granting rights to nukes isn't so much different as you think. The only other argument one could make is that it's difficult to defend yourself with a nuke, to which I can use an argument made earlier for guns. That the amount of uses an object has over others shouldn't necessarily restrict it from being legally allowed. We don’t have to use nukes. We can just hold them to stare at them and admire them. Let’s skip all of the discussion and get right to the point. I had several people stating guns were some sort of “fun”, which is subjective, which you can claim for nukes too. Then had someone claim there are no psychopaths, so we can trust people to handle nukes well too. Guns also cause collateral damage. You see, granting rights to nukes isn’t so much different as you think. The only other argument one could make is that it’s difficult to defend yourself with a nuke, to which I can use an argument made earlier for guns. That the amount of uses an object has over others shouldn’t necessarily restrict it from being legally allowed.

2009-11-19T15:17:08-08:00

true

1477339

482

24763

2009-11-19T15:17:32-08:00

303925

28 too little. 28 too little.

2009-11-19T15:12:29-08:00

true

1477322

65515

2009-11-19T15:12:29-08:00

303925

Game X, Y and Z deserve badges too! Let's make three seperate threads for them! ..or we could post in badge suggestions? Game X, Y and Z deserve badges too! Let’s make three seperate threads for them! ..or we could post in badge suggestions?

2009-11-19T15:11:24-08:00

true

1477317

65520

2009-11-19T15:11:24-08:00

303925

So, basically, we shouldn't discuss anything we can have an opinion on? So, basically, we shouldn’t discuss anything we can have an opinion on?

2009-11-19T15:03:18-08:00

true

1477299

65484

2009-11-19T15:03:18-08:00

303925

Then you succeed in my "all you need is guns?" test too. I'm sure not everyone does, though. On the other hand, the other items you bring aren't quite as capable of inflicting much damage to your surroundings. I still insist on playing the nuke card again. I may be called the devil's advocate since I would not vouch for it myself, but I have a fairly good amount of arguments for granting people the right to nukes taking in consideration the many posts people made in favour of guns. Then you succeed in my “all you need is guns?” test too. I’m sure not everyone does, though. On the other hand, the other items you bring aren’t quite as capable of inflicting much damage to your surroundings. I still insist on playing the nuke card again. I may be called the devil’s advocate since I would not vouch for it myself, but I have a fairly good amount of arguments for granting people the right to nukes taking in consideration the many posts people made in favour of guns.

2009-11-19T14:56:02-08:00

true

1477282

480

24763

2009-11-19T14:56:02-08:00

303925

You do need to register your baby, though. It's not really "getting a license", but it's a good indication of how many people are in a country. If it really gets overpopulated and everyone decides something has to be done, _then_ might be a good time to think about it. Up until then, getting a child does not negatively affect anyone. bq. or just can’t get laid You just got bu-urnt! Nice own! Go you! ... Oh, sorry, thought we were in off-topic. You do need to register your baby, though. It’s not really “getting a license”, but it’s a good indication of how many people are in a country. If it really gets overpopulated and everyone decides something has to be done, then might be a good time to think about it. Up until then, getting a child does not negatively affect anyone. <blockquote> or just can’t get laid </blockquote> You just got bu-urnt! Nice own! Go you! … Oh, sorry, thought we were in off-topic.

2009-11-19T10:19:19-08:00

true

1476673

65427

2009-11-19T10:19:19-08:00

303925

Just pulsed around 880k. Yeah, I'm like really proud of it. Not really, I can't be that active when I'm having a lot of school (and my girlfriend) to take care of. Ended up just below Nabb, though. Just pulsed around 880k. Yeah, I’m like really proud of it. Not really, I can’t be that active when I’m having a lot of school (and my girlfriend) to take care of. Ended up just below Nabb, though.

2009-11-19T09:32:12-08:00

true

1476616

133

4071

2009-11-19T09:32:12-08:00

303925

Too biased enough. With that said, I'll probably not even get close to this would-be frustrimpossible. Too biased enough. With that said, I’ll probably not even get close to this would-be frustrimpossible.

