Zeropoint

To quote myself from a different context, "There is no god but John Moses Browning, and Barret is his prophet."

You're talking about "all members of society" and "changing people's attitudes" in a broad sense. Generally, Americans aren't particularly any more violent than anyone else. Why target the general population versus the populations that account for the majority of gun homicides?
 
It seems like these conversations always start with a mass shooting then veer off to general gun violence solutions, including statistics about how the US has more gun crime, how our culture is more violent, etc. If we want to reduce crimes like mass shootings, we need to look at the minds of mass shooters, not the general population. If we want to reduce general gun crimes, we need to look at the populations that are committing the bulk of those crimes: career criminals and gangs. I don't see this as a general problem that can be handled by restricting the largely peaceful bulk of our population and infringing on their rights without first addressing the specific problem populations.

That's about where I am. Despite being a firearm owner, I do acknowledge that we have way too much firearm-enabled violent crime here in the US, and that Something Must Be Done. However, I also have serious qualms about whether the kind of laws popular among my fellow liberals would actually help. Many such laws focus on cosmetic features, and are thus useless. We also see that in many cases, shooters were already prohibited by law from having the guns they used, making it obvious that laws aren't an effective barrier. And finally, as Pattern Ghost pointed out, there are many ways for people to commit mass violence, if that's their goal, which don't require access to firearms.
 
I'm in favor of actual solutions, and I'd be willing to accept some restrictions on my firearms ownership if I felt confident that those restrictions would actually save lives. However, I don't think the root of the problem is access to guns--I think it's cultural. There's some pervasive aspect of US culture that makes people think that enacting violence is a go-to solution, and I feel that until we address that, passing laws against specific tools of violence won't accomplish anything good.

That's about where I am. Despite being a firearm owner, I do acknowledge that we have way too much firearm-enabled violent crime here in the US, and that Something Must Be Done. However, I also have serious qualms about whether the kind of laws popular among my fellow liberals would actually help. Many such laws focus on cosmetic features, and are thus useless. We also see that in many cases, shooters were already prohibited by law from having the guns they used, making it obvious that laws aren't an effective barrier. And finally, as Pattern Ghost pointed out, there are many ways for people to commit mass violence, if that's their goal, which don't require access to firearms.
 
I'm in favor of actual solutions, and I'd be willing to accept some restrictions on my firearms ownership if I felt confident that those restrictions would actually save lives. However, I don't think the root of the problem is access to guns--I think it's cultural. There's some pervasive aspect of US culture that makes people think that enacting violence is a go-to solution, and I feel that until we address that, passing laws against specific tools of violence won't accomplish anything good.

That's about where I am. Despite being a firearm owner, I do acknowledge that we have way too much firearm-enabled violent crime here in the US, and that Something Must Be Done. However, I also have serious qualms about whether the kind of laws popular among my fellow liberals would actually help. Many such laws focus on cosmetic features, and are thus useless. We also see that in many cases, shooters were already prohibited by law from having the guns they used, making it obvious that laws aren't an effective barrier. And finally, as Pattern Ghost pointed out, there are many ways for people to commit mass violence, if that's their goal, which don't require access to firearms.
 
I'm in favor of actual solutions, and I'd be willing to accept some restrictions on my firearms ownership if I felt confident that those restrictions would actually save lives. However, I don't think the root of the problem is access to guns--I think it's cultural. There's some pervasive aspect of US culture that makes people think that enacting violence is a go-to solution, and I feel that until we address that, passing laws against specific tools of violence won't accomplish anything good.

I'm inclined to agree. At this point in US politics, anyone who believes in science and evidence, and in trying to make things better for the common people, is some flavor of "liberal". 

No worries.  I should add that out of all the UBI trials that have been run, exactly none of them observed any significant increase in inflation.  In general, economic effects of UBI seem to be pretty minimal--inflation doesn't change, employment rates don't change, work hours don't change.  But significant increases in health, education, entrepreneurship, and psychological health have been observed.
 
It's also been noted that UBI programs would be superior to existing welfare programs in that 1) recipients are not discouraged from returning to work and 2) it's much cheaper to administer UBI than it is to enforce a traditional welfare program.

