MrCandleguy's forum posts

#1 Edited by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

@deathswind said:

Can you edit it to put it under the Bioshock Infinite fourm?

God damn, it must of changed to general when I full edited it.

@selfconfessedcynic said:

Hahahaha, poor guy.

Nice timeline - I should have said so before. It seems correct, though I'd love to see one which tries to take the multiverses into account (the multiple retries, memory collapsing, etc).

There was 121 different DeWitt tries before this one. Ain't no way i'm going to do all those xD

Also I would of included the twins, but since they literally can jump between universes at will. Kind of difficult

#2 Posted by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

@milkman said:

The title of this thread is kind of a spoiler, dude.

Kindof?

I guess @mrcandleguy can rename it to just "I created a timeline SPOILERS"

Fuck.

Sorry, i changed it.

#3 Edited by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

Hey guys, so i saw a lot of people asking what happened in bioshock after they clocked it. So i made this little graph.

hopefully this might help some people! =D

#4 Posted by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

Just sunk about 6 hours into it without realizing, filled up my city and went bankrupt. But man 6 hour gaming session haven't done that in a while. Disconnected from the servers a few times, but didn't lose saves and it just reconnects like a minute later, it doesn't kick you out the game which was something I was scared of. Going to create a crime ridden las vegas tonight and early into the morning.

About 2 hours in my headset ran out of batteries, I didn't change them and just spent the next 4 hours playing the game with no sound, just in this zen state of building.

I wish i could have that feeling =(
Until this server stuff gets sorted I'll play Tomb Raider.

#5 Edited by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

I did the code on the home page and pressed ENTER and nothing!

This is bull, I thought Giantbomb.com was a classy website. I won't stand for this mistreatment.

#6 Edited by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

I'm a huge fan of Nightwing and I've watch other non-cartoon DC tv shows such as Smallville/Arrow.
I also watched Teen Titans when I was younger.

But now that i'm 21, i'm wondering if Young Justice is worth watching for someone my age.

#7 Posted by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

I just 'clocked' it?

I.....

What? What is this 'game'?!

#8 Posted by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@BRich said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@fustacluck said:

@Stonyman65 said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@ZGoon said:

@Bizen247 said:

Joe Biden is a joke. He's a character from a Mel Brooks film except in real life. Even sounds like one. Anyone who thinks this guy is a decent politician or has any charisma is somewhere between partisan hack and political tool.

All reps from the NRA and game industry need to do is walk in the room and say, "First and Second Amendments, ever heard of them?"

And then walk out.

I don't want to seem like an ignorant Canadian, but... Why do people in your country continue to blindly cling to a bunch of stuff written down 200 years ago by a bunch of sexist, slave-owning bigots whenever someone challenges your pathetic lack of any gun control, or anything else for that matter?

Cuz it's the only defense they have and never mind the fact that the thing has been amended numerous times and in the case of the cough (18th) cough repealed. They're too busy being paranoid about a big brother takeover and irrationally think that stockpiling will save them. (Generalization sure, but that way of thinking is seriously out there. You're lying to yourself if you think that's not true)

It's like people are incapable of separating the concept of gun control from no guns.

I think the problem is that the most vocal people for gun-control don't just want to strengthen laws, they want to outlaw them completely. People like Diane Fienstien and Michael Bloomberg have said as much. I have don't really have a problem with sensible laws that actually work, the problem is that the laws people like that are trying to pass aren't sensible, and have been proven (remember the 1994 crime bill?) not to work. Stopping criminals from getting guns is a great thing, but stopping law-abiding people isn't going to do a damn thing. We already have some 2,700 gun laws on the books as it is. Let's try enforcing those rather than cooking up new ones to make ourselves feel good.

That's great and all, but haven't the majority of those that have recently lost it with a gun in a public place been, up until that moment, law-abiding citizens?

Law abiding citizens who all had numerous mental health problems. And a few convicted felons that stole guns from from burglaries and police officers. Strengthening our mental health system should be our main priority here. There are some people that shouldn't have guns at all for various reasons, but taking guns away from people who don't have mental health issues or haven't broken the law isn't going to solve anything.

And even then, people are going to do what they want to do. Those freaks at Columbine stole pistols and shotguns and used them, and made their own explosives and used them because they wanted to. "Assault Weapons" where already banned then under the 1994 crime bill, and explosives have been banned forever, and they weren't of legal age to own a gun, much less buy one, but that didn't stop them one bit did it?

It's just more useless laws that we can't enforce - we can't even properly enforce the laws we have now.

If there were almost no guns in the country (like every other first world country on the planet), where would they steal them from exactly? Sure, mass shootings have happened in countries like Norway, but they average 2 guns homicides per year IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. England, a more comparatively diverse country to the U.S. had only 41 gun homicides compared with over 9100. There are 88.8 firearms in the U.S. for every 100 citizens (35-50% of the world's civilian owned guns for 5% of the world population).

Fuck a 230 year old document written during a revolution.

And the UK had the 2nd violent crime rate in the EU, and the US is rated 28th in the world in gun-related homicide. There are more gun related murders in south america and eastern-Europe than in america, and far less guns.

It's not a gun problem, it's a societal problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2u6aen0RCY

See what you did there Stonyman, nice skewing of the figures! If you try to make a comparison, at least give both sides an even chance. Actual gun crime figures in the UK are lower than most of those in Europe and lower than both the US and Canada, accounting for about 0.2% of all annual crime figures (including air-pistols and rifles), and of that most of those are suicides (not including air-pistols and air-rifles). Only 3% of the 0.2% result in serious injury or death.

Still, don't let the facts get in the away..... and all that.