2009-11-19T08:48:17-08:00

true

1476503

65182

2009-11-19T08:48:17-08:00

303925

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be wary of making badges based on what one person can do. Either way, I likely agree with the other three badges. EDIT: Challenge for reaching floor 15? Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be wary of making badges based on what one person can do. Either way, I likely agree with the other three badges. EDIT: Challenge for reaching floor 15?

2009-11-19T08:08:03-08:00

true

1476465

65182

2009-11-19T08:08:41-08:00

303925

I think that Darkruler2005 guy makes the most awesome posts ever! But I guess we've strolled a long way from the topic. bq. If the parents own the fetus and the fetus is legally NOT human, they can do anything they want to the fetus, correct? If parents are legally allowed to abort their fetus, I don't see why you shouldn't be legally allowed to "force" your fetus to become straight/homosexual. Provided it's possible. However, this quote also implies you can perform physical harm upon the fetus, which shouldn't be allowed. I'm thinking I already posted this some times ago, but not too bored to check through all 42 pages. I think that Darkruler2005 guy makes the most awesome posts ever! But I guess we’ve strolled a long way from the topic. <blockquote> If the parents own the fetus and the fetus is legally NOT human, they can do anything they want to the fetus, correct? </blockquote> If parents are legally allowed to abort their fetus, I don’t see why you shouldn’t be legally allowed to “force” your fetus to become straight/homosexual. Provided it’s possible. However, this quote also implies you can perform physical harm upon the fetus, which shouldn’t be allowed. I’m thinking I already posted this some times ago, but not too bored to check through all 42 pages.

2009-11-19T07:49:53-08:00

true

1476441

1031

33708

2009-11-19T07:49:53-08:00

303925

bq. Many people do carry ‘safety hammers’ in their cars. In fact, I carry a flashlight, food, water, a first aid kit, and a tool kit all in my car all the time. I must be crazy! Then you're a person succeeding in my "all you need is guns?" test. bq. The point is, some people do not choose to carry protective equipment with them and even when they do, no matter what the scenario, that equipment will not always be helpful. However, that does not mean I should not try to be better safe than sorry just because carrying this extra gear MIGHT not help. My problem is if people only carry a gun, nothing else of importance. If the only reason to carry a gun is for protection against certain situations, then surely you would bring _everything_ you can to protect yourself? No, I'm not telling you to take a bazooka with you to prevent a tank attack, but I'm definitely thinking it's easy enough to carry certain things to help you out of certain situations. It's not an argument against guns, it's a question whether or not the people arguing for guns would actually take anything else with them as protection. <blockquote> Many people do carry ‘safety hammers’ in their cars. In fact, I carry a flashlight, food, water, a first aid kit, and a tool kit all in my car all the time. I must be crazy! </blockquote> Then you’re a person succeeding in my “all you need is guns?” test. <blockquote> The point is, some people do not choose to carry protective equipment with them and even when they do, no matter what the scenario, that equipment will not always be helpful. However, that does not mean I should not try to be better safe than sorry just because carrying this extra gear MIGHT not help. </blockquote> My problem is if people only carry a gun, nothing else of importance. If the only reason to carry a gun is for protection against certain situations, then surely you would bring everything you can to protect yourself? No, I’m not telling you to take a bazooka with you to prevent a tank attack, but I’m definitely thinking it’s easy enough to carry certain things to help you out of certain situations. It’s not an argument against guns, it’s a question whether or not the people arguing for guns would actually take anything else with them as protection.

