I was sitting around with my little gang of jerks I like to call friends the other day. We were talking about 40k, warmachine and black powder and so on. I told them about my rather bad first-time experience with a BP (black powder) rifle (it cooked off about 15 seconds after i pulled the trigger, and at the point had it pointed at the ground just in front of me), anyways,  out of 5 dudes, myself and only one other had EVER fired a gun. Is this true of most gamers out there???

According to the National Statistics of Gamers Associated (NSGA), 85% of gamers are unable to operate a firearm due to our stubby, sausagey fingers.

I've never touched a gun. Why on earth would I?

I know a couple people who are into firearms and shoot them, but the majority of the people I game with haven't touched a gun.

I'm going to avoid starting an argument here, so I'll just note that I'm happy to live in a country where the ownership of firearms is tightly restricted.

Was being in the Mech Inf 6 years and Artillery 2 count? The 8" Howitzer is the only thing considered to be a "gun" though...

Black Powder scares me. The first time I fired it the guy showing us showed us his scars from a flashback. He wore a beard because of it.

Not sure if this is news, or a rumour though.....

Nope, me neither. And I don't plan to do. Surprisingly, even though we gamers like to play with soldiers aren't that warlike in real life (my experience).

Greets
Schepp himself

I earned both Shotgun and Rifle shooting merit badges through the Boy Scouts, but I've had pretty limited experience outside of that. I'd imagine the results would be heavily skewed by geography: european (including british) gamers probobly have far less experience than American ones, and in the US there would be more experience in small towns than large cities, more in the south and west and less in the north east and california.

I may be way off base, but I'd guess the canucks and aussie would fall between the extremes of Europe and the American frontier.

I think wargaming and paintball teach us how much we would rather not be in a combat situation or firing guns at each other. It's rare that losses aren't incurred. It has also taught me how I would rather not be a leader of men, and have to deal with decisions that got people killed.

Being an armchair general is much, much better.

I've shot all kinds of guns. but I've also been in trouble with the law and I'm an M.C. I do Hiphop Shows and produce music. I beat my neighbor up last week for callin me a b!T(h. I also work as a bouncer sooo. we come in all shapes...If you see me in the Hobby shop you'd think..."who brought the Thug" or "Is he gonna rob the place?"

and I do say that I play wargames on my myspace. I had a guy say "don't say anything about the Minis Ok..?" I was like ok...but sh!t I'm a Sexy Monster so I could care less about what someone thinks
but this belongs in general discuss

Me

www.myspace.com/5deadly


don't forget
I love you all...Deeply

10 & 1/2 years in the US Marine Corps gave me plenty of opportunity to shoot pistols, rifles, machine guns (SAW), etc. Never handled anything "big" though, like artillery or such.

I am an avid target shooter and former Junior Small bore champion of Florida.(that was like almost 8 years ago). That being said, I am no in Colorado Springs which is were the Air Force academy is as well as an army base. Up here a good chunk of gamers are military so i would say the majority out here have shot a gun before.

Too bad about your Black Powder experiance. I find Black Powder to be the most fun. It has the same accuracy as a modern day rifle, but requires more care from the fireer. And its a lot cheaper to shoot too.

I've thrown a few rounds downrange in my day.

I own many firearms. I target shoot, do sporting clays (trap mostly), and hunt (mostly whitetail deer). I shot a 10 pointer last season, it should be on my wall very soon when the taxidermist is finished with working on it.

I did 22LR target rifle shooting at school in the 1970s. I don;t know if it's still legal in the UK.

There's probably a lot more wargamers have fired a gun than seen or touched a dead body.

Sorry for the double post.

I am trained and equipped to protect myself from tyranny, and generally bad people, yes. With a family, I am not sure how a man could not be, honestly.

I was brought up with them, trained to use them in defense, for sport, and hunting, like most others in the small town I am from.

I really don't see much of a crossover to tabletop wargames. Knowing how to defend your self against a more physically powerful foe, and basically mixing model railraod and Risk together seem quite different to me.

How does a country tightly restrict the ownership of guns from criminals?

Just wondering.

engine

lets not get in a heated debte here over our 2nd amendment rights.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 05/24/2007 9:29 AM
There's probably a lot more wargamers have fired a gun than seen or touched a dead body.

Depends on the nation, I suppose. I've seen at least a dozen dead bodies, and I'd say that was about average, depending on your age, family size (my family is really small) and religion (CofE). But I'd never even saw a gun in real life until I moved to the US.

That's a UK perspective, of course, which is why I said it depends on the nation.

I was raised in a fairly rural area in Georgia, so I have some amount of experience with long arms (no experience with pistols). I hope to become proficient with handguns sometime in the future.

For me, knowledge of the workings of firearms is kind of a "life skill." My reasoning is that it would be nice to know how to use one if I ever absolutely have to. Sorta like swimming. I haven't been swimming in over a decade, but I know how if I ever have to.

In other words, I'd rather I know how to use a firearm even if I never have to than not know how to use one when I do have to.

Sal.

I've shot rifles and pistols...I've also seen a dead body (not at a funeral, viewing, etc)...being ex-military has a bit to do with that though.

