Neo Jado
Practical Ridiculous Action



Quick stuff

So, Neo Jado was nominated for a few categories for the 2012 Misaos: Best Characters, Best Setting, Most Promising Demo, and a few others I think. I'm not sure how this works, but it looks like the voting period is this month. You get one vote per category for each user. If anyone's interested, you can access the voting ballot from the events section.

What's in a Name?

I usually look up baby names for a given gender and geography/culture that corresponds roughly with the culture that that character comes from in my game. And then I might take some creative liberties with the spelling.
^ Great minds think alike.

Who will steal this year's Misaos? Final weekend!

There's such a massive disparity between the subscribers and the actual gamer base. You can see it again with the lack of total nominations. Thousands of people play these games, only a dozen or so nominations?

Connecticut Shooting

Also, how is it that a couple of failed bomb attempts results in me having to take off my shoes at airports or prevent me from bringing liquids on board, but after 60 odd school shootings, nothing much of note has been done to address the easy access of firearms?

The correct answer is money.

Connecticut Shooting

Let's say extreme scenario, tomorrow all guns are banned in the U.S. You can no longer legally obtain a gun. What happens?

Let me throw some facts at you real quick...

80% of gun crimes in the U.S. are committed using illegally obtained weapons. That's the entire country. Federal survey says that in New York City, less than 1% of gun crimes are committed with legally owned firearms. Less than 1%! The remaining 99% of gun related crimes were committed with illegally obtained guns.

A ban tomorrow would not vaporize all the guns in the country. It would, AT BEST, force legally registered gun owners to turn in their weapons. What about all the illegal owners? The ones who commit as high as 99% of gun related crimes in the major cities? They would all still possess those guns. And now law abiding citizens can no longer carry them.

It's sad, but I'm thinking the only way to help reduce gun crime is to fight the possession of illegally owned guns. Maybe something like forcing registered owners to provide proof that they still possess those guns on a yearly basis. Like... "you're allowed to own that gun, but prove to me that you didn't just give it to your cousin who has a criminal record or sell it to some guy you met."

Or how about slapping automatic 10 year jail time on people who are caught with an unauthorized weapon. Unlike murder, which can have multiple degrees of reasoning, accidental or otherwise, there's literally NO EXCUSE to own a gun illegally.

Statistics show that the illegally owned guns are the problem, not so much the legally owned ones. Since normal gun control only reduces the number of legally owned guns, you gotta think outside the box a little to fight the real problem.

Connecticut Shooting

It's a cultural thing, the USA has granted its people the right to guns since it began, we're so caught up in the this notion that I just don't think it'd work here.

This is the saddest, truest statement spoken yet here.

There's 270 million guns in the US. 4.5 million purchased every year. It's pretty clear the U.S. has a well ingrained gun culture.

They're not going to just disappear, even if you ban them.

I'll never defend the gun culture. But it's relevant to consider when thinking about stricter gun laws.

Connecticut Shooting

The best solution is all weapons of every kind gone forever and psychos gone forever.

Sadly, not an option.

The next option is better gun "control." Screenings, history checks, etc. Sadly, I've been hearing that the recent psycho didn't even own the guns he used to kill those kids with. So, even if he didn't qualify to get guns, he still managed to get them.

Another option is to ban guns from being legally bought by anyone. Making something illegal does not prevent it from being smuggled into the country, as is the case with drugs. Drugs are controlled/illegal, yet in abundance. Therefore, the only people who are prevented from getting guns are law abiding citizens.

Research says there's approximately 90 guns owned per 100 people living in the United States. Apparently only 12% of civilian weaponry is registered with authorities. My problem is that it's too easy to obtain weapons, legally or illegally. There's too many guns, too easy to get.

Gun control should be reactionary to the thousands of gun related deaths per year. There's nothing control or even a gun ban could do to stop mass murderers/serial killers.

Connecticut Shooting

11 different fellow students were robbed at night during my freshmen year of college, living in Philadelphia. Only 2 of those 11 incidents were by gunpoint. Criminals will find a way, guns or no. Monsters are even worse. Just sayin'.

Different world you two are from.

Connecticut Shooting

how does owning a gun help here?

Deterrent (for rational criminals, not psycho monsters like those mass murderers). Less likely for thugs to break into homes when they knows the men of the houses are packing heat.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with inner cities, Kentona, so I won't assume anything. But I will tell you what I've seen. The thugs that don't have guns will just rob you at knife point or even just commit strong arm robbery.

Some 6'4" 240 lb dude in a hoodie would scare the shit out of any regular joe or jane, walking home alone from their late shift or sitting at home during a break in. Your life or livelihood can be in danger without any weapon involved.

I think Kentona wanted to stress this paradox coming from someone who is against gun control

Total gun control means you can't legally own a gun. Criminals will always be able to get their hands on them. The same way drugs are controlled/illegal, yet abundant in society. There's no paradox. You can't erase weapons from existence, only make it hard or impossible to legally obtain. You can always get them illegally.

And I'm not against gun control. I don't think anyone should be packing automatic weapons, and there should be stricter screenings for gun purchasers. But I do defend that many millions of people do have a legitimate need for a gun in their homes.

Is there a particular reason a citizen needs to own an assault rifle?

No, definitely not. No fully auto weapons for sure.

Sadly though, I recall the Va Tech shooting happened with only handguns. I doubt that fixes anything.

Connecticut Shooting

I'm not familiar with alternatives and regulations being talked about for gun control, but I will say this...

Anyone who thinks that civilians shouldn't own guns has never lived in a city where their home is legitimately threatened by armed burglary. The vulnerability is palpable in some places. Not saying anyone here thinks that, just that I've heard it elsewhere from rich, sheltered, naive suburban peoples.

Man no one's gonna be like "Oh shoot, I really felt like gunning down thirty people today. But I would have to steal a gun from someone, and I'm not sure I can do that." Gun laws prevent crimes of passion, not mass murders. I'm not saying gun laws would necessarily be bad, but they're irrelevant to this case.

Pretty much all I think about it in this case.

Monsters do terrible things, regardless of their access to guns. Maybe if it can't get weaponry, it would use a car and run over a few dozen people.