2009-11-19T07:45:35-08:00

true

1476431

477

24763

2009-11-19T07:45:35-08:00

303925

If you are going to keep saying you're so incredible offended by the strawman you're arguing against, that's fine, but don't use it on me. Especially if you try to insult the intelligence of the supposed strawman and insinuate it's me. _That_ is outright offensive. I have never claimed that I wanted children to have guns, I claimed it's impossible to hold the child's hand everywhere they go. The "safety" you're talking about at school and at a friend's doesn't even matter, it's the way there, and especially if they're travelling at night. It's not so much an argument against guns as it's an argument against "now we're safe, we have guns", because your children aren't safe. Try not to be offended with the words you're putting in my mouth. You _still_ ignored my other, material options which can be used as self-defense, but do not have any permanent or collateral damage attached to them. Lastly, a gun isn't nearly going to save you from everything (that's even assuming it saves you from the things you want it for). I talked about a safety hammer and got only one reply. Traffic accidents happen far more often than robberies or attacks, why not bring a safety hammer to help people out of a car (or yourself)? Why not bring candy against rabid dogs? Bullet-proof vest against firefights? Again, not so much of an argument against guns, but a question as to why some people seem to only want to protect themselves against these specific situations while there is so much more. bq. I might just be out of this, if the statements being made are just going to keep getting further and further out of touch with reality. I might follow you there, if my examples of other defense materials are going to keep being ignored. Really, I would even accept legal guns that do not have the potential to kill, but bullets that temporarily stun or disable the target. As long as they are not prone to accidents, or easy to kill off nosy neighbours, or have the ability to accidentally kill an inexperienced robber who would have stopped robbing if he was put into jail for several days. If you are going to keep saying you’re so incredible offended by the strawman you’re arguing against, that’s fine, but don’t use it on me. Especially if you try to insult the intelligence of the supposed strawman and insinuate it’s me. That is outright offensive. I have never claimed that I wanted children to have guns, I claimed it’s impossible to hold the child’s hand everywhere they go. The “safety” you’re talking about at school and at a friend’s doesn’t even matter, it’s the way there, and especially if they’re travelling at night. It’s not so much an argument against guns as it’s an argument against “now we’re safe, we have guns”, because your children aren’t safe. Try not to be offended with the words you’re putting in my mouth. You still ignored my other, material options which can be used as self-defense, but do not have any permanent or collateral damage attached to them. Lastly, a gun isn’t nearly going to save you from everything (that’s even assuming it saves you from the things you want it for). I talked about a safety hammer and got only one reply. Traffic accidents happen far more often than robberies or attacks, why not bring a safety hammer to help people out of a car (or yourself)? Why not bring candy against rabid dogs? Bullet-proof vest against firefights? Again, not so much of an argument against guns, but a question as to why some people seem to only want to protect themselves against these specific situations while there is so much more. <blockquote> I might just be out of this, if the statements being made are just going to keep getting further and further out of touch with reality. </blockquote> I might follow you there, if my examples of other defense materials are going to keep being ignored. Really, I would even accept legal guns that do not have the potential to kill, but bullets that temporarily stun or disable the target. As long as they are not prone to accidents, or easy to kill off nosy neighbours, or have the ability to accidentally kill an inexperienced robber who would have stopped robbing if he was put into jail for several days.

2009-11-19T05:04:55-08:00

true

1476249

474

24763

2009-11-19T05:04:55-08:00

303925

November 18th, you sure you can't see them? 6:28:11 until 6:28:25 he did 6 pulses of 10k (with another 5 the rest of the day). I know my post seemed to imply it was all day long. November 18th, you sure you can’t see them? 6:28:11 until 6:28:25 he did 6 pulses of 10k (with another 5 the rest of the day). I know my post seemed to imply it was all day long.

2009-11-18T14:20:27-08:00

true

1474686

120

4071

2009-11-18T14:20:27-08:00

303925

I stopped at exactly that level due to exactly that reason. I stopped at exactly that level due to exactly that reason.

2009-11-18T14:17:38-08:00

true

1474678

2766

978

2009-11-18T14:17:38-08:00

303925

Well, even if he would argue like that, it's easy to counter. If he doesn't listen, then I'm guessing the debate would be over soon. Well, even if he would argue like that, it’s easy to counter. If he doesn’t listen, then I’m guessing the debate would be over soon.