Rifles, Shotguns, Pistols.

120 mm and 155 mm tank main guns. (5 years as a cav officer with M1s and M551s)

Pistol team in college, hunted growing up.

Don't own any now but did for a long time.

Don't confuse shooting firearms with being warlike. They are not the same.
Having said that we're happy Canada has restricted ownership as well. Makes "liberation" that much easier buahahaha

Ditto's on Darkness's comment on blackpowder. Nothing like setting up next to some undertrained Rambo wannabe with overly expensive pistol. Pulling out the old civil war era hogleg and surprising everyone with a great plume of smoke.

American Civil War reenactment is what got me into table-top wargaming in the first place. It's hilarious great fun marching around a field, firing blanks at your buddies. And you can get your SO (significant other or senior officer, same thing) involved if she's into victorian era costume. I've spent quite a lot more on antique dresses than I have on tiny pewter miniatures.

That said, I own my civil war reenactment gear, including a period rifle. I also own a revolver I picked up at a flea-market a number of years ago. Both of them have been fired with live rounds.

Like every free man I own firearms and am well versed in their use.

Slaves and serfs aren't permitted weapons. And thank God for that.

I carry one for work on occasions, and it is a tremendous responsibility not to take lightly

I really don't want to start an discussion about guns and their legality, but I am downright shocked by the attitude of some users here.

But I think I was kind of naive to approach this topic without having in mind that dakka is a US/UK site. In Germany, guns simply aren't that widely spread.

Some of you will see me as a tool, but I refuse to arm myself just to defend my home or family. Just as I refuse to lock my car. I live in a rather small village and I just think that in this environment, I don't have to distrust anyone.

Anyway, highly interesting posts here.

Greets
Schepp himself

P.S. what are serfs?

"P.S. what are serfs"

Germans that think their government will protect them?

well then you ain't got guns in Germany, But in the good Ol' U.S. of A we have guns, lots of em' and we use em' on each other all the time...really it's horrible.

There is a reason they don't allow Germans to have guns Joking, joking, joking.

Go talk to the Swiss? Pretty much everyone has to own or handle a weapon there. They are all part of the army.

Servants of a feudal lord.

Such a highly emotional topic will get a lot of different answers.

M110 was interesting to fire. Basically a basilisk. 8" Howitzer that could hit a car from 27 miles. Sometimes you could feel them hit when the range was about 15 miles away.

QFT

Greets
Schepp himself

Schepp, I've lived in some small towns here in the US as well, and that sort of attitude isn't purely over in Europe. I knew plenty of people that didn't lock their doors...I lived with a family in New Jersey for a bit that didn't even lock the front door to their house. Being from Los Angeles, I thought that was crazy. All depends on your locale and upbringing, it seems.

Don't worry, if your government decides you are wrong, those rifles and pistols won't slow them down. It will just show what a nut you always were when they put your picture in the paper. But it makes people feel better and somehow "safe", so meh.

The post said guns AND knives. Firearms are fun, but knifefighting is something else! Close combat is some rough stuff, especially when you add in weaponry. Anybody can point and pull a trigger (though not accurately!), but trying to force a blade beetween someone's ribs or bludgeon them until they stop moving while they struggle against you, striking back, is some dirty, messy stuff....

Posted By mauleed on 05/24/2007 11:42 AM

Like every free man I own firearms and am well versed in their use.

Slaves and serfs aren't permitted weapons. And thank God for that.

Your not going to find a bigger supporteer of the 2nd ammendment than me, but with that being said many members of this forum are from nations that dont share the same view because they, the citizens don't share the same view. You shouldn't try and alienate yourself and those of us who are pro-gun to our foreign gamers. This topic is a powder keg waiting to explode and be locked if we don't watch we say.

Serfs were peasants who were tied to land under the feudal systems of Russia and eastern Europe from ~1600 to as late as the 1860's (or nearly there) in Russia. Serfs weren't slaves, per se, but they could not leave the land that they worked, and were "owned" by the noble who owned their land. A noble couldn't simply kill a serf, but the serf also didn't have a lot of recourse against the noble.

It is often shocking for Europeans to see the attitudes towards firearms exhibited by Americans. There is a good historical reason for this: for most of it's history, the countries of Europe have always been terrified of each other. France and England. France and Germany. Poland and Austria. Spain and England. Italy and the Ottomans. Etc, Etc.

In the US, after a long and bloody revolution, the Founders realized that there really wasn't a threat to our borders. (sorry Canada and Mexico). What they did fear was a powerful central government like they had just thrown off. The constitution is interesting in that it protects "the people" from both an aristocratic, central government as well as from a tyranny of the majority. One of the results of this fear was the 2nd amendment, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Keeping in mind that this was written over 200 years ago by people who used language and words in slightly different ways, there are plenty of interpretations of this document. Some say that it merely allows for the National Guard (a well regulated militia). Others state that, like the 1st amendment, the power of the government to restrict weapons should be as limited as possible, thus making as many weapons legal as possible.

One interpretation, long accepted by the Supreme Court, was that the 2nd Amendment allows for state and local militias, above and beyond the national army, to be used against the Federal Government if need be. After the civil war, state militias have declined in regulation, but the meaning of the text is still generally though to mean: the government cannot overly oppress a well armed populace.

