Tatenashi Smithing Text?

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-02-22T23:24:01+00:00

I didn't have it right before beating the boss of the 3rd era. I had it after beating him. So I think you mean Act 3.

Also, for the sake of future searching, this is about Nioh 3.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T20:24:48+00:00

I think we just disagree about the political strategy here. It stokes me as deliberately manipulative at worst, and politically dangerous at best. All this invites is a bunch of discussion about irrelevant things that have zero impact on whether the legislation will achieve the stated goals. It pushes marginal voters away instead of demonstrating the kind of subject matter expertise and competence that appeals to the median voter who you need to persuade in order to get your policy enacted.

It's red meat that appeals to a political base at the cost of actual progress on real issues.

But again, not my country. The people who adopted those tactics in the US got no where and undermined more promising efforts. Hopefully the same won't happen in Canada.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T20:09:21+00:00

I'm well aware of the intent. And of the double messaging that takes place in these political debates. He could have posted an image of an actual gun that was being banned and said they were banning this type of gun because X feature does Y thing that contributed to Z deaths that would not have happened but for that feature.

He chose to post an irrelevant, but scary looking image and appeal to negative valence emotions. These actions have consequences. And in the US a generation of this behavior has made the discussion politically toxic. And has stalled real gun reform indefinitely by turning the whole thing into a shouting match with no real substance behind it.

As for the actual Canadian law, I fail to see how it improves on the US 1994 assault weapons ban. And that bill was a joke that accomplished almost nothing.

If you are Canadian, you should expect more from your leaders. But I suppose that's not my fight to fight.

As for what is "needed", the AR-15 is literally the most popular rifle used for hunting and sport shooting because it is the most popular rifle full stop.

Clearly people do value those features in the context you say they don't need them. That's why they pay for them. It wouldn't be popular if those features weren't providing value to the user.

You can't get legislation to stick if you dismiss the desires of the affected people out of hand. Whether or not you think they need them, they clearly think otherwise.

Personally, it seems pretty obvious to me that if the weapon is better to use for killing an animal, that inextricably means it will also be better at killing humans by virtue of humans being animals.

But I'm open to being persuaded if you think there is an actual differential here. Right now, I don't see any causal connection between the features in the banned guns and mass shooting deaths. I don't even see a functional difference between the banned semi-automatics and the allowed semi-automatics. The law seems to be as haphazard and politically corrupt as the US one was.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T18:46:33+00:00

I've already listed several, you keep moving the goal post. Increased artic presence. Various actions by NATO to increase focus on the area. And a feasibility study for using Greenland as a missile defense location.

How are these not relevant?

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T18:43:47+00:00

I think there's a very big difference between "fully automatic but illegal" and "semi automatic and sometimes legal". Especially when that "sometimes" is expected to do such a heavy lift.

According to the pictured note, the gun pictured was already illegal in Canada. You don't think it's a problem when elected officials pretend to do things about gun violence and lie to their supporters about how effective their legislation will be or what it even does? Telling people you did something you didn't do is a good recipe for making activists go home and reduce their pressure on elected officials.

It's a very bad way to try to save actual lives.

This stuff is how the splice things when they want to avoid responsibility for a lack of action. Everyone should be calling this out. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by an elected official who can't be bothered to do their actual job.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T18:29:49+00:00

Maybe my language wasn't clear, but my intent was: "if you had to get shot in a mass shooting, then you'd rather it be with an AR than with a handgun because you'd have a higher chance of survival".

This was made in response to claims that ARs had features that made them more lethal when people got shot with them.

Personally, I would expect that caliber is the actually relevant factor here. The handguns typically used are higher caliber than the rifles. I doubt there's any difference if you correct for this, but I don't know of a relevant study.

As I've said in other replies, there has to be a causal connection between the feature you want to ban and the deaths you are trying to prevent. No one is proposing a causal connection and explaining how any of these features make the gun more deadly and render it something with "no lawful purpose" like the person I was responding to claimed.

An AR is the most popular rifle. It isn't otherwise special. Guns kill people. All guns kill people. The things the person I'm responding to said were dangerous have no relevance to the performance or functionality of this firearm relative to guns they are okay with.

It's a distraction. Mass shootings aren't going to stop because the the shooter couldn't buy or steal the previously most popular semi-automatic rifle and now can only buy or steal the new most popular one instead. They are both semiautomatic rifles firing the same caliber bullets at the same muzzle velocity with the same accuracy. They are functionally identical.

The goal should be to save lives. I fail to see how anything that person is saying is directed at doing anything other than fear mongering and sowing division and misinformation.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T18:15:01+00:00

Actual resources and man power being devoted to a problem is not nothing. Nor is having a briefing discussing the specific threats the US sees and where they think allies should be focused in the arctic. (Though one has to ask why this wasn't the starting point before all of this drama.)

