Ragitsu

E84: "Man, you have to split a lot of hairs to keep your prejudices looking clean. I believe you that most guys don't go raping people. I also believe the vast majority of cops aren't suspect. Clearly you disagree there but I can give you just as many acts of civilian on civilian brutality"

Me: Again, apples to oranges. But feel free to list examples of jerks being jerks. I don't mind. But that isn't the point. The point is that the people we have put into position of authority seem to have a rampant disconnect from the very people they are meant to be protecting. Be it all the instances of harassment, racial discrimination (and other forms), the inclination towards violence, including deadly force, or of actually raping people and all the cover ups that go along with it. In my hometown alone there was a story of the prosecutor dilberately going after a guy and putting him in jail for 25 years with the help of the police because they needed someone to blame and didn't care who. And they KNEW he was innocent. In my hometown alone it was revealed recently that the police had been deliberately expanding on their budget using civil forfeiture for years and actually budget in accordance with the idea they will steal X million dollars a year from people. In my hometown alone we had to institute new regs on police because they were caught tazing old women to death. In my hometown alone we have had issues with cops stealing money from houses when they do crime scene investigations. I can remember when we got a new police chief and he had to rewrite and enforce driving rules because cops would constantly do 20 to 40 miles over the speed limit in their patrol cars even when NOT going to a crime scene. I had plenty of interactions with cops. And with the exception of one guy, they all seemed like overgrown bullies who were a single step away from snapping and had no regard for the laws. And my hometown is a fairly small and liberal college town. For there to be so many instances of police overstepping, corruptions, and generally bad behavior, is a sign that the culture of policing must be in part to blame. 

E84: "And again, even if I had a personal experience with a dirty cop I've had personal experiences with three rape victims (2 female, 1 male) I've had personal experiences with numerous thieves..."
 
Me: And I have had experiences with several rape victims, too. I am thankful that I don't know any rapists or thieves first hand, though. But that has no connection to whether or not police can be trusted. Again, Apples to oranges. 
 
But at least we can both agree that Limp Bizcuit fans are weird. 

La Rose. 

Geez, did he then throw his gun down, rip off his shirt, and give a bellow of victory? Or did he coolly blow the smoke off the muzzle and then twirl the gun as he reholstered? What a badass. /sarcasm.
 
 

Dude's a walking John Woo film.

Yep, I could see that.  All citizens required to wear body cameras that can record their slightest misdeeds to back up their arrests.  Restrictions put in place to forbid defending themselves at all.  And if you can't afford a body camera and don't wear one?  Well, you're probably actually trying to hide something.  That's probable cause for arrest right there.
 
Oh, wait, you were talking about body cameras for the police.  Ah, sorry.  Sometimes my cynical side gets the better of me.

Spotted this picture the other day and was fascinated this is a Burgess folding shotgun,It's a fully functional pump action shotgun with 6 rounds that you can hidden under a coat patented in 1893 and designed for combat rather than hunting. there is More information here but the quote that jumped out at me was this,
 
"One of the more significant purchases for Burgess folding shotguns was secured with the aid of just such a holster. Burgess salesman Charlie Dammon – an impressive exhibition shooter – made an appointment with then New York City Police Board President Theodore Roosevelt in 1885, and arrived concealing a loaded Burgess in a holster under his coat. After exchanging a few greetings, Dammon thoroughly startled Roosevelt by whipping out the gun, snapping it shut, and blasting six blanks into the ceiling of the office. Roosevelt, always one to be enthusiastic about weapons technology, promptly order one hundred of the guns for use in the New York State Penal System"
 

 
supposedly it was very fast firing with exhibition shooters able to shoot 6 thrown clay pigeons simultaneously or have all 6 empty shells in the air at the same time.

An overreaction to a college student just shy of the legal drinking age (which I believe is a touch high, given that you can vote, own firearms, and join the military at eighteen years of age) that didn't resist with force, ending with a nasty gash, basically.
 
Just because there are other gross abuses of authority we've talked about, doesn't mean that comparatively minor offenses aren't also worthy of disgust.

Why the hell does the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control have the power to forcibly arrest people who aren't selling or distributing alcohol?

Well, if you had absolute power, would there be a need for new weapons?  Because if you had absolute power, you could abolish war as a means of settling disputes domestically and internationally, because the whole world would be one people, one nation under your absolute control.  There would be no need of weapons of war, because there would be no war.
 
Unless you planned to keep war going as a means of keeping the people impoverished, as per Orwell's 1984.
 
Just thinking about things.

Going to say something odd...
Disney cartoon Tailspin...

This is the Marlin 1895 SBL.
 
All in all, a fairly straightforward rifle. It chambers an old school strapping caliber (.45-70 Government) and utilizes a similarly venerable lever-action design, yet features some modern improvements (stainless steel finish, synthetic stock, plastic butt pad, and accessory rail).
 
