Pattern Ghost

The hook for the videos is the roleplaying, not the system. So, while these kinds of videos may attract people to the hobby, they may not be a great tool for selling a non-D&D system to new players.

Seconded.

Thank you. And to your point, "sucks to be you" isn't exactly eloquent, I just didn't want to go into describing outcomes. I have a few minutes, so I'll do so with a couple of personal (not GSW) examples: Back in 2010-2011, I had an abscess drained that left a narrow 10" (~25 cm) tunnel through muscle tissue. This kind of wound is about the best outcome someone is going to see if they get shot. My case was treated poorly and took a long time to heal, plus it was in the largest muscle in the human body. So, my healing time was longer than, say, someone getting shot in an extremity. However, even though I'm all healed up and have been for a while, that wound still aches from time to time, sometimes extremely so. Having a tract of scar tissue running through a muscle you use constantly just sucks. I also have about a quarter to half inch or so tear in a muscle directly behind my shoulder blade that I got being stupid and blowing it out back in 1989 or 1990. That also still hurts, almost constantly. Earlier this year, back in March, I had thoracic surgery by the best surgeon for such surgery in the area. There was no other significant tissue damage other than what was required to open me up, spread my ribs, and cut out a benign tumor. So, I have a much better outcome than a thoracic shooting victim, who may have damaged organs, shattered bones and other serious tissue trauma. The entire sheet of muscle around my back and side that was cut into still hurts, frequently contracts around the scar tissue, and the bottom of my rib cage still gives me serious spikes of pain. If I exert myself in the slightest, I end up walking around like a movie mummy for a couple days. Getting out of bed sucks. I randomly double up in pain at least every other day. And I wasn't shot. So, if someone gets shot it's going to suck, even if it doesn't kill them. The vast majority of GSW injuries in the US are from handguns, and they tend to be of the first type, so relatively minor if they don't drill a hole in something important like an artery or organ. But that's all to support a side comment on the issue that was at hand: Intent. You don't use lethal force with the intent of killing an aggressor, you use it with the intent of stopping their attack. If you take up arms to defend yourself, you should be well-versed in their capabilities, and the levels of harm they can inflict. You should know your own limitations. You should act with the safety of your neighbors and the general public in mind. You should be cognizant of the range of reactions people will have both to being threatened with a firearm (ranging from, "I'm going to shove that thing up your ..." to "Oh crap! Ruuun!") and to being shot with a firearm (ranging from basically ignoring the wound and continuing the assault to running for the hills from a near miss). You should know that fights are chaotic and unpredictable in their outcomes. You should be aware that whatever the outcome, your life will be changed forever from the event. This isn't possible to do with anything, whether it's weapons, vehicles, or spreading lies on the Internet. I agree that it would be the most desirable result. That doesn't mean you ignore the issues, though. When I think about it, I start by considering two factors (from a US perspective): People have the right to self defense. This is so fundamental, that it's natural law territory. In the US Constitution, this is encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. "Arms," are generally things that allow one to apply lethal or potentially lethal force. Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose. When a situation arises where the exercise of one's rights interferes or infringes on the rights or well-being of another person, then it's reasonable to enact laws that address the issue equitably. Ideally, we balance the two concepts, and do so without denying large numbers of people their fundamental right. So, we could then start asking questions, like, "Do you need firearms to defend yourself?" or "What kind of firearms do you need to defend yourself?" or "If we allow people to have firearms to defend themselves, then should we limit what type of firearm is allowed to be taken to what location?" It's awkwardly phrased, but that last one is where my thoughts have been lately. AR-15 style rifles are actually one of the best tools for defending yourself, if not the best. There are a number of reasons, and among them are ease of use and lethality. These also, not coincidentally, make the things great for offensive purposes. And when people read "lethality," their first thought will be, "Well, if the intent isn't to kill someone, why do you need one of those?" or "Well, clearly if you choose a high-lethality device for defense, your intent is to kill." Prosecutors frequently ask the same questions. The answer is that when you want to stop someone else from killing you, the time frame you want it done in is "as soon as possible." There's a large gap in power between the most powerful handgun rounds and the least powerful rifle rounds (which the 5.56 mostly falls under), barring a few uncommon examples. For commonly-used handgun rounds (which is to say, "service" calibers adopted originally for police/military use, not for hunting big game), the gap is even wider. So, the choice comes down to "might stop someone if you get lucky" or "likely to immediately stop hostilities." So, defense with a rifle round is reasonable. But how do we limit offense? What is the acceptable level of infringement into one's right to have the best tool available to defend themselves, that protects the general public from bad actors, unintended consequences, and irresponsible people? I think it's reasonable to simply not allow weapons that chamber centerfire long gun calibers be carried in public, barring sporting use (hunting, mostly, which happens away from crowds) or transport in a locked container to and from other sporting activities. This makes it very simple to enforce: Police see a person walking around a riot with a long gun? Pick them up. They see someone walking around town with a long gun? Talk to them. Not just taking it to your vehicle to transport? Charge them. This leaves lots of issues on the table for both the "preserve rights" and "protect the public" sides of the equation: On the one hand, you're not allowing people to carry the most effective tool possible for the job of self defense in public. I care less, honestly. Most people only arm up with long guns to go to demonstrations, or to try to "educate" the public on gun rights. They're a bunch of morons who don't need to be catered to. The mindset of a responsible gun owner is not to take on the role of the police in any situation, it's to protect your person and any family you may be with from an immediate threat. Handguns are the most commonly-faced such threat and very commonly used to stop such a threat. They're also a lot more discrete. On the other hand, you can still harm neighbors if you miss indoors with a more powerful weapon that penetrates walls. In this case, the AR or the shotgun are actually better choices than a handgun for protecting neighbors from over penetration of building materials. While there is always some risk, it seems relatively low. This also doesn't address controlling handguns, but requiring training before allowing one to carry a handgun in public already has passed muster as constitutionally acceptable. I think even most gun rights advocates would accept a national concealed carry license, with a training requirement and extensive background check requirement, if it meant full transferability to all states. But it won't happen, because states want to reserve the right to regulate this for themselves. And that's not a horrible status quo from my perspective. This doesn't preclude someone from taking their lawfully-owned rifle, breaking it down, transporting it to a location, then committing an atrocity. Or doing the same with a lawfully-owned handgun they're not supposed to be carrying in the first place. So, that's the best I've come up with for a starting point. There are probably countless minutiae to examine, even though I'm presenting this as a simple method of mitigation. I've already thought of several arguments for this being both insufficient and overly-restrictive. IMO, it'd be worth discussion and debate. It happens. As you say, there's no great way to see data for events that nobody was charged in, outside of the news. I found an article about a local shooting in Seattle on September 3rd, where someone was shot and killed while attempting to rob someone at gun point, and that took a lot of digging through articles debating gun control to find. It never hit broadcast news here to my knowledge. Pointing out the number of criminals stopped by armed citizens isn't something a local government is going to go out of their way to do, either. It's simply bad publicity. At the end of the day, it will be difficult to address the matter of public safety vs the rights of the individual. These days, I'm leaning more toward public safety considerations having more weight.