I hope this helps our international friends.

As has been said many gamers are in the military. I own a lot of knives.

- Greenie

Well, this topic is likely to generate a lot of heated opinion and get locked.

The attitude to firearms and their use depends on local culture. For example, not many people in the UK think the government is likely to repress them with armed force, and most people do not think guns help protect from criminals either. That said, our already fairly restrictive gun laws were tightened in the 80s and again in the 90s (to the point that it will be illegal to hold many of the Olympic shooting events in London.) Gun crime has actually increased since that time.

In the US there is a lot of gun crime despite the easy availability of weapons. There is almost no gun crime at all in Switzerland, despite the widespread availability of military weapons.

hey maleed I heard a rumor you gave up backgammon for checkers.

- Greenie

Posted By Brother Tiberius on 05/24/2007 9:20 AM
I own many firearms. I target shoot, do sporting clays (trap mostly), and hunt (mostly whitetail deer). I shot a 10 pointer last season, it should be on my wall very soon when the taxidermist is finished with working on it.

east coast 10 or western 10?  in other words did you count one rack or both racks?

I have owned and shot weapons for 35 of my 40 years.  pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, black powder etc.  I hunt to supplement the meger amount of meat we can afford to eat.. usually venison is the beef in our house.. it's just too expensive to buy it anymore..

now if I could just shoot something that would net me a couple hundred gallons of gas each year..

Posted By roneldar on 05/24/2007 8:23 AM

anyways,  out of 5 dudes, myself and only one other had EVER fired a gun. Is this true of most gamers out there???

Is your average gamer a sustenance hunter? Do they all work in security, or as members of the armed forces? Does the average tabletop gamer reside in a violent or war-torn region where they have been witness to or involved in armed combat as a way of life, and needs to at least understand how to operate firearms?

If the answer to the above questions is No, as I suspect it is for most, then I don't see any reason for the average table top games player to have ever used a firearm.

Posted By Caern on 05/24/2007 1:26 PM

Posted By roneldar on 05/24/2007 8:23 AM

anyways,  out of 5 dudes, myself and only one other had EVER fired a gun. Is this true of most gamers out there???

Is your average gamer a sustenance hunter? Do they all work in security, or as members of the armed forces? Does the average tabletop gamer reside in a violent or war-torn region where they have been witness to or involved in armed combat as a way of life, and needs to at least understand how to operate firearms?

If the answer to the above questions is No, as I suspect it is for most, then I don't see any reason for the average table top games player to have ever used a firearm.

Please...

There are a lot of activities that involve firearms and none of the things you mentioned above.

I am an avid shooter, who legaly owns firearms. In fact I might shoot some skeet tonight now that I am thinking about it.

You people do understand that you can own a firearm and not use it shoot people right?

I also own cars, and do not run anybody over with them.

Posted By methoderik on 05/24/2007 1:42 PM


I also own cars, and do not run anybody over with them.

Wait, you're NOT supposed to run people over with them? Then whats the big bumper on the front of the truck for?

*EDIT*

After rereading the post that I had made here, I decided its content was largely irrelevent to the initial topic and ill-suited for these boards.

I have thus deleted the contents.

Methoderik, the point of your post in response to mine is what, exactly? The OP question is about average gamers. I made a post about what is typical of an average gamer. Your post is just about you, and no one else (edit: well, it's also a defensive mini-rant in reaction to a perceived slight against your right to use firearms for entertainment, which I am not arguing nor care about, since it's not part of this topic). Unless you consider yourself the epitome of the average gamer, in which case then I suppose you are indeed responding to the original post here.

Posted By Caern on 05/24/2007 2:08 PM
Methoderik, the point of your post in response to mine is what, exactly? The OP question is about average gamers. I made a post about what is typical of an average gamer. Your post is just about you, and no one else (edit: well, it's also a defensive mini-rant in reaction to a perceived slight against your right to use firearms for entertainment, which I am not arguing nor care about, since it's not part of this topic). Unless you consider yourself the epitome of the average gamer, in which case then I suppose you are indeed responding to the original post here.

Whatever. Spin it however you want.

Please, read before you post.

Wait wait, back to this truck running over thing. I can understand when the police say you shouldn't randomly fire paintballs at passing vehicles when you're on the freeway cause it could block traffic, but whats this deal about not running over people again. Then why are moms with strollers worth three points huh? Answer me that?

One day to a three day holiday...

Well if you are talking about vehicular homicide in sport... well then all bets are off. Are you sure moms with strollers are only 3 points? I could have sworn it was 5. No wait that is Grandmothers with seeing eye dogs... silly me.

Yea come on Methoderik Grandmothers are five. But watch out, most grandmothers are packin' (which ties back nicely to the topic).

Rumours are they are remaking Deathrace 2000...

Mauleed has said it best above. A requirement of any free man that wants to stay that way.

I guess my point was that anyone interested in owning a gun doesn't need to buy one. You can easily make one! The technology for making revolvers is ridiculously old, and a google patent search, an old $300 lathe and mill, a chunk of forged steel, and you are in business.