2009-11-18T14:14:52-08:00

true

1474671

65236

2009-11-18T14:14:52-08:00

303925

bq. On ranged defense: presumably if there’s a criminal over there, and you’re over here, you don’t want to get close to him. If he has a knife, you’re putting yourself in unnecessary danger. If he has a knife and he's over there, your best bet is to run? bq. On children: it is the job of the parent to protect children. That includes determining what places are safe for the child to be at alone, and for how long. A child should never be placed into a situation where a gun is necessary. bq. A child’s defense is the job of the parent and/or guardian Except it's rare the parent will hold the hand of the kid every single step he/she makes. I walked to school by myself at basic school. I biked to highschool myself. There are kids who play at friends. There are younglings who go out. You simply can _not_ protect them. It's illegal for them to have guns, and thus they are completely defenseless. To say they should be defended by the parent is an outright assumption that doesn't hold for a second. bq. and implying that anyone who supports gun ownership also thinks that even children should be allowed to own guns is not just fallacious, it’s offensive. I don't see how it's offensive. There's been a lot of dirt throwing going around in serious discussion, but this is quite the opposite. bq. At any rate, like I said, I agree completely that there should be certain prerequisites for gun ownership, including at minimum a thorough background check and at least some mandatory safety/handling/shooting training. Absolute minimum. I advice registration of the person buying the gun with it, at the least. bq. As far as some of the options for self defense that you put forth You only mention the non-physical parts I explained, not the material ones. bq. But if a criminal is determined to attack you, that option is taken away. Not really? Avoiding times late at night and dangerous roads will already reduce any chance to get attacked you had to basically zero (who's going to attack you in broad daylight when there's dozens of other people around?). When you're at home, your robbery alarm will definitely wake up and alert you, but also most probably scare the intruder away. If not for the sound, then surely due to the thought of the waking neighbours (if a loud alarm) or the now informed police which may be on its way if the owner of the house decided he's not safe. <blockquote> On ranged defense: presumably if there’s a criminal over there, and you’re over here, you don’t want to get close to him. If he has a knife, you’re putting yourself in unnecessary danger. </blockquote> If he has a knife and he’s over there, your best bet is to run? <blockquote> On children: it is the job of the parent to protect children. That includes determining what places are safe for the child to be at alone, and for how long. A child should never be placed into a situation where a gun is necessary. </blockquote> <blockquote> A child’s defense is the job of the parent and/or guardian </blockquote> Except it’s rare the parent will hold the hand of the kid every single step he/she makes. I walked to school by myself at basic school. I biked to highschool myself. There are kids who play at friends. There are younglings who go out. You simply can not protect them. It’s illegal for them to have guns, and thus they are completely defenseless. To say they should be defended by the parent is an outright assumption that doesn’t hold for a second. <blockquote> and implying that anyone who supports gun ownership also thinks that even children should be allowed to own guns is not just fallacious, it’s offensive. </blockquote> I don’t see how it’s offensive. There’s been a lot of dirt throwing going around in serious discussion, but this is quite the opposite. <blockquote> At any rate, like I said, I agree completely that there should be certain prerequisites for gun ownership, including at minimum a thorough background check and at least some mandatory safety/handling/shooting training. </blockquote> Absolute minimum. I advice registration of the person buying the gun with it, at the least. <blockquote> As far as some of the options for self defense that you put forth </blockquote> You only mention the non-physical parts I explained, not the material ones. <blockquote> But if a criminal is determined to attack you, that option is taken away. </blockquote> Not really? Avoiding times late at night and dangerous roads will already reduce any chance to get attacked you had to basically zero (who’s going to attack you in broad daylight when there’s dozens of other people around?). When you’re at home, your robbery alarm will definitely wake up and alert you, but also most probably scare the intruder away. If not for the sound, then surely due to the thought of the waking neighbours (if a loud alarm) or the now informed police which may be on its way if the owner of the house decided he’s not safe.

2009-11-18T14:10:11-08:00

true

1474653

468

24763

2009-11-18T14:11:48-08:00

303925

Why won't we still allow him to post with answers from the Bible? I'd like to think it would be an interesting debate. Why won’t we still allow him to post with answers from the Bible? I’d like to think it would be an interesting debate.

