I thought the "senator" was gonna draw Dick-Butt.

Far Cry 5 has some bugs. Most are hilarious because they involve the physics engine. That is what makes the game so charming in spots. Some bugs interfere with game play, but Restart From Last Checkpoint is your magical fix. Stuck in an object? You can Fast Travel and that solves it.

The 2 hands thing happens when you futz with your FOV and screen draw settings on PC.

The game is a blast. Companions are great and have things to say. Game play is great, and, I can't believe I am going to say this, but the fishing mini game is fun.

Totally worth the money I spent on it.

Your video, Best fake soccer dive (fall) to draw a winning penalty shot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I didn't dismiss it. I stated what he provided and implied it was inadequate.

I literally just wrote that there are opposing papers. I hope you don't think putting opposing papers up is some sort of "gotcha" moment.

"Are you calling them liars?"

No. Are you calling the authors of the papers I've put up liars? I'm sure you can see how silly a question that is now it's put back at you.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%"

I haven't been talking about suicide - but if you must then yes, it dropped the suicide by firearm rate. I never contended otherwise.

"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]"

43% variance is large. The reality is the data isn't very good (as multiple studies have pointed out) and it makes it very hard to measure, analyse, and draw appropriate conclusions.

"NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

Note the language, "seems to have". They aren't affirming that it has because they probably can't back it up with solid data.

"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings"

Again, non-concrete affirmations. The same data sets as analysed by multiple other studies points to no change in the rate. Are any of them liars? I doubt it.

I believe the McPhedron paper is one of the most important, illustrating that some of the key legislative changes had no effect when comparing it to our closest cultural neighbour who didn't legislate the same changes (and maintained a lower overall average homicide rate and lower average homicide by firearm rate for the last 20 years).

As I already wrote, it's a contentious issue and there are opposing papers on this topic.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Wow, that a fascinating statistic you pulled out of your ass.

Let's see what literally THREE FUCKING SECONDS of searching on Google produces

(search term: "Australia homicide rate")

Oh, look!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2016~Main%20Features~Victims%20of%20Crime,%20Australia~3

Aaaaand I quote:

"Across Australia, the number of victims of Murder decreased by 4% between 2015 and 2016, from 236 to 227 victims

A weapon was used in 69% of Murders (157 victims). A knife was twice as likely to have been recorded as the murder weapon (71 victims), when compared to a firearm (32 victims). (Table 4)"

So there was a DECREASE in the murder rate in 2017. Furthermore, of 227 murders, only -32- were from firearms, or ~14%.

Let's look at mass shootings in Aussieland.

Oh, that's right, we can't: BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE!

How about the good ol' USA where any idiot can purchase a gun?

In 2016, there were 10,182 murders by firearms. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/). A total of 17,250 people were reported killed in the US in 2016, with the number of murders increasing by about 8.6% in comparison to 2015. (https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/)

Let's see here: ~14% of the murders is your maligned Antipodes were committed with a firearm and the murder rate was down while ~60% of the murders here in the US were committed with a firearm and the murder rate is up.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

Oh, yeah, there's this as well:

https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And a nb: I know you're going to howl and wail that Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the US and people are getting mowed down there left, right and center.

From NPR:
(https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work)

"A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns."

(actual study here: http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JCrimLC%202015%20Guns%20in%20Chicago.pdf )

In conclusion: maybe do a little research next time, hmm?

I guess I should have been able to draw that conclusion, eh?
But---I hadn't drawn the direct line between the two techs.
Or maybe, it's more one tech?

Sure, but why does he then spend the rest of the argument talking about how one isn't as bad as the other?

It just feels like making excuses.

Yeah, we get it. Rape > groping > other dumb shit.

Mike Pence is not as bad as ISIS. There, I said it. Congratulations on passing the lowest bar possible. I still don't want him as president.

Even if Minnie Driver makes a stupid comment, she's not a spokesperson for everyone who supports #metoo.