I'm just not convinced any government could stop people from just making these weapons, if that person really wanted to. I could be in production in a few weeks, easily. It wouldn't be efficient, no, but possible? Sure.

engine

It's Euthansia Day at the old folks home!

Posted By Whitescar on 05/24/2007 11:53 AM
I carry one for work on occasions, and it is a tremendous responsibility not to take lightly

Agreed. I have my MA FID card (though that form of weapon id has expired), have fired a variety of small arms (pistols, shotguns and rifles), and have three+ years of sport fencing under my belt. Many of my friends own guns and I grew up in a house with a pistol. Every time I pick up a weapon of any kind, I'm VERY careful, whether it's a loaded firearm or a practice foil with a blunted tip. I would even go so far as to say that I have a healthy fear of the weapon; too much can go wrong too fast if one is not careful.

Posted By engine on 05/24/2007 2:44 PM
Mauleed has said it best above. A requirement of any free man that wants to stay that way.

For all your bravado, if the US Army decided to invade, Wisconsin is it?, in force supported by a heavy bombing campaign for the month before, weeks of shelling from battleships on Lake Superior, and a full tank thrust (crushing the cows beneath the treads), I don't think that your .22 is going to make much of a difference really...

Asmodai EXALT!!

It is isn't bravado. It is a willingness to defend what I hold dear with more than words, or with the notion that the government will protect me, and never turn in to power grubing totalitarian regimes. If a bad guy shows up at my door at night, I know I have at least a decent chance of having as much firepower to bear as he does. I won't turn a blind eye to the evil in this world.

And you'd be surprised what a number of poeple trained in defending themselves can do. I think you'd find that if the government did invade a state, that state would find help within the military ranks, and from the rest of the US citizens trained in defense. Americans have a general distrust of central governments. Hm, I wonder why?

And if the US government shells WI, well, at least I didn't run and hide, or have to call my next door neighbor for help. Like Canada would have to.

Have fun in your seperate peace. I hope it never comes crashing down around you. But if does, fear not! I'll send the US Marine Corp. We've got your back, Canucks.

engine

Advances in technology, training, and the logistics of war make the gulf in capabilities between a governmental military organization and a band of armed citizens (even military-trained themselves) much wider than it was when the Bill of Rights was drafted. I support the right to bear arms, I believe it's a nice life skill to add to a well-rounded person, and I've fired a few shots downrange myself, but I don't hold any illusions that any weapon I can purchase or operate can defend me from tyranny.

IME the pen (and the dollar) is mightier than the sword. Much as I love swords. I tend to find that written discussion, public debate, and organized voting are much more effective means of resisting forces I oppose in my government. And they're ones I can employ right now.

I did make a conscious effort to avoid any flamebait partisan content in the above, and I appreciate that most of you are doing the same. Keep it clean, polite, and respectful folks. Thanks.

Mannahnin and Asmodai make some decent points, in that a modern military can gain territory and defeat organized resistance more easily than they could 200 years ago. that's not the complete story, however. Armed resistance to occupying powers, in the last 60 years, have been overwhelmingly effective. From Vietnam (twice) to Afghanistan (once and counting), over matched local resistance forces have been brushed aside by a powerful invader, only to eventually outlast the occupier.

Sure, the Federal Government could invade Wisconsin, but if you've ever been there, you'd know that there is virtually no way you can hold that territory, without hundreds of thousands of troops. There are hills, forests, and a couple of million irate cheesheads with pick up trucks and rifles. That's another aspect of the US that Europeans don't understand right away: how freaking big this country is. The US is more than twice the size of the EU, yet has 300million people compared to nearly 500million in the EU.

Armed resistance to a tyrant is not a quick process, but it's also not a futile one. While the .22 caliber rifle may be of little use, the shotguns, handguns, and hunting rifles will be of use.

There's really nothing wrong with either system. Guns, or no guns, both are fine systems. Americans are descendants of immigrants and pioneers, and we crave the frontier attitude. Firearms are a link to that.

I know how to use rifles and pistols. My dad, an avid hunter, wanted us to be able to use one. We ended up in the back woods of Alaska and had a couple run ins with a bear or two. Nice for protection in that case.

Also, I have a large cache of weapons in my basement along with enough supplies for a few years. Just being prepared for the coming zombie invasion.

The zombie invasion has come and is here to stay. I'll let you know when
reality tv passes, but it looks like it will be a long difficult battle.

Aluminium baseball bat is the best weapon against zombies. Never goes blunt, jams or runs out of ammo.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 05/24/2007 9:51 PM
Aluminium baseball bat is the best weapon against zombies. Never goes blunt, jams or runs out of ammo.

Yeah, but I have a wife and three daughters.  Kinda difficult to get up close and personal when I have those 4 to worry about.  Think Tau.  Long distance is honorable. 

Shot a few weapons in my time (5 years in the Army and counting), but nothing bigger than an AT4 or Mk19. I don't really enjoy shooting that much though. After getting shot at all the time in Iraq, I kind of lost interest in guns. Being forced to carry 15 pounds of M249 everywhere I go for 358 days didn't help either.

