Shiho Nishizumi

(Had written it on mobile first, then passed it onto my laptop for better structuring and other stuff. Hence the white text). Pretending that the guns are the (sole, at least) problem, and therefore banning them would get rid of the problem is nonsense. Criminals would simply source from the black market, homemake, or resort to knives or other cold weapons, the latter which is a pattern among the countries the U.S. is compared to. People who're feeling really suicidal are just going to take the pills, leave the car running in a closed environment, meet the noose or go take a bath with the toaster. Taking the guns will just stop a few; actually caring for them will save a many more. (Before you bring it up, I have no issue in comparing Argentina and the U.S. in this regard, because it's about gun control in general. Furthermore, those pushing for it themselves tend to ignore the significant differences that exist between the U.S. and the countries it's often compared to [European nations in general, and Japan in particular]. Comparing the U.S. and Argentina because it's the countries whose gun legislation I know the best of, and it's easier for me to find info on either).Just as a reference point, in Argentina, we have pretty hefty control (need not only a permit [and training], but also a copy of either your salary's receipt, or net commerce earnings [so no, jobless folk or criminals don't have easy if any access to them]. No self-loading rifles outside of .22LR's and fixed mags [basically only M1 Garands; SKS's got banned by name]. Technically two different licenses [one allows for .22's and .25 ACP, plus I believe 16 gauge. The other allows for the rest outside of .50's and whatnot]), and we have 6 deaths to firearms per 100k people, while the U.S. has 12 per 100k. It sounds great, until you realize that Argentina has a fraction of guns per 100 people that the U.S. has (10 vs 112, likely bigger gap nowadays since it's a 2007 report), and that Argentina's homicides with firearms ranked at 44,5% versus the U.S.' 37.3% (in 2016. Different dates because this is what I could source). And you have to consider that 32,2% of the gun-related deaths in Argentina are unknown in motivation (means that the actual homicide rate, albeit unknown, is higher). (Suicides not covered due to a lack of reliable sources that set apart which for who. The best I could find is that hanging is the most common for both sexes, and then it's guns for men and poisoning for women for 2nd favorite).So, what's the reason for the higher firearm homicide rate in Argentina than the U.S., in spite of the gun control and far less guns in circulation, both in totals and per 100 people, you may ask?Socioeconomic factors (we undeniably have it plenty worse off than the U.S., to be fair), too soft of a penal code to dissuade criminals from committing crime, gun control itself (unlike as claimed here, guns have a far bigger role in self-defence than as stated. Elaborated further below), plus legislation, hampering law-abiding citizens from being able to properly defend themselves, powerless police force due to how the laws are set up (between both, ALWAYS pick the one the U.S. has without a second doubt) etc, are why.I could continue on the comparisons, but I've made my point clear. Gun grabbing doesn't translate into direct drops in gun violence. You need actual, long term solutions to fix violence, be it gun based or of any sort. For the U.S. in particular, those would be to work on the mental health and the socioeconomic gap that exists there, at least for a start. Gun control is, at best, a cheap band-aid. Addressing health, education and economy is what will truly make a dent on those homicide and violence rates.Also, something that most people tend to forget when arguing about the subject; the role of firearms in defensive situations and thwarting crime. Contrary to the negative feels some may have in that regard, it is a statistical fact (study here), that even on the low ball counts, the general agreement is that they stop as many crime attempts as they are used for crime. Higher figures suggest that they are used twice or thrice more often for self-defence than crime. Another page which sources directly to govt reports: It is frankly dishonest to pretend that these don't matter, when it is a mere fact that guns have a sizable role in allowing civilians to fend off criminals and defend themselves. Arguing about gun control without factoring in the instances where they are being used to do good would be akin to arguing about cannabis regulation/ban without factoring in the medical benefits it has going for it. Correct. More people remember about Columbine than the Boston bombing. In one hand, yeah Columbine netted more deaths. However, it happened nearly 20 years ago, while Boston only happened 6 years ago, and Boston did amount to three figure injured, a number who also lost their limb/s. Not to mention that it was done in the middle of a pretty well broadcast marathon. Columbine also symbolizes the fruitlessness of the AWB, on that note.

Scared of being rolled. He admitted to such in PnW's discord.