Not a bad hunk of lead-slinging steel to tote on a primeval wilderness excursion .

Many posts ago I put upon this thread a less-than-lethal weapon called the JPX Defender, which allowed your characters to ruin an NPC's day without killing them.  Those who appreciated the weapon will undoubtedly be pleased to know there is now a four-shot version--
 

 
Hope that helps.

Originating from the UK, this is the Boys Mark I Anti-Tank Rifle (chambered in the .55 Boys caliber)
 
It is an old gun (having debuted around the start of World War II), but it still packs quite a punch. Should you be running a campaign set in the modern day, this would be a nice Big Fooking Gun to place in a survivalist's/gun collector's armory for the players' characters to find.

I think the image of athletes such as speed skaters, skiiers, cyclists, and so on and the outfits they wear - shiny, very bright colors, stark patterns etc - shows that you can do it and be taken seriously, if the setting simply presumes they are and doesn't question it.  Its when you have some guy sneering at it and acting like its dumb that it tends to fall apart, and in today's culture that's all too common.  Everyone has to be the snarky frat boy instead of just taking things as they are.  Then they come up with other explanations why what they mock is so bad, to justify their behavior.

The reasons usually given for dark, textured costumes--often with lots of pseudo-armor plating/padding--are unconvincing, IMO. Realism, as in what do soldiers wear in the real world when they go into combat, is usually irrelevent when we're talking about characters that can shrug off artillery rounds and punch holes in battleships.
 
Changing audience tastes don't dictate fashion...it is the other way around...fashion shapes popular tastes. Make characters with brightly-colored costumes cool and audiences will accept them and their costumes quite handily. See below.
 
The fact that comic books aren't movies (i.e., the media are different) isn't justification in and of itself to change costume aesthetics. Look at Kick Ass. The movie costumes for Kick Ass, Hit Girl, and Red Mist were either exactly the same or more "garish" than the comic book versions and they still looked great, and the movie was awesome. In fact, I would argue that the movie version of Hit Girl's costume is far more iconic at this point than the comic book version, and it is much more colorful and "silly" than the plain, dark blue onesy she wore in the comic.

Since he was responding to comments I made -- and having had plenty of use of force training, and having employed it on the job -- I'm going to comment. Retention holsters are one factor. While it's possible that the officers did everything right leading up to the victim's death, it's much more likely that one or more of them did something wrong.
 
The first thing that likely went wrong was the initial contact. We have no basis to judge how that went, as the video doesn't record it, and eyewitnesses are less than reliable. No mention was made of it in the article to my recollection. But it's a very common point of failure.
 
The second thing is the complete lack of coordination or any kind of skill shown in restraining the guy, even though they had the advantage of size and numbers. If he had been taken down cleanly and restrained, he wouldn't have had a hand free for a gun grab. That's not necessarily criminal in itself, but it's something that needs to be looked into even if just from a training perspective.
 
The LAPD states that the subject had an officer's gun. If he got the gun after getting into an altercation, and after a sloppy take down attempt, then something went wrong, retention holsters notwithstanding. (And as I said earlier, the gun taken could have been a back up weapon or in an officer's hand or something similar.) If the justification for the shooting is that the subject got a gun, then there needs to be a through explanation made. I'm sure such an explanation will be made to someone at some point, but it might be a good idea to make it public.
 
 
 
 
I hope I've avoided this. Having had some experience with the area, I've been trying to keep my comments objective and informative.
 
 
 
You may not have noticed this, but sometimes people express their opinions on discussion boards.

Vondy, you clearly don't hold to that view so what inspires it now? Surely anyone could look back on your posts and find you commenting on subject to which your view will have no impact. Thus, that reason is not likely to be a driving rule to guide your decisions on whether or not to comment here.
 
No, we comment to share and belong. We comment because it is human nature to be want to be a member of a group, and part and parcle with that is reflection and commentary on issues relevant to that group.
 
Moreover, I reject your claim that it will have no impact. By airing our griefs we encourage others to do the same by proxy. And it is that discussion that produces change.
 
La Rose.

as per my favorite qoute from lock stock and two smoking barrels " Guns for show Knives for a Pro!"
 
my preferred knife combo is always the Sykes Fairburne commando knife for close and personal
 

 
and for hacking stuff up the gurka Kuhkri if it's good enough for van Helsing to use on Dracula its got to be a good choice
 

For a while there, she did change her costume quite a bit.  For example (very large image):
 

In the beginning, yes. And I think it was a good concept. Having supers (heroes and villains) running around in normal clothes made it easier for non-comics fans to buy into the story. But toward the end? When he was The Blur, and basically acting like Superman without being called Superman? They still refused to have him wear any sort of real costume.