I fired a few rifles at summer camp as a child, but never since then. I've considered buying a rifle or a shotgun, but eventually decided to get a sword instead. You have to really mean it to kill someone with one of those! So yeah, I have a machete and a rapier around the house.

I own some firearms, but in the different places where I've lived in this country that's not really a big deal.  I was an expert shot on the rifle range in my time with the Marines, but I really loved firing 203 rounds as a grenadier!.  In my gaming group are a lot of ex military types and a couple of friends that just got sent to go play in the big sandbox. It's about three quarters of the crew I play with that have used weapons, and some even bring concealed weapons to the games. Every one of them is responsible with firearms and the main reasons for owning them are sport and defending their families if it came down to it.

and i am happy to live in a country where my right to keep and bear arms isn't restricted by a governement that is afraid of an armed citizenry and does nothing but make them easier victims.

 

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist

by way of comparison The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 15,517 murders in 2000 were committed with firearms.

Thirty-eight percent of convicted felons reported having been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. In robberies involving personal contact with the offender, 25 percent of victims who remained completely passive were injured anyway. Of those robbery victims wielding guns, only 17 percent were injured. Of those using weapons other than guns and knives, 22 percent were injured.

thier benefits far outweigh the risks in the USA

i've owned and fired firearms since my father taught me to shoot when i was 8 years old. i have owned a firearm ever since. i have never commited a crime with one, had an accident with one or played with one like a toy as a child because i was taught to use and respect firearms from a young age like we used to do in this country in the past.

 

p.s.i also own several real, battle ready, swords as i do period costuming related to the SCA and ren-fairs

 

"disarming the public only makes them easier victims, if it were as easy as passing laws there would be no crime"-lewis country sheriff

Nothing gets people going quite like gun discussions. Heh.

Most people's viewpoints regarding guns are greatly dependent upon the experience they have with them. Those who have never owned or fired one view them as pretty horrific things. Meanwhile, guns are completely demystified for those who have experience with them.

I get a kick telling people how many guns were in the house when I grew up. Most city/suburban folks look at me like my family was a bunch of freaks. But when I explain we had three hunters in the family, and different guns are required for different seasons and game, they kinda understand how you can get to double digits...and they still look at me like I'm a freak.

The thing is, I know my experience isn't that different from other people who grew up in the country. Hell, the absentee list on the first day of buck season at my high school was a big chunk of the male enrollment. That's just the culture there. But I learned a long time ago that you can NEVER, EVER explain that to someone who doesn't share that experience. You're just living in separate realities. Guns (and hunting) are just really funny that way.

Here's another point...not all gun owners are identical in their beliefs and values. I'm not an NRA zealot. IMO, that organization stopped being about protecting the rights of ordinary gun owners and transformed into a broadbased political organization with other motives a long time ago. And I don't view gun ownership as some kind of patriotic duty, nor do I have any desire to join a militia. My guns are tools used for hunting, and not much more that. It's possible I'd grab the shotgun in a home defense situation, but that's really what my bokken is for.

Posted By gorgon on 05/25/2007 6:05 AM

I get a kick telling people how many guns were in the house when I grew up. Most city/suburban folks look at me like my family was a bunch of freaks. But when I explain we had three hunters in the family, and different guns are required for different seasons and game, they kinda understand how you can get to double digits...and they still look at me like I'm a freak.

When that happens to me, I ask them if they golf.  If they do, I ask them if they'd be alright with going to the course with just one club. When they explain to me that they need different clubs for different situations, I just smile.  Usually they get it at that point. 

Maybe a gamer's parallel would be to ask them if they'd be fine just playing with a troops choice...

Posted By Asmodai on 05/24/2007 4:07 PM

Posted By engine on 05/24/2007 2:44 PM
Mauleed has said it best above. A requirement of any free man that wants to stay that way.

For all your bravado, if the US Army decided to invade, Wisconsin is it?, in force supported by a heavy bombing campaign for the month before, weeks of shelling from battleships on Lake Superior, and a full tank thrust (crushing the cows beneath the treads), I don't think that your .22 is going to make much of a difference really...

You are correct. In line with the advancement of the 1st amendment since the original Bill of Rights, the 2nd A must be adjusted also, to fulfill that original intent in modern times. As the original intent was to protect us from our government, invading British, and the occasional "Savage" we need to be armed with modern weaponry.  As such, to fulfill the requirements of our Founding Fathers, to protect Home and Hearth and keep us free from the tyranny of kings, I demand that I furnished with a working Vought F4U Corsair. Further, to defend liberty I require sufficient 20MM cannon ammunition, aviation fuel, and 500 lb bombs for extended missions in the field.  At great sacrifice I can park my car outside and use the garage as a hangar, because I'm a patriot.

DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKADAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!

I have seen firearms used in the defense of home and family. The sound of a shotgun shell being chambered is about the most recognizable sound in the world. No-one mistakes that sound. If it's dark and it's quiet and somebody hears that sound... it takes a strong man not to get up and run for his life. To borrow wargaming phrasology, you don't even have to be within LOS for that to be effective. The would-be burglar, on hearing that sound, discharged his pistol several times into the darkness and ran off. No-one was hurt.

