SAUCE'S PROFILE

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.

author=kentona
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.

author=chana
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.

author=SqueakyReaper
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.

Aside from the generic answer of "do whatever you want, it's your game," which I happen to agree with...

I will add that it's fairly difficult to make a compelling antagonist with little to no screen time (assuming it's a person and not some kind of otherly being).

I'd recommend that the antagonist's influence is ever present. If it's a person, the antagonist is preferably fully characterized. You probably need ample time in the story to do so. That's the case even if you introduce the main antagonist before the party/gamer realizes that this will be the main antagonist.

Having the main antagonist appear at the end of the narrative is many degrees of lame. Though I do like Zephyr's distinction between main antagonist and final boss.

Just played the latest and greatest in bad games: Way of the Samurai 4.

Just as bad as I expected it to be. Loved it.

author=Avee
I gave it a try:

Feel free to use/edit as you like.

You're my hero. =)

You'll get credit, of course. And I'll make the cameraman your avatar.

edit:

Here it is...



Gave her the business attire, though. No jumpsuit. =P

Thanks again!