Sup. Argie here. English is my third language, yet I still put more effort into constructing proper sentences than you do. For starters, it makes it easier for others to understand what the frick you're trying to say. Secondly, it shows that you're putting at least an ounce of effort into it, rather than just shitting it out there. Thirdly, to consistently type out like this can and does lead to bad habits later on. You've got no excuses for your appalling, kindergarten-grade typing. As for the proposal itself, it's nonsense. Firstly, as others have pointed out, Pyrrhic is still a victory, and it's coded as such in the resistance damage where it deals a reduced amount but still deals some damage in that regard. Utter failures are net neutrals for resistance so there's that too. Your proposal is inconsistent with current systems. Secondly, this notion that only defenders should benefit from war morale is nonsense. Both in real life and games, war morale goes both ways, or do you seriously think that events such as the quick fall of France in World War 2 didn't have a boosting effect on the German morale and war support? Thirdly, it wouldn't even achieve what you're seeking due to material disparity, unless the guys that are gang-banging on the other guy are that incompetent or that outmatched, in which case they would still have a hard time regardless of war morale. If you're having problems with being constantly gang-banged, either join a better alliance or improve your own. Don't waste Alex's time with such worthless additions. The above took exactly 5 minutes and 13 microseconds to type out, for the record.

>SPQR. >No yearly elected consul duo. What kind of counterfeit Republic is this?

No. You'd be asking it to be exploited by keeping people slotted nearly infinitely. By design, ceasefires would need to be an exception to the slotfilling rules because otherwise, people would end up being punished for using a mechanic on it's intended way. Even if Alex were to put a hardcap on how long you can keep the ceasefire in effect, it'd very likely be exploited within those limits. That aside, it'd be an useless mechanic. If one side has the definitive advantage, there's no incentive for it to take the ceasefire when it can just steamroll the other side. As for those who're fairly even, then what exactly are you accomplishing? Being able to just build up on the parity? For all intents and purposes, people can do a similar if not nearly identical thing as you're proposing by peacing out and then redeclaring war. The main difference militarily would be MAP's, which if anything would make the restart of the war more interesting. So no, Alex shouldn't waste time coding this because, at best, it's an useless feature that'll only be used by clueless individuals, and at worst it'll be exploited as a way to legally slotfill, which would very likely end up with it's removal due to a massive influx of reports. So at the end it'd be wasted effort.

IIRC, it was after CoS sent their own counters.

You have much brighter recollection of the events than I do . The way I recall it, Yui had to organize counters because the Olympian of MA was MIA, the counter's timing and organization was all over the place (only Monika declared at the stated time), and then the Pantheon counters got rolled in turn. That's where it had been agreed to to avoid an escalation if memory serves me right.

You can question whether there's a reason to justify their existence, but you're misrepresenting those three instances.

Before I proceed to answer, just for clarification's sake: CoS' case was during the Nothining. IR's was when they tried to steal Panth's bank. BK's refers to GGF/ToT. Correct?

Soon...

I guess he didn't appreciate having his cherry popped.

*Checks OP.*

>We'll protect you... for a fee.

Eh, this is a fairly minor and niche addition which wouldn't really upset the meta or system too much, if at all. Furthermore, having air take some sort of damage, even if it's chip damage, from anything other than other air and spy ops is always good. So it should be a fairly positive, albeit minor, addition. The main question I have @Alex is; weren't there other project ideas that are more worthwhile to be implemented first? The Federal Reserve (or whatever other name it also had) comes to mind.

Yah I know, I was there when it happened.

That intro with Madden, 10\10.

No, the infrastructure didn't exist. The materials for which to build up stuff did exist, but the platforms themselves didn't. It'd be akin to arguing that a bunch of tar and cement (or its materials) on containers, and a cement mixer is the same as a paved road. It isn't. The only real, objective improvement was the mass DM which likely had the biggest impact on the turnout. The rest is a this for that trade, with some preferring the transparency while the others prefer the surprise.

To be fair, there aren't any on-site services for stat tracking. Prior to Frawley's stats, they were made by other individuals and put up in Google Spreadsheet. So stats never had a platform in the forums themselves. Which is the opposite of yearly awards, which has it's own subforum (this one) for it. The infrastructure already exists.

I just checked. Seems about right with what we were tracking at the time. Thank you for taking time from your day to fix it. Also, I just noticed that attakcs made/defenses mounted pertain to attacks themselves rather than wars declared. That explains the counts.

So, something like this:

That fixed the overwhelming majority, though it seems like nations that were not in KT/TGH proper at that moment (ID's: 60700, 12021, 47112) are not displaying their performance properly, instead it looks like only their loot damage is being accounted for. Also, some wars linked to those seem to be missing (for example, in my case I got attacked twice but it doesn't display any defences being mounted [On the flip side, it displays as having mounted 12 attacks while I only attacked 6 people]). Also, the distribution of the damage seems off for some people. But this is relatively minor stuff. The work y'all are putting on this is astounding and we very much appreciate it.

Quite curious that all of them stopped playing between the 4th and 7th of november.