I've also seen a home burglarized in broad daylight. After ordering all the residents to get down on their knees, the burglar decided to pistol whip someone just to prove he had the minimums. The pistol discharged at the blow and he shot his accomplice in the belly. Immediately fleeing, he left his partner-in-crime to die. (He survived.)

--

Those of you who think an armed population is irrelevent to the modern US army, just take a look at Iraq. That war is proof that it is close to impossible to secure even a city full of armed and determined civilians.

I have fired AK-47, pistols, revolvers, Shotguns etc. Not here in the UK obviously but While I was abroad in a country where everybody has guns..

However what has this got to do with Gaming?? Lets start a discussion about who has Ridden a motorbike or crashed one?? Me on several occasion. (crashed that is)

I've fired .22 rifle, .45 revolvers, an MP40 (9mm full auto), a Desert Eagle .44 magnum, and a Tomson (.45 full auto).

That being said, I don not own any guns myself but I do have several knives and a sword.

I have a couple dozen firearms more or less in the house, which is no big deal here in Maine. 2 hours south in the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts it would be an "illegal arsenal"

All depends where you are.

WOW, lots of interest in my topic.

So it would seem that many gamers do have experience with guns. It seems that there are 2 types of gamers, ones who play games with guns and carry the real world to the game and ones who experience guns via a game with no real world experience. Thats I think what drives me crazy sometimes in games. You will have a player who thinks he can shoot a pistol in both hands just fine, no neg. mod. for that, but in real life he does not even know how to chamber a Glock.

your very correct it is not a duty, it is a right. you can choose to exercise or not exercise that right, but it is guaranteed there if you should so choose to do so,

 

on the militia aspect here is what the US government says

US code Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

<pre> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.</pre> <pre>you don't have to join a militia, your already a member </pre>

 

uh you do realise with the proper paperwork and fess paid you can pretty much own that and more in the US as a civilian including functional tanks, miniguns, fully automatic heavy machineguns,  etc...

 

on that note i also laugh at the people who say the second amendmant isn't valid anymore because they used muskets when it was written. i counter that the technology used is irrelevant or the first ammendmant rights(and the others) to free speech et al would not apply to music recordings, items produced on copy machines, computers, modern printing press's, people using mega-phones etc....because none of those advances in technology were around when the ammendmant was written. yet it does with good reason.

 

if anybody is looking for more statistics, laws and comparison data just ask, i have a ton of it since i have had this debate many, many, times over the years.

 

 

Posted By mughi3 on 05/26/2007 2:38 AM

I don't view gun ownership as some kind of patriotic duty, nor do I have any desire to join a militia.

your very correct it is not a duty, it is a right. you can choose to exercise or not exercise that right, but it is guaranteed there if you should so choose to do so,

 

on the militia aspect here is what the US government says

US code Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

<pre> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.</pre> <pre>you don't have to join a militia, your already a member </pre>

 

You are correct. In line with the advancement of the 1st amendment since the original Bill of Rights, the 2nd A must be adjusted also, to fulfill that original intent in modern times. As the original intent was to protect us from our government, invading British, and the occasional "Savage" we need to be armed with modern weaponry.  As such, to fulfill the requirements of our Founding Fathers, to protect Home and Hearth and keep us free from the tyranny of kings, I demand that I furnished with a working Vought F4U Corsair. Further, to defend liberty I require sufficient 20MM cannon ammunition, aviation fuel, and 500 lb bombs for extended missions in the field.  At great sacrifice I can park my car outside and use the garage as a hangar, because I'm a patriot.

uh you do realise with the proper paperwork and fess paid you can pretty much own that and more in the US as a civilian including functional tanks, miniguns, fully automatic heavy machineguns,  etc...

 

on that note i also laugh at the people who say the second amendmant isn't valid anymore because they used muskets when it was written. i counter that the technology used is irrelevant or the first ammendmant rights(and the others) to free speech et al would not apply to music recordings, items produced on copy machines, computers, modern printing press's, people using mega-phones etc....because none of those advances in technology were around when the ammendmant was written. yet it does with good reason.

 

if anybody is looking for more statistics, laws and comparison data just ask, i have a ton of it since i have had this debate many, many, times over the years.

 

 

I hope somebody gives me a stencil for being in the militia:

WTFPWND BY ILLINOIS MILITIA
11 YEARS STRONG

The thing I always notice about a lot of people that are anti gun is the fact that a lot of them will jump all over a news story about somebody being shot and there are always retrospectives about Columbine or some other school. Also plentiful are stories about gun manufacturers being sued because somebody was killed with a gun from their factory, or how many people have been killed in gun crimes, etc.
How come no one goes after the makers of alcoholic beverages the way they go after gun makers? A lot more people get killed and maimed by drunk drivers a year than by guns. The same logic applies, distillers know their drinks cause impaired function and put people at risk, yet I haven't seen any law suits against any of them like I do against gun makers.

