If I ended up having to pick out a firearm for self defense, I wouldn't carry anything less than a 9mm. In my opinion, lesser calibers simply don't have the necessary firepower to be effective for self defense except when used at something like 15m (or less) with direct line of fire (that is, no cover). If I ended up living in a state where gun laws permitted concealed carry of firearms, I'd honestly have to get one just in order to defend myself; this is never something I'd need in Canada because I'd be more likely to win the lottery than be attacked with a gun in Canada. Given I had to pick a gun, I guess I'd go with the Lionheart LH9. Spoiler: Large image of firearm
A .22 pistol with hollowpoint ammunition has an effective range of 50 yards, and does damage equivalent to a standard .32 round. That is, of course, implying that the shooter has the skill to hit a target at that range.
Actually, that's not entirely true. The .32 has a notably larger amount of energy behind it; something around 210J on .32ACP versus 140J for .22LR (using averages). Obviously this does vary with manufacturing differences, but as a whole, the .32 is much more likely to be effective through light materials like wood, thin metal, glass, etc. In any case, I wouldn't use anything less than 9mm, especially considering it's very cheap and accessible.
You have a point. Still, the true efficacy of a weapon lies in the skill of its user. Of course, it's always best to use a gun that you feel comfortable with, so it comes down to personal preference in the end. Personally, I prefer a .45 or .50 revolver.
And then we get the people that try to mix them with their frankly bizarre sex slave/rape/torture/porn. Thats the only kind of porn/dark that i think the fans of need to go die on the sun.
In retrospect, I didn't particularly like Dark Souls. To me, it felt like a lot of its praise stemmed from solely other praise. I neither found it particularly difficult or challenging, nor did I feel the game very deep or enthralling. It felt unfinished at best, and it's story to me at most inch-deep. It didn't really bring anything new to the table (that which had not been done before), and the only remarkable thing about it's difficulty was the inability to change it. After one fairly short play through, I felt like I'd seen everything that there was to see; I haven't really played it again because there was nothing that I felt I needed to come back and see. Game play was straightforward to the point of being nearly - if not entirely - linear; you're posed with very few choices that have any lasting impact on what must be done to complete the game, beyond things that changed the mechanics of combat.
I like clop and grimdark... But anyway, on to opinions! Um... I think Fluttershy is way overrated. I mean, she's cool and everything, but compare her with any other member of the mane six and she's just... the shy one. Or the shy one who's secretly dangerous, which y'know isn't that surprising. And don't get me started on her singing...
I do not, nor will I ever like The Hunger Games. It's derivative and a total rip-off of similar narratives from the 80's and 90's cheese action golden age.
Really? I mean, really? You are pulling THAT on us? Why stop there? Why not go for ALL the cliched criticisms made by people who do exactly ZERO research?: -"anime and manga are all about teenage schoolgirls getting raped by tentacle monsters!" -"Nick Fury was ALWAYS black! He was black in 'The Ultimates', wich was the very first time the character appeared on comics!" -"the French always surrender at the first sight of a fight!" -"The Beatles said they were bigger than Jesus!" -"why are there no black people in Middle Earth?" -"the original Alice in Wonderland book is full of horror and death! And drugs, don't forget the drugs!". Look, I'm really tired of repeating this to every uninformed lunkhead out there, but I'll say it again: 1-"The Running Man", both the book AND the movie, predate "Battle Royale" by DECADES. So does the original "Rollerball" movie and the short story "The Lottery". 2-"The Hunger Games" is a satire against the shallow sensationalism of American pop culture (especially reality TV), and a story about a freedom fighter struggling to topple a corrupt goverment. NONE of that is in "Battle Royale". 3-The games themselves are only a small part of the story, the larger story is the Capitol vs the Rebellion. You might as focus only on the fact that "The Matrix" has people in black leather doing wirework stunts and call the entire trilogy a ripoff of "Blade". 4-"Star Wars" is inspired by both "Flash Gordon" (the comics and the serials) and "The Hidden Fortress", yet everyone likes that movie regardless. Hell, "District 9" borrows a lot of its plot from "Alien Nation", yet I don't see anyone yelling at "District 9" for that. If you want to criticize or dislike "The Hunger Games", fine. But you need to have a LEGITIMATE reason to do so, parroting the whole "BATTLE ROYALE!" thing is pointless and idiotic.
The former isn't much of an unpopular opinion, as a lot of bronies clop, whether they like to admit it or not. As for the latter, I personally feel grimdark and ponies should never EVER mix, as they simply do not mix well. If I wanted to see blood n' gore n' stuff, I'd watch Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni, or some other stupidly violent anime. Seeing sweet, innocent, children's cartoon characters twisted and contorted into unnatural positions, and hardly recognizable due to the amount of bruises, broken bones and blood just doesn't do it for me. (But seeing them in le sexy situations is perfectly fine...) --------- As for an unpopular opinion of mine, cities suck. I can't see how anyone could live in such an environment.
I normally don't resort to using images to convey an idea as I see them as superfluous, but you can have one anyway. When I brought up Battle Royale, I wasn't referring to it as material that was being plagiarized; I brought it up because it was an equally bad offender in the field. If you'd stopped to ponder this for a bit and not went on a wild - and entirely unneecessary - tangent, you might have caught my initial intent.
Game Grumps would actually be tolerable if these two schmucks didn't spend half their videos laughing uproariously at their own jokes. (Psst...that's the audience's job!)
As is the case with a lot of these internet guys, (Game Grumps, TobyGames, some other obscure Let's Play channel) they're just guys having fun. They're not professional comedians, they're not hardcore gamers. They're just a bunch of dudes/dudettes who play games and have fun, and in the Grumps' case, have fun with their best buddy while being silly geese. That's why I find it entertaining. Edit: I need to get used to touch screens again... (Messing around with my new Kindle Fire)
I have two. First, not all Christians are gay hating conservatives. Second, I think eating lobsters is cruel. Cows, pigs, fish, that's all cool, just not lobsters.
Well, the way in which it is prepared is cruel (Boiling them alive. Is that, like, the only way they can do it, or something??) but the act of eating them itself isn't cruel. Blame the chefs, not the patrons.
You actually don't just want to throw them in fully alive and kicking because the meat will taste bad. (adrenaline makes the meat nasty). You either flash freeze them, which basically knocks them out, or some chefs will just womp them over the head to make it quick. In the end though they need to be boiled in a living state, or immediately after death as the meat goes bad extremely fast. Not many alternatives I'm afraid. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