I believe you "forgot" the context for the quote you pulled: If you are attacking someone with lethal force and sustain a horrific injury, then yes, it sucks to be you. Remind me again, who was Brady attacking with lethal force when he was shot? That's right: Nobody.

Just stopping by to say that I really like your summaries, Death Tribble. They've led me to watch more than one thing that I wouldn't have otherwise discovered.

Did you see the "sucks to be them" part?

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

I guess I'm saying that that particular bit of stupidity lies more on the other side of the fence. But that doesn't really invalidate your point, I suppose. I guess I just wish the world wasn't filled with the level of stupid that it is.

[sarcasm reduction edit] The goal is to stop the attack. That's a statement of intent and mindset, and mindset is very relevant in self defense claims. I never said "won't result in death or great bodily harm." I didn't say it because it's a given. However, most defensive gun uses don't result in any death or great bodily harm. Many attacks are stopped without a shot being fired. Also, guns aren't death rays. The vast majority of people who get shot survive. Sucks to be them, but they tend to survive. Not much time at the moment to dig up data, but came across this from 2001: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11571950/ ------------------------------- Unrelated response that was mashed together starts below this line ---------------------------------- Actually, yes. But that doesn't detract from your analogy to a great degree, so carry on. ----------- 2nd unrelated yet magically smashed together post below ------------------------------------------------------- No. I usually hear that crap from untrained non-gun owners.

Used defensively, the goal is to stop an attack, not kill. That's where the tool analogy comes from. It came about because many people accuse gun owners of only owning their defensive weapons because they want to kill someone or fantasize about doing so, or are seeking a feeling of power. This isn't the case for many (I wish I could still say "most" . . . sigh) gun owners. So, used defensively, the goal isn't killing. It's stopping an act of aggression that can result in death or great bodily harm. On the other hand, we've seen a lot of cases of irresponsible gun use lately, so we must ask ourselves, if this is a tool, is it good to have a tool used for . . . . . . political coercion? . . . defending car lots? . . . interfering with police action in controlling riots? . . . blocking off neighborhood streets illegally? (this example was from the left, btw) . . . private security details for your protest march? (ditto) . . . walking around town to elicit a police response just because "it's my right" and you want to educate the public? . . . mowing down crowds of strangers? No, there's too much stupid use of firearms lately to think anyone will want to listen to platitudes about how guns are mere tools. At the same time, it's the misuse of guns that's the problem, not the fact that people are allowed to own guns. IMO, gun-focused solutions need to start addressing these things. Because Kyle Rittenhouse very technically did act in self defense in all three shootings. The individual acts were clear cut self defense. But if his stupid ass wasn't in Kenosha that day -- to protect cars -- then two deaths and one maiming could have been avoided. And the only charge that could have been leveled against him for that very poor decision was the curfew breaking, which was only a misdemeanor.