To get to school shootings, yes, they're terrible and obscene, but in Kentucky a few years back, not long before Columbine, a drunk driver slammed into the back of a bus and caused it to go into flames, killing 20 or better kids. Where's the national retrospective story on that each anniversary of the event? How come the national news does no segments on the number of school children killed in accidents caused by drugs or drinking? I have no friends that have ever been killed by guns, and I live in areas of the country where just about every person around has at least one, yet I have several friends that have been killed injured or lost property because of drunk drivers.

A lot of Hollywood types,like Rosie O' Donnell, get serious issues going against gun ownership. But she won't bat an eyelash at hiring armed guards to protect her kids. I guess her logic is if you can't afford a guard,, your kids don't deserve protection. Many of these public types that come out against guns find themselves convicted one or more times over drugs. How is it they say they're against gun violence, yet are willing to finance, through their purchase of said drugs, people in South America and other places that hold others in fear of their lives, many times ending them to protect their drug empires?  

No one I've asked has ever been able to answer those questions.

I'm a lot more worried about my family being run into by a drunk driver than I am of someone with a gun.

Well I suppose that I'll put a word in for the poeple from down under (Australia). We still hold the world recod for most poeple killed in a shooting massacre. After that happend our goverment imposed very strict laws on the ownership of guns and which guns could be ownd. while there were many protests especially from the country folk in the end most poeple gave in their firearms that they were no longer allowed to own.

Yes it is true that even today they still find the odd stash of weapons but we have a very low persentage of gun deaths each year.

Getting back on topic. I've never fired a gun or held one even but know plenty of poeple who have.

Posted By Polonius on 05/24/2007 8:37 PM
Mannahnin and Asmodai make some decent points, in that a modern military can gain territory and defeat organized resistance more easily than they could 200 years ago. that's not the complete story, however. Armed resistance to occupying powers, in the last 60 years, have been overwhelmingly effective. From Vietnam (twice) to Afghanistan (once and counting), over matched local resistance forces have been brushed aside by a powerful invader, only to eventually outlast the occupier.

North Vietnam outlasted the U.S. due to the Soviet Union and China continuely resuppling them with supplies and etc. as per the same with South Vietnam and the U.S.

Afghanistan back then had U.S support against the Soviets and today's Afghanistan the Coalition and the Afgani tribes are driving out the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces out of there.

I'm an Irish gamer, and I've fired .22 rifles and double barrelled shotguns for hunting. I have a gun licence and own a shotgun.
However I am glad that pistol ownership is tightly controlled in my country. I am glad that my Dad, a Garda (policeman) can patrol with nothing but a stab vest and a stick, age 50, and not be in too much danger. I'm sad that gang imitators copying what they see in american films have made gun crime more common, but I'm happy that almost every death by gun crime makes the news.

I again don't see the "defend myself from tyrannical government" thing as very valid. The US military is pretty much unmatched. If it decides you are going down, you are going down. Sure, you can resist in the hills with guerilla warfare, but our society values life, comfort and such too much for the tactics used in Afganistan and other places to really work well.

There again, I'm from a very different cultural background to you guys. I live in a country where guns are seen as bad, terrorist organisations are seen as a problem that is actually on our doorstep, and in fact drinks down the local pub. (Thankfully, at this stage, we've for the most part moved on, but 10-15 years ago this was still true)
So I respect your opinions, but would ask that you respect mine equally. To be honest, if any hostile force wanted to capture Ireland we'd be completely buggered anyway.

Posted By Da Boss on 05/28/2007 5:34 AM
To be honest, if any hostile force wanted to capture Ireland we'd be completely buggered anyway.

I think it's time for Canada to get its game on!

We'd probably just surrender and then write poems about it.
And complain about it a lot.

Posted By Da Boss on 05/28/2007 5:34 AM
I again don't see the "defend myself from tyrannical government" thing as very valid. The US military is pretty much unmatched. If it decides you are going down, you are going down. Sure, you can resist in the hills with guerilla warfare, but our society values life, comfort and such too much for the tactics used in Afganistan and other places to really work well.

Foreigners make the assumption the U.S. Military will remain in one monolithic bloc instead of fragmenting along with the country, especially with a "tyrannical government" in charge.

Fair enough, although I never actually made that assumption by the way. But in that case, the supplies it has will more than float your armament needs.
It will still come down to which side or sides have the biggest chunk of the military. Local militias I don't think would have too much effect- it would be military faction A vs. Military faction B. But look, I'm not really trying to argue with ya mate. I don't understand your mentality, and probably never will, but our cultures are pretty different and our experience also. I reckon a tyrannical government has a hard time remaining in power without a hefty block of support and most of the military anyway, and the US government, though a bit dodgy sometimes, is pretty far away from tyrannical. So I see no particular need for the guns. That said, because guns have become pretty prolific in your culture, banning them or restricting them would only help criminals. In my country, losening the laws would be what helps the criminals. So there you get our different stances. I don't presume to tell you that your country should or shouldn't have a certain level of gun control. I just chimed in to register my considerable respect for the might of your military, and explain why I'm happy to have very few guns in my country.

Don't see how loosening the laws would effect the criminals other then make their life harder as everyone else would start to packing heat, given criminals rarely get their gun legally in the first place.