I'm not skirting that facts, just adding another perspective. As far as gun-related deaths and crime in the US:

deaths in the US - 2,468,435 (annual) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Gun related death in the US 32,163 (total including self-inflicted) http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/6492

Violent crime rate: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime (take your pick of any year)

You do the math.

Hint: it's a lot less than you think it is.

Yeah, but check the UK figures, it's a lot lesserer. You do the math.......s.

Of course it's a lot lesser. They have like 1/4th of the population that the US does.

I'm not saying that guns aren't a small part of the problem here, but considering everything else, it's a statistical zero. Especially the dreaded "assault Weapons" that account for 0.000001% of that statistical zero.

Just as an aside, those "freaks" didn't steal their weapons, they bought them off friends who bought them from gun shows.

And maybe dismissing them as freaks doesn't really help getting to the heart of the problem.

Anyone who goes on a shooting rampage and kills a bunch of people is a freak. Sorry. Before that, maybe not, but nothing in the world could (or should) drive someone to do that.

I stand corrected on the source of guns - that is what is considered "straw purchasing" - selling guns to someone who can't legally own one or buy one themselves. The friends are just as guilty as they are in this case.

Look, I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of Columbine, but surely two guys driven to desperation by the bullying they received, that was allowed to go on in their school, and happens in many schools, should not just be referred to as just "freaks". I'm not excusing them in any way, it was a horrendous act, but simplifying the argument never helped (and pointing at any one thing, in particular video games is also simplifying the argument). Until the societal problems are addressed, and let's face it those with the power to effect societal change are quite happy with the way society is, the next best solution is just to allow those that need guns to carry out their duties (security personnel, hunters, farmers, etc) to carry weapons, but to have them held in a secure facility away from the home, like an armory, and those that don't need guns don't. If people want to fire weapons as a hobby then they keep their weapon at their gun club. Pretty simple.

I know at this point the horse has bolted, and I don't have the answer for the mess that that's entailed, but there are people paid a whole hell of a lot more than me to come up with realistic solutions. And it should be more realistic than "there's no correlation between guns and gun-crime" or "It's vidier games what done it". When that's all that's offered, maybe it's time for a regulated militia to rise against their govt.

<now waiting for my door to be bust in by Homeland Security>

I'm really confused about the argument people have. It's very much like:

"But they have more gun related crimes than we do! So we should be able to have guns! This is unfair!".

How about stop comparing to other countries and focus on what's happening in your backyard and not across the road.

#9 Posted by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@insanejedi said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Exactly dude, but it was taking over by the Gun Companies, to push their own agenda in Washington. The majority of NRA wants tougher regulations on guns, because they just want to go hunting, they don't want a 50 round semi-auto assault weapon to go hunt deer with, but the people that sadly control the NRA now just want to sell and make as much money as possible...

You are making up stuff again. I told you last time not to talk about shit you have no idea what you are talking about.

The NRA is made up of 4.3 million members paying $35 minimally each a year with many members PAYING MORE. Also, are you a member of the NRA? Are you with people who are actually NRA members? Because I am both, and what you said is completely fallacious. If the majority of the NRA members wanted tougher regulations on guns, THEY WOULDN'T BE PAYING THEIR OWN MONEY TO JOIN THE NRA EVERY YEAR. Because it is against the NRA mission statement.

Established in 1990, The NRA Foundation, Inc. (“NRA Foundation”) is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological, and artistic context. Funds granted by The NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, hunters, and competitive shooters.

To end on that. they defend the Second Amendment, and the second amendment is not about hunting.

Explain to me what I am making up? Heres a poll taking last year with NRA members that details what I said about wanting regulations

Among the survey's key findings:

  • 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2 Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
  • There is very strong support for criminal background checks:
  • 74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
  • 79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
  • NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership's top federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.

NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

  • 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
  • 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
  • 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
  • 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
  • So if the NRA are only there for the 2nd amendment, wouldn't that mean criminals are allowed firearms?

    And what I said about Gun Companys heavily investing in NRA

    But membership fees don't pay the NRA's bills alone. In recent years, the group has become more aggressive about seeking donations, both from individuals and corporations, and that in turn has led it to become more deeply entwined with the gun industry. In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.

    Some of that funding has given the NRA a direct stake in gun and ammo sales. As Bloomberg noted in its January article, Sturm, Ruger & Co. launched a campaign to sell one million guns, and promised to donate $1 of each purchase to the group. Since 1992, MidWay USA, which retails gun supplies including ammo and controversial high-capacity magazines, has allowed its customers to round up each of their online and mail orders to the nearest dollar, and automatically donate the extra to the NRA. Together with other companies that have joined the effort, MidWay has helped collect more than $9 million for NRA. MidWay's owner, Larry Pottfield, also happens to be the the group's largest individual donor.

    These connections have fueled the theory among some gun-control advocates that the NRA is just another corporate front. That might theoretically explain why the group has opposed politically popular measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows and banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list, proposals that even its own members have been found to support. For gun makers, the fewer rules, the better.

    "They translate the industry's needs into less crass, less economically interested language -- into defending the home, into defending the country," Tom Diaz, the Violence Policy Center's senior policy analyst, told me in an interview. One example, he said, was concealed carry laws, which the NRA promotes as self-defense measures. As Diaz explained, letting private citizens carry their handguns in public also just happened to allow firearms manufacturers to make and market new, smaller weapons with higher calibers.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

    So please explain to me the part I am making up?

    Damn, you just fucking schooled this guy over this own thing. I'm damn impressed.

    #10 Posted by MrCandleguy (822 posts) -

    Outlaw mofo