2009-11-18T11:55:54-08:00

true

1474180

65236

2009-11-18T11:55:54-08:00

303925

Let's keep it civil. bq. If you focus in on a single subset until you can’t even recognize what you were originally talking about, you can find some circumstantial evidence. Using one tiny chunk of one aspect of the argument does not give you a full, valid argument, though. I _am_ only talking about a small detail, as I'm trying to oppose every detail instead of the whole idea. It's a lot easier to show people the details are what I oppose with valid statements due to the fact you can't describe the full idea and what you're against in a few words. Let me put out a chunk of text to review what I think about the situation. I think most of us would oppose it if there were gun shops everywhere and everyone could come in and take the guns, provided he has money, without showing ID or any sort of proof the person is qualified for having the gun. Keep this first point in mind. Now, the reason many of you people would want to give everyone the right to have a gun is that you (keyword being "you") would feel safer if you at least have a better chance to survive an attack, a robbery or attempted rape unharmed, and without any loss of money. Doesn't everyone want that? Yes, we do. Do we want everyone to run around with guns without even having to pass on a proper ID? No. Moving on the point. I will not feel safe if every silly clown could get a gun without showing he's qualified to do so. I _will_ feel safe if there are very tight regulations, but everyone has the right to eventually get a gun. You could include the requirement to have several weeks/months/years (?) of training with a gun so that you know how to fire it properly, how to reload it, how to store it, how to have it on safe mode, how to handle it, etc. There will need to be an age requirement. While older age doesn't necessarily cause maturity and younger age doesn't necessarily cause immaturity, it is the best we can do at this point. It will ensure that there are no children innocent enough to not know what harm a gun can do are able to carry guns with them. There will have to be the requirement that nobody who has committed a crime involving guns (I guess you could include more crimes, but I wouldn't mind a person who swore at a policemen once to still have the right) is allowed to buy a gun. Lastly, of course there will have to be detailed registrations of the person's name, address, phone number, etc. Now, now, wait a minute. Isn't this all about protecting my own body from a criminal? Why do I have to go through all this shit in order to protect myself? Why can't my child get a gun? What if he/she gets attacked by a psychopath and he/she has no way of defending him/herself? Why do I have to spend so much time and money on a _basic_ need? This is describing what I'm trying to get at. There is no easy road to follow here. We don't want to have people running around with guns freely, but at the same time we don't want people to have no defense against armed criminals. But at the same time we don't want such strong regulations due to the amount of time and money involved, and the chance that you won't even get your gun? What do I suggest, and why? I suggest other forms of protection. Protection that does not have the ability to harm others in such an extreme way. Protection that is easy to get by, but also easy to stop people from inflicting crimes upon you. Protection of your house? Robbery alarm. Better locks. No easy windows to smash. Etc. Protection of yourself? Taking safer routes. Living in safer neighbourhoods. Travelling at safer times. More physical protection? Pepper spray is much less damaging, at least permanently, but can still prevent your attacker from doing anything to you temporarily. You can flee, call for help, dial the police's number, and be well out of harm's way (unless you're swarmed with thugs, in which case a handgun wouldn't help any way). A taser works differently, but has the similar result that you are able to get away. Ranged defense? In what situation would you need ranged defense? In a firefight. When would a civilian end up in a firefight? Either when there's a killer after him (for whatever reason) in which way the killer would be incredibly stupid if he even gave you a chance to pull your weapon (he knows where you are, you don't even know he's popping up), or when you hastily shoot someone you think is threatening you. A robber and/or rapist are much more likely to come up close. I truly wish there was an easy-to-get-by, ranged weapon which temporarily stuns/disables the target, but doesn't have any permanent effects or collateral damage. Blowguns with some kind of temporary poison or something. I honestly wouldn't mind when there would be really strong regulations on guns while making them legal. What I don't know if people like those I'm arguing with would agree on that. What about your children? No guns for them? They would be easy targets. Far easier than all those adults _with_ guns. Criminals aren't stupid. Implement it, really, I'm just truly doubtful this is the easiest, or best option there is to counter everything which makes people argue for guns. Let’s keep it civil. <blockquote> If you focus in on a single subset until you can’t even recognize what you were originally talking about, you can find some circumstantial evidence. Using one tiny chunk of one aspect of the argument does not give you a full, valid argument, though. </blockquote> I am only talking about a small detail, as I’m trying to oppose every detail instead of the whole idea. It’s a lot easier to show people the details