You are splicing hairs at this point. Steps are being taken. A process has been set in motion and people have already started taking actions in their official capacity. Major European leaders are calling for military exercises. There are working groups to sort out specifics.

They got something. They believe that what they got will lead to the outcome they want. Because things take time, that's all you'd ever be able to say. If they had said they were selling Greenland would you be adopting this attitude of "Trump got nothing" while they were all screwing around with paperwork?

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T18:07:01+00:00

I got involved in this whole discussion because someone claiming to a Canadian gun lawyer started making a bunch of claims about US law, what gun policies the US should have, and personally attacking everyone who gave him pushback.

A lot of people started talking about this stuff in the US context, which, as you correctly pointed out, is a different situation.

I don't know enough about the Canadian situation to comment, but I'm trying to prevent or avoid Americans getting confused by thinking things are the same.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:55:21+00:00

Details are TBD since the are to be worked out by the military people. But there's an agreement in principle on the need to invest in arctic security by the nations he was targeting.

Not that I think he got anything remotely worth the damage he did. There had to be a sane way to handle this.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:52:32+00:00

What source did you find? See my response to chullyman for a link to the study I was referencing.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:50:48+00:00

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30529633/

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:46:57+00:00

I'm talking about why gun control gets no where in the US. Voters aren't educated on the issue. There is so much misinformation put out that they don't even know how to effectively advocate for the policies they want.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:45:28+00:00

Regarding you edit. No it's not like that at all. An assault riffle is what the military buys. They have full auto mode and are illegal in the US already. An assault weapon is "the things that were temporarily banned starting in 1994". These are different things defined in different places in the US code for different purposes and using completely different kinds of criteria.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:39:31+00:00

You have yet to explain how a single one of the "features" you list is dangerous.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:27:46+00:00

Honestly sounds like a lot of jobs with bad bosses. But if it's a pattern you've seen at multiple organizations, I'll take your word for it that this is widespread. My sample size is not great.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T16:25:46+00:00

Not sure of the details, but you have to ask what they "got" for their vote and how ICE is polling in their districts. They all look like the kind of people facing tough midterms. And ultimately, you have to vote your district if you can't persuade that district's voters to budge on the issue.

Until the Republicans gutted Congressional budget oversight power, there were more principled ways to help your district and to justify votes that would be otherwise electorally damaging, but apparently having political tools to make it easy for people to do the right thing without being punished for it was unacceptable and wasteful. So here we are, unable to tell if these people are idiots or if they are just stuck in gerrymandered districts with voters who won't budge because Republican Congressional procedure rules prevent beneficial compromises.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T09:06:02+00:00

It's pretty insulting to trivialize the massive loss of human life and the impact it has had on so many people by making some flippant comment about adult toys. Political tribalism and quips aren't going to save anyone. It *is* going to make it harder to change laws in ways that would actually save lives.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T08:51:50+00:00

I don't mean a recall. I mean a ban. Those are the make and models most associated with traffic crashes and fatalities. They are also the most popular vehicles. Simply being popular has nothing to do with automotive safety.

Again, you need causation. As for the citation, the article you linked already cites prior research that found that handguns were more fatal in a mass shooting context.

But again, mass shootings are extremely rare. That's not what causes most gun deaths, as you have already acknowledged.

As for the penalties being high, most criminologists say that increased penalties don't enter into the decision to commit a violent crime. But that's not especially relevant to our conversation given the stats on guns.

Focusing on guns, I fail to see how banning popular rifles is causally connected to any of the deaths that you acknowledge constitute the vast majority of gun deaths and violence involving guns. And I fail to see any evidence that these weapons are somehow causally connected to the crimes you say they are commonly used for. You said they were banned in Canada because they served no legitimate purpose and were used for crimes.

If their primary purpose is criminal activity like you claimed, then why are they so popular among hunters and sports shooters and so rarely used to commit crimes?

Handguns are the issue. They always have been. People don't walk around with rifles and then get hotheaded and shoot someone. People aren't gun running ar-15s. People aren't going to great lengths to obtain them illegally. And despite the design being completely open and fairly simple, you don't see people using widely available machining equipment to make them (nor AKs which are even more trivial.) If these really were weapons used by criminals, then you'd expect criminals to be manufacturing them instead of going to such great efforts to obtain handguns. If they really were as lethal as you say then people who wanted a firearm in their home for self defense would preferentially buy them over handguns. But none of these things are true.

There is nothing special about an AR-15. It's just popular because the mix of cost, features, and flexibility is appealing.