The fundamental point to me is that senator's quote.
"I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation.... You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable"

So Bill wants to have "an additional conversation". Ok, WHY? What is driving this additional conversation? Why do we need to have it and is it distracting from the more important conversation we should be having?

I'm not worried about the distinction between the varying levels of assault, except as a means for deciding how to deal with the perpetrator.

But that's not the conversation that's happening at the moment. If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". But in terms of saying "stop being a dick", yeah, I'm happy to say that to both of them.

I know that you and @newtboy and @Payback understand that groping and harassment (even if they are not as heinous as rape) are things you shouldn't do. That's 'cos you're decent human beings.

But you guys are not the people we need to talk to.

where did he draw conclusions from online videos?
did i miss something?

Healthy as a horse.... and almost as bright. I've seen some pretty unhealthy horses in my day too.

The cognitive test he requested and took was 4 parts....
1. Name a few animals.
2. Draw the hands of a clock at 3:30.
3. Draw a cube
4. Repeat a short list of words.

It's not a comprehensive mental fitness test, or a psychological test. It's a totally basic, does he have full blown dementia test. That's all. And it took him 10 minutes to complete. This test does not rule out anything except full blown dementia and coma. He repeated it's one of the longer screening tests, but neglected to mention the short ones are as short as 'do you know where you are?' Or 'what's your birthday?'

He's still totally bat shit crazy, a consummate liar, and a believer in fish people and pedophile pizza, but I admit it seems he can remember how to read a watch and what a cat is. Not a high bar, especially for a leader.

I am impressed he isn't on death's door considering his reported diet.

Sorry. You're right. I shouldn't have laid it all on Keanu.

It is just creepy.

They are employees of a business. Who hired them? Where are the normal looking women?

This is Hooters, only with guns and not hamburgers and beer. Or whatever they sell there.

Would there be any normal looking women, when the intent is obviously to draw male eyes to this business?

Do you realize that you are being pandered to, you folks who are making fun of my "outrage"? Do you know you are being manipulated? Do you understand that it is super creepy if you don't know you are being manipulated?

There is a great new movement right now of women speaking up and making clear that they are intelligent and have loads to offer other than beauty. It was super thrilling to watch the Golden Globes and hear all these amazing and brilliant women talk so eloquently about something other than who made their dress.

To go from that to this parade of nubile flesh as a backdrop to gun skills .... creeped me out. It isn't real. It isn't what the world looks like. It is manufactured and disturbing when I personally am hungry for images of women DOING and being, instead of being looked at.

There are women out there who love guns and are knowledgeable about guns. And they don't all look like this.

You know I adore you completely, Chaos. And I wasn't accurate in my original post. Thank you for calling that to my attention.

But it isn't true that only you brought "common sense and facts" into this. I brought the common sense and facts, too. Just not eloquently or accurately. Being talked about like that, being reduced to "outrage" instead of being accorded some respect for noticing the unnatural assemblage of super attractive women obviously being used to as eye bait... well, that is common. Very common. And uncool.

You, though, dear friend, are super cool.

Darn animator drawing a sabre instead of a broadsword!

PS: Awesome story! Definitely needs a movie!

Just enjoyed looking at all your drawings, sketches, etc. on Instagram. You sir are quite the talent.

Do I have to watch it? This vid, I mean?

Star Wars is about rebels fighting a powerful empire that governs the galaxy. It glorifies taking down the establishment by a group of (well funded) gun-toting terrorists.

I suppose you could draw a parallel to the American war of independence against the British...

But in a modern context this would be like a group of domestic insurgents blowing up an aircraft carrier ("Death Star") while staging an armed rebellion against the US government (now a subsidiarity of "Gov-co," a joint venture of the Disney, Viacom, Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan Chase, and Koch Bros. companies).

Simply put, that's just not going to happen.

--------------------------

edit: Okay I just watched the above clip. That guy made even less sense than the BS that I just made up.