are what I oppose with valid statements due to the fact you can’t describe the full idea and what you’re against in a few words. Let me put out a chunk of text to review what I think about the situation. I think most of us would oppose it if there were gun shops everywhere and everyone could come in and take the guns, provided he has money, without showing ID or any sort of proof the person is qualified for having the gun. Keep this first point in mind. Now, the reason many of you people would want to give everyone the right to have a gun is that you (keyword being “you”) would feel safer if you at least have a better chance to survive an attack, a robbery or attempted rape unharmed, and without any loss of money. Doesn’t everyone want that? Yes, we do. Do we want everyone to run around with guns without even having to pass on a proper ID? No. Moving on the point. I will not feel safe if every silly clown could get a gun without showing he’s qualified to do so. I will feel safe if there are very tight regulations, but everyone has the right to eventually get a gun. You could include the requirement to have several weeks/months/years (?) of training with a gun so that you know how to fire it properly, how to reload it, how to store it, how to have it on safe mode, how to handle it, etc. There will need to be an age requirement. While older age doesn’t necessarily cause maturity and younger age doesn’t necessarily cause immaturity, it is the best we can do at this point. It will ensure that there are no children innocent enough to not know what harm a gun can do are able to carry guns with them. There will have to be the requirement that nobody who has committed a crime involving guns (I guess you could include more crimes, but I wouldn’t mind a person who swore at a policemen once to still have the right) is allowed to buy a gun. Lastly, of course there will have to be detailed registrations of the person’s name, address, phone number, etc. Now, now, wait a minute. Isn’t this all about protecting my own body from a criminal? Why do I have to go through all this shit in order to protect myself? Why can’t my child get a gun? What if he/she gets attacked by a psychopath and he/she has no way of defending him/herself? Why do I have to spend so much time and money on a basic need? This is describing what I’m trying to get at. There is no easy road to follow here. We don’t want to have people running around with guns freely, but at the same time we don’t want people to have no defense against armed criminals. But at the same time we don’t want such strong regulations due to the amount of time and money involved, and the chance that you won’t even get your gun? What do I suggest, and why? I suggest other forms of protection. Protection that does not have the ability to harm others in such an extreme way. Protection that is easy to get by, but also easy to stop people from inflicting crimes upon you. Protection of your house? Robbery alarm. Better locks. No easy windows to smash. Etc. Protection of yourself? Taking safer routes. Living in safer neighbourhoods. Travelling at safer times. More physical protection? Pepper spray is much less damaging, at least permanently, but can still prevent your attacker from doing anything to you temporarily. You can flee, call for help, dial the police’s number, and be well out of harm’s way (unless you’re swarmed with thugs, in which case a handgun wouldn’t help any way). A taser works differently, but has the similar result that you are able to get away. Ranged defense? In what situation would you need ranged defense? In a firefight. When would a civilian end up in a firefight? Either when there’s a killer after him (for whatever reason) in which way the killer would be incredibly stupid if he even gave you a chance to pull your weapon (he knows where you are, you don’t even know he’s popping up), or when you hastily shoot someone you think is threatening you. A robber and/or rapist are much more likely to come up close. I truly wish there was an easy-to-get-by, ranged weapon which temporarily stuns/disables the target, but doesn’t have any permanent effects or collateral damage. Blowguns with some kind of temporary poison or something. I honestly wouldn’t mind when there would be really strong regulations on guns while making them legal. What I don’t know if people like those I’m arguing with would agree on that. What about your children? No guns for them? They would be easy targets. Far easier than all those adults with guns. Criminals aren’t stupid. Implement it, really, I’m just truly doubtful this is the easiest, or best option there is to counter everything which makes people argue for guns.

2009-11-18T11:48:59-08:00

true

1474144

465

24763

2009-11-18T11:48:59-08:00

303925

bq. I’m pretty sure it’s every 2 hours, and he surely can’t be THAT active xD You’ll gain on him sooner or later :P Check his pulses. He literally did 10k every 2 seconds. bq. Between the top 5 people in the Ninja Chat team, we probably pulse 30 times a day. I pulse every so many days/weeks. Depending on how long, it's probably a few 100k or in the millions. What now? <blockquote> I’m pretty sure it’s every 2 hours, and he surely can’t be THAT active xD You’ll gain on him sooner or later :P </blockquote> Check his pulses. He literally did 10k every 2 seconds. <blockquote> Between the top 5 people in the Ninja Chat team, we probably pulse 30 times a day. </blockquote> I pulse every so many days/weeks. Depending on how long, it’s probably a few 100k or in the millions. What now?

2009-11-18T11:11:32-08:00

true

1474016

116

4071

2009-11-18T11:11:32-08:00

303925