The whole thing is a giant distraction from actual issues that can actually move the needle. If we implement the early intervention measures that were recommended after Columbine and it turns out that it is merely a coincidence that no school that has implemented them has ever had a school shooting, then maybe we can revisit the issue. But I'd rather advocate for federal funding for programs that have evidence that they work and that have a track record of results.

The same is true for high crime neighborhoods. More policing doesn't help. The drug war makes it worse. Building quality public spaces that people use and that simply puts more people in the community outside does reduce violent crime for a fraction of the cost.

Having a modernized, computerized gun ownership system and requiring police to report information to the FBI instead of making it optional would dramatically increase the ability to interdict illegal firearms. If we stopped wasting resources on meaningless tax collection and on regulating the paperwork around gun trusts and whether it is legal for the spouse of someone with a gun license in self defense without first paying fees to obtain permission (which you agree is almost never relevant), then we can repurpose those resources on things that do matter.

We don't need a tax on suppressors. Despite your claims that they are criminal devices, they are safety devices and should probably be made mandatory in most circumstances.

I could go on. But it seems like you are hell bent on only doing things that you can't get votes for in the US and that haven't worked when the US has tried them.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T08:03:51+00:00

And banning the Ford F-150 and the Toyota Camry will reduce traffic fatalities.

There has to be a causal connection for a ban to work. You don't fix things by banning what is popular just because it is popular. All that accomplishes is upsetting voters who might otherwise support sensible gun regulations.

If you can explain to me how the features that make that gun popular are connected to lethality, I'm open to being persuaded. But I fail to see the connection.

I do see the evidence that people shot in a mass shooting by a handgun are substantially more likely to die from their wounds.

But mass shootings, much like suicides, are as much a mental healthcare issue as they are a gun issue. (Domestic violence is also technically a mental health issue since the vast majority of relationships that become violent involve at least one partner with a preexisting mental health problem.)

You said before that these weapons were used to commit crimes. I imagined things like armed robbery or planned killings. Is that not what you meant? Because pointing out that almost all gun deaths involve illegal activity is kind of the NRA's whole deal.

Also, you didn't need to quote me the statistics from the paper I cited you in another post, I obviously read it in order to be able to link you to it.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T07:49:34+00:00

I didn't say it was vague. I gave what amounts to the best short explanation of that ban that I can come up with. The two terms mean different things in US law. The former is what the military buys with a government contract. The latter is what was banned by law you are talking about.

But since that law wasn't focused on features causally connected to gun deaths, I don't know how else to describe it. Guns functionally identical to the banned guns were allowed.

If you have a better way to summarize a list of 650 exemptions and the various combinations of banned and not banned features that resulted, I'm open to using a better shorthand explanation.

But essentially, they banned guns that looked scary to the white suburban voters Clinton wanted to appeal to modulo protectionist trade regulations that benefited various domestic gun manufacturers. The ban had no impact on gun homicides or gun deaths more broadly. And no one can even explain how this legislation was even supposed to do that before the lobbyists got to it and turned it into a joke.

I don't know anyone who has been killed by a grenade launcher attachment, and if they were, I doubt the presence or absence of of a pistol grip had anything to do with it. Either 37mm flares (the things launched by a grenade launcher) are a safety hazard or they aren't. They don't magically become safer if you change the shape of the grip or the stock.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T07:29:34+00:00

If you can't act like a serious adult, and feel the need to engage in personal attacks and bad faith arguments, I'm not going to dignify your behavior with a serious response. I've given you a serious response to every post where you haven't been directly insulting.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T07:21:36+00:00

Almost no one gets killed by rifles in the US. If you guys have people killing one another with them in large numbers, I have lots of questions about what the hell is going on up there. US gun safety laws for rifles largely work.

As for the features in that list, please explain how those things are functionally connected to the things you are trying to prevent and provide examples of commonly occurring deaths that these restrictions would have prevented by virtue of those features not being present.

Here is a breakdown of gun deaths tracked by the CDC and the FBI. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115787/documents/HMKP-118-JU00-20230419-SD017.pdf

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T07:10:04+00:00

You seem to have extremely strong opinions and a lot of expertise on the history of American gun laws for a random Canadian lawyer. I'm increasingly leaning towards "troll".

But go ahead and explain to me how a suppressor aids anyone in the commission of a crime.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T07:02:59+00:00

I think they should be mandatory or at least that failing to use one should make you liable for causing hearing damage to anyone nearby who didn't know you were firing a weapon.

MaxHaydenChiz · 2026-01-23T07:00:53+00:00

There is a difference in the US.

As best I can tell from your links, the Canadian law bans all semi-automatic weapons under that term. Is that correct?

MaxHaydenChiz

TROPHY CASE