I own a Pellet Rifle, though it may not be the same thing as a real rifle, it can still maim and kill someone.
BTW, I love the degenerative thread.

Air guns were used as military weapons in the 19th century.

Posted By Rubberanvil on 05/28/2007 4:56 PM

Posted By Da Boss on 05/28/2007 5:34 AM
I again don't see the "defend myself from tyrannical government" thing as very valid. The US military is pretty much unmatched. If it decides you are going down, you are going down. Sure, you can resist in the hills with guerilla warfare, but our society values life, comfort and such too much for the tactics used in Afganistan and other places to really work well.

Foreigners make the assumption the U.S. Military will remain in one monolithic bloc instead of fragmenting along with the country, especially with a "tyrannical government" in charge.

If the US were to get a tyrannical government (1,000,000 - 1 against) I would expect the military to be running things actually...

Posted By Rubberanvil on 05/28/2007 6:41 PM
Don't see how loosening the laws would effect the criminals other then make their life harder as everyone else would start to packing heat, given criminals rarely get their gun legally in the first place.

Um. Because we don't have very many handguns, at all, over here. They are very hard to get your hands on. Hence why your run of the mill mugger uses an knife rather than a gun, and almost all violent crime is fisticuffs and knives rather than guns. Make guns widely available and that changes dramatically. We'd have policemen getting shot every other day, and people. It would be a pretty bad thing.
In the US, it seems to me, that because guns are already so prevalent, tightening the laws would be a bit silly because it would definitely benifit criminals more. In Ireland that wouldn't be the case. Isn't the case.

--

Those of you who think an armed population is irrelevent to the modern US army, just take a look at Iraq. That war is proof that it is close to impossible to secure even a city full of armed and determined civilians.

The reason that the US is having a hard time in Iraq is because of our morality. We are not a ruthless enough people to pacify Iraq.

The Romans, when they conquered Gaul, would goto various villages and tell them that if they were found to be helping rebels, they would be put to the sword and the village razed. Once the Romans did that a few times, other villages would indeed stop helping rebels.

If Nazi Germany were in Iraq, you'd see a similar policy.

Science Fiction author Joel Robinson once said, a nation that is not willing to use violence against its own people does not remain a nation state for long. Machiavelli once said that it is better to be feared then loved, because people will always fear you as long as you are strong, but love can be easily turned to hate.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate about the occupation, just wanted to point out that it is not that the Iraqi's are armed and resisting that is causing troubles, just that we are not willing to commit evil acts to pacify the insurgents and rebels.

 

well said hobbs

it would also help quite alot if the iraqi people as a whole would be motivated to step up for thier own country instead of falling back on thier tribal affiliations first.

 

but back on topic ....

itis hard to compare one countries laws and crimes to another due to environmental specifc attitudes, customs, and ingraned behaviors.

as examnples look at both japan and switzerland. both have low crime rates and low gun crime related crimes, buy with a glaring difference in cultural attitudes. in japan it is a homogenous group oriented society that aside from the police, mafia and a few licenced hunters is basically unarmed as mandated by the US ocupatianl forces following WWII. the swiss on the otherhand have had a "peoples army" for as long as the have been a nation. in fact thier gun ownership culture is on par with and in may ways passes that of the US where almost every male does mandated military service and there are military issue weapon in almost every home.  

Iraq wasn't a country until the mandate put in place after the First World War. Prior to that, it was four separate provinces of the Ottoman Empire, which had significantly different ethnic populations and were held together by the imperial power.

The British got the mandate because they were the dominant regional power and wanted to grab the oil resources. This simply replaced one imperial power with another. Glossing over the major differences between the four regions, the British just welded the country together for administrative convenience.

When the British left the country quickly fell under dictatorship which is the only reason it survived as a country as long as it has. Remember the savage repressions of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, which were part of the excuse for Gulf War 2? Without that, big chunks fo the north and south might already have gained independence.

As the current regime has not the capability to hold down the country, nor to install a reliable national government which can do the job, it is not surprising that the already existing centripetal forces, amplified by the incursion from other regional powers (Syria, Iran) are causing so much trouble.

Back on topic again. Mughi3's point about Japan/Switzerlnad is very interesting, though I argue that Swiss gun culture is fundamentally different to American in that Swiss gun holdings are primarily social rather than individualistic. That is to say, the Swiss have lots of guns because they are in the army, not because individually they want to have lots of guns.

The most powerful weapon I have experience with is the Remington .300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifle. With relatively little target shooting expeience, I placed three shots within the area of a half-dollar at 300 yards.

I am very fond of handguns. My favorite so far is a Rem,ington .44 magnum revolver.

I consistently use my 12 guage shotgun (with 1 oz. rifled slugs) for harvesting whitetail every year. I shot a very large doe last year, and a big-bodied buck the year before that.

I also make use of a compound bow, pellet rifle, and .222 remington varmit gun.

I think target shooting is fun, and hunting an important and healthy way to interact with our environment. I despise violence, and gun-related crime is admittedly a serious issue.

That's my input.

According to the Economist, Ireland is the fourth most peaceful country in the world. Not sure I agree with that, but there ya go.

I think this thread has meandered on long enough.