Re-watched Stargirl Season 1 with the wife, then watched Season 2 with her. DC live action needs more stuff like this. It started on the failed DC streaming service, and then was picked up for Season 2 by CW. So, the first season is up on HBO Max, and the second is on Netflix. We've been watching Foundation on Apple TV. Good series. Not sure that it's sticking to the books other than in the barest of outlines. Worth watching though, on its own merit. We watched the first three Wheel of Time episodes on Amazon last night. Seems promising, but kind of a slow start. My main concern is that if they unfold the story at the current pace, it'll take about fifty seasons to get anywhere, and it will end up being mothballed long before that when Amazon realizes it's not the next Game of Thrones. They didn't spare the budget on effects, set design, costume design or any of the eye candy, and the actors are all decent. I watched the first couple of episodes of the new live action Cowboy Bebop. Great casting for Spike and Jet, great visuals, but no soul. They've managed to rip the Bebop right out of it. They paid a lot of lip service to respecting the original material in the press, but it seems to have been all talk. We've been watching the American adaptation of Ghosts on Paramount Plus. It's funny in its own way. I like the husband character in the American show more, but the ghost characters are overall weaker to me. It's ongoing right now, and I think starting to settle into its groove. Enjoying it so far, though I also recommend the British original (on HBO Max). The initial few episodes pretty closely echo the original, but it's now diverged into developing its own storylines. Watched Squid Game. Very well done, and some great performances. Worth a read.

What's worse, is both sides are doing this. More on the right than the left, for sure. But some on the left are arming up in response. Protests have become powder kegs.

Specifically, "sheep dog" culture, especially when said sheep dogs are also linked to white supremacist groups. Prevailing wisdom used to be to steer clear of riots and let the authorities do their jobs, not try to "help" them. But the white supremacist can point to all the damage and say "they aren't doing enough!" as a way to add more of these "sheep dogs" to their ranks, so that they can accomplish their true goals of racial harmony dominance. You don't stop riots with force. You contain them and let them fizzle out. The police have done a good job of this. Neither side of the political spectrum seems to understand that this is the only way you're going to leverage a much smaller force against a crowd. After having seen the videos, read that CNN piece, and dug up some more on the dismissed charges, I believe the jury came to the only verdict they could. What we need is an anti-Walter Mitty law on the books that strongly prohibits this kind of "sheep dog" mentality, and shuts down armed groups organizing to insert themselves into already unstable civil unrest situations.

Thanks, unclevlad, I'll give that CNN piece a read. I've been trying intermittently to find an unbiased legal analysis to no avail. I read that Snopes article about the victims last week, and even though Snopes is supposed to maintain a neutral tone, the author went out of their way to add in irrelevant details instead of just examine the actual claims. There's a lot of strong bias on either side on this one. One thing stands out to me as far as what I've seen from the trial coverage: While the matter of self defense is extremely complicated, there's one thing that's not: It's simply not legal for a 17 year old to be carrying a firearm in public. Period. Full stop. No room for any mitigating arguments. And the judge tossed that charge out, along with another very telling one: being out past curfew. These stand out to me because one of the arguments the defense made, and one that's central to many self-defense claims, is that Kyle was in a place where he was legally allowed to be, and had as much right to be there as the people he shot. Wisconsin has no statutory duty to retreat. So, removing the fact that he was committing multiple crimes by being there (and the fact that his friend allegedly bought the gun for him -- a straw purchase if true) adds serious support to the defense claim. That's a pretty strong indicator of bias. As far as I can see, the prosecutors handled their part like complete clowns, so csyphrett may be on to something. Had Kyle been convicted on the weapon and curfew charges, it would have seriously hurt his case. I could see him going up on reduced charges for the shootings had those charges not been thrown out. Edit: Apparently, underage firearms possession isn't that cut and dry in WI: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031

Did anyone watch the trial on this one? I haven't had time.

Shooting positive thoughts at Cancer and Hermit. Wishing the best for your loved ones. Meanwhile . . . I hate having direct reports soooooooooooooooooo much.

I heard about it on the radio yesterday and was in the dark until now. To give the devils their due, it is one of the more clever bits of wordplay they've come up with, along with Kung Flu. Inappropriate, but clever.

Judge also a person of color. She's probably just p****d off.

Probably because the blanks will cause the same subconscious reactions in actors as a live round would, adding to the verisimilitude of the scene. Just a guess. It appears only one shot was fired, killing one person and seriously injuring another. Probably an actual live round in this case. Which should not be within a mile of a movie set using prop guns. Big civil suit incoming. Hopefully puts the idiot production company out of business.

She's such a bad actress, it'd probably be pretty easy to tell if she's lying by watching an interview.

Space is big. They may have taken time to sense the first snap, and who knows the travel time?

Nichelle Nichols for her real life contributions to diverse recruiting for NASA. Sadly, she has dementia.

What could possibly go wrong?

I had a nurse show me how to solve this by positioning the mask one time, but I still only hit that sweet spot some of the time. Also, getting that nose area of the seal tight. I pre-bend the nose metal bendy bit (technical term) before I put on the mask, so it's kind of rounded and nose-shaped on the bend, and the bend is centered. That seems to help. So, my advice is: Find a nurse that wears glasses and have her show you how to avoid the fog.