That's a great picture. It makes the plane look like it's fast while it's standing still. I'm no photographer or visual artist, but let's see if I can analyze this:
 
I think it's the way the viewing angle and relatively short lens emphasize the nose, giving the plane a weight-forward appearance. Also, the chosen viewing angle gives the plane a fairly smooth silhouette, with strong diagonal lines running along the plane's belly and along the fuselage top and wing leading edge. The composition follows the "rule of thirds", with the bottom third of the image taken up by the ground, and the top third by the sky. The slanted edge of the ground echos the strong diagonals of the plane, adding to the sense of motion. The large clump of plants hides the rear landing gear, lessening the sense that the plane is connected to the ground. The human figure lies entirely within the silhouette of the airplane, leaving its lines intact.
 
Props to the photographer, even if it is a jet.

Of course it was. Thor acting out of his usual character was intended to convey how hard it hit him that half of all living beings in the entire universe had been destroyed and he was helpless against that fact. O.O.C. Is Serious Business.

Of course it was. Thor acting out of his usual character was intended to convey how hard it hit him that half of all living beings in the entire universe had been destroyed and he was helpless against that fact. O.O.C. Is Serious Business.

I'm actually on board with this trend. In my earlier gaming days, I loved simulationism. Today, I realize that there is no bottom to the simulationist rabbit hole, and also that 1) most people are going to be using their intuition and judgement to determine whether a simulationist approach is "realistic" or not, so 2) the simulationist approaches tend to spit your seat-of-the-pants judgements back to you but with more work, so 3) why not just go straight to the seat of the pants and save some work and play time?

This is easy for me to say, because I don't like sports in the first place, but I would like to see a future where people--even professional athletes--refuse to harm themselves for other people's profits and entertainment.

I'm actually on board with this trend. In my earlier gaming days, I loved simulationism. Today, I realize that there is no bottom to the simulationist rabbit hole, and also that 1) most people are going to be using their intuition and judgement to determine whether a simulationist approach is "realistic" or not, so 2) the simulationist approaches tend to spit your seat-of-the-pants judgements back to you but with more work, so 3) why not just go straight to the seat of the pants and save some work and play time?

I'm actually on board with this trend. In my earlier gaming days, I loved simulationism. Today, I realize that there is no bottom to the simulationist rabbit hole, and also that 1) most people are going to be using their intuition and judgement to determine whether a simulationist approach is "realistic" or not, so 2) the simulationist approaches tend to spit your seat-of-the-pants judgements back to you but with more work, so 3) why not just go straight to the seat of the pants and save some work and play time?

It's my understanding that a "proper" modeling of firearms would include the Real Weapon and Beam (can't find that in 6E, though) limitations, which would account for those differences.  
 
I don't know how to rule on corpses being destroyed, though. HERO has some blind spots, and that's one of them. There's also nothing in the rules (that I'm aware of) about "blowthrough"--by RAW, if a human gets hit by a main battle tank APDS round, they'll die but they'll also stop the dart. That . . . doesn't seem right to me.

If you squint really hard, you can make out a teeny tiny Ankh-Morpork.

Makes sense to me. I can tear through aluminum foil by accident, with force that wouldn't deal a single pip of damage as measured against a human target. The foil is effectively 0 BODY and 0 DEF. Faced with a half-inch slab of aluminum (the same material), I couldn't damage it at all--it's DEF exceeds the maximum damage that I can deal with my bare hands.

If you squint really hard, you can make out a teeny tiny Ankh-Morpork.

If you squint really hard, you can make out a teeny tiny Ankh-Morpork.

But some dogs can do lab work.

This is easy for me to say, because I don't like sports in the first place, but I would like to see a future where people--even professional athletes--refuse to harm themselves for other people's profits and entertainment.

This. So much this. "Dad Body Thor" isn't there to be funny, it's there to be tragic (okay, with a layer of funny on top). It's there to show you that Thor is broken emotionally. I thought it worked pretty well.
 
 
I wholeheartedly agree. To me, it felt believable and organic, and also like she was "growing" rather than "changing". She's still the product of all the mental, emotional, and physical trauma that she went through, but with the example of her new family, she's learned how to channel it in a positive direction.

This. So much this. "Dad Body Thor" isn't there to be funny, it's there to be tragic (okay, with a layer of funny on top). It's there to show you that Thor is broken emotionally. I thought it worked pretty well.
 
 
I wholeheartedly agree. To me, it felt believable and organic, and also like she was "growing" rather than "changing". She's still the product of all the mental, emotional, and physical trauma that she went through, but with the example of her new family, she's learned how to channel it in a positive direction.