Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.